Mitt Romney, Establishment Candidate

The New Republic: GOP Hopeful Has Won Over Party's Movers and Shakers, Despite A Skeptical Base

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Noam Scheiber.

---

Jay Sekulow is hardly a household name among rank and file Republicans. True, the self-described "messianic Jew" does host a radio show popular among some evangelicals. But his primary claim to fame is the American Center for Law & Justice, an organization he founded to litigate controversial religious-freedom cases. Over the years, Sekulow has won favorable Supreme Court rulings on behalf of everyone from abortion-clinic protestors to student Bible-study groups. These victories have, in turn, landed him in such rarefied company as The National Law Journal's "100 Most Influential Lawyers" and The American Lawyer's "Public Sector 45" — accolades that don't necessarily turn heads at a Middle-American potluck, but which definitely get you noticed in Washington.

As it happens, Sekulow is also emblematic of the kind of prominent social conservative who's recently fallen for Mitt Romney. Sekulow came away from an October meeting between Romney and evangelical leaders unfazed by the governor's Mormon faith and convinced that Romney's recent conversion on abortion was "from the heart," as he told The Washington Post. In February, Sekulow told The New York Times that, "There's this growing acceptance of this idea that Mitt Romney may well be and is our best candidate." The man who's been dubbed "The Almighty's Attorney-at-Law" even subsequently agreed to meet with evangelical leaders in Iowa and South Carolina on Romney's behalf.

Alas, as just about anyone who follows GOP politics can tell you, Sekulow is going to have his work cut out for him. The consensus among highbrow pundits — and, full disclosure, some of my best friends are highbrow pundits — is that Romney's Mormonism is likely to doom him, since evangelicals regard the religion with deep suspicion. To which the proper response is: Maybe, maybe not. Romney's Mormonism would almost certainly doom him if the GOP picked nominees the way Fox picks American Idols. But, then, this is the Republican Party we're talking about, not reality television. In the Republican Party I know, elites like Sekulow have enormous influence over the choice of nominee, and it's hard to believe that's about to change.

That's not to say it couldn't, of course. In effect, the Romney campaign provides a near-perfect test of who really wields power in the GOP. On the one hand, conservative elites look at Romney and see a tall, good-looking, well-spoken, highly successful capitalist who, on top of all that — dayanu! — is willing to pretend he opposes gay marriage, abortion and illegal immigration. In addition to Sekulow, Romney wowed the likes of Jerry Falwell and Gary Bauer at last October's meet-and-greet with evangelical heavies. He performed a similar feat two weeks earlier in a meeting with the Baptist leadership of South Carolina. Romney won positive reviews this January at a conclave of influential conservatives sometimes called the GOP's Renaissance Weekend. And he has thus far gained the admiration of anti-tax jihadist Grover Norquist, disgraced evangelical huckster Ralph Reed, Focus on the Family honcho James Dobson, and much of the staff of National Review.

On the other hand, the typical conservative evangelical looks at Romney and sees a dangerous cult member. As Amy Sullivan has noted in The Washington Monthly, there is a geyser of anti-Mormon sentiment just waiting to be tapped among heartland evangelicals. Sullivan cites, for example, the firestorm a Baptist leader recently ignited simply for apologizing to Mormons after a coreligionist called Utah "a stronghold of Satan." Similarly, a prominent conservative activist recently related the following exchange to my colleague Michelle Cottle: "I asked a friend of mine who's a pastor in Middle America, 'You have a choice between two candidates: Hillary Clinton versus someone who is good on social issues and who is a Mormon.' And my friend said, 'I don't think I could vote for a Mormon.'" And on it goes.

Suffice it to say, if Romney comes up short, it will amount to a repudiation of the party elite by the grassroots. I, for one, will have no choice but to concede that the GOP establishment isn't quite the decisive force most Democrats (and more than a few Republicans) assume it to be. If, on the other hand, Romney clinches the nomination despite the intense suspicion he arouses, we will have unassailable proof that the GOP is dominated by its establishment.

So why am I so confident about Romney? In a word: history. Up until the 1960s, local bosses dominated the selection of both parties' nominees. A typical party convention would consist of, say, the New York delegation slugging it out with the Ohio delegation until a candidate finally emerged.

But two things happened that decade to set the parties on different courses. On the Democratic side, the back-room model reached its reductio ad absurdum when party elders settled on Hubert Humphrey even though he hadn't competed in — much less won — a single primary. The outcry was so intense that, by 1972, Democrats had completely overhauled their nominating process, enacting a series of reforms that undermined the party bosses and gave voters and liberal interest groups greater influence.

By contrast, the formative — some would say searing — Republican experience came in 1964, when conservatives installed Barry Goldwater as their nominee by seizing control of local party organizations. As Rick Perlstein recounts in "Before the Storm," the GOP establishment desperately put forth one fair-haired alternative after another — New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and, most promisingly, Pennsylvania Governor Bill Scranton. But, each time, the would-be saviors were promptly chewed up by the organizational meat-grinder that was the Goldwater campaign.

It wasn't until after Goldwater's traumatic general-election belly-flop that the moderates extracted their revenge. They demanded the scalp of Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Dean Burch, a Goldwater loyalist, and replaced him with Ohio operative Ray Bliss. That set up a key historical development: Under Bliss, the RNC began providing money and training to state and local parties. This diluted the influence of local chieftains, as had happened on the Democratic side. But, says political scientist John Kessel, instead of shifting power to voters and a diffuse set of interest groups, the effect was to concentrate it in the national party. Bliss and his successors weren't stupid, after all. What was the point of providing money and resources if it didn't buy you control?

The upshot was that, in stark contrast to 1964, the GOP increasingly had a national establishment capable of cutting the knees out from under any future insurgent. Remember George W. Bush's "firewall" in South Carolina? Well, some form of firewall — national Republicans leaning on state officials to throw their organizations behind a candidate, out-of-town moneymen funding last minute ad buys, et cetera — has existed for a generation. The only wrinkle is that the Republican establishment itself has become more conservative over the years — the Goldwaterites couldn't be kept down forever. It has not, however, become any less establishmentarian.

Just consider the outcome of every GOP primary fight of the last 30 years. Gerald Ford beat back a challenge from Reagan in 1976 by leveraging the party apparatus on his own behalf. By 1980, conservatives had thoroughly infiltrated the establishment, and Reagan had long since paid his dues, making him a relatively uncontroversial choice. In 1988, then-Vice President George H. W. Bush secured the nomination over Bob Dole and Pat Robertson, even though both had trounced him in Iowa. In 1996, the party basically handed Dole the nomination after Pat Buchanan roughed him up in New Hampshire. And, of course, the GOP establishment went to work for George W. Bush in 2000 after W. commemorated Dole's New Hampshire debacle by getting the snot kicked out of him there, too.

If there's one knock on Romney, then, it's not that he's a Mormon, but that he hasn't sufficiently paid his dues to unite the GOP hierarchy behind him. The combination of a fractured establishment and deep hostility from a key part of the GOP base could be a potential deal-breaker. That's why you see John McCain, the onetime frontrunner, attacking Romney as a fraud even as he largely gives Giuliani a pass.

But, in a way, McCain is missing the point. The people he has to convince aren't the people who watch debates on TV. It's the people who pal around with the candidates backstage. And they already know Romney's a fraud. They just happen to think, in the words of a certain Focus on the Family patriarch, that "he's very presidential."

[terrapin78]

"messianic Jew"

In my world is not a Jew at all.

[gunownerdan]

No mormon stands a chance against the good Dr. Ron Paul!

[shushyazzie]

Mitt is the Man. He is not a fraud.. Just because someone changes there opinion on some issues doesn't make them a fraud.

If you want to see someone who has political motives for this opinions... take a look at "Maverick McCain." This guy has moved around the floor of the senete so as to ruin all confidence in any sure position other than the one that looks good today.

I am a Grass roots Republican. I'm for Romney.

[shushyazzie]

Romney is the man. Nuff said.

[shushyazzie]

Romney is the man. Nuff said.

[shushyazzie]

Romney is the man. Nuff said.

[dmsedgwick]

Romney has always been against gay marriage and illegal immigration. His values are strong and set. Yet, some viewpoints on issues have evolved--that is a good thing! Anyone who has not changed his mind on something is closed minded and proud. In America we have access to new information. In life, we draw from experience. It is refreshing to see someone stand up and say he was wrong on something. That is maturity and confidence. Most of your criticisms were nothing short of religious bigotry. Romney has the most experience, is the smartest, most articulate, and well grounded. He is the only one of the three whose personal family life has reflected his values, and whose experience shows that he can do what he says he is going to do. Why can't America, which is so full of talent and strength, choose a president reflective of that? Romney is it.

[travistcummi]

What do you call a businessman who can't change there mind? An out-of-business man.

[travistcummi]

What do you call a businessman who can't change there mind? An out-of-business man.

[angelboy29-2009]

I am not an american and I am not from the US. But, watching and observing from the outside the US presidential campaign, I could see that the best presidential candidates among all is Mitt Romney. I feel that he has a great potential in making not only the US but the whole world as well a better place to live in. I would encourage all american to rally with him. He is the best answer to the US and world's problem.

[Savea]

I believe Mitt Romney is the best solution not only for the USA but the whole world. God bless Mitt Romney. God bless America.

[ramos937]

Romney is articulate and if Hollywood was casting, he would be everybody's choice to play the President. But, in real life he cannot be elected President.

There are a number of reasons: (1) he backs Bush on the Iraq War. Americans, Republicans and Democrats want out of Iraq and will not vote for anybody in Bush's concern; (2) Romny is too far out right on illegal immigration. He has made so many strident speeches on this that it is getting old. However, mainly because the Hispanic voting bloc opposes him on this issue very strongly. Taken individually, anyone of these two would suffice to sink his candidacy.

[perception5]

Write this down. The Democrats and their corrupt pals in our MSM wolfpack are "scare" of Mitt Romney because he "IS" the best candidate from either party.

Mitt, per his own words, believes in the Bible and believes in Jesus Christ.

I don't know to many conservative evangelicals that are going to have a problem with that.......... and I'm one of them.

All Americans will need to "watch" our corrupt liberal wolfpack continue to "drive this wedge" as they have on a lot of important issues in this country.......really sad

[spasimante]

I'm actually glad the media keep harping relentlessly on Romney's Mormonism. Eventually, people will become so fed up with their constant religion-bating that they'll examine Romney on his merits and find he should be the Republican nominee. He has the vision and the skill to lead the party and America. Go Mitt!

[sjc_1]

One of the tests people supposedly put candidates to is "do you want to see this person on TV as your president". After all of W's lies, I do not think that they want to see someone like Romney on TV telling them things that he thinks that they want to hear.

So, the Republicans have a fraud like Romney or an actor like Fred or any number of people that are so flawed that they probably should not be running at all. Which leads us to states advancing their primary dates. They are either so ready to get rid of Bush, or they think that this will help pick a better candidate than Bush. Neither is true.

[mudrose-2009]

I LOVE THIS GUY!

I LOVE THIS GUY!

I LOVE THIS GUY!

OH, DID I MENTION THAT

I LOVE THIS GUY!

[perception5]

New alert ! Mitt Romney does NOT want a permanent US troop bases in Iraq.

Please read:

WASHINGTON (AP)--Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Thursday rejected the Bush administration's vision of a decades-long U.S. troop presence in Iraq akin to South Korea and suggested a need for public benchmarks to gauge progress.

"Our objective would not be a Korea-type setting with 25-50,000 troops on a near permanent basis remaining in bases in Iraq," the former Massachusetts governor told the Associated Press.

"I think we would hope to turn Iraq security over to their own military and their own security forces, and if presence in the region is important for us than we have other options that are nearby," Romney said.

Mitt is the man !!

If Americans liked Ronald Reagan they are going to LOVE Mitt Romney.

He is "the person" that can represent ALL Americans...........no doubt about it.

[mudrose-2009]

So, the Republicans have a fraud like Romney or an actor like Fred or any number of people that are so flawed that they probably should not be running at all. Which leads us to states advancing their primary dates. They are either so ready to get rid of Bush, or they think that this will help pick a better candidate than Bush. Neither is true.
Posted by sjc_1

Oh, you've got to be kidding, now aren't you. What with RamaLamaObama the Rock Star who hasn't come up with a platform yet, and John Bumpersticker Edwards who is owned lock, stock and barrel b MoveOn.Org. a soros production and Billary the Clintoid, Commie, Socialist or as Mitt Romney defined her European Caricature, you have the bhalls to say Republican candidates are frauds and flawed. And what pray tell do you call these twits who would plunge this country into socialism and ruin true Americans?

[stezzer]

mudrose

Well said, an excellent post.

[sjc_1]

Mitt is a real piece of work alright. He is directly out of central casting, where image is more important than real substance. It is as if the Republicans feel that their candidate ought to look the part, even if they do not have a brain in their head.

Mitt actually said during the recent debate that the inspectors were not allowed to inspect for WMD by Iraq. They were allowed in and for months found nothing.

Bush was the one that stopped the inspections before they could finish looking for WMD. If they were allowed to complete and inspection and found nothing, that would have blown his whole pretense for invading in the first place.

[tsam314]

Wow JackSteen1, it's sad for me to be reminded again that there are such ignorant religious bigots out there. Your post was entirely based upon your ignorance about the Mormons and their beliefs, and your anger and hatred for people who are different than you.

I will second Stezzer and say, good post mudrose. I am opposed to the Democratic front-runners, as well as some of the Republican front-runners. I think Mitt Romney would be a good choice for President.

[sjc_1]

Face it mudrose, you guys are toast before you even get out of the gate. Junior has hosed the Repugnicans so severely that you guys won't recover for decades.....bye bye!

[bot14]

7 Christ's Atonement: .

But Mormons don%u201Dt term Catholics and Protestants %u201Cnon-Christian%u201D. . They believe Christ%u2019s atonement in Gethsemane and on the Cross applies to all mankind. . The dictionary definition of a Christian is %u201Cof, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ%u201D: . All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. They all worship the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and address Him in prayer as prescribed in The Lord%u2019s Prayer.

It%u201Ds important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be authentic Christians. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology , they are likely more %u201CChristian%u201D than their detractors.