Last Sunday, Gov. Mitch Daniels, R-Ind., joined Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss., former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Fla., and former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., on the list of high profile, well-liked Republicans that have declined to challenge President Barack Obama in next year's election. The absence of these gentlemen from the Republican primary has left many beltway conservatives apoplectic over the state of their field, which many political commentators are calling the weakest in recent memory. Rather than breathlessly searching for a "white knight" candidate to swoop in and save them, Republicans should cut the irrationality and make their best strategic play by nominating former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.
The three "serious candidates" (defined as candidates that could plausibly appeal to independents, raise enough money to be competitive and create a competent campaign infrastructure) presumed to be in the race are former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn., former Utah Governor and recent Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman and, of course, Romney. Of these three, Romney would be by far the best candidate to challenge Obama for two reasons.
First, Romney is personally very wealthy and is an astonishingly effective fundraiser. He recently raised $10 million in a single day and is expected to report a $40 million haul in the first quarter of this fiscal year. Fundraising ability will be particularly important in 2012 because Obama is expected to shatter campaign records and breach the billion-dollar mark. Pawlenty and Huntsman, who both have less expansive contacts in the GOP's donor base, would assuredly be washed away in Obama's financial tidal wave, while Romney is the only candidate who could possibly stay competitive in the spending war.
Second, Romney has spent the last two years creating a strong campaign infrastructure, complete with campaign offices in key states, an expansive pool of campaign surrogates, and a wealth of Republican strategists and activists. Huntsman, by contrast, has very little infrastructure ready as he only recently returned from China. Any "savior candidate" would have to start from scratch, with many key party activists already committed to other campaigns.
There comes a point in time when behind-the-scenes stuff matters as much or more as the quality of the candidate or the tenor of his positions. Any candidate who managed to overcome Romney's significant organizational advantages in the primary would necessarily begin the general campaign behind, scrambling to grab the remnants of his operation and unify the party. It would be best for Republicans to nominate Romney now. His poll numbers are reasonably strong against Obama and would be the best-positioned candidate to challenge him.
The conservative case against Romney is rather weak. It's built on two supposed "deal-breakers" the fact that Romney is a Mormon and the fact that as Massachusetts governor, he signed a comprehensive health care bill that looks and functions very similarly "Obamacare." Over the past year, however, he has fallen all over himself to articulate his opposition to the recent healthcare legislation, and it's highly implausible to think that he wouldn't sign a repeal of the bill as president. Furthermore, if his Mormonism is that big of an issue to Evangelical voters, the Republicans might as well give up now. Winning the presidency requires adopting a "Big Tent" platform, and if Republican voters can't even accept all extremely conservative sects of Christianity into their coalition, they have no hope of assembling enough voters to unseat a sitting incumbent.
Obama is already quite likely to be re-elected, owing to his silver tongue, deep pockets and the fact that incumbent presidents rarely lose. Republicans should not exacerbate these disadvantages by kneecapping their best candidate. The boring Pawlenty and the disorganized Huntsman have much more significant weaknesses, and any latecomer would have too great a difficulty assembling the requisite organization.
But hey, if Republicans want to insist on ideological purity and nominate someone weaker, snarky liberals like myself will gladly take the resulting Electoral College blowout.
