Romney couldn't connect with S.C. voters

Mitt Romney had it all — money, looks, organization, endorsements and a seasoned staff.

But he still couldn’t crack South Carolina. There was something about the former Massachusetts governor that turned off Palmetto State voters.

“He came across as a luxury car salesman,” said Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen, a Republican.

Romney spent about $280,000 a week to make his name known across South Carolina.

Realizing he couldn’t win here, Romney fled South Carolina last week with no plans to return. He hopped a plane to Nevada to claim his caucus win there Saturday.

The way South Carolinians saw it, Romney was ceding the state to three rivals — U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee.

Romney made a mistake earlier in the month when he pulled all of his money out of South Carolina to go campaigning in Michigan, said Clemson University professor Dave Woodard.

“His timing was just terrible,” said Woodard, a Republican. “It couldn’t have been worse. What Romney was saying was, ‘I really don’t care about South Carolina.’

Romney’s campaign never did catch fire here. After a brief period leading in S.C. polls last fall, he lost steam, slumping to third, fourth or fifth in the polls.

Romney is from Massachusetts, automatically making him suspect in South Carolina. Voters here don’t trust politicians from the home of Teddy Kennedy, Mike Dukakis and John Kerry.

Voters also questioned Romney’s conservative credentials. His flip-flopping on key social issues — abortion and gay rights —caused S.C. voters to wonder about his claims of being a conservative.

Among S.C. voters who told exit pollsters Saturday the main reason they voted for a candidate was because he “says what he believes,” Romney finished last among the five candidates who actively campaigned here.

Romney’s Mormon faith also hurt him among evangelical voters in the Republican primary. Many Southern Baptists, who comprise the largest denomination in the state, see Mormonism as a cult. Romney ran fourth among S.C. voters who identified themselves in exit polls as born-again or evangelical Christians.

However, Thigpen rejects the notion that Romney lost South Carolina because of his faith.

Romney’s decision to pack up to Nevada and its caucus were an attempt to build on his lone primary victory, in Michigan. Romney also won Wyoming’s little-watched caucus.

His departure from South Carolina served to lower expectations for him here, even though he started to advertise again in the primary’s days and made a get-out-the-vote effort.

The other high-profile Republican candidates decided to ignore Nevada in favor of South Carolina with its history of creating and demolishing Republican hopefuls.

For Romney, Nevada presented a particular opportunity. His faith was an asset in that state with its large Mormon population.

One in four Nevada caucus-goers was Mormon; 95 percent supported Romney, according to entrance polls there.

Romney aides have attributed their candidate’s Iowa caucus loss to suspicion about his faith among evangelicals, who rallied behind Huckabee, a Baptist preacher.

“Why kick a dead horse?” he asked, referring to South Carolina. “Why waste your money on something that doesn’t look promising?”

But in essentially declaring that South Carolina didn’t count, Romney missed a chance to prove he can be a winning candidate nationwide.

South Carolina is “a test-tube state,” said Chip Felker, a Greenville-based Republican consultant. “If you win here, you have shown you can win elsewhere.”

I really wanted to like Romney. I respect his success in business and really respect his fixing of the Salt Lake Olympics. That takes decision making and leadership skills. The candidates that are senators have never had to do that. A senator sits on the sidelines taking credit if something turns out good and blaming somebody else when it goes wrong. How many times have your heard McCain say "Boy I screwed that up," when he talks about CFR.

The problem is his conflicting statements on key issues like gay marriage, gun rights, and abortion when campaigning. His supporters like to point out that he has been a bit more consistent in action than in words, but I don't buy that. If a man tells you one thing and does another, what does that say about him?

One of the things people seem to forget about Clinton is that one of the first major things he did in office was raise taxes after saying he wouldn't. That gets forgotten because of all the other sleaze and corruption.

Mojave, Facts are stubborn things. Repeating your false assertion doesn’t make it true.

These are the facts about the bill that you claim equates to Romney signing an assault weapon ban, direct from NRA-ILA website. It clearly shows that the bill does NOT do what you claim it does:

http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=1149

S.2367 does the following:

* Instructs the Executive Director of the Criminal History Systems Board to make the Firearms Identification Card and the License To Carry a Firearm the same size as a driver`s license;

* Changes the term of a Firearms Identification Card and a License to Carry to six years;

* Creates a grace period of 90 days, if the Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry holder applies for renewal before the expiration date, and if the application for renewal is not denied;

* Creates a Firearms Licensing Review Board. Applicants disqualified by a misdemeanor record, from obtaining a License To Carry or Firearms Identification Card, may file a petition for review of eligibility with the board, five years after conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole;

* and in the case where an officer is confiscating the guns of a person with an expired license, requires the officer to provide a written inventory and receipt for all guns.

Despite the efforts of some (including The Boston Globe) to spin this bill as an extension of or creation of a new “Assault Weapons” ban, the bill makes no net changes to the Commonwealth`s laws regarding those types of firearms. The three sections referencing them merely dealt with re-affirming the definitions of what an “Assault Weapon” could be.

Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong.

Myth: Some headlines claimed that the legislature voted to expand the ban on the sale of the same 19 guns that the federal government has banned.

Fact: The guns are already banned in Massachusetts . The legislature only voted to clarify the definition of so-called “assault weapons,” but made no changes to the number of guns included.

Myth: The gun ban was extended.

Fact: Our state`s gun ban was not due to disappear, nor will it become invalid if the federal ban sunsets in September.

Myth: The legislature somehow “won over” gun-rights supporters by including reforms.

Fact: NRA and Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) had made it very clear to the legislature that we would not give up any ground. NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms.

Myth: Those legislators that wanted to expand the semi-auto gun ban claimed that they “spearheaded” S.2367.

Fact: Credit should be given to Senator Stephen Brewer (D- Barre) and Senator Richard T. Moore (D - Uxbridge) for the reform language.

Myth: The Massachusetts House approved a new version of the ban that would decouple the state definitions from the federal ones.

Fact: The bill merely takes the existing state references to federal law, and fixes the language to a point in time in 1994. Because that is the federal language is currently in effect, the net effect on Massachusetts gun owners is zero. No new gun bans are banned. Keep in mind that the state language in effect before this bill was NEVER set to expire.

With that in mind, NRA members should be very pleased in knowing that their efforts to educate and work with their local representatives and senators resulted in a successful reform action.

Thanks to you and the Gun Owners` Action League, lawful gun owners can now take advantage of this first set of real reforms in over five years.

For more information concerning this legislation you can contact ILA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683 or the Gun Owners` Action League at 508-393-5333.

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.