Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:36 AM ET, 02/25/2011

Conventional wisdom vs. an unconventional 2012 presidential race

By Jennifer Rubin

Nearly everything mainstream political reporters and conventional-wisdom-spouting pundits told us about the 2012 Republican presidential primary race is turning out to be wrong. Sarah Palin is the "frontrunner"! Wrong. The field will be huge! Wrong. The Republicans always choose the "next in line," so that's Mitt Romney! Uh, probably wrong.

What we do know is that Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are not running. With each passing day it seems more and more likely that Palin will pass as well. Mike Huckabee keeps telling us he likes his current lifestyle (and income). So who is left? Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and, maybe, Newt Gingrich.

How are they doing? Romney has his story and he is sticking to it:

Mitt Romney rejected Mike Huckabee's call for him to admit that the "RomneyCare" health-care program failed, instead saying that he's "proud" of "getting everyone covered" when he was governor of Massachusetts.

"Mitt Romney is proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in getting everyone covered," Romney's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, told the Boston Globe, in the first direct response Team Mitt made to Huckabee's criticism of the health plan in his new book.

Team Romney insists that RomneyCare isn't ObamaCare:

What's important now is to return to the states the power to determine their own healthcare solutions by repealing Obamacare," Fehrnstrom added. "A one-size-fits-all plan for the entire nation just doesn't work."

This is the argument that Romney has been using for some time. As I have explained, it is a nonstarter for most conservatives who object to the notion of an individual mandate that was at the core of Romney's plan. When I talk to Republican operatives and officeholders about this RomneyCare defense, someone usually asks, "Yeah, yeah, but what is their real argument?" The short answer is: This is it. The Romney team expects that the distinction between a state individual mandate and a national one will be good enough to get through a primary against lesser-known opponents. He'll just talk about other things, the reasoning goes, even though opposition to ObamaCare and the growth of the federal government has been the driving force behind the conservative movement for a couple of years. Most Republicans I speak with think Romney's problem is insoluble. But a smart Republican insider cautioned me yesterday, "In a divided field you just never know." I suppose. But still.

Who, then, is in the running for "not Romney"? So far we have Pawlenty, Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and maybe Gingrich.

Daniels is doing a bang-up job offending key constituents in the Republican base -- social conservatives, foreign policy hawks and now even Tea Party hard-liners who are miffed at his whiff on Indiana's right-to-work legislation. Why has the seemingly steady and obviously accomplished governor stumbled so badly? One school of thought is that he really doesn't want to run (or his family doesn't want him to). The other is, from those who admire and have worked with him, that he is his own adviser, takes little counsel from others and doesn't think there is virtue in bouncing things off others before plunging ahead. If the latter, that personality has a certain appeal for a potential president ( "He's not controlled by consultants!"), but Daniels's missteps also reveal how dangerous that approach can be.

Barbour, hobbled by the race issue and lacking appeal outside the Deep South, is unlikely to go far. And no one is buying the line that being a lobbyist is an asset.

That leaves Pawlenty and Gingrich, the classic tortoise-and-the-hare race. You have the solid, dependable, good-natured Pawlenty against the occasionally brilliant but unpredictable and undisciplined Gingrich.

All of that leaves many Republicans wondering, "Is that it?" Periodically, a wave of optimism rolls through the electorate. Chris Christie will run! Umm, doesn't seem so. Paul Ryan will change his mind? Eh, he doesn't seem anxious to put his young career on the line so soon.

Republicans, at the end of February, have no officially declared candidates (other than businessman Herman Cain). They have no frontrunner. They have no obvious late comer who could swoop in to wow the base. In sum, rather than too many candidates, as the punditocracy predicted, they have too few. The search goes on.

By Jennifer Rubin  | February 25, 2011; 10:36 AM ET
Categories:  2012 campaign  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: We're simply haggling over the price
Next: Breaking the logjam

Comments

I'm a Daniels fangirl and hope he does run. While he has fumbled, there is a deep learning curve to running for president, and I think it's better he now take a few knocks and come to terms with how he can and should communicate. All of his errors are recoverable. Of the field, he's the most competent and wins hands down on actual policy. He's governed and governed well. He's our man.

Posted by: LadyBertrum | February 25, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee, even though hasn't committed to running, is jabbing at Romney. Same thing with Santorum and Palin. So a few candidates run, and the rest don't, but instead of supporting a candidate, or just keeping quiet, the essential quality of a modern American conservatism flowers in its full glory--the narcissism of "hey, looking at me, and listen to what I have to say." And because modern American conservatism is essentially no more than talking points that its followers swoon over, the temptation to sit on the sidelines and critique the performers in the arena of the nomination contest will be too much to resist.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | February 25, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

There you go again.

Daniels "missteps" are not mortal as RomneyCare is to its creator. Indeed, MD’s record is strong and the idea that he is not conservative or socially conservative enough will fade – very few folks are really following this stuff right now. And the assertion that he whiffed on union issues is preposterous; on his first day in office, Daniels eliminated public unions in Indiana – going even further than Walker is attempting to go now.

Also, Jen, your sources are terrible. You said two months ago that Pence will run (not so much). But today you have Gingrich as a “maybe?” Everyone in DC knows he is running (don’t you have any friends at think tanks?) – it is much more of a lock than Haley. His odds of running are in Pawlenty territory, i.e., he is running.

Self criticism is OK, even healthy, but your posts which repetitively trash Rs are unsettling. Makes one wonder if you have gone to the other side now that you are with the Post.

Posted by: buster5 | February 25, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

You didn't mention Scott Walker. Aren't they trying to set him up as the next Reagan? If (and when) that fails, don't you think they will continue attempts to conjure up a magical, exciting contender via manufactured crisis? I'm just asking, as it seems the level of desperation of these jokers gets higher and higher each day.

Posted by: hsubyma | February 25, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Lady B that Daniel's miscues now will not be remembered much later if he tightens the ship. His bigger issue will be his lack of a foreign policy as compared to a domestic policy.
This will be Obama's achilles heel and both Romney and Pawlenty have made speeches and statements showing they can attack him on his poor performance so far.
Can Pawlenty get people excited about his candidacy? That remains to be seen (and doubtful compared to what Obama can do).
Romney would be the stronger general election candidate but will he get a chance to prove it?
I'd love to see Christie run - he can win.

Posted by: jay22 | February 25, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

So the Daniels fanboys/girls are coming out to defend his disastrous week. This week will be remembered by the people who matter: folks in IA and NH. Social cons in IA will never forget the truce. And he most likely won't win NH, a fiscal conservative stronghold. With no early state support, Daniels has no chance, but he should run anyway, consultants need to feed their families too!

Great article Jennifer! Seems like you're leaning Pawlenty, unless a White Knight comes in at the end. I'm with you; here's to hoping!

Posted by: WS_Bull | February 25, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Religion is a big issue for GOP primary voters. GOP has never ever nominated a candidate who was not a protestant and I do not see that changing anytime soon as the evangelical voter's influence on the GOP remains strong and the tea partiers appear to be just as tribal in their voting patterns. So rule out Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Pawlenty OTOH might be viable having ditched his Roman Catholic faith for evenagelical dog whistles (AKA "Paris is well worth a mass.")

Don't count Haley Bourbor out -- his dog whistles really appeal to the primary voter in key states such as South Carolina. Being racist or a racist panderer is not fatal for getting the GOP nomination.

Posted by: HokieAnnie | February 25, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

What foreign policy experience did Obama bring to the picnic? Isn't that the reason that Joe Biden was brought in to fill out the lineup card? Right now, I'd bet that most folks would say that the top three challenges facing our country would be reducing government spending, getting our national debt under control and reforming our tax system. Mitch Daniels fills the bill for me in those areas, and as to the remaining responsibilities that fill up the presidential plate, surely he couldn't be any worse than the current administration.

Posted by: coffeetime | February 25, 2011 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Rubin must not have a car or drive, or she would know that every state has laws that "mandates" purchase of insurance if you want to drive a motor vehicle on the street!

Despite political & diatribe by the undereducated…

Romney has successfully and profitably managed large businesses, created more private sector jobs and saved more private sector businesses (Domino’s Pizza & Staples, to name a few) than any other candidate. He knows and understands world economics.

He has succeeded at every job he has had. Yes, that’s right, he is not a “Career” Politician.

Funny. Half of MA loves what Romney did, the other half hate him, maybe because he left after completing only one term. Again, he has not been a “Career” Politician.

Yes, he worked as the MA governor for his entire term for FREE!!! Who would do that!?

MA had a huge deficit when he started, and he left MA with a surplus and balanced budget without raising taxes at the end of his term (he did raise state fees, but they were still below the national average). Who has done that? He can't help it if they screwed up after he left.

Since states have their own rights as to how they operate, “Romneycare” never has been the same as “Obamacare”! MA’s super Democrat controlled legislature wanted desperately some kind of Universal Health care program. Romney, a republican, worked with them to create one that would work, similar to mandated auto insurance (what state allows you to legally drive without insurance?). It is estimated that 98% of the residents are now covered. Romney wanted the requirement that everyone should pay something towards it with no exceptions, and it was within projected budget until Romney left and MA’s super Democrat controlled government made changes to the program and now it is costing them.

He compromised on some things in order to keep the state government working together and moving forward.

He turned around a struggling 2002 Winter Olympics and made it into one of the most profitable Olympics in history. And only took a $1 dollar salary. Who would do that!?

He is against federalization & big government. Believes in state’s rights.

He lives the example and believes in the importance of family.

He is for a strong military and believes the borders should be better protected.

The list of real positives is far greater than the supposed list of negatives.

Posted by: dcdinnell | February 25, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I've said this before about Romney - despite Romneycare and his desire not to issua a mea culpa for it, does it really matter that much if we know that he'll overturn Obamacare if given the opportunity?

Romney is good in all other political aspects and we know where he stands on them. People (like Daniels) are an unknown quantity regarding several topics at this point. He might have some deficiencies.

Honestly, what conservatives here would be opposed to a Romney candidacy if it was clear that he'd overturn Obamacare?

jay22, I love Christie, but he's also someone who we don't know much about aside from his fiscal hawkishness. He might have dreadful foreign policy tendencies (for example).

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | February 25, 2011 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The two guys who are fully qualified to be President, would be excellent Presidents and no doubt want to be President are: Jeb and Rudy. Maybe we will see them yet.

And just for dcdinnell's benefit, no state requires you to buy insurance on yourself to drive a car; you are only required to buy liability insurance for damage you may do to others. Not remotely the same thing.

Posted by: Mahon1 | February 25, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

coffeetime, I hear ya in that Daniels couldn't be any worse than the current administration in the "remaining responsibilities," but the electorate may well be looking for someone who's merely better than the current admin (a low bar to be sure). The Middle East is highly volataile and there are lots of bad things that can happen there (many still developing now). By the time we start voting in primaries, the country could well have foreign policy as very high on its agenda.

Those three things you mentioned are surely high on the list, but they may be overtaken in importance in the next year+. Hopefully Daniels is up to the challenge.

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | February 25, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The 2012 race really isnt all that unconventional. See http://mikehuckabeepresident2012.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-2012-slow-start-that-unusual-not.html

Posted by: MHP2012 | February 25, 2011 1:06 PM | Report abuse

If I were a Republican in a mostly Democratic State....if I felt I could make a difference for the State by serving in a legislative office.....if I realized that I could not have any influence at all without being voted into office....would I work with the majority and keep my campaign pledges.....or would I be dishonest and to whatsoever I pleased once voted into office? Think about it? Is a moral person really moral if they are dishonest? I think the hardest positon a leader can be in a leader of people who have lost their moral direction in life.

Posted by: manwaringjd | February 25, 2011 1:34 PM | Report abuse

way too soon to dismiss Mitch Daniels, or Jon Huntsman.
the "base" that Ms. Rubin cites is not stupid enough to dismiss either, not if they want to beat Obama in 2012, who is only too happy to make abortion and gay marriage major distractions from the really important issues of deficits, debt, and the role of government.

Only Daniels understands this, and I think the CPAC audience respected that.

Posted by: K2K2 | February 25, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

oldabandonedbeachhouse:

"Huckabee, even though hasn't committed to running, is jabbing at Romney."

If you think that's something new, you weren't paying attention in 2008. Huckabee was hardly a bystander in the last election when he was making indefensible remarks about Mormons, among other sleazy ad hominems he continuously aimed at Romney.

As for Newt Gingrich, I don't believe he has ever really intended to throw his hat in the ring. He can't credibly keep that pretense up much longer, but he knows that the day he stops making noises about a presidential run, he'll become just another pundit on the media circuit. Gingrich lost his Speakership because he made everything a point of personal privilege, and he's never changed those spots. These days he just gets royal treatment without all the work, and I seriously doubt he wants to risk his cushy spot as conservative guru-in-chief on the oppo-research nightmare of an actual campaign.

Posted by: Fithian | February 25, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

The Conventional Wisdom seers most likely get their cues on 2012 from conservative websites that used to be mainstream conservative and now have become more extremist.
Unless they followed these sites and blogs previously,
they might not be aware of the changes in the types of posters and the topics allowed.
They've become All Hail Sarah Palin all the time , with never a negative word allowed. Never.
Long time and reliable conservative posters who don't drink the Palin Kool Aid have fled or gone underground or been banned.
So, her support is falsely inflated and misinterpreted by the media outsiders who only have these sites for their input.
The hatred of all things Romney is stratospheric on these sites and blogs and cannot be all about Romneycare.
Romney's Mormon religion is definitely a factor in their venom against him.
The dozens of polls consistently reflect the tiny support for Palin and tolerance and acceptance of Romney ,
even from conservatives and Tea Party members.
I would vote for Romney and I understand his explanations
about it being right for Mass at the time and not something to be forced nationwide,
like Obamacare.
However ,I think the best candidate for Republicans in 2012 is someone with a clean slate.
Someone who has not yet been defined by the media or
negatively caricatured and ridiculed as not " pure enough " by Limbaugh .
Although that charge will be inevitably hurled daily
at any nominee other than Palin ,
the only guaranteed loser.
Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty seem the most interested and have the backgrounds and legislative history that could appeal to conservatives, indys and disaffected Democrats.
Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie , Bob McDonnell , Marco Rubio, Rick Perry ,
our new hero, Scott Walker , the under appreciated Kris Kobach ,
the KS Sec of State and Virginia's AG Ken Cuccinelli are other names that intrigue.

Posted by: CaptainKarl | February 25, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Daniel's "mistakes" may be positioning him to have the broadest appeal to November's voters of the probable GOP candidates. Electablity may be the best route to the nomination.

Posted by: GeorgeArias | February 25, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

If Palin were to be elected, would our country turn into the Wild West? Would there be mass exodus to Canada? I created a visual commentary about her role in the recent violent attacks on my artist's blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-made-me-do-it.html Drop by and let me know what YOU think!

Posted by: dregstudios | February 25, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Romney needs to do a better job of explaining the Massachusetts health care law. Folks like Huckabee will demagogue the law to death to try and damage Mitt.

In 2008, Huck repeatedly said Romney had provided for abortions in the law with only a $50. co-pay even though he knows that provision was inserted by the Democratic legislature later and Romney was very much opposed to it. Huckabee will continue these tactics in 2012 so Romney needs to be pro-active.

Romney needs to carefully outline the problem Massachusetts had citing all the relevant data, then talk about the long bi-partisan process that went into crafting the legislation, talk about its implementation, talk about the provisions that Democrats added and his vetos of many of them and finally the changes that have been made to it since he left office.

The plan and its goals were basically good; Massachusetts did not seek to create government-run healthcare but sought to eliminate the free-loaders who were getting free health care while others were paying for their own. I think the people can appreciate that if it is explained to them.

Instead of wrting another op-ed criticizing Obama, Romney should write an op-ed laying out the case for his plan and explain its virtues and vices and offer no apology.

If he properly deals with the issue, he can be the nominee and I think he'd be Obama's worst nightmare. Remember that John McCain was on the "wrong side" of many key issues in 2008 like Immigration and tax cuts and still managed to win the nomination.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | February 25, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Romney needs to do a better job of explaining the Massachusetts health care law. Folks like Huckabee will demagogue the law to death to try and damage Mitt.

In 2008, Huck repeatedly said Romney had provided for abortions in the law with only a $50. co-pay even though he knows that provision was inserted by the Democratic legislature later and Romney was very much opposed to it. Huckabee will continue these tactics in 2012 so Romney needs to be pro-active.

Romney needs to carefully outline the problem Massachusetts had citing all the relevant data, then talk about the long bi-partisan process that went into crafting the legislation, talk about its implementation, talk about the provisions that Democrats added and his vetos of many of them and finally the changes that have been made to it since he left office.

The plan and its goals were basically good; Massachusetts did not seek to create government-run healthcare but sought to eliminate the free-loaders who were getting free health care while others were paying for their own. I think the people can appreciate that if it is explained to them.

Instead of wrting another op-ed criticizing Obama, Romney should write an op-ed laying out the case for his plan and explain its virtues and vices and offer no apology.

If he properly deals with the issue, he can be the nominee and I think he'd be Obama's worst nightmare. Remember that John McCain was on the "wrong side" of many key issues in 2008 like Immigration and tax cuts and still managed to win the nomination.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | February 25, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

From one of Jen’s columns in April of 1979:

The Republican field is looking dismal. Ford, who couldn’t beat Carter 3 years ago and has parodied on the hip Saturday Night Live program endlessly, is a non-starter. He didn’t look presidential even when he was President. Bob Dole has no chance – not only did he lose as a VP candidate, but his debate abilities were highly questionable. Lastly, Ronald Reagan should not even be considered – he was an actor in Hollywood, used to be a Democrat and enacted higher taxes in California. Ford and Dole are losers but Reagan would be the worst – he would compromise on everything. Barry Goldwater is the only one who can save us, all the others are worthless.

Posted by: buster5 | February 26, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse


So as I say, I wake up every morning, thankful that I have exceptional health insurance coverage I found through wise health insurance for my family because it gives me peace of mind knowing that my family can count on me to deliver their health care needs.

Posted by: ruthrichard123 | February 26, 2011 3:39 AM | Report abuse

It continuously amuses me that Ms Rubin rules out Sarah Pain. It is also incorrect to say that she was ever viewed as a clear front runner. Yet in spite of torrents of venom from the left and snooty patronizing from the Right, polls show her still one of the front runners--right up there with Romney and Huckabee. And based on second preference choices, if Huckabee does not run, she would be a clear front runner.

Posted by: genecarr100 | February 26, 2011 7:06 AM | Report abuse

I wish the government would leave people alone and let them get a job and provide their own health care if they want it.This is simply a method to force taxpayers to provide health care for immigrants and people who live off taxpayers due to government handouts. I have seen many people in the grocery store with wine and beer in their cart, puffing cigrettes and paying for groceries with government cupons. They looked plenty healthy enough to work to me.I am a divorced mother but I always purchased healthcare for my family, no help from the government nor anyone else.

Posted by: nannyfive5 | February 26, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Do what???? You say I have submitted too many comments in a short period of time? This is the first time I have ever commented on the Washington Post. I think you censored me because you didn't like what i had to say. i shall report this to your superiors.

Posted by: nannyfive5 | February 26, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

In "What did we learn from CPAC?" you were pretty eager to dismiss Paul, which is fair. He and Johnson did pack their supporters who stayed to the end to vote. I'll address that and then this blog entry.

Still, did you intentionally leave out Johnson's third place finish? Odd that Christie's slightly less 6 percent proved significant enough to warrant front-runner status if he entered (Admittedly there's plenty of other evidence to suggest that). Also, what about the fact that among second choices in the straw poll, Johnson ranked highest. If Paul throws support effectively to Johnson, he's got a decent base in a split, demoralized republican field.

Seems to warrant comment if you're going to claim that Pawlenty's and Thune's lesser showings were significant.

Better yet, why was he awkwardly bumped off stage during his speech with music raising while he was still talking. They allowed other folks to run over in time. Couldn't they of signaled him from the floor to wrap it up. What would of happened if they treated Romney, Thune, or Pawlenty that way?

A dismissive line about his unorthodox views or strong associations with Paul would of a been appropriate at a bare minimum. Johnson was a two term governor of a state that is 2 to 1 democrat and did it in spite of NM GOP's caution to start small in the state legislature.

Lastly, many of Christie's lionized traits are part of Johnson's 8 yr record/life philosophy. Both cut state spending/deficits, both wish to leave abortion and civil unions alone. Christie is pro-medicinal marijuana, Johnson wants full legalization. Christie might be more assertive compared to Johnson's pensive calm, but Johnson is 9+ years older and is healthier and abstains from drugs, alcohol, caffeine, and some processed foods along with rigorous exercise routine. His clean, disciplined life style will counteract negative press about his views on legalization.

The only difference is that Johnson is less religious and carries the libertarian stigma which make many eager to call his effort quixotic.

Now on to this article. You note the shrinking GOP field and the increasing likelihood of a "unconventional 2012 race". Johnson and Paul don't merit a passing mention among this shrinking crowd? Especially with a sizable tea party influence?

Gonna need more space, look to next entry for conclusion.

Posted by: Spanky175 | February 28, 2011 5:45 AM | Report abuse

Johnson is the only candidate that built a business from the ground up with his hands and has held an elected, state-wide executive office, twice. Seems like that would play well with the lower income, populist set.

His views on taxation would be appealing to most white collar Republicans who aren't that socially conservative and wary of Neo-con foreign policies, assuming they were fans to begin with.

His deficit reduction credentials are clear and superior to all in the field.

Then there are his views on drugs, abortion, gay rights, and religion. Here a lot of persuasion about truly embracing limited government is needed.
Why should the state or federal government sanction love or prescribe the terms of dissolving a marriage without a prenup. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned leaving it to states despite personally being pro-choice. Legalization can't be any worse than the status quo, a fact that will be more persuasive coming from a guy that eschews practically everything, including some forms of sugar. The medical weed for his injuries could favorably draw attention to the perils of prescription meds and synthetics which the DEA listing as the new, high use trend.
I don't know how bad the religion issue can get for him in the primaries or an easy way out. However, his candidness might be valued opposed to those who where there religious affiliation on their sleeve just to be exposed for hypocrisy.

Immigration splits the party as it is with Christie siding with Johnson. Isolationism could be bolstered by the idea of allies taking up their proper role in defense expenditures and renewal mutual defense organizations. Plus it makes foreign policy credentials irrelevant if the US is excercises greater restraint abroad and flanks Obama on key issue.

All of this aside, he's exciting and holds potential for wide appeal. And he's the only one with the credibility to do exactly as he says, namely to save the USFG from bankruptcy. Otherwise the options look grim and '96 like. The safe candidate will drag things out till November for a crushing defeat that indicates modernization for the GOP is desperately needed even if the age old three stool agreement must be shattered.

That's all. Please consider my late night ramblings. bed time ... sorry for the typos

Oh, and a response, even just to me would make me feel pretty special:)

Posted by: Spanky175 | February 28, 2011 6:26 AM | Report abuse

Ah, if only Ms. Rubin would get a clue! Romney is the Republican frontrunner in 2012 because he is clearly the man most capable of creating jobs in America. He's smart, seasoned, and (*pay attention*) has actually spent time in the private sector. Give him the credit he deserves for leading Bain with enormous success, rescuing the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake, and attempting something groundbreaking in Massachusetts with respect to healthcare.

There is no question...Romney should be and likely will be the nominee. Speaking from the perspective of a concerned American citizen, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Posted by: talktojoef | February 28, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company