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

Jack Kemp. I know because I attended a campaign rally he spoke at while I was in college. Otherwise, you woulda had me!

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Troy Rasmussen on July 17, 2008 at 12:03 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.

cs89 on July 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM

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.

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.

battleoflepanto1571 on July 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM

The GOP didn’t win it for McCain. Independents and Dems voted in large numbers.

Mormon Imperious Leader
Outlander on July 17, 2008 at 11:11 AM

You don’t pay much attention to Mormon leaders do you? Imperious is hardly an adjective one would use to describe Thomas S. Monson.

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.

Troy Rasmussen on July 17, 2008 at 11:48 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!’

waiting for your proof of mitt as 2nd-choicer.

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

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”.

“he’s better than Obama” or “he’s the lesser of two evils?”

That probably is most of us. There are a few of the hard core here who think the slightest criticism of McCain is treason.

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.
cjs1943 on July 17, 2008 at 10:53 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.

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?

A few more things have happened since then, no?

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.
BigD on July 17, 2008 at 10:24 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?

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

Are you referring to the morning or afternoon addition?