I was reading the Washington Post's excellent reporting (really, Robert Costa owns the Right, and no other reporter is in the same league, much less ballpark) on Romney, and I was struck by the closing.
Another GOP bundler received a phone message from Romney on Monday in which he said, “What you saw in the paper is true.” Romney added that he was giving “some consideration” to running again “for a lot of reasons.” Among the factors he cited: “I have a strong sense of duty.”One could certainly have said that Romney's decision to run in 2012 was borne out of a sense of duty. The 2012 Republican field was the weakest of my lifetime. The only two good candidates on paper--Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry--crashed and burned in devastating fashion. And a handful of viable Republicans with relevant experience--guys like John Thune, Mitch Daniels, and Bobby Jindal--opted out of running entirely. That left a field of also-rans. That field, without Mitt Romney, could have produced a true disaster for the party. Romney could have argued that he was needed.
But that is most clearly not the case for 2016, when Republicans have at least seven or eight particularly strong candidates. Two in particular stand out.
- Marco Rubio, the junior senator from Florida, is a wonderful speaker and has a great backstory. He has also engaged with domestic policy issues moreso than most senators, embracing the ideas of thoughtful "reform conservatives" like Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru. On paper, Rubio is a star.
- Scott Walker, the second-term governor from Wisconsin, is a less compelling speaker than Rubio, but his stylistic contrast from Obama--a move, let's say, from sizzle to steak--could be exactly what the country wants in 2016. Walker has gone through the "fire" three times, winning in Wisconsin while taking on the entrenched teacher's union and a robust, powerful Democratic machine. Walker is basically The Man, when it comes to getting things done on the right.
The truth is that both Rubio and Walker would be impressive nominees. I have my own biases towards governors, so for now, I would support Walker over Rubio. But they are far stronger candidates than Romney.
Meanwhile, Romney's negatives remain substantial. He has had two bites at the apple and lost both times. His unfavorable ratings exceed his favorable ratings. He doesn't speak conservatism as a first language, so he often ties himself into a pretzel while making conservative arguments. His major policy accomplishment as governor was the health care plan that Republicans are desperate to destroy. He is largely distrusted by the base. He'll be 69 years old in 2017, throwing away an obvious opportunity to showcase youth and vigor against Hillary Clinton, who has been in national politics for what feels like forever.
In 2012, Romney may well have been the indispensable man for the party. But in 2016, he is clearly not.
Romney and his supporters may argue that only his network and his resources can defeat Jeb Bush and then Hillary Clinton. This may be true. This, however, neglects the role that Romney himself can play: he can throw his support, immediately, to one of Rubio or Walker. An endorsement from party heavyweight Mitt Romney would make a huge difference. It would legitimate a so-called "second tier" candidate. It would help direct some of Romney's donors. Moreover, Romney is rich. He could use his own considerable personal wealth to fund a SuperPAC on their behalf.
If Romney really feels a sense of duty to the party and country, he should pick one of these two candidates to back. He could easily win a spot as Secretary of the Treasury, or Secretary of Commerce, or domestic policy chief, or any other high-profile position. It's not president, but if his goal is actually to win, it's a much better option. But it doesn't seem like that's his goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment