Romney Tells Donors He Is Considering 2016 White House Bid

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 1/09/2015 | Patrick O’Connor And

[presidio9]

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney , the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, told a meeting of donors Friday that he is considering another White House bid in 2016, people present said.

The possibility of a third Romney bid could upend the emerging GOP field, coming as top Republican donors are starting to rally behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Mr. Romney made the remarks during a session Friday afternoon -SNIP-

[presidio9]

Again, why shouldn’t she. She does it, continues doing it and is still here.

I'm a fan of each of you, but it's starting to sound a little bit like neither of you would know what to do with yourself if she wasn't here.

[Norm Lenhart]

Its simple. In all these years and me and others asking, not a single instance of Mitt Romney displaying more actual conservatism has EVER been shown. We asked. We looked.

But I CAN sho you where on one major issue, Barry Obama is UNQUESTIONABLY more conservative and proved it.

Gay marriage. As a senator, he opposed it. As a Gov, Mit legalized it.

The most conservative candidate no matter what lesser evil, in fact, WON in 2008.

[Windflier]

* APPLAUSE! *

[Norm Lenhart]

I would. Discuss conservatism with conservatives. Like we used to do before that fraud and her fellows took it upon themselves to turn these threads into Romney admiration societies.

And I think Dark would agree.

[ansel12]

First, I have never attacked Ronald Reagan.

What doesn't make sense is you repeating about Reagan signing a 1967 bill and thinking that we didn't know about it when we were voting for him twice for president, and you saying that it would give you second thoughts today, as though you only recently learned of it. Haven't you known about that bill since 1967?

As far as whether you have been attacking Reagan on this thread, what do you make of post 190?

Oh, and quit repeatedly dragging in other threads, and making the bizarre personal insults.

[presidio9]

I would. Discuss conservatism with conservatives. Like we used to do before that fraud and her fellows took it upon themselves to turn these threads into Romney admiration societies.

And I think Dark would agree.

One of the nice things about this site is you don't get a lot of total wingnuts just trolling for a fight.

But it's also nice to have a foil occasionally, to help clarify your own thinking. Personally, I don't mind having a few Romneybots and the like around here. I learn a few things hearing others make the case against their stupidity.

[Windflier]

but legions still die when they shouldn’t.

Recall Admiral Yamamoto's warning about invading America. The Japanese government of 1941 isn't the only government that should heed that wisdom.

[Norm Lenhart]

Since 2011 I think our thinking about Romney is as clear as possible. And if you don’t see a GOP Troll invasion, I don’t think you are looking hard. At all really since it’s hard to miss. Nor is the PDS. Nor is the Bhoner/Turtle posse.

All that is time spent NOT getting ourselves on one page. All of it.

[Darksheare]

I’m at work, bored out of my head, already tired of the Romneybots, and wishing we had a serious candidate I could back without becoming a high level D&D undead fiend.
*sigh*

Also wishing we had a good thread to move the Undead Thread to.
There have not been good candidates lately.
Unless the killer mannequin thread is available for donation?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3245340/posts

I’ll have to ask.

[Norm Lenhart]

To clarify, Yes. We win. No question. I totally agree. And that victory gets many killed that should not be and ONLY after the Progoms begin and a crapload of us get cattle car rides.

We both know it can and probably will. We have Bosnia to go by. And we both know our history pretty well.

[OneWingedShark]

Nor is the Bhoner/Turtle posse.

I've seen one of those rare Bhoner Turtles:

[Publius]

Looks more like a snapper to me.

[OneWingedShark]

Sign of a real GOP e-troll.

Fixed.

[Norm Lenhart]

Thats a real GOP Turtle alright. It looks like a Penis.

[Windflier]

When I spoke of "ideological purity" I was not using it in the sense that the GOP establishment an talking heads use it. I was speaking strictly in terms of litmus tests that effect the logjam of otherwise presentable candidates from the conservative wing of the party.

Just stop. Heed Jim Rob's advice and disentangle yourself from this.

You're continuing to insult my intelligence with your three card Monty pretzel logic, but it's not working. You used a loaded term at the outset of this conversation that has only ONE meaning in the context of this community.

It was a sideswipe at we patriotic conservatives who clearly saw Romney for what he is, and refused to knuckle under to the pressure to support him in the primary AND the general election.

You've made some smart points, but it's all been done over your initial transgression, which you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. Now you're actually trying to make me believe I didn't see what I saw.

Forget it.

I still think you're trying to sow seeds of capitulation ahead of the 2016 primary.

[OneWingedShark]

Looks more like a snapper to me.

He does snap… at Constitutionalists.

[OneWingedShark]

When Reagan ran in 1980, he was the conservative alternative to George Bush, John Anderson, Bob Dole and Howard Baker. That's not what we have today. The pack is on the right. The outlier is in the middle.

I see you read The Tao of Republican Orthodoxy… you are aware that that was a parody, yes?

[Windflier]

With Romney’s 20 year history of losing elections, broken by a single under 50% victory that resulted in no chance for reelection, he is not the political giant that some of his people think he is.

He's actually a little man when you think about the way he flat out lied to the Republican voter base. And his flip-flopping is legendary. No man with an ounce of integrity functions like that.

I agree with your analysis, though. The guy's got a terrible record as a candidate, and there's going to be some other RINO heavies running this time out. Hopefully, this next little foray will finally knock him out of politics forever.

[Windflier]

And they got caught trolling.

Heh....I saw that. I love the smell of ozone burning in the night ;-)

[presidio9]

Here's what I took from post 190, Ansell. It was JimRob's polite way of calling you a tar baby. It was good advice, but I really am trying to help. I have known Jim on this website for fifteen years. If he thought that I was attacking Ronald Reagan, I can assure you that he would not be so cryptic.

You seem to be struggling with the concept of the different political circumstances that Reagan would face today. I will expand, and perhaps it will help you to understand:

You do realize that Ronald Reagan is no long with us, right? And you also realize that even if he were still alive (but presumably not 103 years old), the 22nd Amendment would disqualify him from running, right?

It should therefore be common sense that we are dealing with a hypothetical candidate with the same track record as Reagan had when he ran in 1980. Not the man himself.

In 2016 it would be very difficult for an otherwise conservative candidate to win the Republican nomination for president if he had previously signed an abortion bill into law as a state governor. This is not a conclusion that should have an argument.

That is not to say that a similar candidate could not run to the right and win the nomination anyway, as we have seen with Mitt Romney. But Romney is a very different politician. And Reagan was a very different type of man.

Now, you can keep this up if you like, but as far as I'm concerned, you are embarrassing yourself. You stalked me onto this thread, and you are making yourself look bad without my help.

It is not rational behavior, and that is why I worry about you.