Why are people supporting Mitt Romney?

AJC Political Insider has some interesting news about a Georgia leadership team for MA Governor Mitt Romney. Romney is radically ultra-conservative and will be unable to mount a serious general election campaign in my opinion, but oh well, that didn’t stop some of these folks from supporting Ralph Reed either… At least Alec Poitevint appears to be siding with America’s genuine hero, Senator John McCain. Join the McCain effort at www.exploremccain.com.

Here is the bit from the AJC Politica Insider:
A day after a key South Carolina operative, Warren Tompkins, joined his team, Romney’s Commonwealth PAC announced that Eric Tanenblatt, senior managing director at McKenna, Long & Aldridge and Gov. Sonny Perdue’s former chief of staff, will head up Romney’s finance team in Georgia.

And quite a team: Nancy Coverdell, wife of the late Sen. Paul Coverdell; Fred Cooper, the general chairman for Bush ’08; James Edenfield, CEO of American Software and Joe Rogers Jr., CEO of Waffle House.

That list leaves out a ton of party positions this group has held. The bottom line is that this is a big chunk of the core Bush crowd in Georgia, going back to before the elder Bush became Bush 41.

It’s not a total sweep. We have it on good authority that state GOP chairman Alex Pointevint will eventually pledge his personal allegiance to Sen. John McCain. But Romney has put down a big footprint.

We’re told it’s only coincidence these announcements are coming just as Sen. Bill Frist takes his cards off the table. But it’s not irrelevant. Frist is a Southerner closely allied to Bush, and at one time he was thought to have an inside track on the Southern Bushies. Romney’s moving fast to put himself in the same position.


  1. ColinATL says:

    Can’t stand the guy. One day he loves us gays (like a brother), the next day he’s throwing us under the bus (as so many have done before him). He’s a creep who will say whatever it takes to whoever to get elected.

  2. GAGirl says:

    I agree, don’t trust him because his record strongly disagrees with his current opinions on matters. Too slick, just don’t trust him.

  3. Mojo says:

    Romney is a fake. When he was governor of Massachusetts he was pro choice and pro gay rights. Now that he is running for President and has to appeal to the national Republican party he is pro life and anti gay rights. The man has no spine. The man has no integrity.

  4. JRM2016 says:

    Two problems here:

    (1) Romney’s late conversion to the right, seemingly coinciding with the end of his tenure as an elected official AND

    (2) Many social conservatives will be off-put by Romney’s LDS Church affiliation

    May I humbly suggest you point your web browser to:


  5. Mojo says:

    Oh, and with apologies to Bull Moose, I don’t see St. McCain has having any more integrity than Romney. I think we saw the real McCain in 2000, but in order to win the GOP nomination he has sold his soul in order to appeal to the wingnut branch of the GOP, besides his maverick image seems to have been cultivated and stroked by a doting media that worships at the altar of St. McCain. I’m not buying it.

  6. liberty21 says:

    I surprised someone that conservative is Governor of Massachusetts. The same state that has Ted Kennedy as their US senator. Massachusetts has had Republican Governor before Mitt Romney like Bill Wield but they were moderate. Bill Wield was pro-choice. On November 7th voters of Massachusetts elect a Democrat as their next governor named Deval Patrick. Mitt Romney getting GOP nomination highly unlikely same for Newt Gingrich and John McCain. I think Rudy Giuliani is the most likely to get the nomination for President. I will vote for Giuliani in the presidential election if he gets the GOP nomination.

  7. Mojo says:


    When he was Governor of Massachusetts he was not conservative, not until the end of his term when he was preparing himself for a 2008 run for President. While Governor he was socially liberal on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

    Rudy Giuliani will never receive the GOP nomination b/c he is a social liberal. St. McCain is the most likely reason b/c he has humbled himself before the Religious Right like a modern Henry IV seeking penance and absolution. His drift to the far right, the adoration of the media, and fear of a Hillary campaign will lead to his coronation in St. Paul, MN.

  8. Rusty says:

    McCain lost me with his current wingnut flirtation and that awkward man-hug he gave W in 2004. Maverick my ass.

    Not that Newt ever had me, but he lost any chance of getting me with his recent statement that the concept of free speech needs to be reevaluated.

  9. DougieFresh says:


    I read the news accounts of newt’s supposed “free speach needs to be evaluated” comments. Although the headlines all suggested he made some outlandish statement, nothing I read seemed to indicate this.

    Do you have a link to the meat of the comments, and not just a half quote given with no context? I am a major free speach advocate, and if he actually believes it needs to be curtailed to stop the crisis-du-jour, he is unfit to even serve on a local school board.

    However, if he is a victim of the common media practice of assembling the words of conservatives into shocking statements that betray the original meaning, I will forget it and move on.

  10. SpaceyG says:

    Wonder how many sightings of Newt’s underwear are posted on on that Draft Newt dot org? Heck, that topic likely needs its own blog! Maybe I’ll start one this week. Gotta get my nails done first though. And there’s a sale at Saks…

  11. buzzbrockway says:

    Why I will NOT support John McCain for the GOP Presidential nomination:

    1) McCain-Feingold
    2) Not supporting Bush’s tax cuts
    3) The “Gang of 14”
    4) His stupid opposition to the Gitmo prisioner treatment rules when the proposal was identical to a bill he sponsored a year earlier
    5) He’s Chris Matthews’ favorite Republican….

    and about a dozen other reasons I can’t think of right now.

  12. DougieFresh says:


    Manchurian candidate? I do not like his temper, his policy ideas or his love of attention, but there is something about him that raises warning bells about trust.

  13. RuralDem says:

    Yeah, I agree with Buzz. Who in their right mind would want someone who can work across the aisle leading our country?

    On that note, on the GOP side, my order would be Huckabee, Hagel, McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and at the very end, Newt.

  14. Bull Moose says:

    McCain Feingold was a good attempt to clean up the mess of campaign finance abuses. It had to be so watered down to pass.

    Bush’s tax cuts, while stimulating the economy, should have been put on hold until we dealt with the serious issue of entitelment reform. And even then, in the face of both Afghanistan and Iraq, should have been put on temporary hold. Do you realize that we are borrowing money from China and other such hostile countries so that we can have tax cuts?

    John McCain is a former prisoner of war. If anyone can speak on authority about that issue, he is the man.

    McCain is a straight talking, no bullshit kind of guy that our country needs.

  15. Bull Moose says:

    Oh and as for this so called Gang of 14… God forbid that Senators work together to get judges confirmed… It was a successful way of getting the judges through the Senate and temporing the extremes of both sides…

    There was no nuclear option… It was all rhetoric…

  16. redsouther says:

    Straight talking? Give me a break…

    McCain is far too hungry for media attention and his “working across the aisles” should occur only when it results in progress for the ideals his constituents support – not just when it endears him to the Bush-hating media.

    I’m also sick of this notion that war heroes should automatically be given support for office despite any other considerations. I heard the same nonsense from the Max Cleland crowd. I don’t care what he did before he took office, if he isn’t advancing the ideas of Reagan conservatism, he shouldn’t have our support.

    I stand by my view that Senators do not make good presidents – they’re much too accustomed to appeasement and “dynamic” stances on certain issues.

  17. HeartofGa says:

    Maybe he’s dangling the VP slot in front of Perdue? Maybe that’s what the Fallwell call was about. Mitt and Sonny=Christmas for Democrats. 🙂

  18. Rusty says:


    if he is a victim of the common media practice of assembling the words of conservatives into shocking statements that betray the original meaning

    First of all, the Republican victim complex is way overplayed dude. Give it a rest, would ya?

    Next, getting to your question, you can find a lengthier version of Newt’s comments on his web site. Here’s a quote:

    And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

    This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

    Sounds to me like he wants a police state. You can choose to interpret those statements differently if you’d like, but I know I won’t be voting for him.

  19. kspencer says:

    I do not know who the GOP will choose. (For that matter the Dem candidate’s a mystery as well, but this is a GOP thread.) I do, however, have a couple of predictions ABOUT that candidate.

    First prediction:
    The GOP nominee will appeal to the hardcore members – the take no prisoner crowd, the folk who are quick to label and condemn compromisers as RINOs. I do not know if the corporatists’ or the dominionists’ preferred candidate will be selected, but the eventual nominee will have to be acceptable to both.

    Second prediction:
    The nominee will lose. The “RINO” members (and whatever happened to Reagan’s big tent, anyway?) will either fail to turn out or will vote against the nominee. This isn’t quite as certain – the Dems could select a candidate that has the RINOs holding their noses anyway. But right now I’m not sure even Hillary reaches that level (and I don’t think she’ll be the D nom anyway.)

    I refer to this two-part prediction as the Kansas syndrome. It’s the reason Sibellius is Kansas’s governor (again). It’s the reason various Kansas state offices keep shifting from R to D despite polls showing a definite and strong majority of Rs in that state. It doesn’t only happen in Kansas – I’ll point to California’s experience prior to Schwarzenegger as an example. It’s just that Kansas is so clearly an R state that the syndrome becomes obvious there.


  20. columbus06 says:

    JRM2016, I will respectfully but strongly disagree. Reagen and George Bush I each had the same “conversions” and were able to get past them- funny that noone remembers that about them though.

    True that Romney needs to convince some people about the religious question, but its not a deal killer, nor was it for Kennedy way back when people were far more questioning on the religious question.

    When Mitt comes out strong on foreign affairs, the nomination will be his. Pair him with Newt, Hagel or someone similar and they’ll be a tough combo.

    Mitt fits the mold for ’08. He’s not the front runner, and that a darn good thing to have going for you, speaking of Ralph Reed by the way.

  21. DougieFresh says:


    Sadly the “victim complex” you refer to is not a complex at all, but is quite real. Try watching raw footage from C-Span sometime, then turn to the evening news or daily paper and see how the news story barely resembles the event they covered.

    But, on you comments about Newt. I am not yet convinced by that statement. The headlines act as if he laid down specific proposals about what he meant. That was really just a part of two paragraphs from the speech.

    If he means to arrest people that call for the violent overthrow of our government or try to convince others to committ acts of terror, then I do not think they are currently protected under the constitution anyway. If he means that the government will round up anyone who “causes trouble” then that is something to worry about.

    Further, the first amendment is also freedom of religion. If your religion is teaching the violent overthrow of the government, then I do not think that is protected either.

    It is something to watch, but I will not be alarmed about it until he elaborates.

  22. jsm says:

    “Bush’s tax cuts, while stimulating the economy, should have been put on hold until we dealt with the serious issue of entitelment reform. And even then, in the face of both Afghanistan and Iraq, should have been put on temporary hold. Do you realize that we are borrowing money from China and other such hostile countries so that we can have tax cuts?”

    You must be joking, Bull. We’re borrowing money from China to pay for our outrageously stupid spending habits. Bush’s tax cuts have increased revenue and continue to do so. Without them, we’d be borrowing more than we are now.

    McCain obviously doesn’t understand the supply side principle, and I can’t see mainstream Republicans electing him. If he criticizes the tax cuts publicly, he’s DOA. I’ll bet he avoids that issue like the plague.

  23. John Douglas says:

    Kudos to Buzz, he nailed McCain for his follies during this past session of the Senate. Just add his weaknesses on immigration to the list.

    This state Senator and retired military officer will not support McCain under any circumstances. And his boy in South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, kissing butt for VP is in the same sinking boat with McCain.

    I am looking hard at Romney and Duncan Hunter at the moment. How about Romney or Hunter with Haley Barbour or Sonny as VP? Works for me.

  24. Bull Moose says:

    There is a HUGE difference between catholicsm and Mormonism.

    There not even in the same category to me.

    No disrespect, but I tend to put the Mormon Church in the same category as Scientology.

  25. Decaturguy says:

    I’m really surprised, Senator Douglas, based on some comments you have made on this site in the past, that you are considering supporting Mitt Romney for President when he has said that he would “[As] we seek to establish full equality for American gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than [Ted Kennedy],” who during his 2001 run for governor, his campaign distributed bright pink flyers at the June Pride parade declaring “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend,

  26. Mojo says:

    Supply side economics are voodoo economics. The idea that cutting taxes for the wealthy and that would increase revenue is the greatest lie ever sold. Additional revenue is not generated, only a massive budget deficit is created. In the 1980s Reagan was forced to either raise taxes back to the normal levels or rollover the debt. He rolled over the debt, which led to his successor having to break a famous pledge to not raise taxes.

    How did Clinton balance the budget? By cutting taxes and rolling over the debt? No, he raised taxes and cut spending and balanced the checkbook. He didn’t have much opposition (in the cutting of spending aspect), as at that time the Republican party was, largely, still a party of fiscal discipline.

    George W. Bush apparently didn’t learn the lesson of the failure of Reaganomics and the career suicide his father had to endure in order to attempt to fix the situation. The economy is growing too slow to keep up with inflation. Housing costs are going up. Medical insurance is going up. Everything is costing more and more, and yet wages have not increased enough to keep up. Where is the additional revenue? For supply side economics to work it is based on the hope that the wealthy will invest the money in the economy rather than tuck it away in a savings account, and with a sputtering economy do you really think they want to invest in it?

    What of the budget deficits that just keep growing and growing under George W. Bush? To alleviate the problem the only action taken is to raise the national debt ceiling. An article on the Brookings Institute website had this to say:

    However, deficits have a way of hitting home in much more personal terms.

    If they continue to rise, they will crowd out investment, slow economic growth and reduce the average family’s annual income by $1,800 in just eight years.

    Government debt is also likely to drive up interest rates, making the typical $250,000 mortgage, plus the interest that Americans pay on other purchases, cost about $3,000 more a year.

    Moreover, if we keep our current promises to the elderly, without reforming entitlements, the average family would have to pay $7,000 a year more in taxes by 2030.

    Or, this article which lists the negative consequences thusly: increase in debt also increases the amount of interest that has to be paid on that debt, more of this interest is being paid to foreigners who are buying the debt, this causes Americans to save less and invest less and revenue falls further, interest rates rise as a further consequence, and it seems more and more likely that this will be a long term problem that our children’s children will have to attempt to solve.

    People need to stop worshipping at the altar of Supply Side Jesus and recognize that the only thing he is selling is snake oil.

  27. jsm says:


    You’re the only person alive calling this a “sputtering economy.” There is no way, after the last few years, that you can say tax cuts have not raised revenue to the Federal Government. The numbers don’t back you up.

    Current budget deficits were created because of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and wasteful spending. No voodoo there.

    Clinton rode the tidal wave of Reagan’s and Bush Sr.’s fiscal policy leading into his administration and then handed W a recession that started in March of 2000. He balanced the budget with much help from his predecessors.

    W kept the Clinton recession from getting as deep as it could have even in the face of 9/11 and Katrina. I’d say he did a pretty good job with that. If only he had spent less.

    Nice dissertation, though.

Comments are closed.