Despite past claims that Mitt Romney hasn’t been interested in running against Barack Obama in 2012, it seems that he has been acting rather suspicious.
From the Associated Press:
Mitt Romney doesn’t have a job for the first time in his adult life. That hardly means he’s not working. In ways both subtle and overt, the 2008 Republican presidential contender, former Massachusetts governor, one-time Olympics chief and high-flying businessman is building toward a 2012 White House campaign by judiciously engaging and disengaging with the national debate.
On Tuesday, he’s in Chicago to speak at a fundraiser for a prospective state treasurer candidate. On Wednesday, he’s in Washington to headline a fundraiser for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. On Thursday, he’s again the keynote speaker at a fundraising dinner for Republicans in New York City.
After that, he’s heading back to his oceanfront home in La Jolla, Calif., to continue writing newspaper columns and a political book. Based on the ’60s tome “The American Challenge” by Frenchman Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, it will be aimed at shaking American economic and political complacency, he said.
Romney’s also supervising the sale of houses he owns in Massachusetts and Utah, the type of excess real estate that brought ridicule to John McCain last fall. And his political action committee is seeding money to candidates across the country.
“This is a quiet time,” Romney insisted Friday during a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Park City, Utah. He had just completed loading a U-Haul trailer with personal effects from the ski home he’s selling and was about to set out — alone — for the 11 1/2-hour drive back to California.
“At this stage, running again is way beyond the horizon,” said Romney, 62. “This year is working on a book. The next year will be helping in Republican campaigns. And I don’t know what the year after that will bring.”
Republican strategist Mary Matalin says she can easily see a second campaign — and a more successful one, at that.
“There’s nothing like going around the track once to broaden the field,” Matalin said. “He has an intellectual base. He has a politics-faith base. He certainly has an economic base. If there’s anything illogical about it, it’s that he — and not some of the other people who may appeal more strongly to one of those elements — has the greatest potential to pull all those factions together.”
Such activity leads me to believe that Romney is planning on running in 2012 against Barack Obama. Is this a good thing for the GOP? Definitely. The Republicans are floundering and no matter how many Sarah Palins and Bobby Jindals come to the rescue, this party is in the tank.
What does Romney symbolize? Everything that the Republicans are missing. Intelligence, optimism, organization, deep understanding of economics/business, professionalism, etc. I wasn’t surprised that Bobby Jindal was thrust into the national spotlight by his party to respond to President Obama’s State of the Union address. And it is also equally unsurprising that the folksy Sarah Palin has been gaining a lot of attention within the party. What is surprising is the Mitt Romney seems to have been written off by much of the party, despite the fact that he is probably the only potential candidate that can stand against Barack Obama when it comes to economic policy, an issue which most Americans are concerned with.
Personally, I hope to see Romney emerge as the Republican nominee in 2012. Frankly, the party has wasted enough time with pathetic GOP heartthrobs like Sarah Palin, not to mention, after watching Bobby Jindal crash and burn, I can’t help but hope that the GOP finally sees the value of a candidate like Mitt Romney.
Finally, I found a letter to the editor in New Jersey’s The Star-Ledger, which adequately describes the Romney-paradox:
I found Kathleen Parker’s March 4 column (“Limbaugh is a showman, not a shaman”) interesting, but more interesting than her comments about Rush Limbaugh were what she had to say about former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Romney was at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and won the presidential preference straw poll for the third straight year. So why did the Republicans put Bobby Jindal out front and center after President Obama’s address to Congress on Feb. 24? Jindal’s speech was almost as bad as former President George W. Bush’s attempts to offer our nation an inspirational speech or speak in a coherent sentence.
And how can the GOP still consider Sarah Palin a possible candidate for 2012?
As Parker rightly states, Romney’s speeches show who the real GOP leader is. Romney is an “optimistic leader with a business record of red-to-black successes.” So why isn’t the Republican party putting forth Romney since he is currently the party’s brightest individual? He is intelligent, thoughtful, speaks clearly and concisely, understands the world of business and finance, as well as the world in which we live. How sad to consider the possibility that a Mormon is not the minority the Republicans are looking for.
– Diane B. Barry, Denville
As for me, I could handle Romney losing the nomination, if he were to run in 2012. But if the pick goes to good ole’ Sarah P., then I will be registering as an Independent and “good riddance” to an irrelevant party.
- Marc
You forgot habitual flip-flopping, insincerity, “Who Let The Dogs Out, Roof Roof Roof,” and the hair.
I think you make a good argument here though, but I still think someone like Romney (and for SURE Palin or Jindal) is exactly what the Democrats are hoping they’ll be up against in 2012, in that he’s an easy target with a history of waffling on issues to suit the political winds of whatever he was shooting for at the time. Too “business man,” not enough “for the people” populism to his image. Someone like Huntsman or Charlie Crist would give them more of a challenge. Also, I think even GOP leaders know barring a huge screw-up, 2012 is a wash for them, so it’s probably more likely we’ll see a token candidate, or perhaps a trial run for Jindal.
We completely agree on the future of the GOP if it’s Palin, though.
Mitt is the wrong candidate. In 2012, the GOP will nominate a populist. Mitt’s weaknesses as a campaigner were exposed in ’08. He shows no shame for his flip flops. His biograpgy is filled with ideological inconsistanices. If he runs, he will be a 2 time loser.
And, for those who say my opinion in based on Mormon bashing, please run Jon Huntsman for prez and watch how fast I move to New Hampshire to campaign for him.
Can we not talk about this yet?
I know what t-shirt I’m getting Craig for Christmas in 09 now.