Posted on 01/20/2008 9:34:59 AM PST by barryg
Mitt Romney had it all money, looks, organization, endorsements and a seasoned staff.
But he still couldnt crack South Carolina. There was something about the former Massachusetts governor that turned off Palmetto State voters.
He couldnt connect with them no matter how hard he tried.
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.
That was $3 million last year, in South Carolina alone.
He still flopped.
Realizing he couldnt 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 couldnt have been worse. What Romney was saying was, I really dont care about South Carolina.
He left us at the altar.
Romneys 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.
Why? Three reasons.
Romney is from Massachusetts, automatically making him suspect in South Carolina. Voters here dont trust politicians from the home of Teddy Kennedy, Mike Dukakis and John Kerry.
Voters also questioned Romneys 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.
Romneys 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.
It wasnt his faith, he said. It was his phonyism.
Romneys decision to pack up to Nevada and its caucus were an attempt to build on his lone primary victory, in Michigan. Romney also won Wyomings little-watched caucus.
His departure from South Carolina served to lower expectations for him here, even though he started to advertise again in the primarys 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 candidates Iowa caucus loss to suspicion about his faith among evangelicals, who rallied behind Huckabee, a Baptist preacher.
Thigpen said Romney made a wise decision to travel to Nevada.
Why kick a dead horse? he asked, referring to South Carolina. Why waste your money on something that doesnt look promising?
But in essentially declaring that South Carolina didnt 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.
Again, partially quoting people to misrepresent what they say is not an effective way to hide that you don’t have an argument.
You’re claiming Romney understood what “assault weapon ban” meant and then forgot about two seconds later?
Does all that spinning make you dizzy?
Quote the imaginary “endorsement”.
No. You seemed to be (I have to say that because it’s hard to tell exactly what your argument is) saying that because Romney said he signed an “Assault Weapons Ban”, I was incorrect in pointing out that the bill actually was a pro-gun bill.
So I pointed out that Russert used the same terminology, and it made sense that Romney would use that same name.
The problem is that it was a “ban” that actually left the state with fewer banned weapons than previously. So I guess in fact it’s still a “ban”, but the bill “unbanned” some weapons.
I guess if you decided to re-write the 1934 law, and removed some of the weapons from that bill, but left others in, and passed the measure, you could still call it a “gun control bill”, even though it’s passage would be pro-gun.
I’m not here to argue with you, just to correct the record.
Romney did not say the NRA endorsed him for Governor. He said the NRA endorsed the bill he signed as governor. That was “the action” he was talking about taking as Governor.
Then quote the imaginary endorsement.
I have said anyone can post that without having to credit me.
You too, Charles!
:)
Washington? Lovely state. Too bad you have morons for Senators.
It is indeed a great pity that some of the best places in the country are overrun by crazed LibDems.
Austin, Texas: Within 35 minutes, I can visit our state capitol and governor’s mansion, currently in Republican control. phew.
The full quote was “MSM bashing Mitt Romney, the only remaining credible candidate to go up against John McCain.”
Which is true.
You’ve got to partial quote a sentence to mock it?
Is this the level to expect from RINO-loving McCainiacs?
“How about Rick Santorum as McCains VP?”
Uh huh. ... Hell will freeze over first.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/9e163793-59da-4b2c-88ae-be7f8f4ec09d
Rick Santorum on how awful the RINO John McCain was in the Senate:
“RS: Well, I mean, because John McCain was the leader on the other side of the aisle. John McCain was the guy who was working with Ted Kennedy to drive it down our throats, and lectured us repeatedly about how xenophobic we were, lectured us, us being the Republican conference, about how wrong we were on this, how we were on the wrong side of history, and that you know, this is important for his because having come from Arizona, knowing the strength of the Hispanic community, that we were going to be seen as racists, and he wasnt going be part of that, that he was not a racist, and that if we were for tougher borders, it was a racist thing. Look, John McCain looks at things through the eyes, on these kind of domestic policy issues, looks at it through the eyes of the New York Times editorial board, and accepts that predisposition that if you are not, if you stand for conservative principles, theres some genetic defect.”
“RS: Well, number one, John McCain will not get the base of the Republican Party. I mean, there was a reason John McCain collapsed last year, and its because he was the frontrunner, and everybody in the Republican Party got a chance to look at him. And when they looked at him, they wait well, wait a minute, hes not with us on almost all of the core issues of on the economic side, he was against the Presidents tax cuts, he was bad on immigration. On the environment, hes absolutely terrible. He buys into the complete left wing environmentalist movement in this country. He is for bigger government on a whole laundry list of issues. He was I mean, on medical care, I mean, he was for re-importation of drugs. I mean, you can go on down the list. I mean, this is a guy who on a lot of the core economic issues, is not even close to being a moderate, in my opinion. And then on the issue of, on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain every took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened. I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether its marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.”
Right, this was clarified by Romney campaign immediately afterward, as reported in WashPost:
“The NRA did not endorse in the 2002 campaign,” said spokesman Kevin Madden, when asked about Romney’s comments. “Mitt Romney as a candidate received a respectable B grade rating from the NRA, and when he was governor he had the support of the NRA and the Gun Owners Action League in relaxing some of the state’s burdensome licensing regulations.”
Right, this was clarified by Romney campaign immediately afterward, as reported in WashPost:
“The NRA did not endorse in the 2002 campaign,” said spokesman Kevin Madden, when asked about Romney’s comments. “Mitt Romney as a candidate received a respectable B grade rating from the NRA, and when he was governor he had the support of the NRA and the Gun Owners Action League in relaxing some of the state’s burdensome licensing regulations.”
Clarified? What a careful euphemism for reversal.
>Jrochelle did that a lot better than you did.
Yes, he did. - I sent him a thank you here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1956808/posts?page=127#127
Actually, someone else is also reposting that gem, and I had no idea who the original poster was until I stumbled across it posted by him.
Mitt seems to be a likeable guy. Very well packaged.
Smooth, indeed.
And then you see these FR posts and it brings you back to reality.
My credit to Jrochelle. - Thanks again.
My guess is that you, CW, are a Mitt fan.
It fits what passes as conservative for many people, especially in the cobalt blue NE.
I can’t fault you for that.
And I have a theory about politicans who cannot even win their own state in the general.
Like Mitt and Rudy.
I don’t even have to write that out here. - You already know what point I am making.
Thank you for your post. - Bill
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.