Realistic Republicans Rue Romney’s Reluctance:

(`)romneyMitt Romney stepped into the ring in a boxing match for charity last week against former heavy weight champion Evander Holyfield. The faux fight was enjoyed by all. Later a small group gathered in a motel room down the street and sat around having a few beers in the normally dry Salt Lake City. As the night closed in on day the assembled started signing to the Nina Simone’s tune of “Come on back, Jack” :
Come on back Mitt
Hey Mitt, come on, come on back
Come on back Mitt
Hey Mitt, come on, come on back
When you told us you were through
We decided we’d move on
Now we’ve seen the new crew
We know that we were wrong
Come on back Mitt
Hey Mitt, come on, come on back
Come on back Mitt
Hey Mitt, come on, come on back
The group broke up later that night but the song sung in fun told of an anguish facing many in the Republican party. They recognize that the only person in their party with the gravitas and experience to beat Hillary Clinton is Mitt. The vast field of contenders are no more than pretenders. Mitt is the only heavy weight contender. Look for the pressure to grow on Mitt to get back into the race.
I and many others did not vote for Romney last time. The reason is he was too close to Netanyahu and Adelson who want to hire American troops to attack Iran. We are tired of wars in the Middle East. We hoped Obama would keep us out of that trap. We were right.
Obama has put Iran on track to doing away with its nuclear weapon program; if he succeeds, then the reason for the U.S. to attack Iran is gone with the wind no matter what other reasons are conjured up to urge us to do so. I don’t expect any president will want to enter another war like we did in Iraq because we disliked the leadership of a country.
Taking that factor off the table makes Romney a more desirable candidate for us. I say that because I’m anxious not to have the White House taken over by scoundrels which I suggest will be the case if Mitt does not run. We know the Hill-Billy team. I’m tired of their ethically challenged approach to politics with destroyed emails and huge contributions to their projects that just happen to coincide with government favors being advanced to the contributors. It is very hard to think of four more years of the Clintons in control of the cookie jar. We need a scandal free candidate untainted by past associations who can be trusted to run a clean business as Romney has proven he can do. We do not need a president who will hand out assortment of goodies to contributors in the form of pardons as she leaves office; or one that will take all the furniture with them when they leave.
Here’s  one thing I can guarantee you, the American people are not going to buy another Bush. Especially one who is mired in the same group of foreign policy types who brought us the Iraq war. Can you imagine anyone of sound mind saying that he will be relying on Wolfowitz for foreign policy advice? Well that’s what Jeb has told us so even those who abhor the thought of the Hill-Billy duet will find it less problematic to vote for them rather than bringing back the ghosts of Iraq past.
Here’s the rest of the Republican field. Tell me if you would feel comfortable voting for any one of them: Ted Cruz and Rand  Paul; Marco Rubio and Ben Carson; Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee; Scott Walker and Chris Christie; the two Ricks, Santorum and Perry; Lindsey Graham and Bobby Jinndal. Seriously, the reason there are so many is that none is a serious candidate. Pick one, nominate him or her, and send the person to the slaughter. Not one of them can measure up to Mitt.
I know Mitt has lost twice but didn’t Lincoln take a few beatings before he won. Here’s the big reason Mitt is needed. The Supreme Court will have two or more seats opening up over the next few years. Put Hillary in and she’ll fill those seats with the same type of progressives that Bill Clinton put in. He put in Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer both deeply mired in the liberal ideology along with two other judges (Obama’s Sotomayor and Kagan).
These are dangerous times for America. Hillary will change America for the worse; Mitt will keep it from losing its greatness. “Come on back, Mitt!”

34 replies on “Realistic Republicans Rue Romney’s Reluctance:”

  1. Updates: I see Rick Santorum is officially back in the race. He seems to be remaking himself as a champion of the working man (and woman). And — good lord! — former NY Gov. George Pataki has also joined the fray. You can already see that Pataki doesn’t want to be known as a moderate, which he definitely is. The more the merrier? I don’t think so ….

    1. Dan:

      Santorum is a sad case who cites his military experience as having “served” on the Senate Armed Services committee; I though you were joking about Pataki but see it is true. There’s also a woman whose name I cannot remember who entered but I have to figure she is going for the VP nod. I’m now reluctant to go to my barber for a haircut because he too might be entering the race and looking for a donation.

        1. Matt: Fiorina has done pretty well on the campaign trial, and there is some feeling that the Sacred Gods at Fox News should include her in the ranks of the Chosen Ten debaters despite the fact that she won’t make the polling cut. There’s a feeling that she’s the perfect anti – Hillary and would add some needed diversity to the GOP field. Since people who actually have a plan to beat the Democrats don’t have much sway, I don’t expect anything to come of this.

  2. I don’t think you can say Romney is scandal free. He did get caught on tape saying the middle class and working poor are moochers. Not a good look if you are trying to win a general election.

  3. That was Rick Lazio -a name long forgotten – who strolled across the stage to Hillary. It wasn’t just a gender thing. It looked weird. I agree with Matt. Romney would be the strongest. GOP candidate. He’d get a second look from this Democrat. But since he’s not in the race, I’ll be voting for Hillary.

      1. Matt: It helps to live in New York, where Lazio returns from the dead every 5 years or so, for a GOP dinner or some such.

  4. I respectfully disagree. I really enjoy your blog but think you see this one from a New England liberal perspective. He is a moderate wishy washy button up moderate kind of dude and a huge percentage of Republican and Tea Party people see this. Just because he appeals to the rino’s doesn’t mean he can win. The GOP candidate will have to have the testicular fortitude to stand and fight. I know one contender that will do this. Perhaps others will prove they have balls too! Frank, give Matt a chance and read his stuff. His legal insight is fascinating and he definitely believes in the rule of law so in that respect he is on our side.

    1. Hank:

      I’m not too happy with the folks who are lining up to oppose Hillary and my perspective is probably skewed in that I’m desperately looking for someone of substance which I don’t see. The problem with standing and fighting against Hillary will be what happened to the guy who ran against her for senate in NY. During one debate he crossed over to her side and everyone said he was trying to bully a woman. You make a good point about Romney being a RINO but better that than Hillary in my book.

  5. Hogwash. GOP has a magnificent slate of potential candidates. The mainstream media, of which this piece us a prime example, will do nothing but magnify their flaws, while giving the single, ultra liberal Demo candidate a pass on a slate of major misdeeds and crimes. Wake up and see the massive bias in this piece!

    1. Frank:

      I cannot agree the GOP has a “magnificent slate” however I fear that you are correct when you state Hillary will get a pass in the media. I suggest the Republicans need someone that can reach beyond its narrow and shrinking base and I don’t see anyone of those magnificent eighteen who will do it.

  6. I’m a lifelong Democrat, but I think Romney is a capable candidate. Since he’s decided against a run, it’s more or less academic. His heir apparent, Jeb Bush, has yet to prove himself on the big stage. He’s not in Florida any more, as his stuttering on Iraq demonstrated. I think Bush has the best chance of defeating Clinton, but he has a long way to go. Quite apart from ideology, he has to convince voters (GOP and otherwise) that he has the talent to lead the country and competently run the government.

    1. Dan,

      Bush cannot come close to winning since he cannot escape his brother’s legacy especially since he is surrounding himself with his brother’s advisers. Hillary will kill him in the debates. I’m desperate in my desire to keep her out of the presidency so perhaps as you suggest my urging Romney’s candidacy is a non starter. But what then?

  7. 100% correct on the ethics of the Clintons. Selling pardons for million dollar donations to their library was the start of the racketeering enterprise that is now the Clinton Foundation. In a recent pole she was thought to be honest by only 25% of registered voters. Remember she voted for the war in Iraq, supported the wars in Libya and Syria. She is vulnerable on many fronts. Romney was a poor candidate in 2012 why would he be better now? He had the chance to run as a peace candidate and get to the left of BHO. But he towed the neocon line straight to defeat. He left millions of Libertarian, Democrat and Republican votes at home. Elected governor in 2002 he was asked to describe his political philosophy. He said he was a moderate with progressive views. He was pro choice at that time. If you are from a very liberal state and identify yourself that way you are essentially saying I’m a liberal. His parents were life long liberals and so was he. Ann Coulter on Fox falsely proclaimed that Mitt was the most conservative candidate in 2012. He gave us Romneycare. Voters who favor smaller government and less foreign policy adventurism didn’t have much of a choice. 2. Rand Paul who is relatively unknown is already polling ahead of Hillary in a few states. Defending the BHO record which the Democrat nominee will be required to do will be difficult. The Republican who secures the nomination will be a major national figure. The winner in a contested field will be more potent than one who prevails in an uncontested race. What does it say about the Democratic Party if she is the nominee without a contest?

    1. NC:

      Your answer is probably correct which makes me doubly depressed. From the comments I see little support for bringing Romney back.

      Ron Paul just can’t win, he’s too extreme. Hillary will walk away from Obama whenever she feels it will benefit her. The Clintons are playing nicey-nice with Obama now but if she gets elected he’ll get the Clinton glare.

      The Republican winner will be so beat up that Hillary will walk over him. (don’t see a woman getting the nod) Sad days ahead; 2016 may be very hard to take.

  8. Jeb Bush is running as a moderate. It’s the only chance he has. He can’t seek the nomination as a conservative and then move the middle like in the old days. There’s too much media coverage now. Anyway, it’s not his style, and the Tea Partiers won’t put up with it.

    If Bush gets the nomination, a huge swath of Tea Party people will just stay home. That would jeopardize Republican Control of the House and Senate.

    What I expect will happen if Bush is the nominee, is that there will be an independent conservative 3rd candidate on the ballot in every state. Not a third “party” candidate, but an independent candidate, who is a conservative.

    This candidate may have a new party, but it will be in name only, and will be careful not to do anything that looks like the development of an actual third conservative party. I expect this candidate will be bankrolled and advised by Mitt Romney and past Romney donors.

    It could even be Romney but more likely it will be someone pretty much handpicked and developed by Romney, like Marco Rubio. At the very least this candidate will turn out the base for the House and Senate races and in a three way race anything can happen.

    This election could very well be decided by the House of Representatives.

    1. 40:

      Good observations. But if true, any third party candidate will doom the Republican chances even though he may help bring out the base of the party. That will give the Democrats the presidency and the Supreme Court. Hillary would definitely appoint women to any open slots and they would be progressives. We will be back to a reversal of the Dred Scott days.

    2. Jeb Bush has already lampooned himself by stating he would have invaded Iraq and by pandering to the climate deniers and anti-gay rights factions of the extreme right. He can’t claim to be a moderate and pander to the extremists.

  9. I’ve got to pay more attention to the race—things must be bad when MTC is rooting for ole’ Mitt. But then again, Hillary is scarey.

    1. P:

      Your are right that I am running scared because I’ve been having nightmares lately because I see the smiling face of Hillary with her right hand on the bible at the swearing in ceremony and her left hand held out palm up looking for contributions and the other half of the Hill-Billy duet chasing some of the help around the Lincoln bedroom.

  10. You want honest? Then support Bernie Sanders. He’s not a viable candidate because the mainstream media declares him so, not because people don’t by and large agree with his positions. Over his career he has repeatedly found ways to work with people across the political spectrum (just like Alan Grayson, I might add). You might not know that he’s a big supporter of gun rights, although you might guess that it would be hard to be that popular in Vermont if he weren’t. He wasn’t rich when he went into politics, and he still isn’t. He gets the issues that people care about and speaks in ways they can understand. If the press weren’t more obsessed with sucking up to power than reporting what’s going on and telling the truth, they’d be writing about Bernie a lot more instead of peremptorily writing him off.

    1. Cambridge:

      Agree with everything you say about Bernie but he could never win because the media would scare people by talking about his socialism which is still a bad thing to be in America outside of Vermont. I especially like your point that he did not become wealthy after he was elected like so many of the other politicians. He has the courage to make the attempt for the office; it will be interesting to see if the Clintons can somehow buy him off.

      1. Bernie Sanders has the best ideas out of any candidate. He raised $ 4 million since he announced his candidacy. I think he is being very underestimated. The mainstream media does not have the clout it once did. When he announced his candidacy, he had over 200,000 “likes” on Facebook. Hillary Clinton had 75,000. He is a true progressive, not the billionaire heiress to the throne Hillary Clinton. She has too many toxic scandals attached to her name and is not truly a champion of progressive ideals. The only negative Bernie Sanders has is his age and the fact that he declares himself a “socialist” which Repubs will jump all over. I bet if you went down to Dixieland, and listed all of his ideas and proposals in bullet points and say do you agree or disagree, 90% of people would agree. But when asked if they agree with socialism, they will say NO WAY THAT’s UNAMERICAN.

  11. Matt, great post. It’s good to see more folks like you, who grew up in the land of Democrats (Boston and vicinity, that is), take issue with the hijinks perpetrated by high-level, national Democratic figures. Perhaps we are a very silent majority?

    If you made up the part about the motel, the beers and the song, great writing; otherwise, great reporting.

    I hate to say it, but I think you’re right about Mitt. In 2012, I voted for him, but really I voted _against_ the glorified community organizer. In 2016, I will certainly vote anti-Democrat, I mean Republican, but I hope to God my candidate has a fighting chance against the scandal-riddled Dems and their nominee. Maybe Walker will gain real traction; I’ve been pulling for him for a while. Carson needs more oomph to attract backers.

    To throw cold water on the whole thing: I, FEAR…that not enough voters will be disgusted with the Dems to put the Republican candidate in the White House.

    1. GOK:

      I’m still a Democrat but I’ve never voted the party line. As I’ve said I could never vote for Hillary nor could I vote for the Republican Bush. NC says whoever wins the Republican primary will come out as a strong candidate; I wish I could agree but it seems more likely the many running on the Republican side will damage each other. I fear that Hillary right now is ahead and she has the money and moxie to do whatever it takes to stay ahead. It is in my state of fear and depression that I turn to Romney but judging from some comments few people think he is a viable candidate. I can’t warm up to Walker; Carson will quickly fade.

    2. Let’s take a look at the field of candidates; Chris Christie- Bridgegate, Foodgate, Ben Carson- the ACA is akin to slavery, Rand Paul- not enough of a warmonger for the far right, Rick Santorum- zealot, Mike Huckabee- zealot, Marco Rubio- Latino Mitt Romney, a panderer and much smarter than the positions he takes, Carly Fiorna, running a business doesn’t qualify you for the Presidency, Rick Perry…..he’s Rick Perry, is there anyone else I’m forgetting?

      1. Dave, you left out the man who Matt cannot warm up to: Scott Walker. He better work out; I cannot see backing anyone else!

        1. A thought on Marco Rubio and the Hispanic vote. Rubio is Cuban. Do Puerto Rican and MexIcan – American voters necessarily connect with Rubio? I don’t think so. There is no Latino monolith.

          1. Dan:

            You are absolutely right. I did a wiretap on a guy from Lebanon operating in my county. He spoke Spanish mostly when he talked on the telephone. I was working with DEA and we needed to bring in Spanish speaking agents. We got some out of New York with Puerto Rican backgrounds; and we got some from Texas with Mexican backgrounds. They hated each other, We had to arrange it so that they were on different shifts. Aside from that, their interpretation of what the target was saying often differed substantially.

Comments are closed.