In New Hampshire today, Mitt Romney will formally launch his
presidential campaign. It’s hardly a surprising development.
Romney’s second bid for the Republican nomination began the day his
first ended. He has essentially been running for president since he
decided not to seek reelection as governor of Massachusetts in 2006
(arguably since he changed his position on abortion the year
before).
This time, Romney is the closest thing the GOP field has to a
frontrunner. He leads among the declared candidates in most
national polls. He is heavily favored in New Hampshire and, with
Mike Huckabee out of the race, he is now in first in Iowa. In
addition to his own personal wealth, Romney has been a prodigious
fundraiser. At a time when campaigns are often judged by the
success of their Internet “money bombs,” Romney hauled in $10
million in a single day.
Of course, Romney’s national lead is less than overwhelming.
It’s also highly contingent on Sarah Palin and other potential
top-tier candidates staying out of the race. In some polls, Romney
is less than 10 points ahead of Ron Paul and Herman Cain. Finally,
Romney led in the early states for much of 2007. His support proved
soft once the ballots were counted. The man who spent most of that
year atop the national polls had the same problem: Rudy Giuliani
tanked as soon as he faced the voters.
In 2008, Romney was doomed by his failure to become the
unquestioned conservative alternative to John McCain. Instead he
shared that mantle with Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and several
lower-tier candidates. This time Romney’s path to the nomination
resembles McCain’s: he can win with the votes of moderates and a
critical mass of conservatives, while his opponents carve up the
rest of the conservative vote.
McCain withstood his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants,
advocacy of constitutionally dubious campaign finance reform, and
opposition to the Bush tax cuts. Romney must hope he can similarly
overcome his backing of the TARP bailout, his flip-flop on
abortion, and the rest of his Massachusetts moderate past. But the
issue Romney must fear most is health care.
The similarities between Romneycare at the state level and
Obamacare at the national level have been rehashed many times.
Suffice it to say that many Republicans are not persuaded by
Romney’s explanations of his Massachusetts health care law and fear
the former governor’s stance on the individual mandate will make it
more difficult to repeal Obamacare.
Had Romney disavowed his health care law, he would have added to
his controversial list of flip-flops. But by defending Romneycare
at length, he risks alienating Republican primary voters who
already regard him as too liberal.
Romney faced a similar challenge concerning ethanol. Former
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, one of many Republicans who would like
to dethrone Romney, took his truth-telling tour to Iowa and said:
all energy subsidies must be phased out, including those benefiting
your precious ethanol. Romney could have followed suit, but that
would have been another flip-flop. “I support the subsidy of
ethanol,” Romney instead told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is
an important part of the energy solution for our country.”
With unemployment hovering near 10 percent, Romney does not have
to emphasize the social issues that bedeviled him in 2008. He can
instead talk about his private sector experience and his ideas to
create jobs. But that private sector experience comes as a
double-edged sword: as a venture capitalist, Romney created jobs
and he also laid people off. Ted Kennedy used the latter against
him to great effect in their 1994 Senate contest.
The Romney campaign is one of the great Rorschach tests of
American politics. Depending on your view, one might contrast
Romney’s record with the Tea Party-infused Republican Party and
ask: How can he win? One might also look at the rest of the field
— and the GOP’s penchant for rewarding the runner-up from the last
election — and ask: How can Romney lose?
