Bob "douchebag of liberty" Novak’s recent column reporting a double-secret meeting of D.C. Republicans in which Mitt Romney supposedly loudly hinted that he’s not running for reelection, already noted by .08, has ignited lots of speculation as to who the GOP’s candidate will be in 2006 if Romney indeed bails out. The comment thread over at Kos on the subject is interesting and worth a read.
My own view: Harvard-Pilgrim Health Care‘s Charlie Baker would be a formidable candidate, and very hard to beat. Sco apparently thinks he’s dull. I beg to differ. Baker is now the head of a very large, very establishment organization, and he has to behave accordingly, otherwise it would hurt his employer. Plus, health care is an incredibly wonkish topic, and that’s probably what he was talking about when Sco heard him (Sco, I trust you’ll correct me if I’m wrong about that).
I have seen Baker in a different capacity – he was Secretary of Administration and Finance when I worked in the State House (yes, I worked in a Republican administration). When free to speak his mind, Baker is passionate, ebullient, charismatic, you name it (he’s also 6’4" and very handsome, FWIW). He’s also very, very smart (and not afraid to show people that he’s smarter than they are) – he was half-jokingly referred to as the "SMIG," short for "smartest man in government." He would be devastating in debates, as long as he could keep his temper in check. Particularly when it comes to health care, a hugely important issue about which he undoutedly knows a whole lot more than Healey, Reilly, Patrick, or anyone else thinking about jumping in to the Gov’s race, a debate could actually be kinda embarrassing.
Also, Baker is very conservative by nature but is open to persuasion. For example, he won the respect of a lot of people who advocate for the homeless and the mentally ill because he listened, and when they were right, he went with them and against the Republican party line.
A very interesting question is how Baker would handle the "culture wars" issues. I would guess that Baker is on the libertarian side of the Republican party. I doubt he is particularly bothered by gay people getting married – maybe he’s even in favor of it. I also doubt that he is bothered by somatic cell nuclear transfer (a/k/a "therapeutic cloning"). I could of course be totally wrong about this. But if I’m right, it would be fascinating to see whether Baker feels compelled to give some lip service to the wingnut wing of the party, or whether he just speaks his mind. He has never, to my knowlege, been shy about saying what he thinks is right – it sure would be refreshing to hear a Republican lambaste the wingnuts.
If Romney doesn’t run, the only think I can see keeping Baker out of the race is personal issues. Obviously, he makes a lot more money where he is than he would as Gov, and I don’t think he has any personal wealth to speak of (other than what he’s made as CEO of HPHC). He also may prefer working more behind the scenes and showing his face publicly only on occasion, as he did at Administration & Finance and as he does now, rather than being constantly on the front lines. But if he goes for it, watch out. A lot of votes (including, frankly, mine) would be up for grabs if Baker jumps in.
UPDATE: The Herald reports today that Romney’s recent comments about reelection are looking a lot less certain than they were a little while back. Maybe Novak was right.
You’ve inspired me to learn more about this guy. I had written him off as a less charismatic version of Mitt Romney, but perhaps I was too hasty.If he’s pro marriage equality and stem cell research, though, I’d be curious to see what the state Republican primary would look like. I can’t imagine that the wingnuttier elements of the state party would let him go unchallenged if you’re right about those issues. I wonder if they’d throw around terms like RINO and Democrat-Lite. That’d be a change, eh?
I think, actually, that Baker would come off as more charismatic than Romney – he’s more genuine and less slick. And I think you’d see his passionate side come out if he were running for office instead of speaking as CEO of a big health care company. Like I said, I just have no idea where he stands on cultural issues. But like you, I sure would love to see that Republican primary if he’s really a libertarian.
Very good analysis of Baker, David.He is a great candidate. Hs negative is will he c’mon off as the arrogant smarter then evryone else guy he is. Some people in swampscott are starting to tire of his know-it-all attitude. As pres of Harvard helath and even Sec of A& F he is the boss. he does not like having to answer for himself and when pushed back he gets a little immature. The right dem candidate could beat him by out classing him. Tom Riley is not that guy. Maybe Patick is. But just because we need some one does not make him (Patrick)a great candidate.
I think this is quite right – Baker’s Achilles heel as a candidate would be his impatience with what he sees as lesser minds than his. I doubt he’d pull a Silber, but he might turn enough people off that he wouldn’t be able to generate the crossover votes he would need.
I don’t know that much about him, but would we be able to beat him by pointing out that he’s made a lot of money by running an HMO, and that his policy prescriptions may be less than disinterested.
It’s certainly possible – depending on what policies he ended up advocating as a Gov candidate. If he were to push policies that seem overly HMO-friendly, he’d obviously leave himself open to those charges. The interesting thing would be if he advocated changes that don’t necessarily favor his present employer.