Mitt Romney, Mormonism and the Republicans
Posted on November 28th, 2006 in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but over at his blog, Andrew Sullivan has been going off on Mitt Romney for his Mormonism.
That’s not exactly how Andrew would put itâhe’s very careful to insist that he’s not anti-religiousâbut I think if you look at the steady stream of posts on the subject, it’s a fair description. His posts have included topics such as Mormons and race, Mormon underwear, Mormons and tithing, and Mormons and miscegenation.
This is fine by me, as I think that even by the standards of organized religion, Mormonism is pretty nutty. And I don’t think that the country is ready for a Mormon president. (Not to mention that Romney, of course, has other problems.)
Also, I’ve always thought that Andrew, despite his classical conservative political heritage, would be more comfortable as a Democrat than as a Republican. In his younger days, he just liked to be contrarian for its own sake, and as a marketing tool. IMHO.
So here’s a thought about the GOP field. Mitt Romney will never be the Republican nominee for president. A Mormon Republican from Massachusetts? No way.
Nor will Rudy Giuliani. A mistress-keeping, gay-roommating Republican from New York? No way. Plus, Giuliani’s used to unquestioning adulation on the speaking trail ever since 9/11. (Ugh. Enough, Rudy.) In the heat of a presidential campaign, he’ll lose it.
That leaves McCain, Hagel and Frist. (Am I forgetting anyone?) This is underwhelming. Frist is a hack. I kind of like Hagel, and he may be the dark horse, but Republicans tend to discourage first-time candidacies.
McCain’s never run a really strong national raceâhe’s too much of a Beltway insider. (My litmus test: Anyone who’s tight with Don Imus is a Beltway insider, and thus will never be president.)
Not to mention the fact that McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the war.
The GOP is in trouble…this is a very weak field of candidates.
6 Responses
11/28/2006 11:11 am
You keep getting it wrong on McCain, Rich. When you said he was a loser after the midterms, many others said the opposite-that he was the only Republican left relatively unscathed. We all remember how well he was doing before SC in the 2000 race-how much the media adored him (that has admittedly declined-but there’s still a crush there). He reached out to the extreme right just enough in the past year and stopped just short of “selling out” in public opinion, I believe (it was close)-so he doesn’t have the same worries from that quarter he had previously.
His only real problem is age. But as he likes to point out, he has a 90-something-year-old mother who just traveled around Europe. Certainly after Reagan, that’s an issue, but that was twenty years ago, and the definition of “old” has adjusted a little higher.
Put him against Hillary, and he wins 55% of the vote-a sound victory. Edwards? Please. Those of use who have been following Edwards since his election in NC know there’s nothing new there, no growth. He’s stuck as a mid-major as they would say in NCAA sports, one that won’t be allowed to play in the big game. Obama? He’s probably more electable than Hillary, but counting on him is gambling quite a bit on an attractive, hip candidate with no substance (not yet).
From a GOP POV, the real danger is Guiliani beating McCain in the primary-he could charm many before the dirt begins to truly fly. Win the nomination, and McCain will have it much easier in the general election than did Bush in ’00 or ’04.
11/28/2006 11:20 am
Points well made, and thanks for such a thoughtful post. Wish I could agree with it.
First, I don’t put much stock in the polls at this point, particularly when they come to Hillary. I think most of America knows her only as allegedly shrewish wife, rather than as effective politician. That will change.
I don’t think age is McCain’s real problem. But he was damaged by the mid-terms, as was every pro-war politician, and every pol who, as McCain has recently done, has been trying to associate himself with Bush.
Giuliani winning the GOP primary, with its core of conservative voters? Not a chance.
I’m not saying the Dems don’t have their problemsâthey clearly doâjust saying that the GOP field is very weak.
11/28/2006 1:29 pm
We can disagree, that’s fine. I’m just not sure you’ve put forth any substantive problems with McCain. You are correct that voting for the war could be an issue in the future, but thankfully for the GOP, Hillary’s war vote will disarm that point. Arguing that you were misled will only go so far and could, in the end, have a diminishing effect if oft repeated (ie people can mislead you). Besides, McCain can make the same general point. Advantage: neither.
11/28/2006 2:18 pm
Oh, keep forgetting, Rich. I think I know how you’ll vote, but what about the possibility of Newt’s return for the ’08 race? It’s looking more and more likely. Whatcha think? I’m not too well versed on his baggage, but the man is an uber-talented orator. Plus, he can come in and criticize the Bush admin for their big government, something he’s done pretty consistently. That distance could land those Bush-hating independents.
11/28/2006 3:04 pm
Nice try, Rich…. nice try creating a negative aura around current Republican candidates! Hey, it didn’t work with Joe Lieberman, no matter how hard you bloggers worked at it…
I don’t see what the problem w/McCain is, maybe the war issue, but then again, his POW experience sort of gets him off the hook for being pro-war anything. And his views are sound; he does not cater to anyone in opining on issues, or talk out of both sides of his mouth, like Hillary does. I would hope Americans would be able to pick up on this very salient piece of information.. doesn’t integrity count for anything? Hillary is too scary to even think about, I don’t know where to get started w/her. But yes, she is a contender.
Personally, I’d rather have Obama anyday, even with no track record, at least he seems to be someone you could trust, and he has values.
11/28/2006 8:51 pm
Senator Hagel is the way to go in 2008. He is a tradition conservative on economic, fiscal, and social policy. He has also been correct about Iraq (and a long time critic of the way it has been handled), which has reasonated with voters as of late.
Chuck Hagel is a bit of a dark horse at the moment due to low name recognition, but he would be tough to beat in the general election.