True, K-Lo, there is a downside to every well-laid plan. Perhaps the romantic in me just loves WFB’s 1965 mayoral run.
But it’s not totally crazy, and I’ll make the argument for it. First of all, I thought much less of Romney when he chose not to run for reelection. I thought he was chickening out. I doubt I was alone.
Second, you can lose to win, it’s been done. It gets your name out there, and it makes you a better candidate the next time around. Abraham Lincoln was a mere Senate loser when he ran for president. At the lower levels of politics, Rudy Giuliani, Ted Stevens, Chris Dodd, Jeb Bush, Gordon Smith, John Ensign, Norm Coleman, and Reps. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) and Chris Chocola (R-Ind.) all come to mind immediately as candidates who came back and won within two to four years of losing.
One more thing was just passed my way by a reader following the discussion. If Romney had started sooner, maybe he’d have his story straight on abortion by now. I actually think the linked piece is very unfair to him (read the whole thing and you’ll see why). But unfortunately, a candidate with his particular problem has to expect this kind of negative coverage any time there is a minute discrepancy in anything he says.