The truth is Mitt could care less what happens to anyone. The idea that he would invest time in an institute to develop new ideas is preposterous. Mitt measures everything in his life by how it affects his bank account. He will fade away even more than President Bush did. His remaining legacy an etch-a-sketch. Surely footprints in the sand.

I think Mitt can stay relevent in many ways.  It is sad that the true legacy of his time as governor are the tax increases the state must enact to cover the health care costs that his health reform have ceated.  The rising cost of health care in Mass, and the diminshing supply of it has given us a taste of what Obamacare will wreak on America, in the next few years.

Romney is appropriately keeping a low profile, and will find his traction on issues as the emerge.  A think tank would be s decent place, but calling it one for "moderation" is just plain silly.  Conservatism is a mainstream, moderate philosophy in all but a few places in this country.  Mitt need not apologize for embracing it, as Scot is implying here. 

Conservatism now is equated with money...having more money than the next guy and always getting more money.  At least some, very few, but some, of the religious conservatives practice Christian charity, but for the most part Conservatism is about money and making sure the poor do not get any assistance because that is, of course, socialism.  If you think I exaggerate just ask a conservative what SHOULD ever be done for the poor?  They have no real answer except maybe soup kitchens and orphanages...again, except for those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus and don't just pretend to do so.

Richmond: I ws surprised to learn in your post that conservatism now reigns supreme in the land. Just wondering: Were  you out of town at the time of the last election? 

Welcome to the Mitt Willard Romney Institute for Public Policy and Helping People and Stuff. We strive to think about the big issues of the day. How can government rig the entire economic system in favor of multi-national corporations while maintaining a reduce- public-services-mantra for everyone? But more importantly, how do you make poor people like it? These are the questions. 

"Richmond12" continues to confuse this current juvenile love affair with "libertarianism" by the upstarts in the Party with "consrvatism".  However, even if one were to allow that misnomer to take place the idea that it is the "philosophy" of the land is way overstated.  The nation is what it has always been, center and "how is it working for me."  The public will always slip from left to right without allegiance depending upon the economic state and the issues of the day.  While I have spent most of my life in and out of politics in and out of government most folks do not have the interest or the inclination to really get into the left-right thing.  They talk it but the fact is the question is always how does it work for me.

Mitt, the old Mass. Mitt had good ideas and sometimes even implimented them. He could help to rebuild the Party in a fashion that many people are now discussing.  Many people who include real live conservatives.  People who have come to the realization that the public has certain expectations for govt. and those must be met.  There are conservative ways to meet them.  Mitt's solution to healthcare is very Republican, whether Richmond thinks it or not.  The individual mandate is a very consrvative concept. 

But heck what am I saying?  I don't think Mitt has any interest any longer.

Incredible that anyone thinks Romney has a future in ANY party. He is only for himself, and always has been. He only ran as a Repblican because they were the only ones desperate enough to welcome him in.i

The more  pertinent question, I think, would be: IS Romney interested in any of this? And why establish and endow an institute when it is much less risky and costly to leverage a buyout of an institute, you know, with other peoples' money?

Oh brother.  Leaders in any situation--president, CEO, chief of the tree fort club--need credibility, stability, sureness of purpose, and concern for followers.  Mr. Romney might have one or more of these characteristics, but he squandered them on the most public of stages in pursuit of a purely personal goal.  The smartest person in the room sometimes needs to sit in the back, keep quiet, work diligently, and follow directions.   

You mean after Obama portrayed Romney as a tax evading criminal among other blatant lies he should have gone to the inaugaration?

Scot, you giving advice about Romney's place is laughable. This Michael Ramirez cartoon sums it up pretty well:

http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/642287

Another great economic report - gee I wonder why........oh yea, Bushs fault

Romney lost because the majority(even other countries) didn't like his proposals, attitude, world view. Why bring him back so he can cause more problems. I understand his antics provide low hanging fruit for the press, but we're sick of it. 

​“what difference, at this point, does it make?”

But let's have the left wing in the bag Obama MSM continue to talk about what is wrong with the Republican party when:

A stunner out of the BEA which just reported a Q4 GDP of -0.1% that was leaps and bounds below the 1.1% estimate, and a plunge from Q3's 3.1%. The factors: Private Inventories, Exports and Government Expenditures all of which contracted, by -1.27%, -0.81%, and -1.33%.

Look, over there, bad republicans, ignore Syria, an awful economy, no jobs, Harry Reid cronyism, Bob Menendez, calling Netanyahu 1 week afte he wins, Africa, Egypt, food stamps

Bad bad republicans. What a joke Scot

http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/642287

maybe he can hook up with George Soros

Many, many years ago my grandfather told me the Republican's were the party of "big busniess", the Dems were the "war" party.  As the years past It certainly seemed the R's were the war party and the big business party and the D's were the pacifists and the working mans party.  Today the D's are just as willing to use force as the R's and both have a love affair with to big to fail so they both love "big business".  Of course the D's spend a lot effort in support of the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the R's spend a lot of time subsidizing the wealthy, shoring up the religious folk and the social conservatives.  Fact is it seems that gramps description no longer applies.  Yet it seems to me the R's would be better served to return to the old man's roots the Party of big business.  The economics party and Mitt actually fits that pretty good.  Let's face it he got his hat handed to him because he bought into all that right wing social nonsense and turned off huge voting blocs. 

I know I'm a flip flopper. I worked in RR's campaign worked in Bill Clinton's campaign I was never much for Party labels.  But it does seem important that we have two sane parties that can agree to disagree and allow the winner to govern while attempting to slow the progress of the policies the winner desires, after all that's pretty conservative.

What's this got to do with Mitt?  Probably nothing but a lot of the commentors can't seem to seperate ideology from politics or politics from the individual.  I think they would be much happier in life if they came to realize that purity and politics really don't mix.  

Mitt wass the better man for the job, Obama's 1.6 trillion a year stimulus is the only thing keeping this ship afloat. If we can finally stop the millionaire at 1600 from spending trillions we do not have we can get a real president in their. I saw the republican party shun the religious kooks and end up with a good man with an amazing resume. Not a man with a 100 day resume.

Romney did great here in mass and would have been great in the white house.

Oh it is 1.6 in deficit spending my fault.

Romney"s etch-a sketch campaign makes it impossible for me to believe anything he might say.  His campaign was like New England weather, if you don't like what I am saying just wait 5 minutes.  Will he run for office again?  Flip a coin.  

First of all why on earth would Mitt and the GOP ask for any help from the Globe??  . Notice that the Globe says NOTHING about the unprecedented NEAGATIVE GDP report today. Obama and the Democrats are SPENDING and TAXING America into the ground. And the White House and Nancy Pelosi have the GALL to blame Republicans? ...ZERO leadership by the Obama Administration ...The only other possible reason that the Globe fails to report this news is that the newspsper was HACKED by the Chinese like the NY Times.