Romney looking good for 2012

11 March 2009 @ 11:56 am | 4 comments

With the recent stumbles of other 2012 hopefuls, Mitt Romney is looking better for 2012. At least for this week.

It’s early, of course – ridiculously early – for anyone except potential candidates to be thinking about the next presidential race. But there’s been plenty of positioning going on in the now-leaderless GOP, including a head-scratching debut by one promising contender, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and a parade of speeches by some others at the Conservative Political Action Conference late last month.

And while much of the CPAC spotlight went to someone who isn’t a candidate for president – radio personality Rush Limbaugh, who came off as either boorish or straight-talking, depending on your political temperature – it was Romney who walked away with the best reviews and victory in the convention’s presidential straw poll.

(Possibly) Related posts:

  1. Will RomneyCare scuttle Romney 2012?
  2. “Romney strikes bipartisan tone at GOP fundraiser”
  3. What could Mitt Romney be up to?

Tags: , , ,





  1. Dan’s avatar

    Dan on 11 March 2009 at 12:54 pm

    of course, didn’t he come away victorious from the CPAC last time and the time before…

    And no, I don’t regret voting for Obama (that is what your ad asks just under your post). Didn’t you see the stock market jump yesterday? Obama must have done something good. ;)

  2. David H. Sundwall’s avatar

    David H. Sundwall on 11 March 2009 at 12:59 pm

    That’s true enough about CPAC but it’s interesting that after McCain’s defeat, Palin and Jindal’s ascendancies, and his laying low somewhat, that Romney is still seriously considered.

    But it’s still ridiculous (I hope) to be seriously talking about 2012.

    You’re right Obama did good yesterday – he didn’t open his mouth about the economy. Here’s to hoping it’s a trend. ;-)

  3. Dan’s avatar

    Dan on 11 March 2009 at 1:41 pm

    David,

    I’m honestly flabbergasted at the rhetoric from those on the right in terms of taxation. They are complaining about Obama setting the tax rate for the filthy rich back to the level it was under Clinton but they weren’t complaining that badly back under Reagan when it was 50%! Under Clinton it was a mere 30.6%. Heck, back under Eisenhower, the top tax bracket was taxed at 90%!

    There used to be a time when the filthy rich actually contributed to the building up of this country of ours. But since the introduction of Ayn Rand philosophy, they’ve given up on contributing their share (which is supposed to be greater proportionally). Note what Eisenhower did with all that tax money. How much infrastructure was built during his time. That infrastructure is aging, badly, because we as a nation don’t care to spend the money required to maintain it. We’ve been poisoned by a philosophy that teaches selfishness not selflessness.

    I’m still trying to figure out how Mormons reconcile Ayn Rand’s selfishness with Jesus Christ’s selflessness.

    Anyways, that’s my rant of the day.

  4. Dan’s avatar

    Dan on 11 March 2009 at 1:41 pm

    sorry, there’s a typo. Not 30.6%. I meant to type 39.6%