Deseret News | Mitt's presidential bid just beginning

Reader comments
My view: Mitt's presidential bid just beginning

2012? Not likely. | 12:25 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Mr. Winder, you're kidding yourself.

For the people who didn't support Mitt because they don't trust Mormons, four years isn't going to make any difference.

For the people who didn't support Mitt because his track record reveals him to be a political chameleon with no consistent track record of political leadership, four years isn't going to make any difference, either.

Mitt would fail in 2012 just as badly as he did in 2008. If you doubt that, I think you're kidding yourself.

New Democrat | 12:53 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

So he can run on what he truely believes.

Gus Talwynd | 12:58 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

There must be life after death in the political world when true-believers like the writer continue to smoke the same hallucinogen and wishfully predict that day when their savior will reappear and make all things right. Preaching the same theme that Americans will be worn-out after only fours years of a Democratic administration, the writer is seriously grasping for straws.

It's more of the same pandering that elevated Utah's favorite son and brought the Republican party to reject Romney as "not really one of their own." Unless the wing-nuts are ready to disassociate themselves from their most reliable adherents and stable voting blocs, a new Romney candidacy in 2012 will still have to face the hurdles faces in 2008. The flip-flop charges will never go away because they resulted in the most crass, manipulation of voter intelligence since George W. Bush pretended to be presidential material.

Romney, as the greatest example of a Bush clone that modern politics has to offer, will still smell of the Bush/Cheney stench, particularly since time will be even more unfriendly to that legacy. His changing positions on social issues he once championed as a moderate Republican will be remembered regardless of the gloss.

Comments continue below

You are a bigger fool than Mitt. | 3:14 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

It should be clear by now that America doesn't want this corporate raider running the country. It has nothing to do with his mormonism. He has gutted dozens of companies and fired thousands of workers on the way to becoming a multi-millionair. We don't need or want him in charge.

Frank from Idaho | 3:37 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Great, in four more years Mitt can develope four more positions on every issue to go along with the four or more he already has. Truth, If Mitt were not a mormon he would have received zero votes in Utah. More proof of the Utah Lemming Theory.

Mitt Romney/Hillary Clinton tick | 4:18 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

The reason people didn't vote for Mitt Romney isn't because he is Mormon. The only people who care that he's Mormon are the 95% of Utah Republicans who have shown that Utah is out of touch. On the other hand, people who didn't vote for Romney because he's a liar who lacks character won't vote for him in 2012. We have seen Romney's records, his lies and his attack ads for what they are. the attempt of a bad person to get elected.

Anyone who voted for this guy should be ashamed of themselves since they prove they were willing to look past his lies and opportunism just like Hillary Clinton supporters prove that they and Mitt Romney supporters are the two side of the same coin. Maybe Hillary Clinton will choose Mitt Romney as a vice presidential candidate so two liars who lack integrity can serve together as President and Vice President.

Good Grief! I hope not. | 5:30 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I hope he just quitely gets a clue and goes away.

Anonymous | 6:13 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Can Mitt get some charm in four years? How about a personality? For a guy who wants to bring us back to the Reagan years, do you really think four years will make a difference? Americans are sick of trickle down econcomics, they are sick of tax cuts for the wealthy. Mr. Winder needs to tune into reality.

Ardent | 6:46 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I think Mitt is one of the least corrupt, most consistent leaders out there. He is very kind and generous. Many people do not see him as a corporate rader, but as the innovative leader that he is. He could have saved our nation millions and gotten us back on track. His immigration stand should have been given much more attention As should have many of his other stands. Too bad you guys don't think for yourselves instead of listening and reading talking points that you know nothing about.

I think Mr Winder is right in his well written article. I think after the mess the next 4 years will bring, America may well be ready to have Mr. Romney at the helm to put us back on track.

Chad | 6:59 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

As someone who did not vote for Romney, in Utah, I think this whole conversation is too funny.

Fact is people, Mitt came in second. Not dead last. He was not the pariah you all make him out to be. Yes, Utah voted overwhelmingly for Mitt, so what? So Utah republicans like the candidate they can relate to, so what? So they voted differently than you (and I did), so what?

If Mitt were truly the baldface lying loser you all make him out to be, how was it he was winning this race right up until super tuesday?

Get a clue. If your true position is that "everyone who votes differently than me are idiots" then I really hope YOU don't get elected to anything - the last thing we need is someone that close-minded, arrogant, and just plain stupid running anything in this country.

funny stuff | 7:26 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

You guys commenting are a riot, especially the "lies and attack ads" line. From someone who wasn't a huge supporter of Romney, but who saw him as no worse than the other clowns we have to choose from in the Republican race this year, take a deep breath and just enjoy the moment, if you hate Romney that much. No need to loose the venom so early - after all, you might not have any left in 4 years if you get it all out of your system now. You seem to have bottled up a lot of rage up to now, so just keep it inside a little longer, and if you don't explode, you'll have all sorts of funny things to say come 2012.

"Corporate raider," indeed. You guys are a hoot!

Indiana | 7:29 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Thanks Chad, I could not have said it better. I did vote for Mitt and I am NOT sorry. He is the best choice... perhaps I will write him in.... Not alot else to choose from out there.

Stuck | 7:54 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

This kind of thing is problematic. It taking your imagination away from finding that person, Mormon or not, that really can lead.

Geez | 8:07 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Wonder what Mitt will be making noise about in four years. I guess we'll just have to see which way the wind blows.

Joe Moe | 8:14 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I think the writer is very probably right. And I'll be happy to vote for Romney in 2012! Problem is, can he take back the White House from an incumbent, smooth-talking Obama?

Good Grief | 8:34 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I think the country has had enough of Mitt. He crushed the competition in Utah, but he had to spend through the teeth to eek out his other victories. You can blame his inability to gain traction on his religion, and maybe you'd be right, but the simple fact is that Mitt cannot gain enough support to even seriously contend for the Republican nomination. There may be a cabinet position down the road for this guy, but the White House looks like a long shot indeed.

Frank | 8:40 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Maybe it is time to stop worrying about Mitt, the Mormons and Huckabee and start worrying about what America will look like in the future. There are only three viable candidates in '08. As Americans, who will you support?

HHR | 8:45 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Here's a question. Will Hillary allow elections in 4 years? From what I have heard her say about participation in her health care plan I wonder.

Wonderful.. | 8:50 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

In four more years, the Deseret News won't have to wonder what stories to run. Just put Mitt in the headline and run it.

Mitt quit!! GET OVER IT!!

GOP for me | 10:42 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

The argument is logical, and with Mitt's graceful exit he has not burned bridges. Mitt in 2012 is very possible, much to the chagrin of the anti-Mitt crowd.

Briggs | 11:20 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

I think Mr. Winder's logic is sound. He was simply taking historical trends and saying what could happen in four years. When you think about Romney, he was a relative "unknown" on the national level a year ago. So, it would make sense he wouldn't make it the first time. There were a lot of disappointed conservatives across this country, who are not Mormons, when he suspended his campaign. They could see Mitt Romney for who he was, a decent individual with unique talents for helping our declining economy.

Anonymous | 11:23 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Sorry Mitt.
America wants statesmen - not businessmen.

hater | 11:26 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Chad and the "mittites" crack me up. Mitt blew his chance by pandering to the right wing of the republican party - they are no longer powerful enough to get their nominee. Ironically, if Mitt would have stayed true to who he was as gov. of Massachusetts, he would be sewing up the nomination right now.

Proof yet again that being yourself is the best course in politics. Mitt deserves his fate. He insulted all of us with his lying and flip-flopping.

Reality check | 11:38 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

McCain ran and lost the Republican nomination a few years ago. Reagan also ran multiple times before winning. It is not unreasonable for Mitt to run again and win. Also, it is dinsingeuous to imply that Ronmey is morally inferior to some of the others vying for office, when they clearly have their own baggage (who doesn't).

Jud | 11:49 a.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Mitt's exit was not graceful. It was graceless to accuse Democrats of wanting to surrender to terrorists. Just more pandering to the rabid Right. I was in favor of Mitt until he came out for torture and concentration camps (Guantanamo).

Instereo | 12:51 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Mr. Winder forgot one other historical trend and that is no matter how much money you have, you can't buy an election. We've seen it in past years with Forbes or Perot. We saw it even in the voucher referendum vote. So Mitt may want it, Mormons (but not all Mormons) may want it and maybe even a Patrick Bryne may want it but unless the people want it, he won't make it even with his deep pockets.

lamonte | 1:07 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Anonymous 11:23 a.m. - Can I modify your statement just a bit and say "America NEEDS statesmen and not businessman." We've had an MBA grad in office for 7 years and look where it got us!

Anonymous | 1:52 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

When is America going to figure out that businessmen look out only for the major stockholders? And unless you have mucho shares in Lockheed Martin (Lynn Cheney's company) and Halliburton (Dick Cheney's company) he could care less about the little people.

HGR | 4:12 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Jud - You are correct. Democrats don't want to surrender to terrorists, but they are willing to. Surrendering is the only thing that makes sense for those who carry a load of guilt for being Americans.

Gopherus | 5:19 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

HGR,
We Democrats recognize that the best way to deal with our "guilt for being Americans" is to make our nation and the world a better place. There is no room in that position to surrender to terrorism. There is room to establish a better policy on terrorism so that we can deal with its roots rather than support the formation of terrorists and then deal with them in a reactionary manner. We might also seek to help other, less fortunate people, such as those in Darfur, even if they can't give us oil in exchange. We might seek to lessen our impacts on the planet by seeking ways to become more efficient and by reducing our overly consumptive consumerism. We might seek to have Americans save a little money, invest in a green home, and buy fewer, higher quality goods. We might even see if we can get some of those to be made in America by employees earning a fair wage even if that eats into managers exorbitant salaries and stock prices. Yes, we Democrats might do a lot of things, but surrendering isn't one of them.

liberal means letting go | 6:27 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

These poor conservatives STILL can't accept Romney's demise.
Ever heard of the psychological term - anal retentive?

they'll try it again | 6:49 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Be prepared for non-stop "Democrats hate America and want the Islamofascists to win" BS from our friends the neoconservatives from now until November. It worked the last time didn't it?

funny stuff | 8:27 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

To: liberal means letting go

I have actually heard fo that psychological term, but unlike you, I've apparently also learned what it means, and I don't think it means what you think it means. Maybe you should actually look up neat phrases you hear before you try using them in front of a crowd.

shecky | 8:44 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

ARDENT---If the next four years brings a bigger mess than the last four, I think I'll go ahead and hurl myself in front of a bus right now.

Ardent | 9:24 p.m. Feb. 11, 2008

Well, by now you know that I don't believe that the last 7 years have been that bad. Except for the terrorist acts that were perpertrated against us, for which we have had to defend ourselves, I think the last 7 years were much better than the 8 before.

All that being said, if these next 4 years are as bad as they feel just going in to them, I will join you and we can push each other off the curb...

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.