Thinking about elections

As the presidential primaries rapidly approach, the discussion regarding the candidates for President of the United States is starting to really take off.

Just today, the Greenville News is reporting that Dr. Bob Jones, III has endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina (story here). Earlier this week, Hugh Hewitt psted a memo from Mark DeMoss who made also tried to make the case for Romney (story here).

I know that I am a nobody, but I wonder if we are jumping the gun and I also wander if we are backing the wrong guy.

The comment from Dr. Bob that was immediately under the headline in The Greenville News was "This is all about beating Hillary." Mark DeMoss's post indicates that one of his three requirements was that the person must be "someone who can actually win the nomination."

Here is where I think we are coming close to making the same mistake the Democrats made in 2004. If you step into your time machine a minute, you will recall that up until Iowa, Governor Dean was the one with all of the excitement and momentum among the radical leftist base. However, the establishment Dems feared that Dean would be unelectable to the majority of Americans and were pushing for John Kerry instead. The argument was essentially - "This is all about beating George Bush" and the thought was that the base was so infumed in their hatred for Bush that the base was covered so they needed to find someone who could appeal to the uncommitted without bringing too much offense. John Kerry got pushed because he was viewed as the "safe condidate" and those pushing Kerry won the day with their argument.

Unfortunately for the Dems (but fortunately for thinking Americans), this stategy failed. I think that part of the reason this strategy failed was that a winning candidate needs to be someone that the people feel that they can support - and that they are willing to work for and to tell their friends about, etc. I actually think that Dean may have been able to do a better job against Bush because he was clear on his opposition to the War, he was clear on the other issues. Bush's team managed to successfully go after the fact that Kerry was just playing politics with so many issues and "flip flopping."

It looks to me that this same type of thing is what is happening at this time in the Republican primaries. The social conservatives are trying to find a way to beat Guiliani, who has staked out some pretty liberal social views on abortion, gay marriate, etc. In order to do so, the thinking seems to be that they need to all become unified around one of the socially conservative candidates so that this turns into a two man race - Guiliani vs. Romney -with the idea that if all the social conservatives eggs are in one basket, the basket will be heavy enough to tip the scale.

The problem with this is that I do not believe that Romney has the ability to rally the rank and file social conservatives - especially the socially conservative evangelical voters - to his side.

Here are some reasons why I question the ability of Mitt Romney to excite the socially conservative rank and file are as follows.

1. His record and rhetoric as a social conservative is wishy-washy at best. If you take the time to watch the videos at YouTube of Romney's debates in Massachusetts, you will find that repeatedly he trumpets his views as pro-choice. "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." (Here is one of many videos that the left will use against him on this - and that causes the little guys like me to wonder where the guy really stands on this issue). I recognize that he is claiming to be pro-life now, but this debate was in 2002 - we are not talking that long ago and the switch in positions at this venture (especially when he talks in other debates about how long his family has stood on this issue - since his mother ran for Senate) will seem too convenient and politically motivated for the average Joe.

2. He has not galvinized the base already with all the money he has on his side. Romney has spent a whole lot more money than Brownback, Huckabee, etc., but he still has not managed to stir up the excitement. The pundits out there keep talking about how great it is that he has raised a lot of money (although a lot of it seems to be money he has loaned to himself). That is true, but what kind of return is he getting for that money? In the August Iowa straw poll, Huckabee came in second with 18.1% and Brownback came in third with 15.3%.

3. Like it or not, the reality is that the Mormonism of Romney will cause many to be cautious about voting for him. Not just among conservative evangelical voters, but in the general election as well. I understand that "we are voting for a President, not a Pastor" has a nice ring to it, but that line did not work when people wanted to dismiss the character issue in regards to Clinton. The reality is that many Americans vote on how they percieve a guy as much as they do on the person's policies. This is especially true of the folks in the "undecided land" who wait until the last month to make their decisions. For many of these people, the election all comes down to their impression of a person - and for many, that impression of Romney as the great Mormon leader will be the one that holds them back.

Imagine if the guys who seem to be trying to get the bandwagon going for Romney would put their efforts behind someone who evangelical Christians could support, rather than a man whose pro-life creditials are shaky at best?

Just my thoughts,

Frank