I'm probably not the only one having read this article...
What annoys me about this article is the fact that they give him too much credit for Massachusetts' performance. Why? Because Massachusetts' politics are so heavily Democratic that the state legislature is well over 3/4 Democratic and has been for over a decade, meaning they have rendered the office of the governor to, essentially, a figurehead position. Any progress in the state in terms of closing budget deficits and state school testing would not have been his doing, but the Legislature's. Chances are, Romney bitched and moaned about a bill, vetoed it, and the heavily Democratic legislature overrode the veto as they do every time.
So why does this article have such a glaring omission? Did the reporter get his facts from a Romney-issued press release?
Melon
Mass. Gov. Romney to Skip Re-Election Bid
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 15, 6:45 AM ET
After earning two Harvard degrees, making millions as a businessman and turning around a scandal-plagued Winter Olympics, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has created quite a list of accomplishments, some political analysts say. Those analysts believe the Republican announced Wednesday he will not to seek re-election next year because he did not want to risk tarnishing his resume if he decides to run for president in 2008.
By forgoing a second term, he will allow himself to campaign unimpeded for the presidency should he so choose, and not subject himself to the political whims of the heavily Democratic state in the run-up to the next presidential election.
"I don't think he had a choice if he was serious about running for the nomination in '07 or '08," said Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's 1996 GOP presidential campaign.
Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst in Washington, had a similar assessment.
"He doesn't want to run for re-election because he could possibly get beat," Rothenberg said. "And he doesn't want to run for re-election because he could possibly win, and then have to turn around and start running for president immediately. This allows him to leave with his record intact and turn his focus to the next challenge."
Romney said he had been successful in closing a $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes; presiding over public schools that recently scored first in national math and science tests; and reaching the cusp of a comprehensive overhaul of health insurance in Massachusetts.
"My decision comes down to this: In this four-year term, we can accomplish what I set out to do. In fact, we've already accomplished a great deal," he said.
Democrats, though, pounced on Wednesday's announcement, accusing Romney of abandoning the state.
"For the past 16 years of Republican rule in this state there hasn't been one Republican governor with any long term commitment to Massachusetts," said Phil Johnston, chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
The news was not a complete surprise since Romney declared earlier this year that he was "testing the waters" for a White House run. He said Wednesday only that the decision was "down the road" and "a lifetime away."
He has spent considerable time traveling to early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, and has sprinkled campaign cash across the country from a so-called leadership PAC used by presidential aspirants.
He also has distanced himself from the liberal political culture in Massachusetts, vetoing a bill to expand emergency contraception, and campaigning against a 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts' highest court that made the state the first in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Romney, 58, is the son of former Michigan Gov. George Romney, who ran unsuccessfully for the presidency in 1968. Mitt Romney received his B.A. in 1971 from Brigham Young University, dual degrees in 1975 from Harvard Business and Law schools, and went on to found a Boston venture capital firm before running the 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City.
His only major failing was an unsuccessful campaign against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., in 1994.
In an October speech to a Washington think tank, Romney cast himself as "a red speck in a blue state," one of similar comments across the country that have been viewed as disparaging to Massachusetts, land of the Kennedys and two failed Democratic presidential candidates.
Should he run for president, Romney will need to break through a pack of more prominent Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.[/B]
What annoys me about this article is the fact that they give him too much credit for Massachusetts' performance. Why? Because Massachusetts' politics are so heavily Democratic that the state legislature is well over 3/4 Democratic and has been for over a decade, meaning they have rendered the office of the governor to, essentially, a figurehead position. Any progress in the state in terms of closing budget deficits and state school testing would not have been his doing, but the Legislature's. Chances are, Romney bitched and moaned about a bill, vetoed it, and the heavily Democratic legislature overrode the veto as they do every time.
So why does this article have such a glaring omission? Did the reporter get his facts from a Romney-issued press release?
Melon