As for Romney…
…there are reports that “some” in the Trump camp think he should be required to apologize to Trump before becoming his Secretary of State. The “some” that the article names is Mike Huckabee:
“There’s only one way that I think Mitt Romney could even be considered for a post like that and that is he goes to a microphone in a very public place and repudiates everything he said in that famous Salt Lake City speech, and everything he said after that,” Huckabee said, referring to a famous anti-Trump speech Romney gave in March.
I dunno, Mike. I think a great alternative would be for Trump sycophants such as yourself to form a line and run Romney through the gauntlet, and then place him in the stocks. After that, make him swear fealty to his lord on bended knee. A hairshirt might be a nice touch, too.
It’s unclear who Huckabee is speaking for, except Huckabee. But I doubt he’s alone. The question is whether he’s freelancing, or doing this at the behest of a group, or whether Trump is also involved in the message. It’s a sort of virtue-signaling (I hate that term, but sometimes it’s appropriate) to Romney-haters and the most avid and nasty group of Trump supporters (not all Trump supporters by any means) that even if Romney is chosen he will be humbled for his perfidy in speaking against The Leader. It’s a bit ironic, since one of the ideas behind choosing Romney as Secretary of State would be to mend fences and unify the Party. So does the Huckabee stance mean the Romney thing is off? Or is it meant as a fish thrown to the Romney-haters prior to choosing Romney, against their wishes?
Your guess is as good as mine.
I can’t stand Huckabee. He is probably jealous that he isn’t in the running for anything. How could such a “moral” person completely overlook all of Trump’s moral problems so early on? Maybe he is afraid he will be pushed totally out of the limelight by Trump’s new team. He sure can’t be the spokesman for conservatives anymore.
Romney would be an excellent choice for Secretary of State.
And, as Politico notes at http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-cabinet-billionaires-millionaires-231831,
we could have a gazillionaire cabinet.
Could be very interesting.
I’m with you, expat — cannot stand the guy. Always found him to be an opportunist, a huckster.
Maybe it’s something in the water in Hope, Arkansas, his hometown and also Bill Clinton’s.
Well, let’s see, why not consider a very intelligent, extremely accomplished, man of impeccable character because he slipped into the gutter along with Trump during the campaign? Huck, Newtie and the like conveniently overlook how often Trump disparaged his opponents, and almost anyone who did not support him, in the crudest terms.
I would hope that Trump and Romney both are big boys who understand the game, and can get past the rhetoric. Unfortunately, many of the Trumpeters don’t fit that mold; and they will never let it go either way.
I had serious doubts about Trump; but, he won. And I have warmed to him a bit during the latter part of the campaign, and since. My mind is open on Trump; and I think that Romney would be a brilliant choice for State. There should be something with adequate prestige for which Giuliani could be confirmed without an enormous expenditure of political capital. I would like to see Sheriff David Clarke in a fairly high profile position like DHS, but Giuliani would be a natural there. Clarke could be an inspired choice to replace the damaged Comey.
I find Romney’s willingness to serve under Trump disturbing. Nor do I buy into the rationale that Trump’s prior bad behavior can act as an excuse for another’s unethical behavior.
If Romney’s prior comments about Trump were sincere and given their very contemptuous nature, how could they not be? How then can he now consider lending his support to Trump? A man he declared to be entirely unfit for the office? Yes, Trump should be given a chance which invalidates opposition. But Romney, in seeking to join the administration is offering active support before Trump has demonstrated through his actions as President that he’s worthy of active support.
Isn’t Romney’s willingness to take the SecState job a tacit admission that Trump is at least minimally fit for the Presidency? Which in turn places in doubt the sincerity of Romney’s prior comments? And if Romney’s prior comments were simply insincere political calculation, how can prior assumptions about Romney’s ‘sterling’ character be maintained?
Romney’s actions are forcing a reevaluation of the man.
I wonder if we could trade Huckabee to the Democrats for somebody cool. I mean he’s every bit the nanny state liberal most Dems are.
Mickey Kaus just dug up this tweet from Romney, below, I don’t know how long ago this was, but I don’t think you could blame Trump for holding a grudge over this. Plus you wonder if Romney felt this way, why would he accept the position (of course, because being Sec. of State is a pretty prestigious position). I think Romney would probably be good at the job, I think he’s pretty good at everything, except running for president.
Here is the tweet from Mitt via Mickey Kaus –
Here’s what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. (1/2)
Opinions differ GB.
Romney has lived a life of service. I don’t know why he was so down on Trump; but, I believe that he would envision service to the President and the nation, and not to Trump, the man.
As for Trump–GB and Patrick–one must assume that he does not take the things that he says about other people, nor the things they say about him too seriously. He has a track record of flip flopping on people as well as on issues.
I want the best possible person for Secretary of State. There is none better than Mitt Romney.
.
If Romney’s prior comments about Trump were sincere and given their very contemptuous nature, how could they not be? How then can he now consider lending his support to Trump?
I do think his prior comments were sincere, but that accepting the secretary of state position would not mean he was doing it to support Trump. Rather, he’d do it to reassure our allies, and the world, that someone with gravitas and serious international policy chops was in that position.
Oldflyer– I posted before I saw your comment, which was pretty much the same as mine. Didn’t mean to be an echo!
reposting in proper entry.
Erudite Mavin Says:
November 25th, 2016 at 6:56 pm
Huckabee, Newt and Conway, Trump sycophant all sounding like 10 year olds. Our camp vs Mitt.
This is the problem when Trump who spent more time bashing the Republican Party and when Romney, an adult Republican fits in as Sec of St.
The children become unhinged or perhaps that is what Trump wanted, passive aggression on Mitt.
Fundy Baptist preacher Huckabee has been on Romney’s case since the 2008 election bashing away. Huck usually seems like sour grapes when he speaks.
Trump is a clown. If Romney takes the job, that makes him a clown too as well as complicit in the destruction of our freedom.
‘Yes, Trump should be given a chance’
So should anyone who makes it to the position be given a chance, no matter what their history?
I’m sorry but Trump used up all his chances long ago.
Drain the swamp? Trump is the swamp. he’s making poor old disease-ridden, decrepit Hillary look like an amateur.
http://www.stridentconservative.com/drain-trumps-ethical-conflicts/
Patrick:
Actually, I can blame Trump for holding a grudge against anyone. Anyone.
He should be the last one to hold any sort of grudge, for obvious reasons: the abusive lies he told about just about every opponent he’s ever had, or anyone he even feels might be an opponent, or just about anyone he feels like being nasty towards on any given day of the week.
In fact, one of the best things about the post-election Trump has been his relative lack of grudge-holding, so far.
Geoffrey Britain:
You yourself have said things about Trump that are as bad an anything Romney ever said about him.
And yet, you voted for Trump. Should we be re-evaluating you?
You know what I think of Trump. But if he offered me a job in his administration and I thought I could serve the country that way, and improve things that way—whether by consulting Trump and trying to temper Trump’s positions, or by using my own judgment—I would take the position. Taking a position in someone’s administration is not approving of them, nor is it selling your soul. It is taking a job under them. One can always quit. Taking a job is not being a puppet, serving a master.
If Romney thinks that taking the SOS job would be a good thing for the country, he would do it. And he should do it, if that’s what he thinks, and I don’t see why anyone would think any less of him.
I would think less of him if he started doing unethical, stupid things while in that position, however.
There’s a phrase you should research, neo neo-con, if you aren’t already familiar with it: “Working towards the Fuhrer.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw#The_.22Working_Towards_the_F.C3.BChrer.22_concept
It represents a certain organizational style that suits the tastes of narcissists.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
If Romney’s prior comments about Trump were sincere and given their very contemptuous nature, how could they not be? How then can he now consider lending his support to Trump?
Maybe he decided that he was too hard on Trump before. His cabinet picks so far have been good, IMO, so I was starting to wonder the same thing.
If instead Trump pulls the “kiss the ring” routine, I’ll reverse that assessment.
I’m not speaking to Trump’s character, which he himself has established. I’m speaking to the disconnect between how Romney has previously acted and spoken and, his now apparent willingness to serve a man he unequivocally declared to be unfit for the Presidency.
And he would be serving at the President’s pleasure and while Romney could offer his own perspective, he’d be obligated to enact Trump’s directives, rather than any of his own which failed to fully back Trump’s foreign policies. His job will to be to make the State Dept. a tool for Trump to wield as Trump thinks best…
Serving his country under a man he thinks unfit may arguably be admirable but if sincere, he’s taking the position to limit the damage, while inevitably having to enact policies he not only disagrees with but must verbally support.
There’s far too much of that type of duplicity in Wash DC. That’s not acting to drain the swamp but instead adding to it.
neo,
Yes, I have said as bad or worse things about Trump, though without the certainty (“I know”) that Romney expressed but I also like you said that I hoped that Trump’s Presidential behavior proved me wrong. In his speech, I can’t recall Romney expressing that sentiment.
Like you, I’m taking a wait and see approach about Trump. I’d feel better about Romney had his ‘transition’ to Trump supporter (it’s not just a ‘job’, you’re part of a team) not been so precipitous.
Matt,
Perhaps, I hope so and I also hope my misgivings about Romney are mistaken.
Geoffrey Britain:
Romney’s anti-Trump speech was made on March 3, in the thick of the primaries, when there was still time to nominate someone else. Here are some quotes from the speech, which was couched as a time for choosing either the Trump path or the path of other candidates [emphasis mine]:
Just to pause for a moment, there’s nothing there to quarrel with; there’s really nothing Romney is saying there about foreign policy that isn’t pretty obviously true. Now, you could ask how Romney could serve as SOS under such a man? I would say that he definitely could (and even should) if he thinks he could temper and subdue that recklessness, since Trump is going to be president whether Romney likes it or not (Romney might even think it’s his duty, if given the opportunity, to temper that recklessness).
What’s more, look at what Romney tweeted the morning Trump won the presidency and had given his rather conciliatory victory speech:
Sounds almost like a prayer to me. And my very strong hunch is that, if Trump actually were to ask Romney to be SOS, Romney would see it as a sign that Trump’s victory speech was going to guide him, and preserving the Republic would be his aim.
By the end of July, 2016, Romney was saying this:
As a Latter-Day Saint, Huckabee said some stuff in the 2008 primary that set off my alarm bells. My guess is that Huckabee doesn’t like Mormons, and I’d take anything negative that he says about Romney (or any other Latter-Day Saint) with a grain of salt.
And that’s before I even start getting into things like one of Huckabee’s 2008 campaign advisors crowing about upsetting Reagan’s three-legged stool model; i.e. campaign support based on the defense hawks, the socons, and the fi-cons (the comment was obviously made early in the primary season when it looked like Huckabee might be the surprise upset). And what I’ve heard about Huckabee’s actions while Arkansas governor fits with his apparent lack of interest in fiscal conservatism. So I’m not much inclined to pay attention to anything that Huckabee says.
Also, Huckabee was the only major Republican who urged Akin – the albatross who was used to tar the *entire* Republican party that year – to stay in the Missouri Senate Race in 2012.
Huckabee can go take a long walk off a short pier.
As for Romney and Trump, while Romney did say some negative things about Trump, remember that Trump went personal about Romney just before the Utah primary. It wasn’t just one way from Romney to Trump.
neo,
Much of what you mention is encouraging in that it indicates that Romney’s ‘transition’ has not been quite as precipitous as I’d thought.
That said, I don’t agree that Romney’s view of Trump’s “bombast” as having made our actual allies anxious is a cause for concern. Most of our allies are screwed up and greatly in need of correction.
And I strongly disagree that talking tough fuels the enmity of our enemies. In fact that is exactly the argument that both Obama, Clinton and the liberal/left have made, i.e. confrontation will make our enemies madder, oh my!
Nor do I agree with Romney’s apparent view that our Muslim “allies” being angered by Trump’s banning of Muslim refugees is counterproductive. Since our Muslim allies certainly don’t care about those ‘refugees’.
That attitude leads me to doubt that Romney will ever accept the proposition that Islam’s tenets and the America’s foundational principles are fundamentally incompatible. Anyone at this point who still fails to grasp that basic a point, that is in a position to affect policy is a hindrance to our national security.
SecState requires far more than the ability to be diplomatic and skilled at negotiation with a demeanor that carries a suitable gravitas. It requires an understanding of “the great game”, an understanding of Lord Palmerston’s “nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests”. A SecState’s (and President of course) understanding rests upon their grasping the fundamental nature of our enemies. Romney’s apparent failure to grasp Islam’s incompatibility with the West and his apparent viewing of China mainly from an economic POV greatly concern me as a candidate for the SecState position. As does his considering Putin’s Russia as the main threat facing the U.S.
Finally there is my doubt as to his determining that State is a fetid swamp greatly in need of draining. All of this leads me to the conclusion that he’s not the right man for that position.
Whereas I agree with those who applaud him at Commerce.
Romney as Sec. of State would be 4th in line of succession. Not a bad choice. I think Trump will pick him if for no other reason than he needs the cover of respectability – hugely. Petraeus would be a mistake with his baggage, as would Giuliani.
I cannot imagine Romney taking a position like Commerce, which seems like an anachronism. I seriously doubt that he would–or could– drag his wife back to Washington for a largely meaningless cabinet title.
As to draining the swamp. Romney was the consummate swamp drainer when he took over the failing LA Olympics. He has more swamp draining creds than most.
@ Matt: I take it that you think Trump is Hitler? Might as well join the protests.
I am perplexed that Romney would want the job, and even more perplexed that Trump would want to offer it. While I have a very high opinion of Romney the man, I don’t it wise for either Romney or Trump to tie their boats together. It is likely a relationship that is going to end badly.
Oldflyer –
“As to draining the swamp. Romney was the consummate swamp drainer when he took over the failing LA Olympics. He has more swamp draining creds than most.”
He took over the SLC Olympics.
Romney always choose appeasement and compromise where no compromise was acceptable to the other side or ever possible. I would say, thrust directly through their center, they are completely demoralized!
The only person of any note that I’ve seen in the last ten years who really understands the threats this country faces from China, Russia and Islam is John Bolton. If you’ve ever seen him speak in interviews or academic forums, you’d know he puts the interests of the United States first and foremost, which should be rule #1 for any candidate for SOS. He’s tough, direct, forceful, plain spoken and has no time for fools.
Thanks Junior. Had Romney/SLC and Ueberroth/LA confused. Of course the essential point is valid.
geokstr,
Bolton is my top choice as well and for exactly the same reasons.
Oldflyer,
Commerce can be revamped into a robust vehicle for restarting the economy, provided the right economic policies are promoted and with Congressional cooperation in deregulation and simplified legislation that clears the logjam of obstructions to economic growth.
The LA Olympic swamp cannot begin to compare with the swamp at State. But it’s not Romney’s ability I doubt, its his attitude. In the Olympic venue, it was about promotion, something no one could dispute. Whereas at State, diplomatic appeasement is the dominant paradigm. Romney has indicated in his speech that he shares that POV.
I too meant Romney at SLC.
GRA Says:
@ Matt: I take it that you think Trump is Hitler? Might as well join the protests.
I think Hitler was Hitler. I think Trump is Trump.
I think that leaders who throw a bone into a pen to see two hungry dogs fight over it aren’t nice people.
Apparently there is lots of push back to Romney. So it’s an internal battle between Giuliani and Romney?
If those are the choices, I would choose Giuliani. He’s more likely to share the same vision for foreign policy as Trump. Romney is more likely to promote his own agenda, rather than the presidents.
Based on what Romney said about Trump during the campaign, I find it odd that he wouldn’t have a problem taking orders from Trump.
Fundy Baptist preacher Huckabee has been on Romney’s case since the 2008 election bashing away. Huck usually seems like sour grapes when he speaks.
It’s a religious conflict between the LDS Mormons and Southern Baptists.
Although even normal non slave supporting baptists would have similar doctrinal conflicts. The issue isn’t so much political or about abortion or homosexual marriage, as it is doctrinal and theological.
Even though they don’t come from the same geographic area, in a sense, they are competing for the same Christian votes. Huckabee’s also from Arkansas, which used to be a Democrat governor stronghold.
To GB, there’s a difference in serving the US Constitution at the President’s pleasure, and serving the President. Not even Nixon’s cabinet ended up serving Nixon just because of his orders. It’s often argued that one should keep one’s friends closer, and one’s enemies closer. It’s easier to get intel that way.
And Democrats usually get former failed Presidential bids to get on the cabinet, for evil finds power in alliances, even more than the enemies of evil do. See how the Republican “leaders” squabble over the corn thrown from the American King, Trum. No wonder the REpublicans normally don’t put other Presidential bids in the cabinet, their old boy country club can’t sustain it.