Matt Latimer wonders if Willard Mitt Romney is really the safe choice for the Republicans. Won’t his legendary and soon to be even more infamous flip-flopping doom him in a general election campaign? Isn’t he John Kerry on steroids? Can’t you take almost every position that Romney espouses and find an historical example of him taking the polar opposite position?
I wonder if the Republicans have any choice about nominating Romney. Rick Perry is currently polling at 4% in New Hampshire, which is even with Jon Huntsman and one point better than Michele Bachmann. The only candidates other than Romney who are polling in double digits are Herman Cain (20%) and Ron Paul (13%). Admittedly, Texans are a hard sell in New England, as George W. Bush learned in the 2000 New Hampshire primaries. But four percent?
The polling data for Iowa are outdated, but Perry had a lead in August. I imagine his support has collapsed there, too, just like it has nationally. So, who is the alternative to Romney? It can’t possibly be Herman Cain. Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy have some bipartisan appeal, but they don’t sell well in the Republican Party. Besides, he’s 76 years-old.
The Republicans have been desperate to find an alternative to Romney, but no one wants to run against a seemingly vulnerable incumbent. Originally, Romney wasn’t even going to try to compete in the Iowa Caucuses, but I bet he is rethinking that now. After all, who’s going to beat him there? And that brings up something else.
How aggressive do the other Republicans want to be about asking which Mitt they’re running against? They could tear him down the way the Democratic Establishment tore Howard Dean down, but who would replace him? What if he won the nomination anyway? At a certain point, if you can’t beat him, you need to tone down the criticism and play the good soldier.
