That's for sure.
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.
The jury is still out and it's a long time until the Straw Poll in Aug. I look over the field very carefully--no knee-jerk reactions. I want the most conservative nominee I can get who has a good chance of winning.
FWIW, I am skeptical of Palin. Almost everyone likes her but few think she can pull it off. Everyone's opinion is valuable.
If I could appoint someone, it would be Congressman King, but I can't so I'll deal with those who are actually running.
Pence may throw his hat in the ring and if he does, he's one of my front runners, along with Barbour and Thune.
When I think of Mitt, I think of the 2007 Iowa GOP debate - the “show of hands question”,
Q... How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?
There were 9 men on stage, and 4 of them had their hands up right away, Mitt Romney was one of them. Fred Thompson jumped in and said he was not playing hand shows today, and Mitt put his hand down and said “I’m with him”. Sign of a true leader? I don’t think so. It told me a lot about Mitt. He’s the stick your finger in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing sort of guy.
Video of that question.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/12/the-iowa-gop-debate/
When I think of Mitt, I think of the 2007 Iowa GOP debate - the “show of hands question”,
Q... How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?
There were 9 men on stage, and 4 of them had their hands up right away, Mitt Romney was one of them. Fred Thompson jumped in and said he was not playing hand shows today, and Mitt put his hand down and said “I’m with him”. Sign of a true leader? I don’t think so. It told me a lot about Mitt. He’s the stick your finger in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing sort of guy.
Video of that question.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/12/the-iowa-gop-debate/
Really, Iowa traditionally eliminates the bottom feeders. We don't choose the winners.
Most I talk to don't want any of those who ran before.
If he is... I vote third party... NEVER for a baby murdering commie criminal.
LLS
“There you go again”.
LLS
I have taken the pledge. I will not vote for a RINO ever again (I voted for McCain), not now, not ever.
If Mittens gets the nod, I will do a write in.
The thing is...Will there even be an America if the marxist wins another 4 years?
At least we have a chance with Romney--we have no chance with Obama.
If so, I will not vote for President.
And to all who will accuse me of supporting Obama: If Mitt is the nominee when so many people publically disavow him, then it is the republican party’s fault - not the disaffected voters’.
That's for sure.
You are right and I believe he has operatives right here on F.R., some subtle and some not so subtle, the non subtle ones are being weeded out but the digs at Sarah Palin continue by some Mitt pushers.
Not that she is beyond reproach but she is looking more and more like a Presidential candidate should look and act. She certainly has my support but I would support any conservative
He may be. I do not doubt that the Country Club branch of the Republican Party will give him the nomination. I only know that I and many people that I know will not vote for him. If that means that obama is re-elected, so be it.
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.Maybe Medved, being a Jew, doesn't understand the Mormon faith or the problems that lie within it all that well; two faiths without a True Christ!
_______________________________________________
Please clarify...are you stating that if he were the nominee you would stay home or throw away your vote on a third party or write-in?
In other words, conservatives can suck it up again and support someone who epitomizes the antithesis of our views?
In a word: No.
If the R party wants to believe that Mitt is their “safe” choice, then they can go without the support of this conservative voter. When the party realizes that they can’t keep the conservatives on their plantation by beating the hell out of them every four years, then perhaps the conservative voters will support the party again.
Oh goody. The it’s ‘My turn” method that brought us such sterling candidates as Bob Dole and John McCain. If Romney gets the nomination the GOP will lock down the “Stupid Party” title again.
If that is the best we can do, this nation is in more trouble than anyone realizes. Romney is just another corrupt RINO politician.
There isnt now, what we live in now is COMPLETELY tainted and corrupt ...
There wont be if we go with a marxist republican over a marxist Democrat.
F--k Romney and every other GD Marxist Republican RINO!
We dont play the BS fear games. There is NOTHING about REAL freedom and liberty that a POS RINO like Romney is going to bring back (its well beyond "saving")
Point being... There isnt an "America" now. Not what we conservatives consider America and not what the founders considered the union of states to be the guardians of. So F U and your b-ll sh-t attempt at the same "fear politics" the dems use to keep their voters on the plantation.
We have outgrown that F'ing lullaby.
NO MORE RINOS!!!
Medved makes the valid point that Republicans of late have tended to come around to a presidential candidate whose “turn” it is. The last two who truly fit this definition were Dole in ‘96 and McCain in 2008. How well did that work out?
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.