« Clinton Campaign Becomes Transparent, Briefly | Main | A Response On Superdelegates »

Romney's Graceful Exit

07 Feb 2008 06:31 pm

Mitt Romney's decision to stand aside and acknowledge Sen. John McCain as the likely Republican nominee will serve the former Massachusetts governor well in his future endeavors.

He will be well-positioned to run for office -- national or state -- anytime he wants. He is certainly an automatic leading candidate for the nomination in 2012, should Republicans fail to capture the White House in November.

McCain was gracious to Romney in his speech today, but some of his advisers understand that something substantive has to come from Romney's concession.

What follows is not a postmortem or an obit... just some thoughts.

Romney's fellow candidates did not like him. They saw him as an upstart who synthesized his conservatism in order to cater to the Republican base. Romney changed his mind on many positions; some of these were acknowledged and others weren't. Many of the position changes were suspiciously recent. Though, Romney was always more conservative, personally, than his opponents gave him credit for, he was struck with the curse of being found to lack credibility from the start.

He was more comfortable running as a social conservative than as a social liberal, but he never found the right way to voice his optimism, and his stump speeches often reflected pessimism, not optimism: America under attack from all corners.

Romney found his voice too late; had he run principally as an anti-Washington reformer, he would have found a niche in this race. For many, he was the default candidate, though. It's never good to be a default candidate.

He also messed up on immigration. Instead of finding a way to bridge the differences between the nativists and the intergrationalists in the party, he alienated both, at least initially. The majority of Republicans are neither nativists nor integrationalists. No candidate, actually, has found a way to finesse this. And if Republicans don't finesse this, they're dead as a party for a few cycles.

Romney was hurt by his religion. Some Republican voters in Iowa and other states were bigots. , as were secular liberals and Democrats who enjoyed a good Mormon joke or two. That's a fact of life.

Beth Myers ran a fantastic campaign, arguably the best of any campaign this cycle. The campaign's organizational successes were the envy of their opponents. Most of Romney's money was put to good use, all other things being equal.

Was the early emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire a mistake? In retrospect, who knows? But I think it was the best strategy available to a candidate with Romney's strengths and weaknesses.

I'll have more thoughts tomorrow. Meanwhile, tell me your thoughts about Romney's campaign and its legacy, and I'll actually read them and post some of the more interesting ones.


Share This

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/19325

Comments (88)

One phony candidate gone (Romney), one to go (Clinton).

He was a poor candidate. He had lots of money and but no real connection with the people and they soon figured out that the conservative suit didn't fit him well. There was a rush to his side only when it appeared that McCain might emerge the winner.
I predict that events and players will over shadow any comeback bid for the presidency. Maybe he can win the senate in Mass. Kerry has no connection either, so it will be a fair fight.

Gracious? He equated the Democratic Party with "surrender" and did not say a good thing about McCain, beyond noting his agreement on the war. This was the most petulant concession since Nixon's gubernatorial loss.

Marc, you have a queer idea of "Graceful".

Marc, I was surprised to see Stephen Hayes call that a "graceful" exit. He accused me, and many other sincere Americans with the same view as my own regarding Iraq, of wanting to declare defeat to terror. I am the enemy with in our lovely new Weimar Republic. And you call it graceful. I'm sorry, but screw you.

Marc, I think your analysis is good. I was disappointed by Romney’s decision because I thought he was far and away the best candidate, but I think his decision was the right (pragmatic) one. I would love to be able to peek into a parallel universe, however, and see what he could have accomplished as president. I will always wonder. With all of the challenges we face, my gut tells me he was exactly what the country needed—just not what we wanted.

Unfortunately, as determined as Romeny was the obstacles of establishment Washington, bigotry, the unified loathing of his opponents, the persistent characterization as a “flip-flopper”, etc. all proved to be too much to overcome.

I mentioned bigotry. The other parallel universe I’d like to see is the one where Mitt is not a Mormon. My gut tells me in that one he is the clear front-runner.

Mark -- there is no chance that Mitt Romney will win state office again, at least not in Massachusetts. He has done much to alienate this state and its voters since embarking upon his presidential bid. Utah, maybe; Massachusetts, never again.

I am devastated that Mitt Romney has suspended his campaign. I cannot vote for McCain or Huckabee. Both bullied Gov Romney and forced him out. No thoughts of party unity with them! It is America's loss to have Romney out. Indeed, Gov Romney was gracious in his decision. We haven't seen the last of him. For now, I have lost hope and may have to vote Dem and I am a Conservative Republican.

Have to agree with the other (non-Republican) commenters here -- saying that the Democrats are determined to surrender to terrorists is about as far from "graceful" as it gets.

Leaving aside Ambinder's "unfortunate" terms, can anyone point to an MSM "reporter" ever once trying to determine exactly what Romney's position on imm. was? Aren't MSM "reporters" as clueless and as corrupt as AndersonCooper when it comes to actually trying to figure out what someone wants to do? While Romney is certainly largely responsible for not articulating his plans, doesn't the MSM's widespread support for illegal activity combined with the fact that they know nothing and care less about policy matters play a large role?

Al Checchi exited gracefully as well, chastened by the experience of learning that you can't buy a public office the way you can buy a Burger King franchise.
Will he return? What a nightmare for the GOP, a spoiler with money. Imagine if Nader was a trust fund baby.

Bigoted. Exactly. Thats exactly what Mitts problem was. If he was a Presbyterian, Episcopalian or Baptist. I am ashamed to be a baptist, a republican and a southerner because all my party is right now is a bunch of bigots who are going to lose the White House.

People who are very good at business seldom translate into good politicans. A CEO and a President require different skill sets.

bigot

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I don't think cracking a Mormon joke every now and then qualifies.

I am devastated by Mitt Romney's decision to withdraw from the presidential race. In my opinion Mitt has proved that he is the republican candidate that really does care about this country by stepping down for the good of the party. I don't see anyone else willing to make that kind of selfless decision, especially John McCain who IS the divider of the republican party. The best man to lead this country will not be on the ballot in November. I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for second best.

I am devastated by Mitt Romney's decision to withdraw from the presidential race. In my opinion Mitt has proved that he is the republican candidate that really does care about this country by stepping down for the good of the party. I don't see anyone else willing to make that kind of selfless decision, especially John McCain who IS the divider of the republican party. The best man to lead this country will not be on the ballot in November. I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for second best.

Romney's problem was that he really is a conservative, but was a politician in the most liberal state in the country. He adjusted his opinions to get elected there, and he did pay for that to some degree when he adopted more conservative positions in this election. But he would make a great, conservative president--extemely bright, optimistic, evenhanded, and a good guy. He went from zero name recognition to probably the heir apparent for the next election if McCain falls short, or ends up a one term president.

What this country saw was a candidate propelled onto the national stage and was "knocked" down a time or two by the powerful machine of Amercian Politics. Its a dirty game, and Mccain and others know just what they had to do to discredit, falsify information and diseminate bigotry to get past an opponent.

Both Mccain and Huckabee focused on Romney because they knew they could drag him through the mud and beat him up a little, bloody his nose and hope he would go away. What they dont realize is that Romney is a man of vision and morals, whether you like his religious beliefs, (most of whom people dont even know what they are, but just make rash and oft times false conclusions)

Did you notice no "Dirt" came up about his personal life, his family or past? Most people who actually met him in person or listen to him closely were drawn to him. He may not have been a "slick" salesman but he was genuine and has a sincere desire to do good, even in America's trashy political arena.

Regardless of what you say people have made up their minds about a particular candidate. Mitt Romney may be of out the race for 2008 but he is not "out" and his exit was "Graceful" in political terms.........talking about surrendering to terrorism is a real concern for us Conservatives that see our fellow American's (i.e Democarts) take a different approach then we espouse.

The Party Elders can not Fault Romney for what becomes of Maccain and his run for office..........they can't come and say to Mitt, "See what you've done" we could have been united and won ..... not that can not be pinned on Romney. Leave that to Huckabee who does not get it through his head, the numbers are not there and the will of the people are not there, so why not rally behind the only candidate your party has and dig in for the long fight ahead?

Huckabee will fight it out to the convention???? what sense does that make, that does continues to drive a wedge between the conservatives and the more moderate faction behind Mccain.........and Huckabee is not the conservative he claims he is, being from the South does not make you an automatic voice of the Conservatives.

Romney changes on position were a "Maturing process" politically, how can you win a state like Mass without a more moderate stance on the issues? What is important is to look closely at what he did while in office, remembering the limited time he was there.

could Romney have better articulated his message to the public early on? of course, but you don't know that until you get into it and see what is working and what is not. Maccain did win the nomination the 1st time he ran for office.

Mitt Romney is a man of integrity, and moral principles, and all the nay-sayers can say all they want, but when the history books are written kind things will be said of Romney and Huckabee will be forgotton as so will Mccain as he loses the election to a smooth talking liberal (Obama) who has no substantive platform but whom everybody likes because he can rally a crowd with his enthusiasm and vision for a unified nation........

All of us should take note of how Obama speaks to the crowd he gives them hopes and dreams.........he is no doubt a good communicator, he can sound "White" and he can sound "Black" and he can sounds like he cares and knows the struggles of the working man and women in the country. Now whether his policies translate into that is highly suspect and we conservatives know that, but the Repulican Party better realize and realize soon, we have to communicate hope to the nation, and for that I think we will see Mitt Romney 4 years or 8 years from now.

He has planted the seeds, he has taken his strips on the back of the media and bigots of the nation and he has come out probably one of the most respected of all the candidates, and those who say otherwise wouldn't compliment the fellow regardless of what he did. That's politics!!!

I think the analysis that Marc and others present is accurate. What I think what's equally important, but doesn't get enough attention, is just how little issues matter. In almost every primary or caucus Romney won amongst voters who most valued a candidate's stance on the issues. He lost amongst those who valued character the most. Ultimately, he lost the critical narrative battle against a war hero and a "Christian leader". The Mr. Fix-It and CEO image just didn't appeal to enough voters and, of course, his authenticity problem was never really dealt with. The only issue that ever really hurt him was a non-issue: His position on the surge. McCain was able to contrive this out of thin air and because of Romney's authenticity problem- coupled with the fact that the charge came from the Straight Talk Express-it hung in voters' minds.

I expect over the coming four years he'll do something to cement his social conservative and hawkish credentials.

Forgot...

I don't see how he messed up on immigration unless you define winning by appealing to moderates and independents. For months, Romney has made a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, and on several occasions has made the point that his policy would be "humane" in its treatment of illegal immigrants. I don't think he perfected the middle-road on the issue, but he certainly didn't bungle it either.

I think Romney will be the poster child for a few cycles for the "built-it-yourself" Republican candidate playbook. It will be a constant reminder that you can't just spend a lot of money and say the right things--it has to be backed up by an appeal for your candidate, and there was no "there" there; at least, not as the Romney that ran for most of 2007.

Why did Sam Brownback fade but Mike Huckabee rise? Because there is something inherently appealing about Huckabee's candidacy that Brownback simply didn't have. Most political junkies, let alone regular Republican voters, can't find that much difference, policy-wise, between the two.

If Romney had ran the campaign he has in the last three week for its entirety, then perhaps he may have had a better chance. But in a crowded field, the same crowded field that made Giuliani a front-runner, he was known initially by three things: the fact that he has a lot of money, the fact that he's a Mormon, and the fact that he's changed his position on every issue under the sun. That stayed with him through his many re-inventions. It proves that there is no singular "Republican" playbook that you can call all of your plays from.

Mitt Romney was an absolute ideal candidate who wasn’t able to convince his detractors or doubters that he, in fact, truly believed in the conservative platform and intended to serve “the people” as opposed to special interests and lobbyists. Gov. Romney is an exceptionally principled man and I cannot think of one instance when he made a personal attack (versus contrasting the issues) against anyone. He could have complained about the biased media, the repeated attacks on his religion, the push-polling and absurd robo-calls. This didn’t happen and never will, much to the dismay of his supporters. He’s just far too gracious to stoop to that level as I’m sure part of his moral fabric precludes him from speaking ill of his fellow man. Maybe this was his downfall; he didn’t compromise his principles in order to win.

In order to understand the true essence of Romney, one has to recognize how his faith informs his positions, as well as how much he believes in personal liberty, our constitution, and the importance of service to others. He said it time and time again, "I do not believe I should impose my personal beliefs on others." This in itself seems to be the basis of most of his alleged flip-flops. He was always pro-life personally and I'm sure he personally found the concept of homosexuality somewhat offensive. However, because of his faith and compassion, he also doesn't believe in discrimination nor that he should judge others; hence, the personal/political conflicts with abortion and civil rights for gays. His parents further set the example of tolerance and fighting for or serving your fellow man. Look at his father's fight FOR civil rights, and his mother's fight for a woman's right to choose in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. Both were unpopular social positions at the time and also, in part, conflicted with their faith. But each was the right thing to do and the Romneys had no problem being pioneers on social issues at the expense of their political careers or trumping unfair tenets of their church. What people never acknowledged about Mitt Romney was that the dichotomy of his personal and political positions was always in the favor of the electorate, the people, and not his personal agenda.

This quote about George Romney after his death could just as easily apply to Mitt: “Devout, principled, that classic Jeffersonian citizen, a problem solver, a shirtsleeve worker, a liberal in his treatment of his fellow humans, a conservative with other people’s money, a leader, not a manipulator. They didn’t make many like George Romney; they are making fewer today.”
(The Birmingham-Bloomfield Eccentric, August 3, 1995)

Mitt Romney knew he could help this country, and we missed the opportunity to elect a truly gifted man. We can only hope that he gives us another chance.

It seems strange now but I was intrigued by Mitt Romney when I first heard he may be running for president. All I knew about him then was that he was super-duper rich and that he had saved the Olympics. (Shades of me saving the Jewish Law Students Association at my law school. That I packed it with gentiles is another story.) I knew that Romney was instrumental in passing a health care plan that tried to reach every citizen of Massachusetts, the state where he was governor.

Huh, I thought. Is Romney a different kind of Republican? The old paradigm of what made a Republican needed to be updated for the 21st century. The old tropes just weren't exciting enough people anymore. (How many times can you cry wolf about the horrors of gay marriage anyway?) There were legitimate problems facing our country and there wasn't that much time to waste when Romney first let it be known he was running for president a few years ago. For example, health care. And Romney seemed to have a plan for that.

But something happened on the way to the convention. Romney made a huge mistake when he decided to become the latest guy to try to assume Ronald Reagan's mantle. (Guys, it can't be done.) Instead of being the problem-solving moderate he had always been, Romney decided to hold the most conservative position on every issue. He wanted to be the most conservative candidate ever. I am not a Rudy Giuliani fan by any means but he did get off a good line about Romney when he said Romney would probably have put Ronald Reagan in one of his commercials that criticized Giuliani and McCain and Huckabee for being soft on immigration if Reagan was still alive because Reagan had signed an amnesty bill in 1986.

Also, it seems that neither Romney nor his advisors had ever heard of YouTube. Because there was a wealth of clips of Romney pontificating his views of just a few years ago. Views that were moderate and, in my opinion, where most people were. He showed some tolerance towards gays and lesbians. He wasn't happy about abortions but said it was something that was needed. He wanted some kind of gun control. He showed some humanity toward illegal immigrants. He recognized that there were some excesses during the Reagan/Bush I years.

Romney didn't think who he actually was was enough to to get him elected. He didn't have enough faith in the voters. He didn't think we would see him as a slightly dorky but highly competent individual. It is as if one day he decided to model himself after Rush Limbaugh. As of today, Rush Limbaugh has never won a race for public office. I know Rush's ego is big enough that if he thought he could run for president and win, he would have done that already. So far, no Limbaugh presidency. Romney chose a poor model to copy. The irony is the real Romney would have demolished the phony Romney.

Back in 2006, Romney probably thought his main competition would come from Senator George Allen of Virginia. Back then, Allen was supposed to be the new Reagan. Romney thought he would have to out-right wing Allen. Again, irony shows it lovely head when Allen macacized his chances for his Senate reelection and a subsequent run for the White House. By this point, Romney has committed himself to a rightward tilt. There was to be no turning back. Romney was stuck.

Other problems emerged in Romney's attempt to Reaganize himself. He wasn't the charismatic presence that Reagan was. He wasn't as believable when talking about conservative values. (One of the knocks on Reagan when he was running for president was that he was too tied to his beliefs. Romney had the opposite problem.) Reagan was believable as the common man due to his humble and troubled upbringing. Romney is not a common man; he doesn't look like one. (I wish I was "common" enough to have vacation homes in four states.) When Reagan was running for president, people weren't going around quoting his net worth like a pejorative.

Reagan had a long history in the conservative movement when he won the presidency, going all the way back to "The Speech" of 1964. Romney has been a member of the conservative movement for about two years. There will be rumblings that Romney will run in 2012. I don't see it. Nobody seemed to really like Romney except people making more than $100,000. There aren't enough of those people to ever create a Romney movement.

Had Juliani stayed in through and Huckabee left, he must have a great chance on SuperTuesday.
Juliani's vote mostly went to McCain (NY, NJ)
and Huck took evangelical votes in the South.
So Mitt couldn't be in worst situation.

McCain's so called strait talk is always suspicious and just looking at his personal life - Deserting his 1st wife, hot tempers - using f word at times...
just don't allow me to support him.

Romney whatever people say about his issues,
his personal life / family is very admirable.
His devotion to his wife - who is suffering MS-
is something I really look upto.

Well it's a shame...

I will miss him very much.

A few of my non-expert observations on Romney’s campaign:
1. Many analysts will say that Romney’s campaign strategy was flawed. However, his early state strategy actually allowed him to stay in the race for quite a while after the first round. Even though he lost Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney came close in both and stayed in the national media spotlight. In fact, his national poll numbers continued to rise as the race progressed. The campaign showed quite a bit of resilience through a roller coaster campaign season. After losing Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney went on political life support. Yet he battled back and won Michigan, which allowed him to return to contention. Then, he was crushed in South Carolina (where he spent untold amounts of cash) and lost a squeaker in Florida. Even after all of these setbacks, he was able to compete in California and win several smaller caucus states. Contrast this with Giuliani, who voluntarily went on life support to make his stand in Florida. His disappearance from the early states threw him out of the media’s eye, and completely erased any momentum he had. I think it shows that if a candidate has the money to fund a complete battle throughout the early states, he or she can stay in the hunt through adversity, even if they lose some or all of the early states.

2. Romney’s trouble with political consistency has been well documented. But one thing the media tends to overlook is his ability to adapt to various political situations. The Romney camp changed their message on a near continual basis. This helped him to compete throughout the early states, and allowed him to win Michigan. Yet, I think the flip-flopping charges will continue to haunt Romney throughout his political career, including a future presidential run. I think it is safe to say that Romney’s political shape-shifting is both a blessing and a curse to him.

3. Yet again, South Carolina was critical to the Republican race. McCain beat all the odds and won in a conservative southern state, which diminished Huckabee’s influence in Florida and kept Romney’s support down enough to allow McCain to get the win. Romney’s greatest and most costly mistake of this campaign was to pull out of South Carolina. If he could have taken 3 percentage points away from McCain, he could have stalled his momentum enough to take Florida and then California. There is a reason that no Republican has won the presidential nomination without winning South Carolina in 28 years. And this year proved that truth yet again.

In conclusion, Romney should be set up for a strong run at the nomination in four or even eight years. The key determinant will be his ability to overcome the charges of hypocrisy, and (of course) quiet concerns about his religion. I am a McCain supporter myself (have been since he got in the race), yet I hope that Governor Romney will continue to contribute to the dialogue taking place in our country for years to come.

Sadly, 2008 was not Mitt Romney's time. We will need him down the road however when the times are right. Because for many Americans who remember the Carter years; when we were waiting in gas lines, rationing our home heating oil, losing our jobs, and embarrassed by Iranian terrorists, a man called Reagan emerged on the scene to restore this Nation's pride and confidence. When the Democrats put aside our safety, destroy our economy by raising taxes, we will all need Mitt Romney to make America great again.

Are we just supposed to forget that racism was the doctrine of Mormonism until the mid-70's?

Mitt Romney was an adult in this church, when it's very doctrine was pure bigotry.

Are we supposed to just give him a pass on that? Especially when the guy has pandered in the most pathetic way to the far right, which are bigots against gays and still panders to racists and bigots everywhere.

Whatever on the Mormon/bigotry thing.

Fact is, Romney is a chump, and he lost not because of his religion but because he is a phony who has changed every core principal and simply doesn't have the character to be Commander in Chief.

As a Baptist, I took quite a while before deciding to vote for a Mormon. I came to realize that Mitt Romney was the most principled candidate in the race. He would have served with the same character that he exemplifies in his life. How sad that he was so maligned by so many. The changes in position he made were at least changes for the better. There are no choices in either party that come close to offering what he did for America.

TO STRAIGHT TALK:

Do some reading before you brush everyone with the same stroke, or rather, based upon the diction of your post, have someone read TO you.

His parents further set the example of tolerance and fighting for or serving your fellow man. Look at his father's fight FOR civil rights, and his mother's fight for a woman's right to choose in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. Both were unpopular social positions at the time and also, in part, conflicted with their faith. But each was the right thing to do and the Romneys had no problem being pioneers on social issues at the expense of their political careers or trumping unfair tenets of their church. What people never acknowledged about Mitt Romney was that the dichotomy of his personal and political positions was always in the favor of the electorate, the people, and not his personal agenda.


I know Mitt Romney. I also have several close associates that have worked with him at Bain and during the Olympics. Mitt is one of the most intelligent and hard working people I've ever known. I have nothing but respect for Mitt and he's had success and nearly everything he's touched. It pains me when I hear the liberal media and his opponents call him fake and disingenuous, that could not be further from the truth for those that know him personally. I biased of course, but I truly feel that Mitt would have changed this country in a positive way. My hopes are that he'll have another shot in four years.

I think three main factors doomed Romney. One was glaringly obvious, the other two were not. The best laid plans....

1) Huckabee: Romney's entire strategy was predicated on strong showings in the early caucus states to generate name recognition and demonstrate voter appeal. Huckabee basically destroyed that strategy when he won Iowa. Romney not only lost delegates, Huckabee dominated the media coverage which in turn hurt Romney in NH. It's not clear how Huckabee's presence on the balance affected the later races, but it's hard to see McCain winning the nomination so easily without Huckabee derailing Romney in Iowa.

2) Bush's Unpopularity: Although entirely foreseeable, this hurt Romney considerably among moderate and Republican-leaning independents, and Romney wasn't quite strong enough with conservatives to outweigh that. Romney basically ran as Bush + competence. McCain's reputation as a maverick, even though he was as hawkish on Iraq as anybody, helped him lock up the moderate and independent vote. They are a minority of primary voters, however, and would not have been enough if not for the second unforseen factor:

3) The 'Success' of the Surge: The 'success' of the surge provided conservative voters a reason to vote for McCain. He still wasn't able to win them outright, but he was able to win enough conservative votes to win the nomination based on his advocacy of the surge and perceived leadership qualities.

Romney showed no character and no steadiness of values. He took the most right-wing, authoritarian, anti-humanistic positions possible to kiss up to the GOP's vanishing base, even to the point of writing non-theists out of the body politic. Good riddance.

Mitt Romney's candidacy was one of the most expensive vanity projects in recent memory. His poll numbers were always inflated by early advertising and hid the weakness of his support. Most of his delegates came from caucus states where he (and Ron Paul) were able to use their cash to determine the results. He lost primary after primary.

In the end it was the electoral machinery McCain inherited from Rudy that sealed Mitt's fate - those winner take all rules in key nor'eastern states.

Like Ron Paul, Romney had a small, built in base of fervent supporters who saw his candidacy as a project to advance tolerance of Mormonism. They flooded the internet, forums, and straw polls and once again inflated his support.

But lets be clear. Romney dropped out because he lost - it was impossible for him to win. All this talk about doing it for the good of the country is just spin. If he had a shot he would have fought all the way to the convention the Republican party be damned.

The real Mitt Romney might have made an excellent president. Unfortunately, we will never know; he spent all his money and efforts cultivating a facade. This insincerity will plague him if he chooses to run for office again. Hopefully he will serve as an example to presidential hopefuls to be consistent and authentic.

It's ironic that Mitt lost Florida because McCain made up a lie that Mitt did not agree with him on the war, and them Mitt drops out because he really does agree with McCain on the war. So, who is not the genuine candidate here?

Thanks for the kind words for him. But unlike you the media railroaded him... You should see the Boston Globe's version. They are thankful to have McCain a liberal leading the pack. I however am so sad that Mitt pulled out. He was such a decent man with brilliant ideas of how to turn around the economy. The war will not be an issue with out money to fund it!!!

Romney is one of the finest presidential candidates and has great talents he is offering America. He is just what our country needs about now. definately in 2012. Can't help but think of that commercial that said,I could've had a V-8. He's a great man and I hope we see more of him often.

jhb,
I'll add another point to your three. During this primary season, for many reasons, many Republicans see a chance to remake the Party with some more interested in excising some element rather than running against the Democrats; few want compromise.

The moderates are aggressively asserting themselves and want the social conservatives out.
The Christian populists who feel their faith has been exploited are in no mood to compromise anymore.
The Paleocons want to reassert this party to the pre-GWB era of, say, eight years ago...
So, naturally, the consensus guy was the most hated!

Mitt Romney was an outstanding candidate who failed to exhibit the kind of energy and enthusiasm during the Primaries that he displayed today. He will be back and he will probably win, so long as close minded Southern Christians can bring themselves to look beyond his Mormon beliefs. Romney 2012

To the liberal bloggers on here, you people will never understand the war on terror because you refused to listen. an immediate withdrawal will distabilize that region and give terrorists safe haven to organize another attack against America or any freedom loving nation. Obama and Clinton support immediate withdrawal. I guess you liberals would rather fight the terrorists here in this country than in Iraq. That's what Mitt Romney was talking about. He wants to keep campaigning but realized that he can only hurt his party and country by staying in the race. In my view, it's a brilliant political move because it may set him up for another run in 2012. Regarding the $30 millions in loans he gave Clinton, I don't see how anybody would not see it as a wise business investment at 7% interest.
Obama, in smooth-talking politician style, tried to defend his views on Iraq, "we should withraw from Iraq so we can focus our resources to fighting terrorists". Sir we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. why are you a senator when you can't even understand what we're doing there?
This man is being supported by the same kind of people who would put Paris Hilton on a pedestal.
They think they're educated but are so willing to be brainwashed by what they see on t.v. or magazines. they go with whatever's trendy. Check his record, Obama is the most liberal senator and will be the most liberal President. It's clear that liberals support pornography, corruption, and socialism where gov't provides handouts at the expense of hardworking tax payers. McCain and Clinton are also liberals. America lost the opportunity to elect a great American when Romney dropped out. God help us for the next four years!

Marc:

I'm not sure what you heard when you listened to Mitt ORmney speak or what you read when you reviewed his accomplishments in life but you certainly are analyzing someone other than the real Mitt Romney.
If some of his positions were "liberal" when Governor Of Mass, I feel certain it was necessary in order to be elected as Governor and get in there and save Mass from sure death with its loss of jobs and 3 billion dollar deficit. I am amazed at the lack of gratitude for his service to that state. Since he is not a man who brags about his achievements but rather teaches by example, he would not have publicly touted the fact that he was asked to save Mass and did so without a salary.

I think we have sunk so low as a country that we do not even acknowledge a person as good and accomplished as Mitt Romney because that standard of success is just too high for us anymore - what a tragic loss for America. Nothing makes sense and the MSM and journalists that continue to wield so much influence over opinions of minimally-thinking Americans are playing a big part in the destruction of our culture and our country.

Mitt Romney was the best hope for America at a time when we desperately need his analytical, clear thinking talents and actions. If John McCain wants to bring the conservatives together, he had best seek Mitt Romney for his VP - 4,000,000 people have put their faith and trust in Mitt and who knows how many more who never got the opportunity to vote and show their support for him. He got more conservative support and more evangelical support than the egotistical Huckabee and John McCain. He is strong on economics and is calm and focused in his demeanor and communication skills - better for President but he could be a valuable VP to McCain. I can tell you that Our family and friends WILL NOT VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN UNLESS MITT IS HIS VP. Otherwise, we will "right in" Mitt Romney on our ballot in November and the Republican Party can pick itself up after a loss to the Democrats and wake up - reevaluate their goals and objectives and perhaps one day be a meaningful force in American politics again. I could not be more proud of Mitt Romney and his wonderful family. My apologies to them for the stupidity of the MSM and the evangelicals who criticized his faith - this is America for goodness sake - land of freedom of religion - shame on all of you -

"I don't think cracking a Mormon joke every now and then qualifies."

Anonymous,

Thats funny. I guess cracking a joke about Jews every now and then wouldn't qualify as bigoted either? How about a good ol' joke about Blacks now and then?

Making fun of somebody is only funny when you start from a relationship of mutual respect - and sometimes not even then. Mormons have been hated and persecuted by their fellow Americans for a long time.

"Clinton or Obama will surrender to the terrorists" is not a graceful exit. You are totally off-base Marc and if this doesn't occur to you after reflecting on it a bit, perhaps you should to take some time off from blog to regain a perspective on how people who are really are classy conduct themselves. Seriously. This sort of stuff should be just plain out of bounds for serious Presidential candidates (contrast with Obama who says in speeches that everyone in the race is a patriot who is making sacrifices to serve the country).

Romney's religion didn't seem to hurt him at all in very Democratic MA (where you don't get elected without significant support from people who often vote for Democrats). This seems like good evidence that the Republican base is bigoted against Mormans in a way that folks in New England are not.

"I don't think cracking a Mormon joke every now and then qualifies."

Anonymous,

Thats funny. I guess cracking a joke about Jews every now and then wouldn't qualify as bigoted either? How about a good ol' joke about Blacks now and then?

Making fun of somebody is only funny when you start from a relationship of mutual respect - and sometimes not even then. Mormons have been hated and persecuted by their fellow Americans for a long time.

Too much arguing about the definition of "graceful."

Beth Myers did run a great campaign, and thier strategy of winning early would have been perfect minus Huckabee. However, Rick Davis has got to be given credit. He led the effort to bring McCain back from the abyss. Sure McCain / Davis had some luck along the way, but they are going to win the nomination.

President Romney 2012, yes, yes, you've got me: I'm a socialist because it's so damn trendy. My education is entirely a mirage, created of a conformism to the mores of anti-social degenerates and declasse pornographers. Anything elite, just show me the line and I'll stand in it.

"I guess you liberals would rather fight the terrorists here in this country than in Iraq." That's a lovely construction. Are all your thoughts paraphrases of poll-tested nonsense uttered by W? If you haven't figured it out yet, we couldn't fight terrorists over here. Terrorism is a type of asymmetric warfare; a terrorist, when doing that which defines him as a terrorist, cannot really be fought anywhere. He can be thwarted, and killed in the process. You could call this fighting, but it's of a purely reactive sort. Of course, I'd rather not be suddenly killed by a terrorist walking down the street (or wherever). It's just that I'd rather 3,000 some Americans, and countless Iraqis (who are people too), hadn't been killed in Iraq. And I highly doubt so many people would have been killed by terrorists in America as have died in Iraq had we not invaded for little reason. You need to explain why you think they would have with an actual argument, not a cliched assertion.

I think Romney to a great job and went a lot further than most people expected him to. He could have arguably stayed in the race to pick up quite a few more delegates, but winning was nearly impossible. He was certainly a frequent victim of media bias, more than any of the other candidates. He actually has a lot more integrity than he was portrayed as having.

Thank you for agreeing with me Robert. People like you really can't think for yourself; you just follow the trendy socialist movement because it's cool. people like you don't understand what it's like to be oppressed, like the oppressed Iraqi people under evil Saddam Hussein. Like the oppressed people under Hitler or Communists regimes. You need to live under oppression and see how you like it. You people abuse the freedom that our great country provides. Stop attacking the war effort and our brave soldiers who are risking their lives to fight for not only our freedom but other freedom loving nation. Don't try to impress anyone with fancy words you learn from college. You are arguing against the truth.
not my truth or Pres. Bush's truth but the reality of our time. This nation has never had to fight this kind of war before. These people are illusive. They attack you and then they run and hide. With McCain or liberal president being weak on national defense, the Jihadist may even invade this country and we can have another attack in no time. Clinton for 8 years was weak on national defense. that ultimately led to Sept 11th. The liberal Democrats say, why are we at war with Iraq when we're suppose to be fighting terrorists? my question is why are the American people dumb enough to believe "talking points" of these politicians who are trying to get elected?
you don't need a college degree. just use common sense. If the people we're fighting against in Iraq aren't the same kind of people who attack us on Sept 11th, then the fighting would have been over a long time ago. But instead, these Jihadist flock to Iraq to support their ally. These people are all about power and oppression. They hate freedom-loving nation like the U.S. maybe we should have liberals like you go live under their system of gov't and maybe you're drive them nutts and beg for mercy with your
"braindead" protest against the gov't and wanting change and going with what's cool and trendy.

President Romney 2012,

Thank you. I always think the right can't get any more clueless and then someone like you proves me wrong. I'm going to wager that the 70% of the country that gets Bushism isn't as naive and cowardly as you are.

The only clueless people are people like you and others who are dumb enough to believe in the
liberal agenda. taking money from the rich to give to the poor/ modern day robin hood. yeah right! more like taking money from everybody who pays taxes and giving it to people who abuse the system and don't wanna do their share in making the country great. and letting porn industry invade our communities and corrupt our youths.
yeah let's party. it's easier to have the gov't
pay for our health insurance and take care of our kids. why should we take responsibility for teaching our kids right from wrong when the gov't
or cable t.v. or friends they hang out with can do it for us? in fact, let's not take responsibility for anything. let's cut military spending and be nice to the Jihadist. Let's be nice to illegal immigrants and offer free health care. Let's continue to give billions of dollars to AIDS crisis in Africa. And if Iran or North Korea wanna develop weapons of mass destruction, it's none of our business so let them. If they wanna sell those weapons to terrorists who wanna kill Americans, let them. if there's another attack, we can spare thousands of American lives.
we wanna be nice to our neighbors because we don't want to offend anybody. we want peace.

ok I'm being sarcastic because that's the only logic behind liberalism. so in essence, liberalism is not logical. it's self degenerating.
consuming everythng that's decent until there is nothing left to be had.

Uhh...graceful exit? His campaign needs to end because it suddenly would aid "a surrender to terror"??

You can call that "graceful" if you want. I call it yet another example of a mendacious and intellectually dishonest Mitt Romney who is willing to say anything to pander to whichever crowd is before him.

Graceful? Please...

Personally, I'm delightfully surprised that McCain is in the lead. I'm sorry, but someone without military experience (or at least a bit of *training*) is not fit to be Commander in Chief, which, like it or not, is the defining role of the President these days. Hillary won't escape it, Obama won't escape it, and McCain is the man I most trust with supervision of our forces, whether that means defeat, or (though less likely in my opinion) a new strategy for "victory," whatever that is. Mr. McCain has honorably exemplified the principles that our nation is founded on: Individual freedom, self sacrifice, and taking the high moral ground when it comes to military and national security issues. He realizes, perhaps better than anyone, that sullying our name and image through the use of questionable "intelligence gathering" tactics is counterproductive; both on the small scale of getting information from prisoners, and on the large stage of world politics.

He is about as much of a centrist as we can hope for, and he's exactly what we need to bridge the political divide across America. It's certainly easier to whip people into a frenzy and polarize them -- convincing them to view things in a logical and moderate manner is an achievement in itself. I wish him the best.

Interesting how so many say that Mitt was a flop?
He garnered 4 million votes, Mccain garnered 4.7 million.
Mitt won 11 states, McCain won 13.
But, because of the screwy way the Republicans apportion their delegates, winner take all states etc... the numbers just did not add up.
If we were using the Democrats method on delegates, Romney and Mccain are tied at this point.
Romney consistently won the Reagan conservative vote. Indisputable! He also won among evangelcials in most states. Also his margins of victory were much larger than McCain or Hucabee.
So the spin against Romney continues by people who fear him most and who themselves are not Conservatives and never have been, let alone people who would ever even vote Republican.
Ask the Ultra Conservative who they support?
Reagan Conservatives are not waiting around for the likes of Keith Olberman, Tucker Carlson, or the Bill Bennett types to tell us who our standard bearer will be.
It's Romney in 2012, get used to it, liberal media, and the mugwump McCain wing of the Republican party.
Read Romneys two major speeches Faith in America and CPAC and you have greatness in embryo.
Nobody knew who Romney was a year ago, he will be a great activist in the next four years to show his conservative bonafides. 10 candidates to start out, and Romney was the true challenger right to the end.
He lives to fight another day.

aj

That's pretty unbelievable that you called Romney's exit "graceful" when it was stuffed with disingenuous red meat, such as his claim he was bowing out because of the war, and the DEMS would surrender to Terror.

There's a pattern here in Ambinder's posts which is this: not very insightful, not very sharp. In short, rather flaccid and common.

Time to take this blog out of my bookmarks.

Gregor,

It goes without saying the Republican position that if we withdraw from Iraq Republicans feel it will become another Afghanistan. At the very least you'll have terrorists and their supporters dancing in the streets claiming they "beat" America.

How anyone can deny that is beyond me. With that in mind, Republicans feel it is not wise to give a victory to terrorists and those who want to attack us at home.

Those that truly hate us will be even more emboldened, and Republicans believe we will be attacked again, this time from yet another safe haven.

You can say it was because we went into Iraq that this mess is created. Fine. But that doesn't change the facts of what would happen if we leave.

Unfortunately Grego, the only think not insightful and not very sharp, is your comment...

I can at least understand that Democrats feel differently. They obviously disagree with Republicans on this issue or else they wouldn't be suggesting to withdraw (ie retreat) from Iraq in the face of the terrorists.

I don't know why it is so hard for you to believe that each side holds sincere beliefs. And each side has a bit of truth. The question is just which is more likely.

We leave Iraq and everything is just swell. We leave Iraq and they start killing each other and the best of the killers emerges on top as the man sitting on top of all that oil/power (let's just hope he likes us then, most likely he won't if we truly pull out with no support). Or we leave Iraq and things continue as is with an ineffective government and pockets of the country ruled by mobs, pockets ruled by terrorists who do want to kill us and plan do things exactly like Osama did from Afghanistant. Does that not make any sense to you?

I was fortunate to be home on a day off when the news channels broke into their regular programming to cover Gov Romney's CPAC speech. For this I will be grateful. It was a great speech. And it WAS a graceful exit from this election cycle (one that still left me with hope for the future even though I feel a bit "disenfranchised" as a conservative). Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely beyond the reach of reason--either overcome with envy, religious bigotry, liberalism, or other logical thinking errors.

McCain supporters can blah blah about his being "moderate" and "centrist" and how that is just what the country needs, blah blah; one fact remains.

The joker won't win.

I was excited because I thought maybe, just maybe, Romney could beat Clinton. (Nobody will beat Obama should he get the nod.)

No way on this earth McCain has a prayer to beat either one. That's just a fact.

For my part, I'm joining the "suicide voter" squad, hoping to ensure that it is an open, rather than a closet liberal who takes the country down in flames for the next four years.

What the heck. Go Hillary!

All in all, it was a good run for a man who wasn't well known, who belonged to a religion most the country wasn't familiar with and who tried to take advantage of the conservative nominee hole that was apparent in the beginning. I have often felt that people's complaints that he tried to buy the election to be unfair. He was very much unknown. He had to work three times harder then anyone else to get any credible coverage. Until he won that straw poll, he was considered a non entity of the race, much like Ron Paul is now. Next time Mitt runs for any office, he will not have to put nearly as much money into just getting his name recognized.

I also want to address the seeming "fake" positions he had. Yes, he made some moves that were political to the race he was running, for example his NRA membership, but how is that any different then McCain now saying he'll keep the Bush tax cuts that he was all for removing until he consistently lost votes and voters? Absolutely none. But no one is calling McCain a flip flopper. No..McCain 'listens and learns'. Romney did change some positions, but that is to be expected when you look at the type of issues he had to deal with.

When your a moderate in either party, your a live and let live type of person. As long as we are all working together, you can do what you want. But I think Romney was forced to decide as he responded to various issues that made him really face, for maybe the first time, what his positions were on the political agenda of the various groups that scramble for power in this country. I've always felt that the abortion claim was the most useless cry of the "flip flop" assault. He was given a bill that would have approved cloning human embryos for stem cell experimentation. Now call me weird, but I'm not for creating people just to kill them. I think that's a valid reason to shift positions. He had to deal with Mass. gay marriage laws and the upheaval that caused. He was also a Republican governor working with a Democratic legislature... he either could get nothing done, or work with what he had and try to balance what was coming out of the democratic legislation.

Religious Bigotry seems to be the only acceptable form of bigotry left in the world. And this goes for all faiths. It'll be nice when we can look at each other's beliefs and say, "you know, I disagree with your positions, but I think your still a worthy person." I heard more unfounded hysteria about Mormons then I've heard in my life. And I've heard some real doosies because I'm Mormon.

Anyway, this post is long enough. I just wanted to add a different perspective to the list of responses.

He’s just far too gracious to stoop to that level as I’m sure part of his moral fabric precludes him from speaking ill of his fellow man

Perhaps you missed the part where he basically called 70% of the country terrorist sympathizers?

Mitt Romney has more class and integrity in his little finger than McCain and Huckabee have combined. I think it is a sad commentary on the state of our country that we let a man of such wisdom and intelligence slip through our fingers. I think the statement Romney made that the race for the Presidency was "not all about me" shows his motivations for running were to use his experience to help our country. It is obvious to me that McCains and Huckabees motivations were for power and recognition. I for one need to hold on to the hope that Mitt will be back in 2012 and that Huckabee will be out of the picture and won't be a roadblock to getting Romney in to fix our country and bring family values back to the forfront.

He didn't call them terrorist sympathizers. Your spin is lacking.

Pulling out of Iraq before that country is ready for us to will make the extremists feel that we're cowards and they are the ones in charge. IF we just pull out because its hard you might as well paint a bullseye on everyone's back. The reality is that even if the Democrats like to shout that they will pull out in two year, they can't. Every commander they have in office would pull them over their knee and spank them.

Of course, Hillary might like that. :P j/k

Hello, Marc, commenters-

There's been a lot of great analysis on this thread, so I'll just add my concise two cents:

At a tactical level, Team Romney was praised at every turn. Beth Myers and her staff did run a great campaign.

However, the greatest and best-funded campaign in the world will not win, unless the candidate can strike a chord with enough voters, at a personal level - and that was ultimately what derailed Mitt.

Marc

A largely fair summary. My 2c worth:

1. Romney did not have the name brand recognition of Guiliani or McCain. He had to spend big in IA & NH to even get to a base level of national awareness. If it took his personal fortune to be the top up to accomplish that, so be it. It's great to have someone that successful prepared to spend his own money to achieve high office.
2. The MSM media (and sometimes even Fox) have been universally ambivalent at best and mostly snarky towards Romney especially when compared with their coverage of McCain and Huckabee. Huckabee's IA boom has almost exclusively driven by a breathless MSM anxious to knock Romney off his perch. Ditto for McCain in NH and onwards. Only the right leaning talkback hosts and bloggers were strong for Romney. The earned media still trumps TV ads.
3. Huckabee played the subtle religious card constantly and played on evangelical prejudice against Mormons just enough to influence the relatively small IA caucuses (it didn't take too many evenagelicals who were previously for Mitt to switch to Huck).
4. Romney had to fight a 2 front war (Huckabee in IA and McCain in NH) with the complication of Guiliani and Thompson and with a media headwind throughout. Most candidates could not have done that and no other Republican running had to fight like this.
5. McCain won NH (and SC) courtesy of the Independents - take them out of the equation and Romney would've won NH.
6. Staying out of SC was probably a mistake. A narrow Huckabee win in SC would've taken momentum away from McCain going into FL. Huckabee was not a player in FL due to the high cost of getting exposure in such a large state and Rudi's collapse in the final week would not have benefitted Huckabee greatly.
7. The clincher was FL. Crist's endorsement and McCain's hardball shot on Romney's surge support pulled McCain back from the brink of defeat. Crist's machine was in full campaign mode supporting Amendment 1. Their own polling showed McCain dropping a point a day through the last week accelerating after Romney whooped him in the last FL debate and the cumulative weight of the right leaning commentariat hitting McCain and rooting for Romney - by the Saturday Crist's people had McCain 11 behind Romney. Crist reversed his no-endorsement stance to help his friend and not only endorsed McCain but, significantly, threw his whole political machine behind McCain (calls to all county chairmen, massive FL media exposure at the endorsement presser and on the road with McCain for 3 full days).
8. Post FL, McCain was on a roll but it was by no means certain. A Romney win in MO, GA and CA would've drawn him level with McCain with delegates. Huckabee's continued presence in the race, after Rudi and Thompson dropped out, drained enough conservatives in those 3 close and crucial races to let McCain through. The rest as we know is history.

Romney came within a whisper of pulling this off. To do so with all his baggage (rich pretty boy meme, the Mormon religion question mark and his gradual conservative conversion), was simply remarkable.

He is an enormously attractive candidate and, if his conservative views remain constant and no longer evolve, he will be a tremendous force to be reckoned with. I don't like McCain but I'll vote for him in a heartbeat over Billary or Obama.

Graceful? Graceless is more like it. He accuses Democrats of wanting to surrender to terrorism and trashes much of Europe, and you call if "graceful"?!

Things Romney must do between now and 2012.

1. Work on his Commander in Chief and foreign policy creds. McCain was able to run the field with that and capture the militarists and foreign policy mavens as the 25 years Inside the Beltway ex-fighter jock (who was passed over in 1982 as not fit to be a senior executive officer, another small detail no one mentioned).

Romney could benefit by continuing to have meetings with generals and troops, get added in overseas delegations that meet with foreign decision-makers and US troops stationed overseas.

2. Like it or not, people want a little humor and self-effacing jokes from candidates. They distrust the gooder than good candidate that has a patina of perfection like they resented the "perfection" of the golden girl all the adults said was just so wonderful, the boy who was the teachers pet.
Professional politicians like McCain and Obama, and long-time PR hucksters like Huckleberry master the patter and back-and-forth. Romney has an ample reservior of quirks, success, his uniqueness that self-deprecating humor could mine - but he for some reason didn't set himself to that mundane but vital task. Showing off his humaness and foibles and thus reassuring voters of his authenticity and being more like them, then not like them.
Politics is full of pricks that are still well-liked by voters because they use humor and humorous short stories about themselves to connect. And the consultants Romney had with him should have made it quite clear that some of the people voters dislike the most are those that cannot make fun of themselves - Kerry, Carter, Nader.
Romney could come up with a ton of self-mockery from his full life. Inaugural ball of bologna sandwiches and tap water refreshments. Mention he was the only candidate ever officially declared dead in real life, not just on the stage (true story, French cop did)

3. Work on the non-fatal, but significant damage he did to himself as being a little too facile with issues, a little too enthusiastic about matters he can't pretend he cared about in his previous years. Be a little less worshipful of the Gospel of Reagan. Reagan wouldn't be Reagan if he had 20 years more of good health and mental acuity to evolve his views after leaving the Presidency. A Party or person would be foolish to point itself towards the "past perfect". America is a future-leaning country that doesn't want leaders rote-aping past leaders.

3. What he does to stay "viable' and in the public eye matters. Probably not good to go back to private life for 3 years and resurface from nowhere in 2011.
About the best he could do is be appointed Energy Czar by McCain or Obama/Hillary with the full power of the Presidency behind him to work the optimum energy creation, conservation solutions.

Another would be Special Trade Rep. The person assigned by McCain or Obama (Hillary would NEVER go for it) to do a strategic audit of the Federal government and given the power to reorganize. Or Rust Belt Recovery Czar.

*******************
The pluses of Romney's campaign:

1. The American public was reminded of what incredible parents Mitt had. Both George Romney and Lenore Romney look even more impressive with the passage of time. If only Romney had been as courageous in taking a stand that the Southern Baptists might not have agreed with...In building bridges to them, Romney went, as the WWII expression goes, a bridge too far.

2. One reason pundits say the campaign is important is that it tests candidates executive skills - Can they put together a superb organization? Romney did that, only failing in certain high-level strategy that he could not himself sway voters about given his still being on a learning curve on politico schmoozing..

3. In testing the waters, he found areas of vulnerability that cannot be corrected in the middle of a campaign, but which a candidate can work on in 3 years away from a race. Foreign policy, CiC credibility, addressing anti-Mormon bigotry in the South, holes in what is otherwise his stellar potential in integrity, ethics, and charisma...

Here's a different take on Mitt and his "stiff" or "distant" contenance.
See, as a Mormon with a strong understanding of its teachings, you gain a certain level of confidence. Or, in other words for example, when you walk upon the field of competion of sport you feel that you have a understanding of all the rules or why you're on the field to play to begin with. This produces a few actions and reactions. They are:
1. Removal of insecurity which can be preceived as arogance on the field of competion, which produces a thankful and cheerful persona.
2. Others who may not understand or fully know the rules will inherently, knowingly or not, become jealous or resentful of that other persons ability to be in such a state of success and happiness.

The clear bigoty of this election cycle does NOT surprise me because of one simple reason; Mormonism is very successful. At only 2% of the population you have a much larger portion of successful, giving, supportive, and friendly friends, co-workers, and leaders.

This is only the beginning of the larger cycle of a movement.

Good riddance.

He was such a despicable candidate. He tried to underestimate the intelligence of the American electorate.

I can't believe some people actually fell for this fraud. Heh, some people fell for another fraud too. That fraud had golden tablets and formed a religion. Mormons are so gullible. They think everyone is gullible too.

Thank you Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and other conservatives who endorse Romney. You're all great Americans. Please continue to fight for conservative values because we love our country. Like Gov. Romney said, we're the hope of the earth because we fight for freedom and oppose oppression and we will support all freedom loving nation. Our founding fathers couldn't have envisioned the liberal socialist movement undermining the principles with which our great country was founded. They couldn't foreseen that their constitution would be twisted and bent and abuse by liberals to serve their purpose. I blame Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives for not being more foreful in endorsing Romney from the start. they were busy telling people who not to vote for but not telling them who to vote for.
Thank you Gov. Romney for fighting for conservative values: traditional marriage and family values, low tax, stopping spread of pornography that's destroying American families, religious tolerance, tough on crimes, ensure accountability, others...too many to mention.
We hope to see you again in 4 years. We love you!