Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Boise
Romney Runs. Romney Stumbles.
By Jill Kuraitis, 3-13-07
When a candidate for president blows into town, most reporters show up. There’s always a chance he or she will say something surprising or stupid, and there could even be a chance to ask a substantial question and get an answer with some teeth to it, but it’s not likely.
That’s just the way these things go.
But when the Idaho press showed up today for Republican candidate Mitt Romney, his people were still rehearsing – badly - the drill of the classic obligatory campaign fly-through. They issued conflicting information about the place and time of the press conference, with most reporters never notified at all and nobody in charge who could straighten it all out. Attempts to reach the campaign by phone with follow-up questions went unanswered. Multiple cell phone and landline numbers were available, but nobody responded except to refer us to someone else – who wasn’t there. It was a disgraceful runaround. It’s early, but when a field organization is THIS bad, it’s not encouraging.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a nice man with good hair who was considered a superior governor by opinion leaders on both sides of the aisle, provided a possible reason for all that uncertainty: he’s remarkably uninspiring. Anybody who has ever called Al Gore “wooden” has never seen Mitt Romney.
It’s nothing to do with politics or party; it has everything to do with electability. Everyone wants their horse in the race to have what it takes to cross the finish line first, and today, Romney didn’t have it.
I was eerily reminded of the novel and film of “The Manchurian Candidate,” a thriller in which a handsome war hero is controlled via a brain microchip and turned into the perfect presidential candidate, who is later directed by evil forces via the chip. His speeches are repetitive platitudes which seem to arrive in his mouth by computer. Romney is good-looking, fit, beautifully turned out with perfect white teeth, and unfortunately, he speaks that way, too.
He’s certainly not the first presidential candidate to employ banality in an attempt to say nothing which would commit him to any firm policy, but it’s still disappointing. The weariest old adages flowed from Romney like so much water. “Look at my wife and me and our family if you want to know our values,” he said.
“Look at my heart, character and experience.”
“I see the internet age and the YouTube era as a great opportunity to take my message directly to the people.” And that message would be…..?
Romney did name universal health insurance, on which he has an impressive record, as a top priority of his, but was equivocal about exactly how he’d handle it as President. He said the “Muslim jihad” needed a solution, but offered none. He worked up a little enthusiasm about global competition – “especially with the Chinese” – but really only came alive when talking about his experience as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 winter Olympics. “We took something in trouble and made it a success.”
Which he did. An excellent Olympics, indeed.
Outstanding comic relief was provided by a protestor who, complete with rolled R’s and dramatic Shakespearean tones, boomed out, “MISTAH RRROMNEY! WHY DO THE MORMONS SAY JESUS IS THE DEVIL’S BROTHAH?”
Nobody answered that, or was much interested in Romney’s Mormonism. That was good.
Asked about the Rocky Mountain West, Romney said he saw “the spirit of innovation. The opportunity-seeking of the American West has long been the character of the American people.” (I can’t interpret that one.) He spoke of technology innovations which came from the West, but again, nothing about what that had to do with….anything.
“Coal has a major role to play in our future energy policy, along with wind and solar power.” No specifics.
Of the evangelical Christian groups which seem to dog Romney wherever he goes, he had this to say, “I will do my best to establish my bona fides with that group.”
“On the internet, people can see me in speeches, get to know a candidate on a personal basis, in unguarded moments, and see the true character of a candidate.”
Despite many years working in, and watching campaigns - enough to know the hard realities - I still say enough, enough, enough with the Family Values and the Spirit of America and the Heart and Character and Hope for the Future and…..holy MOTHER of mercy….STOP! For once, can’t we please have a candidate who says, “I believe this. I will do this. I will not do that. I don’t care who gets mad; it’s the right thing to do. I don’t care who gave me money, it’s the right thing to do.”
I know. Incredibly naïve. Hopelessly idealistic. Never going to happen, and all that.
But isn’t it, in our unguarded, raw heart of hearts, what all of us truly want from candidates? If you could wave a wand and turn them all into decisive, plain-speaking, committed people who said what they mean and mean what they say, wouldn’t you?
Of course you would. But in the words of Governor Romney, “If this is a place where I can come and raise money as well as strengthen my political base, I’m going to do it.” And at $1,000 a plate, 100 people showed up to have lunch with him.
MISTAH ROMNEY! YOU’LL BE BACK!
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
It would seem that the press is equally challenged in dropping the perverbial "ball." While the press has a history of always seeking for the mistakes in candidates, I seriously doubt that they could do a better job. I find this especially true, when actually doing research on what was already spoken. If the media wants specifics, it would be quite a big mistake to give details in relation to "what if senarios." First of all, if Mr. Romney becomes President, he will likely work with a democrat congress in which case anything is likely to happen, things that no person can predict. If the media is looking for a candidate to tell the world everything that will happen before it happens, they are going to have a long wait. In fact, in my recollection of politics for the past twenty some years, no candidate on any side has truely come out with statements of what will happen on issues.
Sounds like you had a tough time getting to the event. Funny, I didn't read about any other media representatives in Idaho having issues. Nor did the folks with the $100 tickets stumble and get lost. Maybe journalism is too tough for you?
You showed up and got the potatoes version of a meat and potatoes speech. Seems like Mitt was giving the spuds version this night. I agree with David that you took no effort to find meat. Not in his delivered speech, but in the several he has given already. To an Israelie audience he specifically took on Iran. In an energy speech, he has talked specifics about coal and even nuclear. To the CPAC, he left with a roar of applause and specific conservative ideals and targeted reforms to existing laws. You witnessed a mashed potatoes speech, all candidates give 'em. Instead of whining about it, maybe you could've spiced your report with some details you dug up. Just try google.com, they'll help you, but then again, maybe journalism is too tough.
My wifes' parents have known the Romney's for over thirty years. My wife was their house keeper and friend. Ann Romney has shared many of her dresses with my wife. I have heard stories about Mitt driving around in an old car that had so many rusted holes in it that the passengers would get soaked whenever it rained. I have also heard of stories of the Romneys' work in volunteer efforts to help others who were in need. If there is anyone in this country who stands more for what America is all about, it is Mitt Romney. He knows what poor is. He also know what wealth is. He has seen both. Mitt is self made. His success came because he believed in himself and had others believe in him also. Yes, he is a nice man. I can personally vouch for that!
Howard Headlee
Nathan W
Cameron Rich
Who are you guys? are you on Mitts payroll?
'Despite many years working in, and watching campaigns - enough to know the hard realities - I still say enough, enough, enough with the Family Values and the Spirit of America and the Heart and Character and Hope for the Future and…..holy MOTHER of mercy….STOP! For once, can’t we please have a candidate who says, “I believe this. I will do this. I will not do that. I don’t care who gets mad; it’s the right thing to do. I don’t care who gave me money, it’s the right thing to do.”'
I couldn't possibly agree more. It's too bad that an accomplished person and true hero such as Mr. Romney just doesn't just tell his handlers to go stand in the corner and just be himself and reveal his inner person to the rest of us. Substance, not platitudes. He's stuck in 3rd to 4th place with his mashed potatoes. Good article and wake-up call while there is still time for him to turn things around.
Maybe you should be grateful he even acknowledged Idaho. Yes it's a fund raiser...but who else is stomping in Idaho? Do you even think Giuliani will come by or any of the Dems? Gimme a break. I can understand you want more substance that's fine, I usually do to and I believe the Washington Post did a story on Hillary today about just that. But it really sounds like you showed up pissed off and decided to write that way. Why not get a few quotes from those in attendance on why they're there..what did they think of it? Maybe a possible connection to the guy from Idaho that endorsed Mitt today. I must applaud you for one thing...at least you didn't cite any Democratic National Committee press release that most of the other media do.
My article is a COLUMN. My opinion. There's no requirement that anyone agree. State your disagreement with civility. If you don't intend to be civil, go somewhere else. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably.
Nobody has to put up with abuse from others. I will not put up with this. It's a matter of self-respect. If you have any of your own, show it by re-stating your views without being personal.
I'm an active blogger interested in the 2008 GOP Candidates. I get paid by no one, but read many articles about all of them.
Jill,
With all due respect, "mean-spirited rudeness"? Oh come on. You wrote an opinionated article that several of your readers felt was lacking and lazy. No one called you names. No one has sworn at you. But many of us thought you failed to contribute to the level that is New West. We all make mistakes and screw up, it's life. But you if think you can dish out the opinions, you better be ready to handle it right back. Get up and sweep yourself off. Or, maybe you should go write for a newspaper and not the living media that is the web.
I wish you the best in acheiving a higher level in your next column article.
Don't take things personally. Getting criticism comes with the territory. Things aren't mean spirited against you, but rather your opinion. Don't publish if you aren't willing to hear debate.
OK, my bad, Mr. Howard Headlee called you a liar. That was rude. But instead of complaining about it, call him on it! What did you lie about? Nothing that I read. I thought your opinion was very colorful, but critical based on what you wanted, not maybe what Mitt was focusing on. I think MJen had some good suggestions. So if your readers can comment on your opinion, be prepared to defend your opinion. The article is the seed. That which follows is a living conversation with your readers. Which is my opinion.
A "living conversation with readers" is a wonderful description of what should happen in these comments, but did not because of the initial comments. I am under no obligation to engage in shouting matches.
Zach, I never take criticism of my opinions personally. But if you'll re-read the comments, there are numerous personal insults. That's another thing altogether, and as I said, I am under no obligation to respond to people like that.
One more reminder: I wrote an "Opinionated Article" because it's a COLUMN. That's what a column IS.
Thanks Jill for sharing your view of the event.
I am not paid by anyone for my opinion.
Jill,
I do not mean any disrespect. My desire was not to offend but to encourage. Your piece seemed to demonstrate a frustration for the lack of content and organization from the Mitt Romney visit to Idaho. However, you need to understand that as a reader I am interested in what people are saying about issues and candidates. I am also looking for substance rather than excuses.
I am finding that the more the media gets involved in the Internet, the more they are going to also play the political game. The winner gets credibility and advertising dollars. The loser gets no respect. The internet has also forced the media to enter a "political race" for credibility. This type of forum allows the reader to offer criticism on each piece to add value to content for others to consider. Of course, this also means that we as Bloggers are also criticized for anything we say in terms of having credibility in our opinions.
Again, I do not mean any disrespect for you personally. I humbly appologize if you did take offense. I just want to encourage you to look a little deeper into Blog sites, Mitt Romney's website, and other systems you may have available to you to get information that will add greater content value to your position. As I look at Blog sites, I find a great deal of content, some of which terrifies me while others interest me. I, like so many of your other readers are interested in seeking out information that for us is important in making our own decisions.
Yes, I am a Mitt Romney supporter. However, I am still looking for reasons why I should vote for the other candidates instead of him.
I may be doing Mr. Romney a disservice. But, my opinion is my opinion. If it hurts him then it hurts him. I am only looking to share what I think and trying to find out what others think. Nothing more!
Mitt is an interesting candidate. I'm not sold on him - or ANYBODY - yet. This opinion column was pretty hard on the guy, but that should be expected from Jill... no?
Fer cryin' out loud! Election day is still almost 20 months off! How about reporting on some CURRENT EVENTS?
I don't know if I can stand it for that long! Maybe I'll leave the country and hang out with Alec Baldwin until October 2008. (Alec did leave after Dubya moved to the White House, didn't he?)
Your point about "digging deeper" on websites etc for Gov. Romney's views is well taken, but with all due respect, it's not what the article was about. It's a column based on what I saw, not investigative journalism, which is a different format altogether. It was about presidential politics and what an early campaign stop looked like, including the information about his ground team. Readers may not care that reporters were snubbed, but they should at least find it mildly interesting that the guy's people can't put a simple thing together as a team. But it's a minor point.
It was also about taking a good candidate and turning him into a semi-robot, a common problem sometimes created by consultants and handlers and wranglers. As readers have pointed out, if he'd been allowed to be himself it would have been a lot better. I'd like to see a candidate tell all the consultants to go home, then act and speak authentically, as Romney is capable of doing.
At the risk of saying "but everybody else thought so, too" I will venture this: many reporters who covered the event had similar reactions to what I wrote. They're constrained by not writing columns which can include opinions. Some of them were madder than I was about being given the runaround by Romney's team.
One reader commented that "The type of speech that you are describing that was delivered by Mitt Romney is the typical political speech." implying that a typical political speech should be accepted as just that. But my point is that we shouldn't accept it; we should demand more - a lot more - of someone who wants to lead the entire county. Let there be a candidate who refuses to follow formula; who is sharp enough and brave enough and real enough to toss aside the notion that "all these things can be is a perfunctory event where I spout generalities." Let there be a candidate who tells us the hard truths and realities and what he or she believes about them.
There will be other presidential candidates who come to Idaho, and if they deliver typical political speeches I will hold them to the same standard. I wish everyone would. And I don't have a horse in this race; far from it.
If you'll re-read my column, note the several references to Gov. Romney's accomplishments such as health care, the Olympics, his fine reputation with politicians of both parties, and also the fact that I was relieved that his Mormonism was not called into question except by a nutjob. The others there, who did not rise to that offensive debate, remained quiet and I said "that was good."
My column was not about Romney's political views except for the observations that he didn't appear to have many. It was more about the idea that the American way of campaigning lacks authentic intellect, political courage, and the ability to expose the true leadership abilities of a candidate, when you go to see a politician in person. The system has taken a good man with the credentials to be a serious nominee and turned him into unsalted mashed potatoes.
I appreciate your response. I now have a greater appreciation for what you were communicating. Thank you.
It would appear to me that perhaps the reason Mr. Romney may be keeping information from the press because he is likely getting the publicity he needs as a candidate without having to expend a great deal of resources to get it. My understanding of the polls is that he still lacking in name recognition. It would appear to be his strategy to keep people guessing so he can maximize his media time. It may be likely that if he started to give the information so many people are hungry for such as the both of us, the press coverage could go away with satisfaction of getting the answers they seek. If that were to happen, he could lose out on the lost press coverage based on satisfying the press to early. As a wise business person, Mitt probably wants to get as much of the publicity as possible without expending to much money and resources for it. Of course, this is just my perception as to why he is delaying. If I were running for political office, I would probably use the same strategy.
You think she made up stuff about the field organization? You think he's really a dynamo, and she's trying to shift public opinion by calling him "wooden"?
You think it's disingenuous to expect him to state actual positions rather than just post them on a website for everyone to look up?
You think the son of the head of a giant American corporation is "self made"?
Keep trying...
I will grant you that she might need a thicker skin. The "criticism" given here doesn't quite reach credible.
But..Nathan W-- snide remarks about whether or not Ms. Kuraitis should write and being unable to find the event...oh please. When the heck have you heard any reporter honestly admit that getting to and set up at a story was a monumental headache? It happens to reporters with a certain frequency-- because of confusion and poor communication from organizations... I know this because I lived it for 15 years. Yet, we didn't start our report on the nightly news by saying, "It was real chaos getting all the information we needed for this story..." Observing that was simply a way of addressing what may turn out to be an organizational weakness in the Romney campaign. He's jumped into the arena with the big boys and will have to play the game efficiently and better if he hopes to win. So before you get snotty and attack the observer, try to learn something and when you call the writer thin-skinned...uh...oh, never mind.
My response about Mitt Romney driving old cars and his wife sharing dresses was aimed at Vince K in his question of "Who are these guys?" Obviously, it did not apply to the original article by Jill.
Any sophisticated presidential race follower knows that there is a consensus that Romney has the most organized campaign in the race so far. Also, he is known for being incredibly charismatic and superior on tv and in person.
I even met him myself and heard him speak at CPAC, he was anything but uncharismatic. Also, he had more ground volunteers and organization at the conference than any other candidate. So I see the facts as contradicting the authors statements with nothing to back them up.
Thus the value of the first-person account. If you've read a writer's version of a shared experience, you can calibrate how strongly to weight his or her opinion. I hadn't seen any "color commentary" about Romney, and didn't see him in person, so I'm still collecting and waiting to see how my own experience will match up with what others say.
So far, most of the press seems to be obsessed with the fact that he's a Mormon, and whether or not the country could elect someone of that faith. It starts to seem silly after a while; can we elect a Mormon? A woman? Someone who isn't snow white?
Searching for "Romney charisma", one can certainly find effusive praise for the guy, but since I have good reason to believe Jill has no ax to grind, it makes me wonder why he thudded with her. Of course, "South Carolinans for Romney" have an expressed bias, affirmed by their response to a fairly dry news article, seeing it as "the liberal media manipulat(ing) a story (to) turn a positive piece of news into an attack."
So we'll just have to wait and see. Charisma is in the eye of the beholder (and not high on my list of most important qualities for elected office).
Keep at it, Ms. Kuraitis. The pen is obviously mightier.
I am not Mitt Romney's webmaster. Nor do I have anything to do with his campaign. I do believe the best place to read about what Mitt Romney is doing is by going to his official website. If you want to find out what the other candidates are doing, I would also recommend their websites as the best place to begin.
Quite frankly, I have no desire to run for President, let alone any political office. It is not my idea of service to this country. While Mitt Romney and others would think the contrary, I think a person has to be out of their mind to even consider the idea of going through so much ridicule to run for any office in this land. I would prefer the next fourty years of my life building businesses, helping charities, and being a good husband and father in making America a better place. Thank you, but no thank you.
My blog post on this topic has links to C-Span and Hewitt's book, "A Mormon in the White House?"
Personally, I prefer, "blood sucking liberal!" But I'd hate to be considered snotty.
:P
I mean no disrespect to you, Mr. von Alten, but this is hardly news!
You know, I am finding that the older I get the less I know about a great many things in this world. I appreciate your teaching me a few things such as how to find an unbiased perspective on what Mr. Romney stands for in terms of his record. I only hope I can be sufficiently open-minded about the different issues that are affecting me and others whom I care for in this political race.
I have used OnTheIssues.org for information about Mitt and other candidates, but some of their information is out-of-date, or at least hasn't been updated to reflect current positions. Before all the jabs come out about flipping on issues, this applies to more than just Mitt ;-)
he's a tosser.. seeing him on our capital steps sickens me.. boo for him
Mr. G Davis, why the misdirection to pound the writer rather than discuss the issues keeping Romney eating dust from the horses in front?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3081.html
"Mitt Romney appears to be stuck in neutral. The former Massachusetts governor has great personal wealth and the best organization. But for some reason, he can’t get any traction."
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23305.html
"It's Giuliani's Nomination To Lose"
Craig M.,
I've enjoyed your comments, but the confusion with Ms. Kuraitis' article is caused by her own complaining and skill at writing on this piece. She and several people have held up her declaration that this is an opinion piece. If it is, then why did she affiliate herself with reporters ("When a candidate for president blows into town, most reporters show up.") and the Idaho press ("But when the Idaho press showed up today for Republican candidate Mitt Romney, his people were still rehearsing – badly")?
By the third paragraph, I felt she stated to me that she is integral in the Boise press and the experiences they've had with Romney's visit. I mistakenly thought that as a member of the press her piece was a reporter's take on an event. I think my comprehension of her words was not alone and hence the backlash against such an opinionated field reporter that did no further digging into a candidate than just showing up for his visit. If this article was just about this one visit, then there wouldn't have been a backlash, but she continued in colorful fashion saying, "holy MOTHER of mercy….STOP! For once, can’t we please have a candidate who says, 'I believe this..." Well, if holy mother of mercy did some digging, she'd find that he has on most of his other visits done just what she's asking for. Romney has been specific on tactics on the War on Terror, International Trade, Iran, Social Issues and other Mother of Mercy topics. At http://www.mittromney.com, just click on Mitt TV and watch his statements.
Did Romney's Idaho team behave in an unprepared and haphazard way? Sounds like it. Is this inexcusable? No, but is indicative that his Idaho team should've been better prepped for his visit. Is this indicative of all his teams across the county? No, the national GOP perception is that he has one of the most extensive and well funded teams of all the candidates.
Is Mitt Romney stuck in neutral? Maybe, but that does not appear to be the case since CPAC. He won the straw poll there. And the LA Times has Mitt Romney in the lead among all RNC Insiders. That's nothing to sneeze at. The perception of Mitt in neutral is fueled by another matter in my opinion and if you're curious you can read about it here:
[url="http://www.redstate.com/blogs/remington_steele/2007/mar/01/grass_roots_sleeping_in_the_breeze" ]
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/remington_steele/2007/mar/01/grass_roots_sleeping_in_the_breeze[/url]
The difficulty some have in distinguishing fact, fiction, opinion, advertising and entertainment says a lot about what's become of "the "news." And marketing.
Regarding CPAC results http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23305.html
"...many of the attendees sported stickers condemning "Rudy McRomney," a combination of Giuliani, Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts Governor and alleged flip-flopper Mitt Romney. But when it came time to vote in the CPAC straw poll, Romney came away with a slight victory, and Giuliani came in second. When first choice and second choice votes were combined, Giuliani came out on top."
How is this tepid report, and many others like it, helpful to a candidate stuck in 3rd to 4th place? This race is over at the end of summer. He can't just rely on others losing the race, he has to go and get it. Where is the fire in his belly?
I agree with your conclusion. I did know this was an opinion piece once the holy mothers of mercy's started flying, but usually in our culture we delineate a reporter’s work from a commentator or editorial piece. To me, Jill did both, started out as a reporter and gave accurate info about her experience, but then ended as an editorial piece. Not that this is bad, but obviously the line between the two is graying out with new media and I think if you do this, you should be prepared to accept criticism in both roles.
Craig,
I agree with you that Romney dropped the ball with this visit and event. I don't assume to know why he passed out the potatoes speech and not the meaty one. He's given the meaty details on many occasions. For me, this is the first time I've heard him not dive into details at a stop. I hope it's the last.
My problem is Jill's thin-skin reaction when she opened herself up to criticism on two fronts. Jill came across as a reporter, not a commentator in the beginning. Doing that in my opinion opened her up to criticism about not digging into more details about this candidate. In addition, she did give an opinion, which is her right to do. But that also opens her up to counter-opinion. She said, "I know. Incredibly naïve. Hopelessly idealistic. Never going to happen, and all that." About a candidate giving statements of 'I believe this. I will do this.' My response is that Romney has been more specific than most other candidates (this event excluded) and that if she dug for it, as a reporter, she would see that. I'm critiquing Jill's effort here, both as a reporter and an opinionator. Sadly "giving details about positions" didn't happen in her backyard, but to say, "never going to happen, and all that" and have people point her to a place ( http://www.mittromney.com ) where it does, just shows her opinion was wrong and deserved to be corrected.
PS. ‘When first choice and second choice votes were combined, Giuliani came out on top.’ I’m sure glad we don’t vote twice at the voting booth. ;-)
You're right. I agree Romney needs to kick it in gear. Although, some of us do enjoy commentating on the Ref especially when it's the Ref that stumbles just as bad as the player :P
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27430
"THE REPUBLICANS: RUDY LENGTHENS HIS LEAD
Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is making all the sure footed moves that set him apart as the front runner. As Hillary falters, Rudy is moving ahead each week. Most polls now have him ahead of McCain by 2:1. Even Time Magazine, which had McCain ahead by 4 points in January now shows Rudy holding a commanding 14 point advantage.
McCain has virtually fallen out of contention and continues to drop like a stone in the national polls. Romney can’t seem to break into double digits and Gingrich remains on the sidelines."
From Gallup: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26815
"PRINCETON, NJ -- One critical measure at this stage of the election campaign is the traditional trial heat that indicates who Democrats and Republicans want to be their party's nominee for president. A second dimension to the election puzzle is the images of the candidates in the eyes of voters, regardless of whether voters say they would want to vote for them at this point. This is particularly interesting and important at this early stage of the campaign because several candidates began the year with relatively low name indentifaction, meaning that they are still in the process of developing images as the campaign year progresses.
A review of image trends among the major candidates shows that two candidates -- Hillary Clinton and Al Gore -- have almost universal name identification. At the other end of the spectrum, only 42% of Americans know enough about Mitt Romney to have an opinion. The rest of the candidates are known well enough to be evaluated by more than three-quarters of the public. Three candidates have very positive images: Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, and John McCain. Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards have more moderately positive ratings. Mitt Romney is just about as likely to be seen unfavorably as favorably by those who know him. Newt Gingrich is the only candidate tested with a significantly unfavorable image...
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has seen some changes over time in the way the public views him. His initially positive image has become slightly less so. Romney moved from a net positive position in December (albeit among the small group who were familiar with him), to a point in early February where his favorables and unfavorables were evenly matched, to the current situation in which his favorables are slightly higher than his unfavorables."
----
I would suggest that he change strategy given the Gallup data and the point of this column.