Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Column: Republicans insane to think Romney should run again
The Salem News ^ | September 2, 2014 | Jeff Crouere

Posted on 09/03/2014 1:53:57 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

— Albert Einstein

Unbelievably, the drumbeat has begun for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to run for president a third time. The man who lost twice for president is now being encouraged by many party leaders to give it another try.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, recently told MSNBC, “I think he’s proven right on a lot of stuff. I happen to be in the camp that thinks he’s actually going to run, and I think he will be the next president of the United States.”

Chaffetz is not alone; commentator Ann Coulter, Internet titan Matt Drudge and many others are on board the Romney 2016 bandwagon. In addition, Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Romney’s running mate in 2012, told reporters last week that he would “love to see Mitt Romney run for president again.”

Romney is the darling of the establishment wing of the party. He is a moderate from the Northeast who is not known for strong positions on social issues. For example, he has changed his stance on gay marriage and abortion multiple times.

While he is for a secure border and opposed to amnesty, he is the worst possible candidate to address the dangers of socialized medicine. As governor, Romney championed a Massachusetts version of government-operated healthcare. President Barack Obama used Romney’s plan as a model for the disastrous Affordable Care Act that was foisted on the American people.

Even with all of his baggage, Romney was positioned to defeat Obama in the last election. He won the first debate and needed strong performances in the final two outings to seal the deal with the American people.

Instead, he listened to his advisers and played it safe. The result is that Romney missed many opportunities to blast the president on the Benghazi terrorist attack and wound up agreeing with Obama on a number of issues.

In the last election, his comments on the “47 percent” of Americans on government assistance and his remarks about “binders full of women” were manipulated by the media and misinterpreted by voters.

His successful background as a Bain Capital executive was easy fodder for Democrats to attack him as a rich, heartless businessman. Sadly, his leadership position in the Mormon Church was an issue for some evangelical Christian voters who were not comfortable supporting a candidate who did not share their religious faith.

For reasons both fair and unfair, Romney was not a particularly good presidential candidate in two nationwide elections. Despite this track record, insiders in the Republican Party are obviously in love with the idea of another Romney campaign. According to Ryan, he should run because “the third time’s the charm.”

Fortunately, Romney has not taken the bait so far. He has been adamant that he is not running again. Hopefully, he will continue to hold off these misguided requests and spend his time supporting good GOP candidates across the country.

Romney can certainly play a role as a fundraiser. He should be a respected elder statesman but not subject the Republican Party or the country to another presidential campaign.

The bottom line is that Romney cannot win. He does not unite the wings of the Republican Party and is not an effective candidate to reach independent voters.

Like moderate presidential candidates Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain, Mitt Romney was unable to win, even after two attempts.

Now, it is time for the Republican Party to start a new chapter and nominate a reliable conservative who can articulate a positive message to the American people. This type of candidate can win in 2016. Clearly, Romney cannot.


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues; Parties; State and Local
KEYWORDS: 2016; coulter; gop; romney; uniparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-135 next last
To: EandH Dad

Do you live in a swing state? Do you know how the electoral college works? If no to the first and yes to the second, then why compromise.

I didn’t stay home, I voted against both and for a conservative. Not looking for a perfect candidate but would not be a hypocrite for voting for Romney.

And candidates with “R”s after their name can be just as bad (Romney was proof of that). I stand by my principles and yes I voted. I also left the GOP over Romney.

*Dons flame suit*


61 posted on 09/03/2014 2:58:42 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian. "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: EandH Dad
In November 2016 I will vote for the candidate without a D after their name. I may go home and take a long hot shower while trying to get to the bottom of bottle of Tennessee whisky but I WILL vote and I will vote to beat the Dems. If I can’t vote for someone I will vote against someone else but I will not stay home and pout like a baby because my perfect candidate didn’t make the finals.

BRAVO!

62 posted on 09/03/2014 2:59:16 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut

Good for you. I applaud you.


63 posted on 09/03/2014 3:03:46 PM PDT by fulltlt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

“My only wish is the GOPe hacks would stop their incessant meddling, stop trying to control the process, pick winners and losers, and let the candidate best able to represent the rank & file win the nomination.”

If they do it again, it will likely destroy the GOP. We can only hope that something worthwhile will arise from the ashes.


64 posted on 09/03/2014 3:07:28 PM PDT by FreeInWV (Have you had enough change yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I suppose I should clarify that I’d vote for Paul Ryan if the Dems run a woman like, say, Al Franken.


65 posted on 09/03/2014 3:09:23 PM PDT by MeganC (It took Democrats four hours to deport Elian Gonzalez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I did say that Romney does not present well in a campaign. I am not entirely sure why, but I believe it's because he is not a very good politician.

But losing elections was exactly what I was referring to with the Nixon comparison.

Nixon was not a very good politician either, in terms of relating to the voter in a national election. His wins in Congress aside, I also mentioned that his stint as VP where he was second fiddle on a ticket, led him to his win as president. I do not believe to this day, that he could have won the office in any other way.

So yes, he (Romney) does remind me of Nixon in so far as their election personalities and as far as their politics, they are also similar. Both are/were moderate to liberal Republicans. Nixon appealed to and took advantage of his popularity among the “hawks”. Just as Romney appealed to the neo- conservative movement. (new version of the hawks IMO)

I also voted for Nixon in his second term. First national vote I cast. I did it because I wanted continuity during the Vietnam war. Not because I am a liberal republican.

I can compare that support of Nixon, with the abuse I received here for supporting Romney. In Romney's case I was reading the tea leaves and viewed the electorate as being far too disengaged and anti-conservative. Totally back pocket voters and largely led by liberal views and women's issues. Totally unrealistic, as I saw it, and I believed Romney could negotiate through that, but he was tarred and feathered by both conservatives and liberals alike.

Today's tea leaves are not much different, except that there may be a anti-Obama factor. But that factor should have been evident in his re-election and it was not.(although everyone on out side expected it to be relevant)

Taking all that into consideration for this election, I think it's more important to run a conservative with great leadership ability and potentially lose, then it would be to run a moderate, thinking that a moderate would be more palatable to a more liberal, self interested, ignorant voter base and lose the Conservatives and the election again.

So in short, I am at the end of my rope..There is no more slack in it and it's pulled tight. I have already written off the United States of America as it was handed to me by my predecessors. I believe it is lost. I am not going to moderate that position in the face of total destruction if it comes to that and this next presidential election is going to be the equivalent of the Fat Lady sings...

So I would rather go down fighting, and fighting mad..

No compromises this time, and I believe most of us feel the same way, although we may have come to that belief using different routes.

66 posted on 09/03/2014 3:14:53 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No to Romney, no to Rove, no to National RNC..... ALL IDIOTS


67 posted on 09/03/2014 3:20:38 PM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

Aside: people are forgetting Nixon’s ‘62 CA Gubernatorial loss that triggered his “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore” hissy fit.

Win/Loss elective office records tend to be poor indicators of good leaders. Look at how many elections Lincoln lost, for instance.


68 posted on 09/03/2014 3:20:39 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

I don’t see the comparison.

I can tell you why Romney is lousy at politics, he is a pathological liar, with no center, no real identity, and it shows, people don’t trust him, and so they don’t like him, and they don’t believe him.

People don’t know why Romney wants to be a president or in politics, because they don’t see anything in him that indicates that he has any real interest in anything outside of his own isolated life.


69 posted on 09/03/2014 3:21:27 PM PDT by ansel12 (LEGAL immigrants, 30 million 1980-2012, continues to remake the nation's electorate for democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: EandH Dad
In November 2016 I will vote for the candidate without a D after their name.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.

I will work like hell during the primaries to have a conservative candidate to vote for. I hope and pray that I will get to vote for a conservative candidate in the general election.

But when it comes time to vote in the general election, one of only two candidates is going to be elected, the one with the D after his/her/its name or the one with the R. If I have to, I will hold my nose and vote against the one with the D.

Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are both turning 80 in 2016. Clarence Thomas is turning 68. The next president is almost certain to replace at least one of the three. Any Democrat appointment will be legislating from the bench for the next 30 years.

The Constitution says whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it says. If the Democrats get to replace Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas then every 5/4 decision that we have ever won, including DC v. Heller (upholding the right keep to bear arms) and Citizens United v. FEC (upholding free speech) will be reversed.

In 1986, the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to commit sodomy. In 2003, the Court reversed itself and found that a right to sodomy was in the Constitution all along. Ten years later, the Supreme Court found a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

70 posted on 09/03/2014 3:21:52 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I think he should run again.
As a Democrat.

They could use some sane candidates on their side, as a change -- as opposed to the outright Commie American haters. I don't have a problem with Romney's character - he is just another big spending Lib -- he'd make a good Democrat.

71 posted on 09/03/2014 3:24:59 PM PDT by El Cid (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

The difference is that Nixon was a real politician with a record of winning, not that he lost two races during his long career.

He has already been a Congressman, a Senator, and a vice-President when he lost that Governor’s race.

Romney couldn’t even win reelection to his one elective victory.


72 posted on 09/03/2014 3:26:11 PM PDT by ansel12 (LEGAL immigrants, 30 million 1980-2012, continues to remake the nation's electorate for democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

Important point regarding SCOTUS nominees: there’s no requirement for all the seats to be filled. Assuming Ginsburg leaves first, a GOP Senate could sit on any replacement for her and one of Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas’ seats and there’d still be a Conservative majority. It would just be 4/3 rather than 5/4.


73 posted on 09/03/2014 3:26:23 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

As governor, Romney gave the nation gay marriage, and in the courts, 75% of his appointees were not even republican, and none were conservative.

I would suggest making sure that Romney is not the candidate in 2016/


74 posted on 09/03/2014 3:30:18 PM PDT by ansel12 (LEGAL immigrants, 30 million 1980-2012, continues to remake the nation's electorate for democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Putting myself in a politician’s shoes for just a second, (probably all I can tolerate) Romney received the nomination from the rank and file GOP largely because he was a Governor and a republican, but his governing of a very, very liberal northeastern state created numerous conflicts with positions taken in the past, as he tried politically to relate with a much more conservative political base nationally.

The libs had one heck of a party providing ammo to be used against Romney and it destroyed his election due to turnout as well as third party protest votes.

It is what it is....and it does us no good to re-plow that ground.. Romney will not likely get in the ring again, and I actually believe he is trying to use what network he has to raise money for the GOP and other candidates, just as Sarah Palin has.

The only reason I decided to post on what will become another useless bashing exercise was to try to intelligently state in a rational way that I would not be supporting any effort to put him up again. We have already seen that movie.

I have never called Romney a liar. He is a politician! That would be a doubly redundant....:-)

However, I still have reluctance to run a congressman or senator. But for this next election, I will set aside that issue and others to elect a conservative, with the fire of leadership in his/her belly.


75 posted on 09/03/2014 3:40:09 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
Assuming Ginsburg leaves first, a GOP Senate could sit on any replacement for her and one of Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas’ seats and there’d still be a Conservative majority.

Could. Should. Won't.

I have no faith in the backbones of most of the RINOs in the Senate. Historically, Democrats vote against conservative nominees. Republicans rubber stamp even the most far left wing liberal nominees.

76 posted on 09/03/2014 3:45:43 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I saw all I needed to see in the second debate in 2012.

Quisling.

77 posted on 09/03/2014 3:47:23 PM PDT by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

Gee we have to play this game with you guys forever?

Romney is a hardcore, lifelong, liberal, that is why he chose Massachusetts to run in instead of Utah, which he considered, it is also why Reagan was enough to drive him from the GOP, and why Romney became a supporter of, a fund raiser for, and a voter for, democrats, it is why he ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy on the homosexual agenda and gays in the military and gay scout leaders and was more passionate than Ted on abortion, it is why he was pro-abortion since at least 1963 and fund raised for Planned Parenthood (which he lied about until a photo surfaced), and was so passionate in his pro-abortion arguments.

Romney isn’t just dishonest, he is a pathological liar, his history is full of being caught in massive embarrassments and major lies once a photo, or video, or audio tape emerges, he lies when he doesn’t need to and some lies, such as Reagan was”adamantly pro-choice” he will spread for years, he has lied about who and where he was when his religion accepted blacks to equality, he lies about his draft evading, he used to lie about he and his father having marched with Martin Luther King, he lied extensively about his illegal aliens, he lied about the conversation that he claimed converted him to life just in time to run for president, it is compulsive with him.


78 posted on 09/03/2014 3:55:03 PM PDT by ansel12 (LEGAL immigrants, 30 million 1980-2012, continues to remake the nation's electorate for democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
I am pretty sure that I have not seen anyone on Free Republic calling for Romney to run again.

The only debate appears to be whether, if a moderate RINO like Romney or McCain gets the Republican nomination again in 2016, it would be better to vote against the Democrat or stay home.

My intention is to do whatever I can to get a conservative nominated, but if we get stuck with another RINO, then hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils in the general election. A lot of Freepers disagree and refuse to ever vote for another RINO.

79 posted on 09/03/2014 3:57:44 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

There are rinos, and then there is Mitt Romney.

There was a reason that with all the big money and a massive organization, and even his own 50 million dollars that he put into his primary, that Romney could not even beat the no money, no organization guys, McCain and Huckabee in 2008, no one ran against Mitt because he scared off all the major players with his massive war chest, yet the little guys who are known as normal rinos, beat him.


80 posted on 09/03/2014 4:22:54 PM PDT by ansel12 (LEGAL immigrants, 30 million 1980-2012, continues to remake the nation's electorate for democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-135 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson