Speculation Rife on 2012 GOP Nominee – 2006 Eerily Revisited

The American media is at it again. All sources, from mainstream to blogs, are speculating on who will run and who will receive the 2012 GOP nomination. One can find a daily prediction via the airwaves and internet, on who is leading who in polls for the GOP nomination, who is attending what Conservative conference, and who is likely to pull ahead as the eventual GOP Presidential candidate. The obvious choices in 2012 are consistently in the limelight as evidenced by the articles on Sarah Palin in the Los Angeles Timesregarding Palin’s attendance at the Southern Conservative Leadership Conference being held in New Orleans. The gist of the article is that Palin has not “ruled out a run” for the GOP 2012 ticket. The The Boston Globe offers: “GOP Gathers, gets Look at Possible Picks for 2012” with Palin and Gingrich highlighted in the opening paragraph. (Interesting side note: That article speaks to the futility of any GOP candidate as it touts the current President:

“Only five times in the last century has an incumbent president lost reelection; the most recent were Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Republican George H.W. Bush in 1992.”

Note to the Globe: Comparison between Carter and Obama have been made since last February)

Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are also featured in a barrage of news articles, citing the fact that they are leading the pack of potential picks. The GOP sends out poll/fundraising packets listing those aforementioned as possible choices for the 2012 nomination, but again, that’s in a fundraising effort and using familiar and popular names insures a decent return on the investment.

Take a look back at 2006 to gain some perspective. In March and April of that year, a similar Memphis GOP meeting was held. At that time, the names being bandied about were Rudy Giuliani Los Angeles Times, Haley Barbour, John McCain, Sam Brownback (with a quote from Mike Huckabee, then Governor of Arkansas, Fox Newsincluded Romney, George Allen and Bill Frist in the fray – with Rudy Giuliani as the favorite.

Although several of those attending this similar conference did emerge to run for office, the “favorite”, Rudy Giuliani did not fare well, while the battle emerged as being between Romney, Huckabee and McCain (who was considered by pundits to be anathema to the GOP “TO SOME IN GOP, MCCAIN NOT QUITE RIGHT, SENATOR LEADING IN POLLS, BUT MANY CONSERVATIVES IN S.C. DON'T TRUST HIM”, Charlotte Observer

An interesting pattern appears to have developed – the pundits may be onto something – historically, individuals who have familiar names offer comfort and controversy. In the 2006 scenario, McCain who’s media attention was very positive until he began to move to the right (with exception of Conservative Pundits who preferred a Giuliani), eventually obtained the nomination in a three-way contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, appeared to come out of nowhere, and on a shoestring budget upended both McCain and Romney in the early Iowa Caucus. Of course, the early pundits championing McCain (even as he moved to the right), were on the money.

Today, the pundits are focused primarily on Romney, Huckabee (either ruling him in or ruling him out) and above all Sarah Palin. Palin has generated more speculation, the majority of it in the negative (or positive depending upon political bent of the media) that the other two mentioned. She is hardly a media darling, yet draws huge grassroots support (see Huckabee 2007), while Romney and Huckabee are given polite mention. There are other names in the fray, one of which is the Senator from South Dakota, John Thune. The New York Times article in November of 2009 takes a critical look at Thune as a possible 2012 nominee, noting that his “name keeps popping up” at no place other than “deep in the bowels of the GOP”.

In other words, it’s a not necessarily too early to be calling any frontrunners in the race, although pundits picks of the frontrunners, specifically Palin, is interesting. Should history repeat itself, then Palin, one would assume, would be the eventual nominee, a later day “Maggie Thatcher”, who was at first belittled by the UK Press as being less than worthy, and given time, came roaring back on what amounted to a stunning grassroots victory. Although maligned in the media, for the most part, Palin fits the 2006 John McCain mold perfectly, that is unless of course, John Thune does emerge from the “bowels of the GOP” to be a serious contender. One would expect, however, that Thune would be present at any of the given “conferences” held this year. Not necessarily, he is making 2012 headlines as evidenced by the AP’s, ”GOP Hopefuls Edge Right at Tea Party Watches”, including Thune in a list of contenders.

Therefore, as of now, it’s anyone’s best guess, and nothing more. Thune could emerge as the next “Mike Huckabee”, Mitt Romney is almost a given to be on the ticket, and Palin, although not having announced her intention to run (or not run), may actually sit this one out (see Maggie Thatcher). What one should watch is the following months, going into 2011, especially after the 2010 mid-terms – should the focus remain on two to three names above, one can bet that one of those will eventually be at the top (or bottom) of the 2012 ticket. Ron Paul, of course, will run and win every internet straw poll available. As it stands now, the two most likely to take the nomination (based on media predictions) Palin and Romney. No matter which would emerge as the nominee, one can bet that should the angst against Obama continue unabated through the following year (going into 2011), he will, like Jimmy Carter, be a one term President, and the next President could be more of an “historical” choice than the later. From a feminist point of view, should Palin emerge as the frontrunner, regardless of naysayers, then she would be the first women to sit in the Oval office. One has to remember that women were last to gain the right to vote in this country. Of course, one cannot count out a Clinton (Hillary) run in 2012.

Words to the Wise – Do Your Own Candidate Research - Huckabee, McCain, Romney and the National Review

There is a growing unease among the rank and file in the Republican Party regarding the ability of the media and special interest groups to foist one candidate over another on the rank and file - so much so that these entities will generally mislead or flat-out lie about the competition in order to achieve a desired outcome. An interesting piece by Adam Graham, a conservative, regarding National Review and their relentless and misleading attacks on Governor Mike Huckabee is one worth noting. In the article found here, at American Daily, Graham regrets believing what he was told about Governor Mike Huckabee's fiscal record by these party elites – finding when he did his own research that the truth was a bit different. Mike Huckabee was by far the best candidate that the Republican Party had seen in decades, and yet because the Governor was not part of the Washington elite inner circle, he was ostracized and demonized endlessly by his own party. Their first choice, Mitt Romney, is now a footnote, and the man that was not even considered a threat, John McCain, is now the party standard bearer.

They are not in the best position to judge or make judgment calls for anyone in the party. Graham indicates that the Review is set to release the names of people who should not be considered for the V.P. slot. Not surprisingly Mitt Romney is not on that list. Mike Huckabee is, along with Crist of Florida – two governors that would help McCain with the all important southern states as well as more conservative voters within the party. The problem with Mitt Romney is that he had little appeal outside the beltway, and had it not been for a mis-statement by Shannon O’Brian the Democrat that was leading him by 20 plus points going into the Mass. Gubernatorial race, he would never had managed to become Governor of Massachusetts. It was not so much the fact that he was a Republican running in a blue state; it was the fact that he was not particularly well-liked or trusted; he won that race by default. It is the National Review that has failed to do its homework when it comes to choosing a candidate, how then, can they be in a position to choose a running mate?

The Daily Kos, just a side note, did the same to Hillary Clinton. Voters are now faced with a choice between the lesser incompetence of two candidates. It is where ideology, not enthusiasm, drives the vote. It may well be the first time in history that choosing an acceptable running mate actually makes a difference.