Let Huckabee implement the fair tax in Arkansas first, before running for the Presidency again.

Let Romney run for governor of Michigan as a conservative, and see what happens . . . before running for the Presidency again.

Both of those guys need to prove themselves before running for President again.

May not have liked McCain much, but we knew who he was.

Hopefully, the GOP pick 2012 won’t need a VP to fire up the base.

But, I do agree with you about what his campaign turned into. By the end, it was a joke. It seemed like you had no strategy at all. Even when they brought up Ayers, Socialism and Abortion, it just seemed like his campaign was throwing crap against the wall to see what would stick. If you are going to negative, have a theme. Don;t just do it all at once, it made him look desperate.

With respect to drilling, you’re right about that being a big deal at the convention in the middle of $4.00+ gas. He never mentioned it with any sort of substantive comments or program related stuff after the convention and he ran from comments on ANWR like Obama ran from Ayers.

At the end of the day, McCain’s campaign worked out to be “I was a prisoner of war you know…”, “I’ve been in DC a long time…” and “I’m experienced [whatever that means]“. It was pathetic.

Picking Palin was fine with me honestly. I think the move made sense, even though I think you had better conservative choices out there.

Until he picked Sarah Palin.

And then he tried the “moderate” and “Bipartisan” thing again while his VP was doing the “Conservative” thing as best as she could.

Mitt Romney/Peter Pace

Which ticket was more likely to win?

What this diary is arguing is that Mitt Romney would have been a better choice than McCain. And just as important, if he had been smart enough to pick Peter Pace for his VP, even you would have been able to muster up some enthusiasm.

Let’s start with his promise to have a nanny state bailout of Detroit …

Below is what Romney actually said. NOTE: No bail out.

“I will make a five-fold increase - from $4 billion to $20 billion - in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology. Let’s invest in our future.

“As you know, research spins out new ideas for new products, from both small businesses and large businesses. That’s exactly what’s happened in healthcare. We spend what $30 billion a year in NIH, and we lead the world in healthcare products. In defense, we spend even more. We lead the world in defense products. We also spend money in the space industry. And we lead the world in products coming out of space. Look how industries in these other states that have those advantages that thrive from the spin of other technologies, from our investment there. So if we can invest in healthcare, and defense, and space, why not also invest in energy and fuel technology right here in Michigan?”

… complete with government training programs and money for the city and state to retrain workers chose winners and losers in the auto industry.

Here’s what Romney actually said on “training programs” …

“Second, we’ll turn government workforce training programs that are managed by bureaucrats, into personal accounts that can be managed by the workers themselves so they can gain education at community college or they can pay for on-the-job training in real jobs.

“There are currently some 40 different workforce training programs in government spread out all over the entire federal government. Now let’s replace the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats with personal responsibility and individual ownership.”

Oh…and then there’s his gushing praise and bragging about the awesome health plan he passed in Taxachusetts which is now bankrupting the state…

He passed it? The MA House and Senate had nothing to do with it? If I recall correctly, back then he had the choice of either standing back and allowing the 137(D)-19(R) MA House and the 35(D)-5(R) MA Senate to pass a Canadian style single-payer healthcare bill into law, or take the initiative to propose something that at least allowed the free market a role. He took the latter option. I think that’s leadership, though I’m sure you’ll disagree - after all, he is Romney, eh? That said, I would point out again that he vetoed the eight most budget-busting provisions of the bill that the MA legislature sent back to him, and every single one of those vetoes got overturned.

My point? At least, he tried. Given the Democrats’ super-majority, most would have just stood back. He didn’t, and I personally give him credit for that.

Let’s be honest, ace, whichever choice he made, you’re going to damn him anyway. If he had stood back and let the MA legislature pass a single-payer bill with or without a veto (that will get overridden), you’d damn him for letting it happen. Whatever else you may think of “MittCare” - a misnomer because it is more of a product of MA Democrats - , it is far better than the HillaryCare system MA Democrats were set to introduce.

oh…and I remember his support of the Judicial usurpation of the rights of the people to self govern and supporting the gay marriage ruling there.

Now this simply isn’t true. And I think you know it. You have every right not to like him, even hate him, but come on … Even the Boston Globe had this to say …

A review of Romney’s remarks shows that at an October 2002 campaign debate, he said: “Call me old fashioned, but I don’t support gay marriage nor do I support civil union.” Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: “But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage.”

Here’s the thing, after the Supreme Court of Massachusetts made its ruling, he could either choose to enforce the decision and order town clerks to start issuing licenses to same sex pairs, or refuse and risk impeachment. Again, ace, I really doubt any decision he made would have made a difference to you. If he had refused, you would damn him for violating the separation of powers in MA. As it stands, he single-handedly forced the MA state House and Senate to hold a vote on an amendment to the MA Constitution (i.e. put it on the ballot) that the MA House & Senate Democratic Majority leaders were determined to skip past. Many gay activists hoping to get married in MA and then go back to their states so as to force their states to recognize their “marriage” under the Full Faith & Credit clause had their plans thwarted because he had the foresight and diligence to find a law written in 1913 “that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state”

Oh…and I almost forgot…his absurd arguement that raising fees don’t equate to raising taxes on individuals since it does indeed increase the cost of the average citizen to live in…work in…and do business in Taxachusetts in the same way as tax increases…

Again, this is one of those arguments that have their source not in any reasonable opposition to the policy decision but on how you feel about Mitt Romney. If the cost of providing X increases, should the price paid by the customers seeking X also increase? I would think so. The cost of providing and administering various (marriage, gun, drivers, hunting, bar exam, etc.) licenses had gone up dramatically since they were last set in the 1980s - that is a fact. Romney raised fees to cover the costs.

I submit that if it were not Romney, you would think this was simple common sense. And anyway, ace, if he had not done it, you’d be damning him for the resulting deficit.

Oh…and please note he didn’t nor advocated cutting spending in any way!

Err … this is pure A-grade bull, ace. From WiKipedia …

The state legislature, with Romney’s support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns. The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education … Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget. All of those vetoes were overturned by the legislature.

NOTE: Here’s a link for anyone interested to read about Romney’s fiscal record in Massachusetts - with both the anti and pro sides having a say.

All in all, Romney had 800 of his vetoes overturned, a huge number of them having to do with spending, so your claim here is again, something that is sourced from your dislike of the man and not his record.

And finally …

…he systematically and viciously attacked, smeared and slandered each candidate that showed any promise or potential of winning the nomination to the point where there was no one left to win the nomination than the John McCain who was the last choice of almost every Republican except the most liberal establishmentarians!

Bottom line is this…Mitt Romney is single handedly responsible for the Joke the McCain 08 campaign was because without Mitt Romney kneecapping every other viable candidate in the race.

Ace. This is another load of bull …

Look, I’m not denying that Mitt went far too negative, but for you to suggest that Mitt is responsible for McCain winning the nomination is nonsense on stilts. Who was viable amongst the guys running? Hunter? Tancredo? Paul?! Nope. The only people who were viable were Mitt, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee and Fred. Rudy’s decision to bet it all on Florida and forget all the earlier states, and his social liberalism, took him out - not Romney. Fred’s late entrance and lacklustre campaign style took him out without any help from Mitt - Romney barely touched him. Huckabee and McCain got the most of Mitt’s fire, and in the end, both of them teamed up against him to give it to McCain. Unlike you, I very much remember McCain telling his WV caucus delegates to vote for Huckabee just to deny Romney the state’s delegation on Super Tuesday.

So if you really want someone to blame for McCain 2008, then you’d best take a look at the former Governor of AR (the man you supported back then), not the Governor of MA.

If you think he actually “ran to the right”, I’d be interested in the issues that you think he moved right on.

• Note that he said the same thing he’s been saying for years on Iraq and on the war.

• He didn’t change his position on Gitmo or torture or giving detainees “constitutional rights”, none of which is a “right wing” position.

• He didn’t even discuss immigration, but that just means he didn’t change his position which is most certainly NOT a “right wing” position.

• On the economy and federal spending, if anything he moved way left. He supported the $700B bail out and everything else that anybody wanted to throw huge stacks of money at. Certainly not a “right wing” position.

• On life issues, he barely discussed them outside of the single question from Rick Warren. He passed on every opportunity to press the fact that Obama supports infanticide. Again, hardly a peace offering to us right wingers.

• On drilling and energy, he made a vague pass on drilling, never came out for drilling in ANWR and never said anything substantive on the subject. And on AGW, he didn’t say a word.

• And finally, on the sole point that anyone might make about “running right”, his choice of Palin, he never indicated any support for her positions or defended her from spurious attacks from his own staff. All he really did was to tag along at her appearances so he could take advantage of the crowds who came to support Sarah. They were about ten times the attendance of his rallies.

Anyway, please feel free to enlighten us as to those issues that he ran to the right on and where he was saying stuff that contradicted anything he’d said for years. We aren’t holding our breath.

Regards

Had he run to the right, he would’ve won. The best example I can give was the bailout. There’s clear evidence that his support surpassed that of Obama after choosing Palin as VP (which can be categorized as moving the right), and then went completely in the tank for his support of the bailout (which can be categorized as moving to the left).

See also my comment below RE: Reagan. He said the same thing I’m saying.

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

I don’t see how this is any different than what I’ve been saying.