The Mitt Man in '08

Watch out for Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, he’s beginning to play well in the big leagues, and once he catches his stride, he may be a factor in the upcoming presidential elections. Here’s one guy’s take on the Mitt Man:

Mitt Romney is one clever guy. He has to be in order to survive in the dog eat dog world of Massachusetts politics. He is a Republican governor in a one party state still dominated by the very long shadow of Ted Kennedy.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed legislation providing first in the nation health insurance to virtually all citizens of Massachusetts without raising taxes. Most importantly he did this while working with conservatives such as the Heritage Foundation and also key Democrats in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate.

In other words, he has a track record of being able to work on both sides of the aisle effectively. Plus, he is well liked by just about every Bay Stater, an accomplishment in and of itself.

People know Romney as the one who bailed out the 2002 corruption plagued and broke Olympics. Under his leadership, the Olympics went from a $350 million deficit, to a handsome $100 profit, and the policies that he implemented will cut down corruption for future Olympiads. Plus, with everyone holding their breathe post 9/11, he showed 'em how to conduct proper security as nary an incident took place then.

Academically, he's on the ball. He graduated undergrad from Brigham Young, and has an MBA from Harvard Business School, and also a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

As a professional, he was a principal in the venture capital firm Bain Venture Capital, which was the outfit that got companies like Staples off the ground. In other words, he's sharp as a tack.

Dragging against these credentials is the fact that he is a Mormon. Many consider this to be the Achilles heal of his candidacy. As a matter of fact, he was a Mormon missionary for a couple years after college.

On money matters, his expertise awed all in the Bay State by turning a $3 Billion deficit which he inherited when he assumed office to a $100 surplus in 2004.

His liabilities include his opposition to gay marriage and his pro-life stance. He is also pro-death penalty in Massachusetts.

The question is this: Is America ready for a handsome, intelligent, honest, business-savvy, religious conservative who has shown the ability to get things done in a state that usually is dominated by the Eastern Elite liberals?

This I know: Mitt Romney, Rudy Guilliani, John McCain, and perhaps one or two others whose names are being bandied about gives the National Republican Party reason for optimism in 2008. If Romney were to grab the nomination from that group and later went on to win the presidency, I think he would do a terrific job healing up a lot of wounds in Washington and just about every place else.

I like the Mitt Man.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at July 7, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #165578
Dragging against these credentials is the fact that he is a Mormon. Many consider this to be the Achilles heal of his candidacy. As a matter of fact, he was a Mormon missionary for a couple years after college.


I personally haven’t heard very much of the guy, but he seems well equipped. I think he could use a little more political seasoning before setting his sights on the White House…this is only his first major political office.

It’s a shame that religion plays such a strong role in the validity of candidates. It seems if you’re not a WASP, your chances for the Oval Office and severly hampered.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 7, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #165608
I think he could use a little more political seasoning before setting his sights on the White House…this is only his first major political office.

I strenuously disagree on the “seasoned politician” point. I think that this is just the person we need, someone who’s worked well in the private sector as a leader. He hasn’t been tainted by Washington politics like ever single career politician in DC.

Posted by: Ann Marie Curling at July 7, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #165644

Amen, Ann Marie!

I am a religious conservative who believes Mormonism to be a heresy. However, I don’t see how his belief in a doctrine would hurt his judgement as a president one iota. I’ve had my eye on this guy for a long time and would gladly vote for him. Looking at recent Presidents, it seems we have taken a liking to governors over Senators and other Washington insiders. The Mitt Man is my #1 draft pick!!

Posted by: Duane-o at July 7, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #165647

Given his mastery of the english language, his good looks, and his knowledge of the affairs of our nation both domestically and internationally, it is my guess that once he hits the national stage he will be a smash hit.

Anyone have the stats on how people vote for someone simply based on appearance?
I’m sure we have a substantial number of people in our nation who can be that shallow.

Posted by: dawn at July 7, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #165664

Ann Marie:

One can be a tremendous businessmen and at the same time be a horrible politician…they are two relatively unrelated fields, although they do tie-in periodically.

Just b/c he has experience in the private sector does not mean he’d make a good President…politics is an art, and it takes experience to master the art. Experience that one term as governor won’t satisfy.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 7, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #165677

Dragging against these credentials is the fact that he is a Mormon. Many consider this to be the Achilles heal of his candidacy. As a matter of fact, he was a Mormon missionary for a couple years after college.

All Mormon males are missionaries for a couple of years. The church requires it.

It seems if you’re not a WASP, your chances for the Oval Office and severly hampered.

Someone forgot to tell that to John Kennedy.

I’ve heard a bit about Mitt Romney on the news. If he half of what he’s cracked up to be he’d make a dynamite President. As long as he doesn’t play party politics.
I don’t know yet if I’d actually vote for him. But he’d be worth considering.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 8, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #165698

as long as his Vision is making this a better place. and not a vision of Joseph smith and new york state and Moroni. I would consider him.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at July 8, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #165701


“All Mormon males are missionaries for a couple of years. The church requires it.”

Not so. It is voluntary and you need to be a “member in good standing” to be able to go. There’s a healthy dose of social pressure to go (young women in the church are generally encouraged to seek a “returned missionary” as a future mate …)

It’s definitely not mandatory and you can participate in all of the church activities and become a leader in the church without going on a mission.

All that said, I think Romney Rocks … and not because we’re both Mormons (wouldn’t have voted for Hatch even if he were a frontrunner and had charisma). Romney is the kind of leader we need to bring fiscal conservatism back to D.C. No D.C. insider will really be able to do this (W was/is a D.C. insider because of his family connections).

Posted by: Jeff Fuller at July 8, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #165702


When I saw your headline I couldn’t help but jump in. I hope Romney doesn’t run for President because I’m a Democrat. I’ve thought for a long time that Romney could be the man to beat in ‘08.

As much as I’d love to find fault with a Republican I can’t fault Romney. He appears to be pro-America, period.


Posted by: KansasDem at July 8, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #165705


I believe WASP = white anglo saxon protestant. JFK does not fit this definition.

I do think the Mormon issue would be bigger than some people think. For example what happens if the press starts asking him questions such as whether he believes he is going to get his own planet some day.
I’m not sure why being against gay marriage should be considered a liability. Do you really think he is going to carry the states where that is a big issue regardless of his position?

Posted by: Carnak at July 8, 2006 2:33 AM
Comment #165715


This is the first time that a have seen posters agree with anything that I have written! Be still, my heart!

This week in Massachusetts, the state legislature tried to ram a bill thru giving a retired rep’s family a $45,000 a year pension. Trouble is, that years ago the rep had refused to pay into the state pension system. They were going to put a lien on his house and when the family sold the house in twenty years or so, alledgedly the state would get its money back (wink,wink). Mitt stepped in and veteod the bill. He filed legislation instead that every state rep would kick in $250 annually from their pay themselves to supprot this guy’s family, and even the governor would contribute to it. Of course, all the pols are howling about this today.

He is also strong on terror issues as well. The question I have is that in the last couple of decades , Massachusessts has seen, Kennedy, Dukakis, and Kerry all attempt a presindental bids. Is America ready for another Massachusetts politican, and potentially one that could butt heads against another Massachusetts politican, John Kerry?

Posted by: sicilian eagle at July 8, 2006 5:41 AM
Comment #165744


The angle of two politicians from the same state running against each other for President would certainly be interesting, somewhat like the “Subway Series” in NYC a few years ago or, my personal hope, a Pennsylvania SuperBowl pitting the Steelers against the Eagles (Steelers win). I honestly doubt that Kerry can get the nomination, his star has faded pretty fast since 2004.

The prospect of a Romney/Clinton race would be interesting as it would buck the trend of candidates coming from the Sun Belt. Another trend might shed light, however. When is the last time a Senator became President. I can’t remember, but I know it’s been a while, and governors have a much better track record over the last 50 years.

If Romney is the Republican candidate, Clinton has trouble in store. Hillary is probably the second most polarizing person in American politics behind GW. People either love her or hate her with very little middle ground. I don’t see her being able to win over Republicans nor able to bring in many independents. Romney’s record suggests that he can.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 8, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #165772

If the primary vote came down to Romney or McCain - hands down I vote for Romney. However, if Ms. Rice is in the picture, I would be hard pressed to vote against her. One thing is for sure, if McCain wins the party nomination, I vote down ticket and ignore the presidential line. I cannot bring myself to vote for Benedict McCain.

For Romney’s sake, he should make a nod toward Condi as a probible VP. He is a shoe-in then.

Posted by: Political Sniper at July 8, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #165774

1LT B,
The last Senator to become President (going straight to Pres from Sen.) was Hoover, I believe. If not it was that era.

You are technically correct about JFK, however that was once in the entire history of our presidential system. There is still some validity to the WASP comment. That is shameful, yet a fact.

One last thing to consider, what happened the last two times we elected Washington outsiders? We got Reagan and Carter. Carter was an abject failure as a President, while Reagan was one of our most beloved Presidents (even by Dems that did not hold his views). So we are 50-50 on the outsider vote of late.

Posted by: Political Sniper at July 8, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #165787

I believe WASP = white anglo saxon protestant. JFK does not fit this definition.

That’s what I was getting at.

When is the last time a Senator became President.

1960, John Kennedy, the Senator from Massachusetts.

A Romney, Rice ticket just might be intresting. Might even seal the deal for me to vote for him.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 8, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #165796

Political Sniper and Ron Brown,

Thanks for the info, I couldn’t remember for the life of me. In any case, since 1960, governors have beaten senators consistently. This and the whole polarizing thing probably doesn’t bode well for Hillary. All this, of course, is assuming she can navigate the primary without the Democratic party staying true to form and tearing down everybody who runs in the primary. The last 10 years or so, the Democrats have shown a singular ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and I find myself wandering if they can top themselves this year.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 8, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #165810

I agree that Romney would be a decent Pres, but I don’t think he could win. Check out this poll. That’s 35% saying they would never vote for a Mormon candidate. That’s a lot to overcome, coupled with the fact that he’s been unable to stop gay marriage in the most high-profile battle in the country, and you have a pretty easy target in the primaries. I think he is the best your party has to offer for ‘08, just like McCain was in ‘00, and Bill Weld further back, but there are some things that we will never see, and one of them is the best candidate winning a primary, from either side.

Posted by: David S at July 8, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #165811

Almost forgot: the old-school Conservatives will have a field day with his “socialist” health care plan. It’s an amazing piece of work that would play great in the general election, but will keep him from being the nominee.

Posted by: David S at July 8, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #165820

1LT B :

bot only was JFK the sitting Senator from MA but his running mate LBJ was the sitting Senator from TX.

Political Sniper :

fyi — Hebert Hoover was never a Senator …


As far as Mitt for President … I am all for it. I had the pleasure of meeting him at the 1994 MA State Republican Convention in Springfield when he was running for Senator against Ted Kennedy ( a tough run to say the least ). I was impressed when he took the time to talk to me and not make me feel like he was talking down to me like some politician can do. He has done well for MA and comes from a good family and will do the Federal Government good.

Posted by: WRA at July 8, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #165822

Pol Sniper-

I’d add Clinton to that list of Washington outsiders.

Posted by: David S at July 8, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #165847

You are right WRA, thanks.

How would Romney fare against a Bill Richardson type of candidate?

Posted by: Political Sniper at July 8, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #165961

“For example what happens if the press starts asking him questions such as whether he believes he is going to get his own planet some day.”

Nowhere in the Mormon Theology does it mention getting your own planet. This is one of the many types of stereotypes that Mitt is up against.

Wasn’t Bush 1 a Senator at one point?

Posted by: BeeDub at July 8, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #165994

Looks like he has already decided not to talk about it.

As for the planets:
After men…have become gods, …they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is them given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden; continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.
LDS Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1852, Vol. 6, p. 275
Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought her from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species.
LDS Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1859, Vol. 7, p. 285
Each succeeding generation of gods follow the example of the preceding ones: each generation have their wives, who raise up from the fruit of their loins immortal spirits: when their families become numerous, they organize new worlds for them…they place their families upon the same…
LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1853, pp. 134-135

Posted by: Carnak at July 8, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #165996

Yes, Bush 1 was a Senator. In fact we have had many Senators that have gone on to become President. However, most became Vice-President or held a cabinet position between the two jobs. Only two have ever gone from the Senate to the White House top job directly.

Posted by: Political Sniper at July 8, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #165997

Political Sniper :

That is the race that I would love to see … Romney v Richardson. Both men would do will in the contest, each in their own right. They both bring to the table different experiences in their political life and other sources.

BeeDub :

Bush I was a U S Rep for TX as well as head of the CIA. Bush I father, Preston was a U S Senator from CT

Posted by: WRA at July 8, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #166036

Bush 1 wasn’t a sitting Senator when he became President. He went from Vice President to President.

Has anyone gone from sitting Representative to President? I can’t think of anyone.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 8, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #166043

I have been following Mitt for several years now and I have never been more impressed with him than after reading this article about his health care plan. Check out his anti-Hillary approach:


Posted by: John Weymouth at July 9, 2006 1:43 AM
Comment #166064

I’ve lived in Mass all my life, and have been largely a fan of Romney during his time. That said, I feel it’s plain as day that he’s running for vice president. I’m thinking McCain/Romney ‘08 (sic?) Is the likely GOP ticket, but that’s obviously looking at today, and of course subject to change.

Posted by: Bobby at July 9, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #166065

Ron Brown :

The only President to go from the House to the Presindency was James Garfield. He was a member of the House from 4 Mar 1863 to 8 Nov 1880. The election of 1880 was held on 2 Nov 1880 thus he resigned his seat after being elected President.

Posted by: WRA at July 9, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #166127


Posted by: Ron Brown at July 9, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #166275

Rommney is probably the smartest man in the race (for either party) but I agree that we would logically go for VP first.

Posted by: Jack at July 10, 2006 7:52 AM
Comment #166291

All told, this was a good discussion line. I enjoyed the conversation. Nice and civil.

Posted by: Political Sniper at July 10, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #166315

Considering that Mormons are some of the most honest, hard working, ethical people I’ve ever met as well as exuding integrity and are morally sound people… I’d say Mitt is a good deal. Every one that I have ever come across doesn’t just say they practice their faith. They actually do. They are good examples in the community. They give a lot and have a huge humanitarian thing about them.

Christians that can’t get past other religions aren’t really Christians to begin with.

Posted by: Matt at July 10, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #166323


I suspect Mitt might make a good President. Having said that I still don’t think there is any chance what so ever that a Mormon could win a national election. It doesn’t really matter if the reasons for not voting for him are good reasons or not he just won’t win. In exit polls people will probably not want to say they didn’t vote for him because he is Mormon because it sounds biggoted but that won’t change the fact that they felt that way. I will grant you that I am surprised he could win an election for governor in Mass for the same reasons but I think in a national election it would end up being a bigger deal.

Posted by: Carnak at July 10, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #166561

A fiscally conservative Republican who can work with the opposition? Ok, SE, Mitt has my attention. Thanks for the article.

Posted by: phx8 at July 11, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #208022

I will vote for Mitt. I am a former Catholic and now attend Assembly of God. I don’t care that his Mormon beliefs are different then my religion. They believe in the same God and they have strong moral character. I am terrified of Obama getting into office with his Muslim background, he would be a sympathizer to Muslim countries and/or bills that would be introduced. We somehow managed to vote a Muslim Congressman(Keith Ellis who has ties to CAIR) into Washington and one of his first bills he wants to introduce is to forbid “talking about the Islamic religion” in a derogatory way. There are no bills in Congress to protect Christians from being derogatized. I am mother of two children serving over seas for Iraqi Freedom, so this is a deep issue for me.

And Obama and his statement that soldiers lives have been wasted? And then he says he will apologize if he has offended families in the military? If, well, he knows he offended them, he should of apologized period. Military families understand the risk of bailing out of Iraq now and the reality, we will have to go back and finish the job or fight it here at home.

I love what he has done for healthcare in Mass without raising taxes. I am from Michigan and we have experienced massive job losses in the auto sector here. His father was former Governor and he has Michigan ties here. Our Democrat Governor got re-elected and then it was discovered after election, we have a 800 million shortfall in the budget. Amazing how that just came up after election.

Mitt is sharp, intelligent, has values inline with what I believe. He reminds me so much like Pres. Reagan.

I also love that he has not been in Washington and been corrupted like Hillary. Now there is a real woman of values, stuck with her husband for political gain. Hillary only got to be Senator on the wings of her husband.

How ironic, Bill’s former campaign manager said if Hillary becomes President, she has a hit list going back 10yrs of people she will pay back. She holds grudges for decades. Just what we need in the White house.

Oh and Mitt working with the Dem’s to get something done? Wow, I am sold. Dem’s promised they would work with Republicans and give them a say, so far, it hasn’t happened.

Posted by: Missy at February 14, 2007 8:09 AM
Comment #211027

I fell in love with MITT 2 yrs ago watching him at a S.C. dinner, the love and devotion he shows towards his wife and family makes me cry;I was fortunate to hear him speak at CPAC and now know for sure he is the man to lead our great country GO MITT!!

Posted by: pamela crawford at March 8, 2007 8:48 AM
Post a comment