I was struck today by the NBC news analysis today that equated Mitt Romney's potential nomination with the history of Bob Dole in 1996. Sure, Republicans like their primaries to be neat affairs, with "the annointed one" (whomever that may be) finishing as the winner without too much nastiness or too many bloody noses.
After all, this is a party that likens its politics to war. They want to win. And they no that a united army of sheep is better than a divided an unmotivated one.
But, if you really dig deep, this is not 1996 - not by a long shot - this is more like 1972 or 1964. And - I promise you one thing: Mitt Romney is no Bob Dole - at least not politically.
The belief is that Rick Perry had to emerge as the alternative to Romney in order for Romney to lose. That it would require a reincarnation of a Reagan or Bush type Republican candidate - one that combined charisma, enough right-wing enthusiasm, money and experience to withstand the primaries, defeat the "chosen one" and emerge from the convention with a united party behind them.
And if not him, then Romney is the Bob Dole this year. The guy who wins it by default. That is a party stalwart, paid his dues, is non-threatening to everybody, is conservative enough, owns a great biography and then runs well nationally.
Dole had that. He was a GOP icon in 1996. A war hero (like McCain in 2008). People liked him. And the Republican party felt good about him - even though he didn't excite the GOP faithful like Pat Buchanan did. And it was a year of prosperity when Dole was an alternative in a happy and contented country.
And Mitt Romney is...
A man who makes a good deal of the GOP uncomfortable in a year of discontent. A man with a health care plan in his background (after the GOP ran so hard against the very idea of one to win back control of the US House).
A Mormon in a bubble of insecure, intolerant (and often paranoid) Christian conservatives who view his religion as a cult.
And a political pragmatist who flip-flops enough to concern the Tea Party, who are rabid in their desire for a candidate with uncompromise right-wing political fortitude.
Mitt Romney makes the vast majority of his party so uncomfortable, that he cannot move above about a quarter of their support, even when he is in first place in a poll.
That's not a wide path - that's a danger signal. And here's why:
This year the early primaries and caucuses are fast and furious. Just enough time for a popular wave of support and virtually no time to stop it. And Herman Cain (should he hold his base), Newt Gingrich (should he solidify his), or somebody else could gather enough momentum to put a stop to Mitt Romney before he ever has the chance to be the GOP-nominee-by-default.
So think about this: In 1972 and 1964, the parties challenging for the White House didn't nominate their "chosen one". They nominated somebody else. And in both cases - George McGovern for the Democrats in 1972 and Barry Goldwater for the Republicans in 1964, those candidates got walloped.
Republicans aren't very good at fighting each other - it's not what they are aculturated to do, and it is certainly fun to watch. And also really isn't clear if the traditional Republicans that are working on and supporting Mitt Romney's campaign have anything beyond the money to stop an insurgent challenger before it's too late.