The Candidates: Mitt Romney
March 21st, 2007 | by Scott |For the entry and discussion on Hillary, click here. (50)
For the entry and discussion on Rudy Giuliani, click here. (40)
For the entry and discussion on John Edwards, click here. (62)
For the entry and discussion on John McCain, click here. (18)
(Noting the comment totals, I must ask: does this mean the Democrats are more popular than the Republicans among my blog readers? And is this scientific enough to give Edwards the advantage in ‘08?)
Now, we move back again to the GOP side of the aisle and if all the speculation over new aspirants tossing their hat in the ring, we have to ask: who isn’t running for the Republican nomination?
Let’s turn our gaze now to the incomparable Mitt Romney. News just came out that Orrin Hatch has endorsed him for 2008. That’s no surprise but with the election this far out you will take any positive press you can get. Maybe Hatch is angling to play at the inauguration.
Pros: Is the conservative that Guiliani and McCain are not (although McCain is desperately trying to repaint himself as one), not a senator, sterling job as the director of the 2002 Winter Olympics, married once with no skeletons having emerged (yet), his work to provide health care for all Massachusetts residents, knows how to revitalize industries and eliminate red-tape; more political endorsements thus far than any other candidate.
Cons: question on whether his Mormonism would prevent evangelicals from voting for him; a record of flip-flopping and equivocation on important conservative issues; “tar baby” and Hitler ads being linked to his campaign; Not present as governor his final year in office; joined the NRA as a political move off-setting the gun-control efforts while in office; supports the “surge,” has no where near the clout, record or legitimacy to be a viable candidate.
Analysis: Ultimately, I believe that the evangelical bloc of the Republican party will be unable to pull the lever for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Despite the fact that he agrees with them (at least he says he does, now) on their key issues of abortion and gay marriage, they won’t be able to get behind him. Their discomfort with Romney as the champion of conservative values is evidenced by the “adopt Newt” and “adopt Fred” movements.
While I applaud some of the moves that he made as governor, such as health care and gun control, there are too many issues where I disagree with him for me to feel comfortable about his candidacy.
I believe that Romney’s position in the “top three” of Republican contenders early on is akin to seat fillers at the Oscars when the legitimate contenders are taking bathroom breaks. He is keeping that chair warm for an approved conservative which paves the way for a Gingrich, Thompson, or (shudder) Huckabee to step in. He’s not nominate-able, nor is he electable. He has no legitimate shot and his treatment as a front-runner for the GOP election is a joke.
28 Responses to “The Candidates: Mitt Romney”
By len on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Where do you disagree with him?
As for the comments on the democratic side of things, I would say that it is because many of us find them more controversial than the Republicans. I realized, because of your comments, that I am much more afraid of an Edwards presidency than a Clinton 2.0.
By Scott on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Len, the support of the surge and joining the NRA for two. There is more but I’m not sure I want to fully disclose some of my positions yet.
So, can I mark you down as endorsing Hillary for ‘08?
By len on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
That would be a logical fallacy on your part!
By KS on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Was there a question that most of your readers have “seen the light” and become members of “that donkey party” :)…
I agree that Romney is not a legit candidate, I think it will be Huckabee as the third choice.
By len on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
2 years ago I had hoped it would be Bill Frist. He has decided to take his medical skills to Africa instead. I’m interested to see if another TN man, former Senator Fred Thompson, throws his hat into the ring. He could fill the conservative spot.
By Scott on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Kenny, no. I’m afraid the majority of my readers are still elephants
And I think you are right. Huckabee, IF he can convince Republicans that he is a fiscal conservative, is the most likely evangelical choice. But that is a huge if. I plan on looking at Huckabee in two weeks after Barack.
Frist wouldn’t survive due to corruption allegations.
By greg on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Scott, don’t you mean B. Hussein?
By Scott on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Greg, don’t get me started.
By jasonk on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Letterman is having a field day with the name “Mitt.”
He is such a pretty boy, yet no one is making fun of him like they do John Edwards.
Did you know that Mitt’s middle name is Stalin?
Okay, actually, his middle name is Mitt. His first name is Willard, which immediately puts him at odds with serious weathermen everywhere, and renders him virtually unelectable.
By Jeff_R on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Have you seen this?
By Scott on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
He is unelectable. Willard Mitt. Nope. Ain’t happening.
Jeff, great commercial. Not an official Barack ad though.
By Jonathan on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
This, to me, is a much better attack ad: link
By Robin on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
I am the evangelical right and Mitt looks better to me than McCain or Guiliani right now. It is still so far off I am hoping and praying for someone with real conservative values to put their hat in the ring.
By greg on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Looks like Edwards’ wife may have health issues again. I wonder if he’ll continue in the race if that’s the case.
cnn link
By Scott on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
I don’t know. I got the email about it last night. Doesn’t look good.
By jasonk on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
As horrible as it is to me that I even thought it, I still wonder, if this announcement is bad news, will it thrust Edwards to the top of the heap. I have said all along that he is my favorite of all the Democratic candidates, and I also said that he will be our next president. That was before Giuliani came to the forefront, but still, I think Edwards could be the guy. How does his wife’s health impact him in an election.
Putting aside the personal tragedy involved here, my opinion is that the more sick Mrs. Edwards becomes, the more popular Mr. Edwards becomes. He is the strong, devoted husband, at his wife’s side during her illness, and watches over her lovingly.
Is that too morbid? Is anyone else thinking the same thing?
By greg on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
I believe he said in an interview in the past that the one thing that would cause him to leave the race would be if his wife’s health problems returned. He could always change his mind, but it sounds like if this is the case, he may be bowing out.
By Scott on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think it’s morbid, Jason. I think it is realistic in the light of the culture we are in. However, I don’t know if it would be enough to propel him. I wish it was because he’s still my choice but there are two huge names still ahead of him.
And if he remained in the race, which my gut is telling me he won’t, the questions would be pretty fierce as to priorities.
I’m afraid he’s out. I hope I’m wrong.
By justin on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Drudge and Politico.com are reporting he’s definitely suspending the campaign, and possibly dropping out all together.
By greg on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Looks like he’s staying in.
By justin on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
using your wife’s cancer as a political stunt is not very menchy.
By Scott on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Where are you getting that? Because he’s suspending it and not pulling out all together?
By Scott on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
OK, got it.
Justin, you really need to develop some kind of filter.
By justin on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
He’s not suspending. He’s just continuing. I just can’t imagine why anyone would do that in a similar situation.
By Scott on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Maybe his wife encouraged him too. Maybe they are confident in her prognosis. Maybe he believes in his cause enough.
Questioning the motives of a man whose wife has cancer the moment is announces it is “not very menchy.”
By justin on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, but if that were the case, why the big build up to what was going to happen. Its not like he just came out and said “my wife has cancer again, but its not too bad so we’re gonna continue campaigning”. Everyone has known since yesterday that something was going on, but they built up this press conference to try to get media attention.
Maybe I just expect the worst from politicians. I don’t know why we should expect them to do things for the right reasons.
By jasonk on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
There are probably many possibilities here, but I see two.
1) Mr and Mrs Edwards have a strong and healthy marriage, where they believe passionately in the ideals they espouse. In such a case, as the wife with cancer, she may be telling him, “press on, godspeed,” believing that whether she is alive or not, sick or healthy, the ideals they stand for will go on, if he is elected president. If her illness and/or demise helps him get to where they always dreamed he should be gets him there, so be it. That’s how I would see it if I were the dying spouse.
2) They have a loveless marriage, and have stayed together for the purpose of political gain. They each have their own reasons for wanting to get to the White House, and will do whatever it takes to get there, including using cancer to get peoples’ attention.
I hope that number one is true of the Edwards. But either way, he stays in.