|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
Romney Hasn’t Won YetPosted on Feb 5, 2012
Now that Mitt Romney has about wrapped up the Republican nomination for president. ... What? He hasn’t? They changed the rules?
The Republican Party, which did indeed change its nomination rules and has had to try to deal with new campaign finance circumstances, is a classic example of being careful what you ask for—or is it unintended consequences? By the old rules, Romney would be a lock. Now, he will still probably win, but the party may be the focus of weeks or months more of the ugliness many of us have enjoyed watching through these past months.
Four years ago this week, after losing a handful of "Super Tuesday" primaries won by Sen. John McCain, Romney and others dropped out of the Republican primary race. The former Massachusetts governor had run respectably, won several primaries and caucuses and spent $40 million of his own money. No matter what happened next, McCain had the press, the money, the momentum and the delegates to virtually ensure nomination.
The powers that be in the GOP, nationally and locally, decided then that the early victory deprived them of public attention as the press and nation turned to the race between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Republicans were lost in the excitement.
The party decided to do something about it and did. The most important changes were to slow down delegate selection in important states and move the Republican "Super Tuesday" to March. It worked. Romney has dominated, but there are enough contests and candidates to keep it interesting—to say the least.
Advertisement
So the race slogs on. There will be delegate-selection primaries in only two states, Michigan and Arizona, on Feb. 28, which will settle nothing, leading up to the new Super Tuesday of March 6.
The four remaining candidates will have the option of lying low or savaging each other, which they have been doing. That is not exactly what the party had in mind.
The situation has been complicated by Romney’s obvious weaknesses as a candidate. He is not only disliked and distrusted by the heavy right of the party, as a candidate he has seemed like one of those life-sized cardboard cutouts you get your picture taken with outside the White House. What happens to him if it rains?
That party split, and the feeling by many conservatives that Romney would be a weak candidate against Obama, is part of what keeps this race stumbling along. Gingrich and Santorum are playing a tiny game of musical chairs, hoping to be the one sitting next to Romney if the music stops. Both, particularly Gingrich, rather unreasonably believe there is still a path to victory for them. Each of them, I suppose, believes he can reactivate the tea party—remember them?—as Romney looks like he’s in the wrong business and would like to get back to corporate takeovers and firing people.
The right-wingers, more populist than usual, do have a point. What will the Democrats and all their campaign money have to say and do with a man who has said he’s "not concerned about the very poor," or that "corporations are people." (My favorite retort to the latter was the guy who wrote to The New York Times asking if they knew whether General Electric had a single sister.)
Romney’s ringers—"Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit bottom"—are not always illogical; they are just not political. He has, as they say, a tin ear, not an advantage against a demagogue like Gingrich.
Previous item: With Spotlight on Super PACs, Nonprofits Escape Scrutiny Next item: Offshore Everywhere: The Plan to End National Sovereignty as We Know It New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Galen, February 6, 2012 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m with Recher. It’s really sad to see members of the left with an audience dismiss the only candidate for president who would have ended the exploitation of the third worlds resources as a fringe nobody because they disagree with him on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. I remember when Bush was in office and I was in high school I thought it was impossible that he could be reelected, self proclaimed democrats explained to me that the right won’t vote for a peace candidate if they aren’t pro-life and anti-gay. Now all these people I knew cite these same issues as reasons they won’t vote for Paul, never would have imagined that even 4 years ago. Obama is a joke, he’s worse than Bush, the Democrats should be embarrassed with themselves for not putting up a guy in the primary.
“Libertarian snake oil,” what a joke. I’m going to think twice before I bother reading an article on this site that wasn’t written by Amy Goodman or Chris Hedges.
Report thisBy Recher, February 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“only Rep. Ron Paul and his
libertarian snake oil”
Such snide remarks about Ron
Paul have foundation including
ones about his loony tune
policies. Thus Paul is dissed and
dismissed.
I am voting for Ron Paul and not
Report thisObummer because Obummer
also supports, promotes, and
puts into practice snake oil
loony tune policies that I find a
lot more disturbing and
disgusting than Paul’s. Paul is
the only candidate against the
diabolical War on Drugs, spoken
out against removal of Habeas
Corpus, no more foreign
meddling, let’s get out of
situations like Afghaniland
NOW, and dramatic cuts to the
military budget.
By James Bowen, February 6, 2012 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment
Would love to have you reminisce about the Pat Brown campaign v. Ronald Reagan. I remember the blatant racism of RR.
Report thisBy hidflect, February 5, 2012 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks Richard for trying to inject some drama into this but Romney’s the hapless candidate. I may appear a traitor to Progressives here but if he was 10% of his father I’d vote for him. But he’s not.
I get this vibe about Romney. If I had business dealings with him and didn’t nail down every facet of the contract, he’d not only shaft me, he’d feel it some sort of moral necessity to come and explain to my face why he HAD to take me based on some Caveman Capitalist logic and then he’d walk out of the room feeling he’d done me some great service in maker me a wiser man…
Report this