Le'ts let Romney do for American's who have an ounce of trust left for the GOP
do exactly what he did for the Massachusetts GOP. [/s]
Posted on 07/18/2008 8:24:36 PM PDT by Plutarch
It was not so long ago that the idea that Senator John McCain would even entertain tapping Mitt Romney, his bitterest primary rival, as his running mate would have seemed preposterous, rating at least 7.0 on the strange-bedfellows scale.
The McCain-Romney feud was the juiciest of the Republican primary season, featuring two men who generally just did not seem to like each other. Mr. Romney said Mr. McCain would set a “liberal Democrat course as president.” He said that one of Mr. McCain’s proudest accomplishments, his campaign finance bill, took “a whack at the First Amendment,” and told voters grappling with money woes that Mr. McCain “has said time and again that he doesn’t understand the economy.” Mr. McCain, for his part, witheringly cast Mr. Romney as a flip-flopper.
But that was then.
These days Mr. Romney, a telegenic former Massachusetts governor, is serving as a wingman extraordinaire for Mr. McCain on cable television. He has dutifully raised money for Mr. McCain. And Mr. Romney has developed a reputation as a campaign surrogate who can talk fluently about the economy, and who has roots in Michigan, an important swing state.
Now Mr. Romney is attracting perhaps more buzz than anyone else as a potential running mate for the man he once derided... [excerpt]
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
No thanks...
However, he is spot on about Romney being a flip-flopping, pandering liberal who will say ANYTHING to get elected and brings little to the GOP ticket. Let's look at ConservativeMan's arguements here and see if there's any merit to them...
>> He brings Economic Knowledge. <<
I suppose John McCain, having served in legislative office since 1983, has no ecnomic knowledge? Isn't the point of "balencing the ticket" to ADD factors the Presidential candidate LACKS? McCain's record of working to balence the budget and fight pork barrel spending is already well known and respected. What's next, you'll suggest adding a Vietnam vet to "help" McCain with his millitary credentials?
>> He’s a proven leader. <<
...of an ultra-liberal, tiny New England state. Your point being?
>> He also has a campaign staff already in place ready to go. <<
What high ranking elected official on the short list for VP doesn't?
>> He can bring Michigan and possibly Massachusetts. <<
Really? He got a whooping 39% of Michigan Republicans to support him in the primary. (Do the math, that means 61% of Michigan Republicans voted AGAINST Mitt Romney). So lemme get this straight... he's NEVER been elected to ANY office in Michigan, a clear majority of REPUBLICANS in Michigan rejected him, but somehow he's guranteed to carry the entire state in November, right? Based on... what? His father was elected Governor of Michigan 40 years ago? I can name half a dozen Michigan Republicans who have PROVEN themselves more "electable" in that state than Mitt. Why not pick one of them if McCain is so desperate to carry Michigan for some reason?
Incidentially, freeper propaganda here kept insisting that Huckabee "destroyed" Arkansas and that Arkansas Republicans who "knew him best" couldn't stand him, but Huck won the AK GOP primary with over 60% of the vote (and Romney won the Mass. GOP primary by his bare teeth with 51% of GOP voters). Funny how reality keeps getting in the way of the anti-Huck and pro-Romney hype on FR. Seems that Huck is doing just fine in his home state, but the Republicans who "know Romney best" doesn't seem to care for him!
>> I named off every major leader in the Conservative movement and they ALL support Romney. <<
I question your list because it claims people like Rush Limbaugh are pro-Romney and I don't recall Limbaugh ever promoting Romney, let alone endosing him.
>> He saved the Olympic games. <<
Okay, you've got me there.
>> He’s a brilliant debater. <<
Actually, I would say Huckabee far outshined Romney in the debates. Romney was more "polished", but Huck was more of a geninue human being. Perhaps that explains why Romney outspent Huck 10-to-1 and struggled to keep up with him.
>> He brings youth and experience. <<
Age 61 is "youthful" and having a whooping total of FOUR years in office his entire life is "experienced"?! What are you smoking? Do you also think Robert Byrd is youthful and Obama is a elder statesman of the U.S. Senate?
>> All the people who voted for him in the primary will work for him in the general. <<
Oh wow, he won a majority of Republicans in such noteable states as North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Thank goodness we can get them excited and not those silly Republicans in states that rejected Romney like Texas, Ohio, Florida, Pennsyvania, Iowa, Oregon, Georgia, Missouri... you know, those folks out in the vast majority of the country needed to win an election.
Actually, the more you whine about demanding we put Mitt on the ticket, the less favorable I am to having him on there. I've never seen anyone so arrogant as to demand THEIR personal choice gets selected for veep or they will sit home. Not one of the freepers who supported Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, etc., has expressed such sentiment that THEIR guy is the ONLY acceptable choice on the planet. Such arrogance is the height of vaniety. Thank goodness people like you weren't around when Ronald Reagan picked George H. Bush. We probably would have gotten four more years of Carter.
I often feel this place is like the twilight zone when I see stuff like this:
FR in 2007: ANYONE but Rudy McRomney! It's a nightmare! Stop Mitt & McCain now!!!
FR in 2008: NO ONE but Rudy McRomney! It's the perfect choice! Let's team up Mitt & McCain now!!!
Glenn Beck
Unelectable?
I guess that explains why McCain and Huckabee had to work together in order to beat him.
Le'ts let Romney do for American's who have an ounce of trust left for the GOP
do exactly what he did for the Massachusetts GOP. [/s]
I think there are excellent reasons to choose Romney. First, you must understand, and you can check my posting history, that I did NOT support Romney for president. Never did. I did say, however, that I was glad for his conversion to conservatism, but I thought it too recent for him to be president.
1. Mitt Romney has claimed he is a born-again conservative. Many doubted that claim. Being in the VP slot gives him time to grow into his newfound conservatism. At the same time, it is a position with litle real political power (except when the Senate ties, and that’s almost unheard of.) I’m willing to allow him that time to grow. If he doesn’t, then there’s no law that says he must be elected when he ever runs again.
2. Romney has great advantages that he brings to the McCain campaign. First, he’s rich and he has a list of donors that would make any campaign envious. Second, he has an organization with extensions in nearly every state of the union. McCain is a lousy organizer, and he needs Romney’s organization. The only way to offset Obama’s huge money advantage is through a huge ground game. Romney can organize that. McCain can’t.
3. Romney has extremely strong ties in Michigan. If McCain takes BOTH Michigan and Ohio, McCain wins. Romney also loosens up Massachusetts and surrounding states a bit. Dems will have to spend money in those places, because Romney could spell unforeseen upset.
4. Romney is an excellent debater and he is thoughtful and intelligent as a speaker. He will be a problem for any dem VP pick to deal with in a VP debate.
5. Romney is a “white guy” and many think McCain needs to pick a minority. At this point, there is no cutting into Obama’s 99% deathgrip on the black vote. Colin Powell could be on the ticket, and it simply wouldn’t matter. Obama’s getting 99% of the black vote, even black “so-called conservatives.” So, get over it.
6. Romney has outstanding leadership and executive credentials. He is someone able to step in if the balloon goes up. He’s led businesses, Olympic committees, and been the governor of a state. Basically, he has a lifetime more experience than does Obama.
7. Mormonism - I think that is more than balanced by Obama’s Muslim/Jeremiah Wright background. In fact, the Islamo-Wrightism-communism part of Obama’s history is far more troubling than the worst thing Romney EVER could have done.
FM,
Romney the Anti-Christ???? Are you serious? That is truly nutty. Ok, so I can’t blame you for your incessant over the top Romney bashing; it’s just a logical product of a deranged mind.
Unfortunately, I can't bring myself to repeat even some of the idiotic charges leveled against Mormons. Much less make up anything original on my own.
From what I've seen of the voting behavior of Mormons, the country would be far better off if they were 20% of the population, rather than 2%.
Go Mitt Go...
He is just so wonderful...
Well said.
And something for traditional conservatives to keep in mind while the bar gets lowered on what a conservative is to let Romney slip on in.
You mean Duncan Hunter is being considered?
Only in SLC.
Wait! How can they even GET a buzz with no coffee or caffine??
I love the classics...
You are too gracious to them...
The great thing about Romney is that he can attack and slam someone, yet he does it in such an articulate and affable way that he doesn't seem mean or vindictive.
He has a sharp wit, and usually goes right to the point.
McCain desperately needs Romney to liven up the GOP ticket.
It is a bit strange isn’t it.
I think the Team Romney folks stand out more now because Conservatives no long have a horse in this race, so they are the only ones talking politics. They were bad enough during the primary.
I take comfort in knowing that during the race. while real conservatives were in the hunt, Mitt never scored much above 15% support here. That says a lot.
He doesn't have any because there isn't any... except perhaps in his own mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.