Romney supporters have argued that there’s a clamor for people who would like to see someone emerge as a leader for the Republican Party during a particularly fractious time, and Romney recently began making clear to donors and supporters that such talk was affecting his thinking.
Bush’s decision to move quickly to draw a line in the sand was in part because of Romney’s overtures to donors. Bush allies had privately grown frustrated that Romney was freezing some donors who hoped he would launch a campaign of his own.
९ जानेवारी, २०१५
Romney says: "Everybody in here can go tell your friends that I’m considering a run."
Politico reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५८ टिप्पण्या:
I meant it the first time I voted for Mitt. And I still mean it.
If you can't see the buttons to vote, go here.
I like Mitt's business experience.
If only mine were the only vote that ever counted. We would have much better elected leaders.
Romney, because hopefully his expertise at turning around failing enterprises can extend to the federal government. After 6 years of Obama, we're in very deep sh*t, and it will only get deeper.
However, in my opinion he didn't try hard enough last time and I don't sense that he really and truly wants to go out and get it.
If I had to pick one of the two, I'd shoot the person forcing me to pick one of the two.
I like Mitt but no time for sacrificial lambs.
I'd have to pick Jeb. Not that I love him, but Romney is such a lousy politician that he couldn't get elected. Whether Jeb could get elected is an open question, but at least it is still a question. Both would probably distance themselves from the large part of the party they regard as too conservative and would start at a disadvantage on that account alone.
Fandor quotes Fandor from Althouse's Scott Walker post: Dignity, determination and dough is what's needed to win the presidency.
Let Hillary make delusional "vast right-wing conspiracy" accusations and Warren practice her neo-war whoops to rally their followers with warmed over Great Society bromides.
The United States needs a new direction and a leader that can put us back on the road to prosperity, a "common sense problem solver with a love for America and optimism about the future."
Like Reagan, Mitt Romney could be that president.
Let's see how the great debate unfolds over the next two years.
And, Fandor again, responding to AJ and furious_a about a third Romney run: "A.J....47% of the electorate was "inspired' to vote for Romney last time around. Many of those voters feel they were robbed and would vote for Mitt again. Others who voted differently, or not at all, could be persuaded to see the governor in a new light since "hope and change" has failed miserably.
Romney doesn't need to be Ronald Reagan.
Being Mitt Romney is more than sufficient to take on the office of the presidency. He's something different for the 21st century; an honorable man, smart, determined and resolute in his vision to lead our nation to new heights.
Mitt Romney loves our country.
As to fire in the belly; you don't jump in the arena unless you're made of stern stuff.
And furious_a...Candy Crowley was "full of soup", and Mitt should have asked who he was debating, Obama or Crowley. He should have shut her down as a one sided "fact" checker. It was a mistake. I'm sure he learned from it. In future debates, we need a Brian Lamb, cSpan type moderator, who asks questions without the partisan sucker punch follow ups network hacks deliver.
Leave the brinkmanship to the candidates being questioned. Let them rise or fall on their own responses and forbid the moderators from throwing a life line to a floundering debater.
My question to both of you is:
If there was a Romney vs Clinton matchup, who would you vote for?
Or a Romney vs. Warren?"
I'm with you Meade!
Go Mitt. An opporunity for America to right a wrong.
If only mine and Fandor's were the only 2 votes that ever counted...
Okay 3. ...and rehajm's.
I go with Romney because I don't think the American voting public will elect another Bush.
Unless it's to defeat another Clinton.
I too voted for Mitt. I did not like his VP, though. It is time for a woman VP ( who is not a quitter and a moron like Palin).
So, religions founded by pedophiles are really in the news today.
AReasonableMan: "So, religions founded by pedophiles are really in the news today"
Why couldn't those guys be more like Mao?
Now there was a guy the left could get behind....and still does.
Wasn't it Anita Dunn herself praising Mao?
Not to mention some of the more "interesting" relationships the dems current hero (Billy Jeff himself) had with pedophiles.
Not to worry. Once Hillary gets elected li'l mr epstein will undoubtedly receive a pardon for any past "transgressions" as a thanks for the many, many, many flights/donations to the Clinton SlushFun....er...Library.
But hey, what else is ARMeltdown going to talk about?
All that crazy stuff Romney said during the last campaign like Russia is our biggest geo-political rival?!!
Ha ha!
Why, every sophisticate knows that isn't true!!
Unfortunately, there are no "sophisticates" apparently in the Ukraine.
Which just happens to be the pipeline chokepoint for >90% of all natural gas which feeds Europe.
Nothing to see here. Move along now.
Revenant: "If I had to pick one of the two, I'd shoot the person forcing me to pick one of the two."
Funny, because this does capture that "leave me the hell alone" American zeitgeist that was prevalent (is it still?) for so very long.
Mitt gets my personal anti-sympathy sympathy vote.
Why should we have new candidates, when no one has anything new to say?
i stay home
Wow. A Mittslide.
Mitt is crushing Jeb in the poll. In fact they are very similar men, and similar in political outlook.
Likely the true believer Republicans are going to reject Jeb because he is not "conservative" enough, or right on certain issues. This is more conservative suicide. Jeb Bush can make a huge dent in the Hispanic vote. That is why the Democrats fear him. And this in turn could deliver a constituency that would assist the Republican Party for decades.
But who would want that. It would involve compromise. And winning.
Okay, maybe I am getting it wrong about Mitt, but my understanding of his 47% remark told me he has not a clue as to what American politics are about. There never was a 47% dependent class that voted Democrat simply in order to ensure its entitlements. This is a vile self-justifying Republican fantasy. The biggest entitlements benefit the other 53% just as much if not more. Mitt's remark registered as a horribly condescending slam at people which breakdowns of voting patterns do not confirm at all.
I think Mitt is a very marginally superior choice over Jeb, in that Mitt is less blatantly a dynastic scion than Jeb.
But, Lord, what a dispiriting exercise. The best thing about both of them running is that it might fracture the establishment sufficiently to let a good candidate get nominated. The second-best is that if I get stuck with either of them as the Republican nominee, as a Texas resident, I can refuse to vote for him without any concern that my vote will help get a greater evil elected.
Root canal is not listed
Oh. Hell. No.
I'd drink Drano before I'd vote for either of them.
John Bolton
neither
The primaries this next time around, both parties, are going to be interesting. That said, I voted for Romney in your poll, and in the big national one. Being from NY, I wish all states counted their electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska. Then, the votes of people in rural counties would count.
This is more conservative suicide. Jeb Bush can make a huge dent in the Hispanic vote
No, it's the other George that will eventually do that.
It's like a horrible version of Groundhog Day come to life.
No more Bushi or Clintons. And I like Mormons so Mitt has that going for him.
But yeah, I really don't want either one. Walker or Perry or some conservative babe would work.
A white conservative babe.
Fandor said...
My question to both of you is:
If there was a Romney vs Clinton matchup, who would you vote for?
Or a Romney vs. Warren?"
None of the above. If the choice is federal spending growing at 5% or 7% might as well get it over with sooner rather than later.
Really at this point unless someone stands up and says they are going to auction off Alaska to pay off our Social Security debt we have already walked off the financial cliff. We are on borrowed time as it is.
AReasonableMan said...
"So, religions founded by pedophiles are really in the news today."
Muslims are sensitive about criticism of the prophet and have a tendency towards violence.
Ann Althouse said...
"Wow. A Mittslide."
If Jeb is the republican nominee there will be a third party.
Jeb or Mitt? No others? I think I'd rather gouge out my eyes with a spoon than vote for either of them.
And I won't. It won't matter that the Libertarian can't win; neither of these bozos can, either.
I chose Mitt also and if he is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him, again.
But during the primaries I plan to vote for the most conservative candidate and I'm sure Mitt won't be him.
Neither.
No way. Nope. I've had it with political dynasties in the US. I'm tired of so much power being vested in a handful of families. It's a Mafia of politics.
Depending on how you count, the Bush family has won three out of the four Presidential elections they were in. That's a much better track record than Romney. Romney does seem to score higher after each election. I'm sure that if he ran again, he would win more electoral votes than last time and, by 2020, he'll probably win.
Ha, Ha, ROFLMAO, we DONT HAVE TO PICK ONE , Ann. And I wont. I agree with Revenant, shoot the person telling you to pick one of those two.
A lot of people don't know this, but Bill Clinton got loose at Kennebunkport some years ago and was finally discovered in a bungalow with a 3rd Bush cousin.
Their abandoned love-child grew-up on the streets around the Russell and Hart Senate buildings, feeding on leftover pork, sleeping in abandoned think-tanks, roving with packs of party hacks, apparatchiks and wonks, looking to get into 'the business.'
Pretty much a non-sequitur, but the kid's looking for a job in media, finance, politics, law...whatever.
Won't you help out?
Well, put me with those who would not vote for either, but in the spirit of you must choose one, I picked Romney who, unlike many others. I actually like, I just don't think he's a conservative, or really understands some important things about what's coming down the line. He is a competent and, yes, likable, guy. Don't you think he and his family would be good neighbors? Probably a good friend to have too, with or without his money.
That said, I did not vote for him last time, and I'm certainly not voting for Bush. We've had enough of that family. Go away.
It's okay if Jeb wins the nomination and loses like papa did because of a third party; as long as Jeb tries his daddy will be proud of him.
That's all that matters to the Bush family and it's all that has mattered.
I understand the angst at being forced I to these choices, but I felt very comfortable voting for Romney last time and would do so again. It's nothing against Jeb but I do think the dynasty thing is a problem and I don't feel he's so exceptional that it should be overlooked (at least I haven't yet seen any sign of that exceptionality.)
In many ways Romney does seem like the right person for the times (as much as any one person can be.) while I am conservative and can relate to the desire to oppose bit government (and know that's not who Romney is), I feel that some level of good governance is necessary and must be restored. I would like to see him run on a platform of fixing the bureaucracy.
To win the general election, Romney has to get more of the Hispanic vote than he got last time. So this probably means Susana Martinez as his running mate.
Jeb Bush is not going to win. This is not old Europe, we don't do dynasties. Hilary! is out for the same reason. That, and she has fat ankles.
I'd really like to see Rand Paul win it all. But if this were a country where someone as libertarian as Rand Paul could win, we wouldn't need him. Oh well.
I am a robot, couldn't you tell?
Achillies, don't keep showing us your heel.
Alaska stays.
Liberalism goes.
I propose a "Grand Alliance" of establishment Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, the Tea Party and moderate Democrats (if any exist), to reform the tax code, winnow down counter productive business regulations, cap entitlements (except for veterans of foriegn wars), enforce the immigration laws already on the books, repatriate corporate off shore profits, freeze the minumum wage and the usual stuff, like, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Hope and change has run counter to all that.
Keep Alaska, roll back government at every level, set business free, invest in the common defense.
Elect Mitt Romney president.
Give him a chance to put an all-star team in place to keep "the shinning city on the hill" prosperous and strong.
Let's win the next election for America (and in memory of "the Gipper", too.)
Join the crusade, Achillies, and don't dig your heels in.
So one of the constant attacks on muslims here is that their religion was founded by a pedophile.
Yet, you will all happily vote for a man whose religion was started by a pedophile in the very recent past.
I'm sensing some hypocrisy here.
What's with all the pedophile talk? Reminiscent of the charge that Jefferson fathered mixed-race children, it's just an ad hominem attack. My problem with Islam is not its founder; it's the people killing randomly in his name. Get off the pedophilia kick, for pity's sake.
I rise to defend the honor of a great American, Sarah Palin, who is hardly a quitter or a moron. And shame on all you other commenters for letting the slander pass.
As to the poll, I find it interesting that I didn't vote for either, merely clicked the, "View" button almost automatically, an immediate desire to vote for neither. Perhaps a foreshadowing of what the electorate will do if either of these men are on the ballot.
poker1one,
I agree with you about Sarah Palin. She is a true champion of conservative values and was the only spark of excitement (and dread to the liberals) in the failed McCain presidential campaign.
Her chances of becoming president are nil, because the governor is (continually) the victim of character assassination by the press and members of her own party.
Mrs. Palin should run for the senate and be a strong conservative voice and vote there.
I'd pick hemlock.
he deliberately threw the election in 2012, so why would anyone trust him this time?
as for the other RINO, enough already.
Clinton-Bush 2016
"Because, at this point, what difference does it make which party is in the Oval Office?"
I'm sensing some hypocrisy here.
I'm sensing a tiresome ARM theme
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा