Mitt Romney for president
After evaluating the pros and cons in the post below, I'm officially supporting Mitt Romney. I think that McCain is too old and not smart enough to be president. Mitt, who had high grades at Harvard Law and Harvard Business School, is extremely smart. Mitt also gets credit for his steady personality, while McCain is rumored to be moody and temperamental.
I am not impressed by McCain's military experience. I worked for the army as a civilian, and it was the most poorly managed organization I ever worked for. Romney, on the other hand, has the proven capacity to run large organizations.
Ignoring issues of religion or policy, Mitt is clearly the better man for the job.
Ah, the coveted Half Sigma endorsement.
Just look what it did for Giuliani.
Posted by: Rob | January 30, 2008 at 03:19 PM
If forced to choose between Romney and McCain, I'd lean the same way. But of course I already support someone better than either of those two. Go Ron Paul!
Posted by: bbartlog | January 30, 2008 at 03:29 PM
Ah, the coveted Half Sigma endorsement.
If you want to see more of Meghan, it's best to derail her father's plans for the presidency. The Secret Service will certainly push her to terminate or curtail her blog, and we'll be forced to deal with small "approved" media photos of her.
Besides, Romney comes across as a technocratic moderate Republican who I could tolerate. He's a conservative weather-vane version of Bloomberg.
Posted by: David Alexander | January 30, 2008 at 03:32 PM
"Ron Paul"
He has no chance of winning the nomination, so it's a wasted vote. And even if, by some chance, there's a brokered convention, and all the other candidates die from heart attacks or something beforehand leaving Paul as the last man standing, he'd lose in the general election by a massively huge margin.
So a vote for Paul is like a vote for a Democrat.
Posted by: Half Sigma | January 30, 2008 at 03:33 PM
leaving Paul as the last man standing, he'd lose in the general election by a massively huge margin.
Anti-Semites probably hate black people too, so I'd think that Ron Paul has some chance against our mulatto senator from Chicago...
Posted by: David Alexander | January 30, 2008 at 03:40 PM
He has no chance of winning the nomination
I love how those self-fulfilling prophecies work. Of course I know that you have other, more legitimate beefs with Paul, but not supporting someone because their chances are poor just comes down to letting other people make your choices for you.
Posted by: bbartlog | January 30, 2008 at 03:53 PM
McCain looks like a wee ferret, Romney like an over-pampered pooch. What Republicans should do, given that they will surely lose, is work out how their choice can be made so as to encourage the Donkeys to choose Barack rather than Bill's moll. For the good of the country; better the devil that you don't know, in this case.
Posted by: dearieme | January 30, 2008 at 04:12 PM
John "Bob Dole" McCain is a certified war hero. It might be worth having him president just to watch him finally snap in a news conference and take out a room full of reporters.
Romney would be a far better administrator than McCain, but he hasn't shown much toughness up til now. He seems too decent a person to deal with the average scum head of state you meet out there.
Obama is a walking "closet Moses afrocentric" and Hillary is a screeching harpy throwback to bra-burning feminist man hatred.
Some years, you just can't win.
Posted by: Al Fin | January 30, 2008 at 04:41 PM
For the good of the country; better the devil that you don't know, in this case.
true. if, as seems likely, the election is going dem, then with obama there is the hope that he "grows" in office. there is no chance of hillary growing into anything except more hillary.
Posted by: roissy | January 30, 2008 at 04:48 PM
People thought Kerry was going to win because of the war, and Bush beat him soundly. Likewise I don't think it's a breeze for Democrats this year.
The Economy plays well into Romney's hands, and the lack of negative war reporting puts that on the back page.
If McCain wins, I certainly expect the Democrat nominee to win. We'll have four years of milktoast foreign policy, appeasement, and horrible dependency economics in place, that Romney would have to come in and fix the mess in the next election.
I will hold my nose and vote for McCain, but I have wanted Romney since he was still governor.
Posted by: Indiana Jim | January 30, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Ah yes. A man's grades in college are a great way to evaluate his intelligence and character.
This is getting absurd!
I've worked for a university as a private contractor, and I'd have to say that's an even worse-run institution than the military.
Let's see - combat pilot, or Ivy Leaguer born with a silver spoon up his ass?
Posted by: secret asian man | January 30, 2008 at 04:51 PM
but not supporting someone because their chances are poor just comes down to letting other people make your choices for you.
The way I see it, supporting somebody who has no chance of winning while the real candidates duke it out is letting other people make your choices for you. Making an ineffectual choice when effectual choices exist is not making a choice.
Posted by: GOP Lurker | January 30, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Romney is almost certainly the most economically literate candidate of either party. If the Republicans ever want to recapture the jobs-economy issue set, then Romney is the best foot forward.
Posted by: GOP Lurker | January 30, 2008 at 05:03 PM
HS,
As an anti-liberal, you might consider backing the candidacy of this guy.
Posted by: Ralphie Boy | January 30, 2008 at 05:10 PM
People thought Kerry was going to win because of the war, and Bush beat him soundly. Likewise I don't think it's a breeze for Democrats this year.
Not soundly. It was historically a very close election. In fact, I think it's the closest in modern history when it comes to elections with an incumbent. I do agree with your main point, though. A Democrat is likely to win, but it's not a lock.
I will hold my nose and vote for McCain, but I have wanted Romney since he was still governor.
Romney the candidate ruined Romney the governor for me.
Posted by: trumwill | January 30, 2008 at 05:26 PM
I heard McCain wants to bring back the draft. That's no good (for us).
Posted by: SFG | January 30, 2008 at 05:39 PM
John McCain and Mitt Romney are both decent men. But John McCain is a warrior; a natural leader. Mitt Romney is a corporate manager.
We are at war. This is no time to bring back the fantasy that we can "manage" our military, as though fighting a war is just another corporate business venture.
Remember the technocrat Robert Strange McNamara, who did wonders to help us lose the war in Vietnam? Thought we could apply sound B-school principles to national security. Failed.
We need a leader; not a manager. The United States is not a corporation.
Posted by: johnluke | January 30, 2008 at 07:33 PM
McCain has no respect for the first amendment. For that reason alone, I'll never vote for him.
Posted by: Joe | January 30, 2008 at 08:24 PM
HS,
Who's your favorite president of the modern era?
Posted by: russ | January 30, 2008 at 08:24 PM
Romney is the best candidate who could plausibly win the nomination. Amazingly and unfortunately, McCain will probably get it. I think we're screwed whoever the next president - Democrat or Republican - happens to be.
Posted by: tommy | January 30, 2008 at 09:33 PM
Governors are leaders, Senators are not. Fighter pilots are not. They are mavericks. John McCain is a maverick who has stabbed his party in the back too many times to count, and laughed about it. The poor, tired old sod is wrong on too many issues to get my vote.
I virtually never vote for republicans and rarely vote for democrats. This year, I doubt I will vote for either.
Posted by: Al Fin | January 30, 2008 at 09:33 PM
Do you really think Mitt Romney has ANY sense of decency? Did you see his faith speech?
Check this out if you think Mitt is better than McCain.
I think it's time to give up on the Republicans this year. McCain is the only one with a chance in November, and he's just not a great candidate.
American needs someone who is going to strongly repudiate Bush, not say that it's wrong to criticize the president. Give the Democrats a chance, let them screw up mildly, and then maybe a moderate Republican in 2012 can take charge.
Posted by: John Smith | January 30, 2008 at 09:35 PM
John McCain and Mitt Romney are both decent men. But John McCain is a warrior; a natural leader. Mitt Romney is a corporate manager.
McCain was an airman who was shot down and became a POW during Vietnam. I certainly appreciate his service and sympathize with those very trying years he spent in the Hanoi Hilton, but I don't see how that makes him a "warrior." McCain ain't MacArthur.
We are at war.
Our broken borders are more of a threat to our country's long term survival than Islamic yocals. McCain's immigration policies will do more harm to this nation than any good he could do fighting terrorists overseas. In fact, I imagine that if the Bush-McCain-Kennedy shamnesty had passed last time, we would have seen a large increase in the Muslim population of the United States as guest workers from countries like Indonesia and Pakistan became as eligible as Mexicans for easy, legal entry into the United States.
This is no time to bring back the fantasy that we can "manage" our military, as though fighting a war is just another corporate business venture.
No, clearly now is the time for escapist fantasies that we can make everything OK by fighting bad guys in foreign lands while ignoring the internal erosion of our own country.
Posted by: tommy | January 30, 2008 at 09:44 PM
I'm an Obama supporter. No candidate supports all of the things I hold most important - an immediate pullout from Iraq, a George Aiken Solution* to the "war" on terrorism, single-payer NHS-style healthcare coupled with outcome-based rationing, and an immediate increase in the Social Security benefit eligibility age - but Obama seems the most acceptable of those out there.
* = George Aiken was a Senator from Vermont who proposed, back in the 1960's when the Vietnam War was really heating up, that the United States declare victory and pull out. Today we should declare that the "war" on terrorism has been won, disband DHS and the TSA, and so on.
Posted by: Peter | January 30, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Tommy, the world is full of escapists. Judging by most of the comments above, escapists are just about all we've got.
Obama the afrocentric Moses, leading us with hope and courage? Yeah, right.
McCain the great warrior leader. Bravely facing down the enemies of his country? Hardly that, given his amnesty record. Let the enemies just walk right in the back door.
Hillary, the woman's choice? Yeah, if you are a single issue woman with permanent PMS.
Huckaby the Baptist Minister cum used car salesman? If you are kind of sucker who gets taken twice a day by slick talkers, sure.
Dream on, boys. That appears to be all you've got going for you.
Posted by: Al Fin | January 31, 2008 at 11:33 AM
People thought Kerry was going to win because of the war, and Bush beat him soundly.
Kerry was an AWFUL candidate. He just looks like every negative stereotype of liberals wrapped up into one person: snobby, know-it-all, effete, cowardly, FRENCH(!), boston brahmin, etc.
Obama's a great candidate, with only his age, middle name, and color against him. With Hillary, I'm not so sure. I'm hoping that if she wins the nomination, the people will decide that well, even if I don't like her personally, they were pretty good the first time around.
Neither McCain nor Romney will be able to say much more than, we'll be like Bush, but better! Somehow, I don't think the people are going to find that too inspiring.
Posted by: JewishAtheist | January 31, 2008 at 03:29 PM