Why Obama is not FDR and the Stealth Mormon

Progressives have complained that President Obama has not acted as forcefully as FDR in handling the nation's economic crisis. Economists like Paul Krugman and Bruce Barlett complained that the stimulus package was too small and that more needs to be done to create jobs to spur an economic recovery. One post at Democratic Underground yesterday put this in perspective. In the 74th Congress, the second one of FDR's first term, the Democrats had 69 Senators and in the following Congress, they had 76 Senators, making the New Deal basically filibuster proof. Likewise, for LBJ's Great Society, which passed Medicare and the major civil rights legislation, Democrats held 66 Senate seats in the 88th Congress and 67 in the 89th. While Republicans backed civil rights legislation, they opposed Medicare. Likewise, Republicans opposed the New Deal, the creation of Social Security and unemployment insurance. And, during the Obama administration, they seem to have reverted to this negativity on social and economic policy.

Hidden from view these days as all the so-called GOP presidential contenders have moved off on the Muslim Center in lower Manhattan is Mitt Romney, whose spokesperson criticized it in a short press handout. Instead, Mitt has surfaced with an attack on Obama's economic policies. Mitt wants corporate tax rates to match others in the developed world. This would be great if American corporations actually paid taxes. He wants to preserve Bush's tax cuts for everyone. A majority of Americans don't, according to the latest CNN poll. He wants to allow businesses to write off capital investments in 2010 and 2010. He argues we should eliminate all capital gains taxes and bank interest for families earning less than $250,000. And he wants to balance the budget. Oh, and he says, cough, he would "restructure entitlement programs", which he doesn;t list.

Mitt earned his vast wealth by specializing in corporate takeovers, which ended up eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Mitt is the corporate favorite in 2012 and he has positioned himself with his operatives in the Republican Party to "game" the primary schedule now that it has been changed from the winner-take-all policies of the past. Mitt has also gotten rid of his many homes because he saw how devastating it was to McCain being linked to 14 residences. While teabaggers claim the credit for Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, it was the result of Mitt's operatives.

As I have posted many time, I believe Sarah Palin and the Christian Right are now the base of the Republican Party. I don't think Palin can have the nomination just by asking because of her recent performance leading up to the 2010 elections. I still don't think she has the discipline to wage a long campaign, which the new rules demand. Aware of how sensitive evangelicals have been to his Mormonism, Mitt Romney last year created a committee to coordinate activities with the Christian Right and to dampen concerns about his own religion, which they view as a cult.

Mitt Romney has been working quietly to raise funds and let all the other minor candidates to get out in front on Obama bashing. Mitt's vulnerability is on the health mandates and the Massachusetts health plan he enacted and Obama took ideas from. By 2012 some of these issues will have been decided on the healthcare bill.

Why should Mitt be optimistic about his chances for the nomination in 2012? During this election, Republicans will probably win the following state houses: Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and maybe Minnesota. During my radio commentaries last campaign, I said the election would be determined from a line from Minnesota through Pennsylvania. Luckily for President Obama, the Democrats held Ohio and most importantly the position of Attorney-General so Republicans could not suppress the minority vote as they did in 2004. Next time the whole situation will look differently. Republican governors will control the whole Midwest and that area is allergic to Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Palin's addition to the ticket doomed McCain in Iowa, Michigan and eventually Pennsylvania. For the Republicans to have a shot at 2012, they need to win some of these states.

Romney has historic ties to Michigan through his father, who was Governor and earlier a president of a major car company. On paper, it looks like he could compete in the Midwest better than any other candidate. He owns the Morman empire in Utah, Idaho, parts of Colorado and Nevada. And he has the money support from Texas. Romney's problem area is the base region of Republican support--the South. That's why he was so quick to financially back to next Governor of South Carolina.

When the dust settles, Romney can win because in Republican circles his family's name is golden and he has already competed once before, a GOP habit. He also seems to be part Nixon with a hiatus from politics and part Reagan with his black hair and economic policies. He also doesn't appear threatening and is soothing. He will still have to pacify the religious Right. Despite all the blather about Momma Grizzlies and Republican women, Republicans long for white authoritarian men as leaders and Romney would be forced to shore up the South and the evangelicals. Here in August, 2010, I think he would pick former Governor Mike Huckabee as his Vice President for a warm and fuzzy appeal.

President Obama road to re-election will be a little more difficult because he will have the liability of the office and will not be energizing the population as he did during the Democratic primaries. He may be forced to run a more traditional campaign. Over 73% of Democrats want to re-nominate him so the viability of a challenge seems remote. This means that Democratic turnout in primaries will be less, voter intensity less, and the great leaps in voter registration made by Democrats in 2008 neutralized. While the young, Latinos, African-Americans, women and labor will be his base and give him enormous advantages, the arithmetic for getting to the winning number in the electoral college might be different than 2008. This will be interesting to watch. One thing is sure is that the commentators will miss a new pattern just as they missed the last one.