While these are relatively broad generalizations, that is the essence of each campaign. McCain forgets that Dr. Paul also served in the military, Ron Paul forgets that McCain too worked with Ronald Reagan in the Reagan Revolution and Huckabee forgets that he isn't the only social conservative.
Where is Romney to go? He didn't serve any time in the US military, much to his "regret" as he put it yesterday night. He once said that he was adamantly "pro-choice" and his campaign ads said that he "fought religious extremists" (read: social conservatives). His big government solution to the decifit and the health care issue, clearly rule him out from the Goldwater Mantle.
In Michigan however he found his niche. With the economy taking the paramount, he proclaimed himself the fiscal and economic conservative who has the private sector experience to get things turned around. It worked in the strapped state of Michigan. But it didn't work in South Carolina and surprisingly it didn't work in Florida. In fact voters who said the economy was the issue for them, broke for McCain over Romney by 4 points.
Why?
Well first off his health care "solution" was sad at best. Cato Institute, one of the most economically conservative think tanks around, called RomneyCare, "virtually indistinguishable from the one proposed by Hillary Clinton." And not to mention the fact they called it a, "dismal failure."
Those are tough charges.
They ended their thorough refutation with this,
"Executives often blame others for the failures of their own policies, but that's not a tendency one looks for in a candidate. Romney claims he is a "true conservative" with the business expertise to "get things done." Judging by his experience with health-care reform, far from it."
The full article can be found here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9127
Then Club for Growth has weighed on Romney's "conservative" economic credentials.
"Romney's strident opposition to the flat tax; his refusal to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003; his support for various minor tax hikes; and his once-radically bad views on campaign finance reform all cast some doubts on the extent and durability of his commitment to limited-government, pro-growth policies."
In addition they said the he had some "troublesome positions that beg to be explained."
For the full White Paper on Romney:
http://www.clubforgrowth.com/2007/08/mitt_romneys_record_on_economi.php
Lastly, some who defend Romney's character, usually Romney himself or those who are connected to his campaign, try to paint it as an emergency case that took some liberal, though effective measures. Once again, they are wrong.
Joseph McLaughlin and Andrew Sum of the Center for Labor Market Industries from Boston's Northeastern University, made several points about Romney's "dismal" economic record.
- As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
- Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
- Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
- While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
They conclude their study with this,
"Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country," the researchers wrote in the Boston Globe."
The full story on Romney's paltry performance can be found here:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12568
So we can see that it's quite obvious why many economy voters did not vote for Romney. In fact it almost makes me wonder why no one, not Paul, Huckabee or even McCain, have taken this issue up at debates. But the facts remain. Romney's record is neither conservative nor great.
8 comments:
Great post. I linked to you over at my post where I have a different take on the topic.
You claim to be a mixed bag of races, and annoying. But are you an AMERICAN?
Interesting post, but it has one flaw: It fails to compare Romney's economic record with the only other two candidates who now have a shot at winning the nomination (McCain & Huckabee). If I go to the Club for Growth link that you provide, for example, I can indeed read about some concerns the Club has with Romney's past. But overall their report on him leans more positive than negative. They think he shows promise, would be a good president, etc. On the other hand, their reports on McCain and Huckabee are downright damning, especially on Huckabee. I'm not sure whom you support, but to put up selective quotes from the Club for Growth about Romney without putting it in the context of what the Club has said about the other viable candidates (& what it says about him in total) is more than a bit questionable. Romney's record, again, does have some trouble spots, any honest conservative will admit. But he's the best option out there. On economic issues the Club for Growth clearly supports him over either McCain or Huckabee.
A follow-up: McCain's economic record ain't pretty: He opposed the Bush tax cuts for the same reasons the Democrats did (which he's now not being honest about). He opposes drilling in ANWR, which would help wean us off of foreign oil. If we can't drill there, where there is less human and animal life than just about anywhere on the planet, where can we drill? He supports (obviously) McCain-Lieberman, which hurts the U.S. economy and will raise gas prices substantially, according to independent estimates. He's said HIMSELF that he doesn't really understand economic issues, and his record shows it. Plain and simple, he's no economic conservative. He keeps saying he has good ratings with groups like the American Conservative Union, but even that's not true. Go look at it: Last year they gave him a 64%, one of the worst ratings for a Republican! Romney ain't perfect, but he's better than McCain, has the support of real conservatives in this country, and understands the economy.
Oh, and a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain.
Romney cannot buy my vote! Many of his supporters support the CFG enormously. Romney left Massachusetts with a 52% disapproval rating among those who know him best. He and his supporters are delusional if they think he is electable.
This is NOT a 2 man race. Mitt is less than 2% ahead of Mike in the national average RCP polls. If he thinks 2% is enough to count out the competition; he isn't smart enough to be president.
Mike has been consistent on the values I hold dear. I will be voting for Huckabee. I worked as a poll judge. I KNOW it will be counted for Huckabee and not any other candidate. Mitt needs to study a little more on the voting process.
Mike Huckabee for President!!!
America needs to realize that Mitt Romney is not the usual candidate. People like Romney do not usually run for office. He is doing this because he feels that he is the right person for the job at this time in Americas history. I think when the topic of the economy comes up in the White House our President should be the smartest person in the room. That person is Mitt Romney. He is not a polished politician or comedian. He is a serious man for a serious time for America. I am tired of Washington insiders running this country. I am ready for new ideas outside of Washington. Republicans should wake up and vote for Mitt Romney.
Here is the dirty BIG secret that Dick Morris, the Democtrats and libereal media don't want McCain and Huckabee supporters to understand:
1. a vote for Huckabee at this point in the race is a vote for McCain. Huckabee CANNOT win the primary and is almost out of money.
2. a vote for McCain in the Primary is a vote for Obama or Clinton in the general election. McCain CANNOT win the general election and he knows that without the base of the party he like Dole before him will loose. The base will never support liberal McCain. Independents will flock to Obama.
For the reasons previously stated in this post, McCain who is hated by the Republican base will go down in flames in the general election. Anyone voting on super Tuesday and beyond who is considering McCain or Huckabee needs to think long and hard about who they are rally voting for. Do these folks prefer Obama or Clinton over Romney. If so my friends, you are playing right into the Democrat playbook to win the Whitehouse in '08.
ALL REPUBLICANS NEED TO FLOOD THE INTERNET WITH THIS MESSAGE, SAHRE AND DEBATE IT WITH MCCAIN AND HUCKABEE SUPPORTERS AND TAKE BACK OUR PARTY.........IT IS NOT TOO LATE.....AND WE CAN WIN THE WHITEHOUSE IN '08
Ok Anon (because that's all I have to go by).
Yes I am an American. I thought that was pretty well established. The links to the Republican and Libertarian Parties and the posts on American politics made that pretty simple. Frankly I don't see the question as being relevant.
Yes McCain has some black spots on his record. Frankly to give Romney a pass on the huge issues concerning his record and the fact he's a political chameleon is a joke. That's the hypocrisy of some conservatives today.
Secondly, I don't believe the economy is THE issue for the President, I believe Natn'l Sec, foreign and immigration policy is. On these McCain has it spot on. Romney on the other hand is a HUGE flip flopper on issues and, as I said before, is not politically trustworthy. I'm amazed with his small, unimpressive record and experience that he would be serioulsy backed by anyone.
As for McCain's electablity, if you've been looking at the polls at RCP, McCain beats Clinton and Obama over and over again. The fact that the anti-McCaniacs are repeating it to themselves like Gospel shows how desparate some are.
McCain is far more reliable, authentic and right where it counts. We're not supposed to have a visceral conservative in the office of POTUS. Reagan wasn't. Ford wasn't. Bush wasn't. The spreading of conservative ideas is the job of the party not the President.
I didn't say McCain was economically perfect. He doesn't paint himself as a Milton Friedman. (To paint him as a John Keynes or Soros is wrong as well). However Romney does try to paint himself as an economic Savior and he knows without that he has no niche. As long as he makes those claims, someone must refute them. Thanks for posting.
Post a Comment