Book: Romney ran out of 'obligation'
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney was a reluctant presidential candidate in 2012 — at least at first.
In a soon-to-be-released book by Dan Balz of The Washington Post, Romney was one of 10 members of his family who voted against making a second White House bid. USA Today received a copy of “Collision 2012: Obama vs. Romney and The Future of Elections in America” in the mail from the publisher.
Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who became his party's unsuccessful 2012 presidential nominee, ultimately decided to challenge President Obama. He said in the book that he believed the rest of the Republican field couldn't beat the Democratic incumbent and lacked the “experience and perspective to lead the country.”
“I knew how grueling the process was, and I felt that there may be others who could be more effective in actually winning and then getting America on course,” Romney said in “Collision 2012,” which will go on sale on Aug. 6. “I got into this out of a sense of obligation to the things I believed in and love for the country but not because it was something I desperately wanted so that I could feel better about myself.”
As the book by Balz describes, Romney and his family were vacationing in Hawaii during the 2010 Christmas holidays when they were tossing around the idea of him running again. A vote among 12 Romney family members was taken: Only Ann Romney, his wife, and Tagg Romney, the eldest son, voted “yes” on another presidential bid. Mitt Romney was among the 10 who voted “no.”
Mitt Romney's reluctance about a race lingered for months after the family vote in Hawaii, Tagg Romney explained.
“Even up until the day before he made the announcement, he was looking for excuses to get out of it,” Tagg Romney is quoted as saying in “Collision 2012.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.