Mitt, we hardly knew ye. Governor Romney, now out of the race for the presidency, delivered his concession speech last Tuesday in front of the Conservative Political Action Committee. If only he had done so with a little more tact.

Speaking in front of the CPAC, his tone is clearly going to lean to the more conservative side of things. There is a line, however, between giving your audience what it wants and woefully disparaging your opponents.

Romney’s speech was not long, but in that time, he managed to praise Reagan, call for more God in politics, call for less God in politics, say that liberals have a “celebration of [pornography],” insinuate that Senators Clinton and Obama are cowards, and suggest that either a long campaign or a Democrat in office is surrendering to terrorists. It is quite an accomplishment to be so boastful, vitriolic and wrong in such a short amount of time.

Much of the speech is filled with what you would expect: talk of taxes, government spending and largesse, welfare reform and so on. By reminding the audience of his conservative views, he is surely building an image for a presidential run in 2012. I happen to disagree with most of these views, but that does not make them invalid.

Unfortunately, he goes far beyond conservative issues in his speech.

Particularly insulting is his claim that practicing the voting rights our democracy provides is tantamount to surrender.

He says, perhaps correctly, that continuing his primary campaign “would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win.”

That is all well and good, but he goes on to say that he “simply cannot let [his] campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.” Conceding now to McCain to aid his national campaign is a laudable choice, but to compare a lengthy primary battle or a Democrat president as a surrender to terror?

Exercising our democratic rights are the very actions which strengthen our country. A lengthy primary season has political ramifications, but it does not harm our country. Does the same hold true of Democratic primaries? If that contest lasts all the way until the August convention, is our nation worse off than before? Certainly not.

Likewise, a Democrat in the White House, while perhaps unpalatable to those CPAC attendees, is not a surrender to terror. This sort of degrading speech, on the other hand, does harm our country. It builds walls and helps to keep the political atmosphere strongly polarized.

Such talk is also surprising coming from the former governor of Massachusetts. As a Republican governor in a liberal state, he had to reach to the other side and compromise. In doing so this state saw good legislation pass into law during his tenure.

In the end, Romney’s campaign strategy of leaning further and further to the right (versus his far more moderate governorship) did not win him the support he needed from the many moderates in his party nor from the important independent voters.

Senator McCain’s campaign strategy had him remain far more moderate and it has paid off. He is also unwilling to backpedal on some of the choices he made as a senator.

Merely mentioning the word “immigration” to the CPAC crowd brought boos, but he was unapologetic. There are some lessons here for Romney, and he has four years to study them.

America is looking for a more positive message this year. One that is far more positive than the picture Romney has painted. It is no secret that Democrats dislike, to put it lightly, the Bush administration and, to a far lesser degree, the Republican candidates.

But while they may strongly dislike conservative plans and policies, neither Clinton nor Obama has come close to calling a new Republican presidency a surrender to terror or any other such nonsense.

There is a marked difference between “bad for America” and “destroying America.” This election has, and continues to be, exciting and a big reason for this is the positive outlook put forth by the left. Be it change, looking forward, or a better tomorrow, the outlook towards the future is good.

Meanwhile, security remains a strong theme from the right. With two protracted wars still underway, it is difficult to be positive about this. Playing the fear card worked well for Bush, but times are, fortunately, changing.

Romney’s vitriol is gone now, for a few years at least, so here’s hoping that McCain is wise enough to confront the Democrat’s positive message of change with an equally positive view. The nation will be better off for it.

John Gruenenfelder is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].