or part of his cheat brigade across state lines.
Posted on 11/30/2010 3:23:19 AM PST by Rome2000
Opinion: History Says Mitt's the Man for 2012
Michael Medved Contributor AOL News (Nov. 29) -- Conventional wisdom says the battle for the GOP nomination in 2012 is wide open and unpredictable, but Republican history suggests that there is an obvious front runner who is nearly certain to represent his party in the presidential race.
For nearly 70 years -- long before most of the current contenders were even born -- GOP leaders and primary voters have displayed a shockingly consistent tendency to pick a candidate whose previous national campaign, whether successful or not, suggested it was "his turn."
This means that with very rare exceptions, Republicans choose a sitting president or vice president or else the runner-up in the previous nomination fight. Consider:
Thomas E. Dewey: Dewey had been runner-up (to Wendell Willkie) at the 1940 convention, and four years later the 42-year-old candidate won an almost unanimous vote for the nomination. He lost to FDR in a surprisingly close race in the midst of World War II. Because of his youth and his previous national campaign, Dewey became the heir apparent four years later, but lost to Harry Truman in one of the epic upsets of American political history.
Richard Nixon: President Dwight Eisenhower's loyal two-term vice president, Nixon got the nomination by acclamation in 1960 and lost a squeaker race to John F. Kennedy. This meant that he ran three times as part of a competitive national ticket before he claimed the nomination again in 1968 and went on to win the presidency.
Ronald Reagan: In 1976, Reagan put up a strong challenge to President Gerald Ford's nomination and so could make the case that the party owed him a shot in 1980 -- when he captured both the nomination and the White House easily.
George H.W. Bush: As runner-up to Reagan in the fight for the presidential nomination in 1980, Bush got the consolation prize of the vice presidency and became the obvious choice for Republicans in 1988.
Bob Dole: The Senate majority leader ran for vice president with Ford in 1976, then was runner-up to Bush in the 1988 primaries; inevitably, he drew the presidential nod in 1996.
George W. Bush: In 2000, after two embattled terms of Bill Clinton, the closest thing to an heir apparent for Republicans was Gov. Bush of Texas, the son of a prior president.
John McCain: Considering the clear GOP pattern, it should have surprised no one that the candidate George W. Bush beat for the 2000 nomination -- Sen. McCain of Arizona -- seized the prize in 2008, despite a good deal of intraparty grumbling about his "maverick" reputation.
Only Two Exceptions
Since the early 1940s, there have only been two exceptions to the Republican instinct to crown the heir apparent. Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, widely acclaimed as "Mr. Republican," sought the nomination against Dewey in 1948 and could easily make the case that it was "his turn" in 1952 -- but he lost the presidential nomination to the peerless war hero, Gen. Eisenhower.
And in 1964, Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona ran a successful insurgent conservative campaign against "the Eastern Establishment" of "country club" Republicans, and went on to lose 44 states to incumbent President Lyndon Johnson. In fact, this one uncharacteristic Republican experiment with a "surprise" nominee worked out so badly that in the last 45 years the GOP has never tried again.
Unlike Republicans, Democrats have nominated several dark-horse candidates in recent years, but with decidedly mixed results. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, though little known when they began their campaigns, won resounding victories, but not so George McGovern. The senator from the sparsely populated state of South Dakota became the Democratic nominee in 1972 but went on to lose 49 of 50 states (including South Dakota). The one-term governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, emerged as the unexpected nominee in '76 and won a close race for the White House, but became a deeply unpopular one-term president.
Yes, the GOP could select from an array of appealing and promising fresh faces in 2012 -- Govs. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana; and Sen. John Thune of, yes, South Dakota.
But the most likely outcome by far would see the GOP reverting to form and selecting this year's well-known heir apparent: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Romney came close to wresting the nomination from McCain two years ago and ran a credible, well-financed national campaign.
Sponsored Links His most serious opposition might come from two other figures who ran national campaigns last time: Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. But Huckabee's 2008 run, powered by his formidable communications skills, suffered consistently from limited financial resources, and he's made little progress in building his fundraising base.
Palin also inspired millions of Republicans after her selection as the vice presidential nominee, but with a series of rookie gaffes and a polarizing persona, her one experience as a national candidate can hardly qualify as an unmitigated success.
Newt Gingrich is another potential candidate for 2012, but as former House speaker he hardly qualifies as a fresh face, nor has he been around the track as a candidate for national office, so that he lacks the kind of credibility that seems particularly important to Republicans.
Romney remains the safe choice -- last time's runner-up for the nomination, and a mainstream conservative generally acceptable to many tea party insurgents as well as veteran office-holders.
Most of all, the suave and savvy candidate has history on his side. The last two generations prove that Republicans award their nomination to the obvious guy who's next in line.
For 2012, that means Mitt's the man.
“Christie, again, the weight issue.”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_heaviest_president_ever
“William Howard Taft who frequently tipped the scales at over 300 pounds.
edit:little fact, president Taft need to enlarge the white house bath tub to fit in it. Four of its workers could fit in it compared to one president fitting in it”
The question wasn't addressed to me but here's my answer anyway:
Yes.
Delegates won:
John McCain 1,575
Mike Huckabee 278
Mitt Romney 271
States Romney won:
Mormon-dominated or influenced primary or caucus: Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Colorado
Heredity: Michigan
Home state/region: Massachusetts
Other: Minnesota, Maine
Medved has the appeal of a wet dog that slept in a garbage can overnight and then walked in your house and crapped on the rug.
The Learning Chanel(TLC) Not Discovery Chanel
Thanks for your honesty. Now please explain why you would prefer four more years of obama...
Pardon me, what did I say that you consider fear politics?
He’s the only one I wouldn’t vote for.
Same here.
“If Romney get the nomination. IF. Then people need to vote for him. Its a tough pill to swallow, I know, but I seriously doubt that this nation can survive another 4 years under Obama.”
No. Just no.
“I think its going to be Romney. No one else has his organization, skills and talent. Unless someone else makes a good run, history says Romney is the presumptive favorite to beat.”
Back pushing Romney on FR? You aren’t going to be here long.
You got that right! I had no intention of voting for McCain until Sarah came along. McCain only got the number of votes he did because of her. Would have went down IN FLAMES if he'd picked any one else! Medved can go suck an egg.
"The thing is...Will there even be an America if the marxist wins another 4 years?"
This is the argument that has been used by Rinos to get us to vote for them. Wont work any longer...
2) Are you implying that I am a RINO?
Stay classy. FR used to be a nice place until all you newbies showed up AFTER the two most pivotalt political elections in modern history. You are such a good conservative that you somehow did not find FR until ‘07. There was never name calling and petty religion attacks or cuss words. You are a troll and probably a liberal on loan from DU. Your username shouts granola liberal idiot. Have a good one fraudster, and keep that good karma going.
I am implying that you are implying that if we dont vote for romney that “America” is screwed.
I am also implying that anyone who supports the marxist rino can go F him/herself with something sharp and rusty.
Lets define the “America” that exists and what it is that will or will not “survive” another 4 years of marxist control. “America” is most decidedly NOT what the founders intended any longer. “America” is now a socialist tyranny, and it has been for DECADES. Obama and his merry band of Marxists just speed up the process a bit.
The freedom and liberty that the founders intended and the constitution was meant to protect are GONE. There is NOTHING to “save”. So electing a F’ing POS socialist, even if he is less of a socialist than Obama does Absolutely NO F’ing GOOD. None.. zero... zip... In fact it does MORE HARM than even “breaking even”, It solidifies the advances made by the radical socilists....
If the choice is between a radical conservative and obama I will choose the radical conservative.
If the choice is between romney and Obama I will choose Obama. why? Because it will further embolden the POS marxists to continue their rampage and that will lead to the further radicalization of the conservative movement.
You people just dont seem to understand that we mean to get our F’ing freedom back. Real freedom. Real Liberty... From the liberals, from the collective, and from the F’ing MONSTER that the fedgov has become. The ONLY way of achieving the rebirth of that freedom is through the death of the entity that crushed it.
So... Do i care if YOUR corrupt and tainted version of “America” survives another Obama term? F no... I hope it dies a quick death.. So we can go about rebuilding what the founders of the union of States intended. Real freedom. Real Liberty. to succeed AND fail...
In fact, stating that Romney is acceptable to the Tea Party faction shows that Medved is not in touch with the political reality at this moment. In fact, Romney seems to be deliberately courting the non-Tea Party factions of the GOP. Romney does have organization and the support of insiders, but I will bet you $50 that Sarah Palin has bigger name recognition (and that's both for good and for ill).
We can't win the war by discussing terms of surrender before the first battle.
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.