How does Candidate Romney get around these issues?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Add a few more to the list:

4. Reagan bashing

5. John McCain Endorsement

6. Abortion Views

7. Turning on the Gay Community

8. Romneycare

4. Was Reagan not a Pro-Choice Tax raiser as Governor? Did he not raise taxes as President? Reagan wasn't perfect because no one is. Saying your an independent during someone's administration /= Reagan bashing. Quit being hackist

5. Sarah Palin endorsed McCain before Romney did? Unlike Huckabee who goes around endorsing losing primary candidates like Vander Plaats and possibly Cox, Romney has avoided most primaries like Florida for example while only getting into Arizona and Utah because if he didn't endorse McCain that might reflect badly on Romney in 2012, especially if McCain wins. While at the same time backing winners like Scott Brown, Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell. In Utah he endorsed Bennet because the two are close friends and Bennet supported Romney in 2008. I want Bennet and McCain primaried but I realize that these primaries often bring in national factors that sometimes are unavoidable.

6. Was Reagan not Pro-Choice for half his term as Governor?

7.That one is a problem but he won't have to worry about it in the primary.

8. Well pointing to the fact that MA has a 90% Dem Legislature that overode some of Romney's veto is a start and explains some of the unnecessary regulation and state mandates but the overall programs is still Romney's and he will have to explain the ways in which it isn't Obamacare and why he isn't at fault for the cost issues.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What makes you say that?  Dubya is the only GOP nominee I can think of that wore his Christianity on his sleeve.  

I honestly don't think the South matters that much.  If Romney whiffed on those states, how many delegates would he miss out on?  Judging by the '08 results, Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, and Georgie are all very winnable for Romney.  But we might have to just agree to disagree here.  

Well, I don't think that should be held against him.  Lieberman is one of his closest friends, and an independent runningmate would've been an asset in the anti-GOP environment he was campaigning in.  Tom Ridge would've made an excellent VP, in my opinion, but McCain said himself that he wouldn't choose a pro-choice runningmate.  Palin was chosen as a hail mary pass.  The campaign didn't know she was going to flop, but they had to risk it.  It bears no reflection on Romney.  What's impressive is that Romney was under serious consideration, despite the fact that McCain absolutely hated him.

Sure, all of the early states are important.  But no one expects a candidate to win all of them.

Romney lost Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina last go-round.  Yet he headed into Florida in 2nd place.  Had he won Florida (and he almost did), it probably would've propelled him to the nomination.  

Bloomberg, maybe, but more for his political record rather than his business record.  I like Forbes, but he hasn't achieved what Romney has.  Whitman...why?  Corzine...seriously?

Romney finished ahead of Huckabee in the '08 primaries, yet Huckabee was the stronger candidate??  Can you explain that to me?

Romney has tried to explain his conversion to being pro-life.  You either buy it, you don't buy it, or you don't care.  My point is that there aren't enough "non-buying" voters to make him non-viable as a candidate.

I'm not anti-Christian.  I'm Catholic.  I just don't believe Romney's Mormonism will be the death knell to his candidacy.  

Palin is popular because: (1) she was the Republican VP nominee two years ago, (2) she's been in the news more than any other possible candidate, (3) she's been Obama's most vocal critic, and (4) a lot of Republicans like her solely for the fact that Democrats so despise her.  

Besides, most polls have Romney in 1st-place for the 2012 nomination, including the most recent Gallup poll.  He is also the highest-valued contract on Intrade.  

The problem that I see with the basis of your support for Romney is that "he almost won 2nd place" in the primaries.  However, I'm taking the view that he LOST first place of the primaries because of his many flaws.  IMO, 2nd place is the first loser for a reason.  Heck, John Edwards and Howard Dean finished 2nd in 2004 and neither of them were viable in 2008.  Romney lost fair and square because McCain was a better candidate than him.  It is my belief that there will be another candidate that could beat Romney in 2012 for the same reasons.  Besides, unlike other past primary losers like Reagan, Dole, and McCain they continued to serve in politics until they ran a 2nd time in the primary.  Mitt hasn't done much since 2008 and he is praying for the economy to tank because there would be nothing else to make him look better as a candidate.

I'll try to fill you in on recent history or at least my perception of recent history.  You can choose to believe me or develop your own thesis.  McCain won primarily on his past Military prestige instead of religion but he was also a solid Republican in most areas for 20 years.  Dole also served for 30 years and had strong mid-west Christian values.  Reagan also displayed strong family values (Carter also supported Roe v Wade and had Falwell protesting him).  So how does Mitt from liberal, secular, atheist, Catholic Massachusetts convince Robertson and Dobson that he is one of them?  Otherwise they will be against them because they don't want their power neutered. 

I think your perception of the primaries is a little screwy.  Which states do you actually think Romney will win?  He can easily lose Iowa and South Carolina.  For every state he loses, his oppenents also WIN those states and continue their momentum.  You seem to think that if Romney wins Michigan and Nevada he will automatically be the nominee (Hint: he won those states in 2008 and still lost the primary).  The Winner of Iowa and South Carolina will look FAR BETTER than Romney for Super Tuesday contests. 

I don't know why you think so highly of Florida.  Rudy made his last stand at Florida and still lost!  But I would agree that if Romney loses Florida in 2012, it would also be his last stand and he would be finished.  You seem to think that no Christian conservative will run and beat Romney fair and square in Iowa, SC, Florida, etc.  That's a VERY REAL Threat.  I think that if Jeb Bush were to announce, he would easily beat Romney in the primaries, same with Thune and possibly Barbour.

I just don't understand why McCain's shortlist provides any help for Romney.  Its widely seen that McCain was a crazy man who had a shortlist of Republican misfits and cast-offs.  None of them would ever win the GOP Presidential Nomination - Lieberman, Ridge, Palin, because they are all terrible candidates!  Thus, it shows that Romney was a terrible candidate for even being mentioned in that group.  Besides he wasn't really on the short-list so if he was really that special, he would have been picked, at least ahead of Lieberman (northeast moderate).

Romney lost Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina last time and HE STILL lost the Primaries!!!  Here's my advice to ROMNEY, try winning Iowa, NH, and SC, and then you'll win the nomination.  I'll let you in on a secret, every time someone wins an early primary, they raise more money.  If Huckabee won Iowa AND South Carolina, he would have raised enough money to beat both Romney and McCain. 

If Romney had miraculously won Florida in 2008, he would have still needed to face McCain and Huckabee.  I doubt that Romney would have easily won the nomination, perhaps if he outspent the other 2 guys, but it would not have easily propelled him to the nomination.

The political landscape is littered with Rich CEO's who've run for office.  What makes Romney so much more special than the others?  He would have lost re-election for a 2nd term as Governor.  He just doesn't have the political skills of Clinton or Dubya. 

Romney may have come in 2nd in the 2008 primaries, but he won states that didn't matter, unless he was seeking a delegate fight like "Clinton vs. Obama."  Huckabee and McCain won the early states that mattered against a full field of opponents.  You may think the early primaries don't matter, but I do.  I guess we will wait and see in 2012 which person is right.

Romney may be "pro-life" but it doesn't matter if I believe him.  What will happen is that there will be another person who is a Evangelical Christian who is see as more Pro-Life than Romney, and that person will get more over-all votes than Romney, including the "non-religious primary voters."

I would think that the GOP would have more Catholics, but Rudy was a Catholic and he easily lost the primaries.  The national GOP is not very welcoming to Catholics or Mormons.

Palin's popularity stems because she is a populist Christian and that got her the VP nomination, the TV exposure, and ridicule from the secularist left.  She is here in the public because she is Conservative Christian.

Romney is highly ranked in the polls now because he is the only person that has announced.  In 2008, McCain and Hillary were the front-runners and both had failures.  Romney won't be the front-runner for long once other more qualified candidates announce.  Why do you think Romney is better than the other un-announced Candidates?

He lost New Hampshire because of McCain's last minute rise in the polls their. Romney won among NH Republicans 35 to 34 over McCain. Independents went to McCain by 10 and gave McCain that state. In 2012 the only candidate who could win those indies over Romney is Pawlenty and I don't think he has the energy to do it, or the stamina. Reagan lost Iowa, and made a comeback in New Hampshire. Now yes, he went on to win the SC. But McCain won the military vote and the Eastern South Carolina vote. Even a second or third place showing would be a strong performance for Romney their. The idea isn't to win NV and MI and then go to Florida. The idea is to win NH then MI and NV, remain competative in SC. Then win Florida. Finally Sweep Super Tuesday and become the presumptive nominee. This time however he shouldn't waist money on the Iowa Caucuses unless he can win in a very split up race. The focus on New Hampshire alone, would secure that state. Santorum looks to be running. Romney could also get DeMint in the race as well if necessary to make SC irrelevant. Both could be stocking horses for Romney. Huck basically did that for McCain. I wonder what Keystone Phil would do if Santorum did that. I can see him joing the campaign and then when Rick drops out after SC and endorses Mitt again. That would be cool to see.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He lost New Hampshire because of McCain's last minute rise in the polls their. Romney won among NH Republicans 35 to 34 over McCain. Independents went to McCain by 10 and gave McCain that state. In 2012 the only candidate who could win those indies over Romney is Pawlenty and I don't think he has the energy to do it, or the stamina. Reagan lost Iowa, and made a comeback in New Hampshire. Now yes, he went on to win the SC. But McCain won the military vote and the Eastern South Carolina vote.

Even a second or third place showing would be a strong performance for Romney their. The idea isn't to win NV and MI and then go to Florida. The idea is to win NH then MI and NV, remain competative in SC.

Then win Florida. Finally Sweep Super Tuesday and become the presumptive nominee. This time however he shouldn't waist money on the Iowa Caucuses unless he can win in a very split up race. The focus on New Hampshire alone, would secure that state. Santorum looks to be running.

Romney could also get DeMint in the race as well if necessary to make SC irrelevant. Both could be stocking horses for Romney.

Huck basically did that for McCain. I wonder what Keystone Phil would do if Santorum did that. I can see him joing the campaign and then when Rick drops out after SC and endorses Mitt again. That would be cool to see.

Yeah, I do agree that Mitt needs a lot of help and luck to win the nomination.  It is certainly a risky strategy to lose BOTH Iowa AND South Carolina.  No One has ever done that.  Whoever wins both Iowa and SC will be very strong against Romney.  It would take a lot of money from Romney to rebound from that.

Yeah, McCain won Indies and Vets, something that Romney might have difficulty doing.  If Romney swings too much on social issues, he could lose the Indie vote.  But its a given that Romney will win and he needs to win big in New Hampshire to get the publicity boost.  If he just barely wins, since he is the NH favorite, it would be terrible and the 2nd place guy could claim victory (like Bill Clinton against Tsongas in 92).  

But if he skips Iowa, it might look really bad.  But Thune would have home-state advantage, so Romney would have an easy excuse.  Now, it would be equally sneaky and risky, to get DeMint to run in SC and pull a "Fred Thompson-to-McCain assist."  It would be very rare for Romney to purposely lose both Iowa AND SC, but he could hope to thin out the field amongst Thune, DeMint, etc. so that he just BARELY RISES above them.  

The risk is that Thune and DeMint can easily Rise quickly above Romney in delegates and Publicity, which would help super tuesday.  It would be a really crazy, insane strategy but it might work with a lot of luck.  However, I think that whoever wins Iowa and SC would be equally as strong.

In my honest opinion, Romney's best chance lie in getting the VP ticket.  If he has to thin out the field so much to get the nomination, is that really the type of candidate the GOP wants, someone who has such a tepid response in the mid-west and South?  There could be a huge convention fight and risk a 3rd party "Palin-Tea Party" rising.

I think Huck was the real threat to McCain.  McCain beat Romney easily in NH.  The real challenge was SC, when McCain needed Freddy to vanquish Huck.  McCain would have easily beaten Romney in Super Tuesday matchups.

You are wrong so many fronts. For one the so called Iowa to SC to the nomination was promoted because that is what George Bush did in 2000. However in the past SC and IA have not necessarily voted alike. And Romney has a lot of Midwest and Western Strength. The problem in Iowa is that its a caucus. Were it a primary, he would likely win, however its not so its dominated by Evengelical groups. Romney can compete but he cannot beat a Huck, Palin, Thune, Barbour etc.

Why are you so sure that SC and IA will vote for the same person. What if Pawlenty and Thune battle it out in Iowa with Pawlenty winning IA and then Barbour winning S.C. Romney beats Pawlenty in N.H. who collapses afterwords and then Thune can't gain any traction after the IA loss. Romney abandons S.C. to Barbour and then focuses on Florida while simultaneosly racking up MI, NV, and WY.

Next Romney wasn't crushed in NH. He won Republicans 35-34 in NH. Who of the expected field would beat Romney among the Indies who handed McCain New Hampshire? Pawlenty. I think he is the next Fred Thompson. Romney is not going to shift on issues again because it would be his doom. Veterans aren't going to coalasce behind one guy in 2010 and Romney will get a significant slice.

Huckabee was not the Strongest challenger to McCain. No one took the fight to McCain in as many places as Romney did. NH, MI, FL, CA and on and on. Huck only came close in SC among states that mattered. The States Huck one on Super Tuesday had become irrelevant. If Huck had won S.C. Romney would have won Florida and then dominated on Super Tuesday. Huck had very limited appeal outside his home region. Suburban Conservatives, Western Conservatives, and Northern Conservatives all prefered Romney. Had Romney won Florida before Super Tuesday he would have had the momentum and would have been able to get the delegates to win the WV Convention. Then he would have been able to win CA, MO, GA, and maybe even AZ. That would have secured him as the frontrunner and he would have secured it in WI, WA, VA, MD, DC, VT, RI, OH, and TX. TX and VA would be the only ones that would be close in that scenario.