September 23, 2014

"Well, we will see, won’t we?" says Ann Romney.

About Mitt running again in 2016.

69 comments:

Big Mike said...

He couldn't beat John McCain and he couldn't beat Barack Obama. I'm not sure he could beat William T. Sherman.

AReasonableMan said...



Dear God, I promise I will go to Church every Sunday from now until I die if you will just make this happen.

Drago said...

ARM: "Dear God, I promise I will go to Church every Sunday from now until I die if you will just make this happen."

Why would you think that a simple "check in the block exercise" of attending church would be a compelling offer?

Telling.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Ann's hint is that if Jeb Bush runs, Mitt won't run, but if Jeb Bush doesn't run ...

That's ingenious stalking horse strategy. Oh, we don't want Mitt again, I guess we need Jeb so it won't run. Oh, we don't want another Bush, I guess we need Romney again.

Meanwhile, the GOP establishment's real candidate advances unseen. And who is that? It could be Scott Walker of Wisconsin, but my guess is that it will be John Kasich of Ohio.

A sitting governor in a swing state is the best play for the Republican establishment. But someone reelected in 2014 does have to wait several months into their new term before throwing their hat into the Presidential race.

That means we will only be seeing stalking horses and dark horses until next summer at the earliest.

Anonymous said...

...and the horse you rode in on

rehajm said...

Dear God, I promise I will go to Church every Sunday from now until I die if you will just make this happen.

Me, too!!!

mccullough said...

If the GOP race attracts the freshman senators, then Romney should run. Other than Romney, the 2012 GOP primaries had terrible candidates.

campy said...

The repubs are still planning to put up a candidate? Why?

broomhandle said...

"The repubs are still planning to put up a candidate? Why?"

Obama. Hillary.

RecChief said...

I voted for him. I think he is probably a great manager, a great businessman, probably a good person as well.

But no, he had his chance. I don't think we need someone who will simply manage the decline, but reverse it. I don't know who that would be yet, but sorry Mitt, I think it's time for you to enjoy your kids and grand kids, and your volunteer work for your church.

mccullough said...

The Republicans have had a handful of good governors over the last decade. The pool of candidates should start and end here.

Titus said...

My parents are celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary in Viroqua/Cashton/Prairie Du Chien.

Do you know Viroqua is a cool liberal, farm to table small town? Also, my grass fed, free range milk from Whole Foods cums from Viroqua!

Cashton has one of the largest Amish comminities in Wisconsin. Amish, Amish.

Go Viroqua.

tits.

Bob R said...

Stevenson couldn't do it. Nixon could.

Bob R said...

And for all of those who don't want to see Mitt in the Presidential race, the answer is simple. Support someone who can beat him.

Revenant said...

Sure, why not. There is no apparent limit to the Republican Party's ability to blow easily-winnable elections. Why not renominate Romney and remove all doubt.

mccullough said...

Grover Cleveland was the ultimate candidate. Was elected president, then lost re-election, then defeated the guy he lost to 4 years earlier.

I would love to see a Carter-HW Bush election. They will both be 92 in 2016 (if they make it) and are eligible for one more term.

Brando said...

Not a chance--still talking about it is cruel to the man. Let him retire in piece.

I'm guessing the establishment goes for Ryan.

Anonymous said...

I'm fine if he runs again. I like him. But I don't know that I would support him in the primary.

I like Scott Walker for his toughness and push back against liberals. But I don't know if he will turn into a mush candidate on the trail, once primaries get going. Will he pull a Tim Pawlenty and suck up to the national press? If so, no thanks.

The combativeness of someone like Chris Christie is very appealing to us conservatives, its just, we don't like Christies positions.

Which is why Ted Cruz is also a good pick, because he isn't afraid to mix it up. But, he is only a Senator without the executive experience necessary for the job.

And then there is Ben Carson, who has his own pros and cons.

But all four of those I'd vote for in the general election.

khesanh0802 said...

Good for Ann. Keep 'em guessing. There is no way Romney will run. Don't know too much about Kasich but was impressed by him when he was in the House.

mccullough said...

Kasich is a mediocrity. He is managing the decline in Ohio. Michigan has a better governor.

Michael K said...

" Other than Romney, the 2012 GOP primaries had terrible candidates."

Agreed. Romney should have won and I was surprised the country voted for the empty suit again. ARM, of course, prefers empty suits.

A lot of the problem in 2012 was the late convention which prevented Romney from responding to the air war against him all summer. He was not aggressive enough when he had Obama on the ropes in the debate. Candy Crowley did her bit.

Romneycare was too complicated to explain even though the bill he had supported was not the bill the legislature passed. He vetoed it and it was passed over his veto with the disastrous employer mandate.

If you want to know how he would have affected the country if elected, think of all the disasters we see and those about to arrive.

rhhardin said...

Richard Epstein favors Scott Walker

podcast

Epstein goes through the Democrat presidents pro and con. Then

"About [Obama] there's nothing redeeming on either the domestic or the foreign front. I think he's made a mess of virtually every regulatory system, I think he's made virtually every foreign affairs judgment wrong, and I think in effect that the country is suffering both domestically and in foreign affairs in virtue of what I regard as a totally misguided form of leadership."

On track to the worst president ever.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

This is a link showing how I helped.

But it is too much for most here, the defensive commentariat of Althousians, to understand, so let me say this:

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/09/17/obamas-catalist-database/


You copy and paste that and change your life.

Understand why Romney could never achieve victory over Obama using the methods and people Romney chose.

His choices sucked, eff him.

Elite Harvard punk.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

[I might go see the Mittster Monday the 29th in Littleton]

TreeJoe said...

I'm not saying I want Mitt to run again, but I'd love to see him in another debate. Last time he was hesitant, not sure of himself. Well...how many of his predictions came true in 2 years? That's got to bolster your self-esteem and make you feel more at home in a debate.

Also, I think if the impartial moderator stepped in again to offer support to one candidate who was in the middle of hedging, Mitt might react differently this time around.

chillblaine said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Titus said...

Republicans are screwed in national elections...come on, you know it don't you?

Any swish is going to get pummeled in the primaries by the nuts and the nuts are too crazy to win nationally.

Your fucked. You will eventually evolve but not for a few more national elections and continual losses.

Birches said...

If the GOP race attracts the freshman senators, then Romney should run. Other than Romney, the 2012 GOP primaries had terrible candidates.

You can say that again. You know someone has never met a proper conservative when they talk about Rick Santorum being a viable 2016 Presidential candidate.

Anonymous said...

"But it is too much for most here, the defensive commentariat of Althousians, to understand, so let me say this:

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/09/17/obamas-catalist-database/


You copy and paste that and change your life.

Understand why Romney could never achieve victory over Obama using the methods and people Romney chose."

In order to believe Christian Adams is right and it is Catalyst that won the election and will continue to win the election, you have to believe this:

"Instead of unified data collaboration, the conservative response is competition between vendors to create their own marketable but inferior version of Catalist. Worse still, these vendors would never dream of consolidating their architecture or sharing their data. That would wreck their business model."

In other words, his conclusion is communism works, the free market doesn't.

Consider me unpersuaded.

"The strength and power of Catalist is based on the huge number of groups feeding it data. Leftist players sacrifice their egos for the larger messianic call of destroying Republicans, obliterating conservatives, and ultimately gutting the Constitution. Non-profit interest groups on the left gladly feed their internal data into Catalist because it helps progressives win, period. They don’t care about profit, glory, connections, or a new car."

Really? It seems like Christian Adams has convinced himself that Leftists really are the borg and have lost all their humanity.

Again, consider me unpersuaded.

Fandor said...

Yes, we will.

sojerofgod said...

NO!
not just no but Hell No!
I voted for him last time and he ran a campaign like he was running for the presidency of the local country club. I despair of seeing a republican candidate who appreciates just who his opposition is; a no-holds-barred syndicate of like minded politicians who's only interest is winning- all else be damned. they have the media totally on their side. The GOP candidate has to talk over the heads of the brute squad who are intent in calling black white, and blaming him for it.
No.

sojerofgod said...

To weigh in on the putative field of possibles:

Rand Paul: Meh. Go home and find your spine.
Ted Cruz: Mmmmmm, maybe, but lacks polish. (dems don't have to have polish: they have media to buff them when they need it.)
Scott Walker: I know he is a hometown fave here, but most of the country will be saying Scott Who?
Bobby Jindal? again, Who?
Chris Christie? Really, he's a republican? I couldn't tell...
Jeb Bush? Oh please ref, gimme a break! Why not just keep Barak another 4 years?
Dr. Ben Carson may be a nice guy, but he is a total babe in the woods in this arena.

AS you can tell, I don't see anyone who is viable at this time.


Revenant said...

Other than Romney, the 2012 GOP primaries had terrible candidates.

That should read "Romney included", not "Other than Romney". He lost a race in which he had almost every advantage a non-incumbent Republican candidate could hope to have. Have you got a better definition for "terrible candidate" than "candidate who loses a race he should have won"?

Phil 3:14 said...

My, we are a picky bunch.

And consequently we get the president we DON'T want.

David said...

Ann went home an said to Mitt: "I was just fuckin' with the assholes, Mittster."

Mitt laughed.

Michael K said...

"Have you got a better definition for "terrible candidate" than "candidate who loses a race he should have won"?"

Nixon 1960. And much of the same dynamic applies. The worst candidate wins thanks to resurrection in Chicago and Texas. In this case, The GOP national committee thought they had a good GOTV mechanism and were wrong, outwitted by the left that cares only for its crony system.

I doubt Romney will run but he is watching what happens. The Senators are not the best candidates. I would vote for Walker or Jindal but don't know what sort of candidate they will make. Mitch Daniels would have made a great president, too.

Republicans are not the dirty street fighters the Democrats are but, if they were, I'm not sure I would want those anyway. If, to win, you have to be as dishonest as your opponent, we're screwed anyway. The left likes dishonest candidates. I don't.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Well, we will see, won’t we?" says Ann Romney.

Yeah, we'll see him lose, and worse than before.

Good to see Ol' Eagle Eyes is back, though:

Homeopathy works!

DKWalser said...

I think she was just being polite. "We'll see, won't we," is just a polite way of saying, "Not a chance in hell."

NotquiteunBuckley said...

I owe a deep apology to Chickelit.

I am sorry.

Problems abound and you, as opposed to me, do not exacerbate.

Again, I really said bad things about you and I was an asshole and wrong.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g3Xc8KQ66k

cubanbob said...

A country that can elect and re-elect an Obama and his side-kick clown Biden is already pretty far gone. A country where a Hillary Clinton is considered seriously as some one who could president is even further gone. It doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate, unless that candidate is a convicted felon no Republican candidate could as bad as anyone the Democrats are likely to nominate, but at this point what difference would it make?

Michael K said...

"at this point what difference would it make?"

I fear this is the case. I expect major consequences but most of that could have been averted by Romney and he isn't there. Clinton fed the jihadis for years and Bush got the consequences of Clinton;s fecklessness.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

The Roman Catholic Church offers more to me than I can begin to describe.

traditionalguy said...

How will Mitt undo the labels the Dems and their media put on him last time he ran when Obama was not liked? Does he expect he will just be elected because he refuses to claim he is a leader of conservatives.

The dude is too nice to be a leader and also too stuck up to adjust his pius Mormon style.

sojerofgod said...

Yeah, I am picky.
But I'm a realist.
The GOP acts as if they can just put up the next guy-it's his 'turn' after all, and the Dem's are just going to stand there and let him win. They act as if they are at the 19th green and chatting over vodka martinis; "I say, old boy, you've had the white house for eight years now, it's our turn: it's not like we are really going to change anything..."

Meanwhile the middle class is bleeding to death.
It's as if there are leeches on each one of the middle class' arms and legs, and when they attempt to peel one off a government monitor jumps up and says, "You can do that! your disturbing the leeches natural habitat!!"
The middle class complains that they will surely die if the leeches are not removed: The monitor tilts his Pecksniffian nose in the air and shouts, "Just you try it! if you think you have trouble now, just wait until I invoke rule 10-289 on you! Trouble like that you have not seen!"
Ordinary people are being painted into a corner and they are holding neither can nor brush.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Yeah I see you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g3Xc8KQ66k

How narcissitic am I am to conclude other than Buckley used his head?

Skyler said...

That loser better stay away. He was such a wall flower that I barely even heard his voice during the entire campaign. He let a communist lying industry nationalizing punk get re-elected. He has no business trying again.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

I had to come back.

Nuff sedd.

Still tripping like fred.

From th get go.

Faded fast.


Been gone like .. on a drinking binge.

Tooo fast.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


H.


What?


http://www.kidrocklyrics.net/emsp-myname.htm

Jon said...

He lost a race in which he had almost every advantage a non-incumbent Republican candidate could hope to have. Have you got a better definition for "terrible candidate" than "candidate who loses a race he should have won"?

If you think Romney "should have won" then you are living in a bubble and completely clueless about the realities of that race. Obama had a job approval rating over 50%, and beating an incumbent who is over 50% is always very difficult. Virtually every political scientist handicapping the race considered Romney to be an underdog. And Romney actually outperformed most Republican candidates for Senate and governor. He got the same percentage of the white vote that Reagan did in 1980. There might be some Republicans who could have done a couple points better against Obama than Romney- though probably none of those who actually competed in the primaries that year- but there are very few if any who could have actually beaten Obama. Maybe Condi Rice could have.

Gusty Winds said...

The GOP should nominate a woman. Any male candidate facing Hillary will be labeled the leader of the he-man woman haters club.

There are plenty of women outside the Bachmans and the Palins who could challenge her. I'd suggest Condoleezza Rice, but I know that won't happen.

She's too smart to run. But I love the rumors that she's on the NFL commissioner shortlist.

Wish the women I want to vote for counted as women.

Michael K said...

"If you think Romney "should have won" then you are living in a bubble and completely clueless about the realities of that race."

I was not referring to political tactics. The GOP has been behind the Dems in tactics for a century. Once in a great while, the Dems wreck the country sufficiently that the GOP has a chance to straighten things out briefly. One was 1920 and we had a decade of prosperity. The Federal Reserve wrecked the economy after Ben Strong died and the interest rates were left too low for too long.

The next was as the Dems got us into Vietnam and then fucked that up. Nixon got us out and is hated for it.

Jimmy Carter was on the way to losing the Cold War and Reagan took over and fixed that.

The next crisis will be the worst this century or last has seen.

The Crack Emcee said...

Gusty Winds,

"The GOP should nominate a woman. Any male candidate facing Hillary will be labeled the leader of the he-man woman haters club."

That's it - nominate a woman! Even better - nominate a black!

Anything!

But never consider stop being our racist party.

That would be outrageous,...

Revenant said...

Nixon 1960. And much of the same dynamic applies.

I'm sorry, this is meant as an argument *for* Romney?

Brando said...

"I'd suggest Condoleezza Rice, but I know that won't happen."

I like Condi, and think she's a lot smarter than most candidates, but she has a couple serious handicaps:

1) She's never run for political office before. Granted, this isn't a disqualifier (Eisenhower had never run for anything before he became president) but in the constant glare of campaigning, it helps a great deal to be used to campaigning and be able to handle it.

2) Her identification with the Iraq War. The war is still incredibly unpopular.

I'm wondering about Susanna Martinez, but she's been under the radar a lot lately. Maybe after she gets reelected.

CStanley said...

I would like for Ann to go have a chat with Mitch Daniels' wife and tell her she needs to take one for the team this time.

Not that I could do it- I don't have the mettle for it. But if you are married to a person who might be able to lead this country off of the ledge, you kind of have an obligation.

Fandor said...

If Romney chooses to run, he'll win.
By November of 2016, the electorate will be so beat up because of Obama's policies (and ethics) they'll be champing at the bit to vote and put the man in who they should have voted for in 2012.
4 million conservatives may even exercise their right to vote and cast one for Mitt next time.
If you think things are bad now, electing liberal democrats, any democrat for that matter, will make things worst. Worst? Nay, a disaster.
Reform, Republicans, Romney.
Romney will win if he chooses to run.

Brando said...

Romney's smart enough not to run again--he gave it his best, but couldn't make it happen in 2012. He wasn't a great campaigner, but he wasn't awful either--I thought he did a far better job than McCain did in '08 when he just looked tired and annoyed the whole time.

All this Romney talk is, as usual, the result of disatisfaction with the presumptive GOP candidates. Thing is, we don't know who is actually going to run yet--it's still more than two years until that election, and no one wants to make it official until after this year's elections. We'll see who pops up, and we'll know how good they are once it gets going. It's really too early to get a feel for the field at this point.

The GOP would be wise to consider the reasons Romney lost, though--a lot of it had to do with the nature of the GOP primary--too many debates, allowing too many unserious candidates (Bachmann, "9-9-9", Gingrich) to have an equal platform with the one guy who really had a shot at the nomination. Too many of the joke candidates were really there to plug books and a possible stint on Fox. That's great for them, terrible for a party that needed to use those forums not just to measure its candidates but also showcase the best arguments the party had for gaining power. A freak show with everyone trying to "out-right wing" each other and provide great clips for the Obama campaign to use isn't a great idea.

It also didn't help that Romney got defined by his opponents (mostly in the GOP field) before he got to introduce himself to the public--the first impression most people got was that he was a weird, out of touch rich guy. He emerged from the primaries with the worst negatives of any nominee in a long while. To top it off, the convention--which should have been about how great the candidate is and why his election would be great for the country--was terrible. Christie, the keynote, goes out there to talk about how wonderful Christie was. Terrific--but Christie wasn't on the ballot that year! Eastwood ran late, and his rambling go-nowhere speech was unremarkable except for his yelling at a chair. By the time Romney got to speak it was late and there was no momentum for him. He ended up getting no convention bounce at all--whoever orchestrated that convention should not be allowed to orchestrate anything after that. (Granted, the hurricane making them lose a day didn't help either--maybe next time avoid FLorida in the summer, but then the first day of a convention isn't the most crucial).

Romney did well in the debates, particularly the first one--and after Candy Crowley's shameful performance (who would ever agree to let her moderate after that?) it sort of threw Romney a bit, and Romney also missed a great opportunity to tear Obama's Lilly Ledbetter pablum as an answer to the gender wage gap issue--instead of focusing on workplace flexibility and family friendly policies to narrow the gap, he gets caught up on the "binders" thing. Romney did have a few gaffes too--the "47% thing" took him off message and fit against his negative image. But the biggest problem he had was that he had a background as a moderate, and as a result spent well beyond primary season trying to appear as a right winger--neither fully convincing the right wing nor giving himself enough time to appeal to the moderates that he would need in the general election.

Obama should have been beatable--the economy was weak, the ACA was unpopular, and for all of his promises of bipartisanship and wise leadership the man was a prickly, inexperienced neophyte who let his partisan lieutenants run the show and ensure a united opposition. A Republican who could win over moderates without losing the base--which was already motivated by anger at Obama--should have been able to pull off a victory. But partly due to the way the GOP primaries were run, and partly due to the position Romney was in, this became an uphill battle and ultimately unsurmountable.

Hagar said...

La Tejana Susana is great and no kind of stupid. She will comfortably serve out her second term as governor, and - I hope - then run for attorney general.
A Republican attorney general who is a former D.A. and prosecutor and has spent the last 8 years in Santa Fe as governor hearing stories about where all the bodies are buried, would be a dream come true!

Hagar said...

And she is fundamentally an old-fashioned common-sense conservative Democrat, so she would not be leading any kind of radical Republican reversal in Washington, if that is what you are dreaming of.

MayBee said...

I doubt he'll run again, but it must feeel soooo good to have been so right about so many things, and have people wanting him to run again because America knows we blew it reeelecting Obama.

Gusty Winds said...

Crack - I like Condi, and could care less that she's black. She's self made; unlike Hillary.

I'll concede this. Neither party cares about black people. The Dems want amnesty to pad voter rolls, and the establishment GOP wants imported indentured servants for business. Win-Win for the political elite. Lose-Lose, for African Americans as they will be cemented in double digit unemployment for years.

Obama is betraying the community, as Dick Durbin and Pelosi applaud. How is that not a racist party in your mind?

Et tu Brute?

EMD said...

Your fucked.

There's that creative economy grammar we so love.

The mask is slipping, dude.

madAsHell said...

My parents are celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary in Viroqua/Cashton/Prairie Du Chien.


I never would have guessed that Titus was over 50.

Unknown said...

Gusty,

You're fooling no one - just like with Obama:

You like her until she sticks up for blacks. She's asked the GOP for incluaion. Have you done it? Nope. You're still more concerned with defensiveness.

It won't sell,...

Unknown said...

That was Crack from my phone.

Brando said...

"I doubt he'll run again, but it must feeel soooo good to have been so right about so many things, and have people wanting him to run again because America knows we blew it reeelecting Obama."

That's actually one of the reasons he has to not run again. When not running, people aren't gunning for you and your favorables improve. And by having lost to the guy who is screwing up, it sort of vindicates you. Running again would put you back in the hot seat and bring you back down.

I remember in '03-'04 the Left was going on about how if Gore was elected we wouldn't be having all these Bush disasters (recession, Iraq war) and some were hoping he'd run in '04. He (wisely, in my opinion) declined, knowing he'd be seen as an elder statesman among the Left, could make his pronouncements and not have to face voters or the press gauntlet if he stayed out of it.

Romney's better off acting as kingmaker, raising money for candidates, writing a book, or maybe finding some other project to involve himself in. The GOP in the meantime has to recruit some viable candidates and set up a nominating process that won't leave a battered nominee.

Gusty Winds said...

Crack - Thought my comment was genuine. Yes, nominating a female would be a defensive maneuver. And a good one.

The Bachmans and the Palins wont cut it. Over exposed, and annoying.

Condoleezza Rice is the best and most qualified the GOP could recruit. And kick ass. She's black.

Plus she has proven herself to be a person of broad appeal. Gaddafi was even smitten.

Your insistence, denial, or supposition that the Democratic Party isn't racist is disingenuous at best.





Fandor said...

Romney is rich as Croesus.
He doesn't need to write a book, or be a kingmaker.
What his life is about is giving back for all the blessings that have been bestowed upon him.
His life.
His parents.
His wife.
His children, every one of them.
His country.
If he runs, he'll do it for the best of all possible reasons.
Mitt Romney loves his country.
He wants it to endure as the founders envisioned it to endure.
Mitt Romney is a patriot for all the very highest and best reasons.
He's an American who believes in America.

Dustin said...

Fandor, I mean no disrespect, but that comes across as identical to much of the ridiculous fawning over Obama I see out there.

Romney is just another politician. If he were running out of a drive to do right, he wouldn't flip flop so cynically and predictably.