Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Southack

He won the governorship of Massachusetts largely on the strength of his SLC Olympic record. It might not have the same impact several six years later, but it would be impossible for his opponent, the media, or anyone else to turn such a strong positive around into a negative.

What do you have against Romney?


105 posted on 11/15/2006 10:48:38 PM PST by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: Young Scholar
"What do you have against Romney?"

Everything. First of all, the Democrats have more popular people in the NorthEast, Romney's chief base of support. Losing the NorthEast is a given in any Presidential campaign right now...Romney would just make a better showing there than other Pubbies (but in a winner-takes all Electoral campaign, that's not worth spit).

To win the White House, the GOP has to win the areas in which the GOP has strength. This means that the GOP needs to win at least 30 of the 32 Red States. Do that and the GOP wins in 2008.

Blue states don't count. Dems can win California and New York and yet still lose the White House every time.

So from a strategic perspective, the GOP needs strong Red State candidates. That rules out Romney.

Second, Romney is a gun grabber. He signed Massachusetts' 2002 Assault Weapons Ban. That alone will cost him the GOP primaries.

Third, Romney campaigned on a platform of not changing any pro-abortion law already in place. That's not a good way to win a GOP White House nomination.

Fourth, Romney is up to his neck in the 2002 SLC Olympic bribery scandal and the Boston "Big Dig" collapse. Sure, he can "explain" his way out of those scandals, but that won't make him more popular nationally. Merely being associated with those scandals will cost him more votes than Foley lost for us.

So Mitt Romney fails on U.S. political strategic grounds, fails on gun/abortion ideological grounds, and he further fails on the grounds that he has immense political baggage.

Romney is the sort of pre-destined loser-style name that hyper-liberal newspaper editors toss out when they want to mention people they *wish* would run against them on a national ticket. He'd lose 50 of 50 states.

109 posted on 11/15/2006 11:01:43 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: Young Scholar
"...What do you have against Romney?"

I have nothing against Romney at this point, but then I haven't really done my homework concerning him either. I can say this, however, I do NOT want either Rudy or "McCain"...I especially do not want John McCain! I will be looking into everyone who makes an effort to run.

Nancee

146 posted on 11/16/2006 6:53:45 AM PST by Nancee ((Nancee Lynn Cheney))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson