Why there is no GOP frontrunner.

I posted this over at Michelle Malkin’s blog (it’s over at Hot Air now, too) and deemed it good enough for re-posting. It’s a comment responding to concerns about how Mitt Romney comes off to voters, something written about in the NYT by Dean Barnett.


Many people have their theories on why Romney isn’t running away with the campaign. And Barnett’s partially right, but he’s missing the obivous.The Republican field is full of reasonable choices for the nomination (reasonable to a certain set of voters, that is!)Romney’s a good manager & a nice guy, but he was governor of Mass. Any East Coast Republican is immediately going to turn off any social conservative because there are taxes they have to pay to the social liberals in order to get elected.

Rudy’s got a similar problem. We all know he did a great job with 9/11 and cleaning up NYC. In the meantime he dumped his 2nd wife after she stuck through his cancer run. Then he married his nurse! That sound you hear is the puking of several social conservatives, especially after knowing Rudy’s pro-choice stances.

Fred! seems great. Good ol’ Southern Boy. Nice charm, wit, relaxed, and seemingly conservative. But he got in the race way too late (or the race started way too early– you decide) and he’s fighting an uphill battle to capture those who’ve committed to Mitt or Rudy or McCain. He’s gathering steam– but is it enough steam to win on Super Tuesday? That’s the question.

Huckabee is a Christian Minister, which really excites the Americans for Jesus crowd. I’m Catholic and I like Jesus just fine– what I don’t like is Huckabee’s complete capitulation to higher taxes and bigger government in Arkansas. He’s a social conservative but political liberal. (Didn’t the USS Enterprise use those two forces to power the warp drive?) He’s got the Christian vote– well, the ignorant Christian vote, and that’s power from the pulpit.

And don’t forget McCain. He’s great with foreign policy. But as the season rolls on, we are reminded again of the horrible McCain-Fiengold legislation. Don’t forget his formation of his coalition of senators to undermine Republican leadership in the Senate. And don’t forget his tarnished past– AZSCAM, for example. He may be an ex-POW, but he’s spent so long in politics he’s got a closet full of skeletons and a Conservative base that doesn’t trust him.

So we’ve got Rudy, Mitt, Fred, Huck, and McCain– each with a solid core of supporters. (And there’s Ron Paul, too, bringing in the Troofer/Stormfront vote.) The vote is solidly split because each of the candidates has something that attracts a core of voters.

So the idea that “people don’t like Mitt” is tenuous. I’d be more willing to state that people like other people more than Mitt. Or Rudy. Or McCain. Or Huckabee. Or Ron Paul.

(But everyone likes Duncan Hunter– they just don’t think he can win. How can someone everyone likes not win?)


8 Responses to “Why there is no GOP frontrunner.”

  1. January 16, 2008 at 3:26 am

    If that someone doesn’t win, not everyone likes him. Or if he is a solid candidate, he hasn’t gathered enough support to give reason of expecting to topple other candidates.

    About this allegation against Romney: shouldn’t this be immediately seen as a variation of the “He’s too perfect to be real” criticism? We rail politicians because they are flawed, and then when one who lacks those flaws comes along, we rail on him anyway. Whatever.

    The irony is that the allegation that Romney is disingenuous is itself disingenuous. Shouldn’t a candidate identify what he has that folks want? The assumption is that if someone says what wants to be heard they must have made it up just for the sake of being well-received. There’s as much basis for that as there is for believing they genuinely held the position before advertising it. Between the two choices is a path of either cynical negative bias or basic trust in the goodness of other people. Without any hard proof for either as valid, why not risk or put faith in the better option?

    And the allegation of flip-flopping is just as cynically illogical and unfounded. I go into that here, along with the reasons I don’t support other candidates and do support Romney:


  2. 2 docattheautopsy
    January 16, 2008 at 9:42 am

    Don’t fool yourself. All politicians are disingenuous to a degree. It’s the nature of the business. What is laughable is the hammering Romney takes over perceived disingenuousness while notorious liars and expert makers of nuance, Hillary, Edwards, and Obama, get a free pass.

    Don’t get me wrong– I like Romney and if he gets the nod, which is likely, then I’ll be happy to cast my vote for him. But he’s not perfect. And his biggest flaw is the fact he’s not advertising his record. We should hear about how good of a manager he is and what he’ll do about Supreme Court Justices, not defending Mormonism.

  3. 3 Glenn
    January 16, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    Fortunately, whoever the Republican nominee is won’t have the Clinton/Obama paradox: If Clinton wins the nomination and doesn’t name Obama her running mate, the race card get played, and Revs Jackson and Sharpton raise Hell. If Obama gets the nomination and doesn’t make Hillary his running mate, then he gets charged with discrimination against women. It called political correctness gone mad and biting one in the arse. I like it, though there are several scenarios wherein they might dodge the bullet.

  4. 4 Matt R
    January 18, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    It seems moderates, like McCain and Romney have a hard time because their base is moderate as well, or at least it should be. Sadly, “galvanizing” moderates to action (vote) is a contradiction in terms.

    Moderates’ or people who see both sides of the issue, seem to have a hard time getting their message across. Romney has had a particular problem with this. He is portrayed as mincing by the MSM that likes to ask “Do you still beat your wife?”-type questions or boil everything down to one quote. McCain has experience from his last run and can focus his message better e.g. “Pro-choice but not going to overtrun Roe v. Wade.

  5. 5 Bobak
    January 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Sorry, I just had to laugh at the fact that Fred Thompson dropped out….too funny, the republican’s don’t have a chance this time around, its becoming more evident everyday…

  6. 6 Matt R
    January 23, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    “the Republicans don’t have a chance” Sure. That’s what they said last time and the time before that. My questions is, “Will the Dems self destruct again? Can they hold their infighting in check long enough? Can they choose a candidate with a real message (like FDR) rather than spew PC junk in the hopes they don’t offend anyone?”

  7. 7 Bobak
    January 24, 2008 at 1:19 am

    Hey Doc wanna talk about liars?

    Check this out…..liberal media back at again…


    I’m sure that this is all just BS though, right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

About Me

My name is Doc. Welcome to my blog. If you're visiting from another blog, add me to your blogroll (and I'll happily reciprocate). I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and live in Wisconsin. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. My email is docattheautopsy at gmail. (No linking to deflate the incredible spam monsters).



World Temp Widget

Blog Stats

  • 131,650 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy

%d bloggers like this: