Chris Wallace hints: You’ll know Mitt Romney’s next career move a week from now

posted at 7:21 pm on February 21, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, let’s approach this subject this way: Could Wallace be referring to anything other than Romney becoming a Fox News contributor? The guy’s obviously not going to run for office again; granted, there’s a Senate vacancy in his home state, but he lost that state by 23 points last year. At this point, I think he’s probably had enough of having his political ambitions crushed. The only alternative I can come up with is that he’s maybe joining a prominent company as a board member or COO or something. But friends of Mitt told NRO yesterday regarding his CPAC appearance that he’s “eager to contribute to the national debate.” It has to be something political. And the only political avenue that’s open to him, realistically, is Fox News. Fox has leaned a bit further to the center after the election, bringing in Scott Brown as a contributor, parting ways with Palin, and often seeming conspicuously sunny about the Senate immigration bill despite grassroots conservatives’ disdain for it. Hiring Romney is the next logical step.

But … why? He has no natural constituency. He rose to prominence on the strength of his resume, not on his ability, a la Newt, to hold forth engagingly on conservative (or even moderate) ideas. His biggest political asset has always been his supposed electability, which is not something you’d think would lead to vibrant, arresting analysis. Maybe he’ll turn out to be great at it anyway — he’s good at pretty much everything else and is more than qualified intellectually for the job, needless to say — but the idea of it seems odd to me. Is there some inherent ratings value in having the last Republican presidential nominee as part of the team, even if the party’s young stars are all busy running away from his electoral message now?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

So, since nobody seems to know, let’s speculate. Mitt is going to be:

the next pope
co-host of the Foxnews “Romney and McCain Show”
commerce secretary for Obama
ambassador to North Korea
host of the Oscars

virgo on February 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM

There is no one whom the conservatives will be happy with or not eat, so as Hillary says “What’s the difference?” No one in their right mind with a set of morals would want anything to do with Washington. BTW, you don’t rise to fame on your resume without ability. What a duh statement.

AReadyRepub on February 24, 2013 at 2:27 AM

It doesn’t matter what is said on Fox day after day, or even on the average day, what is said on talk radio. The inroads that need to be made are in statements of truth and facts refuting the current propaganda machine in the White House. So, to the extent that our side can engage in the kind of hyperbole and humor that is actually picked up by the MSM and the internet, or have individuals, say a Rubio, that they will actually notice, we can make a few inroads.

I don’t notice FOX moving to the center.

It is what I noticed during the campaign, they could not do any journalism on their own, not even expository journalism on the candidates, that would not be Fair and Balanced enough. They tended to repeat what AP and Reuters put out as facts.

In spite of a few places where they followed Fast and Furious before others, or a little bit more incredulous that nothing happened in Benghazi, they are just not out on the front doing independent leading edge news reporting and journalism, they are doing safe reporting, with some opinion thrown in, and then they have feature stars, like Hannity, O’Reilly etc.

The news writers at Fox submit themselves to the premise that AP and Reuters are sending them the facts and they repeat them. They are reacting to the same thing the MSM is reacting to, and a lot of it is generated by the administration, or sound bites taken out of context.

Fleuries on February 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3