December 14, 2005
Eye on the big prize
Mitt Romney Not Running for Reelection in Massachusetts.
By all accounts Romney's announcement today means that he is running for president in '08. My overall thought is: trainwreck. Republicans are going to lose the governorship of Massachusetts and Mitt Romney will discover that his Mormonism is the least of his problems and that his abortion position is a major roadblock on his path to the White House. As I've written many times before, and despite the fact that some people like Ken and Judith don't believe me, a coherent pro-life position is make or break in the Republican presidential primary. Read Red Hot for more reasons why Romney is no-go, but abortion is the big one. I think it's unsurpassable for ole Mitt.
Just so no one thinks I'm a sourpuss who thinks all our current candidates can't win (and, well, if we're talking about Rudy, Condi, McCain and Pataki, then yes, they can't win) here is the bright side: while Romney isn't so hot on paper, he sizzles in person. He doesn't have National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez drooling over him just because he's got great hair. I heard him speak recently and he was very engaging, handsome, articulate and generally affable. In an alternate universe, he'd be a dream candidate. In this one, he's dead on arrival.
Posted by Karol at December 14, 2005 07:07 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags: Mitt+Romney Mitt+Romney+Reelection+Massachusetts+Governor Mitt+Romney+President Mitt+Romney+2008+Election Mitt+Romney+2006+Election
I disagree. If Romney uses the "don't ask don't tell" technique that Bush used in the 2000 campaign, Romney can neutralize the issue.
However, anyone who can win in Massachusetts is suspect in my book.
Posted by: Jake at December 14, 2005 08:49 PMI agree with Karol though I think his Mormon faith will hurt him quite a bit. I'm trying to figure out who would be Romney's base. People looking for a winning governor may look over to Minnesota. People looking for a "winner" may try Allen. Conservatives would probably go with Brownback or Tancredo before Romney. Moderates would go to Pataki or Rudy or Rice or McCain. I think Romney is everyone's third choice and that may have worked in conventions in the 1880s but it is not the way to win the primaries.
Posted by: Von Bek at December 14, 2005 09:21 PMVon Bek:
I can see all the MSM stories on Mormon spin-off (and excommunicated) cults now. The only question reporters will ask Romney is how come he has only one wife.
Posted by: Jake at December 14, 2005 09:29 PMWell, it's not just the MSM. Take a look at a First Things (a Catholic right, often neocon magazine) article some time back which rejected Mormonism as being Christian. I suspect for some of the more scripture literalist branches of Christianity, that may be even more of a problem. I think a lot of Christian conservatives remain wary of Mormonism.
Posted by: Von Bek at December 14, 2005 10:04 PMThen again, Eisenhower was a Jehovah's Witness and those guys are even more on the fringe than Mormons. Though Eisenhower was already a war hero when he ran. I dunno about this one.
Posted by: Yaron at December 14, 2005 10:20 PMI think Ike left the faith (his mom was very devout) sometime before the Great War. I think Ike was Preybterian during his presidency (I remember reading something about him being baptized after the election so it would not be a political issue).
Posted by: Von Bek at December 14, 2005 11:04 PMHis Mormonism will hurt him more than his stance on abortion. Mormonism is seen by many, rightly or wrongly, as a cult.
Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2005 08:17 AMI don't think we're ready for a mormon president. A pro-choice president, yes. Yet, I don't think we're ready (or maybe we'll ever) see a pro-choice Republican nominee (has there been one before?).
One term as Governor after a failed Senate bid and a some Olympic involvement does not a President make. If the nominee, he wouldn't even pull his own state or have any influence in the NE, guaranteed.
Besides, don't you guys HATE Massachusetts? WELD, Karol, WELD.
Posted by: toby at December 15, 2005 09:10 AMI consider Romney pro-life. I remember him opposing some scientific research on stem cells quite recently. I think Romney could be passable to most pro-life Republicans, just not the ones who are ideological purists.
Anyway, I think it would be hard for a non-Christian like Romney to get elected president.
Posted by: Dan at December 15, 2005 09:16 AMThat last comment was about as stupid as the person who wrote it obviously is. Mormon's are Christian and you should quit buying into the man made beleifs of religions that don't think they are.
Moron!!
Posted by: Gary Fort at December 15, 2005 04:09 PMGary:
Mormons are not Christian. They have an additional holy book that is not part of the Christian canon. Calling Mormons Christians is the equivalent of calling Christians Jews just because they also revere the Hebrew Bible. Mormons may think they are part of Christianity but that does not make them so.
Posted by: Dan at December 15, 2005 06:22 PMMormons are most definately Christian. It's like saying Kaballah followers aren't part of Judaism.
It's rare than anyone beside a Protestant (Kennedy was Catholic) gets elected Prsident. That also is the reason why most people think of this country as being dominated it's Puritan or Protestant roots.
Posted by: DT at December 19, 2005 11:19 AMHi! AISqSh http://xgslwg.com/ sPKKeyJz [url=http://ogxyeg.com/]sPKKeyJz[/url]
Posted by: viagra at January 18, 2010 03:38 PM
