Posted on 02/08/2008 4:02:17 AM PST by monkapotamus
Let's look at this logically.
Romney lived in Boston because that is where he and his business partners based Bain Capital.
However, Romney left Bain in 1998 to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. Presumably, he spent at least a large portion of the next four years in Utah. By all accounts, Romney did a magnificent job on the Olympics. He was brought in to at least salvage some credibility after the scandal and he not only overcame that, he turned it into a huge success.
So, the question then becomes, why go back to Massachusetts? Romney is worth AT LEAST $200 million, he can live anywhere he wants. Why not stay in Utah and run for governor there?
The people in Utah loved him for what he had accomplished and his religion would NEVER be an issue there. And the people of Utah would NEVER push for government funding for abortion or homosexual marriage.
In short, Romney had two choices: he could either stay in a very conservative state where people loved him or he could return to a very liberal state where people remembered him as a wealthy businessman who had been soundly defeated when he ran against Kennedy for the senate. The ONLY logical conclusion is that Romney went to the state where he would be the most comfortable with his true political beliefs.
Greatness is the quality of being misunderstood.
So which of the candidates has the looks to get your vote?
My guess is that the reason Romney got out of the race was a mixture opf what he said were the reasons at his speech at CPAC, coupled with the fact that he is a good business man and saw that another 35 million was not going to garner success...so he got out.
The main reason Romney lost was simple too...people need to see more time with him holding to and fighting for the conservative values his campaign espouses...and they need to see it outside the auroa and potentially self-serving environment of a campaign.
If, for the next four years, Romney politically espouses, defends, and fights for those principles when there is nm campaign...then he may well emerge much stronger and more grounded with the people the next go around.
You make a good point, waggle. He did not have to return to Mass.
I think his best move now would be to go to Michigan and run for the Senate or Governorship there. It’s his home state, so he won’t be seen as a carpetbagger.
It is also conservative enough to allow him to establish conservative credentials. It is liberal enough to guarantee situations coming up that would test his new found conservative beliefs.
Besides, he promised Michigan to revive the auto industry — the source of his father’s family fortune.
And their soft bigotry will cost us dearly.
Do you realize the 3 front runners are all Senators, and other than Clinton's Give-me jobs and Obama's stint with BIC, they have never held a job in the private sector!
The accounting equation is brutal: A = L + OE's you either are making money or you fold, and it is more brutal if you have a payroll to meet.
All three have never met a payroll!
Whomever gets elected, I expect nothing to get done with entitlements, SSI, Medicaid and Medicare, and they are about to eat us alive.
Romney is the only one with the business acumen to at least attempt to fix them, and could explain it to the American people.
IMHO, We are in deep Maired....
Good point. You are probably right. Incentives matter.
LLS
>>>Mitt is a CEO. He is an executive.
>>>He embodies the attributes, talents
>>>and demeanor that every successful CEO must have.
If that’s true then it explains why this country is in trouble. The subprime industry was full of “Mits”. The man is a liar.
>>>A Massachusetts liberal should never have been in the race. >>>Same for a New York liberal
>>>Same goes for the turncoat insane shamnesty dude from Arizona.
Those are the horses The Party(tm) chose to put in the race.
None of them represent conservatism. What other conclusion can we come to but that those who are running The Party(tm) are not conservative?
I’m tired of being told to vote for the lesser evil. I will not vote for McWeevil.
I think you nailed it. The Republicans have a flawed primary system that gives too much weight to liberal states.
Not all attempted leveraged buyouts succeed.
What boggles my mind, is that so many so-called conservatives couldn't, wouldn't, didn't see it, or apparently, even bother to look for it.
The fact that he had been elected to run the most liberal state in the union, should have been a clue.
So they discounted bona fide conservative candidates , for what, some guy with good hair, and the flashy smile of a used car salesman?
[sigh]
Romney failed because he was for abortion before he was against it. He was for gay marriage before he was against it.
He was John Kerry flopping in the other direction.
Good thinking. We need solutions like this if we are to recover.
>>I owe no allegiance to any party, only to my ideas.
:-)
I agree, this is why Romney lost, because people attached these absolutely ridiculous value judgements upon him with absolutely no valid basis. Pitiful, isn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.