Romney Hatred -- From Whence Does It Come?

[Smash255]

Was Romney really especially successful in government?  I know most people accept that he did well by the Winter Olympics (or whatever), but I've read some learned people suggest he essentially got run out of town on a rail in MA.  Was he taking the fall, or was he genuinely just not that effective?

He's still a smarmy SOB, and I'd prefer to vote for someone who isn't a reflexive and calculated liar (at least to that degree) -- but if he is he brilliant manager some of his supporters suggest...

Sigh, these threads lately.  Obama economy threads -- "Not sure I could vote for this guy."  Republican candidate threads -- "Not sure I could vote for any of these people."  Libertarian candidate -- "Not sure this guy bathes."  What a world.

His more conservative policies just weren't very popular in general being that it was Massachusetts. He opposed much of what the legislature was trying to work on, and voters hate deadlock. It's not that he was incompetent. He turned the deficit into a large surplus by improving efficiency and making MA more business-friendly. Also, ranked number one in education during Mitt's tenure I believe.

The issue is he NEVER ran on those more conservative policies when he ran for Gov.  Once his name was in the air about a possible 2008 candidate he veered sharply right.  Those policies would never fly in MA, and of course was a big reason why he became so unpopular there, but it was bigger than that.  It was the fact his policies were well to the right of what he ran on and it became obvious he was doing so to try and get in the good graces of the right wing of the party for the Primary.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Where does it come from? It comes from the distaste for phony opportunists. That's Mitt Romney.

I'm not Mike Huckabee's biggest fan but, just like with Iowa 2008, if I have to get on board with him to stop Mitt, I don't even have to think twice about it. That being said, I hope/think there will be fresh faces for 2012.

O I C.

You are a part of the "I-prefer-candidates-who-have-no-shot-in-hell-of-getting-elected" team, right? Seeing as you are such a Santorum(Man on dog/biggest loss in over 100 years) and Toomey(rather have a liberal democrat than a moderate republican) fan. Romney's social issue "flip-flopping" isn't even relevant. First of all, he focuses more on economic issues and that is where his appeal stems from. Second, it's times like these where social issues become less and less important and the need to have a true sense of leadership becomes most viable. Mitt Romney is the sole Republican who has a moderate-conservative image of success and intellect, has proven himself able to win in hostile regions, and has the type of ambition that candidates like McCain and Huckabee never offered.

[Keystone Phil]

You are a part of the "I-prefer-candidates-who-have-no-shot-in-hell-of-getting-elected" team, right?

People actually like Mike Huckabee.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, two people that have won more elections than Mitt Romney ever has. Good point.

By the way, Santorum's biggest loss wasn't the biggest in a hundred years. Try about 26 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

Ok, maybe to you it isn't but to those of us that dislike blatant frauds...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Until he needs to turn left on economics, too...

Government policy isn't just about economics to some of us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, yes, a "true sense of leadership." Right. That's exactly what we get from someone who's flip flops are so blatant that his fans now justify them.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney is a proven winner in hostile regions? He won one election. One. Yeah, he was a Republican in MA. Those were the days when he was a moderate, remember? And it wasn't that impressive since he ran in a good GOP year and the state has a history of electing moderate Republican Governors.

I have no idea how Huckabee doesn't have ambition. The man clearly worked his ass off to win a caucus where he was outrageously outspent by Romney.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You are a part of the "I-prefer-candidates-who-have-no-shot-in-hell-of-getting-elected" team, right?

People actually like Mike Huckabee.

Doesn't make him electable on a national ticket.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, two people that have won more elections than Mitt Romney ever has. Good point.
And Charles Rangel has won more than all of them combined. He'll never be CONSIDERED for a national ticket. You aren't making a point.

By the way, Santorum's biggest loss wasn't the biggest in a hundred years. Try about 26 years.
Okay, my mistake. Biggest loss in a Pennsylvania Senate election ever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

Ok, maybe to you it isn't but to those of us that dislike blatant frauds...

Fraudulent like living in Virginia but claiming to be a true Pennsylvanian?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Until he needs to turn left on economics, too...

Government policy isn't just about economics to some of us.

Mitt Romney hasn't "turned" left. He has become increasingly conservative, but he hasn't trended liberal EVER. Again, you fail to make a point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, yes, a "true sense of leadership." Right. That's exactly what we get from someone who's flip flops are so blatant that his fans now justify them.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney is a proven winner in hostile regions? He won one election. One. Yeah, he was a Republican in MA. Those were the days when he was a moderate, remember? And it wasn't that impressive since he ran in a good GOP year and the state has a history of electing moderate Republican Governors.

Well, it was a good GOP year, but at least Mitt won his election, unlike a certain Pennsylvania Senator hailing from good ol' Virginia. The fact that Mitt is able to connect his conservative message and values to a more moderate platform is a good ability to have when running nationally. Mitt Romney is nowhere near as bad as John McCain flipping on immigration, bailouts, offshore drilling, among others. Again, nothing Mitt has ever done was as leftist as Huckabee's economic policy in Arkansas.

I have no idea how Huckabee doesn't have ambition. The man clearly worked his ass off to win a caucus where he was outrageously outspent by Romney.

Huckabee was a dismal failure when it came to fundraising, and lacked necessary campaign structure to even compete outside of the South, and Iowa. The only spark of ambition he has shown is becoming less fat and then becoming more fat afterward.

[Keystone Phil]

Doesn't make him electable on a national ticket.

He's more electable than Romney.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference: Toomey and Santorum have won in swing districts/in a swing state without being outright flip floppers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, 100...26. I can see the confusion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of my favorites. You know, as if tons of other members of Congress don't do the same. The only thing that enrages the Santorum haters is that he has the nerve to have had his family come live with him! Oh my!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mitt Romney never tried to run to the left of anyone? Silly me. I must be dreaming things up about that 1994 Senate race...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh? Relevance? Santorum lost in a bad GOP year.

Someone is aiming for Asshat of the Month...

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Mitt's personality kills him with moderates/Independents so try again.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which must make Mitt Romney's performances, in your humble opinion, awfully pathetic since he didn't last nearly as long as Huckabee.

By the way, I like how you write off Huckabee's showings in the South. As if that region wasn't, you know, where our party is actually strong.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Classy. You'll fit in well here, troll.

Can't match Romney's ambition though! All that hard work for all of those "silver and bronze medals!" Impressive, Mitt!

[Alexander Hamilton]

Doesn't make him electable on a national ticket.

He's more electable than Romney.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference: Toomey and Santorum have won in swing districts/in a swing state without being outright flip floppers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, 100...26. I can see the confusion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of my favorites. You know, as if tons of other members of Congress don't do the same. The only thing that enrages the Santorum haters is that he has the nerve to have had his family come live with him! Oh my!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mitt Romney never tried to run to the left of anyone? Silly me. I must be dreaming things up about that 1994 Senate race...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh? Relevance? Santorum lost in a bad GOP year.

Someone is aiming for Asshat of the Month...

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Mitt's personality kills him with moderates/Independents so try again.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which must make Mitt Romney's performances, in your humble opinion, awfully pathetic since he didn't last nearly as long as Huckabee.

By the way, I like how you write off Huckabee's showings in the South. As if that region wasn't, you know, where our party is actually strong.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Classy. You'll fit in well here, troll.

Okay, your butchered response doesn't warrant me to pick through it bit by bit. So I'm just going to answer you here. Okay, first of all, no, Huckabee doesn't have half of the electability of Mitt Romney. You haven't even bothered to help your position besides saying what it is so there's nothing for me to prove wrong. SANTORUM LOST WITH THE LARGEST MARGIN EVER IN PA. Casey Jr. was the best performing Democrat in a PA Senate election EVER. And as for Santorum losing in a bad GOP year, he BARELY won (49%-47%) in the GOP's best year! And as far your little bit about about Huckabee's strong showing in the South- I could care less about the South. The South isn't about to vote for Obama. He maxed out in 2008. Almost any Republican will hold the South. Mitt Romney performed much better in the primaries than Huckabee, but Mitt had the dignity to step aside in the face of a growing Democratic threat whereas Huckabee did not. Mitt Romney has consistently shown to be one of the strongest Republicans in liberal-to-moderate areas and key swing states. Huckabee has yet to do so. So looks like you're the asshat, Phil, because Mitt Romney didn't "become" more liberal for his Senate race in 94, he only became more conservative afterward (a natural progression). In fact, he should be applauded for working so hard to unseat the liberal icon Teddy "The Murderer on the Bridge" Kennedy and coming closer than any other challenger. Come on, get your head out of your ass.

[BM]

What's so electable about Romney anyway? His moderate Republican status?  He's not really a moderate. He isn't anything. And that would be used against him.

As far as I know his record isn't really broad enough to be his main appeal.  As for personal qualities, he's from a  political family and easily (and fairly) seen as slick and uninspiring.  So appealing!

I honestly think a lot of people like him for his  looks. Odd but true. He looks like someone you'd cast in a movie that features a fictional president.  Not that that's the only reason but I think it enhances everything his supporters supposedly like about him.

[Alexander Hamilton]

What's so electable about Romney anyway? His moderate Republican status?  He's not really a moderate. He isn't anything. And that would be used against him.

As far as I know his record isn't really broad enough to be his main appeal.  As for personal qualities, he's from a  political family and easily (and fairly) seen as slick and uninspiring.  So appealing!

I honestly think a lot of people like him for his  looks. Odd but true. He looks like someone you'd cast in a movie that features a fictional president.  Not that that's the only reason but I think it enhances everything his supporters supposedly like about him.

After graduation, Romney remained in Massachusetts and went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974.[11] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another management consulting firm based in Boston. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.[12] During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent,[13] making money primarily through leveraged buyouts.[14] He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority.[15]

In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.[13]

Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[16] He and his wife have a net worth of between 250 and 500 million USD,[17][18] not including Romney's blind trust in the name of their children, which is valued at about $100 million.[19]

Romney served as president and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999, before Romney was hired, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the games to compensate for the fiscal crisis.[20] The Games were also damaged by allegations of bribery involving top officials, including then Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) President and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and SLOC vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.[21]

On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.[22] Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets, and boosted fund raising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget.[23] Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources.[24][25]

Romney contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated the $825,000 salary he earned as President and CEO to charity.[26] He wrote a book about his experience titled Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games.[27]

Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003. Upon entering office, Romney faced a projected $3 billion deficit, but a previously enacted $1.3 billion capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2 billion.[47] Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, by 2006 the state had a $700 million surplus and was able to cut taxes.[48][49]Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years.[50] The state legislature, with Romney's support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[51] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63%.[50] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget. All of those vetoes were overturned by the legislature.[52]
Romney has also supported some legislation that was endorsed by the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners' Action League.[132] Romney also says he believes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than merely protecting a right of states.[133]Romney welcomes increased legal immigration and supports giving "a biometrically-enabled and tamperproof card to non-citizens and ... a national database for non-citizens" to reduce illegal immigration.[134] Romney has focused on tax relief for "middle income Americans," and has advocated eliminating the capital gains tax for all those who earn less than $200,000 per year.[145] Romney has also advocated eliminating the estate tax,[146] signed a pledge to oppose "any and all efforts" to increase income taxes,[147] and promises to control spending by Congress.

Romney supports the death penalty, charter schools, and sentencing under the three strikes law.[148][149][150] Romney opposes the use of "torture";[145] however, he supports the limited use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," which he believes are not torture.[151]




Pretty damn good record I'd say. He's facing, what, Palin? Huckabee? His record mops the floor with the competition.

[Keystone Phil]

Okay, first of all, no, Huckabee doesn't have half of the electability of Mitt Romney. You haven't even bothered to help your position besides saying what it is so there's nothing for me to prove wrong.

You haven't proved how he's more electable, asshat.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right. He lost to the most popular name in PA politics in a horrible year. I don't know that it was the worst loss ever and I won't take your word either.

By the way, the 1994 win was so small because a) a far right candidate ran on the third party "Patriot" ticket, taking nearly 4% of the vote and b) the Dems painted Santorum as a far right wing nutcase who wanted to privatize Social Security. It doesn't matter how good the year is for the GOP if that argument is crafted well. That hurts a Republican big time in the state with the second largest senior citizen population.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL!

Uh, you brought up the South and how can you say it doesn't matter? It most certainly does matter in a GOP primary, genius! You said Huckabee's only impressive showings were in Iowa and the South. That's huge for a Republican. That's basically the entire playing field.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL!

What? Is this kid for real?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, how? When did he run in a General or show significant appeal in those areas in opinion polls?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL!

"A natural progression!" I love it!

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not really. I don't applaud spineless people like Mitt Romney. I also don't see why any conservative ought to applaud someone who would wanted to be to the left of Ted Kennedy. I guess it would have been nice to see Kennedy lose but Mitt would have moved just as far or even further to the left to survive...or maybe he'd just pull what he pulled in 2008 - retire in 2000 after a drastic move to the right for a run for President!

[Keystone Phil]

Pretty damn good record I'd say. He's facing, what, Palin? Huckabee? His record mops the floor with the competition.

You had to quote a Wiki article to give us his record? Wow.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Okay, first of all, no, Huckabee doesn't have half of the electability of Mitt Romney. You haven't even bothered to help your position besides saying what it is so there's nothing for me to prove wrong.

You haven't proved how he's more electable, asshat.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right. He lost to the most popular name in PA politics in a horrible year. I don't know that it was the worst loss ever and I won't take your word either.

By the way, the 1994 win was so small because a) a far right candidate ran on the third party "Patriot" ticket, taking nearly 4% of the vote and b) the Dems painted Santorum as a far right wing nutcase who wanted to privatize Social Security. It doesn't matter how good the year is for the GOP if that argument is crafted well. That hurts a Republican big time in the state with the second largest senior citizen population.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL!

Uh, you brought up the South and how can you say it doesn't matter? It most certainly does matter in a GOP primary, genius! You said Huckabee's only impressive showings were in Iowa and the South. That's huge for a Republican. That's basically the entire playing field.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL!

What? Is this kid for real?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, how? When did he run in a General or show significant appeal in those areas in opinion polls?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL!

"A natural progression!" I love it!

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not really. I don't applaud spineless people like Mitt Romney. I also don't see why any conservative ought to applaud someone who would wanted to be to the left of Ted Kennedy. I guess it would have been nice to see Kennedy lose but Mitt would have moved just as far or even further to the left to survive...or maybe he'd just pull what he pulled in 2008 - retire in 2000 after a drastic move to the right for a run for President!

Okay this is just getting annoying but to put it bluntly, Mitt Romney had twice as many delegates as Huckabee at the time of his withdrawl... Romney was first or second in nearly all of the primaries he participated in (except a few in the South). Romney has shown he can win in states that are less conservative than Arkansas and he has shown that hardcore Republican voters also approve of his policies (Utah, Idaho, Colorado, for example). Iowa and the South aren't "the entire playing field". In fact, the South is the least important area to win in a GOP primary. Just because a few old white men in Alabama vote for you over 90% doesn't make you electable. Winning primaries in Minnesota, Maine, Utah, Nevada, Michigan proves a very wide lane of electability.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Pretty damn good record I'd say. He's facing, what, Palin? Huckabee? His record mops the floor with the competition.

You had to quote a Wiki article to give us his record? Wow.

I like Wiki.

[Keystone Phil]

Okay this is just getting annoying but to put it bluntly, Mitt Romney had twice as many delegates as Huckabee at the time of his withdrawl...

And it wouldn't have gotten any better for him so, naturally, he bowed out.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, where's the proof? He won in GOP primary in less conservative states? Big deal. It's like the idea that Obama winning the Kansas caucus or whatever meant he had appeal there in the General. Mitt winning in Maine or Nevada didn't mean he appealed to the General electorate.

As for the latter point, uh, he only won those states because he was a Mormon. It had nothing to do with his ability to win over those voters on ideology.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, what?

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't about electability in the General. That doesn't mean that winning in that area isn't key to winning the nomination so, yeah, the South is the most important area to win in the GOP primary fights to actually, you know, win the nomination.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Okay this is just getting annoying but to put it bluntly, Mitt Romney had twice as many delegates as Huckabee at the time of his withdrawl...

And it wouldn't have gotten any better for him so, naturally, he bowed out.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, where's the proof? He won in GOP primary in less conservative states? Big deal. It's like the idea that Obama winning the Kansas caucus or whatever meant he had appeal there in the General. Mitt winning in Maine or Nevada didn't mean he appealed to the General electorate.

As for the latter point, uh, he only won those states because he was a Mormon. It had nothing to do with his ability to win over those voters on ideology.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, what?

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't about electability in the General. That doesn't mean that winning in that area isn't key to winning the nomination so, yeah, the South is the most important area to win in the GOP primary fights to actually, you know, win the nomination.

The identity politics and isolated culture of the South render it a very different environment as compared to the rest of the US. This has always been the case, since the colonial-era. The South a. likes its own, b. is willing to vote for extremists, and c. is very homogeneous in its nature. Notice I didn't call Huckabee an extremist. My point is this- the South is a different place, and it's a solid Republican constituency, meaning candidates with appeal condensed mainly in the South may have trouble breaking out, whereas other Republican candidates will still win the South. The south's not important in the primary to gauge viability or to build a winning coalition of delegates. 2008 is proof.

[Keystone Phil]

Ok, I have no idea what that has to do with what I said but whatever.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Ok, I have no idea what that has to do with what I said but whatever.

I'm showing you why the South isn't the most important. But then again, I shouldn't try to reason with a Santorum/Toomey hack.

[Keystone Phil]

Ok, I have no idea what that has to do with what I said but whatever.

I'm showing you why the South isn't the most important.

The point was that it absolutely is the most important area in a GOP primary when it comes to winning the nomination.

I shouldn't try to reason with a dumb though.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Ok, I have no idea what that has to do with what I said but whatever.

I'm showing you why the South isn't the most important.

The point was that it absolutely is the most important area in a GOP primary when it comes to winning the nomination.

I shouldn't try to reason with a dumb though.

Which it isn't... So why are you bothering to argue that point?

[Brittain33]

My recollection of why Romney failed as governor of Massachusetts:

When he came into office, he chose symbolic battles on which to fight the legislature. Patronage issues that didn't amount to much money, but which could make him look good while seriously alienating the legislature. Bringing the MDC under control and rationalizing it. Some battles he won, others he won only in name (the MDC was renamed the DCR but didn't change much otherwise.) He insisted on holding the line on taxes, a position with which he had the support of the conservative leadership of the House, which resulted in cuts to state aid that led to property tax hikes at a local level. I can't think of any big policy initiatives he put into place.

Romney didn't work well with others. He has an executive mindset and no patience for political compromise and shenanigans. If he's right, he's right. If people won't work with him, he'll try to outflank them or embarrass them with his bully pulpit. His problem is, he tried to do this many times over small symbolic issues AND he came across as a fake jerk when he does it (e.g. fighting to name the Big Dig tunnel the Liberty tunnel instead of for Tip O'Neill, and then attacking legislators for hating veterans because they refused to go along with his name. Oh brother.) Eventually the two leaders of the legislature decided they had the numbers in their chambers to ignore Mitt altogether and work out budgets without his input. Romney also decided in '04 to ditch his promise to be a moderate and to run full-bore on social issues, whipping the House Republicans to oppose gay marriage and campaigning heavily on such issues. Exactly what you need not to do to succeed as a R in Massachusetts.

In 2004, he ran a slate of candidates for the legislature to try to bring Republicans back from their abysmal lows. Mostly he targeted suburban women Democratic legislators with affluent male Republicans. His original message, running against mega-unpopular and uber-hubristic House Speaker Tom Finneran, was undone when Finneran stepped down in September and deprived Romney of his best weapon. Instead, Romney's candidates were reduced to running cookie-cutter smear campaigns of the "your rep. voted to put pedophiles in schools" variety. Gross and unbelievable, they alienated voters. The Kerry/anti-Bush landslide in Mass. buried his candidates and Republicans actually lost ground in the legislature.

Romney decided that the state that rejected his superior leadership on all fronts obviously didn't deserve him, so he gave up governing in favor of telling "take my state, please" jokes to conservative audiences in South Carolina and Iowa and fighting a rearguard action on gay marriage and other issues that would endear him to Republican primary voters elsewhere.

[JSojourner]

Thanks Fezzy, as always -- very thought-provoking.

I didn't really mean to start a flame war between Romney's fans and his detractors...though I supposed one might break out.  Mainly, I wanted to gauge what one or two issues make Romney anathema to some and close to a panacea for others.  I now infer there are far more than just one or two.

Me?  I just like the guy and his family personally.  But I could never support someone so far to the right of me.

[Brittain33]

There are many, many things that brittain33 has to offer factually about Romney's record as Governor that he has found to be negative and I have the same to offer in the positive direction. 

I can see that. I think he was on the side of the angels taking on Billy Bulger, but that his victory there may have had a high opportunity cost. I also think he was, to an extent, set up to fail by virtue of his limited powers in the state.

I think there is a learning curve for transition from big business to elected executive office, and that both Deval Patrick and Mitt Romney found it to be more challenging than expected when running up against Beacon Hill. With Mitt Romney, I would worry that he would bring impatience and a sense of entitlement that is successful in the private sector but ultimately self-defeating in government unless you have numbers on your side in the legislature. I could see him as a much more intelligent and better grounded Craig Benson or Mark Sanford (minus the infidelities). In that sense, he has much in common with Jon Corzine, of all people.

We can't fully judge his record in Massachusetts because his governorship was overshadowed by larger events. Most notably, it was overshadowed by his decision to run for President shortly after the '04 midterms.

I do feel that, as objectively as I can possibly say, he is not a good spin doctor. He doesn't connect with people and I find his mannerisms are both prissy and out-of-date. I believe, sincerely, he has problems relating to women as equals and this is something he has to struggle with in politics never having had to worry about it in the private sector or private life. I don't think it was coincidental that in the mid-terms, his targets were disproportionately female, or that he didn't find a place of value or respect for his Lt. Governor (not a problem for Weld or Patrick, IMO) who started out as an obvious token and who he did nothing for when she ran to succeed him, or that he behaved condescendingly to women in the '02 debates. I doubt this would ever rise to become a real issue, but it's something I've observed. Think Rick Lazio's backfire.

At heart, I believe he is driven by nothing more than his belief in his own abilities, a general technocratic ethos, and loosely-defined pro-business conservatism. His brand is Mitt and he will choose slogans to fit what he thinks will sell. The irony is, he is much like Barack Obama on this count. Obama's brand was his own brain and his story coupled with an allegiance to the Democratic Party. Mitt, sadly, can't inspire people to project their own conflicting wishes and hopes onto him the way Obama inspired millions to do.

[pogo stick]

As a fan and supporter of Mitt Romney I can safely say, I would vote for him over almost any candidate (Exception : Sarah Palin) Romney is perfect for the current economic situation. I also believe his is trying his best to help America unlike some corrupt republicans (Tom DeLay, Rick Renzi).

Mitt Romney should've been president right now. He should've crushed McCain in 2008. But he, like Giuliani overestimated his base.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It comes from the fact a lot of people hate Mormons, sadly.

[BM]

Somehow I doubt people like Jon Huntsman and Jeff Flake would face similar "discrimination"

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Romney is the phoniest, most plastic candidate I've ever seen. He clearly has no principles or convictions, and his charisma is that of a sleazy used car salesman. I don't know why he has any appeal at all amongst Republicans.

And having business knowledge doesn't mean he has a clue about economics, as the eight year legacy of Harvard MBA George W. Bush should have made apparent.