The Long Game: Mitt Vs. Huck in 2012

The race for the 2012 Republican nomination is on, with the two early leaders—Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee—using this year’s campaign, in very different ways, to position themselves for what many in the party privately believe will be an open nomination.
Granted, it’s somewhat premature to discuss the 2012 race when John McCain, who is now the presumptive nominee, actually leads Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (slightly) in some polls. If McCain wins in the fall (and seeks a second term at age 76) then there probably won’t be any room for Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee or anyone else four years from now.
But the same was true back in 1996, when Lamar Alexander and Steve Forbes came up short in the primaries and immediately started laying the groundwork for follow-up bids in 2000—even while publicly professing that they expected Bob Dole to be running for reelection that year.
Both Mr. Romney and Mr. Huckabee are well aware of the G.O.P.’s tendency to nominate the candidate whose “turn” it is, a pattern that—in a very roundabout way—has reaffirmed itself with the success of Mr. McCain, the second-place candidate from the last open Republican contest. In fact, George W. Bush is the only non-incumbent Republican since Barry Goldwater to win the presidential nomination on his first try.
And with Mr. McCain emerging as the nominee and quite possibly facing defeat in the fall, the race between Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney seems to be on to play the next-in-line role in 2012.
There was no accident in the setting Mitt Romney chose to end his 2008 presidential bid. In front of some of the right’s truest believers at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, he presented his withdrawal as a patriotic act of self-sacrifice, sparing his party a protracted nomination fight and freeing Republicans to unite against the Democrats and “a surrender to terror.”
He might just as well have announced his ‘12 candidacy on the spot. The CPAC attendees represent the conservative activists who Mr. Romney tried mightily to unite behind his candidacy this year. He had some success, but not quite enough. Now he has four years to try again.
“I will continue to stand for conservative principles,” he told the crowd. “I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in.”
Mr. Romney’s introduction to national Republicans this past year was rough, the result of endless revelations about the decidedly nonconservative positions he took and rhetoric he used for a decade in Massachusetts that undercut his efforts to sell himself as an ideologically pure conservative. While this prevented him from unifying the right, it is a testament to the power of his appearance and style that so many conservatives did flock to him and willingly rationalized his voluminous inconsistencies.
The good news for Mr. Romney is that the charges of flagrant and disingenuous opportunism that haunted him for the past year will be old news by 2011 and 2012. To retain his viability, he doesn’t have to turn around and run for office in liberal Massachusetts again or hold any public office, thus sparing him from having to make uncomfortable decisions that could put him at odds with the conservative base—like the hundreds of millions of dollars in increased “fees” he used to balance the Massachusetts budget in 2003.
Mr. Romney is now a household name to national Republicans. He can spend the next four years sounding as conservative as he wants, only making it easier for the party base to forget about his Massachusetts liberalism. Rest assured, he’ll be at every CPAC meeting between now and 2012. And you can expect to see him on Fox News as often as they’ll have him and to be a favorite talk radio guest.
Starting about two years ago, Mr. Romney modulated his tone to synch up with conservatives opinion on literally every subject. When conservatives learned how dramatically different his new style was from his old one, some grew suspicious. To them, Mr. Romney may sound more consistent and credible come 2012.
Right now, Mr. Romney’s main competition for the “next in line” distinction is Mr. Huckabee, who vowed to stay in the race even as the media declared the contest over upon Mr. Romney’s exit.
Huckabee knows that this year’s presidential nomination is out of reach. But the vice presidential slot on Mr. McCain’s ticket is not. A spot on the national ticket would offer Mr. Huckabee an invaluable opportunity to expand his name recognition and political base and to repudiate the notion that his appeal is limited to Christian conservatives.
No doubt, Mr. Huckabee is aware of the example of Lloyd Bentsen, whose immortal put-down of Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice presidential debate turned him into a hero to Democrats across the country. Bentsen, who had failed miserably in a 1976 presidential bid, could have mounted a credible bid for the 1992 nomination had he chosen to.
Mr. Romney would surely love to be this year’s V.P. pick as well, but that role for him is out of the question, given Mr. McCain’s scornful view of him. By contrast, Mr. McCain seems to think very highly of Mr. Huckabee, with whom he forged an informal and enduring alliance just before the Iowa caucuses—an alliance that directly contributed to Romney’s failures in Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida, and across the South on Super Tuesday.
Even though Mr. Huckabee is technically his opponent now, it’s unlikely that Mr. McCain will exert much pressure on him to drop out immediately, since Mr. Huckabee poses no threat to Mr. McCain’s nomination and isn’t about to launch an even remotely negative campaign against the presumptive nominee.
In fact, if Mr. McCain does want to put Mr. Huckabee on the ticket, it might be best for Mr. Huckabee to stay in the race longer. That’s because elements of the conservative establishment regard Mr. Huckabee as disloyal because of his populist economic views. But if Mr. Huckabee can draw sizable support in the upcoming primaries—Virginia and Texas offer potential opportunities for him—then Mr. McCain could make the case that he has to put Mr. Huckabee on the ticket in order to keep Christian conservatives motivated.
Right now, Mr. Huckabee has proven only that he can attract support in the South and in states where born-again Christian voters hold disproportionate sway. Mr. Romney has demonstrated at least the potential to build a broader coalition. If Mr. Huckabee can finagle the No. 2 slot on this year’s ticket, he could alter those perceptions. If he can‘t, then Mr. Romney probably enters 2012 with an edge over him.
Unless, of course, John McCain wins this fall.




















Open nomination in 2012?? If Hillary get the nomination for the Dems, I'm sorry but she's gonna get beat by McCain. Nothing but nothing will bring out Republicans to vote than the danger of a Hillary presidency; and she'll put off independents as well. Wake up Democrats, she has way too many negatives going against her to be a general election nominee.
President John Sidney McCain....it has a nice ring (even if he is a nutjob.)
It is my belief that in 2012 a true conservative that has always been a conservative will win the 2012 Republican nomination. This could be the case if a democrate wins the white house or if McCain wins and governs like the liberal that he is. A two term govenor which made dramatic improvments in their state by applying conservative principals will win the nomination. The govenor of Mississippi, Haily Barbor, is one such candidate because the state has greatly improved over his first term without a tax increase. Tax cuts are coming this term. Record employment with higher paying jobs. He had national exposure with hurricane Katrina. He is a true conservative and for the first time ever helped a republican win every state-wide office.
There are other conservative Governors that would also be a strong candidate. If the republicans don't get a true conservative to run the party will not be united.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Regards,
Romney lost for a lot of reasons, but I don't think that the politically opportunistic character of his stated policy views was the chief cause of his demise. He is on the sidelines today chiefly because of religious bigotry. He may or may not be a "true conservative"-- who even knows what that means?-- but at the end of the day he was unable to persuade a substantial portion of the Republican base that he was one of them. A whole lot of Americans take their religious beliefs very seriously, and telling those people that all religions are good, or that Mormonism is pretty much the same thing as Christianity is not only unpersuasive-- for a lot of people it is offensive.
Time was, the Republican Party stood for a particular set of beliefs, principally low taxes, small government and a foreign policy that was anti-Communist. That wasn't very effective when it came to getting elected unless you were a war hero like Ike, so they looked around and found that there was a growing segment of the population that felt like they no longer had a voice in the Democratic Party. Nixon's Southern Strategy came of this, and the Republican Party found that the emerging religious feeling in that part of the country gave it a new base.
The lesson of the Romney candidacy is an ironic one: you can be a capable governor of Massachusetts and believe what you want, but you'd better believe that Jesus Christ rode a dinosaur if you want to be President.
Speaking as a Southern woman, nothing good comes out of Massachusetts. John Kerry couldn't win and neither could Mitt Romney even though he was a Republican. There is a palpable distrust of Ted Kennedy and most of the Kennedys here in the south.
In the South we take pride in saying what you mean and meaning what you say and we seldom hold back punches. We can respect a man even if we don't agree with his religion or political affiliation if he at least stands by his convictions. Romney did not do this and it cost him.
Some people may think that Takeover Arbitrage is an honorable profession, however I think most people think of this line of business as dishonorable bottom-feeding as they dispose of companies and fire the employees for profit.
Some people may like the idea of an unscrupulous shark as being president of the United States, but haven't we had enough of this type of president since 1992?
Hillary Clinton's friend, John McCain...
Johann Hari writes of McCain: “Rage seems to be at the core of his personality. Describing his own childhood, McCain has written: ‘At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious. When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out.’”
McCain has distinguished himself as an uber-hawk on foreign policy, according to Hari, who is on the editorial board of The Liberal magazine.
“To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: At a recent rally, he sang 'bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran,' to the tune of the Beach Boys' ‘Barbara Ann.’ He says North Korea should be threatened with ‘extinction.’
“McCain has mostly opposed using U.S. power for humanitarian goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia . . .
romney, it came out through a LA Times Reporter, was doing about up to 100 companies gutted, everyone laid-off and assets stripped, and the loot pocketed in a Cayman Islands Bank Account - that was Romney's "Business Experience!" Give me a break. Not only was he a liar (nice achievement for someone so "devout." He was not only a Mormon, but a Mormon Bishop! And, oh, we're not suppose to discuss that Mormonism has plans in their end-time teachings for America? Wakey - wakey everybody!) but he was also a crook! Wait til Patrick j. fitzgerald gets ahold of romney for his sleazy work at Bain Capital. Bain didn't build anything - it just sharked unfortunate companies by bleeding them. A very "devout" thing to do. Like the Southenr friend above suggests, Romney was just a slick and a carpetbagger.
renatam, you're comments don't count because you obviously use character assasination and not facts. You weren't even responding to the article, you girlee man. Five former secretaries of state and national security advisors, and over 100 of the top generals and admirals are not the least bit worried about temper. and why would they - if McCain could put up with assholes like you and laugh at himself, i'm sure amadinajab is nothing! Like the latter, you lied about humanitarian compassion.....mccain has mentioned rwanda and the sudan several times....proof, just look up his speech to the churchill club on u tube where he mentions rwanda. look up his interview on pyjamas media and others where he mentions the sudan and kosovo...you shouldn't karl rove people, you jerk. Quoting from "the Liberal Magazine" - you suppose that we are to think that that is in any way objective, when describing Republicans? go call on karl rove sweety, he's waiting for you in pink....
romney's finished. in the Atlantic, in the fisherman's world, we know these romney types - they fade away as fast as they are phoney. We call them "a slick!" Phoney as a three dollar bill, hey author, don't ya know when you're being snowed? and huckabee's just a representative for some of the worst evangelist hypocrites on earth. get a life kornacki, or do you like playin' lap dog for phonies?