Clearing the decks?
posted at 7:27 am on July 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Can any man put a value on the quality of forgiveness? Mitt Romney can — and it’s $45 million. The Boston Globe reports that Romney has filed papers to forgive that much in personal loans he made to his campaign, eliminating his debt. Why shrug off a fortune instead of raising money to recover it? Three guesses:
Mitt Romney, whose prospects of becoming John McCain’s running mate appear on the rise, is preparing to formally declare he will not seek donations to repay $45 million in personal loans he made to his failed presidential bid – the biggest ever made by a candidate in a primary campaign.
The move could clear away the last remnants of a divisive primary race, ensuring that he and his financial supporters are focused on helping McCain, but it could also put him at odds with McCain’s campaign reform message.
Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said yesterday that the former Massachusetts governor is preparing to have the loans “reclassified as contributions” and will write a letter to the Federal Election Commission explaining that he is “forgiving the outstanding loans.”
Some analysts said McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, might undermine his reform message if he picks someone who bankrolled so much of his own campaign.
The elimination of the debt gives Romney a fresh star, if he plans on joining McCain on the ticket. It allows him to focus on the general election rather than fundraisers for himself, which would be true even if Romney didn’t join the ticket. However, it’s hard to imagine that Romney would essentially pay $45 million for the privilege of being a bundler for McCain. That’s a lot of money to take out of his family’s hands, even for a man whose worth easily gets into the low- to mid-nine figures.
Would Romney damage McCain’s campaign-reform credentials? The BCRA had the so-called Millionaires Amendment which compensated for self-financed campaigns, but it didn’t disallow them. (The Supreme Court threw it out last month.) Besides, the Democrats can’t possibly use this as a campaign issue, not when their own Hope And Change Reformer threw public financing under the bus. And a McCain-Romney ticket would still be within the public financing system, subject to the same spending limitations, regardless of how rich Romney still is.
Romney clearly wanted a clean start for some reason. McCain has recently warmed to Romney, and the running-mate rumors continue to gain strength. This will only boost them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Maybe Romney needs a tax deduction.
bloggless on July 17, 2008 at 7:35 AM
I have to agree, Ed. This certainly appears to be the quickest, most personally painful route to quickly settle the outstanding debt… and there’s only one real reason to go that route.
Mitt as VP will surely scare away a handful of hardcore “conservatives” but I still think its Senator McCain’s best choice.
12thman on July 17, 2008 at 7:37 AM
I suppose that might be true. Mitt’s money raised arguments even among conservatives, who you would think would be fine with people choosing how to spend their own money.
It is sad though that McCain’s vices are his virtues to the general electorate. CFR is no rose.
Spirit of 1776 on July 17, 2008 at 7:39 AM
By “conservatives” you mean bigots who think that if you don’t worship Jesus the way they do, you don’t belong in the White House, yes?
Blarg the Destroyer on July 17, 2008 at 7:46 AM
McCain let slip yesterday, that he would pick someone “young”. hmmmm…Mitt is pretty young.
It was mentioned in an answer to a 9 yr old boy at a press conference. He told the boy he would pick someone like him.
I agree he is McCain’s best choice.
becki51758 on July 17, 2008 at 7:48 AM
In all that I’ve read about choosing a running mate, here’s something that I haven’t seen: euphony. How does the pairing sound? Does “McCain-Romney” sound better to the ear and feel better to the tongue than, say, “McCain-Palin”? Is there gravitas here?
njcommuter on July 17, 2008 at 7:51 AM
And it will make others more willing to vote for McCain. Romney was the first choice of a lot of conservatives.
Shay on July 17, 2008 at 7:53 AM
Or maybe he has enough money that he isn’t interested in groveling for dollars to pay back the loan.
David in ATL on July 17, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Mitt was not the first choice among conservatives Shay, Fred was. If Fred entered the race in April or May he would have won the race but since he enter in September he had no chance.
Fred was the only choice for conservatives. Fred was a conservative during his senate life, while Mitt was a liberal during his governor life.
BroncosRock on July 17, 2008 at 7:59 AM
I’m not sure what a hardcore “conservative” is, but I don’t think McCain got many of their primary votes.
BigD on July 17, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Gee, it must be nice to be so filthy stinking rich that you can pretty much just sniff at the concept of watching $45 million go flying out the window and then just go about your business with nary a thought to the contrary. A true demonstration of fiscal responsibility at its absolute zenith.
And people wonder why the country is in such an economic mess right now, with brilliant logic like this?
Do what you want with your own big bucks, Mitt baby, but if you think you’re coming anywhere near my taxpayer dollars, no way dude!
pilamaye on July 17, 2008 at 8:05 AM
Hehe, adorable.
e-pirate on July 17, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Ah, I think we have found of 12thman’s hardcore “conservatives.”
BigD on July 17, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Ya, he might be beholden to himself for favors later on… are these people serious?
TheBigOldDog on July 17, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Mitt Romney racked up a debt, and then paid it off. He is no defaulter. That is fiscal responsibility.
OldEnglish on July 17, 2008 at 8:18 AM
And it will make others more willing to vote for McCain. Romney was the first choice of a lot of conservatives.
I don’t know, if I were in McCain’s shoes, I’m not sure this would be a good thing. I mean, for a 72-year-old guy to have a more younger and popular guy (among a large portion of your supporters) waiting in the wings might not be the most comfortable situation.
Tom_Shipley on July 17, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Fred was first choice with some conservatives. Romney was first choice with others. Palin is a particularly popular choice here, with good reason. The field isn’t limited to these.
Fred says he wouldn’t accept VP nomination, so that’s out – but a more conservative VP choice might make it easier for those who dislike McCain. That’s all I was saying.
Shay on July 17, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Gov. Romney took almost as much vitriole from conservatives as Sen. McCain did, because they viewed his more conservative positions as adopted for political convenience, not genuine.
Once John McCain had the nomination assured, Mitt Romney began to look much better. Whatever his past, Gov. Romney had never openly disdained conservative positions the way the Senator had.
At this point, Mitt Romney’s selection would do much to improve the ticket’s credentials with conservatives, who are essential to solidifying the Republican vote. At the same time, Gov. Romney’s obvious qualifications and presidential manner would not turn off independents and Democrats seeking an alternative to Obambi.
Better yet, I can see Mitt Romney helping the ticket in Michigan, New Hampshire, some western states, and even in Massachusetts, where he still has lots of fans.
That makes his selection practically a no-brainer.
“MCCAIN-ROMNEY: KEEP AMERICA SAFE AND PROSPEROUS!”
MrLynn on July 17, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Yes, that’s for the most part who I am talking about.
12thman on July 17, 2008 at 8:24 AM
There has been talk, which Senator McCain to my knowledge has never discouraged, to the effect that he might serve only one term. And of course some voters worry about electing a man “so old” (though these days the Biblical “three score and ten” is no longer the end of the line). So it would make sense to have a younger but clearly presidential VP waiting in the wings.
For this reason it wouldn’t make sense to pick a really youthful VP, like Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin. You want someone “a heartbeat away” who can step into the Presidency without causing great apprehension in the nation.
MrLynn on July 17, 2008 at 8:32 AM
It would be nice to have a Republican on the ticket.
bill30097 on July 17, 2008 at 8:33 AM
I’m going to stand by my long hunch,Mitt will be the VP,
period!
canopfor on July 17, 2008 at 8:40 AM
You should get some professional help for that raging case of class envy that seems to be eating you alive. Most counties have free mental health clinics that are chocked full of folks like you. They will not be able to eliminate your dementia, but they will teach you to keep it to yourself to minimize the number of folks that laugh at you.
David in ATL on July 17, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Mitt is only a decade younger than McCain, he is 60, he just doesent look a year over 45
Squid Shark on July 17, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Here’s an idea for all you Palin fans:
McCain-Romney 2008; Romney-Palin 2012.
Buy Danish on July 17, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Do tell, just which “hardcore conservatives” that would flatly reject Romney haven’t already flatly rejected McCain? Romney is securely to the right of McCain on nearly every issue that matters.
spmat on July 17, 2008 at 9:00 AM
The only foreseeable way that McCain gets my vote is if Romney’s on the ticket. If not, I may just vote for Hope and Change, The New Centrist Edition.
Seixon on July 17, 2008 at 9:15 AM
With the economy tanking under a lame duck president and a totally incompetent democratic leadership in the Congress, Romney is the only light on the dim economical horizon. McCain is not economy oriented and Obambi knows even less so the options are limited. Can Obambi buy an election supported by a bought and paid for MSM. Stay tuned.
volsense on July 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Romney-Palin 2012
Buy Danish on July 17,2008 at 8:56PM.
Buy Danish: I’m getting a tingle,but unlike
Chris Mathews,it is not going up
my leg! haha—————–:)
canopfor on July 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Buy Danish on July 17, 2008 at 8:56 AM
—-
Hmmm. Jindal got left out somewhere, though.
Mew
acat on July 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM
.
Pretty poor ‘analysts’, if they think that someone who didn’t borrow money to run, but used his own money, is somehow contrary to the reform message. McCain-Romney 08 – I could deal with that.
Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM
No, because most Americans could give a rip about campaign-finance reform.
CP on July 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Ok, can we retire this type of bigoted response already? (Yes, I’m calling YOU out.) I know a lot of strong Christian believers, and Mitt’s religion was NEVER a factor for them.
Many of us DID have concerns about why he flip-flopped on some social issues without any explanation. Just like with McCain, we were worried that he would flip-flop back after we “fulfilled our expected duty” to vote him into office. So, Mitt made us uneasy on the social conservative side.
All the Christians I know, backed other candidates who held longer, consistent social conservative views.
dominigan on July 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM
J-Mac!!! Don’t do it!
1) Romney is a new convert to conservatism. Him on the ticket would take away any flip-flop label we could pin on BO’s lapel.
2) If we have two White guys on the ticket, BO will get millions of votes from people who want something different for a CHANGE.
3) The Dems will relentlessly air all of the footage of Romney & McCain sniping at each other during the primaries.
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM
4) Not to mention the anti-Mormon factor.
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Z-z-z-z-z-z.
whitetop on July 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM
McCain/Palin ‘08!
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Actually, with GW releasing land for drilling, Palin may just be the choice.
OldEnglish on July 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Be honest. You mean your anti-Mormon factor.
I am Christian; I have no problem with a Mormon being president. He was a governor, you know. And really, they put a book of Mormon in every hotel room across the country (or they used to.) I don’t hear anyone complaining about Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch being Mormon.
BigD on July 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Wow–you read something in my heart that I had no idea was there.
And I’m against BO because he’s Black, right?
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Nice–ignore the facts that I presented, so you can make assumptions based on no facts.
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 10:18 AM
So, just to recap:
*The liberal news media are pushing hard for Romney on the ticket.
*The GOP primary field was wide open. Romney spent huge money, he had a nationwide organization, he’d been planning to run for POTUS since his first trimester, and he still lost.
But hey, who cares about that? Let’s force-feed this guy to America to prove that Southerners don’t run the GOP anymore!
Mr. Wednesday Night on July 17, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Yep. But remember, McCain’s campaign has been over since March. If he is still $45 million in the hole now, he’d be lucky to raise more than $1-2 million before the RNC (when he would no longer be allowed to raise money and would have to eat the money anyway). He isn’t walking away from $45 million — only a few million. He likely decided $1-2 million wasn’t worth the effort to raise it and the distraction it might cause for McCain. I wouldn’t read anything else into it.
As for all this talk about Romney as VP, why people, why?? The guy never took off because he came across as incredibly fake. His flip-flopping and game show host persona didn’t allow people to warm to him. (A guy I used to work with called him Wink Martindale, and it fits!) That’s not what you want to pair with McCain. Second look at Palin!
Outlander on July 17, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Oh, I would certainly hope not.
On the Mormon issue, I think it was pretty observable during the primaries that the people who brought up the anti-Mormon issue were the ones that had the anti-Mormon issue. Mitt gave a great speech on religious freedom, he has said he believes in Christ — what more do you want?
I am not trying to read anything into your heart.
BigD on July 17, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Absurd. What else would you have Romney do, except maybe off himself? He’s not asking you to pay it back, is he?
Possibly your dumbest comment yet. That’s a provisional ruling while I check the archives.
DrSteve on July 17, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Oh, please yes, Romney for VP. Well, Romney for Pres but this is the next best thing. I think McCain needs Romney to pull in more conservtives. I need Romney because I need to feel good about voting for McCain.
Amy Proctor on July 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Jindal and Palin can spend the next 4 years trying to outdo each other as conservatives, which is a win-win for America.
Buy Danish on July 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Fixed it for ya.
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Oh …. okay.
BigD on July 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
All of you anti-Mitt people need to remember that Reagan was not liked either the 1st time he ran. You also talk about his “liberal” positions on some issues. As far as I know, Mitt has always been a republican and Reagan was a democrat before becoming a republican.
Mitt has the executive experience in government and in the real world. Mitt is a can-do will-do type of person. We need Mitt on the ticket.
Forget about Jindal and Palin. They need to complete their terms as governors and prove that they can manage a state before stepping up to the national stage. After they have proven themselves and matured, they will make excellent candidates.
cjs1943 on July 17, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Are you referring to the morning or afternoon addition?
Syd B. on July 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Right. But while it pains me to say so, I think that matters. Look, LDS voters split heavily in favor of Republicans. Having Romney on the ticket will only increase that vote share substantially if the Mormon Imperious Leader comes out and orders all Mormons to vote for McCain/Romney — but, of course, that’s not going to happen. So Romney’s Mormonism doesn’t add votes to the ticket.
But, McCain has a lukewarm relationship with Christian voters. And while it may be unfair, many Christians don’t like Mormons. And many swing voters think Mormons are weird polygamists with too many kids. Again, while it might be unfair, it’s a liability.
So what does Romney add to the ticket to offset that liability? Well, he’s a successful businessman and turnaround manager who has a compelling story. While gas wasn’t $4+ per gallon back in GOP primary season, it was high, and Romney was ultimately not able to leverage that persona to win. Why would he be able to do so now?
Outlander on July 17, 2008 at 11:11 AM
A few more things have happened since then, no?
DrSteve on July 17, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Reagan became a Republican back in the 1960s and cut his teeth supporting Barry Goldwater in 1964. He governed California from the right for two terms, and in 1976 was the leading movement conservative bucking a more centrist GOP leadership. That’s a very different life story than Mitt Romney, whose explanation for becoming pro-life was that while governor of Massachusetts, he was asked to sign a stem cell bill and only then did it dawn on him that abortion is bad.
Romney has a place in the Republican party, to be sure, and I don’t deny that Romney has some conservative ideas. But health insurance mandates and flip-flops on important social issues hurt his conservative bona fides and made him look opportunistic.
Outlander on July 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I have a naive question. I’m not being rude, but:
On what planet does ‘Romney as VP’ bring home ‘conservatives’???
Here’s the docket on Mitt:
-came to a ‘grand realization’ on abortion a few years ago, and changed his mind at age 40something on an issue he’s known about his entire life
-ceo type in a year that doesn’t favor ceo types, and as much as the mitt backers on here push that voters will want a money guy to handle the economy, all i hear is that mike huckabee quote being used in a DNC ad, “voters want a president who is like their co-worker instead of someone who is like their boss’
-liberal policy record by working with boston legislature. again, i see DNC ads in ‘purple states’ basically calling the REPUBLICANS the ‘liberals’
-he’s mormon. yes, stop fuming, this is a real issues. i’d like to think everyone was accepting of everyone, but people aren’t. this isn’t the time for some social experiment, and i don’t quite think that the RNC understands how HUUUUUUUGE of an issue this is in the south. i’ve heard more ‘mitt is mormon’ comments when talking about politics this last year than i’ve heard that ‘obama is a secret muslim’ (and i’ve heard the latter waaay too much in my church :). I don’t care either way, but when the party that relies on southern baptists in many states nominates a guy who southern baptists officially define as being in a ‘cult’ is pretty stupid.
So tell me again how he is the answer to conservative wants? I’m not bashing Mitt, I just think the posters on here who think that Mitt will ‘bring home conservatives’ are crazy. By that logic, let’s nominate Lamar Alexander. He’s such a household name of conservatism!
Finally, need i remind you that MITT IS A LOSER? $100 million campaign, 50 state ground game, millions of Mormon supporters in those 50 states, bought tv ads like there’s no tomorrow…..
….and mitt LOST.
….mitt lost to MIKE HUCKABEE.
….mitt lost to the un-conservative MCCAIN.
even worse, mitt won some small western caucuses, but when people actually VOTED, when folks had a chance to have their say, mitt won exactly…….
…THREE (3) STATES
Utah (mormon Mecca)
Massachusetts (mitt was gov.)
Michigan (mitt’s dad was gov., and he won with like 39%)
Tell me again how a guy that can’t win ANY states outside his “already supposed to win” states with cash, good looks, and tv ads will be good in the general????
(there are many superior vp picks, but if mccain wants to be president and not senator from arizona pick SARAH PALIN. She can claim foreign policy experience seeing as how her state borders 2 nations, russia and canada. she can claim something barry never had, executive experience of a state and as mayor. she can claim working with the federal government seeing as how alaska is like 80% federally owned. and with her fighting corruption/anti-pork stance (veto bridge to nowhere) she actually wins fiscal cons. plus, with that pick alone mccain picks up nevada, brings back indiana, wisconsin, ohio, maybe PA.. he’ll even put new jersey into play simply by palin’s quality of being a woman. that’s 300+ Electoral votes right there. but what do i know — apparently a hundred-million-dollar loser that is viewed (wrongly, but still viewed) by a quarter of the country as a cult member that can’t win a single election unless a family member has been governor is the choice for us.)
And DC wonders why GOP identification is at an all time low!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
battleoflepanto1571 on July 17, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The GOP ship lacks a helmsman. I don’t see anyone in the GOP providing effective leadership. We don’t even bother to get candidates to run in several of our Senate and House races. Newt has actually provided more leadership in this election cycle through American Solutions than anyone I’ve seen, and he isn’t running for anything!
Seriously, let’s take an impromptu poll. Is anyone here seriously excited and pumped about McCain? Or, every time you think of McCain, do you primarily think “he’s better than Obama” or “he’s the lesser of two evils?” I don’t know about you all, but I’m squarely in the latter camp.
Outlander on July 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Outlander, and the anti_Romney groups: if not him, who? Jindal’s star has faded–he’s not going to get the nod. Too many people saw the debacle of the Louisiana reform bill and pay raise, so now on Jindal it’s “wait and see.” Which I’m fine with–if Jindal can prove he can walk the walk, by all means, let’s bring him back in the future.
Fred’s out of the race. So the only other really acceptable choice would be Palin. I’m talking about a conservative, of course. It may well be that McCain goes the Crist or Lieberman route. But if he goes “conservative VP”–who?
Romney has, basically, three negatives. The first he can’t do anything: He’s a white male, in this election year of identity politics. On the other hand, he is, I’m told, good looking and some of the women might go for that.
The next one is his religion. The Jeremiah Wright issue took that partially off the table, and the presence of Senator Reid is also useful–after all, if someone questions him on it, he can say that if Reid, a Mormon, is good enough for the Dem’s to have as majority leader, then why not as VP? The Mormon thing will only affect the die-hard Huckabee supporter types. How many of them are going to vote for McCain anyway? And how many of them are going to vote for the Jeremiah Wrights of the world? Yeah, Romney will lose a few votes on the bigot front, but then, putting Palin or Jindal will also lose votes on a bigoted front too– the people who don’t vote for an uppity woman, etc. Besides, it’s not like Romney will be president–just VP, and that’s a lot less “scary” for the “Mormons are people who eat babies” crowd.
The third knock on Romney is his alleged flip-flops. He’s admitted one, on abortion, and he explained why he changed. And that was just a change in position, not a flip flop. But he laid out his rationale and everything. With Obama doing his best impression of a weathervane in a tornado, I don’t think Romney can legitimately be compared to him.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Romney had to govern the most liberal state in the union, and as such, was forced to compromise on some issues to get other things done. So the knock on Romney is really, he was a governor in the Northeast rather than, say, Alabama or Idaho–some safely conservative state. Would he have been the same “squishy” governor in Utah? Highly unlikely!
Romney brings a lot to the table, as everyone knows. Of all the main candidates, he’s got executive experience (more than Palin or Jindal), he’s got a history of turning around troubled entities, and he has more economic cred than anyone on either side of the aisle. Palin has energy cred, but Romney has been saying the same things just as long as her–he wouldn’t be twitchy on energy either. Romney shores up McCain on economics policy, his admitted weakness. He can threaten to get minnesota, and with the debacle Massachuessets is going through with the new governor, Romney is probably looked on more fondly there as well. He helps in the west, too.
Vanceone on July 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
That probably is most of us. There are a few of the hard core here who think the slightest criticism of McCain is treason.
sloopy on July 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
There is a lot of talk here about who was the first choice for many conservatives. Remember, though, that the field was littered with candidates last summer and fall. So the first choice is not really relevant. The real question now is who was the second choice during the primaries. Answer: Mitt Romney. Mitt takes the prize, hands down, for being the second choice for many conservatives and republicans in the primaries. That’s a fact that cannot be overlooked, nor discounted. Many people liked Mitt, and as a VP candidate, he would be a nice balance to McCain.
Troy Rasmussen on July 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Mitt had Huckabee, Fred!, and McCain all shooting arrows at him. Now he can focus on defeating Barry alone.
As for his “flip flops on social issues”, he moved to the right. That is not a flip flop, anymore than the fact that I, a former Democrat, moved to the right and joined the Republican Party is a “flip flop”.
Buy Danish on July 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM
again, not to be rude, but wouldn’t this fabulous 2nd placer win more than 3 states, 2 of them where his family has been govenor? heck, huckabee won a half-dozen states and has more delegates than mitt. in my world that’s “2nd place”
i don’t DISLIKE mitt, i just think commenters on hotair (and there are a lot) that see mitt08 as the second coming of fred!07, a savior to ‘conservatives’, have lost their marbles. again, an abortion flip-flopper that yes is a mormon that COULDNT WIN A SINGLE STATE OUTSIDE OF HIS family ties states is somehow a household name to the GOP?
the typical gop voter won’t care that romney is a good businessman; the typical gop voter had their chance and said ‘bye bye’ to mitt.
i’m just curious how you know that mitt is the 2nd choice, “hands down, that’s a fact!” seems like huckabee is what we call the “actual” 2nd placer, and mitt is the $100 million loser.
also, you’re telling me people REALLY liked mitt but voted Mccain over mitt because they all LOVED mccain? WHAT?? i’ve seen the gallup polls where so many gop are lukewarm to mccain. how on earth can you say that ‘oh, the gop wanted to vote for mitt, it’s just that we all loved mccain so much we had to vote for him first!’
battleoflepanto1571 on July 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM
You don’t pay much attention to Mormon leaders do you? Imperious is hardly an adjective one would use to describe Thomas S. Monson.
Troy Rasmussen on July 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Keep in mind that some of the downing of Romney has gone on in hopes of improving Huckabee’s chances. After the NRA meltdown Huckabee had, it may have finally dawned on them that no amount of sliming Romney is going to give Huckabee a chance, so maybe there will be some backing off.
Sekhmet on July 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM
The GOP didn’t win it for McCain. Independents and Dems voted in large numbers.
Buy Danish on July 17, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I’ll throw in my 2 cents toward Mitt as a good pick for VP. I voted for Fred in the primaries, but now that McCain has it I’m planning to vote- reluctantly- for him in the general election. Mitt would make the icky medicine go down a little better.
He knows economics, he’s telegenic, and in my opinion, he appears to be to McCain’s right on a few issues.
Much better move than Huckabee, Crist or Lieberman.
As has been noted, Jindal needs more experience. Palin would be a good pick too, but a few more years in the governor’s mansion wouldn’t hurt her credentials. Then, if McCain loses this year, she can run in 2012 if she wants too!
I do see the “2 white guys” issue. If Barry picks a woman as veep, however, that may be a little too much “change” for a public that is accustomed to having white men in the office for the past 200 years. I don’t have a problem with the race or gender of the candidates, I’m just saying if Obama chooses a woman veep it could lead to change overload for many voters.
cs89 on July 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I’m not Mormon, so no, I don’t even know who that dude is. “Imperious Leader” comes from BSG, which originally was derived from Mormon theology. My tongue was firmly planted in cheek. No disrespect meant.
McCain needs someone energetic, down-home, and personable. Otherwise McCain is destined to be the next Bob Dole. (Pop quiz: who was Dole’s running mate? Hint, his initials were J.K.) That’s why I like Palin. But if Romney is it, Romney is it.
Outlander on July 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Mitt Romney used his own money. If he chooses not to try to raise funds to replace it, I have no problem with that. I see no reason this should be a campaign issue. If Mr. Romney chose to legally make use of his personal wealth for this purpose then that’s a private matter between he and his family.
Jill1066 on July 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Thomas S. Monson is the current leader of the LDS church. I.E. if there was an “imperious leader” it would be him.
To Battle of le planto: Since you are claiming that Huck was the second place person, it’s clear you are a Huck supporter. Huck didn’t come in second by any stretch of the imagination.
And as one of those Huck supporters, it’s easy to see why you diss Mitt–you sound just like the Al Ozarks and apocalypse’s of the world, for whom “if they ain’t a preacher, they ain’t worth nothing.” attitude exists. For all I know, you are Red Pill back, with the prophecy of Huck being president.
Vanceone on July 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM
According to the CNN website, Huckabee (eventually) got to 278 delegates, to Romney’s 271. That’s after campaigning in a two-man race for more than a month after Mitt dropped out.
If you want to call that “second place,” feel free.
Personally, I don’t care who gets the GOP VP nod. McCain gets my vote because the Obama personality cult would be disastrous for America…but beyond that I have little enthusiasm for Straight Talk McCrankyPants.
sulla on July 17, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Governor Romney is young-looking and very articulate and an expert in economic matters, but still he doesn’t have what it takes to be VP. Many polls have shown that a McCain-Romney ticket gets fewer votes than McCain-generic Republican.
There could be some anti-Mormonism out there. I am a Christian and see no problem with a Mormon Vice President (Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch has done an excellent job with the Senate Judiciary Committee), but there are evangelical Christians for whom Mormonism is a cult, and they would never vote for a Mormon, and McCain needs all the Evangelical votes he can get, with the hard left galvanized for Obama. If McCain wins the Presidency with a different running mate, he could always nominate Romney for Treasury Secretary or Federal Reserve Chairman, and he would do a great job.
Sarah Palin would probably be a better pick than Romney. Although she contributes little with electoral votes, she could attract some women’s votes to McCain (some disappointed Hillary voters), and her youth and vigor counteract those of Obama, and her five children could attract votes of family-values voters and Evangelicals. Her sharply-defined positions on energy issues could shore up some of McCain’s more wishy-washy positions.
If McCain is seeking a swing-state candidate, former Congressman John Kasich could be a good pick: born and raised in PA, long-time Congressman from Ohio, solid, young-looking, well-spoken conservative, with no negative baggage. He has strong credentials on economic issues, and has not changed positions over the years, so he would be less vulnerable to accusations of “flip-flopping” than Romney, who campaigned for Governor of MA as a moderate, then ran for President as a conservative.
Steve Z on July 17, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Go ahead and pick romeney…I would love to have one valid reason to be happy about a Mohamed Hussein presidency.
SaintOlaf on July 17, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Gov. Romney does indeed come across as stiff on TV, which is odd, as I’ve heard him interviewed on local Boston radio lots of times, and there he is friendly, personable, occasionally funny, and plenty smart. Maybe he just needs some coaching on how to relax in front of the camera.
Gov. Palin is in her first term as governness of a small-economy state and has five little kids. She could be VP, but it would be tough to have the weight of the Presidency thrust upon her, should it happen. Mitt Romney can take the pressure.
As for the “two white guys” critique: It’s only July, and I already want to vomit every time I hear a word about some candidate’s ‘race’. And the ‘black’ candidate is no more ‘black’ than I am. It’s all about culture, not skin color; I ain’t from the ‘hood, and neither is he. That would be a plus, if he didn’t pretend he was.
Mitt wasn’t my first choice in the Republican primary, but if it’s one thing he ain’t, it’s phony.
MrLynn on July 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Heh. Why hasn’t Saint Olaf been banned yet for religious bigotry?
But he’s useful to prove a point I made a while ago: Some Huck supporters would crawl over broken glass to vote for Obama Bin Laden himself rather than vote for a Mormon. They truly hate Mormons so much (and can’t articulate why, other than their pastor told them to), that they would cheerfully see Americans killed rather than let a Mormon into office.
Who knew we Mormons had so much power over them?
Vanceone on July 17, 2008 at 6:29 PM
REAL Conservatives need to stop trying to make the religious bigots happy, who think all conservatism is abortion, gay marriage and turning the country into a Theocracy. These idiots are no better than the left.
The fact is when you honestly research Romney and find out the truth about his positions, he is extremely conservative, governed conservative and would make an excellent VP.
Romney was the only GOP candidate who truly understands the economy, Rudy and Fred coming in a distant second. But Romney’s record speaks for himself:
Romney Vetoed More Than 800 Budget Line-Items (707 were overturned by the liberal Massachusetts Legislature)
- Romney convinced the unfriendly State Legislature to grant him unilateral power to make budget cuts in 2003
- Romney unveiled $343 million in cuts to cities, healthcare, and state agencies in 2003
- Romney successfully consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy in 2003
- Romney eliminated half of the executive branch’s press positions, saving $1.2 million in 2003
- Romney successfully forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services in 2003
- Romney successfully pushed for legislation forcing new state workers to contribute 25% of their health insurance costs in 2003
- Romney proposed to revolutionize the Massachusetts state pension system by moving it to a defined contribution system in 2003
- Romney pushed to revamp the Pacheco Law, a union-backed measure that makes it nearly impossible to privatize state services in 2003
- Romney called for the privatization of the University of Massachusetts medical school in 2003
- Romney proposed measures to eliminate civil service protection for all municipal workers except police and firefighters and exempt low-cost public construction jobs from the state’s wage law in 2003
- Romney proposed easing pricing regulations on Massachusetts retailers in 2003
- Romney Vetoed A Provision That Would Have Renewed A Prescription Drug Tax in 2003
- Romney proposed easing decades-old state regulations on wetlands in 2004
- Romney Vetoed Retroactive Pay Increases For State Employees in 2004
- Romney proposed cutting the state’s income-tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0% in 2004, 2005 and 2006
- Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively in 2005
- Romney signed legislation that provided property tax relief to seniors in 2005
- Romney signed legislation establishing a two-day tax-free shopping holiday in 2005
- Romney fought for welfare legislation increasing the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits in 2005
- Romney aggressively pushed to deregulate Massachusetts’ “Soviet-style” auto insurance industry in 2005
- Romney Vetoed a bill limiting the ability of out-of-state wineries to ship directly to Massachusetts consumers, calling the legislation “anti-consumer” in 2005
- Romney used his emergency fiscal powers to make $425 million worth of cuts in 2006
- Romney Vetoed the employer mandate that requires businesses with 11 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance in 2006
- Romney Vetoed an increase in the minimum wage from $6.75 to $8.00 in 2006
- Romney Signed a bill streamlining the state’s cumbersome permitting process for new businesses in 2006
- Romney Line-Item Vetoed $100,000 For A Gazebo On Sunset Lake In Braintree in 2006
- Romney Vetoed $150,000 For The University Of Massachusetts To Study The Winter Moth in 2006
- Romney Vetoed $4 Million To Research The Efficiency Of The Internal Combustion Engine in 2006
- Romney has ruled out the option of raising Social Security taxes, embraced the idea of reducing the growth rate of future benefits, and supports personal accounts in 2007
Age: 60
Education:
- B.A. Brigham Young University, 1971
- J.D. Harvard University, 1975
- M.B.A. Harvard University, 1975
Political Experience:
- Governor of Massachusetts, 2003-2007
Professional Experience:
- Vice President, Bain and Company, Incorporated, 1978-1984
- CEO, Bain Capital, Incorporated, 1984-1998
- CEO, Bain and Company, Incorporated, 1991-1993
- President, Salt Lake Winter Olympics Organizing Committee, 1999-2002
Poptech on July 17, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Jack Kemp. I know because I attended a campaign rally he spoke at while I was in college. Otherwise, you woulda had me!
cs89 on July 17, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Comment pages: