Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mitt Romney: I Won't Run
TruthRevolt.org ^ | 8-26-2014 | Jeff Dunetz

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.



TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016; 2016gopprimary; hewitt; hughhewitt; mitt; president; romney; romney2016
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last
To: Bubba_Leroy

Excellent example; I would add that a vote for the Democrat is to endorse the the “greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”


81 posted on 08/27/2014 2:51:58 PM PDT by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Finny
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.

I would much rather have a far left wing liberal running to the left of Hillary as an independent or third-party candidate. Bill Clinton got elected both times because of Perot. This time I want the liberals to split their votes.

We have to win the long game if we are going to have a chance of saving this country. That means (1) taking over the Senate in 2014, (2) electing a conservative President and holding on to the House and Senate in 2016, and (3) replacing RINOs with conservatives in 2018. If we cannot accomplish both (1) and (2) then the country will be destroyed before we can accomplish (3).

82 posted on 08/27/2014 2:51:58 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
Bill Clinton got elected both times because of Perot

Bill Clinton got elected because the liberal republican raised taxes and banned scary guns.

And the liberal republicans want to blame anyone and anything for that loss besides their liberalism.

That's what liberals do.

I hope the liberal republicans don't get control of the Senate in 2014. The damage they do is bad enough as the minority.

Remember, if it wasn't for the liberal republican leadership in the senate ensuring Reid got his critical cloture votes, the liberal agenda would be stalled.

/johnny

83 posted on 08/27/2014 4:04:44 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
You were warned last election. Run Romney and lose. You did run Romney and you did lose.

You are being warned before 2016: Run Romney and you will lose.

Period.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

/johnny

84 posted on 08/27/2014 4:09:36 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

Comment #85 Removed by Moderator

To: Finny
Got it backwards there, hoss. I'm the one claiming that the liberal republican got Clinton elected.

/johnny

86 posted on 08/27/2014 4:21:11 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; Bubba_Leroy
Bubba: Bill Clinton got elected both times because of Perot

JRF: Bill Clinton got elected because the liberal republican raised taxes and banned scary guns.

Bubba, JRF is exactly correct.

However, Bubba, Bill Clinton got denied a mandate both times because of Perot. Say that, and you also will be exactly correct.

If Clinton had ever won with a majority of Americans behind him, the Republican Revolution may never have happened and Hillary might well be more powerful now. But because of Perot, the WORLD KNOWS that really, most Americans rejected Clinton at the ballot box BOTH TIMES.

87 posted on 08/27/2014 4:22:41 PM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I know ... saw it about a tenth of a second after I hit post!!! {^) So I immediately begged the mods to delete it. I hope they do so quickly!!

Can you believe all the people who actually believe in the fantasy of voting "against"?

It just boggles the mind. The Democrat party isn't the only one with LIVs.

88 posted on 08/27/2014 4:24:08 PM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Finny
It bothers me that on FR, I get harassed because I won't vote for a pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, gun-control, socialized medicine, big government liberal.

/johnny

89 posted on 08/27/2014 4:26:23 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; Bubba_Leroy; All
Don't you GET IT, Johnny?????? HULLLLO?????

You aren't voting "for a pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, gun-control, socialized medicine, big government liberal," you're voting AGAINST a Democrat pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, gun-control, socialized medicine, big government liberal!!!

Why can't you get that through your thick head??? You're thinking in terms of what you're voting for, when what you SHOULD be doing is thinking in terms of what you're actually voting against!!!

Of course you get harassed! You're obviously not willing to vote against Obama or Hillary or any of them!!! *ducking*

90 posted on 08/27/2014 4:30:58 PM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
So what's the purpose in doubling down and bashing Romney still? I would have thought that all the FReep attacks in 2012 and the subsequent banning of his supporters would have put an end to all the angst anybody had about Romney...........

He says he's not running so focus on something that's positive..........

Ever consider why the democrats never appear to have this infighting? That's because they're laughing at us............

Welcome to the Republican party.....


91 posted on 08/27/2014 4:32:37 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (Is there such a thing as a vegan zombie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco
I hope I'm coming across as bashing all liberal republicans equally.

I despise liberals. Especially liberal republicans.

I'm not a republican. I'm a conservative.

/johnny

92 posted on 08/27/2014 4:34:52 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
You know what's really sad, Johnny? There are probably a frightening number of people who, if they read post 90, would be shaking their heads in agreement, that you just don't get it ...

Frightened sheeple being manipulated by their fears into voting for leftism, the very tyrant they fear. They voluntarily hand power to tyranny because their fear has made them stupid. Thank GOD enough Americans were too smart to fall for it in 2012. I hope even more are that smart in 2016, although clearly many here have not figured it out yet.

93 posted on 08/27/2014 4:38:15 PM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I despise liberals. Especially liberal republicans.

You think I'm a liberal republican? Why?

94 posted on 08/27/2014 4:41:39 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (Is there such a thing as a vegan zombie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco
Didn't say that at all.

I just hope I come across as equally despising all liberal republicans. Because I do.

/johnny

95 posted on 08/27/2014 4:46:00 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

FUMR

Go home, sit down, and SHUT UP.


96 posted on 08/27/2014 4:49:11 PM PDT by Peter W. Kessler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

I didn’t run Romney. By the time I finally got to vote in the primary in Texas he already had the nomination. My only choice was Romney or the Obamanation.

Given a choice between a Mormon RINO and a Muslim Marxist Socialist I picked the Mormon RINO. We would be a hellova lot better off right now if he had been elected.


97 posted on 08/27/2014 7:00:34 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
Funny, there were more than two presidential candidates on my Texas ballot. At least one of the was a conservative, because I voted for him.

He did about as well as your liberal choice.

We would be in the same place on abortion if Romney had won. No difference. Worse on amnesty, because the liberal republicans would have used Romney for cover to do the amnesty that they crave. Same thing with socialized medicine, liberal pubs would have used Romney as cover to enable the liberal agenda.

Things would be the same on gun-control. And Romney would have grown government without even a token fight from the pubs on the debt limit.

/johnny

98 posted on 08/27/2014 7:06:52 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

There were plenty of other names on the primary ballot and I voted for one of them, but by the time we finally had our primary at the end of May Romney already had the nomination locked.

In the general election one of only two candidates is going to get elected, either the Democrat or the Republican. That is the reality of the situation. Hopefully it will not be a choice between the lesser of two evils but it may very well be. If so, I will vote for the lesser evil rather than simply give up and hope for a better choice in four years.


99 posted on 08/27/2014 7:42:06 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Finny
I passed on Romney because I know that if whatever I vote for WINS, I'll be responsible.

You passed on Mitt and you gave us Hussein. How does that responsibility taste?

100 posted on 08/27/2014 11:26:29 PM PDT by steelwheels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson