Scott's new piece fixates on the "Draft Mitt" website, which has only collected 28,000 names of Romney 2016 people, which is close to nothing.
But it's not nothing.Not nothing... begs the question (used incorrectly as usual) ... [There's] the rub... The clichés dribble out as Scott endeavors to make something out of virtually nothing.
Which begs the question: Who's running this conservative (and low-budget) version of Ready for Hillary? That's the rub: Nobody seems to know.
Contacted by TPM via its Facebook page... an anonymous presence behind the site replied, saying the group "consists largely of former Romney campaign workers and donors."But the site wouldn't disclose the names of these characters — or "forces" (to use TPM's word) — so I guess that's a bit "mysterious."
Back in April, we talked about rumors that Mitt Romney might run again. I said:
Why couldn't he win if he ran not because he was a sore loser and felt entitled or ambitious, but because he's a modest, dutiful man, called into service in a time of need?Which is why the draft Romney step is helpful.
And take into account that the opposing candidate is quite likely to be Hillary Clinton, who was so much the front runner in '04 that her failure to get the nomination makes her seem like a previous loser, and that prior loss seems more loser-ish than Romney's 2012 loss, since Hillary was a frontrunner who got blindsided by an upstart, and Romney had an uphill battle against an incumbent. (And wouldn't Romney have won if he'd kept up the first debate aggressiveness in that second debate?)I took a poll:
पोस्ट्स
३२ टिप्पण्या:
Nobody on the GOP side is standing out yet. I still think Romney might run but it would probably be a case where younger candidates don't get traction. If we get into really major trouble with Obama, for example something that would be noticed by the Low Information Voter, it could be a strong movement.
I think we are headed for major trouble but 2016 might be too soon to see it, especially for the less alert, like those who don't know why we celebrate July 4.
He would be a very good, probably excellent President.
If there is a "Draft Mitt" movement taking place, there's no doubt it's the work of parties connected to MItt...in other words, it's Mitt's doing.
Based on your poll, I would say that 33% of the respondents are certifiably insane.
Unless his opponent is Hillary Clinton.
As to why we celebrate July 4th: we're celebrating all the rad July 4th sales!
@exhelodrvr1, I'm not disagreeing with your comment. I'm just saying that the people of the United States aren't going to elect a guy who lost sequentially to McCain (in the 2008 primaries) and then to Obama in 2012.
Mitt, gag.
Obviously Mitt Romney.
Who but razor blade companies would promote the ridiculous notion that women need to shave their underarm hair?
Let Mitt harvest the tangled fetid pits of these great United States and let spray the fresheners of Republicanism over the body of this great land. Sweat not, America!
"Hillary Clinton, who was so much the front runner in '04"
Do you mean '08?
"there's no doubt it's the work of parties connected to MItt...in other words, it's Mitt's doing."
Lefties are so used to the Clinton's maneuvers that they can't understand an honest man.
While I think Romney would make a good President, I think nominating him would be a mistake. The country is in grave danger of electing another affirmative action President (aka Hillary!). What she's got going against her is she's old news. That handicap is negated if she's running against old news.
If there's a Draft Mittens movement it's probably the work of democrats. He was so easy to beat last time, after all.
I'd vote for Mitt in a Salt Lake City minute, but I don't think he'll run. Mitt sees running for, and holding, office as the most productive thing he can do for the society he lives in. At this point I believe he feels he's fulfilled whatever debt he owes to the rest of us, and it would take some convincing to get him to join that circus again. This is unfortunate. Mitt's integrity is genuine, and what is more important s his ability to run a large organization, something we've been missing for the last six years.
Romney doesn't deserve another shot because he lost a winnable race. His basic decency and his failure as a manager are the reasons for his loss and they will both still be in play in 2016.
Reportedly, he was afraid of debating Obama, even after the first debate win. (That's leadership?) He did not respond well to the Democratic dirty tricks squad. (Think Hillary will play less dirty than Obama?) He pulled his punches at key moments. (Can't close the deal.) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the comedy of errors that was his election-day get out the vote effort. (Failure of management from someone whose strongest feature is his managerial experience.)
We don't need any more establishment republicans.
"If there is a 'Draft Mitt' movement taking place, there's no doubt it's the work of parties connected to MItt...in other words, it's Mitt's doing."
And then the beauty is, it invites him to say something about how he is responding to the "call of service in a time of need."
How *selfless" of Mitt!
Thank you for calling out Dylan the Intellectual for the misuse of "begs the question".
It's not a pet peeve, just a peeve.
Romney didn't have to do too much to return to the limelight. He just waited until commonsense & obvious predictions proved true.
He's a GOP/conservative voice & a good one at that.
Strength in numbers.
Just the mere fact that he didn't retire into the shadows galls Democrats. When he makes a splash every few weeks, comments are always telling. Liberals go with the predictable, "sore loser", "stay away" mantras.
Those who do try to draft the unwilling, with an agenda of their own, usually hide their faces for many reasons.
I first read that headline as "Daft Mitt" and figured it was in answer to references to the increasingly Daft Harry Reid. Instead it draws attention to an increasingly daft GOP voter... Been there, done that and it surely wasn't worth it!
Don't know who the mysterious forces are, but sure want them to go away. Mittens was the wrong candidate in 2012 (or any year for that matter). He did not have the fire in the belly element so necessary in dealing with Democrats.
We need real confrontational government, from individual candidates willing to confront the diminishing of accountability, to strong institutions. Congress s/b pushing back against the outrageous encroachments on its powers. But the Democrat Party is actually cheering the dwindling away of legislative independence in favor of a powerful executive (so long as it's a Democrat).
Ya mean there's no body in a country of >300 million better than Mitt? Gag!
2016 is going to be a pivotal election. It should be between a corrupt Dem candidate [like Hillary] who will offer us eight more years of failed librul policies or a new, younger Repub candidate who will fight back hard against the Clinton juggernaut an offer us a new slate for the new century an will put the 20th century and its policies behind us.
Romney won't fight back hard - h is too innately nice.
I'm okay with Hillary! because Obama has screwed up so many things that it will take at least 4 years to clean them up. Let Hillary! do it, and let her take all the blame (because the media will NEVER blame a black president for incompetence)
This has 2 advantages:
1) We get past the next Affirmative Action hire, because Womyn! Get that nonsense out of the way so we can begin electing women that are actually qualified.
2) She gets all the blame for Obama's mistakes, instead of Romney.
As good as Romney may be, the media will ofallasudden start reporting on all the problems they have covered up over the last 6 years. Pretty sure things like the "jobs saved" nonsense will go back to the old standard too.
Rommey simply does not have the strength to fight against that swarm of bad press. The media will be highly motivated to protect Obama's legacy by shifting blame to Romney. Americas 1st Black President CANNOT go down in history as a failure. So Romney's presidency will be paralyzed by the negative onslaught, and the Right will be blamed for the outcomes created under Obama.
Let Hillary! clean it up.
"He did not have the fire in the belly element so necessary in dealing with Democrats."
Alan Greenspan said the only president he ever met who was a normal man was Ford. Mitt would have been the second. No reflection on Reagan but he was the hedgehog with one idea. It worked, or both of them worked. I think he would be baffled by the situation Obama has left us.
Romney made millions fixing other people's fuckups.
Fen makes a good argument but I doubt the country could risk afford even one more Dem term in 2016. The Clinton would finish and perfect the propaganda machine that is cooking the economic stats already.
Who's really in charge of what happens in 2016?
Michael K said...
If we get into really major trouble with Obama, for example something that would be noticed by the Low Information Voter, it could be a strong movement.
You are thinking something like a Great Recession or maybe creating a military quagmire in the middle east? Yes. Yes. I think these things would get the attention of voters.
Well, the Republicans were dumb enough to nominate Romney once; I guess they might do it twice.
I'd recommend nominating a small-government candidate who runs against crony capitalism and expansive government, instead.
"Mitt sees running for, and holding, office as the most productive thing he can do for the society he lives in. At this point I believe he feels he's fulfilled whatever debt he owes to the rest of us...."
My first response was to laugh at this, but really, it's not funny, but tragic, that apparently many can look at Mitt and see the vulture capitalist par excellence as the self-sacrificing good man, fulfilling a debt to the rest of us.
Well, it doesn't matter, I guess. Just as Obama has continued the policies of his predecessor, so will will his successor. They're all just servants of the plutocrats, and we will not have a President, no matter from either party, who will disrupt business as usual.
"Thank you for calling out Dylan the Intellectual for the misuse of 'begs the question'."
I agree the rampant misuse of the "begs the question" is aggravating in the extreme--virtually any time one hears it used anywhere these days it is being misused--but I'm sure Dylan would be the last guy in the world to claim to be an intellectual.
I don't think Romney wants to run, so moot point. However, an alternate explanation is that Draft Mitt is intended less as a political movement and more as a reminder of how right he was and how wrong the current administration has turned out to be. Not mutually exclusive, but if Draft Mitt adds to Romney's political clout, perhaps that makes a SecState Romney more likely.
Oh come on. Occam's razor. There are hundreds if thousands of Americans who have a petition or FB-level of enthusiasm for Romney at this point; no need to go deeper.
Yes he would make an insanely good President, no I don't think he can get there from here (and yes, I have to assume his team sucked).
"what is more important s his ability to run a large organization, something we've been missing for the last six years.
"
Mitt was born into the elite, the son of a presidential candidate who himself hailed from a line of politicians. That worked really really well for him when he started a business and suddenly had some of the best minds the elite universities could offer. That's not an advantage the rest of us would have, just because we don't have schools named after our families. But Bain did succeed. In fact, it was even more successful when Romney began running for president over and over and over. So I'm skeptical that Romney's leadership was part of Bain's success. I think his special skill was being elite enough to attract a lot of talent.
Compared to Obama, of course Mitt is a much more experienced leader, but he ran MA so poorly.
The last example of Mitt running a large organization was the GOP GOTV effort in 2012, which drastically underperformed expectations and polls. The Romney campaign was very, very poorly managed, due to the decisions made at the top of the campaign.
Obama's campaign was better managed, pure and simple, due to forward thinking and realistic strategy.
2012 was an election the democrats should have lost for economic reasons. The media does have a peculiar bias that is different, in my opinion, from their democrat leaning bias in years past, and of course that made a difference.
When looking at who benefits the most from this draft Mitt effort, I see that democrats benefit a lot, and elitists who simply need whoever wins to be a big spending progressive of either party as benefiting as well.
Obviously it isn't anyone who wants to see a balanced budget.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा