Romney kills it at CPAC

[oxcoug]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/1...l-haunt-obama/

Hence my argument:

1. If the economic crisis had happened a year earlier Romney might well have won in 2008
and
2. Why - if Romney hadn't damaged his brand w/ so much Soc-Con posturing and had stuck with "problem solver and bad ass capitalist" as his public face - he would still be a very credible threat in 2012
and
3. Why - in spite of it all - IF things aren't improving by 2012 or if they are actually getting noticably worse, Mitt still has a shot. My brother thinks I'm crazy on this - but IF all Americans can think about is the economy and Romney's the only one who is fluent in the language, the only grown-up on the field, he WILL have a shot.

Of course that shot will depend on him being able to remind people the the Heritage em-effing Foundation endorsed his health care reform and that the implementation as it happened wasn't really how it was originally planned.

Long odds but if the economy is cratering I don't think a Romney win is unthinkable.

[TripletDaddy]

This things not over yet. Long ways to go still.

[Indy Coug]

I completely expect the eventual GOP nominee to be no one currently in the top 5. I'm not sure if this will be a good or a bad thing.

[oxcoug]

I completely expect the eventual GOP nominee to be no one currently in the top 5. I'm not sure if this will be a good or a bad thing.

Mitch Daniels = maybe good.

Michele Bachmann = shoot myself in the face.

[Indy Coug]

Mitch Daniels = maybe good.

Michele Bachmann = shoot myself in the face.

I have a good friend that worked with Mitch Daniels for his first couple of years he was in office. He has nothing but good things to say about him. "My Man Mitch" would not be a bad option, but I'm not sure if the time is right just yet.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I still like Chris Christie, but he will never win because the election usually comes down to the tallest, most in-shape canditate with the best hair.

In the primaries the Repubs typically go with the 'next guy in line', with rare exceptions. Next year it is Mitt's "time".

Perhaps then he will be forced to answer why certain concessions are allowable in politics, such as forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or risk losing all business from state-approved insurance plans. (note: I left before the bill was finalized, but that was the way it was written)

I am already prepared to be underwhelmed in 2012.

[Green Monstah]

I look forward to the "Romney gets killed in Iowa" thread that will show up in about a year.

[Jacob]

Of course that shot will depend on him being able to remind people the the Heritage em-effing Foundation endorsed his health care reform and that the implementation as it happened wasn't really how it was originally planned.

If he has to rely on avoiding the healthcare issue by reminding people that Heritage endorsed it, he's got no chance. Most voters don't care anything about Heritage. The argument that it was not implemented as he wanted is dishonest, IMO. Sure, there were changes in the implementation, but Heritage at the time endorsed the overall plan by listing its positives and negatives. Among the negatives were the mandate. Others did not endorse the plan at the time e.g. CATO. Those who endorsed it (Heritage and Romney) were wrong, those who opposed it were right. I think the honest thing is to admit it and move on.

Clinging to the principal and distinguishing it on federalism grounds is not going to fly. When our country returns to a federalist approach, that argument might fly.