Governor Romney's response to Robert Bluey's question on blogs and new media:

I think that the opinion leaders in the country, particularly those in primaries, are people who are very involved on the Internet and are watching the blogs and seeing what’s being said. They’re getting ahead of the news cycle by oftentimes weeks. And that kind of lead and that kind of awareness is very powerful in a primary setting, where the voters tend to be well informed and very involved in party politics.

Particularly in a primary kind of setting, you want to be very closely connected to the online world, to the blog world and make sure your perspectives are being understood, and that the misperceptions, which inevitably creep up, are being nipped in the bud. That’s something which, by virtue of the fact that I do not yet have an exploratory committee—that decision to file for that has not yet been reached—so I’ve sort of had to sit here and watch a lot going on without being able to respond and clean up some of the misperceptions that were out there. That’s something Stephen Smith is going to be able to do for us. I’m looking forward to that.

The transcript of my interview with Governor Romney yesterday is here. I asked him about the ISG Report, his trip to China, and about Iran's quest for nukes and the possible necessity of military force to stop that quest, the sort of question every presidential candidate should be getting:

HH: And the question I hope gets asked of every presidential candidate is:  If George Bush comes before the people of the United States in the next two years and says "Absent military action, Iran is going to go critical and acquire nukes, and therefore, I'm going to take that action," If he made that statement, would you support him in that, Governor Romney?

MR: Well, you know, the challenge with threatening a military strike is that that becomes a headline in and of itself. I think America has to maintain the option of military action, any time its interests are threatened. And certainly, having a nuclear weapon in Iran would threaten not only our interests, but the interests of our friends, and would threaten the entire world. It's a setting which would justify military action. The only time one could ever consider such an action is if every other reasonable option had been exercised to keep from having to use that option, and we're a long way from there at this point. You point out, one of the key ways of influencing and putting pressure Iran, and that is through China. China really is the key, both to the nuclear armament of North Korea, as well as to Iran. They're a huge trading partner with both. And China, of course, wants the oil very badly to keep their economy going, and therefore, they don't want to irritate the Iranians. But we're going to have to build our own type of pressure, to make sure that we get from them the kind of support that we need from someone who we want to become more of a friend in the world, and that is by them putting in place very tough restrictions, and supporting our tough acts against the Iranians, our sanctions against the Iranians, as they develop nuclear weaponry.

HH: Now I'm sure you agree with me George Bush is not going to act recklessly towards Iran. But do you think if he does have to act, whatever it is, diplomatically, or beyond diplomatically, that the country will rally to him?

MR: You know, the answer is the country can, and the country should. America is always willing to respond to the truth being told to them in a way that is clear and definitive. There's no question, however, that we have lost credibility, meaning our nation's leaders have lost credibility in the lack of clarity in the management of the war in Iraq. Following the collapse of Saddam Hussein, we didn't have enough troops, we didn't have sufficient planning in place, obviously, we were derelict in the oversight of the Abu Ghraib prison. There are features that have lessened the citizenry's respect and confidence in our leadership, and that's difficult. We're going to have to overcome that, because that's critical as we face the kind of threats America now encounters.

Mitt Romney is a  go everywhere, answer every question candidate, which is in sharp contrast to Senator McCain who has thus far stayed far away from new media, with the exception of a single appearance on Laura Ingraham's program.  Mayor Giuliani is somewhere between the two, and moving towards much greater engagement with the new media in the new year.

Romney is setting the standard and this is a crucial precedent for him to set: The GOP must have a standard bearer willing and ready to use the new media environment to push not just his candidacy but the ideas that bind the party together.

UPDATE:  Correction: Senator McCain does appear frequently on Bill Bennett's program.  Unfortunately I don't often get to hear Bill as he is on from 3 to 6 AM in my part of the world.  That said, I hope Bill gets specific with Senator McCain about Iran and the use of force before the mullahs go critical.