Posted on 08/27/2008 7:52:58 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan
10. Inexperience. Romney, a one-term governor who did not run for reelection, has precisely one-third of the elective experience that Dan Quayle had when nominated for Vice President, and Quayle was attacked for his inexperience. A Romney nomination would cut against the grain of one of McCain’s best arguments – Obama’s inexperience – and this is particularly true when placed against Joe Biden.
9. Rommey supporters typically say that he would be good on the economy. But why, exactly? Paul O’Neill and John Snow were both highly successful businessmen, and yet were weak as Treasury Secretary. Why would Romney be any different – and would McCain want to be seen to hand over control of the economy to his vice president? Business and government require different leadership styles. Few people can handle both well, and Romney’s thin record as governor provides little evidence he can. The conservative Tax Foundation stated that the total state and local tax burden in Massachusetts rose 5.1 percent on Romney’s watch, and the state ranked 46th in job growth from 2003-2005 (in the middle of a boom). In any event, skill in business is very different from skill in finance – or governing.
8. Thin skin. In the Republican debates, Romney always wanted to be the focus of attention, taking more than his allotted share of time and reacting badly when others questioned his statements or views. McCain clobbered him in the debates, helping assure his own nomination. Joe Biden would do likewise.
7. While “anybody but _______” efforts rarely work in American politics (think Carter, Reagan, Mondale), this one did. At least three candidates – Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson – decided that they simply preferred beating Romney and effectively worked together to stop him. What was it about Romney they so disliked? This also doesn’t say much about his ability to unite the party, keep support, or exert political leadership.
6. Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, Romney’s flip-flop on abortion seems terribly insincere. To believe the story as it was originally told, Romney was concerned over stem cell research. Ask any of your active pro-life friends: they will probably know many people who are pro-life except for the stem cells issue and will have met no one who became pro-life because of it. His palpable anger when asked detailed questions about his views does not give credence to the sincerity of his conversion.
5. Can Romney supporters point to even one poll – just one poll – showing that he would have won reelection in 2006? It is not good enough to say “oh, but he said he wanted to run for President, so there were no polls.” (What about Romney internals?) George Bush faced this dilemma in 1998 and won reelection handily as Governor of Texas. What does this say about Romney’s record as Governor? Isn’t the better conclusion that he won (with less than 50% of the vote) only against a very weak Democratic candidate from western Massachusetts and governed in an undistinguished fashion? If we want to say that Barack Obama’s record is thin, we must say the same about Romney’s, so he cannot be the nominee.
4. In 2004, some very effective advertising mocked John Kerry for windsurfing off Nantucket as a sign he was out of touch with the people. How, then, would the people react, in a time of economic gloom, to learning that Romney’s hedge funds – based offshore, presumably to avoid U.S. taxation – are named after a lighthouse on the same island? Can’t you just picture the ads now?
3. With McCain’s implicit one-term pledge, a Romney nomination – giving the vice presidency to a deep-pocketed candidate – would sharply divide the Republican party by effectively conceding the 2012 nomination to him, sidelining both up-and-coming candidates like Governors Pawlenty, Palin, and Jindal and current figures such as Mike Huckabee (who came in second, remember – Romney did not). How will the party react? The same consideration does not apply for a pick of, for instance, Pawlenty, Jindal, Governor Jon Huntsman, or Rep. Eric Cantor. They do not have the money to dominate the party and the conservative movement as Romney does. The 1988 primaries show that a sitting Vice President can be effectively challenged – but Romney would begin the race with a huge advantage simply because of his personal wealth. Allegations have already been raised that Romney’s foundation money has been used (improperly?) to bolster his political image And given this, would President McCain have any assurance that Romney would be loyal?
2. Can Romney supporters name a single major accomplishment of Romeny’s as Governor that would please conservatives? His “RomneyCare” health plan? Unlikely, as the candidate himself walked away from it during the primaries. Did he have any ability to persuade the legislature? After the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage, did Romney even switch a single legislator to vote in favor of placing a constitutional amendment on gay marriage on the ballot, so the people could deicide rather than judges? If so, who? The burden should be on Romney supporters to provide the names and details. Did the Legislature not like him, or is it better to say that he simply walked away from the issue? The Boston Globe’s valedictory editorial (December 26, 2006) sums it up well: "Romney himself admits that a number of his goals remain unmet. His inability to lower the nation's highest unemployment insurance rate, to secure merit pay for teachers, and to reinvigorate the Republican Party were among the frustrations he listed."
1. On a family vacation, he put the family dog in a cage on top of the car while driving for 12 hours, across an international border – an experiment in logistics, aerodynamics, and animal welfare that predictably failed when the dog became ill. Over 50 million American dogs – and 40 million American dog owners – would be horrified. For my own part, I think Obama's selection of Joe Biden (one of the least wealthy men in the US Senate) makes a Romney pick a very, very dangerous exercise in bad optics
ROTFL!....had to look "neuticle" up...
And Cantor's more conservative than Romney and he happens not to be a complete phoney.
Willard Mitt Romney:
Olympics = neutral.
Staples = good.
Mass. governor = very negative (only a far left could elected).
Romney-care = bad, total fraud.
Bain Capital = bad (Corporate Raiders)
ROTFL!....had to look "neuticle" up...
Being a Governor of a midsized state is far different than being one of hundred in the Senate in terms of executive and supervisory experience. No comparison when it comes to being the CEO of the largest corporation in the world, i.e., the USG. Romney not only has government experience as an executive, but also, he ran his own successful business and was in charge of the Winter Olympics. Frum is talking thru his hat as usual.
You caught my point exactly.
Wasn’t Frum pimping for Rudy?
Do I have to go back to your previous posts on other threads and provide the proof of my assertions or are you going to come clean?
No worries. Frum’s disdain for Romney is more than made up for by Hugh Hewitt’s 24/7 kneepadding for the guy.
Fred didn’t have the “want” to be president, that could be seen in the way he campaigned. He would, for that same reason, not be a viable VP.
I like David Frum, but he’s no conservative. He may even be a Democrat...I know he once said at a luncheon I went to, that he was a Canadian liberal. His list is meaningless.
True. Romney has been consistent on these two points. To the right of McCain.
Fred!
Because you know you want to make doubly sure our ticket’s wives are hotter than the other side’s.
“An honest critique of these 10 reasons:
1. Family dog— stupid argument. Never gained traction in the primaries.
2. Accomplishments as governor— mainly valid argument, although Massachusetts was in less economic trouble when he left office than when he came in. The default setting for any lieberal state is economic trouble.
3. One term pledge— stupid argument. I’ve never heard McCain make a one-term pledge, either implicitly or otherwise.
4. Windsurfing and hedge funds— somewhat valid. Yeah, Romney is rich, just like Kerry. But he earned it rather than married it.
5. 2006 re-election— stupid argument. Robert Erlich, who did a great job for Maryland and had high approval ratings, still lost in 2006. The default setting for Lieberal states is electing anyone with a “D” after their name. Especially in 2006.
6. Pro-life flip-flop. Valid argument. On the other hand, always pro-life McCain has Warren Rudmen advising him on judicial appointment. The same Warren Rudmen who gave us David Souter. How is a guy in the #2 slot going to improve this situation?
7. Everybody ganged up on him. Stupid argument. Hucksterbee was the only one totally focused on getting Romney out of the race, and for his own reasons of personal and religious hatred. McCain wanted him out only because he was his most serious challenger. Guilani’s campaign was pathetic and he was never a factor. Fred Thompson actually cooperated with Romney by pulling out of Michigan so Romney would pull out of South Carolina. The strategy worked great for Romney, not so well for Fred.
8. Thin skin— stupid argument. Nobody got attacked more and nobody held up better. He was the only one of the majors who had the backbone to actually run negative advertising against McCain.
9. Economy— partially valid argument. He did a credible, but not a bang-up job on Massachusetts. Club for Growth said so. He did a bang-up job on the 2002 Olympics and Bain Capital where he was working with rational business people, not an overwhelmingly Marxist legislature.
10. Inexperience— stupid argument. We could actually use more successful business people in government. Yeah, Paul O’Neill was a disaster, as have been other successful business people. But the pool is small compared with the pool of professional politicians who have been even bigger disasters. Ronald Reagan was a successful businessman before he went into politics. He wasn’t the only one. The idea that our political leaders should be selected only from our pool of professional politicians is stupid.
The final score:
1. Valid arguments- 10%
2. Partially valid- 30%
3. Stupid arguments- 60%”
.
Thank you. You have articulated what I was thinking
BTTT!
**Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, Romney’s flip-flop on abortion seems terribly insincere.**
Agree with this wholeheartedly. It will NOT be Romney.
It's just amazing so many people like Romney, and conservatives no less.
He is liberal record and is notorious flip-flopper and liar.
Why on earth should would any conservative want a man with his record and history of political expediency to be next in line to President, all while undermining the chances of REAL conservatives like Bobby Jindal?
Could you tell us the difference between Romney and Giuliani, especially on the issue of abortion? The only I see is that Romney is a bigger liar.
No. It endorsed Romney.
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.