Mitt and the Anti-Romney

[Geee]

American Spectator:

Is it good for Mitt Romney? That was the question that preoccupied many pundits as the Iowa caucuses became a tight three-way race, concluding with a photo finish between Romney and Rick Santorum. Make no mistake: a Santorum-Romney tie is effectively a Santorum win, even if eight or so hanging chads were discovered late in the game.

Karl Rove took to the airwaves to assure country club members everywhere that all is still right with the world. Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa caucuses back in 1980, he reminded us, and look how that turned out.

Except that Reagan lost Iowa to George H.W. Bush. Romney's showing is the equivalent to Reagan losing to Phil Crane.

Yet Romney isn't exactly whistling past the graveyard when he focuses directly on Barack Obama and the general election. He is still up by a wide margin in New Hampshire, though we shall see what the post-Iowa polls say. Despite its social conservatism, South Carolina has generally rallied to the establishment candidate. Just ask George Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain.

The same George Bush who beat Reagan in Iowa in 1980 finished third there eight years later, behind Dole and Pat Robertson. It turned out to be a bump on the road to his coronation. McCain effectively bypassed the caucuses in 2008 -- young Meghan McCain emerged to inform us that they are "meaningless" -- and won the nomination anyway.

Lest we forget, McCain's general election campaign was mostly a disaster. So was Dole's 1996 effort, after he barely beat Pat Buchanan in Iowa. Republicans were reluctant to nominate either man, but they blundered across the finish line partly thanks to the self-immolation of a divided field and weaker opponents. This didn't create the conditions for inspiring candidacies.