Last week, Rick Santorum’s three-state sweep stunned Mitt Romney, who only days before had prevailed in Florida and Nevada. But after a strong weekend — he won the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll and Maine’s caucuses — an upbeat Romney tells National Review Online that he is confident about his chances in the GOP presidential primary.
“I hope to become our nominee, but I am not clairvoyant,” Romney says. “At this stage, it’s hard to know precisely how the political landscape will change over the coming weeks and months.” But as the Super Tuesday vote on March 6 draws near, Romney feels “very good” about his prospects. He predicts that his organization and his “clear message” will enable him “to go the distance.”
Advertisement
Romney says his CPAC speech was an important moment — a reintroduction to Republicans unfamiliar with his endeavors in deep-blue Massachusetts. He spent hours writing and rewriting the text, polishing lines and passages, intent on underscoring his conservatism and his gubernatorial achievements. “I understand that Senator Santorum is speaking a lot about that record, and I thought that I better clear it up,” he chuckles. “I wanted to make sure that people remember the real Mitt Romney, not the one being fabricated by my opponents.
“The perception is quite different than the reality,” he continues. “I want people to remember that I was on the front lines on conservative social issues, on conservative fiscal issues, and standing up for conservative foreign-policy values. I wanted to reacquaint people with what they remember from four years ago.”
Indeed, after weeks of having Santorum and Newt Gingrich blasting his record, the former governor says it was necessary to push back — not with barbs, but with details.
“It would be nice if races were focused on people’s vision for the future,” Romney says. “But I happen to believe that the contrasts that are being spoken of today will be spoken of in a much louder voice by the Obama team. So, in some respects, it’s a good thing to get them out there and cleared up.” A rigorous primary, he says, can be healthy.
In the coming days, Romney plans to emphasize his retooled message, building upon his CPAC argument. “You go through the list,” he says as he discusses how he’ll frame his Bay State accomplishments. Fiscal issues, it seems, will form the heart of his stump speech. “We cut taxes 19 times. We balanced the budget.” But he will also tout his administration’s efforts to curb illegal immigration and his leadership on traditional marriage, abortion, and contraception.
Romney will also get a little more personal in his public remarks, talking about his family and his background, from his immigrant grandfather to his father, George Romney, who rose from being a Mormon outcast in Mexico to become Michigan’s governor.
“I think people want to know the candidates on a personal basis,” Romney says. At CPAC, he adds, “I thought it was valuable to once again describe the background of my home. There was a real interest in getting to know our family a little better.” Romney hopes such stories will illustrate how his conservatism has been shaped by his experiences.
There's a reason why Gingrich keeps labeling Romney not just a moderate, but a "Massachusetts moderate." Gingrich knows that the mere fact that Romney hails from MA is enough to make the GOP base suspicious.
They view MA as the stronghold of the enemy, the state that has had Tip O'Neill, the Kennedy family, John Kerry, and the Boston Globe.
And so no matter what Romney says or does about what he did in MA, the GOP base will continue to view him with suspicion, just by virtue of his having run MA. Just as if during the height of the Cold War, a high-ranking Russian from the Soviet Communist Party had immigrated to America from the U.S.S.R. and promptly applied for a Federal security clearance. The investigators would wonder: Is this guy loyal to us, or a double agent?
A group of conservative leaders meet with Romney @CPAC and warned him not to go negative on Santorum! REALLY is he that fragile that he can't handle light on his horrible NON CONSERVATIVE VOTING RECORD while a US Senator.
Voted for Bridge to Nowhere
Voted with Unions (Santorum = the non-Gov Christy the non-Gov Scott Walker candidate
Was US Senator while debt ceiling votes were cast
Loved his earmarks External Link
While Romney was funding and campaigning for T-Party candidates like NIki Haley, Rubio & also Mitt endorsed conservative who ran against RHINO Dede NY21 (who Newt endorsed BTW). So what was Santorum thinking about the T Party? He had real concerns about Libertarian arm of GOP & Tea Party. T-Party Punked by Santorum External Link
A caller on Bill Willie Cunningham's show sums it up best re GOP filed
We have a OBGYN
We have a Historian
We have a Businessman who was a governor of the bluest state in union
We have a choir boy
Which one are we going to send to oval? We need to stop sending legislators to the oval office they created the problem & are use to making group decisions and spending is how they get their power NOT CUTTING! Romney had to cut and slash failing companies so they had a chance to succeed.
ANN COULTER IS RIGHT Romney is the most conservative of the candidates left!
Romney is a flip-flopping, phony, quasi-liberal with tons of cash, enough to keep his boot on Santorum's neck. As a conservative, my hope is that Santorum, Gingrich and Paul can nick away at the inevitable's 1144 so we can go to a brokered convention and send Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio to the GOP nomination. I believe that only a Bush/Rubio ticket can defeat Obama as Florida will be the decider. My fear is if Obama is re-elected he will destroy the fabric of this once great nation. He will destroy the 2nd amendment for sure and nip away at the 1st and 10th. Iran will e emboldened and threaten world peace on his watch and his energy policy and Obamacare will put us into a grave depression. A Bush/Rubio ticket is our only hope.
Thank you, David Axelrod, for that canned spam post which is both a lie and manufactured content from team Obama. You will receive your check from Media Matters in about 3 days.
"What does Romney need to do... What does Romney need to do???"
Here's a suggestion. He needs to go away because there is no support or purpose to his candidacy other than to satisfy himself.
Romney, SINGLEHANDEDLY, is destroying our chances to beat Obama. If you are honest, you must admit that we have never seen such a wanty, needy campaign like Romney's.
This year, here at CPAC, we’ve got a great crowd. It’s been a great conference. For that I suppose we should acknowledge President Obama, the conservative movement’s top recruiter. Turns out, he really is a great community organizer. Although, I don’t think we were the community he had in mind.
Today we are poised for a great victory in November. The pundits and the pollsters tell us we can win this election. But we must tell the nation why we should win. It is up to us to prove that we are truly ready to step forward and lead this country. This election is not just about getting more votes. Defeating Barack Obama is only one step toward our greater goal of saving America.
Of course we can defeat Barack Obama! That’s the easy part! Believe me, November 6th will be the easiest day our next President will face.
This country we love is in jeopardy. It’s more than the economic statistics we read, it’s the pain we feel in our hearts. For three years we have suffered through the failures not only of a weak leader, but of a bankrupt ideology. I am convinced that if we do our job, if we lead with conviction and integrity, that history will record the Obama Presidency as the last gasp of liberalism’s great failure and a turning point for a new conservative era.
But it’s not enough to show how they have failed. We must prove we deserve to lead. I am here today to ask you to stand with me shoulder to shoulder as we go forward to fight for America.
As we step forward together, now is the time to reaffirm what it means to be a conservative and why this must be our greatest hour. America is like no other country in history. At the very heart of our American conservatism is the conviction that the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are uniquely powerful, foundational, and defining. Some see the hand of Providence in their authorship. Others credit the brilliance of the Founders. Many of us see both. But conservatives all agree that departing from these founding principles is a departure from the greatness of America– from our mission, from our freedom, from our prosperity, and from our purpose.
I know this President will never get it, but we conservatives aren’t just proud to cling to our guns and to our religion. We are also proud to cling to our Constitution!
The wisdom of our founding documents is that they see the nation’s prosperity not as a product of government, but as the product of individual citizens, each pursuing happiness. This is key to the success of the American experiment. America does not just exist for the people, it has been made exceptional by the people.
A free people, pursuing their own dreams and achieving success in their own ways – that is what has propelled America and made us the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world. Many politicians on both sides of the aisle have forgotten that – if they ever really understood it at all. They have fallen under the spell of Washington.
Politicians are routinely elected on promises to change Washington, but when they come here, they become creatures of Washington. They begin to see government as the answer to every challenge and the solution for every problem. At every turn, they try to substitute the heavy hand of the federal government for free citizens and free enterprise. They think government knows better – and can do better – than a free people exercising their free will. And this President is the worst offender. Barack Obama is the poster child for the arrogance of government.
This election really is a battle for the soul of America. And it’s going to come down to a choice between whether we want to be a nation of and by Washington … or a nation of and by a free people.
As conservatives, we are united by a set of core commitments. But not everyone has taken the same path to get here. There are college students at this conference who are reading Burke and Hayek. When I was your age, you could have told me they were infielders for the Detroit Tigers. Some of you work in think tanks or follow the writings of prominent leaders. Some of you have worked in government or labored on the front lines of conservative causes. I salute you all.
My path to conservatism came from my family, my faith, and my life’s work.
I was raised in a home shaped by and rooted in conservative values. My mother’s father – my grandfather – came to America from England. As a teenager, he was alone in a new country, but he risked it all for a chance at religious liberty and economic opportunity.
You’ve probably heard how proud I am of my father. He was born to American parents living in Mexico. When he was five, they moved back to the United States. His dad was a builder who went bust more than once. My Dad grew up poor and never had a chance to finish his college degree. But he believed in a country where the circumstances of one’s birth were not a barrier to achievement. And with hard work, he became the head of a car company and the Governor of the great state of Michigan.
The values that allowed my parents to achieve their dreams are the same values they instilled in my siblings and me. Those aren’t values I just talk about; they are values that I live every day. My 42-year marriage to my wife, Ann; the life we’ve built with our five sons; and the faith that sustains us – these conservative constants have shaped my life.
In business, if you’re not fiscally conservative, you’re bankrupt. I spent 25 years balancing budgets, eliminating waste, and keeping as far away from government as was humanly possible. I did things conservatism is designed for – I started new businesses and turned around broken ones. And I am not ashamed to say that I was very successful at it.
I know conservatism because I have lived conservatism.
As governor of Massachusetts, I had the unique experience of defending our conservative principles in the most liberal state in our union.
When I took office, I was facing a $3 billion budget deficit and an economy in a tailspin.
Even with a legislature that was 85% Democrat, I cut taxes 19 times and balanced the budget all four years. I cast over 800 vetoes and cut entire programs. I erased a $3 billion budget shortfall and left office with a $2 billion rainy day fund. If there was a program, an agency, or a department that needed cutting, we cut it. In fact, a commentator once said that I didn’t just go after the sacred cows, I went after the whole herd. And I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington.
During my tenure, our conservative values also came under attack. Less than a year after I took office, the state’s supreme court inexplicably found a right to same-sex marriage in our constitution. I pushed for a stay of the decision, fought for a marriage amendment to our constitution, and successfully prohibited out-of-state couples from coming to our state to get married and then go home. On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage. When I am President, I will preserve the Defense of Marriage Act and I will fight for a federal amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.
During my time in office, I stood up to those who wanted to call into question the very definition of life. I vetoed a bill that would have opened the door to cloning and embryo farming. I vetoed a bill that would have allowed young girls to gain access to abortion-inducing drugs. I fought for abstinence education in our public schools. And I defended the Catholic Church’s right to serve their community in ways that were consistent with their conscience through adoption programs that placed children in a home with a mom and a dad.
I was a conservative governor. I fought against long odds in a deep blue state. I understand the battles that we, as conservatives, must fight because I have been on the front lines.
Here at CPAC, I know you understand this. This gathering has always welcomed me. And you have consistently supported me – not because of my rhetoric, but because of my record.
Over the course of this conference, several candidates either have been – or will come – before you seeking to lead our country out of these troubled times. What distinguishes us from one another is not our opposition to President Obama or even our support for conservative convictions. What distinguishes us is the nature of our experience, our perspective, and our judgment.
This election will ultimately be about two very different visions for America. But our more immediate choice will be between candidates from two very different backgrounds.
I spent 25 years in business, starting at the bottom and going on to help create a great American success story. I led an Olympics out of the shadows of scandal and turned around a state crying out for leadership.
In each of these endeavors, I worked with many talented people, but I was the Chief Executive. Success or failure lay on my shoulders. When tough decisions had to be made, I made them.
Leadership as a Chief Executive isn’t about getting a bill out of subcommittee or giving a speech – it’s about setting clear goals and overcoming constant adversity. It’s about sharing credit when times are good and taking responsibility for failure.
I am the only candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, who has never worked a day in Washington. I don’t have old scores to settle or decades of cloakroom deals to defend.
As conservatives, you’ve learned to be skeptical of this city and its politicians and right you are.
My wife and I raised five boys and one of the lessons you learn is that when you hear an excuse that just doesn’t make sense… it’s because it doesn’t make sense. And let me tell you, any politician who tries to convince you that they hated Washington so much that they just couldn’t leave, well, that’s the same politician who will try to sell you a Bridge to Nowhere.
This is a moment when our country needs serious change and real reform. So, let me tell you exactly what kind of President I will be.
To get America back on track and get Americans back to work, we need bold and sweeping reforms. These are not managerial issues of changing this department or that agency. To change Washington, we must change the relationship between government and citizen. These are moral choices that will define us for generations to come.
Today we borrow almost forty cents of every dollar we spend. That is unconscionable. It’s unsustainable. It’s reckless. It’s immoral. And, if I am President, it will end.
I will approach every spending decision by asking a few important questions: Can we afford it? And, if not, is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?
As President, I will not just slow the growth of government, I will cut it. I will not just freeze government’s share of the total economy, I will reduce it. And, without raising taxes or sacrificing America’s military superiority, I will finally balance the budget.
And that will start with the easiest cut of all – I will eliminate Obamacare.
I will dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce. And, for the first time ever, we will tie the compensation and benefits of federal workers to those in the private sector. The principle here is simple: public servants should not get a better deal than the citizens they serve.
But cutting spending and bureaucracy alone won’t be enough. In their current form, Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable. And we cannot afford to avoid our entitlement challenges any longer.
I am the only candidate for President who has offered a sweeping, specific plan to save Social Security and reform Medicare. There are those who say you can’t talk straight to the American people on these key issues and still win an election. I say we can, we must, and I will!
These are sensible and critical reforms. Under my plan, no one at or near the retirement age will see any changes. And tax hikes are off the table.
We will slowly and gradually raise the retirement age for Social Security – and, we will slow the growth in benefits for our nation’s higher-income retirees.
When it comes to Medicare, tomorrow’s seniors should have the freedom to choose between traditional Medicare and a range of private plans. If these future seniors choose a more expensive plan, they would bear the additional cost.
I know this President and his liberal allies will attack me for leading where he has failed. So be it. I will stand and fight – and we will win.
He will attack us with the usual fear tactics, but we will remind Americans that during this President’s term we have seen record high job losses and record home foreclosures. We will not be lectured to on values by the man whose ineptitude and failure has created so much unnecessary pain for our fellow Americans.
Ours will not be the easy course. But it will be the right course. And I am confident that Americans are yearning for a President to do what is needed, not what is expedient.
And let me be clear: Mine will be a pro-life presidency.
On day one, I will reinstate the Mexico City policy.
I will cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which supports China’s barbaric One Child Policy.
I will ensure that organizations like Planned Parenthood get no federal support.
And I will reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty and threatens innocent life.
The Presidency is more than a public office; it is a sacred trust. As President, I will honor that trust by assuring that America remains the greatest military power on the face of the earth. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.
This election is a defining moment for our generation and for the conservative movement. Make no mistake – we have an opportunity for Greatness but with that opportunity comes defining responsibility. We cannot use this election to refight past battles or reward our friends. I know that the fundamental change this moment demands will take fresh, bold conservative leadership with real world solutions based on real world experience.
I will come to Washington, and, with your help and guidance and prayers, I will change Washington. And then I will leave Washington and go back to the life and family I love.
I believe this is a moment that demands we return to our basic values and first principals. This is our moment. This is why we are conservatives. The task before us now is to reaffirm the convictions that unite us and go forward shoulder to shoulder to secure the victory America deserves.
America would be better served if Mitt Romney would become the Democrat he really is and run against Obama. . . he would win in a landslide. . . then he could comfortably run anti-Republican ads without losing even more of his non-existent credibility as a Republican candidate. His CPAC Speech is pure fiction and definitely not heartfelt. The sooner he quits the Republican Party, the better.
If Romney had really become a conservative, he'd have kicked off his campaign by renouncing Romneycare. Since he continues to stand by that disaster, his nomination would mean that the GOP effectively forfeits its opposition to Obamacare. Romneycare provides Obama with an easy defense that Romney cannot rebut. We must have a nominee who can point to the failings of the Massachusetts program as a warning of the lost freedoms, poor medical care, and high costs that await if Obamacare is not repealed. Defeating Romney is a necessary first step to repealing Obamacare.
Romney can still oppose Obamacare on principle grounds, it just becomes more complex.
Romney can say:
Look, Romneycare was appropriate for the most liberal state in the country. But what you did in Obamacare was triple down on the bad parts of Romneycare. I opposed the employer mandate in Romneycare. But that mandate was just a $295 penalty if an employer doesn't at least contribute 1/3 the cost of mid-level insurance. Your mandate - $2000 per person if the employer doesn't provide exactly what your appointed secretary of HHS says that they have to ... even if it goes against their religious beliefs.
Romneycare added new options to the Healthcare market. Obamacare might add some new options... but it also outlaws a lot of existing plans - both in the individual and employer markets - something that Romneycare did not do.
You may have taken Romneycare as a model, but you made it ten times more liberal, doubled down on every problematic part, and then shoved it down the throat of not just the liberal states, but the conservative states as well. You tried to make Texas into a more liberal Massachusetts. And that's not just unConstitutional... it's just plain wrong.
That would be a better argument than I've heard him make so far. Certainly better than his usual "it took money out of Medicaire and it's bad medicine." But he hasn't made anything like it yet, and it still concedes the fundamental premises of individual mandates and government control. It also undermines his argument that government policy should favor insurance purchases by individuals rather than government.
And then there's all the liberal stuff he said to get elected in Massachusetts. How do we know that the promises he's making today are any more sincere?
What you describe is a discussion on various ways to modify Obamacare, which only confirms that Romney as the nominee would take Obamacare as an issue off the table.
Gov. Romney still needs work "showing, not telling."
And while he's right that he's going to need "clear" themes, he's wrong that he's established them.
People need to know what you believe in, your "core principles" in order to predict how you'll respond to future issues. And what you announce as your core principles needs to resonate with your rhetoric and your background as actually being your core principles.
The problem with Gov. Romney's canidacy, particularly for conservatives, is that his time in Massachussetts, coupled with a couple statements that he's made here or there make people doubt that he'll "reflexively" lean towards conservative alligned responses (e.g. indexing the minimum wage - though Santorum's position that the minimum wage should stay a fixed percentage of average wages and be raised occassionally.... I don't know how that's alll that different from indexing).
My recommendation for the Gov. has been, and continues to be: "Responsible, Competitive, Strong, and Free." In that order, by the way,
I think Gov. Romney would come across as authentic on the first three. There is no doubt I think in most anyone's mind that Romney is a fiscally and morally responible person and leader. That's the main point in his appeal - not "inevitability" but "Responsibility." People are dying for a responsible leader - which mr. Spend-then-Tax-and-Borrow-the-Rest-from-China is clearly not. Responsibility is balancing the budget. Responsibility is stating "that's nice, but we can't afford it right now." Responsibility is making the tough decisions. Responsibility is passing a budget. Responsibility is not passing things in the middle of the night, and not disregarding and belittling the desires and beliefs of half of his constituancy.
"Competitive" is another thing that is authentic to Romney. He can show that he's committed to the private sector. He can show that he's committed to a more competative economic environment. The opposition to cost-raising mandates in Romneycare is one example, but he has others.
"Strong" also comes naturally to Romney. I don't think anyone doubts him when he talks about keeping the US military so strong that no one would dare to attach us. I think it blends well into responsibility as well, since maintaining the safety of the US is the first responsibility of the President. Meanwhile, this President has announced a policy of weakness - the "can only fight one war" policy which would mean that so long as one bad actor was making serious noise around the world, other could join in, knowing that the US could only effectively fight one war at once.
"Free" is the hardest one for Romney. The issue there is the individual mandate in Romneycare. Romney could point out that only people making above a certain amount would have to pay the mandate, and note the responsibility issues behind the mandate. But he needs to find his voice here - something in his background that would appeal to the libertarian impulses among the Tea Party and Republican base.
Gov. Romney's "well then, right me a ticket" story (something about taking his family fishing and being in violation of some ticky-tack regulation) would fit this... but he needs more. He needs to convince people that he gets that people don't want government telling them what to do in their day-to-day lives, no matter how benevolently intended the intervention is.
That said, even the Mass mandate wasn't intended as benevolent, but as a punitive measure to enforce personal responsibility and avoid free riding. Hence the flirting of the (conservative) heritage foundation with it.
Anywho... instead of repeating "Conservative," repeat "Responsible, Competitive, Strong and Free." People will hear "Conservative" in those words - and thus it will have much more impact, because people will know *why* the Gov's responses will lean towards conservative solutions.
Romney lies every time he says he did not raise taxes in Massachusetts. I live in Massachusetts and when he was governor, he raised all fees sky high. I and many others in this state consider that raising taxes.
I live in MA too. Romney raised no broad based fees. Fee for government service IS a conservative principle and even though no one likes them they are appropriate in a crisis. If you recall, we were under a $3B budget crisis when he came in. The bulk of his solution was closing agencies and cutting government. In fact, he left office with fewer state employees than when he started.
Personally, I felt like he was fighting for me, the taxpayer, when he vetoed those 800 bills from the 85% democrat legislature. I also appreciate that he was shutting down hack havens and also ousted the corrupt midget from UMass.
Fees are different from taxes. If you didn't participate in the area that required fees then the increase didn't effect you. A tax is placed on you for just breathing and affects everyone fees are much more selective. Idiots like you throw the word lie around quite a bit. Normally when someone calls someone else a liar it is because they themselves lie quite frequently
Fees are different from taxes. If you didn't participate in the area that required fees then the increase didn't effect you. A tax is placed on you for just breathing and affects everyone fees are much more selective. Idiots like you throw the word lie around quite a bit. Normally when someone calls someone else a liar it is because they themselves lie quite frequently
Article quote: "“I think that people who live their life in Washington become infected with a conviction that Washington is the source of America’s economic, military, and cultural greatness,” Romney says. “They’re wrong. Washington can encourage and protect free people and free enterprise, but it was designed to be the umpire, not the player. I want to return America to the free people and free enterprise that have propelled our prosperity.”
And that, folks, combined with Romney's obvious morality and integrity is why I'm going to vote for him
There is a reason why Mitt has not closed the deal for Conservatives. And it is complicated...he is NOT a Conservative, never has been, never will be.
I had to laugh at Steve Hayes' characterization of Mitt stating he was a "severely Conservative Governor". Hayes stated it "sounded like he was describing a head wound!"
I would respect Mitt more if he would just come out and say...
..."I am more moderate in my positions on some things, but I would find much more common ground working with Conservatives than with liberals...I tried working with liberals in MA, and it didn't work out very well."
But Mitt, do not insult my intelligence by telling me you are "severely Conservative" when in fact you GOVERNED to the left of Ford, Bush I (re-elect), Dole and McCain!
Lib/progs slurp up what people "say"...Conservatives look at what people have "done". Talk is cheap...and sometimes a hoot...."severely Conservative", ineed!
Romney's musings so far give no indication that he would lead the kind of low-tax, pro-growth reform that conservatives seek. The system in which Mitt became wealthy is basically unchanged since Bain was formed. That he can not imagine an across the board flat tax with no deductions should come as no surprise for it would put an end to leveraged buyouts which is where his interest is carried.
Even with his own people in the CPAC house Romney could not equal the enthusiasm generated by the shrewish Ann Coulter much less the genuine outpouring of adulation for Sarah Palin. It's not that Mitt's in trouble. It's that he's just not that into us.
Follow
