Skip to comments.NYT: Conservatives move against Romney as VP pick
Posted on 08/18/2008 2:55:31 PM PDT by presidio9
On the day Mitt Romney bowed out of the presidential race last February, his supporters latched onto something of a consolation prize that appeared to bode well for his political future: the warm embrace of hundreds of conservatives whose seal of approval he had long sought.
Yet as Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, is said to have emerged as a top contender to be Senator John McCains vice-presidential running mate, a vocal segment of conservative leaders and grass-roots activists have mobilized against him, with some going out of their way to block his path to the Republican ticket.
It is unclear just how large the group of Romney detractors is and how representative it is of the broader conservative movement. Many are evangelicals who flocked to one of Mr. Romneys rivals in the Republican primaries, Mike Huckabee, the Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor whose own hopes for making a repeat presidential run in 2012 or 2016 could suffer if Mr. Romney were named to the ticket.
Indeed, Mr. Huckabee himself aimed a few jabs at Mr. Romney this week, arguing that he would make an unacceptable vice-presidential pick because of his shifting positions on several issues.
Nevertheless, the determined opposition to Mr. Romney highlights the nagging concerns about his ideological authenticity and his Mormon religion that dogged him throughout his primary campaign. It also illuminates the continuing unease Mr. McCain arouses among some evangelicals and other social conservatives who make up an important voting bloc of the Republican base.
The ultimate danger for Mr. McCain is not necessarily that Christian conservatives will not vote for him if he chooses Mr. Romney, but that they will not be as energetic in turning people out to vote,
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Boy, I sure wish the NYT would at least go to the trouble of NAMING some of those "social conservative leaders." Or at the newspaper, at the very least.
There are some still talking McCain down. Its a powerful team and one the DEMS are afraid of.
Personally, I think the Dem/Libs are afraid of him. He can debate them and he can make them look bad. He is not a conservative’s conservative and first choice ... however he present a viable option to be a voice against Dem/Libs. He also presents some good qualities and traits McCain doesn’t possess. Management ability, leadership ability, speaking ability to name a few.
I guess Romney earned some sort of shot here; but I feel he’d be a liability. McCain can’t be painted into any corner whatsoever. Dems love to do that; but w/ Mac, they just can’t.
Not so with Mitt. Every aspect of Mormonism that seems weird to the rest of the country would be kept in the forefront — one new controversy per week. We just don’t need that.
Looks like more Huckabug stench to me.
Here’s your cue!
I know that a lot of people don’t like Mitt and that is fine, but if the stupid press is even mentioning him and spreadig BS stories, they must fear him. Notice how they don’t say squat about knucklebee EVER.
Romney would be a good pick...pro-business, anti-illegal (actually for deportation and fencing), pro-life..
The NYT fears the McCain/Romney ticket would blast their Messiah...we all know Obama will lose...this would cement the deal.
Oops, the NYT story was August 15th. The MSNBC site says it is “updated”, but a quick perusal I didn’t see any changes.
Don't think Barry can win if he loses Michigan.
There are better candidates out there with far more sterling conservative credentials-- Sarah Pallin, Eric Cantor and Tom Coburn, just to name three.
In the end, McCain has to add up the pros and cons. Not just who can help energize the base, but who can put swing states and swing demographics into play. He's also got to pick a team player because whomever he selects will probably give up any chance of ever being president by taking the VP slot. The reason is because if McCain wins and McCain does a good job (neither of which is probable at this point), the VP would have a very steep hill to climb extending Republican administrations to 16 or 20 years. It hasn't happened since the Civil War and it won't happen with amnesty which McCain is sure to push in an even more liberal congress.
McCain is less liberal government spending wise, and when seeing an opening, has taken a vote costing stand. Something Mitt has never done. In this elections, McCain has come out, in Indiana no less, against ethanol. Something Mitt would never have the spine to do.
McCain bested Obama, and has won, what 8 elections to Mitts one.
Mitt left the Mass GOP in ruins. He used, bought and abused it. I don't know if he ever got the thanks he should of from Mass Democrats. There is something creepy, and un democratic with the stickiness of Romney's name in this election. The weird support from NR, the effete elite of the GOP, Mitt's beating in the nomination by a broke, old, stumble McCain. The constant quasi Democrat tactic of any one against Mitt is an snake handling evangelical and or Mormon bigot. I know I used to 'get' Mitt. But that was until he reviled himself as Governor as the go along to get along to become President ticket puncher. In a way, Mitt reminds me of Nixon. There's a wiff of energetic, intelligent, dogged desperation.
I don't know, other than mindless repetition, or MittPitch, where he gets any street cred for being anti-illegal.
He should be blocked. A Mormon on the ticket would be a disaster. It doesn’t please me to say so. In fact, it’s pretty sad. But a principal advantage we have against Obama is fear and suspicion of his Islamic roots. Put a Mormon—a sect which many people also fear—on the ticket, and you dilute that advantage.
One thing Slick Willard’s candidacy revealed is that it ended up outing a lot of people we thought were Conservatives that proved to be anything but. Those that put looks, lies and bucks ahead of a substantive Conservative record. People that a year or two ago I thought were giants (Coulter, Tancredo) turned out to be nothing but little weasels.
And Leisler, I’d disagree with the “fairly decent” description. I contend he is not a nice man in the least, and in his quest for power in attempting to avenge his father, he sold his soul. When I look at him, he not only seems to lack substance, he appears soulless. Very unattractive indeed. (Funny thing is, if he had used a fraction of the ruthlessness in whoring after the Presidency and channelled it into doing something positive as Governor, he might not have left the MA GOP dead and the state in total shambles).
Huckabee has torpedoed any chance that Romney will be on the ticket. Huck let it be known that he would not be campaigning for Romney.
But Mormons aren't flying planes into buildings or strapping bombs to their chests.
Huckster is in no position to pontificate on Slick Willard. He did the exact same thing in Arkansas that Willie did in Massachusetts. We now have “1” Republican left from AR in federal or statewide office, the same office we had 41 years ago. That’s down from 5 (half the federal delegation and 2 statewide) this decade (so, in other words, Huckster shrank the AR GOP presence by 80%).
McCain needs to choose Govenor Palin of Alaska.
Game, set, match.
Look, I said I didn't like it, but there it is. Watch any critique of LDS, watch the South Park ridicule episode. Is it fair? No, but it is indeed a widespread view of Mormons. Heck,there is even the bad luck of the recent FLDS crap to contend with. A Mormon on the ticket is a no-go this time around.
My top two picks are SC Gov. Mark Sanford and RI Gov. Don Carcieri (I don’t necessarily have anything against Gov. Palin, just concern she needs a bit more seasoning — the aforementioned Governors have 6 years of experience each).
They are trying to divide us.
Personally I would like to get away from the GOP approach of picking the guy whose turn it is (i.e., past, failed presidential nominees). I remain one of Fred Thompson's staunchest supporters, but I wouldn't push him for VP, for this reason: if you couldn't unite the party in the primaries, then you shouldn't be offered the post as the future of the GOP (since whomever is VP nominee this time will likely be the presidential nominee next time).
We need fresh, conservative blood -- e.g., Cantor, Coburn, DeMint, Sanford (to name just a few).
Some? Dems? There are plenty FReepers C-A-N-Ts (Conservatives Acting as Nauty Trolls) talking him down right here on FR!
“Put a Mormona sect which many people also fearon the ticket, and you dilute that advantage.”
What do many people fear of a Mormon?
I have many Mormon relatives. Two retired career US Army officers. My grandmother. My next door neighbors. All solidly conservative. (no I have never been Mormon, no I don’t live in Utah)
Never tried to convert me. What’s to fear?
On a certain level, I agree with you. Its tough to accept the fact that so many high profile conservatives were willing to sell out to support liberals and moderates. Calling them weasels is one thing. Abandoning their ideological roots during the GOP primary season, just might warrant a label of traitor to the conservative cause.
> If Romney can swing 3 percentage points to McCain in Michigan <
Ditto for Colorado and Nevada, which have significant Mormon populations and which have been trending recently toward the dhimmis.
Now the NYT is trying to pick the Veep, too??
Ann Coulter is another one who has really disappointed me. She's basically written Mitt did and said whatever he had to to get elected in a liberal state. Well, I'll grant he certainly acted liberal enough to fit in, but I'd hardly call that something worthy of admiration.
These so-called leaders of the conservative movement tell us we must battle hard, yet they compromise even when compromise isn't necessary. For example, no one can possibly convince me there aren't better VP picks. Even if Mitt's 100% conservative now, why should we settle for someone who (allegedly) only recently grew a conservative spine?
Many presidents have picked relatively unknown people for VP. This shouldn't be about political calculations to get a few more votes (since no one can really predict where this country will be in three months). The VP is the heir apparent for the 2012 election. That's why I want a conservative!
McCain's VP pick is going to tell us a lot about McCain himself. Will it be a wise choice? Or, will he stick it to conservatives yet again? We shall soon see.
I gotta believe it’s not going to be Romney as Veep. I love the guy, but his negatives are near exponential.
I cannot imagine McCain would pick a guy with no pickup from the middle and a net loss from the right.
When is the last time a Pres candidate picked a Veep candidate who rated the highest in negatives of all candidates in consideration.
I just can’t see it. Only those who see Romney the way Liberals see Obama would even think he’d bring a state into play.
A reminder to partisans that this is FreeRepublic, not FreeRepublican.You damn bet you there are Freepers talking McCain down.
My suggestion is to find a group that appreciates McCain's nuances and then settle in.
So, do you think those conservatives-acting-as-’nauty’-trolls are afraid of Mitt, or can it be possible that we are not trolls, and are not sold on the idea that Mitt’s the new conservative hope for the party, and are using our right of free speech to say so here on FR?
Another thing his condidacy revealed was how some people, supposedly conservative, can be so filled with misinformation and hate.
Myth and F***abee are both liberals, as far as I’m concerned.
In my book that is a plus.
The votes he might lose from the far right wing will be in states with a 10 point McCain lead. The votes he might win for McCain are in Nevada, Colorado and Michigan.
The Electoral Votes say Romney is a good pick.
Indeed. His supporters were some of the most ignorant (or most in denial) regarding his liberal record, and when they (and he) were called on it, attacked Conservatives like myself with a vicious level of hatred that is the usual M.O. of DUers. Rather telling.
Thelogically, however, there are many similarities with Islam (including their main books written by "prophets" who came after Jesus) and McCain and Obama will need the support of Christian conservatives to win in November.
Yup. And their records demonstrate that. Although Huckster was pro-life (unlike Slick Willard), so was Dennis Kucinich until a few years ago, and his far-left record is renowned.
Fortunately real conservatives were smarter than that, lowing the bar was not acceptable, never has been, never will be.