Posted on 08/29/2014 1:50:24 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Democratic strategist James Carville believes two-time presidential candidate Mitt Romney will go for a third try in 2016, even though the 2012 GOP nominee has said he won’t seek the nation’s top office again.
“He’s run for president twice. I once noted that running for president was like having sex: No one did it once and forgot about it,” Carville said Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
And he’ll lose again. If the Republicans are that stupid, they deserve to go the way of the Whigs.
I’m getting sick of the commie libs trying to force Romney to run. Romney already told us prior to the last election that he doesn’t want to be president! Give the guy a break!
The problems for conservatives are that we have a liberal RNC pitted against a libertarian fraction that is also liberal on social agenda, but only differs on matters of fiscal policy.
Freeper's need to come to grips with the Liberal nature of the Right/conservative movement today in America - there is not going to be a popular majority winning candidate with "Biblical" morality able to carry the Right against the Left. We have become Left-center centric as conservatives - and the DNC has drifted to a hardcore socialism and hardcore leftist agenda.
Freeper's should just get beyond the primary's without destroying whoever is the viable conservative candidate and unite for better or worse against the hardcore left.
The TEA party will have it's long march about three election cycles from now and may well carry the day, but it is not worth destroying conservatism enroute due to fiscal differences - the morality based voters just are not a viable factor on a nation level - and even if morality voters were to carry the RNC nomination they would turn off the majority of voters just like a Muslim from the DNC would do.
bump
I’ll be happy to vote against Willard.
Hold our noses and saying "Peeeyooo!" is always fun I guess, but where is the positive-momentum movement to actual push conservative candidates? Sans such a concerted effort, we will be relegated to whining about how "they" never give us candidates worth voting for, all the while setting the Dem's anchor ever firmer.
“”So, why didn’t Mitt Romney run for a second term as governor of Massachusetts?
He would have lost. And, not just lost by a little. He would have been creamed.
Romney won his first term with about 49% of the vote. After 4 years in office he had a 30% approval rating–30%.
You can’t blame this on Romney being a Republican. Massachusetts, when it comes to electing governors, is friendly to Republicans. For 16 straight years Massachusetts elected nothing but Republican governors (Weld, Cellucci, Swift, and Romney).
Yet, it only took one Romney term to destroy this Republican popularity streak.””
James Carville baits you into trashing Mormons?
Are you on drugs, hearing (Carville) voices?
Except Pat Paulsen would have made a better president ...!
Good analysis.
Have you paid attention at all to Romney over the years? What he says and what he tells "us" are as fleeting as the wind and will change direction as quickly.
His word has all the lasting value of a wisp of steam.
Blame Romney. Commie libs are only his allies.
Right there with you -- in that I'll be happy to deny Willard my vote. Like I did in 2012 and stand by it now. I refuse to agree to be accountable for what would happen if Romney won.
It only took me 30 years, but I figured out why my voting against leftists for the past three decades has gotten me a Republican party so far left it's a joke.
You have to restrict yourself to voting FOR. Voting against means that your best-case scenario, winning, is desperate avoidance of the worst case scenario of a frightening Democrat. We've had a long parade, each one "the worst ever! The end of America!"
You only get to vote for. If you win, you will be accountable. It is the only way to view any vote, ever.
If 2016 is like 2012 in the presidential contest, by voting "third party" I will vote FOR a plurality (as opposed to a majority mandate) for the next Republican or Democrat liberal occupant of the White House at worst, and at best, a person who if he/she wins, will make things BETTER.
I've been doing it the other way -- voting "against" -- long enough to have finally figured it out. Einstein was right.
Where is that picture of Carvile with a garbage can on his head?
5.56mm
I think Carville’s right. Mitt is dying to run again. He knows he probably won in 2012 and got cheated out of the job. It probably eats at him night and day. Hopefully Ann Romney will keep saying no.
“You only get to vote for. If you win, you will be accountable. It is the only way to view any vote, ever.”
+1!
Please. He served his role of ringer. The only ones cheated were Conservatives who expected a legitimate nominee to face Zero.
Please double flush the idea of another Mittarded run at the Presidency. It stinks. Keep flushing until the stink is gone.
I see you still have the same comprehension problem when it comes to making connections and are so single-minded that the box has your mind firmly corralled- since I could never get through before, I'll let you remain in your state of bliss.
You made a rather strange claim, that Carville has people attacking Mormonism, do you have any evidence of him doing that?
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.