New Faces in 2012? Nah, Make it Mitt Instead

After the Republican resurgence of 2009, it is worthwhile to think about what this means for 2012. After all, if everything continues as it is going, Barry is a happy one-termer, a guy who did as much damage as possible to the American Republic as possible in 4 short years before voters throw him out and turn to a Republican to begin the probably hopeless task of digging our nation out of the problems of Barry's term.

So, what sorts of people can the Republican party look to for leadership in 2012? Bill Schneider, writing in the National Journal Magazine, says:

What Republicans need in 2012 is a conservative version of Obama. There were high hopes for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, but he flunked his screen test last year. And Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has not yet lit any fires. Right now, the "tea party" movement is trying to energize -- or take over -- the Republican Party. But it doesn't have a leader with presidential stature. Still, you can bet that, after November 2, a major national publication will come out with a cover story showcasing "The New Faces of the GOP." Who will they be? We don't know yet. First they have to get nominated for an office open in 2010. Then they have to win.

Winning Edward Kennedy's Senate seat puts Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown at the top of the list. Marco Rubio will likewise be on the top tier if he beats Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in their state's Republican Senate primary and then wins the election. Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey might be also if he bumps off Sen. Arlen Specter. And so would any Republican who defeats Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. South Dakota's John Thune holds an honorary place on the list for having defeated Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

There is likely to be a whole class of new Republican governors to talk about. Already enrolled: Bob McDonnell, who won election in Virginia in November. Other key members would include Scott McInniss if he wins in Colorado. Ditto for Ohio's John Kasich, Massachusetts' Charlie Baker, and Nevada's Brian Sandoval.

Although Schneider makes a good argument, I disagree with him. Republicans don't need a 'conservative Obama'- we already have seen what happens when you put an inexperienced idealistic rube in office, and it isn't pretty. We don't need a 'new fresh face' or even someone 'from outside the establishment.' What the Republicans need to do is put a responsible, solid, experienced, and learned President in the White House- not someone who is going to set the world on fire and be a revolutionary, but one who will start the task of 8 years of solid, steady, digging.

Everyone knows that it takes years and years of steady investing and growth to build up wealth, but it only takes a short amount of time of reckless spending to burn through it. That's the situation facing America right now. George Bush wasn't pretty and didn't set the world on fire, but after 8 years as President, he left American marginally better than he found it. That's tough to do- I don't think that Obama is going to do that, Carter didn't do it, Ford didn't do it, Nixon didn't do it, and LBJ didn't do it.

So who should the Republicans nominate in 2012? The guy they should have nominated in 2008- Mitt Romney. He has experience pulling debt-destroyed disasters of the of fire and making them successful (Olympics), he has experience running states (MA), and he has a solid, although not overwhelming, conservative record. Don't get greedy people, and don't fall for the glitz and glam of a fancy new candidate- that's what Democrats do. Republicans are responsible, reasonable, calm, and rational, and that means that our pick for 2012 should be Mitt.