The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Fishrrman on July 12, 2014, 04:15:11 pm
-
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2014/07/friday-afternoon-roundup-romney-dont-run.html
DON'T RUN
The rumors are growing that Romney intends to make a comeback. It's not too hard to imagine him sitting in a hotel room somewhere being talked into taking another shot at it until he feels "called".
Please don't.
We've seen this show before. It doesn't play.
Mitt Romney failed last time because he couldn't connect to working class and middle class whites as well as Obama connected to his base of black women. Unless Romney has transformed his image from slick corporate salesman, another "Staples Campaign" will be a disaster. Except this time he'll have to convince white women not to vote for Hillary.
I'm not saying that Romney is a bad man. He may be a good man. And maybe in the 1950s, he would have won. But his persona is wrong for modern politics. It's really wrong for an economic crisis. There were times when he seemed to break out of it and show a more human side, but I have no confidence that a campaign won't mean the same plastic Romney who takes no risks.
No thanks.
It's not that the 2016 playing field is filled with great candidates. It isn't. Nearly every likely candidate supports amnesty. The one principled candidate is not ready for prime time. After the Christie meltdown, I understand why the establishment would turn to Romney.
It's still not going to work.
In an economic crisis you need someone who can speak to people who are insecure about their future and make them feel as if he cares about their problems. That's the poll section of "Shares my values/Cares about my problems" which Republicans invariably lose and Obama wins.
Romney is not the guy to change that. I'm not sure if the GOP will be able to find someone who can, but the election will likely be lost or won on "I feel your pain".
On the empathy gap.
The good news is that Hillary Clinton is a cold fish. The bad news is that Bill Clinton, the master of I Feel Your Painness, will be on the campaign trail every day reminding voters how good the economy used to be.
Hillary Clinton's two big assets are gender and her husband's rosy recollections of a better economy.
You're not going to beat that with Mitt Romney.
For anyone who thinks I'm being unfair, watch this video, especially in light of the VA scandal.
Don't make excuses for Romney. Imagine how Bill Clinton would have dealt with that question. Now imagine a Republican who could turn a moment like this into a signature moment in his campaign and you have the 2016 candidate who can beat Hillary.
Just about every prospective 2016 candidate would have done a better job here.
-
These are media rumors made up out of whole cloth. Mitt Romney is still a very important voice in Conservative politics and he does not have to be running for president to hit the speech circuit in support of anyone who does. His voice and many others will be forming the platform for the next Republican candidate.
Like it or not.
-
America chose Cool twice. As a result people are hurting and are ready now for Competent.
Whether Romney's in play or not, let all the candidates declare, weigh the entire field, then decide.
-
If the gop really want to win they won't run a 2 time loser.
-
I have said it before and I will say it again. Either Romney or Jeb Bush will run. But not both. And it's up to Jeb.
-
I have said it before and I will say it again. Either Romney or Jeb Bush will run. But not both. And it's up to Jeb.
I think that you are probably correct.
-
I have said it before and I will say it again. Either Romney or Jeb Bush will run. But not both. And it's up to Jeb.
Jeb Bush is out of the question. The Bush name is not well liked on either side. And he shot himself in the foot when he said illegals do it 'out of love'.
Hey Jeb! There is a whole lot of 'love' on our southern borders right now.
Would you agree?
-
I have said it before and I will say it again. Either Romney or Jeb Bush will run. But not both. And it's up to Jeb.
I hope you are wrong on the first, and I am certain you are wrong on the second.
Soy un Perdedor!
:smokin:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObM-ZfVqADo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObM-ZfVqADo)
-
These are media rumors made up out of whole cloth. Mitt Romney is still a very important voice in Conservative politics and he does not have to be running for president to hit the speech circuit in support of anyone who does. His voice and many others will be forming the platform for the next Republican candidate.
Like it or not.
spot on.
-
Romney is hardly a "loser." He is a highly successful man, highly regarded by the kind of people that matter.
There is a popular political forum site, claiming to be conservative, with some individuals that are clearly obsessed with Romney. One has posted the same graphics for years. Those people don't matter.
Those types are the "losers."
-
Romney is hardly a "loser." He is a highly successful man, highly regarded by the kind of people that matter.
There is a popular political forum site, claiming to be conservative, with some individuals that are clearly obsessed with Romney. One has posted the same graphics for years. Those people don't matter.
Those types are the "losers."
But when it comes to this particular situation—running for President—he is, by definition, a loser. A two-time loser, even.
-
But when it comes to this particular situation—running for President—he is, by definition, a loser. A two-time loser, even.
If that's the case, then Hillary Clinton is also a loser, and Joe Biden is a multiple times loser.
Will that matter?
-
Personally, I wouldn't oppose Romney because he has lost in the past. I learned a lot more from my failures than I ever did from my successes, and I have failed at many, many things over the years. Romney's failures may well lead to his success as a campaigner. He is kind of like a golfer who "choked" during a major golf tournament a few times and then comes back and wins because he adapts to the situation, having been there.
No, I would oppose Romney because I don't agree with him on too many issues. His having failed in the past could actually be a plus if he learned anything by it.
-
No, I would oppose Romney because I don't agree with him on too many issues. His having failed in the past could actually be a plus if he learned anything by it.
Are you talking about the primary or the general election? Would you oppose Romney if he was the candidate running against hillary or Elizabeth Warren?
-
Are you talking about the primary or the general election? Would you oppose Romney if he was the candidate running against hillary or Elizabeth Warren?
Although I was late to the party, ultimately I supported Romney in 2012 and would do so again in 2016. Between him and Jeb Bush, however, I'd prefer Bush. I intend to back Rand Paul in the primary, but I believe it is likely to be a quixotic pursuit. Rand Paul does have the potential to attract some youth constituencies to the GOP, and that might finally give us a plurality, but he probably won't be able to make the sale to the GOPe or the SoCons. And Paul won't have anywhere near enough money.
I don't see any new voter segments Romney can attract. There is a decidedly anti-Mormon bent among pentecostals, and he would likely lose a lot of female votes if Hitlery is the Dem nominee. Jeb Bush can reel in more of the religious types, plus he can attract Hispanics. But then there is that damned last name.
To my way of thinking, America may be ready for a true libertarian reformer.
-
Although I was late to the party, ultimately I supported Romney in 2012 and would do so again in 2016. Between him and Jeb Bush, however, I'd prefer Bush.
Good. I liked Romney in 2012, because I was more interested in having a competent President than I was in having one I agreed with all the time. I feel even more strongly about the competency issue now than I did then. Romney fits that bill, although I doubt he would get the nomination. Bush is competent also, and I'm not sure he could get the nomination either.
But having one or both of them in the running gives us a benchmark for competency and experience that I think we could use for deciding who the eventual nominee is. We do not need another trainee president - even if it is one from the right side.
-
Good. I liked Romney in 2012, because I was more interested in having a competent President than I was in having one I agreed with all the time. I feel even more strongly about the competency issue now than I did then. Romney fits that bill, although I doubt he would get the nomination. Bush is competent also, and I'm not sure he could get the nomination either.
But having one or both of them in the running gives us a benchmark for competency and experience that I think we could use for deciding who the eventual nominee is. We do not need another trainee president - even if it is one from the right side.
I thought Bush was competent, and a decent man, but he was also a disaster from my point of view. I'd prefer someone to dismantle the government rather than manage it well.
-
I thought Bush was competent, and a decent man, but he was also a disaster from my point of view. I'd prefer someone to dismantle the government rather than manage it well.
I was talking about Jeb Bush for the next election, but I did think W was competent. I don't ever expect any President to get everything right, and my biggest disappointment with W was when he gave in and agreed to have a TSA.
I also don't think anyone could - or should - just dismantle the gov't. Cutting it back is necessary, but that has to be done gradually and smartly. Many of the most wasteful programs are the entitlement programs, and those can't just be dismantled. They have to be phased out on a carefully planned timetable.
-
I was talking about Jeb Bush for the next election, but I did think W was competent. I don't ever expect any President to get everything right, and my biggest disappointment with W was when he gave in and agreed to have a TSA.
I also don't think anyone could - or should - just dismantle the gov't. Cutting it back is necessary, but that has to be done gradually and smartly. Many of the most wasteful programs are the entitlement programs, and those can't just be dismantled. They have to be phased out on a carefully planned timetable.
A good dismantling can be well-thought out and meticulous. But among the top potential nominees of either party only Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would support shrinking the government, let alone dismantling it. Everyone else would either expand or just lower the growth rate, and that includes Paul Ryan.
-
I still Like Romney! I wish he could go door to door to every home in the country! If he did people would vote for him. I was one of the last holdouts for him myself, but I am sad everyday I see Obama and think what if????
I have been to rallies and meet and greets, luncheons and dinners since Reagan. Although I never got to meet or see Reagan in person, I did see VP Bush, and then Bush41 and Quayle at a dinner twice during the elections. I was at a meet and greet with Dole and a lunch for Kemp. I was up front at a Bush 43 rally, never got to see Cheney in person. I was at 2 McCain rallies and then the tea party rally where Palin spoke.
I saw Romney 3 times, last time with Ryan, and he was awesome!!!
Of all the people running for president, that I have seen in person speak, only 3 seemed like genuine caring people. Bush 41, Bush 43, and Romney! I left out Rudy, because he didn't make it to the big dance **nononono*
This is not politically speaking, but how they are on a personal level.
-
I was talking about Jeb Bush for the next election, but I did think W was competent. I don't ever expect any President to get everything right, and my biggest disappointment with W was when he gave in and agreed to have a TSA.
I also don't think anyone could - or should - just dismantle the gov't. Cutting it back is necessary, but that has to be done gradually and smartly. Many of the most wasteful programs are the entitlement programs, and those can't just be dismantled. They have to be phased out on a carefully planned timetable.
I agree with your point about dismantling the gov't, a herculean and almost impossible task given that the welfare class would surely riot and the media would trumpet their cause 24/7. Romney would be fine as president - most especially if we can get a Congress that will laser-focus on reform and cutting waste.
These welfare programs are always going to be necessary for a certain percentage of people - but the programs as administered NOW absolutely encourage lifelong/generational dependence. They need to be reformed to actually wean people OFF of them. I think anyone receiving taxpayer funded money should have to earn it in any way they can do it. I don't buy this junk that a lot of these people "can't" work - bullshit! Almost anyone can work at a computer. Anyone that is able-bodied can pick up garbage, clear weeds, be a flagger, etc - just be required to do something of value to earn their benefits.
The changes that we want to see will not happen overnight, but we have to get leadership that will be committed to starting the ball rolling.
...
To my way of thinking, America may be ready for a true libertarian reformer.
Yes. The two parties have made a real mess of things. A libertarian reformer can find common ground between many diverse groups.
-
A good dismantling can be well-thought out and meticulous. But among the top potential nominees of either party only Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would support shrinking the government, let alone dismantling it. Everyone else would either expand or just lower the growth rate, and that includes Paul Ryan.
You're talking about what the potential 2016 nominees say today. In 2012, Romney & Ryan proposed cutting the size of gov't. They were pilloried in the press, and they didn't get elected. Why would any GOP hopeful start talking about a plan similar to the one that lost just 2 years ago?
-
I agree with your point about dismantling the gov't, a herculean and almost impossible task given that the welfare class would surely riot and the media would trumpet their cause 24/7. Romney would be fine as president - most especially if we can get a Congress that will laser-focus on reform and cutting waste.
These welfare programs are always going to be necessary for a certain percentage of people - but the programs as administered NOW absolutely encourage lifelong/generational dependence. They need to be reformed to actually wean people OFF of them. I think anyone receiving taxpayer funded money should have to earn it in any way they can do it. I don't buy this junk that a lot of these people "can't" work - bullshit! Almost anyone can work at a computer. Anyone that is able-bodied can pick up garbage, clear weeds, be a flagger, etc - just be required to do something of value to earn their benefits.
The changes that we want to see will not happen overnight, but we have to get leadership that will be committed to starting the ball rolling.
Yes. The two parties have made a real mess of things. A libertarian reformer can find common ground between many diverse groups.
One of the reasons that there are so many welfare cases is that there are so few jobs. I know a few of the ones who transitioned from unemployment to disability. There are far too many of those. And even if we tried to make some of them work, there aren't enough low wage jobs available to put them all to work - even if the gov't paid their wages (which would only make the programs more expensive that what we have now).
IMO, a Romney presidency would have added more jobs, and made it easier for employers to hire more people. That would have gone a long way toward solving the problem without us having to add more gov't employees to monitor the status of the workforce.
I'm not a fan of a Libertarian option these days. The libertarians are fine for domestic policy, but I disagree with them about foreign policy, and that's every bit as much of a mess as domestic policy. The 0bamites have been pretty thorough in making sure that every aspect of gov't is a royal mess.
-
I'm not a fan of a Libertarian option these days. The libertarians are fine for domestic policy, but I disagree with them about foreign policy, and that's every bit as much of a mess as domestic policy. The 0bamites have been pretty thorough in making sure that every aspect of gov't is a royal mess.
While I agree with you that many if not most Libertarians have foreign policy ideas that are not exactly great (speaking as a foreigner), it's probably the best bet.
America is pretty much always going to be split at 30% Repub voters, 30% Dem voters - the ones who will vote party, no matter what. It's the other 40% that are the key. They may tend one way or another, but they need to be wooed.
The Libertarian focus on domestic - trimming government fat, pushing for jobs creation and getting government regulations under control and out of your life is going to be an attractive message. People want solutions to their problems - and not many of the 40% consider the ME (for example) their problem.
-
While I agree with you that many if not most Libertarians have foreign policy ideas that are not exactly great (speaking as a foreigner), it's probably the best bet.
America is pretty much always going to be split at 30% Repub voters, 30% Dem voters - the ones who will vote party, no matter what. It's the other 40% that are the key. They may tend one way or another, but they need to be wooed.
The Libertarian focus on domestic - trimming government fat, pushing for jobs creation and getting government regulations under control and out of your life is going to be an attractive message. People want solutions to their problems - and not many of the 40% consider the ME (for example) their problem.
History says that the US really shouldn't ignore the rest of the world - we're on too many enemies lists. The last time we totally ignored the rest of the world, we got Pearl Harbor. And we were pretty much ignoring threats from outside when we got 9/11. Given the state of the world right now, ignoring foreign policy is a suicidal idea.
We don't have a 30%-30% split between parties now. We haven't had that close of a split for awhile. It's more like 40% dim and 28% GOP. The dim voters can always be counted on to go to the polls if they are needed. And the dim politicians are very good at keeping count, so they know exactly when to bring out the tie breakers, which can include the voters from the cemeteries if need be. The GOP voters are far more fickle. They will stay home for various reasons, and most of the time the politicians just don't know why until it's too late.
But where we have really tipped the scales is with entitlement spending. Over half our voters collect gov't checks for something - welfare, gov't salaries, SS, disability, unemployment, etc. The GOP has to find a way to convince those people that we need to move away from gov't benefits and back to the capitalist society we were so successful with. That's the argument that is key to winning.