Mitt Romney has his cadre of strong supporters, but as I have said before, conservatives aren’t necessarily buying into his conservativeness. Romney’s problem in this arena was pointed up this past weekend at the 34th annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where Romney barely eked out first place in a straw poll.
According to political pundit John Fund, Romney used his business and organizational acumen to endlessly work the crowd. He “delivered a pitch-perfect message that sought to unite economic, social and national-security conservatives.” But he only managed to pull out 21% of the vote. Rudy Giuliani gave a rousing but boilerplate address, didn’t mention the hot button social issues, and didn’t work the crowd. Yet he managed to get 17% of the vote.
Senator McCain, perhaps sensing how much history he has in alienating the CPAC crowd, didn’t even bother to show up. He still mustered 12% of the vote. Senator Brownback got 15% and Newt Gingrich (who may be able to influence the debate but has no chance whatsoever of either winning the GOP nomination or becoming president) got 14%. Fund also notes that when RNC members were recently polled, Romney came in second place (20%) to nobody (33%).
This means several things. One is that it is still very early in the presidential race. Most of the stuff that used to happen at this stage flew under the radar. But nowadays news organizations are so hungry for some tidbit of news that they report on candidates’ ancestors (Romney, Giuliani, Obama), as if the candidates could do anything about whom they descended from.
Another thing it means is that conservatives and Republicans (not necessarily synonymous terms) are still shopping around. They aren’t ready to buy yet. And that’s probably the way it should be. Most are still in a casual dating mode. They’re not ready to settle on a single suitor just yet.
It also seems clear that many conservatives and Republicans aren’t happy with the current field of candidates. Some are holding out for something better. This means that there are excellent opportunities for second tier candidates. But those looking for the ideal conservative candidate will probably still be unhappy with their available choices by next summer. Think back to the 2000 campaign, where 11 (more or less) serious GOP candidates generated little enthusiasm among conservatives.
And perhaps CPAC isn’t the bellwether some think it is. McCain’s campaign decided to skip CPAC because they think he can win without engaging those folks. Fund notes that among CPAC attendees, “79% described themselves as Reagan Republicans, whereas only 3% called themselves George W. Bush Republicans.” He also notes that Reagan addressed CPAC a dozen times, while G. W. Bush never has. Despite this, Bush has twice been elected to the presidency. Either the CPAC’s influence is waning, or it has never had the kind of influence some have purported it has.
It should also be noted that many conservatives and Republicans find Romney rather light in the arena of national security. They had the same concern about G. W. Bush. But in those halcyon pre-9/11 days, few gave this resume element as much weight as they do today. Giuliani and McCain rank much better in this arena. Even if Romney had rock solid conservative credentials, he would still suffer for his lack of appearance of national security capabilities. Second tier candidates should take notice of this.
With many months yet to go before most Americans get serious about thinking about their next president, Romney has plenty of opportunity to build support. So do all of the other candidates. But at this point, it’s going to be very difficult for any of them to further remake who they are and what they stand for. Much will depend on what voters think as they get to know the candidates better. And with the myriad factors involved, nobody can say with any degree of certainty how that will turn out.
3 comments:
It's interesting how conservatives evaluate the "national security" credentials of a candidate. Obviously none of the candidates have any real experience in national security, except as legislators who may have supported one or another piece of legislation. A lot of the supposed strength of the candidates relates to image, not substance.
First, what is "national security"? Ultimately it means (to me at least) that the United States and the people of the US are safe from attack and have adequate resources to sustain themselves. A nation or a people who are under constant threat of attack or who do not have adequate resources to sustain their lives do not have security.
Second, how do we achieve national security? I would say that in today's world, we need to reduce the threat of international terrorism and, selfishly, work to make the US less inviting or desirable as a target for the world's terrorists. I don't see any Republican candidates (and few if any Democrats) who are really serious about this issue and offer realistic, workable solutions.
DL, I completely agree that national security credentials are evaluated largely on the basis of appearance rather than substance. But it's not just conservatives that do this. Remeber the Democratic convention in 2004? Remember the main reason John Kerry won the Democratic nomination?
The main reason Rudy is high in the GOP polls at the moment is that he comes across as a tough guy that wouldn't take any crap on national security issues. What are his positions on national security? Can his supporters articulate them?
Rather, it is exactly as you describe. None of the popular candidates promote actual substantive, realistic, workable solutions. Or, at least if they have them, they seem to be keeping them secret.
I agree the Dems are equally guilty of image politics. There are lots of skeletons in Rudy's closet, and of course, he's not with the Republican base on guns, abortion and gays. Hard to see how he will get the nomination.
Post a Comment