"Can Romney, a big shot from the private sector who is accustomed to control, handle the chaos of a political campaign?"

President CEO: Romney jumped to the lead in the GOP presidential race with a fund-raising machine that is a marvel, but his base is narrow, and he seems to lack the common touch

Romney was starting to move in the polls, and on the campaign trail he seemed loose, even funny.

But the explanations sounded stiff and lame—one more example of Romney's trying to pander to true-blue conservatives and getting called out for it.

Romney has tried to sell himself as a "turnaround" artist who can use his skills as a businessman to come in and clean up the mess created by the current administration.

But he doesn't seem quite ready for prime-time politics, and his stumbles raise a familiar question: can a big shot from the private sector, accustomed to control, handle the chaos of a political campaign? And can a high roller in the secretive world of finance stand the exposure of public life?

But some colleagues found Romney to be manipulative. Romney had an "ability to identify people's insecurities and exploit them to his own benefit," says a source who worked with Romney but refused to be quoted for "fear of retribution."

. . . recalls Romney's arriving at meetings: he would "go into the room with his hair flowing, all of his people very well dressed, and he'd sweep through the room, touch who he needed to touch and then move on. It created power." Romney liked to play the white knight riding to the rescue.

But he seems to lack good fingertips for the subtleties of politics.

But after some early successes, Romney had a hard time getting much done with the legislature. A kind of petty righteousness undermined him further. When the Democrats wanted to name a Big Dig tunnel in Boston after former Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill, instead of adopting Romney's proposed name—"the Liberty Tunnel"—the governor's spokesman implied the Democrats weren't sufficiently patriotic.

His fund-raising machine is a marvel; in just one day last January, he raised $6.5 million, almost just to show that he could. But his base is narrow—mostly wealthy Mormons and Wall Streeters. And fund-raising alone does not mean much if the candidate lacks a common touch.

One of the most important qualities in any president is nimbleness—the ability to react quickly and flexibly to any number of crises that pop up routinely in and around the Oval Office. Romney's former colleagues at Bain say that dealmakers often have to move quickly with unclear or incomplete data. Romney knows when to hold 'em—often his smartest move was not buying into a particular company, saving Bain from backing losers in a plunging market. But he has yet to master the skills of, say, Bill Clinton, at rounding off corners as he repositions himself in the political world. Fortunately for Romney, he has money and time to learn from his mistakes. In business, turnarounds are matters of dollars and cents. In politics, they are all about character.

As a former venture capitalist, Mitt Romney probably could have picked any number of corporate executives or money mavens as his campaign finance director. After all, the Massachusetts Republican got to know scores of CEOs when he ran the organizing committee for Salt Lake City's Winter Olympics and when he was making millions at Bain Capital. Surprisingly, though, Romney selected 28-year-old aide Spencer J. Zwick to oversee his effort to raise as much as $100 million before the GOP presidential primaries.

One of Zwick's talents, says one donor, is creating incentives for potential supporters based on their specific interests. For example, last week the campaign's online grassroots fundraising program, MittLink, offered a test group of supporters tickets to the NCAA's Final Four, to see who could raise the most MittLink points. Backers collect points by working the grassroots -- getting others to sign up for Romney, raising money, and so on.

Labels: fundraising team mitt, spencer zwick, team romney

Labels: event, radio

Labels: fundraising

Labels: rudy

• Rudy Giuliani is finally starting to register some endorsements.
  
• John McCain has essentially pulled even with overall Romney endorsements but still lags on state specific nods.
  

The following chart includes federal, state or local current or former elected officials


The following chart includes state specific leaders, including former or current local officials, party officials, and state activists.


The following chart includes members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate


The following chart includes all previous categories including finance-specific endorsements, other activists, and RNC members.

Labels: endoresements, Endorsement

Rudy has taken some heat for his comments in the Dana Bash interview for CNN. Rudy portrays abortion as a constitutional right that requires government subsidy for poor women. However, the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that constitutional rights must be publicly subsidized. In Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), the Court stated:

In Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977), we upheld a state welfare regulation under which Medicaid recipients received payments for services related to childbirth, but not for nontherapeutic abortions. The Court rejected the claim that this unequal subsidization worked a violation of the Constitution. We held that the government may "make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and . . . implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds." Id., at 474. Here the Government is exercising the authority it possesses under Maher and Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), to subsidize family planning services which will lead to conception and childbirth, and declining to "promote or encourage abortion." The Government can, without violating the Constitution, selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the same time funding an alternative program which seeks to deal with the problem in another way. In so doing, the Government has not discriminated on the basis of viewpoint; it has merely chosen to fund one activity to the exclusion of the other. "[A] legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right." Regan, supra, at 549. See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976); Cammarano v. United States. "A refusal to fund protected activity, without more, cannot be equated with the imposition of a 'penalty' on that activity." McRae, supra, at 317, n.19. "There is a basic difference between direct state interference with a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activity consonant with legislative policy." Maher, supra, at 475.

Thus, even with Rudy’s concept of federalism and state funding of abortion (as opposed to federal funding), there seems to be no requirement that states subsidize abortion either. Certainly a state can choose to subsidize abortions for poor women, just as the federal government could choose to do so. However, there is no requirement that they do so.

This is one of the areas of divergence between Mitt and Rudy and exposes the need for an executive who will promote life issues. Because it is a choice of the government, the position (on abortion) of the President is pivotal. It is not sufficient to appoint ‘strict constructionist judges’ when so many of life issues are left to the discretion of the political branches.

Labels: abortion, Constititional rights, funding

"In recent weeks Giuliani has tried to mollify social-issue conservatives by saying that as president he would appoint only "strict constructionist" judges--"who interpret the law and don't write it." It's an elastic phrase, widely understood to be a kind of code, and in a brief interview before the fundraiser, sitting in a suite on the top floor of the Four Seasons, I asked the candidate about it. Most people who call themselves strict constructionists, I said, would overturn Roe v. Wade. Did he himself, as a strict constructionist, think Roe was wrongly decided?

"What I mean by a 'strict constructionist judge' has to do with my whole view of the Constitution," he said, choosing not to answer directly.

Did you think the court overreached in imposing the exclusionary rule, I asked.

"Some people will argue it did," he said. "But with Roe--a strict constructionist judge could come to either conclusion about Roe v. Wade. He could come to the conclusion that it was incorrectly decided, overturn it, or he could decide well, it's been precedent for so long now, it would be too disruptive to overturn it, so we leave it alone. I would leave that up to a judge."

Back in the fundraiser downstairs, he amplified the point.

"I think it's a bad thing in government when we start to play judges of morality," he told the donors. "My concern in government was crime. Morality is a concern of families, of churches and religious leaders. My thing is, you break the law, you go to jail. But morality--I have mine, you have yours. I can talk to you about it, but I'm not going to enforce it.

"As for abortion, I think it's wrong. However, people ultimately have to make that choice. If a woman chooses that, that's her choice, not mine. That's her morality, not mine."