Straight from this side of Hugh Hewitt, Race42008’s comment section seems to be quite on the verge of re-establishing its credibility as a safe outpost of Rombottery in the Republican blog community. This disturbing trend, once thought dead after our dearly-beloved Abe (”THE HUCK-A-BUST IS COMING…!!!” and “MUAHAHAHA THE RETURN OF THE ROMNEY IS COMING!!!!”) left Race42008, has again manifested itself, disturbing those of us that are swept up in matters other than preemptively resigning themselves to all but the most egregious vice-presidential candidate possibilities.
What prompted this outburst, of course, is the blurb that Kavon posted earlier touting Romney as “making the most sense” for the vice-presidency. This triggered a litany of approving comments — some from ordinarily clear-headed people that clearly weren’t thinking straight — that indicated that yes, something has changed in the past two months, and that Mr. Romney is now acceptable. Fallacious reasoning abounded.
Let me be the bearer of good news: no, Mitt Romney is still not acceptable. Allow me to deconstruct the ridiculous fallacies that would lead one to support a Romney vice-presidential nomination:
1. Mitt Romney would turn Michigan red!
A dubious claim, at best. Yes, Romney managed to grab a plurality victory in Michigan (based at least in part on his family legacy). His strength, as we learned from the exit polls — against John McCain (not Barack Obama) — largely rested in urban areas. Urban Republican voters aren’t antipathetic toward McCain in the first place in any way whatsoever, nor is there any evidence that Romney could pull Democratic urban voters toward the Republican ticket, were he to be placed at the bottom of it. (Nor, of course, is there any reason to believe that there was anything special about Romney that made urban voters go for him [in, again, plurality numbers], rather than just being a winner among losers, but that’s another matter.) Suggesting that Romney will help among urban voters in Michigan because he won them against McCain makes no more sense than saying that he’d be a drag on McCain’s Hispanic vote because he lost that constituency against McCain in Florida.
The mistake of trying to translate intra-party primary strengths into inter-party advantages is one of the great fallacies of the election season. Remember when people were roundly mocking Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and rightly so) for implying that Barack Obama would have a hard time in California and New York during the general election because he lost those states during the primary season? Well, guess what, gentlemen: you’re committing the exact same fallacy.
That being said, Romney appears (as of late May) to provide a slight, statistically insignificant boost in Michigan against Democratic tickets with known commodities at the bottom. There is no reason to infer, however, that other options would damage McCain’s chances or that this is some sort of mandate for Romney coming from Michigan.
2. Mitt Romney would be a fantastic cash cow!
Romney’s fundraising strength came mostly from, well, his wallet. During Q4 of 2007, Romney actually came in an anemic 4th, if you exclude his own funds. But then, why should we do that? Let’s not mince words, Alex: Romney came in 1st in fundraising!
Ah yes, all things considered, this is an utterly compelling narrative for the media and the Obama campaign: let’s contrast Barack Obama, the million-donor man, against John McCain, the man who has all-but-admitted his campaign’s impotency by selecting his vice-presidential nominee in order to get his hands on his money.
That is, assuming that money even means much of anything at this point. For all of Obama’s money advantages against Hillary Clinton, his wins could have been pulled off with or without the extra millions and were due mostly to Clinton’s inept campaign team coupled with his own campaign’s brilliant organization. And the implications could not be starker, from the Republican primary aftermath: Ron Paul was raking in money — through his excited grassroots supporters, no less! — and look what that got him. The Paul saga proved that ideas that connect with the voters matter more than any amount of money. Likewise, Romney was unable to buy himself the nomination because he wasn’t trusted, and McCain successfully weathered the entire nomination process with positively abysmal fundraising numbers.
If there’s any lesson that we should have taken away from Primary Campaign 2008, it’s that we should be more than a little careful about overestimating the importance of money.
3. Mitt Romney would secure the West by boosting Mormon turnout!
First of all: would you Rombots make up your minds? Are Mormons reliable, patriotic citizens that routinely bloc-vote for Republicans en masse, or do we have to bribe them with a Mormon in order to secure their votes?
In the ‘turnout tsunami‘ election, I don’t think that we’re going to have to worry about getting out the vote, anyway. The vote will mostly be getting itself out. We should focus on appealing to it! If we have to hinge this election on whether the Mormons are going to bloc-vote for us in larger numbers than usual, then we should really just throw in the towel right now.
Not that Mormons really comprise a large percentage of voters in the West, anyway. Besides Nevada, where this could conceivably make a difference, I’m not really sure that this argument even makes any sense, considering that Mormons bloc-vote for Republicans in the first place.
4. Mitt Romney being anathema to moderates is irrelevant!
Oh, please. McCain and Obama have their bases locked up and both are making strong appeals to the center; the key now is to pick someone that’s going to make the ticket even more attractive.
During the week that Romney dropped out of the race, his favorability rating, according to Gallup, was -12!
Let that sink in for a second, people: -12.
This was not just due to bad feelings from the primary season. McCain’s numbers in the same poll were a strong +18. (His current numbers are +24, according to the same polling organization.)
Are you going to tell me that numbers like that are irrelevancies, given our circumstances?
*
Alright, now: can we stop this foolishness and get back to talking about winning?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Mitt is CLEARLY the best pick. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. He probably won’t get it, but he should.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Do you care to reply to any of my points? I did just spend an hour researching and writing this article.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
That -12 is the most bogus thing I’ve ever heard. He was FAST gaining on J’mac but couldn’t compete with the name ID and big name endorsements. I HATE people who try to re-write history. Mitt’s finest hour was at C/PAC when he conceded. He owned the conservatives then and he will own them in 2012 when he smashes Huck then beats up on Obama!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I provided a link. Go look at it.
-12.
The fact that you think it’s bogus shows how out of touch with reality you Rombots are.
Check the link.
His favorability was -12.
That’s a gap of thirty against McCain at the same time.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
You should have spent that watching two episodes of South Park or The Simpsons as it’s just the same anti-Mitt stuff regurgitated. Mitt won’t be on the ticket but he won’t be going anywhere so you Mitt haters have to deal with your irrationality (with all due respect).
July 7th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Romney won an OPEN PRIMARY in Michigan by 9 points against Mr. open primary himself John McCain where there was no contested Democratic race thereby forcing all local media coverage on the Republican race. He appealed to auto workers and blue collar voters in general as part of his strategy in that state. You really don’t think that some of those people probably voted for Romney in the primary but are now voting for Obama? That adding Romney to the ticket might not bring them back? I say Romney as VP is worth 5% extra at a minimum in Michigan.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Ironically, I have (a terrible episode of) Family Guy on in the background.
But you never did reply to a single point in the article.
Your love of Mitt is an article of faith; no piece of evidence I provide could possibly cause you to change your mind about him.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
You’re a good man Alex. Thank you for that.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Heath, how long have you known who Mitt Romney was?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Romney won an OPEN PRIMARY in Michigan by 9 points against Mr. open primary himself John McCain where there was no contested Democratic race thereby forcing all local media coverage on the Republican race. He appealed to auto workers and blue collar voters in general as part of his strategy in that state. You really don’t think that some of those people probably voted for Romney in the primary but are now voting for Obama? That adding Romney to the ticket might not bring them back? I say Romney as VP is worth 5% extra at a minimum in Michigan.
338,000 people voted for Romney.
Up to 6,000,000 people could be voting in Michigan this year.
Let’s assume that 10% of those Romney voters are currently unwilling to vote for McCain or undecided — that seems reasonable.
So let’s say 38,000.
.63%.
Will Romney pull them back to McCain? Let’s say he pulls all of them, just to be generous. .63% is my initial estimate for how much Romney could really help in the way that you’re saying he would. We already know that his appeal to the center is mind-bogglingly awful. Even if he did help in Michigan, we’d probably have to be even more worried about Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, etc., due to him.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
LOL at the many exclamation marks.
I actually don’t think it will be Romney because his political instincts are just bad. He actually thought the key to winning this year was to hug Ann Coulter and run as a well-spoken version of Bush. Most of us knew that wasn’t true by the time the returns came in on Election Night ‘06, and we’re not even paid political professionals!
That said, if he had plenty of handlers who could explain to him that his ONLY job is to run the way he did in Michigan this year — i.e., as a pro-business, good-government Republican who knows his economics — then he could probably milk a point or two out of Michigan based on that and his family name, which is what the SUSA poll shows as well. His job is not to give speeches to conservative groups and throw red meat. His job is not to think up lots of new ways to please the so-cons and piss everyone else off in the process. His ONLY job is to hang out in the white suburbs of Detroit and tell Michigan voters that he’s his father’s son and that McCain will fix the economy.
The only reason I’m even slightly open to Romney at this point is that a point or two in Michigan could be the election given how close Michigan is in the RCP average and given how close the electoral college is once you realize that Indiana and Montana aren’t really going to go for Obama and Ohio probably won’t either.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I’m just shaking my head at how Alex in his 16-18 years thinks he is the smartest guy on the site. Sometimes I wonder if he even attempts to absorb sound logic, or rather he’s is too busy deciding how to word his next argument. Alex, could you please wait a few years before declaring yourself the smartest guy on the site/planet? You have a long way to go for either, young man, especially in your ability to absorb info that is contrary to your opnion.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I think that if he’s picked, it’ll be such a big letdown. Okay, so I have a favorite, but McCain needs someone to energize the ticket heading into the convention and the fall campaign. I never had any problem with Romney, but I just don’t think McCain with get much of a bounce from Romney. How is his move to CA going to play? Plus, we’ll have to listen to those people at NRO who would then want McCain to only serve one time so their golden boy can run in 2012.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Where did Abe go, anyway, DaveG? I miss him. He was my favorite Rombot!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I’m just shaking my head at how Alex in his 16-18 years thinks he is the smartest guy on the site. Sometimes I wonder if he even attempts to absorb sound logic, or rather he’s is too busy deciding how to word his next argument. Alex, could you please wait a few years before declaring yourself the smartest guy on the site/planet? You have a long way to go for either, young man, especially in your ability to absorb info that is contrary to your opnion.
Hot on the heels of Rombot #1, who completely denies evidence in front of his face, comes Rombot #2: Alex’s arguments are wrong because he’s young.
Aye.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
What did happen to Abe? My favorite Abe-ism was, “MARK MY WORDS!”
July 7th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
338,000 voted for slick Willard? Ouch. Willard promised MI like 20 Billion (with a ‘B’) if they elected him President. I think that works out to be like $50,000 in federal subsidies per vote. Good call!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
The only reason I’m even slightly open to Romney at this point is that a point or two in Michigan could be the election given how close Michigan is in the RCP average and given how close the electoral college is once you realize that Indiana and Montana aren’t really going to go for Obama and Ohio probably won’t either.
Ceteris paribus, of course.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I disagree with a number of points here, but I want to talk specifically about the pushback from anti-Romney folk that he wouldn’t help in MI. I live here, and honestly nearly everyone wants economic prosperity- above all else. Granholm has poisoned the D name here, and we need someone who is willing to pay special attention to MI in order for people to not feel shafted by the GOP as well. The Romney name carries weight- and outside of Grand Rapids. It’s unusual to have a powerful GOP figure in Michigan who’s not from Grand Rapids/Western Michigan. Romeny has deep metro Detroit roots, and has every reason to make MI his home for this election. There is no one for Republicans who could do better in Michigan than Romney. I live here, I know of what I speak. MI’s election will be determined by Macomb and Oakland counties…where the Romney’s lived and were successful. How can anyone say that wouldn’t be an asset? Get real.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I didn’t say that he wouldn’t be an asset, Brian. But whether we lose by 7 or by 1 is irrelevant. I’m not convinced in the slightest that he’s such a major asset in Michigan that it offsets all of his other major weaknesses.
No one is disputing that Romney would help in Michigan. But whether he could carry Michigan for us is a highly dubious claim indeed. I’m not willing to gamble with Romney for a single state that he can’t even guarantee — and worse, possibly at the expense of others.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Okay, I don’t know MI politics as well as MN, but I’m starting to think that DaveG just can’t stand social conservatives. I don’t know the underlying basis, but something’s going on there for him to have such incessant antipathy. I always considered MI to go a pretty pro-life state. I know for a fact that a sizable portion of the democratic base is pro-life and the state does elect pro-life dem congressmen (I think they’re two left in the state). Bonior was always poplar despite being in a GOP district. So I don’t think appealing to socons in MI is going to turn off everyone else. Now, I don’t know much about Oakland Country. But my guess is that the county is more conservative than the MPLS suburbs. And I can tell you that the MPLS suburbs won’t vote against you just b/c your socially conservative/pro-life.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Put simply I disagree with all your points Alex.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I just looked at that now 6 week old SUSA poll from MI. I don’t think it’s all that meaningful. First it was still in the heat of the dem primary and when the dems were still exculding MI delegates. It has a pretty big undecided, has Obama only getting 60% of the dem vote, AND it has McCain at close to 30% of the black vote. Please. McCain won’t get 30 black votes period in MI, let alone 30%.
Besides, if we’re going all in on winning MI, what ahppens if Obama announces senior statesman and chairman of the Armed Services Cmte Carl Levin as his VP. So much for Romney helping there.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
21 — Er, do you mean me, rather than DaveG?
22 — Yes, yes, but why?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
#20, that’s been my major point against Pawlenty.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I just looked at that now 6 week old SUSA poll from MI. I don’t think it’s all that meaningful.
I don’t either.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
#24 This has almost become a chat room. No DaveG. I know you live in MD.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Alex,
I do not buy these arguments.
1. Were you actually there during the Michigan primary, and the moments leading up the Michigan primary? I recall it fairly clearly, and it’s laughable to say “there’s no reason to believe these urban voters voted for anything specific about Romney”. But, we don’t need to go into anything so indistinct; let’s look at some data. In the week before New Hampshire, there were two Michigan polls. Romney led in neither of them (Huck led by 1 in a rossman poll and McCain led by 9 in a strategic vision poll). He ended up winning the state by 9.2 points. Anyone who was paying attention to the race at that point in time ought to remember that there was real and substantial movement in Romney’s direction post-NH (given another week, he could have won by 15 points). Since I know you were paying attention, I’ll assume this is temporary amnesia. Let’s look at some more data. I’ve often pointed out that Michigan was the one state that broke the traditional Romney demographic mold. He won working class voters (contra to your Dave’s assertions about upper-middle class Republicans) by 6% (almost as well as he did with non-working class voters). He won voters who said they were “getting ahead” financially, but he won voters who said they were “falling behind” by an even larger margin. And the only economic group where McCain was even close to Romney was the 15-30k group, which is generally considered something like “working poor”, not “working class”. Demographically, Romney broke into sub-groups in Michigan that stymied him everywhere else, and seemed to make a genuine connection with working class voters. There’s no reason to believe this wouldn’t, at least partially, carry-over into a general election campaign.
2 and 3. Historically, there are huge differences between two-person races and “open races”. Cash and organization (to drive turnout) can be overcome in a multi-candidate primary. In a two person general election, they’re disproportionately more significant. The evidence simply does not support the idea that “message trumps money” or “turnout is bound to be high anyway, we just need to target the people who are going to turn out”. People don’t “turn-out” generically. There’s a verysignificant, but not overwhelming, sector of the electorate that turns out, consistently, out of civic duty. The rest of the folks turnout when they have a candidate they want to vote for; which means that without a serious McCain organization, turnout will be high alright, but it’ll only be Obama’s voters who are turning out.
#4
This is problematic, to be sure, but if I recall correctly, Hillary had a lower positive rating when she left the race. That doesn’t mean that Romney’s negatives won’t be a factor, but he can’t be ruled out on that basis alone.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
#21: Socially conservative Republicans like John Engler (and John McCain!) do quite well in Michigan. I.e., those who don’t wear their views on their sleeve and who generally only talk about abortion, et al, at the pro-life events or in their targeted mailings to likeminded voters. Romney should stay pro-life and such, but there’s no reason for him to talk about social issues given that in-your-face culture warriors like Santorum get booted by Great Lakes states voters all the time.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Alex I just adopt what my colleague Matthew said.
Cheers.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
While I doubt Romney can actually help in Michigan, the Mormon/West deal is a legitimate argument. There are several reasons why McCain is consistently underperforming out West but when you look at the crosstabs in the polls that have them, one of them is because he’s only pulling 60-70% of the LDS vote rather than the 85-95% the GOP normally gets. Plain and simple, McCain is weaker than he should be with the Mormon vote, particularly the younger LDS voters that Obama has some appeal to.
However, if McCain does decide to go for the “Western Mormon” strategy it will probably not be with Romney, but with the darkhorse Huntsman who has Romney’s strength on economic issues in addition to foreign policy (diplomacy) experience that none of the other GOP governors have, actual charisma, no flip-flops, and whom McCain likes because he’s a maverick conservative just like him.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
1. Were you actually there during the Michigan primary, and the moments leading up the Michigan primary? I recall it fairly clearly, and it’s laughable to say “there’s no reason to believe these urban voters voted for anything specific about Romney”.
But we don’t need Romney to hold urban Republicans, and there’s really little reason to believe that the working poor that aren’t already in McCain’s column are going to go for Romney over Obama — at least not in substantial enough numbers to stick him on the ticket. Whether he could actually help or not is irrelevant: we can only pick one VP, and they all have strengths. Romney’s are simply far too small and he comes with far too much baggage and far too many negatives to justify sticking him on the ticket for some working-poor Michigan voters that he was able to win against John McCain in a state where there virtually was no Democratic primary.
Historically, there are huge differences between two-person races and “open races”. Cash and organization (to drive turnout) can be overcome in a multi-candidate primary. In a two person general election, they’re disproportionately more significant.
Maybe, but even the numbers so far should tell you that money’s importance might be overestimated. McCain’s only behind Obama by a few points, even though he’s being crushed in the money race. The media’s so obsessed with this race that I don’t think that money will mean as much. As long as McCain has a competent organization, he should be okay in that regard.
People don’t “turn-out” generically. There’s a verysignificant, but not overwhelming, sector of the electorate that turns out, consistently, out of civic duty. The rest of the folks turnout when they have a candidate they want to vote for; which means that without a serious McCain organization, turnout will be high alright, but it’ll only be Obama’s voters who are turning out.
An unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic vote, and in an election that’s as talked-about as this, with a candidate that’s as polarizing as Obama has become (and is going to even more become), the Democrats will be chairing our GOTV organization. And it’s not like we need Romney to get out the vote. The unstated premise behind this argument is that Romney is (a) going to boost turnout and (b) that no other Republican can accomplish this. The former is a dubious claim and the latter is, of course, ridiculous.
This is problematic, to be sure, but if I recall correctly, Hillary had a lower positive rating when she left the race. That doesn’t mean that Romney’s negatives won’t be a factor, but he can’t be ruled out on that basis alone.
So now we’re using Hillary Clinton, the polarizer of polarizers, as a foundation to defend Romney? Scraping the bottom of the barrel now!
And say what you will about Romney’s turnaround potential, but it sure is better to start with high favorability ratings than to pray and hope that we can overcome a -12%!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
he’s only pulling 60-70% of the LDS vote rather than the 85-95% the GOP normally gets. Plain and simple, McCain is weaker than he should be with the Mormon vote, particularly the younger LDS voters that Obama has some appeal to.
There’s no margin of error on Election Day, and there are no undecideds. There are polls right now that have Obama-McCain at 45-42; that doesn’t mean that the vote will add up to 87% on Election Day. I am supremely confident that McCain will gather 85-90% of the Mormon vote in November.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Can we all be honest with ourselves. The VP is not selected to carry a state. Those who are promoting candidates because they can carry a state(s) are delusional. Romney supporters even have the delusion to think he can carry 3-4 states. My friends, there is nothing in American history to show a VP candidate can swing a region in the USA. That is why we are laughing at Romney supporters.
If McCain wins in Michigan, it will not be because of Romney, it will be because McCain connected to the many vets in the state and because white blue collar workers turned away from Obama.
Alex’s stronges argument is #4. YOU NEVER PICK A VP WHO CAN HURT YOUR TICKET! YOU NEVER PICK A VP WHO CAN HURT YOUR TICKET! YOU NEVER PICK A VP WHO CAN HURT YOUR TICKET! YOU NEVER PICK A VP WHO CAN HURT YOUR TICKET!
If McCain was going to pick a VP with high negatives (he won’t) he will select Newt before Mitt.
All of the points Alex makes leads to……”Palin”.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Alex,
I simply don’t accept the premise that voters are just going to turn-out, willy-nilly, without traditional turnout driving mechanisms. And I’m not at all convinced that this election is especially unique in terms of being “talked about”. Not to bring up your age here, but neither of us have seen, with any vividness, many presidential elections. I remember 2004 well enough, and it seemed like an awful lot of excitement was in the air, and tons of divisiveness. 2000 is a complete blur. Should I assume, then, that 2004 was just a wildly more “talked about” election? Probably not. There are some universals in politics. Some things change of course, and the guys that can predict those changes are the ones who ultimately themselves ascending the political heights, but mostly they’re constant. For every Karl Rove who decides to micro-target, you have tons of people like George McGovern’s campaign manager, who was convinced McGovern didn’t need working class whites, because minorities, the youth, and educated whites were going to suddenly flood the electorate to vote for him (oops). When you say “people will turn out because of all the buzz” I say “prove it” or “baloney”. People turn-out, because they’re targeted, or because they feel engaged in the process, and often enough, an “unenthusiastic vote” becomes “no vote”. And I’ve seen nothing to convince me this election cycle will be any different. The “buzz” certainly didn’t animate any GOP’ers to vote in the primaries.
As for the rest, it’s true enough that Romney’s not the only one that drive GOP turnout, or provide organization. I’ve argued as much myself. But, that’s an entirely different argument from “well, we don’t need money/organization/enthusiasm anyway”.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
#31: Flip flops? Did you really say and mean “Romney’s flip flops”? And you can say that with a straight face?
Because neither John McCain nor Obama have had any flip flops at all this last 6 months. So, I can see why you’d mention all Romney’s flip flops in that they really make him stand quite apart from our two presidential candidates. (Spoken in jest of course. And absolute disdain for anyone who revert’s to that old trick of using the Romney “flip flop” label.)
July 7th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
35 — Well, to your arguments, I would say: just look at the primary season. Record turnouts because of the media’s obsession with the race. I don’t buy that it was some sort of organization trick. The Politico article I linked to mentions that this election could have a ‘tsunami turnout’ due to how into the election everyone is. 2004 also saw record turnouts. (It can’t just be explained away by population increases, either.)
Republicans have always had a turnout gap in the primaries (as Mr. Oxendine, I believe, has noted). We still came out in large numbers, and it’s not, historically speaking, going to be something that puts us at a general election disadvantage.
More money, organization, and enthusiasm can only be a good thing, of course, but I’m not convinced that the election is going to hinge on enthusiasm. (If it will, then why are we even bothering, here?)
July 7th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I always considered MI to go a pretty pro-life state. I know for a fact that a sizable portion of the democratic base is pro-life
IR-MN,
According to the most recent SurveyUSA poll for Michigan, 54 percent of the electorate is pro-choice; while 42 percent are pro-life.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Because neither John McCain nor Obama have had any flip flops at all this last 6 months. So, I can see why you’d mention all Romney’s flip flops in that they really make him stand quite apart from our two presidential candidates. (Spoken in jest of course. And absolute disdain for anyone who revert’s to that old trick of using the Romney “flip flop” label.)
The old justifying-a-wrong-with-a-wrong thing.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
The one good thing about Romney for VP is that either way we end up with a good result.
Either McCain wins and we’re all happy or he loses and Romney is finished in politics.
I also agree with Kristofer, the impact of the VP, no matter who McCain picks probably won’t be as great as we make it out to be.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
#12, Illinoisguy,
If 10% of our teenagers had the intellect and awareness as those on this site, there would be no doubt about the prospects and health of the future of our society. I know you did not mean to say that.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Oh the irony…
Sampo and other McCainiacs cried from the rooftops about McCain electability and told us that “slick Willard” flipped on anything and everything. Yes McCain did manage to win (with some help from Huckabee, Indy’s, and many, many Dems who voted for him). He is our nominee and I’ll pull the lever for him.
But months have gone by and we see McCain’s campaign has resorted to its old form from last year, without money, organization, and any sort of direction. We see McCain do what he (and Sampo and others have done) and flipped on most issues. No longer is he suggesting we close Gitmo as he did in the debates, instead he critisizes the Supreme court decision on terror detainees. Then of course there is drilling. And of course taxes, and on and on. So he too has flipped on many issues to try to convince a disbelieving GOP that he is one of them and can be trusted. He is working to court voters he gouged in the eye for the last 8 years in the Senate.
His problem is voter apathy. The Dems love there guy who is exciting, charasmatic, and new. McCain looks as old as Moses and still hasnt excited his base. Of course we heard for months that Mccain would bring home the Indy’s, which has yet to materialize according to the polls.
Remember that although Alex, Metro, Adam, MWS, and several others didnt like Romney in the primary, MILLIONS OF VOTERS DID. He raised a ton of money from a ton of people. He was endorsed by conservative media like Rush, Hannity, Levin, Ingram, and many conservative publications. Certainly not the Alex K’s and Metros of the world, but big names in conservative circles.
Romney would help McCain with everything Kavon suggested earlier plus would bring organization and direction to a campaign on the ropes. He has been very gracious (which is more than I can say for some of you) and would complement McCain well. McCain gets my vote regardless, but I and many others are counting on McCain to not screw this VP announcement up.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Remember that although Alex, Metro, Adam, MWS, and several others didnt like Romney in the primary, MILLIONS OF VOTERS DID. He raised a ton of money from a ton of people. He was endorsed by conservative media like Rush, Hannity, Levin, Ingram, and many conservative publications. Certainly not the Alex K’s and Metros of the world, but big names in conservative circles.
Yes, it was obviously just me, Metro, Adam, and MWS versus the millions.
It’s not like he had a -12% favorability rating or anything.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
#42, we can all admit McCain was the only candidate who would have had a chance at victory this year.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Adam made a great point in a previous thread, if Christian conservatives are too bigotted to get on board because a Mormon is on the ticket, than screw them! Im a Mormon and have never voted for another Mormon in my life except Romney. I have donated time and money to evangelicals running for office my whole life. I share their values and ideals although I recognize my faith is different from theres.
Mormons in huge numbers came out to vote for Bush (an evangelical) in 00 and 04, and without many of them in places like AZ, NV, and NM, he might not have won. They could have been as some of the “Christians” of the world today (who act very unchristian-like) and could have said NO WAY to someone of another faith. If they would have sat on there hands and stayed home, Gore or Kerry could have won.
If they (Evangelicals) want to alienate one of the most generous, giving , and reliable groups of voters in the GOP than I would say screw and encourage them to follow Pastor Huckabee to a new populist party. They need to get over themselves and look beyond ones faith.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
It’s not like he had a -12% favorability rating or anything.
And he still made Guiliani look like the sitting joke. How about that.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
husky writes: “We see McCain do what he (and Sampo and others have done) and flipped on most issues. No longer is he suggesting we close Gitmo as he did in the debates”
McCain vows to close Guantanamo Bay prison
June 21, 2008
US Senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain has said that he will close the Guantanamo Bay prison if he is elected to the White House in November.
Addressing the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa Friday, McCain said that he agreed with the public opinion in Canada against the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison.
“Many Canadians have objected to the policies of the United States in dealing with terrorists and enemy combatants held at the Guantanamo prison. It happens that I also regard the prison in Guantanamo as a liability in the fight against radical extremism and as president of the United States I will close it,” he announced amid thunderous applause by the audience.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
31. Do you have any evidence to suggest McCain would pick Huntsman? Has he ever been mentioned? Has he done anything with McCain since his essential anti-Romney grudge endorsement of McCain?
July 7th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
And he still made Guiliani look like the sitting joke. How about that.
I don’t know about that, but either way, it has no bearing on whether Romney would be a liability.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Yes Alex, you made your point. McCains favorable was better than Romneys. Its no longer about McCain vs Romney. Romney was like by other conservatives. McCain was beloved by Indy’s and Dems. He still is today. And when they pull the lever for Obama, they will still like the guy. He has always sort of been one of them, except Obama is more so. So whats your point.
The election is based on winning 270 electoral votes. McCain needs someone Romney like to hold down the west, and MI or NH, or IA or some places like that. I dont see someone else out there that brings to that to the table. Dems and Indy’s who like McCain will still vote for McCain regardless of who he picks. Enough Republicans though might pull what they did in 06 and pout and just stay home. They wont knock doors, wont give time or money, and wont go the extra mile for the guy that was at odds with his party for years on issues unless….. They see someone who shares there values and vision for the party and the country. Someone who could step in if McCain decides not to run again or dies in office. Yes, Mccain won but dont discount Romneys popularity among conservatives. He won more “conservatives” in McCains state of AZ. He was beloved at CPAC. He was endorsed by many in the GOP. McCain will win the moderates and some Indy’s, let Romney go out there and energize, solicate, and bring home the conservatives.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Alex,
2004 saw record turnouts, but very large portions of both the Kerry electorate and the Bush electorate were “very excited” about their candidate. Remember that 17% who were “very enthusiastic” about McCain versus the 47% who were very enthusiastic about Obama? Well, if you look back to the equivalent 2004 poll, it was something like 45% for Bush and 39% for Kerry. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that voters turned out in record numbers in 2004 specifically because they felt very invested in a candidate firstly, and invested in the general outcome only secondly. Voters don’t turn out because they’re very excited, only they don’t know for what. They turn out because they’re very excited about a specific candidate, or possibly because they’re very worried about a specific candidate. And if you think you can win with only the second group, you’ll find that you’ll end somewhere between Dole 96′ and Kerry 04′. We need to do something to drive enthusiasm for McCain, and big part of that will be a coordinated, efficient, and yes large organization and grassroots presence, something which he’s mostly lacked so far. We don’t need to match Obama here, because McCain will likely never have Obama’s negatives. But, we need to cut the disparity in enthusiasm to something like 35/45 to stand a chance.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
#48, Jason, Huntsman displayed loyalty to McCain (not a grudge against Mitt). He brings domestic and foreign policy experience. Hunstman has been active on the McCain campaign.
#45 Husky, most of us believe LDS church members are Christians. You need to go to Hucksarmy to have that argument.
Sorry Mittbots, I have spent the last 4 hours trying to find precedence where a VP choice had a net negative of -12%. I cannot find it in history.
I like Mitt, but you need to come to reality that this is a dog and pony show to make Mitt & crew feel better when they are let down.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
49.
Actually it does. You’re alluding that Romney’s -12 Negative rate is a killer deal in #4. But he sure beat out some people who had net positives. The point is his organizational strengths, ideas and skills were able to carry him to places that Guiliani, Thompson, Huckabee could never go. So basically your number 4 kind of actually makes an argument for Romney.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
52.
I guess you don’t know Huntsman’s and Mitt’s history. I wouldn’t expect you to.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Thanks for clarifying Aron. It makes his beef with the Supreme Court decision look weak. What, we close Gitmo and bring the terrorist here BUT… We shouldnt do as the Supreme Court suggested and give them rights. How can both be. If we bring them here than dont we have to give them rights.
Thats why we shouldnt do as he suggests and close Gitmo. Its things like that, cap and trade, immigration, and windfall profit taxes, that cause many in the GOP to struggle to support the guy. Is he one of us or isnt he? Sure Ill vote for him but because I care. Others wont care as much and will just stay home. Thats why he cant/wont carry some Bush red states unless he picks Romney (or someone else like him). McCain and GOP apathy!!!! Its like the flu. Sometimes you get it (depending on the statement or issue of the day) and it makes you sick enough to head to the toilet, not the phone bank or voting booth.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
oh, and many historians do not believe Johnson carried Texas, as TX was a big-time blue state back then. VP’s do not carry a state! FACT!
July 7th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Sorry Mittbots, I have spent the last 4 hours trying to find precedence where a VP choice had a net negative of -12%. I cannot find it in history.
4 hours? Maybe you should go out and make some friends.
I’ve tried to find some evidence of an Arizona senator beating a black man in the generals, I just can’t find it.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Alex, you do realize that the economy is the single most important issue, right? I mean, people don’t even care about Iraq anymore. That’s right, ands it’s the truth. Just look at the polls. If you’re McCain and the economy is your achilles heel, which candidate best helps you? I think the answer is pretty easy. Which candidate could make Obama and his VP look silly in a debate? Yes, the same one who made McCain look silly in debates.
Truth of the matter is that McCain owes his candidacy to Crist. Romney was winning Florida until Crist came out wildly in favor of McCain and did a whirlwind tour on his behalf. Some even say that McCain promised him the VP position, but he wants him to clean up his personal life.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Logcabin,
I am just having fun in #57.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
husky,
That’s always seemed like McCain’s biggest problem to me; on election day, he’s just doomed to be liked by a ton of voters who ultimately won’t vote for him. It just seems like a waste to me; terribly inefficient to have people liking you who won’t vote for you. That’s really base of Bush’s base turnout strategy; that you don’t need anyone who’s not going to vote for you to like you. It’s as true now as it was then. The electorate has just shifted a bit. In any given election, there’s roughly 20% of persuadeables and 40% who will absolutely vote the party line. You need to convince 11% of those persuadeables to vote for you. You don’t care what the other 9% think. If all 20% like you, but only 5% vote for you, you lose. If 11% vote for you, but the other 9% hate you, you win. All 20% of the persuadeables like McCain in a vague way, as a response to the McCain brand, but 15% of them want to vote Dem, and McCain doesn’t have the political skill to convert a significant portion of the 20% who like him into votes. And he’s doing nothing for the 40% that’s committed to voting Republican, if they vote, which they can’t find a reason to do, since he’s spending all his time ineffectually wooing persuadeables that like him, but don’t want to vote for him.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
#54, do not be a fart, just tell me your views.
McCain and Huntsman are ideological brothers. Ex. the share the same views on immigration reform.
I know Romney and Huntsman are not in love with one another, but the Huntsman/McCain relationship also extends to serious friendship.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Hasn’t the nature of these Romney threads convinced everyone he won’t be the pick?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Alex, to your points:
1. Mitt Romney would turn Michigan red! Maybe, and maybe not. But even you admit that Romney helps out in MI by providing a “slight” advantage before you call it “insignificant.” If Romney helps out, he helps out - and helping out in a swing state is no reason to state as your first point in a piece titled: “The Case Against a Romney Vice-Presidency.”
2. Mitt Romney would be a fantastic cash cow! That is pretty much an accepted fact. I’m surprised you would dispute this. When Romney left the race, not only did he raise the largest amount of cash at that point excluding his own contributions, but he also had the highest number of individual contributors till Paul overtook him later on after he quit. Don’t be fooled on Paul’s finances. Most of his contributors were non-Republican. Many of Paul’s contributors could not even vote in a Republican caucus.
3. Mitt Romney would secure the West by boosting Mormon turnout! This is a decent point. Mormons are 95% Republican anyway. I think the real point is that Mormons are highly organized (being lay clergy), that they’d help with turnout in key western states by pounding the pavement & manning the call centers etc due to their organization.. Much more so than in elections past.
4. Mitt Romney being anathema to moderates is irrelevant! I would disagree that both Obama & McCain have their bases locked up. Obama is still having problems with disgruntled Clinton voters. In my opinion, he will fail to seal the deal with them and McCain does not excite the base. Most moderates are not politically active. McCain is Mr. Moderate to begin with. Frankly, if McCain can’t excite Moderates, few can.
There is more pros than cons for a Romney VP. These four reasons hardly constitute a compelling case against Romney’s VP chances.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:02 am
62. Well obviously it hasn’t convinced McCain.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:02 am
In 12 months no one will remember who Romney was. We will be talking about the water shortage, war with Russia and the boom in the housing market.
http://www.alaskaseafood.org/industry/enews/092607govpalinfish.jpg
July 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Greg, because making your opponent look silly in the VP debate is such a great predictor of success. Just ask VP Bentsen.
The #1 issue right now is gas prices and energy. 75-85% of the public supports drilling and 50-60% support ANWR drilling specifically. McCain is lukewarm on drilling and opposed to ANWR drilling. Lovely.
I don’t get how McCain can go around wanting to soak up adulation for his support of the surge and how he recognized we needed a change in Iraq and yet he’s still stubborn on off shore drilling and ANWR and won’t change strategy there. He attacks Obama every day for not going to Iraq and not meeting with Gen Petraeus but afaik he’s never been to ANWR, certainly not recently, nor met with any leading drilling companies or leaders.
Energy exploration and drilling is the one issue where McCain can really knock Obama around on. He’s forfeited a month or so but there’s still plenty of time and by Labor Day the support for it will only strengthen.
I wouldn’t be shocked if Obama goes to McCain’s right on this and enters landslide territory.
One thing’s for sure, no one ignites this place like Willard.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Greg, because making your opponent look silly in the VP debate is such a great predictor of success. Just ask VP Bentsen.
The #1 issue right now is gas prices and energy. 75-85% of the public supports drilling and 50-60% support ANWR drilling specifically. McCain is lukewarm on drilling and opposed to ANWR drilling. Lovely.
I don’t get how McCain can go around wanting to soak up adulation for his support of the surge and how he recognized we needed a change in Iraq and yet he’s still stubborn on off shore drilling and ANWR and won’t change strategy there. He attacks Obama every day for not going to Iraq and not meeting with Gen Petraeus but afaik he’s never been to ANWR, certainly not recently, nor met with any leading drilling companies or leaders.
Energy exploration and drilling is the one issue where McCain can really knock Obama around on. He’s forfeited a month or so but there’s still plenty of time and by Labor Day the support for it will only strengthen.
I wouldn’t be shocked if Obama goes to McCain’s right on this and enters landslide territory.
One thing’s for sure, no one ignites this place like Willard.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am
61. Huntsman chose McCain over Romney simply due to the fact he has hated Romney since the Olympic committee passed over him for Mitt. He bgged for the job, they ignored it and lobbied Mitt. That was also combined with the fact that Huntsman had no chance of any cabinet position with Mitt since he was Mormon as well, and he did with McCain. He had nothing to gain by getting on with Romney, and really nothing to lose by getting on with McCain.
This was all confirmed by close members of Mitt’s family at the time of the endorsement.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:07 am
#64: How on earth would you know that? You think McCain is going to announce who’s been scratched off the list ahead of time???
July 8th, 2008 at 12:07 am
I am a Romney guy, admittedly, but I really don’t want him running with McCain. I have never liked McCain and think he is a person of zero character. He is the lowest of the low in my book. He will do and say anything to become president of the U.S. The fact that he wanted desperately to run with Kerry against Bush tells us so much about him. McCain likes to say that he eventually turned Kerry down, but it’s so far from the truth. Truth be told, he was incredibly depressed after not being picked by Kerry. He seriously contemplated moving to the democratic side of the aisle as a senator, but he didn’t do so because his demandes would not be met. Every day, McCain is saying something that clearly contradicts a statement he made last year.
His score on the conservatism scale has gotten worse every single year - somebody can post it again if they want. This is the type of candidate that can tear the republican part apart. I hope that in defeat to Obama we can re-establish the republican brand with a clear message and a united front.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:08 am
#66/67
McCain met with oil company exec’s two weeks ago and McCain supports off-shore drilling and is now open to listening about ANWR.
http://livingalaska.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/sarah_palin2.jpg
July 8th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Matthew,
John Kerry came within 120,000 votes in Ohio of beating President Bush in 2004, and yet, according to CNN’s national exit polls, 70 percent of Kerry’s votes were not forKerry, but mostly against Bush. I wouldn’t underestimate the number of Republicans (and independents) who will turn out in droves to cast their ballots against Barack Obama, not necessarily for John McCain.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:08 am
69. Can you point to one article that has Romney not on the shortlist in the last week? I mean article after article, news report after news report has Romney as one of, if not the, top choice right now.
I don’t want the guy as Veep either, but open your eyes metro.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Aron,
Is that really a solid campaign strategy? I mean we were told this guy was the most electabvle, and the argument now in his faovr from his biggest supporters is he will be a protest vote that will be carried to victory by politically apathetic moderates?
This isn’t looking good. I may have wasted my $50.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:11 am
#73: Have you ever heard of a red herring? As big a name as Romney is, he has to be on the leaked shortlist, otherwise McCain is faced with the issue of having crossed someone off. Team McCain will not be letting on they’ve crossed anyone off, so Romney will continue to be on leaked shortlists.
Now — why don’t you, of all people, want Mitt to be the running mate? And who is your choice?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:14 am
75.
Red herring? That’s conjencture mixed with hope.
Why? I am not sure Mitt would be a good VP candidate, I think McCain has very low chances and I am not sure convinced in the end it really makes a difference either way. McCain will win or lose on his own merits and campaign strategy. It’s not like if McCain wins Mitt would end up succeeding him. Three GOP presidents in row seems pretty unlikely. 4 terms of GOP presidents in a row seems just as unlikely.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:15 am
#70, write in Romney’s name in the ballot then, because anyone who says McCain has zero character is a coward and a wimp. The minute McCain took off from that carrier the day he was shot down, he earned more character then you will ever have in your lifetime.
Jason, I am sorry, you are not making strong enough arguments for me. “confirmed by close members of Mitt’s family” Could you give us sources not connected to a biased view? Probably not…….
Oh, Jason, I have many friends, they are all at Obama events, and this is my time to come out of the closet and be a proud Republican.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Kristofer, I don’t mean a meeting here and there. I mean a sustained, visible, concentrated effort so that the public instantly identifeis McCain with drilling and more supply and exploration. So that when they hear his name they think POW, War Hero, was right about Iraq and led to victory and will drill for more oil and lower gas prices.
Just like Bill Clinton was always about the economy in 1992 McCain needs it’s the gas prices, stupid as his motto.
as an aside, did anyone else find it funny that the NYT ran a sunday column by Maureen Dowd about what not to look for in a husband? A 50 something woman who’s never been married and who wrote a book about she can’t get a man because she’s just so smart and talented and men are afraid of her…and she’s giving relationship advice?
And today they run one on Federer v Nadal and how it represented the battle of good and evil.
They’re really losing it.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Jason,
I’m not saying it’s a solid campaign strategy by any means. And, with the current political climate, unfortunately, as it is, I believe now more than ever that McCain gives the Republican Party its best (perhaps, only) chance at victory this year. Whereas McCain is trailing Obama by 5-7 points in the polls, I have little doubt that Romney, if he were the nominee, would be 15-20 points behind, facing inevitable defeat.
By the way, are you characterizing me as one of McCain’s “biggest supporters?”
July 8th, 2008 at 12:22 am
77.
That’s ok, but what I say is common knowlege in Utah politcal circles. I just confirmed it with them. I have good sources on this, I don’t need your approval.
McCain’s character is 50/50. He did a great thing in Vietnam which is honorable and more than I would have done. He also had an affair with on his wife, which is dishonarable and nothing I would have done as well. He did some great things in the senate, but he also did some crappy things too. He is just as opportunistic as the next guy.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:23 am
79. Not at all, I was referring to his biggest supporters.
You could be right, Romney might have gone down in flames, but he would have energized the party far more than McCain ever could have.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:25 am
#78, I love Maureen Dowd. I always have dreams that “Hearmeroar” acts and behaves like Dowd!
http://www.championnews.net/admin/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/PalinDuringKuwaitVisit.jpg
July 8th, 2008 at 12:29 am
#77. I don’t demean his service at all by saying he has zero character. Look what he did to his wife, the young mother of his children. Look at the way he beats up 90-year old men who disgree with him. Look at his bad temper the results thereof. There is just so much to point out, that I can’t do it here. He’s certainly not the candidate I thought the Republican party could ever elect, but maybe my view of the party is too idealistic.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Jason, McCain and his first wife were splitsville, just not divorced.
Does everyone in here get their gossip from KOS? This false rumor is the most believed piece of baloney since we found yellowcake in the country of Niger.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:31 am
McCain did nothing to his wife (either of them). He came back from Hanoi, and they could not get their relationship started again, so they separated for several years.
You guys are still spitting off Rove rumors from 2000. READ MCCAINS BOOKS!
July 8th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Kristofer, that is so far from the case. I have read interviews with McCain’s first wife. She wanted to make things work, but McCain had no interest in being a family man. He wanted to party.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Is Gov Palin wearing Cargo pants in that photo? And a baby-tee? She certainly has a more hip fashion sense than most female politicians. Won’t see Clinton or Sebelius in cargo pants and vintage t shirts. that’s for sure. or some of the mini’s she’s worn. there’s another from that set where she looks like came from a Justin Timberlake or Hannah Montana show. http://www.ak-prepared.com/dmva/images/2007_Gallery/07_Photo_Gallery_July/5_Gov_ChowLine_Page.htm
and if she was VP, troops would probably be more excited to see her than Pawlenty or Portman if they were to visit. http://www.ak-prepared.com/dmva/images/2007_Gallery/07_Photo_Gallery_August/8_Gov_Lombrano_Page.htm
I’m not saying I don’t find her columns witty at times, but running a column by her on relationship advice makes no sense whatsoever.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Thanks Alex for reminding me why there is a STRONG case for Romney.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:14 am
65. “In 12 months no one will remember who Romney was. We will be talking about the water shortage, war with Russia and the boom in the housing market.”
And because the price of gas will be so high, we’ll all be riding motorcycles.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2644786991_1ea2fbd73c_o.jpg
July 8th, 2008 at 2:57 am
McCain will pick Romney. Here’s why:
Romney was McCain’s strongest, best opponent and was in second place before he dropped out. That factual statistic shouldn’t be overlooked when projecting vote getting in the fall.
Romney was fantastic in the debates. At times, fending off several candidates in one setting. And he didn’t flinch. McCain isn’t going to pass up that intellectual capital….no way.
Romney in the private sector has been hugely successful. With the economy being the number one issue, McCain & the GOP higher ups are going to want to bring in someone from the A team.
And Romney is definitely a GOP A team guy. In fact, Romney is one of the most impressive individuals. He succeeded in a field that employs the best of the best and rose to the very top. Smart, handsome, energetic, generous, and a leader amoung men….give me a break the GOP isn’t that stupid to pass this guy up.
If Republicans have only a slim chance of winning against the cult that is Obama-mania, we should at least play the game with the strongest team. McCain/Romney is it.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Where did Romney’s wealth come from?
SanKaty, Stage Stores, Jumbo, Babbages, NeoStar, Bain, eToys, KB, Learning Co etc etc.,
Do you really want a person handling your tax dollars that claims he put his money in a “Blind Trust”?
Do U Trust that issue of being blind?
SanKaty, $2bn and 100% owned in BERMUDA!
Be careful what you wish for.
One thing for sure, McCain/ Romney wins
You will not have to listen to me anymore.
Exec Order bye bye!
July 8th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Whether John chooses Mitt or not, he MUST get someone on the ticket that can speak optimistically of the the economy in an intelligent way that can ignite people. I say that because John can’t do that and especially not about the economy. My personal opinion is that this election will definately be about the economy and peoples day to day living.
On the flip side, Obama can get a turtle to do flips for him without anything more than a twitch of the eye. We will see who John chooses and if he is going to get that turtle to even look his way it has to be an impactful figure.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Laser Haas
Where did my wealth come from?
An employer like Sankaty, Stage STores, Jumbo, Babbages, NeoStar, Bain, eToys, KB, Learning Co. Etc
I tried bartering rugs and that didn’t work. I tried giving everything I had to the king and he just wasted it all and demanded more.
What a waste of energy in the middle of the night.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:57 am
To be fair there should also be a case made for/against Palin, Pawlenty, Sanford etc. so that they can be compared. We have beaten this Romney horse to death, being well-aware of his strengths and weaknesses. But can the same be said for the others? We know a lot about Pawlenty, but far less about Palin.
The truth is that the focus should remain on McCain. Despite retooling his message yesterday was basically dismissed in MSM. The idea of proposing to balance the budget in 4 years could not hold up under even limited scrutiny. And when McCain said that Obama will raise taxes but he wouldn’t no one clapped. You get the feeling that we are watching the playbook change.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:07 am
The tax issue just doesn’t have the potency that it once did. When Reagan was in the process of moving his jelly beans into the White House in 1981 the top marginal rate was 70 percent. Reagan cut that down to 28 percent. It was a great thing to do - but even during the Clinton years that tax rate was never higher than 39 percent. Dubya cut that rate back down to 34 percent. To be sure, low taxes are a good thing, but taxes now are low by historical standards. The GOP can’t get the voters worked up about tax cuts because the party is a victim of its own success.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:09 am
I generally agree with the Intrade ranking of this race (~35% of winning).
Romney supporters ought to consider something. If the Republican Party is shellacked in 2008, do you think Republicans will nominate the losing VP from that year?
History suggests Republicans will look to fresh candidates. If Mitt runs as VP this year, history suggests he will never be President.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:22 am
Doug,
I don’t have any strong feelings on whether or not we see Romney again should the GOP ticket lose in November. I think if a McCain/Romney ticket did lose, how the vote went down in the Mountain states plus MI would determine how popular Romney would be in the future. For example, if McCain/Romney wins in Michigan but loses in Ohio and nationally (though I find that doubtful) I think that could actually help Romney for 2012.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:07 am
McCain’s ex wife has never been interviewed. This interview was made up by liberal media such as the huffington post.she is on record as not wanting to talk to media. Since most of the former pow’s got divorced when they returned home, some while they were still in prison, we can cut them some slack.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:10 am
When I said Rove was advising McCain I was called a liar. When I said Mike Murphy was already advising McCain behind the scene, someone asked for proof. Well, here is a front page story on the NYTimes:
Senator John McCain’s campaigns have long been defined by internal squabbling and power plays, zigzagging lines of command and a penchant by the candidate for consulting with former advisers without alerting current ones, always a recipe for disquiet.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Graphic
Shifts in McCain’s Campaign Staff
Related
McCain Orders Shake-Up of His Campaign (July 3, 2008)
Times Topics: John McCain
Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
* Election Guide
* More Politics News
After a period of relative calm on that score, it is becoming clear that his campaign is once again a swirl of competing spheres of influence, clusters of friends, consultants and media advisers who represent a matrix of clashing ambitions and festering feuds. The cast includes the surviving members of Mr. McCain’s 2000 campaign, led by Rick Davis and Mark Salter; a new camp out of the world of Karl Rove, led by the recently ascendant Steve Schmidt; and on the periphery, the ever-present Mike Murphy, Mr. McCain’s strategist in the 2000 presidential race who has been dispensing advice to the candidate to the annoyance of the other camps, and is the subject of intensifying rumors in Republican circles that he is about to re-enter the campaign.
Mr. McCain is uncomfortable firing people or banishing them entirely. His orbit remains filled with people who have been demoted without being told they are being demoted, like Mr. Davis, who continues to hold the title of campaign manager even as Mr. Schmidt manages the campaign. Yet, Mr. McCain inspires uncommon loyalty in those who serve with him — hence the willingness of Mr. Murphy to consider coming back into the McCain campaign, despite his own rather brutal history of enmity with Mr. Davis.
Here is a guide to the forces and personalities to watch through the campaign and, presumably, into a McCain White House:
STEVE SCHMIDT A veteran of President Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004 who had been traveling around the country with Mr. McCain, Mr. Schmidt was sent back to headquarters and put in charge of, well, just about everything that matters. Mr. McCain characterized this as no big deal; others in his campaign said it was indeed a major shift as Mr. Schmidt in effect dislodged Mr. Davis.
Mr. Schmidt is working without compensation from the campaign, a way of signaling to people that he is prepared to return to his family in California should this latest shake-up not work. His ties with Mr. McCain are not as deep as those who worked in Mr. McCain’s first presidential campaign, and who are suspicious that Mr. Schmidt is something of a proxy for Mr. Rove.
MIKE MURPHY He has been in Mr. McCain’s orbit since he ran for president in 2000; it seems safe to say that few people understand Mr. McCain as well as Mr. Murphy does. He has on several occasions offered Mr. McCain blunt advice about how to fix his campaign. Mr. McCain has told two friends in recent weeks that that he would like Mr. Murphy as his senior strategist, and before the most recent shake-up that put Mr. Schmidt in charge, Mr. Murphy told at least one associate that he was interested in coming back.
It is not clear how Mr. Schmidt, among others, would react to that. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Schmidt had their differences when they worked together for the re-election of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, though by all accounts, those are mild compared with Mr. Murphy’s differences with other people in the various factions at Mr. McCain’s headquarters.
Mr. Schmidt did not return an e-mail message seeking comment. Mr. Murphy, while declining to comment about the possibility of his joining the McCain campaign, said that he admired Mr. Schmidt and that there were no differences between them.
“Steve Schmidt has been a friend of mine since I originally helped recruit him into the Arnold world back in 2005,” Mr. Murphy said. “Steve and I are friends, and we get along fine.”
One other potential hindrance to Mr. Murphy coming in: He is a founder of DC Navigators, a lobbying firm whose clients include insurance firms and the Indian Gaming Association, to name a few. Mr. McCain said he did not want any working lobbyists in his campaign. Mr. Murphy said his role at the firm was not as a lobbyist. “I’ve never been registered in my life,” he said. “I told my partners months ago that if I did McCain, I’d leave the firm.”
RICK DAVIS Mr. Davis is nothing if not a survivor. He managed to emerge from the staff wars of the McCain campaign last year as the manager — escaping blame as the campaign collapsed under the weight of its debt and was forced to lay off most of his staff. Mr. Davis without question deserves some credit for helping to steer Mr. McCain from the brink of withdrawal to securing the Republican nomination. Yet his management (and survival) skills do not necessarily translate into what it takes to run against a candidate like Senator Barack Obama; Mr. Davis came under fire as Mr. McCain’s campaign became characterized by missteps and squandered opportunities. He lost power after Mr. Schmidt went to Mr. McCain and warned him that he needed to make changes in his operation, or accept the fact that he is going to lose.
KARL ROVE You thought we were going to write a story about the internal dynamics of a Republican presidential campaign without mentioning Mr. Rove? The chief strategist for Mr. Bush in 2000 and 2004, Mr. Rove is not directly involved in the McCain campaign, but his presence there can be seen in the number of his protégés who now hold central roles there. Mr. Schmidt tops that list; coming in a very close second is Nicolle Wallace, who was communications director for Mr. Bush in 2004 and in the White House.
All of this intrigue breeds discouragement among even those former McCain associates who do not dispute the notion that voters now might be getting an early glimpse of the messy, unstructured way in which a McCain White House might be managed. They are hard-pressed to explain why Mr. McCain tolerates this — or encourages this — or why he has trouble cutting ties with people who have not served him well over the years.
“I can’t answer the why,” said John Weaver, who was one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers before being forced out in a shake-up last year. “It is just that way and for his own sake, he needs to finally, firmly decide where he wants to take this campaign.”
July 8th, 2008 at 7:48 am
This is a well-written and researched article. I don’t have any problem with you not wanting Romney as VP. There are some arguments why he should be VP, but there are plenty of reasons why he shouldn’t. I don’t mind you pointing out why you don’t think Romney should be VP, but I wish you would refrain from the namecalling (Rombots). Secondly, winning is not the only criteria for picking a VP. You also need someone who would make a good President were something to happen to McCain.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Since Romney’s strengths have been largely been discounted as irrelevant or uneccessary, I guess I’m just curious what strengths Alex would like to see in the #2 spot.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Romney must be the strongest candidate for V.P. If he wasn’t, would his enemies be trying so hard to discredit him?
July 8th, 2008 at 8:20 am
marK,
As someone who begrudgingly came to the opinion that Romney is the best choice for VP, I can attest to the fact that there are plenty of reasons to oppose his selection that have nothing to do with whether or not he is the strongest candidate. I think that McCain has not shown the ability to generate necessary enthusiasm for mobilization and turnout and I think that Romney could overcome that defecit in key states. I still find Romney’s personality off-putting.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Although I often find Adam’s comments too racially tinged for my tastes, on this (#102) I agree. However, I am not sure that Romney has exhibited the gotv efforts people push as a strength. Also, DuHaime is a gotv guy so it might even be counterproductive to bring on Romney forces for that same task.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:28 am
racially-tinged?
July 8th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I thought Adam’s last sentence was interesting, that he finds Romney’s personality off-putting. I think that is why any post on him gets 100 responses. There is something intangible about him that irritates certain people. I don’t really understand it because I like Romney, but certain people do find him off-putting, not just Adam.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I guess for Axel “racially tinged” means “I don’t like what you wrote”.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Race and gender have been injected into this campaign by Democrats. It became inevitable when they chose African American nominee. So when Obama supporters or anyone else analyzing the race says something like “Obama is going to put the Southern states in play because of a big increase in the black vote” I don’t see anything wrong with saying “Well, maybe so, but the blowback from southern whites is going to neutralize it”. I’m not saying it’s right - but it’s a fact. Since we all have a passion for politics and realistic assessment of where the race stands I don’t think such a statement is or ought to be taboo.
I’m try my best to be fair-minded but honest when talking about race.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:00 am
#107 Adam. We can have an honest discussion about race.
- how many sitting African American Governor’s are there that were elected by popular vote? = 1
- how many sitting African American Senator’s are there that were elected by popular vote? = 1 (and this Senator did not have a “real” challenger during the Senate race)
I still have not seen very many examples of African American candidates winning elections with a majority of the electorate was non-white. This is reality. Unfortunate, but reality.
McCain will win. I am not sure if he will win on merit or not, but he will win.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Alex, thank you for an intelligent take on a potential Romney VP pick.
I see Romney as a shallow and arrogant. Shallow in the sense that he has really accomplished nothing… rich governor daddy helps him become a corporate executive, leveraged buyouts, liberal one-term governor, opportunistic ideology, etc. Arrogant in the sense that he thought he could put on a conservative facade and with his vast wealth buy the Republican nomination.
For all his faults, John McCain is a patriot and statesman compared to Romney. I actually trust McCain’s conservatism more than Romney’s. At the end of the day, I think John McCain will make decisions he believes are in the best interest of our nation – which logic would suggest are the more conservative choices.
I trust Romney only to do what is best for himself, like claiming to be pro-life while snuggling up to Planned Parenthood, like pandering to the homosexuals and then coming out against gay marriage, like claiming to be a fiscal conservative and proposing billion dollar bailouts of failing industries, RomneyHillaryCare, etc., like being John Kerry like in his support of the 2nd Amendment.
One expects the Mormons to swallow hard these shortcomings and jump for joy at one of their own bishops becoming president. I don’t hold that against them, that’s just human nature.
The scariest thing about Romney has more to do with the leadership of the conservative movement and their willingness to embrace such an obvious charlatan. There was a knee jerk reaction by the Republican elites to the perceived threats of McCain and Huckabee – who would have been beholden to no one for their victory.
Despite their last minute sanctification of Romney, the media arm of the Republican party was unable to stop John McCain… Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Lavin, and Laura Ingram all became mouthpieces and irrelevant. McCain won and their credibility has been greatly diminished for the fight against Obama.
OK, one expects the political elites to react such a way when their power is threatened. But, the number of lemmings who have swallowed hard the charlatan Romney is too much… I fear the conservative movement is on the brink of extinction when opportunistic dogma replaces right thinking conservative ideology.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:06 am
# 109 If that is what Palin believes I want nothing to do with her.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:11 am
CBL:
I am not so sure that Mr. Romney himself is arrogant, but it does concern me that many of his supporters in the media seem to have that characteristic.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:19 am
#111, what are you talking about?
What I stated was fact, not any personal views. Please re-read my comment.
It is a question we need to ask ourselves. Why will voters in white-majority jurisdictions not vote for an African American candidate?
July 8th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Kristofer,
We’re about to find out very soon whether or not that’s the case.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:26 am
#114, part of me wants Obama to win just so we can show the world that we are an open minded and a color blind society, but then I remember I disagree with Obama on 99% of issues, and in reality it is not the reason to vote for a President.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:32 am