In his surpassingly disengenuous campign for president, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has borne only the most superficial resemblance to his dad, George, the late and former governor of Michigan--much the same chiseled, coldly handsome visage, but starkly different political trajectories. Even if he didn't actually march with Martin Luther King, George Romney was the kind of old-style Republican who strongly backed civil rights, became an opponent of Vietnam, and got axed as Nixon's HUD Secretary for pushing to integrate the suburbs.

  Maybe Mitt, like George W. Bush, has a daddy thing--he's run his campaign, much as Bush has run his presidency, as though the only thing he had to learn from his father were negative lessons. George W. thought his father didn't push hard enough on Iraq and didn't get mean enough to win re-election and was bonkers to raise taxes, and by God, he didn't make those mistakes. Mitt saw his father tarred as a weirdo when he sought the 1968 nomintion and--at a time when he was the favorite for the nomination--famously told a TV station, "When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," and that he no longer supported the war.

  Mitt's campaign has run in the opposite direction: hard right. But until Michigan, his arch-conservative makeover--from the fellow who promised to out-gay Teddy Kennedy to the terror-warrior growling about doubling the size of Guantanamo--hadn't been convincing enough to help him carry a primary. But Romney managed to convert his familiar name into a victory tonight that (at least temporarily) saved his candidacy--and plunged the already muddled GOP race into a kind of beautiful chaos. Beautiful, that is, for Democrats.   The oddest thing about Romney's win is that it came in a state in economic crisis--a place that you'd have expected to overwhemingly reject a man who made millions as a downsizing consultant. You'd also have expected former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who pushed his economic populism here harder than his Christian Dominionism, to fare better. But there is no explaining Republican voters this year. Not even to themselves.

  Huckabee's "Christian Leader" campaign in Iowa, while it worked for the unusually conservative evangelical Republicans there, undoubtedly made most of the independents and evangelical Democrats who might have listened to his economic message in Michigan tune him out for good. And when he starts talking out of the other side of his mouth like John Edwards holding forth on the Two Americans, as he did in Michigan, Huckabee clearly confuses a lot of evangelical Republicans as well. He's echoing what many of them have told pollsters for years--that they're a lot less conservative on economic issues than on the moral wedges -- but it's still a drastically new message, and thus a bit suspicious-sounding. Huckabee's more pragmatic problem in Michigan, of course, was that he couldn't match Romney's months of organizing and advertising, or John McCain's familiarity with the folk he wooed successfully in 2000. 

  For whatever bizarre alchemy of reasons, Romney passed his do-or-die test in Michigan. On Saturday in South Carolina, Huckabee will be on the hot spot--he's holding on to a slim lead over McCain there, with Romney not far behind. McCain needed the Michigan win to boost his South Carolina prospects, but Huckabee's once-rocketing campaign has stalled there as everywhere--and Romney has been running a strong third in the polls. If Huckabee gets his must-win in South Carolina, it will set up a criticical four-way battle in Florida on January 29. Rudy Giuliani desperately needs the state to position himself for Tsunami Tuesday on February 5, but he's tied in the polls with McCain, with Romney and Huckabee in striking distance.

  Democrats might have blown off Michigan, but they're certainly getting some goodies from the state. Romney's win makes it all the more likely that the Republicans' indecision will stretch well beyond February 5--all the way to the national convention. It will make terrific theater. And it will ensure that the ultimate Republican nominee--whoever in the world it might be--enters the fall campaign with a divided and perplexed party behind him. 

Comments (33)

1. MOSER: ....the ultimate Republican nominee--whoever in the world it might be--enters the fall campaign with a divided and perplexed party behind him.

   And, what if Obama wins the Dem Nomination after an even uglier fight...or ?worse?, HRC wins the Nomination with almost all blacks pissed off? Would HRC be forced, yes, forced to choose Obama as her running mate?

   Posted by Happy at 01/15/2008 @ 10:53pm

2. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/15/2008 @ 10:55pm

   rio,

   governor huckabee was dumb enough to get fooled into congratulating canada on it's "national igloo" on t.v.

   the dude knows nothing about the world.

   where is pakistan or burma or china or indonesia or canada, for that matter, mentioned in the bible?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 11:21pm

3. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/15/2008 @ 10:55pm

   "...reality based analysis..."

   Normally, people just assume the "reality based" part. I assume you are using it as some kind of code for doesn't conform to my conservative mental model, like Darwin or the Big Bang.

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/16/2008 @ 12:07am

4. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 11:21pm

   Didn't you get the memo? The true promised land is the United States. If you read between the lines of Jesus's English, it's all right there. So, those other countries don't matter. I mean, Canada? Come on now...

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/16/2008 @ 12:09am

5. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/16/2008 @ 12:09am

   well, i'm gonna write a letter to viceroy harper and demand that oil exports to the u.s. stop tomorrow. no more brylcreem for ol' mitt.

   then we'll see who's boss, eh?

   nah nah na na nah

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 12:52am

6. The true promised land is the United States.

   Posted by SRJENKINS 01/16/2008 @ 12:09am

   actually, i believe this is a substantial part of mr. romney's theological thinkin', n'est pas?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 01:01am

7. The REAL CHAOS is outrageous MEDIA CENSORSHIP of Ron PAUL who came in fourth beating THOMPSON AND GIULIANI BOTH!

   HOW DARE YOU. This is so unamerican it is outrageous.

   You have no shame. If I were a employee of The Nation I would be raising holy hell about such a disgusting level of outright censorship. Its wrong. Its shameful. Its a disgrace.

   Posted by giainaustin at 01/16/2008 @ 01:18am

8. The piece on George Romney says he "...became an opponent of Vietnam..." I think you mean an opponent of the American war which took place in Vietnam. Let's stop using the term "Vietnam" ( a country) as a synonym for one war which ended 33 years ago. After all, we don't refer to WW 2 as "Germany" do we?

   Respectfully,

   Posted by Arrow at 01/16/2008 @ 08:59am

9. Posted by Bob Moser at 01/14/2008 @ 10:38pm

   Yep, sorry, Mr Moser, but HAPPY has a point. For all the "get along" last night at the debate, Hillary and Obama (maybe Edwards if he catchs two incredibly unlikely breaks...NV and SC) are going to slug it out on the Dem side to "Super Duper Tuesday" and maybe beyond.

   and go to THEIR convention with a slightly less, but nonetheless "divided and perplexed party behind him/her" as well.

   Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 09:07am

10. "Young people are the future of this country."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/15/2008 @ 11:26pm

    "That is, unless it's a 46 year old versus a 60 year old...then you go with the OLDER person"....right, FRANK?

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 09:09am

11. Hey, we conservatives are sitting out 2008 since the GOP doesn't have but a pretend conservatives to run. Let's not forget that Michigan is participating in a 1 state recession brought about by liberal Dems running the state into the ground.

    Focusing on the GOP is just a waste of time – the voters want "change" and really don't care what it is. You Dems are presenting a very simple set of candidates "Anyone but a white male" and if you guys aren't careful you might just lose to the GOP even with us conservatives sitting it out.

    It's your election to lose – bashing the GOP is the least of your problems.

    Posted by PerryM at 01/16/2008 @ 09:26am

12. "Beautiful Chaos" in the GOP race? I agree. The GOP is seeing a plethora of candidates advancing ideas from all shades of the conservative spectrum. The GOP message that will evolve from this competition will be stronger and more appealing in November. The Democratic primary battle, on the other hand, is degenerating into an ugly racial fight. African American voters in MI rejected the probable eventual Democratic nominee by a margin of over 2-1 for "undecided". This year may finally see the Democratic Party's most loyal and monolithic voting block question what they have gotten for 50 years of devotion.

    Posted by WV Wonk at 01/16/2008 @ 09:36am

13. Posted by GIAINAUSTIN 01/16/2008 @ 01:18am ::: Paulie wanna cracker?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 09:52am

14. DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED MEDIA'S AGENDA...ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY

    Anyone noticing a trend, ONLY on the GOP side of the aisle, how all but dead candidates are miraculously rising to the top of the candidate heap, state by state? I assure you, it is NOT a coincidence. It is purposely occurring in the Democrat controlled liberal Media machine, doing all it can to choose THEIR "favorite" GOP candidate for us. This is how Mike Huckabee was elevated to frontrunner status in IA, emerging from obscurity in a matter of a few weeks. There were nothing but puff pieces/articles/stories and absolutely NO scrutiny of his mediocre, often liberal, voting record as AR Governor. As a result, and much to the joy of the liberals, IA voters were convinced that Mr. Huckabee should be their choice...NOT as President but as Pastor of the United States. Mike Huckabee is, by far, the weakest and least qualified GOP candidate and the easiest to beat and the Liberals are salivating at the prospect of his winning the nomination.

    John McCain is nothing more than a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He's been in the Senate forever and is an entrenced "good ol' boy". He is a big supporter of numerous liberal bills, including the requirement of much tighter auto emissions standards, costing auto manufacturers (and us consumers) BILLIONS in unnecessary costs.

    The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

    McCain-Feingold -- the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

    McCain-Kennedy -- the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

    McCain-Lieberman -- the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry -- through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases -- in American history.

    McCain-Kennedy-Edwards -- the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients' bill of rights.

    McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs -- a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

    And McCain's stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric -- tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

    As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

    McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

    And then there's the McCain defense record. His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain's early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus's strategy. Where's the evidence to support such a claim? Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

    McCain-ACLU -- the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists). McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons -- despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

    While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war -- when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain's friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

    Mitt Romney is by far the most qualified man in EITHER party and is a class act all the way. And yet since he became a GOP candidate for president, I have seen nothing but negative, trivial articles/stories about his Mormon religion, his money, his slick appearance, etc. fully intended to sway a naive electorate that pays far too little attention to the most important 4 year event in our country.

    Mitt Romney is a TRUE family man and very successful at turning failed or failing enterprises around and Lord knows the United States of America needs turning around. It should be run as a business first, with a strong military to protect it from harm. All other social, giveaway programs should be scrutinized (and certainly would be under a Romney presidency) as to efficiency and even necessity. The fact that he was even elected Governor in a state (MA) controlled by 85% Democrat legislature was a feat in itself. In spite of it, he did a very admirable job as Governor, turning a large state deficit into a surplus. Of course, his many justified vetoes were constantly overturned by those liberal Democrats which made for a lot of frustration.

    If Mitt Romney does get the GOP nomination it will be MUCH to the chagrin of the Democrat National Committee liberal propaganda machine because he will be their worst nightmare and most difficult to defeat...Obama, Clinton, or otherwise.

    Posted by mrunpc at 01/16/2008 @ 10:46am

15. Posted by MRUNPC 01/16/2008 @ 10:46am

    In addition to latching onto the Obama "change" message...

    apparently the Romney people have latched onto the idea of flooding the blogs with huge ONE-TIME posts supporting their candidates.

    heheh

    (BTW, love these pro-Mitt guys to talk to LVLIBERTY about "Temple Mormons"!)

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 10:50am

16. Oh! And the clear front runner in on the Democrat side is...? What a crock! The primaries are meant to weed out the best of the field and that's exactly what is taking place.

    You lib journalists just never give up, do you? Well, more and more of US are getting it out here in the fields and WE are spreading the word to the real America, and guess what? They're beginning to listen AND get it.

    Mitt Romney will be the next president of the United States of America and you can take that to the bank.

    Posted by mrunpc at 01/16/2008 @ 10:51am

17. Ah, MRUNPC - another nutjob to add to my ignore list!

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/16/2008 @ 11:11am

18. Posted by MRUNPC 01/16/2008 @ 10:51am

    My prediction...MRUNPC will NOT be blogging here after November 5th, 2008...based on THAT prediction.

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 12:07pm

19. Moser could not be more wrong. By the GOP having no clear front runner makes the public pay a bit more attention. All the GOP candidates speak to issues far better than either Obama (start to call him Mr. Light) or Hillary who we can call Mrs. same ole rhetoric. In the end - having several GOP front runners will play very well to Independent voters who will not vote for the eventual Dem nominee - Mrs Clinton. I laugh at all these pundits who predict a disaster for the GOP - but alas they are the same NY Times/Wash Post out of touch liberals who could never see the forest from the trees. Independents will decide the race and if it's Romney he could win Penn and Michigan. What the heck is Hillary gonna win aside from the typical Dem strongholds. The question is going to be - how many ticket splitters will there be to ensure Dems keep the house. The senate is not in play. Mark my words - it will be a GOP president and socialism will be stayed for another 4 years.

    Posted by OShaughnessy at 01/16/2008 @ 12:37pm

20. Any bets on how many more Romney guys we get here today???

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 1:54pm

21. Chaos? I guess Democrats have forgotten what it is to debate ISSUES during a campaign instead of slinging personal attacks about racism at each other! No doubt, my post will provoke personal insults but remember, "Profanity is the lazy man's attempt at being forceful" -Benjamin Franklin.

    Posted by dittomom at 01/16/2008 @ 2:04pm

22. Posted by DITTOMOM 01/16/2008 @ 2:04pm

    You forgot to mention how great Mitt Romney is.

    Try again or the Campaign Treasurer won't cut you your check!

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 2:25pm

23. Interesting stream of concious ramblings. Not sure there is much real information here. I also wonder if Bob was watching the real story in Michigan, 40% of Democrats voted present instead of supporting Sen. Clinton. This election is going to be a lot more fun than anyone originally imagined.

    Posted by usafan at 01/16/2008 @ 2:26pm

24. OUR NATION NEEDS AN ECONOMIC GENIUS TO TURN THE ECONOMY AROUND. Mitt Romney has more economic expertise and real world business experience than any other candidate. He has experience creating and holding jobs. He understands today's global economy. Without a strong economy nothing else is accomplished. Romney will control spending and keep taxes low. He is a man of integrity who will bring new vision and new voices to Washington. If you care about our nation's future, support Romney!

    Posted by almanojodo at 01/16/2008 @ 2:33pm

25. Mask-I actually support Fred Thompson but I'll take Romney. Whoever makes the left scream the loudest-that's my guy!

    Posted by dittomom at 01/16/2008 @ 2:58pm

26. Posted by ALMANOJODO 01/16/2008 @ 2:33pm

    Sorry, DITTOMOM....ALMANO is the obvious Romney Robot here for today, gone tomorrow.

    Apologies

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 3:39pm

27. Does MASK have any real input - anything of value to say? Or is he/she just a one liner lib? I go back and read the MASK posts and there is nothing substantive - just slinging attack words. I guess that's all you get from libs these days (in addition to condoms in the schools). They have no real arguments about how to move the country forward. They just Bush bash. I could easily make the case for how 8 years of Clinton/Reno neglect put these decisions on Bush, but I wouldn't. In the end - a generation or two from now - Bill will be remembered for his Oval Office trysts and being asleep at the wheel, while the now lowly regarded Bush will be remembered as the one person who did the most for Western civilization battling the Jihadists.

    Posted by OShaughnessy at 01/16/2008 @ 6:25pm

28. Does MASK have any real input - anything of value to say? Or is he/she just a one liner lib? .......

    .... while the now lowly regarded Bush will be remembered as the one person who did the most for Western civilization battling the Jihadists.----Posted by OSHAUGHNESSY 01/16/2008 @ 6:25pm |

    Ahhh...gotcha....you're a nut.

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 7:07pm

29. Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 7:07pm

    Let's not insult the nuts by lumping him in with their kind.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/16/2008 @ 9:03pm

30. Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/16/2008 @ 9:03pm

    Probably a "short timer" anyway...pops in with some RIO BRAVO rhetoric...then disappears after he gets a new IP Address and sneaks around his ban from Huffington Post.

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 10:33pm

31. Mitt Romney will be the next president of the United States of America and you can take that to the bank.

    Posted by MRUNPC 01/16/2008 @ 10:51am

    See you there, freakshow.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 01/17/2008 @ 10:51am

32. Mark my words - it will be a GOP president and socialism will be stayed for another 4 years.

    Posted by OSHAUGHNESSY 01/16/2008 @ 12:37pm

    Marked. Be prepared to eat them, son.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 01/17/2008 @ 10:52am

33. Posted by OSHAUGHNESSY 01/16/2008 @ 6:25pm

    Grow up.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 01/17/2008 @ 10:53am