Brian and Beverly Mauck could not be reached for comment.
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.
Uh, as I read the article, the ‘Pubbies track record of picking winners ain’t so hot. Perhaps they should try something else other than choosing “the one whose turn it is”.
I've read JimRob say that Mitt isn't even a man.
I'm not that hard on him but don't fault anyone who is.
He is among the very worst politicians that ever lived and we have one here in Illinois who is going to give him a run for his money in that category. His name is Mark Kirk, "republican" Senator elect. One totally worthless ultra liberal P.O.S.
I like that idea, with one exception, that being if Romney is the republican nominee, I and many others will need a third option. I simply will never vote for Romney, yes, even if that means that worthless pile of dog dung Obama wins again.
Brian and Beverly Mauck could not be reached for comment.
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. If the choices are Romney, Obama, or stay home, then vote for Romney. Because staying home is passive support for Obama, and thus a blow struck against America.
Hopefully, it won't even come to that choice. But we can't afford for Obama to win again.
My local radio station has this POS on from time to time and I let them know each time what a massive rino he is.Romney wouldnt amount to a good sized pimple on RR backside.
In that case, the future says Obama wins in 2012.
“Everyone was predicting a massive Reagan lost, til the last few weeks of the election”
That was before Fox News and the internet. ABC/NBC/CBS probably withheld the truth because they were the only ones in charge of the news. It couldn’t have been a last minute fluke because Reagan was re-elected with even more states followed by Bush who was elected in a similar landslide.
That’s exactly how they think. Hey, he’s been around for awhile, it’s his turn now.
No way! Actually, I don’t think that’s really going to fly with GOP voters this time around. I hope, at least.
With all his money spent in the last election what happened?The people said no thanks.
“I would say good luck. You don’t to convince committed conservatives - you’re going to have to convince Republican voters who are not Freepers. They take a different view of it from us on here.”
If it was up to freepers, Fred would have won the nomination in 2008, closely followed by Duncan Hunter.
His money is the only thing that is keeping his “candidacy” alive. However, in the past - such as the last election - GOP candidates were essentially chosen on the basis of their acceptability to the left.
Why the GOP cares whether the left likes them or not, I don’t know. But I think Romney is just another example of this; like McCain, he’s almost beyond RINO and could easily be a full-blown Dem, except that he wouldn’t want to share the spotlight with Bambi.
It’s an idea - we have to do something. I can still see a vicious primary, which could turn off voters. Again, I hope I’m wrong.
This guy is hallucinating.
There it is in a nut shell. I know I catch myself in the process of thinking that all Republicans, especially those who consider themselves conservatives, think like the general population of F.R.
I believe that F.R. has a little more than 300,000 registered users and not all of whom are what I would call, "active members", that's a big number but not so big when compared to the electorate of the country and we, as a group, are probably farther to the right than many who consider themselves conservative.
I agree...tho for a kind of different reason. As I recall, Nixon got beat...disappeared for a time...then came back and won. So it is possible.
However, I don't care for some of Romney's positions on the issues; I could not care less about his (or any one else's) religion. That said....and assuming that most of the declared Republican and dem/lib/prog/pop voters usually vote the "party line"...the real question is:
Where do the Tea Party members and independent voters stand on this potential candidate?
Moreover, what will Mitt say or do to attract them to his "cause"?
Should be an interesting next two years for sure.
In the upcoming 2012 primary season, it may well come down to a Romney vs Palin scenario...and that would be extremely exciting if nothing else!
Here is the unvarnished truth...
IF, the C suckers in the GOP nominate Romney (or any other GD RINO M’er F’er) to be the candidate then this nation will NOT survive.
GOT THAT?
Is there a way I can make it even more clear?
Is ANYONE still confused about this?
IS there anyone who thinks there is still “wiggle” room to elect a POS RINO?
Very simply put... The GOP nominates a “Tea Party” “extreme” Conservative or I, and millions of others, will NOT F’ing vote for the GOP candidate. even if that means the the marxist wins another 4 years.
Is that F’ing clear?
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.
