Posted on 08/27/2014 4:30:53 AM PDT by servo1969
In his Tuesday evening interview on the Hugh Hewitt show, Mitt Romney said it over and over again: "I will not run in 2016."
Though a determined Hewitt kept finding different ways to ask the same question, in the end the 2012 candidate stood by his claim, saying, "I had the chance of running. I didn’t win. Someone else has a better chance than I do."
After Hewitt's relentless questioning, Romney did offer the host his "one in a million" chance of running: if all the other candidates got together and said, "Hey, we’ve decided we can’t do it, you must do it." In other words, he isn't running.
Hewitt: Now Governor Romney, because you were the governor of the Commonwealth, you know your revolutionary history. And so I want to throw a little Thomas Paine at you from December 23rd of 1776. They call it the darkest hour of the Revolution. It’s before Trenton and the Delaware crossing, after six months of misery and defeats. And Thomas Paine writes the famous opening lines of the crisis: "These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." So here’s the question. If you personally believed, I mean, really, genuinely believed that you were the only candidate who could beat Hillary, and that belief was confirmed by your family and your friends and respected political advisors, would you not then feel obliged to run?
Romney: (laughing) Well, Hugh, the reason I came to the conclusion I did, which is this is not the right time for me to run, is because of my belief that someone else stands a better chance of winning than I do. Had that not been the case, had I believed I would actually be best positioned to beat Hillary Clinton, then I would be running. But I actually believe that someone new that is not defined, yet, someone who perhaps is from the next generation, will be able to catch fire, potentially, build a movement, and be able to beat Hillary Clinton. If I thought that weren’t the case, well, I would have been running. But I think we’ve got a number of very good people looking at this race. I’m expecting someone to be able to catch fire and get the job done.
Hewitt: Now I’m pressing, and I’m pressing an advantage of long acquaintance, and so forgive me for this, but that’s subject to change, right? People’s candidacies implode, circumstances change. People who organized campaigns approach you. And so I’m not asking you to, I wouldn’t presume to ask you to say "Yeah, I’m in the race." But circumstances change. And if you thought that in fact it were not that way, that you thought you were the only one who could do this, you’d change your mind, wouldn’t you?
Romney: (laughing) I’m not going there, Hugh. I know you’re going to press, but you know, this is something we gave a lot of thought to when early on I decided we’re not going to be running this time. And again, we said look, I had the chance of running. I didn’t win. Someone else has a better chance than I do. And that’s what we believe, and that’s why I’m not running. And you know, circumstances can change, but I’m just not going to let my head go there. I remember that great line from Dumb and Dumber, where the…
Hewitt: So you’re telling me I have a chance?
Romney: There you go, you remember. You’re telling me I have a chance? That’s one of a million.
Hewitt: Hey, all, the takeaway is already circumstances can change. I know how we’re going to play this. But I hope it’s not the Harold Stassen nonsense, which overlooks the far more unlikely comebacks like Reagan’s and Nixon’s, and Dewey’s and Stevenson and William Jennings Bryant. In fact, not even Stassen became a joke until his ’64 run. His previous four runs were all very serious affairs. Here’s what your running mate said yesterday on this show.
Ryan: I would welcome it. I’ve told him that, I was with him last Thursday. I think he should run. I think people are getting to know who he really is. I think there’s buyer’s remorse, and I think he’d make an outstanding president. He says emphatically, though, that he won’t do it. You know, I just wish he would. I think he’d be a unifier. But I just, I’ll take Mitt at his word, and he’s pretty clear he’s not going to do it.
Hewitt: See, he’s not as abrasive as I am. And so you have been very clear you’re not doing it now. I just keep looking for that, I get asked everywhere I go because I wrote the book about you, have you heard if there’s any door open. And I said no, I haven’t. He always says no, no, no, but I’ve always also said that I thought if you thought you were the only guy who could win, you’d do it.
Romney: Well, you know, let’s say all the guys that were running all came together and said, "Hey, we’ve decided we can’t do it, you must do it." That’s the one of the million we’re thinking about.
No, We the People are the Washington Generals. The Two Parties are the Globetrotters.
No, the idea of the Washington Generals is to give the illusion of a competitive basketball game. Just like the Republicans are there to give off the impression that there are really two parties in Washington.
Either way, we lose...and they win...Big.
We can start with the worst, and that would be Romney.
At what point do you realize that a guy with more than 20 years in elective politics, with a single win of less than 50% and being driven from that office with 34% approval, and having dominated and destroyed two presidential election cycles, is the man to avoid at all costs, and to drive away from active GOP politics?
That's a lie spread by GOP-E operatives. Romney didn't even match his own party platform on abortion, amnesty, 2nd amendment, socialized medicine, or big government.
That ain't about purity, that's about Romney being a flat-out liberal.
The liberal republicans must be politically destroyed and never win another election.
/johnny
Romney didn’t fight to win the first time. Why would he not fight to lose again. Either the fraud is addressed or we’re boiled like a frog.
Be strong, Willard. Tell Ann no this time. You don’t need to get stomped again.
I listened to the interview yesterday, mostly because I don’t have anything better to listen between Rush and Levin. I was upset by how much Hugh was begging, begging him to run. Every time he talks to Romney he has a tingle up his leg like Chris Matthews, but this was by far the worst, least transparent attempt.
I was mad, but then I got absolutely furious this radio idiot blamed anti Mormon bigotry for his losing in 2012. People did not turn out in 2012 because they were channeling Hillary “what difference would it make?” Clinton. We hunger for a clear conservative choice, not a severe conservative.
We are tired of the GOP fighting with rabid abandon against TEA party and conservative candidates during the primary and once that is over running to jump in the lap and lick the face of their real opponents trying desperately to get the press to scratch heir ear just once. I firmly believe people will not be showing up in droves come November to choose between 60% liberal and 95% liberal. Again what difference at this point does it make? Or will it be more anti-Mormon bigotry?
Hugh Hewitt. I’ve been listening since 2003. That was the last time I’m tuning in.
This sounds like mittens is going to get behind Perry. Paul Ryan, a mere representative, who can’t sell his book, is a non-starter.
An extraordinarily sensible decision by the Governor.
If Romney actually means this, it’s the best thing he’s done in his career. I’ll be happier when he ages out of the running, but I approve of his patriotic decision.
Romney was close to my last choice for the Republican nomination, but we would be infinitely better off with President Romney than we are with President Obamanation.
For anyone who says that they will refuse to vote if [Insert Name Here] gets the Republican nomination in 2016, keep in mind that in 2016 Justices Scalia and Kennedy will turn 80 and Justice Thomas will turn 68. If Hillary gets to fill any or all of their seats, then far left wing liberals will be ruling from the bench for the next generation.
The Constitution says whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it says. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
LOLOLOL!!! How very true!
So Saca, you prefer to vote for surrendering the Republican party to leftism?
Take responsibility for what you're willing to vote FOR. When you try to take responsibility for voting "against," you are taking responsibility for an imaginary action where intent and material results are very different.
Had Romney won and right now Obama was long forgotten and we were seeing a Republican administration advance nationalized health care, the homosexual agenda, the environmentalist agenda, activist judges, abortion, and gun control -- ALL positions Romney has embraced -- would you be here taking responsibility for having voted for it?
Because if you voted "against" Obama by voting for Romney, you voted for all of that.
Take responsibility for what you are willing to vote FOR, please.
Well, that, yeah, and also by giving the moderate du jour, whichever dominated in the early primaries, an automatic heavy lead, as the early primaries are decided by left-leaning states. By the time the primary gets to my state, my vote is between two turds. What a charade.
The Republican "brand" is a bad joke in America across informed and LIV territory. It almost doesn't matter who gets the nomination, but most likely, a Democrat Lite Republican will get it.
Republican and Democrat are two brands of one product: heavier government. The GOP tries to craft a prettier brand. Americans are getting restless, although MSM is deaf to it, for a new PRODUCT.
I pray that in the 2016 presidential election, a politically polished and sparkling limited government Christian conservative runs "independent," or so-called "third" party and has at least as good success as Perot. He made it so no matter which liberal candidate won, it would have been on a plurality, meaning liberalism lost. Clinton was weakened because of it. Would the Republican Revolution have happened otherwise?
The Republican party should by rights be the limited government party. The battle of introducing a new party or having the Republican party take the mantle of being the limited government party, will happen in Congress.
In the presidential race, if a Democrat-Lite Republican wins, republicans in Congress will move left. If he loses, limited government Republicans will be just that much stronger in Congress.
*shaking head*
The reason for Romney's defeat still eludes you.
Please. Take responsibility for what you vote FOR. I'm not asking for a "perfect" candidate. I'm asking for a candidate who will act to advance my interests in limiting government. Romney's entire track record was to advance government everywhere. And in your mind, I passed on Romney because I would only settle for "perfection."
I passed on Romney because I know that if whatever I vote for WINS, I'll be responsible.
You are blind to reality. The "pure" factor is your own emotional defensiveness in assigning motive.
I will vote for a candidate based on what he says he will do if he WINS.
You will vote for a candidate based on what you fear will happen if he loses.
I refuse to vote for a candidate who has a record of advancing government intrusion on five major levels, moral, material, financial, legal, and medical.
I'm such a purist ... I actually want to vote for something along the lines of ... well, better food, and you are outraged because voting for garbage was "beneath" me I am such a purist!
Amen.
Pure, hard, cold, truth.
Wise advice.
You know, Bubba, it's so much smarter to vote based on what you fear will happen if your guy loses.
I mean, how smart can it be to actually vote based on what will happen if your guy wins? I mean, really, that's no way to vote!
*rolls eyes*
And hey! Did you know that you don't have to vote for leftism, you can vote against it instead, simply by voting Republican! Doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is!
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Of the mirror, Bubba!
1. Vote for whoever the Democrat is, which is a guaranteed vote for 4 more years of confiscatory taxes and socialist redistribution of assets, 4 more years of socialist regulations killing what is left of the economy, 4 more years of open borders and amnesty for an endless stream of illegal aliens, and 30 more years of far left wing judges ruling from the bench.
2. Vote for whoever the Republican is, which is at least a possible vote for something other than 4 more years of confiscatory taxes and socialist redistribution of assets, 4 more years of socialist regulations killing what is left of the economy, 4 more years of open borders and amnesty for an endless stream of illegal aliens, and 30 more years of far left wing judges ruling from the bench.
3. Vote for one of the third party candidates who have no possibility of getting elected, which is the same as #4 below.
4. Don't vote, so you can complain about whoever gets elected without taking any responsibility for it.
Between Hillary and anyone even slightly to the right of Hillary, I am voting for anyone even slightly to the right of Hillary. I hope and pray that I will have the opportunity to vote for someone far to the right of Hillary (and will do whatever I can during the primaries to have that opportunity), but in the general election you generally have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Or you can simply give up and allow the greater of the two evils to take over.
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.