Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Mitt Romney's Quiet Campaign



Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney remains in the political spotlight after an unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid. (AP Photo by Joel Page)

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney doesn't agree with President Obama on much. But, when he does, he's quick to note it.

The Rising

"He's right on some things," said Romney of Obama. "He's right to have taken on the effort to stabilize our financial system."

Romney, who spent much of the last year running for the chance to take on Obama in the general election, insisted in a recent interview with the Fix in Washington (as part of our "The Rising" series in which we profile politicians to watch over the next few years) that it was critical for his party to acknowledge where Obama has been right in order to offer a believable critique of where he has strayed.

"Simply saying 'no' to Barack Obama" is not enough, Romney said.

For Romney, a failed presidential candidate with an eye on a return engagement in 2012, this is the new reality: out of elected office but still a major force within a party scrambling to define (or redefine) itself without control of any of the traditional levers of power in Washington.

Romney is deferential about his role in that reorganization ("I am one of the many voices but certainly not as prominent a voice as those who have elective office," he said) but it's clear from his actions that he sees an opening for himself to emerge as the leader of a beleaguered party looking for new solutions in 2010 and beyond.

He has been actively traveling the country for candidates -- he was in Illinois last week to raise money for a candidate for state treasurer -- and his Free & Strong America PAC collected more than $330,000 in the month of February alone and still retains some senior staffers from his campaign, albeit on a part-time basis. (The PAC is running banner ads atop the Drudge Report -- prime advertising space that doesn't come cheap.)

Romney also is writing a book, slated for release in the spring of 2010, that, in his words, "looks at the problems the country faces and what we need to do to get ourselves back on the right track."

And, the former Massachusetts governor clearly has ideas about what happened in 2008 and how the GOP can hope to reclaim the White House in 2012.

Romney rejected the idea that Republicans' defeats at the ballot box last November were the result of either an abandonment of core principles or a lack of willingness to moderate some of the party's sharper edges.

"When the stock market dropped, [McCain's] numbers dropped so to suggest it was moderates or conservatives or this or that ... the economy collapsed and people were unhappy with our leadership and attributed the collapse to a failure of leadership," explained Romney.

That doesn't mean, however, that Romney proposes simply re-running the 2008 presidential race in 2012. Instead he argued that the party must find ways to apply its "core principles" to changing circumstances -- particularly in regards the economy -- in ways that are reasonable to voters and relevant in their daily lives.

That discussion begins and ends for Romney with health care -- a place where Romney forged compromise with, of all people, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) in Massachusetts and an issue of which he is clearly pinning his national agenda in the years to come.

"I have a plan for health care that dramatically increases the number of people that are insured," he said, adding that his proposal would not expand the number of people on Medicaid or Medicare nor would it "allow for a massive increase in federal spending."

Romney contrasted his approach on health care to that of Obama whose plan, he argued, is based on the belief that "government getting into health care will solve our health care problems in a more effective way."

That strategy is a recipe for disaster to Romney's mind. "That is not how the economy grows," he said. "That course will not strengthen America long term."

Without the platform of elected office, however, Romney is picking his spots when it comes to speaking out on issues -- choosing to defer to other Republican politicians on issues where he lacks detailed knowledge or a strong point of view. "I really don't feel the need to speak out on every issue that is being considered in the nation," he explained.

Even so, Romney remains one of the leading voices within the GOP on economic matters -- thanks to his successes in the private sector -- and the primacy of the economy to the national debate ensures that the former governor will continue to be a prominent figure within the party for the next several years. (He currently holds down the number one slot of the Fix's Line of "Ten Republicans To Watch".)

Asked about what the future holds for him, Romney demurred. "I don't know whether I'll be involved in elective office again," he said. "I won't shut the door nor will I walk through it at this stage."

Romney's strengths in the 2008 campaign -- his business background, his personal wealth and the fact that he, well, looks like a president -- are all still present. So, too, are his weaknesses -- most notably his tendency to speak in barely understandable business code. (Seeking to explain how Republicans can adapt to the changing times, Romney offered up this gem: "Applying Republican principles to the circumstances of the time and using those principles to define answers and ideas for the circumstances of the time will allow us to be the party of ideas we have to be." Um, what?)

For a party that tends to reward those who have run once and lost, Romney may well be the perfect fit for Republicans in 2012 -- a telegenic messenger with economic bona fides whose happy warrior persona could allow him to disagree with President Obama without being perceived as disagreeable.

And, despite his equivocations on his political future, Romney sounds every bit a candidate readying another national run. Asked about the future of the Republican party, Romney responded: "The right thing to do is to concentrate on what America needs right now both at home and abroad. If we do that we'll be successful in the long run."

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 7, 2009; 12:15 PM ET
Categories:  The Rising  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Iraq Visit Brings War Back to the Forefront
Next: Ill-Sen: Giannoulias Makes a Fundraising Splash

Comments

"other peoples kids to Die for his war"

BTW, rcbootmiller quit degrading our military by making them into children. They're not. They're the bravest men and women this world has ever known.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | April 8, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney supports the Iraq War because he believes that somethings are worth fighting for unlike people like rcbootmiller.

As far as Romney's misspeaking when someone asked him a question that was obviously meant to disgrace his sons (like rcbootmiller is trying to do right now) he did what most protective fathers would do.

It takes a mental midget to think Mr. Romney would ever believe that his sons work for his campaign is as important as the brave work done by our military.

Of course rcbootmiller doesn't give a damn about our soliders really, because his type would rather bring them home in defeat rather than in victory...a position most Obama voting Democrats hold.

Which is terrible because most members of the Democratic Party voted to send them to war in the first place!

Posted by: sheryl7962 | April 8, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

WHEN Mitt Romney was bragging about his support for the Iraq War that he favored, he was asked a question by a reporter. Mitt was asked when one of his Five Sons would be Going to Iraq. Mitt replied that his sons were too valuable working upon his campaign to go and fight for Romneys war beliefs. Another excellent example of a rich Politico sending other peoples kids to Die for his war crap beliefs. Because of this, I will never Vote for Mitt Romney. rcm.

Posted by: rcbootsmiller | April 8, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The whole “progressive” stance is based on skin pigmentism, genderism, ageism, and other superficial issues and monolithic thoughts by group members. The whole label ‘progressive” is rather ironic.

Posted by: leapin | April 8, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

When American voters select a president because of intelligence, competency and ethical leadership, they’ll elect a man like Mitt Romney.

If America continues on the path of electing people because of their ethnicity or what goodies the government can dole out to them then yeah not much hope for the GOP.

The Republican Party, for the most part, doesn’t care about race (of course the Republican Party was created by anti-slavery activists and then abolished it), gender (of course Republicans were the first to favor the women’s suffrage movement and advance their cause) or economic standing (of course, it’s the party that’s historically known for favoring smaller government, less taxes) because at it’s core belief the Republican Party is about the individual.

Until Americans stop thinking of themselves as some sort of hyphenated American that belongs to demographic voting group that only wants government to appease their particular malaise then yeah the Democrats are going to win elections.

Posted by: sheryl7962 | April 8, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

DID BUSH-CHENEY TORTURE MATRIX HIT HILLARY '08 RALLY?

JOURNALIST SAYS 'YES.'

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/3/715887/-Did-Bush-Cheney-Torture-Matrix-Hit-Hillary-08-Rally

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 7, 2009 9:17 PM | Report abuse

....in other words, this mormonistic hypocrite is trying to define the losers between being more nazis, or less nazis...but nazis nevertheless.

Posted by: analyst72 | April 7, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Ah, I see bhoomes. You were talking about the comment about products for bald men with ED. No, I was not making that up. Those are actually the principal sponsors for the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio shows here on the East Coast.

And they've been advertiisng on them for years, which they wouldn't do if it wasn't working for them. As a media analyst, that tells me a lot about the show's audience.

Posted by: drindl | April 7, 2009 2:01 PM
_____
What you said.

After hearing Herr Hannity run down the President for about one hour straight, I, too, was curious as to what kind of sponsors would subsidize his bigotry and, as you said, I realized they were mainly makers of ED and baldness drugs. Those kinds of sponsors are impervious to listener pressure.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 7, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I used to think that the Fairness Doctrine was important to silence the venom of hate broadcasting, see, e.g., Hannity, Rush, Ingraham, and Beck. But these bigoted entertainers, while getting "the Base" excited, have completely marginalized the GOP.

Don't underestimate the role Rush's "Send 'em back to Mexico" rant had in delivering the Southwest to BHO. More Beck dogwhistles to the supremacists and whackos, Michelle Bachmann calls for "revolution," and similar extrenist junk and the GOP will eventualy be a permanent regional minority party.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 7, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love Mitt's Devo Plastic Hair! Haven't seen that much Brylcream since Reagan!

Posted by: gce1356 | April 7, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I leaned towards Romney before the primaries were over. Was disappointed he pulled out. I thought McCain a clunker, still do. Palin was an awful mistake, hope we don't see anymore of her on the national stage.
---
Then Romney came out and stated that the domestic automakers should go bankrupt, showing a typical businessman and snobby rich attitude towards the autoworkers who were in no way responsible for the financial crisis that ripped the guts out of our economy and the automakers. That's when I lost any respect for the man. His father was a much better person at heart.
---
Far as I'm concerned, Romney may as well give up running for president. He will not get my vote. Obama has now shown he's not perfect, but we voted for change and change is what we are getting. Let's see where we are in three years.
---
I'm open to suggestion for a new republican presidential candidate, one who has at least paid his taxes and knows where our troops do not belong.

Posted by: surfer-joe | April 7, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Hall of Famer Eugene Robinson's take today on why the GOP and the Romney crowd are in trouble:

"But Steele's heretical pronouncements have reinforced an important point. The Republican Party has backed itself into a regional, ideological and demographic corner -- the one marked "rural, conservative, white." The party is out of step with the nation it aspires to lead, and until room is made for those with a range of views -- and those with different racial and ethnic backgrounds -- it is hard to imagine how the party can achieve its dream of establishing a new "big tent" majority."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 7, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention the narrow appeal of someone like Mitt Romney. Romney only appeals to the white, suburban wealthy voter (those who relate to "Executives". The electorla map has shifted to the women and brown voter. The West, NC, FL, OH, MO are atates where ROmney will have no appeal, and less so as he runs as the "Wealthy, white executive who is socially conservative". WHO is going to vote for that?

Posted by: mainetimes | April 7, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Romney positioning himself as fiscally responsible, ha, that's a laugh. His "reform" of health care in Massachusetts while he was governor was nearly twice as costly as he indicated when he proposed the legislation, which substantially increased the state's budget deficit. Romney is another George W. Bush when it comes to financial responsibility, which is to say he steals from your children to fund your lifestyle today and tells you that by keeping taxes low, he's doing you a favor.

Besides that, wasn't it Mike "Hickabee" who said that Romney looks like the guy who laid you off?? Well, he does, and that ain't exactly a campaign asset, now, is it?

Posted by: Bob22003 | April 7, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Pres O'bama ran a northern, liberal and multi-cultural campaign that lead to Dems winning 59% of both the US Senate and House. He ran on 'the positive role of government in your life'. "Good govt" (!) Imagine that! Pres O'bama won NV; CO; NM; IO; IN; OH; NC; and FL, all states Bush won in '04. So, the Republican Party is clearly a party of older, white Southern males. Older, white Southern men will not ever elect a President. The Grand OLD Party is just that. They are in deep, deep trouble. When Rush Limbaugh is the face of your party, and he SPEAKS for the BASE, you folks are in deeper trouble that anyone can imagine.

Posted by: mainetimes | April 7, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

OHHHH LOL! :-D

The first Posts confirm what I joke about all the time:

How do you drive Libbies into Conniption Fits?

Say: "Mitt Romney"! ;~)

Uhhh, Looks like a President?

Do you mean: Looks like an "Executive"?

Well, Maybe-just Maybe;

He DOES!

Because unlike B.O., He IS!

Posted by: SAINT---The | April 7, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"the race between Obama/McCain was about even until the banking crisis". You're dreaming. Maybe Washington pundits thought it should be close but Obama had it nailed.

Romney is a Mormon. The 25% ultra ideological evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon. Without their passionate support, Bush never would have won and without it, Romney can't. Given the economic mess Republicans got us into, Romney's millions made by advising companies won't be an advantage.

Republicans are doomed. Fear, Hatred and Division is all they've got.

Posted by: thebobbob | April 7, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I am not a democrat nor republican but the GOP had better embrace Michael Steele and stop letting Rush Limbaugh define the party as long as people like Rush are allowed to hijack the party then the GOP will be looked upon as a fringe group,bitter and outcast not at all connecting with mainstream America. Rommney is smart, now i don't buy the premiss he would have "blown away" Pres.Obama during the debates, Mr.Obama's no lightweight for sure but it would have been interesting, at the end of the day the GOP must craft a new and inclusive message otherwise it'll be more of the same in 2012.

Posted by: dargregmag | April 7, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Rommney would be a lot purtier if wasn't such a complete sell out; he could hardly have sucked up more to the right wing of his party last time out. He should take his magic undies home (wherever that is these days) and leave us all alone.

Posted by: isthisajoke | April 7, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

yeah, lets elect romney.. who made his money shipping jobs overseas, who wears special unders, and who has never taken less than 3 stands on every issue

Posted by: tru-indy | April 7, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I've notice Romney surfacing on conservative talk shows a lot recently. By all accounts, had the financial crisis hit a few months earlier he very well could have been the Republican nominee instead of McCain. We would have been spared the McCain/Palin sideshow and perhaps a "safe" Republican ticket of Romney/Pawlenty would sitting in the Whitehouse today.

What bothers me most is Romney continues to take shots at President Obama's handling of the financial crisis but offers very few if any viable alternatives. He was supposed to be the guy who "saved the Olypics" and had the financial credentials to confront this crisis. If he is the financial guru that Republicans say he is, where are his ideas that will help solve this crisis? Is he holding onto them until he runs in 2012? If so, does he really have the American peoples interests at heart?

Posted by: gtaylor301 | April 7, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

If the GOP has to run someone against the Dems.. well Romney would be an excellent sacrificial lamb.

Posted by: newbeeboy | April 7, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Many people though Warren G. Harding looked like a president and Abraham Lincoln did not. Looks can be a little deceiving.

The grand OLD party offers no relevance to the vast majority of people in this country. This will continue as long as the Republicans are the party representing Wall Street and corporate interests over the common people, militaristic foreign policies, indifference toward the poor and needy, opposition to universal health care, blatantly favoring the wealthy over everyone else, followers of Big Brother who want the government to regulate people's private lives.

Obama has already disappointed many progressives and moderates. However, there is no Republican who can defeat Obama for a second term. The GOP might as well concede the 2012 presidential election now. And if Hillary is the Democratic candidate in 2016, the GOP will be out of luck until at least 2024.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | April 7, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Man Romney is aging badly, his skin looks like crap. I doubt either he or Palin will get the nod, too much baggage. This country will never nominate or vote for a Morman. As for Palin, their is still nothing under the hood, never was.


Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 7, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Ah, Mr. Romney; a man who distinguished himself by being one of the poorest in a remarkably poor field of candidates. Simple-minded, uninformed, unprincipled, thoughtless pretty-boy - he made John Kerry look like George Washington. And yet, despite being the apparently perfect Republican candidate, he was passed over in favor of Mr. McCain. How that must rankle. Well, it's his turn now, right? He's got everything that the modern GOP admires: he's pretty, rich, and willing to say and do anything to get elected. It's going to be a titanic struggle with Ms. Palin for the nomination, but of course he's prettier, richer and more unscrupulous than she is, so I give him the edge.

Posted by: jcrobin | April 7, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

The troops are liking obama

BAGHDAD – Cheered wildly by U.S. troops, President Barack Obama flew unannounced into Iraq on Tuesday and promptly declared it was time for Iraqis to "take responsibility for their country" after America's commitment of six years and thousands of lives.
"You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country," the president said as he made a brief inspection of a war he opposed as candidate and now vows to end as commander in chief. "That is an extraordinary achievement."
A total of 4,265 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Iraq since March 2003, and Obama said American forces had "performed brilliantly ... under enormous strain."
"It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis," he said as an estimated 600 troops cheered. "They need to take responsibility for their country."

Posted by: drindl | April 7, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"you must be concerned with the trillons of dollar we are adding to the national debt."

I am. I don't like it, but I think the stimulus money is necessary. The correct order of operations is: 1) get the economy back on track, THEN 2) address the systemic problem of perpetual deficit spending. Increasing spending is easy. Cutting taxes is easy. We need to send people to Washington who aren't looking for the easy way out. I wasn't impressed with Romney during the 08 cycle. But perhaps he will come up with something better in the future.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 7, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

No problem Bsimon1, sorry I was wrong about you being a dem, but as a independent, you must be concerned with the trillons of dollar we are adding to the national debt. The republican party used to be the party of fiscal discipline, once we get back to that, we will be in good shape because Obama's national security naivete is scaring a lot of people.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 7, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, it was all the economy's fault for Obama's win...

Keep that thought, it will ensure Obama's re-election.

I believe that the only reason that McCain was even close was because a percentage of voters thought that the POW deserved it and a certain amount of affection for the old guy.

All the economic crisis did was to show how wrong the deregulation and mis-regulation (a core tenant of the Republicans) was.

Given the institutional racism in this country, the fact that a black, northern Democrat won 53% of the vote against a white southwestern war hero says something about how disliked the Republicans are now.

Romney is a snake oil salesman who will say what he thinks he needs to in order to win the Presidency.

He doesn't look like a President to me, more of a Wall Street thief.

Posted by: capemh | April 7, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Romney is already pre-shafting the GOP base, John McCain style:

http://24ahead.com/april-2009-mitt-romney-now-wants-immigration-reform

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | April 7, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes- sorry to misrecollect your record. As further clarification, while I sympathize more with the Dems at the moment, I am independant. I would like to see the GOP step back from their delusional 'something for nothing' ideas about government & present a rational argument for establishing stable funding for required gov't services. From the sounds of it, Mitt may 'get it'. It will be interesting to see what he puts in this book.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 7, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Drindl that tells me their is an audience of bald men with ED problems listening to Rush. I guess my question to you is? So what. Their is probably a lot of lesbians who watch thr Rachel Maddox show/ again so what, who cares.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 7, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Ah, I see bhoomes. You were talking about the comment about products for bald men with ED. No, I was not making that up. Those are actually the principal sponsors for the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio shows here on the East Coast.

And they've been advertiisng on them for years, which they wouldn't do if it wasn't working for them. As a media analyst, that tells me a lot about the show's audience.

Posted by: drindl | April 7, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

'drindl you sound like you have some latent hostility towards men. You probably can get some state supported counseling for your problems.'

Just right out of thin air. Wow -- quite a diagnosis. You're a regular Dr. Frist.

What i have hostility toward is ignorance and weak-minded people who parrot talk show hosts.

Posted by: drindl | April 7, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

drindl you sound like you have some latent hostility towards men. You probably can get some state supported counseling for your problems.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 7, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes -- don't take my word for it...take the testimony of medical officers.

"Medical officers who oversaw interrogations of terrorism suspects in CIA secret prisons committed gross violations of medical ethics and in some cases essentially participated in torture, the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a confidential report that labeled the CIA program "inhuman."

Posted by: drindl | April 7, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon1, Its hard not to get the blame for everything(rightly so) when your party controls all branches of the government. We republicans held on for 6 years before the swing voters decided give you dems anothet chance. I be willing to bet you guys will lose the House in 2010. And just for the record because you mistakenly said I predicted a win for repubicans in 2008, its was 2006 that I got wrong,i correctly predicted we would get our clocks cleaned in 2008.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 7, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes:
"Romney offered up this gem: "Applying Republican principles to the circumstances of the time and using those principles to define answers and ideas for the circumstances of the time will allow us to be the party of ideas we have to be." Um, what?"

Chris, he's saying that the GOP is trying to apply policies that were appropriate in 1980 to problems we face 30 years later. We live in a different time & the GOP will have to recognize the changing circumstances of the modern world if they want to have a hope of regaining the White House and/or majority status in Congress. The real mantle of the Gipper isn't tax cuts or tough talk about tearing down walls, it is in identifying the problems of the day and leading the country to appropriate solutions. Most Republicans, and their most vociferous supporters (who often post here), don't seem to understand such distinctions. If Romney does, he just might be able to lead them out of the woods. Unless they crucify him first for questioning orthodoxy.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 7, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

fyi -- the anti-tax deadbeats have been whining so loudly lately it's deafening. why can't they just shut up and pull their weight for a change? What a bunch of perpetual victims.

"When Are White People Going To Stop Waiting For A Handout?
By Kris Broughton

They revolt. Secede. Take other people’s property and rename it as their own. Shoot a few folks if they get in the way. Which is how you get British colonies that become the United States of America.

Or, in its most recent incarnation, “We Surround Them”, or these infamous “Tea Parties” that are supposed to be taking place all over the country, a small but determined fragment of America’s white population, along with their favorite token minority self hate monger, Michelle Malkin, have decided that they are tired of their values and their way of life being rejected by the government, and the rest of the public that doesn’t agree with them. They are ready to “take back the country.

When, oh when are these white people going to stop waiting for somebody to give them something?

Oh well. I guess I’ll be turning on the TV in a few minutes to see yet another privileged group of white men, who insist they they and they alone are entitled to hold the opinions that count on the economy, the government, and the president.

It’s only a matter of time before this bunch starts whining about losing its lack of influence.

Posted by: drindl | April 7, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"the fact that he, well, looks like a president"

While that's not exactly interesting political analysis, if we're getting into that game, I'll offer mine too. He looks more like a newscaster or game show host to me.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 7, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

he has to win over the religious right as a first step... that is, he represents Mormanism, a sub-group of the religious right, but must convince the larger sect. Time for a sacrifice.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | April 7, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"(The PAC is running banner ads atop the Drudge Report -- prime advertising space that doesn't come cheap.)"

Prime advertising space if you have a treatment for erectile dysfunction or baldness.

Posted by: drindl | April 7, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I do not believe the social conservatives will have a hard time getting behind Mitt, if they think he has the best chance of winning. You just cannot keep sticking your finger in their eye like McCain did. McCain was able to get the nomination because conservaives were slow figuring out who they liked. If Huckabee had not been it, and Rudy not contesting NH, Mitt would have made it. I respect your views as a fellow military man, but a little water dunking does not rise in my view as torture. Hell, our Air Force pilots get tougher survival training than these GITMO terrorists get.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 7, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Repeated without the mystery typo at the beginning:

Bhoomes, Romney is very bright and photogenic. He lost appeal for some of us very quickly by taking an almost cartoonish social conservative line to pander to that one segment of the R faithful. Of course, you remember that he lost it with me when he tried to tell McC that waterboarding was not torture.

Do you think he could win the R nomination
as a fiscal conservative, whose social views were more moderate, as they were when he was Guv? Or do you think he wil have to out-evangelize Palin, Jindal, the newly religious Newt, and perhaps Huck?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 7, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

their platfoBhoomes, Romney is very bright and photogenic. He lost appeal for some of us very quickly by taking an almost cartoonish social conservative line to pander to that one segment of the R faithful. Of course, you remeber that he lost it with me when he tried to tell McC that waterboarding was not torture.

Do you think he could win the R nomination
as a fiscal conservative, whose social views were more moderate, as they were when he was Guv? Or do you think he wil have to out-evangelize Palin, Jindal, the newly religious Newt, and perhaps Huck?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 7, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Nothing wrong with Romney. Republicans just cannot see straight ahead because they are distracted by 'essential' non-basics! Sounds funny, but so is the GOP. I thought Romney was a serious canidate while the GOP heads were stuck some place else. And yet, America resolved the situation that the Democrats have yet to understand. Life goes on.

Posted by: gamma64 | April 7, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Most of us conservatives came around to Romney just a bit to late for him to get the nomination. Remember the race between Obama/McCain was about even until the banking crisis, then McCain acted a little irractic and the race was over. Had Romney been our nominee, it would have been a very tight race with maybe a different outcome because would had blew away Obama in the debates over economics. Romney is out best chance to take the White House in 2012.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 7, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company