Whether based in reality or not, the media has imposed a set of "tiers" on the presidential primaries, and in their quest for aesthetic symmetry they have decided that the number of candidates in the top tier has to be three. While this makes at least a modicum of sense in the Democratic contest (Edwards could, conceivably, prevail over Obama and Clinton), the logic breaks down for the Republican hopefuls. McCain and Giuliani are deservedly considered "top tier" in the GOP contest (for now), but the inclusion of Mitt Romney is, at best, premature, and at worst, laughable...
In almost all cases (save, notably, in New Hampshire to which he is a friendly neighbor with much higher name recognition) Romney’s poll numbers weak, peaking nationally at 10%. Considering that ever-mischievous devil, good ol’ Margin O’Error, it’s hard to say that Romney’s support warrants even serious acknowledgment, let alone coronation to frontrunner status (Edwards, I realize, has comparable national numbers, but he leads in many Iowa polls, which, as you know, is The Most Important State in the Country).
I believe that Mitt Romney’s position as a top contender for the presidency is an invention of the press, and will prove ethereal as soon as any votes are cast. As I mentioned, there is a narrative being written by the media-at-large of a "three and three" battle in each party’s nomination contest. While a supporting cast of Bidens, Richardsons, and Tancredos help make things colorful, the reality show we’re watching is about two houses, both alike in dignity, with a triad of statespersons vying for leadership of their respective families. There truly are three frontrunners for the Democratic nomination, but there are only two Republicans who (for now!) have any serious shot to win. It is early, and the tectonics have many drifts yet to make, but the current numbers don’t lie. Barring unforeseen upheavals, Romney is not going to be the nominee, and we should stop behaving as though he might.*
Why include Romney? In short, he looks good on television. While the other conservative alternatives to McCain and Giuliani like Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee are respectable and charismatic, neither have the Ken doll good looks of Romney, the prominent chin, or the low-baritone voice. Add to that with an easy-going manner (when he’s not fudging another position -- more on that later) and his status as a GOP governor of a very blue state, you have someone that, one would think, ought to be a frontrunner!
But it must be clear, by now, that he is no such thing. The justification for the Romney candidacy is that he is the electable, conservative alternative to McCain and Giuliani, but with every interview and article that justification erodes. A quick scan of Romney’s press will tell you a few important things:
-- He’s (probably) only pretending to be a conservative so he can get through the GOP primaries (he’s a flip-flopper).
-- People feel weird about Mormons.
-- Romney has a lot of moneyand establishment friends.
-- He’s a flip-flopper. Oh, did I say that one already? But gosh, it’s just that it keeps coming up.
Apart from the pieces on his money and friends, which are very important, Romney is mainly investigatory fodder for reporters. YouTube videos of old debates and campaign promises have only solidified for anyone who is paying attention that he is (probably) insincere, and if he is sincere, it’s a shaky sincerity. If social conservatism is what you’re after, and your uneasy about Giuliani or McCain (for whom there is little reason to be uneasy to begin with), Romney would be a foolish choice for your vote or donation.
Unless you just think he’s cute.
And if nothing else, as stated above, his numbers don’t impress. Conventional wisdom told us that Giuliani would go nowhere fast because he’s not a die hard right winger, and (for now!!) he leads the pack. He’s a frontrunner because the numbers say so. If he drops to, say, 10%, he’ll stop being a frontrunner. Romney is still trying to inch ahead of 10%, but there we go again, mentioning him in the same breath as Giuliani, and not in the sentence, "Giuliani is kicking the living crap out of Mitt Romney."
Before I close, I quickly want to address my earlier " * ". Not only do I think we should stop treating Romney like a frontrunner, I would truly like us to refrain from treating anyone like a frontrunner. By picking a line-up of so-called "electable" candidates, the press decides for us, in advance of our own perusals, from whom we have to choose. There are times (think Dean ’04) when things can turn upside down because of a movement, but even movements buckle to the prescribed narrative. Dean was never truly treated like a serious presidential candidate, but as an agitator and insurgent, even when (and possibly because) he was very close to winning the nomination. Instead, let’s at least start out by assuming that everyone from Clinton to Gravel, and from Giuliani to Ron Paul have something to say, and a claim to the office. I’ll tell you who the frontrunners really are sometime around 10:00 PM on February 5th.
UPDATE: Apparently, Romney's not all that bright, either, but that's never stopped us from electing someone before.
*****
Digg this if you dig this, and come argue with me some more at FifteenNineteen.com!