Posted on 01/20/2008 9:34:59 AM PST by barryg
Mitt Romney had it all — money, looks, organization, endorsements and a seasoned staff.
But he still couldn’t crack South Carolina. There was something about the former Massachusetts governor that turned off Palmetto State voters.
He couldn’t connect with them no matter how hard he tried.
“He came across as a luxury car salesman,” said Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen, a Republican.
Romney spent about $280,000 a week to make his name known across South Carolina.
That was $3 million last year, in South Carolina alone.
He still flopped.
Realizing he couldn’t win here, Romney fled South Carolina last week with no plans to return. He hopped a plane to Nevada to claim his caucus win there Saturday.
The way South Carolinians saw it, Romney was ceding the state to three rivals — U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
Romney made a mistake earlier in the month when he pulled all of his money out of South Carolina to go campaigning in Michigan, said Clemson University professor Dave Woodard.
“His timing was just terrible,” said Woodard, a Republican. “It couldn’t have been worse. What Romney was saying was, ‘I really don’t care about South Carolina.’
“He left us at the altar.”
Romney’s campaign never did catch fire here. After a brief period leading in S.C. polls last fall, he lost steam, slumping to third, fourth or fifth in the polls.
Why? Three reasons.
Romney is from Massachusetts, automatically making him suspect in South Carolina. Voters here don’t trust politicians from the home of Teddy Kennedy, Mike Dukakis and John Kerry.
Voters also questioned Romney’s conservative credentials. His flip-flopping on key social issues — abortion and gay rights —caused S.C. voters to wonder about his claims of being a conservative.
Among S.C. voters who told exit pollsters Saturday the main reason they voted for a candidate was because he “says what he believes,” Romney finished last among the five candidates who actively campaigned here.
Romney’s Mormon faith also hurt him among evangelical voters in the Republican primary. Many Southern Baptists, who comprise the largest denomination in the state, see Mormonism as a cult. Romney ran fourth among S.C. voters who identified themselves in exit polls as born-again or evangelical Christians.
However, Thigpen rejects the notion that Romney lost South Carolina because of his faith.
“It wasn’t his faith,” he said. “It was his phonyism.”
Romney’s decision to pack up to Nevada and its caucus were an attempt to build on his lone primary victory, in Michigan. Romney also won Wyoming’s little-watched caucus.
His departure from South Carolina served to lower expectations for him here, even though he started to advertise again in the primary’s days and made a get-out-the-vote effort.
The other high-profile Republican candidates decided to ignore Nevada in favor of South Carolina with its history of creating and demolishing Republican hopefuls.
For Romney, Nevada presented a particular opportunity. His faith was an asset in that state with its large Mormon population.
One in four Nevada caucus-goers was Mormon; 95 percent supported Romney, according to entrance polls there.
Romney aides have attributed their candidate’s Iowa caucus loss to suspicion about his faith among evangelicals, who rallied behind Huckabee, a Baptist preacher.
Thigpen said Romney made a wise decision to travel to Nevada.
“Why kick a dead horse?” he asked, referring to South Carolina. “Why waste your money on something that doesn’t look promising?”
But in essentially declaring that South Carolina didn’t count, Romney missed a chance to prove he can be a winning candidate nationwide.
South Carolina is “a test-tube state,” said Chip Felker, a Greenville-based Republican consultant. “If you win here, you have shown you can win elsewhere.”
“South is overrated. The Republicans better start concentrating on the west or we will never win an election again. Start getting the northeast back again would not be bad either.”
Yeah. If we lose CO, AZ and NM, we are toast.
And its sad enough that the whole pacific coast has to be written off from the get-go at the Presidential level.
At this point, who are we to argue ...
Looks beats whatever the heck zany reason it is that people want McInsane or the Huckster, for sure!
... as in:
“Huck wants God in an amendment to the Constitution and wants to stick a rebel flag up the butt of anyone who doesnt like it, he’s my man!”
Minus Thompson I don’t see any Conservatives in the race and I don’t consider McCain a Republican.
The “they” I was referring to were McCain and Huckabee. Fred is a conservative and he campaigned as himself. As for McCain, just a few short months ago he was the champion for amnesty in the Senate and now he’s a tough on the border guy. He clearly changed his position for political gain.
“And its sad enough that the whole pacific coast has to be written off from the get-go at the Presidential level.”
Within 17 minutes, I can put my hands into the cold waters of the pacific coast.
Within 35 minutes, I can have my boat in the water and be a mile off shore.
Within 60 minutes, I can have a King salmon on my line.
Within 10 seconds, I can be at the other side of my house and see the waters of the pacific coast. DO NOT WRITE ME OFF. ;>)
BUT, it is rather frustrating to have to sit here and watch the South and the East decide who I get to vote for.
I gave Mitt the chance to prove he was a born-again conservative but he just kept blowing it. He exaggerations and gaffs on the campaign trail sure didn’t help either; he lost me totally when he turned Clintonesque to explain his meaning of the word “saw.”
LOL! If the Mutt from Mass is credible then Harold Stassen should have been POTUS.
That would be pretty stupid, because Romney’s better on the 2nd amendment than George Bush, and better than any democrat, and in fact is a solid 2nd amendment supporter.
Jrochelle did that a lot better than you did.
He didn’t do it very well, but it was still better.
Mitt and his Family are not actually from Utah. He went to college there, but we usually don’t count that when we say where candidates are from.
We can’t forget something that didn’t happen. We could try to forget that people keep saying it when it didn’t happen, but a lot of people don’t mind repeating false claims so I guess we’ll have to put up with it for a while longer.
they were wrong.
Actually, the bill Romney signed was a pro-gun bill pushed by Mass gun right’s groups. They hailed the legislation as th e best bill for gun rights in the state’s history.
Their letter about the bill has been posted by anti-mitt people before.
You forgot this:
Later in the interview, he added the following:
“I just talked about, about guns. I told you what my position was, and what I, what I did as governor; the fact that I received the endorsement of the NRA.”
The problem?
He was never endorsed by the NRA, and didn’t have their official support during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. The NRA declined to endorse in that race, as was acknowledged by Romney’s spokesman this morning
http://fredthompsonnews.blogspot.com/2007/12/washington-post-romney-claims-nra.html
“The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time. I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus.” —Mitt Romney
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
Was he lying again?
No, I just know how to read. He DID receive the endorsement of the NRA for what he did as governor, which was to pass a pro-gun bill supported by the NRA and other gun groups in Massachussetts.
Which is why he said he received their endoresment for "what I did as governor".
He earlier said he appreciated the support he got from them in his RUN for governor. WHen the left-wing Washington Post blog claimed he had said "endorsement", Romney's campaign immediately corrected the report, pointing out that he said "support", not "endorse", and that he was NOT claiming any endorsement for his previous election.
False. Sourceless, naturally.
He said in 1994 that he supported the first AWB, and in 2007 he admitted that he would have supported the 1994 AWB.
Russert called the 2004 Mass. bill an “assault weapons ban”, and Romney used the same terminology. At the time, the gun rights group that supported the bill actually got mad about how their bill was characterized as a “gun control” bill. I’m sure they are no more happy that gun people are doing the same thing today.
And as he said, it provided a relaxing of licensing requirements, which was ONE of the reasons the gun-rights groups supported it. But in fact, as they explained at the time, the bill actually “un-banned” guns that were already banned in Massachusetts. The AWB in effect in Ma. was NOT tied to the federal ban, and was NOT going to expire when the federal ban expired.
The final bill signed by Romney removed guns from the list, and removed regulations, which is why the gun rights groups called it the best pro-gun legislation in the state’s history.
"I would have supported the original assault weapon ban." --Mitt Romney
That spin went nowhere.
That’s quite disengenous of you. I dealt with your FIRST quote in the first part of my response, and was dealing with the SECOND quote in the part you have quoted back.
It’s really dishonest to misquote and partially quote people when you can’t win the argument straight up.
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.