Official Romney for President Exploratory Committee Thread

[Viking]

Huntsman is a total tool. If he's a "centrist" it's just because he doesn't actually believe anything. I was there - somewhat regrettably - when he gave his fawning, pawing introduction of Sarah Palin at the 2008 convention and watched as he (pathetically) tried to start a "Sar-ah! Sar-ah!" chant there. Like many alleged centrists he simply believes in his own power and entitlement. But there's a better reason to laugh him off the campaign - that he actually started his exploration with this piece of doggerel quasi-poetry.

It's like he hired a sophomore in some shitty English Lit program to write this for him.

When it comes to lack of principle or a compelling presidential raison d'etre Huntsman is far worse than Romney.

Yes, the Sarah thing was pretty silly, but nothing Huntsman has done even approaches the nonsense of the Romney campaign. The poetry was bad but that's what he gets for relying on anything from the U.

I'll give $$ to Huntsman. I'll give money to whomever runs against Romney, if it comes to that.

[San Juan Sun]

I suspect that the nomination process and general election will both be largely decided by events unforeseen by us right now. Mitt is a good candidate with some warts, and stands a decent chance of getting the nomination. All of the crystal balling, DailyKos spin, Slate articles, and regurgitated conventional wisdom is about as useful in predicting the future as a Rick Reilly piece on Jimmer Fredette.

[Maximus]

The best part about Romney is how good he is going to make Huntsman look.

Huntsman is a no brainer candidate and will be the front runner if he chooses to run.

LOL Romney has a lot more good to his name. Huntsman has....

[Donuthole]

Jon Stewart on Romney's potential candidacy:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...=synd_facebook

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I've made it no secret that I like Mitch Daniels. I don't think he can get out of the primary, but I think the GOP could do far worse than Daniels.

As for the rest of the 2012 field, I'm not as thrilled. I don't think Huckabee would make a good president. Romney doesn't have the courage to piss off any GOP constituency in any manner. Palin is utterly incompetent. Bachmann is crazy. Pawlenty bores me. Gingrich is too polarizing on the national scene. Barbour is intriguing but made some questionable comments on the racial situation in the South while was growing up. Huntsman is a milquetoast centrist who doesn't stand for anything.

2016 is the year when the GOP will have a much fuller stable. All of the Governors recently elected will have 6+ years under their belts. John Kasich, Chris Christie, even Scott Walker in Wisconsin (if his victory against the unions last) could be there.

[BlueHair]

Obama will win a second term, so it doesn't really matter who runs against him. The GOP doesn't have a strong enough candidate to beat an incumbent. Romney would probably have the best chance because he could probably pull some votes from the Dems, but he's not a big enough lunatic to get the Tea Party vote.

[oxcoug]

Romney haunted by past of trying to help sick, uninsured poor people:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/mit...lp-unin,20097/

[pellegrino]

Obama will win a second term, so it doesn't really matter who runs against him. The GOP doesn't have a strong enough candidate to beat an incumbent. Romney would probably have the best chance because he could probably pull some votes from the Dems, but he's not a big enough lunatic to get the Tea Party vote.

didn't people basically think the same thing when Bush won in 2000? I can't remember how the nomination process went, but initially didn't everyone think that Al Gore was basically a shew in, given Clinton's popularity?

Like I said, I can't remember, so I may be wrong.

[myboynoah]

didn't people basically think the same thing when Bush won in 2000? I can't remember how the nomination process went, but initially didn't everyone think that Al Gore was basically a shew in, given Clinton's popularity?

Like I said, I can't remember, so I may be wrong.

I think that's a good point. There is too much history to be lived between now and the next election day. Things appear to favor Obama today, but things change. What if gas remains at $4 to $6 a gallon for an extended period of time? What effect will that have on people's lives and the economy? How will people look at Obama and his reaction to this development? That is just one factor among many.

[Green Monstah]

Well, he sure ain't gonna win Iowa or South Carolina. But now without McCain in the race Mitt has a great shot at winning New Hampshire and Florida, and probably California. So he doesn't need the Evangelical vote like he did in 2008. One of my Evangelical friends likes to point out that by voting their religion, Evangelicals are only going to end up reducing the influence they might otherwise have in the White House. Not a bad thing, IMO.

He could win Iowa. The Eastern 1/2 of the state was very pro-Romney in
08. The Evangelicals in the West (where most of the population is, unfortunately) rallied behind Huckabee. I don't think anyone will take Huckabee seriously in '12.

[oxcoug]

didn't people basically think the same thing when Bush won in 2000? I can't remember how the nomination process went, but initially didn't everyone think that Al Gore was basically a shew in, given Clinton's popularity?

Like I said, I can't remember, so I may be wrong.

That's actually not how I remember it - in spite of Clinton's effectiveness in governing there was enough "Clinton Fatigue" that even Gore made a point of running against his legacy and touching themes like "restoring dignity" to the White House. Gore actually made a point, for a long time, of limiting his public appearances with Clinton. The ill-fated and horrifically awkward Al-Tipper kiss-with-tongue at the DNC was actually schemed in part to contrast the Clintons loveless power marriage with the Gores allegedly rock solid marital romance.

I think that there's been a fair amount of nostalgia in the past 7-8 years for the Clinton presidency because people now recognize that the "problems" with that presidency were relatively petty, happy problems to have - but in 2000 there was definitely a widespread fatigue and Clinton was nowhere near as popular as he is right now.

[Viking]

Obama will win a second term, so it doesn't really matter who runs against him. The GOP doesn't have a strong enough candidate to beat an incumbent. Romney would probably have the best chance because he could probably pull some votes from the Dems, but he's not a big enough lunatic to get the Tea Party vote.

Russell Brand is a lucky, lucky man

[oxcoug]

Russell Brand is a lucky, lucky man

Yes.

But my money is on this being a celeb marriage that unravels quickly. I heard a recent interview with Perry and she came across as a very naive mid-American girl. Brand is too worldly and too British to hang for long with that. However long it takes him to get bored with their physical relationship and the publicity is how long this thing lasts.

[Viking]

Yes.

But my money is on this being a celeb marriage that unravels quickly. I heard a recent interview with Perry and she came across as a very naive mid-American girl. Brand is too worldly and too British to hang for long with that. However long it takes him to get bored with their physical relationship and the publicity is how long this thing lasts.

I could stay interested for a long time!

[YOhio]

Romney defectors.