UPDATE: Welcome readers of the Elect Romney in 2008 Blog.
****
A previous post previewed the Republican primary field for President, and closed with this question: Why Romney?
He's a leader, a conservative, and a man of action.
Romney's resume is more diverse than Giuliani's: successful businessman, mega-project troubleshooter, and innovative Governor. In fact, if one wants to avoid taking the time to read up on Romney, just watch the video at the link above. Impressive stuff as far as political videos go, and which drew praise from NRO's The Corner.
On the issues, there is much for conservatives to like about Romney's agenda. "Defeating the Jihadists" is issue number one, and was rhetorically supported by Romney's recent refusal to allow Massachusetts state resources to support a visit by former Iranian President Khatami to Harvard. Some will complain Romney doesn't have foreign policy credentials, but neither does Giuliani according to such filters.
Other issues are also worth noting on Romney's agenda include an emphasis on reining in government spending, implementing a balanced energy policy (including greater use of domestic resources as a bridge to future technology, alternative fuels, and conservation), and accountability in education to support the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Romney also finds a nice balance on immigration, supporting greater border security while emphasizing the long-overdue need to increase legal immigration for highly-skilled workers, which people like Bill Gates have realized is one of the more foolish domestic policy errors of our time. The quagmire debate about "amnesty" and guest worker programs for low-skilled workers has entrapped the mind-numbing policy of excluding exceptionally smart people who want to come work for American companies, in jobs those businesses have great trouble finding qualified people to fill.
Aside from Romney's agenda, he has a record putting conservative principles into action in the morass of liberal Massachusetts, so blue it makes Washington state look delightfully purple by comparison. Indeed, Romney seems a rare politician who seems willing to take on the teachers' unions:
To compete with China and India - "hardworking, educated, creative, innovative, family-oriented, mercantile" cultures - Romney proposes upgrading math and science education and paying top teachers as much as $15,000 extra a year."There's only one strong opposition group, and that's the teachers unions," he told me. "At some point, I think America - and, importantly, the minority communities - are going to say, 'it's time to split with our friends, the unions and the Democratic Party, and put our kids first here.' Unequal educational opportunity is the civil rights issue of our time."
More interestingly, his healthcare reform initiative in Massachusetts was a truly unique method to find common ground between the conservative impulse for market-driven reforms in healthcare, versus the liberal inclination to expand government regulation and control. Conservatives are split on the merits of the plan itself, with the influential Heritage Foundation playing a key role in crafting the measure, while more idealistic conservatives have persistent concerns. The point remains Romney found a conservative solution to an intractable philosophical divide, and got it passed in an exceedingly liberal state. That's leadership.
Beyond Romney's impressive resume, successful conservatism, and policy achievements, he candidly has the skill-set one needs to win a Presidential race in the modern age, including this description from a National Review profile:
Romney's own chiseled handsomeness only adds to the tale. "He has a lot of presence on television -- a real gift for the tube," says Republican media consultant Alex Castellanos. "Politics is all about communications these days, so that's really important."
Perhaps that's but one reason that Romney seems to attract a passionate following. Trusted guru David Yepsen of the all-powerful Iowa political scene calls Romney "impressive." Meanwhile, inside the Beltway, Romney continues to turn heads in assorted conservative circles, including wowing the crowd at a bash of conservative heavy hitters celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the National Review Online. And speaking of the blogosphere, a number of unofficial sites have sprung up to support Romney including Americans for Mitt, Elect Romney in 2008, Evangelicals for Mitt (more on that theme shortly), and locally there is Washingtonians for Mitt as well.
Aside from examples of the support Romney seems to be engendering around the country, it would be irresponsible not to scrutinize the organizations candidates are building in this era of modern campaigning. Accordingly, Romney has been creating a substantial network around the country, at this point superior to Giuliani's and behind only McCain. McCain, Romney, Frist, and Giuliani have been the leaders in showering federal campaign donations around the country in recent months through their leadership PACS (with Giuliani doing much as well headlining fundraisers for individual candidates), but Romney has also set up non-federal PACs in key states, to expand political operations in early 2008 battlegrounds. In addition, Romney has a network established through his work at the Republican Governor's Association to assist in infrastructure development and fundraising as well.
Alright, so there is much to like about Romney. What do the critics say? Well, he's Mormon. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And just about every major profile of Romney will discuss his religious affiliation.
Clearly, many Americans find Mormonism, well, odd - or will do so if they learn a little about it during Romney's candidacy. Moreover, self-ascribed Evangelical Christians, such as this author, have profound theological disagreements with Mormonism. Of course so do Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews, Muslims...oh, you get the point...and all those groups have disagreements to varying degrees with each other as well. But what actual impact will the Mormon issue have?
One interesting indication is this story about Harry Reid being the highest-ranking Mormon politician in the country. Reid's faith doesn't seem to be an issue at all in the US Senate, but voting for President is a unique excercise in American politics.
A Bloomberg-LA Times poll earlier this year said 35% of registered voters wouldn't vote for a Mormon to be President. However, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to display this form of religious bias, and one can probably surmise such Democrats aren't good bets to vote for any Republican, period. Interestingly, 22% of registered voters also said they wouldn't vote for an Evangelical to be President. Between George W. Bush's public faith and Al Gore's roots as a Southern Baptist - not too dissimilar from Evangelicals - once has to wonder what those 22% thought they were getting if they voted in 2000. Add all that up, and the real concern for Romney in the Republican primary season is how will social conservatives view his candidacy?
Early indications on this front are actually reasonably good. Kathryn Lopez at NRO reports Romney was well received at a Family Research Council event in Boston. Of course, Lopez has been jokingly accused of virtual stalking of the man from Massachusetts, so perhaps the findings of the more difficult to impress John Fund are worth considering:
The tall barrier many see as blocking his acceptance by evangelical voters--the fact that many Americans view Mormonism with suspicion or worse--may prove to be a mirage. "Everyone I talked to said they didn't have a problem with it," one attendee told me. "If enough people say that to each other, Romney creates a virtuous circle in which evangelical activists decide he's acceptable." Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, notes that something similar has happened in recent years as devout Catholic and evangelical Protestants have increasingly focused on areas of agreement. "Romney won't be the ideal choice for evangelicals, but against a McCain in the primary or a Hillary Clinton in the general election there's no doubt where most would go," he says.
The National Review profile of Romney also examined the social conservative angle:
a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment. "On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor," says Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "On a scale of one to ten, I'd rank him an eight, and I'm a tough grader."
On abortion, Romney has ruffled some feathers. He's personally pro-life, but took this prudent approach when running for Governor:
One of the leading issues in Romney's race was abortion: O'Brien proposed changing state law to let 16-year-old girls end their pregnancies without parental consent. Romney took a different tack. "I promised that if elected, I'd call a truce -- a moratorium, if you will," he says. "I vowed to veto any legislation that sought to change the existing rules." That may have made him operationally pro-choice -- "I fully respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose," he said during the campaign -- but none of the major pro-abortion groups would have anything to do with him.
Thus, fervent advocates on both sides of the issue now claim to be flummoxed by Romney's position, which on the national stage emphasizes his personal position instead of the overwhelming political will of the Massachusetts citizens he presently serves.
Bluntly, such advocates on both sides remain exceptionally good at hearing what they want to hear from candidates, and then growing upset when they find out their ideological hearing aids have served them poorly. Moreover, since neither Giuliani nor McCain are darlings of social conservatives, it seems that despite initial question marks, Romney might actually fare the best among such activists of the three Republican candidates most likely to still be seriously in the fray after Iowa and New Hampshire.
If these are the worst complaints against Romney they are likely survivable, and certainly no worse than the conservative angst against McCain, and potential problems for Giuliani over a broader array of social issues. Even Newt Gingrich seems to agree. In the same interview where he declared his intent to stay mum on Presidential aspirations until September of next year, this was said:
WALLACE: With George Allen and Rick Santorum now apparently out, is there a vacuum on the right for a candidate appealing to true conservatives?GINGRICH: Well, there's probably a vacuum, but you have to be fair. Governor Mitt Romney is working very hard to fill that vacuum, and may well succeed. Senator McCain would like to find a way to fill that vacuum and is working very hard at it.
...
I do think on the movement right, in the areas that produced Ronald Reagan and produced Barry Goldwater, there's a yearning for a clearer voice of conservatism. And I think that Mitt Romney has an opportunity to fill that.
There you have it. Mitt Romney: principled leader, pragmatic man of accomplishments, and the conservative alternative to McCain to boot. He even looks good on TV. Sign me up.
UPDATE: Commenter "anonymous" doesn't like the Big Dig. Most people don't. Of course the project broke ground in 1991, after years of permitting and environmental delays. Romney wasn't elected Governor until 2002, and has actually made a name for himself dealing with some of the problems associated with the project, and insisting on reform of the independent agency that runs it.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 21, 2006 07:26 AM | Email ThisThat should be "reining in government spending," not "reigning in." A frequent error, seen even in newspapers sometimes, and a hard one to understand.
Posted by: stu on November 21, 2006 08:18 AMRomney is real in his commitment. He is genuinely concern with his constituents. The issue you're posting is out of truth, period!
Posted by: analyzer on November 21, 2006 09:05 AMRomney is real in his commitment. He is genuinely concern with his constituents. The issue you're posting is out of truth, period!
Posted by: analyzer on November 21, 2006 09:07 AMRomney is real in his commitment. He is genuinely concern with his constituents. The issue you're posting is out of truth, period!
Posted by: analyzer on November 21, 2006 09:08 AMHaving said that, and given the choices currently available, Go Mitt!
Posted by: Hoplophile on November 21, 2006 09:09 AMAs for Mormonism, it's a little goofy (sort of like what Scientology will have evolved into a hundred years from now, I guess), but unless a candidate worships the Great Old Ones (yay Cthulu!), I don't consider religion to be a relevant campaign issue.
Posted by: HT on November 21, 2006 09:28 AMONLY IF...
A state's gun control law is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (and every law limiting a law-abiding citizen's gun ownership ABSOLUTELY AND IMPLICITLY infringes Second Amendment rights),
and ONLY IF...
SCOTUS decides they want to hear the case
and ONLY IF...
SCOTUS isn't packed with liberal activist judges who think their job is to modify the Constitution instead of interpret it.
But, as you say, this isn't the place for us to have to listen to your statist gun-control propaganda.
Posted by: sro on November 21, 2006 10:33 AM It would appear that you have some strange preconcieved
ideas about the Lds church. I am not going get
into a religious discussion about all this.
Its not the right place for it. Instead of
saying things like you did. Talk to an active
member of the church to find out more about us.
Now then I'm sure some of you maybe wondering
what I think about Mitt.Let me first say I like
Mitt a great deal.That a republican can win
as decisively as he did in Mass. Is pretty
impressive.My only real concern about him
is for some reason the decision was made in
his campaign for governor that portrayed him
as being pro-choice. When in reality Mitt is
pro-life.I can only guess why that happened.
Mitt will have to try and convince some voters
about what his postion really is on abortion.
I know what he is so it doesn't bother me.
Would I vote for Mitt? without any hesitation
I most certainly would.
He's on my A list at this time.
Posted by: RBW on November 21, 2006 11:00 AMIt's a supply and demand issue, there is a demand for unskilled workers in this country, and there is a supply of people desperate enough to make the crossing across a desert to settle here and try to gain a better quality of life than they had back home.
Some H1B's come to this country, work for a while, gain knowledge of western business practices, then return home to found their own companies to compete against their former American employers.
Oh yeah, M&M, while your at it. Talk to someone on an H1B sometime, it's pretty much well paid indentured servitude. They pay taxes but get none of the benefits they paid for since they can be shipped home at any time.
I am trying to put my evangelical leanings behind me in addressing the Mormon issue; I may take Phil up on his idea of sitting down with a Mormon and discussing the issue. I have read the book of Mormon and found some of it weird, but then I can imagine someone picking up the Holy Bible and trying to understand some of the stories in there (Jonah, Methuselah, etc.)
You have got to be kidding. Both religions share the same basic literalist interpretations of the scripture... they just have different versions of it. Both seem to be moral absolutists and have THE answers to all the worlds problems, if only we would all just give in and see things exactly the way they do.
Sorry, I'll pass on Mitt and wait for a candidate that believes in States Rights and keeping the Federal Government out of our personal lives.
Posted by: Splinter on November 21, 2006 01:18 PMNot to mention God telling the Isrealites to commit Genocide (kill man, woman, and child) to claim their promised land and a few times later on.
Sit down with a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, and an animist too if you can find one...all worth your time.
Posted by: dell on November 21, 2006 01:24 PMFiscal responsibility is going to be the #1 issue for conservative voters in 2008. More even than the conduct of the war in Iraq, fiscal responsibility, and a proven track record thereof, is going to be front and center for every honest conservative; and many independents and swing voters too.
The American people are going to want a man with a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of solving fiscal problems on large scales. That Mitt is often able to work across aisles to get things done is doubly to his benefit.
Would Mitt beat McCain or Rudy in the primaries? I dunno. I do know that if Mitt does get beat, whoever wins would be VERY SMART to pick Mitt up as the Veep. This is a quality public servant who will be able to get good things done for America.
Any conservative who doesn't think Mitt is a good candidate, based purely on his religion, is a moron. Sorry. It's true. Mitt's resume speaks for itself, and until he gets beaten or bows out, I am rooting for him. And voting for him, if it gets that far.
Posted by: Sub-Odeon on November 21, 2006 01:46 PM(The national security creds of Rudy Giuliani--my enthusiastic pick--are really outstanding. He prosecuted terrorists in the U.S. Justice Department, drained the criminal swamp in NYC as its mayor, and his consulting firm has worked with local and foreign governments and international private firms on a host of security matters. Few people have as much expertise on international criminal syndicates as Rudy does. And he's immersed himself in homeland protection and national security policy since he left office. No one is smarter or tougher on security issues. And that's why Rudy is the one to win over Reichert voters--and why he'll be the next president. Rudy can't fail.)
Posted by: DJ on November 21, 2006 02:17 PMand for the record, Mormonism really isn't the 'strange' or 'goofy' thing many of you seem to think it is. If you have any questions, feel free to email me, I've been a practicing mormon for over 22 years.
Oh, and the scientology comment was amongst the most ignorant things i've ever heard someone say about the church. Before you speak, get to know the subject matter.
Rudi is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-gun control.
His security creds ARE impressive, but excepting that one area, he out-democrats many democrats. And, as a result, he won't win in most primaries (Can you see the South going his way?) And, that's not to mention his personal baggage over the idiotic way he dealt with the mistress/divorce issue in the NY Mayor's Mansion
Romney is an impressive guy on paper... but his association with David Nierenberg, a top Washington State democrat donor and amateur political manipulator (See Burkman/Campbell 17th LD) kills the deal for me. Why would Nierenberg carry a guy like Romney's water? In the end, it doesn't matter. That he is is all I need to know.
Who do I support? Frankly, I haven't made a decision. But when it comes to these two... Posted by: Hinton on November 21, 2006 02:40 PMAs for the rest of your allegations, you're flat-out wrong. Rudy is NOT pro-abortion. He's on the record saying that he opposes abortion. To be sure, he's also on record saying that, as mayor of New York, he wouldn't call for legislating limits to abortion. (Which, I'm sorry to say, puts him exactly in the mainstream of his NYC constituents.) But he's also said that, if he were president, he'd have picked Antonin Scalia as Chief Justice. And he's also said that he supports judges like Roberts and Alito. "How could you NOT be a strict constructionist?" he's asked.
Rudy is also not "pro-gay marriage." In fact, he's expressly stated that marriage is and must be defined as between a man and a woman. He opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, but only because he didn't see a need to enact it. But he left the door open to approving it if hell-bent activist judges force their will on the rest of us. Oh, and I think that, as Mayor, he said he was in favor of some sort of civil unions for gays. As do, by the way, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Oh, and Rudy's supported gun control in the past. Not a huge surprise, seeing as how most federal prosecutors and local police do. I predict that, of all the positions Rudy's taken in the past, this is the one he junks. Candidate Rudy will be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
So, dude, you're basically wrong. Which isn't your fault, seeing as how the MSM has lied about and distorted Rudy's record for years. Get ready for the truth.
Posted by: DJ on November 21, 2006 02:55 PMI don't care what his resume' says he's an relative UNKNOWN and will not get elected.
The prize fight will be:
Rudy & Condi vs. Clinton and Obama
Posted by: Jack Burton on November 21, 2006 03:12 PMBTW, I am more than passingly familiar with the precepts, principles, and claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints™. I've even had LDS friends, although things became strained when they tried to "explain" things to me. IMHO, any religion that starts out with the idea that Hebrews migrated to North America in 600 B.C. and that its essential truths were uncovered by some guy in upstate New York in the 1820's by deciphering buried golden tablets written in Egyptian (which are now, tragically, not available for inspection) using divination is right up there with the, er, imaginative stylings of L. Ron Hubbard.
Oops, there I go again. Better call my lawyer. And embrace my inner Thetan.
Romney is from Taxachusetts, so he could work with the liberals and probably lessen the polarization that has become endemic since 1992 and ramped up some after 2000. That would be more healthy for a society that has become less and less socially redeeming values by the year.
Posted by: KS on November 21, 2006 08:39 PMHis father was a better candidate.
Posted by: thor on November 21, 2006 09:38 PMThune IS qualified......I prefer Condi.
Besides it's time we run something besides middle aged white dudes.
Posted by: Jack Burton on November 22, 2006 12:24 PMThe decision to "portray himself as pro-choice" "when in reality, he's pro-life"??? Here are two quotes from Romney on abortion.
"In an October 1994 debate with US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, Romney said: 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." (boston.com, "Romney releases mother's statement on abortion issue.'" 6/28/05)
"While I've said time and again that I oppose abortion, I've also indicated that I would not change in any way the abortion laws of Massachusetts, and I've honored my promises," Romney said during a press conference at the Radisson Center of New Hampshire before a scheduled speech to the New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. (Boston Globe, 6/4/2005)
Eric,
You and Podhoretz are much alike. You criticize McCain for not having what it takes to gain the support of the conservative base, only to pump up your preferred candidate who is much like McCain. Podhoretz with Giuliani and you with Romney. All three (McCain, Giuliani and McCain) are liberal Republicans who are now posing as conservatives because they are running for president.
Let's be fair here. I realize you don't like McCain, Giuliani, or Romney, but that doesn't mean the "liberal Republican" label fits.
McCain, for all his faults, is on the whole a conservative based on the totality of his positions. Granted, he's an unorthodox one, and one that irritates many other conservatives (including you and I), but he's no liberal.
For his part, Giuliani has shown himself to be a clear conservative on every major issue he's dealt with in public office, including crime, welfare, taxes, education, and anti-terror policy. Obviously, he has in the past made statements on many social issues that may get him in trouble with Republican voters. However, it seems likely that since he's now seeking to represent a national constituency rather than a large, urban center that he'll take a states' rights approach to such issues. Many social conservatives won't be happy with that, but some will be able to live with it, as will many non-social conservatives given his other strengths. Moreover, given the conservative governing philosophy he has in the past demonstrated in non-federal elected office, one would think it prudent to give him at least a brief stint on the Presidential campaign trail before branding him a "liberal."
Meanwhile, attempting to lump Romney into the same "liberal Republican" clan as Linc Chaffee, Arlen Specter, and Dan Evans doesn't work at all. He's far from liberal on gay marriage or stem cell research. In addition, just for examples sake, he's also pushed consistently conservative ideas on education and healthcare, when the "liberal Republican" response has traditionally been to throw more money at the problem.
I realize you don't like Romney's statements on abortion, or Giuliani's for that matter. I think you yourself would admit, however, that you approach pro-life issues firmly from one side of the spectrum of that debate. In addition, those issues seem to be the largest motivator for your political activism, and a dominant lens through which you view candidates. That's fine, but it's worth remembering that many Republicans are not Republicans for the same reasons you are (though many do obviously give some care to pro-life issues), and thus take different approaches to different candidates for different reasons.
You have your reasons for disliking McCain, Giuliani, and Romney; that much is clear. But the "liberal Republican" label is misplaced, because at the end of the day, or the end of the primary season, most Republican Presidential Primary voters are not going to agree that all three are "liberal Republicans." Sure, such voters will find reasons for disagreement with various candidates, some rather strongly, but they're not likely to agree with that descriptor.
I realize as usual, we'll have to agree to disagree about a lot of the above. But I just don't think the "liberal" label is used correctly in this case.
Hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 22, 2006 08:20 PM
In HIM
T&T
Capitol 3
Taxes in Arkansas are lower, health care coverage for kids in between govt and private insurance, and schools, roads, and parks are all better. (I can hear the "progressives" who patrol these boards scratching their heads wondering how that's even possible. Less money, yet better schools?!?)
Personally, I don't care that Mike Huckabee was/is a Baptist minister that has urged the teaching of creationism in schools. That seems like such a non-issue when compared to preventing a national healthcare system, breaking up the government monopoly on schools, and fixing social security so that I just might receive it someday. But I'm afraid that the MSM would use it to make him sound like a religious zealot.
Posted by: Huckabee2008 on November 23, 2006 12:13 AMI offer this to those of you who are skeptical about Romney's ability to deal with difficult issues: Read his book _Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games_. In it, Romney describes what he and his team did to take the 2002 Winter Games from scandal and deficit to acclaim and profit. That includes all the security issues they dealt with after 9-11. I came away from the book thinking: "I want this man as the President."
Posted by: David on November 23, 2006 04:58 AMHe doesn't have any political values, except for what the mormon profit (prophet) says are his values. He prefers the profit to the book of mormon and the book of mormon always takes precedence over the bible.
Posted by: The Brother of Jared on November 25, 2006 04:59 PMHis membership in the church hasn't in any way affected his very successul term as Governor of Massachusetts nor did it during his role in the 2002 Olympics. The church doesn't control its members, they are 'agents unto themselves.' As long as you're trying to sound so knowledgable about the church, you should have at least known that. Romney's 'time and talents' have only helped the people he has served.
Oh, and as far as the 'preferring the profit to the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon taking precedence over the Bible,' I invite you to study up on your confusing little sentence and find what we really believe.
McCain and Guiliani are much too moderate, the base knows this and they will not be nominated.
Posted by: CJ on November 28, 2006 10:28 AM