Chait claims that Romney is driven to deceit:
[T]here’s no reason to believe that Romney is especially dishonest in his core – that he has any special propensity to lie to his friends or neighbors or clients. He wanted a political career, and once he made that decision, he had only two choices: massive dishonesty or certain defeat.
Waldman dismisses Chait's argument:
[I]s there a real meaningful difference between a politician who's a liar, and a politician who tells many lies?
No—or, at least, none that will matter to us as citizens. Experience tells us that a guy who lies as a candidate will not only tend to lie just as much as a president, but will probably lie about the same kinds of things. If he's lying on the campaign trail about whether he has cheated on his wife, it's a good bet he'll end up telling us more lies about future cheating. If he's lying on the campaign trail about what his tax plan contains, it's a good be he'll end up lying to us about his tax plan when he tries to pass it, as George W. Bush did.
Galupo thinks Romney should have switched parties:
If he had adopted the Third Way when he chose not to run for re-election in Massachusetts, Romney could've switched parties. He could've justified this decision by saying the Republican Party had become too extreme, too outside the mainstream. He could've said he was honoring the legacy of his father. The national media would've showered him with praise and positive coverage.