Antonin Scalia and Politics

Antonin Scalia was one of the most influential and consequential justices in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, he was the intellectual anchor for today's conservative movement. His sudden death was a shock to all Americans, especially Republicans, who immediately assumed their battle positions.

The U.S. Constitution specifies (Article II, Section 2) that the president, "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law." Certainly a strict constitutional originalist like Scalia would have agreed that a president with eleven months left in office has the right to nominate someone for the Supreme Court.

Shortly after word of Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who decides what the Senate takes up, said in a statement that President Barack Obama should not nominate a replacement. "The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

This unprecedented message was followed by similar warnings from Republican presidential candidates. Texas Senator Ted Cruz took to Twitter, saying, "Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement." Florida Senator Marco Rubio also said Obama should not nominate a replacement. "The next president must nominate a justice who will continue Justice Scalia's unwavering belief in the founding principles that we hold dear," he said in a statement.

Justice Scalia's death dominated the early portion of Saturday's Republican debate in South Carolina. Minutes before the debate, which aired on CBS, President Obama expressed his condolences to Scalia's family while praising the jurist's "remarkable" life. Then the president said, "I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in -- due time." He continued, "There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote."

The president's comments were fuel for an over-heated and feisty debate atmosphere. Donald Trump warned Senate Republicans to "delay, delay, delay." Cruz said that, "the Senate needs to stand strong and say we're not going to give up the Supreme Court for a generation." Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush called for a "consensus pick," which would be almost impossible to find with a deeply divided Congress.

Republicans feel they own the Scalia court position. Their comments and actions are consistent with the partisan war they have been waging in Washington from the day President Obama was first sworn in to office. For nearly eight years now the first instinct for Republicans in Congress has been to obstruct, block and divide. This, no doubt, plays well with certain segments of the Republican Party. But such tactics have demoralized much of the electorate and have probably led to the rise of Donald Trump.

Why didn't McConnell simply say that should the president offer a nomination, as is his right under the Constitution, the Senate would take it up? After all, the same American people who McConnell says should have a voice twice overwhelmingly reelected President Obama to office. Furthermore, the Constitution does not say the president shall appoint unless he has less than a year left in office.

Republicans would be far wiser to agree to let the process take its course and then focus their attention on defeating the president's nominee in the Senate. This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the rules.

What an appropriate way this would be for Republicans to remember the man who they consider to be the greatest defender of the U.S. Constitution.

The Angry Republican Campaign

Republican presidential candidates are beginning 2016 with a full head of steam in what could be the most critical period for the party in decades.  While Donald Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz currently are leading in the national polls of likely Republican voters, it is hard to predict the final outcome of next month's primaries and caucuses. 

For political junkies, the Republican race has so far been surprising and unpredictable.  Real estate mogul Donald Trump has dominated media coverage and the polls since he announced his candidacy last June.  From the very beginning he has exploited voter anger with caustic and abrasive rhetoric.  Over the weekend he told a cheering Biloxi, Mississippi, audience, “People are so tired of the incompetence. They’re so tired of stupidity.”  Trump has pledged to deport those who are in this country illegally, to build a wall along the Mexican border, and to temporarily stop Muslims from entering this country.

Meanwhile, Senator Cruz has played on voter anger to appeal to populist right voters with wild rhetoric like, "We will utterly destroy ISIS. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out."  In Iowa, where he appears to be leading, he has targeted conservative Christians with lines like, "If the body of Christ rises up as one and votes our values, we can turn this country around." 

Voter anger is especially pronounced among Republicans.  A NBC News/Survey Monkey/Esquire on line poll shows that 61% of Republicans "say that current events say that current events irk them more than a year ago." Only 41% of Democrats feel the same way.  

As the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary approaches the large field of Republican candidates has begun attacking each other.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, campaigning in New Hampshire, railed against his opponents in remarks his staff released in advance Monday. “Bluster is not the leadership we crave.  Talking a big game and either not showing up or not knowing how isn’t what we desperately need today.”  Christie's speech was directed at Trump.   “Anger alone is not a solution...America needs leaders who not only identify our problems, but who have the ability to repair our broken system. That’s what this election is all about."  

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whose disappointing campaign has so far failed to gain traction, attacked Trump in New Hampshire Monday.  "The job is not described in the Constitution as 'entertainer in chief,' or 'commentator in chief,' or even, frankly, 'economist in chief.' It is described as Commander in Chief," he said.  The self-righteous Rubio also observed, "We have Republican candidates who propose that rulers like Assad and Putin should be partners of the United States, and who have voted with Barack Obama and Harry Reid rather than with our men and women in uniform."

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, once thought to be the front-runner, has struggled for support despite being well financed.  He has proven to be a weak candidate, and he is burdened by his brother's legacy, former President George W. Bush.  Even his attack lines sound desperate and feeble. "Just one other thing -- I gotta get this off my chest -- Donald Trump is a jerk," he said at a town hall meeting last month in New Hampshire.  In a Florida town hall meeting in late December he said Trump gets his foreign policy advice from television, "He wakes up in his pajamas and watches the TV shows on Saturday and Sunday."

The Republican campaign has deteriorated into a schoolhouse brawl.  Candidates resort to personal attacks rather than to offering specific and detailed solutions to America's underlying problems.  This is not a campaign of new and exciting ideas; rather it is a misguided crusade that offers voters little hope for those tired of politics as usual.

No wonder so many Republicans are angry.   

A Rubio Rebuke

Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican presidential candidate from Florida, may be frustrated that his campaign is lacking traction, but there is no excuse for him to say that the president has "no class."  His comment is a feeble attempt to get attention because he is lagging behind the frontrunners, especially Donald Trump, in the polls.

Rubio made the comment on Fox News this week in the context of an answer about Donald Trump's campaign.  "It’s important we have– to conduct the presidency, it has to be done in a dignified way, with a level of class,” he said. “I don’t think the way he’s behaved over the last few weeks is either dignified or worthy of office he seeks.”  

But then Rubio continued with an attack on President Barack Obama.  “We already have a president now that has no class,” Rubio sputtered.  “I mean, we have a president now that does selfie-stick videos, that invites YouTube stars there, people who eat cereal out of a bathtub… he goes on comedy shows to talk about something as serious as Iran. The list goes on and on.”

Rubio sounded more like a high school freshman with an inferiority complex, or, at least, a candidate who is deeply discouraged with his poor performance among Republican presidential candidates in recent polls.  The fact that he would say such an outrageous thing about President Obama shows that he is only interested in scoring political points.

When it comes to scoring political points among Republicans, nothing is an easier target than the nuclear deal with Iran that Congress is in the process of reviewing.  At a hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday, Rubio took an aggressive tone with the lead U.S. negotiator, Secretary of State John Kerry.  Rubio said that a new president would be in his or her rights to rip up the whole agreement.  

“It’s important for the world and especially Iran to understand that this is a deal whose survival is not guaranteed beyond the term of the current president,” Rubio said--clearly threatening what he may do should he become president.  "Even if this deal narrowly avoids congressional defeat, the Iranian regime and world should know this deal is your deal with Iran, meaning yours — this administration — and the next president is under no legal or moral obligation to live up to it,” Rubio continued. “The deal can go away the day president Obama leaves office.”

The Iran nuclear deal, agreed to on July 14 by the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, plus Germany (P5 Plus 1), calls for Iran to roll back its existing nuclear program in exchange for relief from sanctions.  The UN Security Council approved the agreement last week, which puts in place a rigorous verification process.  If Iran violates the agreement, an automatic "snap back" provision kicks in that would reinstate sanctions on Iran.

While Americans are skeptical about Iran, a majority of those asked in a recent Washington Post/ABC poll support the agreement.   But in calling for Congress to vote against the agreement Rubio says that a majority of Americans are against it.  Oops.  Congress may vote the agreement down, but the President has said he will veto such a congressional action.  In the end, it is likely the president will eke out enough votes to uphold the agreement.

Rubio's position that "The deal can go away the day President Obama leaves office" is silly, presuming Iran lives up to its side of the bargain.  Why would a President Rubio cancel an agreement that is working and risk alienating the U.S. from its allies?  It would be far better for him to take the position that, if elected president, he would do a better job of enforcing the agreement than his Democratic opponent.  Of course, saying he'd rip it up makes a better soundbite that appeals to the conservative base of the party.

Rubio has stumbled before.  In March of this year he told Fox News that it was not a mistake to invade Iraq in 2003, noting, "the world is a better place because Saddam Hussein doesn't run Iraq."  But when asked in a May interview at the Council on Foreign Relations if he would have favored the Iraqi invasion if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, Rubio replied, "not only would I have not been in favor of it, President Bush would not have been in favor of it."  Two different audiences, two different answers.  And Rubio has also changed his position on immigration under pressure from conservatives. 

Perhaps realizing that his ridiculous slander that President Obama has "no class" was a bit too much, Rubio backtracked a bit in an interview Thursday with Fox News' Bret Baier.  After Rubio noted that the president is a great father and husband but was divisive, Baier asked, "So you stand by that statement that the president has no class?"

Rubio responded, "I think, on the major issues of our time, he has not conducted himself of the dignity of worthy of that was office. Demonization of political opponents and divisions in America which have made it harder for us to solve our problems, and have poisoned the political environment as a result."  Does Rubio think most Americans are fools?  

Republican leaders met on the day of President Obama's first inauguration and plotted how they were going to make him a one-term president.  Republican Congressman Joe Wilson, of South Carolina, yelled "you lie" to the president in a speech before a joint session of Congress nine months after he took office.  For years Republicans questioned whether the president was born in the United States.  Republicans attacked the president's health care law with distortions and lies, like saying it called for death panels.  In 2009, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich denounced what he called Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonial behavior."  Tea Party inspired Republican members of Congress shut the federal government down in 2013 because they wanted deeper budget cuts and the repeal of Obamacare.  Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer waved her finger at President Obama on an airport tarmac in early 2012.

Throughout his tenure President Obama has been subject to disrespectful, and sometimes racist, attacks from the right.  A recent example is Rubio's swipe against the president that he has "no class."  But all this attack does is reveal that Rubio is a sanctimonious hypocrite who will say anything to get ahead.  

The 2014 Midterm Elections

With less than 10 weeks to go before the midterm Congressional elections Americans in general are frustrated with Washington.  National polls show that about three quarters of all Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job.  By comparison, about half of those Americans polled disapprove of President Barack Obama's handling of his job. 

Sunday's New York Post reported that 163 laws have been passed and signed by the president since this two-year term of Congress began in January 2013.  That is far lower than the 284 laws that were passed by the 2011-2013 session, which is an all time record for fewest bills passed.  Congress passed 386 laws during the 2009-2011 session.   Former Representative Lee Hamilton (R-IN) told the Post, "I've never seen it any worse in terms of public esteem for the Congress.  I can't find anybody who says a good word about it."

Despite Congress's lack of productivity, and as outrageous as it may seem, it appears that most incumbents will be reelected in November.   Conventional wisdom is that while most Americans want to get rid of Congress, they nonetheless support their own representative.  This is especially true during midterm elections because voter turnout is often very low, which gives incumbents an advantage.  But both parties are leaving nothing to chance, as a record amount of campaign dollars will be poured into this election, surpassing the $3.6 billion spent in 2010.   

Republicans currently hold a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives, 233-199; there are three vacant seats.  The GOP expects to expand its majority in the House.  Meanwhile, Democrats currently hold a majority in the Senate.  But of the 36 Senate seats in play, 21 of them held by Democrats, while 15 are held by Republicans.  If the GOP picks up six Senate seats this midterm they will be in the majority in both houses of Congress.  Most experts, including Nate Silver, of the election site FiveThirtyEight, give Republicans a slight edge to take those seats and become the majority party in the Senate.  

The Republicans are targeting the seven Democratic seats that are up in states where Mitt Romney beat President Obama in the 2012 presidential election.  They are also going after four additional Democratic seats in states where the president remains unpopular.  Republicans will do all they can to make this election about President Obama's unpopularity. 

Domestically the president has been attacked for executive actions he has taken to bypass the blockade that Congress has become.  For example, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who himself has presidential aspirations, has regularly attacked the president, telling Fox News "He believes somehow that he's become a monarch or an emperor that can basically ignore the law and do whatever he wants."  On the other hand, Republicans have attacked President Obama for being disengaged and "leading from behind" on foreign policy.  The president's recent comment the he does not have a strategy on dealing with ISIS in Syria was seized upon by Republicans.  Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), said on CBS Sunday,  "What I want to hear from the president is that he has a strategy to finish ISIS off, to defeat ISIS."

Congressional and Senate Democratic candidates have tried to localize their elections, but Republicans are focusing on President Obama in an effort to energize their base.  So Democrats are trying to mobilize minority voters,  especially African-Americans, who generally don't vote in midterms.  Party activists are using the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., and conservative calls to impeach the president, to mobilize Blacks.  An increase in the number of Southern Blacks helped Democrats during the 1998 midterm election, when President Bill Clinton was under heavy fire from the right.

Ironically, the one Republican Senator who is in the toughest fight to be reelected is the man who has the most to gain if Republicans win majority control.  Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), the Senate minority leader, has done all he can to obstruct and block the agenda of President Obama since the day he was sworn in to office in 2009.  McConnell is facing a vigorous challenge from Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.  McConnell is not popular in Kentucky, but a recent state poll shows he has the edge.  Lundergan Grimes is making McConnell's failings in Congress the issue.  But McConnell is tying his opponent to President Obama.  

Should Republicans take control of both houses the legislative process will grind to a halt.  Anything the Republicans pass, like efforts to defund Obamacare, will be vetoed by the president.  Meanwhile, congressional investigations into the so-called scandals surrounding the IRS and Benghazi will intensify.  The partisan divide will widen as Republicans try to score points before the 2016 Presidential Elections.   

Because so much is at stake, this coming election day is not a time for eligible voters to stay home.

GOP Traffic Jam

Governor Chris Christie has finally gone on the offensive to defuse "bombshell" revelations that he knew about the Ft. Lee lane closures at the time they were happening.  "The Governor first learned lanes at the George Washington Bridge were even closed from press accounts after the fact," the 700-word email from the governor's office said Saturday.  

The email attacked the press for publishing the story, and attacked the story's source, former New York & New Jersey Port Authority official David Wildstein, who is seeking immunity in the investigation. "Bottom line -- David Wildstein will do and say anything to save David Wildstein," the email said.  But the attack on Wildstein got unusually personal, "He was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior."  Really?  This schoolyard retort reveals a frustrated and desperate man.    

Even if Governor Christie's story stands up through the rigorous legislative and federal investigations the incident has triggered, in the end his 2016 presidential aspirations will be snuffed out.  Questions about the way he ran his office, about the people he surrounds himself with, and his management style will dog him for years.  Conservative Republicans already did not support him for higher office.

So, with Governor Christie out of the mix, the race to be the Republican presidential nominee is wide open.   Whomever they choose will likely face a difficult challenge in the 2016 election. A recent Washington Post poll shows Hillary Clinton has a 6 to 1 lead among Democrats over all other potential candidates for the party's nomination.  Further complicating the Republican's task are the divisions within the party between the Tea Party faction and those who hew closer to the center.

The Hill reported that Florida Senator Marco Rubio is now getting a lot of attention, especially since Representative Paul Ryan said he would not run for the White House in 2016.  "A group of Republican fundraising heavyweights and wise men in Washington's business community are solidly behind Rubio, and see him not only as someone who could win the White House, but someone they can work with," The Hill said.  Senator Rubio, who counts himself a Tea Party member, has had his eye on this prize for some time.  He has recently amplified his positions against President Barack Obama, Obamacare, immigration and education.  Ultimately, his role in the immigration debate will have an important impact on whether he can secure his party's support.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has been outspoken on everything from Obamacare to NSA surveillance.  He is a proud libertarian, and aligns himself with the Tea Party on most issues.  But he has recently made controversial statements, and has been accused of plagiarism for lifting parts of his speeches from Wikipedia.  He may prove to be too independent minded for the ever buttoned down Republican Party.

The Republican Party has several governors who could rise to the challenge; Ohio Governor John Kasich and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker are among the strongest.   But neither has a national profile, and both have taken controversial positions on state issues.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush would probably be the favored candidate if he decides to throw his hat into the ring.  Last week Bush said, "I'm deferring the decision to the right time, which is later this year."  A recent Washington Post poll shows him only behind Ryan among Republicans as the favored candidate.  Former First Lady Barbara Bush has said she doesn't believe her son should run.  Despite the fact that he is getting a lot of calls from top Republicans urging him to announce, he seems reluctant.  Should he decide to stay on the sidelines, Marco Rubio will benefit most.

Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been appearing everywhere.  Even though some of his supporters have called for him to run again in 2016, he has said he won't.   His running mate in 2014, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, would be a long shot for obvious reasons, as would former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has thrust himself into the national limelight on issues like Obamacare, immigration and raising the federal debt ceiling.  The Harvard educated and overly ambitious Cruz is distrusted by many of his colleagues, especially Republicans.  His failed tactics led to last year's government shutdown.  His "never in doubt" attitude makes him a polarizing figure in Washington.  While the Canadian born senator is a darling of the Tea Party, it is unlikely that he could win his party's nomination.

At this point, the field of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination is wide open.  Governor Chris Christie's plight may not have altered the outcome of the Republican presidential nominating process, but it sure has led to another major traffic jam.

Immigration Deal

"I think we've got a deal."  Those encouraging words about immigration reform legislation came from South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham who appeared on CNN Sunday.  "We've got to write the legislation," he said, "but 2013, I hope, will be the year that we pass bipartisan immigration reform." 

Senator Graham is a member of the bipartisan "gang of eight" that has been working to reach a deal on immigration reform.  Last week four members of that group, including John McCain of Arizona, traveled to the U.S.-Mexico border to get a closer look at the problem of illegal crossings.  While there, Senator McCain tweeted, "Just witnessed a woman successfully climb and 18-ft bollard fence a few yards from us in #Nogales...Border Patrol successfully apprehended her, but incident is another reminder that threats to our border security are real." 

In his televised appearances Sunday, Senator Graham emphasized border security while outlining the goals of the immigration agreement.  The goals include preventing a "third wave" of undocumented immigrants moving to the U.S., allowing employers to hire guest workers when they can't find American workers, and judging immigration decisions more on merit rather than family.

But later Sunday, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, an aspiring Tea Party presidential candidate, tried to lower expectations about a deal.  In a written statement he said, “Reports that the bipartisan group of eight senators have agreed on a legislative proposal are premature."  Senator Rubio has the most to lose if conservatives don't like the immigration deal, so he appears to be playing it safe.  Gang of eight member Senator Charles Schumer put it this way Sunday, "Now everyone, we've all agreed that we're not going to come to a final agreement until we see draft legislative language and we all agree on that. We've drafted some of it already; the rest will be drafted this week. So I'm very optimistic that we will have an agreement among the eight of us next week."

There are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants illegally in the U.S.  Immigration was a major issue during the last presidential election, and all of the Republican candidates took a tough stand on illegals.  The party's presidential nominee, former Governor Mitt Romney, coined the term "self deportation" when defining how he would solve the problem.   More than 70% of Latinos who voted in last November's election voted for President Barack Obama.

An "autopsy" report released last month by GOP Chairman Reince Priebus called for more positive out reach to Latinos and other minorities.   The report urged the party to, "embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.”  But it will be hard for the party to overcome Congressional opposition to reform within its own party.  And it doesn't help when one of its members, Alaska Representative Don Young, says,  “My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes.”   "Wetbacks" is an insulting racial slur against Latinos for which he apologized after some prodding from his leadership.

Immigration is just one of many issues for Latinos, who now number about 50 million in the U.S.  The economy, jobs, education, family and health care are all important.  Likely Republican presidential candidates, such as Kentucky's Senator Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, are now actively courting them.   But their message, for instance on social issues, is not in sync with a majority of Latinos.   

In a speech last month to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Senator Paul said, "Prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into becoming and being taxpaying members of society."   So all of the stars are aligned for some form of meaningful immigration reform this year.  

In his speech, Senator Paul also quoted Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez. "In Love in the Time of Cholera, Marquez gives some advice that Republicans might consider,  “. . . human beings are not born once and for all on the day their mothers give birth to them, . . . life obliges them over and over again to give birth to themselves.”

These are words to think about, especially coming from a Nobel Prize winner who was denied a U.S. immigration visa for years because of his outspoken views on U.S. imperialism.

Romney's Veep-Stakes Are On!

Former Governor Mitt Romney is on the verge of sweeping this Tuesday's Republican primary elections.  Likely wins in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia will add significantly to his already commanding delegate lead, and increase pressure on his opponents to throw their support to the former Massachusetts Governor.

More leading Republicans are getting on the Romney bandwagon each day in hopes of ending the divisiveness that has characterized much of the Republican primary campaign so far.  Even after all of their harsh criticisms, former Senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have each said they will support Romney if he ends up getting the party's nomination. But they both, along with Representative Ron Paul, are still campaigning to be their party's standard-bearer. 

Rick Santorum shows no signs of easing up.  On Sunday, he compared Romney to Senator John McCain, who lost the 2008 election to President Barack Obama.  "We came up with someone who wasn't able to win," Santorum said on Fox News Sunday. "We don't need to repeat that again. We don't need to bail out and not have the best candidate to take Barack Obama on in the fall."  Santorum has accused Romney of not being a conservative; flip--flopping on many issues and of being the author of Romneycare, the blue print for the President's health care reform law.  Santorum insists he will present a stronger contrast in the general election.

Nonetheless, establishment Republicans have already turned their attention to who would be the best running mate for Romney.  Speculation has Florida Senator Marco Rubio as the best choice.  A Tea Party favorite, supporters believe Rubio could improve the Republican's chances among Hispanics.  Rubio is of Cuban heritage, but Cubans make up only a small percentage of the U.S. Hispanic population.  More than 60% of that population is Mexican, and they tend to vote for Democrats.

Another potential vice presidential candidate is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  Christie has campaigned hard for Romney, and his blunt, in-your-face style frequently outshines the former governor in joint appearances.  But voters in a presidential election don't vote for a president because of their running mate. That is up until now.

This election will rest heavily on Mitt Romney's ability to convince voters he is more qualified for the job than President Obama.  And that he has a better plan to increase employment, lower gasoline prices and assure America's national security.  Yet many of his proposals feel like déjà vu; the same Republican policies of cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans while ending some loopholes, more oil and gas drilling rather than developing alternatives, and a extremely hard-line foreign policy.  Or will he wipe his Etch A Sketch clean and redo his positions for the general election? 

The fact is Mitt Romney is an opportunist.  That is how he made his money in business.  And Mitt Romney is an elitist.  He is from the upper tier of the one-per centers.  His friends own football teams, they don’t play for them. He cannot easily connect with regular people; he's a Mittbot.  So he is prone to make comments that most normal people consider gaffs.

Who can forget this Romney gem last August from Iowa: "Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend."  Or this heart-warming comment two months ago, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."  And about the same time, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there."

Several times over these past few months he has tried very hard to sound like an Average Joe.  “There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip,” he said earlier this year to some volunteers.  Or his attempt to feel empathy for a group of unemployed,  "I should tell my story. I'm also unemployed."  Romney is worth more than $200 million.   And the truth surfaced when speaking in Michigan in February, "[My wife] drives a couple of Cadillacs."  Of course, who can forget the $10,000 bet offer to Texas Governor Rick Perry during a Republican debate in December?

Given Romney's difficulty in winning over voters from his own party, the lack of enthusiasm for him among evangelicals, conservatives and members of the Tea Party, his numerous flip-flops, Romneycare, and his propensity to make gaffs, he will need all the help he can get to win over the national electorate.  Help may come if the economy gets worse, gas prices continue to rise or if there is some national security setback for President Obama before the November election.  

More likely, Romney will look to a strong running mate who can fill in the many shortcomings he has as a candidate.   And that person will become the party's frontrunner in 2016 should President Obama win reelection in November.  Even if a twice beaten Mitt Romney decides to make a third run at the White House.