Posted on 09/05/2013 9:40:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ten months after Mitt Romney shuffled off the national stage in defeat — consigned, many predicted, to a fate of instant irrelevance and permanent obscurity — Republicans are suddenly celebrating the presidential also-ran as a political prophet.
From his widely mocked warnings about a hostile Russia to his adamant opposition to the increasingly unpopular implementation of Obamacare, the ex-candidate’s canon of campaign rhetoric now offers cause for vindication — and remorse — to Romney’s friends, supporters, and former advisers.
“I think about the campaign every single day, and what a shame it is who we have in the White House,” said Spencer Zwick, who worked as Romney’s finance director and is a close friend to his family. “I look at things happening and I say, you know what? Mitt was actually right when he talked about Russia, and he was actually right when he talked about how hard it was going to be to implement Obamacare, and he was actually right when he talked about the economy. I think there are a lot of everyday Americans who are now feeling the effects of what [Romney] said was going to happen, unfortunately.”
Of course, there is a long tradition in American politics of dwelling on counterfactuals and and re-litigating past campaigns after your candidate loses. Democrats have argued through the years that America would have avoided two costly Middle East wars, solved climate change, and steered clear of the housing crisis if only the Supreme Court hadn’t robbed Al Gore of his rightful victory in 2000. But a series of White House controversies and international crises this year — including a Syrian civil war that is threatening to pull the American military into the mix — has caused Romney’s fans to erupt into a chorus of told-you-so’s at record pace.
In the most actively cited example of the Republican nominee’s foresight, Romneyites point to the candidate’s hardline rhetoric last year against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration. During the campaign, Romney frequently criticized Obama for foolishly attempting to make common cause with the Kremlin, and repeatedly referred to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.”
Many observers found this fixation strange, and Democrats tried to turn it into a punchline. A New York Times editorial in March of last year said Romney’s assertions regarding Russia represented either “a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.” And in an October debate, Obama sarcastically mocked his opponent’s Russia rhetoric. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” the president quipped at the time.
That line still chafes Robert O’Brien, a Los Angeles lawyer and friend of Romney’s who served as a foreign policy adviser.
“Everyone thought, Oh my goodness that is so clever and Mitt’s caught in the Cold War and doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” O’Brien said. “Well guess what. With all of these foreign policy initiatives — Syria, Iran, [Edward] Snowden — who’s out there causing problems for America? It’s Putin and the Russians.”
Indeed, earlier this summer, Moscow defiantly refused to extradite National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden to the United States, prompting Obama to cancel a meeting he had scheduled with Putin during the Group of 20 summit. Russia has blocked United Nations action against Syria. And on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers that Russia was one of the countries supplying Syria with chemical weapons.
To Romney’s fans, these episodes illustrate just how unfairly their candidate was punished during the election for speaking truths the rest of the country would eventually come around to.
“The governor tried to enunciate how to deal with these very hard, tough issues, and we were met with slogans,” O’Brian lamented. “And now the real world is exposing the slogans as being totally trite.”
Admirers point to other examples of Romney’s unrewarded wisdom, as well.
During a foreign policy debate in October, the candidate briefly expressed concern over Islamic extremists taking control of northern Mali — an obscure reference that was mocked on Twitter at the time, including by liberal comedian Bill Maher. Three months later, France sent troops into the country at the behest of the Malian president, bringing the conflict to front pages around the world.
On the domestic front, Obamacare — which Romney spent more time railing against on the stump than perhaps any other progressive policy — is less popular than ever, while the federal government struggles to get the massive, complicated law implemented. (One poll in July found for the first time that a plurality of Americans now support the law’s repeal.)
And while the unemployment rate has, in the first year of Obama’s second term, gradually fallen to post-crisis lows, the still-ailing U.S. economy, which served as the centerpiece for Romney’s unsuccessful case against Obama’s reelection, was given a potent symbol earlier this summer when Detroit became the largest American city ever to declare bankruptcy.
The Motor City became a symbolic battleground during the election, with Romney proudly touting his father’s ties to the auto industry, and the Obama campaign relentlessly attacking the Republican for a Times op-ed he had written years earlier headlined “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”
“The president took the title of that op-ed, which of course was written by editors of the New York Times, and used it to say Gov. Romney was being insensitive about his own home city,” complained former campaign spokesman Ryan Williams. Romney’s article argued that beleaguered automakers should consider going through a managed bankruptcy instead of taking a bailout but, Williams said, “the president’s campaign intentionally tried to blur the lines. It worked. And several months later, the city is going bankrupt because of liberal democratic officeholders.”
Referring to the bankruptcy, Putin’s posturing, and the Mali conflict, Williams added, “Obviously, it would have been nice if any of these incidents would have occurred during the campaign to vindicate Romney. You would never want to see the bankruptcy of a major U.S. city, or the president embarrass himself on the world stage like he has, but Gov. Romney did discuss these potential outcomes.”
Romneyites are processing these feelings of vindication in different ways. The campaign’s chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, said he has been disappointed to see their central message — that Obama would be unable to restore America’s strength — turned out to be so accurate: “If there is a part of the world in which America is stronger, it’s hard to find. What’s the president doing? Attacking a talk radio host. He has criticized Rush Limbaugh with more conviction than the leaders of Iran… We can only hope it improves. ”
And Jennifer Rubin, the conservative Washington Post blogger who became Romney’s most outspoken advocate in the press, accused members of the news media of failing to take the Republican’s arguments seriously, while allowing the incumbent skate through the race untouched.
“As for the media, they are the least self-reflective people I know,” Rubin said. “The left-leaning media has carried the president’s water faithfully, eschewing the least bit of critical analysis. Now they don’t like the result?”
For Zwick, perhaps the closest thing to a true Romney loyalist on the campaign last year, the belief that his candidate turned out to be right offers little comfort. “It’s frustrating because there’s no way to correct it,” Zwick said. “We don’t do what they do in the U.K. and lead the opposition party when you lose. When you lose there is no way to sort of be vindicated. There’s no way to say, ‘OK, well, I didn’t win the presidency but I’m going to continue to fight.’ There’s no fighting. There’s no platform to do that. Fifty million Americans voted for the guy and yet it’s all for nothing.”
“I wish he’d run again,” Zwick added. “He’s not going to. But if he did, I’d be right there.”
He was too beltway in some ways for sure.
Never heard about the abortion stuff at all. Sure doesn’t sound like any Mormon I ever heard of.
Binary is the best way to put it.. but, sadly, that is way above many people’s heads :p
By the way, I know you know this.. but I am hoping (once again, out of the many posts here from all of us..)..
The ‘Vote against’ is what put us here in the first place.. Can’t get much simpler than that...
Every time people vote ‘against’ someone, it put us all closer to the edge of the cliff. NOW, we are ALL falling over the cliff because of it :/
Which is it -- conjecture, or certainty? Because maybe you can "say with certainty" that Obama is "much worse," but I say with EQUAL certainty that in a bigger picture spectrum, you are mistaken, and in the long term, we are better off with Romney losing in 2012. Just as you are mistaken in using word "we" in your certainties.
Yes! Binary!!! Thank you!! (that word usually slips my mind!)
My certainty is logically and politically correct. Yours is a rambling gobblegook.
There is an axiom that applies here: “Never argue with a fool.” Bye.
What they wrongly perceive as voting against the bad guy Democrat, is in reality always only voting FOR the replacement. When the replacement is a bureaucratic, fiscal, and social statist who facilitates or pushes government involvement in every aspect from health care to environmental "responsiblity" to behaving "morally" to openly homosexual folks, that is what they voted FOR, and that is what America gets.
Because they were voting "against" the other guy. All pretend.
Arnold Scharzenegger and Meg Whitman come to mind, as well. I voted for both of them, and I was mistaken.
My position is founded on the pure math of: You get what you vote for. "Against" is a mathematical fallacy. As Bikkuri very logically points out, failing to anticipate the true consequence of voting "against" is how we got to this point.
Logically correct certainty. Politically very incorrect. Quite shocking, indeed.
I have learned not to care much about the R, if the candidate doesn’t deserve my vote he won’t get it
Obama is better than Romney?
I agree with you, and I sucked it up and voted for Romney. But now that he lost and is done, there in no point in pretending anymore that he is anything but a terrible candidate, not particularly conservative, and an empty suit.
Wow, just went through the myriad of Comments on this useless Thread. I’m no fan of old Mitt which obviously puts me with the majority.
There is no way he would have been any worse than Obama, which seems to be the implication here, yet people still bitch and complain about the guy who didn’t win. Unreal...
We have a Commie Wannabe tearing this Nation apart and here we are dissing the only person that would have given us any chance of preventing the demise of the Republic? What a waste of keystrokes.
What is this, an Obama support group? Good gracious, go cry in your Beer. Our Candidate sucked, but the guy who beat him is flying off the SUCK scale every minute of every day.
Romney lost the General Election, but he went through the Republican Primary process and ended up being the only opponent against the Democrat Candidate. Nobody here liked it one bit, but that’s the fact Jack.
Spare me the Romney lover replies. I’m just an Obama hater, or just another Racist if you’re a Democrat. Now, back to the Mecum Auto Auction on Velocity.
No offense but I've been reading your posts too...
(My advise...Go to DU and use your time and wonderful debating skills changing them to your point of view....lol...You'll have more luck!...All IMHO of course....but think about it...U could be valuable
Where were you 2007 to 2012? Romney’s problems with abortion were highlighted regularly right here as were his problems with gay marriage.
Just as every other religion has people who believe politically what they want to believe, Mormonism is no safe predictor of Mitt Romney’s political positions.
How terrible Romney was as a candidate depends on the degree of voter fraud the Demonrats got away with. Some think it was enough to steal the election. I don’t think that but it would have been quite a bit closer without it, the winner-take-all electoral college votes being affected by a relatively small number of votes in key states like Ohio.
Romney was a waste of a nomination. Romney was put in place to keep conservatives from winning. He was never supposed to beat Obama. How do I know. I live in Florida. I saw how Mitt Romney went after Newt Gingrich. I waited to see that same Mitt Romney go after Obama. It never happened. In the biggest battle ground state in the country Romney never showed up. Never attacked Obama. Why? He only runs against conservatives. Liberals, democrats are his friends. He did everything he could to defeat Gingrich and Santorum. Told every lie, reached all the into his bag of rotten tricks to rip into conservatives. Now explain to me why his idea of going after Obama was to say ‘he’s a nice guy who’s just in a little over his head.’
All of you people crying “leave Mitt Alone” have the same problem. Not one of you can explain his behavior. I’ve heard everything from his handlers didn’t know what they were doing to he’s just too nice a guy to go after Obama. These are the same handlers who started during the McCain candidacy in 2008 to tear into Sarah Palin. The ones who manipulated the primaries to get Mitt the win in 2012, just didn’t know what to do. Plus Mitt was such a Mr. Nice Guy that he made up stories non stop during the campaign against Newt Gingrich in Florida. But, he didn’t even have to make up stories about Obama. All he had to do was tell the truth about what Obama has done to this country. He never quite got around to doing that.
I’m glad you’re an Obama hater. Too bad your friend Mitt doesn’t share your opinion.
Romney sucked, get over it.
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.