Karl Rove: Romney 'Has a Shot' at the White House

[speekinout]

Bush had not put up much fight in the last years, and the nation had GOP fatigue, and were war weary.

Obama looked appealing, by contrast. The tide had turned with dems taking the House majority in 2006, so it was a continuation of that trend.

That explains 2008, not 2012. It's true that 0bama never gave up on the "it's all Bush's fault" tack, but his leftist leanings were very much in evidence by then. They're still lying about our economic status and about the Islamic terrorism threat, but 0bamacare should counter some of that argument.
But probably not with hillary. She is the antithesis of charisma. Maybe Elizabeth Warren would do better.

[ChrisChristie4Pres]

Is it the GOP's best shot...

[libertybele]

Is it the GOP's best shot...

...perhaps the GOPe's best shot, but definitely not the GOP's best shot ... Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rand Paul even Rick Perry -- all of them can beat Hillary or Warren hands down. Bring it!!

[Oceander]

"He's going to have to say, 'Look. I get why I lost last time around, and I'm making changes that will make you feel that I'm going to be a better candidate.'"

I take it he is changing religions?  Fair or not, that is the reason he lost.

Although I did vote for him in 2012, and would likely vote for him in 2016 if he is the nominee, I maintain he has no chance of winning.  He has two giant albatrosses around his neck: (1) His Wall Street past, and (2) his Mormon religion.  He can't get rid of either of them.  He also cannot really shake his very poor record as a governor.

How many people have won the presidency without carrying the state they governed?

At least Jeb Bush can likely deliver the state he governed.  Romney cannot deliver the state he governed, or even the state his father governed. 

He lost for a number of other reasons; I very much doubt if his religion scared off anywhere near the number of moderate/indie voters as did his comments - suitably spun by the democrats - about the 47%, for example, or the fact that, despite his grasp of the facts, he appeared tepid in the debates with Obuttocks, as if he were pulling punches because he was afraid of being accused of beating up on Obuttocks.

[Oceander]

If Romney can learn from (a) his mistakes in 2012, and (b) Reagan's ability to speak simply with, but not down to, ordinary Americans, then yes, he does have a decent shot at president - so long as he doesn't get sabotaged (again) by a significant minority of the right.

Someone who can succeed in the world of Bain Capital isn't a weak-kneed wall flower, so he should have the fortitude to deal with it as well as to dish it out, but he needs to show he's got the fire in his belly for being president - for being the leader of a nation (as opposed to the community organizer for one small part of that nation) - and not just wanting to be the COO of the nation.

[massadvj]

In order for any GOP candidate to win, he or she will need to hold together the traditional Republican constituencies of taxpayers, military, Christians and small business plus add one new one.  Without a new core constituency, the GOP cannot win a national election.  Christie, Bush and Paul all have the capability to appeal to new constituencies, but each of them also has the potential to lose voters from the traditional base.  Romney brings no one new to the party and he cannot hold the Christian vote. Cruz and Perry can hold most of the base but will antagonize people from new potential constituencies. 

That leaves Walker, who I think is the best candidate on paper but untested on the national stage.

I like to imagine a whole different kind of GOP -- one that is youthful, vigorous and future-oriented, and that is why I support Paul.  But I realize I am probably being unrealistic insofar as Paul's ability to hold the base together.  So I hold out hope for Walker.

I almost never agree with OPapaDoc, but I do agree that we need a candidate with that "new car smell."

[Oceander]

In order for any GOP candidate to win, he or she will need to hold together the traditional Republican constituencies of taxpayers, military, Christians and small business plus add one new one.  Without a new core constituency, the GOP cannot win a national election.  Christie, Bush and Paul all have the capability to appeal to new constituencies, but each of them also has the potential to lose voters from the traditional base.  Romney brings no one new to the party and he cannot hold the Christian vote. Cruz and Perry can hold most of the base but will antagonize people from new potential constituencies. 

That leaves Walker, who I think is the best candidate on paper but untested on the national stage.

I like to imagine a whole different kind of GOP -- one that is youthful, vigorous and future-oriented, and that is why I support Paul.  But I realize I am probably being unrealistic insofar as Paul's ability to hold the base together.  So I hold out hope for Walker.

I almost never agree with OPapaDoc, but I do agree that we need a candidate with that "new car smell."

I do wish that Rand Paul weren't such a fruitcake when it comes to foreign affairs.  He's figured out that one of the keys to political survival is appealing to new voters and learning how to do so in terms they will understand, but he's just too much of a risk when it comes to his take on foreign affairs.

[massadvj]

I do wish that Rand Paul weren't such a fruitcake when it comes to foreign affairs.  He's figured out that one of the keys to political survival is appealing to new voters and learning how to do so in terms they will understand, but he's just too much of a risk when it comes to his take on foreign affairs.

That is definitely his biggest problem.  And yet, I am no longer comfortable with neocon foreign policy, either.  I think there is an opening for someone who can articulate a more creative vision.  So far, Paul has not done that.

[Oceander]

That is definitely his biggest problem.  And yet, I am no longer comfortable with neocon foreign policy, either.  I think there is an opening for someone who can articulate a more creative vision.  So far, Paul has not done that.

I don't like neocon foreign policy either.  While it's more adventuresome, it shares the same blissful ignorance about the realities of life with Paul's neo-isolationism.  What is really needed, IMHO, is someone who can take a page or two from Teddy Roosevelt's playbook:  speak softly and carry a big stick.  Neo-isolationists refuse to carry any sort of stick.  Neocons speak too loudly and don't know how to use the stick they carry.

[massadvj]

I don't like neocon foreign policy either.  While it's more adventuresome, it shares the same blissful ignorance about the realities of life with Paul's neo-isolationism.  What is really needed, IMHO, is someone who can take a page or two from Teddy Roosevelt's playbook:  speak softly and carry a big stick.  Neo-isolationists refuse to carry any sort of stick.  Neocons speak too loudly and don't know how to use the stick they carry.

I agree.  There needs to be a serious "Don't tread on me" aspect to a foreign policy that is mostly non-interventionist.

[Fishrrman]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ What is really needed, IMHO, is someone who can take a page or two from Teddy Roosevelt's playbook:  speak softly and carry a big stick. ]]

Look at Scott Walker's performance for the first two years of his governorship.

What say you?

[Oceander]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ What is really needed, IMHO, is someone who can take a page or two from Teddy Roosevelt's playbook:  speak softly and carry a big stick. ]]

Look at Scott Walker's performance for the first two years of his governorship.

What say you?

I say "I'm interested."

[alicewonders]

I agree.  There needs to be a serious "Don't tread on me" aspect to a foreign policy that is mostly non-interventionist.

I like that. 

[alicewonders]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ What is really needed, IMHO, is someone who can take a page or two from Teddy Roosevelt's playbook:  speak softly and carry a big stick. ]]

Look at Scott Walker's performance for the first two years of his governorship.

What say you?

I like Walker very much, he is fearless - but he doesn't bluster. 

[aligncare]

That explains 2008, not 2012. It's true that 0bama never gave up on the "it's all Bush's fault" tack, but his leftist leanings were very much in evidence by then. They're still lying about our economic status and about the Islamic terrorism threat, but 0bamacare should counter some of that argument.
But probably not with hillary. She is the antithesis of charisma. Maybe Elizabeth Warren would do better.

And let us never forget the 'black' factor. It's why he was elected the first time (and, of course, he did put on a very good show on top of that of being Mr. common sense moderate) ....and it's also why he was reelected (no one wanted to reject the first black president: too much cognitive dissonance from having voted for him the first time).

White guilt and political correctness unfortunately may be with us for many more generations to come.

[aligncare]

I like Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie – I even like Rubio (no particular order).

But I am not representative of the nation as a whole. Who the electorate actually ends up voting for is still up in the air because we really don't know what the field looks like yet. Voters compare and contrast before making up their mind.

Which candidate would actually excel in the job is also up in the air. The presidency is a crucible. But that's why governors are often chosen. They have a record of executive actions to run on.

My only prerequisite is that whoever is chosen must understand the threat of radical Islam and America's role in stopping this world wide threat. No corner of the earth is safe. Isolationism is not an option.

[EC]

If it came down to an isolationist Republican or a Democrat who actually understood the threat and was willing to act (don't laugh, JFK would have. Hard bastard, on the quiet.) I'll work for the Democrat.

But don't call it Radical Islam, it's not. It's correct name is Wahhabism. Every single last thing that people detest about Islam goes back to that cult and it's paymasters.

[EdinVA]

Well, I am looking for the big thinkers, not the big mouths.
Reagan was the last real visionary leader we had and that is what appeals to me about Cruz.

Hitler got into power with his chicken in every pot theme and that is what we have these days.
I don't care if you need to raise/cut taxes by .0001%, what I care about is what is the vision the candidate has for the country.

Why should the "leader of the western world" care about my health insurance, very small minded.
Trouble is we are all so accustomed to playing the social engineering game now that it really limits the conversation.

[massadvj]

And let us never forget the 'black' factor. It's why he was elected the first time (and, of course, he did put on a very good show on top of that of being Mr. common sense moderate) ....and it's also why he was reelected (no one wanted to reject the first black president: too much cognitive dissonance from having voted for him the first time).

White guilt and political correctness unfortunately may be with us for many more generations to come.

The problem is that OPapaDoc's "Black Factor" is Hillary's "Woman Factor;" and over half the population is women.  All of our candidates are more than a dozen points behind her.  That is precisely why no Republican can win without reeling in some new constituency.  Hillary will peel off a significant number of moderate and even conservative women.

[aligncare]

The problem is that OPapaDoc's "Black Factor" is Hillary's "Woman Factor;" and over half the population is women.  All of our candidates are more than a dozen points behind her.  That is precisely why no Republican can win without reeling in some new constituency.  Hillary will peel off a significant number of moderate and even conservative women.

Yes, true. That is a fear and a possibility. I also believe, however, Hillary lacks the charisma  and youth necessary to even secure the nomination. I'm hopeful that will deny her the chance at her party's nomination.

[massadvj]

Yes, true. That is a fear and a possibility. I also believe, however, Hillary lacks the charisma  and youth necessary to even secure the nomination. I'm hopeful that will deny her the chance at her party's nomination.

The fix is already in.  Bill Clinton has made deals with everyone who could possibly fund a challenge, and there will be zero money available to take on Her Heinous.  OPapaDoc was neutered in 2012 as the cost for Bill going out and campaigning for him all over the country.

The only thing that might keep Hillary out is her health.  But if she wants the nomination, it is hers for the asking.  I predict Warren will not even mount a challenge. 

On the GOP side, I predict that Romney will not get in so long as Jeb Bush remains viable.  That's another smoke-filled room deal that he cannot go back on.  But Romney wants to stay active in the game just in case the establishment can't put enough lipstick on Jeb.  Romney will come riding in from the "right" as the party's savior and try to fake out the base that way.

It is interesting to me that all the GOPe types seem to think the Tea Party is dead and yet everyone's strategy is based on how they can fool the party faithful into thinking they are conservative.  Sooner or later you'd think they'd try something different and run a genuine conservative.  But then, that would make too much sense.

[GourmetDan]

If it came down to an isolationist Republican or a Democrat who actually understood the threat and was willing to act (don't laugh, JFK would have. Hard bastard, on the quiet.)

Which is another reason that he ended up as he did...

[Relic]

Quote from: evadR² on January 12, 2015, 09:05:54 PM
"...the folks here didn't vote for Obama, either."

Most of 'em probably didn't vote for Romney either.
I really doubt that. Perhaps a survey would reveal the truth.

Well, I hope I'm wrong but really not sure.

I'll go 1st...

I VOTED FOR ROMNEY. I don't give a crap if he's a mormon, christian or heathen. As long as he isn't muslim.

I enthusiastically supported, and voted for Romney. I feel the same as you do about his religion, as long as it isn't muslim, I don't care. I do think Romney is a very good man, that's what matters.

Romney revealed in 2012 that he isn't really a fighter. That concerns me. If Romney won the nomination, I'd reluctantly vote for him, but I think a seemingly weak one time loser isn't going to win over the masses.

[Bigun]

If it came down to an isolationist Republican or a Democrat who actually understood the threat and was willing to act (don't laugh, JFK would have. Hard bastard, on the quiet.) I'll work for the Democrat.

But don't call it Radical Islam, it's not. It's correct name is Wahhabism. Every single last thing that people detest about Islam goes back to that cult and it's paymasters.

ABSOLUTELY spot on true EC! And they are a very small minority!

[aligncare]

If it came down to an isolationist Republican or a Democrat who actually understood the threat and was willing to act (don't laugh, JFK would have. Hard bastard, on the quiet.) I'll work for the Democrat.

But don't call it Radical Islam, it's not. It's correct name is Wahhabism. Every single last thing that people detest about Islam goes back to that cult and it's paymasters.

Right after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, I had a patient, a Muslim, who told me about Wahhabism. I had never heard the term just as I had never heard of Osama bin Laden before that day.

He told me the very same thing you just did EC. So, I simply will not accept that the mission to defeat terrorism should include the annihilation of all Muslims. Islam must work this out within itself. It desperately needs reformation while the West goes about killing as many Wahhabi bastards as possible.

Hopefully, the sane elements within Islam will work with us to accomplish that.