Democrats, Demagogues and Demi-gods

For most of the primary season, the action was between the seemingly infinite field of flawed GOP candidates. Like most commentators, I relished following, probing and predicting the turns in this race of limping Elephants (still powerful, just not perfect).

Well, my good friend Gene Brooks posted a comment on this blog some time back asking me to comment on the now much more exciting and ever malleable Democratic race. Let me firmly and clearly state at the outset – I am NOT an expert on how the Democratic base perceives candidates or issues. But I will provide how I see those candidates and issues.

1. Democratic Candidates:
   

   As I stated to a group of wonderful Republican activists in Phoenix the other week, "The Democratic Party is like a Pez dispenser of awful candidates. Hit them on the head every 4 years and out they spit some candy coated, weak and ineffectual representative." I could easily retrace the litany of perfectly terrible Dem candidates for the past 30 years, but just consider this year's offering: Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama
   

   Hillary Clinton:
   

   Mrs. Clinton has no major accomplishments to her name, no Executive experience of ANY kind (elected or private or even running a large charity), some of the highest negativity scores of any modern candidate, is uniquely impersonal and unattractive (in spirit, not in looks) and can't say anything negative about her opponent without sounding like the stereotypically shrill ex-wife.
   

   
   

   Barrack Obama:
   

   Mr. Obama also has no major accomplishments (in either Senate or State Legislature), has no Executive experience of ANY kind (elected or private or even running a large charity), represents a black separatist church, is on record in writing, speeches, votes and debates as supporting some of the most radically liberal policies in modern politics and despite his overflowing charisma is completely at a stumbling lost when pressed to explain policy.
   

   
   

2. Demagoguery:
   

   I don't know that the Dem's will lose this race in 2008. In fact, most of the "smart money" is on them to win. I don't buy this - - - yet - - - but do find a silver lining in this prediction. America could do a lot worse than demonstrate our willingness to elect a woman or black to the Presidency. As a conservative, I never doubted America would be so inclined if a decent candidate would step forward. Remember, it was the Republican party who supported a robust effort to push Colin Powell forward as our candidate a decade ago (not that he would have been a great conservative, but that's another post).
   

   
   

   I fear for Judicial appointments, victory in the war on terror and for the stagnation of high taxation if the Dems win. At the same time, I can at least welcome, with absolutely open arms, the final nail in the coffin of identity politics. Yes boys and girls, while such is ALREADY the case, if one of these Dems wins, there can no longer be any arguments that certain classes and groups of people can't succeed.
   

   
   

   But I do also love the wonderful insight America is finally getting into the Democratic party. The GOP, while not perfect, is not a party based on identity politics. The GOP takes positions on issues from a uniformly principled stance. You may disagree with the principles, but there is a logical and consistent approach from the Right. The Democrats, by contrast, are a party of identity politics. The majority of its support base, organizations, policies and rhetoric are based not upon unified principles, but upon segments of identity. There are black issues, Hispanic issues, women's issues, low-wage workers issues, Hollywood issues, etc. Yes, there are other power centers – like anti-war and environmental groups, but the vast majority of their base is identity focused.
   

   
   

   This is wonderfully coming into focus due to the demagoguery of the Clintons. The entire primary fight has turned into a disgusting identification of women, Latinos, Blacks and whites – with the clear intention of playing one off the other. Even Clinton's black supporters have taken to arguing that Obama isn't "Black enough". This is identity politics in its rawest form. I doubt most Blacks, Latinos or women who are inclined toward the Democrats will leave the party due to this ugly laying bare of the naked party underbelly. Too bad. But I rejoice in the fact that they at least have to acknowledge it – and eventually, perhaps this will lead them to change it.
   

   
   

   I think all "identities" are best served by the Conservative message of individual worth and capability, but minorities are certainly better served by a Democratic party which comes to terms with the perniciousness of identity politics and is working to move from that ignoble base to something that doesn't cater to the lowest possible denominator of identity. Since the Dem's will win power either now or in the future, such a move is good for them – and by extension, would be good for America.
   

   
   

3. Demi-gods:
   

   The other, obvious observation about the Democratic nomination is the role of the personality cult. And what we see being laid out is the same poetic judgement that befalls all people who allow themselves to be set on the thrones of demi-gods.
   

   
   

   Everyone reading this post, both of you, must remember the cult of personality which buoyed Bill Clinton to new levels of stardom. His crush of supporters even kept his performance ratings at relatively high levels in the midst of adultery, sleazy old man sex, obstruction of justice, perjury and sloppy ambition.
   

   
   

   Now these adoring legions have rallied to another prince charming. Barrack is enjoying unreasoning adoration and praise – he was applauded for publicly blowing his nose last week. That's just a little gross.
   

   
   

   But worshipers can't have two masters and demi-gods all demand sacrifice. In this cycle, the image of Bill Clinton the Untouchable Ruler of All Politics has been sacrificed at the altar of Obama the Wise and Gracious. History warns that such poetic judgment is not to be escaped.
   

   
   

   Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem by waves of adoring pilgrims who loudly proclaimed his coronation. Three days later same emotional crowd was trading his life for that of a murderous rogue. Emotional swells dissipate. When they do, the weak thrown upon which the former demi-god sits is revealed as the hollow buttress it is. Emotion doesn't last.
   

   
   

   I hope the swooning worshipers get this emotional burst out of their system before Nov. I can't claim to know if they will. But I do know this outpouring won't last forever. When the fever subsides and sanity briefly intrudes before the next demi-god, folks will ask, "What was it all about? Did one man really change the way Washington works? Are we safer, stronger and better as a people or did we just feel better for a while?".

On Principle,
CBass

Phoenix Speech

I'm returning home from Phoenix where I was honored to deliver a short speech to the Arizona Federation of Republican women.

Here are some summary notes we included in the conference packet for each attendee:

Why the GOP Can Retain the White House in 2008

Winning Factors:

1.The Primary Calendar: For the next 2 months, Huckabee’s campaign will provoke a civil debate over conservative principles and will maintain pressure on McCain to reach out toward conservative constituencies. In addition, thanks to Romney’s gracious suspension of his campaign, the GOP probably has 4 – 6 months to clarify, unify, organize and invest for victory ahead of the nominee of a hyper energized Democratic base.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST clarify our unmovable core principles, agree on topics still open to debate and emotionally unify behind our nominee – without wasting a day.


2.The Democratic Line-up: Election after election, the Democratic party kindly nominates critically flawed nominees. Neither Clinton or Obama should be underestimated, but BOTH are capable of being beaten.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST calmly and consistently contrast our nominee with both the Dem nominee.


3.Understanding Change: Every election is a triumph for the message of “change”. The key in this election, however, is to understand exactly what exact kinds of “change” are wanted. American’s overwhelmingly support conservative principles (lower taxes, family values, individual responsibility and security). Rasmussen polls for party identity demonstrate that the current administration is supported by about half of the nation’s Independents.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the nominee must remind the base of the critical issues at stake this year (national security, taxes and judges) and must positively motivate moderates – especially past Republicans.


4.It's the Economy: Under the Bush economy, minority house ownership is at an all time record, job growth continued unabated for a record 52 months, the GDP grew faster than any other industrialized nation and unemployment has remained below the average for any of the past 3 decades. Additionally, the “Bush” tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 – making for an easy and precise measure of EXACLY how much a Dem President and Congress will cost individual voters.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the facts must be told in terms of timeless conservative principles, not as a continuation of Bush policies. For example, highlight the radical moves toward fiscal conservatism in Ireland, France, Eastern Europe, New Zealand, Australia and Japan.


5.The War on Terrorism: It's hard to say which direction this war will ultimately go, but Iraq is clearly on the right military track, the Surge is drawing down and reconciliation laws are beginning to roll out of the Iraqi Parliament. Thus, the GOP candidate can probably point to positive signs in Iraq (if McCain, he can claim personal ownership for the policies which are bringing victory) and constantly focus on the real threats of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. If the electorate sees some success in Iraq and understands the threat from other quarters, the GOP should do well.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP must call Americans to set priorities without playing the “fear” card. This can be done by speaking directly to these issues of international security and calling America toward a vision of moral excellence – in the model of Reagan.



Stumbling Blocks:

1.Immigration Reform: To govern, the GOP must win elections. Traditionally, the GOP wins elections on shared principles, not identity groups. Immigration is a uniquely difficult issue for the GOP as it is inextricably linked to a racial identity – Hispanics. A party can’t win elections without votes from voters and Hispanics are passing blacks as a voting bloc. Security must be first, but terms must be tight. If the GOP uses blanket terms (Immigrant, Hispanics, Illegals, etc), we will be quickly painted as racist. Then, cool-headed logic must guide our policy preferences moving forward.


3.Housing, Stock and Oil Turmoil: The economy is a great campaign platform for the GOP, but a still stagnant housing market, stock slumps and increasingly high oil prices, could rot this support. There is no magical inoculation against market volatility. The GOP must figure out how to trumpet financial conservatism without hanging its hat on every micro-indicator.


4.Health Care: The Dems will march with full force to the tune of Universal Healthcare. While the left-leaning media trumpets along with the handpicked results of selective polling. The facts and history are on the side of conservative principles, but this will be an uphill fight the entire way.


5.GOP Civil War: Reagan’s guiding principles was that anyone who is in 80% agreement with me is my ally. Beyond that, when the 80% of agreement is National Security, networking like-minded economies and cultures against nuclear equipped and well financed regimes and gaining 1 more vote on the Supreme Court.


On Principle,
CBass

McCain at CPAC Today

Here's one of the funniest blog posts I've read in weeks. I contains some great advice for McCain's speech today at CPAC:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/frank_advice_for_mccain_at_cpa.php

Some highlights to prep your pallet:

* Call for a bombing run on Berkeley until they admit the military is awesome. Conservatives would like a nice local war. Plus, if in the end we decide to pull out of Berkeley and never go back, that's cool too.

* Vow to create more global warming. See, here's a great compromise. You believe in man made global warming, but that doesn't mean you have to take a liberal position on it. Say warming is awesome and call for more of it. It will be an especially popular position this winter.

* State that Fred Thompson will be your VP and vow not to live long. That would be awesome. I bet it would get a standing ovation at CPAC.

Foretaste of Arizona?

I received the following Straw Poll Results from a leading party activist and friend in Arizona. Is this a foretaste of concern for McCain?

Maricopa Republicans Presidential Straw Poll Vote Results

Maricopa County Republicans conducted a Presidential Straw Poll during the Jan. 19 Maricopa County Republican Committee meeting in Tempe. In the first category the delegates were able to vote for only their first choice for president.

Those results were as follows. Presidential Straw Poll with 721 ballots cast:

188 Mitt Romney 26%

121 Fred Thompson 17%

115 Ron Paul 16%

93 Duncan Hunter 13%

80 John McCain 11%

33 Rudy Giuliani 9%

32 Mike Huckabee 9%

In the second voting category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as unacceptable. In the Unacceptable Category 427 out of 721 (59%) of the delegates declared McCain as one of their unacceptable candidates. The tallies were:

427 McCain

396 Paul

357 Giuliani

340 Huckabee

156 Hunter

152 Thompson

121 Romney

In the third category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as acceptable.

Those results were as follows:

370 Thompson

358 Hunter

356 Romney

235 Giuliani

207 Huckabee

135 McCain

120 Paul

What To Watch Tonight

Most of you reading this blog post will do so tomorrow morning via your various “feed” subscription services. Meaning, by the time you read this, the media will already be spinning their thoughts about tonight's results.

Don't be dazzled by all the rhetoric, reams of exit poll data, conflicting claims if victory and the sheer magnitude of election results. There are only a few states and a few points that matter:

Democrats:

The Democratic primaries and caucuses don't use a winner takes all system. The methods by which they proportionally distribute delegates between candidates is unique to each state and beyond those of us who are not full-time professionals to understand. As a result, the news media will probably tend to focus on who won and who lost particular states, instead of detailing the quantity of delegates won by each candidates. Similarly, if the candidates count is close, keep searching until you find vote counts. In some states, equal quantities of delegates are awarded to candidates receiving 40% and 60% respectively. - yes, further complicating your lay analysis and further boggling the mind.

In summary:

1. Don't fascinate over just about who won what states. Who got what quantity of delegates in each state? That's what will determine the nomination.

2. If deleagate counts are close – then pay attention to actual vote totals in each state. Where does each candidate show strong support?

Republicans:

In the GOP race, only a few states really matter. Here they are:

Georgia:

Georgia is polling as a tight 3-way race. Why is Georgia important? What will it tell us?

1. Huckabee campaigned VERY hard here. In fact, Huckabee left Florida before the primary to hold rallys in GA when no one else was there. GA is a southern state in the Bible belt. It SHOULD be a win for Huckabee. Right now, he's polling 3^rd. If he comes in 3^rd, it proves he just isn't widely electable.

2. McCain just won the very public endorsement of GA's Senators. GA is also a state heavily loaded with military populations. McCain hasn't won a majority of Republicans in ANY state thus far, but he does very well in “open” primaries, where Independants can vote. GA is such a primary. With his endoresements, military support and Independent voters, McCain should win – he's currently polling in first or tied for first (depending upon the poll). If he comes in 2^nd place, it will be a clear loss.

3. Romney has focused advertising dollars in GA, but hasn't spent much time in the state. Although he has positioned himself as “the conservative choice”, conventional wisdom says Huckabee should take this portion of the vote. Half the GA population resides in the metro Atlanta area – which is booming economically. Thus, he doesn't have a large pool of worried workers to leverage his business experience – as in Michigan. All told, Romney should come in 3^rd as he has been consistently polling VERY poorly in the South. His current polling is in 2^nd or tied for 1^st place. If Romney wins, it proves he is more widely electable than one may think. If he comes in 2^nd, it proves he can mobilize conservative voters after Super Tuesday should Huckabee then drop out – which is FAR from certain.

California:

I wanted to post thoughts on CA's role in this race a few weeks back, but was not able to make time for it in light of my new business ventures. CA is of interest due to it's HUGE delegate count AND due to it's way of proportioning those delegates. Each congressional district will give 3 delegates to the popular vote winner.

1. McCain has gained endorsements from Rudy (who formerly polled well in CA) and the "Governator". Simply put, he should win CA hands down. If he doesn't it is a sign that he MUST turn toward the base (CA COP is educated and conservative) and assuage their concerns.

2. Romney won't win many winner take all states – those are largely McCain's to win (Mainly New England and AZ). Thus, while Romney polls closely to McCain in CA and can claim a moral victory, that won't do much to increase his delegate count against McCain. I think Romney wisely invested in this state early. Look at the travel calendar posted on his website. He invested his time here just after his victory in the Ames Iowa straw poll. That early investment may produce his largest returns. . .

3. The story in CA will be the distribution of the popular vote vs. congressional districts. In terms of this analysis, think in terms of Gore's popular vote victory of Bush in 2000 (no matter what you think of the outcome in FL) through huge concentrations of votes in urban areas and thus losing the Electoral College's spread of votes across the heartland. I think CA could tell the same story. McCain may accumulate huge numbers popular votes in dense urban areas like LA and San Fran. Romney may well win smaller majorities in more Congressional districts. Thus, Romney could lose CA in terms of the Popular vote, but come out ahead by as many as 100 delegates in CA.

4. Also of interest to watch is the spin. CA results won't be in by the time East Coast centered coverage closes down their telecasts. McCain will win more delegates earlier in the night. He will get the spin. If Romney wins the state in Popular vote or by a convincing Delegate lead (say 50 or more) then he may pick up spin the next day. If not, his surprisingly strong showing will likely be swept under the rug of the Clinton/Obama death match.

Massachusetts:

Conventional wisdom, polls and common sense all say that Romney should win convincingly here tonight.

1. McCain campaigned here over the weekend while Romney was pushing a sudden and impressive surge of support in CA. Tonight's vote will show if McCain is crazy like a fox or just crazy like a man left marooned at see (think Tom Hanks and his buddy, “Wilson”).

2. If Romney doesn't win convincingly here, it is hard to imagine a case for his continued support. This is his home state, he has mobilization networks and knows the politics. He was pretty popular as Governor and the primary is closed against Independents. If he loses, McCain is crazy like a prophet!

Arizona:

Much like I predicted CA would be a huge state in this race several weeks ago, I predict that AZ, starting Wednesday COULD change the dynamics in this race.

1. Simply put, many in the AZ GOP simply don't like John McCain. They have lived with him as their Senator and he's burned many bridges with much of the base. Just as he has “stuck his thumb” in the collective Conservative eye on some high profile issues in the past, I'm told that many GOP activists may take today/tonight to do the same back to McCain.

2. McCain boasted in the CNN/Politico debate held at the Reagan Presidential Library that he would not lose endorsement in his home state – unlike Romney in MA. That may be his set up. If McCain were to lose AZ, Romney will play that line against the vote total mercilessly. Plus, AZ is a winner takes all state with 53 delegates – a meaty sum.

3. I assume McCain will win AZ tonight, but if Romney comes in a close second, there is a real story to be told about McCain's inability to please his base constituency – which will forecast real weakness in the General election.

4. There's another items you analysts should look at: by what percentage spread does Romney win his home state vs. McCain win his? Since McCain campaigned in MA and Romney didn't campaign in AZ, Romney should win by the lesser spread. If McCain is the one squeaking out a narrow victory – it should educate the Senator to change tactics and speak to the base.

On Principle,

CBass

Republican Run-Down

Well, it's Super Tuesday and after repeated requests, here's my VERY SHORT run down on the Republican candidates.

Huckabee:
Summary:
Contrary to some responses to my article comparing Huckabee to a High School Homecoming Queen, I actually quite like Huckabee. In fact, I lament the fact that I could not, in good conscience, cast my vote for him in this election season. I hope he stays on the political stage and grows a bit into the holistic package I demand in the person receiving my vote for the Presidency or as a Presidential nominee.

Pro's:

1. Huckabee is an unabashed, consistent and determined pro-life candidate. There is really no other issue I consider to serve as quite such an integral nexus of moral and political worlds.
2. He was a successful Governor, reelected two times, in a Democratic state and winning 40% of black voters. This is the sort of record we need more leaders to strive for in the GOP.
   
3. He is obviously incredibly well spoken. Since Reagan, Republicans have evidenced a peculiar ineptitude at explaining the principles informing their positions. Polls repeatedly demonstrate that most American's are inclined toward the central pillars of conservative thought (smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, individual achievement, family values, military strength, and favoring life). If we could have a few politicians use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to communicate past media distortions, perhaps more American's would realize that these are not the central themes of the Democratic party.

Con's:

1. Huckabee is a novice (at best) and dangerous (at worst) in terms of foreign policy. In a highly publicized speech and in an article for Foreign Affairs magazine, Huckabee stated that “all our troubles” with Iran started with Bush's Axis of Evil speech. Never mind the taking of American hostages from our Embassy. Who cares about those Marines blown up by Iranian agents in Beirut? Hezbollah? No, their now an Iranian front group occupying Lebanon and fomenting civil war for decades. I guess those weren't really Iranian munitions and gun boats arming the 2 Palestinian intifada's – against even UN mandates? He also compared our issues with Iran to be similarly handled to relational disagreements one may have with a friend of family member. This comparison only works if your estranged relationship is with a murderous, nuclear armed, religious Zealot who has repeatedly pursued genocide. What is concerning is that Huckabeereally believes this rhetoric and is completely naïve and ill equipped to be Commander in Chief or he doesn't really believe this anti-Bush charge and is willing to sacrifice American resolve in an age of nuclear terror for the sake of his own campaign. You decide. Neither is exactly inspiring of confidence.
   
2. Ok, maybe he isn't a policy wonk on Iran, but surely he would listen to his advisers on these matters if he were elected President. One would certainly hope this to be the case. Yet, early evidence confronts these honest hopes. One need look no further than the Foreign Affairs article written above. Such articles are not dictated off the cuff late one night on the campaign bus. These sorts of major policy pronouncements get vetted through selected advisors. So, yes, Huckabee probably did work with advisors, but not any I want in the White House. Huckabee once mentioned several conservatives as being his advisors on international affairs. Unfortunately, they publicly stated their amazement at this pronouncement – none claiming to have met or corresponded with Huckabee more than one. Once of the aforementioned “advisors” is Michael Ledeen – a widely acknowledged expert on Iran. He stated he has specifically met with Huckabee and strongly explained why dealing with Iran is different, on a life and death level, than a Pastor might counsel an troubled couple. Huckabee chose to not follow advisors of this sort and opted for dangerous, irresponsible and uninformed rhetoric.
   
3. But is Life is your most important issue, shouldn't you vote of Huckabee? The answer would be, “yes”, if the only other choice was to vote for candidates favoring abortion. Both McCain and Romney have actual records of standing for pro-life positions and legislation. I do think Huckabee is more principled and solid on pro-life issues, but it's not as though he's the only pro-lifer in the race. I see being pro-life as more than anti-abortion. If you can't clearly stand against theocratic extremist, nuclear armed, consistently active terrorists – then I question your stance for protecting American life.

McCain:
Summary:
Conservative talk radio is all abuzz about McCain's lack of conservative credentials. My guess is that McCain is a clear favorite for the nomination as of this writing. I have some differences of opinions on specific McCain issues with these radio talkers, but won't write about those until after tonight's vote. In the end, my summary of McCain is this. He is clearly erratic in terms of issues importance to the party's base. Yet, he has a lifetime rating of being a consistently conservative legislator on issues of importance and a brand that may actually attract independent voters.


Pro's:

1. McCain is obviously very clear on issues of national defense and pro-life issues. McCain, unfortunately did vote to fund embryonic stem cell research. Recent science, however, has nearly rendered this issue moot. Leading scientists, including the one who successfully cloned Dolly the sheep, have stated that recent successes in converting adult skin cells into multi-potent stem cells is cheaper than cloning embryonic stem cells and shows more promise as it limits the carcinogenic and rejection issues inherent in introducing cloned embryonic stem cells into adult hosts.
   
2. McCain has attracted a top-flight team of advisors on the economy (Jack Kemp, Phil Graham, and Steve Forbes) and on nominating conservative judges (Ted Olson). Say what one likes about McCain's “dangerous” positions on Imigration, Campaign Finance Reform and Global Warming, but on key issues of government spending, taxation, the Supreme Court and national defense, McCain is strong.
   
3. The very thing that ticks off most Conservatives about McCain – his gruff demeanor and willingness to “buck” the system – is what makes him attractive to independents. He is the only candidates from either party who can convincingly run on his government experience AND still claim to carry the mantel of change.

Con's:

1. McCain's Achilles Heel this same personal demeanor that makes him attractive. The Dem's will poke and poke and poke at him. They will use every trick in the book. They will make themselves look small, negative and unattractive. All for one purpose – to send McCain into a red-faced rage in front of the cameras. At that point, all punditry becomes focused on the topic of whether America wants an emotionally uncontrolled curmudgeon at the helm of our nuclear arsenal and interfacing and responsible for building international coalitions.
2. If Obama is the Dem nominee, the race may be a repeat of sweaty Nixon debating young, vibrant Kenedy. Further, in such a match-up, both men are poised to gain independent voters. But only Obama also electrifies and mobilizes his base. I seriously doubt McCain bashers will refuse to support or vote for him, but they are less likely to make phone calls, host house meetings, go door-to-door, bus folks to the polls and do all the other things only a committed base will do to win an election.

Romney:
Summary:
Conservatives are seemingly rallying to Romney in great numbers. Today will tell the tale. I think Romney has a real story to tell in terms of his experience and if the economy remains a strong issue in the general election, I think Romney stands a strong chance of doing well. At present, I doubt he can win the GOP nomination, but I do think a strong showing for him today and his continued presence in the race does great things to frame debate within the party and hopefully may cause McCain to take steps further toward the base. (Well, a boy has got to have hope!).

Pro's:

1. Experience. Romney just oozes credibility in terms of Executive decision making.
2. While many conservatives are dubious of Romney's “conviction” on issues such as pro-life, gun control, and homosexual marriage, I don't quite understand the concern. Yes, Romney certainly does seem, on some issue, to be more fluid than one may like. But in terms of the issues listed above, Romney actually governed, unambiguously as a conservative. He tells a compelling and detailed story as to his conversion – exactly what most conservatives claim to want from people. Instead, he's greeted as a flip-flopped. Only, form my perspective he has never flipped and then flopped. He's only shown a progression in one direction.
3. Money. Non-one knows how much he has, but it is estimated to be in the Billions. Even McCain's campaign finance reform can't stop Romney from spending his own money on his own candidacy. The playing field has changed and Dem's now raise alarmingly more money than do Republicans. Romney's wealth will assist in leveling this field until we can get our fundraising gears re-aligned to the new world.

Con's:

1. Romney's experience in the business world, while being his strongest suite, is also one of his two greatest weaknesses. The Dem nominee will paint Romney as a mean spirited despoiler of lower and middle class American jobs through downsizing, outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs. If convincingly questioned, Romney will have a hard time making his necessary managerial steps as sounding sufficiently attractive.
   
2. Romney's second greatest weakness is his unfortunate lack of ability to motivate anyone. He is eminently competent, but he isn't exciting. Obama's excitement is likely to obviate Romney's competence.

On Principle,
CBass