Althouse: "Former aides and senior Republicans say Romney appreciates the GOP masses crowing that he was right about issues such as Russia and health care."

October 14, 2014

"Former aides and senior Republicans say Romney appreciates the GOP masses crowing that he was right about issues such as Russia and health care."

"But what really intrigues him, they said, are the vulnerabilities among top-tier candidates in the Republican field. If Romney moves toward a race, it would be because he sees a path to victory. 'It’s the market pulling him,' said Kent Lucken, a longtime friend and adviser who accompanied Romney to Iowa. 'People look at Hillary as the likely Democratic nominee, and the party needs a strong leader who can stand up to her and who’s been through the process.'"

From a WaPo article titled "Can’t quit Mitt: Friends say Romney feels nudge to consider a 2016 presidential run."

47 comments:

Roger Sweeny said...: And next to Hillary, he won't look so white bread and humorless.; 10/14/14, 8:28 AM
phantommut said...: Fair or not, Mitt comes across as the ultimate RINO. In any race between a Democrat and a Democrat-Lite, the Democrat has to be the favorite.

(For Althouse, I know that "RINO" is probably a feature and not a bug, but it really does make Romney nearly unelectable as President.); 10/14/14, 8:29 AM
RecChief said...: Mrs. Romney said that Mitt is "done. Completely. Done. Done.Done."

Looks to me like it's mostly Democrat Party with bylines who are talking the most about Romney running.; 10/14/14, 8:36 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Give us an "R"
Give us an "O"
Give us an "M"
Give us an "N"
Give us an "E"
Give us an "Y"

Give us ROMNEY! ROMNEY! ROMNEY!; 10/14/14, 8:43 AM
RecChief said...: speaking fo over and done with, I see that that there is more afoot with same sex marriage cases. something about an appearance of favoritism and assigning specific judges to these cases. Since this is a law blog, I wonder what althouse has to say about it.

Here is an article at Buzzfeed(!) about filing for an en banc hearing .; 10/14/14, 8:44 AM
Xmas said...: I'd like to see Romney be an adviser to a more dynamic candidate, like Bobby Jindal.

Heck, I still want to see Condi Rice run.; 10/14/14, 8:48 AM
chickelit said...: 2016 is still jumping the gun. Let's see how the mid-terms reshape the political landscape first.; 10/14/14, 8:53 AM
Birches said...: There's no way Romney runs if Walker wins.; 10/14/14, 9:00 AM
Jaq said...: ARM is right, as usual. There is no way that 5% of the electorate would have changed their minds.

Obama's probity, scrupulous honesty, willingness to compromise where needed, and vision to lead where required, has left the country eager for more of the same from Warren.

And if it is not Warren, lefties will line up in droves, excited to vote for Hillary!; 10/14/14, 9:06 AM
Big Mike said...: I don't know how Romney's going to "see a path to victory" when so many of us who backed him 2 years ago feel so badly let down by him.; 10/14/14, 9:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Will there be a point in this country where there will be more people who believe in liberty and personal responsibility than right now?

Will there be a point in this country where there will be less people who depend happily on government than right now?

If both questions can't be answered 'yes' then it is already over. It is simply a question of the speed in which government increases in size and the freedoms are dissipated. America, after the One Night Stand.; 10/14/14, 9:10 AM
CStanley said...: I'm more interested in Ann's philanthropic project. Good for her.; 10/14/14, 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: "There's no way Romney runs if Walker wins."

Walker said that if reelected as governor he plans on serving the full term.; 10/14/14, 9:13 AM
RecChief said...: Romney still can't run against obamacare. There is no way for him to get around that, and if you think the Democrat Party won't hit him constantly on that, look at ARM's response.

Still the speculation by people like Greg Sargent and others diverts leftist attention. I hope Mitt leads them on for many more months.; 10/14/14, 9:13 AM
rehajm said...: And if it is not Warren, lefties will line up in droves, excited to vote for Hillary!

Because nothing captures the excitement of black America more than lining up to vote for a wealthy suburban 69 year old white woman.; 10/14/14, 9:19 AM
Oso Negro said...: I'm off to a Ted Cruz speech tonight. I resist any attempts by our hostess to "other" him. Can't be president of "all the people" indeed.; 10/14/14, 9:41 AM
Brando said...: "Because nothing captures the excitement of black America more than lining up to vote for a wealthy suburban 69 year old white woman."

They'll vote for her for the same reason they usually vote for Democrats--default. They see the GOP as at best not caring about them and at worse hostile to them. They grudgingly vote for the likes of Hillary, which partly explains their usually low turnout.

With Obama it was different--the chance to vote for the first black president (and not in the embarrassing "Clinton was our first black president because he didn't know his father, slept around a lot, ate fried foods...wait, is this racist???") was understandably a big deal (even if it meant getting a first black president who would disappoint) so turnout was much higher.

I don't see the GOP doing much better among black voters in the near future.; 10/14/14, 9:42 AM
bleh said...: This notion that a RINO can't be elected is absurd. A significant portion of the electorate votes for the guy who just feels right, and that might be because he has a nice smile or a full head of hair. Romney had some good attributes, but he's Mormon and acts like a wealthy person.

If Romney were mainstream Christian and lived a less affluent life, he would have won in a landslide, even if he came out in support of abortion rights or whatever other heresies people suspect he secretly believes.

It all comes down to likability to the squishy "independents" who decide elections.; 10/14/14, 9:48 AM
Michael K said...: "I don't know how Romney's going to "see a path to victory" when so many of us who backed him 2 years ago feel so badly let down by him."

I don't feel that way at all. I believe we missed a chance to solve most of the problems that are now threatening to became catastrophes. If Walker wins, as I expect him to do, he may be a good presidential candidate but his is pretty green on the national issues.

I don't like Christie and Perry still has to recover from 2012. Jindal needs to improve in public. Maybe one of them will shine next year. If not Romney looks better and better.; 10/14/14, 10:05 AM
bleh said...: Ted Cruz will never be president. He's weird looking and too outspoken and religious. The squishy independents will reject him. And he's a damn dirty Canadian.

If I had to guess, I would say the legit GOP candidates are going to be Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker. Supposedly one of either Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney will run, but I doubt it for some reason. They seem old and tired, and the GOP should be emphasizing the contrast between their nominee and Hillary Clinton, the elderly, also-ran grandmother from a political dynasty.

A ticket comprising some combination of those four candidates offers the GOP the best hope. Not Ted Cruz.; 10/14/14, 10:07 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: BDNYC said...
If I had to guess, I would say the legit GOP candidates are going to be Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.

It's going to be Paul Ryan. He's next in line. This is how the GOP works.; 10/14/14, 10:20 AM
Brando said...: "It's going to be Paul Ryan. He's next in line. This is how the GOP works."

I agree about Ryan, but mainly because he's got enough cred on the right, establishment cred, and wonk cred to not have to worry too hard about proving himself with any of those groups. Plus, he's well known nationally and has national campaign experience, which the others don't.

I'd be surprised if he doesn't win the nomination.; 10/14/14, 10:22 AM
Brando said...: "This notion that a RINO can't be elected is absurd."

A "moderate" or "establishment" Republican (or "RINO" if you don't like them) can win, and often wins nominations, but they do have a handicap in general elections--they have to spend so much time and effort winning over the party's right wing that they generally end up turning off moderates in the general election. It happened to Dole, McCain and Romney--each was never liked by the party's right wing, and after spending a primary season saying what they thought would get the right wing behind them, the Democrats found it easy to make them look beholden to extremists.

For the GOP, the ideal candidate is someone who can appeal to both wings from the beginning, without extending himself, and then aim straight for the moderates in the general. Reagan and Bush Jr. (to a lesser extent) were able to pull this off.; 10/14/14, 10:28 AM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Hey. It's the GOP. Gotta go with the most senior dude. That'd be Bob Dole. Maybe in 2020, Mitt. Wait your turn.; 10/14/14, 10:32 AM
Beldar said...: Paging Harold Stassen. Harold Stassen, phone your office.

Mitt, you're a good man. Stay home with the kids and enjoy your well-earned retirement, make the occasionally carefully weighed public statement, do some more charity work.

Mitt's the guy who lost the nomination to John McCain. Given his proverbial second chance, he lost again to the guy McCain lost to, almost as badly, despite advantages that ought to have propelled the GOP into the WH and made Obama a one-term president.

He's not the right guy. The only people who think he might possibly be a credible pretender to be the right guy are people who were strongly on his bandwagon before and who categorically refuse to learn from history.; 10/14/14, 10:34 AM
cubanbob said...: betamax3000 said...

Will there be a point in this country where there will be more people who believe in liberty and personal responsibility than right now?

Will there be a point in this country where there will be less people who depend happily on government than right now?

If both questions can't be answered 'yes' then it is already over. It is simply a question of the speed in which government increases in size and the freedoms are dissipated. America, after the One Night Stand.
10/14/14, 9:10 AM "

I weep because you are right.

" BDNYC said...

This notion that a RINO can't be elected is absurd. A significant portion of the electorate votes for the guy who just feels right, and that might be because he has a nice smile or a full head of hair. Romney had some good attributes, but he's Mormon and acts like a wealthy person.

If Romney were mainstream Christian and lived a less affluent life, he would have won in a landslide, even if he came out in support of abortion rights or whatever other heresies people suspect he secretly believes.

It all comes down to likability to the squishy "independents" who decide elections.

10/14/14, 9:48 AM"

I'll give you that on Romney but applying the same premise to the Democrats how does one come up with the ultimate grifter, schemer and all around sleazebag like Hillary Clinton as the front runner and nearly anointed nominee?; 10/14/14, 10:53 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Here's an angle on why Romney lost that has not been fully appreciated, I think.

Romney exuded competency. That was his main attribute.

But after 8 years of relentless pounding by Dems and the Press (but I repeat myself) that Bush was stupid, an idiot, a dumb cowboy --- low info voters came to believe that the Presidency must not be that hard "if even idiot Bush can do it".

That undercut Romney's best feature, and convinced a first-term, zero experience Illinois Senator, and a majority of gullible voters, that one could hardly do worse than stupid Bush, as little talent was needed.

Oops.; 10/14/14, 11:21 AM
FleetUSA said...: Romney didn't have enough "fire in the belly" last time. Would he now?; 10/14/14, 12:07 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Fleet, I suspect Romney's fire-in-the belly is for Faith and Family first - where it should be.; 10/14/14, 12:17 PM
Michael K said...: "I'd be surprised if he doesn't win the nomination."

I think there has been one president a long time ago who was a House member. Garfield and Andrew Johnson were members of the House when elected. Johnson, of course was Lincoln's VP. Garfield is the only one to go from the House to Presidency.; 10/14/14, 1:27 PM
Brando said...: "I think there has been one president a long time ago who was a House member. Garfield and Andrew Johnson were members of the House when elected. Johnson, of course was Lincoln's VP. Garfield is the only one to go from the House to Presidency."

That's true, but precedents are made to be broken. In this case, we're also talking about the most recent VP nominee, who did pretty well during the campaign--I can't think of any major mistakes or weaknesses that came up for him. He's also had a fairly high profile for a House member, with his budgets and reputation for both base-pleasing budget cutting plans as well as an ability to work with the opposition.

As for the other possible candidates, each seems to have major weaknesses that would be hard if not impossible to overcome.

1) Jeb Bush--probably won't actually run, but his name hurts him (between the dynast thing and the former Bush hangover), plus he's been out of office for a decade, and has adopted positions on immigration that would hurt him with the base.

2) Christie. Not a chance, and not just because of Bridgegate (which still will leave a bad taste in voters' mouths). He palled around with Obama too much in 2012, and used his keynote address not to help his party or candidate, but to talk about himself. Plus, his personality is one of abrasiveness--I can't imagine him going through a two year national campaign without constant insults, gaffes, and offensive remarks that will create trouble everywhere he goes. People like honesty (or the perception of it, anyway) but they don't like rudeness.; 10/14/14, 1:43 PM
Brando said...: (cont'd)
3) Rand Paul. I like him a great deal, but his positions will alienate too much of the base and establishment--he's too libertarian for most of them, too anti-interventionist, and his opinion on drugs will probably sink him with a lot of GOP voters.

4) Ted Cruz. Makes too many enemies--he's not a loyal GOP soldier. Maybe his supporters like him for being "pure" but that also means his appeal is limited. The establishment definitely will work to support any alternative.

5) Santorum/Gingrich--these are joke candidates with no real constituencies. They used their time in 2012 trying to bump up their book selling cred, not help their party's nominee. Disloyalty will not be rewarded.

6) Huckabee. Not happening. Out of office too long, too religious rightish, and too populist.

7) Ben Carson. No experience running in a political campaign. This isn't the days of Ike when a nonpolitician could be handed the nomination--the ins and outs of state fairs and gladhanding aren't the sort of thing you want to learn for the first time when it matters most.

Who else does that leave?; 10/14/14, 1:49 PM
Michael K said...: "Who else does that leave?"

A re-elected and more mature Walker. A better speaker Jindal and Romney.

Ryan is good but he looks young and Biden laughed his way through their debate. Playing the fool but he got away with it.; 10/14/14, 2:11 PM
Brando said...: Forgot Walker and Jindal. Walker I think would be in contention, but he doesn't have a lot of name recognition outside Wisconsin or political junkies--the weakness there is he can get defined by his opponents before he defines himself. But otherwise he may be able to straddle the base/establishment divide.

Jindal I think could be a dark horse--a lot of people wrote him off after his SOTU response in '09, but we'll see how he emerges later this year.

Romney I think is done--his best shot is behind him. I think he's smart enough to know that, he likes the speculation but wouldn't do it again.; 10/14/14, 2:16 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Crap.; 10/14/14, 2:18 PM
Michael K said...: " I think he's smart enough to know that, he likes the speculation but wouldn't do it again."

I think he is reluctant but he is the kind of guy who cares more about the country and will see if a good candidate appears, then support him. Or her, if Condi runs (which I doubt).; 10/14/14, 6:59 PM
Paddy O said...: 'It’s the market pulling him,' said Kent Lucken, a longtime friend and adviser who would be paid a lot of money if and only if Romney runs again.; 10/14/14, 8:26 PM
Revenant said...: "Who else does that leave?"

It probably leaves one of the people you ruled out, actually. All the candidates have major weaknesses, but they aren't running against the Platonic ideal of a Republican candidate. They're running against each other.

The same's true on the Democratic side. All of the proposed nominees have major flaws.; 10/14/14, 10:05 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "The same's true on the Democratic side. All of the proposed nominees have major flaws."

Irrelevant because of Free Stuff. Speculating about personalities, policies, competence and integrity is meaningless. None of those qualities are decisive factors in the post-2012 national election. Y'all are preparing for the last war.; 10/14/14, 11:01 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Tell you what, ARM, how about you run Romney on the Democratic ticket if he's so great? I agree he would be about ten thousand times better than Hillary or Obama.; 10/15/14, 5:51 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: and if it's "faith and family first" for Romney then how dare he run for president not once but twice, let alone 3 times?; 10/15/14, 6:06 AM
Dustin said...: Brando,

I'll just note that Romney's been out of office even longer than some of those you note have been out of office too long, and he makes enemies in his party due to his propensity to put more funding into attack advertisements than most of his opponents raise combined.

While I never got on the Santorum bandwagon as there are some issues I disagree with him on, I think you write him off too quickly as his agenda would have been persuasive in the general election in a way Mccain and Romney's weren't. Fundamentally, the problem for many Republican candidates is the perception they don't care, and Santorum could have overcome that.

Personally, I prefer any successful governor. Success is measured by solid leadership, standing up for good ideas, and limiting the government. Walker and Perry are by idea of successful. Neither of them are particularly slick on stage, yet I think that is exactly what the GOP needs to win a general election. It isn't working with these friends of the Press like Mccain or these ridiculous caricatures of a politician like Romney.

But it is long since time for Conservatives to check out of the GOP, and instead of pretending they are the GOP, letting the GOP make its offer. So far we've been given losers who not only offer us nothing, but lose in a way that actually pushes the agenda in the other direction.; 10/15/14, 7:09 AM
Dustin said...: "Romney exuded competency. That was his main attribute."

I see some die hard Republicans say this and I've never understood it. What was he good at? His government was a trainwreck with lasting negative implications for the rights of MA citizens. His bankruptcy law utilizing investment firm has A) done much better since he left it and B) was nothing without government intervention. It wasn't building anything, it was using access to government and connections while outsourcing jobs. Some very talented people joined Romney fresh out of school... I think it's reminiscent of Chelsea Clinton making a lot of money at Goldman Sachs because she is the child of a powerful politician.

The last time Romney was called upon to run something it was the 2012 campaign, which was effective in attacking Republicans, but when it was time to run a 50 state operation that got out the vote, was a total shambles. Like it or not, Obama ran a smarter operation both in 2008 and 2012, relying on wiser strategies and better advice.

I think this whole 'Mitt is the most qualified man to run for office ever' came from nowhere and is very hard to accept.; 10/15/14, 7:17 AM
Brando said...: "I'll just note that Romney's been out of office even longer than some of those you note have been out of office too long, and he makes enemies in his party due to his propensity to put more funding into attack advertisements than most of his opponents raise combined."

Oh he has--which is another reason he won't get nominated. Candidates tend to get "stale" when too much time has passed since they've done something high profile (besides campaigning).

One other factor that affects these candidates' chances is presence--do they look and seem presidential? Voters want to be able to picture someone who can lead them into battle, or they can picture standing up to Putin. While Romney had his faults as a campaigner, I think he at least came across like a man in charge. I never got that sense from Santorum, who seemed like a kid.

Governors have a natural advantage over legislators--partly because they've had experience as chief executive of a government and the responsibilities that comes with, partly because they on average tend to face more frequent competitive elections, and partly because legislators have long complicated records that take some explanation to defend (how many ugly riders are attached to bills that the legislator otherwise wants to vote for, and later gets nailed for voting essentially for the rider?).

That rule held for a while--JFK was the last sitting Senator to get elected president until Obama (who beat another sitting Senator in '08). But the Governor advantage can always be trumped.

Perry might have a good chance in '16, but he'd have to prove a far better campaigner than he was in '12. Not just the "oops" remark, but a stronger speaking style and campaign trail approach, better campaign ads--we'll see what he does.

Despite some of this (his being a legislator and young-looking) I still think Paul Ryan has the advantage going into '16, partly because of his broader appeal, partly because of name recognition, and partly because of national campaign experience. The GOP tends to be orderly, giving its nomination to someone who "earned it"--either the second place finisher from the previous election (Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney), or a former VP or VP nominee(Nixon, Dole, Bush). In fact, I can't remember the last time they nominated someone who had never run for president before or sat on a national ticket, going back to Goldwater, except Bush Jr. and even then he was the son of a president, looked just like his father, and even had the same name. Traditions of course are made to be broken, so we'll see.; 10/15/14, 7:35 AM
Brando said...: "I see some die hard Republicans say this and I've never understood it. What was he good at?"

I don't think that's really fair--he was very successful in building a business (sure, he had advantages being born into the elite, but many similarly advantaged people have been caretakers or failures--he took his advantages and did well with them). He was very competent in running the 2002 Winter Olympics, which had been a mess when he was called in to take over. And considering how far left Massaholia is, his governorship was fairly successful--even with Romneycare, which it's hard to imagine a different governor preventing in that climate.

His campaigns in 2008 and 2012 were not paragons of competence, and he's just not a great campaigner. But there were a lot of fundamentals working against him, certainly in 2012. The GOP primary process has become a bunch of starving rats eating each other, leaving a weak, damaged survivor to go fight in the general election. Romney also was a moderate, northeastern Republican, and considering he had governed as pro-choice and pro-gay rights (among other stances more palatable in New England than in Red States), the fact that he even won the nomination is pretty impressive (though the political acrobatics he had to go through to do so ensured that he would be tarred as a tool of extremists in the general election).

Add to that the fact that the Obama team had an execellent get out the vote operation, no primary opponents of their own, and an obscene amount of money they used freely to cast Romney as an evil, cancer-causing rich jerk from the get-go, and you can see that even if Romney was a great politician he would have had a near impossible task.

The GOP would be wise to learn the right lessons from its recent defeats, or get ready for president Hillary.; 10/15/14, 7:46 AM
Dustin said...: "
Perry might have a good chance in '16, but he'd have to prove a far better campaigner than he was in '12. Not just the "oops" remark, but a stronger speaking style and campaign trail approach, better campaign ads--we'll see what he does."

Well said. It wasn't just the gaffes. If he had been awesome but had some gaffes (Chris Christie level) he would be president today.

"I don't think that's really fair--he was very successful in building a business (sure, he had advantages being born into the elite, but many similarly advantaged people have been caretakers or failures--he took his advantages and did well with them). He was very competent in running the 2002 Winter Olympics,"

Both points are true. Many elites do not bother being exposed to business. Those who do it like Chelsea at a superficial level do not learn or do like Romney did, and of course there was much success there even though I don't think it overlaps as well with leading this country as some believe (again, I feel that venture is all about big government). I always forget the Olympics thing.

" you can see that even if Romney was a great politician he would have had a near impossible task."

I freely and proudly admit you won't find a more biased critic of Romney, but I respectfully disagree. I've been asked a few times who could have won that election. Well, it was the GOP's election to lose with unemployment and the recent passage of unpopular Obamacare, to say nothing of the 9/11/2012 disaster. BUT it would take someone who made the case. Romney could have done this, albeit on economic policy and health care it would lead to his being called a hypocrite. On foreign policy he tried, but was ineffective.

I think a lot of this just boils down to what you're saying. He actually wasn't a particularly effective campaigner. Winning the 2012 primary was a matter of having an established and funded operation while the opponents were mostly fledgling and fighting for the same votes. When it was time to run a real operation, it fell apart.

"The GOP would be wise to learn the right lessons "

I don't really consider myself a Republican, just because the party has left me on some issues, but I hope this happens because the GOP being successful probably means coming back to me. Firstly, they need to recognize that the power an establishment candidate has is fleeting. Once that person is nominated, they are badly handicapped distinguishing themselves from the establishment democrat. The big issue today should be reforming this bloated government, after all.

I'm actually resigned to the country probably hitting financial disaster inevitably, due to finances. Many people live full and happy lives under messed up governments in messed up societies, and I'm sure I can do so too. If the GOP wishes to prove me wrong on this I will happily give them a vote.; 10/15/14, 8:02 AM
Dustin said...: "Voters want to be able to picture someone who can lead them into battle, or they can picture standing up to Putin. While Romney had his faults as a campaigner, I think he at least came across like a man in charge. I never got that sense from Santorum, who seemed like a kid."

I hate to flood a thread like this, but I've never seen this point articulated quite like this and I think it's 100% accurate. Romney did indeed have this going for him. Interestingly, Obama doesn't. I can't even see him standing up to his old lady.; 10/15/14, 8:09 AM