It’s not often that anyone in my household declares: The one thing I absolutely, positively have to do this weekend is watch “Fox News Sunday.” But this past weekend was one of those times. Why? Because Mitt Romney was finally emerging from his post-campaign cocoon to sit down with Chris Wallace.
As someone who liked the progressive Romney who ran for the US Senate in 1994 and the moderate Romney who campaigned for governor in 2002, only to be nonplussed when he began systematically jettisoning principles and positions preparatory to running nationally, I was genuinely curious.
Comments
When Romney says " lower incomes", isnt that just about everybody else?
This is the problem with the extremely rich. They just have absolutely no gratitude about the fact that nominal tax rates have dropped from 90% after WWII down to its paltry level now. The greatest nation subsidizing the capital accumulation of a talented few.
You would think that's an enitlement mentality. Oh well, I guess we will never convince them about this, as they believe they deserve it, and concentrate on the other 98%.
"The greatest nation subsidizing the capital accumulation of a talented few." If it were really 'a talented' few, it would not be a problem, but in most cases it is merely the perpetuation of accumulated wealth, money used to merely exploit the status quo, not create the future.
Geolovely: Wrong. Do you have any idea how many millionaires Microsoft has created in the last few decades? Or the wealth that was created in Silicon Valley? How about the medical devices startups throughout northern Indiana?
Lots of people have become wealthy in this country contrary to your comment about it being a "perpetuation of accumulated wealth".
You are typical of the bunch who wants to "redistribute the wealth", which is code for taking the earnings away from those who worked for it and give it those who did not. Pure socialism. Pure Obamaism. A fundamental change, no thank you.
If that interview doesn't convince he would have made a terrible president, I don't know what will...
It is not at all surprising that Scot finds still another chance to wring his hands about Mitt Romney. Sequestration? The White House threats to Bob Woodward? The President's failed leadership? Nah. All that matters is that Mitt Romney did NOT give himself the same criticism that Scot has always held for him. Now, that is worthy of column space!!
The biggest mistakes Mitt Romney made, in my opinion, were these: Permitting the liberal media establishment to moderate the GOP debates. That was where the insane questions came from-like 10 dollars of cuts for 1 dollar of tax increases, and so many ridiculous lines of questions that led to all the delicious sound bites the liberal media still loves to quote.
The second mistke was selecting Paul Ryan over Marc Rubio. Rubio could have drawn enough Hispanics to close the gap, and get Romney over the top. Clearly, Paul Ryan was qualified. But electoral advantage has been the driving force of VP selection at least since JFK chose LBJ. Now, in our society of tribal loyalty to those of similar ethnicity, Romney made a serious mistake in not seeing the value of Rubio's Cuban heritage.
Scot can write a book about Mitt's fealty to conservatism, which, in his opinion, is the cardinal sin. Truth be told, Romney was a flexible enough liberal to win in Massachusetts, but could never be elected president if he came forth as a northeast liberal. His tilt to the right was reflecting that the nation tilts more to the right than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does. He should never apologize for his conservative values. Especially now, when we see the folly of liberalism driving our country further into the abyss.
Om the contrary, the problem was that Mitt came off as a smarmy, lying fool who eventually started believing the sycophants and thought the job was owed to him.
Romney won in MA because he is, and campaigned as, a rational centrist. He could have won the POTUS election as a centrist, but the insane GOP nomination process made him campaign as a right-wing zealot. Alas for him, the electorate is not as blind as cynical pundits believe, and Romney is simply not a good liar. He wound up looking phoney, which he was being, untrue to his core beliefs. He was unable to 'etch-a-sketch' his way back to the center, not because of t 'the media', but because integrity can be thrown away in an instant, but takes a lifetime to establish. I voted for Romney for Gov, but not for POTUS. I was saddened to see him go from a heavily promoted product, but a product with substance, to just a heavily promoted product, devoid of substance. I assumed that after the election he would again return to his core, to the Romney worthy of my respect, and my vote, back to the real Romney who could have won in November. Sadly, as Sunday showed, he has not, and appears to have simple lost his core.
I have a theory why this guy wound up being the GOP candidate. The rest of them were so rediculous. Republicans with a modicum of common sense have no time for the United States. They have bigger fish to fry. Like the billionaire who wanted to make Belle Isle in Detroit a seperate country for the wealthy. Thes people have a disease, the acquisition of wealth at any cost. The nasty thing about it is in this country, they can buy a lot of government. Romney's world will always be different than that of most of the people on planet earth.
Ooops, wait a minute, thats not what I really meant. I would never disaparage the hard work and accomplishments of this select group of risk taking entrepeneurs. What I meant was if you look at all the supposed conflict in Congress about new taxes, you have to realize that this is a insider power grab by Congress about their OWN taxes and benefits.
You think its about deficits, nnnnnnnnnnnnoooooo, its about politicians taxes. As most members of Congress are extremely wealthy, ( see the Washington Post records about the financial wealth of congressman and Senators), the whole debate is about them, smokescreened by talk of fiscal control and deficit reduction.
Believe it or Not!
Proof.. Maintenance people in the capitol building are getting a cut, not the vaunted solons.
This comment has been removed.
Romney has nothing to offer as an elder statesman. He ran a terrible campaign, he's even more loathed today by Republicans than he is by Democrats, if that's possible. He should've stayed in his cocoon. For the rest of my life I never want to see or hear this guy again.
Harry...
AMEN!!!!!!
Well, he did win 47% of the popular vote. I don't know how that breaks down as to what percent believed in his visioin versus what percent was 'anyone but Obama', but the question moving forward will be whether the 'vision fraction' can be bolstered by his continuing to campaign, even if not for his own election.
After watching the interview I am sure Romney would have been our best choice in the election. For those of you who can only spout opinions on the "Tea Party, and billionaires" You are stupid and boring. They have nothing to do with the kind of gentleman Romney is.
You just haven't been used to someone so dignified, intelligent, insightful and gentlemanly running for office. He didn't blame anyone else for his loss. He expresses his concern for the American people, and future generations, and he is right. Since when have American's been so anti American? Think about it. We have become so politically correct, and blind to the fact that we no longer believe in or care about the law, the constitution or anything else which may deny a criminal his/her rights, but what about us? Right now we are in tough time, and need a tough minded, caring president. Unfortunately we don't have one. Whatever Romney does in the future he will be an asset to this country.
Calling people "stupid and boring" is no way to win them over. Romney lost from just such out of touch tin-eared snobbery.
Well, here's the thing about the interview. It's true he started off saying things like that, but he quite quickly reverted to blaming others. Take his 47 percent comment. Yes, he said it had hurt. But then he quickly excused himself, saying that when you are t talking privately, you don't think as hard about what you say, and so he said something in a way that made it easy to twist and distort what he meant. Who, really was he blaming?.
I have only watched the interview in pieces so far, but all I've seen shows Mitt and Ann blaming the media, the campaign, the tricky debate questions, the poor people who (surprisingly, to Romney) like the idea of health care coverage, for his loss. He should pick up a mirror on his next trip to Costco.
And then he criticizes Obama's leadership, which I thought was pretty funny. Romney, who still thinks he's a great leader, doesn't even understand that he couldn't even lead his own party. Someone criticized his choice of Ryan for VP - well, if that was a bad decision, doesn't that reflect on Romney?
And I'm left wondering - was the Romney we saw here, running for Senate and being Governor - the real Romney, or did he tack to the left for his time in MA politics? That's hard to answer though, since so many of his positions seemed to be formed out of Jello.
When Ann Romney said she and Mitt didn't care about losing the election as they would be fine. It was the American people who lost, per Ann. She's as out of touch as her husband.
Good points
Mitt is convinced he should have been the king. He isnt on board with the workers having a say in these things
Frankly I think as much as anything it was Mitt feeling entitled and encouraged by success in his previous endeavors. "Well I've gotten everything else I ever wanted, what's left? President I guess. That would prove I'm really as impressive as I think I am!" I couldn't even guess if he even wanted the job or just figured it was the only "promotion" left to shoot for.
The last incumbent president to lose - was George Bush against Bill Clinton -Clinton - and before that Jimmy Carter against Reagan. Both Clinton and Reagan are/were exceptional politicians - Romney was not.
Yes the press was against Romney - but he needed better social networking and he should have started advertising in Ohio earlier.
I do have to ask Scott - where is the article about Jack Lew and why did Warren confirm him - he is an example of everything that is wrong with Washington - but nary a whisper from the Globe.
Gee, Lew got a bonus for getting a big government job from Citi and under him NUY took a chunk of student loan fees - disgusting crony capitalism.
tysynchronous you are completely wrong about the coverage on Jack Lew. I get my news primarily from the Globe and NPR and I was informed on numerous occassions about his stint in the private sector and concerns that he might be just another fox in the henhouse (a serious short-comming on Obama's part for which many liberals are very unhappy). I am afraid that you only see what you want to see. Just like all Globe bashers and bashers of the media generally.
Just to double check - I searched the Globe site for Jack Lew nothing about NUY or his bonus from leaving CITI Bank.
NPR mentions CITI - but not NUY and the funds NUY skimmed from students loans under his direction.
And where was Elizabeth Warren - she voted for him - no questions asked - I bet Warren votes 100% partisan
And Lew got the big bonus because he went to work as a high government official.
I think that the last election was a big loss for the 1%, and that's where Romney is coming from.
The reason he lost is not the point of the column. The point is that he still seems to be unable to open up and provide deeper insight into the problems with the campaign. He is a difficult person to understand because one thinks that he is a much deeper person than what he reveals in public. What comes out strong to me is his strong Mormoneque beliefs that faith, hard work and the traditional family values are his primary guiding principles. This is apparently contrary to enough groups and thus the comments about his elitism and the like. Never to be proven but I am convinced that he would have been able to work a compromise and avoid the current budget crisis that lead to the sequestration.
This comment has been removed.
Faith--see "Warren Jeffs". Family values---Always arrange for millionaire parents. Keep your kids and yourself out of the military, while threatening to get tough with other countries. Hard work---its exhausting buying good companies, sucking the wealth out of them before closing the doors.
I did not watch the interview, rather, I read the transcript at my leisure. The only impression it left on me is that it seems Romney is still campaigning.
like Obama
Yes, but Obama won.
Actually, I'm surprized Romney admitted to ANY mistakes at all. Republicans are not supposed to ever admit mistakes. Seriously, no one like to admit mistakes but both Clinton and Obama admitted when they miscalculated. Conservatives and Tea Party types live in a bubble that does not allow them to admit error, and they back themselves up with "facts" from media outlets like FOX. Please...
Lehigh in my opinion sees an easy target in Romney - and he just continues to criticize. But why. Romney is at this point irrelevant. FOCUS on the present White House occupant. Obama basically refuses to "lead;" and thinks he can continue "campaigning." The other point I find laughable was the comment on winning elder statesman status. I don't think Romney is even interested in such "status." The comment seems more applicable to self-annointed elder statesman, Bill Clinton. He never let the truth get in his way!!
I've never been a "Romney fan" as LeHigh puts it. He's a slick egotist, so ambitious that he'll say anything. He tailors every remark differently for each different occasion. We're lucky to be rid of him.
This comment has been removed.
Professional version: "Romney's look back: More deflection than reflection." In the vernacular: "He's lying again"
Chris Wallace always does good interviews and didn't fail on this one. I thought Romney was candid about the mistakes he made. If he had had a better ground game, hit Obama hard on Benghazi, continuously attacked Obamacare and didn't let up during the last week of the campaign, he'd be sitting in the Oval Office right now and we wouldn't be going through this sequestration battle.
This comment has been removed.
You still don't get it. If a product doesn't sell usually it's not poor marketing, it's a poor product. Romney was not being himself and he didn't believe in the GOP platform. Ever see a salesman trying to sell a product that he knows is bad? Very few can pull it off, and Romney obviously is not one of them. And the American electorate is simply not as dumb and gullible as the GOP strategists think. Time to stop trying to redesign the packaging, and redesign the product.
In a closely parallel universe Mitt Romney is a rational, pragmatic centrist not afraid to stand up to, and triangulate, the factless ideological fantasies that have taken hold in the right wing of the Republican Party and the left wing of the Democratic Party. His whole life was leading up to this.
Meanwhile, in this universe, a very rich, very smart man named Mitt Romney has just completed a six year, jaw-dropping journey of self-diminishment. This guy could have been a mountain, but at this point it only takes a little dust pan to get him off the stage. And every single bit of it was self-inflicted. Wow. How's that feel?
Accurate and well stated. I actually liked Governor Romney too....social liberal/ fiscal conservative with a good brain and, I previously thought, conviction and principles. He let those pin head Tea Partiers make a mess out of him, which exposed that he apparently did not have the principles and conviction I had given him credit for.
Amen.
Imam so pleased that this clown and his airhead wife lost and I will never have to dealwithbthier insanity again. Fta
great column today and so true. romney was such a bad candidate, he would have lost if he ran unopposed...
Scot, What a cutting expose on Romney! I can only imagine if you write about someone you don't like. So Romney responded like a political contortionist, standing by Romneycare on the state level, while vowing that it was crucial to repeal Obamacare nationally. Didn't the Globe in their editorial yesterday say that Obamacare shoyuld take into cosnideration how it is going to hurt small business in Massachusetts and it should be flexible? So in other words, let the individual states be able to make it work, better than the federal government? How come you didn't point out that Obama said his health plan would lower health care costs when it has actually caused it to increase over 6% the last two years because of mandates, and it is scheduled to increase another 2.5-3% in 2014!!! I guess when you have a bill that is 2100 pages that no one reads but pass it, there is bound to be details that are overlooked If romney wasn't candid, Obama is a plain liar. But of course to the Globe, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good hammer of Republicans. After all, the head of the senate, arry Reid told everyone he could prove without a shadow of a doubt that Romney didn't file taxes for 10 years!!! He is the voice of reason the Globe clings to!!!
This comment has been removed.
thought so - nary a whisper about Jack Lew, sad.
who? The Dem equivalent of Mitt?
Ann had it right
All I can figure out is that the liberal media had to do an interview with Romney to distract from morons like Holder who wants to think that drone attacks in the US are something that could be done. They also need something to talk about to cover up Menendez.
Of course, it is working quite well, because Scott is busy writing an opinion about an interview that really does not matter. And all the liberals are busily talking about a past election rather than figuring out why Obama is not leading, and still campaigning.
It is called: deflection.
Well done Scott, you managed to fill up some of the white space again today, with a non story.
Fox News is the liberal media? For goodness sake would you read the articles before you start wasting good comments space with your ramblings.
Yes, expect the Globe to continually write stories about the past election. After all, notice that Obama is STILL campaigning as if he is the "outsider" and is not the person in charge and is not responsible for anything including his own agenda... . .And watch tomorrows monthly Non-Farm-Payroll and Unemployment percent.report...If the news is good, Globe will have it on the front page, with news that the economy is recovering. if it is bad, you will see a picture of a Red Sox player swinging a bat in Florida.
How about an article on someone who matters now- like the awful job Obama is doing. The sequester is coming! Nah, that's not news.
Let see..No White House tours...No FLU vaccine, No air traffic controllers, no police, firefighters, teachers. And according to the Globe, all scientific research projects in MA will be CANCELLED.
Can't we send Romney back to the 1950s where he belongs?
Romney used to be good at political posturing and,then, he lost that skill(fortunately for us).The same thing happened with Scott Brown.It's high time to stop believing false promises of bipartisanship.
This came up again with Jeb Bush,trying to present himself as the next "centrist" saviour.
Enough already.
We will not get to effective governing,immigration reform,improved transit,improved education systems,environmental stewardship etc with compromises that demand that we abandon these very goals and support unfettered vulture capitalism.
Romney has made it clear that he cares nothing about these goals but is fully committed to vulture capitalism.
China plans to raise its budget deficit by 50 percent this year as the central government cuts taxes and boosts measures to support consumer demand in the world’s second-biggest economy.
mmt
The only reason Fox was interviewing Romney is because they've hired all the other GOP candidates.
And if Mitt has any brains he will never give an interview to the Boston Globe.
"It is called: deflection."
Yes, and the Romney supporters here are doing a lot of that.
When you have nothing constructive to say about the subject of the piece, change the subject.
I guess you guys don't understand the loss yet, either.
Scot, what does it says about your column that the most vile and ugly haters are your biggest fans?
This comment has been removed.
That's the normal makeup of the left
I too had some admiration for Mitt when he was governor. He was a useful check on the utterly corrupt and looney-tunes lefty legislature. However, he lost me forever with his complete abandonment of the center in 2008 and completely he embarrassed himself in the last election. Everything he has done recently, including his pathetic interview that is the subject of the column, makes me believe that the centrist Romney was an illusion - no make that a lie. The real Romney is the one in the 47% video, a rich SOB who believed the presidency was his destiny - no make that his entitlement.
I just received a phone call from Newt Gingrich, asking me to buy a movie so I could better understand the "secular socialism" we all live with after Obama's reelection.
Romney's not the only one who doesn't see reality.
Doubt he would have an AG who thinks you can use drones on US citizens.....in the US
Sen. Rand Paul took to the floor of the U.S. Senate just before noon Wednesday and vowed to stay there “at length” in order to filibuster John O. Brennan, whom President Obama has nominated to be the next CIA director.
Mr. Paul, Kentucky Republican, has said he will hold up the nomination until he gets more information about the U.S. drone execution program, which has become a major sore point for many lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“I will speak today until the president responds and says, ‘No, we won’t kill Americans in cafes. No, we won’t kill you at home at night,’” Mr. Paul said early on in the filibuster, which began at 11:47 a.m. and by early afternoon showed no signs of slowing down.
Rand isn't a Republican he's a libertarian. As childish and petulant as any libertarian or communist. Intellects cut from the same absolutist cloth and no friends of democracy or America.
Scott...your as disingenuous as you claim Romney to be. You never like him....ever.
I didn't like Romeny before and I don't like him now. I didn't like what he represented or should I what he represented and what he didn't represent. Mitt never believed in anything except Mitt. Mitt couldn't figure out why he didn't win. Please, the 47 percent wasn't a mistake, it was what he believed. It doesn't make him a bad man, it was just who he was. Mitt as was noted on a show last night, doesn't go to the park he goes to "open spaces". Mitt doesn't hate the average guy he has no idea who the average guy is and frankly most of the average guys who come to his support don't know who he is.
Mitt is corporate man, who belongs to a corporate church, who sees the world through corporate eyes. The world is his bank account, again it doesn't make him a bad man, it is just who he is. Mitt wanted to be President because it was there, because it fulfilled an old dream. I don't like Mitt because he is not the kind of man I have ever liked. He was like so many pols I have known both Democrat and Republican. They run because they can. They run for their own pride.
Mistakes were made, but not by me....that sums up Romney's excuse-laden whining.
I think Mitt Romney's recent reflections on the presidential race only proves to me that his presidency would have been all over the map. He missed a great opportunity to throw his support behind President Obama and tone down the rhetoric from the Reublican leadership. The race is over. Time to put the country first.
This comment has been removed.
If Mr. Romney would just say, "I was a lousy candidate" we'd all believe him and that would give him a bit of credibility. But...
Mittens lost the election ALL BY HIMSELF, with his own mouth, and with NO government help.
Now he says he was misunderstood?? REALLY??
How about the fact that he sought and received the endorsement of John C. Willke, the nutcase doctor who suggested that rape does not cause pregnancy, not just in 2011, but also in 2007. You know, the doctor who put that idea in Todd Akin's head. Willke also endorsed Paul Ryan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9493653/US-election-Mitt-Romney-met-Todd-Akin-doctor-John-Willke-during-2012-campaign.html
and
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21/news/la-pn-doctor-behind-todd-akins-rape-theory-was-a-romney-surrogate-in-2007-20120821
Yeah, right. "Moderate Mitt" showed up for one debate, but "severely conservtive" Mitt was the real guy running. Google "Romney Willke Ryan Akin" and see what turns up.
Scott lehigh says "Now as a former Romney fan"..Sure you were, Scott. You were a fan until Mitt ran against Barack Obama. Then you left your Fan Costume outside the door.
Now, in OTHER news, White House cancels tours. Health and Human Services department says "Sorry, as a result of the SCAREquester there is no FLU vaccine...News media networks all repeat the administration claim word for word. But Fox TV broadcasters now offering to donate money for the Whaite House tours. And the man in charge of the FLU vaccine program admits under questing by Republicans that other cuts could be easily made so that the vaccine could still be produced...White House caught in one big Lie about the vaccine. .So what will Obama do now? And what new phony stories will the news media make up?...