Posted on 09/26/2014 5:18:09 AM PDT by cotton1706
Today in oh-fer-cryin-out-loud: In an article titled "Romney 2016 is for real," The Washington Examiner’s Byron York looks at the movement to keep Mitt Romney—yes, that Mitt Romney, the oddly robotic candidate who looks like Mr. Fantastic, the wealthy former consultant who casually makes $10,000 bets with his opponents, the policy-specifics averse former Massachusetts governor who inspired so little enthusiasm as he topped the GOP ticket and lost by three points in 2012—in the mix as a potential contender for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2016.
Why, you might wonder, would anyone want Romney to run again? He offered almost nothing to the ticket in 2012 except a bland respectability. Against the weak GOP lineup he was facing, that was enough to win the nomination. But most Republican voters never really loved the guy, and he never really seemed particularly fond of Republican voters or conservative policies (remember, this is the guy who as Massachusetts governor signed into law the model for Obamacare, hoping that the rest of the nation would follow).
His domestic policy agenda, in particular, was intentionally kept vague and largely substance free; he wasn’t running on what he would do so much as what he wouldn’t be—Obama. There was almost no positive case to vote for Romney, and he and his team barely attempted to present one. Another nod for Romney would only serve to further cement the already pervasive notion that the Republican party is an agenda-free-zone when it comes to policy.
Romney was nominated because he seemed more electable than the rest of the field. Relatively speaking, that impression may have been right, but it’s hard to run on electability after having soundly lost a major national election.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
I could give a flip about one's religion just as long as he doesn't try to make it mandatory for the rest of us. He has made statements about some of his beliefs and qualified them as his opinion but the organizations should be the ones to choose w/o government intervention. He also stated that his Romney Care was legal for a State, but it was un-Constitutional to impose such on a Nation. Call me crazy, but I found him preferable to Obama having a second term.
His Mormonism is irrelevant. His socialist zeal makes him effectively indistinguishable from Democrats. He would be a temporary improvement in foreign policy but even that must fade as the resources required to maintain a robust American foreign policy are leached away by Obomneycare and the EPA. Without a healthy economy America cannot defend itself against the other aspiring empires and caliphates in the world. Romney will not permit that healthy economy beyond allowing more drilling for and exportation of energy. That, too will decline in economic effectiveness as EPA and the dysfunctional healthcare and continuing inflation of transfer payments system erode the economic base of America. The Middle Class will not survive Romney/Bush/Christie and the Gopes much longer than it will survive the Democrats.
‘Tis the season for trial balloons and strong hints — to see who can attract the moneymen.
This next presidential campaign will cost the major parties (D & R) around $1 Billion each. That will require a lot of pre-planning by both potential candidates and party leaders.
So far, there are over a dozen Republicans, most retreads from previous presidential cycles, and a half-dozen Democrats who have hinted. They all face the same problem: convincing the moneymen, while maintaining some type of voter appeal.
Hints and trial balloons will continue until the first one actually tosses his/her hat into the ring. [Recall in 2008 Obama’s early announcement pushed Ms Inevitable to rush her campaign announcement.] Then, there will be a great rush of others announcing before the money pool dries up. Some won’t even make to it to the initial primaries in early 2016.
A $billion dollar price tag — if you snooze, you lose the money.
The point is, we rarely have the luxury of the ideal candidate. At this point in the cycle, by all means let's work for one. I like Ted Cruz but I'm skeptical that he can appeal outside the base. There are half a dozen others that I'm willing to get excited about, none of whom have gained much traction in the polls. That, of course, is what the primary process can potentially remedy.
So ... my recommendation all around is that we cut it out with the circular firing squad, and urge our candidates to hammer on the democrats, not each other. And to pick two or three issues of importance, and launch a crusade. May the best man win.
It will, again, be settled long before I vote on it. I hope y'all make a good choice.
Pick a random name out of the phone book - better than Romney.
Also, the government was bailing out these businesses they were purchasing. It looked like he knew in advanced which businesses the government would help with subsidies and tax breaks.
Why would Mitt Romney want Mitt Romney to run for president in 2016? According to his son Tagg, he didn't really want to win in 2012.
I agree and if he does manage to get the nomination I will support him. I don’t need my candidate to be perfect. We can achieve our goals taking small bites at the apple.
Name recognition! The dumb voters in this country rely on that FIRST. The re-election of Lindsey Graham is the perfect example. People in SC didn’t know the other names...trust me..it is THAT simple. I live in SC. Graham is an enemy of conservatism ...but they knew his name. And that is the “lever they pulled”. It is a shame but true. And I think Romney would win because of it. The majority of people who vote are not great thinkers, understanding the nuance of ideological contrasts...duh, I’ve heard of that guy, so he is probably the best choice. (And it makes me sick...thank you “educators” for the fine work you have done teaching the children about our country, it’s ideals and values...so they can make an “educated” decision).
He's already been given the media anal probe, and I'll bet there's millions of disaffected 'Rat voters who regret their 2012 vote for Zero. If Romney could make the case that a vote for Fauxchahantas or the Hildabeast is just 3rd 0bama term, then he'd win in a landslide.
(Of course, this is all hypothetical. Our side needs to STOP with the circular firing squad and get behind a real conservative EARLY to prevent having to choose yet another RINO).
I voted for him
-— Name recognition! -—
Sadly, I have to agree.
But we do have a slim chance against him.
First, the big donor money will be split two or three ways with Christie and Bush. That hasn’t happened in ages.
The other factor would be Mark, Rush, Sean and Glenn lining up behind Cruz early, like NOW. Then the Tea Party could consolidate behind him.
Pray for a miracle.
Because its his turn. /s
So, having no intention of securing the southern border and having every intention of granting amnesty to millions of these illegal Mexicans (a huge voting bloc), the GOPEs know they must continue to promote larger and larger government and offer more and more welfare benefits rather than uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Continuing to elect RINOs/GOPEs only slows this process down a little whereas the Democrat-Socialists want to accelerate it. It calls to mind the frog in the heated water scenario. So it seems to me if we don't stand in the way of speeding up the process by continuing to elect RINOs, then maybe -- just maybe -- the voters in this country might start to notice.
Because the GOPe would rather lose to a democRat than have a conservative win.
Yeah, I agree. He’s a good descent man who will surround himself with good people. Plus, who’s better? Another Senator? Maybe Perry or one of the other Governors out there, but Mitt still has my vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.