This column from Iowa included an interesting comment on Mitt Romney:
One year from now, the state GOP will hold its all-important straw poll in Ames. It’s a survey that in the past has knocked poor finishers out of the presidential race. Romney is already at work trying to win it.
He has made more than a half-dozen trips to the state and lined up some of the best political talent in the Iowa GOP to work for him. While some experts say Romney’s Mormon faith will hurt him with some voters, it seemed to be helping him here Saturday. Romney organizers said several church members showed up and are deciding on their own to volunteer. “We don’t have to work it,” said a key operative. “It works itself.”
There was also this comment:
Romney wins good reviews for his can-do style and upbeat message. Charisse Schwarm, a longtime GOP activist from Lake Mills, sought me out to note how he reminded her of Ronald Reagan and the effect he had on crowds.
That Reagan standard is a tough one for any Republican to meet. If Romney’s meeting it with people like Schwarm, he’s well on his way toward winning the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses.
I find it fascinating but not suprising that Romney is getting so many volunteers this early in the game. Many of the them are LDS, but many of them are not. It’s worth pointing out that influential conservatives at the National Review are already openly promoting Romney, and have been for almost a year.
(By the way, check out this article at Evangelicals for Mitt which points out that LDS theology should be a non-issue during the campaign. Also, I would like to point out that Jerry Falwell has also recently had kind words for Romney.)
So, you have two front-runners, McCain and Guiliani who are 1)Republican mavericks and 2)disliked by Republican activists. And then you have a bunch of people (Allen, Frist, Huckabee), who are not well-known and do not stand out on a national stage. And then you have Romney with thousands of potential LDS volunteers (myself included) and a lot of very positive early buzz and relatively solid conservative credentials.
I continue to predict very good things for the Romney campaign.
I think I look forward to the debates. There’s still a lot unknown about Romney. But I agree many Republicans find McCain and Guilliani problematic.
I hope things go well for him. I think very highly of him as a candidate, and am trying to overcome my doubts about the prejudices of others.
Geoff, Thanks for this Romney update. Things are looking good. And, like Clark I am very interesting in watching the “debates” as it were.
He just needs to stay away from maybe-racist literary references during debates…
He still is learning that running for President involves more scrutiny than he’s ever faced. He’s getting better about handling the Mormon issue. Compare recent months with how he was earlier in the year. However he still makes serious gaffes like the tar baby quote last week.
What makes me excited about him is that I know he’s competent. Bush’s competency was in doubt when he first ran (and that I think we’ve sadly found exemplified). However that’d be true of Guliani even though Guliani is just too liberal on social issues for me. (And I don’t consider myself a social conservative!) McCain, in my book, is a bit of a nut and further I don’t generally think Senators are wise to run for President. For a variety of reasons. But both Guliani and Romney have practical security experience as well as management experience. Something McCain doesn’t really.
Queuno, you may want to read this. To summarize, any claim that “tar baby” is strictly a racist comment is clearly wrong. (Please scroll down to the end of the story I linked.)
Clark #5: Agreed that congressmen don’t make the best candidates. Unfortunately they spend much of their time talking out both sides of their mouths to appease the constituent/lobbyist of the day. While I am by no means a fan of John Kerry, his double-speak on many issues was just par for the congressional course. Squish McCain has similar issues.
Well, I can’t imagine myself voting for McCain either in the general or primary elections, and I won’t vote for Giuliani in the primary, so I expect I’ll be voting for Romney at least once. Go Romney! I don’t care about silly grammar/linguistic goofs, but I’d be really pleased if he could get some more experienced handlers who don’t gain all of their experience via letting him goof up on national TV. It’s been annoying enough to watch President Bush at times, and he’s got a fairly experienced team.
Representatives might make good candidates, as they probably still remember a time when they were regular people. I’d vote for my congressman (admittedly, he’s the only one of my senators/representatives, since as far back as I can remember, that I’d ever vote for — and he’s an exception to the rules I usually adhere to for members of the House or Senate, as I authentically respect him.) But Senators exist in that creepy quasi-Roman atmosphere, and frankly, there’s a reason that empire fell. Also, I think there may well be something in the requirements involved in becoming a Senator that just ensures they’ll all be really bad Presidential candidates. Especially over the last thirty years or so. It’s especially bad to be a current Senator and run for President — only Harding and Kennedy have ever managed it (Truman comes close, as a Senator running for VP who gained the Presidency in the year his President was innaugurated.) That doesn’t sound too bad, till you start thinking of all those current Senators who want to run, and all the people who have run while sitting in office in the Senate.
queno writes: “He just needs to stay away from maybe-racist literary references during debates“
Why should he have suspected that his usage of “tar baby” would ignite a reaction much different from the reactions that John Kerry, Molly Ivins, and the Boston Globe editorial board (to name a few) received when they used the term?
Because he’s a Republican and he ought know as a practical matter that there is an unfair double standard. Just like Democrats ought know when they start talking about religious principles no one believes them – even when they are sincere.