I couldn’t agree more with this analysis from Dick Morris:

For students of American politics, following the way the Romney campaign played Newt Gingrich in Florida is a lesson to learn and to keep. Romney’s people must have realized that Newt does best when he is positive. His bold ideas, clear vision, revolutionary insights and extraordinary perspectives resonate with voters and win him millions of supporters.

Romney, less compelling but more consistent, doesn’t need stellar debate performances or bold vision to win. The case for the former Massachusetts governor is more circumstantial: He can reach out to independents by virtue of his past apostasies on healthcare and abortion. He looks, talks and acts like a president. His record of job creation is exemplary.

But Newt needs the bold sally, the breathtaking moment of rhetorical clarity, to prevail.

So Romney’s people set out to mire Newt in negatives so he couldn’t and wouldn’t get out the positive message he needed to project to prevail. They tormented him with negative ads in Iowa. While the ads were generally accurate — the allegation about backing China’s forced-abortion policy aside — they presented only one side of the story and were stinging in their impact. Without funds, Gingrich couldn’t answer the negative ads. He fumed but watched, in impotence, as his vote share fell away.

In Spanish bullfights, the picadors torment the bull by sticking darts into his shoulders. Enraged, bleeding, frustrated and in pain, he lowers his head, snorts, paws the ground and charges straight at the matador, oblivious to the sword awaiting him behind the red cape. That’s about what Romney did to Gingrich in the January primaries.

The Hill

Mr. Morris is right.  Newt Gingrich is a higly educated, articulate man.  But he is also a man with an enormous ego and accompanying temper that he has great difficulty controlling.  As I have said in other posts, he simply does not have the temperment to go up against Barak Obama.  If he was whining about unfair treatment from Mitt Romney, he would literally self-combust against the President and his Chicago buddies.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has proven that he can not only dish it out with the best of them, but can take it as well and he can do so without losing his head.  He has shown, as Mr. Morris points out, “consistency” through out the campaign and “he looks, talks and acts like a president.”  He has also demonstrated a strong committment to traditional family values which the hard right values.  Mitt Romney’s “apostasies” are in the past.  In FL, Newt Gingrich proved that he hasn’t really changed all that much from his inconsistent, fiery, ego induced gaffe filled career and that turned voters off.

Not that I am against people having faith, or exercising faith, in accomplishing worthy and noble tasks, but one thing I cannot stand is “absoluteness,” especially when it has to do with the “you cants” because of such and such a reason” type of reasoning.  Anyone can do anything they want because human potential is virtually unlimited.

But this is the main concern I have with “absolute” individuals -and I know many- is that when you ARE wrong, what does it say about your judgment??  These are people who are highly delusional.  Why?  Because in their “narrow-mindedness” they have failed to create an awareness of possible alternatives or to see “the bigger picture,” that they somehow put themselves into a state of mind that doesn’t offer them more resources or intelligence for being able see possibilities beyond what their narrow minds allow.  Pretty shallow indeed.

Such is the case with Barack Obama.  As you can clearly see in this video, Obama was very absolute that this health care bill was going to pass.  Now his credibility is shot, and he failed(let’s not forget the democrats in MA and in Senate) to see the potential of a Republican winning the Senate seat which was occupied by the late Ted Kennedy, that was before declared anointed for a Democrat Senator only!  By the way, kudos to Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for the almost non-recognizable, yet obviously profound help in showing Senator Elect Scott Brown the way to victory!

The left assumed that the Massachusetts seat was already theirs and they failed to work hard to keep it.  Yes, the people sent a signal of discontent, but Martha Coakley sure didn’t campaign like it was possible she could lose.  And now?  The fate of the health care bill.

Three cheers to Barack Obama for breaking another promise to the American people and making it more likely that Mitt Romney will defeat him in 2012!

Oh, and just a side not -Huckabee says that Brown’s election in Massachusetts was bad for the GOP because it will cause Obama to move to the center.  “The Huckster advocates voting for Dems so Obama will not notice and react.
This guy is overdosing on Twinkies. He is a certified Whack Job if he thinks Scott Brown is good for Obama and bad for the GOP!  Futhermore, does this mean that Mike would rather see Obamacare take hold of this country?”

By the way, do you think that this image of Obama is fading?  Let’s HOPE!

Click on image to enlarge

I wanted to wait until after Scott Brown won the election before posting this article from The Daily Beast.  Many at Free Republic will be angry that The Daily Beast has credited Mitt for Scott Brown’s win, but they sure did lay out a pretty convincing case for Mitt’s involvement which one cannot easily lay aside.

Mitt Romney on Hannity at Scott Brown Victory Party

Here it is from The Daily Beast:

If Scott Brown pulls off an upset in the race to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate, he may have Mitt Romney to thank. Samuel P. Jacobs on the 2012 GOP presidential hopeful’s hidden hand.

There are a number of forces driving Republican Scott Brown’s surprising surge in the Massachusetts special Senate election campaign. He’s benefiting from public anger over the Obama administration’s health-care reform plan. He’s buoyed by a tide of cash from around the country, donated by conservatives eager to send a message by upsetting Democratic front-runner Martha Coakley. And then there’s the lackluster campaign Coakley herself has run.

From the start, Brown has been counseled by members of the Shawmut Group, a Boston-based consulting firm that acts as the Romney political brain trust in exile.

Largely overlooked in assessing Brown’s prospects: the hidden hand of Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor headlined at a fundraiser for Brown last October.  And Romney has helped Brown raise money outside the state as well. “I know Scott and how determined he is to win. I’ve campaigned for him, raised money on his behalf, and we’re doing all we can to help him over the finish line,” Romney wrote supporters last Monday. Brown, 50, raised $1.3 million that day.

But lest anyone accuse Romney of being a Johnny-come-lately—stepping up only as Brown has vaulted from sacrificial lamb to serious threat—the 2008 presidential hopeful has lent crucial support behind the scenes from the start of Brown’s campaign. Ever since he entered the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Brown has been counseled by members of the Shawmut Group, a Boston-based consulting firm that acts as the Romney political brain trust in exile. Among the many Romney disciples running Brown’s campaign are Beth Myers, the campaign manager of Romney’s presidential run; Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s chief spokesman; Peter Flaherty, Romney’s “go-to-guy for conservatives”; and Rob Cole, Romney’s 2008 deputy chairman manager. Beth Lindstrom, another player in Romney World, is working as Brown’s campaign manager. Lindstrom’s ties to Romney go back years; she started working with him in the Massachusetts State House as director of consumer affairs.

A Brown victory would be a huge upset—threatening the viability of Obama’s health-care plan and providing the GOP a burst of energy and confidence heading into the 2010 midterm elections this fall. It would also be a big boost for Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. Up against a populist wave on the right that favors candidates like Sarah Palin, Romney can improve his appeal and influence by gaining the loyalty of newly elected officials. And Brown is hardly the only GOP contender Romney is helping. The Hill reported in September, Romney’s followers have spread throughout the country to help candidates in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, and California. Most notable among them: Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman has a stable of Romney aides helping her try to her win the governor’s mansion in Sacramento.

Romney’s role is all the more interesting because he’s not exactly Brown’s ideological soulmate. One of the winning lines of the Brown campaign was his protestation that he can’t be tied to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. “I’m Scott Brown,” the state senator told the audience of the campaign’s only debate. “I’m from Wrentham. I drive a truck.”

Wrentham is best known for its shopping outlets. Romney, before recently decamping for New Hampshire, lived in Belmont, a tony Boston suburb, home to Harvard professors and families who send their kids to local private schools. Brown’s worked in state government since 1992; Romney made his name in private equity. Brown went to Boston College Law School, and Mitt Romney was schooled at Harvard Business School. They represent two different strands of American conservatism, or at least their New England versions.

But Romney intimates see similarities between the two.

“If you called central casting and said, ‘Give me the right candidate,’ you couldn’t get a better guy than Scott,” says Ron Kaufman, who is Massachusetts chairman of the Republican National Committee, an unofficial Brown adviser, and an adviser to Romney. Brown is married to a local newscaster and has one daughter at Syracuse; another is a former American Idol star and now plays Division I basketball at Boston College. Romney’s seemingly perfect profile—the looks, the clean-cut Mormon family—also elicited references to “central casting.”

“They are both happy warriors. They are both indefatigable. Both are kinds of policy wonks. Scott was very helpful to the governor with health care,” Kaufman says.

As Tuesday’s vote nears, Team Romney’s role in the Brown campaign is tumbling into the open. Talking to The Washington Post, strategist Eric Fehrnstrom trumpeted his campaign’s use of an ad featuring John F. Kennedy, Jr. and called the Coakley camp’s ensuing silence the turning point in the campaign.

“One thing it does say about Mitt is that his folks know how to run a campaign,” Kaufman says.

Democrats are not as psyched about the Romney crowd’s role in the Massachusetts special election; indeed, they’ve tried to make an issue of it. They point to his fingerprints on a negative ad about Coakley’s tax policy, paid for by an out-of-state group, the American Future Fund. The 30-second spot was produced by Larry McCarthy, who is famous for the “Willie Horton” ad. He too was a Romney hand in 2008.

“The Romney playbook is being used again,” says Boston-based Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh. She did not intend the comment as a compliment.

For Marsh, that playbook means a sharp turn to the right to attract support from national conservatives and what she calls “selective amnesia” about past legislative efforts or associates. Brown’s been hit by the Democrats for supporting an amendment which would have allowed hospital workers to refuse emergency conception to rape victims on account of religious beliefs. They’ve also pointed Brown’s effort to distance himself from out-of-state Tea Party groups.

Andrew Sullivan, for instance, wrote that he sees various contortions in Brown’s economic policies and found a “Romney-like cynicism” in a recent Boston Globe op-ed authored by the candidate.

The upside for Brown is that Romney’s team has a proven track record of success in statewide campaigns in the state. And that team has stayed remarkably cohesive through Romney’s post-gubernatorial career. That stands in marked contrast to the crackup John McCain’s aides went through following their losing 2008 campaign. And that, Romney supporters say, bodes well not only for Brown—but also for Romney’s White House chances in 2012.

“When you read the new book Game Change,” says the Republican strategist Kaufman, “the one thing that impresses you is how loyal the Obama folks were to their guy in a cycle where that was not the strong suit. The truth is the same with the Romney folks. They are dead loyal to their guy.”

Samuel P. Jacobs is a staff reporter at The Daily Beast. He has also written for The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney spoke with Fox News’ Sean Hannity this evening just after Martha Coakley had conceded the race to Scott Brown.  If the Fox News video isn’t streaming well(replaced it with YouTube), it is most likely because EVERYONE is watching!!  By the way, I loved the dig that Mitt took at Obama at about the 3:35 mark!

Here’s more from another interview by a local Massachusetts news stations:

Mitt and Ann Romney were recently by Fox News’ Gretchen.  That interview will air on Wedsnesday.  Here are some excerpts of what Governor Romney had to say about his plans for 2012.

Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says he will decide after the 2010 Congressional elections whether to take on pro-abortion President Barack Obama. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, ran as a pro-life candidate against eventual nominee John McCain.

Romney is one of several Republicans considering a bid against Obama and consistently polls in the top three in most surveys of Republicans and American voters.

He has ranked as one of the top potential candidates along with pro-life former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

In a new interview with Fox News slated to air Wednesday, Romney discusses his plans.

“It’s always a possibility, and you keep the options open, but, you concentrate on the task ahead, for me that’s trying to get some good people elected in 2010,” he says on the Fox News program “Fox and Friends.”

“And, I know once that’s done the next item on the agenda is what’s 2012 going to be; and, Ann and I will give that some thought and make the decision then,” he added.

Appearing like a candidate, or at least an advocate for “change” in 2010, Romney voiced criticism of Obama, saying he has governed from the left when he pledged to be a moderate.

“I had higher hopes for him,” Romney said. “I knew he was a smart individual — I thought that he would learn that governing from the middle was the right way to go, as president Clinton learned his second term, but he’s made a lot of the mistakes that ideologues often do, which is thinking that everybody in the country voted for their extreme agenda.”

Romney also talked about Palin in the interview on the Fox News show and diffused rumors that she may consider a third-party presidential bid.

“I don’t know what her plans are but my expectation is that she’ll stay in the Republican party,” he said.

“Look, she’s a great, energizing member of the party. She has good ideas that have galvanized a lot of support for the party and she’s a welcome addition,” he added.

During the campaign, Romney said he is pro-life on abortion and went as far as endorsing the overturning of Roe v. Wade so states can again protect women and unborn children from abortion.

However, the former governor came under fire from some quarters for his state health care plan, which includes taxpayer-funded abortions. Romney countered that the state Supreme Court required abortion funding under the program.

A Gallup survey asked Republicans to say whether they would like any of several potential presidential candidates.

Some 71 percent of Republicans say they would seriously consider voting for Huckabee while the same 65 percent say they would consider Romney or Palin, both of whom ran as pro-life candidates in 2008.

A previous Rasmussen poll found 29% of Republican voters nationwide say Huckabee is their pick to represent the GOP in the 2012 presidential campaign.

The survey had 24 percent preferring Romney and 18% would cast their vote for pro-life former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The full interview is set to air on Wednesday but Fox was able to give us a peak into their interview with Ann:

In a recent article it was announced that Alec Baldwin has decided he is no longer interested in acting.  Mr. Baldwin, apart from his roles in such movies as “The Hunt for Red October” and “Glengarry Glen Ross”, is also know for being a highly opinionated man with a volcanic temper.  He has, in the past, called for Republican Henry Hyde and his family to be dragged out into the street and stoned to death and has described his own daughter as a “rude, thoughtless little pig.”  And in this most recent story about his decision to leave acting, we learn that he doesn’t mind having ended his relationship with his girlfriend of seven years because “I’d rather be lonely than wrong.”   This statement is both shocking and entirely unsurprising;  Mr. Baldwin abuses friend and foe, including family because he would rather be alone than admit he was wrong.  It explains quite a lot, really.

Now, Mr. Baldwin is no hero over at Free Republic.com.  His decidedly Liberal point of view and consistently over-heated, dishonest and hysterical declarations about Conservatives (not to mention the garbage he points at his supposed loved ones) earns him nothing but derision at FR and deservedly so.  And yet, many Freepers (particularly the head Freeper himself) share this very trait they hate so much in Mr. Baldwin.  Enemies are not just wrong, they are evil incarnate.  And, even the slightest degree of disagreement is cause for breathless, hyper-critical and dishonest denunciations of people who are, in most other respects, their allies.

Currently, with Obama and Congressional Democrats trying to remake this Democratic Republic into a Socialist Democratic country in the  European socialist mold, Islamic terrorists regaining their strength and motivation  and our very Constitution hanging in the balance, Jim Robinson has decided that the biggest enemy that the world faces right now is…Mitt Romney.  Mr. Robinson has gone so far as to insist that not only was Mitt Romney strongly pro-abortion but that Romney himself is a “big government socialist butcher.”  And, when it is pointed out to him that Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have (or at least had at the time) a different view of Mr. Romney despite having seen the same videos and same information Mr. Robinson is presenting as proof of Mr. Romney’s myriad sins against humanity, this was his reply “(It) Doesn’t matter to me what Rush Limbaugh or anyone else says about the man.” and “Some on your list of conservative leaders may be in line for a sudden demotion if they continuing pushing the RINO line.”  Mr. Robinson, meet Mr. Baldwin.  You have at least one trait in common.  Jim Robinson would rather be “alone” politically than admit even the possibility of being wrong.

Free Republic has been and is today a great resource for news gathering and the dissemination of the Conservative view point.  Mr. Robinson has done Conservatism and the country a great favor with his site.  However, when the dialog goes from simple disagreement to accusations of “butcher” and “pig” over quotations that have been deliberately taken out of context and exaggerated for political gain, the benefit of such a site is diminished greatly.  Mr. Robinson has declared Free Republic to be off limits to those who support Mitt Romney.  At the same time, he is using his site to promote a view of Mitt Romney that borders on slander.  Yes.  It is his site and he can use it as he wishes.  Likewise, Mr. Baldwin has the right to say what he says, regardless of how idiotic, abusive and destructive to his own family they may be.

The big problem with the attitude of “I’d rather be lonely than wrong” is that it is tragically short sighted.  You may not “need” others right now, but you will in the future.  And when you do, you will in fact be completely alone.  We all have the right, whether it be online or elsewhere, to burn our bridges.  However, what we don’t have the right is to then expect in the future, when we find that we actually do need others, that we can just demand help from those we drove away all those years ago.  No human being is perfect.  No one gets all of the facts 100% right all the time.  Insisting that your interpretation of the facts is the only possible interpretation, particularly in the face of evidence that others you respect have a differing opinion, is nonsensical and ultimately self-defeating.

Mr. Baldwin is likely to end up old, alone and even more bitter about life than he is now.  We can only hope that Jim Robinson and the merry band of yes-men who want to drive out all those who disagree with them, can discover reason before they follow Mr. Baldwin down the path of self-destruction.  And for what its worth, here’s hoping Mr. Baldwin can find reason as well.

Politico has this article out on how Conservatives unleashed heck on Mike Huckabee for granting clemency to the man accused of killing 4 police officers just nine years after clemency was granted.

The conservative blogosphere unleashed a torrent of criticism against Mike Huckabee Monday after a man whose sentence he commuted as Arkansas governor was suspected of gunning down four police officers in Washington state over the weekend.

Maurice Clemmons, whom Huckabee granted clemency to nine years ago, remained at large after local police in Lakewood, Wash. mistakenly thought they had him trapped in a house early Monday. Clemmons is reported to have shot the officers as they were sitting at a table in a local coffee shop.

While many details of the murders were still unclear Monday, leading online conservative voices were quick to pass judgment on Huckabee, whose 2008 presidential campaign was forced to respond to accusations that he was too lenient with violent criminals during his years as governor.

“The man being sought by police was granted clemency by former GOP Arkansas Mike Huckabee despite his violent history and vehement protestations from prosecutors and victims’ family members,” wrote conservative Michelle Malkin on her widely read blog. “This disaster is just one of Huckabee’s ill-considered clemency legacies.”

“This isn’t Huckabee’s first Horton moment,” Malkin continued, referring to the convicted murderer who raped a woman during a weekend furlough program supported by then-Massachusetts governor and later Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis. Willie Horton was featured prominently in damaging ads from George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign painting the Massachusetts Democrat as soft on crime.

On his conservative RedState blog, Erick Erickson wrote that the shooting “is going to be extremely problematic for Governor Huckabee.”

Read the rest here.

Last week, Alex Knepper over at Race42012 sought to find fault with, yet again, with Governor Romney.  As is the case with almost everything that spews out of “The Knepper’s” mouth,  his emotions and disdain for Romney have clearly clouded his judgement.

Alex had this to say:

I had the pleasure of attending the first annual Foreign Policy Initiative conference yesterday, and in between mingling with the insiders while drinking bottles of Fiji water, a luncheon with Mitt Romney took place. The governor answered a few questions from a moderator, and while most of what he said was the typical red-meat fare that even I had to like, there was a rather noticeable gaffe.

Here is what he is referecing from Mitt’s statement:

Today, at the Foreign Policy Initiative’s annual conference in Washington, D.C., former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney opined that the President’s decision to halt plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe may have been made on faulty intelligence. Describing the President’s move as a “kick in the sand at Poland and the Czech Republic” that was “visible, embarrassing and disruptive,” the former Presidential candidate questioned the quality of the information used to make the decision.

“Is our intelligence really that good?” he wondered aloud, “Is our eyesight into Iran that clear?”

Former Gov. Romney asserted that the decision to shelve plans to deploy a missile shield was made on the mistaken assumption that since Iran’s regime is not developing long-range missiles, defending against long-range missiles would be a waste of resources. Even if they weren’t developing this technology, Romney argued, “There are places in the world where they [Iran] might acquire long-range ballistic missiles.”

Alex Knepper then goes on to say this:

Really? Following this principle to its logical end, we could hardly do anything but act in a near-panic, not being sure exactly what was going on, constantly questioning whether our intelligence was “really that good.” Romney seems to misunderstand why exactly the right is so ardently opposed to Obama’s decision in Eastern Europe: it is a slap in the face to our friends — Jon Kyl, who’d spoken earlier yesterday morning, spoke sadly of headlines from the region crying “Betrayal!” — a symbolic gesture of appeasement towards Russia. The problem, in other words, isn’t faulty intelligence. It’s the symbolism.

I should just respond to Alex’ assessment of this statement by letting readers know that nearly every single piece he has written over at Race42012 is either Pro-Palin or Anti-Romney.  The reason I mention this is because it is essential for people to understand that you cannot trust the judgement of someone who’s paradigm is shaped by an illogically bias and perpetual pattern of thought that is so one sided.  Not once have I heard Knepper praise Romney for his virtues, which are many.  In short, Alex, in an attempt to deceive his readers, is only deceiving himself.

Furthermore, Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said the exact same thing on Fox News last night that Mitt Romney said at the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Here is Botlon’s interview with Greta Van Susteran:

I think it is correct to say, at this stage, that Mitt Romney is already in the race. Given the recent article from the Boston Globe, and now this one from Politico…. you draw your own conclusions.

By Johnathan Martin

Mitt Romney’s Opening Moves This Fall

While he remains publicly coy about the possibility of another White House bid, Mitt Romney has a calendar that tells a very different story.

From returning to a key early primary state to delivering an address before a social conservative conference and reuniting with members of his campaign-in-waiting, Romney is scheduled to spend a good deal of his September in a fashion befitting a man very much interested in running for president.

Romney has been careful to avoid being overexposed this year, instead picking his spots to weigh in with an op-ed or talk show appearance when the national debate turns to health care, the auto industry

or some other issue on which he’s well-versed.

But despite the relatively low media exposure, Romney has not ignored the importance of building and keeping his political contacts, especially in Washington.

To this end, the former Massachusetts governor will spend much of the middle of this month in and around the capital for a series of events aimed at retaining or building support with a number of valuable constituencies in a Republican primary.

On Saturday, Sept. 19, Romney will speak at the Values Voters Summit, an annual conference in the capital, put on by the Family Research Council, that frequently draws GOP presidential hopefuls.

Before the conference, Romney is holding a pair of events for his political action committee, Free and Strong America, that will bring him back together with some of his most loyal supporters and a few new faces.

First, on Thursday night, Romney is holding a $1,000-per-person fundraiser at a trendy Washington restaurant. Co-hosts include a number of Romney stalwarts such as former campaign counsel Ben Ginsberg and high-powered lobbyists Ron Kaufman, Drew Maloney, Al Cardenas and Jack Gerard.

Also on the host list are two of John McCain’s top donors from the 2008 campaign, Wayne Berman and Fred Malek. Both are veteran GOP fundraising dynamos who would be significant assets to a 2012 Romney presidential run. Contacted by POLITICO, Berman and Malek each praised the former governor but indicated it was too early to make presidential commitments.

Later that night, Romney is scheduled to rejoin scores of his former campaign aides for a low-dollar Sundaes With Mitt event, at which he’s expected to dish out ice cream alongside some “special guest scoopers.”

“In 2008, Mitt did events for 33 federal candidates running for office and 37 surrogate events for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin,” Charlie Spies, Romney’s former campaign CFO, wrote in an e-mail last week about the event. “In addition, the Free and Strong America PAC made contributions to over 150 contests at the federal and state level.”

Spies and his wife, Lisa, are hosting the dairy-themed Romney reunion at their downtown Washington condo, where there also may be some former aides to other 2008 GOP candidates in attendance.

On Friday, Romney heads across the Potomac to Alexandria for a breakfast fundraiser benefiting the reelection campaign of Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, an early supporter and state chairman of the former governor’s 2008 bid.

The day after the Values Voters event, Romney is keynoting a $500-per-person afternoon reception at the Great Falls, Va., home of former solicitor general Ted Olson for Barbara Comstock, a Romney adviser now running for state delegate.

On that Monday, Romney will deliver a foreign policy address at a Washington conference put on by the hawkish Foreign Policy Initiative. Romney’s speech will come at a luncheon during what the group is billing as an event in support of “advancing and defending democracy.”

At night, he will raise money for Bob McDonnell, the GOP’s gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, at an evening reception in Washington.

But Romney’s not just tending to old relationships and building new ones inside the Beltway.

On Sept. 22, he’ll head to Atlanta – a major Republican fundraising hub – to raise money for Georgia’s House Republican caucus.

And that weekend, the son of a former Michigan governor will return to his childhood state to keynote the annual Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference, a heavily attended activist event on a picturesque island near the Upper Peninsula. In 2007, Romney used the same conference to offer a critical assessment of his own party and won the straw poll. He later carried the state during the GOP primary.

Asked about the flurry of political activity by Romney — who is also writing a future-oriented book titled “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness” — spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom suggested the fast pace wouldn’t be limited to September.

“Summer’s over,” Fehrnstrom said. “With 2010 right around the corner, there’s a lot of work to do, which means more travel, more fundraising and more campaigning.”

All of which, of course, could redound to Romney’s benefit should he run again for president in 2012.

Original article can be found at Politico.com

Mitt Romney hammered President Obama on health care saying he is “going way beyond what the American people think is right, and way beyond what is necessary.”  At the same time, Romney spoke about the MA health plan, he helped put together.

Mitt Romney on the National Debate over Obamacare

Hugh Hewitt Show

HH: Joined now by former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. Governor Romney, welcome back to the program, always a pleasure.

MR: Thanks, Hugh. It’s good to be with you, Hugh.

HH: Tell me what your thoughts are as we watch the debate over President Obama’s proposed radical revisions to American health care are.

MR: Well, I think he’s going way beyond what the American people think is right, and way beyond what’s necessary. I think we all recognize that we have a problem, that people are worried that if they lose their job, they would lose their insurance. That’s a real problem, and having a lot of people without insurance is a problem. But we can get people insured, and we can take away the worry of people losing their coverage without having to have the government get into the insurance business, and ultimately move to a single-payer system. That is the wrong way to go, and I think America’s responding the way you’d expect, which is hey, we value our independence. We do not want government taking over health care.

HH: Now Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you oversaw a massive health care revision to the state law. Has that worked? And what does it have in common or not in common with President Obama’s proposals?

MR: Well, there are a number of features about it that I think are working quite well. One, we have been able to get virtually all of our citizens insured, and no one in Massachusetts has to worry that if they were to lose their job, that they would lose their insurance. That’s a very comforting thing. They can hold onto their insurance, or buy a private plan that they can keep with them all their life at a reasonable price. Those are very good things. The cost of our system has been about 1 1/2% of the state budget, about $350 million dollars. So it doesn’t have to break the bank. My plan actually would have been a zero cost proposal, but my friends in the legislature decided to add a few more benefits than I thought were necessary. That’s the nature of the democratic process. But getting people insured does not have to break the bank, and it does not require government insurance. The thing I like about our plan in Massachusetts is you people who want insurance get private, free market insurance. There is no government option, there is no government insurance plan. And that’s where Barack Obama has gone wrong. His plan costs way too much, it’s a trillion dollar mistake, and he gets the government in the insurance business, and they should not be there.

HH: Our mutual friend, Tim Pawlenty, has taken some shots. Some people think it’s early maneuvering for 2012, Governor Romney, about the Massachusetts plan. I’m sure you noted those. Are they fair criticisms?

MR: You know, I’m sure a number of the criticisms that are spoken about our plan are fair. There are a number of adjustments that certainly need to be made from time to time, and we said that at the time we put the bill in place. There’s some things about it I don’t like that actually I vetoed at the time that the bill was coming through. My veto was overridden. That’s the way things work in the world of politics. So I don’t mind people pointing out places where they think we could make improvements. But I’m pretty proud of the fact that we got our citizens insured, and that we did it without breaking the bank, and that we proved that you don’t have to get the government in the insurance business to get our citizens insured. And now the big task, which is the other 90% of the job, is figuring out how to get health care costs from rising through the roof. And that’s, I think, a problem that everybody recognizes. We just can’t have costs going up and up and up. And I think it’s one of the criticisms most people have of the Obama plan, which is it does virtually nothing to stop the growth in health care costs. Nor did ours, by the way. We got everybody insured, but getting health costs reined in is the big challenged, and there are a number of ideas out there now that I think have a lot of merit. But Barack Obama’s plan is certainly not going to help.

HH: Now before I move to the specifics of the Obama proposals, the federal system allows states like Massachusetts to innovate. We take what’s good, and we spread, and that which doesn’t work doesn’t spread. That’s what we did with welfare reform in the 90s. Does Obamacare preempt a process that really needs to replicate across the other states as it happened in Massachusetts?

MR: Yeah, that’s the sad thing, and I know when I was running for president, I was criticized because I said look, in solving the issue of our health care problems, I’d like to let states have more flexibility, and use money we’re sending them in Medicaid, and then payments to care for the poor called dish payments. I’d like them to be able to use those funds as they see fit. Let’s learn from their experiments before we put in place a federal one size fits all plan. And you know, I continue to believe that as we deal with something as important as health care, that having a few Congressmen draft a bill that no one has a chance to read, including the Obama administration, and then saying this is now going to be the future for health care for all Americans, that’s just crazy. So I’m a big believer that experimentation should occur at the state level, that states like ours that have had some experience should be examined thoroughly. The good, you know, kept, the bad thrown out. There’s no question there’s some aspects in the Massachusetts plan I’d like to see changed. I said it at the time. So yeah, I’m afraid that the Obama plan basically says hey everybody, all the states, you all step aside. We’re going to get rid of federalism when it comes to health care, and that would be a huge mistake.

HH: Today, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer penned a column in USA Today that includes these two paragraphs. “However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland, and protestors holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another Congressman in Texas where protestors also shouted just say no, drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion. These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views, but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task before.” The headline, Un-American Attacks Can’t Derail Health Care Debate, is causing enormous controversy. What do you make of the merits of the Speaker and the majority leader’s comments today, Governor Romney?

MR: Well, I must admit, that with all the years that I’ve watched politics in this country, there’s always been a very healthy debate. And sometimes, there is good information and bad information, but that’s the nature of a debate. People are going back and forth with their various viewpoints, and ultimately, we settle on what we think is the right thing. I think it’s in some respects a little amusing to watch the folks on the left so critical of demonstrations of political discussion. Demonstrations and energy and anger has always been sent from the left, and has been lauded by the media. The mainstream media, when I was a young man, put a young person on the cover and said the America’s youth, that’s the man of the year because they’ve been so disruptive and stood up to the power of the nation. And funny thing that when people from the right and the conservative world stand up and finally express some anger at this extraordinary health care takeover, the liberals are having a hard time and crying foul. But gosh, they’ve been playing this game for many, many years. Actually, as I think about this kind of debate and the rigor of this debate, it goes back to the time of Adams and Jefferson. You know, these guys were hammer and tong back there, and that’s just part of the political process. Get used to it, don’t cry about it.

HH: Big Pharma has entered the list on the side of Obamacare, and has committed $150-$200 million, surprising a lot of people, that they are doing so. I got an e-mail today from a neurologist in San Diego saying as a consequence, he will no longer meet with any pharmaceutical representative until they stop this, and is urging me to urge other doctors not to meet with pharmaceutical reps until they get out of this game, because it’s going to kill his practice. Are you surprised by big pharma is going hard left on this, Governor Romney?

MR: You know, I don’t know company by company how they line up, but I do believe that they have counted the noses, and they say look, there are 60 Democrats in the Senate, they have a supermajority in both houses, and they are going to put through a health care bill, and there’s nothing Republicans can do to stop it. Democrats, I think they’re saying, pharma’s saying Democrats are going to get behind Obama. He made this his signature campaign pledge. He has to have a bill, and therefore, they’re going to get something through, and we better cozy up to him, hold our nose, and hold out for as good a deal as we can possibly get. I think they’re calculating what’s in their best financial interest. What is unfortunately missing, I think, from their calculation is that what’s in the best interest of the American people and the American economy and the American homeowner. And I’m saddened by the fact that I think they’re counting dollars rather than counting their patients and their doctors.

HH: Seniors seem to have mobilized against this. Have you ever seen a bill pass over even lukewarm opposition of seniors, much less the kind of aggressive opposition that we’ve seen in the last two weeks, Mitt Romney?

MR: Well, I must admit if the seniors really say wait a second, we do not want to see this kind of wholesale change in the health care system in this country, we are not comfortable with it, I think if Congressmen and Senators hear a strong plea from the seniors, and they get e-mails and letters, and they see an outcry from seniors, I think they’re going to say whoa, wait a second, particularly the blue dog Democrats are going to say hey, you know, I just got sent here to Washington because I said I was a conservative Democrat. And if it turns out that this is going to kill me, well, I’m going to be out of office. That I think is the only real strong prospect for stopping this huge power grab that the Obama administration has in store for health care, and that is getting conservative Democrats to say wait a second, my constituents are speaking loud and clear, I’m not going to go against them.

HH: Last question, you’re on the road a lot, Mitt Romney, for Republicans who are bracing for 2009 in Virginia and in New Jersey, and the 2010 elections. Are they united on health care? Are they united in their opposition to a government plan?

MR: I haven’t heard a single Republican say that they’re in favor of the Barack Obama government insurance plan. I haven’t heard anybody say they want to do that. Republicans have different views. Republicans have put out different health care plans. Senator Bob Bennett, together with Senator Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, put together a health care bill, has a very interesting aspect to it I think is interesting. Then there others, Paul Ryan has come out with a bill. So there are a number of plans, but no one I know of is in favor of this Barack Obama government insurance option.

HH: Mitt Romney, always a pleasure, thank you, Governor.