Posted on 01/14/2015 5:18:18 AM PST by Kaslin
In 2007, when President Obama announced that he was running for president, he did it in Springfield, Ill., to highlight his supposed connection to Abraham Lincoln. He brought in his biggest fans to cheer him on. When George W. Bush announced in 1999, he did it in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The Bush campaign, likewise, brought in a big crowd of supporters. John Kerry announced in Patriot's Point, S.C., in 2003, amid a sea of American flags, war veterans and an aircraft carrier in the background. And where was Mitt Romney when he announced on Friday that he was thinking of another run in 2016? He, too, was talking to his base: about 30 deep-pocketed donors in New York City. "Tell your friends," he said.
You know how superhero flicks often have an extra scene after the credits to hint at what the sequel will be like? Well, this would be the perfect end to the movie "Romney 2012."
The problem is that "Romney for president" is now an art house film thinking it's a blockbuster franchise and that there's a huge market for another sequel. There's not.
Don't get me wrong. I wanted him to win in 2012, and I think voters made a serious mistake not following my advice. I've met the man, and I know several of his friends and former staffers. He inspires great loyalty in them, and that speaks well of him. He's an honorable, capable and decent person.
But I know lots of honorable, capable and decent people. I don't want them to run for president either.
Romney's support outside his personal network of donors is largely made up of people who lament that he lost the last time around. That -- and name recognition -- is probably the biggest explanation for why he polls so well. The last poll to include him among the GOP contenders (Fox News, Dec. 16), had him leading the field at 19 percent, with Jeb Bush second at 10 percent.
But the only poll you need to know about was the exit poll of voters in 2012, which asked, "Which one of these four candidate qualities mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?"
Romney won three out of four. On "shares my values," Romney won 55 to 42. He won on "is a strong leader" 61 to 38. He took "has a vision for the future" 54 to 45.
But in the category "cares about people like me," Romney lost by a staggering 63 points (81 to 18).
That may be a totally unfair impression of the man, but it is a sincere one. This was not a verdict on his policy positions, which were fairly conventional.
As I've been saying for years, Romney has an authentic inauthenticity problem; he seems fake, but that's actually him. Not only does he look like the picture that came with the frame, he talks like a 1920s college president. Maybe it speaks ill of America that voters put so much stock in empathy and authenticity, but they do.
It's no secret that Romney took the loss hard. But there would be a great irony in thinking that the 59 million votes he garnered in 2012 indicate a base for him to build off of in 2016. Most of those voters voted at least as much against Obama as they did for Romney. And that's exactly how the Romney campaign wanted it. "Our whole campaign is premised on the idea that this is a referendum on Obama," Romney strategist Stuart Stevens admitted to the New York Times. Well, Romney nostalgia, too, is largely a referendum on Obama.
But Obama won't be on the ticket in 2016. And the idea that a one-term Massachusetts governor, who hired Jonathan Gruber to help design his health-care plan, is just what the Republicans need to run against Hillary Clinton is odd, particularly when the GOP has a much more talented, and fresher, field than it did in 2012.
There's chatter that Romney is just trying to keep Bush from locking up all the big donors and preventing a Bush coronation. If so, I'm sympathetic. But the sympathy ends the day Romney announces. Then, he's just another contender.
Actually, McBuff, you and I (I'm right there with you) have gone SANE. It's poor ol' Kaslin who still, as you and I used to, subscribes to Einstein's definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
NOTE: Excuse the BAD typo in my post 21!! I've asked the mods to delete it!!
“But in the category “cares about people like me,” Romney lost by a staggering 63 points (81 to 18).”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I don’t want him to run again either but the idea that more than four out of five voters think Romney cares less about people than Obama does seems to say far more about the stupidity of the voters than about Romney. I don’t want him in the white house but as I have said in the past about George W. Bush, I would rather have Mitt holding a knife to my throat than have Obama invite me to dinner. I mean really, who do people think would be more likely to go out of his way to help someone Romney or Obama? I personally think anyone who says Obama is living in a fog. Obama does a fine job of talking about all the great things he will do for you but I doubt that he would spend fifteen minutes of his own time to save the life of a stranger if he didn’t expect to get some political benefit from the action.
Wow. Such is the logic of those willing to vote for Romney.
Did you even read it? I said that I DON’T want Romney for president but I still say anyone who trusts Obama more than he does Romney is a blithering idiot.
Why should we trust either of them? Both of them are bald-faced liars
I understand what you’re saying, and respect it, but so long as we reward the GOP moderates with our votes, they’ll have no incentive to nominate a conservative.
I just can’t do it any more. They’ll have to get by without me. I’ll donate to the men I believe in, and vote for the ones I can trust, but I won’t blindly cast a vote for anyone just because they carry the magic (R) after theIr name.
Whatever it takes to get the Party bosses to wake up. I don’t know what else we can do.
The question is which one would you choose if you had no OTHER choice! If you had to put your life in the hands of one or the other which would it be. Maybe I’m crazy but I cannot see any way to choose Obama.
The answer is still neither of those leftists.
Well, in 2012 you were going to get one or the other whether you voted, stayed home and pitched a screaming fit or whatever. None of the above was not a choice.
Ah! I stand corrected. Thank you for setting me straight with regard to your sentiments. My apologies, and glad to see that we are on the same page! God bless you and yours!
That said ... yes I do read, and I think anyone who trusts Romney more than they trust Obama is a blithering, if well-meaning, DUPE. :^)
Romney is the herpes of the Republican Party.
You think he’s gone, but then he reappears and never seems to go away.
Interference in foreign countries
The ongoing, senseless war on drugs
The wasteful war on terror that only serves as a feel-good measure
Government interference in and control of the markets
Stopping fuel exploration in this country
Control of healthcare
Regulating arms
Then you'll have to win without me.
Sounds like your quarrel isn't just with Romney.
Opposition to 1-3 (maybe 1-4) represent a libertarian point of view that any Republican nominee would be unlikely to satisfy.
I don't disagree with Jonah's criticisms, but that's anything but a fair comparison.
Maybe every presidential candidate first floats the idea in private to the money guys so as not to be left high and dry by contributors, but that's not the official announcement of a candidacy.
Last time Romney officially announced on a tractor on a New Hampshire farm. The time before that it was at the Henry Ford Museum in Michigan. If he announces again it won't be at a closed meeting of donors.
I’ve never made any secret of that.
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.