Mitt Romney, 2012? Image from the Moderate Voice
It is no secret that former Massachusetts Govenor, Mitt Romney is looking at a run at the White House in 2012, and as such, every move he is making is beginning to come under a microscope. In a recent blip (hardly an article, more of a “teaser” on Politico, Ben Smith writes that Mitt Romney, who is in the process of nailing down financial backers for the run, has the backing of CNBC’s, Anthony Scaramucci, who “defected” to the Cuomo camp in the 2010 NY Gubernatorial race.
The fact that donors, especially, switch parties to support a candidate they feel can offer benefit to their specific industry is nothing new. It is a payoff in a manner of speaking for protection. In this case, Wall Street and business is speculating on a Romney win, for the good of the economy. While in 2008 Unions, specifically the United Auto Workers, received 17.5% of the GM shares (stocks) during the Obama bailout. CBS.
One comment on the Politico article noted that “politics makes for strange bedfellows”, while the balance bantered back and forth about Romney ridding the Republican Party of the Tea Party (not in those words) and others who noted the fit was perfect calling Romney a “RHINO” – Republican in name only.
One has to look beyond the rhetoric, to understand that in order to run, one must have not only the cash but the support of a wide range of possible constituents; Romney, a savvy businessman, would understand that better than anyone (with the possible exception of Donald Trump (no kidding). The fact that one has the backing of someone who ping pongs between parties is simply of no consequence. Individual donors, like the rest of the voting public, are, with increasing frequency, switching parties, and therefore, it does not mean that Romney would, as some suggest, rid the Republican Party of the “Tea Party” or, at this point, anyone willing to provide funds for a successful bid. No more so than any other candidate that will come down the pike with few exceptions.
Romney’s Conservatism is called into question, time and time again, not unlike that of former Governor Mike Huckabee. Both of the aforementioned attempted to govern states with legislators that were heavily stacked with members of the opposition party, and actually made inroads on policy and budgets that resulted in stable economies, for both the State of Arkansas and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Governing, often involves reaching across the aisle, and making compromises, which the later can be done without sacrificing principals. Governor Mike Huckabee, was blasted for being a “liberal” (i.e. a RHINO) Republican in Name only), during the 2008 Republican primaries, based on the fact that he did cross the aisle, Romney, for his part, did pretty much the same in governing Massachusetts – with the understanding that he was greatly outnumbered.
As conservatives would prefer a leader more in line with a Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater (note: Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl), one has yet to emerge that would carry the party on principles and stick to their proverbial guns, with the glaring exception of Sarah Palin, other candidates may be in the wings that would do the same, however, at the moment, the three here, represent the media’s main targets for a 2012 run.
Therefore a caution to conservatives, and others who are anxious on seeing Romney with a donor on his list that may or may not look like a staunch conservative – it is one donor only an in the grand scheme of things, one that is tied Wall Street. Should Romney start getting the backing of the Teachers Union, Emily’s List, the SEIU, or George Sorros, then one might have reason to be a bit taken aback, and cast their primary vote elsewhere. However, although it is far too early to speculate on who will complete and or lead the field in 2011-2012, it is not too early to begin planning – which Romney has been doing since he lost the bid to McCain and Huckabee in 2008; With Huckabee conceding last to McCain.
No comments:
Post a Comment