GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Mitt Romney will run in 2016 — and he’ll win

posted at 4:01 pm on July 8, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, I don’t deny that I enjoy trolling the HA faithful with stories about (groan) yet another Romney campaign, but is it trolling or is it news when the rumor du jour’s coming from a Republican congressman? And Chaffetz is no random House member: Romney endorsed him when he first ran for Congress in Utah in 2008 and Chaffetz returned the favor when Romney ran for president in 2011, even though Chaffetz had been the gubernatorial campaign manager for Romney rival Jon Huntsman. He went on to server as a surrogate for Mitt during media hits after some of the primary debates in 2012. If there’s anyone on the Hill who *might* have an inside track into Romney’s thinking, it’s him.

And yet … no one seriously believes Romney’s running, right? In which case, what’s Chaffetz’s angle here? Gotta be one of two things, I think. One: Mitt’s inner circle is worried that Jeb Bush won’t run and that Christie is now too damaged to hold off a conservative in the primaries, so they’re trying to pressure him into reconsidering. Chaffetz’s shpiel here is part of the wider media effort lately by Team Romney to encourage him by showing him that the public might be more receptive to Romney 3.0 than Mitt thinks. Two: Chaffetz knows full well this is BS but he’s pushing it anyway for his own interests, i.e. making sure that Romney’s on his side when he eventually runs for Senate. Chaffetz nearly primaried Orrin Hatch two years ago, remember; ultimately he declined, but Hatch just turned 80 and may well retire when his term is up in 2018. Chaffetz will be just 51 then and eager to fill the vacancy. Utah’s Republican field could be crowded and nasty — Dan Lilijenquist, Hatch’s last challenger, and even Chaffetz’s old boss Huntsman could be eyeing Hatch’s seat — so, assuming one of Romney’s own sons doesn’t run, competition for Mitt’s endorsement and fundraising will be stiff. Maybe Chaffetz is just keeping his ducks in a row here.

Incidentally, since we’re on the subject, what would the Romney 3.0 campaign narrative even look like? Mitt, (in)famously, is a creature of reinvention: When he ran for Senate against Ted Kennedy, he was a Massachusetts moderate; when he ran for president in 2008, he was a staunch social conservative; when he ran in 2012, he was an economy-healing technocrat. I assume he’d stick with the last message for 2016, but that’s complicated by the fact that (a) the economy will probably be better than it was in 2012, which bodes ill for a guy whose economic message didn’t work the last time, and (b) Democrats will be running against income inequality, which makes Mr. “47 Percent” uniquely poorly suited to parry their attacks. So what does he run as, then? As a foreign-policy candidate? Apart from 2004, which was sui generis because it followed 9/11, when was the last time someone won the presidency running on foreign policy?


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

Patriots don’t deliberately vote for something they know will harm the country.

Which is why I, and many others, will no longer be voting GOP.

High concept, huh?

V7_Sport on July 8, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Which is why you still don’t get it, f*ckwit.

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Romney devastated the GOP in 2012.

The double talking, self-described “non-partisan progressive” and “severe conservative” would have never been in politics had he not self-financed his way through four bumbling elections. The only election he ever won was for MA governor in a Republican wave year (2002) against a clueless Martha Coakley type and he still failed to garner more than 50% of the vote! An inept campaigner, period. Proof is in all 4 puddings. And we are talking about him running again in 2016? Utter insanity. Now and in the past, Romney has waffled back and forth in favor of amnesty, abortion, cap & trade, climate change, gun control, gays in the military, gay marriage and progressive causes like Planned Parenthood, and this is a Republican??

Abortion is a special case in point. I don’t care where you stand on that issue, but the way that Romney played himself up as so fervently and rock solidly pro-choice in a GHWB “read my lips” sort of way, giving lengthy passionate stories to buttress his credibility on the issue, describing his mother’s pro-choice stand and so forth. Then in a heart beat after he won the MA governorship he switched positions as he dreamed of running for the R nomination. Same with amnesty, he was for it in a 2005 youtube, against it when the R nomination fight came around, and now I hear Romney is for amnesty again. It’s disturbing the way he takes such stern seemingly unwavering positions on things, like amnesty and abortion, and then switches positions without losing a step. Romney is wall to wall deception and fakery. And the electorate, left and right and center, understood that. Romney is not likable. And not “a good man.” The “good man” thing is part of his fake facade.

Among Rs, Ds and independents there’s an intense dislike of this smirking waffling issue-skirting “paid 13% in taxes” equivocator. Romney epitomizes all that is negative about the stereotype (country clubber favoring the rich) that Republicans have struggled to avoid like the plague, but in Romney’s case we went right ahead and selected him as our nominee. To boot, Obamacare was the biggest issue of 2012, and like drunken lemmings we picked the very proto-architect of Obamacare as our nominee. Insane.

It was found out that Romney used a tanning salon before the R debates. Skin deep. That’s Romney. He’s a false front, 100% pure facade. The only thing that Romney’s got going for him is that everyone, even his opponents, seem to call him a “decent man.” A good man. Please. The man lied and back-stabbed fellow Republicans in 2008, and in 2012 to get the nomination, then became all syrupy in the general where he went soft against the “nice man” Obama. To Romney the election was “all about the economy,” even though with Romney’s “13% taxes” pedigree that issue arguably broke toward Obama, and the economy was not the most important issue for most people. To attract independents and Reagan Democrats Romney needed to get in Obama’s face about gay marriage, Obamacare, and illegal immigration, but Romney did nothing of the sort. He rolled over and smiled a little smirk. That’s all he did.

anotherJoe on July 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Nominate a Reagan Conservative.
Brock Robamney on July 8, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Reagan is responsible for EMTALA, (forced free health care) the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Amnesty, Sandra Day Oconner, and the Brady Assault Weapons ban.

I don’t understand the double standard against Romney.

Perspicacious on July 8, 2014 at 9:34 PM


WILL AMERICA choose a COMPETENT EXECUTIVE ?

________________________________________

Ascendant Mitt Romney

________________________________________

Today America need LEADERSHIP attuned to
the REVITALIZATION of USA companies and opportunities.

Back in the 1980s, Bain Capital under
Mitt Romney was a spearhead of a massive national
movement of CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING.

The HIGH TAX RATES of the inflationary 1970s had
FORCED a deadening SIEGE of conglomeration
and corporate BLOAT and resulted in a catastrophic
60 % DECLINE in the REAL VALUE of corporate EQUITY.

This was the era of palatial new Corporate headquarters,
jet fleets, and lavish entertainment budgets
all serving INCOHERENT JUMBLES of
unrelated COMPANIES that had EQUITY worth less
than the sum of their parts.

Corporations often had either to SPLURGE or MERGE
to AVOID a suffocating CONFISCATION of PROFITS
through the interplay of INFLATION with
exalted TAX GOUGES, which could rise to
EFFECTIVE RATES above 100 % of real returns.

Conglomerates ARTFULLY COMBINED companies
nursing LOSSES with companies harvesting PROFITS,
thereby MUTING the impact of the DEADLY TAX REGIME.

……………………………………………………………………..

But Ronald Reagan’s counter-inflationary supply-side
TAX policies, coupled with Paul Volcker’s
monetary contraction, made these
MORBID COMBINES DYSFUNCTIONAL.
They had to be dismantled and REORGANIZED for
a LOW-TAX, LOW-INFLATION regime,
kicking and screaming all the way,
and Mitt Romney was a KEY LEADER on the case.

This RESTRUCTURING campaign radically INCREASED
the VALUE of the ASSETS of USA Business.

The economic effects of a general RESTRUCTURING
that RELEASES CAPITAL for better uses, more jobs,
and higher VALUATIONS all across the economy.

Bain Capital successfully invest in entire companies,
which resulted in SHARP INCREASES in capital expenditures,
R & D, employment, and share value.

……………………………………………………………………..
The American Spectator
________________________________________

Another FINANCIAL MELTDOWN on the horizon?
And You thought the Last MELTDOWN was Brutal …

http://theHill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/211012-another-financial-meltdown-on-the-horizon
……………………………………………………………………..

The biggest problem with the epic
Central Bank rig of the last five years is that
PROPPING UP a BANKRUPT FINANCIAL SYSTEM
by PRINTING MONEY only works for so long.

http://www.ZeroHEDGE.com/news/2014-07-04/when-defaults-come-so-will-wealth-grab
……………………………………………………………………..

Global HAWK on July 8, 2014 at 9:42 PM

I didn’t vote for the lesser of two evils last time. I won’t vote for him next time. I’m tired of having two candidates who do not support my positions even half the time.

Sincerely,
Ex-GOP voter for 30+ years

Wino on July 8, 2014 at 9:45 PM

What difference, at this point, does it make?/
Super-rich + media = We’re done for.
Same as it ever was.

S. D. on July 8, 2014 at 9:46 PM

We should be so lucky. However, I don’t know where Chavetz gets his information. My impression is that Romney might serve if the nation begged him, but he’s unlikely to run again. He’s more conservative personally than he gets credit for, but he knows that no Tea Party conservative will win the Presidency any time soon. They haven’t proven themselves in lower offices yet, and their biggest names have no more experience as executives than Obama had.

flataffect on July 8, 2014 at 9:57 PM

What difference, at this point, does it make?/
Super-rich + media = We’re done for.
Same as it ever was.

S. D. on July 8, 2014 at 9:46 PM

Bingo, S. D.

After reading and contemplating the various issues in the news today, I feel a sense of a world in chaos. I came to this thread to express that feeling and your comment was the first I saw.

Spot on. It’s a ball of confusion.

Jaibones on July 8, 2014 at 9:59 PM


…………………………………………………………………………..
GOP has a COMPETENT LEADER in MITT ROMNEY
…………………………………………………………………………..
Gov. Mitt Romney says:

In this country,
we want SOMEONE WHO CAN
help OTHERS BECOME SUCCESSFUL.

________________________________________

FINANCIAL CRISIS of 2008 caused the
Americans to blame & punish the GOP party.
A tipping point that got Obama ( no executive
experience ) elected to the presidency in 2008.

However, Bill CLINTON and his FINANCIAL TEAM
( Bob Rubin, A. Greenspan, L. Summers, Tim Geitner & others )
are the CATALYST that led to
the FINANCIAL CRISIS of 2008:

* Bill CLINTON’s AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRUSADE:
Bill CLINTONs’ obsession with pushing homeownership
to new highs via GOVERNMENT COERCION.
Bill CLINTON driving HOMEOWNERSHIP rates up
to about 70 % of households from around 64 %.

* Bob Rubins’ Crusade for Wall Street
inside the Bill CLINTON administration.

Bob Rubin — former CEO of Goldman Sachs
— what LEGISLATION did you
make Bill CLINTON sign into law ?
Like: Commodity Futures Modernization Act —
which EXEMPTED over-the-counter SWAPS
and DERIVATIVES from REGULATION.

What DAMAGE a Wall Street FATCAT
inside the Bill CLINTON administration
can UNLEASH on the USA Economy ?

The Bill CLINTON adminstration UNLEASHED
Wall Street RISK-TAKING. Crony Capitalism.

After working for Bill CLINTON, Bob Rubin hop into
CITIBANK / Citigroup to collect his MILLIONS of Dollars.
( $ 126 Million ? Whatever the $$ — a Fatcat’s reward )

……………………………………………………………………..

Barack Obama never had EXECUTIVE experience before 2008.
……………………………………………………………………..

About those Policies that got us into This Mess

http://www.BLOOMBERG.com/news/print/2012-09-12/about-those-policies-that-got-us-into-this-mess-caroline-baum.html

……………………………………………………………………..
The Brass Standard — Bill CLINTON Master Politician
People STOPPED making MORTGAGE payments

http://www.NationalReview.com/node/316725/print
……………………………………………………………………..
Brooksley Born, Alan Greenspan, and The Warning

http://www.PBS.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/etc/script.html
……………………………………………………………………..
Wall Street’s DELUSION

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/author-michael-lewis-on-wall-sts-delusion/
……………………………………………………………………..

Global HAWK on July 8, 2014 at 10:00 PM

He fought the conservatives better than the oaf, who’s chief. He and his team are beyond stupid.

Schadenfreude on July 8, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Yes. True.

Parmenides on July 8, 2014 at 10:02 PM

I’m all for Romney running and I’d donate to him and vote for him again, if he runs.

He’s a stand up guy.

SauerKraut537 on July 8, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Not voting for Jeb, not voting for the crispie creme donut, and not voting for romney again.
If they don’t put up a CONSERVATIVE, I say let it burn. I’ll write in lawn gnome. Who knows, maybe my lawn gnome will be the next president!
Diluculo on July 8, 2014 at 9:19 PM

I think you have to clear it with our resident sock puppets first

Brock Robamney on July 8, 2014 at 10:05 PM

Do not understand the animus toward Romney when compared to any Democrat.

Corporate tax rate, judicial appointments, deficit, income tax, NLRB, EPA , Justice Dept., etc. etc.

Come on people, use your heads.

spinwedge60 on July 8, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Nominate a Reagan Conservative.
Brock Robamney on July 8, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Reagan is responsible for EMTALA, (forced free health care) the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Amnesty, Sandra Day Oconner, and the Brady Assault Weapons ban.
I don’t understand the double standard against Romney.
Perspicacious on July 8, 2014 at 9:34 PM

GOP cheerleaders are for rewriting history, nominating losing presidential candidates. and Mike Castle. Enough said

Brock Robamney on July 8, 2014 at 10:10 PM

The question we have to ask ourselves after 8 years of Obama is…….can he win? If he can then he would get my vote.

Tater Salad on July 8, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Someone had better run against the LEFT and win, because the ‘humanitarian crisis’ created and engendered by Obama and his administration is putting the citizens of this nation at risk, and we cannot withstand this onslaught for long.

These illegal aliens, who are coming to this nation by the hundreds of thousands, are carrying contagion and parasites. Everything from chicken pox, lice, and scabies, to infectious tuberculosis and more. Yet, the federal government has seen fit to fly these infected individuals all over the nation and has already made plans to send the children among them to public schools.

What kind of person does that? What kind of person thinks it’s even permissible to send people who are infected with infectious diseases and parasites on public transport and scatter them across the nation?

It is the duty of the president of the United States of America to protect the citizens first and foremost. It is the duty of the congress to protect the citizens of this nation, first and foremost, before any other consideration.

thatsafactjack on July 8, 2014 at 10:17 PM

I’d vote for Jeff Sessions if he ran for the office of president of the United States of America. Senator Sessions has stood his ground and fought for American citizens.

Senator Sessions: Obama created the border crisis

The crisis on our border is the direct and predictable result of President Obama’s sustained effort to undermine America’s immigration laws.

Today President Obama says he needs $3.7 billion from Congress to handle the crisis his lawless policies are creating. Amazingly, the funding request further advertises his administration’s amnesty efforts and our fraud-riddled asylum programs, while explicitly omitting any request for expedited deportation authority. The request is also not paid for. The administration wants to borrow every penny.

President Obama has yielded to the demands of open borders groups, to whom he pledged amnesty in 2008. He has dramatically abandoned his lawful duty to the American people.

Most egregiously, the president has announced his intention to yet again bypass Congress in order to expand his far-reaching non-enforcement directives. His unlawful actions guarantee that the $3.7 billion will be only the beginning, and that the deluge of illegal immigration — and the huge costs — will only grow.

And growing with it will be the crisis for the American worker. This flood of illegality adds to an already massive flow of low-wage labor into the US. Between 2000 and 2013 the federal government issued 26 million visas to foreign workers and new permanent immigrants — corresponding with falling wages, soaring joblessness, and rising poverty in our struggling communities.

When did we forget that a nation owes its first allegiance to her own citizens?

thatsafactjack on July 8, 2014 at 10:23 PM

V7 is probably approaching 30,000 words to spin/deflect from a simple factual error he made, but he’s totally not an unstable, obsessed narcissist.

Oh well, I’ll let him get the last word (again) because he’s a predictable child.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Mitt Romney is a good and decent man. He always has been.

Key West Reader on July 8, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Indeed. It takes more than being a good and decent man to be President.

In fact, given how ruthless politics is, I’d say it’s a handicap. Not that we need a terrible person, just someone with fire in his belly. We have a lot of those types in play for 2016: Jindal, Cruz, Walker, and even Rand, though he’s starting to be a bit too squishy, but he’s got plenty of time before the primaries. He’s certainly still a fighter, which is what we need, given how heavily the deck is stacked against any conservative candidate.

If the GOP pushes Jeb or Christie, I can only figure that they actually want to lose and enjoy being the minority party because it’s a good platform for fundraising. A party serious about taking the WH in 2016 couldn’t possibly back Jeb Bush.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 10:32 PM

Romney is wall to wall deception and fakery. And the electorate, left and right and center, understood that. Romney is not likable.

Wall to wall? People are going to say, wait, isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration?

In a word, no.

Look at what he did on abortion. He’s clearly just spouting voter targeted but empty words to the electorate. That’s coreless. On amnesty too. And his constant revisions on climate change show him changing with the slightest breeze, and having no foundation. It’s all words to the brilliant “product packager.” Unfortunately for Romney he himself was the product.

As far as the “product,” Romney believed in the “median voter theory” where you just go a tad to the right of your opponent, and, in effect, try to make yourself disappear to the electorate. Make yourself a small as possible target. But the horrible thing is that the more Romney did that, the more he seemed to obviously take both sides of issues, to fail to present any kind of concrete ideological persona other than being a kind of amorphous smirking smudge, all the voters saw was the smirk, and his glaring coreless double talking, and the personal / personality negatives that Obama played up. Romney had to go deep on issues, he had to convince people that he was genuine and sincere, and that there were issues that Romney passionately shared with the people (as illegal immigration, gay marriage, Obamacare) that they could trust Romney to champion. Romney tried to disappear instead. Man, did that backfire!! People saw him .. and obviously and glaringly.. as a dishonest oily car salesman type. It well known that Romney had a reputation as an issue skirting equivocator, but Romney continued down that path of failing to take stands on issues, to double talk things to death. And if Romney somehow someway got the R nomination in 2016, he would try to disappear again on almost every issue… but the economy, right. It wouldn’t be pretty.

And remember the Big Bird thing? That was symptomatic of Romney’s problems. He wanted to say that the size of the out of control govt needs to be cut, but he thought he can’t say that without upsetting some people. But cutting the size of govt was in the fine print of his position papers. Yet what would he cut? Big Bird. Geez. He had to come out and take some bold stands. And say that is what we got to do, that it will be tough in some ways, but doable and it will save the day. He had to be bold and vibrant, inspirational even talking about cuts that are not all going to be wonderful for everyone. He didn’t do that. He tried to make himself become a tiny target by just talking about Big Bird. A joke. The people aren’t stupid. They saw right though his charade. They some him as a despicable bullsh!ter or liar. He lost.

anotherJoe on July 8, 2014 at 10:39 PM

It’s one of your favorite words, a quick look with Google, Good Solid B-Plus triangulation shows 652 results. It’s time to flip that “word of the day” calendar. Here:

You think every single one of those hits is from me?

You realize searching for Good Solid B-Plus + triangulation also brings up hits from other people saying triangulation on threads that I posted in, right? Not to mention a ton of hits not from this website, since I got the name from Obama’s infamous “grading” of his own presidency.

Good Solid B-Plus + hotair + triangulation

Brings up less than 40 results, most of them not said by me. So, yeah…you’re really bad at this.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 10:41 PM

Here’s probably the most hilarious bit from doing that Google search. About 5 of those posts were actually by me, and here’s one of them:

Remember 1994 mid terms, remember how they totally determined what happened in the 1996 presidential…oh wait.

libfreeordie on June 21, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Remember when Clinton was a popular, competent incumbent with the political acumen to triangulate after getting destroyed in the mid-terms?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM

In other words….I thought Romney would win in 2012. I was wrong. See how easy that is to admit, V7? See how you don’t have to shift goalposts for 30,000 words and be a total d-bag?

I thought Romney would win in 2012 and I supported and voted for him. I thought Obama would lose because he wasn’t a good politician, refused to give any concessions to the middle, refused to triangulate at all, and run a completely negative campaign, not to mention having an abysmal 4 years in office.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 10:46 PM

anotherJoe on July 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM

+1

J.B. Say on July 8, 2014 at 10:47 PM

Reagan is responsible for EMTALA, (forced free health care) the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Amnesty, Sandra Day Oconner, and the Brady Assault Weapons ban.

I don’t understand the double standard against Romney.

Perspicacious on July 8, 2014 at 9:34 PM

Yes, Reagan had faults. “Reagan conservative” doesn’t mean someone who passes every purity test, because that candidate doesn’t exist. Everyone has warts.

No one would say that Scott Walker or Ted Cruz is a “100% pure” candidate. Even Cruz waffled when asked about Cochran’s primary tactics, because he’s a current Senator and doesn’t want to bash his colleagues too heavily. Walker has some statements about amnesty that would give a lot of conservatives pause. People who understand politics understand that, which is why I’m even willing to give Rand Paul a mulligan for some of the dumb statements he’s made lately.

There’s absolutely no reason to run a retread like Romney when we have such a strong bench. He’s a nice man, just let him be happy in his retirement.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 11:05 PM

In other words….I thought Romney would win in 2012. I was wrong. See how easy that is to admit, V7? See how you don’t have to shift goalposts for 30,000 words and be a total d-bag?

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Yeah, unfortunately, that’s all V7′s go going for him.

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Except for not paying any taxes, and killing that woman with cancer, Romney 3.97 was the best candidate for POTUS there has been since Reagan- on EITHER side-and there won’t be anyone as capable as he for a very long time.
Whom do you retentives got to run? Seriously- how pathetic of a group of candidates you have- crap on Romney all you want but admit there is NO ONE even close to his acumen….and let’s not forget it took the full force of a dishonest propaganda media and debate moderators to bring him down…..
So who you gonna run whiners? Name one Conservative that would have a snow balls chance in hell of winning in 2016 – your dream candidate….the current list is pathetic, maybe only slightly better than the R clown parade of 2012….. Put a name up there and I will shred them for you like a paper doll……In any case idiot America will vote for the one who promises to keep the free stuff coming……and nothing else matters….corrupt career politicians, you can keep ‘em – they offer nothing to those who understand management and leadership- and throw in some responsibility while were on the subject

FlaMurph on July 8, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Every person who used to vote GOP and decides to stay home sends the GOP a 1 vote message.

Every one of *those* people who decide to vote Democrat instead, leverages that message to 2 votes.

Midas on December 16, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Cheers – I’ve said the same on more than one occasion, of course – but now I don’t have to repost it myself, thanks!

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Yes, you have said that on more than 1 occasion, haven’t you! Genuine conservatives don’t work to elect socialists. Patriots don’t deliberately vote for something they know will harm the country. High concept, huh?

V7_Sport on July 8, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Which is why you still don’t get it, f*ckwit.

Midas on July 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM

There it is in black and gray: Midas thinks electing socialists (like Obama) is patriotic.

Patriots don’t deliberately vote for something they know will harm the country.

Which is why I, and many others, will no longer be voting GOP.

So you can do for Hillary what you did for Obama.

V7_Sport on July 8, 2014 at 11:29 PM

I didn’t vote for the lesser of two evils last time. I won’t vote for him next time. I’m tired of having two candidates who do not support my positions even half the time.

Sincerely,
Ex-GOP voter for 30+ years

Wino on July 8, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Amen. I voted Libertarian last time and I will again next time unless we actually have a conservative as the nominee. I will never vote for another “moderate”, i.e. Democrat light, again. I did it once with McCain and that was enough.

Theophile on July 8, 2014 at 11:35 PM

In other words….I thought Romney would win in 2012. I was wrong. See how easy that is to admit, V7? See how you don’t have to shift goalposts for 30,000 words and be a total d-bag?

I thought Romney would win in 2012 and I supported and voted for him. I thought Obama would lose because he wasn’t a good politician, refused to give any concessions to the middle, refused to triangulate at all, and run a completely negative campaign, not to mention having an abysmal 4 years in office.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Don’t worry, we all thought that he would win. We had no idea just how badly the Obama administration was persecuting the conservative votes and voices through the IRS. He stole the election. It is that simple.

Theophile on July 8, 2014 at 11:39 PM

Don’t worry, we all thought that he would win. We had no idea just how badly the Obama administration was persecuting the conservative votes and voices through the IRS. He stole the election. It is that simple.

Theophile on July 8, 2014 at 11:39 PM

Not sure we can attribute it all to fraud. We also have a deeply ignorant electorate.

The only things that give me hope are:

A. We do have a few really good candidates lined up for 2016

B. Hillary is a terrible candidate, and she makes Obama look politically adroit. She’s got huge name recognition though, and she’s the FIRST! WOMAN! PRESIDENT!, which might be enough to push her over the top with the LIVs, but every time she opens her mouth she puts her twisted, haggard foot into it.

We might even be able to count on Obama, spiteful little weasel that he is, sandbagging Hillary just because she had the unmitigated temerity to challenge his coronation/apotheosis to Godhood in 2008.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM

Romney 3.97 was the best candidate for POTUS there has been since Reagan- [you retentives should] admit there is NO ONE even close to his acumen…
FlaMurph on July 8, 2014 at 11:12 PM

FlaMurph, I’m not a retentive, so consider reading my 2 comments above. What I made clear is that an election for president has got nothing to do with “acumen.” His business acumen. His… other types of acumen (though clearly there wasn’t any “campaign acumen” or he would have won [campaign ineptitude was it instead]).

If it was about acumen, and the people wanted acumen, Dukakis the technocrat would have won. Turns out Dukakis had “technocratic acumen” but no campaign acumen either. Maybe Gore or Kerry would have won. They seemed to be perfectly “capable” people with more acumen the GW actually. But there was something else about them that the people didn’t like. Same with the “stock full of acumen” Romney. He didn’t seem honest and trustworthy. That’s a HUGE negative. And as I said in my previous comment:

Conservatives, well, the base of the R party, would be in full out revolt if Romney somehow stole the 2016 nomination. A large number of base conservatives would either not vote, vote 3rd party, or vote Hillary. But certainly not vote for the “severe conservative” or (?) “non-partisan progressive.”

Yeah, Romney seems a bit of a political schizophrenic as far as his ideology. Better to call him “non-ideological.” But that doesn’t work with voters: Extreme Appeal: Voters Trust Extreme Positions More Than Moderate Ones, Study Finds. I got to say, those that aren’t really moderate per se, but all over the effin map, got to be the least trusted of all. And trust matters. More than anything else. Romney’s never going to get that. Not in 1994, or 2002, or 2008, or 2012, or 2016 for that matter. Or likeability. The annoying lily-fingered smirker is never going to get it.

anotherJoe on July 8, 2014 at 11:48 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 10:27 PM

V7 is probably approaching 30,000 words to spin/deflect from a simple factual error he made, but he’s totally not an unstable, obsessed narcissist.

Awesome, I accuse you of being verbose and posting a 10,000 word sermon and you rub both IQ points together and come back with the devastating rebuttal of saying I posted something with 30,000 words… I call you obsessed, you rub both IQ points together and come back with the devastating rebuttal of saying I’m obsessed. I call you a narcissist, you rub both IQ points together and come back with the devastating rebuttal of saying I am a narcissist. So here it is: You are a pineapple. Lets see how long it takes before I get called a pineapple.
And factual error? By not attributing the economic upturn in the ’90s to Ross Perot? Not going to admit to that because it isn’t true. (“No veto, take it or leave it”)

Oh well, I’ll let him get the last word (again) because he’s a predictable child.

Again? Last time around you snuck on to a thread that had gone weeks without a post and blah blahed it up. And so much for that last word, I know full well you can’t help yourself:

You realize searching for Good Solid B-Plus + triangulation also brings up hits from other people saying triangulation on threads that I posted in, right?

I skimmed through some, it was you of course bringing it up in your “look at me! I learned a new word” fashion.

Here’s probably the most hilarious bit from doing that Google search. About 5 of those posts were actually by me, and here’s one of them:

Remember when Clinton was a popular, competent incumbent with the political acumen to triangulate after getting destroyed in the mid-terms? Let me tell you all about triangulation, it’s when things are triangulated. Say it out loud libefree, T-R-A-N-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N, the only other words that approach it’s sheer beauty are P-E-R-O-T and M-E!… Triangulation!
Good Solid B-Plus on June 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Again, lots of love for the Clintons, they and Ross Perot seem to be the only ones that you can give credit to. Aside from yourself and your imaginary friends of course.

In other words….I thought Romney would win in 2012. I was wrong.

Add it to the looooong, credibility destroying list of things you were wrong about.

See how easy that is to admit, V7?

Get back to me when you can acknowledge that Ross Perot was not responsible for the economic prosperity of the ’90s.
Better yet, don’t.

V7_Sport on July 8, 2014 at 11:54 PM

Guys, you don’t wanna mess with V7, he’s a WIKIPEDIA EDIT WARRIOR!

Tick him off and he’ll edit the page of your favorite sports team and/or movie! Oh wait, he can’t, he’s permanently blocked from editing because apparently being a douchebag on the internet is something he does on more sites than just HA. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 11:40 PM

And that’s what got you banned.

V7_Sport on July 8, 2014 at 11:55 PM

I would vote for Romney again.

In fact I haven’t seen anyone else that comes close to having what it takes. I am sickened by everyone of the other choices so far!

Maybe Rand? I just don’t see anyone of the names put up that I could really get behind.

But I do not believe Romney will run. He has lots of personal reasons not to run. Among them is Ann’s health.

I would love to support Romney again. But I’m pretty sure that ship has sailed.

petunia on July 9, 2014 at 12:09 AM

And who cares about how good of a campaigner he is or was?

What does that have to do with being President.

If the people who bad mouthed him for years, the ones supposedly on the same team as Romney, if they had supported him. Romney would have run.

But nobody can run when the party is split and bad mouths the only viable candidate.

Not one of Romney’s challengers had anything to offer. Nothing. If they did they would have beat him because he was not a great campaigner.

It takes more than being a good campaigner to win. It takes people willing to support you even if your religion is something their pastor has said is evil.

It takes a broader party than this one.

That is why the Socialists win. And probably will win again. Because we don’t have any good candidates, but one, and he is too foreign to most Christians to support out of the gate.

petunia on July 9, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Won not run.

petunia on July 9, 2014 at 12:18 AM

anotherJoe on July 8, 2014 at 11:48 PM

.
Romney survived to November precisely because of acumen- the proven ability to lead/manage. Without it, his name might as well been Santorum or Gingrich.
You retain a notion that somehow a “smirk” is what is used to sum up Mitt Rpmney – and defeated him?
This guy was fighting the media AND a pathological corrupt incumbent Liar, who gave the people free healthcare, unlimited UE benefits, food stamps, easily obtained disability payments- housing and utility subsidy- Romney might as well have been running against Santa Claus……. THATS what elections are now about. Bacon. You dare take that away? See you at the polls.
.
If you think the imbecilic dumbed down electorate (at least the 70% who did graduate from HS) are more concerned with ideological political extremes vs. free stuff…..you do not understand the country you live in.
But more to the relevant point…..and I DO NOT want to see Romney and his family go through the trashing from the commies again, what R career politician has any shred of electability- outside the sheltered reality you have created for yourself?
There’s no one. Only Hope.

FlaMurph on July 9, 2014 at 12:29 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 11:45 PM

.
Most everyone here in HA world knows Hillary is a crappy excuse for a candidate. Without a doubt she will be terrible.
But that’s not reality. The censored reality that most Americans see comes from a media that dishonestly distort s the way they want Hillary to be seen. And that unfortunately shapes the mind of the voter. Unless you live in a blue state, you can’t understand the power the media has.
They hear NOTHING negative about Hillary, just as they heard nothing negative about their Chicago Jesus for 6 years. But they know ALL about the racist obstructionist whitey Rs who follow these Koch brothers in the effort to put an end to welfare and security for the poor people. Who could vote for that? That’s more important to them, than being lead by a corrupt imperial Marxist-raised pol who promises to “transform” and ” remake” America.
.
Perception- and controlling the media and it’s product they sell – is everything.
Clinton 45, by default.

FlaMurph on July 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM

And that’s what got you banned.

V7_Sport on July 8, 2014 at 11:55 PM

HA classic, for the stupid section.

Schadenfreude on July 9, 2014 at 1:06 AM

Perception- and controlling the media and it’s product they sell – is everything.
Clinton 45, by default.

FlaMurph on July 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM

I hear ya, man. The media is incredibly powerful. Right now, Time has a big mag out at the new stands with Hillary on the cover. I remember that fake Newsweek mag of Romney jumping up in the air, looking like an idiot. Of course, they did the same to Palin and Bachmann.

The main problem Hillary could have is that the liberal media might want to throw her overboard and move on to another liberal. Either way, the Democrat will have that huge advantage.

Regarding the election, I thought Romney had a good chance to win until the hurricane, and the gaffe by Senate candidate Murdoch reviving the women gap problem. Romney didn’t lose for the myriad reasons some conservatives like to bring up, you can chalk it up to the media skewing events (such as Romney’s Britain visit) and the hurricane.

cimbri on July 9, 2014 at 5:13 AM

There’s absolutely no reason to run a retread like Romney when we have such a strong bench. He’s a nice man, just let him be happy in his retirement.
Good Solid B-Plus on July 8, 2014 at 11:05 PM

Reagan would not win the nomination considering the COP purists we have here as I pointed out. They say only Romney, Christie, or fill in the blank liberal northeastern republican can win. Meanwhile, they are either ignorant or are lying about the fact that as the 2 landslide victories show, conservative values win EVERY TIME they are tried, While their candidates always lose

Brock Robamney on July 9, 2014 at 5:42 AM

Allah… keep up the good work. I too enjoy reading HA faithful with their “hair on fire”.

rhombus on July 9, 2014 at 7:03 AM

Romney is the most qualified. He’s been running for president longer than anyone else. He’s bound to win it this time or in 2020. 2024 at latest. Give ‘em 10 years and Team Willard , with the new ORCA as MVP, will be unstoppable. For all the haters, get ready to say President Romney in 2020(or 2024).

BoxHead1 on July 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM

And who cares about how good of a campaigner he is or was?
What does that have to do with being President.

petunia on July 9, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Well, if you’re not a good campaigner, you can’t win.
Consider McCain’s “suspension of campaigning” during the 2008 election. Obama kept campaigning; he even ran an event Bush was hosting on the economic crisis – which IIRC McCain attended.

Consider Romney’s half-hearted campaign style during 2012. He didn’t fight back; he didn’t attack, he let Candy Crowley tell lies without objection in Debate #2.
Which, BTW, is why I won’t vote for him in the Primary. He may be the best qualified to run the country, but he doesn’t have what it takes to lead the country. I do expect to vote Republican in the General Election, if only to block the Democratic candidate. (Fauxcahontas Warren, IMHO.)

It is the duty of the president of the United States of America to protect the citizens first and foremost. It is the duty of the congress to protect the citizens of this nation, first and foremost, before any other consideration.

thatsafactjack on July 8, 2014 at 10:17 PM

Right. This time, we need to run a conservative who has demonstrated leadership abilities in governing. That means we need a Governor, preferably one who’s been elected twice and is still popular. Again IMHO, Governor Walker is probably best; with another Governor as VP. (Palin?)

Romney for Department of Commerce? Absolutely!

ReggieA on July 9, 2014 at 1:03 PM

I really hope he runs!

sissi212 on July 9, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Romney 3.97 was the best candidate for POTUS there has been since Reagan- [you retentives should] admit there is NO ONE even close to his acumen…
FlaMurph on July 8, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Ummmm nooooo. I hate to point out the obvious, but there is a reason he lost 2 times in a row. Sorry

Brock Robamney on July 9, 2014 at 3:13 PM

I really hope he runs!
sissi212 on July 9, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Yes because after the debacle of Obamacare, what we need is its architect

Brock Robamney on July 9, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Right. This time, we need to run a conservative who has demonstrated leadership abilities in governing. That means we need a Governor, preferably one who’s been elected twice and is still popular. Again IMHO, Governor Walker is probably best; with another Governor as VP. (Palin?)
Romney for Department of Commerce? Absolutely!
ReggieA on July 9, 2014 at 1:03 PM

How about a Governor like Woodrow Wilson?

Brock Robamney on July 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM

So what’s better, whining all the way to defeat or sucking up the reality that you don’t always get what you want…

V7_Sport on July 8, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Someone other than a sure-loser moderate would be nice.

ddrintn on July 9, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Romney is the most qualified. He’s been running for president longer than anyone else. He’s bound to win it this time or in 2020. 2024 at latest. Give ‘em 10 years and Team Willard , with the new ORCA as MVP, will be unstoppable. For all the haters, get ready to say President Romney in 2020(or 2024).
BoxHead1 on July 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM

I guess we will be 10 yrs without a Republican president. Because the Rove Purists tell us he is the only one who can win

Brock Robamney on July 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Romney survived to November precisely because of acumen- the proven ability to lead/manage. Without it, his name might as well been Santorum or Gingrich.

FlaMurph on July 9, 2014 at 12:29 AM

Romney “survived” against a group of GOP 3rd stringers and couldn’t even put them away without going into the gutter…something he absolutely refused to do against Obama. His name essentially WAS Santorum or Gingrich.

ddrintn on July 9, 2014 at 3:25 PM

FlaMurph on July 9, 2014 at 12:29 AM

In addition, if Romney had had to go head to head with either Gingrich or Santorum or Perry — and only ONE of those three — he would’ve lost the nomination. You know it. Some “acumen”.

ddrintn on July 9, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Someone other than a sure-loser moderate would be nice.

ddrintn on July 9, 2014 at 3:22 PM

To be 100% honest with you: I don’t see any non sure losers coming up, moderate or otherwise. I can’t believe anyone would get behind an obvious grifter like Hillary Clinton but the opposition will coalesce around her, rabidly, reflexively and unthinkingly. They will probably win by default whether we run who we think is the smartest bet or who we want in our hearts.
I pray I am wrong and we have got to keep trying regardless.

V7_Sport on July 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Brock Robamney, ddrintn

.
Time to put on your big boy pants and stop your childish whining. Romney kicked your guys butt, and you can’t deal with it. And since he lost to the commie and his media propaganda machine- we have to pretend that we don’t remember , Romney kicked your guy’s butt. So Romney’s a loser in Nov. – but he kicked your guys butt. And your dream candidate never showed up by the way….just a clown show parade of Rs.
Romney was the best man.
.
So who ya got this time around? Throw out a name, have a little backbone here….who’s a more accomplished leader/ manager than Romney was ? You know deep down Mitt was a better choice of a president than the Marxist- raised commie – so now Romney has set the standard.
But remember, Presidents are now elected by people who don’t even know who the candidate is or has done. Most Lofos couldn’t even give you Bidens name as the #2 – literally.
.
We live in a permanently dumbed down country now.
Stop contributing to it.

FlaMurph on July 9, 2014 at 9:18 PM

FlaMurph on July 9, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Hmmmm… Yet he lost. The only whining I hear is from someone who seems dead set on nominating a sure loser…. This is not Personal. Just facts. He can’t win. People hate Obamacare, and he was the architect. That is one large piece of Kryptonite your Superman can’t run away from. Sorry, he is a non starter.

Brock Robamney on July 10, 2014 at 5:09 AM

Time to put on your big boy pants and stop your childish whining. Romney kicked your guys butt, and you can’t deal with it. And since he lost to the commie and his media propaganda machine- we have to pretend that we don’t remember , Romney kicked your guy’s butt. So Romney’s a loser in Nov. – but he kicked your guys butt.

FlaMurph on July 9, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Oh, come on. Romney’s never kicked anyone’s butt. My “guy” in the primaries was NotRomney…and Mitt really didn’t kick “his” butt.

ddrintn on July 10, 2014 at 9:09 AM

Oh, come on. Romney’s never kicked anyone’s butt. My “guy” in the primaries was NotRomney…and Mitt really didn’t kick “his” butt.

ddrintn on July 10, 2014 at 9:09 AM

Good thing your opposition is reasoned.. .Oh wait.

V7_Sport on July 10, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3