There are many reasons why I like Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and the Claremont Institute has a post which encapsulates one of them: statesmanship. The Claremont Institute explains that statesmanship is the ability to teach the American people about our representative republic and offers a couple of Governor Romney’s quotes as examples. This one is my favorite:
A reporter from the Boston Globe asked Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney a rambling question about removing some tolls from the Mass. Turnpike. Eventually, Romney interrupted by joking, “Do you have a point of view on this?” The reporter responded, “I represent the people, governor.” To which Romney said, “No, I represent the people, you represent the media.”
Right on the mark, Governor Romney.
Update: The Examiner has an article about Governor Romney today in which he declared himself to be the real conservative Republican candidate. And he took Senator McCain to task for trying to play both sides of the gay marriage issue:
WASHINGTON – Eager to position himself as the most conservative GOP presidential hopeful, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney accused Sen. John McCain Monday of being “disingenuous” on gay marriage.
In an interview with The Examiner, Romney described himself as more conservative than Republican rivals McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on a variety of issues. “We’re in a different place on immigration; we’re in a different place on campaign reform; we’re in a different place on same-sex marriage; we’re in a different place on the president’s policy on interrogation of detainees,” Romney said.
“I’m a conservative Republican, there’s no question about that,” he said. “I’m at a different place than the other two.”
Romney was less charitable to McCain, who on Sunday told ABC News: “I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states.” McCain also said, “I believe that gay marriage should not be legal.”
Romney seized on the remarks.
“That’s his position, and in my opinion, it’s disingenuous,” he said. “Look, if somebody says they’re in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says — like I do — that I oppose same-sex marriage, I respect that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be disingenuous.”
“I represent the people, governor.”
Ego, meet Reporter. Reporter, meet Ego. Objectivity? Nowhere to be found.
Mitt is a pro-abort.
I say no way, Jose.
Yeah, I noticed he didn’t mention abortion.
All this is a lot of “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” The race is going to be between McCain/Lieberman against Clinton/Obama.
Any Republican candidate in 2008 will still have the failures of the Bush Administration hung on them and be under pressure to prove that they will rule the country any differently. Clinging to screwy social issues like Gay marriage will play less well each election cycle, and are worthless issues for Republicans to pin their hopes on. Arizona was the first state to reject a constitutional amendment on Gay marriage this year, and in other Northern states the vote was closer on the issue than just two years ago. The public is beginning to accept the notion very slowly.
Democrats won in 2006 because they brought in moderates, independents and middle class voters who bought into a wider populist message of economics, etc. that made more sense to voters at the local level than many Republicans who hoped to recycle fear based politics due to terrorism for one more election cycle and only offered nothing but failure in foreign policy such as Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran. If Republicans can climb out from under all this political baggage in 2008, which is highly questionable at this point, then maybe they have a remote chance of winning. But Democrats certainly seem a more likely prospect to win the White House and retain control in Congress given the way election cycles tend to work. The Republicans aren’t in as bad as condition as after the big 1964 losses, but it’s getting there and it will be a long climb back to power.
After witnessing Clinton and Bush’s failures in foreign policy and diplomacy, I personally have difficulty voting for a Presidential candidate who doesn’t have some previous exposure and experience in international affairs.
Governors tend to be great at domestic issues and in running an administration, but suck at dealing with world issues or issues of “worldwide” scope. I think Bush was a fine governor, and decent administrator, but he sucked wind when it came to issues outside of our borders.
So I feel the same about Romney as I do about Giuliani – not enough relevant experience.
I have to agree that Mitt has a hard row to hoe criticizing McCain for “having it both ways.” He’s been firmly on both sides of the abortion position during his very brief political career. And he’ll certainly be hearing more about that as the months roll on.
So who’s your candidate? Clinton or Obama?
About two month’s ago I saw report about Mitt. Either Bob Novak or Dick Morris was recounting a discussion with DR. Dobson, and he asked Dobson if Evangelicals would vote for Mitt (Mormon). Dobson said no way.
Mitt doesn’t have a chance.
Just as Hillary is not Left enough for the NetDems…
…although Utah is the State of Family values..there is too much of a wave against a Mormon…
…how can a Party that has and is encouraging Fundy Christains openly dismiss them. Who will raise up the cross of Jesus the highest during the Republican Primary? Who in the Dems will take us back to 1972?
Both Parties will be engaged in a tug-of-war..
…who ever wins will cause their Party to lose…
Who is more physically attractive, Obama or Romney? Now there’s the match up for the TV age.
(Of course, there is one main difference, Romney has substance)
And, Romney on a Romney-Jed Bush ticket should take care of any morman concerns.
Mitt is a Mo and a member of that cult.
President Mitt Mo won’t happen. Just look at politics in Utah. If you are not a Mo, you don’t fit it.
Mo’s are NOT inclusive when it comes to non-Mo’s, but at least they don’t want to kill those who don’t drink from the Joe Smith Koolaid like Muslims do.
Editor’s note: This is NOT pain-in-the-ass Lee, but fake Lee who was warned prior to stop using this name. He also posted as “Bob Jones,” presumably as a slam against the university. Since he ignored the warning to find a new nickname, he has been banned.
I mean “Jeb Bush”. Anyway, there’s the perfect ticket (Romney-Bush).
“Lee: So who’s your candidate? Clinton or Obama?”
I’m not a fan of Hillary at all, and I barely know Obama, so at this point I’m undecided — and skeptical that either could win.
I’m a news junkie. Visit several political blogs from the left and right. Certainly I feel more in touch with politics than the average person.
Until I read Wizbang I had never heard of Mitt Romney. I dare say that outside of political circles and Mass (and I guess NH) the average rank and file voter has no clue who Mitt Romney is.
An informal questioning of 25 people at my office ranging in age from 23-55 yielded ZERO people who had ever heard of him and I live on the East coast. I bet the further you move away from the Northeast the chances they know who he is drops exponentially.
In contrast, all 25 had heard of Obama and Rudy and McCain. Anecdotal, yes but not abnormal. In fact, when I explained Mitt was Gov of Mass most thought he was just another NE liberal and were shocked to find out he was a Republican.
Unless Mitt attaches to Rudy or McCain, gets significant backing from the party and finds some issue to get his name out there Mitt will be a 1% vote getter in primaries as an also-ran. The only people with worse chances are the other names I’ve heard bantied about of Brownback and Hunter. They are even more obscure.
He might play well in the Northeast but I can tell you now the fact he is from the Northeast hurts him more than being a Republican helps him. I know several people from both parties that are fed up with politicians from the Northeast–regardless of the politician’s party affiliation–trying to tell every one else what to do and how to live. the one exception would be Rudy G and ONLY because of his actions on 9/11.
There is a whole slew of Americans from both sides of the aisle that view Northeasterners as a condescending group of know-it-alls much like they view Hollywood prima-donna types. It’s not an issue of being from the left or the right. Call it a sterotypical impression similar to “The French are snotty, eitist snobs” type of prejudice.
There is a reason why 4 out of the last 5 Presidents have been from the South–and the party affiliation is 50/50 on those.
I don’t know about that. Jeb is a Catholic, and a Knight of Columbus.
There are still plenty of fundamentalists that view Catholics and Knights in particular in a fairly negative light.
However, I don’t think the fundamentalist block is nearly as single (and closed) minded as many on the left like to paint them to be. So while I don’t think Jeb will offset Mitt, I don’t really think Mitt’s religion will keep them all home.
In the primary they may vote against a Mormon in favor of a Methodist for that very reason, but when faced with a Mormon versus say Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kuchinich (I know, he’s my dream candidate; he’d defeat himself)…
And then there are the complete nutter fundies, and they don’t come out and vote much anyway. They rail, they complain, but the accomplish nothing but ensure their continued marginalization.
It will still be Iraq…however,; I have noticed that my neighbors are simply burned out on directing their anger and frustration against those that our Govt’s and media point out…
…If Republican’s run 2008 like it was 2002 or 04 …they may go down…
If the Dems don’t act upon what this election offered them..they may go down..
There is one thing clear…all spectrums of both Parties are fed up with being played as a sucker..
How that plays out will be the drama of 2008…
I’m pretty excited about Mitt Romney. I am concerned that he is a Mormon but since i’m not electing him to be leader of my Church I can get over it.
His position on Abortion has been consistent, his talk has not. He’s always said that he is pro-life but where he has changed is that he promised the Massachusettes voter that while in office he wouldn’t make an effort to change the abortion laws to fit his personal morality.
A pretty safe pledge given that he wouldn’t have a chance to ever do anything about it given the make up of the Supreme Court. But he’s going to have to do a lot of convincing to Christian Conservatives like me that he will, while President, do his best to appoint to the Supreme Court folks like Roberts and Alito.
As to Faith’s anecdote. No one had ever heard of Bill Clinton in 1990. I’d think more people know Mitt Romney in 1996 than knew Bill Clinton in 1990. This is the way of elections.
Mitt Romney, if he can get past some of his apparant flip flops on abortion, should easily win the Republican nomination (Depending on who else he goes up against) and then from there, on the White House. He’ll probably pick up Massachusettes and several other “blue states”. It may even be another Reaganesque type victory.
Sorry, should have read know Mitt Romney in 2006, not 1996.
Disagree Baggi. Clinton had been anointed from his speech at the previous Democratic convention and subsequent talk show tour on his ridiculously long speech. Same as Obama. What wasn’t known nationally was what he was really like. He had the party backing.
He also had the advantage of being from the South and being thought of as one of the regular people. All I’m saying is that Mitt being unknown and from the Northeast is going to count more against him than being Mormon or inexperienced in foreign policy or his party affiliation. Unless he attaches to a popular candidate, finds an issue to champion and gets the RNC to fully support him he will be irrelevent in 2008.
Initially attractive, once you get to know Mitt, you learn to hate his self-promoting ways.
Massachusetts voters had a 16 year tradition of electing Republican Governors to offset the overwhelmingly Dem Legislature but after one term of the Mittster, not only wasn’t he going to win reelection and chose not to run, but his chosen successor Lt. Gov. Healey was blown out by 25% points.
He’s a loser. Forget him.
I don’t think Hillary will want the competition and (artificially stimulated) fanfare that surrounds Obama. And I doubt he wants 2nd place for 8 years.
Who thinks Obama is physically attractive? I sure don’t. However, Mitt sure is.
Anyone think John Edwards will run? I do. However I think the latest Kerry fiasco will hurt him forever. That association problem.
I attended a Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis earlier this year. Romney was there, along with McCain, Allen, Frist, Huckabee and other wannabees. Romney had a bunch of kids there, bright sophisticated and dedicated. Better preparation and support than any other candidate. Few knew of him at the beginning, but by the end of the conference they sure did. He wowed them, and this was the south. Do not underestimate him. He has the charisma to win,and just enough conservatism to beat out McCain which would not make me sad. I just don’t see anyone else out there who could win against a Hillary/Obama ticket (I’ll bet anyone here that’s the Democratic result).
Notice how old “pucker puss” (lee lee) rides the middle of the fence until things go his way?
Notice how jhow66 doesn’t have a thought in his head that doesn’t have something to do with me?
I’ve been right far, far far more times that you have… In fact, I can’t remember a single time you had something sensible to say, jhow. You come across as a genuine drooler.
“I just don’t see anyone else out there who could win against a Hillary/Obama ticket (I’ll bet anyone here that’s the Democratic result).”
I”ll take that bet, harris. I don’t think Clinton will make it to the final ticket – she turns off too many people – and she’s too old school.
I think Democrats are looking for someone better than Kerry and Gore, and Clinton isn’t it.
“Mitt is a Mo and a member of that cult.”
Lee, I wouldn’t have taken you at all for a religious bigot, but that’s what you are.
Can you honestly acknowledge what you’d have to say about any rightie on this site if they made a dismissive or derogatory comment about John Kerry or Barrack Obama or any other Dem Presidential candidate based upon his religion??!?!?
Sadly, I have to agree with McCain on this one. I also believe that gay marriage should be decided by the states. And if/when that issue comes to my state, I’ll vote against allowing gay marriage, because I believe that it is wrong. I really don’t see anything “disingenuous” about that.
George Romney, Mitt’s father, was once Governor of Michigan, great and popular he was too.
When he first ran the mormon thing was a big deal, but never after that, ever, was it an issue about anything.
It only mattered in one way – he was easily the most honest politician of my lifetime.
George had the executive ability to run American Motors Corp and the State, so does Mitt. Giuliani has this ability also.
Leadership and management ability matters most of all.
for the record wavemaker – the “Lee” who made the comment regarding Romney’s religion is not the Lee you love to hate. The Lee you love to hate hates no one, and could care less about Romney’s religion.
The other Lee does have a very cool name however.
And I think he has a valid point as well. He’s commenting on the “electability”of Romney based on 1) Romney’s religion and 2) the the acceptance that religion has towards others. I dont’ read it as a “dis” at all.
as to your question — no, I haven’t seen any righties make an issue out of a leftie’s religion here at Wizbang.
Presumptuous of Lee The Genuine to come to the defense to Lee The Impostor.
Presumptuous (and egotistical) of Lee The Genuine Impostor to believe that one would “love to hate” him (or anyone else). Only to call one as one sees him. How could I hate a person I’ve never met? I can certainly ridicule his statements without hating him as a person. He knows this, but is compelled to elevate his importance in this debate.
And the observation regarding the “inclusiveness” of the Mormon people gives them “both” away.
Regarding this “electability” thing, Lee The Whatever, just who does he suppose will not vote for Romney based upon (principally) his religion? Conservatives? Republicans? Democrats? Liberals? Which group are the religious bigots?
I thought the second Lee was told to knock it off pending a ban. Or is that a third Lee?
YAHOO!! Finally old “pucker puss” (lee lee) had to show that I got under his skin. (snicker snicker) Oh and did you notice that he knows his name? Mission accomplished.
Is Kucinich your dream candidate because he was against the Iraq War and called that one spot on?
it’s always good to see that those who know what they are talking about years in advance of conventional wisdom are rewarded.
Well, Lee – by whatever he is calling himself – has pretty well demonstrated the religous bigot label is accurate.
Unless the religous backlash in Democratic Party is stronger than anticipated, they are about to make a Mormon Senate Majority Leader in January 2007. (He, of course, has already served as Minority Leader.)
Does the Democratic Party seriously want to dump Harry Reid for his faith while at the same time making former KKK member Robert Byrd fourth in line to the Presidency?
If they fail to dump Reid, can they seriously claim that Romney’s Mormon faith makes him incapable of leadership?
I haven’t decided on Romney myself. Until I saw his response to the death in the ‘Big Dig’ this summer, I would have probably said “no”, but now I am taking a second look. One note, however – I have been surprised by how many people do remember his father and remember him as an honorable man.