GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I have challenged?Mitt Romney supporters?on this site to explain why the fundraising prowess of their guy’s campaign that results in single-digit national polling?numbers should not?be compared to the well financed presidential campaign of Senator Phil Gramm in 1996 that went nowhere. Steve Kornacki.?in the most recent edition of the?New York Observer, makes the same comparison. So how and when does Governor Romney break out?
April 11th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Romney reminds me of John Kerry… Flip Flop, Flip Flop…
April 11th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
So I will put you down, Jake, as believing Governor Romney will never break out…
April 11th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Have you ever opened a can of worms Republius…!
Funny how it takes the MSM 8 months to catch up to this blog though
April 11th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
There’s only one way to find out if they’re the same, come back in 9 months and we’ll know…
April 11th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Personally, I believe Gov. Romney will never break out. He will finish 2nd or 3rd in Iowa, 3rd in New Hampshire, and 4th or lower in South Carolina. After that, he really doesn’t have a reason to continue his candidacy. Gov. Romney can’t get any traction, because he doesn’t have anything new to offer America. Americans are tired of the Bush administration, and he walks, talks, and looks just like “one of them”. Moreover, Americans are tired of politicians telling them what they want to hear, as opposed to what they really think. Gov. Romney is the kind of guy that tells you what you want to hear (ex: 1994, 2002 senate/gov. runs). He is the perfect politician. He is not the leader of the free world.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
When will Governor Romney “break out”? Where have you been? His realclearpolitics average in New Hampshire is up to 20.3. In Iowa it’s 11.5 and increasing. He’s polling in the teens in South Carolina. In the low 20’s, high teens in Michigan. I don’t know how you define “break out”, but I think by any objective measure, Romney is making the kind of progress that indicates a break out. And virtually all of these numbers are pre-fundraising numbes. The fact that he hasn’t catapulted into the stratosphere ala Obama, is perhaps disappointing to some. He hasn’t had 24/7 full court media adulation. But this is what Romney does. He’s the tortoise, not the hare. Methodical and organized.
You know, it’s funny. Months ago, people on this blog were saying “Romney will never break out, he’s still at 5%. Why isn’t he breaking out?”. Then a bit later, they said “Romney will never break out, he’s only at 7%. Why isn’t he breaking out?” Now he’s polling consistently in double digits in important states, the only states he’s ever spent serious time in and they’re saying “Romney will never break out, he’s still behind McCain and Giuliani”. Well, it’s funny that bar just keeps on getting higher for breaking out. That’s alright. Nobody saw the tortoise coming either.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Interesting that you rely on an article written by a Unity 2008 partisan. He’s clearly a hack for making statements like the following: “Since shifting his focus from Massachusetts to national politics in 2004, he has walked away from the positions and pronouncements that served him well in the Bay State in order to hew to the wish lists of conservative activists.” This admittedly masterful campaign to paint Romney as a panderer and flip-flopper, when his record as governor is demonstrably conservative, has done much to slow down his ascent.
But I’ll take up the challenge. First, it is not a legitimate question to ask, as the only comparison that can be made between Romney and Phil Gramm is their fundraising prowess. Second, Gramm started out as a Democratic Congressman (1978 1983) before switching to the GOP, which undermined his claim to be a true conservative more than anything Romney has ever done. Third, Gramm’s only experience was as a legislator, with no executive experience and virtually no private sector experience vs. Romney’s well-documented achievements as an executive both in and out of government. Fourth, no one is hyping Romney to the same degree that Gramm was hyped (as quoted in the article), so there are no expectations to disappoint on that score. Fifth, Gramm was proud of his perceived stupidity (bragging about flunking in school), while Romney is widely regarded as very intelligent and competent.
I know it’s anathema to you as a source, but this post also shows that Romney’s low ranking in the polls at this point in time is no cause for dismissing him from the race:
http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/02/worried-about-mitt-romney-5-solid.asp
If you dislike Romney and won’t be convinced by fact-based arguments, that’s fine. Emotion plays a part in these campaigns as well. But why not at least be straightforward and declare your preference instead of tossing bombs?
April 11th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Kavon, you know that I enjoy opening cans of worms and feel like that should by my function, for now, around here! I am just a surly and curmudgeonly sort.
And though it will cause you some personal grief, be advised that I was also the guy to first posit that Mayor Giuliani is not being well-served by his staff, is failing to show discipline as a candidate on the stump, and may not have anyone within his inner circle who has the national campaign experience plus enough trust from the candidate to point out how they are blowing it. (Chris Henick has the national campaign experience but not enough time in the Giuliani inner circle, and the rest of the inner circle are folks from his mayoralty in New York City who have the trust but not the national campaign experience.) This theme is now being explored by the mainstream media.
I would rather be lucky than good.
It is truly exemplary how you have recruited such a prescient cadre of contributors. LJ undoubtedly predicted in advance that Senator McCain would nail his speech at VMI today.
I was, however, disappointed that Fred Thompson did not mention our site among the list of conservative blogs he rattled off today on the Sean Hannity radio show. Someone needs to let him know that the future can be glimpsed here and that this site is about one to two weeks ahead of everyone else covering this race!
April 11th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
JF,
If you dislike Romney and won’t be convinced by fact-based arguments, that’s fine. Emotion plays a part in these campaigns as well. But why not at least be straightforward and declare your preference instead of tossing bombs?
I think the only person unconvinced of a “fact based argument” is you my friend. I just dont understand how Romneybots can continue to use the “well, nobody knows who Romney is”, he doesn’t get the 24/7 media coverage Obama fgets, blah blah blah… Well, unless you live under a rock, you have seen Mitt Romney on television at least ONCE. I mean, from Hannity and Colmes to Larry King to talk radio, the guy gets PLENTY of news coverage. Moreover, ever since the fundraising numbers have come out, whenever they talk about it, they show his picture along with Obama. So this, he still is a unknown argument is totally ridiculous. Furthermore, when Thompson and Gingrich finally do get in, then we will see the last of Romney. Thompson and Gingrich both poll better than Romney now and aren’t even in the race! Romney has been running for President since his 2nd year as Gov. of Massachusets.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Matt, good data to consider for Romney, though I would point out that New Hampshire and Michigan should be home turf for him and so the rest of his numbers are not all that impressive for a guy leading the pack in funds.
I will keep the tortoise analogy in mind. But do you really think that is his strategy?
JF, the only comparison I am interested in is how well the prodigious Romney campaign funds will translate into Republican National Convention delegates. This is the explicit and relevant comparison to Phil Gramm being asked about. And I don’t know that the obvious differences between Romney and Gramm that you itemize will have any impact on how many delegates the Governor is able to capture. We’ll see.
As to my preferences, I still think I could support Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney, or Fred Thompson in the Republican primary - though I don’t see Gingrich being able to win in November - but only McCain in the general election (if he is our nominee). I don’t see the others as viable candidates due to their lack of support of funds.
And as to throwing bombs, yes that is what I often do around here (and today I have posted negative information on Giuliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson), if only to try and balance out those who blow so much smoke as to their preferred candidate and will not admit to any weaknesses with their guy.
Any decent campaign does opposition research on their own candidate. So I like to serve that function around here. I am willing to admit to a list of weaknesses for every GOP candidate in and considering the race, which I think we need to do more of around here, especially because vetting our nominee is so crucial prior to putting them in against the Democrat so that no negative surprises hurt our standard bearer in the 2008 general election (such as George W. Bush almost blowing the 2000 race against Gore by trying to keep secret his DUI conviction).
And I have also admitted that I like to encourage talk of Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson getting into the race because I think it would be good for the debate and give conservatives more choice.
Finally, can all site contributors, readers, and posters answer me this: Have any of the declared Republican candidates run a really strong campaign to date? I don’t think so. And if I am right, that does not bode well for November of 2008.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Gentleman, Phil Gramm is no Mitt Romney. Mitt looks better,
talks better and he won in the bluest of states. I will
predict his fund raising for the second quarter will smash
everyone. Follow the money. He’s better organized, smarter
and he is going to surprise a lot of folks.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Geoff, your comment indicates that Romneybot is an epithet better hurled at the broken records who continue to say the same things about Romney without any connection to the matter at hand. Would you deny that McCain, Guiliani, Gingrich, and FDT have better name recognition than Romney? Did you see point number 3 in the link above, about comparable positions of dark horse candidates at this time in previous election cycles? Nothing you have said refutes anything I have said, while everything I have said has broken the logic behind everything you have said.
As I said, emotion plays a part in this campaign, and it appears that you will be making your decision based on emotion. Good and well. But if you feel that Romney has no chance, why are you wasting your time obsessing over him? The data indicates he does have a chance.
Republius, I will readily admit that Romney is a flawed candidate (as are they all). I would sooner support Gingrich, but he’s not running, and I think he cannot be elected given his history (let’s not forget his ignoble end as Speaker, and this after engineering the biggest Republican Revolution for a generation). But we’re not going to get a perfect candidate, so it’s up to us to decide who is best. I come here to be convinced and to convince others. For example, I had a very negative opinion on McCain before, but I’m gradually coming to see him in a better light through the posts here, while I’m seeing Guiliani in a worse light as I learn more. But when you come out and use a non-conservative to make your points, it doesn’t come across as a genuine question. I would much rather debate you and see if I can address your points than destroy the weak argument of a hack journalist.
That said, how have I been blowing smoke? I try to be scrupulous in citing facts.
Finally, thanks for being up front with your order of preferences.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Republius,
I think it’s an awfully good thing that Romney keeps surprising people, something which tends to happen when people are hysterically shouting about the death of his candidacy and his lack of traction every other day. They paint him as a flip-flopper, ignore him for awhile, then look up with surprise when he’s done something else unexpected. Why are people giing him so much money they wonder? Why is he winning conservatie straw polls? Why is he tieing for fijrst in early primary states? What’s going on? Surely his candidacy must be collapsing beneath the sea. Surely he must be another Phil Gramm, or maybe a Mark Kennedy. In 1980, Reagan got similar treatment. He was derided as unintelligent. They continually pointed to his uninspiring general election polling. They’d ignore him, or cast him as an extremist. But every so often something amazing and positive would happen: something they couldn’t quite comprehend, and didn’t comport with all their notions of a flagging candidacy. Because people were responding. I’m a perennial supporter of underdogs. It’s one of the reasons I’ve never quite believed Romney would actually win the Republican nomination. The fact that I supported him seemed enough to doom him. I’m a Mariners fan for goodness sake (3 straight last place finishes, a complete collapse after one of the greatest seasons in history). But I’m also a fantasy baseball enthusiast. And I know a bit about sleepers. And Romney has all the makings of one.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:09 am
JF,
Did you see point number 3 in the link above, about comparable positions of dark horse candidates at this time in previous election cycles? Nothing you have said refutes anything I have said, while everything I have said has broken the logic behind everything you have said.
Keep dreaming my friend. Until Romney translates his fundraising dollars (51% burn rate, ouch!) into consistent double digit polling numbers, then you can come to me and boast about “previous election cycles”. First of all, every election is different. Ever elction is unique. The 2008 election cycle will certainly be the most exciting since 2000, even more so in my opinion. So to even try and rationalize Romney’s poor poll numbers using statistics from previous election cycles, is, in my opinion, grasping at straws. I keep hearing RomneyBots say, “Better get on the train”. But for me, its hard to get on a train thats never going to leave the station. Why else would Romney fans try so hard to discredit a Thompson run? And when Gingrich gets down to running, Romney fans will be the first ones to bring up his failed leadership in the house and his extra-marital baggage. Why, because you all know they are better candidates than your guy, and the polling, consistently, bears that out.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:19 am
JF, I do not care about the ideology of the source as long as they are factual and compelling in their opinion. I think the comparison to Gramm is arguable at this stage, though certainly it is way too early to be conclusive in this respect.
Matt, I see it as problematic that someone who is the frontrunner in funds is still being underestimated. If you are going to raise the most money I think you have to have a frontrunner strategy. And when you lead in money but not in popularity I think it causes a dissonance that hurts the candidacy. It just makes you wonder.
I love the private sector and public sector executive experience of Romney and the results he obtained in both instances. Very impressive. I have said from day one that the next president better be one hell of a manager, not only because of the gravity of the challenges we face but because the federal government has gotten so big that it takes exceptional skill to get your arms around the damn thing.
But I find his policy position swings troubling and this latest attempt to cast himself as a big gun person the worst kind of political flim flam. Bottom line is I do not have a strong feeling of genuineness about Romney as a candidate.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:23 am
My comments aren’t appearing for some reason. I’ll try again.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Geoff, now I must point out that you have no attention to detail.
You want polls consistently in the double digits? I got polls consistently in the double digits (go to the RealClearPolitics polls for Iowa and New Hampshire. The software here prevents me from posting the links for some reason).
This is where he has spent his money, and this is where he has gotten results. So we can dismiss your point there.
You said every election is unique. Indeed. You can say: polls show Romney can’t win, as is shown at the current time. You can say: polls don’t matter, because previous elections have shown that at this point in time they are not good predictors. But you cannot say both. Geoff, you are saying both. So we can dismiss your point there.
No “RomneyBot” has told you to get on the train. You have McCain supporters telling you that this is his to lose, you have Guiliani supporters telling you “polls! polls! polls!” Romney supporters (on this site at least) have been absolutely level-headed and patient in trying to build support.
Somehow, in your eyes, it is illegitimate for Romney supporters to do opposition research on rivals (both announced and unannounced), but perfectly legitimate to make unsupported attacks on Romney. So be it, as I said, you are an emotional man. But you should not be disappointed when Romney supporters show up and refute your baseless attacks, because that is the reality of politics. Get used to it.
Is Romney perfect? No. Can there be a candidate that will step forward, whom I will support instead? Yes, but that candidate hasn’t announced yet. You play the cards you are dealt, not the ones still in the deck. As things stand, any announced candidate is superior to any unannounced candidate, because I want to support a leader who has the guts to step forward and declare he’s going for the brass ring. It comes across as slimy and slightly cowardly to wait for the Draft XYZ movement to do the work for the candidate.
Who do you support, Geoff? I can’t remember.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Republius, I agree that the gun issue was amateurish. If Romney can’t sharpen up the campaign, it will be time to look elsewhere. But given the fragmentation of this election season and the serious flaws with each of the actual and potential candidates, it will take a little bit more for me to completely dismiss Romney as a possibility.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:31 am
JF, I do not mean to imply that I am dismissing Romney. I am not.
For me his stumbling and bumbling have diminshed what on paper are superior credentials.
Have you read Hugh Hewitt’s new book on him? Anybody else? Let us know what you think. I will be reading it this weekend.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Republius, I haven’t read Hugh Hewitt’s book and don’t intend to. I hold social conservative views, but I will never judge a candidate on his religious beliefs unless those beliefs could be interpreted as contrary to modern Western civilization. I am not Mormon or Evangelical, for the record, but I am still religious. I believe that making religion an issue is opening the door to the left wing to proscribe the practice of religion (first they came for the Mormons, and I said nothing, because I was not a Mormon.. etc.) That said, I can understand if some people make the personal decision to only vote for those who share their religious views. I can understand that decision, but I can’t respect that decision. That is not what a liberal democracy is all about.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:50 am
I liked Phil Gramm. He kept me interested
and involved in politics when I was tempted
to sit on the sidelines for awhile. I viewed
him as a man of integrity and a man of honor.
I voted for him. I supported him. I still
can only think with favor that he represented
my state.
I view Mitt Romney as a man with similar
character. Mitt Romney has additional skills
which make him more formidable. First, Mitt
Romney’s life in business has trained him to
study and react to the bottom line. Mitt will
learn very quickly the best techniques to
reach voters. Mitt will quickly identify
change and he will reach his voters quickly.
Phil’s race used an entrenched network which did
not adapt quickly enough. Phil’s team did not
know they were behind until the race was over.
Romney’s team continues to inch up. Second,
taking nothing away from Phil Gramm, Mitt
Romney is really fast on his feet in debates.
Romney thrives on debate and dessention. If
he is debating a topic and no one argues the
opposing side, his coworker say that Romney
will switch sides of the debate just to get
some thoughts stirred up. I did not see that
passion for discussion from Phil. For that
matter I do not see that passion from any
corporate executive. Most candidates and
executives just want to be shown they are right.
Mitt Romney looks at problems entirely
different from most people. In a face to face
debate Mitt will make his arguments clear and
sound. Fair minded people will find his
arguments well thought out and presented well.
My reason for saying this is because I watched
him during the Senate race against Kennedy. I
continued to keep my eye on him during the
Winter Olympics. I was amazed during his
term as Governor. I have read his book.
Again, I remain a fan of Phil Gramm but Mitt
Romney already has a plan for making up his
loss and he will follow the plan except when
he sees opportunities to improve his bottom
line by adapting his plan. Phil’s team did
not change their plan until the game was over.
Mitt Romney joined the race early and he has
time to adjust where Phil just ran out of
time.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Why Mitt Romney Isn’t Phil Gramm - The Conclusive Decision
1. Phil Gramm raised $19 million total for his entire campaign, in an era where there were no limits on campaign donations. Indeed, much of that ($4.1 million) was raised in one night by hitting up huge corporate donors. In contrast, Mitt Romney has raised $21 million in just three months, and people were limited to a maximum contribution of $2,300 - meaning Romney has a much larger and much more grass roots base of support.
2. Phil Gramm’s campaign was well known and well maligned for its deficits in the areas of structure and intellect. In contrast, Romney’s campaign thrives on those very two areas.
3. Phil Gramm often trailed his opponents by 30-40 points in the polls, and sometimes nearly 50 points. In contrast, Romney is polling within 15 points nationally according to Rasmussen, is within 3-17 in Iowa according to who you ask, and is within 6-7 or tied for the lead in New Hampshire according to different polls.
4. Phil Gramm constantly misspoke about the abortion issue during his campaign, a la Rudy Giuliani, saying that although he was pro-life, he wouldn’t make that a part of his campaign, earning the ire of socons everywhere. He even hired pro-choice staffers. In contrast, Mitt openly talks about abortion and his pro-life conversion and recognizes its importance in the race.
5. Phil Gramm ran as a fiscal conservative, but was maligned by his opponents, the Democrats, and the media for bringing home huge amounts of pork for his homestate of Texas (as well as his own actual bragging about how much he was bringing in for TX). In contrast, Mitt Romney is running as a fiscal conservative who governed fiscally in Massachusetts and is known as a waste-eliminator.
6. Phil Gramm suffered several scandals coming to light during the campaign, including his “unknowingly” funding a porn production to the tune of $7,500 and being involved in some very shady quid pro quo Savings and Loans deals. In contrast, Mitt Romney is known as the squeaky clean candidate in this race - the worst dirt anyone has on him is that he once donated $250 to a Democrat in a primary campaign.
7. Phil Gramm was known as harsh and cutthroat during his Senate tenure and on the campaign trail, and was known to berate his staff and his aids. In contrast, Mitt Romney is personable, charismatic, and likable, and definitely not known as mean by any stretch.
8. Let’s be honest, here… Phil Gramm was kind of an ugly dude. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, well… it’s the hair, baby.
That should put this issue to rest permanently.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Oh, and, not to mention the fact that Romney is only 4 points back of Rudy and 3 back of McCain in SC now, according to the latest poll…
But, all these pundits must be right… because of one link - both raised serious cash - (and even then the link is tenuous at best because of CFR), Romney is just another Gramm.
April 12th, 2007 at 5:49 am
And Phil Gramm was ugly, Mitt is pretty :).
April 12th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Did I mention that I really like the return of HeavyM.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Folks,
You don’t think Romney is aware of Phil Gramm’s campaign in 1996? You don’t think they have studied out everything related to that campaign to figure out what went wrong & why? So, I guess Romney’s campaign is ignoring recent history at their peril then.. I would never make those assumptions to any of the campaigns, especially Romney’s. Makes for a decent blog I guess.
If Romney’s campaign that of Phil Gramm you can bet on this, it will be for entirely different reasons.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Oops, need to get a preview function:
“If Romney’s campaign repeats that of Phil Gramm - it will be for different reasons.”
April 12th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Phil Gramm and Mitt Romney are dissimilar in most ways other than the fact that they are good fund raisers. In personal style (Romney- engaging; Gramm- less so), private sector achievement (Bain/Olympics vs. academian), executive experience (CEO/Governor vs ?), and consistency in ideology (Gramm gets the thumbs up there), the two are very different.
The analogy is only being used by those who want to see Mitt end up in the same place as Sen. Gramm. The Gramm analogy is no more useful or accurate than Mitt supporters saying he’s bound to be President because he’s leading in fundraising like W did.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Is the fund raising comparison the only reason why some may by hoping or thinking there is a legitimate claim to all this?
It seems to me that many of the bloggers here have smacked down this silly assertion pretty good. I challenge anyone here to try to come up with any other reason.
It is April 2007 mind you. It may be Juuuussst a bit pre-mature to buy into anything like this.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Is Guiliani the 2007 version of the 1991 George H. W. Bush?
In the spring of 1991, Bush had approval ratings north of 90%. He lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.
Bush was considered strong on defense. He has actually won the first Gulf War, after all. He was seen as the best person to lead the nation in a dangerous time.
What happened? His domestic policies did not fully jive with the rest of the GOP base, for one. He promised not to raise taxes (”Read my lips!”). He raised them. He was soft on social issues. He claimed to be funtionally pro-life but did little to fight abortion. He nominated Souter to the Supreme Court after being told that he was a “strict constructionist”.
His biggest mistake, however, was he wouldn’t take the election seriously. He had high poll numbers. Why worry? He refused to put forth any more effort than he felt was absolutely necessary to win it. As a result, he just sorta winged it through 1991 and most of 1992. He didn’t wake up until Summer of 1992. By then it was too late.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:08 am
marK:
Now that is a fair more accurate comparison than Romney verses Gramm. Nice post man…
April 12th, 2007 at 10:04 am
1. I think those still attacking Romney on his gun answer need to see the actual tape. He in no way portrayed himself as a big gun man.
2. A little off topic, but did anyone see Gingrich debate Kerry. I am a huge fan of Gingrich, he’s a brilliant idea guy and I was hoping he would run till I saw his last 2 debates(also Cuomo at Cooper Union). In both cases he went completely belly up, it was depressing. He is so interested in civil discourse that he refuses to defend his position. Kerry rambled on and on while Gingrich did nothing. THen he conceded that climate change was an urgent issue, a comment which Kerry continued to rub his face in the rest of the debate. It was very reminiscent of Bush’s inability to defend his position in the interest of civility.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Gingrich is doing truly bizarre things with his focus on “dialogue” and “working solutions”. It’s a part of his personality, and might improve his general election prospects (not that they’re likely to ever improve enough to win), but it’s puzzling in terms of trying to win the nomination. It forces him to concede things, and endorse compromise solutions before he’s even won the primary. As it is, with his recent lurches to the left, I find it absolutely laughable for him to bill himself as a conservative savior (the only mantle under which he could ever have won the GOP nomination). FreeRepublic is tearing him to pieces over this. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, as these things get more publicity, Newt’s numbers continue to fall into the sea (especially a Thompson entry).
April 12th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Thanks, Justin!
April 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Man oh man! Anytime there’s a Romney blog you guys go off the wall NUTS!!!!!!!
(just an observation)
April 12th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Just read his speeches if you need to see the difference. Go to mittromney.com, click on News, then Speeches. His speech at the Bush Library was concise, laid out his plans, showed a solid understanding of the problems we face in the world today and enumerated fresh and plausible solutions to those problems.
This is a man who won’t govern like a politician, and who has an insatiable thirst for data that can be parsed to solve problems. He won’t run things on whims or popular opinion, but on facts.
It’s way past time to get away from politics as usual. Mitt is the only guy I’ve seen who might actually be able to make that happen.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:09 am
The only way Romney can break out is to reverse time approximately 50 years so that he can actually do all the things he now claims he does in order to correct all his lies. He could actually become a “life-long hunter,” he could actually own a gun, he could actually support pro-life issues as matter of principle rather than polical convenience, and he could actually be consistently pro-family values instead of supporting gay marriage when he needed to in order to win votes.
Even if he could reverse time, he’d still lose though.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:11 am
A Romney nomination will result in a Democratic White House. Of that I am 100% certain.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
We ask that candidates run principled campaigns. We want them to stand up for what is right, not necessarily what is popular. As voters, IMO, it is incumbant upon us to do the same thing. We should vote for the person who will make the best president, not who is the most popular. Particularly, in the primary, we need to support the best man or woman. Then, if the right person, according to our conscience, doesn’t win, we will then have a choice to support the party’s candidate, which will likely make the best president of the two alternatives.
Romney is clearly the most competent candidate in years. He has demonstrated sound, successful business practices. He’s governed well. He’s shown he can turn things around. It’s irrelevant whether he’s as popular as Giuliani, Thompson or others. Give people a chance to know him and he will rise to the top.
But to not vote for the best qualified candidate in the primary as a matter of conscience, is to vote as the Clintons governed: hold your finger in the wind to see which way it’s blowing, then advocate accordingly. That would make us no better than the candidates we despise.