Glad to step in the breach, with guns and missiles:
They're a bit aged, like me, but they're more than sufficient in bringing down Mitt's trial balloons.
Posted on 07/31/2014 7:42:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Nobody has ever rooted for that scrappy Romney kid to overcome the odds. Until, maybe, now.
Perhaps it says something about us that our most interesting presidential candidates swear they won't run for president. This is true of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and it's increasingly true of Mitt Romney.
As regular readers of this column know, I've never been much of a Romney booster. I've also expressed skepticism about the notion he would run again. But let's not let "a foolish consistency" cloud our judgment. There is reason to believe that a third try wouldn't be an absurd venture.
First, in the intervening years since 2012 — and on a range of issues, not the least of which is Russia — Romney has been proven right. And second — perhaps more important — one of the reasons so many observers viscerally disliked Romney was the cloying "goody-goody" quality that this fortunate son seemed to ooze. But do you know what the cure for that is? Losing.
That's right, Mitt Romney the scrappy underdog — the loser who's out to redeem himself — is a more attractive Mitt.
You know the term "lovable loser?" He should embrace it.
There's a reason why Rocky gets knocked out by "Clubber" Lang early on in Rocky III. The rest of the movie is about the comeback. This journey involves Rocky shedding the trappings of fame and wealth — and getting real.
Romney would similarly have to get real. No more phoniness. No more telling us what he thinks we want to hear. He would have to be utterly authentic, and he would have to show that losing caused him to encounter pain and reflection. (The good news is that the Netflix film, Mitt, already helped show this side of Romney.)
Could Romney III be like Rocky III? Maybe, if the narrative is true and convincing.
There's a reason the "comeback" trope resonates with us (aside from Rocky, it's a prevalent theme in almost every boxing movie, ranging from The Fighter to Cinderella Man). These tropes are timeless precisely because they tap into something that we intuitively understand about nobility, courage, and humility.
People like comebacks. We can identify with the guy or gal who is struggling to redeem themselves (and nobody has ever identified with Mitt Romney before).
Ironically, Romney is almost tailor-made to benefit from having lost before. What might be a devastating blow to most political figures — a blight on their résumé — actually transforms Romney into a more compelling candidate. Having struggled and stumbled is, for Romney, at least, a feature, not a bug. The same could be said for Hillary Clinton, who only became a compelling candidate in 2008 when she lost her front-runner status.
People who were hated the first time around — when their lives seemed charmed — can, by facing adversity and overcoming the odds, transform into sympathetic figures — heroes, even — that we actually root for (think: Robert Downey Jr.). Nobody has ever rooted for that scrappy Romney kid to overcome the odds. Until, maybe, now.
Someone who knows a thing or two about comebacks is Pat Buchanan. In fact, his new book is called The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.
During a recent discussion, I asked Buchanan about the prospects of Romney taking a page from the Nixon playbook. After all, George Romney figures prominently in the Nixon comeback story. "First, I admire that Romney is thinking of this," Buchanan told me during a recent podcast discussion, "and he ought to follow what's in his heart."
Buchanan, whose sister was a Romney adviser, believes that Romney should take a page from the Nixon handbook. Having lost to Kennedy in 1960, and then having lost the 1962 gubernatorial election in California, Nixon was assumed politically dead. But he was revived by working hard for other candidates — he worked hard for conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964 and backed liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller's candidacy in New York — just to name two of the many GOPers he hit the hustings for between 1962 and 1968.
"If I were Romney, there's no doubt I would do it," Buchanan (who thrice ran for president, himself) continued, adding, "But I'm not him."
You aren’t pointing out anything, you are arguing for him in a non-substantive, trivial, “he isn’t Obama” chant that is 8 years old and here we are well into 2014, just like a troll, when are you romneybots going to give up and quit these little useless troll posts?
The problem wasn’t us digging our heels in. RINO Romney never intended to run against the liberals so he didn’t bother to run against Obama. Romney lost the election all by himself because he wasn’t trying to win. Which is something some people don’t want to admit to themselves. Romney played the republicans for fools. So, in order to keep from losing face, some of his supporters play what if games that are not based in reality, i.e.-What if people had come out to vote for Romney even though he didn’t bother to run?
Your continued speculation is pointless, but I understand why you have to attempt to keep up appearances this way. There might be one person out there Romney still fools and you won’t have to be the last one.
With what Romney learned in 2008 and 2012, he could cut his margin of loss in half for 2016.
He lost because he wussed in Benghazi in that debate...if he would have attacked instead of turning away, we would have a different world today. That moment defined his demise.
Bennett, Prager, Hewitt, Rush, Laura, Levin.
They don’t all agree, but I love listening to all of them.
FACT
Romney lost because conservatives stayed home and did not vote.
In doing so they voted for Obama.
These articles about Romney making a comeback are ridiculous. At least, I hope that they are.
FACT: Romney lost because Christians stayed home and did not vote for a candidate who was pro-choice and pro-sodomite. Salvation is more important to them than earthly politics. They did NOT vote for Zero.
Agreed.
I think Laura has some very good radio production values but I do not always agree with her.
Rush is generally a delight to listen too because he is a master at radio.
I find Hannity to be tedious but he is a decent guy.
A few months back I thought that too. After watching his operatives completely take over the Iowa GOP, lock, stock and barrel, and seeing Romney's name ID-driven poll numbers in New Hampshire, I'm not so sure any more.
Glad to step in the breach, with guns and missiles:
They're a bit aged, like me, but they're more than sufficient in bringing down Mitt's trial balloons.
Iowa and NH no longer deserve their exalted place in primary politics.
Notice nothing but a bunch of Bull crap about come backs,but nothing that this ass was responsible for Obamacare in the first place,the reason he lost was that his nomination took the biggest issue of the past 6 years OFF THE TABLE!
I went to both huge marches in Washington,they were about Obamacare! This ass too it off the radar because he implemented it in Mass.! Enough of the bull crap,TED CRUZ FOR PRESIDENT,NOT ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT JERK.
Notice nothing but a bunch of Bull crap about come backs,but nothing that this ass was responsible for Obamacare in the first place,the reason he lost was that his nomination took the biggest issue of the past 6 years OFF THE TABLE!
I went to both huge marches in Washington,they were about Obamacare! This ass too it off the radar because he implemented it in Mass.! Enough of the bull crap,TED CRUZ FOR PRESIDENT,NOT ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT JERK.
Whether or not that is true, they do hold that place for the 2016 election cycle.
And everything is in place for them to be a very friendly environment for RINOs.
Yup.
He had a clear path to victory after the first debate. But he completely botched the second and third ones. Which is unforgivable, given the stakes involved.
Same applies to Perry and Jindel: they had good opportunities to shine on the national stage, and fell flat on their faces.
If only we had a candidate that combined Cruz’s political and debating skills with Walker’s successful executive/gubernatorial experience ... We’d have another Rreagan on our hands.
That's a great line. The problem:
"No more phoniness" = No more Romney
However, he has proven that he is a technocrat, without bedrock principles, such as staunchly pro-life, to earn my vote for President.
I held my nose in 2012, and here's what it got me:
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.