Posted on 05/10/2008 6:53:39 PM PDT by Red Steel
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.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor of National Review Online and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.
This is a conservative website.
Take your support for the liberal Romney and stuff it.
“Take your support for the liberal Romney and stuff it.”
That time of the month, eh?
What’s this “support” we’re talking about here? I happened to like the ideas of a guy who isn’t running for anything at the moment. Why are you reacting so strongly to that, anyway? You’re afraid of that many Romney write-ins, eh?
If you’re so opposed to nuclear power, liquid coal, changing our immigration policy to weed out illegals, lowering capital gains taxes, finishing the border fence, ending the right to citizenship by birth, cutting spending by 1% minus inflation, lowering corporate taxes, drilling in Alaska, or any such matters, you are more than welcome to hate Romney all you want. In fact, I will applaud your right to do such because I kind of believe in that freedom of speech thingy and open debate.
The irrational hatred thing—not cool. Nor sweet. Nor conservative. Far more worthy of the DU.
If you want to disagree, disagree. This “stuffing” it stuff is uncivil and juvenile.
As for Romney, talk is cheap and Willard is ALL talk. OTOH, his record is just like Giuliani's --- LIBERAL. Remember, Romney supported Roe v Wade and abortion on demand, before he was against it. In fact, he spoke out in favor of abortion rights and a woman's right to kill her unborn child for 35 years. Romney also voiced support for special rights for homos, before he was against it. Romney was for comprehensive immigration reform, before he was against it. And Romney remains an ardent supporter of gun control and has said he would sign an assault weapons ban. Nothing conservative about that record.
Romney has shown a penchant for big government by proposing the Feds take more direct control of the US health care system. RomneyCare is socialism --- HillaryCare/ObamaCare redux! LOL
My advice to you --- hit the road and find a forum that better suits your promoting of leftwing policy.
“My advice to you -— hit the road and find a forum that better suits your promoting of leftwing policy.”
And my advice to you is to deal with the present instead of your lazy-daisy strolls down memory lane. If you want to dispute a single one of the policies I brought up as being liberal, you’ve pretty much branded yourself incompetent.
My promotion of left-wing policy? So you’d accuse anyone who says a kind word about the guy of “supporting leftwing policy” without the first credible example to back up your tough words? ha! Go for it. Show the first liberal policy I’ve promoted on these forums. Again, “logic” more worthy of the DU. You’ve got an issue with the policies I brought up, and I’ve got issues with you.
And oh, might want to try to get out of the business of actually trying to boss people around on an internet forum, as well. In the words of your no doubt hero, Bob Dole, “It’s like coralling cats.”
What a freaking joke.
“You anti-Romney foamers need to get over your stubbornness and realize that Romney is the best pit bull to take out Obama.”
Romney is as anti-2nd Amendment as Hitlery or B. Hussein ... thats all one needs to know.
Not dumb at all. I think his disturbed sycophants need some psych help, seriously. They refuse to see the laundry list of problems with the man, starting with the fact that he is no Conservative and is no Republican. I’ve known the guy going back to his first Senate race in ‘94. After watching him in action, he gives the Clintons a run for their money in dishonesty, power-whoring and destructive leadership. He’d be a perfect running mate for Obama.
BTW, you should know that when some of us call him a “cultist”, we’re not talking about his religion. We mean that he himself is a cult of personality, with a coterie of deranged moobat middle-aged and old women sycophants with bizarre faux romantic delusions about the man, much like Bubba Clinton’s female supporters. Several of them populate FR always ready to attack. They are some of the most hateful and psychotic people you will ever encounter.
?????
But then, I guess that with your totally defeatist attitude, it may be best if you do stay at home on election day, rather get up off your butt and work to get the people back in Congress who will concentrate on defeating the traitorous liberals who wrecked the Constitution, and who have the power to override any president who hasn't got guts enough to stop the slide into the dictatorship of the left.
Good thinking. Lovely idea. You've just solved the left's problem of how to cut off a goodly percentage of the military vote. What right do those illiterate peasnants have to vote??? ***sheeeeesh***
Baldwin
Glad you cleared up the "cult" business.
Now how about naming some of those Freepers whom you claim to be ... ... some of the most hateful and psychotic people you will ever encounter.?
Go play with your dollies, and leave the forum to the grown-uos.
Not this one.
Nope. "Not Romney" for the same reason as "not Huck", but reversed.
I'll point you to the early January threads on his Presidential candidacy and you can see for yourself. Several of them are now banned when they decided to openly insult JimRob and the Admin Mods when their despicable comments about Fred & Jeri Thompson were challenged.
-—”Romney is as anti-2nd Amendment as Hitlery or B. Hussein ... thats all one needs to know.”
Not at all! What you people don’t get is that issues such as the economy and the war on terror are far far more important than the 2nd Amendment.
Besides, the 2nd Amendment is NOT going away at all under a Romney government. Give up your irrational dislike for Romney.
Having an articulate, intelligent president who has most of the right conservative qualities is the best we can hope for, given the field of choices and the CURRENT political sentiment.
When I hear a lot of you anti-Romney people complaining about him on these trite issues, I think of spoiled children. Conservatives can’t always get what they want all in one candidate (nor can liberals).
I’m actually a strong on defense, fiscally conservative, socially liberal republican-voter who really doesn’t like Romney’s association with the Mormon church. But I’ve had to overlook that because of his many other compelling qualities. He would be a far better president than McCain, but I’m voting for the two of them (all signs indicate McCain will probably choose him as VP).
I sure hope you are not like the other stubborn conservatives who will not vote “as a protest” and let the worst possible Carter Redux (Osama Obama) be elected.
Get real. It’s a complicated world out there and there are a lot of stupid liberal people! It’s up to the conservatives to do what they can to stop them.
Are you insane! There is nothing, NOTHING, more important than preserving our 2nd Amendment Liberties! Old Mittens there, had no problem signing a Mass version of the phony bologna Assault Weapons Ban when the federal version expired. He'll have no problem doing the same as a pres or veep (via egging McLame to do so). Once you go down the path of ignoring ANY of the Bill of Rights, you are a rotten character and not to be trusted.
If we loose the Bill of Rights, the war or the economy matter nothing.
Nice try, but you more or less proved my point that you’re being completely irrational.
What makes you think that the Assault Weapons ban constitutes a COMPLETE OVERTURN OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT?? People in MASS still have the right to bear arms don’t they?
Case closed!
Slam dunk!
If a minor technicality on 2nd Amendment is enough to make you hate Romney, when he’s superb in so many aspects, you’ve got major issues.
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.