The Suprisingly Strong Case For Mitt Romney as Vice President
By swamp_yankee Posted in Archived — Comments (109) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Although I supported Romney, even I was surprised by how the strength of his case for Vice President. I started to write a response to the Vice President thread, but there are so many reasons that I needed to start a new diary. Put aside your primary prejudices for a moment.
1. Money, money, money. Despite some of the slurs thrown around here, Mitt RAISED more money than any other candidate and much of that was done before he was a household name like Guiliani, McCain and Thompson. People like to deride him as some rich guy, built his money was self-made and he is a hell of a fundraiser. McCain has a serious money gap that needs to be addressed.
2. Message discipline. Romney is super disciplined. He will not go off the reservation. He's good at being methodical, staying on message and not being a maverick, which is important for a Veep candidate. He will not deviate from the message nor will he usurp McCain’s limelight. McCain and his campaign cannot be undermined or trumped by the acts of an unpredictable or 'off the cuff' Veep.
3. Party unity. It may not help with all conservatives, but it well help with many. In fact, many conservative personalities have already said that their enthusiasm for McCain would rise if Romney was picked. Romney can help assuage some of the immigration and global warming skeptics as well.
4. Party organization. Romney is a master executive and organizer. He also holds great sway with rank and file committeemen and women as demonstrated by his success in the caucuses. While the Democrats eat each other up, the Republicans with Romney could use this time to gain a superior tactical advantage in organization, unity and discipline.
5. Michigan. Michigan is a fairly large state. I have much faith that Romney can deliver Michigan. Someone like Pawlenty may deliver Minnesota, but Minnesota is smaller and Pawlenty does little else for McCain except reinforce the notions McCain is weak on AGW and immigration. Bush almost won Michigan in 2004. Under Democratic rule, Michigan continues to decline. It is ripe to be picked off.
6. Healthcare. The primary is over. You don't have to spread or believe anymore lies about Romney's “socialized” healthcare plan. The fact is that Romney and his team, guys like Charlie Baker, are healthcare gurus. Romney always said that he would take a federalist approach at the national level and that Massachusetts plan was the right fit for Massachusetts, which it was. This will be a hot issue and Romney will whip any Democrat or any member of the news media in a debate. Plus, he can bring some genuinely good ideas to the table. McCain could designate Romney his healthcare guru.
7. The Party of Lincoln. No doubt this is being framed as a historic election. We will have some combination of an African-American and a woman on the Democratic ticket. Ironically, it is probably the Mormans who are most persecuted minority in modern society. Although he is a “white guy”, Romney still represents a persecuted people and would be a historical nomination representative of “The Party of Lincoln”. "The Party of Lincoln" needs to reclaim our rightful place in history as the party of inclusion and tolerance.
8. No skeletons. The campaign does not need to spend three months vetting a Veep nominee. No hookers, no dirty movie rentals, no DUIs, no old buddies talking about coke, no infidelity, no estranged kids, no addictions, etc.. The Democrats will fight a scorched earth campaign and many of the other prospective candidates have not been thoroughly vetted and are unlikely to match Romney’s squeaky clean image.
9. Energized Mormons. No doubt Mormons are a little deflated after have their candidate, and worse, their faith bashed by many in the Party they have so loyally supported. They have a lot of money and a strong organization and can be players in the key Purple states like Colorado and Nevada.
10. Private sector experience. McCain has none. The economic concerns are rising. Paring a Washington insider with say another career poltician, lawyer or beaurocrat will do little to help appease the concerns of folks who worry about the economy. The housing crisis and job creation demand a private sector perspective, which Romney can provide.
11. Ann. She would work well with certain demographics. She is surprisingly savvy campaigner. Her long marriage, work as a mother of five and her intriguing battle with multiple sclerosis make her an interesting human story.
12. Overall competence and appearance. Intelligence and competence have never really been and issue for Romney. He is a fast learner. Although he has no foreign policy experience, there is little question that he could absorb the issues of the day quickly and be prepared on day one if necessary. He certainly will look the part. He is acceptable in that doomsday red phone scenario.
"If the primary campaign proved anything, it was that Romney was a very week candidate. Anytime you outspend your opponents by many orders of magnitude and still lose is not a good sign."
That's what people said during the campaign. The truth is that Romney was polling in the low single digits and had no name recognition when he started. Money only buys exposure, which the other candidates already had. Romney was too green to win the whole thing, but quadroupled his single digit support. McCain, Thompson and Rudy had the luxury of national name recognition. In the end, Romney claimed second and was only a few points from winning the whole thing. His campaign was much more effective than people give him credit for.
Plus, money counts. It will certainly count in the general and McCain is desperate compared to Obama.
"Romney was polling in the low single digits and had no name recognition when he started. Money only buys exposure, which the other candidates already had"
Which candidates "already had" "exposure"? Names, please. I assume you'll mention McCain and Guiliani.
Do you think Huckabee "already had" exposure?
How did Romney lose to Huckabee in Iowa?
After outspending Huckabee in 2007 by a factor of 12 to 1?
Romney spent in 2007 $86,068,239.
Huckabee spent in 2007 $7,090,087.
Source:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
For point 2, Romney is more in line with the rest of the GOP then McCain. McCain has already moved on immigration so is there really any difference between them now? As for the other issues you list, if these are McCain's big issues he will get the rest of the party even more ticked off at him then they are even now.
on behalf of the President and hit back....like Cheney of course his being the best damn VP there ever was....because of that exact trait.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Course I was biased as I supported Mitt for him being the viable three legged stool conservative that wouldn't cause mass defections. I could see him being a strong VP, but he doesn't punch in the mouth like I want in a VP. For a mouthhitter, I suggest we look to NYC....
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Republicans may be able to back McCain and they may have backed Rudy, but a McCain/Rudy ticket won't fly. McCain is having troubles rallying conservatives. Putting a pro-choice Rudy on the ticket would be devastating.
First, it's social issues, specifically abortion. Rudy is great on economic and national security issues.
So economic conservatives and foreign policy conservatives are good with Rudy.
Second, if Rudy does what Bush 41 did, namely accept the pro-life position of the the presidential candidate at the top of the ticket, that leaves little cause for complaint (especially from folks who supported Romney :) ).
So with that caveat, Rudy becomes a very interesting choice.
1. The best reason you have, although I'm not sure he's willing to pour 200Mil into a run for VP.
2. Uhh, no, if anything, this was his biggest weak point. He'd have a theme, and then he'd say something totally opposed to it when you actually thought about it (i.e. I want to reinvent government and not stick to the old Washington ways...and I want a $100 Billion bailout of Michigan.).
3. No, it won't help with ANY of them, with the possible exception of the Bay Buchannan crowd...but you can fit them into a closet anyway. Romney was the favorite of almost nobody, they only attached themselves to him because he seemed the least objectionable viable alternative. It would do next to nothing to help him unite the party.
4. Uhh, Romney was good at organizing people for caucuses. That's not really helpful at a general election level.
5. And what proof do you have that this would work? His dad did great. Every other Romney who's run for anything in Michigan got clobbered. Mitt won a primary with less then 40% of the vote. Not exactly much to go on.
6. Fine, except it negates your reason #3. The party in general was split down the middle on his health care fix. The libertarian wing hated its guts. I'm personally undecided still, but the gain here is minimal.
7. No skeletons. True enough. But that's kind of the problem. He comes off like a robot. I think his approval ratings would go up if he HAD some skeletons in his closet. If someone could prove that he had watched "Busty Cheerleaders" while at a hotel one lonely night, or that he had gotten sore and punched his best friend one night after they both had a little too much to drink, his approval ratings would jump 10pts.
8. True, but likely irrelevant. Most of them will eventually vote Republican anyway, and it really only matters in Nevada and maybe Colorado. We'll win Utah, Idaho, Arizona, etc no matter what.
9. Uhh, she looks like June Cleaver. That doesn't really help.
10. Fair enough, but a lot of people fit that mold.
I'm not totally against Romney as VP, but I don't think he'd bring all that much to the ticket.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
1. The assumption that he has to "pour". That is the slur that ignored the fact that Romney raised the most money. He can raise it.
2. Your wrong here. His message was always calculted. He said nothing off the cuff. Everything was strategic and he always stayed on message.
3. People like Laura Ingraham have already stated otherwise.
4. Party organization is huge. Watch how lack of it will hurt the Democrats.
5. He won by "only" forty something, while we lost by one percent. Its not just his name. Its his private sector experiecne. All he needs to do is pull 1.5 percent into the column.
1. McCain will raise plenty of money. Romney as VP won't change the amount of money he will raise significantly. Unless he's willing to put his own money into it, this is a non-argument.
2. Nothing off the cuff is not the same thing as having true message disipline. Ever seen "A Few Good Men"? Remember that scene where he asked "Did you actually 'hear' Markison give the order?" "Well, sir, there was a blowout..." That's not helpful.
3. Running your campaign to win over a disgruntled PMSing talk show host is not the way to win.
4. It is huge. But party organization on the large scale is not the same thing as caucus organization.
5. No, we lost by 4%, and he beat McCain by only a few IN A PRIMARY. It means nothing.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Constitutional lawyer, intellectual giant and conservative hero Laura Ingraham is now a digrunteled PMsing talk show host. I'm not sure who your pony is, but your unwillingness to give Romney any credit and smash conservative giants like Ingraham says a lot. What are you pissed at.
In this case, I'm pissed at Ingraham's selfish fit that gets her name in the papers a lot but hurts the party, the movement, and the country. Anyhow, I've never particularly liked her or found her very intelligent. I hadn't previously disliked her like I do now, I use to just be indifferent, but whatever.
IMHO, the only two talk show hosts that are worth listening to are Michael Medved and Larry Elder. I can tell you the opinion of every other talk show host before they can, and the reasons they'll say it too. That's not to say that I don't listen to the others occasionally, but I don't learn much, if anything, that wasn't completely obvious before hand.
I was just a joke anyway. The point is that you can't pick a candidate to appease this person or that group or whatever. That's a certain way to ultimately satisfy nobody.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
The point is that you can't pick a candidate to appease this person or that group or whatever. That's a certain way to ultimately satisfy nobody.
Aren't you one of the guys that said we had to moderate to attract Moderates and Indies? I'd call that "appeasing"!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
I'm sure you would.
But the mark of intelligence is not making mindless generalizations, but meaningful distinctions.
Think about it.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I'm not making a sweeping generalization I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency between your former positions and your current statement that we shouldn't appease for political gain
If courting conservatives is appeasement then doesn't it stand to reason that courting Moderates and Indies is appeasement as well?
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
: sigh :
I see I'll have to hold your hand through this.
Is there a difference between a large section of the political spectrum (i.e. the middle), and a small, narrowly focused group? (i.e. people who spend 3hrs a day listening to one particular talk-show host?)
If you get the right answer to this, you've answered your own question.
BTW, I didn't even say what you said I did. At least not the way I said it. I may have said something sensible like "Picking Newt Gingrich just because net activists like him would be stupid," but I never said McCain needed to pick a "moderate". I'm personally a fan of Mark Sanford for the job, although that's subject to change.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
First of all, I'm not a child to be lead around through anything and you're certainly not the person to do it.
Second, While I am influenced by thm, I don't get my ideas or marching orders from Rush, Laura or anyone else...My thoughts and ideas are my own. I am also influenced by ideas from the founders and philosophers from history. I'm also largely influenced by my belief in the Bible and the thousands of years of experience and wisdom written in it's pages.
Third, I didn't say anything about Newt Gingrich or anyone else. I simply pointed out the inconsistency in your statement in this thread that McCain shouldn't appease Conservatives because you don't believe in appeasement when I've seen you post on many occasions that those of us who have principled stands on many issues should set our principles aside so we can bring in "Reagan Democrats", Moderates and Independents. If you can't see that changing what we stand for so we can bring in moderates and independents is every bit as much "appeasement" as giving the majority of the Republican Party who have worked to build and elect majorities in congress since 1994 a little bone or two then you are in no position whatsoever to question my intelligence!
nuff said!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
First of all, I'm not a child to be lead around
If this is true, TRY ADDRESSING THE ACTUAL POINTS I MADE instead of going off on random tangents that have nothing to do with anything, as you have done here.
Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
"...selfish fit that gets her name in the papers a lot but hurts the party..."
Where though...if I could only remember...
As for you rebuttal on point 8, look at the last two presidential elections. We cannot afford to write off any state. Colorado is especially a concern considering that Dems won the last Senate and Governor elections.
It might help, that doesn't mean something else won't help more.
And Bush still would have won even if he had lost Colorado.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
we picked the wrong candidate, but I was a Romney supporter so what do I know? Your case is compelling and I agree 100%, but the fact that Romney does have so much to offer is exactly why he will not be asked. If money becomes a huge issue for McCain and he is pressured into asking Romney, I'm not so sure Romney would even accept.
As I said in the other thread, he's the only one of the not-nominees that I would support for Veep. I prefer a couple others, but you lay out a good case for him here.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I was willing to settle on him if I had had a chance to stop McCain. I'm coming around and at least I don't have a case of hyperventilation at the thought of pulling the lever for McCain in November.
I'm planning to vote for him at this point but his VP pick is crucial in this area however. His VP pick will likely be our next nominee, (especially if McCain wins). I don't trust Romney because of his government based health care system and believe him to be a traditional northeastern liberal. If McCain picks him or any Northeastern moderate/liberal I'm I'm out with no exceptions.
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
The people who hate Romney did their job well. Its amazing that enough people bought into the stupidity that he is "a traditional northeastern liberal".
To paraphrase: "The [snake-oil selling opportunist] Romney did [his] job well. Its amazing that enough people bought into the stupidity that [he actually converted into a "conservative."]
I hope he's gone from the Prez scene forever.
And no, I don't hate him -- I just hate being lied to and assumed to be a fool.
You know you look utterly ridiculous and make this site lose credibility when you write stuff like that. You make Ron Paul tinfoil hat wearers look sane. Even at his most liberal, he was never a "northeaster liberal". Not even when he ran against Ted Kennedy way back in 1994.
But I guess you have superpowers and you can look into eyes and see some super liberal in his soul. Good for you. I wish I had super powers.
...then how conservative does that make Kennedy if:
Even at [Romney's] most liberal, he was never a "northeaster liberal". Not even when he ran against Ted Kennedy way back in 1994.
... and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Contemporary accounts of that campaign deny that claim, so does the documentary evidence, including Romney's platform of which 22 out of 24 positions were standard fare Republican.
It's obvious that Romney just rubs you the wrong way and there's nothing he can do, including personally capturing Osama bin Laden that will make you change your mind.
However, what I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with that - hating the guy, that is. I'd just advise him to be sure to remain indoors and away from any thin walls if you happen to be anywhere behind the wheel within ten miles.
You vindicate MoveOn and Air America. Pushing blatant lies over and over again makes all conservatives and Republicans look bad. It's embarrasing. It's a shame when moderators of popular sites think it's okay to just tell blatant lies about opponents like it's kindergarten. Romney's never been a liberal and no he doesn't have cooties either.
I agree, This is getting ridiculous! May of us come to sites like these to get away from the blatant distortions from the MSM. It looks like Bloggers have assumed the same arrogant condescending posture of our DC reporters. You either agree with their narrative about the candidates or you have to shut up. It has really turned me off that conservatives could be a part of the censoring & filtering facts when they don't fit their worldview. I think you should write a post on this very topic and I bet you'll be suprised how many of us feel this way. I can't believe we have to be on the defensive with fellow conservatives and have to constantly rehash the same old arguments over and over again. It's like the Democrats screaming Racist, Bigot, Homophobe! Except here especially in regards to Romeny it's Liar! Phony! Liberal! then sticking their fingers in their ears. And yes, people make outrageous claims about McCain, but the difference is they get kicked out or are subjected to rude & snarky comments about their motivations. I'm sick of it.
I have one thing to say about whether he's a liberal or not
Massachusetts government run health care....the only State that has a government mandate telling working Americans and small business owners that they have to spend their hard earned dollars to purchase a government approved health care plan or face fines and penalties. THAT'S NOT WHAT I CALL CONSERVATIVE!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
Seems to me that was going to happen in Massachusetts anyway. All Romney did was figure out a way to protect free market health care while giving the state something that has a chance to actually work, rather than a Democrat-ordered takeover of the whole system.
Maybe Kowalski could chime in on it.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
I see a lifelong pattern of liberal beliefs -- including such statements as "I am the pro-choice candidate in this race" -- and I choose to call that being Liberal (or, at very least, not being conservative).
You may choose to call that....well, whatever you want. But that won't change reality.
Hi Jeff,
I know you'd pull for Romney just after you started pulling for Hillary, but I can only find three "I am the pro-choice candidate in the race" quotes on google and they're all from Redstate. Can you please give us a link that directly comes from Romney where he states this, or is this a quote of a negative paraphrase to Romney's senate run?
Regardless, that supposed statement made in 1994 is a long way from being a "northeastern liberal" and a long way from running to the Left of Ted Kennedy. A fourteen year old out of context statement. How ridiculous. Since when is the GOP the abortion party anyway. There were about thirty issues in the race and Romney was to the Right on about all of them, I know, I was there and every single Republican and conservative in MA voted the the guy to the Right - Romney.
It's fitting that Buckley passed away and his crowning achievement, the National Review, endorsed Romney like Robert Bork. But they are all stupid according to you.
Being a Republican in a very Blue state is hard work. We are not spoiled brats up here. We're street fighters.
"supposed statement"?
Do we need to re-queue the video for you? It's not a miracle of modern technology making him sound like he's saying things he wasn't, you know -- he really said that.
Look, like I said, you can believe what you'd like. Personally, I have more than a bit of trouble taking a lifetime of hardly-conservative beliefs, combined with a just-in-time-to-need-their-votes-to-
achieve-my-next-great-ambition conversion to ideology that was nowhere near what he'd ever espoused before, and believing that to be anything other than an opportunist, ambitious series of lies that were expected to be accepted because, well, the general public is just too dumb to catch on.
And NR? Really? Their endorsement of MR was just another stop along their slide from the pinnacle of conservative thought down to the trough of being just another hardly relevant (and definitely not influential) publication.
I don't have a problem with it at all. I love it when people move to the right. I see it all the time. I wish McCain would move to the right. Stuck in Washington and being from Arizona and stuck in time, people like him don't the damage the Left can do. Moderates up here turn hard right a lot. Bill Weld left the state and moved to Rudy's hometurf because New York was more conservative.
We are not spoiled self-righteous Republicans. There is no pure litmus test. Romney move the dialogue in Massachusettes tothe Right in a way someone like McCain never did on his platform. He pushed for studd like tax cuts, english immersion, traditional marriage in tehe bluesest state.
I judge a good conservative by how far the push the agenda and the dialgue to the Right. Romney did that in Massachsetts ten times more than McCain ever did for conservatives on the Senate floor.
That is why more conservatives votesd for Romney before he quit than any other candiate and that's a fact. If you've been reduced to calling the majority of conservatives stupid and the National Review, Rush, Ingraham, Bork irrelevent, then I hope you go to church Sunday because your ego is hideous.
(1) Yes, moves to the right are great. As Erick so eloquently stated, though, while a church, for example, welcomes converts, it doesn't make them the pastor or the pope within their first year of conversion.
Romney's was too slickly timed. If he can show over the next few years that it was genuine (something I don't believe for a minute), then he can perhaps be trusted with a bit more responsibility and leadership in the movement.
(2) As far as NR, Rush, Ingraham, etc. go, it's very simple: (a) NR has becoming less relevant for years; (b) How did that primary election turn out for Romney with Hewitt, Ingraham, and Rush on his side? Yeah, pretty well, huh?
Or not. You draw your own conclusion.
swamp_yankee, I hope you don't feel I think those that endorsed Romney are stupid, I don't recall saying that.
Now Jeff on the other hand is no lover of the Romney, but he seemed to be saying that those of us that take Romney's word are all fools. He made a quote and attached it to Romney, and I'm just calling him out on where that quote came from because the only time I've seen it has been from him and other non-Romney lovers at Redstate.
As well as, "I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
"I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
For your viewing pleasure:
and
I watch this and this is what I see....I see a true believer fighting for and stridently stating what he believes. If Mr. Fantastic had sounded half as convincing about what he supposedly believes now he'd be our nominee.
I don't know the man's heart...only God does. I can't say his conversion isn't sincere. The crux of the issue is he never sounded believable during the primaries.
As for Laura and Rush, and Hannity and all the rest who still sing his praises...THEY ARE WRONG in my opinion!
Finally, I can't believe anyone can credibly say he's a conservative when he still sings the praises of his government mandated health insurance program that pays for abortions and his piloting the nations first pro gay marriage law in Massachusetts!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
Ha! It looks to me like you just don't like Republicans who know how to campaign. You might have a case if Romney had switched back, but he hasn't. He's come towards us. You didn't like his answers in those clips? They were OK with me, because they come within the range of thought that includes "safe and legal" abortions to preserve the life of the mother, etc. The answers were appropriate for the venue, and he was elected in 2002. It was pretty clear to me that he was saying that he, himself, was against abortion in general.
What's a Governor going to do, anyway, about Roe v. Wade?
Sorry, Jeff, you're not making any converts that haven't already been made, and you're causing some of us to question your judgment.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
In fact he did win. He was elected Governor in 2002. A Republican in a heavily Democrat state.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
Some of us would like McCain gone from the prez scene forever too, but oh I forgot, Southwest liberals claiming they carry the mantle of Reagan are OK. Why is it that everytime someone makes a remark about how they'll never vote for McCain you reply with some snarky comment comparing them to whining school children but you can make a comment like the one above? I'm going to assume that it is now OK for us to express what we REALLY think of McCain without being subjected to your selective censorship right?
Martin is right, you do hate him with the zeal of a true hater.
Everytime his name comes up you start with the left of Ted stuff.
I hope Mitt or one of his sons moves next door to you so you will get to see more of him.
...the last couple years, I have no doubt they'd move in, try to figure out what I think or believe on everything, then claim to have done so their entire lives.
Look at his positions...pro gay marriage...pro government health care system...pro gun control...he says he converted on pro life and I'll take his word for that but he was a traditional northeastern liberal till he started running for President? He has a history in Massachusetts's which is easily verifiable, It's not a line...it's facts!
I'll compromise and pull the lever for McCain this time around but, (given the fact that McCains VP will likely be our next Presidential nominee), if McCain picks Romney, Guiliani, Hagel, Snow, Collins, Voinavich, Dewine or any of their ilk...I'm out....PERIOD!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
I live in Massachusetts. I blind and deaf to ridiculous rhetoric. Show me that he is pro-gay marriage and I will give you every cent that I own and if you link massresistance, you are nothing but an easily duped fool.
"I live in Massachusetts. .... Show me that he is pro-gay marriage"
Do you think that while MA governor, Romney did an excellent, or mediocre, or poor job defending traditional marriage in MA?
////////////////
Romney a shape-shifting political opportunist e.g. on homosexuality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38cebb6b-6493-49b3-8574-9120f8a068c...
3 February 2008. Keyes: Romney responsible for same-sex marriage fiasco
Charges 'complete misunderstanding' of role as governor, significance of court's opinion
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=60022
Lawyers, Leaders and Activists Issue Warning to Voters:
"Conservative Elites" Covering Up Romney's Betrayals on Marriage, Life, Children and Constitution.
http://www.cpoma.org/blog/?p=147
that Ronald Reagan attended a campaign rally for Harry Truman in 1948, along with fellow Democrat Katharine Hepburn. Or that in 1950 he co-chaired Democrat Helen Douglas' Senate campaign committee in her race against Richard Nixon.
We didn't hold any of these indiscretions against him when he ran for Governor and then for President.
People change, and Mitt's conservative credentials have evolved over time. With the economic situation what it is today, I can't think of a better VP than Mitt to help McCain get our economy rolling again. Mitt will be there to ensure that McCain doesn't get weak-kneed when it comes to tax cuts.
Yah, but Reagan changed more then a decade before he ran for President.
Not saying Mitt's conversion on these issues isn't genuine, but you can't deny there is a huge difference.
And saying he campaigned for Truman isn't really saying much anyway. I think MOST Def.Cons. would have supported Truman. I know I would have.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Rather than carping so much in this blog about whether Mitt's conservative credentials are genuine, try focusing on what I said in the last paragraph.
Right on!!!!!
Yeah man...What RandomGuy said!
He's dead on accurate!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
Reagan spent YEARS speaking across this country telling everyone what he believed...He governed in California the way he said he believed. I gave his famous Goldwater speech in 1964....He didn't run for President until 1976....He didn't win the Presidency until 1980...after 16 years of speaking his views and his time as governor of California...anyone who didn't know what he stood for were fools, idiots or ignorant of most of what was happening in the world.
Romney had his conversion suspiciously close to the time he announced his candidacy for POTUS. He never sounded convincing in his discussions about his conversion, (I pointed out earlier in this thread that his demeanor and strident defense of his liberal positions in 1994 and when running for Governor were far more convincing than he was in the primaries).
I'm not saying any of this to insult anyone, it's just the way I see it. Maybe I'll change my mind in 4 to 8 years if he goes to work proving his conversion and can be as trident a conservative as he's been a liberal...but until then...VP material he's not!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
I don't expect McCain to run for reelection at the age of 75 in his condition. Romney as veep would be a perfect way to sell him to the electorate for four years and he can run in 2012 as a truly conservative candidate. By that time the Democrat backlash of 06 will be a distant memory. Romney was my pick in the primary from day one and him as VP would get the base very energized about the GE as well.
Check out my blog: http://therightway.blogspot.com
... if the VP spot went to Romney. Heck, I might even give money to the RNC again after withholding donations to them for years.
-- Go Rush!
"Hey vasquez,you ever been mistaken for a man? -- No, have you?" - Aliens
I'd take the ball and go home!!!!
I'd leave you to play with yourself!!!
:>)
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
me show McCain some love. I love Romney. Think he would make a great VP. Plus, should something happen to McCain while in office, Mitt is ready to step in and do the job!!!!!!!!!!
"To believe in nothing is to believe in everything. To believe in everything is to believe in nothing"
running mate. Conservative, popular, vetted and low key enough not to clash with McCain's more hyper personality.
I liek Fred, but if McCain is trying to run a campaign and show that he can be as vigrous at 71, the last thing he needs is to run with the guy who looks like he was in need of a nap his whole campaign.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Agreed. With the possible exception of Rudy, the guy simply cannot be over 60. Being younger then 55 is preferred.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I'm still smarting over the thought of not having him in the right seat at the White House.
Frankly up until this very moment I was a bit repulsed by the VP idea.
It would make a lot of sense for McCain, I wonder how much sense it makes for Mitt though?
If the Republicans lose the general election it would greatly diminish his brand.
But I sure would like to have him get to know the staff, etc. at the WH so all he'll have to do in 2012 is move his offices over.
If not Romney, Marsha Blackburn would be a smart end around...
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich." ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
I have always thought that McCain and Romney complement each other very well. I would have liked Romney on top, but McCain would have never taken the VP slot anyway, so I guess this was always the only way to get my two favorite candidates on the ticket.
I hope McCain is wise (and humble) enough to see the benefits of this idea.
I agree there is political capital at stake for Romney, should the ticket lose.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich." ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
I'm a huge McCain supporter but if he picked the Mitt-ster, I would consider staying home. I can't stand the man. He is a huge phony. I know there's still lots of love for the man out there, but not from me.
His record is very liberal, yet because Rush said he is conservative, many believe it is so (is there anymore proof, by the way, that the Ditto's take their nickname too seriously?)
Blackburn: the cycle is too short between the convention and election to get past her quirks. She insists on being called"Congressman", which would raise a lot of questions from the MSM. Also, it is hard to appeal to blue collar families in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. with a woman who is from one of the wealthiest districts in the country. Why should families who are worried about whether or not they will get the nexy paycheck respect someone who probably doesn't have to worry about a paycheck for the next year.
She should run for Governor or Senator.
I agree that a good case can be made for Romney.
My comments pro and con are here and in the comment that follows it.
I believe that the reason I liked Fred first and then Romney is that they were the two best qualified to be President. That is, they have more of the qualities that could make a good President, and the best combination of those qualities. Among other things, they are both relatively strong across the board, not on just one or two issues like Huckabee, just to name somebody. Also, they weren't real bad on any issue like McCain is, just to name somebody else. I can't help but take the next step and observe that if Romney was my choice for President, he'd be my logical choice for Vice President, especially with McCain in the big chair.
But, while that is important to me, it might not mean much to everybody else. And of course, the qualities of the person don't make any difference if he isn't elected in the first place. And this is where I admit that I don't know what makes a ticket "electable," I only know what's important to me.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
"8. No skeletons."
Does a far-leftist record as MA governor count as "skeletons"?
///////////////////////////
Romney owes talk radio debt of gratitude
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/f66e6dad0487...
remember punditry's malpractice this primary season
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/a49836376d61...
"Conservative Elites" Covering Up Romney's Betrayals
http://www.cpoma.org/blog/?p=147
“The Mitt Romney that governed Massachusetts was a man totally without the core principles that Mormons espouse,” said Gregg Jackson, a talk radio host in Boston and author of Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies. "This man is throwing tens of millions of his own dollars into projecting a conservative, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life image since he decided to run for president. He wasn’t even a real economic conservative, if you scratch beneath his smooth talking points. He’s the Wizard of Oz, a fake. I’m a professional and Romney fooled me for a good while.”
Come on... we have people in the race like Obama, and you think Romney is far-left?
If you give me three sources, two of which come from Usenet, to make your case... it kinda makes me think the opposite is true. Even at his most liberal Romney was to the right of Hillary Clinton.
As for me, other than the fact that he just seems to creep me out, I have few problems with Romney.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
"Come on... we have people in the race like Obama, and you think Romney is far-left?"
I don't know what Romney is currently.
Jackson, Gregg. 4 February 2008. "Why I'm Voting for Mike Huckabee"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson/2008/02/04/why_im_voting...
Mitt Romney is not only not a conservative on any issue, he's not even on the left-right spectrum. He has no beliefs. No principles. No backbone. No soul. He is a soulless creature who will do and say anything to get elected.
Do you agree with me that appointing an open homosexual activist as a judge would be a far-left action?
Romney's stellar judicial appointments
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9380a1ac-650e-4e62-a8a8-cc86e06ca2a...
"Even at his most liberal Romney was to the right of Hillary Clinton."
Was Mrs. Clinton ever responsible for implementation of a healthcare program that covers abortion?
RomneyCare funds MA abortions, and is KennedyCare/ HillaryCare,
bottom section of
Huckabee vs. Romney
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/b8874f14563f...
How many women in the US this year are going to have a baby and go right back to work, whether out of choice or need. This allows ud to start framing us as a party that is Mother sypathetic (a lot of them agree with us on some issues, but they still do not trust us enough to consider themselves Republican).
Look,
I'm LDS and there is one lesson that I took from the GOP nomination process, and that is, it is easier in 2008 to put in a woman, an African American into the office of president, then it is a Mormon. Seeing as this was a problem among our own and the Christian right where it's been reported 1 in 6 Christians wouldn't vote for a Mormon, it will be an even greater challenge in a general election.
McCain's own mother has obvious negative feelings toward the LDS faith.
Knowing all this, I just don't see as a strategy, how he would put that albatross around his neck. Not this election year.
Now, looking into the future, I can see a Hillary heisting of the presidency, 4 years of utter chaos, and the country at large will be ready to put in a druid, muslin, Hindu, atheist, or yes, even a Mormon.
he is a Mormon. He lost because he couldn't convince the Republican party voters he would be the best man for the job. It is that simple.
And if you are going to make disparaging remarks about someone's 90+ year old mother, you need to have a link to back it up.
Don't know how to make it a link, but here is where you go about the 95 year old mother's remark:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SQETR00&show_article=1
Help Bulgarian orphans. Visit www.oneheart-bg.org.
it's a pretty lame charge to say she has negative feelings towards all Mormons. She was talking about a specific event. Granted, she was wrong, but I'd hardly count that as anti-Mormon sentiment.
And McCain clearly doesn't have a problem with Mormon support considering that there are quite a lot of them in Arizona.
And, again, anti-Mormon sentiment is not what caused Mitt to lose. He lost it because of his conflicting positions and the appearance of pandering. That's all.
Maybe I'm an idealist.....But I think the Mormon angle was way overplayed. I'm a Baptist and I would have no problem whatsoever pulling the lever for a Mormon I believe in.
I have doctrinal issues with Mormons as I do with Catholics, and Jews...But I would vote for any of them that were orthodox in their views because as a whole we all agree on what policies best represent the way a free society should be ordered.
One of my best friends who I played football with in high school was LDS. I was crushed when he moved to Utah to attend BYU. I know what he believed and I know him to be one of the most moral and upright people I've ever known. I could only aspire to be like him. I would vote for him or someone like him in a second.
Romney is a bird of a different feather though. He has a past that can be scrutinized. And it's hard to get past his last minute conversion and the fact that he just isn't believable!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I've always thought this would be an amazingly good ticket.
The problem with Romney as the VP is the same he had running for the nomination. A good segment of the party just can't believe that he has sincerely changed so many key positions such as abortion and so called "gay marriage". That doesn't go away because he is in the VP slot.
I know many of you want a strong conservative as the VP. But it has to be more than a strong conservative. It has to be one who can be and is already a dynamic leader. One who would benefit greatly by national exposure as a VP candidate, so that that leadership could then be widely exposed, win or lose in 2008.
However, I don't think McCain will do that. He is the "maverick" who is even now trying to appeal to so called "moderates" and liberals. He will try to balance the ticket, possibly with a mildly pro-choice candidate, to appeal to those liberal and "moderate" democrats.
We are more likely to see a Christine Todd Whitman as the VP as we are any conservative. Just watch.
Romney would not carry any new state for McCain. Romney does not seal-the-deal with conservatives. The reason Romney lost is because many conservatives did not trust him. Further, not only does McCain not like him, but Huckabee and Paul supporters don't like him either.
If McCain is having trouble with the Mormon vote, the election is over and the GOP does not stand a chance.
Romney would not have party unity one bit. Romney has attacked, not only McCain, but all the candidates. Romney went after Giuliani and Huckabee.
If the election is about Health Care, McCain doesn't want Romney anywhere near him. Romney's, abortion with a $50 co-pay healthcare plan was a weakness of his in the primary. If you recall, Huckabee's attack add that didn't run attacked Romney's healthcare system and it worked. Universal healthcare is a Democratic issue, not a GOP one. If you want to talk healthcare, DR. Coburn, is a better VP. Senator Coburn is also better with the fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.
If your campaign strategy has anything in it about the wife of your VP -- you have no chance to win. That is really grasping at straws.
romney wouldn't help in Michigan. Right.
"Romney has attacked, not only McCain, but all the candidates. Romney went after Giuliani and Huckabee." Is that a joke? Because none of the candidates attacked eack other except Romney. Right.
Romney had much support inthe primary. He barely lost. There are lots of conservativs who would be energized by hime inlcuding Rush, Ingraham and a host of others, but I get get it. They dont count anymore because they didnt support your guy even though conservative talk radio has done more for the conservative movment then McCain, Fred and Rudy combined.
Romney federalist approach and superior knowledge of the healthcare system wo't help either. Right.
What's federalist about telling a family they have to spend money the way the Government wants on Health insurance or face fines and other civil penalties?
I can't think of anything that's come along in the last 100 years that is more repugnant to liberty and conservative government!
Once you open the door to government telling you you have to buy insurance you open it up to government telling you you have to buy any number of Nanny State products you have no desire to own!
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
You don't understand federalism. Federalism is about the balance of power betweeen the Federal government and states. It has nothing to do wit hhow a state runs its business.
I understand federalism just fine, I simply misapplied the term as a reply to the post above, (where federalism was mentioned)...I should have left the term out and just described my problems with Romney and left it at that.
It could be argued however that most federalists have a good grasp of the proper roll of all levels of government and the need to restrain it in it's scope and power. I don't believe Romney has a proper understanding as such and I don't think his views fit a true federalist mold. I point you to his promise during the campaign to use his powers as POTUS to bail out Michigan as an example.
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther
"Romney has attacked, not only McCain, but all the candidates. Romney went after Giuliani and Huckabee."
"Romney went after Giuliani" when? and how?
////////////////////
Democrats For Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiCqxKLIVDY
Medved
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/08/wi...
Mitt Romney’s saturation attack ads (played every few minutes in Iowa and now in New Hampshire) have not only poisoned the campaign with mischaracterizations of the records of his opponents, but also set the agenda for horribly unenlightening and awkward debates that harmed all the candidates, very much including Romney himself.
Romney attacks Huckabee again with false and misleading claims
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80949
Romney: McCain's bill gives, and doesn't give, amnesty to illegals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RtlC4g96ck
More Mitt Malarkey
Romney repeats misleading claims about McCain's stand on immigration
http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_malarkey.html
Fee-Fee Romney's Taxes & Fees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=23a78e88-4d1a-47bd-8a7a-60aa8109e29...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWRmY2MxMzJhOTc4OTlmMjJjYWY3NWI2Yzl...
“Come on, Mitt, tighten up your chin strap,” Salter, standing just a few feet away from the Romney team, told reporters. “Of all the ludicrous suggestions – Mitt Romney whining about being attacked, when he has predicated an entire campaign plan on whoever serially looks like the biggest challenger gets, whatever, $20 million dropped on his head and gets his positions distorted. Give me a break. It’s nothing more than a guy who dishes it out from 30,000 feet altitude and then gets down in the arena and somebody says, O.K. Mitt, gives him a little pop back, and he starts whining. That’s unbecoming.”
------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org
Sure, we know that McCain had it wrapped up, but Romney could have gone on. Even with the disdain between them, Romney endorsed him, so no love lost, if he was asked, he'd feel it was his duty to serve.
I doubt McCain will ask him, but swamp's points are all valid imho and all the counter points I've read against it are just primary arguments rehashed. Even at the end of Huck's super long photo op, Romney still had a million votes more than he had. News flash, when Romney pulled out he was within 5% of the popular vote and lost most contested within less than 5% to McCain. I don't buy the Romney lost the primary, thus he's weak. He'd make a good VP. I just don't see McCain swallowing his pride to make it happen.
"Romney can help assuage some of the immigration and global warming skeptics as well."
How so, exactly? With smooth talking points? With his MA record?
///////////////////////////
Romney: "that [coal-fired power] plant kills people"; global warming "quite alarming"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b315064c-1dd8-40a2-892b-ae09f30cce4...
Romney on global warming:
videos:
I want a global cap and trade re: CO2 emissions;
let's push for global reductions in CO2 emissions
http://www.heatison.org/pages/Governor_Mitt_Romney
Romney: reduce our emission of greenhouse gases, gases that very well might contribute to global warming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBFEFczJ91o
Romney's flip-flops on immigration, etc.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a49-948df8f8035...
He adds nothing to McCain. The points in your diary are all valid and speak to Mitt's strong points but with the possible exception of Michigan they don't amount to actual votes.
And I have my doubts that he would help in Michigan that much. The group of folks that voted for Romney already switched to McCain when Mitt dropped out. In addition Huckabee supporters will largely vote for McCain but would be even less inclined to do so if Mitt were on the ticket in the same way that many Romney supporters would do if Huckabee were selected. So the net of a Mitt (or Huckabee) VP is you get nothing and potentially lose a good chunk of supporters.
If Mitt wants in he has to prove he's conservative for four or eight years and then -- like Reagan -- give it another shot.
Can't let this pass.
"(Romney) adds nothing to McCain."
Only knowledge of the financial markets, knowledge of economics, knowledge of business, a position on the right side of amnesty from the beginning, and the ability to analyze issues more complex than the morning horoscope.
If I'm not mistaken, Romney got a larger percentage of voters called "conservative" than McCain did. McCain's margins of victory depended upon "moderates" and "independents." I suspect those were mostly GWOT single-issue voters, so he might be able to hold them in the general election, no matter who the VP is.
Gaines, I don't include you in this, but this thread seems to me to be a lot more anti-Romney than one would expect. The vehemence of the attacks and their irrationality lead me to believe that there's more to it than just a dislike of Romney. There are those of us who are just as disdainful of McCain, but it doesn't mean we can't admit to his positive points as well.
"If Mitt wants in he has to prove he's conservative for four or eight years and then -- like Reagan -- give it another shot."
Why, pray tell? We haven't nominated a solid conservative this time, and McCain's liberal transgressions are a lot more recent and meaningful than anything Romney has been accused of.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
I guess I feel that in spite of his positive qualities Mitt would have a similar effect on the ticket as Huckabee. There would be a fairly large group of Republicans who would not be able to warm to the idea.
My second statment which you quote wasn't meant to be an indictment of Mitt nor a negative comparison of him to McCain but merely a statment about the path Mitt has to take if he wants to run for President the next time around.
Whether you agree personally or not. Mitt's flaws were two-fold. One he just wasn't that personable. Two he got caught in the rightly or wrongly deserved buckshot of a Johnny come lately on some conservative issues. He has to work on both of these to succeed the next time around.
OK. Fair enough. Mitt was NOT very personable at first, in that he was too scripted all the time, and the Romneybotic stereotype fit too well. In the early going, he tried to get too much into each answer. But he did stay on message, which Fred couldn't do at all. I thought Mitt had loosened up a lot by the end. Even his interviews were going better. But let's face it--nobody can beat Huckabee at throwing the BS around. It's just that if you subjected Huck to slo-mo replay you could see his similarity with Obama.
I was for Fred, then went to Romney when Fred dropped out, as I think a lot of us did. Just a guess, but I'll bet that Romney was the second choice of a lot of Fredheads.
The Johnny-come-lately angle was obviously important for the folks whose glasses are half-empty. A judgement call for anybody.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
1. The two hate each others guts. There have been tickets where #1 & #2 have some antipathy (Reagan/Bush & Clinton/Gore) but the white-hot loathing these two men have for each other burns hotter than 1000 suns.
2. The VP has to fall in line with the President on most of the big issues. Immigration, stem-cell research, AGW, etc. Hard to see Mitt flipping on these after all the heat he got for flipping the first time.
3. If the primary campaign proved anything, it was that Romney was a very week candidate. Anytime you outspend your opponents by many orders of magnitude and still lose is not a good sign.
4. If we're worried about holding onto the Mormon vote, we're pretty screwed anyway.