October 12, 2006
Romney Warms Hearts Of Conservative Establishment
If Woody Allen was right, and "80 percent of success is showing up," then MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) did himself a big favor by appearing last night at National Review Online's 10th Anniversary party in Washington. Romney was the only '08 contender to woo the hundreds of prominent conservatives who packed the dining room of Charlie Palmer's steakhouse. He was also the only non-National Review staffer who got a turn at the mic.
In very brief remarks, Romney paid tribute to the venerable magazine's internet site, describing it as a welcome tonic for people like him whose hearts are in red America but whose homes are in blue. Boston, the Bay State governor explained, has two types of media outlets: the "Kennedy apologists" and "the liberals." The line was good enough for a few chuckles, but it was his mere presence that said it all; that and the fact that two of the evening's sponsors had the word "Mitt" in their titles. Both the Ann D. and Mitt Romney Foundation and "Evangelicals for Mitt" helped underwrite the shindig -- a fact that was pointed out by NR editor Rich Lowry in his remarks.
As Romney stuck around after speaking to shake hands and take pictures with an audience that included such bold-faced names as Krauthammer, Blankley, Comstock, Matalin, Libby (!) and Bonjean, the buzz was almost audible: McCain alternative.
Posted at 07:25 AM
Comments
Romney is more than an alternative to McCain, who won't garner a single vote from Vietnam veterans or families of Vietnam POW's. We remember his treachery in handling the intel on POWs those families had collected.
NightFire | 10.12.06 09:15 AM
 |
"Evangelicals for Mitt" was a sponsor? Clever! Get that meme out there to the GOP elite early. What problems b/t Mormons and evangelical Christians? That whole cult thing is just water under the bridge.
Bob | 10.12.06 10:35 AM
|
Mitt is going to run and win in 2008. The McCain and Linsey Grahams of the world have run their course. With so many crucial conservative issues dangling in the balance every year, social and fiscal conservatives would do well to take a long look at Romney. His record is amazing...
Joan Rankin | 10.12.06 11:19 AM
|
Smart move by Romney to show up, and it will help him some with conservatives who vote in primaries.
Mitt as the nominee still has problems, though.
The Dems would surely use his faith against him, and, on balance, I think they'd get away with it:
Dems wouldn't rally to Mitt because the attacks were unfair/intolerant, etc. - they think faith is creepy if it actually impacts your actions;
Independents would likely be turned off to Romney on balance. Some Republicans would do the same; and
For some portion of the Republican base, Romney's faith is a concern - the rally to defend Mitt would not be full throated & overwhelming.
I will give him credit for winning in Massachusetts, though - maybe the explanation for how he managed that can overcome my concerns.
BD | 10.12.06 12:04 PM
|
"The Dems would surely use his faith against him, and, on balance, I think they'd get away with it:"
Harry Reid is Mormon. Dems won't get away with it.
SB | 10.12.06 12:42 PM
|
Mitt Romney's timely appearance at the NRO anniversary gathering is a good sign that he knows what he must do and who he must see to gain the respect needed for serious consideration as a conservative candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. He combines understanding of fundamental American political principles with the courage and determination to act on them. He has also demonstrated impressive executive ability, as in the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is superior to and more electable than other GOP possibilities and, once nominated, will unite Republicans against the predictably repulsive Democratic party nominee.
Richard Reeb | 10.12.06 12:52 PM
|
Dems are unlikely to vote for ANY republican, so no loss there.
Indys will swarm to Romney for the same reason they did in MA. Common sense governance and competance, and a proven ability to turn around messy situations.
Reps are already lining up behind Romney. The ongoing GOPbloggers poll (12,000+ votes) has him at the highest net acceptability. The conservative talking heads are in his court. Everyone likes Mitt except McCain.
The only ones with theological quibbles about Mitt are also the ones who agree with his politics 100%. See what THESE evangelical leaders have to say:
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/quotes.php
murphy | 10.12.06 01:00 PM
|
Dems are unlikely to vote for ANY republican, so no loss there.
Indys will swarm to Romney for the same reason they did in MA. Common sense governance and competance, and a proven ability to turn around messy situations.
Reps are already lining up behind Romney. The ongoing GOPbloggers poll (12,000+ votes) has him at the highest net acceptability. The conservative talking heads are in his court. Everyone likes Mitt except McCain.
The only ones with theological quibbles about Mitt are also the ones who agree with his politics 100%. See what THESE evangelical leaders have to say:
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/quotes.php
murphy | 10.12.06 01:01 PM
|
Hello All:
You should check out the support base for Romney here.
This link will show just how broad his base is.
-----------------------------------------
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/index.php
http://reason4romney.blogspot.com/index.html
T&T | 10.12.06 01:13 PM
|
I'm a registered independent and I like Mitt Romney over all the candidates for 2008, Republican or Democrat.
Dmac | 10.12.06 01:54 PM
|
I think McCain's people will attack Romney for the Mormon thing more so than the Dems. Who is the House minority leader right now and what faith does he belong to? Methinks Harry Reid under that much attack on his religion would either have to resign or invoke Article 6. Since this and Romney's evolved stance on abortion are his achille's heel, I think he is the least vulnerable of any of the GOP candidates out there. Think about it. The Dems have taken great pains in showing that they are not the anti-religious party through their appointment of Reid. It would be blatant hypocrisy should it be an issue now.
Steve Fox | 10.12.06 02:03 PM
|
BD I don't think the Dems would use faith against Romney. Harry Reid is LDS so I think they couldn't get away with it unless it was done indirectly without "official" approval. Of any of the candidates out their, I actually think Mitt appeals to the biggest tent. The reason being he has the values of the moral majority, while still appealing to the buisness community, and moderates on issues like fiscal responsibility,the enviornment and healthcare.
chad@mymitt.com | 10.12.06 02:59 PM
|
People are voting for President, not pastor. If a President is a good leader, stands correctly in the majority of issues, is articulate, can effectively sell his programs, and can get things done; who cares if he is a Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, atheist, or a fervent cat worshiper? Where and what he worships is his own affair, not ours.
Who was it that said that if the GOP nomination came down to McCain, Guiliani, Gingrich, and Romney, the person with only one wife would be the Mormon?
marK | 10.12.06 03:37 PM
|
I wouldn't be too quick to say that some of the Dems wouldn't rally to Mitt (or at least his religion) if his faith was used against him. Keep in mind that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is also a Mormon.
JL | 10.12.06 03:38 PM
|
What structure of Law enforcement criminal science exists in every police department for electronic law enforcement? What structure is existant?
What radio frequencies can hospital remotes safely function on? Do Wi-fi and Wi-max frequencies overlap these frequencies?(true results, blood sugar, temperature, heart rate, blood pressure) How can makers of cell phones standardize chips to not interfere with input on those frequencies? Who can wiretap a digital watch or any other digital device(fstandardiztion)? Can computer manufacturers make sure they do not broadcast on those frequencies? Does wiretapping by large business get special access to those frequencies(standardization)? How stable is the wiring infrastructure for cable internet? Where should this wiring be limited? Do these large businessess wiretap the government? It's not government wiretapping that I'm worried
about.
sincerely,
j_winkler@massbay.edu
(computer scence class)
jane winkler | 10.23.06 10:37 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
