Blogs and Stories
Romney's Game Plan
Mitt Romney is laying the groundwork for 2012.
James Carville once said running for president was like having sex: It’s not something you're apt to try just once; there’s a high recidivism rate. This is good news if you enjoyed Mitt Romney the first time. You're almost certain to see him again in 2012.
Much sooner than that actually. Romney dropped out of the presidential race in February, but he never went away. He quickly became a regular guest on cable news, started a political action committee (which, according to National Review, has already given away more than $200,000 in donations), and this fall began stumping in earnest for various Republican candidates, including John McCain.
Not only does Romney know more about economics than Palin does, he has greater self-control.
In the past four days, Romney has hit nearly a dozen states on behalf of the McCain campaign, but really on his own behalf. This is what groundwork looks like when it’s being laid.
It’s the oldest cliche in politics that the next campaign starts the day after the election, and this year that is especially true on the Republican side. Republicans hate chaos and uncertainty, but after eight years of an unpopular administration,they no longer have the luxury of an orderly succession. As one Republican consultant said to me the other day, come Wednesday morning the party will resemble post-Soviet Afghanistan: “Everybody’s going to declare themselves warlord.”
At this point, Sarah Palin would seem to have the most powerful arsenal. While Democrats tend to revile their losing candidates, Republicans revere theirs. Losing to Obama and Biden won't destroy Palin’s reputation within the party. It might enhance it. Palin also has the advantage of being world famous, she’s admired by party activists, and she can draw huge crowds. And unlike Romney, she'll never be accused of being a phony.
Authenticity was always Romney’s biggest problem. Being a Mormon hurt him with evangelicals, especially in the South. But what sunk Romney was the suspicion that he was playing a part. A self-described free market conservative, as governor of Massachusetts he instituted health care reforms that look very much like what Obama is proposing now. (Anyone who supports Obama's heath care plan ought to take a look at how Romney's program is working out. Not well.)
Now a proud social conservative, the formerly pro-choice Romney once told a gay group that he was more for gay rights that Ted Kennedy, when everybody knows that’s almost by definition impossible. (You'd have to be living with a man to be more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy.) Romney came off as a slick phony. That’s why he lost the nomination.
He’s got a much better chance of winning it next time, though. What’s the evidence? He won over John McCain.
In the final days of a desperate campaign, a losing candidate is apt to be grateful for any help he can get, even from a former enemy. But according to those who know them both, Romney and McCain are now on genuinely warm terms. It’s a remarkable development. Not even a year ago, McCain considered Romney loathsome, and all but said so in public. (By contrast, McCain had obvious affection for his other opponents.) One morning, just to incite him, I asked McCain what he thought of Romney as a person. He kept control of himself, barely, but I swear I could see his face twitch.
McCain’s staff angrily pointed to one incident in particular as evidence of Romney’s awfulness. Shortly before the Iowa caucuses, the Drudge Report posted a photograph, originally taken as a Christmas card picture, of Mike Huckabee and his family back home in Arkansas.
The shot showed all five Huckabees, overweight in matching shirts, smiling awkwardly for the camera. Though the photograph had been mailed to hundreds of people years before, McCain considered it cruel to leak it to Drudge in the middle of a campaign. And he was convinced Romney did it.
None of that seems to matter now. Undeterred by the hostility, Romney eventually backed McCain in a notably gracious endorsement speech, and has worked with cheery persistence to make himself useful ever since. Romney was able to ignore personal slights and remain focused on his goal, which is to build a political base.
Compare that to McCain’s running mate. Within weeks of being chosen, an obviously frustrated Palin was undercutting McCain in public. Bad sign. Not only does Romney know more about economics than Palin does, he has greater self-control. That will matter in the end. In the coming struggle between Romney and Palin to lead the Republican Party, the phonier candidate may have the advantage.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Why the White House Bullies Fox
Tucker Carlson is a contributor to the Fox News Channel. He previously hosted The Situation with Tucker Carlson and Tucker on MSNBC after working for CNN.
A Man on His Way to Bitterness
Tucker Carlson is a contributor to the Fox News Channel. He previously hosted The Situation with Tucker Carlson and Tucker on MSNBC after working for CNN.
How Jon Stewart Went Bad
Tucker Carlson is a contributor to the Fox News Channel. He previously hosted The Situation with Tucker Carlson and Tucker on MSNBC after working for CNN.
Please, let him run. That will be the biggest landslide victory ever. Romney was awful out on the trail. The only thing that would make me come out and see him speak would be if you Carlson wrote his speeches. It would be like watching stand-up comedy. I would go just for the laugh. I hope what the Republican party learns from this election is that next time they are going to have to come with a little more substance and a lot less fear.
Interesting to think about, but I don't think Romney has the phoney-ism locked up. "Thanks, but no thanks" on the bridge to nowhere? "I sold the jet on ebay?" Sure, she was pushed into McCain's earmark and "Country First" that conflicted with her earmarks-a-la-Stevens and secessionist ties. And sure, she can claim genuineness to hold the most extremist pro-life positions without apology. But with the "Say it ain't so, Joe" and the winks and the hokey country girl stuff seems pretty phoney to me. I'd acknowledge that Romney has been phoney with actual policy while Palin has been phoney about spinning corruption into home-cookin' but to say that either of them is genuine is a bit of a stretch.
Anyone following the polls over the last months would have to acknowledge that Palin's purity of ideology is not enough to overcome her ignorance first of all, and that it can't win a general election either. On this, I would agree with the post. Romney has four years to rebrand himself, but as what? The right-wing idealogue that could win a Republican primary? Or the centrist who laments the primary loss because he may have been able to win the real election?
This user is no longer registered.
First I must recover from your comment that Palin could not be accused as being as phony as Romney. What? I do agree that Romney has a "phony" problem, but to say that Palin isn't phoney (or isn't perceived that way) is crazy talk.
I'm a hockey mom wearing $150K worth of designer clothes.
I'm a reformer, yet I expense my children's travel even when they were not invited, troopergate,etc. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
The picking of Palin has caused McCain's judgement to come in to question.Romney has made public statements that that call his judgement into question such as "I would hire Palin to run one of my companies". Really?Ouch.
These are exactly the angles on which to focus, TC. My read is Mitt cannot, simply CAN NOT, develop enough genuineness from where and who he is today. His Mormonism and his FlipFlopism on such major issues are absolute tattoos. Not to mention his demeanor, which is, apparently, intractable. Further, the thought that "the phonier candidate may have the advantage" can never be true again. Certainly the populace can only demand more ingenuousness in its successful candidates at this juncture.
No, Palin has less far to travel, though I am not sure just four years will be enough time for this trip... 8 or 12 more like it. But finishing the Gov term in AK, and perhaps a second term in progress in the Senate... now you're talking. A truly seasoned Sarah Palin is a frightening specter, no doubt. Let me hear someone argue she doesn't have the potential. She'll develop her chops and she will be a right wing force with which to be reckoned for quite a few decades, seems to me.
I'm not saying Mitt goes away (at least in his own mind), not with those pockets. It's just that a battered and beleaguered Obama in '12 (he has, in his heart of hearts, GOT to be dreading Wednesday morning...) is more likely to be facing the likes of freshly girded Pawlenty's or Jindal's while Sarah applies the polish.
But let us all agree on one glaring truth... the Race is ON to '12 sometime before midnight Tuesday... if not already.
Romney should have kept his mouth shut about his 5 boys "serving their country" by getting him elected. It was a slap in the face to every military connected person in this country.
Wonder how they are serving their country now? Tucker, why don't you write an article enlightening us?
Mitt Romney has 3 things against him,,
his cult church, his 5 do nothing sons, and his perfect looks. Sorry, it is the truth, and nothing he can do about it. I can't see him throwing his church and sons under the bus, or messing up his hair.
Another thing on which I meant to comment... the jewel you dropped early: "While Democrats tend to revile their losing candidates, Republicans revere theirs."
As a contemporary of John McCain (well, not quite as old, but a Viet Vet) it has been with a mixture of awe and slightly embarrassed concern along with a very strong streak of "Give 'em HELL, Johnny!" knee-jerk pride I have watched him through this race. And I have come to a conclusion.
This is the epitome... a wholly appropriate apex for his career to have achieved. He flat out DESERVES to have been taken very seriously and flirted with success as a Presidential Candidate. This has been one of his finest hours and I am extremely proud and happy for him.
Probably best he doesn't assume the mantle... turns out there is a better team for that at this moment... but he's still got a lot of Senate left in him and on balance, I see no reason whatsoever why every single American, let alone Republicans, should not "revere" this National Treasure... this John McCain. We are all the more fortunate he came along.
Palin not a phony? What a joker. The record she racked up during her 19-mo. governance was full of cronyism, absenteeism and bad fiscal policy that the state is now 'paying' for. If you have any doubts about Palin's hypocrisy, read this email from a Wasilla resident about why she thinks Palin is dangerous: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/52031.html This should have gotten a lot more air time than it did because it's based on irrefutable facts.
Good post, Mr. Carlson. While I am guessing that Mitt Romney is better informed on the "issues" than Sarah Palin, she is likely the savvier politician. You are right that she has been awfully quick to go rogue, and I would agree that any other candidate would be marred by this. Why not Gov. Palin? Even after this campaign, John McCain is not very popular with the base of the Republican party, while she is wildly popular (there have even been rallies in which her name is featured and McCain's name is not).
By setting herself apart in subtle ways, she is signalling to the base that she will be ready for 2012. Romney better be ready too. Gov. Palin will eat him alive.
If the 2008 election produces a truly elected president and not a fraud, as in the last two contests, Obama will be in the White House and he will hold it until 2016. At that point, Palin will be 52, not her currently saucy 44. I expect that at that point, she will also be explaining away a criminal record - Ted Stevens is not the only Alaskan politician who got too chummy with Veco. (And who built her house?). The point is, by 2012 / 2016, Palin will no longer be the "fresh face" in any sense of the word. This is a woman who believes it was God, not McCain, who chose her for the Republican ticket. She is not going to relinquish her celebrity for the next four or eight years. She intends to hold the spotlight one way or another, and it is a spotlight she can ill afford. Romney has the Achilles' heel of his faith to contend with, but Palin has larger problems than that.
Consider this Tucker's application for the heretofore vacant position of Sycophant-in-Chief for Mitt Romney.
Tucker, I agree the scramble for the ball on the Republican practice field will look wild. I disagree that Palin will be close to it. Palin, presuming the probably McCain loss happens tomorrow, will be forced to repair her national image in the coming years. She'll be tasked to do that while trying to hang onto her governorship in Alaska. Mitt Romney not only is not going to be subjected to the push and pulls of a political office the next few years, but he doesn't have to worry about repairing his national image as it is one that has been on an upward trajectory from the beginning.
The qualms you mention about gay marriage are immaterial. He's using his PAC to advance candidates and issues he cares about and gay marriage, Prop 8 in CA, is one of them. More than that though is the direction of the party. Sarah Palin doesn't possess the sort of appeal the cultural types think she does. She, like Huckabee, is an ideological nod, a cultural play. If Republicans want to elevate cultural candidates past pragmatic ones, then they'll be better served to nominate Pawlenty since he's far more capable than Palin or Huckabee yet appeals to the same crowd. However if Republicans want to recapture our essence--being pragmatic problem solvers, achieving peace & prosperity by promoting free trade, reducing the size of government and its burden on Americans, maintaining The Strongest military yet sticking to a non-interventionalist foreign policy, and adhering to and promoting high moral and ethical standards but by way of example and reason not by preaching down with a closed mind--then 2012 will be Romney's to lose since that's the kind of guy he happens to be the model of. He did reach to prove his cultural credentials this election, but that was b/c he was an unknown...he was a party outsider. Romney lost the primary b/c of a perfect storm of reasons, and that's the kind of loser that Republicans revere, not national ticket losers.
During the debates, Romney's answers were far better than the rest of them. But Huckabees' answers were warmer and far more humorous. Palin has some magic. It's hard to gauge how far it will take her. Maybe not all the way in 2012, but she'll be smarter, more knowledgeable. If I had to bet now, I think Huckabee is the next GOP nominee.
I think all these conversations about who can inspire the conservative base are missing a key point. As Beinart argues in the Wash Post (cheat sheeted in DB now), and as was argued last spring or summer in the Atlantic Monthly, Obama's messages work because the majority of voters are so over the culture wars. Not because they're tired of them (though they are), but because the younger generations *don't care.* They were raised in multiculturalism, tolerance, etc. They're not going to get up in arms about gay marriage, abortion, and other right-wing issues. Most of them don't go to church. Socialism isn't necessarily a bad word in their minds. They didn't grow up during the cold war, they aren't as invested in America being #1.
I think McCain's mistake was overestimating the relevancy of the right. He got the nomination--from *Republicans*--by running as a centrist candidate. He lost that centrist appeal by running a right-of-center campaign.
The only way someone like Palin or Romney or any of them will win in the future is to come off as more centrist, more reasonable, than Obama. If Obama is smart, which he is, he'll move center as soon as he's elected. And if the Democratic party is smart, which is debatable, they'll groom another extreme moderate for 2016. If the Dems can get the moderate brand in the next 8 years, they'll hold on to office.
Romney was awful. Romney is awfu. But after watching the McCain/Palin trainwreck, he does look downright presidential. This is the best the Republicans can come up with!?
I think the Republican intellectuals should flee the party and start a new "Libertarian" party. Tucker, you on board?!?!
"Palin also has the advantage of being world famous" - Tucker, you got to be kidding. NO ONE outside of Alaska knew her 3 months ago, now she is world famous in the worst way possible. The whole world laughs at Sarah Palin for all her incompetence, inexperience (the fact that Obama doesn't have more experience, really doesn't help her) and her populist speeches.
The republicans need to find a good candidate for 2012. Neither of this past primaries candidates were any good, especially not Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani. McCain was decent in 2000, now he is a joke too.
Yo - Tucker,
About Universal Healthcare. Perhaps YOU should be the one taking a look - the first comprehensive study done in 2007 after only one year's implementation actually rates it a success:
"At roughly the end of the first year after implementation of the new legislation began in Massachusetts, insurance among working-age adults was reduced by almost half (from 13 percent to 7 percent)...There were also improvements in access to care in Massachusetts between fall 2006 and fall 2007, along with reductions in out-of-pocket health care spending, problems paying medical bills, and medical debt."
Key Findings:
- Increased Access To Care: One year after Massachusetts adopted comprehensive reform, "nearly 93 percent of non elderly adults in the state were insured." In fall 2007, low-income adults were also more likely to report a dental visit and a visit to a physician for preventive care within the past 12 months than in fall 2006.
- No Crowd-Out Of Employer Coverage: The report finds that "employer coverage increased by five percentage points" for low-income adults and found no evidence that "employers are less likely to offer coverage to their workers under health reform than before."
- Fewer Financial Barriers To Care: In fall 2007, 16.9 percent of low-income adults said that they had not received needed care in the past twelve months because of cost, compared to 27.3 percent in fall 2006. The proportion of low-income adults with more than $500 in out-of-pocket spending dropped from 48.2 percent in fall 2006 to 37.4 percent in fall 2007.
The report notes that "the cost of reform to the state has exceeded initial cost projections, in part because the number of uninsured adults exceeded initial state projections" and because the state experienced higher-than-expected enrollment in the Commonwealth Care plans. This, combined with the broad popularity of the plan, underscores the need for public programs as part of health reform.
Well, thank you, Mr. Offensive. One can only wonder where Mr. O lives and works.
Now. Where were we when we were so rudely Yo'd, Tucker?
Riiiight... the near- and mid-term prospects for the GOP (as Romney spends his life away trying to be taken seriously not Mormon)...
Let me give the here-gathered a topic... short term, how Pawlenty can it get? Please include commentary on the "other Obama"... Messr. Jindahl in your answer.
I am afraid the next four years will indeed be drudgery... rocks with large hammers to bust up, the takin'-it-off-here-boss the economy and bread lines will inevitably entail. You know, the ones that will even skewer and crust the annointed... such as The One... while we find our footing post-Mini-Depression.
Meantime, one must assume the best and brightest consultants of this generation are already lined up to chart out the next 12 to 16 for Ms. Palin... By the way, Ankhorite, Sarah at 52 will be more along the lines of a Righty Fonda or Sarandon... sultry, smokey, and smart and well worth the wait and just getting started. Resign yourselves, Angry Left, the divine Sarah is a Force of Nature. And, as TC invokes recalling Carville's tautology: Sex is something you don't try just once.
Welcome to Sarah's whole new long run...
Good grief, Tucker. You're confusing economics (advantage Palin) with finance (advantage Romney). Only a finance guy would think he could outfox the bad economics inherent in state-mandated healthcare. So, Romney is just one of your favorite people--an elite. In other words, an effete snob who thinks he's smarter than the basic rules that govern markets. Only another snob would be so supercilious as to believe a finance guy who's dumb about economics is smarter than Governor Palin who may or may not be a finance gal, but who has negotiated great economic deals for Alaskans and who has never demonstrated anything like the economic cornpone of Romney as Governor of Massachusetts. For goodness sakes. Stop drinking the kool-aid about elites. The whole point about snobs is that they're really not very smart. Clever? Can be. Witty? Sometimes. Smart? Almost never.
I think Romney has a good chance. But I also think Palin is a star now as well. But, I really can't see Palin ever being elected President. I think she is a very effective number 2. Give her 4 more years to keep that Alaska approval rating high and beef up her interviewing skills and knowledge base and she will be a great vice nom. If Obama is a great prez(which I doubt he will be, given the problems we face), obviously no repub stands a chance. But if he is not very effective and starts bickering with the dem congress(which he no doubt will), it will be ripe for Jindal/Palin 2012!
Palin might be the most popular with the base, but the base is shrinking. Or sinking, if one wants to use the rat metaphor. If Palin is the best the GOP has to offer the country in 2012, then conservatives need to find a new home (and not leave a forwarding address for the know-nothings, nut-cases, and hate-mongers).
I love John McCain. I was an ardent supporter in 2000. But he lost my vote with the Palin pick.
Romney should absolutely run - he got better and better as the campaign ran on - and mean stumping for McCain. He proved his loyalty to the party as many others jumped ship. He should get credit for this.
As for Palin, time will tell - does the joke out live the excitement.
Younger swing voter here, voting for Obama tomorrow but certainly aware of the Democratic party's flaws and open to changing parties in the future. Personally, I would love to see the Republican party go in the direction of a smart, calm, pragmatic guy like Jindal. I still need to see more, but he was quite impressive during Gustav.
Romney to me was completely transparent in picking up the lingo of the day on the campaign trail; remember when he was suddenly the "candidate of change" in NH? Maybe it's his background as a businessman, but it left me a little uncertain of what he actually stood for.
Palin has come off way, way too far right for me in this campaign. Perhaps it's just that they're using her heavily in the traditional attack dog VP role. She needs to rehabilitate her image with moderates somehow after the election.
What's the basis for the comment that "while Democrats tend to revile their losing candidates, Republicans revere theirs"? If we agree with your assumption that the Republicans will lose, Sarah Palin's closest equivalent in recent memory is Jack Kemp. While Kemp has had a distinguished post-election career, I don't recall him being particularly "revered."
America has too much sense to elect a President who wears the adult equivalent of Magic Underoos as well as conducts polls to decide what the person should tell voters this week about personally deeply held religious convictions.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.