Posted on 02/16/2007 7:07:34 PM PST by Keyes2000mt
I think I'm done with the campaign of Willard Mitt Romney. I'm tired of it. His campaign and the potential for his nomination has jumped the shark. No Republican candidate for President has ever more deserved the title "Multiple Choice Mitt."
I'm tired of the explanations and I'm tired of the dodges.
First there was abortion. He was for it, then really for it, then really, really for it, then indifferent to it, and now against it. Some of his supporters and people on his campaign have called Sam Brownback pro-choice. At least Sam has never been multiple choice. And when Sam became pro-life, he actually fought the pro-life fight. I'm not aware of Mitt Romney ever passionately fighting the fight for life. He has, at best, been luke warm -- playing it safe, but not actually advocating. And he's played it so safe, that on stem cell research, he's been willing to split the baby with parental consent.
Then there was campaign finance reform. Mitt was for it more than McCain before he was against it more than McCain He's tried to caveat his way out of it, but his caveats have been so nuanced as to be meaningless.
Read on . . .
Let's not forget taxes. Multiple Choice Mitt opposed President Bush's tax cuts and favored a federal gas tax hike as late as 2003.
Oh, there is homosexuality too. Mitt was going to be more gay and more abortion friendly than Ted Kennedy in 1994. Now he's not. At least he's been consistent on gay marriage since he came out in opposition to it in his gubernatorial term.
Finally, there is voting for Paul Tsongas. In 1992, Mitt Romney voted for Tsongas. He explains this now as trying to pick the weakest guy to go up against George H. W. Bush. But, in 1994, Mitt Romney said he did so because "Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton."
I'm tired of running into these stories. I'm tired of the hedges. I'm tired of the dodges. And I'm tired of the caveated nuance. So let me put this straight and bluntly. I'm more than happy to support my man Mitt if he is the Republican nominee. But, like Hillary Clinton, he is a political opportunist who I increasingly see as someone without principle, only a weather vane.
Multiple Choice Mitt had me at hello. He lost me on the flip.
With this election season, I think that the conventional rules for the Republican primary process will not apply. And I think that Newt's candidacy will be the most decisive factor in the Republican primaries. Here is why:
It is unfortunate, but money is going very big this time around especially with California starting early in the primary process which will be a nearly impernetrable obstacle for a dark horses to overcome.
Add that to the fact, there is no true front-runner. As they say in college football, if you have two starting quarter-backs then you have no starting quarter-back. None of the top-tier candidates will harden as front-runner because each one has a fatal-flaw:
1. Rudy maintains his lefty positions, but he promises he will nominate strict constructionists judges. He remains popular because his is the symbolic image of the war on terror and his excellent demonstrated executive ability (his achille's heal are whether he will sign the Federal Marriage Amendment and his business dealling; desparation attacks will be his personal life).
2. Although McCain is a conservative, he has on numerous times deeply wounded his own party (his achille's heal are the gang of 14 and campaign finance; desparation attacks will be his personal life, temper, and his questionable mental stablility).
3. Mitt Romney is the republican version of Bill Clinton but with a personal moral core and excellent executive ability (his achille's heal is that he is a political in the classical sense; desparation attacks will be based on attacks on his religion).
4. And finally Newt Gingrich, out all of these four would be the favorite to the hearts of all conservatives, he will find it impossible to remake his image amongst the swing voter (his achille's will be that he has mis-timed the speed of the process, 2nd tier candidates will be already enduring themselves to the pool of voters that would gravitate naturally to Newt and he will not have enough time to gain momentum; desparation attacks will be his personal life).
So based on all of this information, if Newt runs then Rudy becomes president, if Newt does not run then Mitt becomes president. Without Newt in the game, Newt's pool of voters will gravitate to Mitt. Mitt will be forgiven of flip-flopping because it is what politicians do, and time again and again partisan voters will forgive their own guy so long as the candidate aligns will their ideals.
Bottom-line, while Newt will not when the nomination, he is the deciding factor on who will.
As a Mitt fan, I hope he does not run, but I do think he will based on what I heard him say to a couple of radio hosts in Chicago (I think). He said that he could not envision under any scenario that Mitt Romney would when the Presidency (or was it the nomination?). I think he personally feels that Mitt is unelectable (this was before the media obsession of flip-flopping so I assume the hidden message was that Mitt's religion makes him unelectable). I hope that before Newt decides to run, that he should visit both Mitt and Rudy and get to know them on a personal level before decides which one should be president.
And after you've discarded all the candidates (Only God is perfect, and God's not running.), where will you be?
Remember the 11th Commandment.
Before it became popularly known as "Reagan's Eleventh Commandment," TIME Magazine called it also, "Parkinson's Law," for then-chair of the California GOP Gaylord Parkinson, whose notion it was.
It was 1966, and the Republican Party's previous Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, had been trounced two years earlier in part because liberal Republicans tossed an ideological fit and handed the election to LBJ by an embarrassing margin. (The argument is that it would have been closer had the GOP stuck together.)
Parkinson was looking to beat Governor Edmund "Pat" Brown, a Democrat and Moonbeam's daddy, but he and his party was faced with a tough primary between a conservative, Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan, and a lefty, former San Francisco Mayor George Christopher. (The magazine refers to Christopher as an "equally outspoken champion of Nelson Rockefeller.") Not wanting a repeat of what happened to Goldwater in '64, down came Gaylord's write: "Thou shall not speak ill of any Republican."
So the Republicans concentrated on Brown. The Democrats did not have an Eleventh Commandment; instead, they had a problem:
In their attacks on Brown, few Republicans can outshout Los Angeles' Mayor Samuel Yorty, 56, who hopes to win the Democratic nomination. Unembarrassed by his own record of nonaccomplishment, Yorty has outraged most Democrats with irresponsible charges that Brown has sought and received Communist backing, is given little hope of an upset.
Today, perhaps Yorty might accuse Brown of having attended a madrasa as a young man.
Either way, the TIME article linked was written in May of 1966, before even the State party's primaries. They did not know how events would play out, and the thought of the "[a]ctor Ronald Reagan, a fervent supporter of Barry Goldwater in 1964," sitting in the White House fifteen-years later would have probably caused convulsions.
Not when posted by a guy with "Keyes" in his screenname.
As opposed to a federal government run by liberal Republicans? No thanks, been there, done that, got the record level (Higher than LBJ's "Great Society" after adjustment for inflation) social spending to prove it.
We must nominate a uniting candidate.
Romney can't even unite this board, and you expect that he's going to be able to unite the Republican Party??
Now who's dreaming?
Mitt is sharp, articulate, has charisma and is running on a conservative platform. He is a good family man, has a nice normal family and isn't carrying weird personal baggage like Guiliani. He is not a proven conservative, but otherwise has everything one could possibly want in a candidate. And he CAN defeat Hillary!
This IS good news!
After persuading people he is now sincerely pro-life he cannot go back to his pro-choice position.
Correction. The above sentence should read, "After attempting to persuade people he is now sincerely pro-life....."
Otherwise, he is an upstanding, decent man and a loyal, proven, conservative. We can not tolerate disingenuous efforts to besmirch his character and impugn his fine reputation. Thank you for all your attempts to set the record straight.
Just like he couldn't go to be anti-gay rights after pursuading the Log Cabin Republicans to vote for him. Oops.
Mitt Romney has no core values other than his own desire for power. He's the phoniest Presidential candidate I've seen running in my entire life.
We disagree.
Mitt's better than either Guiliani or Hillary and at least he is running on a conservative platform compatable with the current GOP platform, which a Guiliani nomination might radically change. I don't want to see that happen.
I also believe Mitt is currently the only candidate in the field who can beat Hillary.
Hunter has 10-11 months to build mass appeal in this fast-paced internet age. And some of Hunter's positions have very wide appeal to the middle-american voters who are fed up with illegal immigration and are worried that their job is going overseas.
Rudy McRomney has the same amount of time to shed their baggage while at the same time securing the base. My bet is on the guy with the least amount of baggage and that I can get behind as a social conservative and who wins 90% of the FR Poll.
I predict however, Hillary will win New York, whether it be Mitt or Rudy.
If Guiliani gets the nomination, the major media is going to eat him alive. He will not win the presidency.
Mitt has far less baggage. If he wins the nomination he will be able to defeat Hillary, despite the best efforts of the major media. And they know it, which is why they will push Guiliani.
I very much doubt it but we'll see.
You know in 2004 I the Democratics settled for a candidate they thought could win...
I'm going to continue to wait and see how things are shaking out a year from now.
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.