Where’s Mitt?
Which brings us back to Romney. Had the nominee been a man of some standing within the party, we could reasonably expect him to stay in the public eye: Bill Clinton’s been out of office for twelve years and we still can’t get rid of him. Nor Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, for that matter. GOP presidents 41 and 43 headed back to the bushes upon the expiration of their terms, but John McCain, thanks to a safe Senate seat, continues to speak out on matters of national policy, as Susan Rice knows so well.
Instead, Romney waved good-bye after he lost — which we were assured by Dick Morris and Karl Rove wouldn’t happen — and went home to La Jolla (a ritzy San Diego northern suburb, where the weather is perfect and the beach is right outside the door). Why? Surely the former Bain Capital turnaround artist has something interesting and worthwhile to say about the “fiscal cliff” and the dire economic straits in which the nation currently finds itself. Or is it that, having lost a Senate race to Ted Kennedy in 1994, the 2008 nomination to McCain, and the 2012 race to Obama, his opinion is no longer considered worth much? Or perhaps it’s that the “severe conservative” of 2012 only became a Republican in 1993, and his philosophical bona fides were always suspect to a great many on the right…
The reason no one speaks for the GOP is that there’s nothing to speak for — no principles other than accommodation, and thus no message. And until it gets one, something at once fundamentally American and electrifyingly appealing, it’s not going to find its voice.
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
Perhaps reality bit him in the arse. Reelecting Obama proves that the country, as a whole, is not interested in self-responsibility.
OldEnglish on December 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM
Yet Palin has continued to hold forth on political topics and everyone just wants the dumb snowbilly to go away.
I guess we therefore know who actually has some standing in the party: the one who’s been out getting actual (as opposed to severe, whatever that means) conservatives elected.
Odysseus on December 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM
Yeaaahhh… And?
We’ve been saying that for 4 years now!
Skywise on December 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Somebody needs to move on already, as Romney appears to be trying to do. Nothing wrong with that. I think he understands others will be taking up the leadership mantle, something failed presidential candidates without an office rarely get to do. Al Gore is somewhat of an exception, because he took up a cause…Mitt could do that, I suppose. But does he have to immediately? It’s barely been a month since the election.
changer1701 on December 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Losing being a badge of honor is the realm of Democrats (Carter, Mondale, Gore, Kerry). Not so much with the GOP.
Bitter Clinger on December 15, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Man….shut up.
NeoKong on December 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM
give it another month and nobody will even remember the guy. the fact that Mitt just snuck away in the middle of the night and no one even gives a rat’s pottie is further proof he was simply porgressive insurance to ensure nobody who won in Nov a progressive would win.
unseen on December 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM
LOL. This is like the girl who chose to date the ex-con over the med student complaining that he never calls her anymore.
Kataklysmic on December 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM
All of it
The once freest land is now the stupidest, from the left to the right. ALL who brung Obama, by all means, from all sides, you and yours, go straight to Hades. Yes, all on Fox, with Britt Hume first, too.
Schadenfreude on December 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM
where’s
mittSarah?renalin on December 15, 2012 at 4:39 PM
More or less. With the usual peanut gallery claiming that it just shows that the med student wasn’t that much of a catch anyway.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM
I don’t blame Mitt one bit for not getting out for the bhopress to do their nasty deeds on him? He lost and he knows what is in store for the US and he is probably not liking it, but he knows?
BTW, I am really sorry he lost, but that is just me.
L
letget on December 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Pun intended?
Bigfoot on December 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Mitt was just a rich fat turkey for the GOP consultant class to gorge upon. Everybody knows that the Bushes struck a deal with Bammy to give him two terms while getting two terms in exchange. Meanwhile, the consultants make merry, depriving Mittens of 1 billion. Just like they deprived Mega Whitman of 150 million. Curiously, they had the same shtick in that race too.
promachus on December 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM
With all due respect, who cares?
Sarah Palin?
Oh wait, I see, she is not “a person of stature and credibility” in the eyes of the Republican elite — despite having (with the support and help of the Tea Party) delivered you people (RINOism intended) the 2010 landslide, which you people promptly squandered.
Okay, I get it now.
ShainS on December 15, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Mitt shutting the f*ck up and going away is possibly the only decent thing he’s ever done in his political career.
Armin Tamzarian on December 15, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Let the beatings of the dead horse continue.
JPeterman on December 15, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Mitt is where he should be: out of sight. He was a flip-flopping, abortion-supporting, gay-marriage enacting, cap-and-trade advocating, gun-controlling, Romneycare-designing RINO. He represented the very worst the GOP has to offer: insincerity, opportunism, self-aggrandizement, and malice towards the masses. It’s best that the likes of him have no say in its future.
What we must do now is turn our eyes towards that future, and consider the direction our party should take. We bled away social conservatives committed to higher principle, populists who dreamed of better wages and more jobs, and did nothing to persuade minorities about the rightness of our cause. It is those shortcomings that we should first rectify by re-committing ourselves to the cause of justice, regardless of what side of a state boundary it may lie, and to the employ and economic well-being of every American, so that anyone willing and able can find work and advance to achieve a high standard of living based on the fruits of their own labor.
Stoic Patriot on December 15, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Michael Walsh hits the nail on the head.
FloatingRock on December 15, 2012 at 5:05 PM
In spite of the headline it’s not about Romney, it’s about the GOP establishment. All the old tea partiers should read it and most if not all will agree.
FloatingRock on December 15, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Your description of Romney could just as easily be applied to Obama. The main difference between the two was the fact that Romney pushed the jobs issue – and the “people” weren’t interested.
OldEnglish on December 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Why do obama’s propagandists spend so much time worrying about what Mitt is doing with his life? Mitt is a private citizen, and has no obligation to the GOP – He ran the best campaign he could – He applied for the job, but he didn’t get it. A majority of American voters have made it clear that they do not want jobs, or economic recovery – they do not want a better future for themselves or for their children.
Mitt Romney was far from perfect, but he represented and offered hope for a brighter future – Voters chose a different path for our country – they chose the status quo – so, we are faced with four more years of destruction at the hands of America’s greatest enemy. The state-run media should go back to doing what they are paid to do; prop-up obama and help him cover up his failures and crimes.
Pork-Chop on December 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM
Heavy-handed federal government interference in the private affairs of people, populism in the service of “better wages and more jobs” (read: protectionist, anti-free trade policies), and identity politics are not conservative values or goals and never have been.
Ronald Reagan is possibly the most destructive person in the history of the GOP. By inviting fiscally liberal people into the party by pandering to their dislike of abortion and homosexuality, he fundamentally corrupted its core value of limited government. It will likely never recover and continue its slide into total irrelevance as more social “conservatives” basically realize they were sold a bill of goods and revert to their original political sensibilities that, apart from one or two social issues that are moving absolutely nowhere fast, align much more closely with liberal Democratic principles. Then, not only will the GOP be left with its current schizophrenic mindset towards the role of government, but it will be bereft of its supposedly uber-reliable evangelical voter base.
Armin Tamzarian on December 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM
I’d say there were several differences between Obama and Romney that made Obama seem like the better candidate to an undecided voter:
1.) Flip-flopping: Obama flip-flopped on gay marriage, Romney changed his position on, well… everything.
2.) Issue-Compatibility: Obama ran on a platform of national healthcare with an individual mandate. That is a perfect match for the Democratic party’s ideology. It is also diametrically opposed to the Republican party’s ideology. Who did the GOP put up? Someone completely opposed to its own ideology. Romney’s flip-flopping ensured that would also be present on several other issues. The Democrats don’t worry about social conservatives because they’re not part of the party’s ideology. But the Republicans better care because they’re a core constituency, and you can ill afford to turn off your own.
3.) Man of the People: Obama may be a bastard (beer summit or bitter clingers anyone?), but the incidents where he demonstrated open contempt towards the common man was years ago. The 47 percent remark that Romney made was a fresh wound and devastating.
4.) Issue Diversity: while the GOP was busy shouting “SQUIRREL!” every time Obama talked about an issue other than the economy, the Democrats were smart because they recognized that no election is ever about a single issue, but about a basket of issues. Romney only knew how to talk to business owners about lower taxes, less regulation, and smaller government. Anything that required thinking outside monetary concerns seemed beyond him.
Stoic Patriot on December 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM
I too assumed this was another one of those pieces but I clicked the link and read it all and most of it is dead on.
Kataklysmic on December 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM
What you consider to be anti-conservative values are the only hope for conservatism, and get to the heart of government being of, by, and for the people, providing the people with a tangible set of beneficial services, and the ideal of meting out justice. Yes, that requires a Federal government, and several decisions to be decided in a centralized fashion. We need it. If conservatism is more about intellectual navel-gazing concerning political theory about hierarchical power structures rather than the enactment of substantive policies, then it is a doomed philosophy.
I agree with you about the consequences of its current course, but the GOP has a simple option to avoid that fate: actually fight for social conservatives and their policies, and they will find the favor reciprocated for them in turn. Such is the way of any political alliance or coalition.
Stoic Patriot on December 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM
This is as it should be. Govt has no business inserting itself into any other issue beyond security/defense.
OldEnglish on December 15, 2012 at 5:30 PM
It has every business in intervening in a whole host of other issues. A government that goes unconcerned with justice is built on a corrupt foundation. Governments exist to serve the people, not the employers of the people. Incesstantly deferring to the demands of business is what makes the GOP (rightly) perceived as the party of fatcats.
The government has the right and duty to promote the general welfare, and we have an obligation to guide that as we best see fit. You may think it involves in shrinking government. I think it involves attuning our policies in a different fashion than what the Democrats offer, not in abandoning the field of public policy altogether.
Stoic Patriot on December 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM
Are you referring to criminal justice (covered by security), or social “justice”, which has no meaning beyond someone’s wish list?
OldEnglish on December 15, 2012 at 5:42 PM
Criminal justice. “Social” justice is the namby-pamby nonsense of free birth control and other garbage. I’m talking about issues like murder, theft, rape, vandalism, fraud, etc.
Stoic Patriot on December 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM
Then we are in agreement on the basics, I feel.
OldEnglish on December 15, 2012 at 6:01 PM
That really doesn’t approach reality.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM
Gee, it’s almost like he has a life outside of politics, how dare he!
clearbluesky on December 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM
I’m voting from Romney in 2016. Deal with it.
DeathtotheSwiss on December 15, 2012 at 6:09 PM
I wish other politicians would go away after either they lose an election or their term of office expires. Not that I have a problem with Romney, mind you, I just wish the others would go away.
James on December 15, 2012 at 6:31 PM
Great article. Sad, but true.
Dr. ZhivBlago on December 15, 2012 at 6:49 PM
A nation invested in gross incompetence isn’t ready for excellence. Screw yourself Walsh. You too are a loser.
Basilsbest on December 15, 2012 at 6:55 PM
On one hand I agree that Romney is now just a private citizen, and should be able to go back to private life. On the other hand, it shows me that he never really cared about anything other than becoming President. He was not interested in the cause itself. People like Palin, Gingrich, etc., are still out there trying to defend against the leftist onslaught. Then again, back to the first hand. We can’t seem to accept someone unless they are perfect, which no one is, so when people on our side speak out, we rip them to shreds and tell them to shut up and go away. The left does not do that to people on their side. They defend the most ridiculous and even criminal behavior, while we cast ours aside at the drop of a hat.
Night Owl on December 15, 2012 at 7:04 PM
Rs may well be surprised when they have to close their doors in a few years. they have every smell of a dying org. Totally out of touch with the consumer, massive lack of innovation. They thought they had inherited a cash cow. Well, good luck with that.
Many of their franchises seem to be doing well in the Red states. That’s good. But they’ve moved out of many markets as well..IL, CA, north east. It looks to me like the system will freeze soon enough.
The left has a monster EV advantage. The Rs are likely to be frozen out of at the national level soon.
So Walsh’s article is sound. The party needs a severe shake up…well, they need a Bain Capital level shake up.
I think they’re going to be real surprised when no one sends any money to them in 2016.
r keller on December 15, 2012 at 7:09 PM
If Romney were holding forth on the issues facing the nation people like you and Walsh would be telling him to shut up. He offered his exceptional services. A stupid people refused his offer. Shut up.
Basilsbest on December 15, 2012 at 7:13 PM
Romney accomplished his job. His job was to help transform America, his little part of it was to make the Republican party repulsive to conservatives. I think he put the final touches on the coffin just nicely. Now to wait for the body to surface for burial.
astonerii on December 15, 2012 at 7:21 PM
You were one of the biggest a$$holes on this sight during the primaries. You are exactly who I was talking about. You are the biggest freaking crybaby if anyone says a bad word about Romney. No one except the person YOU find acceptable should be allowed in the party. You are one of the things I find repulsive about the Republican Party. You are either a coward or a closet liberal. Shut up? I don’t think so. I kept my mouth shut after Romeny won the nomination. I defended him during the general. I voted for him. I think it sucks he didn’t win. You shut up.
Night Owl on December 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM
Yeah, because failed presidential candidates (especially Republican ones) command all the respect that a two-term, former president does–especially from the MSM.
But I’ll be back later because now I’m off to read Walter Mondale’s blog!
andycanuck on December 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Dunno, let’s ask Docockus.
Red Creek on December 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM