Main thing is, whether the GOP settles on Romney or someone else, the Right needs an effective activist social movement that’s far more than just an election campaign.
Obama didn’t win the Presidency in 2008 and 2012 on his own. He was an avatar. The Left won the Presidency.
Remember, electoral politics is a lesser included element now. If electoral politics are the limit of imagination, the Right will lose even if elections are won, but only elections are won. All the other effective social nodes must be taken by competition in the activist arena, too.
I like it too. If the president were someone with foreign policy creds, having Mitt clean up our domestic mess is a great idea. Remember his comment about liking to fire people. The Fed and HHS would be a delight for him (and for me).
A Cabinet position would be fine. Given that he is now touring with Rep. Ryan to promote Ryan’s new book which posits that Congress granting amnesty and an expedited path to citizenship for 11-33 million “undocumented democrats” is a ‘good thing’, I have to question Romney’s wisdom. He’s in effect placing personal loyalty to Ryan above the country’s welfare.
Wouldn’t or couldn’t stand up to the pResident during the debates. How’s he going to fare when they run Devil Patrick or Warren, etc? We need something unprecedented, a counter to the last two terms of subterfuge and treason. I think we’ve really only seen the very tip of the iceberg regarding damage to the republic. A successful guy like Romney would be great in other times, the country needs someone with that business sense, plus the moxie to expose what’s been done and really make hay of it.
Will:
Did you actually click on the link and read it? The author is not suggesting that Romney run.
It is a great suggestion and great use of Romney’s skills.
We also need a Chief Purger whose job is entirely devoted to ridding the government of Leftist hacks, chiefly by eliminating jobs and departments.
Good luck to anyone trying to tame the federal bureaucracy.
Reagan also aimed to do just that. He said he wanted to eliminate both the Department of Education and the Department of Energy; it didn’t happen. Indeed, a new agency was created on his watch — the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Too hard to do both. Mitt to run HHS provided Obamacare is repealed.
Jim Cramer to Treasury. No joke.
Hey, I like this idea!
Oh yeah, Mitt “I am Severely Conservative” Romney. As our friend Mitch says, there’s no education in the second kick of a mule.
KLSmith:
I say to you the same thing I said to “Will”: did you read the link?
Romney accepting a cabinet post is very unlikely. Some new Republican president offering it is equally unlikely. This idea of a dual presidency can’t work. Hopefully this next time around we get our choice of president better. I’m skeptical because the choice between Romney and Obama seemed a no-brainer to me. Clearly my thinking is out of step with a great many people. Perhaps my shock was right up there with those people in NY who couldn’t believe Reagan got elected. The difference in our situations couldn’t be more different. Reagan was no fool and Obama is doubly so in that he’s one and the fact touches him not at all.
A cabinet post would be a good place for him. He’s a great manager. Maybe one of the best in the country.
As a candidate…. I envision the Marquess of Queesberry campaign against a nasty Clinton down in the dirt scrum. He’s a decent man. Hillary is neither decent nor a man. A true gentleman, he’s the easiest target for a woman like Hillary to bash into the ground while he holds open the door so she can slam it on his head. The media knows this too, and he would be operating at an even larger than normal disadvantage as a gentleman.
As Thomas Sowell described Mitt after the last campaign, “he’s the nice kind of loser Republicans are fond of nominating”.
Let’s learn something from the last campaign, and nominate a strong counter puncher.
Neo: yes, I read the link. Sorry, but I will never forgive Romney or McCain for the crap campaigns they ran.
Look, I agree that Romney made gaffs, but I really think the race thing was insurmountable. Even with the Obamacare costs and the foreign policy disasters, Obama still has his defenders.
It appears that Mitch Daniels is making some progress in reducing spending and costs at Purdue. It seems like making subtle changes that convince the public that you are on the right path may be a better method of shrinking government than a full-force attack.
If Mitt and Paul were 1-yr+7-mos. into their administration a whole lot of solutions, trudging, easing of problems would be in the midst of DOING and there would be No Broadcasting Scrawny Weakness to a hugely dangerous globe.
Neo: In a “Perfect World” who would you like to see as our presidential candidate in ’16 ?
NeoConScum:
Who would I like to see as candidate in ’16? There’s a problem with that: the ones I like best are not going to appeal to enough people to be elected. At least, that’s my suspicion.
For example, I really like Trey Gowdy. But I just don’t see him appealing to a broad swath of Americans. There are a few others like that whom I like. The conventional candidate I like best so far is Scott Walker, but I think he may be too bland for people. I still think Romney would make an excellent president, but I don’t think he could win.
I think getting good people into the Senate is particularly important, too. And good leadership in both houses. “Good” as in more principled, smarter, more conservative.
SuperSec is an idea I really do not like. Yeah, let’s continue to concentrate power in fewer hands, and this time we’ll get it right. Great. The McNamara Syndrome.
Mitt is remarkably naive, despite his track record. Which means he has not surrounded himself with the most able advisers.
I am reminded of an encounter I (We) had with Mitt’s brother along with his eventual campaign manager a year before Mitt declared his candidacy. They were startled at our vehemence on RomneyCare and seemed to view my suggestion that it be deemed a State trial run as a novel idea.
This is the kind of idiocy that put Obama in the White House. I fear it’s the kind that will put Hillary or Elizabeth Warren there. Romney is a traitor to the conservative cause, at best, and a two time loser to boot. Why do we Republicans insist on sabotaging ourselves?
“Romney is a traitor to the conservative cause, at best…”
Uummm…Cannot possibly make this stuff up.
Neo: I hadn’t thought of Gowdy. I’m a very enthusiastic fan. He put some very bad people—men & women—away forever in South Carolina as an ace prosecutor. Might make one hell of a strong VP candidate. Food for thought from you, Landlady. Thanks.
The conservative cause does not have loyalty oaths and tests. If it did, most Republicans would be buried in the Dumpster where people go to find dirt on Sarah Palin.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Main thing is, whether the GOP settles on Romney or someone else, the Right needs an effective activist social movement that’s far more than just an election campaign.
Obama didn’t win the Presidency in 2008 and 2012 on his own. He was an avatar. The Left won the Presidency.
Remember, electoral politics is a lesser included element now. If electoral politics are the limit of imagination, the Right will lose even if elections are won, but only elections are won. All the other effective social nodes must be taken by competition in the activist arena, too.
I like it too. If the president were someone with foreign policy creds, having Mitt clean up our domestic mess is a great idea. Remember his comment about liking to fire people. The Fed and HHS would be a delight for him (and for me).
A Cabinet position would be fine. Given that he is now touring with Rep. Ryan to promote Ryan’s new book which posits that Congress granting amnesty and an expedited path to citizenship for 11-33 million “undocumented democrats” is a ‘good thing’, I have to question Romney’s wisdom. He’s in effect placing personal loyalty to Ryan above the country’s welfare.
Wouldn’t or couldn’t stand up to the pResident during the debates. How’s he going to fare when they run Devil Patrick or Warren, etc? We need something unprecedented, a counter to the last two terms of subterfuge and treason. I think we’ve really only seen the very tip of the iceberg regarding damage to the republic. A successful guy like Romney would be great in other times, the country needs someone with that business sense, plus the moxie to expose what’s been done and really make hay of it.
Will:
Did you actually click on the link and read it? The author is not suggesting that Romney run.
It is a great suggestion and great use of Romney’s skills.
We also need a Chief Purger whose job is entirely devoted to ridding the government of Leftist hacks, chiefly by eliminating jobs and departments.
Good luck to anyone trying to tame the federal bureaucracy.
Reagan also aimed to do just that. He said he wanted to eliminate both the Department of Education and the Department of Energy; it didn’t happen. Indeed, a new agency was created on his watch — the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Too hard to do both. Mitt to run HHS provided Obamacare is repealed.
Jim Cramer to Treasury. No joke.
Hey, I like this idea!
Oh yeah, Mitt “I am Severely Conservative” Romney. As our friend Mitch says, there’s no education in the second kick of a mule.
KLSmith:
I say to you the same thing I said to “Will”: did you read the link?
Romney accepting a cabinet post is very unlikely. Some new Republican president offering it is equally unlikely. This idea of a dual presidency can’t work. Hopefully this next time around we get our choice of president better. I’m skeptical because the choice between Romney and Obama seemed a no-brainer to me. Clearly my thinking is out of step with a great many people. Perhaps my shock was right up there with those people in NY who couldn’t believe Reagan got elected. The difference in our situations couldn’t be more different. Reagan was no fool and Obama is doubly so in that he’s one and the fact touches him not at all.
A cabinet post would be a good place for him. He’s a great manager. Maybe one of the best in the country.
As a candidate…. I envision the Marquess of Queesberry campaign against a nasty Clinton down in the dirt scrum. He’s a decent man. Hillary is neither decent nor a man. A true gentleman, he’s the easiest target for a woman like Hillary to bash into the ground while he holds open the door so she can slam it on his head. The media knows this too, and he would be operating at an even larger than normal disadvantage as a gentleman.
As Thomas Sowell described Mitt after the last campaign, “he’s the nice kind of loser Republicans are fond of nominating”.
Let’s learn something from the last campaign, and nominate a strong counter puncher.
Neo: yes, I read the link. Sorry, but I will never forgive Romney or McCain for the crap campaigns they ran.
Look, I agree that Romney made gaffs, but I really think the race thing was insurmountable. Even with the Obamacare costs and the foreign policy disasters, Obama still has his defenders.
It appears that Mitch Daniels is making some progress in reducing spending and costs at Purdue. It seems like making subtle changes that convince the public that you are on the right path may be a better method of shrinking government than a full-force attack.
If Mitt and Paul were 1-yr+7-mos. into their administration a whole lot of solutions, trudging, easing of problems would be in the midst of DOING and there would be No Broadcasting Scrawny Weakness to a hugely dangerous globe.
Neo: In a “Perfect World” who would you like to see as our presidential candidate in ’16 ?
NeoConScum:
Who would I like to see as candidate in ’16? There’s a problem with that: the ones I like best are not going to appeal to enough people to be elected. At least, that’s my suspicion.
For example, I really like Trey Gowdy. But I just don’t see him appealing to a broad swath of Americans. There are a few others like that whom I like. The conventional candidate I like best so far is Scott Walker, but I think he may be too bland for people. I still think Romney would make an excellent president, but I don’t think he could win.
I think getting good people into the Senate is particularly important, too. And good leadership in both houses. “Good” as in more principled, smarter, more conservative.
SuperSec is an idea I really do not like. Yeah, let’s continue to concentrate power in fewer hands, and this time we’ll get it right. Great. The McNamara Syndrome.
Mitt is remarkably naive, despite his track record. Which means he has not surrounded himself with the most able advisers.
I am reminded of an encounter I (We) had with Mitt’s brother along with his eventual campaign manager a year before Mitt declared his candidacy. They were startled at our vehemence on RomneyCare and seemed to view my suggestion that it be deemed a State trial run as a novel idea.
This is the kind of idiocy that put Obama in the White House. I fear it’s the kind that will put Hillary or Elizabeth Warren there. Romney is a traitor to the conservative cause, at best, and a two time loser to boot. Why do we Republicans insist on sabotaging ourselves?
“Romney is a traitor to the conservative cause, at best…”
Uummm…Cannot possibly make this stuff up.
Neo: I hadn’t thought of Gowdy. I’m a very enthusiastic fan. He put some very bad people—men & women—away forever in South Carolina as an ace prosecutor. Might make one hell of a strong VP candidate. Food for thought from you, Landlady. Thanks.
The conservative cause does not have loyalty oaths and tests. If it did, most Republicans would be buried in the Dumpster where people go to find dirt on Sarah Palin.