Don’t Get Your Hopes Up

Will former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney run for President again in 2012?

Romney’s stepped-up schedule does seem to suggest a second bid for President Obama’s job in three years. However, considering what happened the last time he ran for President, the chances of Romney actually landing the nomination are Slim and None–and word on the street is that Slim just skipped town.

Romney came into the ‘08 Presidential game with two strikes against him: the perception that his ideological shift to the right was more fiction than fact, and the preference among many Republican primary voters for a candidate who was, ahem, a “Christian leader.” The one-two punch of Massachusetts and Mormonism was a knockout blow for Romney–a blow that led to the lame John McCain acquiring the nomination.

Republicans who regarded Romney as a crypto-moonbat or a cult member in ‘08 won’t change their minds in 2012, no matter how poorly Obama is performing as President. The GOP’s conservative base wants a nominee whose conservative credentials are not in dispute: unfortunately, Romney will never be viewed as such a candidate.

At this point, it seems likely that the GOP’s nominee in 2012 will either be former House Speaker Newt Gingrich or Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (assuming, of course, that both choose to run). Gingrich has had his issues with grassroots conservatives in the past, but his legacy as a passionate crusader for the Right’s vision will serve him in good stead on the 2012 campaign trail. Palin will obviously receive plenty of conservative support in the primaries: her only obstacle will be the perception by some moderate and conservative Republican primary voters that she cannot “seal the deal” in a general election.

Romney is a great speaker, a strong intellect, a shrewd businessman. Unfortunately, he is also someone who stands beneath a glass ceiling. Deep-seated skepticism about the sincerity of his conservatism (and deep-seated bigotry about his religion) would prevent him from becoming the GOP’s standard-bearer in 2012. He has a role to play in the GOP’s future–but it will not be the lead role.

You Can’t Get What You Want (‘Til You Know What You Want)

Let me state for the record: I forgive Christy Mihos!

Eric Fehrnstrom obviously doesn’t. Fehrnstrom, the senior communications adviser for Mitt Romney’s 2008 Presidential campaign, insists that Bay State Republicans won’t soon forget Mihos’ rhetorical burial of 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey.

“What is surprising is that Mihos is back and running for governor in 2010, this time as a Republican,” Fehrnstrom writes. “If he learned anything from his off-beat [2006] campaign, it’s that independent candidates rarely win. Without the organizational strength and fund-raising network of a major party, a statewide candidate faces very long odds.

“In 2006 Mihos finished a distant third. He wasn’t even the spoiler he wanted to be,” Fehrnstrom continues. “His 7 percent of the vote, added to Healey’s total, wouldn’t have made a difference in the contest against Deval Patrick, who won with 56 percent of the vote to Healey’s 35 percent.

“So how does Mihos convince Republicans to overlook his disloyalty and make him their standard-bearer? After all, Mihos used to seethe resentment about a Republican Party that he felt was unworthy. ‘There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans,’ he told voters. And he’d complain that ‘people are checking out because what the Republicans are selling people aren’t buying.’ Even more problematic are Mihos’ positions, which are poles apart from those of most Republicans.”

Fehrnstrom asserts that Mihos’ past will surely come back to haunt him. “Mihos committed enough gaffes to turn his last campaign into a running joke. He started the race with a groan-inducing joke about his wife. ‘My wife says I’m awful fast, so I’ll try to stick to that,’ he told biotech executives. He ran a vulgar TV ad depicting animated characters with their heads up their rear ends.

“Because Mihos was a long shot, the media overlooked his many missteps even as they gladly lapped up his criticisms of the GOP. The good news is that Massachusetts Republicans have strong potential candidates in the wings…But so far, Mihos is the only declared Republican candidate, a demoralizing prospect. Last year, in a TV interview, Mihos wondered if it makes sense to run for the GOP nomination, given that he spent the last election riding shotgun for Patrick. ‘I don’t know if the Republicans are going to embrace me,’ he said. It’s a point worth pondering, since he refused to embrace them.”

Fehrnstrom is correct to note that Charlie Baker, Michael Sullivan and Scott Brown would make great gubernatorial candidates. However, if these men opt not to enter the race–or, if they do, and Mihos manages to conquer them in the 2010 GOP primary–then what sense does it make to continue to hold a grudge against Mihos?

Yes, Mihos was obviously had issues with the state Republican Party in the mid-2000s. Yes, he was more aggressive against Healey in the 2006 gubernatorial debates than he was against Patrick. It’s all true. It’s also all in the past.

Mihos is not perfect. No one is. However, if he can oust Patrick from power and return some semblance of fiscal responsibility to the Commonwealth, then it’s not really constructive to bash him for past errors, is it?

By the way, that Mihos commercial wasn’t “vulgar.” It was quite funny.

Old School

Finally, Mitt Romney has been vindicated!

According to a new Rasmussen poll, “Forty-nine percent (49%) say [Massachusetts Governor Deval] Patrick’s Republican predecessor, Mitt Romney, did a better job as governor, while 32% say Patrick is the better of the two. Sixty percent (16%) say neither man did a good job.”

The poll also reveals the extent to which Gov. Patrick has turned off Bay Staters. “Just 33% of Massachusetts voters say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for the Democratic incumbent if he seeks reelection in 2010. Nineteen percent (19%) say they’re not very likely to do so, and 38% say they aren’t likely at all to vote for Patrick…One possible explanation of Patrick’s unpopularity is the new finding that 70% of the state’s voters are afraid Massachusetts is once again becoming ‘Tax-achusetts.’ Just 24% disagree. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans, 59% of Democrats and 74% of voters not affiliated with either party share this concern.”

It’s amazing that within three years, many Bay Staters have gone from being consumed with anti-Romney sentiment to missing the man. Romney wasn’t a flawless governor, but he was far from the comedy act Patrick has turned into.

As WBZ political analyst Jon Keller notes, “…perhaps voters are remembering that Romney, warts and all, at least tried to make some serious cuts in the budget and the kleptocracy. And even the biggest Romney haters must surely acknowledge that the man at least knew how to construct and deliver a message via media with actual audiences, all due respect to our rich local tapestry of blogs, podcasts, and assorted twitts. Patrick doesn’t like to get his hands dirty that way, leaving his governorship to be defined by folks with somewhat less esteem for it than he holds.”

Will this anti-Patrick backlash continue into 2010? Or will unforeseen circumstances actually rescue his reputation? We’ll find out soon enough.

Pride and Prejudice

The GOP circular firing squad comes to Massachusetts, as the operators of the conservative site MassResistance.com tear into newly elected Massachusetts Republican Party chairman Jennifer Nassour for her recent remarks in Bay Windows.

“Newly elected Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour has wasted no time making it clear where she wants the party to go,” Mass Resistance writes. ”Last week, in a front-page interview with the hardcore homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, she told the homosexual community that they didn’t need to worry about the Republican party opposing them on `social issues’ or ‘the culture wars.’”

The Windows article does note that “…those looking for Nassour and her colleagues at the state GOP headquarters to rally the base by campaigning for social conservative causes such as opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion will be disappointed.” However, the article further notes that “…there are no plans for the party to take more progressive positions on social issues. Nassour said the state party would steer clear of social issues under her leadership, and would support candidates for office regardless of what side they take in the culture wars.” (It must be noted that at no point in the article does Nassour endorse abortion or same-sex marriage.)

Mass Resistance claims that “…People are particularly upset that Nassour (and the others quoted in the article including politicians and pro-family leaders) would participate in an interview with a newspaper that is so extremely profane, obscene, and anti-family as Bay Windows. Among other things, Bay Windows is well-known for its vicious anti-Catholic rants, its hideous demonizing of pro-family individuals, it obsessive promotion for all kinds of deviant sexual practices, and its general pornographic content. (Besides Nassour, why are Sen. Robert Hedlund, Sen. Richard Tisei, Rob Willington, and Kris Mineau talking with Bay Windows — as if it were a legitimate media outlet?)”

Obviously, I’m not a regular reader of Bay Windows, so I have no idea if these assertions are true. However, even if Bay Windows does have this sort of content, one must ask: would it be wrong for Nassour and the other officials quoted in the piece to speak to the Boston Phoenix, which also has, uh, questionable content?

Of course, Mass Resistance can’t resist a little Mitt Romney-bashing (the unifying trait of those leading the GOP circular firing squad). “Under Mitt Romney, the party strenuously avoided social issues, particularly the homosexual ‘marriage’ issue, even though that was the hottest issue of the day. That led to some absurd situations in the 2004 elections. For example, Romney’s people gave huge financial and organizational support to Steven Howitt, a Republican who was running to unseat then-Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth). Although a Democrat, Travis was a leading pro-life, pro-family rep. Howitt was pro-choice and endorsed by several homosexual PACs. At one point the Republican Howitt even sent out flyers warning people that the Democrat Travis wanted to ‘take away a woman’s right to choose.’ (Luckily Travis won the election 63% to 37%.)”

Mass Resistance has been demonizing Romney for years because of his alleged false commitment to the pro-life, pro-family cause. The organization’s offical blog is a reliable source of anti-Romney sentiment. Apparently, because they view Nassour as a female Romney, this organization sees fit to tear her down as well, even before she really has a chance to reform the state GOP.

I understand why Nassour feels the need to de-emphasize social issues. Deval Patrick spent two years defending the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s establishment of same-sex marriage–and was rewarded with 56 percent of the vote. In fact, there was only one candidate in the 2006 gubernatorial election who opposed the gay-marriage ruling–Kerry Healey, who only received 35 percent of the vote. Yes, the SJC imposed same-sex marriage, but they imposed it on an electorate that didn’t really care all that much about the issue. Is Nassour wrong to recognize that? Is Nassour wrong to believe that opposition to abortion for birth-control purposes won’t get the GOP back into power in this state?

“Right now in 2009 a winning formula for Republicans [is] being fiscal conservatives,” Nassour told Bay Windows. ”Families are hurting right now, individuals are hurting right now, taxpayers, toll payers, people who have cars and are paying for gas, everyone is starting to feel the pinch. I think the most wining message for us is being fiscally conservative and showing how we can tighten our belts and run an efficient and effective government.”

Nassour is right. Her critics–who apparently look at her and see their personal devil Romney–are dead wrong.