Don’t Run, Mitt. Don’t Run

Mitt Romney, you're an honorable and accomplished man. You would have been a good president and infinitely better than Obama as a steward of the economy and national security. But, Mitt, we need to talk. You don't get it.

You don't really get the basic proposition that freedom works better than government by experts. Sure you believe the concept generally, but there are all those details and exceptions.

You hired Jonathan Gruber to guide your health plan. You believe global schemes to reduce carbon will help the climate rather than enrich and empower global elites. You endorsed raising the minimum wage because "Republicans believe in good paying jobs."

Mitt, you of all people should know markets--supply and demand--create good paying jobs. Legislation does not create value, it only creates price controls on inputs. You'll either lock out some potential employers, block some potential jobs, or lock out bottom rung job applicants. (All the same thing, really)

Mitt, you have brains, expertise, and you love America. But your ability to describe the benefits of a free economy, is, well, anti-Reaganesque. The thing is, the miracle of free enterprise is not mainly about the entrepreneurs who build products and fortunes, though that is a driving force. It's about the freedom and quality of life that results for everybody else in a society where producers, designers, investors, and risk takers can dream and try to fill needs. It makes more opportunity for all of us. More startups. More jobs. More growth. More consumer choice and comfort.

That helps everyone, especially the 47% you seemed so dismissive of, and were unfairly maligned for disdaining. You didn't disdain them--you just didn't show a Reagan-like faith in them. Or even a Gingrich-like faith. Reagan was decried for arguing economic freedom could help lift the poor. He was proved right. Gingrich was savaged for arguing welfare reforms that tightened requirements and timelines could help the poor. He was proved right.

But, critically, each man knew how to make his case to Main Street and to working America, and how to go over the heads of the Liberal Guard Dog Media to explainpolicies rooted in freedom work out better for everyone, especially the strivers that liberals say they want to help.

Mitt, you don't have that gift. You're extraordinary talking about what you know--capitalistic dynamism, profit, efficiency, management, accountability, and oversight. Unfortunately, you are infelicitous and clunky at translating those virtues into an appealing political vision to attract anyone but your pre-existing supporters.

And, when it comes to discussing areas outside your core competency of high level capitalism... Wait. Even at this, I might be giving you too much credit and benefit of the doubt. You supported and defended the financial bailouts, didn't you? So, whatever your vision and expressed support for free enterprise, you still don’t quite trust free exchange. You believe in a massive government safety net for too-big-to-fail banks and investment houses. You say it’s to protect us from the supposedly nuclear consequences if they fail. Little guys have to pay to keep big guys in business, or else the little guys will get hurt? Come on, Mitt.

To be fair, you did criticize the auto bailouts, which really were UAW union bailouts. That took courage, and you paid a price against the First Demagogue and his media Dog Pack defenders. But even then, you were weak and inadequate at answering their false charges against you.

You were poor at explaining how an evolving economy works. How, if Chrysler and GM nameplates came off the door, well, Americans would still want cars; producers would still want to supply them. Corporate and bankruptcy law would provide a strong and efficient reallocation of the assets and property, and American carmakers would be right back at work, serving American car buyers more efficiently than the failed manufacturers.

And, Mitt, this is the kind of thing you should have down cold in your sleep. This is business. You know business and finance and restructuring.

It gets worse in the things you don't know as much about, like health care finance and global climate. Then, your smart, credentialed, and trusting nature leaves you prey to the Grubers and the Michael Manns of the world. Not because you're a grasping progressive who lusts for control, but because you are a worldly, accomplished man who believes smart people can solve alleged problems. You become the front man for forces who are not your friend, or friends of liberty.

Mitt, America’s mood and moment calls for a better candidate than someone who would be an excellent, positive manager of the Executive Branch. You would be a strong president, but you’re a bad standard bearer. This moment calls for a vision of liberty, a grasp of how restoring constitutional principles can restore liberty, and a gift for explaining these things to average voters who didn’t learn jack diddly about any of that in public schools.

We desperately need a messenger who can talk persuasively to the boardroom and to the apartment house. One out of two ain’t good enough. Mitt, I wish you had won in 2012. I wish you would run far, far away in 2016.

Ansel12, I would encourage everyone, especially the moderators to review your posting history. In addition to frequent inflammatory comments it has been very typical for you to mischaracterize other people’s comments by quoting them out of context.

One needs to go no further than this thread to see an example of that. In my initial post I stated quite clearly about Mitt Romney, “his recent statements make him look like either a gullible idiot or someone who panders to the liberal agenda.” I also said that I did not feel that he was a decisive leader and was not what the country needed. Yet you continue to quote me completely out of context and characterize my initial post as some sort defense of Mr. Romney. With your false characterization you have even managed to convince several others that I am some sort of Romney supporter.

I have told you that I come into contact with politicians on a regular basis during efforts to gain support and raise money for the USO and other charities that help veterans. Even my thirteen year old grandson easily understands that when speaking with people on the other end of the political spectrum that it is much more productive in these efforts to approach them in a way that indicates that we have some common ground and that I am not on the attack.

I made it quite clear in my initial post that I did not want Mitt Romney to run for president again and why. I also made it very clear that I am not a supporter. There is however a slight chance that there may be people who will read the post who are supporters. They are the ones I feel actually need to be reached. I wished for them to read beyond the first sentence so I started with a statement that didn’t really say anything but was somewhat conciliatory in tone so that they might sense that I am not their enemy and would make an effort to understand the reasons that I do not support Romney.

By mischaracterizing my post, you have actually managed to convince several others here that I am currently some sort of Romney supporter. That is certainly not true and I believe that you are intelligent enough to understand that your efforts in this thread have been very disingenuous and misleading.

Actually the mods should look at your posting history and try to figure out why this simple and accurate post on Mitt Romney. Which disagreed with your claim of “”I think that there is a lot of evidence that he is a good person,””

Got such a long and nasty attack from you in response, post 32, and then these continued nasty little follow ups.

To: fireman15
Actually, the evidence is that Romney is a foul and despicable person when you look at his almost 70 years of life.
A man of low character and low morals, and a pathological liar.
14 posted on 1/26/2015, 12:41:34 PM by ansel12

You seem willing to attack, and insult, but not defend your disagreeing with post 14.

“Mitt Romney, you’re an honorable and accomplished man. You would have been a good president and infinitely better than Obama as a steward of the economy and national security. But, Mitt, we need to talk. You don’t get it.”

Those are not my words... they are the first three sentences of the article that we have been discussing. Which is roughly what I mimicked in my initial post only not as strongly. You have been trying to force me into defending Mr. Romney from your first post which I have not done because I AM NOT A ROMNEY SUPPORTER.

Your only goal here appears to be to torment me by mischaracterizing virtually everything that I have said and making false accusations... and we are on the same side! I am starting to think that there really is something wrong with you! This is some sort of surreal discussion! As a person who assessed persons with mental and physical emergencies for nearly 25 years... I TRULY am concerned this evening about your mental and physical well being. I am comforted only by your history of similar posts to others.

Now read what I posted in post 14.

There it is, finished, but instead it set you off and you responded with that nasty personal attack in post 32, and you have kept it up ever since.

If you aren’t just trolling, then either start talking about Mitt Romney or drop the personal attacks and quit pestering me.

Kid that was 2008 and 2012...

Here we are in 2016

Since your boy Willard is running again, I’m going to exercise my 1st amendment right to my free speech about him..

and I don’t know why you are taking personal the comments about what the author of the article has to say about Willard

unless you happen to be the author..

I don’t hate Willard..I don’t just happen to love him is all...

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.