The Candidates
Featured Archives
One of the beautiful things about R4′08 is that while the site’s founder is clearly pro-Rudy when it comes to the ‘08 primaries, he allows other front page posters to share their views and insight as well – even if it favors another candidate. As Kavon mentioned yesterday, two of the writers here favor Rudy, one favors McCain, and one favors Romney. Well, I am that one with the Romney leanings, and Kavon has graciously allowed me to share why in this long, but comprehensive diary on the subject.
So here it is: why I will cast my vote for Mitt when the Wyoming primaries roll around in 2008 – and why I think you should consider it as well. No offense is meant to anyone else here who favors a different candidate, and I look forward to the constructive dialog that can come from this!
The Midas Touch – Mitt’s Non-political History
One of the first things I look at when I consider a Presidential candidate is their back story and previous experience, because you can learn a lot about someone from seeing where they came from, how they dealt with things, and what they’ve achieved before desiring to be President. This is where Mitt excels.
Family and Personal Life
First, he married his highschool sweetheart, Ann, in 1969 and has remained faithfully married to her to this day. They have a loving family with five sons and five daughters-in-law. Additionally, it appears that the whole of Romney’s personal life could be summed up in two words: integrity and dedication. He graduated summa cum laude and as valedictorian with his bachelor degree and then went on to work on and earn an MBA (top 5% of his class) and a law degree (cum laude) from Harvard – at the same time.
While this has little actual effect on Romney’s ability to govern well, it will be a breath of fresh air to have a candidate who is a true role model in the White House and for whom their personal life is a positive instead of a liability. With Romney, there will be no charges of impropriety in his marriage or his personal decisions; no claims of cocaine use, no DUI sprung at the last minute, no claims of lack of intelligence. There will be no cigar moments, no grand jury testimonies, and no travelgate investigations. Integrity and dedication seem to guide Romney in his personal choices, and Americans will respond well to that.
Business Life
If one’s desire is to see government run like a business, and it is mine, then you need look no farther than Romney for inspiration on this front. In addition to his marriage, his schooling, and the rest of his personal life being superb, his background in the private sector before becoming a politician is even better.
Romney co-founded an investment company known as Bain Capital in 1984 with an original fund of $37 million from private investors. Over the next 14 years, Romney would lead Bain Capital in many investments and acquisitions, including companies such as Staples, Domino’s, Toys R Us, and Burger King. The company that began as a $37 million investment now manages over $27 billion in assets. Romney left Bain in 1998 to work on the Salt Lake City Games, but kept his interest in the company until 2001. Bain Capital is still operating and still continuing to do very well.
In 1990, six years into the success that was Bain Capital, an organization that Romney had worked for out of college requested that he come back and rescue them. Bain & Company was a management consulting firm out of Boston that Romney worked at for 6 years after college and was now on the verge of folding financially. They requested Romney be their CEO and turn things around, he obliged, and beautiful things happened. Via reforms and restructuring, he turned the entire company around in less than one year and made them profitable again without having to layoff any workers or losing any partners.
In 1998, Romney was called upon to save the Salt Lake City Games much in the same way he had saved Bain & Company. The games were facing a $379 million budget shortfall, plans to have to scale back the games, and allegations of bribery involving the then-President and Vice-President of the Committee. The President and VP were forced to resign, and Romney stepped in in 1999 as President and CEO. Again, he worked his magic and the budget shortfall became a $100 million profit – even including a $300 million security plan that had to be put in place after 9/11 – integrity was returned to the leadership, and the games were a great success. The games were actually expanded instead of scaled back, and the Salt Lake City Games stand as the most attended winter Olympics in history.
As you can see, Romney does seem to have the Midas Touch – everything he touches turns to gold. His business ventures that he manages and leads take off and are huge successes. He has experience with, and success in, managing budget shortfalls, turning companies and organizations around, making things profitable, and instituting necessary reforms and restructurings. I believe success in private executive roles translates directly into success in political executive roles. He is the epitome of success in his personal and private sector life.
The Commonwealth – Romney’s Political Life
Governor 2002-2006
After rescuing the Salt Lake City Games, Romney decided to run for Governor of his home state, Massachusetts. He has previously run in 1994 for Senator against Ted Kennedy and lost, and during that campaign made several statements that have come back to haunt him now, 12 years later. We will explore those statements later.
For now, though, Romney was coming off of three highly successful ventures in Bain Capital, Bain & Company, and the SLC Olypmics and desired to use his executive experience in leading his state as governor. In fact, Romney was pretty much drafted to run by the state Republicans after his successes and because they found the supposed front-runner, Jane Swift, to be unelectable in an election against a Democrat opponent. Romney obliged and won the primary and the election by running on a platform of reform – the same kinds of reforms he worked in the private sector. And reform he did.
His successes in the political executive office are as impressive as his successes in the private sector. Working with a Democratic-controlled state Congress, which cannot possibly be stressed enough, he turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million surplus – in just two years. Most impressively, he did this without raising taxes.
What makes that last point even more impressive is remembering he did it with a Democratic-controlled Congress that wanted to raise taxes. And not only was the Congress controlled by Democrats, they had well over a supermajority and could have overridden any veto Romney made. Instead, Romney met with them and convinced them not to raise taxes and to buy into his plan for reducing spending, reducing the size of government, and reforming necessary areas in order to get rid of the deficit. That is one of Romney’s strongest points and one of the biggest reasons I will support him: his ability to effectively vision cast. We’ll discuss that a little later as well.
So with the Democrats on board, Romney turned the Massachusetts financial situation around in less than two years. He did not raise taxes, but did raise the fees people had to pay for some programs such as driver’s license fees and marriage license fees. I couldn’t find any actual reports of the fee increase itself, but near as I can tell the driver’s license fee was upped $5 and the marriage license fee was upped $4. I don’t see this as a big deal at all, and I doubt many others do either, but Romney supporters must be honest about this point.
Abortion
Let’s get this off the table first thing: did Romney change his political position on abortion? Yes. It would do all Romney supporters well to remember that and not pretend otherwise. However, I happen to believe, as do many others, that his conversion was a sincere one. It should be left up to every individual to make that decision for him or herself. Was his conversion sincere or merely calculated for political gain? It’s up to you to decide, and the debate has been hashed out here time and time again. But in making that decision I would point to actions Romney has taken as Governor of Massachusetts, interviews where he has been very candid about his conversion experience, and the clear way he talks about the issue now.
But the main reason I fully support Romney in this area is rarely talked about – no matter what political position he has taken on abortion (pro-life or pro-choice), there is one area of the abortion debate on which he has been clear and consistent: states should determine for themselves their own abortion laws. This leads me to believe he will not only cast a clear and inspiring vision for the culture of life in general, but will also be committed to nominating Supreme Court Justices that will vote to overturn the atrocity that is Roe v Wade.
The War on Terror
The top three issues for me in a Presidential campaign are abortion, reducing the size of government (including, mostly, taxes), and the war on terror. I believe Romney is strong on all three of them, including the war.
But how can a Governor be suited to take over the Oval Office in the time of war, some have argued. He doesn’t have any foreign policy experience! We need a Senator or a?? Mayor?
Romney’s credentials speak for themselves in this arena, and give even more reason to be comfortable with a Romney candidacy:
- He is on the Dept of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council
- He co-chaired the Homeland Security Committee of the National Governor’s Association
- He oversaw the complete security detail of the SLC Games, a point that cannot be stressed enough – a $300 million plan just three months after 9/11
- He made a gutsy call and denounced Khatami’s visit to Harvard, cut off all state funding for the trip, and denied him police escort while he was there
In addition to this, he has given several speeches that line out his views on the war on terror, including calling for the possibility of wiretapping mosques, racial profiling of foreign students, more money and attention on intelligence gathering, calling the War on Terror the war against radical jihadists and saying we need to understand the religious part of the war and our enemies, stating that only a small percentage of Muslims are extremists but that a small percentage of a large number is still a large number, and showing great support for Israel against Hezbollah and Hamas.
But so what, many detractors shout. So what if he talked about foreign policy? He hasn’t actually done any! Well, neither has Rudy. Or McCain. Or Huckabee. Or pretty much any of the other candidates at this point. What matters on foreign policy is your underlying beliefs, your intelligence about the subject, and the vision that you want to help America achieve in the world. And having run a multinational business for many years, and dealing with the hundreds of countries at the Olympic Games, couldn’t really hurt Romney in this area.
Vision Casting
This is the foundational reason I am excited about a Romney candidacy. Ever since Reagan, we have been clamoring for another #quot;Great Communicator#quot;. Not just so we won’t have to worry about our guy flubbing up a debate, but because great communicators inspire us with their vision of what America can be. They change people’s minds with their rhetoric and persuasive abilities. They are able to advance a conservative agenda by advancing a conservative philosophy. That is where Reagan excelled, and it is where, I believe anyway, Romney can excel as well.
Romney can reach across the aisle and get things done – not in a mushy pandering sort of way, but just like he did in Massachusetts: by describing his vision for things. He got a Democrat-controlled Congress on board with his decision to eliminate government jobs, reduce government spending and waste, and to not raise taxes. Friends and family that have heard him speak are impressed with him and willing to consider his views. He is a charismatic, likable, persuasive speaker. I am excited for what that could mean for the future of America and for the future of the Republican party.
The Other Alternatives
When I place Romney next to the other alternatives for a candidate in 2008, the choice becomes even clearer for me.
There’s John McCain, the man I could never bring myself to vote for – at least in a primary, and it would have to be pretty remarkable circumstances for me to vote for him in a general either. I believe this guy, while possibly providing a short-term victory to the GOP by keeping the White House in ‘08 (and even that is a huge #quot;if#quot; at this point), would do great harm to our party and our image in the long run. As I said, my biggest three issues are abortion, taxes, and security, and I feel like I can only trust McCain on one of those. And even that might be subject to change should he feel the media need a new Sunday morning headliner.
Then there’s Rudy. I used to be able to pretend that I could ignore his stance on social issues. And according to the latest interview with Giuliani, that’s exactly the strategy he’s going for – focus on security and ignore social issues, and hope the electorate ignores them as well. That’s not good enough for me. It boggles my mind that the people who are wary of Romney because of flip-flopping charges are the same people who expect Giuliani, who fought to continue public funding of abortions and said no woman should ever be denied her right to an abortion, to govern the exact opposite way now. Abortion isn’t all about judges. It isn’t even a majority about judges. Rudy just hopes you forget about the whole subject. And his record on fiscal conservatism is being called into question now as well, as it appears he didn’t really balance the budget in NYC by cutting government – he did it a la Gray Davis by borrowing bonds and placing the city in $4.5 billion of debt when he left office.
How about Mike Huckabee? Huck blatantly and proudly fails on the issue of reducing the size and scope of government. He has worked hard to expand the nanny state in Arkansas, especially in the education system (no soda machines in schools, kids forced to weigh-in to see if they’re losing or gaining weight) and the area of smoking bans (by passing the most comprehensive one in the country at the time and even suggesting a ban on smoking by pregnant women at any time). And he’s not that great on security, either, having spoken out against the NSA wiretap program and being incredibly lax on immigration (which is directly connected to security in my mind) – even saying opponents of guest worker programs might be racists. And Huck isn’t exactly clean of scandals, either, during his term as Governor. In fact, many in Arkansas called him the Huckster because he was so slick.
The rest of the second tier candidates aren’t going to make a dent.
The Bottom Line
So when it comes down to it, for me, the choice is clear: Mitt Romney is officially my guy for 2008. He will be an inspiring and decisive leader, and I feel like we have in Romney a great hope to rekindle the conservative spirit across this country and see the promise of our great nation begin to be fulfilled.
(cross posted at redstate.com)
January 12th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Excellent post HeavyM.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
We need to hear a lot more from you HeavyM to balance out this website. Plenty of news being reported at electromneyin2008.com , evangelicalformitt.com and mymanmitt.com that can be shared here also. Excellent points in your post BTW. Thanks for taking the time to write such a thorough endorsement.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Good post, but your gripes with Huckabee could probably be shown better by other arguments. The nation is really facing an obesity epidemic that is already costing tens of billions of dollars and will cost trillions. I am a MD and see it and the money that gets thrown at obese people for their heart problems, diabetes and eventually dialysis, joint replacements and many other ills that hit fat folks. I would hope that Mitt addresses the problem in some effective way, even if it means some government intrusion, because it’s you and me that pay when a 350lb’er is unemployed, on Social Security disability at 35, and eating $20,000 in medicaid a year.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I agree with a lot said in this post. But you forgot one of the most positive things about Romney. His views on border security/illegal aliens. He is practically on par with Hunter and Tancredo and is obviously more electable. His great position on illegal aliens must be verbalised by Romney supporters.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Romney will be out of the race before the Wyoming primary.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Paul S,
Your man seems to be waiting to be drafted…I wouldn’t talk about people being out of the race before a primary. But, then I guess Huckabee has an advantage. You have to be IN the race, or at least in the same town as the race, before you can drop out.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Why do you think that, Paul?
January 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
On a side note, when is the Wyoming primary? Is that like, some primary that’s terribly important?
January 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Hello President Clinton–I want to win this. The 2008 election will not be won or lost in South Carolina.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Grant,
What does South Carolina have to do with this excellent post by HeavyM?
January 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Look at response 1 by Jason.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Rasmussen poll–Romney favorable 29%, unfavorable 35%; Edwards 54%-Romney 32%; Obama 48%-Romney35%. I know polls don’t matter.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I’d imagine the Wyoming primary is tremendously significant to HeavyM, as that is the one he’ll be voting in.
Great post, HeavyM. Hits almost all of the major appeals of Romney. In particular, this is the best summary of Romney’s personal characteristics, vision casting, and “Midas Touch” that I’ve seen.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Thanks for the positive feedback on the post, guys. A couple quick notes:
On Romney’s electability: the poll numbers are so low because, as highlighted in a piece Kavon did a few days ago, 85% of Americans don’t know enough about Mitt to form an opinion yet. You can bet many of those 85% will like what they see when they get to know him.
On the Wyoming primary: right now I think it’s set for sometime in the all-important primary month of May. I know. We don’t really matter here. But I like to pretend my vote still counts at least. Helps me make it through the day.
On the balance of this site: Even before I got here and began posting front page articles, I read this site almost every day and posted comments every now and again. I never thought this site had any anti-Romney bias. I think Romney supporters have proven to have the thinnest skin of any candidate in a long time and it would do us all well to buck up and handle things like grown ups. I know Kavon desires a balanced site more than anything, and a lot of times if you support one candidate or another you see things filtered through that view point.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Thanks, Grant. Your post makes better sense. And early polls do matter, but only about as much as early scores of a ball-game matter.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I don’t think it’s just the support of one candidate or another than makes this site appear to be Rudy-leaning. There might be two Rudy-leaning bloggers here, but you can bet on seeing a Deroy Murdock pro-Rudy piece every couple of days or so, and that helps contribute to the general sentiments.
And you don’t have to be a Romney fan to notice that.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
What’s the Wyoming primary like?
January 12th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Pretty sparsely attended caucus, from what I understand, because it’s always so late in the season and doesn’t matter to the outcome of the race.
I’ve actually never participated, because the first Presidential election I was old enough to vote in was 2000 (turned 18 in 1997) and I was going to college out of state at the time. Then in 2004, there was no reason to vote in the primary. So I’m actually excited to take part in it next year! I’ll relay the experience back to you.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I am not sure Romney supporters have thicker or thinner skins than other supporters. Sometimes we have pro-Romney days. Other days are anti-Romney days. In the same way we get pro-Giuliani days and anit-Giuliani days. Even McCain gets his up and down days here.
Whenever the going gets tough for any one candidate, his partisans defend him. And when a candidate is getting really good press, his opponent’s partisans shoot him down. There is nothing wrong with that. The main reason I come to a site such as this is so I can read other points of view.
I really have few if any complaints on how Kavon runs this site. He doesn’t run it exactly how I would, but it’s his site, not mine. Overall I like its civility and intelligent point and counterpoint.
I much prefer it to RedState or Hotline.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
WAY TO GO HEAVYM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Mitt is definitely my choice too. All of your points are excellent and I now like the guy even more than I did before.
VOTE FOR MITT!!!
January 12th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I usually am pretty much of a conservative purist,so Romney(dispite some past liberal social views) has great appeal to me based on his excellent resume. However,with the Dems in control of Congress and mabey two or three election cycles before Republicans have a chance to get back in control,it is essential that we get a Conservative leaning Republican in the White House.The damage that a Hillary Clinton ,John Edwards or Barak Obama could do to this nation with a Democrat Congress may be irrepairable. Thus for me ,electability will be more important than pure Conservative views on all issues. AS long as the candidate is strong on national security, a fiscal conservative,for tax reform,and will fight to appoint pro life or strict constructionist judges and will propose free market solutions for Social Security and health care ,I can overlook a few more liberal views on abortion or gay rights(if believes should leave these issues to the states). That’s why Rudy is my first choice as of now.
His favorables are at 68-69%,higher than any other politician.If Romney can catch fire and can show electability against the top Dems,I’m open to seriously consider him,as well as any other GOP candidate who meets my creteria and has a chance to win. Bottom line WE NEED A WINNER. The survival of our nation is at stake and that trumps pure conservative ideology this go round.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:04 am
I have two questions:
1. Can Mitt Romney win all the states that Bush won in 2004?
2. Can Mitt Romney flip any states that went for Kerry in 2004?
January 13th, 2007 at 3:14 am
I believe the answer to both questions is “yes”. Just look at Romney work, he’s up there with President Reagan and President Clinton in terms of pure political magnetism. Plus the fact that he’s gotten this far without really unleashing his personal skills speaks well of his political chops. He’s even learned from the mistake he made when he let that Boston Globe hit piece about homosexuals go unchallenged for most of a week. When the YouTube video came out this week, he was prepared and fired back almost instantly.
I know this site is very much into the theory that the map is turning blue (I recall one of your bloggers even had Arkansas and Missouri as sure bets for Sen. Clinton against Romney), but even back in the days of Democrat dominance we need to remember that a strong candidate will tip the balance. Romney could easily put Michigan and Wisconsin in danger of tipping red. By the time he runs rings around Sen. Clinton in the debates we could well be talking landslide.
January 13th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Thomas Alan,
Since it’s late and I’m way too lazy to write a lengthy reply, I’ll just say a few things.
I believe the answer to both questions is “yesâ€.
So Romney can win Ohio and Florida in 2008? Those two states have been trending blue for quite sometime and in the November midterms, the Dems found a way to win big (they nominated candidates who are socially moderate/conservative yet had a strong economically populist streak).
(I recall one of your bloggers even had Arkansas and Missouri as sure bets for Sen. Clinton against Romney)
Hillary Clinton and Arkansas. Her poll numbers there are incredibly high there as well, she could very well win that state were she to get the nomination (just like, say Edwards could very well win North Carolina if he gets the nod). Home state advantage is huge.
Romney could easily put Michigan and Wisconsin in danger of tipping red.
Have you taken a look at Romney’s poll numbers in Michigan lately? Even though he has almost near universal name recognition, he’s still far, far behind McCain and Giuliani. And believe me, I live in Wisconsin, Romney’s big government social conservatism doesn’t play won’t play well here. We are not a socially conservative state, which means that realistically only McCain, Giuliani or Thompson (I can dream…) could win back a lot of the old Reagan Democrats or even Ford Democrats who haven’t voted for the GOP in a generation.
Look, I think Romney would’ve been an amazing candidate in 2000, but the political landscape has shifted significantly since then. We need a candidate that really play competitively in the northern blue states. It’s almost inevitable that at least a couple states in the south will flip to the Dems in 2008. Remember the Dems only need to win every state that Kerry one, plus one.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:58 am
[...] HeavyM, Laying it All Out [...]
January 13th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Florida has been turning RED for years. Even in this last election, in which our most prominent politician is named Bush, we comfortably elected a GOP governor and returned all statewide offices except one. It’s not a safe state, but its far from a blue one.
Furthermore, you’re stuck using static analysis in which the appeal of the candidate doesn’t matter. This kind of mindless analysis, particularly of an event driven election, is prevalent on the internets, but nearly meaningless in the real world of elections.
Yes, Romney is quite capable of breaking through in the tough states and even challenging in the bright blue states. Despite his conservative credentials he’s a candidate very capable of generating crossover appeal.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Florida is not trending blue LJ. How many times do I have to say this? Beyond the Deep South, there is absolutely no state that the GOP did better in during November then Florida. I’m pretty sure they lost less then 4 seats in the statehouse (I’d looked it up at some point) and nearly retained the Foley seat even though his replacement didn’t have his name on the ballot. Crist won by more then 7 points, despite serious allegations/scandals in the last few weeks of the campaign. Jeb Bush has turned Florida reliably red in any normal Republican year. Yes, I know 2008 isn’t going to be a normal Republican year. But if its so bad that we have to worry about losing Florida (against anyone other then Hillary, though I think the transplant business is vastly overstated) in 2008, we might as well hang up our hat because we’re going to lose with ANYONE at the top of the ticket.
Romney is not a big government social conservative. Romney’s support isn’t coming primarily from Big Government Social conservatives. If you, for instance, look the November GOP bloggers poll, you’ll notice that, Romney is by far closest to, among the Big Three, the “average” poll respondent. This is particularly the case if we look at the breakdown between those who identified as War on Terror, Economic, or Social conservatives. His numbers are almost identical to the average poll respondent (he has support from a 1% more War on Terror conservatives, 2% fewer ecomic conservatives, 4% more social conservatives, and 1.3% unidentified rather then 4% undentified in the greater poll. I don’t have an extensive analysis, but I suspect these differences are terribly statistically significant. Giuliani has 10% higher War on Terror support, slightly higher then average Economic supporand very little social support (numbers that make quite a bit of sense). Somewhat curiously, McCain’s support seems to be, primarily, from self-described economic conservatives, with lower then average support from War on Terror and social conservatives. Further analysis shows that this too makes sense. Self-described economic conservatives are, as a group, less conservative then the other two groups. They are more likely to be the mainstreeters of the party. Mike Huckabee gains 15% more support from social conservatives, and 15% less support from War on Terror conservatives. Brownback has 40% more support from self-described social conservatives. Now, I’m well aware that a GOP bloggers poll does not fully represent the broader Republican Party. This is why McCain consistently polls so poorly in these things. But it certainly is informative in determining what type of supporters each candidate is likely to gain. And it reinforces what I said previously, and debunks your assertion: Romney doesn’t have a particular “base” of the Republican Party. Instead, Republicans and conservatives of all stripes seem to, on ample exposure to Romney, be essentially equally likely to support him. There are things to be found in Romney to please a wide variety of conservatives. No matter how much you try to spin it, a man who erased a 3 billion dollar deficit in a single year, without raising taxes (and with huge spending cuts), then subsequently created surpluses year after year still, without raising taxes, simply can’t be credibly called a “big-goverment” conservative, health care plan notwithstanding.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Note: That healthcare plan was paid for using existing funds. It is simply more efficient than the state reimbusing hospitals for uninsured emergency room visits.
Using free market principles to solve a problem before the public demands the government take over…that seems the essense of modern conservative problem-solving to me.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:15 am
LJ, I have witnessed two Romney campaigns here in Mass. and this guys problem is not electability. He is brilliant in debates, is a great communicator on the campaign trail, and his opponent’s attacks just dont stick because any honest observer realizes Romney is such a decent man. There are about ten conservatives in Mass. but Romney won with well over 50% of the vote. He reminds me of Reagan in so many ways – a sense of humor which he never loses, one of the better speech-givers out there, he even kinda looks like Ronny. Even when he began to campaign for pres. here in Mass. his approval rating stayed above 40%. Polls are significant at this stage, but I would not go overboard on a guy who is unknown and is probably known as the Mormon guy to those who do not live in New England or are political buffs. You ask how he can win states trending blue when he won in Mass.! Sure, he was pro-choice at the time but everyone knew he was a conservative and voted for him anyway, it was unbelievable. Your using polls of (mostly) uninformed people to make a point that runs counter to two actual, real-life campaigns. From my first-hand experience with Romney here in Mass., as far as Im concerened if you look up “electable” in the dictionary it should have a picture of Romney.
Heavy M – A fabulous post, but I would also highlight some local issues that did not get much national attention. He ousted Billy Bulger (the brother of infamous Boston mobster Whitey Bulger) from being president of UMass.. Most in Mass. thought Romney would be “whacked” after that one. His moral clarity in saying that Massachusetts schools would not be run by a buearacracy employing ex-mobsters was remarkable. In addition his response to the big-dig tunnel collapse this last summer was commendable. He instantly took over with the mentality of a CEO and restored people’s faith in the project.
Rudy is my first choice but Romney would be an excellent banner-carrier for our cause.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Another testament to Romney’s electability is the way Democrats are reacting to his candidacy. In the last 6 weeks the DNC has put out 11 press releases directly on Romney. McCain has 2 during that time period (though about 10 more mention him indirectly). Rudy has 1. Or look at a recent segment of HotlineTV where both Todd and Mercurio agree that if Romney makes it into the general election, he is THE most electable Republican (Todd going so far as to say Romney has more magnetism then even Obama). Democratic strategists are terrified of this guy. And for good reason. I plan to, maybe later today, write an entry on my blog discussing this issue in more detail. I’ll link to the post at that point.
January 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Gee, imagine what the Dems will do when Huckabee enters?
January 13th, 2007 at 11:43 am
i repeat Rasmussen poll Edwards54-Romney 32; Obama 48-Romney 35. Romney favorable 29 unfavorable 35. If you think Romney’s magnetism is going change those big deficits, you are nuts.
January 13th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Those aren’t particularly high deficits Gormley. They’re almost statistically meaningless when they only represent 15% of poll respondents. I repeat. People, almost without exception, only know Romney as the Mormon candidate. The fact that he’s gaining favorability ground under those auspices is remarkable.
January 13th, 2007 at 11:51 am
HeavyM, I thought your endorsment was appropriate and timely for Wyoming. Let’s see what we can do to help him. FYI- There are other websites that are near Wyoming that support him in the West as well, one is: http://montanansformitt.com.westernromancecompany.com out of the north of us, and a ton in Utah at http://www.utahnsformitt.com, momsformitt.com, ….. and Idaho(not the sure but (?????@wordpress.com). Keep up the good work.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Grant –
Mass. Senate = Mitt Romney – 41%, Kennedy 58% (it was closer than it seems)
Mass. Gov. = Mitt Romney – 50%, Shannon O’Brien 45%
I don’t know about you but I prefer real election results to pretend ones, especially in the blueest of blue states.. As HeavyM points out something like 85% of American don’t know enough to form an opinion. The only thing out there are the negatives. You ask the average voter who Romney is all they’d probably be able to conjur is “from Mass.” and “Mormon.” At this point matching up Romney with media darling Dems is like matching up a generic Mormon candidate. Call me nuts, but Romney’s campaign skills, magnetism, and general political ability would change those numbers. Im not a “mitt-head” or something, he’s not even my first choice, but I can tell you from observing his entire political career with a front row seat, Romney is a very talented and electable guy.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
To give a perspective on that Kennedy race. Over his career Kennedy has beaten him opponents by an average of 42 points. He beat his 2000 opponent by a full 60 points. Now there’s no question this is a different Romney then the 94 version politically. But in a state where Bill Weld was probably somewhat conservative for a Republican, Romney was by no means unique in his liberal social views among Republicans. And they still lose by staggering numbers.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Matt, I would also add that Romney was outspent by almost 50% and that previous to Kennedy’s last-second pouring of millions into negative (and unfair) ads at the close of the campaign it would have been pretty close. The 94 Kennedy-Romney race was the second most expensive in the country that year, mostly because of the deluge of negative ads against Romney.