Romney

[Crafty_Dog]

Don’t Do It, Mr. Romney
He’d have been a better president than Obama. That’s not nearly enough.
By Peggy Noonan
Jan. 15, 2015 7:13 p.m. ET
Hershey, Pa.
WSJ

A conversation with a Republican governor who is a possible presidential aspirant:

I told him I’d been thinking about something and wanted his response. You can argue that a governor is a better presidential nominee than a senator because governors, unlike lawmakers, have to do something and can be judged by their performance, which is measurable. You can look at their terms and say they raised or cut taxes, which helped or hurt the economy. They reformed the prison system, or they failed to. They balanced the budget or they didn’t. They improved education or not. They succeeded or failed in creating a favorable business climate. There are numbers and statistics that can to some degree test their claims. They know domestic issues and can be judged on domestic issues.

But they know nothing about the world. They haven’t been filling their brain-space with foreign policy and foreign affairs the past 20 years; they’ve been filling their minds with the facts of Indiana or Louisiana or New Jersey.

And so when they go national, they farm out these key areas to the party’s foreign-policy eggheads. And they unknowingly become captured by this worldview or that, this tendency and attitude or that. And they don’t even know they’ve been captured, they’re not that sophisticated. They just think they handed the foreign-policy portfolio over to someone respectable who’s called a thinker. (The first thing the thinker usually shares is not a thought but political advice: “You have to sound strong!”)

Senators, on the other hand, can’t be judged by clear domestic measures. They don’t have to do anything but talk on TV. Their communications offices send out press releases on their latest bill, which goes nowhere because the Senate doesn’t really do anything anymore, it’s just a big talking machine. You can’t judge them by what they did on unemployment or schools or taxes because they haven’t done anything.

But on foreign affairs they actually know a few things, because foreign affairs is in their portfolio. They’re on the Foreign Relations or Armed Services committee, they’re on subcommittees dealing with serious international issues, they go on fact-finding trips to Iraq and Africa and Asia. They visit and to some degree witness the results of American action or inaction. They get a more worldly view. (Once a senator told me his life is an intellectual feast. He gets to meet with scientists, prime ministers, visionaries, historians, great men—he has access to everyone, being a senator. I thought jeesh, glad you’re having a good time on our dime. But I also thought, OK, he’s going to know some things by the time he’s done.)

Anyway, to the governor I said, in a world in which foreign affairs continue to be more important than ever, in a dangerous world with which we have ever more dealings, shouldn’t we be thinking about senators for the presidency, and not governors?

He listened closely, nodded, then shook his head. No, he said, governors still have the advantage. Why? Because foreign policy still comes down, always, to your gut, your instincts. And your instincts are sharpened by the kind of experience you get as a chief executive in a statehouse, which is constant negotiation with antagonists who have built-in power bases. You learn what works from success and failure with entrenched powers that can undo you, from unions to local pressure groups to unreliable allies. Being a governor is about handling real and discernible power. A governor can learn what a senator knows more easily than a senator can learn what a governor knows.

This will be one of the subtexts of the 2016 GOP presidential race.

Regarding that race, the news this week was of Mitt Romney ’s seriousness in considering running again for the nomination. I just spent two days at the Republican joint congressional retreat in Hershey, Pa., and can tell you there was exactly no Mitt-momentum. The talk, when it turned to 2016, was of others. Those in attendance seemed to be trying to get the possibility of Mitt Part 3 through their heads, because while they understand it on a personal level—no one who’s been in the game ever wants to leave the game—they could see no compelling political rationale.

Everyone this week came down on Mr. Romney. In major newspapers and on political websites they listed their reasons he shouldn’t run. He is yesterday, we need tomorrow. He is an example of what didn’t work, we have to turn the page. He is and always has been philosophically murky—it’s almost part of his charm—but it’s not what’s needed now. He ran a poor campaign in 2012 and will run a poor one in 2016. He was a gaffe machine—“47%”; “I have some great friends that are Nascar team owners”—and those gaffes played into the party’s brand problems.

In defense of Mr. Romney’s idea, and what must be the impulse behind it, is this. If every voter in America were today given a secret toggle switch and told, “If you tug the toggle to the left, Barack Obama will stay president until January, 2017; if you tug it to the right, Mitt Romney will become president,” about 60% of the American people would tug right.

It must be hard for him to know that, and make him want to give it another try. But it’s also true that America would, right now, choose your Uncle Ralph who spends his time knitting over the current incumbent.

I add two reasons Mr. Romney should not run.

This is a moment in history that demands superior political gifts from one who would govern. Mitt Romney does not have them. He never did. He’s good at life and good at business and good at faith. He is politically clunky, always was and always will be. His clunkiness is seen in the way he leaked his interest in running: to multimillionaires and billionaires in New York. “Tell your friends.”

Second, Romney enthusiasts like to compare him with Ronald Reagan, who ran three times. This is technically true, though 1968 was sort of a half-run in which Reagan got in late and dropped out early, because he wasn’t ready for the presidency and knew it. But his 1976 run was serious, almost triumphant, and won for him the party’s heart.

The real Romney-Reagan difference is this: There was something known as Reaganism. It was a real movement within the party and then the nation. Reaganism had meaning. You knew what you were voting for. It was a philosophy that people understood. Philosophies are powerful. They carry you, and if they are right and pertinent to the moment they make you inevitable.

There is no such thing as Romneyism and there never will be. Mr. Romney has never encompassed a philosophical world. He has never become the symbol of an attitude toward government, or an approach to freedom or fairness. “Romneyism” is just “Mitt should be president.” That is not enough.

He is a smart, nice and accomplished man who thinks himself clever and politically insightful. He is not and will not become so. He should devote himself to supporting and not attempting to lead the party that has raised him so high.

[Crafty_Dog]

WSJ

SAN DIEGO, Ca.—Two-time Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Friday cast himself as a leader for the “post- Obama era,” attacking likely Democratic contender Hillary Clinton in remarks viewed as a stump speech for another White House quest.

A gathering of Republican Party leaders was the setting for Mr. Romney’s first public comments since signaling his interest in a 2016 candidacy and forcing many donors and activists to reassess their early allegiances.

Mr. Romney stopped short of announcing a 2016 campaign, but leaned heavily into the prospect, saying he was “giving serious consideration to the future.”

He quipped that his wife, Ann, “believes people get better with experience—and heaven knows I have experience running for president.”

Mr. Romney’s call to “end the scourge of poverty” was the most striking departure from his 2012 campaign, in which Democrats attacked him as a wealthy corporate raider who lacked concern for the poor. Mr. Romney contributed to the unflattering narrative during that campaign by scoffing in a private fundraiser at the “47 %” who receive government assistance and recommending “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants.

On Friday, Mr. Romney called for helping “all Americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in.” He also noted his work as a pastor helping the poor, a biographical detail largely overlooked in his 2012 bid.  Mr. Romney didn't offer any specific policy proposals, but by listing income inequality as one of three priorities, he suggested his next campaign would seek to reach voters from a wide range of income levels and racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Some of his Mr. Romney’s potential rivals, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have signaled they will address economic anxiety in their campaigns.  Mr. Romney was joined by his wife, who thanked the party for its support and work electing Republicans in 2014.

Mr. Romney touted an interventionist foreign policy, as he has in previous campaigns, and sounded ready to direct his criticism at Mrs. Clinton, who is expected to announce another White House bid in the next few months.

“The results of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama foreign policy have been devastating,” Mr. Romney said at the reception held aboard the USS Midway aircraft carrier, which is now a military museum. He described their approach as “based in part on the premise that if we’re friendly enough to other people, and if we smile broadly enough and press the reset button, peace is going to break around the world.”

The 13-minute speech capped off a three-day gathering of Republican Party leaders in which Mr. Romney’s intentions were a constant topic of conversation in hallways and ballrooms.

Mr. Romney described the event as “like coming back to a high school reunion to see all my friends,” and he received warm applause. But interviews with party leaders over the course of the Republican National Committee conference found little enthusiasm for another campaign by Mr. Romney, outside of his most loyal allies.

This year’s deep bench of potential candidates is a point of pride for many Republicans after losing the White House two times in a row.

“No disrespect to Gov. Romney, but we need to move on,” said Kris Warner, the national committeeman from West Virginia. “I don’t want to go back and relive the presidential campaign of four years ago."

Gov. Romney is certainly a good man, but he has much convincing to do as a politician, because if the strategy is the same, the result will be the same,” said South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Matt Moore. “Most voters want to at least hear from the new, conservative leaders in our party and we owe that to them. It’s clear no one is going to hand Gov. Romney the nomination on a silver platter.”

Appearances by some of Mr. Romney’s potential rivals at the RNC’s annual winter meeting reinforced the growing breadth of the potential 2016 field. The speakers included Ben Carson, a firebrand speaker who has never run for office; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who cast himself as a refreshing Washington outsider; and outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry , who stressed his success at creating jobs.

Bruce Hough, Utah’s national committeeman and a personal friend of Romneys, said Mr. Romney’s warnings about the slow economic recovery and the national-security threat posed by Russia have been borne out since his 2012 campaign.

“He’s been vetted and vindicated,” Mr. Hough said. “If he doesn’t run and we lose in 2016, he will have a pit in his gut.”

Only two weeks ago, Mr. Romney wasn't considered to be in the mix for 2016, outside of sporadic murmurs. The former governor and his closest allies have made a spree of calls to former staff members, elected officials and fundraisers in an effort to hastily lay the groundwork for a potential campaign.

The past week has also seen other likely candidates rolling out names of top political advisers, courting voters in the states that hold the earliest nominating contests and heading out on book tours.

On the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton is nearing a decision on another White House bid as the overwhelming favorite in the polls for her party’s nomination.

“There’s intrigue, there’s drama, it’s interesting,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said of the GOP field. “I think that it’s all great for our party.”

—Janet Hook contributed to this article.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/23/mitt-romney-backs-climate-change-supporters/

[G M]

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/23/mitt-romney-backs-climate-change-supporters/

It appears he is going to run on Obama's 2008platform, minus the enthusiasm.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/mitt-romney-email-hillary-clinton

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mitt-romney-fights-evander-holyfield-salt-lake-city-charity-n359546

[G M]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mitt-romney-fights-evander-holyfield-salt-lake-city-charity-n359546

At least he actually threw a punch here....

[G M]

http://moelane.com/2015/07/09/katherine-archuleta-mitt-romney-hacking-opm/

When Obama promised the most transparent administration ever, who knew he meant the background information of every American with a security clearance ?

[Crafty_Dog]

Also worth noting is the big general who in testimony today/yesterday to Congress when asked who were the biggest dangers to the US said:

1) Russia
2) China
3) North Korea
4) ISIS

[DougMacG]

http://moelane.com/2015/07/09/katherine-archuleta-mitt-romney-hacking-opm/

When Obama promised the most transparent administration ever, who knew he meant the background information of every American with a security clearance ?

Paraphrasing one of our own, they warned me that if I voted for Romney all this would happen.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/romneys-2012-mali-terror-threat-ignored/article/2576870?utm_content=buffer2d5a3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[ccp]

3 or 4 time loser is giving speech tomorrow .  "Major speech"

He will kill the Republican party not save it.  I will not vote for him.

We have Cruz and Rubio.

He should be rallying around one of them or if they cannot do it - Trump.

We will see.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/02/romney-to-make-major-speech-on-2016-race.html

[Crafty_Dog]

Date unknown:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD4hwzGhdY

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/03/romney-will-do-whatever-it-takes-to-topple-trump-even-if-that-means-a-convention-fight-for-the-nomination/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/373944-romneys-trump-feud-looms-over-utah-senate-race?userid=188403

[Crafty_Dog]

or maybe he simply is looking to define his space in what is to come , , ,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-president-shapes-the-public-character-of-the-nation-trumps-character-falls-short/2019/01/01/37a3c8c2-0d1a-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.72f17faf6a1f

[ccp]

just when we thought McCain was dead
he reincarnates the day after New Years.

[DougMacG]

just when we thought McCain was dead
he reincarnates the day after New Years.

Politicians talk about all kinds of issues all the time but they hit the national news when they criticize Trump [or any Republican President or leader].

It may be a help for republicans to separate character from policies.  He crosses the line if/when he does those other things of the never-Trumpers, withholds vote against key policies like McCain did with Obamacare did for personal reasons, holds up judicial appointments like Flake did over a fake issue of [not] firing the special prosecutor, endorses Democrats for Congress like George Will did.  

Romney represents Utah now.  I don't think he will stray too far from the will of his voters on policies.  He is not in Massachusetts anymore, and he won't go any further in the primaries than Jeb Bush or John Kasich did.

Romney is the living answer to the eternal question that America has, Why Trump.  When we put up an honorable man, a softer more empathetic man, a more agreeable man, a family man who never strayed, a more moderate candidate, one who wouldn't rock the boat with allies, trade partners and international organization, one who never blasted the media, the moderator or his opponent, YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM.

[ccp]

" Romney is the living answer to the eternal question that America has, Why Trump.  When we put up an honorable man, a softer more empathetic man, a more agreeable man, a family man who never strayed, a more moderate candidate, one who wouldn't rock the boat with allies, trade partners and international organization, one who never blasted the media, the moderator or his opponent, YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM. "

Doug you are exactly right.  Nice finish LAST the way this game is played today .   Since when have Democrats been "nice".

Romney calling Trump "anti immigrant" is the exact reason the Republican Party is heading for extinction .

Does Romney think he is going to get the 10s of millions of legals and illegals to vote for him?

W used this theory:
'Don't stop them pouring in over ALL the borders from all over the world and  leave our immigration laws open for complete abuse, and simply expect to win their hearts and minds over to the REpublican Party .

That works - just look at California NY NJ Florida Colorado New Mexico though I am not sure if Virginia is due to illegals etc vs massive government creating a giant influx.

Now with felons voting in Florida that state is lost .  We are done .  We can't even win the electoral college anymore.

[Crafty_Dog]

"Romney calling Trump "anti immigrant" is the exact reason the Republican Party is heading for extinction.  Does Romney think he is going to get the 10s of millions of legals and illegals to vote for him?"

Worth remembering here is Romney's insincere pandering to the Right in the primaries on this-- remember how he went after Newt when Newt said not to deport grannies who had been here for decades?

[G M]

"Romney calling Trump "anti immigrant" is the exact reason the Republican Party is heading for extinction.  Does Romney think he is going to get the 10s of millions of legals and illegals to vote for him?"

Worth remembering here is Romney's insincere pandering to the Right in the primaries on this-- remember how he went after Newt when Newt said not to deport grannies who had been here for decades?

[G M]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/378960.php

January 02, 2019
The Romney/Establishment Attack on Trump Is All About Open Borders, and Always Has Been
I've wanted to write about this myself for a long while.

Dave Reaboi makes different points than I have in mind, but he makes the basic point: all this shrieking about "character" by the neocons, liberal Republicans, and Establishment types is just some ideological camouflage to disguise the real objection to Trump, that is, that it's racist to oppose Open Borders.

They don't want to say that -- they believe it intensely, but they don't want to admit they share yet another key ideological premise with their close cousins on the globalist hard left -- so they pretend this is all about a rather small difference in free trade and the tactics to achieve actual free trade and, of course, about "character."

It's not. It's just that these people have such low character -- they are inveterate liars and are long practiced in misrepresenting their believes and their intentions to the voters they con into voting them into power -- that they lie without a thought about it.

They will go on lying about it. Bill Kristol, Mitt Romney, Jonah Goldberg, almost all of National Review, etc., will continue playing hide-the-ball regarding their real views on immigration -- which are open borders in all but name, just keep doing what we're doing, which is virtually nothing (which is why the open borders people endorse our current #FakeNews immigration enforcement) -- acting as perfect cowards in refusing to clearly announce their actual beliefs and preferences and pretending this is all merely a dispute about "character."

Well it is -- in a way. They believe that anyone who opposes their de facto open borders position is a racist and therefore has bad "character."

They just won't say so. They've grown accustomed to lying to their readers, constituents, and voters about just how monstrously racist and evil they believe them to be. They only gain the courage to state these beliefs forthrightly when, like Max Boot, they officially defect to the liberal Democrat camp.

But your character is bad.

Their character -- all lies and cowardice and self-dealing -- is sterling.

And super-Christian.

Just ask them!



David Reaboi
✔
@davereaboi
 Immigration is really the only issue that matters—but not in the way you might think.

269
7:42 AM - Jan 2, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
151 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

We've got now a significant minority in the country--and a powerful majority in elite institutions like media and academia--that believes we don't have a right to restrict immigration into the US at all, because it's racist.

This loud minority is amplified on social media, sure--but conservatives understand that these are the people who’re teaching their children and creating the intellectual environment for them. They see, correctly, that it's only a matter of time.

When Trump says "if we don’t have borders, we don't have a country," that aphorism resonates because it’s *more essentially true* than anything in GOP orthodoxy you'd read about in any conservative media pre-Trump.


The Trump/Romney argument on the Right, at this point, is utterly boring. It's the same conflict, like the Eternal Recurrence, between people who know what time it is, and people who don't. It's rancorous precisely because it's a conflict about perception of the threat.

It's also a battle that’s been won by the Trump side--even if the folks cheering Romney today don’t realize it.

The status quo GOP candidates were totally routed in 2016; both Trump and Cruz resonated with the GOP electorate because they're "America is in Crisis" candidates.

Marco Rubio was the quintessential status quo GOP candidate. It's like he was weaned on Weekly Standard and WSJ op/eds.

His message of optimism was rejected by people who knew what time it was--people who understand that America had changed significantly since Reagan and Bush.

If you know what time it is, and understand that we’re losing not just our common culture American identity--that's pretty much gone--but now, the concept of national sovereignty full-stop, you are legitimately furious at would-be allies who are knifing you in the back.

If you believe this massive cultural & philosophical conflict will be won without "tribalism," you do not know enough about this to be of much use going forward.

Many of the pro-Trump people you hate understand this, and that's why they're frustrated AF with you.

A final thought: Rubio voter types seem to believe that taking in any amount of any kind of immigrants would not change the character or politics of America in any real way, certainly not negative.

For people in the real world, however--people who know what time it is--this insane belief is proof you're so ideologically blinded on something so basic, you can't be trusted.

It's not that these people are stupid or evil; they just believe a bunch of things that manifestly are not true in order to reach what they believe is the only conclusion that's possible given these assumptions.

I'll have to do another Universal Values Delusion thread, because it's worth repeating. It's a misunderstanding of American principles that’s so tightly held, it's become a dogma that’s crowded-out even self-evident, plainly observable truths.

[DougMacG]

"Romney's a Republican by registration, yes, but not much of a conservative."
   - IBD  https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/romney-trump-criticism/
He did not govern as a conservative, as they document.
-----------------------
Ironically, it is Trump who had the best, most wise, succinct, spot-on retort to Romney's criticism:

Trump: If Mitt Romney Fought Against Obama The Way He Fights Me, He Would Have Won Election [and I wouldn't be President].
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/02/trump_i_hope_mitt_romney_is_going_to_be_a_team_player.html

As I was saying, Romney et al is why we have Trump with all his warts.  No one has stood up and fought against progressivism and Leftist since Reagan.

[Crafty_Dog]

72-9: Romney’s Puzzling Move

As reporters, editors, and producers in the mainstream media seek to lionize former Massachusetts Governor and incoming Utah Senator Mitt Romney for his recent Washington Post op-ed criticizing President Trump, they should consider this critical set of numbers: 72-9.

These figures represent the margin by which President Trump would beat Mitt Romney in a four-way 2020 Republican Primary if it were held today, according to a December McLaughlin & Associates survey. I’ve been studying politics for a long time, and 72-9 is fairly decisive.

I faced Romney in the 2012 primary, and he won. He is a smart, competitive, serious man who genuinely wants America to succeed. This is why I am so puzzled by his decision to start the year attacking the president – before even being sworn into the Senate or given committee assignments.

Romney has no doubt had a successful career (in politics and business). However, I suspect he will soon learn that regardless of his past achievements, he is now a freshman senator – and the Senate doesn’t care who you used to be.

Most immediately, he should be learning how to operate in the Senate. It is a complicated, arcane body that can take decades to understand. Romney should reach out to Senators like Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, and Lindsey Graham, to learn how to move the system and make it work.

I can’t figure out why Romney thought ribbing the president was strategically more useful than offering ideas to solve the problem at the border and get the government fully-funded. In fact, Romney and every other Republican should join Senator Graham in talking to Americans everywhere about the plan to secure the border while protecting the Dreamers.

Instead of picking a fight with his own party’s president, Romney should be asking why the Democrats apparently care more about hating President Trump than they do about helping nearly 700,000 people who were brought to our country as children and have lived as Americans their entire lives.

Additionally, Romney could be offering Republicans insight into defeating Senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential candidacy – since she represents the state he once governed.

Instead of starting his Senate service by seeking to lead a small, shrinking anti-Trump faction of congressional Republicans, I hope Romney takes advantage of his very real chance to help our country – and the Republican party at the same time.

More than perhaps any other person in Congress, Romney could become a very effective bridge between the White House and business leaders. If he spends his time focusing on policy objectives instead of noise, he could make a serious impact on our future.

However, if he allows his political staff to turn him into the premier anti-Trump senator, he will severely limit his effectiveness and potentially endanger the Senate majority and Republican agenda.

I hope Senator Romney gets beyond the noise and learns to find common ground for the common good.

Your Friend,
Newt
P.S. Kick off your 2019 reading list with the bestselling Trump Collection, featuring autographed copies of Understanding Trump and Trump's America.
Order now>>


   

[DougMacG]

72-9 is why Romney is not running again.  Romney's motives for that column are unknown but best explanation is that he wanted to distance himself loud and clear before his arrival so that he wouldn't constantly have to answer questions like that.  Most of it said nothing, I will vote for legislation if it's good for the country and his [new] state. 

Utah is conservative but not Trump country.  They draw a line between honoring the vows of polygamy and cheating.

[Crafty_Dog]

True enough, but he went well beyond saying I will vote according to my conscience.

[DougMacG]

True enough, but he went well beyond saying I will vote according to my conscience.

Busted, I didn't read it.  Didn't want to give Bezos the revenue clicks and Romney the attention.

[Crafty_Dog]

 

[G M]

"So failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney took to the op-ed pages of the WaPo to lambaste President Trump's character, by which he means banging porn starlets and publishing mean tweets. Presumably, Romney doesn't do these awful things, which makes him, in his mind, morally superior to Donald Trump. But there's more to 'character' than this. For example, there's courage. There's commitment. There's leadership. There's not backing down, caving in to criticism, and sticking to a course of action when things get tough. To my knowlesge, none of these characteristics have ever been attributed to Mitt Romney. In fact, in recent years, Romney has turned out to be quite a weasely little Vichy Republican, kind of like Evan McMullin, but with not as much estrogen. Oh, and then he whines, quote, Trump's words and actions have caused dismay around the world, unquote. So why is that a bad thing? A lot of these guys, you *want* to have dismayed. I'm sure Robert E. Lee was "dismayed" by General Grant on more than one occasion. And no doubt the Soviets were "dismayed" by Ronald Reagan. That's what we call a feature, not a bug. If you're not pissing somebody off, you're not doing your job. Trump understand this. Mittens does not. There's speculation that this op-ed is Romney getting into position for the 2020 primaries. Which makes me wonder what Mitt's advisors are telling him, because I don't see any big groundswell of support for a Romney presidency. He'll find this out the hard way if he keeps up his weasel act. If he dares to put up a primary challenge in 2020, Trump is going to schlong him good and hard. Nobody likes a backstabbing coward."

[Crafty_Dog]

 

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.dennisprager.com/mitt-romney-fails-again/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/romney-casts-lone-gop-vote-trump-judicial-pick-disparaging-comment-obama/?fbclid=IwAR2BI4vCm4Qgmf97HCefgV-BOKaosBKJmCGe_a4XeIFgPak96f3UqNlqDbA

[G M]

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/romney-casts-lone-gop-vote-trump-judicial-pick-disparaging-comment-obama/?fbclid=IwAR2BI4vCm4Qgmf97HCefgV-BOKaosBKJmCGe_a4XeIFgPak96f3UqNlqDbA

Mittens. 

[DougMacG]

My rant yesterday on the impeachment (weasel) thread:
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2748.msg122996#msg122996
I don't want to waste more time on Romney.  Byron York puts the issue to bed nicely here:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/mitt-romneys-profile-in-courage
--------------------
What has he ever been politically but an opportunist - and he admits it.  The life of the unborn depends on the constituency you are working.

Just look at his current position, junior Senator from Utah.  He's not from Utah.  He leveraged his religion for political opportunism and used his money to buy a house there.  Did he sell his other houses?  Does he live there?  He couldn't get elected nationwide and he couldn't get elected ever again in Mass.  He is taking up a place of high profile and experience that should go to the future leader that he is not.

BTW Mitt, there is no such thing as "severely conservative".  Try "Common Sense Conservative" and tell me how much of it is too much.

[ccp]

As almost always Byron sums it up beautifully

Romney is so deeply religious he can't decide if he is pro life or pro abortion
  that flip flop alone makes his sudden  piousness appear totally contrived!

He waited till the last minute to announce his decision even lying to Mike Lee about what he was going to do.
  then as Byron points out went to all the Leftist outlets to announce he is with THEM

Traitor is the only word I can think of for it.

* I think I have Romney pegged *

He absolutely is running again for President.
He thinks he can run as a centrist .  Perhaps after Trump he thinks the field will be so weak he will come in on his white horse and get independents etc

He is positioning himself to run somehow some way as the more traditional good boy Republican who can work both sides and reach out with politeness and civility to all and unify our nation
 
In his mind he is thinking MACA. - make America cordial again
But the reality is MRLA - he would make Republicans losers again

[DougMacG]

He is running for something, but getting endorsement of the Republican Party can't be part of it, not even of Utah. 

His Senate votes are about as responsible as Trump's tweets, his version of Pelosi tearing up the speech.

He is only 72 but is trying in retirement, like post-President Carter, to repair the damage he did in his career.  He is trying to impress and appease someone, must be the mainstream media.

I don't like changing the rules in midstream or looking backward, but it would help right-size his ego to have his political career end by being recalled by the voters of Utah.

Truly bizarre that he wanted to be Trump's Secretary of State.  True to the deep state establishment, his purpose could only have been to undermine the President and his policies.

Not one Democrat voted for him when it mattered.  Now almost no Republican would.

[ccp]

"Truly bizarre that he wanted to be Trump's Secretary of State."

oh my God yes! 

could anyone imagine how that would have went over ?

not only would he have been fired , but this would have happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVZwoLZgrRs

it would have made Rex Tillerson's firing look cordial by comparison.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/21/romney_i_dont_know_biden_well_but_he_seems_to_be_a_man_of_honor.html

[ccp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO-aE4N76rg

Mitt:  Biden is a nice guy with good intentions

"old time Republicans " are not what we need......

[DougMacG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO-aE4N76rg

Mitt:  Biden is a nice guy with good intentions

"old time Republicans " are not what we need......

Romney doesn't like the Democrat agenda.  Maybe he shouldn't have sabotaged the Republican one.

[ccp]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-mitt-romney-says-republican-212144366.html

first it is the debate format and the biased moderators not the debates altogether

we don't want the deep staters picking their favorite left leaning moderators

also Romney lost the election to O'Bams twice
he was even winning the second one when he said something totally stupid (I can't remember what it was )

notice he only gets headlines when he criticizes his party
otherwise no one listens to him anymore

[ccp]

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/2/2/22913085/do-republicans-like-mitt-romney-poll-numbers-joe-biden-donald-trump-hinckley-inistitute-utah

heaven help us if Utah voters can't get rid of him.

[Crafty_Dog]

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511114324621901827

[ccp]

why does he only find the need to call out Republicans he does not like, but never Democrats [to my knowledge]?

unless he does, and we just don't ever read or hear about due to media bias

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2023/02/08/romneysantos-exchange-n2619304

it is like Kinzinger or Steele on CNNPCP or MSLSD

wonder what CNN pays Kinzinger
how much does it cost to bribe a Senator to come out to day in and out speak  Democrat points?

I wonder

[ccp]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/after-classified-briefing-romney-backs-bidens-handling-of-chinese-spy-balloon-incursion-190436122.html

always happy to help the crats on give CNN a see " I told you so"
piece

can Utah votes please get rid of him once and for all in '25?

https://www.senate.gov/senators/Class_I.htm

[ccp]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-mitt-romney-approval-rating-030000056.html

about now deceased Dan Jones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_E._Jones

[DougMacG]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-mitt-romney-approval-rating-030000056.html

about now deceased Dan Jones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_E._Jones

From the article:  “Because our state deserves someone who can actually get things done, "

"Our state"??  Wasn't he the Governor of Massachusetts?? Raised in Michigan? Lives and works in Washington DC area now? Sold his place at Deer Valley.  Kept his place in New Hampshire.Sold the place with the car elevator in La Jolla.  It's hard being conservative.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sen-mitt-romney-places-11-5m-ski-resort-home-market.

Kept the place he bought to set up "residence" in Utah.  Who lives there?  Did he raise his kids there? No. Does he run a business there?  No.

[ccp]

I have not been a Mitt fan since he lost in '12.

I found this from him on line dated 12/30/22:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2022/12/30/23529589/utah-mitt-romney-senate-accomplishments-2022

[DougMacG]

Mitt Romney is not running for reelection. Wants a new generation of leaders. Want to focus on stopping Trump, whatever that means. Wants to focus on fighting the deficit, but on his Senate page he is focused on not cutting entitlements. Whatever that means.

From the top of this page, here is Peggy Noonan telling mitt not to run for president in 2015. (Just before Trump announced.)
https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=2291.msg85491#msg85491

[ccp]

Van Jones pointed out the absurdity of Dems bashing Mitt to no end when he ran against Obamsky

Recall the "swift boat" attack on having his dog on the roof of his car?

And comparing it to now where we have the libs calling him a great statesman etc,

bash your own Republican party makes you a great statesmen
as far as CNN et al are concerned

Thus no Dem is a great statesmen since they never do this to members of their own party
say go on Fox or Bongino report to bash themselves