Posted on 02/11/2010 2:34:09 AM PST by iowamark
He's more fiscal, less social. And he's got millions. But will GOP voters give a Mitt?
Scott Brown's unexpected victory in last month's special US Senate election captured the attention of the country — and particularly of core Republican voters, who huddled eagerly before their TV screens to watch their hero du jour give his acceptance speech. But even in the midst of his moment in the sun, Brown made sure to thank the other handsome, well-coifed man on the stage, Mitt Romney — who, as it happens, would very much like the votes of that national Republican audience in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries.
Granted, it's very early in the 2012 presidential cycle, and if you ask the Romney camp, they'll profess him to be focused exclusively on helping GOP candidates this November. But make no mistake: Romney is in the process of re-launching himself for 2012.
His new book — No Apology: The Case for American Greatness — comes out in two weeks, and he'll be promoting it with a tour blitz that starts on The View and quickly heads to the crucial first-voting state of Iowa. This weekend, he's scheduled to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, DC, which will conduct a 2012 presidential straw poll. And he is already busy traveling the country, raising money for himself and other Republicans, to maintain and grow his national network.
From the looks of it, the 2012 version of Romney will be somewhat different than the one that lost in 2008. In that campaign, Romney tacked hard to the right — where Romney and his strategists perceived an opening as the conservative alternative to front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
In retrospect, Team Romney believes their strategy was in error, according to some who are familiar with the campaign's post-election brainstorming. Although exit polls showed that he did well among the most ideological conservatives — particularly those most adamantly opposed to McCain's immigration-reform stance — he was not able to win over religious Christian conservatives. That left him unable to make up for sacrificing the votes of relatively moderate primary-goers.
In a nutshell, he made himself too conservative for blue-state Republicans, who opted for McCain, but wasn't conservative enough for red-state conservatives, who opted for Mike Huckabee.
"He was a Massachusetts moderate who tried to be a hard-right conservative," says one Republican strategist. "It turned out he probably would have been better off sticking with what he was — Mr. Fix-It."
"He got himself caught up in the social-issues debate," says Bill Achtmayer, chairman of business-strategy consultants the Parthenon Group and a supporter of Romney, his former colleague at Bain Consulting. "It diverted people's attention from what he does bring to the table."
As a result, the new Romney is now de-emphasizing social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and illegal immigration. He has made no public comment, for instance, about last week's announcement that top military leaders intend to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, has scrupulously avoided association with the Tea Party movement, and has refrained from backing conservatives that other presidential hopefuls have endorsed, such as Doug Hoffman in New York or Marco Rubio in Florida.
No Apology, and a series of planned speeches Romney will give during his book tour, will drive home that shift in emphasis. Advance word on the book, plus an audio excerpt released on the Web, make clear that it avoids those topics, and focuses on Romney's vision of maintaining America's fiscal and military superiority.
Interestingly, this latest incarnation is probably the closest we have seen to the "real" Mitt Romney — who close observers believe doesn't care much about social issues, isn't very ideological, and revels in applying management skills to large organizations to help them achieve their goals and functions.
Several Republicans, including some who know Romney well, say that, if he runs in 2012, it will be much more as his true self than what he presented in 2008.
But some of those same people concede that, as a political strategy, there are two big potential hazards to "letting Mitt be Mitt." First, Romney's previous reinventions — as a fairly liberal US Senate candidate, a moderate gubernatorial candidate, and then as a conservative presidential candidate — have already strained his credibility beyond the breaking point. Any further change — even to become the real, authentic Romney — will be viewed with suspicion, if not derision.
Perhaps more important, the real Mitt Romney — Harvard MBA, political scion, hard-working businessman, super-wealthy master of Wall Street offerings, devout Mormon — might not be what Republican primary voters actually want.
'Next' Much has changed since Romney decided to chase hard-core conservative votes four years ago. At that time, Romney was nationally unknown and needed a way to distinguish himself from a group of second-tier potential candidates.
Today, Republican insiders and political analysts say that Romney is already the de facto front-runner, regardless of whether he says he's running or not, thanks to his name recognition, his proven fundraising ability, and his established national operation. Others are either unknown, untested, or — like Sarah Palin — too flaky.
On top of that, he is the natural heir for the GOP, which, in the modern nomination era, has tended strongly toward candidates who have run and lost before — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and McCain — much like a white-shoe law firm passing someone over for making partner, but assuring them that their continued loyalty to the company will be rewarded next time. (The one exception has been George W. Bush, who was hastily promoted as the son of the chairman emeritus.)
Of the '08 losers, Romney best fits that mold. And he has been proving his party loyalty, first by campaigning faithfully for McCain against Obama, and then by raising money for candidates and party committees.
"Mitt Romney is 'next'," says Mike Dennehy, a political consultant in New Hampshire and senior policy advisor to McCain's 2008 campaign.
Plus, at least for the moment, pressing economic and foreign-policy concerns seem to have sent to the back burner the social issues that dogged Romney in '08. "It looks like the environment is shaping up to be favorable to him," says Dennehy. "Mitt Romney is the guy to beat. He's positioned himself real well since the 2008 election."
Romney's supporters argue that the electorate is frustrated with business-as-usual government: with incompetence ranging from Hurricane Katrina to the Christmas Day underwear bomber, with a seemingly leaderless legislature that has bickered over the same health-care bill for nearly a year without action, with secretive back-room deals, with scandal and waste and hackery at all levels. They want a competent manager to put the house in order — both to fight terrorism and to run domestic programs more efficiently.
"To me, that's Mitt Romney in many respects," says Ron Kaufman, Republican National Committee (RNC) member from Massachusetts and part of Romney's inner circle — who insists that Romney has made no decision about 2012, and is not currently thinking about it.
"This time around, he seems more inclined to be Mr. Fix-It, on the economy and everything else," says the Republican strategist. "That's what voters are looking for today — but what will they be looking for two years from now?"
Not their cup of tea? Nobody knows what Republican primary voters will be thinking when they choose their standard-bearer in 2012. But today, even with all the economic troubles, they sure don't seem to be looking for someone like Romney.
That may help explain why, in a recent poll of "political insiders" by the influential Washington publication National Journal, Republican elites attuned to their party's dynamics were far more skeptical of Romney's chances than were the Democrats, who overwhelmingly expect Romney to be the GOP nominee.
In addition to the Christian conservatives, the GOP base is now overrun with populist conservatives, represented in the energetic Tea Party movement. Brown won, after all, by putting on a barn jacket and driving an old pickup truck. The favorites of the right — from Palin to Glenn Beck to Joe the Plumber — present themselves not as MBAs in suits and ties, but as plain folks guided only by common sense.
In the battle of Main Street versus Wall Street, there's no question which side Romney represents. Not only did he make a fortune buying companies, stripping them down, and selling them in the stock market; his political career has been financed by the very banking and financial executives whose heads the public is demanding on pikes.
His top source of contributions in his 2008 campaign, in fact, was none other than the villainous Goldman Sachs, whose employees and their spouses pitched in at least a quarter-million dollars. Hundreds of thousands also came in from brass at Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Lehman Brothers. "He represents that crowd," says Ray LaRaja, a political-science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. "His best hope is that the populism subsides, but the economy still sucks."
Romney also has to overcome his support for the 2008 TARP bank bailout, which he continues to defend against movement-conservative howlings.
Truth is, so-called movement conservatives were never that smitten with him, anyway: much as he tried, Romney could never convince them he was an ideologue rather than a pragmatist at heart.
He doesn't exactly wow Club for Growth, the powerful organization that helped launch the Doug Hoffman phenomenon in New York. "He appealed to a lot of our members" in 2008, David Keating, executive director of Club for Growth, tells the Phoenix. But the group did not back Romney then, and Keating does not make it sound likely that they will do so next time. Among other concerns, "he was for the health-care plan in Massachusetts, which [conservatives] thought was a pretty bone-headed idea."
t's also hard to imagine that today's GOP base — with its Limbaugh dittoheads, Ron Paulites, and Tea Party protesters — will adhere to the hierarchical tradition that would dub Romney "next."
Besides, as Dennehy notes, frustrated voters looking for an antidote to a government they distrust are looking for a trustworthy leader — and trustworthy is not a word voters currently associate with Romney.
"I think voters are going to be looking more than ever for honesty and integrity," says Dennehy. "That was clearly one of [Romney's] biggest challenges in 2008, and it hasn't gone away."
SOUTHERN EXPOSURE? Romney’s strategy for capturing the GOP nomination, remarkably, includes writing off the Southern states, which will pledge 40 percent of the delegates to the 2012 Republican Convention.
Skipping the South But if the populist conservatives are a tough crowd for Romney, they're nothing compared with the Christian conservatives. After courting them doggedly without success throughout the 2008 cycle, it appears that, in 2012, Romney is going to try to win without them. That, in effect, means skipping the South.
You can hardly blame him. Of the 28 caucuses and primaries Romney competed in two years ago, he finished worse than second in only six — which also happened to be six of the seven Southern states in which he ran. (He managed to finish second in Florida, a less culturally Southern state that he had hoped to win.)
It hardly seems possible to win the GOP nomination without the South, which holds tremendous weight in the process. Forty percent of the pledged delegates to the 2012 Republican convention will come from 13 Southern states (the 11 seceding "Dixie" states, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma).
"I just can't fathom the South not playing a role in picking the GOP nominee," says LaRaja, adding that, if Romney were to win without the South, "It would be a phenomenal strategic success story."
And yet, that seems to be the strategy. He has distanced himself in more ways than just retreating from the social issues critical to success with Southern Republicans.
Notably, Romney's PAC has started ignoring Southern pols. It contributed to not a single politician in Florida or Georgia last year, where it showered more than $30,000 over the previous four years. And in the crucial early-primary state of South Carolina, where Romney's PAC had doled out tens of thousands by 2006, it has written just one check in this cycle — to potential presidential foe Senator Jim DeMint.
As of this writing, Romney's full book-tour schedule was not available; its itinerary may be telling. But perhaps most revealing is Romney's decision not to attend this year's Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) in April in New Orleans. Every other Republican with even a whiff of presidential aspirations will speak there — and it was at the 2006 SRLC that Romney made his first splash by besting McCain and others in a straw poll. (He finished second to then-senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, who had the home-field advantage for the Memphis event.)
This is all disappointing to his Southern supporters, but even they recognize the challenges he faces there. "There are going to be some people in the South who he's not going to be able to win over, because of his religion," says Cindy Costa, a South Carolina RNC committeewoman who supported Romney and hopes he runs again.
Costa also acknowledges that the resistance to Romney was due to more than religion: his claims of conservative beliefs were belied by a history whose traces were dredged up and disseminated on blog sites and YouTube.
Not only did Southerners doubt his commitment to conservative causes; the flip-flops made him look like exactly the last thing they warm to: a slick, double-talking Northern businessman.
Super duper day To win the Republican nomination without the South, Romney needs a blue-state strategy. By sweeping winner-take-all delegate primaries in the Northeast, the West Coast, and the industrial North, he could capture the GOP ticket.
To work, political analysts say, Romney will need the primary schedule to remain similar to the one in place in 2008. That year, only four states were authorized to hold contests before the official "window" opened on February 5 — after which it was open season. Unsurprisingly, states eager for attention raced to the front of that window (and several, including Michigan and Florida, defied the rules by going even earlier). Just a month after the first caucus, candidates were forced to compete coast-to-coast, in 21 states — including huge prizes like New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey — on what became known as "Super-Duper Tuesday." By the end of that day, more than half the convention delegates had been assigned.
Romney, with his name recognition, vast money supplies, and held-over national operation, can obviously play on such a vast scale in such a short time frame; his competitors are likely to be at a severe disadvantage.
But, as Giuliani demonstrated, even a well-known, well-funded candidate needs some momentum heading into that big day. That means Romney — unlike Giuliani — must win at least one of the four "pre-window" contests.
Those will be caucuses in Iowa and Nevada, and primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Nevada, a low-turnout caucus in a heavily Mormon state, will likely be conceded to Romney, as it was in 2008 — which means he'll get no credit or attention for winning it.
If Romney couldn't win over Iowa's Christian conservatives in '08 — when he spent millions there, and McCain and Giuliani skipped the state — it's hard to see how he can do so in '12. Especially when a number of conservatives with strong religious credentials from nearby states are likely to be competing, including Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mike Pence of Indiana, and John Thune of South Dakota.
If South Carolina is out of reach — and bear in mind that Romney finished fourth there in '08 after devoting three years and millions upon millions of dollars — that means Romney must win New Hampshire, particularly in that it's in his back yard.
"He needs to win one before Super Tuesday," says Dennehy. "And I would agree that he needs to win New Hampshire."
That may be easier said than done. Potential competitors are already traipsing through the Granite State: Pence is coming in March, and Pawlenty is due back soon for the second time in three months. Several Republicans in New Hampshire say there are numerous candidates who could recapture the "Straight Talk" appeal that McCain used to win the state twice — something that the prevaricating Romney would seem unlikely to do.
Of course, Romney might not run at all. And he certainly isn't talking about it publicly. But he's got all the machinery moving behind the scenes.
For instance, though Kaufmann doesn't acknowledge it, people familiar with the ongoing process say that he is acting as Romney's point man to steer the RNC toward the same single-window primary schedule as existed in 2008. (A special GOP committee will present a plan for the 2012 primaries to the RNC this summer. The plan will maintain the four "pre-window" states, but some in the party are hoping to create some kind of staggered window to prevent a Super-Duper Tuesday scenario.)
And Romney has invested heavily in maintaining his national network, spending nearly $3 million last year out of his national Free and Strong America PAC and his five state-level PACs, which he set up as far back as 2004. Most of that has been spent to keep his core people and consultants on the payroll. Many others from the campaign have been "taken care of" with jobs working for supportive pols and business leaders, who function as "extensions of Romney Inc.," as one Republican consultant puts it. "It's easy to keep people around and interested if you've got money to spread around," he adds.
It's not so easy to keep people around who you're asking for money — especially after losing. Yet Romney has retained the loyalty of much of his donor base — including folks like Achtmayer and Costa. Of the $2.9 million raised by his PAC last year, at least $400,000 came from individuals who had contributed early to his PAC four years ago.
In fact, most observers agree that Romney is doing everything right to prepare for a 2012 run at the GOP nomination. And many think he's making a wise move away from the social issues, toward the "real" Romney — assuming, of course, that this is his last reinvention.
We don’t need no more STINKIN’ USED CAR SALESMAN gringo!
Along with his business and now political networks, and a network of support through the Mormon church, Romney’s got both the Harvard Law and Business School alumni networks to tap. That makes for some pretty good fundraising sources.
On the other hand, you just know that the gals on the View will be preoccupied with trying to get him to say something bad about Palin—because she’s a thousand times more interesting than he’ll ever be.
Romney_care vs Obama_care
I dont CARE for either.
No you won’t.
NOT A CHANCE. He might as well forget it.
Mitt is toast.
That’s a lot of ink to spill on a lost cause. No Romney. Never.
Fascinating, though, with his strategists essentially admitting that he flipped in 2008 to posturing as a conservative that he isn’t in order to try to win nationally. Remember how that was supposed to be the real Mitt, who had had to hide it while being governor of a liberal state?
For 2012, with the economic/big government issues looming so large, his team says he’s going to flop back again to the moderate Mitt who won in MA. (I guess he saw how the press lifted ‘moderate McCain’.) Now this is supposed to be the ‘real’ Mitt?
I’m remembering that there was a Romneycare before there was an Obamacare. He is not Republican. How in he— could this guy expect to get elected from energized conservatives. Why doesn’t he just go away he. Just go away. You couldn’t beat Juan. He lost to Juan. We didn’t have much to choose from. Sad. I love Jim Demint. ~
What a pant load.
Good and comprehensive article. Thanks for posting. Just so much I wanted to comment on as I read the article:
1) Romney is admitting he was a lying huckster that was just pretending he was a conservative! (think about it).
2) Romney is a terrible politician. Rich enough to buy a Governor’s mansion (think of all the terrible politicians with giant bankrolls who are Senators and Governors), but not good enough to win the Presidency.
3) How do I know Romney is a terrible politician?
a) Last campaign he outspent everyone and lost to a geriatric that was no-one I knows first choice.
b) He can’t read the “times.” The times are more conservative and more populist than any I can remember since Carter. Yet Romney is planning to run to the left and as an elitist Mr. Fix-it. “I’m smarter than the other elitist Mr. Fixits like Paulson and Bernacke . . .”
4) He wants to ignore conservatives, the South, and Christians and win the Republican nomination. And he wants us to think he’s smart . . .
5) He won Florida last nomination. Not this time. That’s a pledge. I’ll work my tail off against this guy.
0 votes for Romney when his campaign is not operational. Watch the return of the paid shills to FR when the campaign is in full swing.
I agree with everything but for point 5.
Didn’t McLame score a killing win in the Florida primary?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.