Category Archives: mitt romney

>REACT: Romrney … no choice.

>I had been hopin’ and a prayin’ that Mitt Romney would carry the GOP standard into this year’s presidential election. I was counting on a Romney/Clinton race as the best option. Obviously, I didn’t get either of my first choices.

On the Democrat side, I am not likely to see Clinton even pull off the second spot. However, the speculation is growing that Romney will be John McCain’s veep. I don’t think that is McCain’s best choice, I think he is his only choice.

Of all the candidates, Romney has the looks. You may think this is petty, but the right look is a BIG part of getting elected. Romney is not only handsome, but also knows how to dress the part. (Big hint here for McCain. BUY A SUIT AND TIE !!!!!)

In addition, the former Massachusetts governor is a pretty good stump speaker. He is every bit a match for Barack Obama’s well developed and effective speaking style.

In terms of issues, Romney’s views are probably the closest to those of the American public. He brings much needed credibility to the McCain ticket.

Romney also supplies a cadre of talented political professionals desperately needed on the Republican team. McCain has not been able to benefit from the highly experienced national GOP presidential campaign infrastructure. This may have a lot to do with the troublesome and sometimes controversial McCain personality.

Some conservatives are unconvinced that Romney would add right wing appeal. Hell …. compared to Obama’s policies, Ted Kennedy could add right wing appeal. More about that in the future.

Romney is well equipped to take of the Oval Office if that becomes necessary. While the public normally pays only a modicum of attention to the issue of succession, McCain’s age and health make this a more serious consideration. For some of us, succession would be a good thing. (Okay, slap my hand for saying that, but it is true.)

Some say the “Mormon thing” is a problem. I think it is no more of a problem than the “Muslim thing” is a problem for Obama. Granted, Obama is not a Muslim, but it is still an issue on the fringe. By the time the election is upon us, Mormonism and Muslimism will be a mostly forgotten issue.

There is still those pushing for Senator Joseph Lieberman. As an independent, they say he has appeal across the partisan divide. While I tend to like the philosophic foundation of his independence, I think is he more like the political pariah who has few friends in either camp.

Then there is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (right). He has a lock on the religious right that McCain needs to cobble together a winning coalition. Unfortunately, he would also have a lot of moderates and potential crossovers – who McCain also needs for his winning coalition – running in the opposite direction. Besides, one comb-over per ticket is enough.

Then there is Governor Charlie Crist (left), of Florida. He getting married — some say in anticipation of the vice president race. If that is true, he must have a lock on it. I cannot imagine someone actually getting married on speculation that the will be running for Vice President. Okay, maybe its love. Happens on occasion – even in politics.

Crist has major problem, however. He’s too tan. Yeah, too tan. He is George Hamilton without the hair dye. He looks too much like just another sun belt retiree – only this time the gold chain, pinky ring type. Besides, the Florida home base is a constant reminder of the chads issue.

(Is it just a coincidence that McCain and Crist both look like retirees and they both come from states with high populations of … retirees? Hmmmmm?)

Then there is Secretary of State Condolezza Rice (right) Picking Rice would certainly be a bold move. If successful, it would mean the GOP gets credit for the first black and the first woman veep. Her problem is femininity. I do not mean being a woman, but the question of femininity. She’s sexy — actually datable. (Yeah, i know it is a doctored photo, but try that with Madeleine Albright [left] and you get my point.)

Haven’t you ever noticed that women heads of state have a certain “toughness.?” ( I would say a bit on the “butch” side, but the political correct left wingers would accuse me of using coded language.) Pretty and perky is okay for the distaff side, but not for the person in charge. Think. Margaret Thatcher. Golda Meir. Indira Gandhi. Not a looker in the bunch.

Even within the pantheon of U.S. contenders there are no frilly females. Hillary Clinton. Geraldine Ferraro. Former secretaries of state Jean Kirkpatrick and the aforementioned Madeleine Albright. You can’t be too handsome to be President of Vice President if you are a guy (just to tan), but you can be too pretty if you are a gal.

All things considered, Romney is it.

>OBSERVATION: Iowa and New Hampshire (yawn)

>Well … finally we are in the home stretch of the Iowa caucuses, to be quickly followed by the New Hampshire primary. Like Paris Hilton, they seem to enjoy an enormous amount of publicity solely because they exist.

The “first in the nation” status gives them unique advantage. First, the start off position provides them with disproportionate publicity for many weeks leading up to the votes. Succeeding primaries have to wait to receive press attention until the results of earlier votes. In some cases, the national media spotlight does not hit a state until a week or two before the vote.

Secondly, they have an appearance of importance that is belied but hindsight. Rarely do the outcomes of these states provide any real insight or advantage to the future candidacy. In fact, they are venues in which the most obvious front runners do well or where the future losers seem to look like winners for a very short time. In either case, the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire on the race is dubious at best.

This may be due to the fact that, despite chest beating to the contrary, the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the American fabric. For one thing, they don’t have any big city, urban citizens. Their “opinion” of the candidates does not carry much weight in the rest of the country. These two small states produce warm homilies and pretty imagery – classic Americana – but little political capital.

After all, what is the importance of a win in Iowa and New Hampshire if a candidate is going to take a drubbing in states like California, New York and Illinois? Conversely, what is the importance of a win in Iowa and New Hampshire if a candidate already is poised to carry states like California, New York and Illinois? We tend to give a lot of importance to Iowa and New Hampshire prior to the vote, and then completely ignore the results as the contest heads to the big delegate states.

Iowa and New Hampshire are like the coming attractions at the movies. No matter how interesting they try to make them, you’re glad when they are over and you can move on to the main feature.