Dan Quayle Endorses Mitt Romney

The Mitt Romney campaign was hinting to reporters yesterday about a forthcoming “high profile” endorsement. Instead, they got Dan Quayle. The former Vice-President explains his reasoning in an Arizona Republic Op-Ed:

[Mitt Romney] has proven over and over again that he is a leader. He has demonstrated he is capable of making tough decisions and turning things around. He is a man of integrity. He understands budgets and financial markets. He balanced budgets and met a bottom line. He is strong on national defense and has a deep love of the principles that make America great.

Mitt Romney has what it takes to be a great president of the United States, and that is why I enthusiastically endorse him for president.

Nice, I suppose, and it’s another sign that the GOP Establishment is lining up behind Romney now that Gingrich is rising. However, I’ve really got to wonder what the value of a Quayle endorsement actually is.
FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Quick Takes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. MBunge says:

    The fact that Quayle would have said 99% of the same things about any of the candidates if he endorsed them is all that needs to be said.

    Mike

  2. Hey Norm says:

    Well if Dan quayle sez it…

  3. So, rather than look at the reasons that Dan Quayle laid out (leadership, character, conservative values, electability) and analyze and critique them, you’ve decided to insult and belittle the man (fomer VP of the nation, former Senator, veteran, etc) and make this election into some sort of conspiracy theory. That’s pretty lame, and I’m surprised people aren’t call you this sort of lazy writing and analysis.

  4. James in LA says:

    @A Conservative Teacher: “That’s pretty lame, and I’m surprised people aren’t call you this sort of lazy writing and analysis.”

    What is lame is a teacher complaining about someone else’s writing while using deplorable grammar. What was lame was Dan Quayle, Vice President. Research the activities of his wife to understand the Quayles are quite radical, and really have little to do with actual conservative values.

  5. Hey Norm says:

    @ Conservative Teacher…
    In other news…yesterday Romney flip-flopped his position on extending the payroll tax cut.
    Tell me…does that fall under leadership, character, or conservative values???

  6. @Hey Norm:

    Having listened to the two video clips in question, I don’t see where Mitt changed his position substantively. A different tone, perhaps, but he still supports extending the tax cut.

  7. Hey Norm says:

    @ Doug,
    In October on the Charlie Rose debate Romney clearly dismisses the extension:

    “… MR. ROMNEY: Look, when you give — as the president’s bill does, if you give a temporary change to the payroll tax and you say, we’re going to extend this for a year or two, employers don’t hire people for a year or two. They make an investment in a person that goes over a long period of time. And so if you want to get this economy going again, you have to have people who understand how employers think, what it takes to create jobs. And what it takes to create jobs is more than just a temporary shift in a tax stimulus. It needs instead fundamental restructuring of our economy to make sure that we are the most attractive place in the world for investment, for innovation, for growth and for hiring, and we can do that again.
    MS. GOLDMAN: So you would be OK with seeing the payroll tax cuts —
    MR. ROMNEY: Look, I don’t like — (inaudible) — little Band- Aids. I want to fundamentally restructure America’s foundation economically…”

    In a November debate John Harwood asked him about it again and he dodged the specific issue:

    “…I don’t want to raise taxes on people in the middle of a recession. Of course not. That’s one of the reasons why we fought so hard to make sure the Bush tax cuts were not taken away by President Obama. Look, this issue of deficits and spending is not about dollars and cents. It is a moral issue. It is a moral imperative. We cannot continue to pass on massive debts to the next generation. We cannot continue to put at risk the greatest nation in the history of the earth because of the profligate spending going on in Washington, D.C.
    John Harwood, the moderator, asked again.
    “I want to keep our taxes down, I don’t want to raise any taxes anywhere. I’m not looking to raise taxes. What I’m looking to do is to cut spending…”

    And in December after Obama, Pelosi, et al have backed Republicans into a corner:

    “…I would like to see the payroll tax cut extended just because I know that working families are really feeling the pinch right now — middle-class Americans are having a hard time…”

    This is a clear change here from dismissal as a pointless exercise, to accepting a seat on the band-wagon. Goldman spicifically asks if he is OK with them and he specifically says he does not like them. If it was a pointless exercise in October it is just as pointless an exercise in December. Middle-class Americans were feeling just as much pinch in their wallets in October as they are in December. Conditions haven’t changed. Romney’s position has.
    Let me be clear…I agree we need fundamental tax reform. But middle-class America does not need an extra 2% added to their tax bills right now while we wait for Romney to not get elected, or the Republican caucus to suddenly understand their role in governing. Romney, like the rest of Republicans in Washington, is slow to that realization. Their singular focus is always on the wealthy and the mythical “job creators”. Perhaps Romney has been reading up on OWS?

  8. But, of course, he never says he’s in favor of eliminating the cut. And, I’d note, that most of the economic criticisms have merit, not to mention the fact that the whole thing is harming the SSI trust fund and increasing the deficit. At the very least, we have to admit that this cannot continue indefinitely

  9. James in LA says:

    @Doug Mataconis: “At the very least, we have to admit that this cannot continue indefinitely”

    As I read it, this is the core message coming out of the OWS movement.

    No jobs, no perp walks make Homer something, something…

  10. William says:

    Mitt Romney is the Thomas Dewey of this year’s election cycle. Walter Lippmann said that Dewey “changes his views from hour to hour… always more concerned with taking the popular position than he is in dealing with the real issues.” Sound familiar?

    Dewey was a liberal northeastern governor, and the favored candidate of the Republican establishment. They believed he was the candidate who could unseat the deeply unpopular Truman, but the public found Dewey to be stiff, awkward, patrician, and coiffed. Dewey was supposed to be a “safe” non-confrontational candidate, who would just hang back and wait for his inauguration. But this gave Truman the opening to instead run against congress. Which is exactly the same strategy 0bama is planning to take. Newt Gingrich will ensure that 0bama cannot pull a Truman upset. If 0bama tries to blame congress, Newt will say that 0bama simply lacks the experience and leadership skills to get things done with the congress, but Newt’s own record as Speaker illustrates he knows how to get things done. Unlike Romney, Newt will keep the focus on 0bama’s failure as President, and will not allow him to get away with playing the blame game.

    This is why the 0bama White House has been trying to project the race as already being Romney vs. 0bama, and why they are deathly afraid of Newt.

    Romney plays right into 0bama’s Truman strategy. As usual, the GOP establishment is clueless, just as they were when they backed Dewey.