I imagine Romney agrees with you, but believes the likelihood of a politician changing the hearts of those who care little about traditional values is very remote. I think the country is in a lot more trouble than most imagine. The rot is very deep.

It seems to me that by having to pay the cost in higher insurance premiums for the irresponsible schlubs  who don't buy health insurance we have a very real loss of liberty.  Without a mandate on the individual to pay his or her own way it is left to the rest of us to labor for schlubs welfare.

A pro life Candidate won't be elected in Massachusetts for the same reason a pro abortion rights candidate won't be elected in Utah: It's too far outside the opinion tolerance of the mass of voters. Romney was never "unequivocally pro choice" There is a big difference in  saying you won't change current law, and anything goes unequivocally.

As to Romney being elected as an anti gay marriage candidate being evidence that a pro choice candidate cold win in Mass. I think it's a poor argument. The opinion ground has shifted dramatically on the question of gay marriage / civil union from the time Romney ran for Governor to now. Lots of people are accepting what at one time they recoiled at. 

A pro-life Republican would have little chance being reelected in Massachusetts, who would have thought?

 Let's not give him any credit for taking a principled conservative stand in the bluest state and paying the price.

 It seems to me we in California are well beyond the tipping point. I had room for optimism before our 2010 elections, but that was crushed. We vote for Barbra Boxer and high speed rail, not for fuel we all need and use on a daily basis. Environmentalism is the reigning  religion here even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the harm the extremists cause. Our judges and polititians let the  great Central Valley go fallow, because we have smelt to protect. 

A lack of Mitt-mania is a good thing if what a person needs to do to create mania makes the candidate unacceptable to a majority of general election voters. The red meat can create the mania with "the base" but at the expense of the confidence of the swing voters whom we need (like it or not) to win.  

This is disappointing. I expect better analysis from Will. He's done conservatism no favors with this column, maybe he doesn't see that as his roll. I have no idea what's driving him. Did he seriously think Perry would give us a better chance? 

That's just creepy FJG.

You are obviously right. The fact is: swing voters most often decide national elections. That may frustrate ideological purists both left and right, but if conservatives are truly the group that follows logic over emotion we will strive to see things as they truly are and vote accordingly.

It seems the Romney campaign didn't consider that a Republican challenger would make an appeal to  big labor Democrats to settle union grievances. Auto workers of Michigan unite was the message that helped Santorum get close to pulling off an upset.

Santorum's appeal to class envy should make all economic conservatives wary.

I hope the Maine Republican party can find a candidate who can win. If they can I'm sure many at here Ricochet  will find that person unacceptable, because they are way too moderate. I doubt a hard line conservative can be elected to the senate in New England today. Conservatives need to convince New Englanders that conservatism is a superior political philosophy, until we do we are lucky to have any elected Republicans in the region.

Does Sarah Palin annoy me? A little, but I'm trying to keep my annoyance in check. I generally dislike the contempt conservatives express about each other, often writing off good people over small differences. I'm probably guilty of this myself at times. I suppose it's unavoidable in a primary. I hope we will all pull together after we have a nominee no matter who wins. We can't afford four more years of Obama.

I hope for the sake of our country and party that this intentional misreading will fail. This argument does separate the wheat from the chaff. Free market advocates need to stand up.

It was a political gaff. The statement was a correct principle inartfuly stated.  No honest intelligent person believes Mitt Romney enjoys firing people. Those who don't want Mitt will try to make the most of the gaff, but substantively Perry, Gingrich, and Huntsman know the the freedom to choose ( remember Milton Friedman) is what Romney was referring to. Those who join the attack are choosing short term expediency over conservative principle.

Perry's fault here wasn't based in his hoof in mouth problem, it was that he used a leftist argument while supposedly trying to be the "true conservative. 

Does Mitt Romney have his faults? Sure, don't we all. I'm a big fan of Mitch Daniels because I feel he completely understands the need for smaller government. It's as if it's written in his DNA. I don't see that in Romney. That being said I do trust Romney to lead the country in a conservative manner.

Well run companies are not angelic, they are profitable, not charities.

Perry's point against Romney would be more effective if it was based in conservative principle, but his point was an echo of the Occupy Wall street creed. But of course Perry's the real conservative:(sarcasm)