What’s next for Romney?

posted at 11:10 am on February 8, 2008 by Bryan

In dropping out of the GOP race Thursday, Mitt Romney showed a great deal of class and a flair for the dramatic. But what’s next? In particular, if he really does see 2008 as 1976, what does he have to do to convince conservatives that he could be the next Reagan?

Mitt Romney is not the next Ronald Reagan, at least not yet. That’s not a personal criticism of him, it’s just a reflection of the fact that Reagan spent a good 30 years prior to 1976 studying and speaking out on the Communist threat, he spent two terms as the governor of the country’s most populous state, and built and led a movement that was always larger than himself. Reagan was always about the battle of ideas and moving the country away from big government and toward smaller government. In a serious way, Reagan led an ideological war against Communism that culminated the year after he left office, when the Berlin Wall came down. There is no analogous political figure on the scene today, who has spent decades studying the threat we face now from al Qaeda and its ideological allies. There just isn’t. We shouldn’t kid ourselves that there is and no one at this point has earned Reagan’s mantle.

But we also shouldn’t drown ourselves in sorrow and settle for less for all time. We have to settle for less this year, but I mean for the future, we shouldn’t just assume that crossover acts like McCain will own the party forever. They won’t, unless we let them, and the end states of two triangulators in a row — Clinton and Bush 43 — show that while such politics may benefit those who practice them, they tend to destroy political parties and movements. The next successful conservative movement president, the next Reagan if there is to be one, won’t be a triangulator. So where and how can Mitt Romney figure into all of this?

If Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or any of the other contenders wants to be the next Reagan, they will have to earn it. It won’t and shouldn’t be handed to them. It’s clear after the GOP primary’s outcome that a majority of the party faithful didn’t prefer Romney. The majority actually didn’t prefer anyone, but has settled on John McCain. It remains to be seen whether McCain can unite the party under his banner, and I think he has his work cut out for him on that.

As for Romney, he has already been a governor and he has the public sector and private sector work on his resume plus a personal fortune that made him a top tier candidate. He has no personal baggage to drag him down, save the Mormon issue, and he went a long way toward neutralizing that in this campaign. There isn’t much benefit to him returning to elective office or entering any presidential cabinet unless he is taking on a clear challenge or mission. Knocking off Senator John Kerry would be nice, but would also make him just one among 100 and limit his maneuverability.

What Romney doesn’t have and never really established is his conservative bona fides (the same goes for Huckabee, for that matter, whose social conservatism is solid while he lacks on the economic and national security fronts). Romney won endorsements from credible sources, but the voters either didn’t warm to him personally or didn’t trust him philosophically because he hasn’t always stood on the same side of many issues. From an organizational and personnel point of view he ran a great campaign, but from an ideological and emotional point of view he never made the deal. That’s the bad news.

The good news for him is that he has a few years in which the conservative mantle is up for grabs. No one owns it or has earned it. It could be his if he chooses to earn it. Reagan changed his positions on some issues over time, so it’s not the case that an honest change of mind is permanent political poison. It’s not. But Romney has to prove that where he is now is where he will always be and that he’s a studied and worthy leader.

Depending on the outcome this fall, Romney either has 4 or 8 years to prove that he is in his ideological home for good. To do that, we’ll need to hear from him through the years. Reagan didn’t go away after 1976. He stayed active and kept ready for 1980.

Romney’s personal wealth gives him an advantage over a Mike Huckabee when it comes to establishing himself as a conservative center of gravity. He can and probably will hold summits with fellow conservatives, maybe his own version of Restoration Weekend or even a kind of CPAC, but he should also stay active in events and groups like that that already exist. Build your own but not at their expense to expand the conservative movement’s arsenal rather than create factions and fissures. He can use his wealth to engage in entrepreneurial conservatism, by building or publicly supporting new media alternatives to the Soros-backed MoveOn, Media Matters and the like. And he can also continue to generate more money for the conservative cause through private enterprise and personal persuasion.

But over and above that, he has to show conservatives that he’s engaged in the battle of ideas personally and not just throwing money at them. He has to study up, in a serious and patient way, on the jihadist threat, the broader security threat environment including the role that border insecurity plays not only in terrorism but in violent crime, drug and human trafficking and identity theft. And he has to show that his social conservatism wasn’t forged out of convenience.

As a late convert to the conservative cause, he may be in the best position of any prominent Republican to make the case that conservative ideas on national security and the jihadist threat, sound economics and conservative social policies are the way to go. Converts are more likely than lifelong believers to become zealots and advocates in the best sense, by exuding the passion and explaining the ideas that persuaded them to switch. Ronald Reagan, whom we all regard as the uber Republican now, started out his political life as a Democrat. He became the most effective Republican against Democrats, in part because he loved conservative ideas, and in part because he could explain those idea better than anyone else, and in part because as a former Democrat Reagan knew what made them tick. He might not have won in 1980 without the “Reagan Democrats,” and he certainly wouldn’t have been as effective without peeling natural conservatives away from the increasingly leftist Democrat party.

So if Romney wants to be Reagan 2.0, he’ll have to earn it. It will take hard work and require patience. The good news for him is, he probably can. He is a sunny optimist, a strong speaker, a telegenic presence and a financial wizard. But he has to show that he has and will always have a conservative soul.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Remember Michael Steele?

The GOP has a habit of stabbing true thinkers in the back, but I’ll fight tooth and nail to keep Romney in the public eye.

It’s time to look at time limits for Congress and get rid of ALL career politicians.

madmonkphotog on February 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Romney for US Senate 2010. Beat John Kerry!

It’s the only campaign I would send money for, considering that I’m a housewife and the husband’s military, and Romney has more money than we could ever dream of…..he really doesn’t need our help, but help he’d get if he ran against Kerry.

funky chicken on February 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Romney’s manner of exit from this race has only solidified my suspicion that he is a truly decent man.

He wasn’t my first choice but I am now convinced he was a good choice.

SimplyKimberly on February 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Some guy spouting off “conservative values” but who has no personal foundation in them will be seen for the fraud that he is.

Reagan read and was familiar with the roots of conservatism and any candidate or spokesman for conservatism running on less than this is no conservative.

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Personally, I believe that he is a lot closer to those values than you imply. He had a personal belief about abortion that was caused by a close family friend dying. He also had a moment where he realized how dehumanized that side had become when talking to a doctor about farming fetuses. I believe his conversion story as he can tell you everything about the day, the room, and the conversation where the doctor in question was oblivious to how WWII Nazi Doctor like he sounded when talking about unborn babies and their use for cell farming.

He is a Good Mormon/LDS, and having been raised by Mormons (not a practicing Mormon myself) I know what that means. Harry Reid is not a good Mormon, Romney actually is. Good Mormons are just about the best people you can ever meet/befriend, and almost all of them are conservatives.

Romney did “track left” in Mass because that was where the people of that state were politically. Looking at todays world, Reagan most likely could not be elected Governor of California, the state is too far left. So the world is just a bit different now vs then.

It is up to Romney to show that the man he was before and after Mass is the true him – when there is nothing on the line and maybe nothing in the future to gain for it. There is no chance McCain wins, but hypothetically if we had an R in office, and Romney continued to push for conservative solutions and support the candidates that agree even though there is almost no chance at 2012 or 2016 it will be telling.

We will have to just wait and see what the man does.

Voidseeker on February 8, 2008 at 2:07 PM

SimplyKimberly on February 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Okay, please don’t take this as a slam, but why are people so impressed with how Romney left the race? He clearly left because it became obvious that he couldn’t win anymore and he would just be wasting time and money by continuing. His speech about being a nation at war, etc, was just a nice-sounding cover-up for the political reality of simply having lost. It was honorable-sounding and it was nicely and graciously delivered, but it was a pander to the conservative war-supporting audience. I’m not going to say it was a lie, per se, but the “nation at war” business clearly wasn’t his top/real reason for withdrawing when he did. His exit was no more impressive than Thompson’s or Giuliani’s, really, but Romney’s getting far more praise for his. Why?

aero on February 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Voidseeker on February 8, 2008 at 2:07 PM

I understand what you mean, and I agree about the Mormon thing and his realization about abortion.

I didn’t have him in mind when I said “fraud” — I actually had McCain and others in mind.

But with Romney, I just don’t think that he is driven by conservatism, and this shows, and it might explain why many conservative talking heads waited till the very last minute to endorse him.

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Remember Michael Steele?

The GOP has a habit of stabbing true thinkers in the back, but I’ll fight tooth and nail to keep Romney in the public eye.

It’s time to look at time limits for Congress and get rid of ALL career politicians.

madmonkphotog on February 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Michael Steele is part of the reason we have John McCain as the nominee. I wish people would stop pushing Michael Steele because he is a black Republican.

He is a black LIBERAL Republican. He is part of the “Its My Party Too” liberal crowd that includes McCain, Christie Todd-Whitman, Tom Ridge etc. Their goal is to remove the RIGHT from the Republican party.

EJDolbow on February 8, 2008 at 2:16 PM

And for me, the one thing that Romney said in the debates that confirmed for me that he was more of an opportunist than a man driven by principle (and here McCain completely nailed him) was when he would not commit on waterboarding. He hemmed and hawed and McCain went in for the kill, as well he should have. It would have been better for him to say that it wasn’t torture than to pass the buck.

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Some guy spouting off “conservative values” but who has no personal foundation in them will be seen for the fraud that he is.

Reagan read and was familiar with the roots of conservatism and any candidate or spokesman for conservatism running on less than this is no conservative.

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM

First, he most certainly does have a “personal foundation” in conservative values.

Secondly, what the hell do you know about what Mitt has read? It’s really quite presumptive of you to imply that he isn’t up to speed in that regard.

Alas, in a forum where one must kiss the rear-end of Bushism or risk being called a Paultard or worse, I think there is room for excuse.
Drum on February 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Here’s a word for you: Hyperbole

Romney for US Senate 2010. Beat John Kerry!
It’s the only campaign I would send money for, considering that I’m a housewife and the husband’s military, and Romney has more money than we could ever dream of…..he really doesn’t need our help, but help he’d get if he ran against Kerry.
funky chicken on February 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM

If you want to convince us that you are a conservative it would behoove you to stop with the class warfare game. True conservatives never deign to say how much money someone else “needs”, and clearly any candidate needs support – in more ways than one.

His exit was no more impressive than Thompson’s or Giuliani’s, really, but Romney’s getting far more praise for his. Why?

aero on February 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM

To begin with, Thompson and Giuliani weren’t even in the running. And speaking for myself, Thompson’s entrance never impressed me, so why should I be impressed with his exit?

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Touchy!

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Buy Danish, puh-leeze Why would a middle-class person such as myself see a great need to donate money to a multi-millionaire if they weren’t doing something that I wholeheartedly supported?

If he runs against Kerry, I will be so extremely happy with his decision that I would send money.

That’s what I said, but yeah, if that’s class warfare, knock yourself out.

funky chicken on February 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM

To begin with, Thompson and Giuliani weren’t even in the running. And speaking for myself, Thompson’s entrance never impressed me, so why should I be impressed with his exit?

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Giuliani was far and away the front runner for almost an entire year. I’d say he was “in the running.” I’ll grant you Thompson’s lack of impressiveness on the campaign trail, but his exit speech was gracious and inspiring and encouraged his supporters to fight on for conservative values. It was more sincere in its message and meaning than Romney’s “nation at war” pseudo-martyrdom. As for the lack of impressiveness of Thompson’s entrance to the race, again I’ll grant you that without argument. But I remind you that Romney took the better part of a year of HARD campaigning and millions of dollars spent to even break double-digits in national polls. I would assert based on that and Romney’s ultimate failure to win the hearts and minds of even 30% of Republican voters in most states that HE was never really in the running, either. He was a default candidate for many of the people who supported him at the end, and that just wasn’t enough.

aero on February 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Touchy!

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Yes, that’s our Buy Danish in a word, at least when it comes to Mitt Romney. He was always her passionate first choice candidate, not her default choice like many of the rest of his supporters at the end. She was one of his biggest advocates here at Hot Air from the beginning of his campaign. Gotta respect her for that, I guess.

aero on February 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Whatever. I’m not someone who is persuaded by gross exaggerations or statements that have not a whit of facts to support them.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM

FTFY Mate. Now it reflects the reality of basically every one of your posts.

BKennedy on February 8, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Thanks for attributing something to me that I never said and bringing up the non sequitur of Rudy. At least I have the cold comfort of knowing that my candidate was rejected for what he stood for and who he was. You can’t say that about Mitt, because we don’t know who he was or what he stood for. He puts on a persona and rhetoric like Rudy puts on a dress, but Mitt decided to put on the red dress and didn’t get invited to the dance. Maybe if he chose the pink dress instead he could have fooled enough voters. We’ll never know.

tommylotto on February 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Buy Danish, puh-leeze Why would a middle-class person such as myself see a great need to donate money to a multi-millionaire if they weren’t doing something that I wholeheartedly supported?

funky chicken on February 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM

There is a difference between not sending a candidate money and declaring that he doesn’t “need” it. That is the same argument that Dems use to confiscate our paychecks.

He was always her passionate first choice candidate, not her default choice like many of the rest of his supporters at the end. She was one of his biggest advocates here at Hot Air from the beginning of his campaign. Gotta respect her for that, I guess.

aero on February 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM

That is not correct. In the beginning I was a Rudy supporter, then I was torn between the two, and eventually Mitt won, although it was indeed much earlier than those who climbed on board at the very end.

Where I differed from most here at Hot Air is that I was never a Fred Head. I was willing to give him a fair hearing but he never even began to pull it off for me.

As for Mitt’s campaign, there were errors for sure, but there is no denying that he was fully committed to the effort and worked his tail off.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Thanks for attributing something to me that I never said and bringing up the non sequitur of Rudy. At least I have the cold comfort of knowing that my candidate was rejected for what he stood for and who he was. You can’t say that about Mitt, because we don’t know who he was or what he stood for. He puts on a persona and rhetoric like Rudy puts on a dress, but Mitt decided to put on the red dress and didn’t get invited to the dance. Maybe if he chose the pink dress instead he could have fooled enough voters. We’ll never know.

tommylotto on February 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM

The only thing Rudy didn’t jump rightward on is the destruction of innocent human life. His last gasp was the biggest tax cut in history line.

So he’ll be honest with me about killing babies but he has no qualms lying about tax relief. Good show Rudolfo, stick to kissing Trump while in a dress, if you’re his next wife, you’ll have enough money to run a decent campaign.

BKennedy on February 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Yes, I agree. Sorry I snapped. I’ve just seen lots of dumb Southern hick comments lately, and I took it out on your post.

TX Mom on February 8, 2008 at 12:11 PM

You know what’s funny? I live in NYS and never once heard anything negative about Southerners. Then I moved to Georgia for a couple of years and had to listen to incessant rantings about Yankees. I guess it goes both ways. It needs to stop.

Connie on February 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

At least I have the cold comfort of knowing that my candidate was rejected for what he stood for and who he was.

tommylotto on February 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM

I don’t think that is entirely true. His problems with Kerick and with security details for his “then girlfriend Nathan” had an effect. The first fairly, the second not. He also made serious miscalculations in how he ran his campaign.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 3:05 PM

BKennedy on February 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Got to part ways with you on that one. Rudy was a tax cutter, and he was a conservative on everything except social issues.

If elected it wouldn’t have made any difference what his personal views were because he would have appointed great judges – ones who would have been much better than what we can likely expect from John “CRF” McCain.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Thought I should mention it re: my earlier comment, Rush said in the 3rd hour that Bobby Jindal is/could be the next Ronald Reagan. How’s that for getting the name out?

hkenshin on February 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM

That is not correct. In the beginning I was a Rudy supporter, then I was torn between the two, and eventually Mitt won, although it was indeed much earlier than those who climbed on board at the very end.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

My apologies for misrepresenting your candidate affiliations, then. Didn’t remember the Rudy part, though I’m sure you said it at some point here at Hot Air. My point is that you have been consistent and passionate since you decided on Mitt, which was a long time ago.

As for Mitt’s campaign, there were errors for sure, but there is no denying that he was fully committed to the effort and worked his tail off.

Nope, no denying that for sure. I completely acknowledge and salute the phenomenal effort Mitt and his team made. And that was my other point: Despite having a top-notch organization, better funding and fundraising than any other Republican candidate, better looks and oratory skills than the others, and campaigning harder and longer than anyone else, Mitt still couldn’t pull it off. Any of the other candidates with his advantages would have had the nomination sewn up without significant contest a long time ago. He just doesn’t have it, whatever “it” is. He should have been able to beat McCain, but he couldn’t. Something significant was missing, and it still is. He’s not our Great Hope for the future. Look elsewhere, young paduwan. ;-)

aero on February 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM

aero on February 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM

I had many a disagreements with MB4 (and others) about Rudy. I still like Rudy a lot, although I would have much preferred he not jump over to McCain’s side and I think it was a mistake for Mitt and Rudy to go after eachother. Rudy will be a great AG :)

As for why Mitt didn’t pull it off, there are many reasons, but when it came to influential onservative support Fred was a distraction.

I am not writing Mitt off by any means as I have tremendous admiration for his accomplishments and abilities.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM

By the way, I also started with Rudy and later shifted to Fred. I never became a completely rabid Fredhead, but once I chose him I supported him enthusiastically until he bowed out–mainly because of his well-articulated conservative positions and plans, which were published on his web site. I didn’t care that he wasn’t a good campaigner because I knew he was the real deal, and the only one with actual plans that he wasn’t afraid to publish for everyone to see. I was never foolish enough to think he was the perfect candidate–I acknowledged the crappiness of his campaigning from the beginning. I hoped he’d hit his pace, which he did, but it was far too late when he finally did it. I tried to get excited about Mitt several times, but I just couldn’t (though I would have voted for him in the general had he been able to win the nomination). I genuinely tried to get excited about him, but I couldn’t do it. He never convinced me that conservatism was a deeply-held philosophy for him, not even in two of the three legs of the stool like Rudy did. Apparently, that was the case for too many Republican voters.

aero on February 8, 2008 at 3:54 PM

So if Romney wants to be Reagan 2.0

He who cannot laugh at himself, in the end gets laughed at.
— Created by me during the summer

It has 2 meanings.

1. Never take yourself to seriously, for no man is more important than another.

2. Self deprecating humor, can make yourself more receptive to other people, it’s wise to use this often, it shows humility, and friendliness.

————

Mike Huckabee, could be seen as going a little overboard with this rule, however.. you can see the results that it brings.

Chakra Hammer on February 8, 2008 at 4:03 PM

It’s only censorship when the gov’t tries to quelch speech. That said, can we have a thread or a serous discussion sometime here at HA about the serious degradation of discussion since so many ignorant people have signed up and are now leaving comments like rat droppings? And I used the word ignorant in its literal sense: UNINFORMED and not willing to take the time required to study an issue.

It feels like romper room in here lately, like we’re in some teenage chatroom. The wuality of discourse is plummeting – fast.

JustTruth101 on February 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM

And I used the word ignorant in its literal sense: UNINFORMED and not willing to take the time required to study an issue.

It feels like romper room in here lately, like we’re in some teenage chatroom. The wuality of discourse is plummeting – fast.

JustTruth101 on February 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Juan Juan Juan! Shamnesty Shanmesty Shamnesty!

Better?

Chakra Hammer on February 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM

..but once I chose him I supported him enthusiastically until he bowed out–mainly because of his well-articulated conservative positions and plans, which were published on his web site.

aero on February 8, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Unfortunately that’s about all he did do. There are plenty of people who can do that, and a lot of them work at think tanks. It takes more than that to win a primary contest.

He got an F for effort, and that did not bode well ever for him being an effective executive.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 4:45 PM

The GOP has a habit of stabbing true thinkers in the back, but I’ll fight tooth and nail to keep Romney in the public eye.

It’s time to look at time limits for Congress and get rid of ALL career politicians.

madmonkphotog on February 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Your mancrush on Romney is getting to be creepy and cultish.

He’s just another politician, and he’s out. There wasn’t anything particularly outstanding about him.

Hollowpoint on February 8, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Juan Juan Juan! Shamnesty Shanmesty Shamnesty!

Better?

Chakra Hammer on February 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM

What a great romper room example, thanks for the illustration.

JustTruth101 on February 8, 2008 at 4:52 PM

President Reagan had one important trait that makes him so hard to duplicate. That was his genuinely warm personality. President Reagan was kind to everybody. He never condescended to people and to know President Reagan, however briefly, was to like him. Maybe it is a trait your’e born with. Romney just doesn’t have it. Because of Reagan’s wit, his grace and his humor, it was impossible for Carter and Mondale et al. to turn President Reagan into an angry man of the right. Plus Reagan ran for president in 1980 when he was then 69 years old and he had an avuncular way about him. He was selfdeprecating and funny. And he was not a career politician. Unfortunately we won’t see anybody like him again.

Larraby on February 8, 2008 at 5:11 PM

He [Thompson] got an F for effort, and that did not bode well ever for him being an effective executive.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Agreed. And I knew that when I chose him, though I hoped he’d pick up speed, enthusiasm, and effectiveness before it was too late. That’s why I’m not looking to Fred to run again in 2012 or to be the next Reagan or anything like that. Every candidate this time had a fatal flaw–some worse than others–and I think we need to toss them all out and start fresh for 2012. I knew this whole crop of candidates was crap and none of them was likely to be able to win the general election, so I chose the one who best matched my principles. I would have been pleasantly surprised if one of them had proven me wrong, but none did. Now I’ll go give my “duty vote” to McCain in the general–assuming he doesn’t choose Satan as his runningmate–and work for a better crop of candidates next time around.

aero on February 8, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Thought I should mention it re: my earlier comment, Rush said in the 3rd hour that Bobby Jindal is/could be the next Ronald Reagan. How’s that for getting the name out?

hkenshin on February 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Cool. I listen to Rush’s podcast on my iPod but haven’t yet heard today’s.

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Giuliani was far and away the front runner for almost an entire year.

Even though I disagreed with Giuliani on pretty much everything, I would have liked to see him as president based simply on what he did to NYC. The contrast between NY in the 70s and 80s with what it became in the 90s is staggering. I would never had taken my family (if I had a family back then) there in the 80s, but in the 90s I couldn’t wait for them to visit it.

Last summer I was certain he’d be the candidate. Oh well …

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM

aero-

McCain chooses Satan as running mate, news at 11.

My friends, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t, right? And who among you doesn’t know Satan, Prince of darkness, erstwhile known as Beelzebub, Pazuzu, or Lucifer, the Morning Star? And I’m proud, my friends, to reach across the aisle to have him become my running mate. Because he has guaranteed me a win if I pass Amnesty as my first offical act, specifically because his little sister has been stuck in Tijuana since a bad contractual deal on a Girls Gone Wild shoot, and he wants her to join him in the good ole U.S. of A. All hail, the Lord of the Flies, and my partner in this enterprise to bring some fire back into the politics!”

profitsbeard on February 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Giuliani was far and away the front runner for almost an entire year.

Even though I disagreed with Giuliani on pretty much everything, I would have liked to see him as president based simply on what he did to NYC. The contrast between NY in the 70s and 80s with what it became in the 90s is staggering. I would never had taken my family (if I had a family back then) there in the 80s, but in the 90s I couldn’t wait for them to visit it.

Last summer I was certain he’d be the candidate. Oh well …

Drum on February 8, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Thompson is the Reason that we have McCain today.

Deny it all you want, it’s the truth.

I have studied the Averages all year, his campaign hurt Rudy the most and helped McCain the most, i always thought that McCain and Fred were running on the same ticket, just from looking at and analyzing the data.

Chakra Hammer on February 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM

profitsbeard on February 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Ah, crap. Satan will probably bring Saddam back with him, too. Then we’ll be right back where we started!

aero on February 8, 2008 at 6:45 PM

I’ll tell you what’s next for Mitt Romney. He needs to go on Broadway. He fooled conservatives at the last minute that he was this “true conservative” and they bought it hook, line, and sinker. The guy is the biggest phony of all time and he’s also a bit Silky.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM

EJDolbow on February 8, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Hollowpoint on February 8, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Douches!

madmonkphotog on February 8, 2008 at 7:16 PM

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM

The horse is dead and at the glue factory.

Unless you just like trolling for the sake of it.

SimplyKimberly on February 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM

SimplyKimberly on February 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM

I wish it were that easy. It took Mitt being embarssed by Huckmania to finally see the forest from the trees. My guy tells me he’s already started planning for next time. I haven’t enjoyed bashing a fellow republican since Gary Bauer.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 8, 2008 at 8:00 PM

My guy tells me he’s already started planning for next time.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 8, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Another scoop? Is that the same guy you claim told you that Mitt bought the class presidency by giving out free cookies?

What an imbed you’ve got there!

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Is that the same guy you claim told you that Mitt bought the class presidency by giving out free cookies?

What an imbed you’ve got there!

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM

LOL

SimplyKimberly on February 8, 2008 at 8:08 PM

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM

That was called humor. My friend and him were classmates and mentioned to me TODAY that you couldn’t be more wrong. He reads these threads, and mentioned it over lunch. Just happenstance it seems that again you embarass yourself with continued circular logic.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Your imaginary friend?

How is it “circular logic” to say that it is unlikely that prep school kids from Bloomfield Hills needed Mitt to give them cookies, as you claimed the other day?

By the way, I hope your friend got a scholarship to Cranbrook because if his command of the English language is as poor as yours they didn’t exactly get a bang for their buck.

I might add that you also don’t sound like someone who is in the 6th decade of your life as Mitt is; indeed, you sound sophomoric.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM

That was called humor. My friend and him were classmates and mentioned to me TODAY that you couldn’t be more wrong. He reads these threads, and mentioned it over lunch. Just happenstance it seems that again you embarass yourself with continued circular logic.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Circular logic is much more impressive than Kool-Aid logic. If Huckabee had Romney’s cash, he would blow it doubling down on lottery tickets. Huckabee self-promoted himself and morphed into the populist to get free air time. Pastor Huckabee also pandered and shook-down the mega churches. Absent the critical MSM eye, the knucklehead flew under the radar. If this furniture thieving genius gets out in front or gets the VP nod, the critical MSM eye is going to burn him in effigy. The Republican Establishment deserves this mess. You let ideological weeds like this grow…. this is the result. Pass the plate for Huckabee!!!!

Cold Steel on February 8, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 10:56 PM

I take a great amount of pride in watching people get defensive and fire insults.

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 8, 2008 at 11:18 PM

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 8, 2008 at 11:18 PM

What do I have to be defensive about, pray tell? I’m not the one making idiotic comments about “my guy” giving info which to most of us is common knowledge, but to you is some kind of inside scoop.

Even if you didn’t read this blog, there are many stories out there for all the world to see about what Mitt’s future plans might be.

Call me unimpressed with your lunch partner.

/nitey nite.

Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 11:32 PM

Veep.

Chair of the GOP.

WH Chief of Staff.

Sec Treas.

reliapundit on February 9, 2008 at 7:51 AM

What we need is another Republican Revolution.

Gingrich behind the scenes, and Thompson and Romney front and center. Imagine the best of both worlds: We need to remake the GOP, getting rid of the Trent Lotts, the Mel Martinez’s and the John McCains from leadership positions. The only way that will happen is to lose the presidency.

However, the liberals could do so much damage in even two years, much less four, that we need to retake the legislature.

If McCain wins the presidency, his poll numbers will be about 10% good. The media will tell him it is because he isn’t liberal enough, and the GOP RINO old guard will believe it. It will pull the GOP so far left we will end up with a liberal party (GOP) and a socialist party (Dems), and they will “compromise” us right into Animal Farm.

So we need to lose the presidency, and win at least one house, if not now, then in two years at the latest. Yes, we may get some half-baked judges, but if the GOP in power in the senate has the cajones of Gingrich, we can block the real fruitcakes. Imperfect scenario, but we need to look ahead 50 years and decide what action or situation now would be best for then.

Spartacus on February 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM

No one is the next Reagan and I think Republicans need to get ovet the fact that the party itself is near ruined thanks to not only Bush but the current crop of massive government Republicans.

V15J on February 9, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Bryan, I’m impressed. Very well thought out and written. I sincerely hope he reads and heeds your advice. And I hope HE remembers Michael Steele.

Longhorn Six on February 9, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Thanks for some good perspective, Bryan. As much as RWR is lionized, it’s amazing that in many ways, his lifetime achievements are under appreciated. When RWR’s soul told him something, it wasn’t to let a criminal off the hook.

How do you sqare this:

(the same goes for Huckabee, for that matter, whose social conservatism is solid while he lacks on the economic and national security fronts)

with Huckabee’s record on clemencies and pardons?
Isn’t “law and order” part of social con cred?

silverfox on February 10, 2008 at 4:42 AM