CPAC - Mitt Romney
 |
James Joyner | Friday, March 2, 2007 |
Governor Mitt Romney came by Bloggers Row after his CPAC speech and I got the chance to shake his hand and ask him a few questions.
His pitch, like that of most candidates, is very high level and platitudinous: Cut government spending, change the culture of Washington, increase efficiency, reach across the aisle, and so forth.
I asked him how exactly he planned to do these things. He said that he’d use the threat of the veto to force Congress to work with him. Asked what he would cut, he said he would have a commission look at efficiency cuts and that he’d peg non-defense discretionary spending at one percent below inflation and that doing this would save $300 billion over ten years. I noted that $30 billion a year amounts to a rounding error in the federal budget but he said it would add up.
Ultimately, Romney is quite polished and reasonably charismatic. Like the other major candidates–and unlike the man they’re seeking to succeed–he’s an excellent public speaker.
Thus far, though, he’s not willing to be pinned down on controversial public policy matters. I can’t say that I blame him.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- On Tap linked with Romney Interview
- ยป OTB News
- Fausta's blog
platitudious?
Dr. J.J., I do believe that is the first time I have heard/read that word being used in anyone's commentary/prose. It rarely escapes the dictionary.
Bravo!
Dr. J.J., I do believe that is the first time I have heard/read that word being used in anyone’s commentary/prose. It rarely escapes the dictionary.
Bravo!
Maggie, the reason you have never heard of the word "platitudious" being used in anybody's prose is because it is a neologism of Dr. J.J.'s own design.
Unless, of course, he meant platitudinous. In that case, the word that so impressed you was merely a typographical error.
I wonder if Mitt realizes that Conservatives aren't really looking for a candidate who will reach across the aisle and work with people who are going to, based on the past 6 years, stab him in the back.
He might try telling us a bit on the three major issues: taxes, illegal immigration, and national security.
Republicans appear to be running against their own party's history. It was the Reagan administration that started the Republican party down the road of fiscal irresponisbility, extremist, partisan tactics (Atwater), and corruption asmby out of control spending, policy making by influence peddlers, abuse of political power (Iran Contra), and so on.
Triumph: Yes, just a typo. I actually fixed it earlier this morning before seeing your comment.
William: We don't elect dictators but presidents. There's these things called Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances that the Framers built into our system. Working with Congress is an essential part of leadership.
Laura: Atwater's "extremism," such as it was, was on behalf of George H.W. Bush, not Reagan. I agree that the Gipper allowed spending to get out of control, although at least he did it for a good cause (beating the Soviets). I don't think he invented or exacerbated influence peddling and the like.
True, James, true. I perhaps should have been a bit clearer, in saying that Mitt should talk more about Conservative ideals, and what the base is looking for, more then crossing the aisle to work with democrats. That one is rather far down the list.
Comments are Closed
