Posted on 06/05/2005 9:55:00 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
THE LAST presidential campaign ended just seven months ago. Does any sensible American -- a category that excludes political junkies and newspaper columnists -- want to read a long magazine article speculating on the next one?
The Weekly Standard and National Review, two of the nation's most influential conservative magazines, clearly think the answer is yes. Each is running a cover story on the presidential prospects of Governor Mitt Romney. Terry Eastland's 6,000-word piece in the current Weekly Standard is introduced by a humorous cover illustration of a smiling Romney surrounded by donkeys. ''Mitt Romney of Massachusetts," it says. ''Can a Republican governor of a Democratic state become America's first Mormon president?" Eastland's conclusion: Quite possibly. ''Romney would make an appealing candidate," he writes. ''He just might be 'the right guy at the right time.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I believe Jeb and Mitt are the two most qualified Republicans in the country to be president. Jeb aint gonna happen... Mitt will earn a 2nd in the NH primary to Holllywood John and that will help. I believe him to be as conservative as W and I like his Chief Executive experience. Ill pass on the stale Senator Allen, thanks.
Romney - Rice '08
MA is lucky to have Mitt Romney as governor. As for National Review and The Weekly Standard, they're working through the likely candidate list, and George Allen tops Mitt.
I agree. Being from MA is a huge handicap for Romney.
Hope you enjpy 8 years of President Hillary, then......
Despite some frustration, I have a positive opinion of conservative governors and officials that refuse to take that fateful step into outright defiance of judiciary excess. For example: Bill Pryor on Moore's rock, Jeb Bush on the Schiavo case, Mitt on marriage. These are stalwarts who live to fight another day, not go down in flames like Alan Keyes; who I also admire, by the way.
The choices are not the Rock vs. the Hard Place, despite what the Rudy/Romney/Condi supporters--and the McCAINiacs--keep telling us. The GOP has enjoyed great success by putting forward social conservatives, and whenever it has failed to do that--as in the case of Arlen Specter--it has suffered. Romney's real problem is not that he's a Mormon. It's that he's a BAD Mormon. Social conservatives would be far more likely to support a Mormon who was true to the family-friendly principles of that faith than they would be to vote for a guy who is just a typical Massachusetts politician with a slight bent toward thriftiness.
I'll take her over a RINO. She'll face much more opposition for policies that anyone with an R after his name could get away with much more easily. And especially if she gets elected without a majority (and with a majority voting for conservative candidates), she'll be completely without a mandate.
Personally, I think Romney could have afforded to take that fateful step in this particular case, but that's not what really bugs me about him. The problem is that he was nowhere near confrontational enough with them. In addition to totally pulling same-sex marriage out of nowhere, the court also usurped the Governor's authority, because the Massachusetts constitution explicitly makes him, not the SJC, the ultimate recourse over all causes of marriage. Even if he didn't defy them, he could have kept hammering that point over and over again. And as you noted in your first paragraph, he could have got behind the effort to recall them. I agree that something like Article 8 should only be used in extraordinary circumstances, but this is about as extraordinary as it gets.
I'm LDS and Mitt Romney lost my support permanently when he came out on the side of allowing homosexual scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts.
With that baggage he would have a hard time carrying the state of Utah in a national election. I personally don't know any regular LDS church-attending Utah voter who would support him, at least among those that know of his stances on gay scoutmasters and abortion.
I don't know where his brain was on the day he came to these touchy-feely goofy decisions, and I don't much care. He should never hold an important executive position in any kind of public service as far as I'm concerned.
"I would not vote for Romney simply because he is a morman. "
If you're going to crap on a religion at least spell it correctly, and yes, you are bigoted.
In case you hadn't noticed, it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the Church of Joseph Smith.
Furthermore, should Romney be the GOP candidate in 2008, there are plenty of the religious right who would vote for him if Hillary was his opposition. Regardless of his religion, he is conservative, pro-life, pro-family and you won't be seeing any DUI charges or claims of draft-dodging at the last minute.
Vote for the candidate, not his religion.
I still find it amazing we're supposed to attack Romney on every thread for being a closet pro-lifer and trying to extend an olive branch to the pro-life crowd, but sweep Condi's openly pro-abortion position under the rug on every one of her threads. It's like how the "gay rights" crowd in Massacuttes spews the most vile hatred against Romney but some freepers insist he's a puppet who does their bidding.
FYI, Romney is the MOST conservative governor Massacuttes has had in decades (even though the previous THREE Governors of Mass. were "Republican") and it's amazing he got elected in that commie state. He's certainly better than Ahnuld who got elected in "more conservative" California (do see Ahnuld claiming to be personally pro-life, publically working to block "gay marrage" in San Francisco, or fighting with envirowackos?) I won't vote for Romney in the primary because they are better candidates, but I have problem voting for him in the general election against a socialist Dim. And I say this as someone who personally dislikes and distrusts Mormonism.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm sure a lot of people who refuse to support a "A woman's right to choose" get elected statewide in Mass. Like...ummm...eh...ah... nevermind.
Hell, Ashcroft had to grit his teeth and say Roe v. Wade was a "settled law of the land" just to get enough votes for confirmation in the U.S. Senate.
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.