Opinion: History Says Mitt's the Man for 2012

AOL News ^ | 11/29/10 | Michael Medved

[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.

[WVKayaker]

KMA, jerk. You must need a few lessons in civility. My checks have gone to keep FR going since 1999. I have a new screen name. So friggin' what.

It looks like you are the troll! As for the Mormon mention, I guess I hit a raw nerve. I can't say I'm sorry, since I'm not apologizing for the remarks.

Mormonism is defined as a cult and those who follow it will end up in the pits of hell, according to the Bible. Anyone waiting for Joe Smith's approval for entrance through the "Pearly Gates", is totally deceived. Anyone expecting to become a god is totally deranged. Thus, Mittsy is decidedly crackers to me, with those dreams of grandeur.

As for those "pivotal elections", there is one coming soon. Mitt won't be on the ticket! People can easily see through the charlatan, and into the depths of his lies and flip-flops.

Good luck with that trolling...

. - ..."of the people, by the people, for the people..."

[Pilated]

No way in double hockey sticks will I ever vote for Mitt. He better not be the one shoved in my face at voting time by the elite!

[ElectionInspector]

Medved is a loser.

... amen, brother... Medved HATES all conservatives and is and always will be a Kennedy Democrat dressed up as a Repub he plays in Hollywood. Dispicible, duplicitous moron who is always pushing the biggest Rino on the block. Not to be trusted, ever. jmho

ymmv

[livius]

I’d vote everybody on the ticket except the presidential candidate. I would never vote for Romney. That’s pretty clear, I think.

[wtc911]

Even if it meant obama for another four years? wow.

I've never pushed Romney and I have my own preferences but I would vote for anybody over obama out of a sense of duty to my children.

[ansel12]

There is nothing wrong with pointing that a man that could takeover as president and leader of the GOP, and a destroyer of conservatism, is a powerful leader in a cult.

[ansel12]

Palin is the conservative choice, and she can take Romney, yet here you are defending Romney and you tirelessly troll against Palin, revealing stuff. I remember you used to defend Rudy Giuliani also.

[Graybeard58]

Thanks for your honesty. Now please explain why you would prefer four more years of obama.

Much like J.R. of F.R., I would actively work for Mitt's defeat in any election, including the general of 2012.

That does not mean I would support Obama.

[ArrogantBustard]

If the Republican Party is STUPID enough to nominate that clown, I’m off to join the Paulistinians ...

[Graybeard58]

You are a troll and probably a liberal on loan from DU.

Because WVKayaker pointed out that Romney is a cultist? Then call me one too.

[wtc911]

I would actively work for Mitt's defeat in any election, including the general of 2012.

That does not mean I would support Obama.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Working against obama's opponent (no matter who it may be) is working for obama.

[Servant of the Cross]

Mitt Romney = John Kerry, with better hair dye.

[Graybeard58]

Working against obama's opponent (no matter who it may be) is working for obama.

You conveniently omitted part of my quote, here it is in its entirety:

Much like J.R. of F.R., I would actively work for Mitt's defeat in any election, including the general of 2012.

That does not mean I would support Obama.

He has also stated unequivocally that Mitt Romney pushers would not be tolerated here.

I would vote third party or write in, I will never vote for Romney in any election, I don't care if he's running against Satan himself. Romney is a lying bastard, piece of shit, scum bag, baby killer and statist to boot. He doesn't rate my support or that of any other conservative in any way.

Those who support him in any way are not welcome at F.R. and those are not my words. Take it up with the owner.

[wtc911]

Adding Jim's name to your statement doesn't change the fact that if you actively work against any opponent of obama's you are helping obama. Pretending otherwise is just that, pretending.

You will note that this is not an endorsement of romney or any candidate. It is a statement of fact. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Graybeard58]

I added Jim's name to allow him to reiterate his stand on Mitt Romney if he wished to. Evidently he feels he has said it enough already and it couldn't be clearer.

Allow me to reiterate. I will never vote for or support Romney, no matter who his opponent might be.

[wtc911]

Allow me to reiterate. I will never vote for or support Romney, no matter who his opponent might be.

________________________________________

Allow me to reiterate...working against any opponent of obama's is not one bit different than working for obama himself.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Graybeard58]

Now that we both have reiterated it to death, let's part on a friendly basis.

I wish you a Merry Christmas!

[wtc911]

Back at ya! All the best...

[McGruff]

If Romney needs a Monica Lewinsky I think he's found one.

[IamConservative]

Medved hopping on the MYTH train.

Myth or Meth?

If Mitt is the 2012 nominee, I'd vote for Obama. At least there would be some hope a Republican congress would not go along with Obama.