Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Romney Builds Beltway Cred

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) continues to bring on an impressive roster of advisers with significant credibility inside the Beltway -- a move aimed at battling Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to a draw among the small but influential chattering class.

Romney has hired Tony Feather, who will serve as a political adviser, and Carl Forti, who will be the campaign's political director and one of four deputy campaign managers.

Feather is one of the pillars of the Washington Republican political establishment. He served as political director of President Bush's 2000 campaign and four years later was intimately involved with the Progress for America Voter Fund, a Republican-backed 527 group that spent heavily on ads attacking Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). Feather is a principal in Feather Larson & Syndhorst, a direct mail and voter contact firm used frequently by Republican candidates and party committees, and retains a close relationship with the Bush White House.

"[Tony] is the godfather of grassroots campaigning and will be very involved in growing our campaign organization across the country and perfecting its mechanics," said a Romney adviser granted anonymity because Feather's hiring had not yet been made public.

Forti comes to Romney after seven and a half years at the National Republican Congressional Committee where he served in a variety of positions including communications director in the 2004 and 2006 cycles and the head of the organization's independent expenditure program in 2002, 2004 and 2006. In the latter role, Forti oversaw the spending of $76 million on nearly 200 television commercials and 300 pieces of direct mail aimed at influencing House races across the country in the 2006 election alone. Prior to his time at the NRCC, Forti spent five years at Wilson Grand Communications, a Republican media consulting firm.

In addition to his staff additions, Romney is also reaching out to the Republican lobbying world -- an effort led by Ron Kaufman of the Dutko Group and Drew Maloney of the Federalist Group.

Unlike McCain who has been in Washington for two decades and enjoys many relationships with the Beltway Republican world, Romney is something of a neophyte. During his time as chairman of the Republican Governors Association he spent some time cultivating the Washington world but he remains a much less well-known commodity in the city than McCain.

(McCain, meanwhile, is working to consolidate his support in Washington. An e-mail arrived in The Fix's inbox yesterday from Tim McKone -- AT&T's top D.C. lobbyist -- inviting the K Street crowd to a March 21 fundraiser in Washington to benefit McCain's exploratory committee.)

While there is value for Romney in running as an outsider to the "business as usual" politics that cost Republicans their House and Senate majorities last year, he must build a Beltway base for two major reasons. First, to raise the $50-$100 million necessary to compete with McCain through January 2008, Romney must find deep-pocketed and well-connected financial backers in the nation's capitol. Second, much of the chattering class/"Gang of 500" lives and works in Washington and, in order to pick up momentum and buzz, Romney needs credible surrogates making the argument for his candidacy at the daily lunches, receptions, happy hours and other informal events where gossip is traded and handicapping is done.

The additions of Feather and Forti -- coupled with a handful of other recent Romney hires -- reveal that the Governor understands the need to play this game. Watch his roster in the coming weeks to see whether he can lure other D.C. bigfoots to his cause.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 11, 2007; 12:48 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Biden '08: Not Just All Talk
Next: Chris Dodd's Kitchen Cabinet




[url= ]
teen tits

Posted by: teen tits | February 5, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

big tits round asses

big tits round asses

[url= ]

Posted by: nice tits | February 4, 2007 5:07 AM | Report abuse

small tits

big black tits

[url= ]
big tits round asses

Posted by: big tits round asses | February 3, 2007 2:46 AM | Report abuse

jenna jameson sex

jenna jameson hardcore

[url= ]
jenna jameson porn

Posted by: jenna jameson lesbian | February 2, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I can't possibly support a candidate that changes positions to suit the office he's running for. I can't believe anyone is buying into his spin. It's so stupid and contrived. He's such a phony. He gives me the creeps.

Posted by: southerngirl | January 14, 2007 11:31 PM | Report abuse

While Democrats have been flying to the Middle East to meet with the various leaders, I doubt any of them can make a deal or sign any agreement on behalf of our nation today. There is only one person who has that ability and it is by the power given to her by President Bush.
Did you guys watch the PBS interview with Secretary Rice in December 2006?
She was right on target about Syria being part of the problem blocking the tribunal to investigate the MURDER of Hariri back in Feb 2005. There was another assassination before the end of 2006 and what has the UN Tribunal done about it?
Have you all forgotten that point or are most of you so busy tossing darts at the Bush Administration that stuff like this gets swept under the rug?

Talking to Syria and Iran while they are undermining Iraq and its elected leaders, and murdering people is probably a key reason our President is not setting up meetings with their leaders. But the Democrats and liberal thinkers seem to think we should belly up to the bar so to speak with governments which can/t be trusted.
Condi Rice is spending 7 days in the Middle East to meet with leaders in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nation-states in the Persian Gulf. Many of these Arab nations have put their own stability and security at risk to provide US military the rights to use their air-space and basing rights for US military to get rid of the tyrannt Saddam and his MOB.
She is also trying to get economic assistance for Iraq and training space in a safe zone of Jordan for example for Iraqi security forces.
Over the next week, I wish Secretary Rice the strength to make these agreements for the betterment of the world standing against thugs, murderers, and hoodlums who think they can take over power.

Posted by: Tina | January 14, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Yet another flip-flop... this guy's all over the place...

Romney retreats on gun control
Boston Globe, 1/14/07

Posted by: dcdre14 | January 14, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

what up, Murph:

nothing personal, but as an American citizen who lives in Massachusetts, i feel that i cannot remain silent as you attempt to foist our unlamented ex-governor on the entire country.

first of all, no, i am not impressed by the Salt Lake Olympics - get over it - just as i am unimpressed by his tenure as governor of the Bay State. you remember how your party made such a big deal about the "likeability" and "average guy" persona of what has turned out to be the worst president ever? Mitt doesn't even have that. He does, however, share his hero's fixation on fetuses and the importance of superstition. (read - the role of organized religion in governance.)

also, I am more comfortable with and confident in a teacher whose "incentive" is to provide the best possible education to his / her students. The fact that we have to reward some and penalize others in order to achieve results really says something about our society, specifically that part of it which believes in the almighty power of the market, world without end amen. Teachers should ALL be paid what they are worth. NB - I say "penalize" above for two reasons, one being that if everyone knows that such a "reward pay" system exists, what conclusion will a potential employer draw - fairly or not - if a teacher from a problem school does not achieve the same results as does a teacher from say, Brookline or Lexington? (note to Murph and others not from Massachusetts - these are two communities whose average income is among the highest in the nation.) I will say once again - it's not as direct a relationship as you seem to imply. In some cases, teachers must serve as both police and surrogate parents, and in some schools, these roles are as important as their traditional role. how does one measure such a teacher's worth in dollars and cents, without a handy list of stats to use as a crutch? (and, nb, i can say this stuff with some degree of confidence due to the lifelong, first-hand experience of my family and friends. what base of experience do you speak from? once again, the talking points they gave you at Romney HQ don't count.)

also - just noticed this - you say "when you average over 30 students." The very reason class sizes are so large is that education has been underfunded and relegated to the back burner for far too long.

a few final thoughts: your continued sneering - witness your use of the words "hyperbole" and "hysterical" (as well as the above-mentioned 'bizarre') - will not win Mitty any friends, and is symptomatic of the post-Watergate GOP.

Posted by: meuphys | January 13, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse


I didn't list a whole host of other business-friendly bills and reforms Romney had his name on. I got tired of googling. Feel free to look up the list yourself.

Considering that jobs and businesses were fleeing the state after the dot com burst and recession immediately before his term, the turnaround was impressive.

Anyway, if a couple of pink flyers in the 2002 campaign and some 14 year old statements on abortion are the worst of what you've got, Mitt will have smooth sailing in the primaries. You do know who his opponents are, don't you?

Posted by: murphy | January 13, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse


True - the state has added some jobs in the last year or so... but the first three year's of Mitt's term were pretty mediocre as far as the economy is concerned...

Job creation barely broke even, and many businesses - including several high-profile companies - upped and left Mass altogether...

And it's worth remembering that business and job creation were - together - THE focal point of Mitt's '02 campaign... remember how he was going to tap his nationwide network of business colleagues to incent them to set up shop in Mass? He failed on that front...

And with regard to the Big Dig - he gives a great powerpoint presentation, but the fact that it was revealed that Bechtel was involved in the post-accident inspections speaks volumes about how effective his "stem-to-stern" review turned out to be...

Again, though, it's the flip-flopper label that's going to do him in. You say: "Most people are fairly accepting of a candidate's belief changing over the course of 14 years."

Isn't that, though, essentially what sank John Kerry's 2004 campaign?

And Mitt's "evolution" hardly began 14 years ago... Many of his most flagrant actions/comments in defense of social moderation came during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Have you seen the flyers that his campaign handed out at the 2002 gay rights parade in Boston?

So much for "the only true conservative" running in 2006...

Posted by: dcdre14 | January 13, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse


The flip-flopper label will be pretty straightforward to dispell once the campaign gets underway. Most people are fairly accepting of a candidate's belief changing over the course of 14 years. As long as Romney is candid and honest about it, this label won't stick.

As for his attempts to prevent gay marriage, lower the income tax, and bring back the death penalty, his attempt is what he will be judged by. You can't blame Romney for the legislature using its super-majority to overrule his attempts. dcdre14, are you familiar with the concept of separation of powers in government?

As for your list of things he failed to get seem to have a problem getting your facts straight on a few items:

Since Romney took office, the overall number of jobs in the state has increased by a net of 13,500, according to the state's Department of Workforce Development, which tracks employment figures on a monthly basis. Job growth has particularly increased over the past year, when the state has added 33,100 jobs

After he was finally granted full control over the Big Dig, Romney shut down the entire tunnel for many weeks to complete a stem to stern safety review. It turned up hundreds of loose ceiling bolt fixtures and other saftey hazards.

Posted by: murphy | January 13, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Mitt's got a real problem here... the flip-flopper label has become firmly affixed, despite his campaign's best efforts to hit it early on...

The whole flip-flopper thing aside, though, let's look at Mitt's record as MA Governor... that IS, after all, what he keeps telling us to focus on (and not his "pre-evolved" positions in '94 and '02).

He wanted to attract businesses and jobs to Massachusetts, but he failed...

He wanted to prevent gay marriage, but he failed...

He wanted to fix the Big Dig, but he failed...

He wanted to reduce the tax burden, but he failed...

He wanted to end patronage in state government, but he failed...

He wanted to bring back the death penalty, but he failed...

He wanted to strengthen the state GOP, but he failed (REALLY badly)...

As RGA Chair, he wanted to get Republican Governors elected in '06, but he failed...

Candidates for President deserve attention for what they've actually accomplished, not for what they wished they'd accomplished...

Posted by: dcdre14 | January 13, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse


First off, this conversation may not last very long if you continue to wallow in hyperbole and say things that are factually wrong. I'll give an example of each below. If you'd really like to talk about the issues, I'm more than happy engage you if I feel like you recognize the facts and can talk about them as such...regardless of whether or not we agree.

Anyway, you characterize the incentivization of teachers as "using children as pawns". That's a pretty good example of hyperbole.

Schools need better teachers. It's not unreasonable to pay teachers who are more effective more money. Why shouldn't we? They're more valuable. How then to determine which teachers are more effective? Perhaps by which teachers are better at teaching? How to measure this? Perhaps by the performance of the students on tests and by their grades?

You claimed that it would force teachers to compete instead of collaborate. That's an example of you saying something factually wrong. Two teachers would both be eligible for bonuses independent of each other, dependent only upon how well they teach.

As for your claim that the performance of a student may not have to do with the quality of the teacher, and may in fact be due to other factors...good point. This may happen to individual students. But when you average over 30 students and say "Gee, teacher X's class is doing significantly better than the rest of the students in the state", that ought to tell you something. Yes, it's possible that it's just a coincidence, but it's also very likely that the teacher has something to do with it. Part of successful governance is not finding the perfect solution in every's finding the best solution for the entire state.

You asked if the economic performance of an area is important. Sure! If a school district is doing poorly, that would warrent some kind of intervention to try and turn the situation around.

Oh, it doesn't matter how many of your friends and family are MA teachers. It also doesn't matter that you've lived in MA for 40 more years than me. You are still getting some of your facts wrong (as I've detailed in several posts now). Don't get emotional at me, just fix your posting style.

One final thing...Romney pulled the Olympics out of a $379 million budget shortfall, turning a $100 million profit, including a new $300 million security plan put in place only 3 months after 9/11, and expanding the games into the most attended Winter Olympics in history. You call this "a two-week orgy of patriotism and product placement"? Now this is another great example of you wallowing in hyperbole...and bordering on ignorance.

Posted by: murphy | January 12, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

hey murph -
how does it "enhance the professionalism" of teachers by forcing them to compete rather than collaborate? for money, no less. I would rather teachers were paid a decent wage to begin with and not measured against each other to determine "winners" and "losers." but then, I'm not a Republican.
Number Two - i have had three members of my immediate family work in the MA system public education, as well as several friends. don't you DARE tell me i don't know what i'm talking about. We have yet to establish that you are even qualified to comment on Massachusetts at all, let alone public education in the state. (NB - working for the Romney campaign doesn't count.)
Number Three - he is no longer "The Governor" - thankfully. Our current governor is a Democrat, and an alumnus of the Clinton Administration, which was WAAAY more challenging the running a two-week orgy of patriotism and product placement in Salt Lake City.
Number Four - to characterize my thoughts as "bizarre" is a little off the reservation. you may not agree, but name-calling only makes you look worse. didn't Mom ever tell you that? Anyone else reading this please note - as is typical of spin, he does not address what I think were legitimate points, preferring instead to point fingers and use unkind language. For anyone else who's paying attention:
in re: the awarding of "performance based" prize money to teachers:
1. who decides that the improvement in performance should be credited to a specific teacher?
2. are the economic performance of the area and resources available taken into account?
3. what about home and community variables over which the teacher has little control? 4. is it really a good idea to have teachers COMPETE - using our chldren as pawns - for cash rewards?
I think these are legitimate questions, but ol' Murph apparently prefers to dismiss them as "bizarre."

Posted by: meuphys | January 12, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse


Well, it's a sort of fuzzy line on how much Romney could have gotten done with the bully pulpit that he didn't try. I'm not going to criticize your point of view too much, but here's how I see it.

During his campaign for governor, Romney proposed merging the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority with the Massachusetts Highway Department. After being elected Governor, Romney called for the merger in 2003 and again in 2004. The Massachusetts legislature rejected Romney's calls for consolidation.

Following the discovery of leaks in the I-93 tunnel the Governor called for the resignation of Matthew Amorello, the Chairman and CEO of the Turnpike Authority. Amorello refused to resign and in June of 2005, Romney asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to grant him the authority to fire Amorello. Romney was once again rebuffed as the court declined to hear his case.

Seems to me like the Big Dig was something Romney had in his sights from the very beginning and TRIED to bully from the pulpit. The legislature and supreme court wouldn't give him any authority until after the accident in 2006, and then BAM, Romney went into action.

Sure, he could have been even more public and frequent about his criticisms, despite getting rejected by both other branches of government in every year since he took office. But everything's much clearer in retrospect.

Posted by: murphy | January 12, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Murphy, Correct.

But, Mitt had the power of the Bully Pulpit which he failed to use. He wasn't "out front" on the issue of the safety of the work which had been done. Didn't flooding tunnels make you wonder what other corners had been cut, or shoddy work done?

Mitt had the power to publicly needle and prod. If he didn't have the direct power to order the Attorney General, he could have embarrassed Reilly into active investigations on safety.

Personally, I like Mitt, but his 180's are giving me a lot of pause. He's looking like another McCain. Which is the "real" John or Mitt? I give him a lot of credit as Governor, but the Big Dig goes on the negative side of his balance sheet.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 12, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse


Perhaps I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that Romney did not have the legal authority to sack Amorello earlier (though he'd been chomping at it for years). This authority had to be granted to Romney by the legislature (which was more than happy to give the Big Dig to Romney's capable hands).

Posted by: murphy | January 12, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse


So far I haven't gotten a dime from Mitt's campaign. Mitt's got me for free baby! And you're right, education reforms may not be the top issue for GOP primary voters...I was just setting the facts straight on some of meuphy's criticisms (which he later denied saying).

baystate watcher,

Way to tell me I'm wrong without citing a single fact. Nice rhetoric though. Very flashy. With regards to "turning his back on the taxpayers", which part of balancing a $3 billion dollar deficit and pushing for a lower state income tax did you mean? Are you perhaps getting hung up on the extra $5 fee for a drivers license, or the extra $4 fee for a marriage license?


Although the tunnel flooding and later a woman's death occured during Mitt's governorship, you'll find that it wasn't his watch. Under MA state law the turnpike authority is an independent agency NOT under the control of the Governor. Romney had been a longtime critic of the Big Dig fiasco leading up until last year's tragedy, at which point he sacked Amorello (chairman of the MTA) and personally took charge. What followed was the complete inspection of the project, finding thousands of safety concerns in the tunnel, as well as a volume of evidence of patronage and financial impropriety in the MTA. If you'd like we can hash out all the facts here, but you could just as well check out the link I'd be citing anyway:

Posted by: murphy | January 12, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse


Quite a short memory you have. At 1:23pm you said:

"you proceed to defend several elements of Romneyiana that i didn't attack".

That's odd. You DID attack Romney on just those issues when you mentioned at 6:02pm:

"his disdain for public education lower and higher...the Romney team tried to spin the tragic death of a woman..."

Well, if you can't keep your own comments straight, I'm not surprised that you can't keep the facts straight on the Governor's record.

As for your bizarre thoughts on why improving test scores, incentivizing teachers based on student performance, intervention in underperforming school districts, etc are bad...wowza.

Posted by: murphy | January 12, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

hey murphy -

after dissing me by name, you proceed to defend several elements of Romneyiana that i didn't attack. you want me to go there? OK -

education. A CONSENSUS of all the teachers I know - and believe me, with two in my family and at least five in my circle of friends, I know or have met plenty of Massachusetts teachers - would indicate that the standardized-test driven Romney approach is both consuming most or all of the money available, and leaving no room for creative approaches in the classroom. It's a cookie-cutter bare minimum approach. .. and while test scores may be up, is that really to be the only way we measure achievement? Teachers say no, at least those who give a sh*t about teaching the whole person rather than meeting some arbitrarily assigned benchmarks. also, do you really think it's a good idea to reward teachers solely on the base of their students' performance? It's not entirely under their control. What's more, it strikes me as slightly creepy that there is a defined lifespan for under-performing schools, after which the Great White Father steps in to save the day through "standardization" and "increased testing." And the awarding of "performance based" prize money raises at least two troubling questions. 1, who makes the call? who decides that the improvement in performance should be credited to a specific teacher? are the economic performance of the area and resources available taken into account? what about home and community variables over which the teacher has little control? and last but not least, is it really a good idea to have teachers COMPETE - using our chldren as pawns - for cash rewards? It would seem to me that another "c" word - "cooperation" - would be a better, fairer, and more effective approach for the kids, teachers, and communities.
Romney may have been a successful businessman, and he did balance the state budget - albeit through hefty fee increases (a tax by another name, and one aimed at the middle class) - and of course there were the olympics (which i didn't watch myself, nor saw much interest in from my community, but anyway) but his approach is and has been culturally wrong for Massachusetts, and it would only get worse on a national level. I say this having lived in the state for almost 40 years. where you from, Murph?

Posted by: meuphys | January 12, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Murphy - Mitt was "late to the game" on doing anything about the Big Dig.

The tunnel flooding occured on his watch also; and he did virtually nothing about ensuring that the "entire project" was safe; the result, a woman dies.

He has to share the blame with all of the rest of them. He gets zero credit.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 12, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Murphy, your so off base your nose is about to enter space. Mitt is a wind mill of opinions. He stands for nothing other then trying to look good for what ever is next. He has turned his back on his values, the Mass. taxpayers, and next he'll try to fool the GOP. Mitt may be able to change his special underwear but not his stripes. Cult members have never preformed well in the GOP primaries.

Posted by: baystate watcher | January 12, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

So how long have you been on Mitt's payroll, murphy?

Primary voters don't care about what he did or did not do for education in Mass.

They DO care about what he said, or didn't say, or said but meant to say differently, or said but later decided not to say, in 1994 and 2002.

Posted by: dcdre14 | January 11, 2007 10:28 PM | Report abuse


Off base as usual. Do you ever bother checking the facts?

Romney's education reforms improved the quality of MA education while reducing the costs. MA students now lead the nation in all four standardized tests. Some quick facts from his reform package:

*PROMOTE MATH & SCIENCE: Providing free laptop computers to all middle and high school students. Established seven specialized math and science academies in the state's seven largest cities. Required all high schools to offer Advanced Placement courses in calculus, chemistry, biology and physics and high school students could receive credit for math and science courses taken at local colleges.

*CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP: To prevent disadvantaged students from falling behind, Romney would cut in half from six years to three years the amount of time necessary to intervene in low-performing "turnaround" districts. Under the Romney bill, schools that do not show improve within two years could be placed under different management or reconstituted as charter schools. Provided funding for turnaround partners, math and science training and other professional development initiatives for teachers in turnaround schools.

*ENHANCED QUALITY & PROFESSIONALISM OF TEACHERS: Teachers in the Commonwealth would be eligible for annual bonuses ranging from $2,500 to $15,000. Significant new investments in teacher development and recruitment, including the hiring of 1,000 highly qualified math and science teachers as part of a new "Commonwealth Teaching Corps" that would be eligible for specific $5,000 annual bonuses. Teachers whose Advanced Placement math and science students demonstrate measured achievement could also receive up to a $5,000 annual bonus.

*ENCOURAGE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT: To prepare parents to take an active role in their child's education, the plan requires elementary schools to offer voluntary parental preparation classes as part of Kindergarten registration. For parents that use state-funded childcare services, attendance in at least one parental preparation class is mandatory.

With regards to the Big Dig accident, Romney took control of the entire project, cleaned house from an entrenched and independent management. He ordered a stem-to-stern review of the entire underground highway project (an over-budget delayed project Romney inherited as Governor).

Get a clue.

Posted by: murphy | January 11, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

will all due respect for the opinion of southern progressive, it is impossible for me - a current massachusetts resident - to take the mittster seriously as a candidate for president. As another poster mentioned, he was willing to promise to be respectful of issues of same sex marriage and reproductive choice. Notice also that he did not announce his "developed" thinking on these issues until he decided to appeal to the national, much more conservative GOP, i.e. until it was convenient.
add to that his disdain for public education lower and higher and his often demonstrated willingness to adapt his views to the prevailing GOP wind, and the end result is NOT leadership, inspired or otherwise. Nor is it the product of careful consideration and consultation with experts in the field. no, it's Mitt's slavishly devoted service to a constituency of one - himself, and his political ambitions. I and many others from Massachusetts were horrified at how the Romney team tried to spin the tragic death of a woman - crushed by a falling ceiling panel in one of the tunnels involved in "the Big Dig" (an almost 15 year construction project which is years late, billions over budget) - to his political advantage. The pictures of Ivy League-suited boy with a hard hat on called to mind Mike Dukakis in a tank in 1988.
long story short - the bill of goods we in MA were sold by the ol' Mitt is way past its "sell by" date, and i would strongly urge the country to learn from example.

Posted by: meuphys | January 11, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse


If you knew anything about Romney's history in private industry, you'd know his turnaround of the Olympics was not a fluke. It's a habit of his.

Read up on the article "Mr. Powerpoint Goes to Washington" if you're in the mood to learn something.

Posted by: murphy | January 11, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"Romney Builds Beltway Cred"

So much 'talent' for an already lost cause.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 11, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Romney was brought in in order to clean up the Olympics. Of course there was a "turnaround", that was the explicit job assigned to him.

The SLC Olympics are not evidence for a talent at "turnarounds", or for good ethical habits, or anything else. It was just an attempt to make some brownie point capital out of a scandal, and share the brownie points around to lucky insiders.

Romney was a lucky insider who got the biggest stack of brownie points.

How did he get that assignment, by the way?

Posted by: Emctwo | January 11, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Romney appears to be taking a page out of the Bush playbook: When faced with inconvenient historical truths (nonconservative positions on key issues; massive drug use), keep acting like that's completely irrelevant.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | January 11, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney has to be considered a first tier candidate for a number of reasons.

First, polling at this stage is relative to national exposure. Romney is already buying air time to get his name out there, and 6.5 million dollars can go pretty far. He will make major strides soon. Wait three months, after his campaign has raised another 20 million and he has signed up a number of additional key supporters and we'll talk about polling.

Second, of course politicians evolve over time. Look at Maverick McCain then, and McCain now. How about Guiliani? You don't think he will court the religious right by shifting views? He will have to in order to have a shot. Look at his lost/stolen memo. As for the YouTube video, it is better the video come out now, then in one year. Romney and his campaign will adjust. Romney is a master at turnarounds as shown in his business career and the SLC Olympics. That is what makes him so special.

Third, he is signing up key advisors all over the country. He just nabbed Alabama state treasurer Kay Ivey and she is a conservative star in the deep south. In addition to Jim Demint, they are two big grabs to date. He will continue to make inroads and McCain and Guiliani are taking notice.

Posted by: Southern Progressive | January 11, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

ABC News' David Chalian Reports: 2008 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has broken his silence on the "surge" and comes out with a written statement this morning joining the President (and his chief rival for the Republican nomination -- Sen. John McCain) in supporting the plan to place additional US troops in Baghdad and Al Anbar.

"In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment," says Romney in his statement below.

Gov. Romney also says, "It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction."

While there has been some Republican hesitancy/disapproval of the President's plan in recent days (Sens. Smith, Snowe, and Collins come to mind), the top-tier contenders for the 2008 Republican presidential field are clearly standing firm with the White House -- and with very little daylight between each other on the most dominant issue of the day.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was quoted by the Dallas Business Journal in December saying that he thought sending more troops makes sense, but he has remained largely silent on the issue despite his steadfast and strong support for the President's war effort. '

Looks like everyone of 'em a bush retread except surprisingly, Brownback, who says 'no surge' -- from Iraq.

Will a continuing bloody, brutal occupation sink the GOP in '08?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

'ABC News' Luis Martinez Reports: Significant news from Defense Secretary Gates today for National Guardsmen who thought their service in Iraq and Afghanistan meant they wouldn't be called up for another 5 years. Part of Gates' announcement today includes wiping the slate clean for those National Guardsmen who have already served in Iraq and Afghanistan, meaning their prior service does not make them exempt from being called to serve again.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse


'Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship...'

So what will it look like, hmm? or smell like?

'I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like ... victory.'

For those who remember.

Posted by: drindl | January 11, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

'President Bush has seen the Saddam execution video (not clear which one) and said today that it ranks just behind Abu Ghraib as the most damaging mistakes the U.S. has made in Iraq, reports NBC's Brian Williams:

Upon exiting the West Wing, I phoned one particular detail into MSNBC: Toward the end I asked the President if he'd seen the Saddam Hussein execution video. He said he had, and when I asked where it "ranked" (among the mistakes of the war) he indicated it was just below Abu Ghraib in terms of damage -- meaning slightly less damaging. The President also noted the damage done at Haditha.
The President's comments came in a not-for-quotation background briefing with select reporters in advance of tonight's primetime address on Iraq.'

Posted by: lark | January 11, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

'As Election Central reported below, a new video surfaced yesterday of Mitt Romney debating Ted Kennedy in 1994. Romney was shown expressing all sorts of opinions -- support for abortion rights, lack of total devotion to Ronald Reagan -- that are considered heretical to the social conservatives who decide GOP presidential primaries, and the video was all over the internet yesterday.

Now Romney has finally responded to all the fuss -- and appears to blame unnamed liberals for finding and releasing the video. The Boston Globe reports that Romney last night called in to a conservative Internet broadcast called "The Glenn and Helen Show" to react to the furor over the video.

"I'm grayer, I'm a little heavier, and I hope I've grown a bit wiser as well," Romney said. "Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I'm not embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have."

Romney went on to tout what he described as the conservative nature of his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, and concluded:

"Now, that's my record," Romney continued. "And maybe that's why people on the other side are dredging up 13-year-old history and attacking me now."

The other side. In other words, the side he was more or less on until he decided it was no longer expedient.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

And this Feather character is one of the swiftboat scumbags... great choice, there, carrying on in the rovian tradition -- JUST ANOTHER BUSH RETREAD. A new face, but no new ideas. Although a lot of new 'positions'...

His advisors may have credibility, Chris but Mitt himself sure don't. Shall I put the URL for the Utube of Mitt talking about how hard he would fight for a woman's right to choose and gay marriage? You'll be seeing lots of it on the TV, along with rudy in drag.

Posted by: drindl | January 11, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Poll on ABC -- surprising because if you look at comments on stories, they have a fairly virulently rightwing audience:

If the 2008 election were held today, who would you want to vote for?

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Former Vice President Al Gore

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.


Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.

Gov. Tom Vilsack, D-Iowa

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ariz.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

Gov. George Pataki, R-N.Y.


Mitt pretty close to the basement. for having a lot of negative, hillary polls pretty well in certain areas...

Posted by: drindl | January 11, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"Forti oversaw the spending of $76 million on nearly 200 television commercials and 300 pieces of direct mail aimed at influencing House races across the country in the 2006 election alone. "

That worked out really well for the GOP. Great hire there Mitt. Maybe all that hairspray is effecting his brain function.

Posted by: Andy R | January 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company