Columns

Just Beat Barack Obama

By: Nancy Smith | Posted: November 21, 2011 3:55 AM
I Beg to Differ

Time for Republicans to take a deep breath and remember what the pot of gold at the end of the Election 2012 rainbow really is: the defeat of Barack Obama.

Eleven weeks away from the presidential preference primary and the GOP field is still largely a fruited plain of ideologies and inexperience.

Who do Republican voters want, a candidate who agrees with their stand on every issue, or a candidate who can attract enough votes to beat President Obama? Surely the answer to that one is obvious.

In the end it doesn't matter where a candidate stands on gay marriage or abortion or what God he worships. It doesn't matter what color he is or what gender. It doesn't even matter if he's a fiscal conservative because, frankly, who admits he isn't? It only matters if he wins. If a candidate doesn't win, his stand on any issue -- however lofty -- matters not a hoot.

Remember the years each party nominated an ideologue? The Republicans tapped Barry Goldwater in 1964, the Democrats George McGovern in 1972. Both flopped like rag dolls. While ideologues in the 2012 race, like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, attract passionate devotees, seldom are there enough crossovers or independents to win a general election.

Forget the numbers you think you see. Barack Obama is a sitting president. Sitting presidents are practiced, connected, well-financed and usually find a way to transcend bad numbers. Not that this president, with anemic approval ratings, isn't vulnerable -- he is. But he won't go down without an almighty scrap.

Remember the coattails factor and how much is at stake here.

We're looking potentially at a new congressional majority. Do Republicans want to see Nancy Pelosi back as speaker of the House in 2013? Do they want another six years of crashing under-performer Bill Nelson? By offering up a weak or ideological presidential nominee, that's what the coattails factor can mean.

Another reason why we have to keep our eye on the prize is that the next president is likely to be making at least one Supreme Court nomination. Four justices over the age of 70 are ripe for retirement: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 78; Antonin Scalia, 75; Anthony Kennedy, 75; and Stephen Breyer, 73. Obama has already put two justices on the high court: Sonia Sotomayor and Eleana Kagan.

There really is only one candidate in the crowded GOP field who can give Obama a run for his money and that is Mitt Romney.

Romney may not be perfect. Many conservatives distrust him. Ryan Rhodes, founder of an Iowa Tea Party group, said: "Mitt Romney is still the East Coast liberal he has always been." The religious right don't like him much either. Many there distrust his Mormon religion, failing to see it as Christian theology.

But Romney is solid on the economy. And the 2012 election, like 2008, is all about the economy.

Steve Mitchell, chairman of the Republican polling firm Mitchell Research, claims that what has made the former governor of Massachusetts such a great candidate is that he's been through the process before. "What few scandals lie in Romney's past, such as once hiring a gardening firm that employed illegal immigrants, are old news," said Mitchell. "Romney's secret strength is that he has made no headlines. He's been thoroughly vetted and other candidates have not."

Romney is unquestionably the front-runner in the Republican race, polling well even with the rest of the field climbing all over each other to be the sole "anti-Romney" candidate. But let's have a look at the rest of the field and why they won't wash:


Comments (3)

Justin D Spears
8:43AM NOV 21ST 2011
As a self-avowed Liberal, I argee that Mitt has a chance to beat Barack no other candidate in the Republican field has any chance. But even if Mitt is selected, a thin chance at best, the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot with their manueverings to render the economy poor. In typical short sight manner, the Republicans have endeavored to insure that the economy is poor, thinking that a poor economy will remove Barack. The problem is that everyone knows they are doing this, thus they have taken ownship of it. With that ownership a poor economy will cause more problems for the Republicans than it will any Demorcrat.
RepublicanConscience
8:29AM NOV 21ST 2011
Nice try, Ms. Nancy Smith

You fail to realize that the 7 other candidates are the anti-Romney candidates and when one is selected even Romney will get on board. I think you need to take a step back and throw off your bias against conservatives.

Rather than going way back to 1964 and 1972 for your examples of ideologues failing to win, why not try looking at more recent history for a more accurate barometer? In 1996 your media ilk selected a Romney type, middle-of-the-road Senator Robert Dole, who's only qualification was his military service and his war wound. Dole's tenure in the Senate was squatting in the aisle. In 2008, it was McCain, another moderate failure that was your media's choice. McCain's qualifications were his military service record and war wound, but his record as Senator was not of courage but of cowardice that claimed Bob Dole's spot to squat in the aisle of the Senate. Once again the media put the only candidate that could not get the the base motivated. Romney doesn't even have war wounds.

So stop trying to pick our candidates for us; frankly, Nancy, you and your media do a lousy job at it.
Chris Thomas
7:44AM NOV 21ST 2011
Paul is more electable against Obama than Romney because he appeals to far more groups. The latest Harris Poll has Paul beating Obama 51-49 and the latest Public Policy Poll has him beating Obama 48-39 among independents. Dr Paul has much greater crossover appeal than Romney. In terms of policy appeal it will be harder for Paul to win the Republican nomination than defeat Obama. This is ironic since Dr Paul represents what the Republican party used to stand for and what made America great in the first place.