« The Other Progressive Pat | Main | Globe endorses Mackey for 2nd Middlesex Senate seat »

August 21, 2005

Mr. Irrelevant

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Romney has indeed taken a hit over his veto of the emergency contraception bill: fully 60% of poll respondents disagree with him on that, 44% strongly. Romney's re-elect numbers are pathetic: 30% think he should be re-elected, while 51% think it's time for someone new.

Now, this poll has some strangely phrased questions that don't really address the real issues of 1. Whether he'd get re-elected should he drink the Bizarro Kool-aid and run, and 2. Whether people would want a Romney-like character as governor. For instance, what does one make of this:

The survey of 503 adults, completed last week, found that 41 percent said Romney has accomplished little as governor, posing a challenge if he tries to promote himself on the presidential trail as an effective chief executive and political leader. Only 16 percent said he has accomplished ''a lot" and another 34 percent think he has been blocked by the Legislature.

"Accomplishing a lot" is not the same as "accomplishing a lot of good." Those 34 percent who think he's been blocked by the legislature doubtless include both people who approve of and disapprove of his policies.

Regardless, I find it impossible to believe that Republican primary voters will get on board with a guy who has changed his positions on social issues like MA drivers change lanes, and has nothing to show for his four years except "I tried real hard but the Dems are meanies!" Noting Pataki's similar veto, it's interesting to see how much the anti-abortion absolutists have so thoroughly taken over the national GOP power structure. The GOP actually would have at least three credible pro-choice candidates in '08  (Giuliani, Romney, Pataki) if that was tolerated at all. But it's completely impossible to run for president without throwing these folks a bone. (This is nothing new.)

And let's be clear: this is emergency contraception, not late-term abortions. As far as political appeal is concern, the vetoes are only aimed to appeal to those who believe that life absolutely begins at conception.

Is it too much to ask for a governor that cares about where he lives, first and foremost? If it's not too much to ask, what do we want that governor to do?

Posted by Charley on the MTA at 08:45 PM in Massachusetts | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mr. Irrelevant:


You're right. It would indeed take "Bizarro Kool-Aid" (one of my favorite flavors) for Romney to run again in Massachusetts. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. If he just rides out his current term, he *might* be able to take credit for the recent uptick in state revenues (seen universally across the country) and use the "I left the state in better financial shape than when I was elected" argument to supplement "Dems are meanies."

As for his chances in a national race, I think his Mormon faith would pose just as many if not more problems than what he accomplished as governor. Did anyone qustion what Kerry accomplished as a senator in '04? Not really.

As for the governor's race, the state has consistently elected mild conservatives over the last decade plus, and I don't see any evidence that doesn't point to another "Romney-like figure" being elected.

Posted by: Adam | Aug 22, 2005 11:06:18 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.