GOP 2012 strategy: an idiot and a prayer

By Nicholas Wilbur

In 2008, the Republican Party chose as its presidential nominee a crotchety, 71-year-old Bush lackey, a stalwart Iraq War defender, and a has-been "maverick" who admitted, even as the economy began to sink, that he was ignorant about economic issues. 

Source: WMx Design

The guy they didn't pick was Mitt Romney.

Why this happened is a matter of opinion, and like... noses... everyone seemed to have one after Romney bowed out of the race in February 2008.

Mormons believed Romney lost the primary because of America's intolerance of Mormonism. Social conservatives thought his inability to wow the social conservative demographic cost him the nomination. Anti-abortionists said his flip-flopping stance on abortion was the reason for his defeat. Homophobes believed his flip-flopping on gay rights were to blame.

The rest of the party seemed to believe Romney lost because he was socially awkward, because he tried way too hard to appear charming, because looking at him gave people the creeps, and because electing him would have been like inviting Tom Selleck's smooth-chested, perfectly-coiffed, and pedophilic twin brother to the family Christmas party – a four-year Christmas party.

The fact that the Republican Party still doesn't like Romney, then, isn't surprising. It may be antithetical to their alleged goal of making Barack Obama a "One. Term. President." -- as Tea Party member and presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann likes to say -- but it's not surprising.

He's still Mormon. He's still not quite socially conservative enough to wow the Tea Party. He still tries way too hard to appear charming. And he's still awkward in front of both cameras and prospective voters.

Unfortunately for Republicans, Romney is pretty much the only moderate candidate in the entire field of GOP nominee contenders. (Ed. note: Maybe Buddy Roemer and Fred Karger, but that's about it. And these two aren't exactly serious contenders. Jon Huntsman is moderate on some issues, and generally has a moderate approach to politics, but is for the most part a solid conservative, if still significantly to the left of the party's new far-right mainstream. -- MJWS)

He may be a flip-flopping toady whom the electorate views as willing to say anything to get elected, but he's not insane. He doesn't advocate abolishing the Internal Revenue Service. He's not a birther, he doesn't believe evolution is a myth, and he has yet to claim that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly to end slavery."

For those reasons, Romney is much more palatable to the general, non-conservative electorate. But also for those reasons, he isn't palatable to the hard-core conservatives who turn out in swaths to determine who will be the next Republican nominee.

FreedomWorks, a conservative political action committee that raised $688,000 in 2010 to campaign for Tea Party candidates including Sharron Angle, Allen West, Mike Lee, and Ken Buck, has criticized Romney as "an establishment hack posing as an outsider" who "represents everything the tea party stands against" but who "suddenly... wants to be one of us."

Source: WMx Design

Western Representative PAC, which raised more than $400,000 in 2010 for Tea Party candidates, is also campaigning against Romney, claiming that his "flip-flops, lies, and support for the progressive agenda (undermine) his credibility on conservative issues."

"Mitt Romney brought us RomneyCare, donated to Planned Parenthood, and as governor oversaw the most anemic job growth in the Northeast," the PAC's website StopRomney.org states. "Now, he says he wants to repeal ObamaCare, is adamantly pro-life, and wants to oversee the country's economy."

In June of this year, a former Republicans legislator from California, Steve Baldwin, launched the website RomneyExposed.com, which "attacks Romney's (allegedly) conservative record as a businessman, fiscal issues, gay marriage, abortion, and a host of other issues."

As the GOP frontrunner throughout the first half of 2011, Romney raised a disappointing $18 million in the first quarter of the year – an astonishing $29 million less than President Obama raised this year, and $3 million less than he raised in his 2008 bid for the GOP nomination.

Perhaps the worst news Romney's campaign has received came following Texas Gov. Rick Perry's announcement that he would be joining the race. Within a week of his entrance, Perry was posting double-digit leads over Romney in almost every public opinion poll.

It appears all signs are pointing to no.

But not just for Romney.

Perry may have roused the Republican base when he announced his candidacy, but the change in energy, while noticeable, was akin to heavily sedating a formerly comatose patient. At no point in the race for the Republican nomination could anyone – the media, the candidates or the Republican Party's constituent base – claim to have experienced or witnessed genuine, across-the-board excitement.

Polls continue to show lagging enthusiasm for any of the candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination.

Source: WMx Design

The reasons for this are as obvious as the reasons behind the party's opposition to Romney: there are no medals for second place. Primary election victories don't mean anything. General election victories change the world, and no candidate currently in the race for the presidency has the mass appeal to oust President Obama.

The incumbent is expected to raise more than $1 billion for his re-election campaign – not one dollar of which will be wasted in a primary election.

The question isn't whether or not Republicans are able to compete with that. They aren't. The question is, are Republicans stupid enough to try to compete with that?

Throwing $1 billion at an unpopular candidate in an unwinnable race is neither fiscally nor politically responsible, let alone sane.

What's a party to do? – The same thing it did in 2000: pick the dumbest one and pray for a miracle.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)