Top Ten Reasons for Mitt to Run...AWAY!

American Thinker ^ | 10/16/2014 | C. Edmund Wright

[Servant of the Cross]

Run, Mitt, run. Yes, run far, far away from the Republican primary season that starts in 2015. You may be a fine man, but you are not going to be president, and you are not the answer for the Republicans in 2016. You could have/should have been both perhaps, but you blew it.

Now, I hate to even think about the 2016 election with the 2014 mid terms still weeks away, but this nightmarish Groundhog Day idea of Romney 2016 just will not go away. Most recently, the Washington Post chronicled how campaign events for Joni Ernst in Iowa and Scott Brown in New Hampshire devolved into Mitt 2016 love fests.

Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire. Mere coincidence, right? Hardly. The Post makes it clear that many of Mitt’s top supporters and donors want him to run – and more importantly, he is doing nothing to discourage this. Not only does he want to run, but he obviously wants to be begged to run to boot.

So as a public service, consider this top-ten list of why this losing notion should be put out of its misery.

10. BENGHAZI: When Mitt got thrown off his game in the second debate on the issue of Benghazi – thanks to CNN’s Candy Crowley – the trajectory of the election changed. To give him the benefit of the doubt, big Candy was sure that the administration was on top of the real cause of the attacks. However, Mitt then refused to revisit the issue and clear things up in the third debate, or even in the campaign messaging.

9. NICE GUY: After virtually calling Newt Gingrich the devil for four months, Romney and his campaign then thought they could run an “Obama is a nice guy who is simply over his head” template

[Colonel_Flagg]

One of your best, sir. A tip of the cap!

[Terry L Smith]

With the present epicemic/pandemic outlook, Mitt does NOT have the experience, the tough guy guts, or the delivery persona needed.

Patton might be close to the persona necessary to be raised by the Republicans!

[Lakeshark]

Good article, thanks for the ping.

Romney made a lot of mistakes for sure, but at this point I think Newt would have been entirely destroyed much earlier than Romney. He could be a great debator (but he got quiet just before he tanked at the end much like Romney after Candy). Frankly, the man had baggage way worse than Romney, they would have attacked him mercilessly, I don't think he would have won, rather he would have lost in an even worse way, a debacle conservatism could not have handled.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I respectfully disagree. Newt would have been savaged - and been way behind at some point - but if he stayed on message would have rallied. Winston Churchill was more discredited in England shortly before he replaced Chamberlain. Desparate times....

But more to the point: it was Newts message that needed to carry the day - regardless of who the nominee was. Had Romney carried any kind of similar message, he would have won in a rout. But he’s not nearly as smart or as fearless as Newt.

[Lakeshark]

I don't believe Newt could have stayed on message, like he showed when he tanked. His weakness has always been his somewhat erratic focus. When he was good, he was great; when he was bad he was horrid.

I say this having been a full throated Newt supporter during the primaries. I've quietly changed my mind, and now believe he would have been a disastrous candidate.

I enjoy your articles and insights, and like you, will respectfully disagree.

[Lakeshark]

I don’t disagree with your article btw.

[C. Edmund Wright]

We don’t totally disagree.....this is how I put it:

Newt might have swung and missed - but Mitt was out on called strikes.

Yes, Newt would have been riskier. But risk/reward is a fact of life. Mitt was low risk. Mitt was NO reward.

[Lakeshark]

Newt might have swung and missed - but Mitt was out on called strikes.

Great line, I may steal it and revamp it to the old Ernie Harwood line, he stood there and watched that go by like the house on the side of the road.....

:-)