Today we have a real interesting match up. Most weeks I’m forced to choose which theme I want to go with, religion or race, BUT this week we get to speculate on which one the American people would be more comfortable with: a black president or a president that isn’t protestant. [Only one president has ever been Catholic–JFK–let alone a very different offshoot of Christianity that’s arguably not even Christian.] So which is it?
Obama seems to think they’d rather have a Mormon one than a black one which is why he’s already started prepping attack ads against Romney. [And maybe he’s right, Mormonism itself not having the highest regard for dark skin, thinking it was a curse from God as late as the 1970’s.] No matter if Herman Cain or Ron Paul will accept this or not, there are really only three candidates who could win the nomination: Romney, Perry, and Bachmann. Obama’s basic thinking is that he would fair better against Michele Bachmann (an idiot) or Rick Perry (an idiot who could moonlight as a George W. Bush impersonator), but I’m not so sure.
The last two Republican presidents we’ve had were literally father and son. Even though George H.W. Bush wasn’t popular enough to get elected to a second term, somehow his far worse son was. So the “rerun factor” of Rick Perry really isn’t enough to dismiss him alone, (although I do feel his fat mouth will eventually do that). He is a legitimate threat that could unite the powerful fiscal conservative donors supporting Romney and the broad social conservative crazies supporting Bachmann. And more than that he’s a “Kris-chin” with a proven record of saying ANYthing to appeal to deeply religions voters, which could bring the crazies out of the woodwork to mark a ballot for Perry the way you can’t count on for Romney.
In fact, if we look at the last two Republican presidents to get re-elected (King Bush the II and Reagan) both were two of the staunchest social conservatives the Republican Party has ever seen. Of course they were merely pretending to advance a corporatist agenda, but that allowed them to appeal to a winning coalition of numerous religious voters (Bachmann) and select big money donors (Romney). By contrast, social conservative support just wasn’t that strong for the last three losing Republican candidates: John McCain, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush.
All three of them were so called moderates believed to be able to attract a broad coalition of independents as well as bring out the base of their party. Sounds good, except that the Republican Party doesn’t really do “moderate” anymore (sorry Jon Huntsman, you’ll always be the second place Mormon whether you know it or not). A military veteran who looks great on paper like McCain just doesn’t excite the base anymore, even when he would have thirty years ago.
So if rural voters couldn’t work up excitement for a Protestant, kick ass, straight talking Vietnam POW in his 70’s that’s been around forever, what the hell are they going to think of Romney? I have an idea: not much. Which is the reason Perry got into the race in the first place. The call for “ANYBODY but Romney” got strong, so ANYBODY answered.
In a darkly funny way, Romney is sort of the twisted mirror version of Obama. He’s seen as too moderate to appeal to his base, issues of staying strong against the opposition keep coming up, some view him as elitist, and speculation about his religion makes it tough for social conservatives to see him as legitimate. If the base doesn’t show up to support Romney (and I believe they won’t) Obama wins by default as the incumbent. The excitement will have to be there for Romney to legitimately threaten Obama, and–having seen Romney speak–I just don’t think exciting is the right word.