I agree with what Jim wrote
about Romney's exit from the Massachusetts governor's mansion,
and during the campaign, I had a problem with the way his
supporters conflated
his accomplishments as a business executive with his comparably
weak record as governor to create an overall impression of
managerial competence. It also bothers me to no end when Romney's
boosters argue that he isn't really to blame for the failure of
the big government health care legislation he championed because
it was changed by Democrats -- even though he signed the damn
thing knowing that he would be leaving office and allowing
liberals to oversee its implementation.
That said, politically speaking, Romney's decision to leave
office has not been as damaging as I believe Palin's decision to
resign will prove. Serving out a full term is psychologically
different to voters than headlines about a politician resigning
before his or her term expires, and jumping off what Quin
wrote last week, Romney could argue that at least he did his
duty by sticking it out for four years. In addition, because
Romney was a successful businessman and helped turnaround the
Salt Lake City Olympics, he was able to convince most Republican
primary voters last year that he was a competent executive. While
there are a number of views on why Romney ended up losing the
nomination (the flip flops, the inauthenticity, his thin
conservative credentials, anti-Mormon bigotry, the MSM wanted
McCain, etc.) he did not lose because voters doubted his
qualifications as a manager.
By contrast, Palin has a connection to the Republican base that
Romney could not manufacture, but her biggest obstacle is
convincing skeptics that she is qualified enough to be president
and can be an effective executive. Because she doesn't have
similar private sector success to fall back on, her decision to
leave office early will prove more politically damaging than
Romney's decision to quit after just one term.
