More on Romney’s California Trip
http://washingtontimes.co…22910-1527r.htm
From the Washington Times:
California Republicans believe a handsome, blue-state Republican such as Mitt Romney would turn the presidential map upside down in 2008, appealing to the voters on both coasts who normally back Democrats in national elections.
Mr. Romney is eyeing a White House bid as he finishes his last few months in the Massachusetts governor’s mansion, and made his case to state party activists this weekend at the California Republican Convention. They loved him — cheering wildly for a stump speech that closely resembled a stand-up routine and later praising him as someone with the right kind of fiscal and conservative values.
“He’s got the charisma Kennedy had and the morals we wish Kennedy would have had,” said Republican Donee Chabot of Los Angeles, who works in real estate.
Mr. Romney, 59, is an attractive candidate for the Republican nomination because of his political savvy, state party officials said.
“He’s a national-level player with national-level experience, and he showed that once again tonight,” said Duf Sundheim, chairman of the California Republican Party.
After the speech, the audience of nearly 700 erupted in chants of “Run, Mitt, Run” and the governor was surrounded by adoring fans hoping to snap a picture of the grinning, salt-and-pepper-haired politician. He worked the room for nearly an hour as chattering Republicans said things like “What a realist.”
Others said Mr. Romney understands the direction the nation is headed, and specifically liked his call for a line-item veto and for reining in federal entitlement programs. They also agreed with his theory on keeping the U.S. competitive with India and other Asian nations.
“He is a visionary. He sees the problems, and he knows how to work them out,” said Rosemary Licata of Ventura.
I’ve been trying for 8 months to sum it all up in such a short sentence. Thanks, Rosemary.
Dave
August 21st, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Needs to burnish his conservatives credentials as Guiliani and McCain are likely to split the pragmatic vote between them. In other words if McCain and Guiliani slaughter each other, he has to be sure to be in a position to benefit. That means effectively courting conservatives, which means he has to tout conservative issues and achievements (though he has not achieve any conservative issue victory in Massachusetts, besides balancing the budget). Also where is he on national security? He should not take a second seat to McCain or Guiliani, but instead should suggest he would be as effective a leader as either one of them would be. The problem Mitt has is that people like him, but are relunctant to give him support because of skepticism about his conservatism. Combine that with a growing pragmatism, especially if the GOP loses big in 2006, that 2008 must have a must win candidate at all costs. It will be tough. Though Guiliani is the top tier candidate in my eyes and my default choice (again a pragmatic choice, since I can’t square his social positions), I am open to a bonafide conservative candidate who can win. Is that Romney (if he really is conservative)? Is that Allen? If it’s neither then I am going with Guiliani or McCain to win.
August 21st, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Dave,
Thanks for the link to the Washington Times article.
Mitchell