Posted on 09/26/2014 5:18:09 AM PDT by cotton1706
Today in oh-fer-cryin-out-loud: In an article titled "Romney 2016 is for real," The Washington Examiner’s Byron York looks at the movement to keep Mitt Romney—yes, that Mitt Romney, the oddly robotic candidate who looks like Mr. Fantastic, the wealthy former consultant who casually makes $10,000 bets with his opponents, the policy-specifics averse former Massachusetts governor who inspired so little enthusiasm as he topped the GOP ticket and lost by three points in 2012—in the mix as a potential contender for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2016.
Why, you might wonder, would anyone want Romney to run again? He offered almost nothing to the ticket in 2012 except a bland respectability. Against the weak GOP lineup he was facing, that was enough to win the nomination. But most Republican voters never really loved the guy, and he never really seemed particularly fond of Republican voters or conservative policies (remember, this is the guy who as Massachusetts governor signed into law the model for Obamacare, hoping that the rest of the nation would follow).
His domestic policy agenda, in particular, was intentionally kept vague and largely substance free; he wasn’t running on what he would do so much as what he wouldn’t be—Obama. There was almost no positive case to vote for Romney, and he and his team barely attempted to present one. Another nod for Romney would only serve to further cement the already pervasive notion that the Republican party is an agenda-free-zone when it comes to policy.
Romney was nominated because he seemed more electable than the rest of the field. Relatively speaking, that impression may have been right, but it’s hard to run on electability after having soundly lost a major national election.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
I think Ted Cruz can appeal outside the base because he is brilliant by any standard, is able to clearly articulate and explain core American conservative principles of liberty, free markets and Constitutional law, and can apply those ideals in a compelling way to his public analyses of how they can turn this country around.
Best of all, he seems honest and sticks to his guns (which I think is something Americans will admire after 7 years of Obama's lies and prevarications) and is not afraid to confront the propaganda of left wing Democrat candidates like Hillary and Elizabeth Warren.
Frankly, at this point, I'm having a hard time seeing what other potential Republican candidate that I could support.
I do think, however, that Mitt would get the financial problems corrected by a budget that we could live with, and I think he would get the “bamaboy bad taste” out of our country.
I don't know how strong he would be on foreign affairs, but I do think he would appoint someone with some smarts that would advise him.
In politics he is useless, 22 years of running for office, a single win, and he left that single term in disgrace, unable to win reelection and with 34% approval.
He won a single election 12 years ago, that’s it.
I agree with everything you say.
That said, one of the keys for me is a candidate who focuses his fire on the left, as opposed to running ritual purity litmus tests on other Republicans. I want a candidate who is willing to lead a crusade on two or three of the big make-or-break issues, not one who is busy painting himself into a holier-than-thou corner to eke out a narrow factional win in a primary.
You think coming out as pro-abortion again after winning the nomination, is “decent”?
The Republican Establishment loves their retread losers.
That is ridiculous, he was actually one of the most disgusting, dishonest men to ever run for president as a republican.
Mitt Romney is a pathological liar, who lies when there is no reason to lie, it is a compulsion with him, we have never seen a man who can so completely reverse himself and his positions, so constantly, and just make up his personal and political history on the hoof.
“Why, you might wonder, would anyone want Romney to run again? “
So he could lose to the Democrat.
There’s a new article pushing him every day, it seems. That’s concerning to me. It makes me think the GOPe is really determined to make him the loser...uh, candidate again.
LOL!
“There’s a new article pushing him every day, it seems. That’s concerning to me. It makes me think the GOPe is really determined to make him the loser...uh, candidate again.”
It’s their game. For four years all we heard was RomneyFrontRunner, about three times a second. It’s how they get it into people’s heads.
Then they say “why, Romney’s the ONLY one that can win!!”
The Republican establishment wants Jeb Bush. But because the Bush family are now anathema to many or even most Republicans, they are putting up Romney as an “authorized protest candidate”. But they will do everything in their power to prevent ANY conservative candidate from getting the nomination, or even making it to the convention.
So two choices, and two choices ONLY.
It has reached a point where the Republican leadership, the GOP-e, and the RINOs will support and vote for Hillary before they would back ANY real conservative.
The ONE big chance conservatives have is in Kentucky, right now. If Mitch McConnell is defeated, it will rattle the Republican establishment to its bones, and will likely cause a cascade effect.
First John Boehner would be out as Speaker of the House. And by the time of the Republican National Convention, the conservatives might take the convention away from the liberal Republicans. If it can pull that off, it must purge them from all the leadership ranks, for good, because any one of them that remains will betray conservatives at the first opportunity.
No conservative is asked to support McConnell’s opponent, Grimes, because that is too much to ask. Instead, vote for every conservative on the ballot, but DO NOT vote in the McConnell-Grimes race. Leave it blank.
Almost certainly, Republicans can lose that one seat and still have a two, three, or four majority lead in the senate.
But to be rid of Mitch “Judas” McConnell, would be worth ceding that seat to a powerless freshman Democrat.
I’m gonna tell you one thing kid, Ben Carson
May as well save taxpayer money and not hold the election.
Just give it to Hillary.
Why? To ensure a Hillery win, of course.
I thought he recanted on that.
No, In August of 2012, Romney went back to his lifelong pro-abortion position and came out against the GOP pro-life platform.
Me too - and while I hate that he's considering another run, I would vote for him again to keep Hillary, or the next perpetrator of attacks on the Nation, out of the WH. Many here would not because they don't want to vote for "the lesser of two evils". As far as I'm concerned, if that's what we have on our final ticket, I'll take it over the greater of the two evils. We would be looking much different if Romney had won (despite himself). Obama has polluted so many agencies and other regulatory bodies with those who share his dream (our nightmare) that even a Romney is preferable.
So you can see Sarah (Tina Fey) Palin winning? Or Ted (First time Senator) Cruz winning? No Reagans out there folks-—Mitt had the resume—but does he have the chops? The Republicans need to find their new guy in the Primaries—Mitt should run—If he has no deep support—drop out or stay on for a VP slot (he would make a good VP—but then so would Donald Trump). He was cheated in 2012. We need a businessman in office. A die hard Conservative might do more damage than good. He should try and let the GOP members make the choice (No Dems should vote in Primary).
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.