Anti-Washington Candidate Mitt Romney Has More Capitol Hill Endorsements Than Do His GOP Opponents
Posted by: SB Insider | 01/16/2008 2:14 AM
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who has just adopted an anti-Washington theme to his presidential campaign, has more Capitol Hill support than his fellow Republican Party challengers, including competitors who have public service in federal government.
An analysis reveals that Mitt Romney has and has boasted of support from 34 members of Congress, while the candidate with the second largest group of Beltway support has 31. Not a tremendous difference, but for a candidate running against "Washington," the strong show of Capitol Hill support is visibly contradictory from an anti-DC theme.
Read Mitt Romney's anti-Washington rant from yesterday's Michigan primary victory speech:
"Washington has promised that they'd secure our borders, but they haven't. Washington told us that they would live by high ethical standards, but they haven't. Washington told us that they'd fix Social Security, but they haven't. Washington told us they'd get us better health care and better education, but they haven't. Washington told us they'd get us a tax break for middle income Americans, but they haven't. Washington told us that they'd cut back on the earmarks and the pork-barrel spending, but they haven't."
Here is a list of anti-Washington candidate Mitt Romney's Capitol Hill supporters:
Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.)
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.)
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.)
Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah)
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas)
Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas)
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.)
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.)
Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.)
Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ky.)
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.)
Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.)
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.)
Rep. Thomas Petri (R-Wis.)
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.)
Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio)
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.)
Wonder how these Republicans -some of whom have served for decades (Hatch, Shuster, Smith) - feel about the litany of national ills Mitt Romney has diagnosed as stemming directly from Washiington and the Beltway political class.
This is why many sports ban the use of performance enhancing drugs. Another form of doping is blood...
Support from Washington insiders is not contrary to Mitt's theme of change; it just means they like his message and they like him, despite his calling them out, which means that maybe they'll actually respond to his leadership better than they have from Bush.
The real question is this: will the people respond to Mitt's message enough to vote for a changing of the guard broad enough to unseat some of those who have pledged their support to Romney?
So, while it's interesting that all those politicians would pledge their support to Romney despite his "anti-Washington" message, you can hardly couch it as a "contradiction" on Romney's part.
Re-Al:
Your post is precisely the kind of parsing, hair-splitting, and distinguishing without a difference that Romney has become an expert in. And that is why a large number of (even) Republicans is turned off by Romney the phoney.
Simply put, you cannot claim to be anti-Washington while being the one who solicited and received the most support from Washington.
The real "real question" is: is the American people smart enough to see that Romney is not real.
Well said KLT.
Ok, first of all, "is the American people smart enough..." I think that speaks for itself, at least with regard to your contribution to America's intelligence.
Second, "a large number of (even) Republicans...".
Do a little research and look at who is voting for Romney. In every single caucus/primary so far (I haven't seen the stats on SC yet), Romney is destroying everyone else in the Republican and conservative votes, even stealing a fair portion of the "evangelical" vote from Huckabee, against predictions. In fact, were it not for the loose primary rules in NH, and the fact that independents and Democrats voted for McCain (a disturbing statistic for Republicans to be sure), Romney would have won that one too. His wins have been dramatically larger than his losses. The Republican/conservative vote wasn't even close...Romney by a mile.
Finally, what hair-splitting? You claim it's a contradiction for Romney to be characterized as anti-Washington and yet be supported by Washington insiders. I'm telling you there are a million possible reasons for it. It's not a contradiction and will only be prove problematic for Romney once he gets to Washington and we see how he actually acts. As long as stays on message from the White House, what difference does it make to have the support of Washington insiders on the campaign trail?