Mitt Romney Will Run
Today, Mitt Romney anounced that he will ot seek reelection as governor of Massachusetts. This is a significant development, espescially considering that he is a rather popular governor. Here's why.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that he will not serve as governor and un for president at the same time. He says it would be a disservice to the people of Massachusetts.
This means he will be running for President of the United States in 2008.
ALL RIGHT!
Mitt Romney is probably the best governor in America right now. He is a staunch conservative both socially and fiscally. He has cut spending and taxes in Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the Union, and reversed the horrid debt of that state into fiscal solvency. He has fought against homosexual marriage, and for better protectionof children from predators. He is a great leader.
I have stated my desire to see Mitt Romney run for President before, and now it appears that this wish will come true. All he needs to do is select Condi as his runing mate and we will have the perfect Republican ticket. We'll need it since it is almost certain Bill Richardson will be the Democrat's candidate. He is very good, very popular, and would be tough for anyone to beat.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that he will not serve as governor and un for president at the same time. He says it would be a disservice to the people of Massachusetts.
This means he will be running for President of the United States in 2008.
ALL RIGHT!
Mitt Romney is probably the best governor in America right now. He is a staunch conservative both socially and fiscally. He has cut spending and taxes in Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the Union, and reversed the horrid debt of that state into fiscal solvency. He has fought against homosexual marriage, and for better protectionof children from predators. He is a great leader.
I have stated my desire to see Mitt Romney run for President before, and now it appears that this wish will come true. All he needs to do is select Condi as his runing mate and we will have the perfect Republican ticket. We'll need it since it is almost certain Bill Richardson will be the Democrat's candidate. He is very good, very popular, and would be tough for anyone to beat.
posted by Daniel Levesque at
11:36 AM
13 Comments:
I had heard that he was a little on the liberal side. I know a friend of a friend who works in Republican politics in Massachusetts. Isnt' he pro-choice? I could be wrong.
By
Dionne, at 2:19 PM
I was with you all the way on this, right up until you said Condi.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —
By
Ranando, at 2:25 PM
"Almost certain Bill Richardson will be Dem's candidate"? Where you getting your info from? Not that I'm saying Richardson couldn't get it, just that it's way too soon to make any predictions about the Dems.
By
Dan Trabue, at 5:48 PM
Bill Richardson is the only viable candidate the Democrats have.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:29 PM
I don't know very much about Mitt Romney, so I will have to look him up. He sounds interesting. I can not agree/disagree with you on this because I'm too uninformed on the subject of this man. I wish Condoleeza Rice would run for president, but seeing as she's not going to, VP would indeed be a good thing.
By
Gayle, at 7:27 PM
I heard this on Fox today, and I think he'd be a great president! Any Republican who got elected by a VERY liberal state, and has balanced their budget, reduced spending...what's not to love? He'll be almost as good as you, Daniel!
BoUnCeS!! LibbY!
By
Libby, at 10:59 PM
re: "Bill Richardson is the only viable candidate the Democrats have."
Didn't stop them from running Kerry (who wasn't a viable candidate) or Gore (who was mortally wounded by Clinton).
The Dem strategy has been to run Republican-lite candidates, not true alternatives, and it continues to undo them until such time that the Reps undo themselves to such a degree that the Dems are able to run a Republican-lite candidate.
The Dems won't bust through until such time as they run a true alternative to the Reps.
Richardson is a moderate liberal with pro-death penalty, pro-nafta, pro-increased military spending positions. The Left would never rally around him. He may be able to secure the nomination but he's not electable (again, with the caveat that W has so damaged the Reps that Richardson might be electable).
By
Dan Trabue, at 5:18 AM
Well, Romney would be better than some, but I'd prefer more of a Conservative.
By
Rebekah, at 8:03 AM
It's almost too bad, Massachusetts could really use him. I don't know much about him, politically, but I don't think "staunch" is a word that should be used to describe any southern New England Republican. They have to be wishy-washy on a lot of things in order to get elected... like Dems in red states.
I haven't really kept up with the politics up there, even though it's a half-hour away. I used to follow local news a lot, but it got frustrating; Rhode Island is such a corrupt old boys network! What worse is they wear it like a badge of honor.
I'm more in favor of George Allen, or Condi (if she changes her mind), even Tim Pawlenty. God help us all if McCain takes another stab at it.
By
Anonymous, at 6:17 PM
I talked to my friend and she confirmed that for all intensive purposes he is pro-choice. He is against partial birth abortion so he claims that makes him pro-life. Romney tried to recruit my friend's friend to work on his campaign for president and she said she couldn't do it in good conscience. The basic concept was she was supposed to help put a "conservative face" on him to woo the conservative base.
So unfortunately I wouldn't get too excited about him just yet if you really want a conservative.
By
Dionne, at 10:34 PM
Actually, when you do all the math, Romney INCREASED Massachusetts spending by $130 million. Here's the breakdown:
These are the numbers of state spending totals:
$21.30 Billion -- Fiscal Year 2001
$22.63 Billion -- Fiscal Year 2002
$22.73 Billion -- Fiscal Year 2003
$22.86 Billion -- Fiscal Year 2004
Its pretty easy math. Its also pretty easy for Mitt to lie about it and have no one really check the numbers.
By
Anonymous, at 7:44 PM
As a person who left the Mormon faith, I can get to the core of the problem of which voters should be aware.
In the Mormon temples, a vow is made to put the Mormon Church first. Before 1990, there was even a death symbol involved about keeping the vow (which has since been removed). In no uncertain terms, the temple vow promises to use all talents to further the Mormon (Latter-day Saints) Church.
Would Gov. Romney keep his vow to the church always to put it first or would he be loyal to the people who vote for him? Which oath of trust would he break?
It is naive to think the agenda of the Mormon Church will be acceptable to all. Would he use his power to help religion get extra breaks and influence?
Mormons also agree to keep silent about the “sacred” vows they make in the temple. This creates a problem for the voter. When push comes to shove, would a Mormon who attends the Mormon temple put his church first? If he doesn’t, he has broken a vow. Either way, one cannot trust where the allegiance will lie.
By
Anonymous, at 7:49 PM
"He has fought against homosexual marriage... He is a great leader."
Er... how does that make him a good leader? He quite blatantly uses his personal prejudices to influence the law and fail to inmprove innocent American citizens' lives by this!
By
DanProject76, at 12:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home