Mitt Romney is going to announce today that he won’t run for governor in 2006, preparing the way for a likely presidential run in 2008. And, by the way, we are a “cult” according to one person quoted in the below. Here’s some more info:
BOSTON (AP) Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has decided not to seek re-election in 2006, a source told The Associated Press on Wednesday, fueling speculation he will seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
The 58-year-old businessman, son of former Michigan Gov. George Romney, has spent less than three years in elective office, but in that time the state has closed a $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes, schools have scored first in national math and science tests and Romney held out until the Legislature gave him a tough new drunken driving law he demanded.
The source, who asked not to be named but had knowledge of the governor’s plans, said he would make an announcement at 6 p.m. Wednesday.
The news was not a complete surprise since Romney had declared earlier this year he was “testing the waters” for a White House run.
He spent considerable time traveling to early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, and sprinkled campaign cash across the country from a so-called leadership PAC used by presidential aspirants. He had also distanced himself from the liberal political culture in Massachusetts, vetoing a bill to expand emergency contraception, and campaigning against a 2003 ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court that made the state the first in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Romney cast himself as “a red speck in a blue state” during an October speech to a Washington think-tank, one of many similar comments across the country during the past year that had been viewed as disparaging Massachusetts the land of the Kennedys and two failed Democratic candidates for president portrayed as out-of-touch liberals.
Should he run for president, a decision he is expected to announce closer to the 2008 election, Romney will need to break through a pack of more prominent Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
There has also been an undercurrent of concern among Christian conservatives, particularly in the vital South, rooted in his Mormon faith. One political operative in South Carolina branded the religion a “cult.”
My take: Romney is making the smart move, once again. He has a strong story to tell during his time as Massachusetts governor. Running for governor again boxes him into positions that make it easier to win in liberal Massachusetts but difficult to win the Republican primary. If he loses the governor’s race, it will be difficult for him to run for president. If he wins, it doesn’t make him any more viable as a candidate.
The bad news: polls indicate Americans, especially conservatives who vote in Republican primaries, still have significant biases against Mormons. Is Romney a good enough candidate to dispel these biases? I think people will like him the more they get to see him. He is certainly a smart, articulate candidate. It’s going to be fascinating to watch.
A 1999 Gallup poll showed that 79% of Americans would vote for a Mormon (this figure has been more or less stable for 40 years)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990329.asp
While that doesn’t sound so bad, 94% of Americans say they would vote for a Baptist or a Catholic and 92% said they’d vote for a Jew (the accepatibility of Jews and Catholics as presidential candidates has improved dramatically over the last 40 years).
“Is Romney a good enough candidate to dispel these biases?”
I don’t think that or the Gallup poll is the issue because he won’t run in a vacuum. The results will depend on what his opponent(s) look like. I think that even the most vehement evangelicals will choose Romney over a ‘bleeding heart liberal’ if that is their choice. Getting out of the primary is trickier but, again, depends on the competition.
I have been following him for quite sometime on blog.electromney2008.com, which is an excellent site I might add. I doubt he’ll win the Republican nomination, but I will support him. You know when Senator Smoot won a seat in the US Senate in the early 1900’s, it put Mormons in the limelight, not all of which was good. However, I view that as the catalyst that helped the Church gain some acceptance in the rest of the country. I hope Mitt Romney’s run will do the same. I understand that he would be representing himself, not the church; but there is a lot of the church that comes through him, and just the fact that he is a member will draw questions about the church.
If I may, some more analysis:
Who else can get the Republican nomination?
–Giuliani? My prediction: he is too liberal on social issues and won’t make it through the primaries.
–McCain? Probably the strongest candidate right now. The nomination appears his to lose. Some Republican activists really dislike him, but the media loves him.
–Rice? A potentially strong candidate, but not much known on her social positions. I think being single (not a single woman, just single) hurts her more than it helps her.
–George Allen? Not well known, but that could change.
–Jeb Bush? I live in Florida, and I really, truly believe he will not run in 2008 but will wait for 2012 or 2016.
–Romney? Smart, articulate candidate, well-known in the crucial state of New Hampshire. Squeaky clean image. His religion is his only perceived negative. Note that among impactful conservative intellectuals, Romney is well-liked (and McCain is not).
Prediction: McCain will go into 2007 as the leading candidate but Romney will be a strong dark horse who could come through in the primaries.
Obviously, I could be very, very wrong (it’s pretty early in the game).
This move makes nothing but sense, because Romney was unlikely to be reelected in Mass., and a high-profile defeat tends to sink all political careers except Nixon’s.
A big problem for Romney is that the 20% or so of voters who would refuse to support a Mormon candidate are disproportionately represented in the Republican primaries. Furthermore, these voters are exactly the ones that Romney would need to get in order to beat off a centrist like McCain. I don’t see this problem as insurmountable, just close. In order to win the primaries, Romney would need to quickly knock out everyone to the right of him and then reposition himself over toward the center to split McCain’s base. This is vital because the right-of-center voters may split over Romney’s religion, regardless of the alternative. Can he do it, especially when McCain is busy trying to build his support on the right by proping up the Bush administration with joint appearances, etc.? Hard to imagine…
1. The Romney candidacy will be good for our people, even if prejudice sinks it. He’s a personable, decent man.
2. I haven’t decided yet who I’m supporting (2008 is a long ways off), but if Romney’s got my vote as soon as he starts issuing Cultists for Romney t-shirts. Cultists for Romney. Oh, yeah.
You forgot Frist. He wins the nomination.
J. Stapley, a valid point. Frist and Gingrich are viable Republican candidates. I think Gingrich has too many negatives and Frist will be beat up for being the Republican leader, but it wouldn’t be the first time I’m wrong. No way Pataki gets taken seriously and Santorum may lose his Senate seat.
Here’s a pretty good recent poll on Republican and Demo front-runners.
Its tough to tell this early out.
Check out this chestnut from 1997
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/21/gop.poll/index.html
Jay, great stuff! Thanks for that blast from the past.
Think he’d get a VP nomination?
My mostly non-LDS friends all say they’d vote for a Mormon if the Mormon happened to be a candidate they’d vote for otherwise. But then, I’m asking them, and the votes can be traced back to the people who cast them, so…
I have a feeling Rove & Co. will trot out Rice and she will get the nod, if for no other reason than to go up against Hillary. This way Hillary can’t play the “1st Woman Pres.” card.
Why was she not on that poll?
I don’t think Frist will get it as he has been mired in controversy as of late. Hagel is an interesting one as he has been one of the few GOP’s to come out against Bush and the war. He is also a Vietnam vet so he is perceived to be credible in that aspect. Does Romney have any military exp.? It doesn’t matter me personally, but it does seem to be important nowadays.
Looking at those polls, I don’t think the potential voters know Romney’s name or what he stands for. I think a big part of his campaign will be getting his name and message out, probably more so than the well known candidates. Yet, he won the governorship of Mass. How did he do that? I guess we should not underestimate him.
As an aside: I certainly know I don’t want Rice or Frist as the Republican nominee. Back in 2000, I was a McCain supporter, but I’d jump ship for Romney.
Honestly, I’ll vote for whomever the Democrats nominate over any Republican nominee. I can’t see any combination of viable candidates that would cause me to go GOP. McCain would be more likely to beat the Democrat, but also less of a disaster than the Frist crowd. Romney’s a wild card because of his need to move somewhat left in Massachusetts, but I’d prefer McCain to Romney.
On a note entirely aside from politics, I don’t want to listen to the election year carping from Church members in the event of a Romney candidacy. They’re already insufferable when they talk politics. Just imagine them talking about the chance to see a Mormon president.
I’ll vote for whomever the Democrats nominate over any Republican nominee
You and me both, D-Train. It’s a small world out there… (insert crickets chirping)
Just imagine them talking about the chance to see a Mormon president.
Ah, but wouldn’t it be paradoxically sweet if he were a liberal? I’d talk about him all day long. “C-T-L! C-T-L! C-T-L!”
I am a little out of touch here. Is Orrin Hatch not going to give it another try?
Here’s the line-up I wanna see, just to watch the members of the Church pretzel themselves:
Clinton/Reid v. Rice/Romney (tee hee hee)
Those who complain about partisian politics among the saints seem to be the most partisan themselves.
Myself, I prefer to see who the candidates are. I could see myself voting for a Democratic candidate, or a Republican, but to say “I’ll vote for a Democrat no matter what because I hate Republicans” seems a bit extreme. What if the Democrats manage to nominate another loser like Kerry? I voted for Bush because I decided it was better “the devil you know” and Kerry was such a weak candidate.
Now Lieberman – I’d vote for him in a second. Perhaps the Dems should try a Joe Liberman/Zell Miller ticket. Oh -wait, they’re too beholden to the extreme left to allow centrist canidates on the ticket. (and people complain about the Republicans being in control of the extreme right. Both parties have the same problem, methinks).
I agree with D-Train. I’d still vote for a Democrat, but Romney or McCain getting the nomination would give me pause.
There has been some talk about Reid getting the dem nod, but He probably will get too much flack from his minority leader role for that to occur.
I think Orrin has been too long in the Senate to be a viable Presidential candidate. In today’s politics having a long Senate Voting record makes it almost impossible not to get nailed on something.
Liz: If you are familiar with NV politics, then you would realize there wouldn’t be any pretzel. LDS voters simply don’t care that Reid is LDS, and actually tend to dislike him all the more for it.
Reid? He may be tough in the intraparty squabbles in the Senate, but he could only win if this were 1852, not 2008. He has the charisma of a three-day-old bologna sandwich that fell into a mudpuddle, and doesn’t appear to stand for anything, other than Democrats winning.
Jeb Bush? Are you serious? I don’t think the US would elect another Bush in this millenium. (I surely hope it won’t!)
Orrin? Why not skip the inauguration and go straight to deification?
Oh–one more thing: sometimes I think Gen. Sherman stopped before the job was finished in the winter of 1865.
Reading that last line of AP piece was one of those times.
Miss Rice was mentioned here by some, but running for president is quite a stretch for someone who has never run for a lesser office. Taft and Hoover had records similar to hers, but for the last seventy years the only path to the presidency outside elected office is to organize D-Day and win the war in Europe.
The reason Democrats can’t win are shown here in this thread: All they have to offer are the demonization of Republicans, rather than substantial issues.
Give us a new “Contract With America” and the votes will come. Talk about how you’ll never, ever vote for a Republican (and constantly say “Bush LIED!” or “Bush is an idiot” as Howard Dean and Harry Reid seem to do) and the votes will flee. Voters want actual proposals, not snark.
In case anyone has forgotten, Orrin Hatch has already made a presidential bid, back in 2000.
What’s that? You never heard that he was running? Didn’t think so.
As for Romney not seeking re-election as Mass. governor, is a forfeit really much better for him than a loss?
Bruce –
I actually recall that there was a brief NPR story on Hatch’s run, but the gist of it was that he didn’t have a snowball’s chance in he[ck] and so the reporter treated it as some sort of half-joke.
Bryce (#27), you’ll notice the word “viable” in the title. Although you could argue that his father’s run (George Romney) was viable until he mentioned being brainwashed.
Lyle, if you are familiar with Nevada politics, then you realize there is nothing unusual about a Mormon Democrat holding elected office there. Harry Reid is not an anomaly in Nevada.
More info on Romney from a boston globe article:
Romney cultivates connections
VIP links expand across the country
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | December 4, 2005
CARLSBAD, Calif. — Governor Mitt Romney arrived at the Republican Governors Association’s annual conference here last week with his star already bright.
He’s one of the best-known governors, is on most short lists for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, and charms Republican crowds wherever he goes. Conservative activist Grover Norquist, in a piece called ”The Best and the Brightest” in The American Spectator magazine this month, devotes more ink to Romney than any other 2008 hopeful except Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Yet if Romney arrived at the conference in a strong position politically, he left even stronger.
.
.
.
[Millennial Star editor’s note: I’ve removed the full text of the article, which is copyrighted. You can access the full article via this link:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2005/12/04/romney_cultivates_connections/
]
Geoff B.: We have had disagreements in the past, but I must say your political analysis on this one is spot-on. For those who mentioned Bill Frist, I must ask what you are putting in your crack pipe. Nobody likes the guy, he is (allegedly) corrupt, and he looks and talks like a muppet. No one outside the confines of the 700 Club would give him a second thought. He has zero chance of getting through the GOP primaries.
On whether folks would vote for a Mormon like Romney, the jury is out. Generic polls seem to suggest it would be hard as much anti-LDS bias is still there, particularly concentrated among white southern evangelicals. But Massachusetts is no walk in the park for a Mormon Republican, and Romney did OK there. I have had discussions with some on political blogs about this question and am shocked at the blatant bigotry from some who classify themselves as christian conservatives. OTOH, if they get too vocal in opposition based on religion, it could backfire and create a sympathy vote that cancels out the bigots (as happened with JFK in 1960).
I would think that Romney’s Mormon affiliation is less of a problem in “Blue” States than his “Republican” Affiliation. His religion comes into play with the evangelical set.
My prediction on Romney in the South: Southern Republicans won’t vote for an LDS candidate. They will realize, however, just how bigoted it makes them look to admit that openly. Instead, Southern Republicans will pick up on Romney’s flip-flop (remember those?) on abortion law and point out that he only switched to their point of view on the subject once he started contemplating a presidential run. They’ll question his sincerity and say they can’t trust the gains they’ve made under Bush II to someone who isn’t absolutely committed to the Cause (tm, pat. pending)
Lack of devotion to their absolutist pro-life position will be the reason proffered; Romney’s CTR ring will be the real underlying reason.
And besides, Mormons don’t go to church on Christmas unless it happens to fall on a Sunday. What’s up with that?!?!?
I agree with Chad. No way for Romney to get past the anti-LDS bias amongst the evangelical repub base. I live in the south…..
Romney would be an excellent choice for the 2008 Republican nomination. He came to Oklahoma and spoke a year ago. He is very personable and bright…people like him. The fact that he has been successful in a Democrat dominated state like Massachusetts should make him attractive to Republicans across the country. The fact that he is Mormon will not hurt him at all…like our local newspaper publisher says “Mormons: They preach against them on Sunday but vote for them on Tuesday”. Oklahoma is the “buckle” of the Bible belt and our senior congressman, Ernest Istook, is Mormon and running for governor. Our State Representative Caucus chairman, Thad Balkman, is Mormon. I am Mormon and served as mayor in a city of 10,000 here in the state. http://www.famousmormons.net shows that there are several members in government throughout the United States.
Bob: If your statement is true; then doesn’t some of the blame for that lie amongst Saints living in the South? My ltd experience is that these folks will vote for an LDS candidate, as long as the candidate is good on the issues; esp. if they have contact with a good member. This last is critical, cuz they need to know a good Saint that acts like what they think a Christian should act like.
John: You are right re: nothing unusual; but the proposition was that members would be ‘tied up’ in their loyalties when presented by faithful members from both parties. The reality just doesn’t pan out.
lyle: It’s MY fault that Southern Republicans are prejudiced against Mormons? I don’t follow. There are plenty of good members here who are active in our community. Many who consider me a good friend remain convinced I worship in a cult and am going to hell for it. Let’s not blame the victims here.
Lyle,
If they would take the time and get to know us they might like more of us. The problem is that they have been taught their whole lives that we are a crazy cult.
You cannot blame the victim for irrational deap seated bias.
Some of the evanglical families in our area will not let there kids play with the local LDS kids. And there are lots of them around here.
I have business partners that know me well and actually like me (no small feat) and they really think that I am going to hell and worship Satan.