Mitt Romney exploring 2012 presidential run

[EnglishLady]

BBC News

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has taken the first formal step towards running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Mr Romney, who ran a failed bid in 2008, is setting up a committee to explore the feasibility of a run.

"It is time that we put America back on a course of greatness," he said

Mr Romney is the second high profile Republican to announce a bid following former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty's move in March.

While Mr Romney is widely expected to enter the 2012 race, correspondents say he has several hurdles to overcome, notably his moderate record as Massachusetts governor, which does not sit well with conservative primary voters.

Mr Romney's reform of the Massachusetts health care system - an overhaul that some see as remarkably similar to the one President Barack Obama passed in 2009, in the face of forceful Republican opposition - is considered as albatross around his neck.

Mr Romney ran in 2008 but lost the Republican nomination to Senator John McCain.

'Best days ahead'

In three-minute video announcing his latest move, Mr Romney trumpeted his highly successful business career and criticised President Obama's attempts to turn around a faltering US economy.

"Across the nation, over 20 million Americans still can't find a job or have given up looking," Mr Romney said.

"America has been put on a dangerous course by Washington politicians and it's become even worse during the last two years. But I'm also convinced that, with able leadership, America's best days are still ahead," he added.

Mr Romney has lined up donors, staff and advisers for his expected presidential bid and some consider him to be front-runner for the Republican nomination in a field without a strong favourite.

 

[purgoose10]

He was exploring when bam bam started. He should have a map out by now.

 

[chefdennis]

The mistake and failed joke of Mass. "Romneycare"...the forerunner for barrycare will take him out of the running....

 

[EnglishLady]

The mistake and failed joke of Mass. "Romneycare"...the forerunner for barrycare will take him out of the running....

If you could choose "a line up" what would your choices be?

Who would you like to see in the big chair?

 

[chefdennis]

At this point, while the new "continous" campigning that is now the norm is pushing this bs out further and further from the elections, i feel it is too early to even be putting people in line yet.

That being said, I am looking pretty hard at Herman Cain...a complete outsider and not one of the "good ole boys"...

Herman Cain - Presidential Exploratory Committee

 

[xiggi]

About the only ting I like about Romney is he was actually a business man. I do feel he will just be part of the good old boys network. Romney care doesn't bug me that much because although it has been pretty much a failure it was done at the state level as such things should be.

Not a Herman cane fan either sorry to say Chef. At this point I am not sure who I am impressed by, probably some of the young guns if any but like Obama they lack experience and we see what that has done, I did like Daniels as our governor here in Indiana but just do not think he stand much chance on the big stage.

 

[chefdennis]

No need to be sorry Xig! I didn't say i was a fan of his, just looking at him pretty hard to figure more out anout him..as for romneycare, yeap you are right, the state was the place for it, and yes it was and is a failure...but I think he would drag it right along with him the the WH so to make some "changes" to barrycare and keep the socialist program going..

Mitch seems not to far out of line and he has been a govenor and as managing experience, more then can be said for barry...

 

[jpalmer]

Romney will lose against Gingrich if they go against each other. I will vote for Gingrich. I do think somebody like Herman Cain or somebody like him would have a good chance of winning in this current political climate. We need another Reagan moment.

I'd pay to see a Cain/Obama debate....That would be epic!

 

[layoutshooter]

*SIGH* ANOTHER re-run. Just another socialist ReBumLiCan. Right now I cannot say that ANYONE floats my boat. I will vote AGAINST Obama, but not likely FOR who ever the bum is who runs against him. Who would I like to see in the "big chair". Felix the Cat would be as good as anyone we have seen in the last 60 or 70 years.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I won't vote for Gingrich. Something has to be said about a man who is twice divorced because he can't keep his damm pants on. Republican version of Clinton? No thanx!

 

[layoutshooter]

I won't vote for Gingrich. Something has to be said about a man who is twice divorced because he can't keep his damm pants on. Republican version of Clinton? No thanx!

Yeah, Gingrich sucks too. I don't know if he is as bad as Clinton. Did Gingrich ever perjure himself? Other than that, just ANOTHER scum back with a different animal on his shirt than the scum bag in office now. Nothing changes.

 

[xiggi]

Gingrich has very little chance, to many skeletons in that closet.

 

[Pilgrim]

The GOP candidate will have to be one who is not afraid to clearly spell out the differences between his conservative beliefs and the liberal philosophy of Obama and the Democrats - especially the disastrous policies and legislative mandates that were passed during the Pelosi/Reid years of congressional control. This candidate will have to be an experienced executive, preferably at a Governor's level; one who has dealt with the task of making difficult decisions and dealing with the consequences. The candidate will need to be relatively media savvy - but not necessarily a poser like Obama; he/she needs to be a person of substance, and possess a reasonable amount of style with the ability to ignore or rise above the vicious attacks that will come from the liberal opponents, the late-night clowns and the mainstream media. Since we don't have a Reagan clone handy, I guess we all sit and scratch our heads trying to imagine who among the GOP probable candidates would match some if not all the above criteria. The picture likely won't come into focus until after the first debate. However, I for one don't think it will be Mitt Romney in spite of his considerable resume. There's just something about him that reminds me of Dan Quayle; and of course there's the stain of RomneyCare that just won't come out of his political fabric, regardless of the treatment du jour.

 

[greg334]

Why does everyone seem to want another reagan?

I mean the guy was a liberal, not a true conservative and he had chances to straighten up the country and didn't.

His concern and legacy was the soviet union, it wasn't anything but that, well maybe tax cuts but those tax cuts were accompanied by closing of tax right offs that affected the lower middle class.

What we need seems to be a strong leader and we have yet to see one in politics. We surely don't need retreads like Gingrich, he needs to stick to teaching and for God's sake we don't need Trump who isn't anything but part of the problem.

BUT with that said, one thing we do need is a good campaign manager who won't ***** with the vp candidate as Palin was messed with.

 

[layoutshooter]

Greg, I would be willing to bet that all but a very few of the "conservatives" would REALLY want a true conservative in office. All the "conservatives" want is to put their particular bend on socialism and "social justice" into law. Nothing more. I would be willing to bet that you will find the same with "libratarians" as well.

We DO lead a LEADER. No more bosses or puppets who are having their strings pulled. We face many difficult challenges. Those challenges are made more difficult to solve because in many cases both sides of the argument are right. We also need to realize that most of the things we face today took years to get to this point and that there is NO possible way to fix them in a week. I don't see the leader out there right now that has the ability to lead the country through this minefield.

This COULD be one of the United States FINEST hours. This nation can rise to ANY challenge put before it. All it would take is that person who is able to bring out the best in everyone as opposed to, say Obama, who points out weakness and PROVIDES aid for the weak.

A challenge builds strength when met head on. The greater the challenge is the better chance of the solutions improving society. The government should NOT provide answers. Answers come from the People. A LEADER will inspire the People to seek the answer. Then a LEADER would ALLOW the People to thrive.

 

[Letzboogie]

I won't go so far as to say it should be a prerequisite for the presidency but I believe history shows the men who can't keep their pants on, regardless of political background, have been some of the most effective leaders.

 

[layoutshooter]

I won't go so far as to say it should be a prerequisite for the presidency but I believe history shows the men who can't keep their pants on, regardless of political background, have been some of the most effective leaders.

When the president, or any elected official, takes an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution it SHOULD mean something. If a person, man/woman/or unknown takes an oath that requires them to "keep their pants on" and they are WILLING to break that oath, what makes you think that they will keep ANY oath? A cheat is a cheat. Oaths mean NOTHING to them. Why did you single out men anyway? Women are JUST as bad.

Since there have been almost NO leaders in the office of president in my lifetime I cannot say that you statement is true in this case.

 

[Letzboogie]

When the president, or any elected official, takes an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution it SHOULD mean something. If a person, man/woman/or unknown takes an oath that requires them to "keep their pants on" and they are WILLING to break that oath, what makes you think that they will keep ANY oath? A cheat is a cheat. Oaths mean NOTHING to them. Why did you single out men anyway? Women are JUST as bad.

Since there have been almost NO leaders in the office of president in my lifetime I cannot say that you statement is true in this case.

Keeping one's pants on is not part of any oath I am aware of. Oaths are open to interpretation anyway. "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability will preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States". Faithfully execute? I don't know there is a specific definition of "faithfully", in this context anyway. "Best of my ability"? Who knows what that is .

I only singled out men since only men have ever held the office of president. Women could be included if they occupied a postion of authority.

That there have been no leaders in the office of the presidency is strictly your opinion.

 

[layoutshooter]

Keeping one's pants on is not part of any oath I am aware of. Oaths are open to interpretation anyway. "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability will preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States". Faithfully execute? I don't know there is a specific definition of "faithfully", in this context anyway. "Best of my ability"? Who knows what that is .

I only singled out men since only men have ever held the office of president. Women could be included if they occupied a postion of authority.

That there have been no leaders in the office of the presidency is strictly your opinion.

The MARRIAGE oath requires it. IF a person BREAKS that oath they are JUST as likely to break ANY oath. Dishonest is dishonest.

Leaders? Name one. ANYONE can get weak minded people to follow them. It takes a LEADER to get the strong to follow. IF we had LEADERS we would NOT be in debt, Social Security would NOT be broke, so on and so forth. EVERYONE in that office in my lifetime was more worried about getting re-elected or getting the particular party they belong to re-elected than truly working on the challenges that we face.

A leader would INSPIRE people to solve their OWN problems not force solutions on them.

A leader does not assume that people are NOT capable of handling life's problems and then "FIX" things for them.

Those are qualities that I see in a leader. What do you think a leader is?

Protecting the Constitution does NOT mean finding ways to "get around it" like so many of our "leaders" do today.

 

[greg334]

We really have had no real leadership in our lifetimes, the closest may have been Taft or FDR to some degree but we have had politicians and that may be one of the issues. Since Kennedy, we have had tv stars where debates matter (who in the hell understands how they win a debate in the general population?) and how their hair looks good.

IF we want to return some semblance of governing in this country, we can't keep thinking that the president is the do-all potentate but rather need to look at how our entire government works and demand the best out of those who we directly vote for.

As for the clinton factor, it may be above people who don't get the complexity of the office and how blackmail is a concern. Another reason why we shouldn't directly vote for the president and why we should consider him as the leader of the executive branch.