Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Romney's Great Expectations

Former Gov. Mitt Romney took to the airwaves in a series of early voting states last week with an ad aimed at introducing himself to voters. But his campaign distributed a memo over the weekend warning supporters not to expect too much too soon.

The memo, which was penned by the Massachusetts Republican's senior strategist Alex Gage, aims to simultaneously lower expectations for the governor while arguing that he is in a better position at the moment than past governors who have won their party's nomination.

"At this point in the cycle, national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters' views of candidates," writes Gage, who has earned a reputation as a microtargeting guru. Romney currently is in third or fourth place in most states and national polls behind Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and, at times, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

Gage notes that three "small state" governors like Romney -- Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts and Bill Clinton of Arkansas -- were all lower in polling at a similar point in their races. In 1975, Carter was at a mere 1 percent in a Gallup survey. Dukakis matched that level of support in 1987. Clinton boasted a whopping 2 percent in 1991. Romney, as Gage points out, is at an "impressive" 5 percent in the most recent Gallup poll.

"Gov. Romney is already well-positioned compared to previous candidates who came from similar backgrounds to win their party's nomination, but we should be careful not to expect to see movement in the polls until voters seriously begin to pay attention to the race," wrote Gage in the memo addressed to "Romney for President Leadership."

Gage adds that "observers in the media will inevitably question why our numbers don't immediately rise after being up on the airwaves but we must remain patient."

Dang media.

Gage is right to suggest that national polls at this early stage are far from predictive. And he is right that Romney will not immediately surpass McCain or Giuliani simply because he has begun running television ads in certain states. But Romney must show real movement in places like Iowa and New Hampshire over the next few months if he wants to remain in the first-tier of candidates.

Romney has great potential as a candidate, but turning that potential into real support is his challenge.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 26, 2007; 1:15 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Battling for Netroots Support
Next: Rudy Embraces Reagan Legacy

Comments

[url=http://rengotgp.servik.com/]Instant message with other lesbian and bisexual women![/url]
Instant message with other lesbian and bisexual women!
Instant message with other lesbian and bisexual women!

Posted by: sexyseved | March 24, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

[url=http://program-zzz.h17.ru/]GuruPost[/url]
The Site is excellent! Great job
GuruPost

Posted by: Fatal | March 23, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

ybxdhr zpxh lzwdqkmsh mnhrf spdybn bief prftjs http://www.xntivwsr.zotm.com

Posted by: ubkwsraxv kthcyzagr | March 11, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

lqic qtceng oxjlyp swkchj erlqco sqhypoxn paswj

Posted by: istg mxpfkn | March 11, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

How about the short version:

Romney's position is, by the numbers, objectively much better than similarly situated successful candidates in previous years.

Chris Cillizza acknowledges the facts, then says Romney has a "real challenge" ahead of him.

Posted by: straightup | March 1, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I've given you his social record, scroll up, but if you really want to know more..

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massresistance/therealtruth.pdf

Oh and by the way, parts of those "fees" were on business. You think he might cater to executives? Read his Olympics story in the above Wikipedia link - part of his "disciplines" in doing that was wiping out the costly meals and making executives pay for their drinks and pizza, $1 a slice.

Posted by: Cameron Phillips | February 28, 2007 11:46 PM | Report abuse

romney fans, you who do not offer any data to support your googly-eyed worship, please address the issues of:

-his deliberately misleading positions on social issues as he attempted to become governor of a socially progressive state,

-his sneering at the voters who elected him, in order to make points with more conservative voters,

-his balancing the MA budget by raising "fees," if not taxes - making life more expensive for middle class and blue collar citizens, and

-his complete absence from the state he was elected to govern for over 2/3 of the past year (note: his chairmanship of the g.o.p. governors does not excuse him from doing his job.

well?

Posted by: meuphys | February 28, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

In the latest Post poll of people leaning Republican, it was Giuliani 44%, McCain 21%, Gingrich 15%, Mitt 4%. That 4% is down from 9% in the Post's 1/19/07 poll.

Even when they take out Gingrich, it was Giuliani 53, McCain 23, Mitt 5%. So almost all Gingrich's support goes to other candidates, most notably Giuliani.

In short, the "anti-Mitts" appear to include Republicans. And for Republicans willing to consider a former governor from a Democratic-leaning state, their preference is clear (they prefer Giuliani).

Posted by: DTM | February 28, 2007 7:45 AM | Report abuse

The only reason these anti-Mitts are doing here is that they want to explode their frustrations over here. In their disappointments and dismays, they are using their freedom to harrass a potential candidate like Mitt. But, no way,... MITT IS THE MAN! THE DESTINED MAN TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT.

Look at the figures of support for Mitt. The number of legislators and lobbyists lining behind him. Look how many prominent businessmen are supporting him. Do you have the idea how much now is the worth of his finance this time because of the tremendous support, financially, he gets from his backers? Have you noticed his volunteers? The number of people who registered and willing to help in his campaign?

Guys, don't undermine MITT ROMNEY, he's the real guy. You will be surprised that at the end of MArch he will come first in the financial reporting among the candidates. And that's an obvious reason why many have chosen him to be their next president. If you think you can derail his candidacy, no way, you are just too few in numbers. The MSM is just too afraid with him that's why their researching any negative possible for him. By the way, who can trust those MSMs? They're just insinuating lies towards the best man? And they're doing it desperately.

So, get your lesson... MITT WILL STAND-OUT WHATEVER YOU WILL SAY NEGATIVE TO HIM BECAUSE THOSE NEGATIVES ARE JUST BASELESS AND HAVE NO SUBSTANCE FOR A DESERVED DISCUSSION.

So, sorry again, anti-Mitts. You're just wasting your time posting here. Majority of Americans know well Mitt's potentials.

Posted by: jmikednc | February 28, 2007 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Loudon voter,

You think you are right in your foolish presumptions? Watch out, the Mitt Romney momentum is beginning to snowball and you will be surprised, even you, a nonsensical bigot will realize that his time will surface tremendously in the media that majority of Americans will support him. Why? Mitt has the only potential to lead this nation, period!

Sorry for the anti-Mitts, hahahaha.

Posted by: jmikednc | February 28, 2007 12:02 AM | Report abuse

MikeB, amen brother! The attention you bring to our tax hiking representatives on every level of government is what we need more of. They raise our taxes and spend our money on projects that they think will help them get re-elected. They can tout as their own, never mentioning who paid for these projects. It sickens me that every political party has the same attitude. The Libertarians claim they have a different approach, but we don't know because they never have the money to campaign to get elected. Maybe they would be honest, that would explain away their fundraising failures.

Posted by: reason | February 27, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I think removing the stain_of_evil from America


might be kinda fun, especially when all it takes is making it


visible...

and I can do _that_

I am very good at that.

Posted by: yeah, | February 27, 2007 1:11 AM | Report abuse

think that if you were free to speak

you would self destruct in hatred....of what you are....


oncet you understood it....wanna try?

Posted by: I | February 27, 2007 1:00 AM | Report abuse

sounds like you are making up a story,


want me to tell them yours?

want me to tell them about your husbands involvement in international politics and creating situations that are life threatening to Americans because it makes him


richer....

want me to talk about that sharon?

Posted by: hmmmm.... | February 27, 2007 12:59 AM | Report abuse

I think after all we have heard so far from Romney he was never really full blown pro-choice or full blown pro-gay rights.

He was some where in the middle on abortions but never for abortions-on-demand. And he was against discrimination of gays and partly sympathetic to gay relationships but never would have been for full blown gay marriage.

Flip flop? Not really. It's more like a coming out of the closet move than anything else.

Posted by: JSS | February 27, 2007 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Let's see: We know we can trust career politicians who are masters of finding every way to position themselves to retain power? It would be better to elect a Ms. Clinton who only wants to move from some power in NY to absolute power? Watch her eyes. Almost none of the career politicians is even a true leader; most are average managers at best.

Which of all have any experience taking large organizations and turning them around? Giuliani & Romney. Oh, that's right, they have been chief executives too. They are leaders. One is not a career politician.

But you know what? We should take a flying leap and trust a lifelong politician who decided to stay with her man after affair & affair & affair, when no other woman in America would have. Let's elect the door mat; she is the Trojan Mare.

Posted by: Free2Speak | February 26, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

think that it is pretty clear,

that a man who usess homophobia,


and patrotism as a whip,


and gawd as a threat,


is not someone that I want in control of the warmachine...

you want to know about mormonism?

lets talk about it.

knock off the polygamything though, I am not interested in any tighta** southern baptists BS either...


religion is used for control, much as it was used in Roman times....


I am a little tired of that...


dogma, does not equal divine right...


divinity is a flow, not a statue...


wanna bless some water for communion?


maybe the elders can helpus...

Posted by: I | February 26, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

my problem with romney, as i have said before, is that he is all about mitt romney and does not give a rat's posterior about anyone who disagrees. however, he is slick enough to allow you to think he does until it's too late. y'all from massachusetts? well, i am... and my father worked for the state (higher ed.) romney had an extremely - excessively - high opinion of himself, and did not accept criticism easily. sure he's a good businessman, BUT POLITICS IS AT LEAST AS MUCH ABOUT PEOPLE AS ABOUT BUSINESS. yes, he balanced the budget without "raising taxes," but he jacked up fees, which disproportionately hit the middle and working class while leaving his country club buddies alone. mitt romney has no heart, and no tolerance for opinions not in line with his own. we don't need a businessman as president - we tried that with bush (granted, not any better at business than he is at anything else.) we need a leader who represents us, and remembers our interests and opinions when making decisions. MITT ROMNEY IS NOT THAT MAN.

Posted by: meuphys | February 26, 2007 10:01 PM | Report abuse

You bet he kept his word. I absolutely agree with his stance on traditional marriage and no discrimination against same sex couples. Two different issues.
Also he supported the law, as we LDS are taught too, on abortion because it is the law but personally I am pro-life as he is. The flip card doesn't fit here. guess they'll have to dig up something on his GG grandparents because in his closet is clean.

Posted by: Bill Fitzgerald | February 26, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Mitt did not successfully make it into politics until 4yrs ago. Thats just FOUR YEARS AGO. Public service can do alot to change your mind on issues you once held firmly as a member of the general public. People are allowed to change their minds. He has, and ever since he has, his record has stood firmly with his new stances. I believe Mitt when he says he's had a change of heart on these issues. I think that some people just have a hard time believing someone could be as honest and clean as Mitt Romney, and it bugs them.

What his great grandfather did in the 19th century is meaningless. Just goes to show you how clean this guy is. You have to go 115yrs in history to get anything on this guy, lol.

Posted by: Chris M | February 26, 2007 8:17 PM | Report abuse

I think he's pretty honest.

Posted by: girly | February 26, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

only way Mitt could succeed is if he were honest...


that might take some doing.

spin? that is so 60's and Nixonish...

the kids have already seen all _those_ moves...

how draba nd boring.

Posted by: the | February 26, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

If you want to learn about Mitt's religion go to www.mormon.org

Posted by: Stuff | February 26, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

If you objectively look at the coverage of the 2008 campaign Mitt is taking more negative hits from so many different angles. It appears many democrats and so called conservatives have put out a hit on his presidential ambitions. Mitt will be a much stronger candidate in the general election from his tempering in the race for the nomination. I do think he needs to come out sooner and discuss his religous beliefs for the apathatic voters.

Posted by: John S. Maine | February 26, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I have plenty of tacks...


you need something nailed?


ahm good at thet...


I got a dawg can bark here , an d bite ovah theyah...

Posted by: tacks | February 26, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

asks me if I stuck my cee gar in the water of life...

what I might say is yes, and then I smoked it...

how shrewd eh? or I might accuse the questioner of being a voyeur....


you know the Ken Starr investigation was a best seller in the Arab world...


and you know Ken Starr is George W. smallbeans Bushes lawyer dontcha?


and Michael Chertoff the _other_ Clinton Hassler...he got that there p osition that allows him to , with no credentials, tell people where to send BILLIONS OF GOVERNMENTAL DOLLARS....jess like he knowed what he was doing....


and thet there Negroponte dude, why he got appointed to the Green Zone, as Director of National Intelligence , so he could override any intelligence in the United States Systems of Intelligence...he is georges dads good friend...


he helped with the Contra Coverup in central America... very similar to the al quearguys coverup in Afghanistan/Irack...


search on Negroponte y Honduras see what comes up fo yah.

Posted by: someone | February 26, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

You think you're going to get away with running a nation without having tact?

Posted by: Cam | February 26, 2007 7:11 PM | Report abuse

am pretty good for a bad


spell er arent ti?

Posted by: I | February 26, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

actually a scapegoating


tactician that makes mormons look bad.

Posted by: he's | February 26, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

"When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions.[44] "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate."

"Prior to his run for governor, Romney told a newspaper in Salt Lake City that he did not want to be classified as a "pro-choice" politician.[61]"

Also in his gubernatorial run, "I don't accept either label, pro-choice, or pro-life."

""I will not change any provisions in Massachusetts' pro-choice laws".[5]"

"Romney vetoed an emergency contraception bill in July 2005, claiming that allowing it to pass into law would violate his "moratorium" on changes to the abortion laws.[11]."

He kept his word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage

He's told us what his views are, he's explained any discrepancies. Mitt Romney is a billiant businessman, a proven fiscal genius who has obvious talent and potential for this nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Business_career
his business, the olympics

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/haislmaier200601271110.asp
health care plan

Posted by: Cameron Phillips | February 26, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

know logic theory?

boolean logic, nueral net training, fuzzy logic?


meme, genetic coding, viral logic?

Posted by: do you | February 26, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

break the pattern of training,


one must do things differently,

do you know what pattern recognition is?

cognitive theory, entrainment?

no? do you know what propaganda is?


_appeal_to_emotion_ ? do you know why appeal to emotion is fallicious?


eh?

Posted by: to | February 26, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

piece of cow effluvium,


got to catch a fly with sh*t, you know?


Posted by: dear | February 26, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"do you know what fallicious reasoning is?
can you spell it?"

Is it anything like fallacious reasoning? Because I can spell that. But you can't. Of course, you still haven't figured out how the comment form works, so I'm not surprised. (Hint: Your name goes at the end of your post, not the beginning.)

Posted by: Blarg | February 26, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

are anglos treating blacks?


and how are _illegals_ treating blacks?


and how is outsourcing treating blacks?


or middle class America?


you wanna trash talk your candidate into a winning position or actually deliver a candidate worth supporting?

then you had better get someone with a higher IQs to post for your candidates

.

.
.

Posted by: how | February 26, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

he is not a communist like our liberal friends?


is he a neo fascist like our current executive branch?

what a low IQ remark.... can you say _appeal_to_emotion_

do you know what fallicious reasoning is?

can you spell it?


how about false, misleading....does not work?

Posted by: hey sprig boy | February 26, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

bobby, if this is how you argue, i can see why you think you always win. for the last time - there are 2 valid political parties in this country, 4 if you count green and reform, but they have no realistic chance of winning in the near future. and if you denounce one of them, you are in fact supporting the other. which is cool if you don't care about the policy differences, but it seems as if you do.

i certainly have issues with democrats, but the reason i vote for them is that the party in general is big enough to encompass voters who may disagree on some issues or to some degree on the same issues. i like that. i don't want to feel like the party's positions do not take their voters into account.

and in re: "90% about how Anglos are treating blacks" - do you really not recognize that while they may not be perfect, there's a reason blacks usually vote democratic? yes, i know you said 'anglo,' but you also refer ad nauseam to the 'brain fart democrats.'

Posted by: meuphys | February 26, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Scooter and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the present ambassadour to the UN all signed PNAC...


do you know what PNAC is?

do you know what a pre emptive strike is?

do you know what international law is?

do you think these people who support a document that says what is by international law...


Ill fricking legal

have any compunction about lying as a way of life?

Posted by: regarding Scooter | February 26, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"Mitt belongs to a religion that winks at modern day polygamists--many of them outright child molesters, that until recently refused to let African-Americans take meaningful roles in his church, and that is founded on the thesis that a farmer dug up some golden tables that later "disappeared.""

First, as it is said in all articles, the Mormon church condemns polygamy and excommunicates any who take part in that sort of activity. Any half-wit has heard and read that just about every time Polygamy is reported on. Why does it matter if Mitt's Great-Great Grandfather had multiple wives? It doesn't sound good, and I don't agree with it however, when has someone held you responsible for the actions of your Great-Great Grandfather? Secondly, how is the Joseph Smith story any more unrealistic than the stories of the bible? They're all pretty much "out there" if you ask me. It's all based on your personal preference and belief. As far as the issue of Mormons not allowing African Americans to hold meaningful roles in their church until 1978, that was nearly 30 years ago. It wasn't that far off from segregation being abolished in the USA anyway. I don't think any of this should be an issue. If you want to attack Mitt, attack him for his political stances, not his religion or what his ancestors did. The great thing about this Nation is the fact that EVERYONE is allowed to be whatever religion they desire, or no religion at all. The people of this country need to start respecting other's beliefs and let them be who they want to be. Focus on the real issues ...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that in lowering expectations, he's suddenly decided that Massachusetts is a "small state." He may be doing fairly well now, but he really has nowhere to go but down. Every flip-flop that comes to light, every film clip of a former liberal position, every discussion of the true tenets of the Mormon religion, etc. only serves to knock Mitt Romney down in the polls. The fact that he is a plastic preppy with a stupid name like "Mitt" doesn't help either. I have a feeling he won't even make it to the Iowa caucuses--his "boomlet" of support already feels a bit overinflated and flimsy. About the only thing that could help him now is some freakish reserve of charisma, and given the falseness of his platform, that seems terribly unlikely to emerge.

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | February 26, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

It is sad to see so many idiots out there who actually bring up religion in reguard to a presidential candidate. Mitt Romney is one of the smartest people to ever run for presidency. He is not only bright he is articulate, charismatic and he actually has values. He is for a small government and innovation and he is not a communist like our liberal friends. Do your research people!!!

Posted by: Terry Go | February 26, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

am a little uncomfortable making fun of other peoples religions,


but using homophobia....that is a hate crime...one that Mitt is guilty of...


I have studied with Mormons, one reason that they are saturated in the FBI is because they are honest, are good in EBIs, and Brigham Young football players have been known to apologize after tackling people....


but a war using , homophobia using , gawd user?


just say no.

Posted by: I | February 26, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

speaking of conspiracies to defraud Americans....


Douglas Feith, Perle, JINSA, PNAC, Kagan, Jeb Bush, Marvin Bush, Saudi, UAE, Israel, Kuwiat...


Rumsfeld, George H.W. Bush, Negroponte, Porter Goss, Gates...

these people are involved in a conspiracy to commit fraud and involve the United States in a fracas that was purely ECONOMIC, for_them....

Cheney, got big bucks for arranging a deal for CHEVRON in Afghanistan... for a TransAfghanistan Pipeline...thing of it is though...he stole that deal from Bridas Corporation/Argentina...who already had a deal to complete it and w/theTaliban agreeing to back off and let them do that....
that is why the Taliban were in Crawford Texas in that Michael Moore movie Farenheit 911....to talk to Bush about _perhaps_ , reneging on their deal w/ARGENTINIAN_Bridas Corporation....

when they wouldnt bush did an end_run and invaded Afghanistan....to invalidate/nuetralize a Houston TX court decision awarding the contract to Bridas Corporation... infact the rumour has it that Guantonamo has 13 Bridas Corporation EMPLOYEES....that bush does not want seeing the light of day...


isnt that right Cervantes?


your president by fraud is in it for the _MONEY_ patriotism?

to GEORGE W. smallbeans BUSH?, that is a gimmick to sell a plan to make him riche, a gimme_trick, a gimmick, only rubes buy into that patriotism schtick... neither he, nor cheney nor rumsfeld nor baker bought into it...


any of these other candidates pulling the same schtick?

Posted by: just a little levity... | February 26, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

So, Tyson, how long have you been with the Romney campaign? There have been many valid points made here against him, which you have not addressed.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

think what Clinton did


was _who_cares_ on the scale of one to ten it is


not on the chart...

it is the bargaining chip for the emotionally lame,


and I shall not limp before you, you are handicapped....


to start a war on fraudulent grounds, knowingly? please you deserve your face slapped as soundle as bush if you dare to suggest that Clinton and bush are in the same league...its like comparing food to sh*t...and bus hisnt the food...


Romney? a war using, gawd using, homophobia using


con artist

Posted by: I | February 26, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Meuphy's my argument about Brain Fart democrats was 90% about how Anglos are treating blacks - my comment on Obama was 10% of the issue - hardly a one issue issue - it is about equality - something democrats and especially HRC if it means blacks and gays advancing

not that facts matter - there are 2 and only 2 anti gay federal laws - both were supported by Bill CLinton and both were signed into law by Bill CLinton

so please - stop with defending the brain fart democrats

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | February 26, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm not even looking at numbers now, all I can say is that after watching all of the top tier republicans interviewed on various networks, Romney seems to be the only one who will appear to the masses. If McCain was put against Obama, Obama would defeat him by a landslide, at least Romney would make the general election competitive.

Posted by: Tyson | February 26, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

jd, i'm not trying to pick a fight. my initial point was that what clinton did was naughty. what cheney and libby are accused of doing could have endangered the life of an intelligence agent - all for political points. and yes, the jury has to presume innocence. we're not on the jury, and from what i have read of the trial, he looks guilty as sin.

Posted by: meuphys | February 26, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

meuphys said:

"jd, you really think scooter 'should' be presumed innocent?"

No. I think *every American citizen* should. Or does that presumption only count if you're liberal? Frankly, I like America's system of jurisprudence, it's worked pretty well over the last 200-odd years.

Posted by: JD | February 26, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

jd, you really think scooter 'should' be presumed innocent? after all that we know to have gone on? have you been following the trial? the only way he will not be found guilty will be if the jury is willing to believe that he doesn't remember sth that 1-cheney made a priority and 2-he tried to cover up? this has been a major focus of his life for over a year. is it really believable that he doesn't remember?

i cannot believe that g.o.p.-ers can STILL argue that what clinton did was worse, presumably because it involved sex... (OOOO! the 's' word!) bush & co. deserve legal punishment for old-fashioned reasons which are far far more serious.

Posted by: meuphys | February 26, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

and romney is a phony. just another wealthy guy who somehow interprets his success (partly inherited) as a license to judge the morals of those whose votes he is seeking. so he only has one wife - is that really how low we're setting the bar to become president? (btw, his great great grandfather had five - AFTER it was made illegal in utah.)

his mormon-ness is not the issue anyway. it's his lack of interest in all those not motivated to make a bundle on the market, coupled with his belief that just running the country as a business would solve everything. (as we - thankfully - are nearing the end of the reign of 'the 1st MBA president', the validity or lack thereof of that approach should be obvious to everyone.)

and he claims to have been 'the republican governor who turned around a democratic state.' at least we have deval patrick steering now - mitt had us headed for a wall.

Posted by: meuphys | February 26, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Well Truth and meuphys, sorry if the facts don't jibe with your worldview, but the guy admitted it, and lost his law license because of it. Scooter, so far, is presumed innocent (at least he should be, unless that presumption doesn't count for Republicans). For a crime that had little to do with why Fitzpatrick was hired in the first place. Trying to differentiate the two makes you look unbelievably hypocritical, divisive, and partisan, fwiw.

And I didn't bring up Clinton, Judge Crater did in the first post, certainly a Dem backer. Whatever.

Back to the topic of the day: I think Mitt has virtually no chance - not because he's Mormon (although that doesnt help); because he's head of a state that the GOP hates (unlike McCain), he hasn't demonstrated any incredible leadership ability during a time of crisis (unlike Rudy), and he hasn't shown a willingness to stick to his guns (unlike Gingrich). 3 strikes.

Posted by: JD | February 26, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Good article, but why don't more members of the media acknowledge the truth it contains? Candidates who initially garner only about a 1% showing in the polls can come on to win. History proves this. Instead, reporters - and you too Chris - anoint the nominees or at best reduce the number to two before the first primary. Sometimes I suspect the lack of media coverage to outside the beltway candidates results from a lack of knowledge about these outsider candidates on the part of the media. Sometimes I believe I take time to learn more about the candidates than reporters and I must ask myself how do these people get jobs with the networks and big city papers. Tom Vilsack was an example of a candidate ignored by the press and Bill Richardson is a close second. Chris you and the press corps do America no justice by doing the bidding of a Senator Obama or Clinton.

Posted by: Troy | February 26, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

jd - no, there are no excuses. there are, however, degrees of bad - for example, lying about cheating on your wife with an intern vs. lying about iraq buying uranium to justify a war which has killed 3000+ american service people so far. try to keep your eye on the ball.

arguing about this is so last century - meanwhile, we become poorer and poorer, disiked to a greater and greater degree, and politically and militarily weaker and weaker every day the dauphin remains in office.

truth hunter - yes they have, i saw it today. google "gore 08" and you'll find it.

and bobby, single-issue voters are destined not to get what they want as long as that issue is one that a great many americans will never agree to. giuliani is no friend of gay marriage, and he's the only republican who wouldn't try to ban it. from what he's been saying recently, though, he's moving closer and closer to the religious right. please do not just take your marbles and go home if you can't have things your way - there are a great many other more important (to everyone else) issues that really need a change in direction, and we won't get it with rudy.

Posted by: meuphys | February 26, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

JD, Are you kidding me. As Scooter? As the lies Scooter told to throw off the investigation into the outing of a covert CIA agent because her husband blew the whistle on the war mongers.

Besides, if Scooter doesn't beat the rap, the arrogant Bush will pardon him.
Please, JD, let's put things in perspective here.

There are much worse things than a "white lie" under oath about an affair that had nothing to do with public policy... when Clinton lied nobody died.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 26, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

there are draft gore things all over, just google...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I agree with aleks. There are no excuses for lying under oath, committing perjury (that's a felony, you know). I don't care his motivations, or how many other good things he did (and Clinton did plenty, imho). Once you do that, it's game over. Ask Scooter.

Posted by: JD | February 26, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

CC - In case you haven't noticed, your politics-all-the-time posters pretty much dismiss Romney after seeing his three faces...the one he used to have, the one he thinks he needs now, and the one under his hat in case he needs it.

Has the MSM decided it'll be Hillary and Mitt?

It looks like most of us who are paying attention want better choices, or at least to know more about the choices available.

Has anyone started a "Draft Gore" campaign?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 26, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Mitt is likable - this is good - but here is the scoop on the poop - Mitt plays pitch and catch with politics - especially gay politics - is he pitching or is he catching - after Bush II Republican conservatives will never again trust a so called flip flopping Republican again-

Giuliani for everything he is not, he is the man you will get - no guessing - straight up and down - it is fair he is going to just pitch on all of us, while the conservatives are more than willing to catch the pitch rather than have HRC elected

HRC cannot beat Giuliani - this is why conservatives are more than willing to catch his pitch - HRC cannot lose one Kerry state - independents in the Kerry states will vote for Giuliani - we all know the point of being an independent is being able to pitch and catch.

Romney will fail because Giuliani is the winner in terms of drawing out the independents against HRC

A Mitt is only good for catching - and we all know how Mitt feels about pitching - you cannot win unless you can do both

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Brain Fart Democrats will deliver victory to Giuliani

http://balancingtheissues.com/new_page_3.htm

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | February 26, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

'In Baghdad, overnight, there was an assassination attempt directed at the Shiite-led Iraqi government. As a result, the Vice President and a cabinet minister were wounded as a bomb exploded at an official ceremony in a ministry in Baghdad. Six others were killed in the assassination attempt.

The move came as the government had been working towards passing a draft oil law, a senior Iraqi official said. Passing such a law has been a major demand of the U.S.

The attack is the latest blow to the Shiite-led government and their increased security crackdown in Baghdad. The cause of the explosion is still under investigation. According to one witness, the strength of the explosion had thrown Abdul-Mahdi against a wall at the ministry, in the Sunni Arab neighborhood of Mansour, in western Baghdad. "When the blast occurred, Abdul-Mahdi was thrown against the wall. All his guards threw themselves on top of him," the witness said. Several senior ministry officials were among those killed, police said. The bomb wounded 31 people.'

Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

oh btw, do you also believe that scooter libby committed a horrible crime when he lied under oath about WMD? or are you one of those rightwing apologists who are making excuses for him?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

oh please, aleka. get over it. it's the past, and it sure looks like a tempest in a teacup compared to now. all that obssessing over a bj while meanwhile the congress couldn't manage to be bothered to pay attention to terrorism or any other aspect of the nation's buseinss, now they had to lynch bill clinton.

but all this obssessing over clinton's 'misdeeds' -- which look laughably minor compared to the Grand Guignol-horrifying series of catastrophes bush/cheney have presided over is pathetic.

we are about to get into a nuclear confrontation, do you know that? are you old enough to remember hiroshima? do you have any idea how much danger we are in, becuase our president is a clubfooted moron?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I saw Mitt on C-Span last night. I thought he gave a good speech.
He was clean, smelled nice, and very articulate.

Posted by: Chuck | February 26, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"yes dan w -- and it was all orchestrated by a rightwing hit squad, starting wit the $2 million seed money Mellon Scaife invested to take clinton down.
who do you think pushed the woman to sue? who paid her legal bills? guess.
the radical right was so obssesed with bringing clinton down they didn't care if they took the country down with him. and they just about succeeded, too.
Posted by: drindl "

So it's not perjury to lie under oath if you have the right enemies? Clinton was the one who decided hiding his behavior was worth lying in court about. For that matter, he was the one who decided to bang a subordinate in the Oval Office when he knew all those right wing hit squads were out to get him.

Posted by: aleks | February 26, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

"yes dan w -- and it was all orchestrated by a rightwing hit squad, starting wit the $2 million seed money Mellon Scaife invested to take clinton down.
who do you think pushed the woman to sue? who paid her legal bills? guess.
the radical right was so obssesed with bringing clinton down they didn't care if they took the country down with him. and they just about succeeded, too.
Posted by: drindl "

So it's not perjury to lie under oath if you have the right enemies? Clinton was the one who decided hiding his behavior was worth lying in court about.

Posted by: aleks | February 26, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of more interesting potential candidates who could have been discussed by Mr. CC, hee is one from the end of the last thread:

Daily Kos latest straw poll includes Al Gore in a hypothetical race among non-candidates with Howard Dean and Russ Feingold.

http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Straw%20Poll

With the Oscar, the Nobel Peace Prize nomination and his upcoming testimony on the Hill in March, he's running as a good an undeclared insurgent campaign as we've seen in many cycles. I wish he could some how make it onto CC's radar screen (or does he not get that channel?). For all of the excitement that Howard Dean captured among the netroots, the Al Gore buzz would be in another stratosphere were he to, sometime later on this spring, declare his interest in "thinking about" the race.
How about Gore/Obama?

Posted by: Pdoggie | February 26, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1791.shtml

Democrats reinforce "war on terrorism" lie

By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor

In another display of true colors, the Democrats are considering legislation to limit the Bush administration's war powers in Iraq to "fighting Al-Qaeda."

This deception clearly demonstrates, once again, that the Democrats are politically and morally bankrupt -- and every bit as enthusiastic as the Bush administration in spreading the endless "war on terrorism" conquest to every corner of the world.

It is no surprise, given six years of enthusiastic bipartisan Washington cooperation on 9/11 (a US-orchestrated covert operation) and the "war on terrorism," that we find the Democrats clinging to the same original "Al-Qaeda" lie as that still being ruthlessly wielded by Dick Cheney.

Fact: "Islamic terrorism" is a creation and instrument of Anglo-American policy.

Fact: "Islamic terrorists," including "Al-Qaeda," have been, and continue to be, assets of US military-intelligence since the end of the Cold War.

As written by Michel Chossudovsky in his book, America's "War on Terrorism": "Members of Congress were fully cognizant of the links between the US administration and Al-Qaeda. They knew exactly who Osama bin Laden was -- a pawn in the hands of the Clinton, and later, the Bush administration. Despite this knowledge, Republicans and Democrats in unison gave their full support to the President to 'wage war on Osama.'"

The Democrats have always supported the "war on terrorism" and its natural expansion to the conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq, and beyond.

The war in Iraq has been an "Al-Qaeda" propaganda war, an "anti-terrorist" cleansing, justified by the same bipartisan-supported lie of 9/11, from day one.

The Orwellian truth behind the comments of Dick Cheney is that the real "Al-Qaeda strategy" is bipartisan (and he knows it). Both Democrats and neocons alike push the enduring propaganda that all opposition to US occupation, all insurgencies, and "sectarian" violence are linked to "Al-Qaeda." Any "enemy" of US interests (most recently Iran) is connected to "Al-Qaeda," or eventually transformed into "Al-Qaeda."

A policy limiting US forces in Iraq to fighting the "Al-Qaeda" apparatus means that there will be no limit. No limit to troop strength. No limit in scope. No change in US policy.

No opposition, but absolute knowing cooperation, with the Bush administration.

No end to boundless criminality.
No limit to the war, even as the Bush administration continues to provoke Iran, and sets up "the next 9/11," paving the way for a full-scale holocaust that could begin at any moment.

Posted by: che | February 26, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I love the Clinton haters for all they can think of is a b job will Bubba was in office. Get real folks and come up with something-anything that is more feaseable [sic] than a b job. I have seen and heard about this so much that I frankly get a good laugh whenever it is mentioned.

Posted by: lylepink | February 26, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

How can Romney have any constituency when he's changed his views on every single issue of importance?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | February 26, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

gee, there is some tremendous groundswell bulding for mitt, eh? look at all the interest here. not.

Whereas if the posts a column about obama, you'd get 10 times more response. i just don't think romney has ANY constituency.

' Iraq's government has agreed on a plan to divide the country's oil wealth and open the industry to international investment,'

ya know, years ago, when i used to say that the reason cheney was so secretive about his 'energy plan' was that his energy plan was to invade iraq and take the oil, I used to get called a conspiracy theorist.

now the contracts are getting drawn up, and who's going to extract and profit fro the oil? why, BP and Exxon Mobil, naturally.

Posted by: drindl | February 26, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

yes dan w -- and it was all orchestrated by a rightwing hit squad, starting wit the $2 million seed money Mellon Scaife invested to take clinton down.

who do you think pushed the woman to sue? who paid her legal bills? guess.

the radical right was so obssesed with bringing clinton down they didn't care if they took the country down with him. and they just about succeeded, too.

Posted by: drindl | February 26, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anonymous | February 26, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of space. This guy will NOT be president. I guess we have to go through the motions.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | February 26, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what is the nature of this supposed "great potential as a candidate"?

Because as far as I can tell, so far most Republicans don't see it.

Posted by: DTM | February 26, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Based loosely on the Mormon Church and the Mormon Church's unofficial church that encourages multiple wives I would not consider whether Mr. Romney has one wife or many wives. HBO Big Love. Nothing is what it appears anymore.

Wearing your religion on your sleeve will surely leave you with a stain on your sleeve. I would rather use a napkin in private, and keep my religious beliefs private as well, unless I was trying to energize my political base; conservative christian republicans. Seperation of Church and state does not exist for republcians. Anything goes until you are caught like Pooh Bear with your paw stuck in the cookie jar.

Posted by: Patrick | February 26, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Larry,

The question was a legitamate question during a sexual harassment suit pending against the former governor. The question was pertinate to the case at hand and he had a legal obligation to answer honestly or refuse to answer.

Posted by: Dan W | February 26, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

This is hilarious! Everywhere Romney appears, some Fundimentalist whack jobs picket him and scream that he isn't "saved". That's wh you get when you run with a party that depends on idiots for voters. In other news, in my home county (Lane County, Oregon), we had an election in November about adding a 1.1% income tax on personal income. The money was supposed to be for the county jail because it was "overcrowded"....but, then, a local television station found out that the county has been renting out more than half of their jail spaces for years. The income tax went down to defeat.....But, last week, the county commissioners passed it anyways, directly without going to the tax payers. Good liberals all! So, it isn't only right wing whack jobs that ignore voters, lie, come up with false reasons for various programs, it seems that liberal politician's suffer from the same disease. God preserve us from "leaders". I want representatives, not twis who think they know better than we do.

Posted by: mikeB | February 26, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Mormom or not, Mitt has folks that will use that against him just as Rudy has the wife/girlfriend/mistress as well as Newt. McCain to a lesser extent has some of the same problems.

Posted by: lylepink | February 26, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of self-righteous prigs who keep yammering about Clinton lying to a grand jury. What was the question? Why in the world was a grand jury asking him about his sex life. He did the gentlemanly thing and told a white lie. So what? The bigger question is why was the zealous right wing, represented by Kenneth Starr, allowed to subvert the grand jury process to play a gotcha political game?

Posted by: larry | February 26, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Fair or not fair, Mitt belongs to a religion that winks at modern day polygamists--many of them outright child molesters, that until recently refused to let African-Americans take meaningful roles in his church, and that is founded on the thesis that a farmer dug up some golden tables that later "disappeared." That's before you get into Mitt's ever changing principles. What are Mitt's principles? Anything you want them to be if you will vote for him.

Posted by: mikeasr | February 26, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Ironic isn't it. Of the four principal republican candidates, John, Newt, Mitt and Rudi. The only one who hasn't had multiple wives (and partners) is the MORMON>

Posted by: Clark | February 26, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Mass. is a small state? It's the 13th largest in the country in terms of population.

The difference between now and 1991, 1987 or 1975 is that there wasn't saturation coverage like there is now. Like inflation, you need to have constant percentages.

Of course Romney has plenty of time to turn this around; he has plenty of money and that's all it takes.

Posted by: Mick | February 26, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

'Yes yes oh God yes, and for so many other reasons. However, he is right that Clinton lied under oath, and that's kind of serious.'

Well yes, i agree there. it is serious. But it'ds degrees of serious. He was still a better president than most of them, and I'd sure as hell feel a lot safer now if he was president than Mr. Kookoo Bananas, as i believe homer simpson calls Boy. and i frankly don't care about monica. at least clinton a normal didn't dump his wife, or announce it on TV without tell her first, or while she was in the hospital dying of cancer, like some republican candidates we have.

Posted by: drindl | February 26, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

If it's the voting public we're talking about it's the tawdry side of things that tend to stick in their minds. Just as the tawdry side will ultimately undo Giuliani. An ethics violation just doesn't have quite the tar-and-feathering visceral impact of a blow job in the Oval office.

On that note, Giuliani's personal behavior was far more scandalous than Clinton's. Thus my apology.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | February 26, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"then do you also believe that Boy Bush and Shooter Cheney should be convicted and removed from office for lying about WMD's to start a war and killing thousands of people unnecessarily?"

Yes yes oh God yes, and for so many other reasons. However, he is right that Clinton lied under oath, and that's kind of serious.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 26, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

This is news? I've been looking for substantive Romney articles and this is all I get? Besides the one about his great great someone being a polygamist and some lady on MSNBC comparing him to Ken & Barbie, I already saw those. Substance please.

Posted by: LIZ | February 26, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Romney's problem isn't that he's low in the polls, it's that The Base will like him less as they get to know him (and his purely opportunistic allegiance to conservativism) more. Put another way, he shouldn't worry as much about being in a valley as being at his peak.

Posted by: aleks | February 26, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

'udge Crater, Clinton does not merit apologies. In fact, he should have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office. '

then do you also believe that Boy Bush and Shooter Cheney should be convicted and removed from office for lying about WMD's to start a war and killing thousands of people unnecessarily?

I'm just asking.

Posted by: drindl | February 26, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

What Alex Gage didn't say is that now Romney is going to have to spend 10-20 million dollars to get the name recognition that McCain and Guiliani enjoy.
That means that he has to raise 20 million more then the other guys. That is going to be a tough sell for a guy who the GOP brass aren't sure can win the extreme social conservatives.

Posted by: Andy R | February 26, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Judge Crater, Clinton does not merit apologies. In fact, he should have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office. Not for whatever he did in the broom closet with Monica, but for lying under oath about it. As the nation's chief law enforcer (the AG serves at the pleasure of the presidency), once he did that, he forfeited any expectation of office tenure or of later apologies to his "honor." And before anyone asks, I am a registered Democrat.

Posted by: al_jal | February 26, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

After these airs, will romney get a boost in the polls...?...i don't know, I'd say soon enough yes, because he is an attractive and formidable candidate a superficial sort of way,...BUT the more interesting question is does anyone know if Gore has gotten a boost in polling after last night's Al Gore lovefest (w/ a little Marty Scorcese love in their too) at the Oscars? His jokes, his demeanor and his concise words seemed pitch-perfect! 2008? anyway, back to the original question...anyone have poll numbers for Gore after last night or will they be coming out soon maybe?

Posted by: a fan of gore | February 26, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"Gage is right to suggest that national polls at this early stage are far from predictive."

Congratulations. You no longer have any reason to only report on the campaigns of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Guliani, and Romney.

Posted by: D | February 26, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Gage is right to suggest that national polls at this early stage are far from predictive."

And yet CC did do an article on the Gallup poll back in mid-November as I recall.

The fact that Romney trails Gingrich's laughable candidacy in some polls tells you right away how much those polls are worth. At least Giuliani - the All 9/11 All The Time Candidate - has something to balance out his blatant philandering. Time will tell how long he can remain wrapped in the American flag until it becomes too frayed and threadbare to keep him from looking like a Republican version of Bill Clinton's moral failings (with apologies to Clinton).

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | February 26, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company