The Myth of Mitt

Responding to increasing indications that John McCain is looking seriously at Mitt Romney as a VP choice Noam Scheiber rounds up the evidence that Romney doesn't exactly have huge appeal to swing voters. Stepping back, though, before McCain does this I would urge him to recall what happened back in the primaries. Romney had a lot of advantages -- solid conservative positions on the issues, a lot of institutional support, and a ton of money.

But he wound up losing because, basically, people find him loathesome. Some find him loathesome because of his religion, some because of his flip-flopping, and others just because he's loathesome. But whatever the reason, people just really don't like Mitt Romney. Putting him on the ticket seems like an obvious recipe for disaster, but a potential boon to progressive bloggers who are really in need of a mockable choice.

Comments

I'm rich enough, I'm wingnut enough, but gosh darn it, people just don't like me.

Posted by baquick | July 27, 2008 9:38 AM

before McCain does this I would urge him to recall what happened back in the primaries.

I would not urge McCain to do that. I would tell Mccain that as a Democrat, Romney scares the living daylights out of me -- that he's a sure winner for the GOP, that if McCain were wise he'd put aside any personal differences he has with Romney and go for the best candidate he can find, the Mittster.

I'd be lying through my teeth, of course. Oh, please, please, please pick Romney.

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 27, 2008 9:46 AM

Matthew,

I'm generally not one of your readers who expects you to take positions merely because they fit a partisan agenda - heck, look at me, I am often a fierce critic of the Dems - but this seems like a case where a high level of enthusiasm for the Romney pick would be in order. Please, no more posts critical of the electoral appeal of the former governor of Massachusetts.

Posted by LarryM | July 27, 2008 9:47 AM

I'm pretty sure picking Mitt would result in New Hampshire quickly becoming a sure-thing Obama win. Romney is ridiculously unpopular in Massachusetts, where he flip-flopped like all hell and then went on to mock the state in his campaigning. His pro-big business, anti-libertarian bonafides aren't going to fly there. Not that NH is the most important state, but it's somewhere that McCain needs to compete to show his ability to win independents, etc.

Posted by Christian | July 27, 2008 9:48 AM

Oh please, oh please. . .

Posted by EarBucket | July 27, 2008 10:08 AM

Romney had a lot of advantages -- solid conservative positions on the issues, a lot of institutional support, and a ton of money. But he wound up losing because, basically, people find him loathesome.

More or less the same as HRC, who started with even more advantages. The fact that many liberal activists who went for Obama would also have been happy, barring the war issue, with Hillary, should not obscure the fact that, basically, lots of people find her pretty loathsome.

Posted by otto | July 27, 2008 10:15 AM

And Mitt is hardly an economic genius. Massachusetts nearly floundered under his watch, with increased fees and taxes as well as simple problems like bad bookkeeping. Mitt is no financial guru. He can make himself rich, but that's about it. Buffet knows how to rake in cash, but he wouldn't exactly be the best POTUS, you know?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 27, 2008 10:18 AM

What's especially weird is that Tim Pawlenty seems like a really solid choice. Capable Republican from a blue state, relatively clean history, probably the sort of guy who could help blunt some of Obama's advantages in the Mid- and Mountain West.

I don't think Pawlenty would make much difference on the Republican ticket. But the reason VPs rarely make a difference isn't because VPs cannot make a difference, it's that they have to pass a basic level of acceptability and competence, and then no one cares. If McCain selected, say, Lindsay Lohan, it probably would hurt the ticket. Mitt Romney seems to run very real risks of being a Lohan-quality selection, while Pawlenty seems utterly riskless.

Posted by DivGuy | July 27, 2008 10:23 AM

Could you say people find Senator Lieberman loathsome because of his religion? Or some people find Obama distastefull because of his race? They are all true of course. But I think backing up your argument with peoples bigotry is distasteful.

Posted by justinmilo | July 27, 2008 10:24 AM

Could you say people find Senator Lieberman loathsome because of his religion? Or some people find Obama loathsome because of his race? They are all true of course. But I think backing up your argument with peoples bigotry is distasteful.

Posted by justinmilo | July 27, 2008 10:26 AM

Could you say people find Senator Lieberman loathsome because of his religion? Or some people find Obama loathsome because of his race? They are all true of course. But I think backing up your argument with peoples bigotry is distasteful.

Posted by justinmilo | July 27, 2008 10:27 AM

The choice of Romney is not for swing votes. McCain is more interested on energized the conservative base, who's not 100% behind him. And the fact that McCain doesn't know anything about the economy (He said it).

For me, Romney is the living personification of the Manchurian Candidate: He's obviously hiding a secret agenda and the fact that he's faker than a 3 dollar bill.

Posted by geha714 | July 27, 2008 10:33 AM

justinmilo, that's probably a sloppy usage on Matt's part, conflating what evangelicals find loathsome about Romney (his religion) with what everyone else loathes about him (his slimy opportunism).

Suffice to say that most of us secular liberals would argue that what is supposedly weird about Mormonism is in fact characteristic of all religions (at least all monotheisms) at some point in their development. If some of us find, say, mainline Protestants more congenial than Mormons, Pentecostals, or Wahhabists, it's only because mainline Protestants are palpably less religious than the latter group.

Posted by kth | July 27, 2008 10:38 AM

Like there's not enough mockable about McCain?

Posted by live | July 27, 2008 10:40 AM

He's going to pick Sarah Palin. Mark my words.

Posted by evie | July 27, 2008 10:45 AM

Um, I live in MA I loved Romney.. I love the heathcare policies, the film tax breaks that have been a boon to this state's revenues/economy, the health care and insurance changes.. I think I am better off now than before romney came to Massachusetts.. so don't believe the bull from the leftists that will always live here

Posted by love14usa | July 27, 2008 10:45 AM

Atrios is right - where is Fred Thompson?

Posted by calipygian | July 27, 2008 10:51 AM

VP? I'm praying for Governor Sarah Palin. The light our country is looking for can come from America's great north star; it can come from Alaska.

Posted by Tracy Lynn | July 27, 2008 11:11 AM

Anyone know what the campaign finance rules are with respect to VPs?

If Romney is on the ticket, could he drop say $100 million of his own money into the campaign in October?

That for me is the only reason to fear a Romney candidacy.

Oh, and as a former Alaskan, I don't see McCain picking Sarah Paulin. She's currently embroiled in her own scandal right now related to the attempted firing of her sleazeball brother-in-law who was state trooper. It's a complicated story that the Alaska Daily News has been covering extensively on its front page over the past couple weeks.

Posted by Kent | July 27, 2008 11:12 AM

VP? I'm praying for Governor Sarah Palin. The light our country is looking for can come from America's great north star; it can come from Alaska.

Posted by Tracy Lynn | July 27, 2008 11:13 AM

I think that Mitt Romney is cute. I am LDS and I find him highly attractive. I also found Bill Clinton attractive (even though I didn't vote for him.). Does that count for anything?

Posted by girlsvotetoo | July 27, 2008 11:14 AM

I think that Mitt Romney is cute. I am LDS and I find him highly attractive. I also found Bill Clinton attractive (even though I didn't vote for him.). Does that count for anything?

Posted by girlsvotetoo | July 27, 2008 11:15 AM

I think that Mitt Romney is cute. I am LDS and I find him highly attractive. I also found Bill Clinton attractive (even though I didn't vote for him.). Does that count for anything?

Posted by girlsvotetoo | July 27, 2008 11:15 AM

VP? I'm praying for Governor Sarah Palin. The light our country is looking for can come from America's great north star; it can come from Alaska.

Posted by Tracy Lynn | July 27, 2008 11:15 AM

Unfounded mud is what I've heard it called--the allegations against Palin. She'll come out clean, as she deserves to.

Posted by Tracy Lynn | July 27, 2008 11:18 AM

Romney reminds me a lot of Bush 1 -- another very mockable guy (who before being nominated as Reagan's VP had demonstrated even less electoral appeal than Romney). Nonetheless, Bush I performed admirably in the real task assigned to him (the same thing that McCain would hope Romney would do for him) -- helping to make Main Street and Wall Street moderates/centrists, as well as business class conservatives and moderate to conservative leaning independents, more comfortable with the ticket. And, muting concerns about McCain's age (I wouldn't be surprised if there hasn't been talk between the candidates of a one term McCain presidency positioning Romney for 2012). Plus, Romney very likely could help shore up support from moderate Republican women with his record on domestic issues like health care.

Frankly, despite his conservative positioning in the primary, Romney, with his corporate credentials, Blue State executive experience, goofy family guy persona and gee willikers church guy affect actually would make the McCain ticket look like it was stepping back from the party's dominance, under George W. Bush, by the most extreme, inflexible (and angry) Southern Conservatives. It would look less like Bush redux and more like a return to an older, more moderate, pragmatic and business (rather than fundamentalist values) oriented Republican Party.

For a lot of people in the center and on the right, he might make the ticket seem a little safer. And that could be an advantage in a time of economic crisis with an untested opponent who has no demonstrated executive experience or success on domestic and economic issues.

Posted by esmense | July 27, 2008 11:28 AM

Oh please, oh please, oh please.....

Posted by Freddie | July 27, 2008 11:28 AM

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice--but double and triple posting sure as shit is.

Posted by Curly | July 27, 2008 11:36 AM

Hey, I like Romney! He earned a permanent place in my heart in one of the primary debates when one of his opponents said he didn't want to get deep into the weeds on some issue and Romney jumped in woth "The weeds matter!"

Adorableness aside, he would also be a politically terrible choice for McCain. When I type "romn" into the google search box the tab-complete text is "romney flip flop"

Posted by Trevor | July 27, 2008 11:40 AM

Welcome to the blog, Kathryn-Jean! Sock puppetry is frowned upon. Please feel free to post comments under your own name, and only once.

Posted by Brittain33 | July 27, 2008 11:48 AM

I don't think Justinmilo expressed himself as well as he might have, but I do think that he makes a serious point which Matt completely elides.

If it comes down to it, Romney lost because he lost Iowa, in spite of pouring huge amounts of money down the drain there. If he'd won Iowa, he very well might have cruised to the nomination.

So, the reason Romney lost isn't because people in general despise him (although this certainly has some truth to it). It's because Republican primary voters in Iowa despise him. Who were the Republican primary voters in Iowa who wouldn't vote for Romney? Virtually all of Huckabee's voters were Evangelicals. So the issue is that Evangelicals wouldn't vote for Romney.

Obviously, I can't prove causation on this, but polls have showed a large percentage of people who are unwilling to vote for a Mormon. I would suspect that a disproportionate number of those people are protestant evangelicals. I don't think it's stretching too far to say that Romney lost Iowa because Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon.

And I think that, more than anything else, is also why Romney is a risky VP choice. Evangelicals are already deeply not excited about McCain, an Episcopalian's Episcopalian. McCain is even worse at faking the Evangelical stuff than Bush I, who was terrible at it. To then pick a Mormon as his running mate would be spitting in their eyes, and would almost certainly make that situation worse. I'm not sure there's really anything McCain can do to insure a good turnout from Evangelicals in the fall (maybe picking Huckabee as his running mate, but that seems out of the question). But it would seem wise not to exacerbate it, and that's why Romney is risky.

Talking about how he's generally loathsome elides the fact that the real issue is not that he's a slippery phony (which he is). It's that he's a Mormon. That's where the risk lies. If Romney were exactly like he is, but a Presbyterian, he would be a completely safe choice who wouldn't hurt the ticket in any way (and he would also, likely, be the Republican nominee today).

Posted by John | July 27, 2008 12:03 PM

IMO Romney would be a disastrous pick for McCain. He would seriously undermine one of McCain's meta-themes. McCain's strengths this election are 1) war hero history 2) he's not a young liberal black man named "Obama" and 3) an aura of tell-it-like-it-is authenticity (seemingly impervious to facts).

I don't actually dislike Romney that much. But he is definitely the epitome of the slick 21st-century corporate consultant/CEO. Mitt standing next to McCain for an entire summer would do more to undermine the "authenticity" argument that any number of DNC/Obama attack ads.

I keep thinking McCain should pick Huckabee. I know that I would loathe a Huckabee Nation. And yet I find myself liking the guy. Likability is an underrated strength in elections. Double down on authenticity, appeal to the Christian coalition base, and damn the logical thought - if McCain's going to win, he's going to win based on gut feelings anyway.

Posted by hubcapiv | July 27, 2008 12:14 PM

I wouldn't vote for McCain in a million years, but that doesn't keep me from looking at the race objectively. And here's an objective truth; McCain has a better chance of improving his ticket with his VP pick than Obama does.

Why? Because Obama's biggest problem with voters (as indicated consistently by the polls) is his lack of experience. He has no solid record of accomplishment to point to as proof of and argument for his ability to get things done. But, for him, finding a running mate who does have that experience could be more problematic than helpful.

Fortunately for Obama, despite his long years in politics, McCain isn't heavy on real accomplishment, or, most important in this election, demonstrated competence in the economic realm, either. Unfortunately, for Obama, it is easier for McCain to finesse that problem with a well-known, experienced VP pick who can make some argument for success in that area. (Like Romney).

Obama on the other hand can't pick anyone too mature or experienced without undermining his "change" message while also underlining his own inexperience. Plus, he's running a personality/personal image based campaign that's appeal is based in his personal charisma, personality, character, biography and future potential (rather than past experience). This means he must continue to be the absolute, overwhelming center of the campaign and can't afford to pick a running mate with a dynamic personality or dramatic story that might compete with, or even slightly and briefly, upstage his own. For good or ill, his VP is going to be a relative unknown who is more a sub-ordinate cheerleader than, as VPs have tended to be in recent administrations, familiar natinal figure and partner.

Posted by esmense | July 27, 2008 12:19 PM

I think the consensus is that McCain can't find a running mate who isn't loathsome/stupid/fake/silly/ridiculous.

That begs the question - how the hell have they been so successful since Johnson?

Posted by calipygian | July 27, 2008 12:25 PM

calipygian --

Of course he can't find a running mate who isn't "loathsome/stupid/fake/silly/ridiculous" to liberal and left of center Democrats and those even further to the left. But there are plenty of Republicans who are viewed positively by people with more moderate, centrist, right of center and independent, as well as conservative, views. And (as Obama's general election politicking demonstrates) those are the people who both campaigns are depending on most for victory in this election.

Arlen Specter, for instance, seems like a doddering fool to me. But millions of middle of the road Pennsylvanians love and respect him.

Posted by esmense | July 27, 2008 12:49 PM

Another reason why picking Mitt would help insure an Obama win is that many of the late-night comics especially loathe him - particularly Letterman who is really a swing voter himself. They love this plastic "Man From Glad" and it'd be a sign of McCain's gormlessness if he really picked him.

Posted by Trevor | July 27, 2008 12:58 PM

MY - have you gone insane? "Stepping back, though, before McCain does this I would urge him to recall what happened back in the primaries..." NO! To make the perfect loser ticket, McCain should resolutely forget reality and make his own reality! Romney, the choice of NRO's corner, is a gift from the gods. Just think - the dog torture story can be revived, the robotic laugh can be displayed, the android tan - if Romney isn't the GOP vp, I'd be very very disappointed.

Do not take it upon yourself to advise on strategery! The McCain-Romney ticket has a resonance, a tang, like Landon-Knox in 1936. I just have a feeling about the good vibe between the two of them. O, let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment!

Posted by roger | July 27, 2008 1:07 PM

WHAT?!! You make me sick Yglesias. I find you loathesome. 4 MILLION people voted for Romney in the primaries before he dropped out prematurely and millions more would've voted for him. McCain knows this and he doesnt care about the bigoted evangelicals, he might pick Mitt just to spite them. Who do they think they are? Certain bigoted evangelicals are scared of losing their power in the Republican party, just like Liberals are scared of Mitt because he will help McCain win in everyway possible. Millions of people wanted Mitt to be the nominee. Including many reasonable Evangelicals who voted for him. The evangelical vote was split between him and Huckabee. Everything about Mitt is the opposite of loathesome, he is exceptional in every area of his life. This argument that he is a phony is the most ridiculous because it is from people who can't find anything else to say, because he is "too perfect" McCain is getting to know him now and he knows that Mitt is not a phony and is the real deal. McCain will do what he feels is right, he is not going to listen to you bigoted liberal people. Huckabee is the true phony. After years of Mormons voting for Evangelicals, this is how they are treated! McCain will never choose the Huckster, he knows Huckabee is a bigot and if he chose him he would lose the presidency (the press would have a field day with his "Christian leader" statement and other gaffes)and he would be in danger of losing his senate seat in Arizona since a high percentage of Mormons are his regular voters and they will feel like he betrayed them after they were so loyal to him all these years, if he picked Huckabee, which he would never do, because McCain is loyal.

Posted by Marie | July 27, 2008 1:48 PM

...And one more thing, Evangelicals have never been loyal to McCain, in fact everyone knows that many evangelicals were against him from the beginning. Do you think McCain is going to listen to them or care what they think when choosing his VP? Yeah right!! I don't think McCain will feel any need to be loyal to them when they consistently vote against him. The evangelicals that will vote for McCain would vote for him with Mitt as VP also, but he will also pick up Michigan, Nevada, Colorado and possibly California, Florida and maybe even Washington and Oregon with Mitt on the ticket. You'd be suprised where the "Mormon vote" will help. There are more than 5 million Mormons in the US, who usually vote Republican. They are in every state, and will make sure they vote, if Mitt is on the ticket.

Posted by Marie | July 27, 2008 2:12 PM

Mitt is the man. I'll vote for McCain with Mitt on the ticket. Without him, John won't get my vote.

Posted by Henry | July 27, 2008 2:29 PM

Adolf Mittler Romney is Pro Torture - waterboarding, the "chinese water torture." Then he wants to double or triple the size of Guantanimo Prison, when everyone else wants to close it down. Gen Douglas Macarthur said he would chase down anyone to the ends of the earth and prosecute them for advocating the Chiness Water Torture - these are the things our forefathers laid down their lives in battle for, fighting against, and Romney wants the Amercan government to commit these Nazi acts. According to the La Times, Mittler's company made nothing, only raided other companies, stripped them of their assets, laid off everybody and pocketed the cash - Tax Free (the company was registered off-shore to avoid the IRS. Then, Mormon doctrine speaks of taking over the U.S. with one of their own some day and the leader would become 'god.'
Then he was Pro Abortion in Massachusetts, though somehow he was a good Mormon; then he allowed his state to become the first State in the Union with Gay Marriage - and he a Mormon bishop and missionary to France. Then, running for President he 'becomes' Pro-Life and protector of marriage! Then he slandered every day in the primaries his rivals - he was the only candidate with negative ads then. Then everyday he said lies - that his dad marched with Martin Luther King - it turned out 'he marched in his imagination.' he said.
What other evils would you like to know about Mittler - that the murdering security firm Blackwater worked for him? Be scared, Americans, be very scared of this false shepherd, who spends his spare time reading scientologist Hubbard. This is the worst man to run for the leadership in American history - and if McCain selects him, then get ready for the SS.

Posted by John Beaton | July 27, 2008 4:11 PM

Adolf Mittler Romney is Pro Torture - waterboarding, the "chinese water torture." Then he wants to double or triple the size of Guantanimo Prison, when everyone else wants to close it down. Gen Douglas Macarthur said he would chase down anyone to the ends of the earth and prosecute them for advocating the Chiness Water Torture - these are the things our forefathers laid down their lives in battle for, fighting against, and Romney wants the Amercan government to commit these Nazi acts. According to the La Times, Mittler's company made nothing, only raided other companies, stripped them of their assets, laid off everybody and pocketed the cash - Tax Free (the company was registered off-shore to avoid the IRS. Then, Mormon doctrine speaks of taking over the U.S. with one of their own some day and the leader would become 'god.'
Then he was Pro Abortion in Massachusetts, though somehow he was a good Mormon; then he allowed his state to become the first State in the Union with Gay Marriage - and he a Mormon bishop and missionary to France. Then, running for President he 'becomes' Pro-Life and protector of marriage! Then he slandered every day in the primaries his rivals - he was the only candidate with negative ads then. Then everyday he said lies - that his dad marched with Martin Luther King - it turned out 'he marched in his imagination.' he said.
What other evils would you like to know about Mittler - that the murdering security firm Blackwater worked for him? Be scared, Americans, be very scared of this false shepherd, who spends his spare time reading scientologist Hubbard. This is the worst man to run for the leadership in American history - and if McCain selects him, then get ready for the SS.

Posted by John Beaton | July 27, 2008 4:14 PM

Mittler Romney is Pro Torture - waterboarding, the "chinese water torture." Then he wants to double or triple the size of Guantanimo Prison, when everyone else wants to close it down. Gen Douglas Macarthur said he would chase down anyone to the ends of the earth and prosecute them for advocating the Chinese Water Torture - these are the things our forefathers laid down their lives in battle for, fighting against, and Mittler wants the American government to allow these Gestapo acts. According to the L.A. Times, Mittler's company, Bain Capitol, made nothing, only raided other companies, stripped them of their assets, laid off everybody and pocketed the cash - Tax Free (the company was registered off-shore to avoid the IRS!).
Everyone says 'oh you can't talk about Mormon beliefs - oh yes we can; mormonism is not like one of the honorable religions, but a cult that began with polygamy and fakery: Mormon doctrine speaks of taking over the U.S. with one of their own some day and the leader would become 'god.'
Then he was Pro Abortion in Massachusetts, though somehow he was a 'good Mormon'; then he allowed his state to become the first State in the Union with Gay Marriage - and he a Mormon bishop and missionary to France. Then, running for President he 'mittmorphs' into Pro-Life and protector of marriage! Then he slandered every day in the primaries his rivals - he was the only candidate with negative ads then. Then everyday he said lies, large and small, didn't matter, he prefers lies to honesty, even when honesty doesn't hurt the matter - like when his 'dad marched with Martin Luther King' - it turned out 'he marched in his imagination.' Varmitts said.
What other ills would you like to know about Herrmann Mittler - that the murdering security firm Blackwater worked for him? Be wary, Americans, be avoiding this Neocon, who spends his spare time reading scientologist Hubbard. This is the Mittlerist man to run for leadership in American history - and if McCain selects him, then Obama wins. But SchMittler will try again.

Posted by John Beaton | July 27, 2008 4:32 PM

Re: But there are plenty of Republicans who are viewed positively by people with more moderate, centrist, right of center and independent, as well as conservative, views.

There are some (but not plenty of) Republicans who are viewed positively by moderates and independents but the trouble is they are viewed as RINOs and traitors by the GOP base. The Republican party has been wrenched so far out of the mainstream by the wingnuts that it's going to have trouble swimming back to shore. Despite a fairly solid consevative voting record, McCain himself is viewed with deep suspicion because he has, on a few occasions, dared to depart from strictest orthodoxy. Any moderate-popular choice he makes will deepen that perception and outrage the Right. NRO had a piece a couple of weeks ago panning McCain's potential moderate running mates (like Charlie Crist of Florida) and suggesting McCain would forfeit the election if chose anyone like that. But if McCain chooses a wingbut, then he's going to lose everybody else-- a solid majority of the electorate.

Posted by JonF | July 27, 2008 4:34 PM

In response to the above poster who is from Mass., as a fellow Bay Stater, I just want to remind him/her, and everyone else, that there is no political figure more hated in Mass. than Romney, and with good reason. An ineffectual empty suit who made Massachusetts' liberalism the joke-line on the rubber chicken circuit in the Deep South in order to appease the wingnuts in his money-fueled sprint to the presidency, all while still governor of that state. Classy that, mocking the citizens you purport to govern. I wonder what a President Romney would say behind Americans' backs. Beyond contemptible.

You'd have to be a fool, or drinking the kool-aid (hi K-Lo!) to find him remotely appealing, or even sympathetic.

Posted by Ben Cronin | July 27, 2008 5:12 PM

For those of you who get your talking points directly from the main stream media, you really don't know much about Mitt Romney. I suggest you read the book Mormon in the White House. In true journalistic style, You need to research FOR YOURSELF Both presentations of Mitt Romney. If you did you would find a patriotic man who loves his country. You would understand that his decades of unpaid service in his church gives him a compassion and insight to every challenge that a person would face. In the mormon church members counsel in kindness with leaders. I am sure he understands financial difficulty, family problems, organization break downs etc etc etc. I know the Boston congregations (approx. 5,000 members). This is all different family situations, nationalities, socio-economic levels. You can't be an active mormon leader and not develop the quality of compassion. In our church we do not lead with self centered power but with Christ centered love. All of this has helped prepare MItt to be a great and compassionate leader.

Posted by ammon7 | July 27, 2008 5:27 PM

For those of you who get your talking points directly from the main stream media, you really don't know much about Mitt Romney. I suggest you read the book Mormon in the White House. In true journalistic style, You need to research FOR YOURSELF Both presentations of Mitt Romney. If you did you would find a patriotic man who loves his country. You would understand that his decades of unpaid service in his church gives him a compassion and insight to every challenge that a person would face. In the mormon church members counsel in kindness with leaders. I am sure he understands financial difficulty, family problems, organization break downs etc etc etc. I know the Boston congregations (approx. 5,000 members). This is all different family situations, nationalities, socio-economic levels. You can't be an active mormon leader and not develop the quality of compassion. In our church we do not lead with self centered power but with Christ centered love. All of this has helped prepare MItt to be a great and compassionate leader.

Posted by ammon7 | July 27, 2008 5:29 PM

For those of you who get your talking points directly from the main stream media, you really don't know much about Mitt Romney. I suggest you read the book Mormon in the White House. In true journalistic style, You need to research FOR YOURSELF Both presentations of Mitt Romney. If you did you would find a patriotic man who loves his country. You would understand that his decades of unpaid service in his church gives him a compassion and insight to every challenge that a person would face. In the mormon church members counsel in kindness with leaders. I am sure he understands financial difficulty, family problems, organization break downs etc etc etc. I know the Boston congregations (approx. 5,000 members). This is all different family situations, nationalities, socio-economic levels. You can't be an active mormon leader and not develop the quality of compassion. In our church we do not lead with self centered power but with Christ centered love. All of this has helped prepare MItt to be a great and compassionate leader.

Posted by ammon7 | July 27, 2008 5:29 PM

For those of you who get your talking points directly from the main stream media, you really don't know much about Mitt Romney. I suggest you read the book Mormon in the White House. In true journalistic style, You need to research FOR YOURSELF Both presentations of Mitt Romney. If you did you would find a patriotic man who loves his country. You would understand that his decades of unpaid service in his church gives him a compassion and insight to every challenge that a person would face. In the mormon church members counsel in kindness with leaders. I am sure he understands financial difficulty, family problems, organization break downs etc etc etc. I know the Boston congregations (approx. 5,000 members). This is all different family situations, nationalities, socio-economic levels. You can't be an active mormon leader and not develop the quality of compassion. In our church we do not lead with self centered power but with Christ centered love. All of this has helped prepare MItt to be a great and compassionate leader.

Posted by ammon7 | July 27, 2008 5:29 PM

For those of you who get your talking points directly from the main stream media, you really don't know much about Mitt Romney. I suggest you read the book Mormon in the White House. In true journalistic style, You need to research FOR YOURSELF Both presentations of Mitt Romney. If you did you would find a patriotic man who loves his country. You would understand that his decades of unpaid service in his church gives him a compassion and insight to every challenge that a person would face. In the mormon church members counsel in kindness with leaders. I am sure he understands financial difficulty, family problems, organization break downs etc etc etc. I know the Boston congregations (approx. 5,000 members). This is all different family situations, nationalities, socio-economic levels. You can't be an active mormon leader and not develop the quality of compassion. In our church we do not lead with self centered power but with Christ centered love. All of this has helped prepare MItt to be a great and compassionate leader.

Posted by ammon7 | July 27, 2008 5:29 PM

For those of you who get your talking points directly from the main stream media, you really don't know much about Mitt Romney. I suggest you read the book Mormon in the White House. In true journalistic style, You need to research FOR YOURSELF Both presentations of Mitt Romney. If you did you would find a patriotic man who loves his country. You would understand that his decades of unpaid service in his church gives him a compassion and insight to every challenge that a person would face. In the mormon church members counsel in kindness with leaders. I am sure he understands financial difficulty, family problems, organization break downs etc etc etc. I know the Boston congregations (approx. 5,000 members). This is all different family situations, nationalities, socio-economic levels. You can't be an active mormon leader and not develop the quality of compassion. In our church we do not lead with self centered power but with Christ centered love. All of this has helped prepare MItt to be a great and compassionate leader.

Posted by ammon7 | July 27, 2008 5:29 PM

For those of you who get your talking points directly from the main stream media, you really don't know much about Mitt Romney. I suggest you read the book Mormon in the White House. In true journalistic style, You need to research FOR YOURSELF Both presentations of Mitt Romney. If you did you would find a patriotic man who loves his country. You would understand that his decades of unpaid service in his church gives him a compassion and insight to every challenge that a person would face. In the mormon church members counsel in kindness with leaders. I am sure he understands financial difficulty, family problems, organization break downs etc etc etc. I know the Boston congregations (approx. 5,000 members). This is all different family situations, nationalities, socio-economic levels. You can't be an active mormon leader and not develop the quality of compassion. In our church we do not lead with self centered power but with Christ centered love. All of this has helped prepare MItt to be a great and compassionate leader.

Posted by ammon7 | July 27, 2008 5:29 PM

I think that Ammon is absolutely correct. The Republicans would, indeed, be doing this nation a great service to nominate Gov. Romney for vice president.

Posted by voice of reason | July 27, 2008 5:49 PM

JonF --

But where else is "the base" going to go? With Obama? Of course not.

It is interesting that Democrats assume that Obama can move to "the center" and even quite measureably toward the "right" to attract moderate independent and Republican voters without worrying about "the base" because, after all, where else do they have to go? yet somehow think that the Republican base can't be constrained in the same way. To give you an example, when the Obama camp very recently floated the idea of Ann Veneman, former Bush cabinet member famous for her unwillingness to regulate when she oversaw the Department of Agriculture -- during a mad cow crisis nonetheless -- as a possible VP pick, his spokesman touted her appeal to independents and Republicans while stating flatly that her selection would do no harm with Democrats. Really? I and a whole lot of other Democrats would find her entirely objectionable, as that spokesman knows. But still, would a choice like that make McCain an acceptable alternative for our votes? The Obama camp doesn't think so and they are most likely right.

Shoot, if you believe, as many Obama supporters seem to do, that your party's "base" would have no choice but to swollow even a former member of the Bush administration as VP, rather than vote for McCain, why assume that the conservative Republican "base" would be in full revolt -- enough so to vote for Obama -- with someone like Romney on the ticket? It's a rather odd bit of wishful thinking.

By the way, for those who think there is some kind of politician out there, on either side of the aisle, who isn't "mockable" wake up. America has been electing mockable politicians for a few centuries now(in my lifetime; Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. A wonderful collection of crude jerks, nerds, paranoid creeps, wusses and one broken down old ham). And what about the Democratic line up? Is Romney really more "plastic," boring and mockable than Evan Bayh? More corny and prone to foot in the mouth than Biden? More given to awkward statements than Richardson? A bigger, more droning bore than Sebelius? A more embarassing and pathetic suck up than grandmotherly, doting, cloyingly sweet McCaskell? (Who, by the way, looked like a aging cheerleader reading someone elses imposed script, rather than a powerful person in her own right, a leader with genuine authority, when she went head to head with Carly Fiorino on Meet the Press the other day.)

Posted by esmense | July 27, 2008 5:52 PM

Re: But there are plenty of Republicans who are viewed positively by people with more moderate, centrist, right of center and independent, as well as conservative, views.

There are some (but not plenty of) Republicans who are viewed positively by moderates and independents but the trouble is they are viewed as RINOs and traitors by the GOP base. The Republican paty has been wrnched so far out of the mainstream by the wingnuts that it's going to have trouble swimming back to shore. Despite a fairly solid consevative voting record, Mccain himself is viewed with deep suspcion because he has, on a few occasions, dared to depart from strictest orthodoxy. Any modeerate-popular choice he makes will deepen that perception and outrage the Right. NRO has a pice a couple of weeks ago panning McCain potential moderate running mates (like Charlie Crist of Florida) and suggesting McCain would forfeit the election if chose anyone like that. But if McCain coses a wingbut, then he's going to lose everybody else-- a solid majority of the eletorate.

Re: It is interesting that Democrats assume that Obama can move to "the center" and even quite measureably toward the "right" to attract moderate independent and Republican voters without worrying about "the base"

The Democratic base is much closer to the moderate mainstream than the Republican base. The Democratic base is liberal, of course, but not left-handed wingnuts. Of course there are some lefty wingnuts out there, and some few may even vote for Nader, but they got a good dose of what that brings over the last 8 years keeping them in line (I hope). The GOP base is still delusional and believes that the public shares its rabid fantasies. Bill Clinton's moderate administration did not force them to eat humble pie either-- a huge Demcratic victory this year might, but they can't imagine that outcome. So yes, some of them might turn to minor protest candidates or stay home.

Posted by JonF | July 27, 2008 6:17 PM

Another place that "the base" can go is home for dinner. That is, large numbers can just sit it out, as large numbers of evangelicals used to do. And every two that stay home is electorally equivalent to flipping one swing voter.

Ok, now just pretend this has been posted five times

Posted by BruceMcF | July 27, 2008 6:18 PM

Don't flip out over people posting multiple times. I did it earlier because I thought it was my computer and apparently it's the site. So I'll do this one once and call it good.

The person who wrote about the Mormon in the White House book: I agree after having read it several months ago. I am in support of Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney is second choice for me. Palin, because I also just finished reading the book on her and have great admiration now, and because I have been following the draft Sarah Palin for Vice President site for quite some time. Romney will do whatever good he can for the country in whatever position he fills, and if McCain is elected, he would be wise to put his talents to use. It doesn't have to be VP. Palin is an admired leader (talk to some Alaskans), a person that can be trusted, a real worker, and an energetic woman to give the McCain campaign a real boost. The press would keep her in their lens all the way through election, and they already took the heat for misogyny during Hillary's run and are looking to redeem themselves.

Posted by Tracy Lynn | July 27, 2008 7:06 PM

BruceMcF --

The same applies to Democratic voters. Especially working class voters who have not been abandoning the Democratic party so much over the last several decades as they have been abandoning political engagement and participation in general. The Republican party's affluent base, on the other hand, is the most reliable group of voters -- turning out more consistently and at much higher rates than lower income, and more likely to be democratic leaning, voters.

Democratic courting of more affluent voters and increasing representation of their interests over those of the working class, often leads to apathy among older, more traditional Democratic constituencies. And, as three decades of elections has proved, voter apathy has never been the Democrats' friend. Republicans, on the other hand, benefit when working and lower income voters are less than enthusiastic about their political choices. The affluent Republican base, believing its personal economic interests are at stake, and convinced that any Republican candidate will protect those interests better than any Democrat, is rarely apathetic.

Republican Evangelical voters aren't working class -- they are affluent. They will vote their economic interests -- even if they aren't convinced the Republican nominee entirely shares their religious values.

Posted by esmense | July 27, 2008 7:17 PM

The Mittster's expertise in the economy is seriously the one way McCain could contest this election. Attack Obama on his strengths. Romney has also passed the Commander in Chief test and has credibility with the people of the United States.

He also attacks Obama exactly where McCain needs him to be attacked. He heavily pressures Obama in Michigan, which recent polls have put his victory margin in the low single digits. He also wreaks havoc in heavily Mormon states in the Southwest (NM, CO, and NV), which closes off one path Obama has to the nomination.

All this on top of being the sharpest Republican there is and solidifying the base, a feat which McCain still has yet to do (at least compared to Obama).

(pleasepleaseplease oh please believe this if you're reading this, McCain VP vetting committee)

Posted by Zephyrus | July 27, 2008 8:26 PM

Posted by esmense | July 27, 2008 7:17 PM

Republican Evangelical voters aren't working class -- they are affluent. They will vote their economic interests -- even if they aren't convinced the Republican nominee entirely shares their religious values.

Don't confuse averages and margins. The average Republican Evangelical voter is higher income than the average Democratic Evangelical voter, but the marginal Evangelical voter that expands the base beyond the traditional Republican base is not at the upper end of the range.

Mitt will hurt McCain here in Ohio. Governor Huck pegged him exactly right ... he looks like the guy that laid you off.

Posted by BruceMcF | July 27, 2008 9:25 PM

Re: The affluent Republican base, believing its personal economic interests are at stake, and convinced that any Republican candidate will protect those interests better than any Democrat, is rarely apathetic.

Except that George Bush has not been good for affluent voters either. Unless you define that term to include only the very uppermost 1% or so. For sure the upper middle class and even some of the petty wealthy have taken a huge hit during this decade, first during the market meltdown at the beginning of Bush's term, and now more lately during real estate bust. The "old" GOP base of entrepreneurs have been especially hard hit: George Bush has not been good for business. There are even Wall Street tycoons who are supporting Democrats this year.

Re: Republican Evangelical voters aren't working class -- they are affluent.

I would argue that they are more middle and lower middle class. Not poor, or even hand-to-mouth working class. But not rich either (other than the leadership of course).

Re: They will vote their economic interests

But what are their economic interests? It's not clear that the GOP is doing anything to further these peoples' interests, or that Democrats are in any way threatening them.

Re: He also wreaks havoc in heavily Mormon states in the Southwes

How? Aren't most socially conservative Mormons going to vote Republican regardless?

Re: He heavily pressures Obama in Michigan

I grew up in Michigan. I am 41. I have no memories of George Romney as governor. By repute he was a good governor, a solid Eisenhower-Rockefeller Republican (AKA a Rino) and Michigan prospered under him. But that was a long time ago. People with adult memories of the Romney adminsitration in Lansing are practically at retirement age. The average Michigan voter probably has no idea that Mitt Romney has any Michigan connections.

Posted by JonF | July 27, 2008 10:36 PM

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash08.html?project=OVOTE08

Poll for VP
Dem and Rep tabs

Posted by Tracy Lynn | July 27, 2008 10:40 PM

To be fair, new posters at the site are very likely to multi post. It's unfortunate, but the site blows.

Amazing how many kool-aid drinkers have their ears tuned to the sound of Romney's name, though. I had no idea we would draw so many true-believers in with just a little speculation on Romney's VP chance. I remember MY describing Mitt as loathesome during the primaries, but without the similar influx.

I think my favorite is ammom7. I'm very uninformed on the issue, you see, b/c I'm collecting information from the wide array of sources described as the MSM. Much better to do detailed research for yourself by reading a propaganda piece on the man. My 2nd favorite comment is voice of reason's response.

Posted by mpowell | July 27, 2008 10:42 PM

I also wanted the original blogger to know that loathsome is spelled with just the one 'e' at the end. I generally loathe pointing out spelling errors, but since it was used three times in a short post, perhaps it's a favored word, so for the sake of future readers' sensibilities, there you have it. No offense meant.

"But he wound up losing because, basically, people find him loathesome. Some find him loathesome because of his religion, some because of his flip-flopping, and others just because he's loathesome."

I suppose we'll never be able to measure the man's loathsomeness, really. Even if he becomes a candidate for VP, even if he becomes the next VP, there will be a large crowd on the loathing side and another crowd on the loving side.

Posted by Tracy Lynn | July 27, 2008 11:10 PM

I am loath to point out that picking on MY for spelling like shit is a ship that sailed long, long ago.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 27, 2008 11:15 PM

Mitt Romney's "religion" speech disqualifies him from office, in my view. Unlike JFK back in the day, who said religion was something personal to him and would not impact his policies, Romney emphasized how important his religion was to him. "religion = freedom", he said.

I have a huuuge problem with a Mormon in White House, who views LDS as important. All of you who think that this is bigotry are insane. I have no problem with mormon coworkers, neighbors, classmates or so on. However, you cannot elect a POTUS without vetting their worldview, and a person who says that this particular religion is important to them - with all of its record on blacks, family structure, separation of state and church - to say that we should leave all this alone and focus instead on John Edwards haircut or Barack Obama's high school friends, you are obviously nuts...

Posted by krassen | July 27, 2008 11:39 PM

I don't know. In addition to what Romney adds with the mockability factor, if this thread is any indication, it might be entertaining to see what the comment section is like for the next few months with the LDS troll army that he evidently has at his disposal.

Posted by McKingford | July 28, 2008 12:17 AM

Krassen,

While I'm sympathetic to your position, I think there are some problems with it. The big problem is that although the Mormon religion has some disturbing beliefs and downright scary history, the same could be said of most religions and particularly the faith most commonly professed by our religious leaders. If you took the position that you would never vote for an evangelical Christian president as well, you might be on better ground. But until you make that commitment, I think your position is discriminatory towards Mormons.

Posted by mpowell | July 28, 2008 12:22 AM

I'd laugh my ass off. I had a First Assembly education (Ashcroft's sect) and I had a full semester class on cults that was 60% anti-LDS and 30% anti-Jehovah's Witness. Those folk *don't* like the newcomers horning in on the take. I think Catholics probably got most of the other 10%.

Mitt would be the anti-christ before the evangelicals told their flocks that Mormanism was legitimate.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 28, 2008 12:27 AM

However, you cannot elect a POTUS without vetting their worldview, and a person who says that this particular religion is important to them - with all of its record on blacks, family structure, separation of state and church - to say that we should leave all this alone and focus instead on John Edwards haircut or Barack Obama's high school friends, you are obviously nuts...

As opposed to a person who says that, say, the Catholic religion is important to them - with all of its record on "family structure," gay marriage, gay adoptions, gay sex, the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, all forms of artificial contraception, abortion, stem cell research, assisted reproductive technologies, separation of church and state, women's rights, the sexual abuse of children....

Posted by Mixner | July 28, 2008 12:46 AM

How can someone who's a phony raise, along with his wife, five loving, outgoing, productive sons? Romney's sons adore him. Being a phony and raising a great family like Romney has is a contradiction in terms. In my opinion this all boils down to jealosy. It comes in the form of personal attacks to over exagerations about flip flops on issues.
My opinion of Mr. Romney is based on his solid family values.

Posted by jane | July 28, 2008 12:52 AM

A lot of these people bashing Romney are die hard libs, who cares about their fanatical hatred of Romney, in fact, if anything it proves why Romney would be a good VP pick.

These libs are practically foaming at the mouth whenever Romney is mentioned. Let's go, McCain/Romney 08! Whoohoo!!

Posted by McCain/Romney 08! | July 28, 2008 1:07 AM

As opposed to a person who says that, say, the Catholic religion is important to them

You must have no idea who your compatriats of 2004 were. They had GW Bush stuck on the windows of trailers like he was the Ayatollah. They will freak out about Mitt. If you don't believe me (probably shouldn't) I'll just laugh harder. I have no idea what they will do but convincing the other-worldy to vote for McCain (who they view as a fake and probable athiest) and Romney (who they view as a dangerous satanist) seems to me an uphill battle. Throw Rev. Wright out there. It will beat the hell out of holy underwear among the evangelical crowd. Try it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 28, 2008 1:15 AM

Romney is an amazing example of a human being, saved the Olympics, founded the mega-successful Bain Capital, took a multi-billion dollar deficit in MA and gave them a billion dollar surplus, he forced the liberal legislature to put banning gay marriage on the ballot for 2008, vetoed bills that authorized embryo farming, therapeutic cloning, plan b emergency contraception and the redefinition of when live begins, fought for families, abstinence education in schools, held the line on taxes, etc etc.

It's definately gonna be Mitt as VP.

Posted by sam | July 28, 2008 1:15 AM

krassen, you make me sick.

You could probably say "I have a HUGE problem with a black president, but it's not racism. I like my black friends but they just dont belong in the whitehouse." That is the absolute most hypocritical statement anybody has ever made. Did you think before you hit enter?

Lets move on to quell some of this Anti-Romney rhetoric.
1. Mass. did not suffer under the Romney admin. The state was absolutely in the tank before he took office. Did it improve, well it made a jump from the 50th worst economy to the 44th. An improvement on an embarassing record, but an improvement that cannot go unnoticed, especially considering that Mitt only served one term.
2. Mitt's healthcare plan was not a government take over. Mass. tax payers did not pay money to the government which handed out the money. The government worked with companies who lowered the premiums for the citizens of the state. The goverment asked the people to buy into the system. Tax $$ didnt pay for the program. Government didnt pay anything out, just negotiated the price.
3. Evangelicals who see Mitt's mormon faith as a negative simply because they don't like it can get their bibles out of their asses. You embarass your party, but most of all your country. The important thing to remember is that, when he sticks his hand on the bible when he's sworn in, that bible means something to him. By hating him for his faith you ignore exactly what you have learned your entire lives about loving your neighbor. Give it up, Huck lost, move on.

Posted by Dan | July 28, 2008 1:19 AM

Ed Marshall,

Well done. All those words, and not a single sentence that addresses what I actually wrote.

I know that for you everything is about us-vs-them partisan politics, but try, just try, to break out of that mentality once in a while.

Posted by Mixner | July 28, 2008 1:23 AM

Trust me, as a MA resident, I can assure you, we did better under Romney. Look at our current governor, Deval Patrick, what a typical liberal embarrassment.

Deval Patrick leased a 46000 dollar cadillac, spent 10000 dollars for new curtains for his office and hired a scheduler for his wife at a whooping 72000 dollars a year at taxpayer expense!

We need someone with integrity in office, Romney 2008

Posted by MAResident | July 28, 2008 1:25 AM

Mixner, I was assuming you weren't part of the bible army. It doesn't matter what you think. Watch what happens next.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 28, 2008 1:36 AM

I admire your opinions. I think however, that the evangelical issue was overblown by the media, much like their current love fest with Obama.

Looking at the evangelicals, with McCain and Huckabee in the mix, they still went to Romney about 30%. Evangelicals are not a monolithic group, and in fact, LDS/Catholics/Protestants/Evangelicals really have the same socially conservative agenda. They're gonna vote for the people that can promote it the best, so yes, they will vote for Romney.

Posted by Hey Ed Marshall | July 28, 2008 1:45 AM

mixner and mpowel: yes, I would have a problem with a president who is Catholic or Evangelical and says "religion=freedom", however, to a lesser extent than an LSD candidate who says the same thing. LSD is much much more offensive to me; For starters, child rape is the most disgusting crime that I can think of. And here I would like to preempt the argument that FLSD is very different than mainstream LSD, by telling people to check the level of support the child rapists from Texas enjoyed in Utah this spring. If you are telling me that all those people rallying during the utah Jazz playoffs were not mainstream mormons you are absolutely wrong.

jane, you know who else had a large family and a loving wife? Joseph Goebels! The similarities do not end up there: sweet spot for concentration camps (double guantanamo!), cultural purism (America should not be like Europe = We have a purely German (i.e. Jew-free) culture now), etc.

Dan, you are just dumb! Being black is not a worldview. Being a mormon is. Black president is perfectly fine, mormon president is not, unless he says that it is more of a family tradition than something of personal philosophical importance. Which Romney clearly did not say.

Posted by krassen | July 28, 2008 3:03 AM

Romney is, indeed, loathsome.

What really pushed my buttons was that clueless little smirk of his, almost exactly like Dan Quayle's 20 years ago. Every time I saw it, I wanted to put my fist through it, just like Dan's.

His best Quayle moment was on MLK day, when he tried singing "Who Let the Dogs Out?" and then commented on a baby's "bling bling."

The really funny thing is that the GOP heads talk about economics as his strong suit. If McCain picked him, it would mean an economic team consisting of Romney, Phil Gramm, and Carly Fiorina. Shee-it, why not throw in Bob Nardelli, Ken Lay, and "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap while he's at it.

Unfortunately, though, Obama seems to be too big a puss to capitalize on it.

Posted by Kevin Carson | July 28, 2008 3:22 AM

Let us elect Romney and then make a new law that no Protestant or Evangelical may run for office and they must be labeled a cult. Also all Protestants must get a visa every three months to remain in the country and must travel to Russia to get one. Also the mass media must run documentaries every week warning people about the dangers of Protestants and all the evils they have committed in their past. All Protestants must attend public schools in which they must be ridiculed by Mormon teachers. The high divorce rate and child abuse of Protestants must be blamed on monogamy. Protestants will be potrayed on T.V. as backward Amish or Mennonites and the public must see all Protestants as living in compounds and being nuts. No Protestant will be allowed to live in Utah. They must use handcarts to pack their belongings and must walk to Illinois. Obviously this is just a joke, but think about it this is how Mormons have been treated.

Posted by Jerry | July 28, 2008 11:22 AM

Let us elect Romney and then make a new law that no Protestant or Evangelical may run for office and they must be labeled a cult. Also all Protestants must get a visa every three months to remain in the country and must travel to Russia to get one. Also the mass media must run documentaries every week warning people about the dangers of Protestants and all the evils they have committed in their past. All Protestants must attend public schools in which they must be ridiculed by Mormon teachers. The high divorce rate and child abuse of Protestants must be blamed on monogamy. Protestants will be potrayed on T.V. as backward Amish or Mennonites and the public must see all Protestants as living in compounds and being nuts. No Protestant will be allowed to live in Utah. They must use handcarts to pack their belongings and must walk to Illinois. Obviously this is just a joke, but think about it this is how Mormons have been treated.

Posted by Jerry | July 28, 2008 11:26 AM

Now that their Dad's (Gosh!) out of the race, maybe Tagg and the boys (what the fuck kind of name is Tagg?) can finally get to serving their country in Iraq, instead of Iowa.

Posted by Ben Cronin | July 28, 2008 1:18 PM

McCain's thinking on the Romney issue has been misreported: he is actually vetting only Romney's *hair*, for the position of Presidential Hair. McCain's own hair, of course, is simply not up to the job: the McCain/Romney Hair candidate will of course be a big step forward.

If Romney Hair decides to pursue his own political ambitions, it's unclear quite what Mitt himself will do in his future solo career: maybe more dog-harassment, perhaps in partnership with Michael Vick.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 28, 2008 1:33 PM

Jane is pretty convincing that a phony could not have raised five adorable children like Romney. Of course, the robot from Star Wars could, and there is always the possibility that Romney is an android from outer space. However, as we know from science, most such androids drink mass quantities of beer. This has never been said about Romney! That he seems not to compute that human creatures put a high symbolic value on certain four legged biomasses such that it is not advised to use packing tape to secure his pet canine to the grill of his car - doesn't mean a thing! He has never heard of the planet Remulak. Honestly.

But it is what Zachry writes that convinces me:
"Romney has also passed the Commander in Chief test..." That test is like so hard! It is given by Alex Trubeck, I believe, and includes questions like: what do you do if France refuses to lower tariffs on wine. The test is multiple choice and comes in two versions - patriotic Republican and traitorous democrat. The multiple choices for the above question (patriotic) are: a., nuke France, b., nuke France good, c. nuke France hard, and d, nuke France twice, and remember to replace the missiles using a non-competitive contract awarding the job to Haliburton. Only top, top notch intellects guess that it is d. These are the think-aheaders we need to lead us!

From the responses to MY's slander of Romney, it is easy to see that this year, it is going to be a GOP sweep. Hard to know what the Dems will do. Maybe they will all emigrate to some Soviet place. So we are agreed, McCain and Romney - for a better tomorrow that looks the same as yesterday!

Posted by roger | July 28, 2008 2:07 PM

I guess that it really does speak to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the American Right that Willard Mitt Romney is their new golden boy.

I actually moved from MA in ’02, so I never experienced his governorship first-hand. But I do remember his run against Ted Kennedy for the US Senate in ’94. Forget the fact that he ran as Pro-Choice in ’94, the right forgets that he ran as Pro-Choice in ’02. You can explain away his Pro-life conversion in the same unbelievable way he did.

Romney ran in ’94 saying that he would be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy. He has yet to explain away that giant flip-flop but I’m sure he could if he tried. What’s not possible even for him, I think, is to explain away his statement that during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush I he was a political independent. Not when St. Ronald stands as the spiritual father of today’s GOP.

Oh yeah and speaking of golden things. There is his administration’s policy during 2003-2007 in Massachusetts for the various health agencies. They produced an AIDS-prevention and safety handbook that advocated water-sports as a way to have sexual fun with your partner with no risk of spreading HIV. Yeah.

I actually am somewhat comfortable with Mitt for some reason, even though I am a left-leaning Democrat. Maybe it’s because I really think that he is his father, a moderate-to-liberal Republican, just with less principle.

Posted by Raindog | July 29, 2008 12:56 AM

The "cases" made against Romney are ridiculous. You call him an opportunist....what happens when McCain doesn't pick Mitt and Mitt really doesn't care. Evangelicals and liberals both call Mitt a flip-flopper but a thorough study of Mitt's politlcal career indicate that he's done a flip on a few issues, and those issues flip to a conservative movement. You say Mitt is trying to buy a VP selection but, insiders to Mitt say that he honestly doesn't think McCain will pick him. You say Mitt is fake but, I know his fourth son and they are some of the most genuine and kind people that you would ever meet. So, I have to ask, in the end of it all, when Mitt is not selected as VP what will you come up with next? Can we call this man what he really is.....a genuine man with interest in helping his country in every way he can? The man has already conquered the economic world, I doubt he has interest in it at this point in his life. I honestly believe that at his age, he is looking to give back to community and nation at this stage in his life.

Posted by Jaya | July 29, 2008 9:41 AM