Romney’s out
Hugh Hewitt has released a statement that Romney is about to make to his supporters, announcing that he won’t be running in 2016. I think this is the right decision, and it only increases my respect for Romney, which was already considerable.
Those of you who have long excoriated Romney for not being conservative enough—or not being conservative at all—might want to pay particular attention to this part of his message:
I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case.
I feel that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next president. You know that I have wanted to be that president. But I do not want to make it more difficult for someone else to emerge who may have a better chance of becoming that president. You can’t imagine how hard it is for Ann and me to step aside, especially knowing of your support and the support of so many people across the country. But we believe it is for the best of the Party and the nation…
I believe a Republican winning back the White House is essential for our country, and I will do whatever I can to make that happen…
I wish (and “wish” is not really a strong enough word) that Romney had been the winner in 2012. It would have made our country and the world a safer and saner place, and would have forestalled some of the awful consequences we’ve seen from the continuation of the Obama presidency (and sometimes I think we ain’t seen nothin’ yet compared to what the next two years will bring). But 2016 was not Romney’s time, and he had the smarts and the decency to realize it and act on it. It will be interesting to see who he ends up supporting, but I will go out on a limb and say it won’t be Jeb Bush.
I would not be unhappy to see Romney serve as a Republican cabinet member. I think he could make a substantial impact.
Agree with 100% of what you wrote! The Republican electorate is routinely guilty of making the perfect the enemy of the good. OTH, we see those in powerful positions in the Republican party (especially those holding offices) so often spineless on important issues.
CNN tapped into the telephone conversation and broadcast it live. I thought that was illegal. I seem to recall some democrats getting into trouble for recording and publishing telephone conversations.
I think that Romney’s idea of what it means to be a conservative is very different than mine and many others.
I was also very pleased by this news. I don’t typically have intuition or “gut” feelings, but during the last Presidential election I had a very strong, inexplicable feeling that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were what our country needed at this point in history. I can’t explain the feeling I had when I learned they did not win. Ever since that election day I have viewed America in a slightly different light.
When I heard rumors (and saw some actions by Mitt Romney) that he may, in fact, run again I was disappointed. Not because I didn’t want him as a President (I do), but because I believed he was sincerely the type of person who would not be governed by ego and would shun the limelight if that were best. Although it changes nothing, our nation is still in severe trouble, it is, nevertheless, comforting to learn that Mitt Romney is who I believed he was.
On this topic, one related issue that I believe has been greatly unreported: Many Americans are very prejudiced against Mormons. I think Mitt Romney’s faith had a substantial impact on his loss, and yet I hear little discussion of that.
Neo said:
“…I think we ain’t seen nothin’ yet compared to what the next two years will bring.”
Neo said:
“I think we ain’t seen nothin’ yet compared to what the next two years will bring.”
I’m not sure how that got posted before I was ready. In two years we will know if Neo’s prediction is correct. I’m afraid she is spot on that the damage done to our country and to the world in the next two years will be apocalyptic.
I have always liked Romney. He is smart and good. People may find things about him to complain about but with those two qualifications he would have been an excellent president.
Ray –
Laws on listening in on and/or recording phone conversations vary from state to state.
Rufus –
Prejudice against Mormons does exist, although it’s hard to say how much it affected things. Huckabee appears to have believed that he could tap into it in 2008 (yet one more reason why I will *never* vote for the man), but the data from the 2012 polls is inconclusive.
I would love to see Romney work on a more bottom up approach to helping the poor and rebuilding our communities, kind of like Paul Ryan is doing. He could encourage and help community leaders To start programs to teach mothers how to cook, teach boys how to build and fix things around the home, teach everyone how they can make their lives better with a little help from others in the community. Ann did a cookbook and talked about family meals. We have become so used to talking about credentials and the physical things we have, it would be good to have someone point out how important it is for kids to have the stability of dinner with their family and that this builds relationships within families that will last far longer than the latest tablet or phone.
He could get people to focus on the satisfaction they feel as they learn skills to make their lives better, instead of always measuring what they have against someone else. He could find ways to connect community projects with one another so that they too can be laboratories. The top down approach of Obama doesn’t do these things. Obama wants to take credit for creating a utopia. Romney learned through his church activities the importance of real people reaching out to other real people. I think it would be great if he used the knowledge he has gained to encourage more of this. There are always going to be people who aren’t rich, but that doesn’t mean they can’t learn to make their lives richer.
When a Republican politician clearly indicates through word and deed that they do not adhere to basic principles, such as the rule of law (voting for Lynch), national sovereignty (amnesty without securing our borders first) and national security (dismissing the jihadist threat)… it is not a case of “not conservative enough” but rather a case of the politician having in effect no allegiance to essential principle and a resultant de facto collaboration with the Left.
That Romney makes no distinction; “I believe a Republican winning back the White House is essential for our country” is a clear indication that he makes no distinction between on one side, a Boehner and McConnell and on the other, a Cruz and Jeff Sessions.
I agree that this is the right decision by Romney and I believe him when he states his rationale for doing so. I have no doubt that he wants what is best for this country, as he sees it. Unfortunately, his ideas as to what is best for this country are closely aligned with the GOP leadership’s.
That leadership is handing victory to the left. Yes, they are delaying that victory to some minor degree but because they are entirely unwilling to release the reins of power, that delay will not result in a handing off of power… in time.
That analysis is confirmed by the new majority Republican Congress folding in its purported opposition to “executive amnesty”, funding for ObamaCare and its passive support for Obama nominee Lynch.
How much more damning must it be? This GOP leadership does NOT oppose nationalization of one sixth of the US economy and GOP acquiescence with a law that compels Americans to buy a product. It does NOT oppose amnesty for 5-34 MILLION “undocumented” democrats, ensuring one party rule in America. Where is the hue and cry from the GOP at the abandonment of the rule of law? Which after her testimony, a vote for Lynch clearly indicates? Sen. Jeff Sessions, Cruz and Lee are Republican voices “crying in the wilderness”.
Quite frankly, those who opine that no matter how conservative a President might be, the GOP leadership will do all it can to restrain any ‘excess’, which is anything that disturbs the status quo… are right.
Nor will anything change as long as the GOP suffers no consequence for putting party interests ahead of the nation’s essential interests.
Geoffrey Britain:
Interesting that you ignore the other quote, “I feel that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next president.” He clearly makes a distinction, but you ignore it.
I agree that “Republican” isn’t enough. Many Republicans do not adhere to the principles they supposedly support; no doubt about that. But when Romney said that about a Republican winning back the White House, he had already said it’s critical to elect a conservative.
Once upon a time, Presidents used to call upon past leaders to help out by leading special task forces and the like. (I believe Harry Truman did just that, even reaching across the aisle, and appointed Herbert Hoover to such a task.)
I could easily see a big-minded leader, more interested in getting the job done than in getting the credit, asking Romney to serve in some such capacity. The work to be done is endless.
In re the candidates — I’m frankly relieved that Romney won’t be running. (Although he’d be better than Hillary, and better than Elizabeth Warren. Then again, my six-year-old would do a better job than either of them.)
Jeb Bush — it’s too bad for him that his brother and father were already Presidents, with an unpopular legacy. He’d have to be a towering statesman to overcome that, and he isn’t; as governor he was, as I understand it, about average. Please get off the stage, Jeb. Yes, we know it’s not fair… but this isn’t about you.
I like Scott Walker a LOT. I like Ted Cruz, although I truly think we need a governor (or general) in the top spot again. I like Trey Gowdy, although perhaps we need him more where he is. Joni Ernst is too new; we’ll see where she stands in 2020. I very much want to like Marco Rubio; I hope he lives up to expectations.
One more thing. I would like to see our next Republican President name Sarah Palin to a cabinet post. Call it the Republican equivalent of Obama bragging “I won”. They’re going to scream bloody murder no matter what; we might as well have some fun (and do some good)!
Interesting discussion on Romney’s decision at Bloomberg, based on “insider” information. It says the two things that made the decision for Romney were the toll another campaign would have taken on his family, and this:”
The second “no go” reason weighed far more heavily on Romney–and was likely the dispositive one. People close to the former governor say he believed he would beat Hillary Clinton in a general election matchup if the election were held today. But, like many election watchers, Romney anticipates a vicious Republican nomination fight that will damage and deplete the ultimate winner, while Clinton, virtually unchallenged for her party’s nomination, will be luxuriantly free to squirrel away hundreds of millions of election dollars and step into the general arena, rich and refreshed, against a shattered GOP nominee.
Which is probably the likely scenario.
neo,
In this instance I stand corrected. I did not purposely ignore it but did overlook it, which is probably due to my prior perception of Romney as aligned with the GOP leadership. But even now I remain unconvinced because to my knowledge Romney has NOT spoken out against the GOP’s acquiescence to Obama’s executive amnesty or their funding of ObamaCare.
As you know, I think well of Romney’s personal character. The issue is his political inclinations, which I can only ascertain by his words and actions or lack thereof.
Daniel in Brookline,
I agree that Jeb Bush’s father and brother having been President before is the primary reason for the initial rejection by most in considering him but it is his positions on Common Core, illegal immigration and other “compassionate conservative” positions that has prevented him from overcoming that handicap. I have little doubt that his opinion is that Islam is a “religion of peace” too…
However, it is to his credit that he has been forthright in his RINOdom. His honesty is admirable, his opinions literally disastrous.
This is good news. MR is a good man, and now he can focus his talents elsewhere. Walker/Sessions would be my ideal ticket. Gowdy as AG is also on my wish list. 😉
Geoffrey Britain,
I don’t think Romney wants to get involved with the congressional attempts to change Obamacare or deal with executive amnesty. These issues are tactical more than ideological. Why should he way in on them now? If he does have some ideas on them, he should share them quietly with people in Congress and not use them for campaign purposes.
“On this topic, one related issue that I believe has been greatly unreported: Many Americans are very prejudiced against Mormons. I think Mitt Romney’s faith had a substantial impact on his loss, and yet I hear little discussion of that.”
FWIW, I absolutely know people who might otherwise have voted R who refused to vote for Romney because of the Mormon factor.
expat,
As a former Presidential nominee, Romney has an obligation to speak out and make his views known. A refusal by the GOP to oppose basic constitutional violations is not tactical but ideological. And because it is ideological with fundamental societal implications, it is incumbent upon Romney to make known any substantive difference he might have with the GOP leadership on matters of essential importance.
He doesn’t have to be offensively aggressive but some artfully chosen words in which he makes that difference very clear is obligatory as one of the foremost Republicans. This matter transcends campaign considerations because these are literally issues of national survival not politics.
Quietly discussing them with the GOP leadership is essentially sweeping them under the rug in order to maintain unity until the GOP can once again betray its base.
“Walker/Sessions would be my ideal ticket. [with] Gowdy as AG”
‘be still my beating heart’! Only in our dreams parker.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a [malicious] fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president”. Vé¡clav Klaus (former Premier of the Czech Republic)
It was a corrupted election, digitally gamed.
This obvious reality will only be fully documented too late for us.
Red State reported that the missing votes in 2012 were the evangelical Christians.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/griffinelection/2012/11/14/what-went-wrong-in-2012-the-case-of-the-4-million-missing-voters/
Part of it may have been prejudice against Mormons. Red State analyzed it as due to the fact that Romney did not sound aggressive enough on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues near and dear to the hearts of evangelicals.
J.J.:
That Red State article you linked to was, like all the articles dealing with the same supposed phenomenon of the 4 million missing voters, both premature and mistaken.
There were no 4 million missing voters (or 2 million missing voters, as sometimes reported). There were no missing voters if you compare 2012 to 2008 in terms of vote totals. I’ve written about this many times before; perhaps you missed it (see this and this).
Believe as you wish. While you could add that he gave Jeb a poke on the way out, he visited Christie… essentially a nod to him as I see things. I don’t care what he says, I look to what he does. What he did is a betrayal of conservatives by nodding to Christie. None of them are much different from Huntsman(men), whatever. But then, you are a convert. Much as many seem to enjoy this pope, a betrayer of the faith and all but openly queer, as I see things.
Neo-Neocon,
In your response to Geoffrey Britain:
You pointed out that GB ignored the distinction Romney made and quoted him, but then you left out his (Romney) very next sentence where he says “You know that I have wanted to be that president”.
Clearly Romney sees himself as a conservative but like I said further up in the comments, Romneys idea of conservative differs from most real conservatives.
jmc:
In a slightly longer version of this post that I wrote at Legal Insurrection, I had added the following line: “But I’ve long thought that his [Romney’s] instincts were actually more conservative than he allowed himself to be while the governor of the deep blue state of Massachusetts (although I agree that he’s certainly not as conservative as someone like Ted Cruz.)”
On this blog I have 143 (so far) posts labeled “Romney.” You will find that, if you went back to read them, I make the case for Romney as quite conservative. A huge number of those posts (including many of my comments on them) go into Romney’s history in detail, both his life history and his political history, much of it facts of which those who are mostly familiar only with sound bites and MSM coverage of Romney are unaware.
I’m not going to go through all of that again; I wrote almost the equivalent of a book on the subject. I contend that Romney would have been quite conservative as President, and would have made an excellent president. We will never know, and other conservatives can of course continue to believe I’m wrong about that. But I believe very strongly that I was correct.
“Romney anticipates a vicious Republican nomination fight that will damage and deplete the ultimate winner,”
As do I.
Lots of egos playing musical chairs, and the “ultimate winner” will be the ultimate loser, unless the hoi polloi start paying attention to the rip tide they’re in. Which either a) will not happen, or b) a catastrophe will focus them elsewhere.
I was a delegate to the last Republican National Convention. I like Romney. He has all the good qualities that a “Christian” should have: honesty, integrity, compassion, etc. He is also an accomplished manager and leader.
But…..if he really believes (vs. Pandering to the great unwashed) in Catastrophic Global Warming, or Climate Disruption, or whatever they call it today, and the efficacy of Socialized Medicine, then he is too stupid to be President. We have an example of that right now.
Contra the NY Times and others who are saying Bush is the big winner today, a fellow over at CNN says he thinks it’s actually Rubio:
I don’t care if Romney was conservative or not, he was the wrong president for this electorate. Just as GB’s Havel quote, America is suffering from an abundance of fools.
Some can learn, and some cannot. For those who cannot (or will not), they aren’t enough to elect anyone by themselves. Which is good since they won’t learn no matter how badly they’re burned. The only important thing in their case is that their ideology is discredited.
Those who can learn must learn, and that will only happen by being burned.
Obama needed to be reelected to make the disaster apparent. There needs to be a financial disaster on his watch, and far removed from GWB so that Obama gets all of the blame.
Additionally, the increasing penalties of Obamacare will not sit well with the people.
I view none of this in theological terms or as some sort of fate. It is the inevitable result of unchanging human nature.
Romney, in the form of a then hopefully self-serving move changed the GOP nomination rules to require the nominee to have gained the majority, not plurality, majority, of EIGHT states during the primary, virtually forcing us into a brokered convention and surely skewing the playing field in unknown and destructive ways. (See Allahpundit for more)
When Romney worries about a broken GOP nominee, he can thank himself.
neo, you’re correct, as usual. I’ve done more research and found that about 3.5 million people less didn’t vote for Obama. Those were the ones who apparently stayed home as the total votes cast in 2012 were about 3.5 million less than 2008.
Analysis of the loss seems to focus on the fact that old, white men cannot get the votes of the young and minorities. That indicates there is little thought about experience or qualifications among a big slice of the electorate. It’s become more like a popularity contest.
Exit polls showed these results to four questions:
1. Vision for the future
54% Romney
45% Obama
1% Others
2. Shares my values
55% Romney
42% Obama
3% Others
3. Strong leader
61% Romney
38% Obama
1% Others
So, with numbers like those, how could Romney possibly lose the election? Here are the results for #4. Cares about people:
81% Obama
18% Romney
1% Others
If the Republican candidate wants to win in 2016, he will have to do a better job on #4.
Romney would have made a better President than Obama (which isn’t saying much) but he would not have made a good President. The fact that he even entertained such a lunatic idea as running again speaks badly of his judgement.
Given the malice and incompetence that Obama has shown, it’s easy to imagine how much better Romney might have done, if only. But Romney was a one term Governor, and that’s about it, and never really demonstrated all that much aptitude for getting elected to things. Nor was his record in office as good as all of that. I’m glad he saw sense and bowed out. But all that means is that instead of being routed with Mitt at the top of the ticket, the GOP can now be shellacked with Jeb at the top of the ticket
Neo: “and it only increases my respect for Romney, which was already considerable.”
I sooo agree. He was the right man for the presidency then and would be now; But, I also agree that he would not win. His running would not help.
And, it does make me have much more respect for him recognizing that.
Ann Romney would have been a great First Lady. I still remember how well she handled Whoopi’s dumb comment/question on The View about how Mormon’s don’t fight – Whoopi was trying a “gotcha” question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxHx4EmD1QA
Boy, did Ann handle that well.
Well, that didn’t take long — via TPM, the Boston Globe is out of the gate with this: Jeb Bush’s Former Classmates Say He Was A Hash-Smoking Bully
Romney the Bully redux, and with pot to boot!