The Boston Herald, who seem to have shadowing Governor Romney like the KGB would a U.S. embassy military attache, are openly speculating about a Romney-Bush ticket in '08--Jeb Bush that is.

Considering how wrong they got the Mormon church story, I don't lend much credence to this one either.

The fact that Romney is scooping up political operatives--most of which will have worked for the dominant political machines of the last half decade, should be no surprise.

While the article provides a list of reasons why Romney would want Bush on the ticket, it neglects to discuss all the reasons he wouldn't. In my view, the main reason is that making such a decision so early throws away a major bargaining chip later with rival candidates. A lot is going to happen in then next 18 months, and Romney as a natural problem-solver, prizes flexibility.

I am not surprised the Boston Herald takes this view--as liberals, journalist see politics is a dynastic pursuit--Just look around the Democrat party. If you're not a Kennedy, marrying one would be good. Due to the tension between conservative, small-government values and whatever happens to Republicans when they've been in Washington for a decade or more, Republicans have traditionally preferred outsiders.

So what about George W. Bush?

I think we are looking at a coincidence here. I doubt anyone voted for Bush because they thought he would govern like his father did (well, maybe some Democrats did...). Bush's political success is totally bound-up in the identification of the conservative voter with "someone like them". While his critics have tried to cast aspersions on his authenticity as a southerner, nobody really has any doubt about it. His biographical narrative of being a boozy cast-about who found redemption and a new direction in Jesus wasn't just good narrative, it was true. To this day, in spite of the problems the administration has to deal with, he remains popular with his base because as a Harold Ford Jr. would say, "he's a Jesus-loving good 'ol boy."

Jeb Bush has an entirely different narrative and an entirely different constituency. He's a Roman Catholic with strong ties to the Hispanic community and while he might inherit some of his brother's enemies, he is not an heir to his friends.

I don't know (does anyone?) what Jeb Bush's ambitions are, but if he has any, he might want to avoid committing himself too early.

The whole episode is so unlikely that I can't really take it seriously.

Mediabistro headlines a fishbowl DC post as "Romney Hates Boston Journos".

Shades of Richard Nixon!

This is the controversial quote:

We have two factions of media in Boston. On the one hand, we have the Hillary-loving, Ted Kennedy apologists. And on the other, we have the liberals.

..shades of Ronald Reagan.

The Boston Globe, the go-to paper for all things Mitt, purports to have uncovered Kerry-like doublespeak uttered by our square-jawed straight-shooter.

For more than a decade, Mitt Romney has been dancing around some hot-button social issues. Now, he is running hard to the right to position himself for the 2008 presidential contest.

But his tutu catches on some inconvenient realities: He ran for office twice in Massachusetts as a moderate, pro choice Republican. All the political theatrics in the world can't change the record.

Take Romney's war on gay marriage in Massachusetts. The governor is now asking the state's highest court to force a referendum on a proposed amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Obviously, Romney is laboring hard to establish his social-conservative credentials for upcoming Republican primaries.

But, as a recent opinion piece in Bay Windows, New England's largest publication for lesbian and gay readers, pointed out, "Anyone thinking of supporting Romney's bid for president because of his socially conservative views on gay people should know a few things about the governor."

Among the items writer Susan Ryan-Vollmar notes:

When he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, Romney wrote a letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Club, pledging that as "we seek to establish full equality for American gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent." During that same campaign, Romney was accused of once describing gay people as "perverse." In response, Romney's campaign vehemently denied that he used the word "perverse" and said that he respected "all people regardless of their race, creed, or sexual orientation."

While running for governor in 2002, Romney and his running mate, Kerry Healey, distributed pink fliers at a Gay Pride parade, declaring "Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend." He backed domestic partner benefits for public employees, winning the endorsement of the national Log Cabin Republicans. In his inaugural speech, he promised to defend civil rights "regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race."

As governor, he appointed openly gay and lesbian people to high-profile administration positions. He doubled the budget line item for the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, until he tried to disband it last May -- more political theater for the Republican right.

What Vennochi considers political theater is actually pretty much the policy position of the Mormon church and all but the most extreme fundamentalist Christians--gays as Americans, are entitled to the same civil rights as anyone else.

But wait, isn't gay marriage a civil right? Ah, there's the rub. Gays and Lesbians and their supporters have worked hard to conflate hatred of gays with opposition to gay marriage, which I can compare to an adolescent claiming that their parents don't love them because they don't buy them a Porsche Boxster.

Vennochi may believe he's put a stick in the campaign spokes, but I seriously doubt this will have any effect whatsoever on his appeal to conservatives, because folks, this is how all the conservative Christians I know see the issue themselves.

During a recent conversation, one friend of mine, a church-goer who we know takes his faith seriously, said in effect that even though he didn't view the "gay lifestyle" as a healthy one, he could say that about a lot of people who weren't gay too, and that wasn't a basis for opposing fajr housing policy, health benefits or any of the other benefits and rights we enjoy as citizens. On the other hand, he could not support trivializing traditional marriage and family by defining it as merely two people in love.

There is what I am sure some would term a "surprising" degree on nuance in conservative views on gays and gay issues, but what appears to be generally true is that conservative accepts gays as a fact of life. How else to explain all the gays in important Republican posts and offices? I don't know if Ken Mehlman is gay as rumored, but neither do I care. I thought he did a great job and I hope to see him again in some other useful capacity. I guess I just agree with Republican Martin Luther King about esteeming a man for the content of his character and by what he does, than by superficial aspects such as skin color, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation.

Romney's "gay politics" are pretty obviously in the mainstream of American political thought--when was the last time you heard virulent opposition to domestic partnership benefits? The left will muse on the reaction of conservatives, but they understand this country about as well as Scarlett Johansson understands calculus.

On the other hand, conservatives, who make up the bulk of married people with children in this country, understand in their bones the difference between two people "in love" and two people who are "married".

I was looking at ABC's blog The Political Punch to read what Jake Tapper had to say about Professor Ken Stein of Emory University, and his resignation from the Carter Center. Then I noticed the previous post was about McCain and the Mormons, so I clicked over there and found this.

Political junkies have noticed an interesting back-and-forth surrounding the competition among GOP presidential aspirants - specifically Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- for the endorsement of their fellow GOP governors.... Today comes more interesting news there...

McCain today announced that he has secured the support of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.... Huntsman Jr is the governor of Utah, and from one of the most prestigious Mormon families in the U.S.

Today? I swore I had seen this months ago and sure enough I had--in July.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has picked his preferred presidential candidate for the 2008 Republican nomination — and it's not fellow Mormon and former Utah Olympic leader Mitt Romney.

Instead, Huntsman's office said Wednesday that Utah's governor will serve as one of many co-chairmen of early frontrunner Sen. John McCain's political-action committee, Straight Talk America.

"The governor has a great deal of respect for Gov. Romney of Massachusetts," said Huntsman's spokesman, Mike Mower. "He felt he did an admirable job as head of our Olympic committee here in Utah and is a strong and effective governor in Massachusetts."

But in the end, Huntsman found he had more in common with McCain when it came to Western issues, as well as foreign policy, Mower said, adding that McCain's "understanding of America's role in the world is unparalleled."

Huntsman's decision to help the Arizona Republican prepare for a likely presidential bid comes despite having advised Romney, now governor of Massachusetts, on foreign-policy issues in anticipation of a possible run for the White House.

The governor's father, Jon Huntsman Sr., is one of Romney's biggest supporters.

"It was absolutely a surprise," said Kirk Jowers, head of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics and legal counsel to Romney's Commonwealth PACs. "The Huntsman family, including the governor, have been extremely supportive of Gov. Romney."

I guess blogging is harder than it looks.

Byron York has an interest column out on NRO, one I think he was manipulated into writing.

Some social conservatives in the important primary state of South Carolina are expressing skepticism about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney after reports of statements from the Massachusetts governor that were pro-choice, in favor of expansive gay rights, and dismissive of Ronald Reagan.

"Some" social conservatives in this case are undeclared, at least for 2008, McCain supporters.

“You cannot slam Ronald Reagan or disrespect Ronald Reagan in a state like South Carolina,” says Ed McMullen, head of the economically-oriented South Carolina Policy Council. “This man is the true ideological backbone of what Republicans in South Carolina believe.” (Neither the Council nor McMullen has endorsed a candidate for 2008, although McMullen supported Sen. John McCain in 2000.)

For the record I can't see where Romney dissed Reagan.

Kennedy attempted to link Romney several times during the debate to conservatives such as Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and accused him of trying to return the country to the policies of the Reagan-Bush administrations.

Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Is Romney trying to say that he isn't an ideologue? That's what it looks like to me. Ironically, George H.W. Bush wasn't much of a Reagan ideologue either.

Getting to the point though--how does Romney, whose national recognition factor is way, way behind Guiliani and McCain, offend so many social conservatives?

He doesn't. This is simply an effort by McCain and his supporters to frame Romney for primary voters before he can make his own impression.

The irony here is where do so-called "social conservatives" go to get a George Wallace on gay rights? If you spike Romney, is McCain your guy on gay rights? Guiliani?

I think the party is in serious danger of repeating 2006, by alienating moderates and ending up with a solid 35% of the vote.

I know what Romney's position is on gay marriage because its the default position of the Mormon church--marriage is between a man and a woman, but gays and lesbians are brothers and sisters and should be treated as such (as opposed to pariahs). Full civil rights for gays simply means that you should not be able to fire someone for being gay, deny him housing or other rights we take for granted. Clearly we have to make some accommodations for gay relationships in terms on inheritance, trustee rights, etc...

If you can't agree, then we are on opposite sides of the fence. I sure hope gay marriage isn't going to be the defining issue of the 2008 campaign, because I have no intention of voting for a bigot.

The Republicans have a marvelous opportunity here. Democrats are nominating "rock stars" these days, but almost every Republican candidate is a real, honest-to-god mover and shaker. Romney in particular has considerable executive experience, political smarts and yes, "rock star" charisma. McCain is arguably the most effective Senator in Washington. Guiliani is a national hero. These guys have resumes and making the primaries about litmus tests rather than an honest-to-goodness debate about ideas is foolish in the extreme.

UPDATE: Powerline

For me, these are negatives but not deal-breakers. I still lean towards Romney as opposed to Giuliani, an out-and-out social liberal, and McCain whose positions on issues like taxes, campaign finance reform, and the interrogation of detainees make him all but impossible for me to support except in a general election. However, Byron's piece suggests that Romney "has some serious repair work to do in South Carolina and among social conservatives in general." And the door may be opening wider for a fourth major candidate.

I pretty much agree with Mirengoff on McCain. McCain-Feingold is a far more serious affair that whether Romney was sufficiency deferential towards Ronald Reagan. I quote Newt Gingrich earlier today saying:

No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd.

If McCain ends up the nominee, Hillary will have to be stinking up the joint pretty badly for me not to vote for her...

The BBC correspondent in Bubble, DC, is one of the most self-important people in the world, so "Is America ripe for a Mormon president?" should be definitive as dogma for bien pensants. The signal to snide ratio is about 50/50, but the piece shows the confusion in attitudes of a liberal who 'gave 10 minutes' to encounter real, decent people who subscribe to a worldview anathematized by other secular cardinals . He deals with the conflict by piling on against his version of the other Christian nuts who dominate America.

From the Boston Globe.

Over cold cuts, cookies, and soft drinks, Governor Mitt Romney made his presidential pitch two Sundays ago to prominent Tennessee Republicans at the home of a newly elected state senator outside Nashville.

Romney's public schedule that day didn't list the event. Members of the mainstream press weren't invited.

But influential Nashville-area bloggers Bill Hobbs and Nathan Moore were, and both penned accounts Romney must have liked. Hobbs likened the governor to Ronald Reagan. Moore called Romney impressive and declared him "a formidable candidate for the 2008 nomination."

That Hobbs and Moore were asked to the private gathering illustrates a growing effort by Romney and his political team to cultivate a relationship with the conservative blogosphere as he prepares to enter the Republican primary, which is already being shaped as never before by countless bloggers, pundits, and other online opinion-makers.

"Particularly in a primary kind of setting," Romney explained in an interview last week with the conservative magazine Human Events, "you want to be very closely connected to the online world, to the blog world, and make sure your perspectives are being understood, and that the misperceptions, which inevitably creep up, are being nipped in the bud."

Though pro-Romney bloggers around the country have been dutifully defending him for months, the governor is increasingly taking steps to manage his own message. The importance Romney is placing on developing a rapport with bloggers reflects not only the pivotal role the Internet now plays in American politics, observers say, but also a recognition by Republicans that they have not been as aggressive as Democrats in using the web to gather support and money.

There is a temptation to see this as flattery, and no doubt some of the said bloggers will be flattered.

Wee! Look at me, I'm a mover and a shaker. That way lies personal destruction.

The reality is that bloggers provide a political candidate two unique advantages

An authentic and reliable grassroots reaction to candidate statements and policies. Blogs, for the time-being are still written by real people living in fly-over country. What they say about you reflects the electorate in a way that old media never can.

A communications network providing a nearly instantaneous response to "macaca incidents". Any campaign is going to run into the unexpected, and bloggers provide a direct route to a big audience of influencers. Its nowhere near as powerful an influence as old media, but for a primary, its perhaps a viable tool.

Romney doubtless understands this, and is courting bloggers to give himself a leg up, or more likely, just to establish parity.

The Globe article mentions Patrick Hynes, who works directly for McCain at Ankle Biting Pundits.

"Purchasing" a blogger seems to be par for the course on the left, but its something new for conservative bloggers.

It works on the left because lefties want someone to tell them what to think and what to do. Conservatives on the other hand, want to tell politicians what to think and what to do. It seems to me that buying bloggers is a bad idea for nominally conservative politicians--it sends the wrong message, and for McCain of McCain-Feingold, the message is especially damaging.

Powerline also comments:

Blogs, in other words, reflect political reality more than they shape it. Indeed, Romney's early success with conservative bloggers is a more a reflection of the strong positive impression he tends to make in person than of some special saavy with the "new media." His success in the primaries will depend more on his ability similarly to impress the voters he meets, than the prospect that voters will take bloggers' word for how impressive he is (or is not).

I concur.

Usually reporters understand Mitt Romney would not be the first presidential candidate that also happened to be Mormon. Occasionally, however, Mitt Romney is referred to as the first such candidate. I’m aware of four others:

Orrin Hatch: Made a short run for the Republican nomination in 2000. He was not regarded as a serious contender

In an unusually public display, Romney supporters raised 6.5 million dollars in a single day.

The campaign's goal is 50 million by the summertime.

The event, held at the Boston Exhibition Center and featuring a number of financial and political heavy-weights working the phones on the not-yet-a-candidate's behalf.

Its sort of amusing to observe all the intimidation tactics--McCain working the governor's conference, Obama working Hillary's backyard (NYC) and now Romney threatening to crush his rivals with his wallet.

I'm not kidding. Romney's cash dwarfs that of his rivals--McCain has raised 2 million to date, and Guiliani only one million. This isn't merely a stunt, its a serious token of political strength by the Romney campaign and a real worry for his rivals since at this stage, money is credibility.

Romney is also proving competitive on the endorsement front. He and McCain have been going around the country splitting the difference. Here in Utah, McCain gets Governor Huntsman's support, but Romney gets Jon Huntsman Sr. support. Romney and McCain also split the difference in South Carolina, where Lindsey Graham not surprisingly supports fellow "maverick" John McCain, but Romney gets Jim DeMint's endorsement.

Frankly I'm not much surprised--Romney did pretty much the same trick for the 2002 Winter Olympics. He's a great organizer and fund-raiser and those are key assets in the primaries.

Mitt Romney issued a statement on the President's "New Strategy"

"I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.

"In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

"This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

"The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America's national security interest to achieve it."

Romney's declaration of support is yet another indicator that regardless of what Democrats, lefty bloggers and the media say--the American public is not in a get-us-out-Iraq mood.

A number of Democrat officials have tacitly and sometime publicly indicated that they have no real intention of denying bullets to our troops--a clear indicator that they fear public backlash.

Bush has a chance here, but he had better get it right...

Peter Canellos thinks Bill Clinton had no blind spots as president...

Ronald Reagan, the former movie actor, became the Great Communicator. Herbert Hoover , former engineer, organized one of the most complicated relief missions in history, saving millions from starvation after World War I. Woodrow Wilson, former college president, brought academic idealism to foreign policy with his Fourteen Points.

But history also teaches that presidents who had long careers before entering politics developed blind spots that professional politicians -- think of Bill Clinton -- don't have.

Canellos guzzles Koolaid by the gallon apparently to have missed Clinton's blind spots. Just for fun, I thought I would google "Clinton blind spot". I got more than a few hits, almost a million, like this one from the International Herald Tribune in 1995.

Politicians are notoriously bad at admitting they are wrong. They would much rather blame someone else (often the media) or delude themselves that the problem is really one of communication. . President Bill Clinton is no exception. When his poll ratings are down, he has been known to grab perfect strangers and harangue them on the need to "get the message out" - not, of course, to change the message.

Clinton was crticized for so many blindspots, like say the impact of an intern under the desk or say al Qaeda, that one really should talk about Clinton tunnel vision.

Captain Ed comments on this revelation at the paper of record:

Uh, okay. Didn't the New York Times remember to write about this in November, when everyone else did? I'm a little stumped as to why this is a front-page, above the fold story at this stage of the campaign -- especially when the Times couldn't find a single substantive voice among evangelicals to state that they had issues with Romney on the basis of his faith.

It’s laughable to watch the liberal establishment frantically try to remind evangelicals they are supposed to hate Mormons. This is similar to the North Vietnamese attempt to demoralize two POWs, one a Navy pilot and southern gentlemen and the other a black Air Force pilot, by putting them together in the same cell. When you act on your perception of another’s prejudice you’re liable to reveal your own.

Dick Morris was heard to quip the other day, after looking at the four leading GOP presidential contenders in 2008 -- John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani:

"The only one of these guys who hasn't had multiple wives is the Mormon."

Mitt Romney made his announcement in Michigan this morning.

These announcements are if not suspenseful, interesting in terms of style. Romney made his announcement in a collage of symbolism. I wrote yesterday that manufactured symbolism is tricky stuff and usually backfires, but Romney's symbolism was more like a powerpoint presentation of his life and values rather than a coming down from the mount with tablets of stone.

Romney made his announcement at the Ford museum (a Jewish group objected on the basis that Ford was a virulent anti-Semite) in Greenfield, Michigan, flanked by a Ford hybrid vehicle and a Nash Rambler--the brainchild of his father George Romney, the candidate was also surrounded by 20 odd grandchildren, his sons, his wife and his siblings. He reminded the audience of his family's long history in Michigan and the fact that he pass the bar in Michigan with the intent to return and settle before he launched on his theme of innovation and transformation.

Everybody was incredible good-looking, well-adjusted and prosperous. He really is the candidate from central casting.

If charm and good looks win elections, then Romney's in good shape, especially against H. Rodham-Clinton. This liberal cites

"former White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers’ observation about Bill Clinton: He seduces women, he seduces men, he seduces pets.

Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton with his pants up. And he’ll very likely be cast in 2008 .. against Clinton’s wife, who has all the seductive qualities of John Kerry in a pants suit"

Contrast Hillary TV which has clunky design, blockier type, acres of wasted space, text which droops in my Firefox, and no obvious link and copy mechanism. I wonder what each implementation cost.

As for content, well lordy! If you can bring yourself to watch the Hillary in New Hampshire clip (not recommended and I don't see how to embed it separately)...what a herd of hand-wringing losers! "It's very seldom you get the opportunity to ask a potential President 'how can you change my life?'" Gadzooks! Were I American and the Village Pantsuit became President, then the air of passivity, make-Iraq-go-away-ness and what-can-my-country-do-for-me-ness would make me emigrate to Mexico as the Hollywood liberals slink back from Cantada. Attitudinise, moi ?

What's more significant--that a heckler expressed his opinion that Romney "doesn't know the Lord", or that he was booed by the crowd?

Romney was near Orlando in the tornado-ravaged Villages area, addressing a standing-room-only crowd of 800.

Some years ago I read a book called the "Press Effect", which dealt in great detail with the media's tendancy to produce "a frame" for a political candidate. Once the media has created this frame, they seldom deviate from it--Bush is dumb, Gore is a liar, etc...

Romney's in danger of allowing himself to be framed as an unelectable Mormon, and he's going to need more than this mild refutation to shake up the pundits. My suggestion? Confront the problem head on.

Utah is far from a swing state and only has five electoral votes to boot, so we usually get bypassed in the presidential campaign as money is spent elsewhere. Through the miracle of You-Tube political junkies can watch campaign commericials to their hearts delight. Here is the first from Mitt Romney:

h/t Redstate

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post phoned it in today, writing a column about Mitt Romney that could have been written a year old and simply filed.

I joke, of course. But the way things are going, I would not be surprised if the possibility of a Romney religious conversion has gone from inconceivable to a focus group for, as they say, further study. After all, the same bloc of voters -- conservative Christians -- that once found Romney suspiciously liberal on abortion and gay rights does not much like his Mormonism, either. This nice touch of intolerance has got to worry Romney. In recent polls, something like one-third of all voters have said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate -- and the figure is a bit higher (39 percent) among Republicans. Iowa, where conservative Christians comprise about 37 percent of the GOP electorate, could be trouble.

Wow! Christian conservatives could be trouble? Mitt's moderated his positions on abortion and gay marriage? I'm shocked at the shear originality.

Apparently, not all journalists are lazy. Rich Lowry really did shock me with his perceptive criticism of the Romney campaign.

It seems clear to me that Romney is a pretty conservative guy, who for political expediency's sake tacked left in Massachusetts and now for the same reason is tacking right—although this latest tack is probably more consistent with what he really believes. If Romney had made his career pretty much anywhere else but in Massachusetts, he wouldn't be having this problem.

Bingo.

As the scion of good Mormon family, there is simply no way for Mitt to have acquired such liberal views on gays and abortion. As Lowry correctly reasons, these were political accommodations necessary to get things done in a blue state. Romney's statements about respecting the magestria of religious and political values appear to have a historical foundation.

Cohen has fallen prey to the two dimensional caricaturization the left relies on to understand conservatives. Lowry on the other hand, goes one step further to accurate identify a real Romney weakness.

Another friend, on the other hand, pointed out that conservatives usually don't run national races on just being conservative. They bring a flavor and a spin to their conservatism. It isn't a check-the-box exercise. They apply their conservatism to the problems of the day and come up with their own variety—Bush, Newt, and Reagan all did this. Romney hasn't yet. He's just collected a bunch of conservative positions, and is running on the theme of competitiveness. That risks seeming a lot like Bob Dole's "I can be Ronald Reagan if you want me to be."

Its something that been nagging at me--Romney wants to run as a conservative, but he's using a Democrat-style of electioneering, shibboleths to the various constituencies--style over substance.

Its an easy mistake to make for a guy whose political experience is comprised of running for office in a blue state.

Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics interviews Mitt Romney.

Romney continues to impress me with his quick grasp of the issues and rhetorical discipline.

Bevan didn't impose a particularly tough interview, but one still gets the sense that Romney is just cruising. He doesn't have the charm of Bill Clinton, but he is no less verbally adept at spontaneously handling whatever comes his way.

Romney has been hitting all the right notes with conservatives, now he just needs to sing them with feeling.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday delivered a faultlessly tailored appeal to more than 1,000 grass-roots conservative activists hungry for a renewed commitment to limited government.

Addressing the 34th annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Mr. Romney stood out from the pack of Republican presidential aspirants that included Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mike Huckabee by promising to end taxes on earnings from interest, dividends and capital gains, and to cap federal spending and veto every attempt to break that cap -- whether proposed by a Republican or Democratic Congress.

"I know how to veto. I like vetoes," Mr. Romney said.

He also won the straw poll, out-distancing frontrunner Rudy Giuliani.

Despite his record of inconsistency on some social issues, the former Massachusetts governor got 21 percent of the 1,705 votes cast by paid registrants to the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference. They were asked who their first choice would be for the Republican nomination.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose moderate stances on social issues irks the party's right wing, was second with 17 percent.

Captain Ed, an enthusiastic Giuliani supporter, did his best to spin Giuliani's loss:

However, the straw poll probably reflects Romney's organizing abilities far more than his popular support among conservatives. The Romney campaign turned CPAC from a get-acquainted event to a mini-convention by recruiting scores of young activists to attend CPAC and haranguing attendees to vote for Mitt. The Brownback campaign did the same with a smaller coterie of foot soldiers. None of the other candidates bothered to do anything of the kind.

Understanding that, these numbers should be somewhat disappointing to the Romney campaign. Take a look at Giuliani's numbers. Here's a candidate who supposedly didn't impress in his speech on Friday, whose consistent positions have him in conflict with more than a few of the groups comprising CPAC, and who didn't have any organization at the conference or spend any time with the attendees outside of the speech. Despite all of these handicaps, 17% of the conservatives at CPAC selected Rudy over any of the other candidates -- only four points lower than Romney. He beat Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich, who is widely presumed to be preparing his own bid for the presidency.

I see--a "moral" victory. Be that as it may, what it really demonstrates is that Romney is smarter that Giuliani. As one experienced politico put it:

"Rudy thought he was addressing a Republican audience," said Mike Long, chairman of the New York State Conservative Party. "Mitt understood this is an audience of people who are conservatives first."

Since the Captain does link to me anyways, I don't risk much in contradicting him.

There are three things to consider here: The national polls at this point reflect fame rather than support, so they can be safely dismissed. Giuliani's native support among secular conservatives is admittedly strong and deservedly so. In spite of his mistakes at CPAC, he has a huge reservoir of goodwill. Finally, the goodwill only takes you so far--Giuliani was simply outplayed by Romney and Brownback who understood the terrain they were fighting on and came prepared to make the most of it.

We all saw a glimmer here of one of Romney's strengths--his generalship is without peer. He works hard to understand the reality of the situation and then applies the right strategies. Its this quality more than any other that makes me a real fan. As President, it will be damn hard to outflank him, whereas Giulani, who I like and respect very much, doesn't have the right kind of political skills to succeed in Washington. Giuliani had a very agressive style in New York City and it worked for him, but its simply not realistic to believe he can ride roughshod over the powers that be in D.C. Its going to require the kind of finesse that Romney demonstrates so consistently.

There is still hope that conservatives, particularly Evangelicals are religious bigots, but Romney hasn't put a foot wrong so far, and I wouldn't bet on a misstep in the future.

A new language is always a tricky business. Suffering from a sore throat while in France, I went into a pharmacy and asked for soutien gorge, literally "throat support". I got a quizzical look in response so I know I had made a mistake. Describing my symptoms, I was informed that what I really needed was a pastille.

What I had initially asked for was a bra.

This wasn't a completely innocent mistake. A friend, somewhat better versed in the language at the time, decided to have a little fun at my expense.

I don't know how much Spanish Mitt Romney speaks, but while grammatically correct, his attempt at linguistic solidarity came out as a cultural faux pas.

'Hugo Chávez has tried to steal an inspiring phrase -- Patria o muerte, venceremos,'' Romney said. ``It does not belong to him. It belongs to a free Cuba.''

Actually it belongs to Fidel Castro, who has closed his speeches with the phrase ''Fatherland or death, we shall overcome'' --in English. Chávez has simply borrowed it, probably with permission.

Romney also mispronounced the names of a couple of Cuban Congressmen.

Hopefully Romney has learned an important lesson from an apparently embarrassing but ultimately harmless incident--its always the underlings that screw it up for a president. Its not enough for a candidate or president to have good judgement--the entire administration has to be soaking in it.

A smidgen behind Hillary's record-setting fund-raising pace is....Mitt Romney

Romney raised 23 million, a surprising performance considering that Romney is a relative newcomer to politics and doesn't have the advantage of a network built over a 30 year political career. His polling continues to suffer from the fact that he's a relative unknown compared with the national reputations of Giuliani and McCain. Apparently it hasn't hurt where it counts for the moment.

Rudy Giuliani is running behind, but raised 10 million in March alone, suggesting that he can keep pace with Romney. McCain has not reported.

Aren't you glad that John McCain and Russ Feingold got the money out of politics?

In the previous post I mentioned a point of diminishing returns--I suspect I'm completely wrong about this when I reconsider what the primary fight is going to look like. The compressed schedule is going to require a lot more money and organization spent all at once to have a chance at winning it. Where past races featured catchup with the frontrunner in Iowa, the current version of the primaries appears far more like the general election--one shot to win it all.