Replies

Hmmm...Romney has more experience in defending some of the conservative agenda against a very socialist legislature. Reducing spending and going balanced budget. Slipping up to half of his appointees as Republicans past an 8-member panel of Dims. Preventing the MA gay marriage thing from spreading to other states with reciprocity measures (unlike in VT and now NJ).

Now, Romney isn't perfect by any means. But we do have to ask, what can conservatives expect from a governor from MA? I think in Romney, you get more than you'd expect.

Both the mayor and Romney have records that are pretty liberal in some places. One of the reasons I would be able to support Romney is that he at least agrees with conservatives now in large measure. He's done a few things also that indicate he is not in it completely for political deception. For instance, his wife has MS and, after looking at a lot of info on stem cell research, they concluded that embryonic stem cell research was morally wrong. They changed their position and Romney did severely hobble efforts in MA on embryonic research. Now, you can call that a flip-flop. But a lot of people would see that as something pretty sincere and even indicated a degree of nobility. If you haven't seen them discuss this, it's pretty compelling stuff. Certainly, it's enough to counter a Michael J. Fox outbreak of going off his meds to go on TV and hawk for the destruction of the unborn to cure his disease. So I do think that we should look hard at candidates who have converted solidly to our positions. Romney and his wife took a position for life that many would argue might not be in Mrs. Romney's personal interest with her health. Mrs. Romney is a considerable asset, a lovely wife and mother, very articulate, very likable. I would say she is at least as good as Laura Bush as a political spouse.

Romney also is an incredibly successful venture capitalist. He salvaged a number of dying businesses with tremendous entrepreneurial flair. A solid businessman by all accounts. He was valedictorian at Brigham and he took both an MBA and a JD at Harvard at the same time and came out at the high end of both degree programs. Very very bright and highly disciplined. He appears to know how to delegate but is mentally quick enough to keep up with the devilish amount of detail in a top executive position. BTW, you have noticed that we Republicans are a pro-business party, haven't you? Romney is worth over a half billion. Look at these other top Republicans in the field. Combined, they don't have a fraction of Romney's business experience and success. They're all professional politicians, lifers. Even though MA, socialist paradise, passed a state health care plan, Romney kept out the attempts to put in employer mandates. Unlike The Arnold in CA, who is going to let those slip in.

Anyway, I'm not supporting him. I like Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter which mostly shows that I like to pick long shots in the primary.

I look at Romney and try to compare that record to Reagan as he entered the '76 race. I see a lot of parallels. Both Republican governors of socialist hellholes who have at least some record of managing to halt or divert the stampede toward socialism. I also look at how Reagan took on and defeated the northeast liberal establishment, the Rockefeller Republicans. What we need now is another able man to carry the conservative revolution forward. Romney has the ability. And he might have the drive for it, given his considerable success at taking MA from huge debt to balanced budgets. Doing that as a governor changes a pol's perspectives. This is one reason why we tend to elect governors as president. And we Republicans do best when we elect politicians with some private sector experience. We need someone who hasn't just read Friedman. We need someone who has lived Friedman as a businessman.

Another thing that I notice is how statist the slate of candidates is. McStain and Giuliani have only experience of turning to big-government measures. I think their fundamental instinct is to turn always and first to government to solve problems. I don't think Romney is in that club, again something that comes from being in business and being a governor. I think conservatives should always be looking for the candidate whose instinct is toward private sector and local government solutions.

Anyway, I see why you question why I think Giuliani is unacceptable and Romney might be. I thought I'd lay it out a bit. I probably couldn't support either one if they can't pass muster with the pro-family and pro-gun organizations. But I think Romney can. And Giuliani isn't even interested.

I also think Giuliani is a disaster on the domestic front. Married three times tells you that a person has behaved badly in his personal life or he is a poor judge of character. That little stint where he lived with the two gay guys was kind of trashy. The Kerik scandal also looks bad since the guy was his business partner. There is a trashiness to Giuliani's personal life that reminds me a lot of Xlinton. Maybe worse in terms of being unstable. I don't like to vote for people who aren't very well settled and stable in their personal lives. People might argue that Giuliani has married his Monica and will behave now but, well, I dunno. That tabloidy interview and those recent pictures of the two of them were just embarrassing. With Giuliani and Xlinton, you just expect this stuff. With Reagan and the presidents Bush and with Romney, you don't have to worry that your president is going to sleaze up the whole country with some made-for-Oprah personal bimbo eruptions.

You might have a point. I don't really know the intricacies of his governership in MA. I suppose I should read up on it.

I share your dislike of career politicians and lawyers. But I disagree as to whether a nearly-billionaire businessman is necessarily the best person to head a pro-business party. I don't doubt Romney's intelligence or management skills, but putting someone like him in charge might actually bring the party back to the image of the northeastern establishment Rockefeller Republicanism that, thankfully, Goldwater, Nixon, and then Reagan got rid of.

I'm a Floridian who moved to New York after high school to study finance at a prestigious school (I'm not going to name it, but you can check rankings and make a deduction if you care). I'm going to get my degree soon and enter the financial world, and there's a lot of decadence here in terms of how these business guys in the north live their lives. Cocaine, indiscriminate sexual encounters, often homosexuality, and RAMPANT marital infidelity.

I don't think Romney's one of them. He actually seems like a pious guy. But all I'm saying is that in terms of marketing, it might not be the best idea to tie the GOP too closely to this.

Of course, the GOP is pro-business. But to the voters in the "red states" this means having the freedom to own property and capital, make money off that capital, and live freely without having your money stolen from you to support the dregs of society. I don't believe the average Republican really cares about Wall Street. I don't even think the average Republican supports having American foreign direct investment help build China's military (part of why I like Hunter so much), but that's another story.

In terms of marketing and party-image, a retired Navy officer and Vietnam veteran like McCain would do much better.

I've read about Giuliani's marriage problems. I've read that he cheated on his wife, kicked out his wife and children, and then had his mistress live in his mayoral mansion. That's very sleazy stuff, and I have my reservations about supporting a guy like that. I can't blame you there. McCain's personal life isn't completely clean from what I hear either.