Stephen Hayward thinks Romney has the lock on the nomination *UPDATED*

Stephen Hayward advances a solid argument that Romney has the lock on the nomination.  As I read it, the core of is argument is that Romney is the seasoned Republican campaigner, whose weaknesses have already been thoroughly exposed by a hostile media.  Perry still has ahead, as Hayward says, a comprehensive and public proctological exam.  This will come from both the Left and the Right.  Pamela Geller is already raising a problematic challenge to Perry based upon his being too chummy with sharia.

As you may remember, during the last election, Romney was my candidate of choice at this blog.  The error of Romneycare notwithstanding, I thought he was the best candidate in the pack.  He may still be the best candidate in this pack.  The problem, though, is that all the drilling and training in the world hasn’t made him anything but a boring stump speaker.  He also has the RomneyCare albatross hanging around his neck.  That was a problem in 2008, before ObamaCare.  It’s a disaster in 2011/2012 after ObamaCare.  Lastly, Romney has also been out of the governance loop for quite a while now, which doesn’t give voters any idea about how he’d deal with the present crises.

Perry is, in many ways, Romney’s opposite.  He is a galvanizing speaker who says all the right things.  Subject to a few hiccups, his governing style is small government.  It’s impossible for to imagine Perry advancing “PerryCare.”  And finally, Perry has the Texas economy at his back.  It’s easy to say that, after eight years of Bush, voters don’t want another Texan, but the fact is that Texas’ economic record is overwhelmingly strong in a time when our nation and our other states our bleeding heavily.

Ultimately, Perry’s speech-making skills, his small government approach, and his state’s economic success will probably wipe out Romney’s crown prince advantage.  I say this without regard to either candidate’s actual merits.  In this peculiar election year, practical virtues and political dues paying aside, Perry’s going to have the edge.

By the way, have you noticed that the three who have become the instant Republican frontrunners are all extremely good looking people?  The same media that swooned about the jug-eared Obama’s effeminate moobs (I think they called them pecs) isn’t going to mention this fact, of course, but voters may have a subliminal response to how good any one of these three will look at the first post-election G-8 summit.

UPDATE:  JJ’s on the money when he comments that Bachmann has one big problem — inexperience.  James Taranto makes the same point, one with which I wholeheartedly agree:

The most obvious parallel is in the quantity and quality of their political experience. On Election Day 2008, Obama was nearing the end of his fourth year in the U.S. Senate; 2012 will be Bachmann’s sixth year in the House. Both came to Washington after stints in their state senates, where Obama served eight years and Bachmann six. Although both quickly gained national prominence as opposition spokesmen, neither is about to be mistaken for Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of legislative acumen or accomplishment.

During the 2008 election, much was made of Palin’s inexperience, with the logical counter being that she was running for Vice President, not President.  Here, though, Bachmann is aiming for the top position and, while her values are better than Obama’s, and I think she’s smarter, she is every bit as inexperienced as he is when it comes to the ins and outs of managing a vast government enterprise.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Randall Woodman

    You need to do some research on Perry.  He talks a good talk and gets some things right but he’s a RINO.  I live in TX and I really want to replace him with someone more conservative.

  • Bookworm

    I don’t disagree with what you say on substance, Randall.  However, if Perry’s a RINO, Romney is an uber-RINO.  Talk about a Hobson’s choice.  Given the field’s limitations, people are going to go to the telegenic RINO, rather than the wooden uber-RINO.

  • Don Quixote

    Why not the telegenic non-RINO (either Bachmann or Palin if she threw her hat in at this late date)?

  • Bookworm

    Good question, DQ.  I think Bachmann’s base is too narrow, and Palin’s baggage is too big.

  • Don Quixote

    If so, that’s a shame.  America is more than ready for a woman president and I’d love it to be a truly conservative Republican.  Besides, think of how it would disconcert the NOW crowd.

  • suek

    For a more substantial comparison:

    >>America is more than ready for a woman president>>

    I think I disagree with you on this. What leads you to this conclusion?

  • Randall Woodman

    Don’t discount Bachmann.  She is the TEA party darling and has strong support from them.  If Palin gets behind her she’ll get even more support.  Then there’s talk that she can’t beat Obama.  Really?  Obama just hit an all time low (39%) in his approval rating.  Micky Mouse could beat Obama.  All Bachmann needs to do is keep campaigning and not screw up.  She is gaining ground and she is the best conservative candidate on the ticket.  Is America ready for a woman president?  I think America is ready for a solid, non-apologetic, conservative leader no matter what gender or race.  That would be Bachmann.

  • Don Quixote

    For one thing, Britain was ready for Thatcher 30 years ago.  Surely, we are not more than 30 years behind them.  [Okay, I admit, the systems are different, but her gender didn’t stop her from being placed into power and governing quite effectively.]  For another, women are being elected everywhere to every position but President.  Gender does not seem to be an issue in any other races.  Finally, we elected a black President when people were saying we weren’t ready for that.  Why not a woman?  We are ready for anyone with good ideas.

  • jj

    I’m uneasy about Romney, and I don’t quite know why.  Maybe it’s the Butch Hair Wax, maybe it’s that he’s excessively buttoned-down – or as the Iron Butterfly says: “he’s the establishment candidate.”  Yeah, actually, he kinda is, and somehow or other that’s bothersome to me.  He’s too smooth and too scripted by half.  (I think his best moment on the trail so far was dealing with the professional hecklers the other day, for which there is no script.  For a moment there he was real.)  And I guess that’s what it is: he’s too much a candidate, and not nearly enough a person.
    Michelle’s nice enough, but she got there twenty minutes ago, and many of the objections to the current dimwit apply, the big one being that the resume’s pretty damn thin.  Nothing there.  Nada.  As I have said before: historically in this country we prefer people who’ve run something, usually a state but an army is okay – and we do seem willing to make an exception for VPs.  She’s run nothing, and is right down there with our current anomaly in terms of experience or seasoning for an actual job.  I don’t know whether the country, having just lived through the disaster Anomaly #1 has wrought, is willing to have Anomaly #2 come right behind it.  I think she has a lot of potential, but this may not be the time.  She has to show me something, and holding down a seat in congress ain’t gonna do it.  Too many jackasses do that.  What do you know how to run, kid?  I know Obama has lowered the bar for all time, but I didn’t vote for him, and I’m not sure about her, on some of the same grounds.
    I don’t know what “ready for a woman” president means.  It sounds swell, but in real terms it doesn’t mean much of anything.  By the same reasoning America – or any other entity – may be said to be ready – or not ready – for just about anything: a runny nose, a boil on its ass, socks that don’t match – you know.  It’s puffery, it’s not meaningful.  We’d like somebody whose head is a lot less far up their ass than Obama’s is, somebody with proven ability not just to campaign but to actually govern (Bachmann’s weakness), someone for whom the well-being of the country is at least as important as their personal well-being rather than a distant second, somebody who thinks America’s pretty good as it is and doesn’t see a need to fundamentally change it.  Whether that’s a woman, or a black, a Mormon or a Zoroastrian’s entirely irrelevant.

  • Ymarsakar

    People’s credentials for runnings things are meaningless. They have never run a nation. Not even close.

    The closest is being governor of a state, and that’s it. Nothing else is even in the same league. 

  • Danny Lemieux

    With regard to Thatcher and Britain, I would off the top of my head say that three of Britain’s greatest leaders were women: King Alfred, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I meant, “three of Britain’s five greatest leaders”.

  • Ymarsakar

    Eleanor of Aquitane, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra. Boudicea. 

    What makes women special politically is that they were forced to think outside the box, otherwise they would never have gained power. Hillary thought outside the box by aligning her interests with Bill Clinton’s, thus riding the coat tails of fame, much as the Kennedy women did. Except Hillary used it to start her own political campaign. That doesn’t mean her policies are good, only that she won’t do anything too stupid or crazy in pursuing her own interests.

    In this climate where the US government needs to be trimmed down and all the DC insiders need to be kicked out and exiled to China and Russia, what people need aren’t so much outsiders as those who can think outside the DC box of privilege, corruption, bribery, and politics.

    Statistically, more women fit this bill than men. And previous political experience, such as being Governor of Texas, can just turn into another George W. Bush episode of Southern compromise and compassion and generosity used and abused by the Left to destroy this nation.


  • Ymarsakar

    It doesn’t really matter if you can stomp down on Democrats in Texas. DC Democrats are 50X more ruthless and vicious than Democrats in Texas, and outnumber them by 500 or 1000X in fold.

     To destroy the Left, one must have experience destroying things. Simple as that.

  • bizcor

    Today I spent some time educating myself on Rick Perry.William Murchison wrote an article forThe American Spectator today Perry for President? Murchison is from Texas and is a Perry fan. He has been a governor for 11 years. That is an executive position.  I see Perry as the guy who will take it to Obama on the trail and in the debates. I wonder if he will have to remove his side arm when he is debating the big O?
    Regarding Romney, I attended an appearance in Manchester NH the other night. Romney has always been somewhat canned. I lived in Massachusetts when Romney was governor. Last Thursday however I saw a Mitt Romeny who was speaking from his heart, with passion, humor and style. He was charismatic. That was the first time I saw him that way and I was pleasantly surprised.
    Michele Bachmann is a wonderful woman who I like very much. She is a spitfire, dedicated to conservative principles, and she probably would be up to the task if she was elected President but I don’t see her getting past Obama.


    My current place is much as yours, Ms. Bookworm.  In 2008, I supported Romney as the best of the bunch.  Currently I’m leaning towards Perry.  (I was a Palin fan well before her selection as VP candidate, and also think she’d make a good president, but she’s not running and Perry does have a longer track record.)
    I am slowly coming to detest the label “RINO”.  It usually means “disagrees with me or did something I didn’t like”.  The reality is “Republican” still has a fairly broad scope, and most of the current runners tend to be on the smaller-government side of things.  Not as small as I’d like, perhaps, but reasonably so.
    I think that a focus on  “experience” somtimes masks something else:  talent and gifts.  I think that Bachmann is very well suited for being a legislator, in ways that Perry and Palin and Romney are not, and the latter three are less suited for congress.  (I’d put Ryan and Paul in the same category as Bachmann.)  The latter three have their gifts more in line with the executive branch.  
    As a rule, former governors tend to be better suited to the office of president.  The office is ideological in part, to be sure, and quite the bully pulpit, but a lot of it is executive in nature.  That’s a different skill set. 

  • Mike Devx says:
    I am slowly coming to detest the label “RINO”.  It usually means “disagrees with me or did something I didn’t like”.

    I agree RINO is overused.  I try to reserve it for someone who has gone “squishy” a number of times on multiple issues of vital importance.  IF they’re squishy only on one issue, they’re not a RINO to me.  But going squishy on several different items (being on the wrong side of “global warming” and supporting its massive required government control over every aspect of our lives is a HUGE one) means deserving the RINO label, and being a RINO means having a very, very difficult uphill climb to re-earn my respect.

    Talking a good game on fiscal responsibility but then voting repeatedly, over and over, in a non-fiscally-responsible manner, due to political expediency (aka political “reality”), also earns one the RINO label for me.

    For me, that kind of near-traitorous RINO is really CINO (Conservative In Name Only), but that doesn’t sound or look as good.

  • Ymarsakar

    RHINO basically means someone who has defected to the Left or is aiding the LEft, but still wants Republican war chests, donations, support, and political backup.


  • Ymarsakar

    To me it’s not a matter of policy. If you begin to talk about policy, then you begin to talk about subjective criteria, which involves bias and emotion, not objective analysis of the war effort.

     The Left is not a matter of policy and thus aiding the Left does not mean one has a specific set of policies vs another.

  • Zhombre

    You can talk yourself blue in the face about what Perry or Romney may or may not be, but we all know already what Obama IS.