Isn't this just like John Edwards ducking out of his Senate seat to run for president?

sam: huh? Perhaps you should re-read the story...

Yes, and that was a gutless move, too.

Both John Edwards and Mitt Romney decided thay could not be re-elected to their respective seats, both decide to try their luck at the presidency. What ma I missing?

Romney should seek reelection as governor to burnish his rep and prove '02 wasn't a fluke.

Yes, both decisions are craven from men who wish to lead their parties.

sam: Edwards spent the last year and a half of his term running for President, rather than doing the job for which he was elected. Romney is not going to run for re-election in '06, presumably so he can run for President full time. See the difference?

Massachusetts, springboard to oblivion.

b: No, I don't see the difference. I see both ducking political fights they had a good chance of losing.

You can consider it a profile in courage, but I'll call it as I see it: running away from a fight because you did not believe you could win.

I think Bob found Mass. new state slogan.

sam: Fine. We obviously aren't speaking the same language. I agree that Romney almost certainly feels that a loss in '06 would torpedo whatever chance he has at the '08 nod. That has nothing to do with what was reprehensible about Edwards' actions--i.e. while he was off running for President, he was being paid to serve his state (as was his eventual running mate, of course), and he wasn't doing his job.

Romney would be re-elected in 2006. It's not fear that's driving this, it's time. If he runs for re-election, he can't easily start his presidential campaign until after November 2006 -- and then he can only campaign part-time -- and that's too little too late. By quitting, he can campaign part-time through 2006 and full-time in 2007. It gives him a shot at a serious showing and maybe a VP nod.

As for Romney helping the Massachusetts GOP, he proved he can't do it when he failed to increase GOP representation in the state legislature (from abysmal levels).

This is a perfect example of the difference between governors and senators. Governors have a real job to do, senators don't. They can flit around and like Kerry miss almost every vote and if they're from a safe state, i.e., Mass., they'll be elected over and over until they're practically comatose like the other senator from Mass.

"he was being paid to serve his state (as was his eventual running mate, of course), and he wasn't doing his job."

And that's a bad thing where Senate Dems are concerned?

I don't know about this move by Romney. McCain's much more popular across the board so I doubt he'd get the nod unless something dramatic happens.

Pols from MA do well in NH and he could run hard Right to make himself the conservative alternative.

If we can count on the media's malignant curiosity to hold when it comes to Republicans, I can't wait to see how Mittsy reacts to his evisceration.

I'm not brainwashed!

No, really!

And then they can turn to his campaign to bring Republicans to Mass. government office. Zero results. And his successful stand against same-sex marriage.

I'll give him this; he's attractive, in a managerial sort of way. Should play well with some women.

"McCain's much more popular across the board"

Only with leftists like OJ and the Washington Press Corps.

I would vote for Romney before MCCain, I would vote for a talking duck before McCain.