Posted on 11/27/2006 4:10:07 PM PST by shrinkermd
He may be Santa to GOP politicians in the rest of the country, but when it comes to giving to Bay State Republicans, Gov. Mitt Romney is one big Grinch.
Using cash generated by his federal political action committee, Romney donated almost $190,000 to 70 Republicans in 31 states running for office in 2006, but gave Massachusetts GOP hopefuls nothing.
Bay State Republicans left out in the cold during their campaigns for U.S. Congress were Rick Barton, Jack E. Robinson and Jeff Beatty. Ditto Ken Chase, who challenged Ted Kennedy for his U.S. Senate seat.
“I am saddened and disappointed,” Chase said. “I was very active in his two campaigns for governor.”
In 2004, Romney created the Commonwealth PAC, a federal political action committee that, according its Web site, is responsible for “electing Republican candidates” and “solidifying the party’s status as America’s majority.” While Romney’s PAC doled out $192,250 to GOP candidates across the United States, Massachusetts Republicans running for federal office got zilch.
“He cut and run from the Massachusetts Republicans,” said GOP activist Jim Rappaport.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
Romney would be as well off if he burned the money as gave it to Bay State GOPers.
It's more likely that their campaigns were poor risks.
Romney was the phenomenally successful CEO of Bain Capital, one of the world's great private venture capital funds. He achieved his extraordinary success by very coolly and exactly calculating the risk of each proposal brought to him.
It isn't that he is risk averse. Nor does he always win. But he clearly isn't swayed by personal or emotional factors when weighing risk. And over the long haul he comes out significantly ahead because he manages risk wisely.
As president he could be expected to shrewdly and decisively make fiscal policy and budgetary decisions based on hard evidence and sound business principles given the constraints he must operate within. He has world class business and economic sense and is quite possibly the most gifted pro-business presidential candidate in the past 100 years.
Giuliani? A former prosecuting attorney. Most of what he knows about business is what he learned while prosecuting the Mafia and white-collar crime in New York City. McCain? A former jet jockey, prisoner of war, and now full-time lawmaker. He's read articles about business but probably couldn't tell a balance sheet from a balance beam. Gingrich? A college professor--and not in a B-School either.
What these Massachusetts GOPers are doing is complaining that Romney didn't engage in pork barrell-style distributions of campaign funds based on subjective factors. If they had been more competitive or could have been made competitive, Romney likely would have spent money on them. They likely weren't, so he didn't.
It would be a delightful breath of fresh air to have a president who truly understands business and who wouldn't allow cronyism, personal friendship, or mere politics to drive his decisions on how taxpayer money is spent or invested.
This guy is getting way to much ink. He can't win, period. If he can, we are worse off than I thought.
I saw on an earlier thread how a conservative President and congress will turn everything around in 08. I wondered where we might locate such a candidate.
I am basically optimistic in my world view, but I gotta confess, it looks like it's going to get worse than we thought before it gets better. Hope I'm wrong again.
He's a phony.
The only problem with your fairy tale theory is that Mitt DID invest in a whole bunch of losers in 2004. So much for his keen assessment of risk. In 2006, he didn't invest in Massachusetts, but he did invest nationally -- in winners, losers? doesn't really matter, because he was really investing in himself and his own run for president.
Dear MassachusettsGOP,
"By his 2002 Governor's race, he declared himself personally Pro-Life, but would Govern with a moratorium on changing Abortion laws as Massachusetts is 70% Pro-Choice."
That's not the whole truth.
In the 2002 gubernatorial race, he also affirmed in an answer to a Planned Parenthood questionnaire that he believed in the substance of the ruling Roe vs. Wade, that abortion is a constitutional right. During the 2002 campaign, he also affirmed that he believed that it was right for government to fund abortions of poor women.
The Massachusetts pro-abort Republican organization endorsed him.
That's still pretty darned pro-abort.
It seems that he's pro-abort as long as he's running for office in [pro-abort] Massachusetts, but is pro-life now that he wants to run for the presidency as the nominee of the [pro-life] Republican Party.
Seems more like opportunism than anything.
sitetest
Dear JohnnyZ,
"In 2006, he didn't invest in Massachusetts, but he did invest nationally -- in winners, losers? doesn't really matter, because he was really investing in himself and his own run for president."
Are you suggesting that Gov. Romney might be acting... CYNICALLY???
My word! How could you think such a thing??
sitetest
No surprise to some of us here in California,, or as it should be re-named, West Massachusetts.
Of course not!!!
I would never level such an accusation!
No, *I* am the cynical one, refusing to pledge my sword to the white knight of conservatism who has been defending our way of life by single-handedly battling the gaydrons of liberal Massachusetts, just because every one of his actions reeks of slimy opportunistic deceitful pandering.
It takes a special kind of person to ramble on for a paragraph wondering if the Swimmer is pro-life or pro-abortion.
Isnt it funny how Kennedy tries to hold onto the last threads of his Catholic past while pandering to the Liberal Democrats?
Dear MassachusettsGOP,
"Thats total rubbish, even in 1994 he stated that he opposed government funding of abortions."
You might be right. At least once or twice. It's hard to keep track of Mr. Romney's pronounced positions on issues.
A quick look shows that at some point in 2002, he apparently backed state choice on Medicaid funding of abortion, which is not the same as backing state funding. However, his running mate in 2002 assured the public that there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between Mr. Romney's abortion position and the Democrat candidate's position.
Which seems to suggest significant amounts of talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
I also note that you let pass this exchange between us:
Dear MassachusettsGOP,
As I'm a Catholic, many of my relatives and friends are Democrats.
For Catholics whose Catholic identity is strong, things like low taxes, individualism, making lots of money, don't necessarily rate high on the list of important values, or translate into important political principles. Thus, much of the Republican agenda is lost on these folks.
At times, the political discussions I've had with these relatives and friends has been heated. They accuse me of various things, being a greedy capitalist (guilty), being a warmonger (guilty, if that means bashing the brains out those who would attack us), etc.
Of course, as devout, reasonably conservative Catholics, my ultimate comeback is to call them supporters of baby-killers. Among devout, obedient Catholics, the accusation that one supports pro-abort politicians cuts to the bone.
Since Mario Cuomo announced in the 1980s that he was personally pro-life, but wouldn't let his own principles interfere with the "majority" view that abortion should be legal, many Catholic Democrats have tried to take refuge in the "personally pro-life, but..." scam.
For over two decades, I've taken after Democrats pretty harshly for the hypocritical, lying stance of "personally pro-life but..." I've excoriated friends and relatives for supporting such monsters. I've actually gotten a few to see the light, and vote Republican. But that's PRO-LIFE Republican.
And what I condemned in the likes of Mario Cuomo and others, I won't hesitate to condemn in the likes of Mitt Romney and other baby-killing Republicans.
Either you're adamantly for protecting the lives of unborn children in law, or you're not. I don't really give a good damn if you think of yourself as "personally pro-life, but..." That's a stinking lie, an attempt to have it both ways.
I have nothing but contempt and disgust for politicians who do that.
If a politicians wants to be in favor of legal baby-killing, he should have some balls and admit that he's a baby-killing bastard. That's one big point in favor of Mr. Giuliani. He's a baby-killing bastard and is pretty forthright about it. Good for him! It's quite easy for me to make my choice never to vote for the man for president, but I admire him for his forthright position.
He believes in Roe.
He believes in a constitutional right to abortion.
He believes in government funding of poor women's abortions.
He believes that partial birth abortion should be legal.
He doesn't dwell on some stupid, lying, hypocritical thesis that he's really pro-life, but...
I preferred Gov. Romney when he was an honest baby-killer. I preferred when he said that he's been a baby-killer since at least 1970, and that it's a matter of principle. I'd never vote for him for president, but at least he was an honest and decent baby-killer. Or so it seemed.
But this crap about "personally pro-life but..." is nothing but an attempt to hoodwink pro-lifers.
I've seen this for over 20 years among Catholic Democrats. I've seen how much they wanted to vote for folks who much more closely represented their own economic and foreign policy views, and how desperately they wanted to justify voting for pro-aborts, and how much they wanted to swallow the lying line of "personally pro-life but..."
I won't be fooled like them. I won't indulge myself in the actions that I condemn on their part.
It is sickening to me to see Republicans falling for the same lies.
sitetest
Fair enough, Good Luck.
Anyway the real question is whether Romney saw the light like I did. I find it interesteing that he used to believe what his mother taught him about abortion. And seemingly has changed his tune. It mirrors my story.
IOW, is it Romney a true convert? I'm not sure how conservative he really is. You've been burned before so I understand your sensitivity. But I am still open to the possiblity that he could change to pro-life and really mean it, politics aside. It happened to me.
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.