The American Spectator

Grzmlyk| 7.7.09 @ 9:19AM

I wish Romney were made of presidential timber, but he is not. He's got managerial skills in spades, and would make a good cabinet member in conservative administration, but he lacks the leadership gene.

We need a game changer. It ain't any of the leftovers from the 2008 debacle.

As for Palin, I'm as consfused as everyone else. I have no idea whether her move was good or not or what really motivated it. If she acquires the intellectual and policy chops to go along with the rest of the package, that would be an almost divine gift to conservatives.

But the leadership gene is very rare; only a handful of leaders in the 20th century have had it. I suspect the next Ronald Reagan/Margaret Thatcher has yet to materialize before us.

Whoever that is, I wish they'd hurry up.

Ran| 7.7.09 @ 9:29AM

Mitt (or Sarah) will need th support of a phalanx of Reagans in congress if roll-back of the "Progressive" agenda is to occur. It will take a direct effort from each of us at the grass-roots level promoting libertarian & conservative candidates and policies. We've got to attend Tea Parties, phone & write our State and Federal Reps, hound the local Republican and Democrat offices, voluntering for the Boy Scouts, joining the NRA, signing-up subscriptions to TAS and to Reason...

Sure, Mitt would be fine in office, but we will not correct the country's trajectory without giving him plenty of congressional back-up. Mitt (or Sarah or Reagan) ain't gonna save us... it's up to us.

John Adams| 7.7.09 @ 9:43AM

For Grzmlyk to state that Romney lacks leadership and is not a game changer shows me that he is speaking out of ignorance of Romney's career accomplishments. Before becoming governor, Romney had established himself as the most accomplished person at being able to go into a failing business, analyze the problems, come up with the "game changing" improvements needed to turn around the compay into a success. It was under his leadership that time and again he repeated one success after another. His turn around of the Winter Olympics is another example of his leadership ability to put into place game changing improvements. This article also cited several areas where it was Romney leading efforts in the state of Massachusetts. If Romney were President, we would have turned our economy around by now instead of talking about yet another ineffective stimulus package and more debt.

Tim| 7.7.09 @ 9:49AM

What a mess. Strong feelings all around. Romney did a lot in Boston, but he would have to do a lot more to make it to DC.
Palin really disappointed me with her latest move, but she still has some LOYAL peeps here, that's for sure. Maybe that loyalty will buoy her in 2012.
Time will tell.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 10:03AM

Antle, an election is a contract between the electorate and the elected. Breaking that contract is in no way equivalent to fulfilling it and then moving on. Your argument is a stretch -- and you probably know it.

Remember that Romney was recruited by the Republican party to run and he spent a lot of his own money on the campaign. Should he spend another $6 million of his own money to get reelected? If he wanted to run for President, then fulfilling his term first was absolutely the right thing to do. He was 61 years old in 2008. Waiting another four years was not an option.

Antle, you usually have clear thoughts. In this case, just admit you overreached.

Grzmlyk| 7.7.09 @ 10:07AM

John Adams, I have read the litany of Romney's accomplishments numerous times.

And, early on in 2008, he was my guy. No doubt he's got great managerial skill and business acumen.

He is NOT a political leader who is a game changer. Sorry to break then news to you, but the electorate already came to that conclusion in 2008.

HE LOST TO MCCAIN!!!

Maria M.| 7.7.09 @ 10:12AM

Silly man. You feel like you have been so open and honest with the readers pointing out these various things about Romney, if only he had continued. But in reality you know as well as everyone else that once he changed his position on abortion he wouldn't have been reelected. So you see, all of your points are stated in vain.

Jeff | 7.7.09 @ 10:35AM

James,

Marriage, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, and Life.....all issues of importance in Massachusetts but they were also being fervently debated in 2007 on the national stage and any national solution that is implemented would end the debate on Beacon Hill.

An Immigration bill signed into law by the President would've solved the problem nationwide and ended the need for talk in Massachusetts and state legislatures around the country. Likewise, a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution immediately ends the need for states to individually define what a marriage is or is not. National healthcare reform resolves the issue for all Americans from the Northeast to the Southwest. And, any action on the life issue must come from the Federal government. Governors haven’t had any power on that issue since the Roe v. Wade decision.

Romney didn’t leave the Governor’s chair to go back to Bain and make money thereby leaving these issues behind; he left office to pursue the next rung up in power where he knew each of these issues would surely play out and where he knew the epicenter for these issues had shifted to.

In fact, it could be argued that not seeking higher office and thereby allowing others to nationally shape the debate and devise the solutions that would be forced upon Massachusetts would be the true definition of abandoning these very important issues.

Basil Plumley| 7.7.09 @ 11:36AM

@ Mr. Antle

You are absolutely correct about Romney. Romney ran for Governor with an eye to run for President in 2008. Everyone in MA knew that. Every political position he took was done with an eye on the 2008 run. He was MIA on many important issues. He talked a good game AFTER the evil deed was done. He never did lift a finger to change the acts of the MA State House. He also had a bad habit of not helping conservatives running against entrenched Democrats.

He was front and center on the Health Care issue. The Romney plan will bankrupt the state of MA. From what I have read, he was considered somewhat of a joke by folks who worked for him at the State House. They expected a man of passion for conservative causes. What they got was Mortimer Snerd.

Bob "likes" him; that says it all.

Grzmlyk| 7.7.09 @ 11:45AM

Basil Plumley:

Bull's eye.

The road back to the White House does NOT make a stop at Romneyville.

W. James Antle III| 7.7.09 @ 11:53AM

"Antle, an election is a contract between the electorate and the elected. Breaking that contract is in no way equivalent to fulfilling it and then moving on."

I've said more than once that they are not equivalent, so as usual you are arguing with something I have not said. I made this criticism of Romney before Sarah Palin was even a national figure.

As for the arguments that he couldn't have afforded to wait beyond 2008 or he couldn't have been reelected after changing his position on abortion: sorry, I care more about my home state than any politician's career. These people hold office to serve us, not the other way around.

KIngsmill| 7.7.09 @ 12:00PM

Mitt was an incredibly weak Governor in Massachusetts. He failed to issue an executive order that would have thrown a roadblock into the implementation of the Goodridge decision. His efforts in regard to the referenda were at arms length and half-hearted (with an eye on preserving his reputation with national social conservatives.) He failed to take down the Democratic hack fiefdoms at the public authorities. And of course the disaster of the Commonwealth Care (statist health care bankrupting Mass.) system lies on his shoulders. He did nothing to inject life into the state Republican party. His term was oddly distant and mechanical. With Mitt there is no there there.

Lori| 7.7.09 @ 12:15PM

When the job was done? Are you nuts, James! The job was well-done when he put the state on sure footing and on a path of smart reforms and initiatives. Is there no Republican but him to keep MA on that path? That is ridiculous. MA liberals were always going to control the state and eventually ruin any conservative progress anyway. They control everything. And they did not want Romney to stay. He probably would not have gotten re-elected to do anything on your honey-do list. Please use your head. He did what was possible. He got the state on sure footing and headed in the correct course. That is what a leader does. Deval Patrick was chosen by the voters and he and the voters and their reps are responsible for undoing it all. Not Romney.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 12:25PM

Antle -- ponder this.... If you were not trying to establish an equivalence between Palin and Romney, why even address this subject at this time???? It sounds as if you are giving us a politically correct response and that grates on me as much as scratching a blackboard with your fingernails.

Lori| 7.7.09 @ 12:28PM

And another thing...you seem to blame Romney for the liberal decisions made after he was replaced. This is utterly ludicrous. Patrick and his ilk are responsible. And at what point would the job have been done? When you say it is done? The job is ongoing, a fight for all seasons, conservativatism! MA was very fortunate to have him. Romney has a chance to take the fight, his skills and talents to a larger battlefield, the nation and lucky is the nation who elects him . He would have been an excellent president. He fights on.

Angel| 7.7.09 @ 1:40PM

Too bad for Myth Romney--Bob's approval is the kiss of death for his candidacy. At least at AmSpec.

Bob, have you ever read the book, "How to win friends and influence enemies?"

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 2:12PM

Angel -- there you go again with the pinnacle of reflective thought. Your enduring love for me is noted. But if what you said was true, I'd support Palin unconditionally.

Basil Plumley| 7.7.09 @ 3:34PM

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 12:25PM

Antle -- ponder this.... If you were not trying to establish an equivalence between Palin and Romney, why even address this subject at this time???? It sounds as if you are giving us a politically correct response and that grates on me as much as scratching a blackboard with your fingernails.

Hmmmm ...... sounds like you are overreaching, admit it.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 3:38PM

Basil, in the overreaching, angry department, I am no match for you.

Brittanicus| 7.7.09 @ 4:09PM

With Al Franklin being sworn the oath of office, which for a majority in either party the oath means absolutely nothing? Be assured the Democratic Libertarian leadership has a perfect storm and with a 60 member majority the other side cannot filibuster any new laws to being enacted. My major concern is an illegal immigrant the--OVERPOPULATION--invasion. Unless--THE AMERICAN PEOPLE--don't exert pressure on their Senators, Representatives, they are--SURE--to pass another AMNESTY. With no restraints it means 13 to 20 million plus, foreign workers and their large families will get a path to citizenship, even though they broke our laws. In stark addition to this, millions more will appear in America after sweeping across our border, after being advised that AMNESTY is going to be enacted.

OVERPOPULATION--will over the next 40 years propel the amount of people, living, working here to around 430 million? That's federal government statistics?

Our country is already being swamped by foreign nations who cannot speak or write English and unable to comprehend road warning signs. Amongst the impoverished, the sick and others carry contagious diseases, comes the gang members, rapists, murders and other criminal elements. Those caught have already compromised our overcrowded penal system. Each day there is carnage on the highways to American family members. The Heritage foundation has already stated that the costs could reach $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS, just in retirement benefits. I don't think their are any words to describe the financial impact on taxpayers, as these poor, unschooled and large extended families cannot find work, in a near 11.0 percent jobless rate for AMERICANS. There is huge unknown financial amount of money to support the illegal worker, followed by a wife and then--CHAIN MIGRATION--of sisters, brothers who are sure to come?

There is a danger to our economy so unbelievable, it cannot be emphasized enough--THAT THE PUBLIC MUST PRESSURE THEIR RELUCTANT PUBLIC SERVANTS IN WASHINGTON--NOT TO ALLOW ANY KIND OF AMNESTY? The full weight of this massive expenditure will fall on the U.S. TAXPAYER--NOT THE PARASITE EMPLOYER WHO DOES THE HIRING? A prime example at this time is payments of illegal alien households around the country. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation calculated the average low-skilled immigrant household received $30,160 in direct benefits, education, medical care and other services from all levels of government in 2004. Those same low-skilled immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes that year, meaning the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588.

The ultimate question is can Americans afford to support all these low income nationals, while the nations economy is stagnant? With millions of the US population searching for a job, with a slender possibility of passing Universal health care? We must have a uniform immigration enforcement program, that our politicians have cowardly moved away from, except for a brave few.

We need immediate transformation of E-Verification to a permanent, none voluntary for--ALL--workers, within the United States. Whether you have five employees or 50.000 everybody must be verified as legal. IT SHOULD START WITH EVERY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION? THEN EVERY US FEDERAL WORKER SHOULD BE VETTED, OR HAVE THE US GOVERNMENT GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE? BEING THAT FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH, IMPLEMENTED THE PILOT PROGRAM, THE GOVERNMENT MUST SET AN EXAMPLE INSTEAD OF ALL THE DELAYS?

rcocean| 7.7.09 @ 4:41PM

I think you're far too kind to Romney. As a politician the guys a loser. He outspent everyone by 3-1 and still lost to McCain - one of the weakest candidates ever. We need candidates with Charisma not more Fords, Doles, and Bush's.

How conservative is Romney? We don't know - he talked conservative when running for the nomination but his statements were often contributed by his actions in Massachusetts and his previous more liberal comments.

We need a leader with courage and Charisma - not a moderate technocrat who is question mark on almost every issue.

Jack| 7.7.09 @ 5:54PM

>>How conservative is Romney? We don't know - he talked conservative when running for the nomination but his statements were often contributed by his actions in Massachusetts and his previous more liberal comments.

>>We need a leader with courage and Charisma - not a moderate technocrat who is question mark on almost every issue.

What absolute drivel. I question whether some of you have any grasp at all on reality let alone the byzantine workings of Massachusetts politics.

I'm not going to bother disputing every single one of Mr. Antle's assertions, not worth the time as he would never accept mere facts and seemingly neither would the "Mitt is a flip flooper" brigade. But let's take the simple gay marriage kerfuffle as an example of facts illuminating a simplistic analysis.

The fact is the MA Supreme Court, while stating that they had no authority to order the legislature to vote on gay marriage, stated clearly that it was the constitutional duty of the legislature to do so. The legislature subverted the will of the people and the state constitution by using a parlimentary trick, going into recess without voting on the resolution, effectively killing the issue. They have consistently refused to allow the people of MA to vote on the issue in a referendum. Romney even signed on a federal lawsuit basically suing 109 legislators for deriliction of duty.

The MA legislature in addition to being a veto proof Dem majority is incredibly corrupt. We have the singular distinction of having the last 3 Speakers of the House, Dems all, indicted for felonies. Two have been convicted, the third has not come to trial yet but his guilt is beyond question, the only open issue is whether he cops a plea or has the stones to take it to trial.

In this environment, what exactly would you have had Romney do? Don't stomp your feet and whine "but he's a flip flopper", specifically what would you have had him do? Issue an executive order which would have had dubious legal merit and in any case would have been ignored by the legislature? Grab a gun and bar the door to the State House? Issue a super duper executive order as Reagan did to overturn Roe? Oh wait, he didn't do that, did he. So what, specifically would you have had him do? Or do you just want to go on bitching without having to deal with facts or reality?

Romney did an admirable job of straightening out the horribly out of whack MA budget without raising taxes save for fees on things like boat moorings at state parks and marriage licenses, fees that hadn't been raised in over a decade. He fought hammer and tong with the Dems in the legislature to lower tax rates, a quixoitc battle if there ever was one knowing the insatiable appetite Dems in MA have for increased revenues but to say he didn't try is insane and false. He fought for social issues such as gay marriage but was thwarted by a legislature which basically flaunted the law.

Take a good hard look at the federal delegation from MA. Kennedy, Kerry, Frank, etc., etc. 100% liberal Dems. You think our local government is somehow different? Please.

Romney fought hard for conservative fiscal and social policies in the most liberal state in the Union. It is illogical to compare his actions and accomplishments to Palin, Pawlwenty, Sanford, any other Republican governor without factoring this into the equation. To continue on blaming Romney for things that were completely out of his control, would be out of the control of zombie Reagan who never would have gotten elected in MA because he would have been to "radical" for the far left apparatchiks who have controled this state for decades, shows either extreme ignorance of Massachusetts politics or extreme dishonesty. I'll let you choose.

Being a conservative in Alaska, South Carolina, Texas or even Minnesota is a snap compared to being a conservative in Massachusetts. What we will need after 4 years of Obama is someone who understands economics, markets and how to attract voters across the spectrum to actually get elected. Romney has proven he has these attributes and if not for Huckabee's shamefull religion baiting during the primaries, he would have been the candidate last fall. He is right now, the best candidate we have in 2012. Somebody may come up to challenge him but it sure as hell won't be Palin who couldn't even finish a single term in a Republican heavy state. Accusing Romney of pulling a Palin when the situations were completely different is not analysis worthy of being printed in a leading conservative publication.

Keep trying.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 6:06PM

Jack, you will never convince these guys of relevant factual information because in this discourse, Mitt is just a foil for Sarah. If Sarah didn't quit, we wouldn't be discussing this. They have an emotional, irrational attachment to this unknowledgeable lady that supersedes mere logic.

Basil Plumley| 7.7.09 @ 6:39PM

@ Jack

To understand the GOP in MA is to understand Mitt Romney. Mitt was a known commodity in MA. He ran as a Dem-Lite alternative to Kerry. He ran as a Dem-Lite for Governor in 2002. Everything changed when he wanted to run in 08. He decided not to run for re-election in 2006 because a loss or poor showing would hurt him in 08.

The reasons the GOP have no representation in Congress is threefold: Dem power politics, GOP State Committee's lack of direction(conservatism? egads!), National GOP indifference.

There are a lot of Conservatives in MA but Romney isn't one of them. He has played one in the last election cycle but Romney is the heir to the William Weld-Paul Cellucci- Ed Brooke-Frank Sargent wing of the GOP.

I judge the man on his actions not his words. He did very little to increase the presence of the GOP in MA. Somehow, you expect miracles from Romney. You and Bob may operate under that delusion, I call a spade a spade.

If Bob were honest, he would admit that I have never been a fan of Romney. Palin has nothing to do with it.

W. James Antle III| 7.7.09 @ 7:37PM

Jack, you can lecture me about "mere facts" when you can master my basic argument. In response to commenters I saw making the Palin-Romney comparison, I specifically said more than once that declining to run for reelection is not equivalent to resigning office mid-term. I have only agreed with the narrow point that Romney ran for president rather than finish what he started in Massachusetts. Nothing you have said even begins to address that argument, much less refute it. Keep trying.

What would I have had Romney do about same-sex marriage? Simple: finish what he started. You are correct that Romney was limited in what he could do after the Goodridge decision came down. So he initially did what he could by supporting the anti-Goodridge constitutional amendment most likely to pass in a joint session of the Democratic state legislature. Some same-sex marriage opponents in the legislature did not want to support it because it allowed for civil unions. Romney persuaded several of them to change their minds, including a majority of Republicans, and it passed.

But the amendment needed to pass a second constitutional convention. Soft supporters abandoned it because they decided they could get full same-sex marriage rather than civil unions. Strong supporters decided they could get rid of same-sex marriage without creating civil unions. So the amendment failed on the second vote and Romney threw his weight behind the only available game in town: a referendum against same-sex marriage.

As Jack notes, the Democratic leaders of the legislature didn't want to do their duty under Article 48 of the state constitution to vote on this new amendment (it needed to have 25 percent support in two separate sessions for it to reach the voters). But then he sells his man short: Romney won! Romney took the legislators to court and prevailed. He led rallies urging them to vote on the amendment as required by the constitution. And then on January 2, 2007, right before the legislative session came to an end, the amendment got enough votes in the legislature to proceed.

Yay, Mitt! Then came the next session of the Massachusetts legislature. A constitutional convention convened on June 14, 2007. The amendment came five votes short of advancing to the ballot, thus quashing any democratic resolution of the issue until at least 2012. Maybe there was nothing Romney could have done about this. We will never know -- he wasn't there anymore. No one was there to lobby reluctant legislators, lead rallies at the State House, or do any of the work that was responsible for the come-from-behind victories of the past two attempts to undo Goodridge.

That's the problem with every issue I raise. Romney started something commendable. In some cases he succeeded against almost unanimous opposition from the rest of the state political class. But in order for the job to be finished -- for the illegal immigration program to actually go into effect, for the health care plan to be implemented by someone other than a liberal Democrat, for a same-sex marriage referendum to have any hope of reaching the ballot -- Romney or someone of like mind needed to be there to see it through. In Boston making it happen, not in Des Moines taking credit for what was half-finished.

One last point before I try to climb off this soapbox: Romney's defenders on this thread want us to believe simultaneously that Romney is a great leader and that Massachusetts is so irredeemably liberal that nothing he could have done in office would have made any difference. Well, which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Jack| 7.7.09 @ 7:39PM

>>There are a lot of Conservatives in MA but Romney isn't one of them. He has played one in the last election cycle but Romney is the heir to the William Weld-Paul Cellucci- Ed Brooke-Frank Sargent wing of the GOP.

See if you can tell me what all the men you named have in common. Give up? They got elected in Massachusetts.

Now, since you know plenty of conservative Republicans in MA, give me some examples who have been elected to statewide or national office. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Ok, that was a trick question. There aren't any.

The only delusional one here is you if you think an conservative Republican candidate has a chance at elected office on a statewide or national level in Massachusetts. Facts are a stubborn thing. You should just say you would never vote for a Republican who has held statewide office in Massachusetts and make it a shorter argument.

I'm sick to death of "conservatives" who would rather pass their own personal litmus test of who is conservative enough for them rather than deal with the realities of elective politics. You want to commit electoral suicide have it. I want to find a candidate that can actually win nationally.

Romney, right now, is the best national candidate for the Republican party. He can attract moderates and even some Dems. He has proven it. There is nobody in politics today who is more knowledgeable on economic and turn around issues. That will be THE issue in 2012. He will appoint conservative judges, the only prayer for anti-abortion conservatives and has already demonstrated his chops fighting against gay marriage. Fighting, not just pontificating but actually fighting.

If you judged Romney on his actions and balanced that against the reality of the environment he was operating I would give your argument some credence. You don't so I won't.

Jack| 7.7.09 @ 7:57PM

>>Jack, you can lecture me about "mere facts" when you can master my basic argument. In response to commenters I saw making the Palin-Romney comparison, I specifically said more than once that declining to run for reelection is not equivalent to resigning office mid-term. I have only agreed with the narrow point that Romney ran for president rather than finish what he started in Massachusetts. Nothing you have said even begins to address that argument, much less refute it. Keep trying.

There's nothing to refute or master. It's a bogus argument. By your logic, Romney's job would never have been done because none of the issues you brought up to bolster your case, gay marriage, illegal immigration, health care, life issues, will ever be definitively decided. They are merely arguments on a continuum that will be debated, as they have been, for decades to come. So your basic argument, the one you got jumped on yesterday not just by me but by many, is a false argument which is exactly why you got jumped on.

Romney served the entire term he was elected to by the people of Massachusetts. He fought hard although not always successfully against a stacked deck. He was able to do some positive things on the economic front despite the opposition and he was less successful on some social issue. But the assertion that he would have been more successful had he run for another term is the wildest type of speculation unsupported by any evidence, real or anecdotal, and it has zero to do with Palin who quit in the middle of her term.

I understand and appreciate you have issues with Romney's results and that is obviously your right. Don't support him. But to see a pundit like yourself with a prominent pulpit use bogus arguments to try to deflect criticism from the conservative darling of the moment by trying to equate Romney's actions with Palins's is wrong. Romney served his full term. Palin quit in the middle of hers. No amount of journalistic sleight of hand is going to change that.

W. James Antle III| 7.7.09 @ 8:08PM

No amount of sleight of hand is going to change the fact you keep arguing with something I have not said because you can't disprove what I have actually said.

How was the Massachusetts health care plan going to be implemented according to Romney's specifics if he was going to leave office as soon as it was implemented? How was his illegal immigration plan going to take place if he was not going to be around to implement it? How was the anti-Goodridge amendment going to pass if the only statewide elected official who actively supported it is gone?

We're not talking about solving these issues conclusively for all time. We are talking about specific policies that he takes credit for that he did not see through because he was seeking a higher office.

Sarah Palin deserves whatever political fallout she gets for her refusal to finish the term to which she was elected. And Romney doesn't deserve full credit where only partial credit is due.

Bob| 7.7.09 @ 8:08PM

James, first you say this:

"I specifically said more than once that declining to run for reelection is not equivalent to resigning office mid-term."

Then you say this:

"I have only agreed with the narrow point that Romney ran for president rather than finish what he started in Massachusetts."

So, for a point of logic... if they are not equivalent, why make the point? Is Romney currently running for anything? Please admit you made the point because the whole issue of Palin quitting arose AND YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE A COUNTER ARGUMENT USING ROMNEY through the use of EQUIVALENCE.

I do respect your views on Romney -- and you have lots of experience to back them up. But that is not why you did what you did. Why don't you wait until Romney actually runs to make your analysis?

W. James Antle III| 7.7.09 @ 8:14PM

Bob, every argument I'm making here I made in this 2007 column I filed after the Massachusetts marriage amendment was defeated for the last time:

http://spectator.org/archives/2007/06/18/missed-opportunity-mitt

Every opportunity I get to repeat myself, I take.

But I think you are probably right that the Palin resignation was the wrong time to rehash these points because it does lend itself to being read as a defense of Palin.

Jack| 7.7.09 @ 8:44PM

>>How was the Massachusetts health care plan going to be implemented according to Romney's specifics if he was going to leave office as soon as it was implemented? How was his illegal immigration plan going to take place if he was not going to be around to implement it? How was the anti-Goodridge amendment going to pass if the only statewide elected official who actively supported it is gone?

Again, taken to it's logical conclusion, your argument is that no politician should ever decline to run for re-election if any issue is not decided to it's ultimate and final conclusion. Given that virutally no issue is ever decided in an ultimate and final way, this is, to me, absurd. And even if he had found some miraculous way to get re-elected, their is no guarantee the legislature wouldn't have overridden his vetos or just flat out ignored things they didn't want to do (see gay marriage vote).

It has been further pointed out to you that even if you think Romney was not conservative enough, the actions that he took as governor made him too conservative for the electorate of Massachusetts to re-elect. You don't seem to take this into your calculus or if you do you seem to think the honorable thing for Romney to do would have been to run with virtually no chance or winning. Since when is conservatism a suicide pact?

The people of Massachusetts are not representative of the people of America. If you lived here, you know that. They do not want conservative policies and only elect a Republican governor every now and then, say after 4 years of Deval Patrick, to fix the colossal clusterfark that one party Dem rule always brings. Romney had flat out worn out his welcome with the citizens of the People's Republic of Massachusetts. You seem to either ignore this or believe it to be unimportant. His only options were to 1) run for President or 2) leave politics. Notably, he implemented his decision to run for president after he finished his term. He gave the people more than their money's worth (seeing as how he took no money for the job).

Palin, in a much, much more Republican friendly Alaska, a state with a population about the size of Worcester and an oil economy that makes pesky things like taxes irrelevant and a popularity, while down from it's stratospherically high levels during the presidential election to more mundane yet still over 50%, quit in the middle of her term for purely personal reasons.

We can go around and around on this but we will never agree. You see their actions as equivalent on some moral plane. I don't. And I reject on it's face any argument that tries to equate the actions.

Now, can't we all just get along?

Flower Power| 7.7.09 @ 9:02PM

It doesn't matter what you say, Jack: Romney has all of the charisma of a dead fish and Palin is suffused with it.

Romney had his chance. Maybe Sarah will choose him as her VP, if he behaves himself. That's the breaks, baby.

Basil Plumley| 7.7.09 @ 9:33PM

@ Jack

Wooooosh!

That is the sound of something going over your head. That is the point. The State GOP supports who they want to support. Does the name Ray Shamie ring a bell? Many of those "blue blooded" GOPers switched their allegiance to Kerry after their boy Eliot Richardson was defeated in the primaries. Tell me again, who has the litmus test?
I get it; we Conservatives should always vote for the GOP candidate but they don't. Tell me how hat isn't hypocrisy.

You can't win statewide unless you have the complete backing of the State GOP; your Cabots and Lodges. They are quite liberal.

You say Conservatives can't win? Tell me then, how did Reagan win in 1980 and 1984 after MA was the only state NOT to vote for Nixon in 1972?
That may be a little too tough for you, take your time.

Today, Conservatives have no political home in MA. They tend to call themselves Independents from what I gather.
I think the gist of your post is "just win, baby". If so, that is a dangerous concept. Conservative beliefs tend to get compromised in that scenario. No thank you!

It isn't worth it. If I have to vote for Romney, I'd just as soon stay home. When you have Bonehead Bob voting for Obama because Romney wasn't on the ticket, well, so much for standing on principles.

BTW, I am pretty sure there were a couple of conservative congressmen from MA until 1996.

Kingsmill| 7.7.09 @ 10:12PM

Mitt was and is a faux conservative. He made conservative noises as governor of Mass to keep himself viable with national conservative groups. His governance was tepid and showed no leadership at all. In order to understand Romney you have to look at his run against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate. Mitt denied Ronald Reagan and would not go after Ted as a conservative. He is a businessman who would be effective if delegated a job by Republican President. He cannot and will not lead.

iamse7en| 7.7.09 @ 10:29PM

Say what you will about Mitt, but he's still our best and only decent option in 2012.

I love Palin, but she's too polarizing, and this latest decision won't help. I hate Huck, and he's not a viable candidate. It can be argued, that if it weren't for Huck AND all those liberals voting in our primary, Mitt would have been our candidate in '08. Sanford's done. Jindal won't run. I'm sorry, but who else is there?

Tootsie| 7.7.09 @ 11:42PM

Romney is a cardboard cutout--he'll NEVER be president.

Jack| 7.7.09 @ 11:44PM

>>BTW, I am pretty sure there were a couple of conservative congressmen from MA until 1996.

Then you should have no problem naming them. You've had hours. What is taking you so long? Insults and evasions are not a rebuttal, just a sure sign your argument is, well, lame.

Oh and Ray Shamie, he got eviscerated by both Kennedy and Kerry and then helped get the guy you disdain, Weld, elected governor as the head of the Republican party in MA. That was when Reagan won. You see, MA voters may know who truly sucks nationally, Carter, but locally they will vote for dog poo every damn day, see Frank, Kennedy, et al. Brilliant argument.

Does anyone on here know anything at all about anything or is just babbling and tossing out insults the "winning" hand.

Lilac| 7.8.09 @ 2:31AM

Jack, you've got the losing hand here because you support Romney. Ain't gonna happen--Conservatives just don't want him.

I could have voted for him in 2008 but I was desperate then; he's just too cold for me. Nothing personal.

Basil Plumley| 7.8.09 @ 7:22AM

@ Jack

You're the guy from MA, not me. Would you consider Peter Blute a Conservative?

Once again, you missed the point concerning Ray Shamie. Were you even old enough to remember the Shamie-Kerry race? Kerry won by 10 points. For MA, that's close and if the Liberals in the GOP backed Shamie, it's either a razor loss or a victory for Shamie.
The bottom line is that Conservatives in MA are probably tired of the the litmus test being a one way street.

Do you even remember the Andrew Natsios and Andy Card battle for State GOP chairmanship?

What Antle brings up regarding Romney are issues of Principles, Character, and Integrity. There are questions w/r/t Romney. You have done a rather poor job of selling us on Romney w/r/t these issues.

You seem to think that Romney is great because he won in a Blue State. Sorry, but that is not enough.

By all means, let's discuss Romney's charisma. He does have charisma, doesn't he? Make your case on these 4 issues. Tell us why we need to forget the varmint hunting fiasco and other faux pas.

You are being challenged to make the case for Romney. There is a fine line between being a shill and being shrill.
If Romney is not on the ticket in 2012, will you vote for Obama like your new-found friend Bob?

Seriously Jack, try to make the case without getting too emotional. Your last name isn't Romney is it?

Jack| 7.8.09 @ 9:35AM

>>You're the guy from MA, not me. Would you consider Peter Blute a Conservative?

You mean the guy who lost? A guy who most notably did not run a state wide race but rather ran from a single congressional district and then got trounced, you mean that guy? Are you starting to get the point or are you a slow learner? Hard core conservatives lose in Massachusetts. Can I make it any more plain for you?

>>Once again, you missed the point concerning Ray Shamie. Were you even old enough to remember the Shamie-Kerry race? Kerry won by 10 points. For MA, that's close and if the Liberals in the GOP backed Shamie, it's either a razor loss or a victory for Shamie.

Yes, junior, I am old enough to remember Ray Shamie. And no, losing by 10 points is not some sort of moral victory, it is losing and losing big. What good did Shamie getting whipped do for MA? Not a damn thing. It gave us Kerry. Do you understand how electoral politics works? If you lose, you get squat, there are no moral victories. You don't get some of what you want because your candidate got X percentage of the votes. You get what the winner wants. Period.

Tell you what, you support Palin or some other rock ribbed conservative next election and then be comforted when Obama wins re-election by "only" 10 points. Me, I'm going to work and vote for someone who might actually win. Don't worry though, you will have your principles to comfort you.

>>You seem to think that Romney is great because he won in a Blue State. Sorry, but that is not enough.

Absurd. I never said 1) Romney was great or 2) that the only reason I would support him is because he won in a blue state. This whole argument started because Mr. Antle decided that it was useful to defend to Palin by saying "Romney did it too". I merely pointed out the fallacy of his argument and then defended Romney's record against the usual off base attacks. This crap went on all last election because most pundits were either too lazy or too interested in getting along with their peers to do some research and point out facts and so we got McCain. Yippee!

>>You are being challenged to make the case for Romney. There is a fine line between being a shill and being shrill.
If Romney is not on the ticket in 2012, will you vote for Obama like your new-found friend Bob?

I'm not being challenged to do anything of the kind. If you don't want to vote for Romney then don't. No sweat off my parts. You are free to support your oh so conservative stallwarts who are just oozing with character and integrity, people like Palin, Sanford, Ensign, et al.

Does calling someone who is beating you in an argument emotional usually work for you? Pity it won't with me. Much like Ray Shamie, you are just losing. And no, I have no idea who Bob is and if his response to Romney losing the primary was to vote for Obama then he is a knucklehead. I held my nose and voted for McCain. Try hard not to be a putz.

I'm just sick of you so called conservatives and your ridiculous litmus tests. Reagan, when he came out of California, would have been a RINO by the standards most of you clowns use today. And yes, I'm old enough to remember Reagan too. Even voted for him. Twice.

You want to throw in the towel now Basil or is there some other dumb argument or strawman you need to have me take apart?

Flower Power| 7.8.09 @ 9:45AM

lol. The more I read from Romney lovers the less I like Romney. I don't know why that is, but I do know they give me the creeps.

Flower Power| 7.8.09 @ 9:53AM

Nice showing your contempt for Palin by comparing her to two philandering ho-bags.

For all we know, Romney could be thrown into that mix, too. Probably closer to the truth than Sarah's inclusion.

I knew I didn't like you--and now I like Romney even less; happens every damn time. Weird.

You Romney people are nasty, nasty, nasty.

Basil Plumley| 7.8.09 @ 10:23AM

@ Jack

Why the vitriol? It's rather simple. Instead of attacking Ray Shamie and "conservative litmus tests". Make your case that Romney has the Principles, Character, Integrity, and (if you dare) Charisma it takes to defeat Obama in 2012.

Remember, you're the guy who the big splash in this thread with this boast:

What absolute drivel. I question whether some of you have any grasp at all on reality let alone the byzantine workings of Massachusetts politics.

I'm not going to bother disputing every single one of Mr. Antle's assertions, not worth the time as he would never accept mere facts and seemingly neither would the "Mitt is a flip flooper" brigade.

That was in response to your premise of our thoughts on Romney:

>>How conservative is Romney? We don't know - he talked conservative when running for the nomination but his statements were often contributed by his actions in Massachusetts and his previous more liberal comments.

>>We need a leader with courage and Charisma - not a moderate technocrat who is question mark on almost every issue.

Seriously, you have been challenged and based on your rather weak rebuttals your argument comes down to Jack loves Romney; not that there's anything wrong with that.
You boxed yourself in with this statement:

What we will need after 4 years of Obama is someone who understands economics, markets and how to attract voters across the spectrum to actually get elected. Romney has proven he has these attributes and if not for Huckabee's shamefull religion baiting during the primaries, he would have been the candidate last fall. He is right now, the best candidate we have in 2012. Somebody may come up to challenge him but it sure as hell won't be Palin who couldn't even finish a single term in a Republican heavy state.

You are wrong. After these next four years, we will need a lot more than that. It's not just the economy. There will be a whole host of issues. Romney does not have the Principles, Integrity, Character, and Charisma to get things done. Based on his performance as Governor, he is relatively weak.

Now that I have realize that you have no idea what Byzantine means in context with MA politics, we will just discuss the Principles, Integrity, Character, and Charisma of Romney. If you don't want to, I will understand. Perhaps, you can do better with a narrower parameter.

I am glad you called me junior. If you had called me grandpa, I'd have made you wet your pants.

Jack| 7.8.09 @ 10:40AM

Basil

No vitriol from me. And no, my job isn't to prove anything to you or anyone else. Particularly someone who has already made up their mind about a candidate and has no intention of discussing facts but rather tries to use passive aggressive tactics to change the topic. You are not nearly as witty or deep as you presume.

Look, I can do it too. Basil, your job is to prove that Palin has the Principles (ha!), Character (hee) Inegrity (guffaw) and Charisma ((check out those polls lately) to beat Obama. And you need to prove it to me. What, are the parameters to wide for you?

How about we stick to the topic gramps. Palin quit. Romney did not. Those are the facts. You can make your own judgement on the principles, character, integrity and charisma displayed by that decision and I will too.

Now that I know you are incapable of defending Palin's bizarre actions without resorting to bashing other candidates or refute anything I said about the byzantine (of, relating to or characterized by a devious and usually surreptious manner of operation) nature of MA politics, I will move on to someone who has a clue.

Truth to Flower Power| 7.8.09 @ 11:08AM

Jack is channeling Bob or perhaps they're twins separated at birth.

Regardless, the insufferable arrogance (for no reason) is a dead giveaway. Jack's got it good for you, Basil. Maybe you made him wet his panties. lol

Basil Plumley| 7.8.09 @ 11:31AM

Jack

You are some piece of work. On top of being witless, you are becoming quite vapid. You are the Romney fanatic; make your case for Romney. You claim that none of us have a grasp of politics let alone the "byzantine" politics of MA.
Yet, everytime I tried to bring up facts about MA politics, you show your ignorance. I noticed you had no comment on the Natsios-Card battle for the chairmanship of the State GOP. If you understood the dynamics of that battle, you might understand something I was posting about.

Remember, as much you would love this thread to be about Palin, it isn't. It's about Romney. I know you would love to take the focus off your guy but this thread is about Romney.
I noticed you did not want to discuss Romney w/r/t the 4 principles. No problem, that would be too tough for the boy from MA.

Don't cry Jack, it's okay. We have all backed losers in our lifetime; you chose Romney. It's not a big deal. I'm just disappointed that you started posting with such bravado, I had anticipated something from you that mere mortal political junkies like me may have overlooked.
I am disappointed that you failed to impress me with anything but inanity.
If Romney is truly serious about 2012, I hope he doesn't hire you as a spokesman. I thought Robert Gibbs and Scott McClellan were bad but you are special. You could very well be the Baghdad Bob of Camp Romney.

I doubt you anything to add MA boy, or should I say MAMA boy. It is appropriate.

Jed| 7.10.09 @ 1:17PM

Romney 2012!

Patriot| 7.10.09 @ 8:27PM

Forget Romney--no more cardboard cutout candidates. Palin 4 President 2012!!

NFL jerseys| 9.3.09 @ 11:13PM

It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4,cheap uggs.