A fight to the convention?

(This was drafted January 4.)

John O’Sullivan writes at NRO:

Romney was badly damaged by the result. After spending so much he ought to have done better. He now limps into New Hampshire. But his concession on FOX was not merely gracious, it was gallant and endearing. It seemed to me to refute the argument (heard from his conservative admirers as well as from others) that he has every good quality except likeability. I believe him when he says that he will fight on to the end—and that means we may not know who the candidate will be until the convention…

It seems clear that we [conservatives] should do all we can to help revive the Romney campaign. If that fails, we face a choice between Huckabee and McCain. Neither looks like a good bet against a surging Obama candidacy.

Well, I like the notion of a battle to the convention a lot better than the ridiculous idea that Romney is at death’s door because of his second-place finish in Iowa. When has anyone been finished by coming in second or failing to win in Iowa? Reagan lost in Iowa to Bush the elder, and was elected president. Bush the elder lost in Iowa to Dole, and was elected president. Clinton declined to run at all in Iowa in 1992 because U.S. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was running—and was elected president. Clinton even lost New Hampshire and was elected president, as did Bush the younger.

I agree with what O’Sullivan says about Romney’s concession speech being gracious and gallant, and add that it was smart. Romney said that starting from a year ago when no one in Iowa knew who he was, he had defeated three household names in Iowa, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson, and that all he had to do to win the nomination was to keep beating those three. Thus, indirectly dismissing Huckabee from the picture, he turned himself from Iowa loser into Iowa winner. I thought it was very clever, and was, again, impressed.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 06, 2008 04:23 PM | Send