Posted on 05/08/2008 11:39:27 AM PDT by kingattax
For Mitt Romney, the suspension of his campaign at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference two days after Super Tuesday marked the beginning of a new and promising campaign. As he ended his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, he staked for himself a position as leader for the conservative future. It's a good position to be in for a potential 2012 run for the presidency. And it's a position that makes him an attractive option for John McCain's No. 2 in 2008.
In his withdrawal speech, Romney announced that "conservative principles are needed now more than ever" -- hitting the economy, the culture, and the war. One Romney adviser referred to the speech and the pullout as "a down-payment on a conservative future."
Romney's biggest value to McCain, though, comes from his experience in business. John McCain has no such experience and famously said during the New Hampshire primary that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." (He added that he owns former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's book.) That quote will come back to haunt McCain once general-election time finally arrives.
Mitt Romney's greatest asset for McCain -- who has been in Congress for almost a quarter of a century -- is, therefore, his executive experience, most of it in the business world, most notably as vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. from 1978 to 1984, and as founder of Bain Capital, venture-capital savior of the likes of Staples, Domino's Pizza, and Sports Authority. Romney famously turned around the corrupt and broke ($379 million in debt) Salt Lake City Olympics and cleaned up a Massachusetts budget running $3 billion in the red without raising taxes. At a time when the country may be in a wartime recession, Romney emanates a confident competence (and he would do it, as veep nominee, alongside a GOP presidential nominee with a mixed tax-cutting record). Choosing Romney, then, could be as practical as politics gets. When in the voting booth, partisan preferences may pale in comparison to the attraction of a guarantee of competence in the executive.
McCain, if he chooses Romney, may be wise to give Vice President Romney more than economics in his assignment portfolio. As two-time Cabinet secretary William J. Bennett recently put it on his radio show, "McCain would do the war. Romney would do domestic." Social conservatives might hold up McCain's speech this week on the judiciary and say, great blueprint, Senator. But we don't trust you, Senator. (In fact, former Department of Justice official Mark R. Levin, another talk-show host, said just that in the wake of the judges speech: "I don't trust this guy.") Take that basically sound blueprint and give us someone we trust. Romney, who fought judicial activism on marriage in Massachusetts -- and made the issue a key part of his campaign for president -- has some credentials there.
The governor makes electoral-map sense, too. First of all, now we can agree the Mormon factor is a plus. Utah's a lock, he won the caucus there with 90 percent of the vote. But Utah's not the battleground: Michigan is. And Romney's favorite-son status there makes it a likely delivery for McCain with Romney on the ticket. (Romney's economics talk went over well there, too, you might recall.) Romney's already been to Michigan on McCain's behalf and no doubt will return. Would the Michigan effect spread to Ohio? McCain seems already to have an appreciation for Romney's electoral assets: Romney recently spoke to the Nevada state Republican convention; Romney won the Nevada caucus with 51 percent of the vote to McCain's 13 percent.
Since endorsing McCain, Romney has hit the media trail for McCain, too -- including talking to radio and TV giant Sean Hannity -- at the McCain communications shop's request.
And speaking of numbers, Romney proved to be the Republican dream of a fundraiser and money source: He ran with some $47 million of his own during primary season. On the calendar this week, Romney has a meeting set up in Houston with McCain and Romney 2008's finance chairs and co-chairs to encourage those who are holding back to give to the senator's cash-starved campaign.
Proving how deep his team-player loyalty is, Romney even skipped the White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington, D.C., to speak to the Nevada state Republican convention in April. (Full disclosure: Romney was to sit at National Review's table; NR endorsed him for president last December.) Romney will also prove himself a team player when he campaigns and raises funds for some 30 congressmen running this year, as part of his soon-to-be-announced political-action committee; the candidates Romney supports will reflect his full-spectrum conservatism (further giving conservatives confidence that he has a commitment to their movement, even if he hasn't always been a member).
One last numbers point: John McCain is a 71-year-old who looks it. At a young 61, Romney provides a vigorous safety net for those worried "what if" when they look at McCain.
Mitt Romney and John McCain, of course, would be an odd couple -- they have a past. If the Arizona senator believes what he said during their big showdown in Florida this winter, their differences may be irreconcilable. On McCain's signature issue -- "No Surrender" in Iraq -- McCain accused the former Massachusetts governor of being on the wrong side of the debate, i.e., on the side of surrender. The rap against Romney was bogus: McCain's criticism was that during a TV interview last year, Romney endorsed the idea of private timetables between the United States and Iraq. This is not inconsistent with proposals McCain himself has considered. But McCain remembers that the word "timetable" was a Beltway buzzword last year for withdrawing from Iraq. Getting out of Iraq, however, is not what Romney was talking about. One can reasonably criticize his word choice in a heated environment, but he wasn't a cut-and-runner.
Move on, in other words. Or rather, Senator McCain, remember Moveon.org -- which has endorsed Senator Obama. The general-election opponent has a way of focusing the mind. In his CPAC speech, Romney said: "I will continue to stand for conservative principles. I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism." That's a message that can run with McCain.
Bottom line: Vetted outsider Mitt Romney adds to Washington-insider McCain. He's a running mate with pluses, which, most importantly, includes being a plausible president -- 294 delegates' worth of primary voters thought so, anyway. His resume speaks for itself. McCain could do worse than pick Mitt Romney -- and he's got to know that, if he wants to win in November.
It’s coming down to the economy and people voting with their pocket books for a lot of people it seems.
Mitt will be a good choice if McCain announces that he will use his knowledge of the economy instead of sending him around to state funerals and such.
Sorry...I like Mitt...but he comes across like Kerry...plastic/slightly smug/flip-flopping on issues.
I’d just assume stay home
Haven’t even read it yet, myself. But ping anyway ;-)
Spare me!
The positive from my point of view is that the whipping this ticket would take would remove two with Liberal histories from the candidate pool instead of one.
Few voters are still around who even remember that Romney's father was the governor of Michigan several decades ago.
I don't believe he's a Michigan "favorite-son."
Obama would just LOVE that ticket...Mitt would offset the Wright liability for him.
McCain is a “maverick” and relishes ticking off as many people as he can. He will pick someone totally unacceptable as a running mate, daring conservatives to vote for me.
I completely expect this.
I’m not sure that whther a McCain/Romney ticket would be good or bad, but at least it would make me think about whether it would be good or bad instead of already knowing McCain is bad.
After the FLDS fiasco? Yes, I know that the LDS and FLDS aren’t the same thing, but Joe Sixpack & Suzie Homemaker don’t.
/barf
That's pretty damned funny considering who you're shilling for.
If he picks some younger, good-looking, non-controversial guy, it will help him build the coalition of "scared of that lunatic Obama", usually Democratic, union types, to go with the oldie vote, the veteran vote, white males, southerners, etc. that he needs to win.
Mitt's the most likely, though he could pick some other governor.
Amazing....I got in here before the religion wars started up.
McCain and our country... could do far worse than Romney.
Ok, now back to the debates of what religion sucks the most.
Mitt Romney set up for ‘12 or’16 is the last thing conservatives need.
Mitt needs to be put to pasture, he can't win, and his run proved that...
Not the same thing, true, but they are not that far apart either...
A person with a masters degree said to me, “Wow, you Mormons are sure taking the hits lately, aren’t you?” I said, What do you mean? She said, “You know, the polygamists in Texas.” I said, Good grief - those are not Mormons!!
Some ignorant people have masters degrees. It’s not just stupid people who fall for the lies.
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.