Posted on 10/07/2008 6:14:40 PM PDT by mathwhizz
Mitt Romney's remarks last week that John McCain's presidential campaign should have provided more media access to vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin sent waves through the political world because it was one of the first times the former governor had criticized the GOP nominee's strategy.
"Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake," Romney said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I think they'd be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people."
While Romney may have been reflecting the mainstream conventional wisdom going into last week's vice presidential debate, some say Romney's remarks are a glimpse ahead to a possible 2012 match-up between Romney and Palin, if McCain loses this year's race for the White House.
"The more interviews for Sara Palin, the less likely she will be the heir apparent to the Republican Presidential nomination next time," said Mike Shea, a veteran Boston Democratic strategist. "Whatever happens, McCain probably will not be the Republican nominee next time, and Romney will begin campaigning for that post the day after the election."
Scott Ferson, another Boston Democratic strategist, said Romney's remarks indicated a break from McCain, who appears to be slipping in recent polls.
"More significantly, [the remarks are] a show of independence that he has been cautious not to display when it looked like McCain's chances were strong," Ferson said. "It appears to be another set up for the party faithful, should McCain lose, to say they would have been better off with Romney."
The Romney camp fully dismissed any notion that the former governor was being overly critical of McCain or looking ahead to 2012.
"For the record, that's absolutely ridiculous," Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney, said, "a conspiracy theory that would make Oliver Stone blush."
"Gov. Romney has been working hard across the country to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin because he believes our nation will be better off with them in the White House," Fehrnstrom added.
Others suggested that Romney was simply reflecting the mainstream conventional wisdom in Republican circles last week.
"I think Romney is expressing his true sentiments, not trying to gain some advantage down the line by advising additional media exposure for Palin that could backfire," Rob Gray, a Boston GOP strategist, said. "Romney's view is in line with most Republican operatives I've spoken to, thus pretty mainstream."
Still, the local political punditry couldn't help but think of how a race between Romney and Palin would play out.
"It would be a battle," said Peter Blute, the former Republican congressman from Worcester. "Palin certainly has the conservative base, and she probably would maintain that."
That conservative branch of the party, Blute noted, gave Romney trouble this year because many evangelicals were unwilling to accept Romney's Mormonism. Nevertheless, Blute said Romney set himself up well.
"I think he's still a viable presidential candidate," he said. "He did a very good job in his first go around nationally."
And, Blute said, he isn't sure Palin is looking to run for president.
"I don't think she is necessarily as ambitious as Romney is," he said. "So she may not adhere herself to national politics...that may not be her thing."
At least one person said that Romney may be well-positioned because Palin's inexperience and lack of policy understanding has already taken hold.
"Palin's weakness in dealing with a range of issues is fundamental," said Paul Watanabe, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. "No tactical adjustments - relatively less or more exposure - can hide her lack of experience and critical knowledge."
That sentiment, plus Romney's significant political experience as a candidate and surrogate, led other to believe the former governor remarks indicate his own strategy looking ahead.
"Any strategy Mitt Romney suggests is for the benefit of Mitt Romney," Doug Hattaway, a Boston Democratic strategist and Al Gore's spokesman during his 2000 presidential campaign, said. "That's the safest bet you can make in politics."
State Rep. Brad Jones, the minority leader of the state House of Representatives, said Romney's political future is, ultimately, tied to the outcome of this election and how well Palin performs. If McCain wins this year and decides not to run for re-election in 2012, Palin will be in place as the frontrunner for the nomination.
"If Sen. McCain wins the presidency and decides not to run for re-election for whatever reason," Jones, a North Reading Republican, said, "the sitting vice president is going to have the resources of incumbency and if things have gone well, she's going to have that much more experience."
But, Jones went on, Romney could fill a vacuum as the frontrunner for 2012 if McCain loses and Palin is viewed as a drag on the ticket.
"If McCain loses and Palin isn't well-received," he said, "it partially elevates Romney because another viable contender is not there. It's going to be pretty hard for Palin to say, ‘I did poorly, we lost, Obama is on the presidency and now I perceive myself as the likely contender four years from now. And my pulpit is basically two more years as the governor of Alaska.' I don't see that."
“Can we get through this election first?”
You might be posting to a troll, mathwizz has been here two days, has posted two meaningless threads, and has not answered or responded to anyone.
I think Mitt Romney would be a GOOD vice-Presidential running mate for Sarah Palin in 2012!
*Slick Willard truth squad ping*
Will this lying liberal jackass EVER STFU and disappear ?
"Some say." Really? Is this another example of the hallucinatory features of Mitt Derangment Syndrome, the conservative counterpart to the liberals' Palin Derangment Syndrome? Because from where I sit the man said NOTHING negative about Palin, has been nothing but SUPPORTIVE, yet the political psychotics can't let go. It is their mission in life to hate Mitt Romney. Get therapy.
Fixed it for you.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, Deb. His paid operatives have been out badmouthing and undermining Gov. Palin from the day McCain chose her for VP. Slick Willard, just another lying liberal sleaze doing the dirty work for the rodent party.
I think you should try therapy.
You are flat out hallucinating.
I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on Romney if he was on fire.
Romney would be a good VP for Obama. Both equally fake.
Still worshipping his hairness, Deb ? Time to wake up and smell the White Rain.
The difference between Obie and Slick Willard is that at least Barry is honest about what party he really belongs to.
Would the Romney supporters please just give it up? I’m tired of this riculous love affair with the guy.
Whatever Mccain’s future Sarah is my first choice for ‘12. Absent her, then Jindal. But I have NO interest in a Romney Presidency. Didn’t before, most certainly do not now.
Mitt: All about Mitt.
A little false -- at times?
You mean when he's lying about owning a gun?
Or lying about being a hunter?
Or lying about his gun-grabbing record?
Or lying about both he and his father marching with MLK?
Or lying about his pro-abortion record?
Or lying about his support for gay rights?
In a word, no. You list flip-flops. While real, I do not for a microsecond accept that they tell the story of a Mitt candidacy for President.
He is a fine leader, smart enough to understand what needs to be done from a conservative point of view (including especially judicial nominations), and I believe that he sincerely wants to serve for all the right reasons.
My misgivings were that he too often appears insincere.
Whether Mitt Romney is in a good position to run in 2012 remains to be seen. If McCain-Palin doesn't win, many of us will be further persuaded that Mitt Romney was the better candidate. Certainly he would be stronger right now with the economy in turmoil. However, the country will be a different place in four years. Mitt Romney could be a favorite in four years, but the notion that he is setting up a conflict with Sarah Palin is silly.
Bill
Wasn’t so big on Romney from the outset, but grew to like him as the field dwindled.
Since that time I have spoken with a few Evangelicals; he will never win the top of the ticket for the GOP.
Oh come on why would Palin run for VP again?
That does not make sense.
McCain is a drag on the ticket.
Mitt is the second coming of Barry Goldwater, compared to a Kennedy.
so he’d lose by a landslide?
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.