Why Mitt Romney will win the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

It’s no secret that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is preparing to run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. And who could blame him? After all, he came very close to winning the 2008 Republican nomination, carrying a total of 11 caucuses and primaries before folding his tent to endorse the eventual nominee, Arizona senator John McCain.

Things are looking pretty good for Romney these days. Consider, first, that he remains quite popular among conservatives and maintains an edge over other possible candidates, namely Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.

Second, Romney’s Political Action Committee—Free & Strong America PAC (which he founded shortly after withdrawing from the Republican race in 2008)—continues to raise tons of money and to collect even more IOUs in crucial primary and caucus states.

Third, Romney’s 2008 campaign staff is still intact and ready to deploy at his call.

Fourth, should Romney for some reason be unable to translate his fundraising prowess from his PAC to his 2012 presidential campaign (which is unlikely given the millions he raised in the 2008 campaign), he will nonetheless have the resources to bankroll his campaign with his virtually limitless personal fortune.

All of this paints a promising portrait of Romney’s prospects for 2012. But perhaps the best indicator of Romney’s future success is the very fact that he lost the nomination in 2008.

The Republican Party has a history of nominating standard-bearers who did not win the race their first time around the bend. Since 1980, there have been five Republican presidential nominees. Of those, 4 had previously lost the nomination to another candidate. McCain, for instance, won the nomination in 2008 but had lost to George W. Bush prior in 2000. Bob Dole won the nomination in 1996 but had lost earlier in 1988 to George H.W. Bush, who himself had lost in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, who had lost in 1976 to Gerald Ford.

Coincidence? Not at all. Losing candidates win their second time around (or in Dole’s case, his third) because they keep campaigning in the interim. It’s of course not a visible campaign but more of a quiet campaign whose principal focus is party elites and opinion-leaders. (A similar dynamic occurs in the Liberal Party of Canada: Michael Ignatieff is now the leader, having lost to Stéphane Dion in 2006. Paul Martin became leader in 2003, having lost earlier in 1990 to Jean Chrétien, who had himself lost previously in 1984 to John Turner, who had lost to Pierre Trudeau in 1968.)

So, for all you aspiring party leaders out there, take comfort in the pattern of recent history: losing may be only a prelude to victory.

Order of Merit: Thy name is..er…Chretien?

I have to admit that I’m having a very difficult time swallowing my partisanship in regards to Mr. Chretien. That this man is being honoured by the Queen and into a group of luminaries the likes as have been listed is, quite literally, mind-boggling to me. Someone, somewhere, said that this award does not elevate the man to the status of the other recipients, but rather weighs them down to his own level.

However, in regards to credit, I will offer these items:

1) It was my anger with Mr. Chretien that got me actively involved in the political realms and helped me find my passion for it. So thank you for that Mr. Chretien.

2) In a dog-fight, Mr. Chretien is the dirtiest, no-holds barred fighter I’ve seen on the political stage as evidenced in his handling of the General Election feat. Mr. Jean Chretien vs Mr. Stockwell Day. In a street-fight, I’d rather have him behind me than in front of me pulling his dirty tricks on my opponents and otherwise slinging muck their way. We can’t always get what we want though right? Mr Chretien as a Conservative…pigs flying…

3) When faced with possible legal harm, he was not afraid to claim ignorance (incompetence?) instead of taking responsibility for the actions of those he had appointed and trusted in their positions (a strategy poorly duplicated later by a successor with lackluster effect). A man without fear of looking stupid or ignorant. He just does what needs to be done. After all, he’s just a little guy from Shawinigan right? Maybe it was just poor judgement, or a conspiracy…

4) He kept us out of Iraq. Yes, and well done Mr. Chretien. And instead of leaving it simply as being because the UN didn’t back it, you allowed your Ministers and MP’s et al. to embark on a mission to further attack the integrity and morality of our own defender and largest trading partner, thereby putting undue strain on our relationship which played no small part in several trade fights. However, this paved the way for the Conservatives to make peace and behave respectfully with the United States once again, and to even earn the respect of an American Messiah(?).

5) Mr. Chretien and his governments also helped bring us the much-beloved Kyoto Accord, the agreement acclaimed by huggy-fuzzy socialists around the globe as the last hope for our doomed planet, and then proceeded to do absolutly nothing about it thereby allowing Canada to fall so far behind the “requirements”, even in such stellar economic times, that when the “Fall from grace” occured for the LPC, and the world (and its scientists) was waking up to the reality that Global Warming was going the way of the Dodo, Canada wouldn’t be amongst those with egg on their faces for spending and taxing themselves to death for no reason other than a splendid hoax meant to re-direct wealth.

6) Mr. Chretien also gave us a collapsing LPC who appears can’t survive without an iron-fisted despot at the helm, thus giving us the likes of Paul Martin (a much anticipated leader by the Liberal Party of Canada who became not-so-much) and Stephane Dion (the intellectual wannabe peace-maker in a fractured and warring Liberal Party of Canada). Thank-you SO much for that Mr. Chretien! I sincerely appreciate it! Probably more than you’ll ever know. I’m sure your members do too! Indeed an incredible legacy there of which Canadians can stand proud about…

So then yes. Congratulations Mr. Chretien on your award. You’ve certainly made your mark on Canada and the world.

Dion: We Didn’t Win… It’s all the Conservative’s Fault

Stephane Dion recently sent an email to the Liberal’s national email list, here is what he said:

You may already know that earlier today I announced that I will step down as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Over the next several months, the party will conduct a leadership race to determine my successor.

Moving forward, I have one overarching goal: the next leader must not be subjected to the same Conservative Party character assassination that I faced. To be successful, I need your help.

Harper’s Conservatives have enjoyed an enormous financial lead since the fundraising rules were changed, and from the moment I was elected leader, they poured millions of dollars into unprecedented attack ad campaigns. The Liberal Party lacked the resources to respond, and by the time the election was called, a false image of me was cemented in the minds of too many voters.

That can never be permitted to happen again. Between now and when the next leader is elected, you and I must ensure the Liberal Party has the financial resources to counter Conservative attacks. Every single time.

So I’m asking you to be generous now, not for me, but for the man or woman who will succeed me and lead our Liberal Party into the next election – an election we simply must win. And while a one-time donation today will help, for long-term strength and stability, I would like you to consider making a monthly contribution of $10, $15, $25 or more.

We did not win this election, but our vision of a richer, fairer, greener country lives on. Please help now to ensure that the next leader of the Liberal Party can turn that vision into Canada’s reality.

It’s always sad when people fail to take personal responsibity for their actions – whether it is a leader of a political party or a political party as a whole.  As Adam has recently pointed out, the Liberal party has bigger problems than anything Dion has done to the party – let alone anything the Conservatives have done.

Steve Murphy CTV asks Stephane Dion a poorly worded question

Like most people, my first reaction to Stephane Dion’s choke was to laugh and ridicule him for evading the question. However, upon reading and paying close attention to a transcript of the interview, it is obvious that Dion’s misunderstanding of the question is justified. The question is unfairly worded and the timing is unclear. Here it is:

Steve Murphy: If you were Prime Minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?

What Mr. Harper may or may not have done is an action of the past tense. However, the question asks about now. The timing of when this hypothetical action that Steve Murphy wants to know is unclear. An ideal policy NOW does not necessarily have to be the same as an ideal policy that should have been done in the past.* I think it would have been wiser if Mr. Murphy did not use the word “now” in his question and simply asked: “If you were Prime Minister, blah blah blah….”

If anybody still thinks that Dion was evading the question, I think you are being unfair. I challenge you to translate Murphy’s question in French (or any other language for that matter) and see if it can possibly be clear. I do not think it is possible.

* I do not think the ideal policy would be any different regardless of the timing of this hypothetical question but that is just me. I am not in full agreement with either Dion or Harper on economic policy. My preference is for a little bit more laissez-faire in the economy.

Scale Tip to Paul Holmes for the transcript.

UPDATED THOUGHTS (Sunday, October 12th, 2008):
There is so much nonsense that is being posted in the comments that I want to say that I am encouraged by the non-partisan comments on this topic which recognize Steve Murphy’s obvious bad grammar and ambiguous question. After mulling this topic over and hearing partisans repeatedly insist that it is a clear question in their opinion, something just dawned on me: it is blindly ignorant to point out that the question was explained to him multiple times and thus, Dion has no excuse. He does have an excuse: the audience only hears an ambiguous question.

Steve Murphy should have recognized that his question was ambiguous to both Dion and possibly to the audience. The audience could very well misinterpret the question too. If Steve Murphy is going to re-explain his question off-air, he should re-phrase his question on-air for the audience. Why did he keep asking the exact same ridiculously worded question? Thus, Dion’s answer — no matter what it may be — will alienate some of the audience who thinks he did not answer the question. He would be damned no matter what.

Furthermore, whoever decided to air this piece probably did a disservice to the media industry.

MORE THOUGHTS (Monday, October 13th, 2008):
The blatant ambiguity of Steve Murphy’s question makes me cynical: I think it could have been a trap.

Nevertheless, my suspicion is that politicians will be hesitant to perform spontaneous interviews in the future. I will not be surprised if they demand written questions ahead of time and formally reserving broadcast rights.

The Sky is Falling – Canada’s Banks Rated Best in World

Following up on Shane’s recent post – clearly Layton and Dion want the economy to falter (or at least give them impression it is faltering), so they can rub Harper’s nose in it. Unfortunately for Dion and Layton, the economic forecast for Canadian banks is a lot better than they would leave everyone to believe:

Canada has the world’s soundest banking system, closely followed by Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia, a survey by the World Economic Forum has found as financial crisis and bank failures shake world markets.