GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I have been one of the most strident proponents of the “Veeps have very little impact” school of thought-and I do believe that this line of thinking is correct for the most part. However, that does not mean that the Veep selection has no impact and that we should refrain from looking back to learn from the choices that worked out for the best. Simply because there are no “gamechangers” in the field does not mean that Sen. McCain cannot gain a great deal if he chooses wisely. For my part, I believe there are two selections that have the potential of helping McCain across the electoral finish line come November: Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
Selecting Gov. Romney as the Veep would accomplish several important things. First of all, Sen, McCain would gain a multitude of enthusiastic volunteers that would be of great help in closing the enthusiasm gap with the Democrats. Secondly, as Mike Allen’s article mentions, Gov. Romney has the potential to raise the kind of money that can level the playing field with Obama. Mitt has also been vetted, is more than ready for primetime, and has the resume, charisma, and gravitas that will enable voters to imagine him being able to step in as President from the get go. Mitt’s Michigan roots are a benefit as well.
McCain has stated that it is important to him to look back at the Vice Presidential picks that have worked out for the best to guide him in his selection. I would suggest that President Reagan’s selection of George H.W. Bush in 1980 is perhaps the best model in which to base his selection. President Reagan’s selection of Bush served to unify the Republican Party’s Conservative and Moderate Wings and was a signal to Bush’s primary supporters that they would have a place in a Ronald Reagan led Republican Party. It would be quite hypocritical for the Rush Limbaugh’s, Laura Ingraham’s, National Reviews, etc…, of the Conservative punditocracy, who enthusiastically supported Romney during the later stages of the primary fight, to withhold their support from the ticket when McCain has made this concession.
Mike Huckabee brings important benefits to the table as well. Huck’s Army is made up of many of the foot soldiers that brought us victory in 2000 & 2004. Want these folks back in the game, answering phones, knocking on doors, etc…? Then select Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee would also completely defuse Obama’s Evangelical/Religious voter outreach, and as we have have seen from the SurveyUSA polls, Huck appears to appeal to a certain segment of Democrats who are reluctant to pull the lever for Obama.
So the bottom line is this… There are really only two candidates that can bring significant benefits to McCain come November: Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee; and (demogogues aside) there are few voters who would be open to voting for McCain that would be turned off by either of their selections (especially if Obama ends up choosing a conventional liberal such as Joe Biden).
So the tiebreaker for me is this: why go with the candidate who campaigned on blowing up the Reagan Coalition and touted the end of the three-legged stool of Conservatism when you can choose one the most eloquent advocates of the American Conservative Movement and all of its underlying principles?
If it is truly down to Romney, Portman, or Thune, choose Mitt Romney. It’s a smart choice.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Nice post Kavon, and i agree with you that Romney would be a good pick for McCain.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Veep is a big deal for me this year. But I would not vote for a Mac-Huck ticket.
I would be perfectly happy with Romney because of his fundraising prowess. He may also add a few thousand votes in some Western battleground states.
But let’s all agree to stop this Michigan foolishness. There may be a handful of octogenarians who may have a vague notion that someone named Romney was their governor a half-century ago but not enough to carry the state. And we know Romney won Michigan, but he won a majority of a political party that has practically been hunted to extinction in the Wolverine State.
McCain may well win Michigan but it will be because of the Democrat nominee’s inability to connect with white working class voters’
June 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Why does it matter how much money Romney can raise when McCain has already agreed to accept public financing. He’s already locked himself in to amount of money he’ll have to spend. Romney ould raise a billion dollars and McCain would still only have 85 million to spend between the Convention and the election. The only area where Romney’s money would matter would be that brief window between mid August and the convention, and McCain’s fundraising has been more than adequate for that.
There may be plenty of reasons Romney is a good choice, but fundraising isn’t one of them.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
New McCain ad. Change you can photo shop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU
June 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Prediction: Neither Romney nor Huckabee will be VP in 2009.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“Rush Limbaugh’s, Laura Ingraham’s, National Reviews”
Ultimate pandering for McCain.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Kavon,
Excellent post. I couldn’t agree more.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I think someone who would stay home for a McCain-Huckabee ticket cannot claim to be a real social conservative.
I obviously would vote for McCain-Romney.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Uhm, did McCain not say that his age would factor in on his VP pick? Romney is in his 60’s?
Although I would support a McCain/Romney ticket, I am not sure how this would answer McCain’s own logic? Since McCain tends to be honest with the media in the straight talk express, should we not assume that the VP will be in her/his 50’s or 40’s?
June 30th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
#8, I am not willing to sacrifice economic freedom for social conservatism. It is not an either/or proposition for me which is why I would much rather have Romney.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
#9, Romney is 60, and to say that is a very young 60 would be an understatement. He looks 20 years more youthful than someone like Rob Portman. And to #6, how is appealing to the BASE of the party pandering??? Shouldn’t at least one of the candidates on the ticket have views that more or less reflect those of the platform of the party?
June 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
We will not have economic freedom unless social conservatism succeeds. A society of broken families looks to Big Brother for their needs.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
#8, Huckabee and his atrocious economic track record would be the worst possible pick that McCain could make
June 30th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Kristofer,
All they need to do is show the footage of Mitt on waterskis last summer. That should quiet those who think he isn’t youthful enough.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
B Werty,
FWIW, Romney will be 62 in 8 months.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
McCain is falling behind and will be trailing by even more after Obama names his VP pick. He will need to go for the headline grabber and steal the spotlight/media attention from Obama… he needs a media darling that will make his case to Independents even stronger. McCain/Bloomberg ‘08.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Romney: Obama Shows ‘Frightening Naiveté’
June 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Good post Kevon. I completely agree.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
This is one of the few times that I disagree with my buddy Kavon.
I actually think Romney would turn the stomach of too many independents to do any good for the ticket, and may actually hurt it because of that.
Have I seen lots of empirical evidence for this? No, not yet. But it’s just a gut feeling.
Is Romney basically Portman with a bank account? Probably. But Portman didn’t spend most of the last two years trying to embody the very Republican Party that voters now want to destroy. Romney did.
If it really is down to Romney, Portman, and Thune, I would actually choose anyone but Romney.
Incidentally, Thune is a very mild-mannered, low-key conservative senator who wouldn’t scare anyone away from the ticket and would be a safe choice for McCain. I knew one of his staffers when I was in DC and I was impressed with her and impressed with her description of him.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Spud,
Yes and McCain hikes up and down the grand canyon every year, but I am just saying that McCain was hinting at a younger VP. That is all. maybe he changed his mind.
Again, we do not know what McCain internal polling shows or Romney’s volunteer list. Maybe Kavon is correct?
June 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
McCain is spending $ and time courting Latino voters, again this does not seem to be logical? Romney took a hard right position on immigration (although he supported Bush during time of the Senate bill being introduced).
Romney’s latino support in Florida was in the single digits. This does not make sense?
June 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Yes. Because Romney was a fantastically effective campaigner. The best ever. And running against your own record in public life—a brilliant strategy!—don’t you think?—especially when Sen. McCain wants to make the case that he is grounded in his values while Sen. Obama acts on whim or expedience, e.g. guns, campaign finance, FISA.
I am standing by to begin posting to the “Who is Willard Milton Romney” blog again.
http://dotan.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/john-ellis-romney-was-terribly-served-by-his-campaign-staff-and-advisors-i-would-argue-that-they-win-the-worst-campaign-team-of-2008-good-riddance-to-them-they-had-everything-they-needed-to/
June 30th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
DaveG,
Trust your gut.
If McCain selects either Romney or Huckabee, this ‘turned off demagogue’ will invest in a pair of noseplugs for November and proudly reclaim his unaffiliated status as a Republican-leaning Independent; hoping McCain has enough of a lead in Florida that I won’t feel the compunction to help put a loathsome charlatan a 72-year old’s heartbeat away from the White House.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I watched the debates and here are five things that came up that Romney will have to explain (none involve religion).
1. Mass healthcare plan
2. Tax increases
3. Sons not serving in Iraq
4. Was once pro-choice
5. Sanctuary Mansion
June 30th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
So what is your proposal? Pick some lefty who would alienate half of the base? Oh wait, that is your proposal - you’re supporting Ridge, if I remember correctly.
…and voters don’t want to destroy the GOP. Sure, they don’t like Bush, but voters are showing themselves to be against tax hikes, for drilling, still socially conservative, and generally unsupportive of an immediate withdrawl.
Romney brings the kind of competent conservatism that many people believe is lacking from the GOP. You put Romney on, and, while you might take a little hit at first, you can make a strong case for the GOP ticket consisting of experienced, qualified, tested leaders - something that the Democrats probably won’t be able to claim.
In any case, its not just about the next four months, its about the next four years, and the four years after that. McCain’s VP could, and probably will, set the course of the GOP for the next decade or more. You cannot and must not stake the future of the party to the anti-GOP feelings of independents in one election cycle.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
The National Review’s cover story (subscription required) on unacceptable VP picks is out. John Miller argues that the VP pick this year is especially important, and given McCain’s liabilities with the conservative movement, he cannot pick someone who will antagonize his conservative base. These are: Joe Lieberman, Charlie Crist, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Ridge. The list of acceptable VPs includes:
Mitt Romney, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
act-blog.co.nr,
Sanford?
June 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
But Portman didn’t spend most of the last two years trying to embody the very Republican Party that voters now want to destroy. Romney did.
Au contraire… The Republican Party voters want to get rid of have no sense of fiscal responsibility, no solutions for the economy, and no sense of ethics.
Romney is as different from that end of the GOP as you could get - in the right direction, too.
That’s why Romney was running on the mantra of change long before Obama adopted it as his campaign slogan.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I was a Romney supporter in the primaries for those who don’t know. I think this is a good piece, but I am undecided as to whether Romney would be the most helpful to the ticket or not. You could make several arguments either way. I am unsure as to whether or not Romney’s fundraising prowess and personal wealth would be helpful since McCain is operating under spending limits. I’m not sure how that works exactly. Regardless of Romney’s past positions, he must give off a conservative vibe. I hear a lot more moderate Republicans who call him a phoney than I hear conservatives say that they don’t trust him to be pro-life enough, or think he’s lying about immigration, etc. I’m not sure exactly what to make of it.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
#23 —
Issues #1 and #4 are legitimate. The other ones are b.s.
In regards to Mitt being on top of the list. I keep hearing different names on top of his list every day. I am not sure that Mike Allen has a credible source. His source probably just picks someone at random.
I agree with the rest of the article though. Wait to see what Obama does and then counter with your pick. It’s quite simple.
It could be Mitt, Rudy, Palin, Pawlenty, Crist, etc., but it would be crazy not to wait until Obama picks to see what kind of an advantage you can garner.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Thune would be a great choice too. His voting history is obviously MUCH more conservative then Romney’s as well. (obviously) Thune has been incredibly solid, his 100 rating from the ACU bares that out.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
MattC is on to something. Many voters who disapprove of Bush and Republicans in general disapprove of them because they are spending too much money and reasons like that. In other words they disapprove of Republicans for not being conservative enough. The “change” thing with Romney was designed more for swing voters than it was for conservatives however. I’ll admit I don’t really want a lot of change. I want a President who is basically going to be like Bush but is going to be a little more fiscally responsible and perhaps more of a realist on foreign policy. If I wanted a bunch of sweeping changes, I would be a liberal Democrat. Romney just had to campaign on change because of the nature of this election.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
In case anyone was interested or wanted to post on the front page. New SurveyUSA poll just released showing Obama ahead of McCain by only 13 in Massauchusetts. I wander if Romney could help in the state if he was added to the ticket? Probably not but could make it closer.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I think all of these VP articles, especially from the Politico, are nonsense. We were hearing about Tom Ridge’s inevitability a few weeks ago. No one truly knows; they just don’t know what else to write about during the dog days of summer.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
And once again McCain/Bloomberg makes it closer than any other combo in the SurveyUSA poll.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
#24 wow you sure fell for it. #2,3,4,5 rediculus lables or irrelavent.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
…and of course not the Mitt-haters have to come out. All right, lets see…
—
Well, he does need someone who’s health is not in question, someone with youth and energy. Mitt has that. Yes, McCain needs someone younger and healthier than himself. But going too young, with too little experience, could hurt more than help.
—
Romney stood in opposition to the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, and to amnesty. That is the same position held by the majority of Americans, and an even higher majority of Republicans. Besides, McCain’s new position is to secure the border before making any moves on what to do about the illegals already here. Adding a law-and-order Conservative to the ticket would only stress that position.
And what you lose in Hispanics, you may very well gain in anti-amnesty moderates and those who view amnesty as a major threat to the economy.
—
..you show me a person who had as difficult an uphill battle as Romney. He entered in the mid single didgets, and was running against America’s Mayor, a Senator with universal name recognition, a media-created Conservative savior, and s Southern Minister who had a natural base in the Religious Right. To go from that to second-place, and to do as well as he did in as many places as he did…you are underestimating the difficulty that Romney faced.
—
..once again, an Mitt-hater that has to resort to name-calling because of his inability to make a convincing argument.
—
…was a revolutionary proposal that got everybody covered without a socialist-style government takeover. But there are always going to be some bumps when you have untried ideas being put into practice. In any case, the Democrat’s bungling of managing that state, not the proposal itself, can probably be blamed for many of the problems.
—
…were fee increases, which raised the price of a government-provided serive, such as marraige and drivers licences.
—
…they are all grown men, and we have a volunteer military. Since when is military service - particularly that of others - a prerequisite for holding office in the United States?
—
…as were Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fred Thompson and John McCain also made remarks suggesting that they were (are) less than dedicated to the pro-life cause - and with much less explanation than what Romney has given. Are we still going to attack people for starting to support our side?
—
…they company was warned once, found to be hiring illegals again, and dismissed. Since when is it the job of the customer to make sure that the company that they hired was hiring the right people?
June 30th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
#35 - McCain could never get Bloomberg. Mike is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-amnesty, anti-gun, and anti-death penalty. He is a liberal tree-hugger and a nanny stater of the worst kind.
Even if McCain could force him through in Minneapolis, it would convince many people that McCain does not have the best interests of Conservatism at heart, and that he is trying to set up the GOP for an even further turn to the left after he leaves office.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Although Romney would be a fine pick for McCain. It is hard to see how Romney can directly impact the polling numbers? Maybe I am wrong.
Again, Politico has ZERO connections to McCain insiders. They are blowing smoke on any of the potential picks they have mentioned. The McCain-Romney relationship is not the problem, it is the poor relationship between Romney and McCain strategists and campaign managers.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Dave, Aron, etc…
My belief is that your average voter is not influenced by the Veep. All your average voter wants to know is that the Veep could take over in an emergency if needed IMHO.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Everyone should read the #17 link. Mitt articulates these kinds of things better than anyone else by far.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Could I please inform my young friends on this site that Jesse Helms almost walked out of the 80 convention with all the “Conservatives” when Reasgan picked Bush. At the time, Bush was a proud, moderate, pro-choice Republican.
Although I believe McCain is a Conservative on 95% of issues, McCain selecting a moderate would destroy the party. Now, since McCain was at that convention in 80, he is smart enough to pick a Conservative.
Lieberman, Ridge, Bloomberg, Rudy, and Fiorina will not be selected. Any reporter or pundit who thinks otherwise is definately, “Drinking the cool-aid”. So let us please discuss viable options (only Governors please), such as Romney, Palin, Sanford, Pawlenty, and Huntsman.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
#40. The Veep choice this year is VERY important to voters like me.
Personally I think Romney is a good choice as it will make me immediately more productive at work as I will have lost all interest in this year’s election. Choosing Romney will also save me money as I won’t be writing out any checks for McCain. I’ll pick up the Voter’s pamphlet a day or so before the election and read the info on Barr and Nader — and then I’ll vote for one of them.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Wow, Mitt is up 6.4 to 23 on intrade.com, and Thune is up 12 to 15. Somebody is paying attention to these articles.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
It appears Bloomberg, like Obama, is now trying to strike a middle ground on gun control.
As Dana Carvey used to say…”How conveeeeeenient!”
Some Gun Rules We Can All Agree On
June 30th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
If McCain does not select a Governor, he will be damaging his chances. It flies against the face of logic, in all historial POTUS-VP selections, the victorious tickets all had one thing in common…balance.
Nixon (Congessman) - Agnew (Gov.)
Carter (Governor) - Mondale (Senate)
Reagan (Governor) - Bush (Cabinet/fmr Congessman)
Bush (Vice President) - Quayle (Senator)
Clinton (Governor) - Gore (Senator)
Bush (Governor) - Cheney (Cabinet/Congressman)
June 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
romney is an excellent campaigner. he was an unknown mass. governor coming into this cycle, and he very nearly defeated 3 household names in john mccain, rudy giuliani, and fred thompson. if not for huckabee, mitt would be the nominee for president, quite a large jump from obscurity.
he has huge fundraising abilities, has a large volunteer list, and a 50 state organization that he could restart. we need money and boots on the ground, and mitt brings both in droves. identity politics won’t work, palin or jindal will be lampooned, despite their qualifications. fact is if hillary was the nominee or if obama never ran, neither of them would be mentioned.
mitt is a solid as it gets for mccain. portman is one of the dullest humans alive, and pawlenty has no organization and is boring.
mccain and romney would have a great chance to win michigan, and the rest of the rest belt, the southwest could hold, colorado, and nh could flip to mccain. his positives far out weigh his negatives, and it will be very symbolic that mccain could unite with his rival for the sake of the country, and remind hillary voters that obama could not put his ego aside to do the same.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“Nixon (Congessman) - Agnew (Gov.)”
Nixon was a fmr. VP.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Yes act-blog, but Nixon was only made VP to keep Eugene McCarthy happy. Actually you bring up a great point.
This is identical situation to 52 in fact. Conservatives wanted Nixon on the ticket to balance a moderate military man in Eisenhower. McCain will do the same thing in 2008.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Kennedy-Johnson was an all senate, all Washington ticket.
In the old, old days selecting a running mate was like forming a gov’t in a parliamentary system. It was about putting factions together. I think this year is going to fit that old model. McCain, if the pundits are right, needs to select someone representing conservatives. Obama, similarly, needs to select someone representing the working class wing of the democratic party.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Sue-Ellen, you are correct, “needs to select someone representing conservatives.”, but I disagree about Kennedy-Johnson.
Although Johnson was a Senator, he was viewed equally to a Governor by the public. His reputation was as a great administrator, and in fact, Senate leaders had much more power in the 50’s and 60’s. Plus one could argue that they did not win the 60 election, without Mayor Daley in Chicago.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Kavon,
Under normal circumstances, I would agree that the VP selections are of little, if any, significance.
However, we’re in an election year with an unprecedented scenario that pits the oldest nominee ever(not running for reelection) vs. the least qualified candidate ever.
According to the most recent Quinnipiac poll, voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania were asked:
In deciding your vote for president how important is the vice-presidential candidate - Very important, somewhat important, not too important or not important at all?
Overall, 86 percent said the vice presidential candidate is “very important” or “somewhat important” to their vote. Only 10 percent said it’s not too important.
In these three states, 8% of Republicans, 23% of independents and 35% of Democrats said McCain’s age makes them less likely to vote for him.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Team McCRomney is 133 years old. I can envision the under 40 vote moving in large numbers already!
June 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Anyone but Romney.
While I would never vote for Obama, I would not actively support a McCain/Romney ticket.
Why would I want a phony one-term liberal governor from Massachusetts to take over control of our party… should McCain/Romney lose?
As for the three legs… the Supreme Court still loves killing babies after SEVEN Republican appointees, the largest budgets ever under the former Republican CONTROLLED Congress, and I fear we could not match a major challenge from China or Russia at this moment after eight years of being on a WAR footing.
Republicans in power have broken up the three-legged stool for kindling to stoke big government, social depravity, and security incompetence … some nice coals for Obama to build his socialist wildfire.
If Romney is the answer… I expect Alec Baldwin to play Romney for Martin Scorsese. Even with his limited acting ability, Alec Baldwin would play a more convincing conservative than Romney does. Don’t do it, don’t support Romney, unless you thought Ford and GHWB were good for the party and country.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
53. Exactly, and the Republican brand of that leadership is the domain of old white guys continues.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The multi-ker-jillionaire Gov. Romney got all turned sideways by that mighty political titan Gov. Mike Huckabee?—yes, only Gov. Huckabee was the precise antithesis of “mighty”—he had no money nor organization to speak of—quite literally, nearly nothing, yet Gov. Huckabee plucked Iowa from the ice-cold clutches of the arrogant and wildly-over-spending Team Romney by 9 solid points. It was a beautiful thing to watch really. A sign of the times. A testament to the unconquerable human spirit. Team Romney’s oft-touted early state strategy disappeared in a puff of ill-will and broken promises. Those were the days.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
#49: > “Nixon was only made VP to keep Eugene McCarthy happy.”
Joe McCarthy. And actually I think he was selected more to placate the Taft wing of the party.
#51: > “Although Johnson was a Senator, he was viewed equally to a Governor by the public.”
I’ve never heard that (and I’m old enough to have lived through that election). Do you have a source for it? My understanding is that Johnson was selected primarily to keep the south in line for one more election — Ike had exposed the cracks in the old Solid South.
#51: > “Plus one could argue that they did not win the 60 election, without Mayor Daley in Chicago.”
That’s been a favorite Republican line for almost fifty years now, but there’s no foundation to it at all. I don’t question that Daley might have stolen Chicago votes, of course, but the fallacy is that it affected the outcome — it didn’t. Kennedy won 303 electoral votes, Illinois had 27 at the time; therefore, without Illinois, Kennedy still would have had 276, and would have won.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Wow, the liberals, even those we’ve never seen before, are coming out of the wood work on this one!
Go M&M team 2008! Go Mitt in 2012!!
June 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Bobh,
To respond to your comments on #51;
Johnson - Just about every historical bio written about him.
Mayor Daley - Although I am no fan of Chris Matthews, he has talked and written extensively about politics in Catholic Democratic strongholds in the 60’s and 70’s. His most recent admission was how election volunteers (registered Democrats) in PA used to put ink on the levers so they could check and ensure voters were selecting “their candidate”. I also encourage you to read; Chicago and the Presidential Election of 1960. by Edmund F. Kallina, Jr.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
… if not for huckabee, mitt would be the nominee for president, quite a large jump from obscurity …
Agreed,
Huckabee one-upped Romney in IA and other places using the religion card. Huckabee campainged that he is the “Christian” candidate remember? The Huckabee attacks on Romney should have been about Romney’s record, not subtle digs on faith. Too much of a low blow for me to ever consider voting Huckabee.
With Jeremiah Wright having become such a libability to the extent to force Obama to his church, having an pastor on your ticket who himself has said some controverial things would not be a wise move on McCain’s behalf.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Let’s put it this way. In 2004, we lost Michigan. The entire evangelical army was energized and knocking on doors and manning the phones in the state. And we still lost. That sort of dedication just is not going to happen this year. And the state is 15 percent black. The AA crowd is just salivating at the thought of voting for Obama. We were three points down in 2004 and the new black vote puts us down even further. So I am not at all convinced that we can move Michigan into our column. Now that in itself isn’t Romney’s fault - but some of the folks on here need to stop pretending that Romney is the cure that can unquestionably deliver this state. Even though some of the polling has been close, whenever McCain was ahead, there has generally been anywhere from 10 to 20 percent undecided. We can’t hang our hats on preliminary polling in June and go with a MI strategy when the simple fact of the matter is that even in good years, MI has been just out of reach of the past couple of decades. The best way to make a forecast is to look to the past and see what has happened before. I believe we need to focus this year on states where the GOP has a track record of winning. If this were 2002, I would suggest an “expand the map” strategy. But it’s not 2002. It’s foolish to pretend that it is.
So then that leaves us with CO, NV, NM, OH, VA and FL.
Now I’m of the opinion (and I have stated so ad nauseum) that I don’t think Romney’s economic message is going to sell in Ohio - rightly or wrongly - simply because Romney is who he is. He is a rich CEO of privelege. I still believe that. Lately though - I’ve seen no indication that Obama is anything like competent on economic matters that the “Mommy Party” constantly carps about. I would have thought for certain that by now Obama would be cleaning McCain’s clock on the so-called “bread and butter” issues - and that McCain would have to retreat to traditional GOP strengths like strong defense and easing restrictions on business to spur economic growth. Now, to be sure, McCain has spoken about such issues and the Democrats have predictably pounced with their class warfare rhetoric. But I have not seen Obama sell any sort of economic populist message. He is backpedaling on NAFTA. He has no solutions to the problem of out-of-control energy prices. He is essentially “NO-Bama” on energy. You don’t get much more into topics that the working class cares about than ridiculously high gas prices. And Joe Six Pack might like the whole “going green” idea. But he doesn’t give a damn about it when he senses an opportunity to get fuel prices lower so he can feed his family.
In light of this, I don’t know that Obama is going to be able to effectively woo the blue-collar vote that he’ll need. At least, they’re not going to come out in droves for him. His strategy is going to be to amp up minority turnout in cities and hope for the best in more rural areas. That alone might save his ass in PA and MI - just because of the fact that the big cities of Detroit and Philly and their liberal ‘burbs may very well put him over the top even as he gets blown out everywhere else in both states. But there is a good chance it won’t work in Ohio - just because it hasn’t worked in Ohio for other liberal Democrats that have trouble with pro-gun, union households.
So what does this have to do with Romney? Well - as I said - I’m not convinced Romney will do us any good in the Buckeye state because of his image. But as the campaign has progressed, I’ve become less certain that he is going to hurt in the state as much as I previously thought - because the conservative Reagan Democrats in Ohio that voted for Reagan, Bush I and The Decider that might not like Romney haven’t been too keen on Obama either. And in the end I have to think that some of the so-con resistence to Romney might be outweighed by organization. I fully believe that a merry band of Mormons might be only too happy to get on the ground and work the state. Will it be enough? Who the hell knows? Given the pathetic state our party is in because of the Untested but Rush Limbaugh approved George W Bush, it might not be possible this year. I call Ohio (which I believe will be THE most important swing state) a pure tossup at this point. And Rasmussen and SUSA agree. Screw PPP. They said Obama would win the PA primary. “As if!”
I do believe that Romney will help more than he hurts in NV. Mormons WILL give McCain/Romney the edge over Obama/?.
As for CO - I really don’t know. We have no good data on that. And the GOP caucus doesn’t count (Sorry, Illinois Guy). But Rasmussen has us within three. I can buy that. It seems reasonable at this point.
NM and NH are probably not going our way this year. Same goes for Iowa. They were always marginal to begin with and Romney isn’t going to help. Demographic shifts have probably changed the partisan voting index of NM and NH such that we’d need to win nationally by 3 or 4 points to win those states. Iowa - well not so much, and it would probably be ok for the GOP in a normal year - but McCain has been blowing that state off since the primaries.
FL - just today I saw a Rasmussen poll that shows McCain up 7. Even with Romney on the ticket, I am not sure we’ll lose the state against Obama. Though if McCain picks Romney he better sit him down and tell him to shut up about immigration during the campaign. We all remember why Romney lost FL - because the Hispanics (particularly the Cubans, who we NEED in order to win) told Romney to get lost.
VA - Obama is going to get high black turnout. Romney will not help him here (aside from perhaps tossing some cash to compete in the DC- television market with campaign commercials). In 2000, VA voted 8 points more Republican than the nation did. In 2004, the state voted 6 points more to the right than the national popular vote. The Old Dominion is trending left, but it’s not the Blue Dominion yet. I suspect that even with increases AA turnout - wherever the election goes in November, we’ll probably do at least two points better in Virginia than in the nation as a whole, if not three or four. So - if we lose VA, we probably have already lost OH and NV anyway. In fairness to Romney, I don’t think his inability to help in VA is going to be that much of a hindrance unless we are already on the road to defeat.
Anyway - sorry for the long novel of a post. This is how I see things as of today. From an admitted anti-Romney guy, I am trying to be as objective as possible. But here’s my hope for some of the more over-the-top Romney supporters. If someone like me can try to be thise objective, just please stop with this “Mitt will guarantee Michigan” nonsense. It makes you look like kool-aid drinkers.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
My friends,
This picture says it all.
http://flapsblog.com/2008/06/30/william-kristol-mccain-should-choose-sarah-palin-as-vice-president/
June 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Adam, the only reason I think MI could have been in play this year is because the Dem nominee told the state they didn’t really deserve to have their votes count (before switching horses to accept delegates from the state that he didn’t receive one vote for). I think, barring something big, Sen McCain lost the state by being honest with them and saying the old jobs weren’t coming back, and they’d have to learn something new. We could have competed, but probably lost the state on that issue alone.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
#61 - I do feel you gave it a fair evaluation, and probably not too far off. I don’t know of any of us pro-Romney people saying that Mitt definitely wins Michigan for us. I believe he certainly gives us our best chance,.
Just speaking for myself, I think this election is going to be tough to win, no matter who McCain picks as VP, and impossible if he picks someone left of himself on social matters, or picks Huckabee.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The best chance money can buy at any rate. Romney bought MI with the promise of a US$40 billion bailout for the automobile industry combined with what Romney called a “public-private partnership,” neither the first not the last outrageously non-conservative policy proposal that Romney would issue in his ill-fated primary bid. How much will it cost the US treasury for every other state the lonely ker-jillionaire covets? A Romney-McCain ticket could bankrupt the nation.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
#62 That is a cute picture, but I am not sure I see a CiC in that pic.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
LogCabin: I’ll take your word on LBJ-perceived-as-Gov.
Re your other comment: “Mayor Daley - Although I am no fan of Chris Matthews, he has talked and written extensively about politics in Catholic Democratic strongholds in the 60’s and 70’s. His most recent admission was how election volunteers (registered Democrats) in PA used to put ink on the levers so they could check and ensure voters were selecting “their candidate”. I also encourage you to read; Chicago and the Presidential Election of 1960. by Edmund F. Kallina, Jr.”
I didn’t question whether Daley stole Illinois. It’s quite possible, but irrelevant, because it doesn’t change the numbers — JFK won the electoral college with or without Illinois.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Romney is higher than he has ever been on intrade.com today. He is at 26.8, rising 10.4 today.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Yes, Romney supported assistance to the auto industry - but if anyone thinks that it is a good idea to just let our entire manufacturing sector die off, well, its not a smart move.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
IL Guy,
I think in-trade is pretty useless at this point. It’s one thing to look at In-Trade in primary season to see where the smart money is in terms of which candidate wins which state, because that is based on polling, demographics - and just basically the stuff that decides elections. In Trade, in their Veep mode is doing little more than trying to psychoanalyze a candidate’s thoughts. There is just no way to do that.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
BobH,
Regarding the 1960 election, wasn’t Chicago just part of the equation? I read before (though I don’t recall where) that there was funny business going on in Texas that year too. If both IL and TX were toyed with then Nixon certainly could have won.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Adam: Could be — I was only referring to the myth that Daley stole the election in Chicago.
JFK took Texas by ~50k — that’s a lot of votes to steal, but I suppose it’s possible.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I’m pretty much where Jim is on the Romney question, in that I don’t feel nearly so confident that he’ll hurt the ticket, but I suspect he’ll leave us without an opportunity in key states like Ohio. But, because I find most of the VP prospects so depressingly lackluster, he makes my shortlist. Barely.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
FYI- Anyone with a passing interest in Johnson must read Robert Caro’s two biographies. In the first Caro claims Johnson stole the election for his first seat in congress. Back in those days it was as simply as stuffing boxes and part of the evidence of theft was that the ballots for certain districts were in alphabetical order (meaning the voters would have had to vote in order).
Regarding the 1960 election the story goes that Nixon wanted to contest it but Eisenhower said he would not support him if he did.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
> “Back in those days it was as simply as stuffing boxes and part of the evidence of theft was that the ballots for certain districts were in alphabetical order (meaning the voters would have had to vote in order).”
As I recall it, all the voters also had the same handwriting. That took place in Webb County (Laredo), which remains notorious. It wasn’t for his first seat in congress, though, it was his first election to the Senate (1948, I think).
June 30th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Assistance? US$40 billion is assistance? You have an Obama-like gift for obfuscation by way of understatement. OK., I’ll allow it for the sake of argument. My question then becomes: Is the big 3 our entire manufacturing sector? Well, no, right? We produce other things too, e.g. textiles, specialty steels for precision instruments, machine tools, solenoid valves. These industries are hurting too. So why don’t these other industries command Romney’s strangely selective attention? Why should not these other industries lay claim to the public treasury or merit a “public-private partnership? Why not enlist the entire economy into a “public-private partnership”—oh, wait isn’t that what Social Democrats on the continent already promote as effective policy?—yes, let us let them show us the way under Romney’s leadership!
My point: To those of who are genuinely conservative the internal inconsistency and rank opportunism of Romney’s “assistance” is too much to bear. But I’m happy for you that you’re OK with it. Should Sen. McCain fail in his bid you should suffer little cognitive dissonance for the the next four years. Woe to the rest of us however.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
people also forget that mitt was campaigning in iowa on mostly social issues. when he started focusing on economics is when he started winning. had he gone the economic root from the start he would have won.
he was an unknown governor taking on a 4 on 1 attack from mccain, rudy, thompson, and huck. had it been 1 on 1 with any of them, mitt wins. he’s not a bad pick at all.
mitt does everything mccain needs: sures up a weakness (ecnomics), helps regionally(southwest, michigan, NH), brings big money fundraising, and brings 50 state organization and volunteers. plus squeaky clean and vetted. cant ask for much more.
look at all the talk about mccain’s experience. they are attacking his POW years, just imagine what they will do to palin.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
This website is all messed out. How can you have any kind of discussion of McCain’s Veep without
mention of Sarah Palin? She’s the only one who can help to win this thing.
If McCain picks Romney, Obama wins period. Another white guy? You’ve got to be
kidding me.
Everybody here study the FACTS on Palin. I used to be a Mitt fan. I’m a Palin fan
because I want VICTORY! She will be the one to help McCain slay the Goliath of Obama/?.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
69. I don’t think Romney pledged any money to the auto industy, he pledged 40 billion in research for hybrid cars, which isn’t very much different than what McCain has pledged.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
76. dotan, non of your second paragraph was even in Romney’s plan. You sound idiotic. And actually Romney exliained why the focus on the auto industry for researh: It’s a bell weather sector and the nedd for the US to get caught up with foreign companies on innovation in hybrid cars.
We produce other things too, e.g. textiles, specialty steels for precision instruments, machine tools, solenoid valves.
And every single one of those are sectors that are fueled in some part to the US auto industry. Pretty, funny you even said that. It must be nice to live in a world where the big three auto manufacturers work in a vacuum.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
80, second line, “We produce other things too, e.g. textiles, specialty steels for precision instruments, machine tools, solenoid valves.” should be in blockquotes, that was Dotan’s remark.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Which would give Romney a better chance as a Presidential candidate in the future?
A. To be VP only to lose to Obama.
B. Not be VP and be governer of a state/senator.
C. RNC chairman.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
> “69. I don’t think Romney pledged any money to the auto industy, he pledged 40 billion in research for hybrid cars, which isn’t very much different than what McCain has pledged.”
What constitutes “isn’t much different”? How much has McCain pledged? I’m only aware of a proposed $300mil prize for developing battery powered cars. Is there something else?
June 30th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
BobH,
He pledged money for clean coal technology research.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I was once a very verbal activist for Romney on this site. I, like Clause, am not too sure abouit McCain-Romney ticket. As it currently stands, I am not voting for McCain, but I’ll vote for this ticket.
Anyway, my point I want to make is that so far, I am impressed on how Romney has been approaching the issue of Obama in thie cycle. It looks like he is a point man for the Republican Party on why we should be concerned with Obama presidency. He did it in such a way that he is not obviously attacking Obama personally, but rather, help us to have a real look at who Obama is, and allow us to make our own judgment about him. McCain will NOT win the election unless Obama is brought down to the reality. And Romney is doing it very well. He is not there yet, but he certainly has been busy.
Fred Thompson too has been busy attacking Obama’s policies, but he has not been as visible as Romney. I am not sure who else could replace Romney. This is the top reason why I am not too sure of McCain-Romney ticket. Romney won’t be able to continue inm this manner if he is on the ticket.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
> “He pledged money for clean coal technology research.”
How much?
June 30th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Never mind — $2bil per year for 15 years.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Bellwether?—this may have been true in 1950—interestingly the criticism of Romney’s “plan” to bailout the auto industry when he announced it was largely that, that Romney’s analysis of the situation seemed sadly anachronistic and his promise to subsidize the short-sightedness and mismanagement of automobile executives with taxpayer money a generation too late.
Well, that the manufacturing sector is a US economic bellwether was already not true by 1950. How long has it been since the US had an industrial as opposed to an industrial economy? What percentage of the US GDP gets produced by manufacturing? To answer these questions will reveal the serene absurdity of the Romney plan to buy votes with a US$40 billion bailout.
BTW: Willard Milton never mentioned hybrids in his plan to nationalize—er, I mean, create a “public-private partnership” with—the US automobile industry, an industry that is already largely foreign owned with much of its manufacturing base off-shore or in Canada or Mexico, so the whole world would have gotten its share of Romeny’s largess with other people’s money.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I wish you would have stayed gone dotan. Your bashing of Romney makes you look like someone who has head in the sand for the last year. Most people on this site recognize Mitt Romney as a man of great talent and experience. They may not agree with him because he is too conservative, for their taste, and some don’t like him for his religion, but for you to belittle him says a lot more about you than it does him.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:30 am
Romney!? Too conservative? The strange and lonely man proposes a US$40 billion dollar bail out and a circa 1970s public-private partnership—reducing the US automobile industry to the status of a public utility or a government jobs program—and he’s too conservative!? By what standard? By whose reckoning? And who cares about Romney’s religion? Lies are lies and corruption is corruption no matter what your doctrine or creed. You can’t hold a proud and global faith tradition like the Mormon confession responsible for an aberration like Willard Milton Romney—so what’s your point bringing up Romney’s religion?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:48 am
#90 “The strange and lonely man”, stopped reading there.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:32 am
Dotan is a proven tunnel visioned dork. He never concedes a legitimate point or tries to understand the other point of view, just ignore him.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:19 am
Rudy is the best choice for Veep by the way.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:25 am
#90 - WHAT?????? - Can’t you at least attempt to get a man’s name right? He was never, ever named ‘Milton’, period! Willard Mitt Romney was his given name at birth, so when you can get a guys name right….
Its not a first for the Government to engage in a technological expenditure in order to gain a much bigger pay back. What was going to the moon all about? Do you think for a minute that we have not been paid back many times over for that expenditure? You don’t get to define who is conservative all by yourself. The auto industry, along with the housing industry, is at the core of our manufacturing base, and would absolutely cripple our economy if we were to lose it, not to mention jeopardize our national security. Mitt Romney is too conservative for many, many moderates on here, and thats fine; that’s their philosophical position. But for you to come on here as a “Johnny comes marching home’ ‘know-it-all’ doesn’t work on here. You will be called out for it.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:43 am
It’s funny. All of the GOP candidates talked about investing money on an energy Manhattan project to make America energy independent. But if Mitt promises 40 Billion dollars to do it, it is suddenly bailing out the Auto industry. Critics of this idea are really partisan hacks and dorks. Dotan is amongst these hacks.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:10 am
If Mr. Romney wants to bail out the auto industry by cutting gas taxes and drilling for oil, this is great; if he wants to give these clowns money than this is not very smart. Hopefully the Conservative path will be chosen.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:07 am
Here is what I hate most about discussions with people who support Romney. Invariably I am reduced to teaching civics 101. Sigh. Anyway, dude, think about it. Was NASA ever competing—did NASA ever compete—with private industry for transport to the moon? No. You may as well say, well of course governments support technology, what’s the military all about?—well, friend, the military is one of the those public goods, like the federal highway program, that no single private interest could support. So is NASA. But I must say that this is the first time anyone in my experience has cited NASA as an example for why we should nationalize private industry as if this were the 70s.
Google “public goods” for more on public goods theory. Understanding the distinction between state and civil society would also help you.
Read and learn.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
‘nationalize private industry’? You’re an idiot. I won’t be responding to you anymore.
Would you please just go back and bury your head in the sand again for a few more years?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:14 am
No other candidate promised a “public-private” partnership between Washington and the automobile industry. So, yes, Romney’s proposal is a bailout, the worst sort of bailout.
The name-calling is a nice touch. Very Romney of you.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am
I do not think that Mr. Romney ever said that he wanted to nationalize the auto industry. However, it is a little concerning that he wants to give money to a private industry. To be fair to Mr. Romney, he is not the first or last politicians to want to bail out an certain industry. So while, it is probably wrong for him to bail out the auto industry, it is a little harsh to accuse him of being a Porker if you will because all politicians are Porkers to a degree.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
I’m very confident that if Mitt explained his idea and reasons behind it, we conservatives would have no problem with it.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am
nowandlater says:
Hey, “Dotan” seems to be making a lot of sense here.
Romney showed himself as not understanding conservative principals while pandering in Michigan. That definitely belies his supposed “latter day” conversion to conservatism that everyone says we must trust.
Rudy was completely media made, scandal plagued, and fell flat in the primaries. How does that make him the “best choice” for anything but retirement?
July 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
I hope you are right Illinoisguy, again I agree with Mr. Romney for wanting to drill and low gas taxes when many other politicians did not have to courage to do so. However, I am a bit nervous to have $40 billion dollar thrown at a losing industry. I guess we have survived much worse for previous politicians, but I am a little uneasy nevertheless. I do hope that Mr. Romney will focus on drilling and lowering taxes on gas. While I for one tend to use public transportation, I think many in Ohio (and other midwestern states) would give Mr. Romney a second look if he promotes such energy policies.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I love that Illinoisguy got so upset over the name.
Romney’s a hack. He’s a shirt. The less time I spend on this blog the more I realize how ridiculous all of this is. Because we speculate, pontificate, and say what we think and why we think it all day, we separate ourselves from what normal, non-political people actually want. They don’t want Romney. He doesn’t say anything new. He’s got a $250 million bank account and could give ten rat’s asses what middle and lower class Americans think or need. The GOP needs to reconnect with it’s message of the past- that we are here to help. That there is a crisis on about 24 different fronts, and we need to fix it. Not taxes, abortion, or gay marriage. People don’t complain about these in conjunction with their everyday lives. Things like college tuition, quality education, gas prices, and health care are more often talked about around the dinner table, and so if we want to win, we have to address these issues. We can’t just run on a “We’re gonna cut taxes!” platform because that doesn’t connect. We need specific answers to specific issues, and now. Romney doesn’t bring that. He is that “We’re gonna cut taxes!” candidate, and that’s great, but it doesn’t win this time around. There’s gotta be more under it.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Robbie-You’re forgetting one thing and that is that Romney has actually done something about healthcare, sure it’s not a perfect plan by any means but unlike Obama Romney can actually say “i’ve reached across the aisle and worked with Democrats on health care”.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
And Obama or whoever Romney’s against can turn around and say “And look where it ended up.” It makes a good soundbite and no matter how long Romney denies fault, it won’t work. I’m not saying Romney doesn’t have experience or specific arguments, I’m saying that he’s the epitome of the ten-word candidate instead of the ideas candidate. He doesn’t propose new things. Offshore Oil-Drilling is far from a new idea, but McCain injected it into the debate and made it a real issue, and instead of the argument being about “what to do about the oil crisis,” it became “should we drill offshore?” I, as a big proponent of message control and message based politics, know how this plays into McCain’s hands. Romney doesn’t have the ideas to control the news cycle. Romney is a response-based candidate, and that doesn’t beat Barack Obama in this political climate. And it doesn’t fix anything once he’s in office. We need a candidate of fresh, genuine, practical, risky ideas- Romney hardly brought that in the primaries. Neither did Giuliani or Thompson or Clinton, and that’s why they all went flat.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Robbie,
Everything Mitt has proposed is either a new idea or a better-packaged old one. You have no clue who Romney is. If you did, you would know that he got rich by thinking outside the box, and succeeding wildly where others failed miserably. Far from being a hack, Mitt has always been an innovator and a leader. That he is sound on the issues isn’t nearly as important as the fact that he’s the most competent man on the VP short list and brings more to the table electorally as well.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Dave, with respect, I think you are over-stating things, but I guess we just have different opinions. I do not think that Mr. Romney is a hack, but I still doubt his electoral capabilities in the Midwest. If his is going to benefit the ticket, I believe that he will have to play up his strengths and down-play some aspects. Giving $40 Billion to a losing industry may sound good in Michigan, but it does not sound as good in some neighboring states.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I like how these discussions always make it to ad hominem accusations, such as “you have no clue who Romney is,” or, my personal favorite, “you must be out of your gourd!”
I didn’t say anything about getting ric or the business world. That’s a whole different ball gam. Just because you’re a billionaire doesn’t make you an effective politician.
Mitt is a HACK by all definitions. He is such a puppet and stands up to no one if they are within his constituency. He disagrees with his party on nothing, and if you want that, then fine. As for me, I know the Republican party’s not always right, and I’d like my candidate to have some principle.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
[...] all of these reasons (and more) selecting Mitt would be a smart move. by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 5:13 pm. Filed under Mitt Romney, [...]