I have to admit that I don’t see the Mitt Romney 2012 exactly like Alex Knepper or Matthew Miller.
There seems to be a pretty straight move right or move center, win. Knepper seems to think that Mitt has flipped so far right, he can’t just move to the center and then run right to win the general election.
Miller invokes Nixon’s 1968 Strategy. Problem. In 1968, how many states held primaries? 12. Mostly Nixon was dealing with party hacks and conservative leaders who wanted to move away from the disastrous loss of 1964. Romney deals with a conservative movement that’s tasted power and millions of grassroot voters in nearly ever state with no one really in control. One might as well suggest that today’s Baseball starting pitchers step up like Old Hoss Radbourne did and pitch 678 2/3 inning in a season. It’s a different world in both baseball and presidential politics.
Both Alex and Matthew see a Huckabee v. Palin situation creating a golden opportunity to run for the Center. I just don’t see that happening. There’s a popular thought here that both Huckabee and Palin are extreme egotists and nothing can be more egotistically gratifying than losing a Presidential Campaign. There’s nothing quite like wasting 18 months of your life to make you feel really special.
Beyond that though, I think Romney’s problem ultimately is that he doesn’t really seem to know there’s a problem.
You look at Romney’s activities in 2009 and he’s pretty much doing the exact same thing he did in 2005. He’s running a very traditional PAC, he’s appearing before Congress, and speaking to a gathering of Republican congressmen, and he’s out campaigning for Republicans. Great, but he did all those things in 2005. The reason Romney lost was not because he didn’t have enough Republican Congressmen or Governor endorsing him. He lost because he could not close the deal with grassroots conservatives who control the nominating contests in early states like Iowa and South Carolina.
Many Romney supporters like to point out that Romney Republicans in New Hampshire. The exit polls don’t back them up on that. Registered Republicans went to McCain 37-33%, not as much as the 38-30% edge he had among Independents, but a loss is a loss. More importantly, New Hampshirites know about as much about big-time Massachusetts pols as they do their own local officials and the last four Massachusetts pols to run for President won New Hampshire.
Romney’s only competitive Primary win was in Michigan where the exit poll indicated that voters who didn’t think Romney’s Michigan ties were important voted for McCain 39-23%.
Even the claims that are made in Romney’s defense (“There were Independents voting in New Hampshire…there was opposition to Romney because of his religion…”) ring hollow. While I don’t believe people were right to make judgments about Romney based on religion, I’m reminded of one Super Chicken’s most famous sayings, “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.”
Did Romney begin this campaign under the impression that New Hampshire didn’t allow Independents to vote? Did he think his religion wouldn’t be an issue (I’d argue as to how big of an issue it was but that’s a debate for another time)? Given that I’d read columns complaining about how Evangelicals would deal with Romney due to his faith back to 2006, this seems unlikely. There were no major problems that have been blamed by Romney supporters for his campaign breakdown that weren’t known well before the campaign began.
Failed Presidential campaigns, if they want to be successful, adjust. John McCain certainly did. Had he been the John McCain of 2000 who called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agents of intolerance and always thumbed his nose at the base, there’s no way he would have won South Carolina-next in line or not. He toned it down a bit and made re-assuring noises to conservatives. He was able to deploy Sam Brownback as a surrogate to help him pick up key Catholic votes that he could not have gotten had he been the McCain of 2000 who was wobbly on the basic issue of whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. John McCain didn’t win the Presidency, but he got the nomination of a party that loathed him and distrusted him coming into the election year.
Mike Huckabee is making adjustments. In 2007, he began his Presidential Campaign ill-prepared because of the fact he had no money and organization behind him, so he had to build everything as he went. In addition, when he caught fire in late November and early in December, he was such a national unknown (outside of weight loss circles) that the conservative media elite were able to define him. Huckabee has taken steps to address these issues. If he runs, there’s a reason to hope for improvement.
And maybe if Romney announces in 2011, we’ll have seen some radical departure that indicates that he realizes he can’t win the Presidency by simply picking up big endorsements, schmoozing adctivists at conventions, and spending a lot of cash. If he doesn’t come to that realization, it’ll be Forbes 2000 all over again.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Mitt’s first move — to the right — was so poorly handled that he’s already viewed with too much suspicion to keep running back and forth and back and forth.
He also won’t have the backing of conservative activists this time. They only “liked” him because they hated John McCain. Once they have someone to actually rally behind, they won’t want Mittens. What will he do?
Well, he’ll have Hugh Hewitt…
February 6th, 2009 at 8:43 am
You’d love for Mitt to move left Adam, so your guy and gal could dominate the social conservative vote. Mitt will stay right where he was, but perhaps not beat the social conservative drum quite as hard and often. He’ll get his fair share of the social right, dominate the fiscal conservative, and sits well with the security and defense conservatives. He will also dominate the middle relative to Sarah and Huckabee. Pawlenty could take some of these votes from him however, so it will be interesting, to say the least.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:45 am
and sits well with the security and defense conservatives.
Oh, that’s what you think. Mr. Secret Timetables, who was ambivalent on the surge? Hah! Get real.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:48 am
But wait! He did want to “double Guantanamo,” whatever that means.
ROMNEY RECEIVES INFORMATION >> SURGE >> RETRIEVING INFORMATION FROM DATABASE >> NATIONAL SECURITY >> GUANTANAMO >> CHECKING >> INFORMATION PROCESSING >> CONSERVATIVE BASE >> SUPPORTS GUANTANAMO >> ORDERS: SAY YOU LOVE IT SO MUCH YOU WANT MORE OF IT!!!!
February 6th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Alex, you’ve been pretty honest lately. The secret time table is idiotic and a lie. You were here…Your know that McCain himself made a much more definitive statement regarding timetables than what he accused Mitt of. He lied about Mitt’s statement, and now, you are exaccerbating that lie. I liked the truth telling Alex much better. I was even gaining respect for you as a poster, but you just went backwards in that regard. Mitt is very strong with that group, no matter what you might attempt to say otherwise.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I agree with Alex whole heartedly in #1. Romney has made his ideological move under much scrutiny. He can’t move much more, or it will set in granite the impression a lot of folks already have.
And yes, Romney was only a fallback guy for a lot of conservative activists and talk show hosts.
All those Romney supporters who railed on Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. for not getting behind him sooner, have to ask themselves why that was. It was because those guys weren’t really enthusiastic about Romney to begin with, but they liked Huckabee less, and loathed McCain. It would be foolish for Romney supporters to assume that they START 2012 where they finished 2008.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:56 am
“Romney Embraces Private Iraq Timetables”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3003765&page=1
When asked by ABC News’ Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”
February 6th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I still think the idea that Mrs. Palin and Mr. Huckabee will fight for exactly the same voters is much over-rated. Yes there is overlapp to be sure, (I’m an example) but to say there is complete overlap is simplistic to say the least. Very interesting analysis Adam about NH and Mr. Brownback. I think it is a bit simplistic to say that Mr. Brownback delivered the Catholic vote to McCain, but Catholic did indeed support Mr. McCain and while no one candidate will get 100% of the Catholic vote in 2012, it is a wildcard. Personally, Mr. Brownback was a bit too much of a copperhead for me, but other than that I liked him.
BTW, will we have a brokerage convention?
February 6th, 2009 at 9:01 am
“And yes, Romney was only a fallback guy for a lot of conservative activists and talk show hosts.”
A lot of truth in that.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Romney will definitely NOT be the first choice of DefCons. They gravitate to two types of people:
1. The most hawkish candidate who also has foreign policy credentials.
2. The candidate with the most foreign policy credentials who is also hawkish.
Romney is neither. He might be a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice, but definitely not the first. They are already clamoring for Petraous, and if he doesn’t run, will push for someone else.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:03 am
#7, Let’s hope for Mr. Romney’s sake that this goes unoticed in 2012, if the campaign gets too nasty, it might be brought up unfortunately.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Ohio,
“will we have a brokerage convention?”
No, all the brokerage firms are broke now. But a brokered convention is always possible, though rare.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
“Romney will definitely NOT be the first choice of DefCons. They gravitate to two types of people:”
BINGO, he can certainly get a slice of that pie if he walk a fine line, but if he pushes too hard, he may not like the contest which follows.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Both Palin and Huckabee are likely to run – they are already prepping.
That means they will split their shared constituency (which equates roughly to the Huckabee and Thompson votes in 2008, plus a few of the far-right Romney people).
In my view, a Romney sweep is more likely than a brokered convention.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am
adam, your columns are usually biased and poorly written. this one is spot on however. i’m shocked that someone as smart as romney didnt figure things out the first time, and seems to be doing the same thing all over again. he never would hvae been this ham handed working with a business, but promoting your own brand seems to be a little more difficult.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Alex, yes, private discussion goals…McCain said something more definitive than that and you know it. You’re starting to tick me off like you used to last year!
February 6th, 2009 at 9:18 am
McCain didn’t connect with the grassroots and he won the nomination. Why is it suddenly so important for Romney? Romney just needs a significant share of McCain supporters on his side to win. I don’t see them going to Palin (many blame her for his loss) and I don’t see them going
to Huckabee since he stayed in the race to undermine McCain and prop himslef up for 2012.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:20 am
No, not “private discussion goals.” Romney specifically used the word “timetables.” Look:
When asked by ABC News’ Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”
When asked a similar question on CBS’s “Early Show,” Romney responded, “Well, I wouldn’t publish [a timetable] for my adversaries to see,” advocating instead “a series of milestones, timetables as well, to measure how well they’re doing.”
Give me a break, IllinoisGuy!
February 6th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Taylor,
” I don’t see them going to Palin (many blame her for his loss) and I don’t see them going
to Huckabee since he stayed in the race to undermine McCain and prop himslef up for 2012.”
There’s an important distinction here. “McCain supporters” weren’t really “McCain supporters” in the sense that many Romney supporters were Romney supporters or Huckabee supporters were Huckabee supporters. By that I mean that he did not have a lot of fire-breathing berzerkers behind him that came out to vote primarily to support him. They were mainly rank-and-file Republicans (and Independents) who vote every 2 years and decided McCain was their guy last time, for one reason or another. In other words, the vast majority of his voters are unlikely to vote in 2012 based on how other candidates treated McCain. They simply aren’t personally attached to him, on the whole. They voted for Bush in ‘88 and ‘92 in the Primary, and Dole in ‘96 despite their contentious relationship in ‘88.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:27 am
……in other words, there were lots of Huckanuts, and lots of Rombots, and even a fair number of Fredheads, but there really were no McCainiacs. They just had to come up with an equivalent that sounded good.
I hope I didn’t belabor the point, but I think its an important one.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Romney didn’t have many berserkers, either. They just preferred him when the alternative looked so much like…John McCain…
What will Romney do when the grassroots has a legitimate darling and doesn’t just need someone it can merely live with?
February 6th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Alex,
He did have a hardcore that was much smaller than his block of voters (evidence this site), but you are right, for a lot of his voters, he was their fallback guy. Still, he will have a decent minority of his own voters who would vote based on how other candidates treat him. But McCain? Are there blogs out there today dedicated to “McCain voters” who are trying to keep the merry band together? No. They’ve dispersed to their Chamber meetings, VFW halls, sales conventions, etc….. and will reemerge in 3 years to start thinking about the Presidency.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Yeah, he had his Mormons, plus Hugh Hewitt, but there weren’t many hardcore Romney people besides that — just people who said “Well, he’s not great, but…”
Witness the early support for Fred, before people realized that he wasn’t serious.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
There is a great editorial by Romney in the about the stimulus package and the economy. He is widely viewed, by both the left and the right, as an authority and voice for a free market economy. It is still the economy stupid! And if the economy is still in the tank in 2012, then Romney will have a strong advantage. Splitting hairs over if he said what about timetables will be irrelevant in 2012 as it should have been in 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/romney.stimulus/index.html
February 6th, 2009 at 9:40 am
“What will Romney do when the grassroots has a legitimate darling and doesn’t just need someone it can merely live with?” The Romney camp pretends that there is no truth to this.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Alex,
Indeed, Romney kind of took Fred’s place. I think a lot of those folks will disperse to a “purer” candidate in 2012. Sanford or Jindal perhaps? But that’s part of why I said in another thread that the more I think about it, the less I think Romney will actually be a major player in 2012, once the voting starts. My super early prediction is that he will withdraw after a 3rd place finish in New Hampshire- at the latest. You heard it here first.
Romney ‘12 = Forbes ‘00.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:48 am
#25 – History has shown that conservative take a little more time to get behind – they don’t just jump on a media fueled bandwagon like the democrats did with Obama. Romney had no name recognition in 2008 – he earned a lot of respect across the conservative spectrum and endorsed by the national review http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1#more.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Good article JamesB, and there is some truth that Conservatives are warming up to Mr. Romney, but he was not exactly an unknown in 2007.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:52 am
#27 – should have read..”History has shown that conservatives take a little more time to get behind their candidate.”
February 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
For the record, I’m not a Mormon or Hugh Hewitt but I was gung ho for Romney this election and am still in his corner.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:55 am
My point remains. Romney will be the go to guy for the McCain voters. Whether they are an identifiable block or not is irrelevant.
It’s already been established that it is virtually impossible for the 2012 field to be anything but a Huckabee, Palin, Romney race.
Those rank and file repulbicans who you refer to are precisely the type of voters that will gravitate toward Romney. They were enough to put McCain over the top and yet Adam asserts that Romney needs the grassroots in order to win. That’s simply not true. He just to be
acceptable enough to all wings of the party, much like McCain was.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
“Adam asserts that Romney needs the grassroots in order to win. That’s simply not true. He just to be
acceptable enough to all wings of the party, much like McCain was.” Partly true, if Mr. Romney gets a good chunck of the McCain vote and keeps his own camp in line, he is certainly tough to beat. However, the Romney camp forgets that Mrs. Palin was not in the 2008 race. She does have the potential to take away some of Mr. Romney’s less loyal voters and not all McCain voters are rank and file NH Republicans. Yes, most of NH McCain camp will go to Mr. Romney, but on Supper Dupper Tuesday when many Southerners and Midwesterners vote, it is certainly not a given that all McCain voters will automatically go to Mr. Romney.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Last night, Matthew Miller wrote that Romney + Palin= No Place for Huckabee. If by no place he means very unlikely to be the GOP nominee I agree. However, Romney vs Palin = (imho) Palin as nominee.
Consequently, let me say again if Romney wants to be the nominee, mend fences with Huck now. If the two are on the same team, they can triangulate on Palin and guarantee themselves as being #1 & 2.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:05 am
“they can triangulate on Palin” yes, sometimes one can play both ends against the middle so to speak.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:17 am
a simple note-
underestimate mitt romney at your own peril
February 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am
“You look at Romney’s activities in 2009 and he’s pretty much doing the exact same thing he did in 2005. He’s running a very traditional PAC, he’s appearing before Congress, and speaking to a gathering of Republican congressmen, and he’s out campaigning for Republicans. Great, but he did all those things in 2005.”
Adam Graham, I think you are failing to see some things here. You are completely ignoring a major strong point for Mitt that has a greater circumference than anything you’ve stated- He now has great name recognition(had virtually none before) and he has great economic credentials. Mitt will still get the center vote because the center will not vote for Palin or Huckabee which both can only appeal to one aspect of the party. Romney will still claim a portion of THEIR base which will probably make the numbers even across the board with those 3 candidates in regards to that particular base. Huckabee and Palin both running is GOOD news for Mitt. I think Huckabee’s ego is too big for him not to run. Mitt simply feels obligated to, as long as he has a chance, lend his skills to the country.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
It’s nice to finally see some serious discussion again about Romney here. All the sniping back and forth between “hyper-backers” of various candidates was very, very dull.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
By the way, considering how well Mitt did after all the bigotry, lies by McCain in Florida, and virtually no name recognition, imagine how well he will do with the recognition he has now. He will be unstoppable!
February 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Romney’s soft support in what should have been his backyard (NH) was definately his weak link in 2008, but I think there are two factors that will help him significantly next time around.
First, McCain isn’t running this time, and there is no clear favorite for independant voters. Independants will probably turn out in force for the Republicans in ‘12 (since it will likely be the only competitive nomination) but without a clearcut favorite among independants, Romney will probably do quite well, given his high name recognition there.
Romney’s second problem was his unpopularity in Massachussettes by the time the NH Primary rolled around. When he left office he had an extremely low approval rating, which was fueled both by his shift to the right and his frequent absences from the state. However, and I don’t live in Mass so I can’t say this for certain, but Deval Patrick seems to be very unpopular. At least two more years of his general incompetence and Romney will be viewed much more favorably than he is now (which is already quite a bit better than he was seen 3 years ago). With more positive name ID, he probably won’t have a problem pulling a strong plurality of the vote, and with those NHers still unhappy with him splitting their vote instead of flocking to one candidate, he seems very, very favored to win NH this time.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I still think Clinton and McCain won New Hampshire because so many Democrats and Independents who’d been polled were planning to vote for Obama that it looked in the bag for Obama.
On election night, more than enough people got in the booth and decided that rather than pack in on for Obama, they’d screw with the Republican race and make sure McCain lived to “fight on.” That’s my theory and I’m sticking with it until I see hard evidence it isn’t the case.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:33 am
MWS,
You think Mitt Romney will loose NH???? Wiat, you didn’t just say he’d lose, you said “he’ll come in 3rd”????? Without McCain in NH(he appealed more to moderates) it is ALL Romney’s. Are you kidding me??? I think you might have meant Iowa?? If Mitt is struggling in the Iowa polls, he will have learned from McCain and will have taken his fight mostly to NH, which he will win, then he WILL absolutely win Michigan, then Nevada, which will give him 3 states in a rowe(maybe enough momentum to compete well in SC), then he WILL win Florida. That will have put him on the road to win California. He will have won too many big states. After winning 3 states in a rowe, people will have forgotten about the Huckabee or Palin Iowa win. That is when people will say, “ok, Huck, or Palin(whoever wins in Iowa) can only appeal to Evangelicals, but this Mitt Romney guy has a much more BROAD APPEAL.”
It’s all Mitt’s come 2012!!!
February 6th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Spencer,
No, I wrote what I meant. I’m going out on a limb and saying that Romney won’t be much of a factor in 2012. He’s not the establishment guy (it’s not his “turn”), he doesn’t lead a movement, and he’s not a fresh face. He’s Jack Kemp in ‘96 or Steve Forbes in 2000.
Romney will go out with a whimper, not a bang.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:43 am
As someone who legitimately respects Gov. Romney’s achievements but maintains suspicion regarding his political convictions, I would like to ask some serious questions to the many Romney supports on this site. I’m looking for an honest, substantive discussion here, so please provide as much information as possible.
I often hear that Romney has attracted much support among fiscal conservatives. Now, his experience in business obviously gives him a leg up on the competition, but can you explain to me how exactly he has proven himself a fiscal conservative, through his record and policy positions? I know he opposes the Dems’ stimulus, so that’s a start.
And if any of you have met the governor in person, what impressions of him did you have? Thank you very much, and I look forward to reading the responses!
February 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Anthony,
I don’t have time to outline everything, but here is a short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1YvM18HmdA
February 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
Off topic but this is exactly the kind of thing that drives the right mad and convinces us even more on how morally bankrupt the left is. You know that Obama or Pelosi would see nothing wrong with this.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
#42 – MWS – Romney is very much the establishment guy. His concession speech at CPAC confirmed that he was. Here, in case you’ve forgotten his standing with conservatives, read the endorsement for President he recieved from the National Review endorsed by the national review http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=&p=1#more.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
JamesB,
When I say “establishment” guy, I mean the guy who most of Republican House, Senate, and Governors will endorse. The guy who will have the party chairmen, and the precinct committeemen. I don’t necessarily mean grassroots conservatives (who can be one of the above, but aren’t necessarily). When there is an “establishment guy,” it is obvious to everyone. That was Bush in ‘88. Dole in ‘96. Bush II in ‘00. McCain in ‘08.
There is no establishment guy this cycle, or there would be no argument about who it might be.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
….. when there is an establishment guy, he is unofficially coronated immediately after the last election. That was Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain. Everyone knew it, and anyone who was going to beat them had to take on the Machine. Nobody owns the Machine now.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
#34
OHJO,
Triangulate may be the wrong choice of words, but I do believe that Mitt & Mike could prempt the field by joining forces.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
MWS,
Mitt was the Republican Party chairman.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Romney interview with Time Magazine: “Obama off to a rocky start” http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1877458,00.html
February 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
MWS,
It appears to me that many Republicans are ignorant of the fact that Mitt IS the “machine.” Why else would he be headlining at the National Republican Senatorial Committee dinner? Why else would he be speaking at CPAC this year? Why else would he have been invited by Ollie North to Join Newt Gingrich on the Freedom Alliance Cruise for conservatives? Why else would he have been asked by House Republican Whip Eric Cantor to layout his advise for the stimulous?
“Gov. Romney expects to be active helping Republicans running in the 2010 cycle, so when Sen. Cornyn invited him to headline an event this spring, we were happy to accept,” spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said.
…
Romney “is one of the most respected and trusted voices in the Republican Party today,” one NRSC official told The Hill on condition of anonymity because the committee has not formally announced the dinner.
“As the Republican Party rebuilds and particularly as our country faces the most serious economic crisis in recent history, our party leaders and Republican faithful across the country will undoubtedly look to Mitt Romney for his leadership and advice,” the official said.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, I meant.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Spencer,
“It appears to me that many Republicans are ignorant of the fact that Mitt IS the “machine.””
Give me a break. No single person is “the machine.” Palin and Huckabee get lots of speaking invites too, and I don’t see you calling them “the machine.”
But if you truly think the Romney is the very embodiment of the Republican Party, you are setting yourself up for severe disappointment in a few years.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
…..and it’s that kind of over-the-top hero worship that turns a lot of folks off to Romney on this site.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Since we’re discussing Romney’s future, thought I’d share this:
From the Christian Science Monitor,
With Daschle out, Obama should make Romney the healthcare-reform czar:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090206/cm_csm/ymicciche
February 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Emtee,
That would definitely kill any chance Romney might have had in ‘12.
If true, he would obviously have to choose between that, and running for President.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Did I miss the point in this point. I couldn’t pull any substance from it? It just didn’t make sense. Was it purely a Huckabee will win because he is “adjusting” and Romney isn’t backed up by simple generalities? I just didnt’ get your point, if there is one. Vague, general, worthless.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“Vague, general, worthless.”
Adam Graham’s posts:
Often Vague, frequently too general, and generally worthless.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I agree with your assessment of Adam’s posts, which are generally excessively pro-Huck, and with this one, which is a cut above his norm.
Where I disagree is with the part about Romney not making adjustments. Romney is a smart guy and will make the adjustments — the question in my mind is whether he has the maneuvering room to do so successfully. His image as a flip-flopper will haunt him as he makes the moves he must make to get to the center. Nonetheless, I’m certain he will try, and he has the time and money that makes it just barely possible he will pull it off.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I think Mr. Graham hit a raw nerve.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Why in heaven’s name would McCain voters go to Romney? McCain’s core support was people who, of the three “legs” (defense, fiscal, social), focus primarily on defense. Romney has good fiscal credentials and tried in 2008 to establish himself as a socon. But his defense credentials are mediocre — no better than anyone else in the 2012 field.
Some McCain supporters may drift to Romney (I will give him consideration, along with Palin, Sanford, Pawlenty and maybe others), but I suspect as many will go to other candidates, with Palin getting a good slice.
Established by whom?
February 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
One thing is clear; people who are anti-candidates who keep bringin up tired old propaganda (e.g. Alex and his phony timetable scandal, or that phony scandal of Romney’s statements about not basing cabinet position decisions on the fact that a person is Muslim were distorted) are usually marginalized as footnotes in history. A lot can happen before 2012, but I think it’s a little premature for people to attack Romney or any other possible repulican candidate.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Established by whom?
There seems to be a consensus among the admin at this site (Kavon, Matthew…)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
MWS,
The reason us Romney folks seem to you to be going “over the top” is simply because we have to forcefully correct his record and misconceptions of ignorance put out by the un-intelligence and out of touch of those who “see things as THEY are” not things as they actually are. Your failure to see behind the scenes of reality is frightening. It is Republicans like yourself that lost us this election in the first place. Putting McCain before Romney pretty much handed over the Presidency to Obama. We all knew it! At least the intellectually honest among us did.
Look, I have had an awakening and I for one am not willing to make that mistake again. The blind were led by the blind and both fell into the ditch. Let’s stop being blind so that we are not led by the blind, for both are attracted to one another.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
#61,
The only thing I needed to see to know the tone and bias of this post was the title. Adam shows all of the intellectual honesty and objectivity of a Huck’s Army type same as always.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
#43 – Anthony, I hope you take the time to watch Spencer’s youtube video in #44 – a great overview of some of Mitt’s accomplishments. Mitt came into a situation in Mass. as Governor that was similar to what Obama faces now. Mitt did basically the same thing he has been advising Obama and Congress to do now, and it worked. If you want to understand Mitt’s approach to dealing with fiscal disasters, read his account of what he faced in fixing the Olympics in “Turnaround.” This was a much more complicated and astonishing feat than most realize.
I have met Mitt 3 times. Perhaps that has influenced my perception of him, because I have had a difficult time understanding why people view him as inauthentic. He was very warm and genuine, stopping to listen and make eye contact – even leaning down so he could hear what I was saying to him (he’s tall, I’m short). He paused to have his picture taken with my 5 year-old daughter, even while his aide was freaking out because they were going to be late for their next appearance. My sense in meeting him and in getting to know him through his campaign and his writing, is that there is an “evenness” and a balance there – in his views, in his demeanor, in his approach to problem solving. There isn’t a black-and-white, your way or my way approach, but a practicality and a desire to get the job done.
Thanks for a well-intentioned, objective question! I wish there were more Americans out there who really wanted to understand the candidates, instead of just judge them.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I think when Mitt’s new book is out people will be pulling it off the shelves. He said it will mostly have to do with our economy and things pertaining to it. It won’t be about settling personal scores(taking shots at past candidates) but about our challenges and how to fix them.
Mitt is one of the most authentic people I know. It is astounding to me that people think he cannot connect. Well, come to 2010 when millions upon millions of people have lost their jobs, when large corporations are disappearing and the bread lines have returned, HIS MESSAGE WILL BE CONNECTING. They say that Obama connected with people really well. Is that because Obama is actually full of substance and great personal character, or is it because the perverted paradigm of the ignorant and base of society’s mindset that has done this abomination to our country?
I think we can all agree that it is the latter. Oh, and MWS, one thing we agree on is that it would hurt Mitt’s 2012 chances if he accepted any position in Obama’s administration.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I was just wondering, was Reagan ridiculed like Mitt is for his so called “flip flop”? Reagan pulled the switch in California that caused many abortions. I believe that both her and Mitt were truly converted, which is why they didn’t “flop” back to their previous positions, so why does Mitt get all the hate mongering over it? Did Reagan get it the same? I am just curious as I am not familiar with any scrutiny Reagan faced over it.
Neither “flip flopped.” “Flipped”, but not “flopped.”
February 6th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
LOL. I have great respect for Kavon and Matthew (Miller, that is), but their opinions are … opinions.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“The only thing I needed to see to know the tone and bias of this post was the title. Adam shows all of the intellectual honesty and objectivity of a Huck’s Army type same as always.” It is true that Adam Graham’s favorite candidate is not Mr. Romney, but going after Mr. Graham is not the wisest stragety. Mr. Graham is a smart student of politics and he has pointed out some short-commings. In the real world, we notice that Mr. Romney does not quite have the charisma of the other main candidates. Many people cried bloody murder when he pointed this out, but keeping one’s head in the sand does not change reality. Jason among others in your camp is learning that it is better to bring up Mr. Romney’s good points instead of taliking about school buses from Alaska.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Let me add to that: Matthew Miller says that “it is virtually impossible for the 2012 field to be anything but a Huckabee, Palin, Romney race”?
I don’t think so: He’s backing Pawlenty.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Matthew Miller stated he thought the odds of it being someone other than those three were about 1 in 25.. So he is backing Pawlenty for now recognizing that the odds aren’t too high for him.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
#43 and #67
I’ve also met Mitt Romney in Austin, TX summer 2007. He is very impressive and will be a strong influence in the party for years to come. He didn’t come off at all as pandering.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Spencer, I watched the video you posted, and although the parts about the turnarounds he engineered with Massachusetts and the Olympics impressed me, I still did not learn enough to convince me of Gov. Romney’s fiscal conservative credentials. What proposals did he make during the 2008 run that a Romney supporter could rightfully classify as fiscally conservative? Like I said in my previous post, I respect Romney for his tremendous achievements in the business world, and I do believe that his executive experience would come in handy in the Oval Office. I just worry about his apparent lack of “conservative conviction”, especially with social issues? Can Romney supporters shed some light on my questions?
February 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I don’t see too many grassroots conservatives running to embrace Romney. They’re all going to Palin, and maybe some to a wild card like Sanford.
Romney is indeed a flip-flopper, and strikes a lot of people as a moderate republican masquerading as a conservative. That’s why he will lose in 2012.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Anthony,
Here are some specifics regarding what Mitt did to support conservative social values while Governor. Make sure to read the whole thing!
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massleaders/massleaders.pdf