Posted on 08/27/2008 7:52:58 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan
10. Inexperience. Romney, a one-term governor who did not run for reelection, has precisely one-third of the elective experience that Dan Quayle had when nominated for Vice President, and Quayle was attacked for his inexperience. A Romney nomination would cut against the grain of one of McCain’s best arguments – Obama’s inexperience – and this is particularly true when placed against Joe Biden.
9. Rommey supporters typically say that he would be good on the economy. But why, exactly? Paul O’Neill and John Snow were both highly successful businessmen, and yet were weak as Treasury Secretary. Why would Romney be any different – and would McCain want to be seen to hand over control of the economy to his vice president? Business and government require different leadership styles. Few people can handle both well, and Romney’s thin record as governor provides little evidence he can. The conservative Tax Foundation stated that the total state and local tax burden in Massachusetts rose 5.1 percent on Romney’s watch, and the state ranked 46th in job growth from 2003-2005 (in the middle of a boom). In any event, skill in business is very different from skill in finance – or governing.
8. Thin skin. In the Republican debates, Romney always wanted to be the focus of attention, taking more than his allotted share of time and reacting badly when others questioned his statements or views. McCain clobbered him in the debates, helping assure his own nomination. Joe Biden would do likewise.
7. While “anybody but _______” efforts rarely work in American politics (think Carter, Reagan, Mondale), this one did. At least three candidates – Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson – decided that they simply preferred beating Romney and effectively worked together to stop him. What was it about Romney they so disliked? This also doesn’t say much about his ability to unite the party, keep support, or exert political leadership.
6. Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, Romney’s flip-flop on abortion seems terribly insincere. To believe the story as it was originally told, Romney was concerned over stem cell research. Ask any of your active pro-life friends: they will probably know many people who are pro-life except for the stem cells issue and will have met no one who became pro-life because of it. His palpable anger when asked detailed questions about his views does not give credence to the sincerity of his conversion.
5. Can Romney supporters point to even one poll – just one poll – showing that he would have won reelection in 2006? It is not good enough to say “oh, but he said he wanted to run for President, so there were no polls.” (What about Romney internals?) George Bush faced this dilemma in 1998 and won reelection handily as Governor of Texas. What does this say about Romney’s record as Governor? Isn’t the better conclusion that he won (with less than 50% of the vote) only against a very weak Democratic candidate from western Massachusetts and governed in an undistinguished fashion? If we want to say that Barack Obama’s record is thin, we must say the same about Romney’s, so he cannot be the nominee.
4. In 2004, some very effective advertising mocked John Kerry for windsurfing off Nantucket as a sign he was out of touch with the people. How, then, would the people react, in a time of economic gloom, to learning that Romney’s hedge funds – based offshore, presumably to avoid U.S. taxation – are named after a lighthouse on the same island? Can’t you just picture the ads now?
3. With McCain’s implicit one-term pledge, a Romney nomination – giving the vice presidency to a deep-pocketed candidate – would sharply divide the Republican party by effectively conceding the 2012 nomination to him, sidelining both up-and-coming candidates like Governors Pawlenty, Palin, and Jindal and current figures such as Mike Huckabee (who came in second, remember – Romney did not). How will the party react? The same consideration does not apply for a pick of, for instance, Pawlenty, Jindal, Governor Jon Huntsman, or Rep. Eric Cantor. They do not have the money to dominate the party and the conservative movement as Romney does. The 1988 primaries show that a sitting Vice President can be effectively challenged – but Romney would begin the race with a huge advantage simply because of his personal wealth. Allegations have already been raised that Romney’s foundation money has been used (improperly?) to bolster his political image And given this, would President McCain have any assurance that Romney would be loyal?
2. Can Romney supporters name a single major accomplishment of Romeny’s as Governor that would please conservatives? His “RomneyCare” health plan? Unlikely, as the candidate himself walked away from it during the primaries. Did he have any ability to persuade the legislature? After the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage, did Romney even switch a single legislator to vote in favor of placing a constitutional amendment on gay marriage on the ballot, so the people could deicide rather than judges? If so, who? The burden should be on Romney supporters to provide the names and details. Did the Legislature not like him, or is it better to say that he simply walked away from the issue? The Boston Globe’s valedictory editorial (December 26, 2006) sums it up well: "Romney himself admits that a number of his goals remain unmet. His inability to lower the nation's highest unemployment insurance rate, to secure merit pay for teachers, and to reinvigorate the Republican Party were among the frustrations he listed."
1. On a family vacation, he put the family dog in a cage on top of the car while driving for 12 hours, across an international border – an experiment in logistics, aerodynamics, and animal welfare that predictably failed when the dog became ill. Over 50 million American dogs – and 40 million American dog owners – would be horrified. For my own part, I think Obama's selection of Joe Biden (one of the least wealthy men in the US Senate) makes a Romney pick a very, very dangerous exercise in bad optics
I'm sure that this would just be wishing, but what would be the results of picking a Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo? No help because they're unknowns except to people like us?
This pick, I'm sure would NOT happen, BUT would knock the snot out of the whole 'race' thing: Former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. A self-described Lincoln Republican. Michael S. Steele.
I like this guy and would vote for him as Prez or Vice-Prez.
11. Not a neo-con.
Frum lost me at the “McCain smoked him in the debates”. Didnt notice that, at all.
As for the ganging up on Romney, easy reason: Romney was the guy to beat when he was leading in Iowa.
Need to have a “Top 10 reasons Romney threads descend into thread hell”.
Whoever McCain picks needs to excite the base. Romney does that for many of us but obviously there are some people who are extremely anti-Romney. Whoever McCain picks will be better than either Obama or Biden. I just hope it is Romney so I can enthusiastically start promoting the GOP.
I'm with you on Fred Thompson. I agree with much of what Thompson says but he is definitely not an exciting candidate.
Oh yeah.
I would definitely vote for Michael Steele.
He is great
The Republicans’ Hispanic Delusion Amnesty is not just wrong in principle, it’s bad politics.
If you are going to pick an old guy, Thompson is far superior to Romney in every way except hair.
But when the best choice on the short list just happens to be Jewish, it isn't unreasonable to pick him and hope there is some corresponding benefit in the Jewish vote.
In my age group (25-35) Romney is a vote magnet. Women love him, guys respect him & he can get the independent vote more so that the other possible choices. That being said, he's personable to boot.
Obama/Biden
McCain/Romney
The choice is too clear.
NR actually endorsed Mitt Romney.
I agree identity politics is certainly not a najor reason to pick a candidate.
A small “plus” on for political purposes? Sure.
It's not hate. It's a realistic assessment of Rommney's many weaknesses as a candidate.
“Me, I don’t like Romney because he appears to be insincere”
Wow, that is really deep thinking. Do you think Jimmy Swaggart should be a VP instead?
“a significant percentage of people don’t like Romney”
Like everyone you hang out with? You are priceless.
The final score:
Romney’s polling is bi-modal (as shown by the threads on him).
Romney has the highest “Favorable: Very Strongly”
Romney has the highest “Unfavorable: Very Strongly”
Indeed, Romney has the highest positive and highest negative ratings of any candidate.
The problem with Romney — on a pure political level -— is that a significant percentage of people actually dispise the man so much that they will stay home.
A 1 or 2% “stay home” factor would lose the election for McCain.
I don't think anyone is suggesting Cantor because he's Jewish it's a minor issue.
You brought the issue to the thread back in post with the absurd statement that You left out one: Not Jewish.. Do you really think people opposed Romney in the primary, or oppose him as a VP because he's not Jewish?
No, like 42% of the population recently polled by Rasmussen who have a negative opinion of Romney.
Highest negatives (and postives) of any candidate. Totally “bi-modal,” which would be a disaster for McCain.
I predict that McCain will surprise us all with the person he picks as his VP. There will be exploding heads. After all, McCain has made all of our heads explode at one time or another.
I don’t think it’ll be Romney. If it is, I think we’ll get to see what 8 years of Obama will be like. The good side? Hillary (and Bill) will be old news by 2012.
Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson? Oh yes, I remember him!
Well you sure surprised me! I thought your list would look like this:
1. He’s a Mormon
2. He’s a Mormon
3. He’s a Mormon
4. He’s a Mormon
5. He’s a Mormon
6. He’s a Mormon
7. He’s a Mormon
8. He’s a Mormon
9. He’s a Mormon
10. He’s a Mormon
But that would have been just a tad obvious, wouldn’t it.
You need to get out more. _NOBODY_ respects a politically expedient fraud like Romney, except people who work for him and the ignorant. So, apparently, you’ve been hanging out with the Willard sycophants here or with ignorant folks. Either way, you’re hardly getting the full story.
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.