Looks like Mitt Romney has signed up one of my favorite bloggers, Greg Mankiw, to join his PAC. Actually, it's a bit blogocentric to characterize him that way. He's a prominent Harvard economist and former Bush adviser. Tomato, tomahto.
As I've said before, Romney is my top pick for 2008. He's not just a doctrinaire fiscal conservative, like your humble host, but someone who actually has made government succeed under conservative principles.
Now, while I would not underestimate him, I suspect he won't be the presidential nominee in 2008. He's got the management and the economics right, which are my focus. But he has no foreign policy experience, and our times are defined by foreign policy.
I think a likely ticket will be McCain/Romney. McCain plays the hawkish elder statesman and Romney the domestic whizkid, who spends 8 years learning the ropes of the executive branch. That would put him on the ticket in 2016, or perhaps 2012 if McCain decides he is too old.
I am not incredibly impressed with McCain, personally. He is a nanny-stater, which is to say that he thinks gov't should be relatively activist. The most prominent example of this, of course, is McCain-Feingold. Newt Gingrich had a few words on that today.
I, too, am not too impressed with McCain, but I would certainly support him over Hillary.
I don't know too much about Gov. Romney, but I was not impressed with the law in Mass requiring health insurance, and I understand that Romney played a large role in that.
I hope to see Newt get the '08 nod, myself.
Posted by: The Gentle Cricket | 05 December 2006 at 06:05 PM
Matt Welch had a good analysis of John McCain in the L.A. Times: http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/11/30/why-john-mccain-should-not-be-allowed-near-the-white-house/
McCain is not well-liked within Arizona's Republican leadership.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | 11 December 2006 at 01:45 PM