Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BayGBM on November 07, 2012, 09:38:35 PM



Title: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on November 07, 2012, 09:38:35 PM
Life after defeat for Mitt Romney: Public praise, private questions
By Philip Rucker

BOSTON — Mitt Romney began his retreat from public life Wednesday at a private breakfast gathering with a couple hundred of his most loyal and affluent campaign benefactors. The former Massachusetts governor, humbled by the thumping that ended his six-year pursuit of the presidency, reminisced about the journey and tried not to cry.

Romney waxed about the roaring crowds in the campaign’s closing days and the feeling that he was winning, said donors in attendance. He commended Stuart Stevens, his chief strategist, as well as his senior aides, and then went around thanking donors one by one.

“Mitt was vintage Mitt,” said L.E. Simmons, an oil investor on Romney’s national finance committee. “He was analytical, no notes, spoke from the heart and was very appreciative.”

But Romney’s top aides, who only a couple of days ago were openly speculating about who would fill which jobs in a Romney administration, woke up Wednesday to face brutal recriminations.

Some top donors privately unloaded on Romney’s senior staff, describing it as a junior varsity operation that failed to adequately insulate and defend Romney through a summer of relentless attacks from the Obama campaign over his business career and personal wealth.

Everybody feels like they were a bunch of well-meaning folks who were, to use a phrase that Governor Romney coined to describe his opponent, way in over their heads,” said one member of the campaign’s national finance committee, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

“Romney World,” the fundraiser added, “will fade into the obscurity of a lot of losing campaigns.”

Stuart Stevens, who as Romney’s chief strategist was the recipient of some of the harshest blame, did not return requests for comment Wednesday. Nor did many of Romney’s other top advisers, who during Romney’s concession speech were visibly shell-shocked.

Bob White, Romney’s close friend and business partner who chaired the campaign, strongly defended Stevens and the rest of the staff in an interview a few weeks ago.

“Mitt never doubted his team, and the reports of infighting were not true,” White said.

In Washington, meanwhile, scores of transition-team staffers who had been preparing for a Romney administration started packing their belongings Wednesday.

Mike Leavitt, the former Utah governor running the transition, convened a conference call at 10 a.m. to inform the staff they had until Friday to organize their files, return their laptops and cellphones and vacate their government office.

At the Wednesday breakfast, Romney told the donors he believed Hurricane Sandy stunted his momentum in the final week of the campaign, according to multiple donors present.

Although Romney himself stopped short of placing any blame on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who praised President Obama’s leadership during the storm, several Romney supporters privately pointed fingers at the outspoken governor.

“A lot of people feel like Christie hurt, that we definitely lost four or five points between the storm and Chris Christie giving Obama a chance to be bigger than life,” said one of Romney’s biggest fundraisers, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

Another major Romney fundraiser said Christie’s embrace of Obama after Sandy walloped his state only deepened a rift that opened between the Romney and Christie camps over the summer.

Christie and his wife were unhappy with Romney’s vice presidential search process, believing they were “led a little bit far down the garden path” without being picked, the fundraiser said.

Romney advisers have said they were disappointed with Christie’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention because they believed the speaker focused too much on himself and not enough on the candidate. Republicans close to Christie, however, said the Romney team approved the final draft of the speech.

Some Romney advisers insisted Wednesday that tensions with Christie have been overstated.

“The problem with Sandy was not Chris Christie,” said one political adviser. “The problem with Sandy was we couldn’t talk about the choice argument for the last week of the campaign. At a time when Barack Obama’s campaign was small, it allowed him to be bigger, and provided him a vehicle for him to show he can be bipartisan.”

Christie on Wednesday defended his work as a surrogate on Romney’s behalf, saying, ”I did my job.”

“I wouldn’t call what I did an embrace of Barack Obama,” Christie said at a news conference. “I know that’s become the wording of it, but the fact of the matter is, you know, I’m a guy who tells the truth all the time. And if the president of the United States did something good, I was gonna say he did something good and give him credit for it.”

He continued, “But it doesn’t take away for a minute the fact that I was the first governor to endorse Mitt Romney, that I traveled literally tens of thousands of miles for him, raised tens of millions of dollars for him and worked harder, I think, than any other surrogate in America other than Paul Ryan, who became his running mate.”

The time will come for Romney and his campaign leadership to fully assess what went wrong. Some of his top donors immediately pointed to the campaign’s early strategic decision to frame the race as a referendum on Obama rather than a choice between two different governing philosophies and leadership styles.

A second member of Romney’s national finance committee said that while the campaign’s tactics and fundraising organization were executed well, the strategy and message were “total failures.” This fundraiser added that the campaign’s cautious and adversarial relationship with the news media proved detrimental.

“That strategy was we don’t want to define differences, we want it to be a referendum not a choice, but it was always going to be a choice. Elections are a choice. Their fundamental premise was incorrect — and when you’re incorrect on this level, you are shunned by people in the party,” said the fundraiser, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

But Romney, those close to him said, is not second guessing the counsel or work of his staff. After he spoke at Wednesday’s breakfast, Simmons said he spoke privately with Romney.

“I said, ‘So what are you going to do for the next few weeks? Let’s do something fun,’ ” Simmons recalled. “And he said, ‘Uh, I’m going to be really busy.’ He said, ‘I have 400 people to get great jobs for.’ ”

Late Wednesday afternoon, as sleet fell in Boston’s North End, Romney visited his campaign headquarters for one final staff meeting. He thanked his aides and said goodbye. His Secret Service detail gone — and with it his code name, Javelin, after a car once made by his father’s company — Romney was spotted driving off in the backseat of his son Tagg’s car. His wife, Ann, was riding shotgun.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on November 07, 2012, 09:41:57 PM
This loss has got to hurt--bad!  Everyone knows Romney has been running for President for at least six years.  I think it is safe to say no one in recent memory wanted to be President more badly than Mitt Romney.  The look of defeat and resignation in their faces...  Their transition teams were already in place... practically measuring drapes for the White House and to have it end with such finality.  Wow!  I almost feel sorry for them.  :'(


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: 240 is Back on November 07, 2012, 09:50:59 PM
agreed he wanted it more than anyone else in the country.

and that version of mitt that gave the concession speech probably would have won the election.

He just wasn't good at being a politician- he tried to please everyone.  You know when someone just doens't give a fck?  Romney didn' thave that.  He wanted to please everyone in every room.  Bill Clinton would be able to shrug and say "you might not like it, but this is how it is".  Bush2 could say it - i'm the decider.   Obama was shooting jumpers on election day, he did what he had to, but was down 10 million votes and should have lost.

People would rather vote for someone they trust but hate - than someone they agree with, but cannot trust. 

Mitt is worth millions.  He had two failed runs at prez  Quiet retirement, easy life ahead of him to be sure.  It's funny how we all end up like our fathers, huh?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on November 07, 2012, 10:10:21 PM
Between the two candidates, all told, more than $2 billion went into this race!  Half of that from Mitt's camp, supporters, outside groups, etc.  Remember when Meg Whitman spent $130 million of her own money in her quest to be California governor and still lost?  Yeah, it feels like that... only worse!  :'(


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: tbombz on November 07, 2012, 10:15:41 PM

and that version of mitt that gave the concession speech probably would have won the election.

i was very impressed at Mitt's graciousness and tact in that speech.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: avxo on November 07, 2012, 10:56:48 PM
agreed he wanted it more than anyone else in the country.

and that version of mitt that gave the concession speech probably would have won the election.

Yeah. I agree. The Mitt Romney who gave that concession speech (which, by the way, was pure class unlike a lot of other concession speeches) was actually relatable, passionate and came across as a genuine guy. in stark contract to a lot of his appearances.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: Shockwave on November 07, 2012, 11:02:31 PM
Yeah. I agree. The Mitt Romney would gave that concession speech (which, by the way, was pure class unlike a lot of other concession speeches) was actually relatable, passionate and came across as a genuine guy. in start contract to a lot of his appearances.

Guess thats what happens after too long in politics... you lose who you really are, you become what you're supposed to be, which, ironically, is usually the polar opposite of what got you elected in the 1st place.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: sync pulse on November 08, 2012, 12:35:49 AM
Simmons said he spoke privately with Romney.
“I said, ‘So what are you going to do for the next few weeks? Let’s do something fun,’ ” Simmons recalled. “And he said, ‘Uh, I’m going to be really busy.’ He said, ‘I have 400 people to get great jobs for.’ ”

What??!!...Mr. 'I like being able to fire people!'...He certainly didn't have this attitude at Bain!...And people are Goddamned genuinely mystified why this man lost!


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on November 08, 2012, 09:23:46 PM
Republican Party begins election review to find out what went wrong
By Peter Wallsten,

Top Republican officials, stunned by the extent of their election losses Tuesday night, have begun an exhaustive review to figure out what went so wrong and how to fix it.

Party leaders said they already had planned to poll voters in battleground states starting Tuesday night in anticipation of a Mitt Romney victory — to immediately begin laying the groundwork for midterm congressional elections and a Romney 2016 reelection bid.

But as they watched one state after another go to President Obama and Senate seats fall away, party leaders quickly expanded and retooled their efforts. Officials told The Washington Post that they’re planning a series of voter-based polls and focus groups, meetings with constituency group leaders, and in-depth discussions with their volunteers, donors and staff members to find ways to broaden their appeal.

The review is a recognition that party leaders were confounded by the electorate that showed up on Tuesday. Republican officials said that they met all of their turnout goals but that they underestimated who would turn out for the other side.

Party officials said the review is aimed at studying their tactics and message, not at changing the philosophical underpinnings of the party.

“This is no different than a patient going to see a doctor,” said Sean Spicer, the Republican National Committee’s spokesman. “Your number one thing is to say, ‘I’m not feeling well. Tell me what the problem is. Run some tests on me.’ ”

Tuesday’s results, along with national and state-level exit polls, illustrated the depth of the GOP’s challenges and its growing weaknesses among crucial constituencies, such as Hispanics and women.

Many Hispanics were turned off by tough talk on immigration from Romney during the primary campaign, while Democrats think their candidates benefited from Republican policies on women’s health issues and verbal miscues on rape.

Underscoring the thoroughness of the GOP defeat, a Florida exit poll showed that Cuban Americans went for Obama by 49 percent to 47 percent — a watershed moment for a group that has been solidly Republican for a generation.

The review comes amid signs that the election results have pushed some conservative leaders and officials to consider tackling one of the most politically touchy issues for many Republicans: whether to put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. For years, conservatives have blocked immigration legislation. But seeing Obama win seven in 10 Hispanic voters appears to have left some wondering whether it is time to compromise, particularly with the president pledging to make the issue a centerpiece of his second-term agenda.

The Internet was buzzing late Thursday as word spread that Fox News Channel commentator Sean Hannity declared he had “evolved” on the issue and now thinks illegal immigrants without criminal records should have a “pathway to citizenship.”

In an interview Thursday with ABC News’s Diane Sawyer, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the immigration issue “has been around far too long.” He said a “comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

Asked about the GOP’s demographic problems, Boehner said: “What Republicans need to learn is: How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just the people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?”

Although Democrats argue that Tuesday’s results point to a potentially long-lasting winning coalition, Republicans are fighting among themselves about what went wrong.

Some party leaders have blamed the losses on the rise of the tea party movement and the growing pressure on GOP candidates to hew to a purist brand of conservatism that wins primaries but turns off voters. Others have taken the opposite view, blaming party establishment leaders and Romney for trying to play to the middle.

RNC officials say their results will help guide Republican lawmakers and governors as they tackle sensitive issues.

The committee’s move suggests that Chairman Reince Priebus, who will face reelection in January, may be trying to fill a void left by Romney’s loss and the lack of a party leader focused on political strategy.

The review began on election night with polls in key states, and next week the party will begin a string of voter focus groups.

Priebus and other party officials also will meet with constituency-group leaders representing Hispanics, African Americans, veterans, evangelicals, tea party activists, business groups, youth voters, centrists, Asian Americans and women.

Party officials plan to delve deeply into the Hispanic community, with separate focus group sessions being devoted to Puerto Ricans, a key bloc in central Florida that strongly backed Obama, as well as Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans. Mexican Americans make up the bulk of Hispanic voters in the battleground states of Colorado and Nevada.

The RNC’s review, to be conducted over the next two months and handled in some cases by independent firms, will look at the party’s get-out-the-vote operations, its national field staff and tactics, online voter-targeting strategy, and donor relationships. About 150,000 volunteers and 600 staff members will be queried on such topics as the quality of the party’s technology and voter-contact database to see if other factors contributed to their losses.

“We lost Wisconsin and Iowa, and we didn’t lose those because of the Hispanic vote,” Spicer said. “This is not a one-trick-pony problem.”

The review is designed in part to identify the positives, as well, and keep them in place for the future, he said.

Yet, whatever the Republicans did well, the Democrats did it better. That’s why another piece of the GOP review will include a study of Obama’s political machinery, including the sprawling network of neighborhood captains and activists in place since the 2008 campaign that appeared to roar back to life in time for Tuesday.

“We’ve got to know what they did well,” Spicer said. “We’ve got to give them credit, they won. We need to know what we’re going to be up against in 2013, 2014 and 2016.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: 240 is Back on November 08, 2012, 09:25:55 PM
Repubs will immediately appeal to Hispanics...  bush got 44% of hispanics, and Mitt got 27%?  Hannity intro'ing DREAM today proved that.


mitt wanted the job so bad, i truly felt bad for him.  Bush didn't want to be prez, he was doing coke and making jokes for the same years that Mitt was laying the groundwork to get the job.  Romney really worked for 30 years to be president.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: andreisdaman on November 08, 2012, 09:32:58 PM
I really like Mitt to be honest...when he is himself.......when he tries to hard to please the Tea Party he is dispicable...

Mitt would have won if he ran against Obama in the primary as a Democrat!!!!


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: Dos Equis on November 09, 2012, 02:47:47 PM
He was a good candidate.  Good man. 

I think he'll struggle to find a way to spend his millions.  lol


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on November 09, 2012, 09:27:29 PM
The GOP’s blame game
By Dana Milbank,

And now begins the quadrennial exercise of coming to terms with the loss of a presidency.

For the second time in a row, Republicans are the grieving party proceeding through the five stages.

Denial. “I think this is premature,” Karl Rove protested on Fox News election night, after the cable network, along with other news outlets, correctly projected that President Obama had won Ohio — and therefore the presidency. “We’ve got to be careful about calling things.”

Bargaining. “We’re willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions,” House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday, shifting his budget negotiating posture before reconsidering the next day, but “the president must be willing to reduce spending and shore up entitlement programs.”

Depression. “If Mitt Romney cannot win in this economy, then the tipping point has been reached,” Ann Coulter said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. “It’s over. There is no hope.”

Anger. “We should have a revolution in this country,” tweeted flamboyant mogul Donald Trump, who had served as a prominent surrogate for Romney. “This election is a total sham and a travesty.”

Acceptance. Uh, well, there hasn’t been much of that yet.

Before arriving at acceptance, Republicans must go through another stage of grief unique to political loss: an extended period of finger-pointing known as the recriminations phase. Only after this period of excuses is it possible to arrive at the plain truth of the matter: The electorate wasn’t buying what they were selling. But first, it is necessary to blame:

The weather. “Hurricane Sandy saved Barack Obama’s presidency,” Haley Barbour, the Mississippi governor and former Republican Party chairman, informed NBC’s Matt Lauer.

The governor of New Jersey. “A lot of people feel like Christie hurt, that we definitely lost four or five points between the storm and Chris Christie giving Obama a chance to be bigger than life,” one of Romney’s biggest fundraisers told The Post’s Philip Rucker.

Senate candidates in Missouri and Indiana. “Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock and Chris Christie undermined the Republican message,” a Romney adviser told National Review.

Karl Rove. “Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle,” the Twitter-happy Trump tweeted. “Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost.” Actually, a study by the Sunlight Foundation found that Rove’s super PAC had a 1 percent success rate.

The candidate’s personality. “If you put out a guy who is enormously unlikable, who is a caricature of a distant and out-of-touch technocrat, then he’s going to run poorly,” deduced Ben Domenech of the conservative blog RedState.

The candidate’s management skills. “Many Republicans are also questioning whether Romney was personally engaged enough in key decisions,” Politico reported.

Staff incompetence. “They were a bunch of well-meaning folks who were, to use a phrase that Governor Romney coined to describe his opponent, way in over their heads,” a member of Romney’s national finance committee told Rucker.

Staff deception. “There was … a lot of smoke and mirrors from Team Romney and outside charlatans, many of whom will now go work for Republican Super PACs making six figure salaries, further draining the pockets of rich Republicans,” RedState’s Erick Erickson wrote.

GOP leaders. “Republican leaders behind the epic election failure of 2012 should be replaced,” declared conservative activist Richard Viguerie at the National Press Club, singling out party chairman Reince Priebus, Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Country-club Republicans. “The presidential loss is unequivocally on them,” said Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots.

The Republican Party’s moderation. “We need a third party to save this country,” Herman Cain said in a radio appearance.

Failing to talk about foreign policy and Obamacare. “Those are major issues and Romney rarely mentioned them in the final days,” a Romney adviser said to National Review.

Failing to talk about abortion. “Mitt Romney … never highlighted this vulnerability,” complained Marjorie Dannenfelser of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List.

Relying on old people. “The Democrats do voter registration like a factory, like a business, and Republicans tend to leave it to the blue hairs,” said Henry Barbour, nephew of the former Mississippi governor, according to the Huffington Post’s Jon Ward.

After Republicans work through the blame, they can get down to the real reason for the loss, and it has nothing to do with Romney, his staff or the weather. Once Republicans can accept this — that their alienation of Latinos and women is shrinking the party into a coalition of white men concentrated in the South — they can begin to do something about it.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: _bruce_ on November 10, 2012, 11:58:52 AM
Would have loved to see him become President.
On the positive side getting this many votes with some of the stuff the reps uttered it's awesome that they got that many votes.
Obama is now a man on a mission - after the following 4 years he will be happy to hang it up.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: 240 is Back on November 10, 2012, 10:37:17 PM
Romney's still uber rich.    He just doesn't have to downplay it anymore.  Life is good for him.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on November 11, 2012, 08:14:08 PM
Mitt Romney never overcame bailout opposition in Ohio
By John Flesher

DETROIT — Only a couple of weeks after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, the man who would become his Republican challenger in the next election penned a New York Times column with a fateful headline: "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."

Those four words would haunt Mitt Romney across the Rust Belt, where auto manufacturing remains an economic pillar — especially in Ohio, a state that every successful GOP presidential nominee has carried, and in his home state of Michigan, where his father was an auto executive and governor.

Romney's opposition to the federal rescue of General Motors and Chrysler didn't necessarily seal his fate in those two crucial states. But no other issue hung in the background for so long. And nothing that Romney tried — his many visits, the millions spent on ads, his efforts to explain and refine his position — could overcome it.

"The biggest determining factor was that we couldn't handle the automobile bailout issue," said Bob Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party.

Fairly or not, the perception of Romney as indifferent to the auto industry's fate was "a coffin nail," said John Heitmann, a University of Dayton historian who teaches and writes about the car's place in American culture.

Ohio is second only to Michigan in auto-related employment. A 2010 report by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor said the industry accounted for more than 848,000 jobs in Ohio, or 12.4 percent of the workforce. That included jobs with vehicle manufacturers or dealers and with businesses that sell products or services to them, plus "spinoff" jobs produced by their economic activity.

Exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks found that about 60 percent of voters in both states supported the government's loan and industry restructuring program, and three-quarters of them backed Obama. The bailout also was popular in Wisconsin, even though it hadn't stopped GM and Chrysler from closing plants there.

"We have a debt to pay back to President Obama. He saved us," said Joseph Losier, 33, a fourth-generation autoworker from suburban Detroit. After the bailout, Chrysler hired 500 people at the stamping plant where he works.

Even those with no direct connection to the industry were grateful.

"He actually kept his promise. I felt like he cared," said Darlene Jackson, 57, of Detroit, who has worked as a seamstress since losing her city job during the recession.

Romney insisted he'd been misunderstood — he wanted to save U.S. auto manufacturing, not destroy it. In his newspaper column, he argued that federal loans would merely postpone the companies' demise: "You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."

He called for a "managed bankruptcy" that would let the companies cut labor costs and become more competitive. Proper roles for government would include supporting energy and technology research, adjusting tax policies and protecting car buyers' warranties, he said.

But those nuances got lost as the campaign geared up. Automakers' fortunes had improved, and as many as 1 million jobs had been saved. Obama said Romney's approach would never have worked because no private capital was available to keep the companies afloat.

After stumbling badly during the first debate, the president made the bailout an early topic during the second. He raised it again during the candidates' final encounter, which was supposed to be about foreign policy.

"If we had taken your advice ... about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China," Obama said.

A defensive Romney retorted: "I'm a son of Detroit. ... I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry."

But by then, the argument was a moot point for most Ohio voters. Nearly seven in 10 had made up their minds before September, the exit polls showed.

With time running out, Romney strategists gambled by airing television and radio ads in Ohio that claimed Obama's policies had led GM and Chrysler to build cars in China. The move backfired, drawing sharp rebukes from both companies.

"It was very misleading, to be kind. It really upset a lot of our people," said Dave Green, president of a United Auto Workers local representing about 1,500 workers at a plant in Lordstown.

Obama won Michigan by a comfortable margin but took Ohio with just over 50 percent of the vote. Despite his steadfast support of organized labor, many blue-collar autoworkers were torn because of disagreements with the president over issues such as guns and abortion, Losier said.

That's where the bailout may have tipped the scales. Union members who backed the president lobbied wavering co-workers, reminding them how dire their situation had been when Obama took office.

"There was a real belief that they were going to liquidate our facility," Green said. "People were walking around with clipboards taking inventory. It did not look good. The polls were all saying, 'Don't rescue the auto companies.' But he did it anyway."

In the end, Green said, the choice came down to a simple question: "Who are we going to vote for — the guy who was trying to push us down the river or the guy who was throwing us a life vest?"

The bailout was popular with independents and even some Republicans, and drew support for Obama outside the usual Democratic-leaning areas, said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.

Frank Hocker, a retiree who once worked at a truck manufacturing plant in Springfield, said he wasn't a single-issue voter. But when Obama "stuck his neck out and did the right thing with General Motors, you know, that satisfied me."


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on November 12, 2012, 08:38:00 AM
G.O.P. Strains to Define How to Close Gap With Voters
By KEVIN SACK and SARAH WHEATON

For four years, the leader most capable of unifying the fractious Republican Party has been Barack Obama.


Now the Republicans find their divisions newly revealed in the raw. By exposing the party’s vulnerability to potent demographic shifts, the 2012 results have set the stage for a struggle between those determined to rebrand the Republicans in a softer light and those yearning instead for ideological purity.

But before acceptance comes denial. And the party’s first challenge, it seems in the immediate aftermath, is to find common ground simply in diagnosing the problem. Though some leaders argued that basic mathematics dictates that the party must find new ways to talk about issues like immigration, abortion and same-sex marriage, others attributed Republican losses to poor candidate choice, messaging missteps and President Obama’s superior political operation.

“We continually crank out moderate loser after moderate loser,” said Joshua S. Treviño, a speechwriter in George W. Bush’s administration who now works for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative group. He said Mitt Romney was part of a “pattern” of Republican nominees, preceded by John McCain, Bob Dole and George H. W. Bush, who were rejected by voters because of “perceived inauthenticity.”

By contrast, Ralph Reed, the longtime Republican strategist and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said he would redouble efforts over the next four years to recruit women, Latinos and young people as grass-roots organizers.

“I certainly get the fact that your daddy’s Republican Party cannot win relying singularly on white voters and evangelicals alone — as critical as I believe those voters are to a majority coalition,” Mr. Reed said. “The good news for conservatives is there are many of those who have not always felt welcome in our ranks who share our values.”

The re-election of Mr. Obama, despite the flagging economy and ambivalence about his leadership, left questions that Republicans may sort out only over time, starting with the direction set by the party’s majority in the House and the run-up to the 2016 campaign.

Can the Republicans shore up their weaknesses purely with tonal changes on issues like abortion, immigration and same-sex marriage, along with a repackaging of conservative fiscal policy? Will it require real moderation on social and economic positions that the Tea Party movement and the conservative base consider inviolate?

Or is an embrace of unyielding conservatism required to rally an electorate that has grown cynical about candidates who shape-shift after the primaries?

The debate is already roiling, with early markers laid in postelection news conferences and on the Sunday talk shows. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Carlos Gutierrez, a Romney adviser and a commerce secretary under George W. Bush, blamed the loss “squarely on the far right wing of the Republican Party.”

Countered Gary L. Bauer, the socially conservative former presidential candidate, “America is not demanding a second liberal party.”

The Republican National Committee is undertaking a two-month series of polls, focus groups and outreach meetings about its message and mechanics, with added focus on Latino subgroups like Cubans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Introspection will also be on the agenda when the Republican Governors Association convenes on Wednesday for a three-day meeting in Las Vegas.

“The question really is how do we set the best tone in delivering our conservative message so that it becomes attractive to more people,” said Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, the association’s chairman. “Looking at how young voters and minority voters are voting, it’s an unsustainable trajectory.”

In addition to losing both the popular and electoral votes for president, the Republicans lost nearly every swing state. Although the race was far closer than in 2008, Mr. Romney won two million fewer votes than Mr. McCain did against Mr. Obama that year.

Democrats, once fearful of losing the Senate, gained one seat there and four in the House. They also added seats in state legislatures.

The Republicans’ only bright spot, other than maintaining the House majority, came in governors’ races. They picked up a long-elusive seat in North Carolina, bringing their total to 30, the most by either party in 12 years.

The longer-term concerns for Republicans were revealed in exit polling. While Mr. Romney won the votes of 59 percent of whites, 52 percent of men and 78 percent of white evangelicals, Mr. Obama claimed 55 percent of women, 60 percent of voters under 30, 93 percent of African-Americans and more than 70 percent of Latinos and Asians.

Although the president’s majority shrank nationally, he won a larger proportion of Latino and Asian votes than in 2008. Among Latinos, Mr. Romney’s share of the vote fell 17 percentage points below the 44 percent won by George W. Bush in 2004.

Perhaps most ominous, the Latino share of the total vote rose to 10 percent from 8 percent in 2004, and the Asian share rose to 3 percent from 2 percent. The electorate is now 28 percent nonwhite, more than double the figure from two decades ago. That growth is certain to continue; in 2011, births to nonwhites outnumbered births to whites for the first time.

“It’s stunning that Republicans won the white vote by 20 points and still lost,” said Alan I. Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University who writes about polarization. Unless Republicans reverse the trend, he said, the rising strength of Latinos could doom the party’s ability to map a winning electoral strategy. Colorado and Nevada could soon join California and New Mexico as noncompetitive states for Republicans in presidential elections, with Florida not far behind.

“And eventually Texas,” Dr. Abramowitz added. “Not 4 years or 8 years from now, but in 12 or 16 years Texas is going to become a swing state. And if Texas becomes a swing state, it’s all over.”

Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, noted that Mr. Romney did better than Mr. McCain among white voters, and won independents by 5 percentage points, all to no avail.

“It is patently obvious that unless Republicans do better among nonwhite voters, they will cease to be a viable national political party,” Mr. Ayres said. “Obviously, doing something on immigration-related issues, like the Dream Act, is a start. But we’re also going to have to address the fact that younger people tend to be less conservative on a number of hot-button social issues.”

The imperative to reach Latinos may put pressure on Congressional Republicans to compromise with Mr. Obama on a bill that provides illegal immigrants, or at least those who arrived in the United States as children, with a path to legal status. Senate leaders in both parties announced on Sunday that they were renewing negotiations to seek a deal.

But the Republicans will also have to overcome the tone set by Republican-led states that have enacted tough new measures aimed at catching illegal immigrants. Latinos will never vote Republican, said Mr. Treviño, the former Bush speechwriter, “if they think your political party just doesn’t want you as a neighbor.”

Republican officials said that meant aggressively recruiting Hispanic candidates like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator-elect Ted Cruz of Texas, both sons of Cuban immigrants. And they said it required stressing common values, like opportunity, social conservatism and support for small business.

“The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it,” Mr. Rubio said after the election, “and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them.”

Mr. Rubio will be a featured speaker on Saturday at a fund-raiser in Iowa being hosted by Terry E. Branstad, the state’s Republican governor.

Ryan R. Call, the state Republican chairman in Colorado, where Hispanics made up 14 percent of those who voted there last week, said the party had to find a way to stand firm on conservative principles while finding a “proactive response” on issues like immigration and gay rights.

“We can’t simply be the party of no,” he said.

But the party’s staunchest conservatives, including leaders of the Tea Party movement, are not ready to yield. Many, including House incumbents from safe districts and deep-pocketed financiers, hold outsize influence in the party.

The conservative strategist Richard A. Viguerie kicked off a news conference in Washington on Wednesday by declaring that “the battle to take over the Republican Party begins today.” He added, “Never again are we going to nominate a big-government, establishment Republican for president.”

Mike Huckabee, a former Republican presidential candidate and current Fox News host, said in an interview that shifts in the party’s approach to social issues would be difficult “because those are not political issues, they’re deeply held moral positions by the people who hold them.”

Similarly, Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, a fiercely antitax Republican, said in an interview that the election results gave him little incentive to compromise on fiscal principles, including in the coming negotiations with Democrats over deficit reduction.

“We’ve been offering solutions,” Mr. Toomey said, “and the people who voted for those solutions were re-elected.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: MCWAY on November 12, 2012, 11:58:04 AM
This goes back to what I said in my thread about the 2004 election and all the "soul-searching" the Dems were doing. If you'd told anyone that just two years after Bush got re-elected, the GOP would lose the House and Senate and Obama would be elected two years after that, people would have accused you of smoking crack.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 12, 2012, 10:29:06 PM
GOP’s Red America forced to rethink what it knows about the country
By Eli Saslow

HENDERSONVILLE, Tenn. — She arrived early to take apart the campaign office piece by piece, just as she felt so many other things about her life were being dismantled. Beth Cox wore a Mitt Romney T-shirt, a cross around her neck and fresh eyeliner, even though she had been crying on and off and knew her makeup was likely to run. A day after the election, she tuned the radio to Glenn Beck and began pulling posters and American flags off the wall.

Her calendar read “Victory Day!!” and she had planned to celebrate in the office by hosting a dance party and selling Romney souvenirs. But instead she was packing those souvenirs into boxes, which would be donated to a charity that sent clothes to South America. Instead a moving company was en route to close down the office in the next 48 hours, and her friends were calling every few minutes to see how she was doing.

“I will be okay,” she told one caller. “I just don’t think we will be okay.”

Here in the heart of Red America, Cox and many others spent last week grieving not only for themselves and their candidate but also for a country they now believe has gone wildly off track. The days after Barack Obama’s reelection gave birth to a saying in Central Tennessee: Once was a slip, but twice is a sign.

If, as Obama likes to say, the country has decided to “move forward,” it has also decided to move further away from the values and beliefs of a state where Romney won 60 percent of the vote, a county where he won 70 percent, and a town where he won nearly 80.

Among so many Romney voters, perhaps none had been as devoted to the cause — as indefatigable, as confident, as prayerful — as 44-year-old Beth Cox, a member of the school board and a volunteer who had committed to Romney early in the Republican primaries. She had run the small GOP campaign headquarters in Sumner County by herself for six days a week during the last four months. She had been the first in line to vote on the first day of early voting.

Now it was left to her to clean up the aftermath. She stood next to a space heater in a small building in the exurbs of Nashville, taking inventory of what supplies they had left and packing up boxes of red-white-and-blue streamers. She put away the pink Romney shirts, the white Romney-Ryan hats and the GOP bumper stickers with the Tennessee logo. Down came the sign that read: “We Built It!” Down came the elephant flag and the George W. Bush commemorative emblem. Down came the signed picture of Romney, with a typed inscription that read: “This is a great time to be a Republican.”

But now Cox was wondering: Was it?

She had devoted her life to causes she believed were at the heart of her faith and at the core of her Republican Party. She counseled young married families at church, spoke about right to life in area schools and became a stay-at-home mom with two daughters.

Now, in a single election night, parts of her country had legalized marijuana, approved gay marriage and resoundingly reelected a president who she worried would “accelerate our decline.”

While she took apart the office, a dozen friends and neighbors stopped by to share the same concerns.

“I just don’t get it,” the county sheriff said.

“I’m worried we won’t see another Republican president in our lifetime the way it’s going,” a GOP volunteer said.

“What country would want more years of this?” asked the newly elected alderman.

Cox shrugged back at them. “I don’t know anymore,” she said. “What the heck happened to the country? Who are we becoming?”

****

She turned on her computer and pulled up an electoral map that she had filled out a few days before the election. She had predicted the outcome twice — once coming up with a narrow Romney win and once more with a blowout.

Florida: red.

Colorado: red.

Virginia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin: all red.

Everything in her version of America had confirmed her predictions: the confident anchors on Fox News; the Republican pollsters so sure of their data; the two-hour line outside her voting precinct, where Romney supporters hugged and honked for her handmade signs during a celebration that lasted until the results started coming in after sundown. Romney’s thorough defeat had come more as a shock than as a disappointment, and now Cox stared at the actual results on her computer and tried to imagine what the majority of her country believed.

“Virginia went blue? Really?” she said. “Southern-values Virginia?”

“And Colorado? Who the heck is living in Colorado? Do they want drugs, dependency, indulgence? Don’t they remember what this country is about?”

It was a country that she had thought she knew. As a kid, she had seen it from the back of a station wagon, traveling to 40 states in a blur of peanut butter crackers and Holiday Inns with a mother who taught U.S. history.

“I am not naïve. I’m not ignorant,” Cox said. She had graduated from the University of Kentucky and lived for a few years in California before moving to raise her family in Tennessee. But suddenly the map on her computer depicted a divided country she could barely recognize.

She blamed some of the divisiveness on Republicans. The party had gotten “way too white,” she said, and she hoped it would never again run a presidential ticket without including a woman or a minority. The tea party was an extremist movement that needed to be “neutralized,” she said, and Romney’s campaign had suffered irreparable damage when high-profile Republicans spoke about “crazy immigration talk and legitimate rape.”

But many other aspects of the division seemed fundamental and harder to solve. There was the America of increased secularism that legalized marijuana. And there was her America, where her two teenage daughters are not allowed to read “Harry Potter” or “Twilight,” and where one of them wrote in a school paper: “God is the center and the main foundation of my family.”

There was the America of gay marriage and the America of her Southern Baptist church, where 7,000 came to listen on Sundays, and where church literature described marriage as “the uniting of one man and one woman.”

There was the America of Obama and her America in Tennessee, where last week Republicans had won 95 percent of local races and secured a supermajority in the state legislature.

She could sense liberalism creeping closer, and she worried about what Red America would look like after four more years. Nashville itself had gone for Obama, and 400,000 more people in Tennessee had signed up for food stamps in the last five years to further a culture of dependency. The ACLU had sued her school board for allowing youth pastors to visit middle school cafeterias during lunch. Some of her friends had begun to wonder if the country was lost, and if only God could save it.


She closed her computer.

“God put us in the desert,” she said. “We are in the desert right now.”

****

Later that night, she left her two-story house in the suburbs and headed to a church a mile outside of town. It was her place of comfort — the place where she always found an answer. She drove onto the church’s sprawling campus, past the children’s center, the volleyball courts and techno-lit recreation room for teenagers and parked in front of a small building. Then she walked up to the second floor to lead her weekly prayer group of 25 women.

It was a demographic that, in so many other places, would have voted for Obama: white women, college-educated and in their early-to-mid-20s, most of them upper-middle class. But here they had almost all voted for Romney, and they consoled each other as they entered the room. Cox joined them in the circle and bent her head in prayer.

“Yes, Lord,” she said. “We are saying yes to honoring you, but no to the junk of this world, to the wickedness, the self-gratification, the path that we are just saddened by. We choose your path, Lord.”

It was a path that had worked for her, providing strength and stability during her parents’ rocky divorce, and then helping her transform from a stubbornly independent woman — the “feminist, I-am-woman, hear-me-roar type,” she said — into a mother and a wife who respected what she called the “natural order of the household.” She had two beautiful daughters who earned A’s and a husband who took time off from his job as a pastor for annual family “playcations” to museums and amusement parks. Local Republicans were encouraging her to run for state office, but she didn’t want to give up her volunteering, her scrapbooking, her weekend getaways with her daughters — her “Godly life,” she said.

It was the same life she wanted for the women in this room — newly married, new to motherhood and beginning to sort out priorities of their own.

“The world will tell you to be so many things,” she advised them, and on this night she talked to them about the importance of preserving life, the sanctity of marriage, the advantages of raising children at home and the importance of “relying on family, and on your core values, and not on the government.”

“It’s not an easy road to be a Christian, and if it was, everybody would be on it,” she said. She passed out blank white note cards and asked each woman to write down a worry to surrender to God. Then, before closing, she asked what they wanted to pray for.

“Our president,” said one, and the women in the group nodded.

“Our values,” said another.

“All people in our country who are lost.”

“The soul of America.”

“Amen,” Cox said.

****

She came back into the Romney office again the next morning. The moving truck was waiting outside.

“It’s so depressing,” she said, walking into the office. “Let’s just get it done.”

They threw out yard signs, hauled office supplies into storage and donated some furniture to Goodwill. Cox swept the floor and then came outside to watch the mover climb on top of his trailer to take down the “Sumner County Republican Party” banner that had hung on the front of the building. Four months of dedication and work — the sale of 1,600 signs, 500 bracelets, 1,200 buttons and a few hundred hats — reduced to nothing in 48 hours.

She stood in the cold and stared at the two-story building. It had belonged to a doctor’s practice that had closed, and then to a newspaper that had downsized, and finally to a campaign that had failed to win office based on its vision of America.

She took out her phone and snapped a picture.

“So that’s it,” she said. “It’s all gone.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 12, 2012, 10:32:56 PM
This goes back to what I said in my thread about the 2004 election and all the "soul-searching" the Dems were doing. If you'd told anyone that just two years after Bush got re-elected, the GOP would lose the House and Senate and Obama would be elected two years after that, people would have accused you of smoking crack.

okay..granted...but the Dem reaction was not to destroy each other in debates, lie lie lie, and themn go to its extreme wing of the party like the GOP has done....the GOP is waging a war against all its moderates...it will soon be a political party like the green party if it keeps it up.....

Herman Cain has already comeout in favor of starting a third party..(again)...if that happens, the GOP is doomedforever since third parties hurt the GOP more than the Dems


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 12, 2012, 11:04:19 PM
Herman Cain has already comeout in favor of starting a third party..(again)...if that happens, the GOP is doomedforever since third parties hurt the GOP more than the Dems

normally I agree....  BUT... Dems would have LOVED to have an option in 2012 that wasn't shitty ass obama.

howver, their options were the self-described severe conservative Mtt, or obama.

I think huntsmann would have grabbed a lot of dem votes.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 12, 2012, 11:24:15 PM
normally I agree....  BUT... Dems would have LOVED to have an option in 2012 that wasn't shitty ass obama.

howver, their options were the self-described severe conservative Mtt, or obama.

I think huntsmann would have grabbed a lot of dem votes.

what was so shitty about Obama exactly???


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 12, 2012, 11:38:16 PM
what was so shitty about Obama exactly???

michelle wore this china red dress.    And he looked really silly on the bike.   Need I continue?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 24KT on November 13, 2012, 06:45:45 AM
GOP’s Red America forced to rethink what it knows about the country
By Eli Saslow

HENDERSONVILLE, Tenn. — She arrived early to take apart the campaign office piece by piece, just as she felt so many other things about her life were being dismantled. Beth Cox wore a Mitt Romney T-shirt, a cross around her neck and fresh eyeliner, even though she had been crying on and off and knew her makeup was likely to run. A day after the election, she tuned the radio to Glenn Beck and began pulling posters and American flags off the wall.

Her calendar read “Victory Day!!” and she had planned to celebrate in the office by hosting a dance party and selling Romney souvenirs. But instead she was packing those souvenirs into boxes, which would be donated to a charity that sent clothes to South America. Instead a moving company was en route to close down the office in the next 48 hours, and her friends were calling every few minutes to see how she was doing.

“I will be okay,” she told one caller. “I just don’t think we will be okay.”

Here in the heart of Red America, Cox and many others spent last week grieving not only for themselves and their candidate but also for a country they now believe has gone wildly off track. The days after Barack Obama’s reelection gave birth to a saying in Central Tennessee: Once was a slip, but twice is a sign.

If, as Obama likes to say, the country has decided to “move forward,” it has also decided to move further away from the values and beliefs of a state where Romney won 60 percent of the vote, a county where he won 70 percent, and a town where he won nearly 80.

Among so many Romney voters, perhaps none had been as devoted to the cause — as indefatigable, as confident, as prayerful — as 44-year-old Beth Cox, a member of the school board and a volunteer who had committed to Romney early in the Republican primaries. She had run the small GOP campaign headquarters in Sumner County by herself for six days a week during the last four months. She had been the first in line to vote on the first day of early voting.

Now it was left to her to clean up the aftermath. She stood next to a space heater in a small building in the exurbs of Nashville, taking inventory of what supplies they had left and packing up boxes of red-white-and-blue streamers. She put away the pink Romney shirts, the white Romney-Ryan hats and the GOP bumper stickers with the Tennessee logo. Down came the sign that read: “We Built It!” Down came the elephant flag and the George W. Bush commemorative emblem. Down came the signed picture of Romney, with a typed inscription that read: “This is a great time to be a Republican.”

But now Cox was wondering: Was it?

She had devoted her life to causes she believed were at the heart of her faith and at the core of her Republican Party. She counseled young married families at church, spoke about right to life in area schools and became a stay-at-home mom with two daughters.

Now, in a single election night, parts of her country had legalized marijuana, approved gay marriage and resoundingly reelected a president who she worried would “accelerate our decline.”

While she took apart the office, a dozen friends and neighbors stopped by to share the same concerns.

“I just don’t get it,” the county sheriff said.

“I’m worried we won’t see another Republican president in our lifetime the way it’s going,” a GOP volunteer said.

“What country would want more years of this?” asked the newly elected alderman.

Cox shrugged back at them. “I don’t know anymore,” she said. “What the heck happened to the country? Who are we becoming?”

****

She turned on her computer and pulled up an electoral map that she had filled out a few days before the election. She had predicted the outcome twice — once coming up with a narrow Romney win and once more with a blowout.

Florida: red.

Colorado: red.

Virginia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin: all red.

Everything in her version of America had confirmed her predictions: the confident anchors on Fox News; the Republican pollsters so sure of their data; the two-hour line outside her voting precinct, where Romney supporters hugged and honked for her handmade signs during a celebration that lasted until the results started coming in after sundown. Romney’s thorough defeat had come more as a shock than as a disappointment, and now Cox stared at the actual results on her computer and tried to imagine what the majority of her country believed.

“Virginia went blue? Really?” she said. “Southern-values Virginia?”

“And Colorado? Who the heck is living in Colorado? Do they want drugs, dependency, indulgence? Don’t they remember what this country is about?”

It was a country that she had thought she knew. As a kid, she had seen it from the back of a station wagon, traveling to 40 states in a blur of peanut butter crackers and Holiday Inns with a mother who taught U.S. history.

“I am not naïve. I’m not ignorant,” Cox said. She had graduated from the University of Kentucky and lived for a few years in California before moving to raise her family in Tennessee. But suddenly the map on her computer depicted a divided country she could barely recognize.

She blamed some of the divisiveness on Republicans. The party had gotten “way too white,” she said, and she hoped it would never again run a presidential ticket without including a woman or a minority. The tea party was an extremist movement that needed to be “neutralized,” she said, and Romney’s campaign had suffered irreparable damage when high-profile Republicans spoke about “crazy immigration talk and legitimate rape.”

But many other aspects of the division seemed fundamental and harder to solve. There was the America of increased secularism that legalized marijuana. And there was her America, where her two teenage daughters are not allowed to read “Harry Potter” or “Twilight,” and where one of them wrote in a school paper: “God is the center and the main foundation of my family.”

There was the America of gay marriage and the America of her Southern Baptist church, where 7,000 came to listen on Sundays, and where church literature described marriage as “the uniting of one man and one woman.”

There was the America of Obama and her America in Tennessee, where last week Republicans had won 95 percent of local races and secured a supermajority in the state legislature.

She could sense liberalism creeping closer, and she worried about what Red America would look like after four more years. Nashville itself had gone for Obama, and 400,000 more people in Tennessee had signed up for food stamps in the last five years to further a culture of dependency. The ACLU had sued her school board for allowing youth pastors to visit middle school cafeterias during lunch. Some of her friends had begun to wonder if the country was lost, and if only God could save it.


She closed her computer.

“God put us in the desert,” she said. “We are in the desert right now.”

****

Later that night, she left her two-story house in the suburbs and headed to a church a mile outside of town. It was her place of comfort — the place where she always found an answer. She drove onto the church’s sprawling campus, past the children’s center, the volleyball courts and techno-lit recreation room for teenagers and parked in front of a small building. Then she walked up to the second floor to lead her weekly prayer group of 25 women.

It was a demographic that, in so many other places, would have voted for Obama: white women, college-educated and in their early-to-mid-20s, most of them upper-middle class. But here they had almost all voted for Romney, and they consoled each other as they entered the room. Cox joined them in the circle and bent her head in prayer.

“Yes, Lord,” she said. “We are saying yes to honoring you, but no to the junk of this world, to the wickedness, the self-gratification, the path that we are just saddened by. We choose your path, Lord.”

It was a path that had worked for her, providing strength and stability during her parents’ rocky divorce, and then helping her transform from a stubbornly independent woman — the “feminist, I-am-woman, hear-me-roar type,” she said — into a mother and a wife who respected what she called the “natural order of the household.” She had two beautiful daughters who earned A’s and a husband who took time off from his job as a pastor for annual family “playcations” to museums and amusement parks. Local Republicans were encouraging her to run for state office, but she didn’t want to give up her volunteering, her scrapbooking, her weekend getaways with her daughters — her “Godly life,” she said.

It was the same life she wanted for the women in this room — newly married, new to motherhood and beginning to sort out priorities of their own.

“The world will tell you to be so many things,” she advised them, and on this night she talked to them about the importance of preserving life, the sanctity of marriage, the advantages of raising children at home and the importance of “relying on family, and on your core values, and not on the government.”

“It’s not an easy road to be a Christian, and if it was, everybody would be on it,” she said. She passed out blank white note cards and asked each woman to write down a worry to surrender to God. Then, before closing, she asked what they wanted to pray for.

“Our president,” said one, and the women in the group nodded.

“Our values,” said another.

“All people in our country who are lost.”

“The soul of America.”

“Amen,” Cox said.

****

She came back into the Romney office again the next morning. The moving truck was waiting outside.

“It’s so depressing,” she said, walking into the office. “Let’s just get it done.”

They threw out yard signs, hauled office supplies into storage and donated some furniture to Goodwill. Cox swept the floor and then came outside to watch the mover climb on top of his trailer to take down the “Sumner County Republican Party” banner that had hung on the front of the building. Four months of dedication and work — the sale of 1,600 signs, 500 bracelets, 1,200 buttons and a few hundred hats — reduced to nothing in 48 hours.

She stood in the cold and stared at the two-story building. It had belonged to a doctor’s practice that had closed, and then to a newspaper that had downsized, and finally to a campaign that had failed to win office based on its vision of America.

She took out her phone and snapped a picture.

“So that’s it,” she said. “It’s all gone.”



Everything about the GOP's position can be summed up in those 5 little words.

They just don't get it.  Bunch of whackjobs.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on November 13, 2012, 06:51:17 AM
GOP’s Red America forced to rethink what it knows about the country
By Eli Saslow

HENDERSONVILLE, Tenn. — She arrived early to take apart the campaign office piece by piece, just as she felt so many other things about her life were being dismantled. Beth Cox wore a Mitt Romney T-shirt, a cross around her neck and fresh eyeliner, even though she had been crying on and off and knew her makeup was likely to run. A day after the election, she tuned the radio to Glenn Beck and began pulling posters and American flags off the wall.

Her calendar read “Victory Day!!” and she had planned to celebrate in the office by hosting a dance party and selling Romney souvenirs. But instead she was packing those souvenirs into boxes, which would be donated to a charity that sent clothes to South America. Instead a moving company was en route to close down the office in the next 48 hours, and her friends were calling every few minutes to see how she was doing.

“I will be okay,” she told one caller. “I just don’t think we will be okay.”

Here in the heart of Red America, Cox and many others spent last week grieving not only for themselves and their candidate but also for a country they now believe has gone wildly off track. The days after Barack Obama’s reelection gave birth to a saying in Central Tennessee: Once was a slip, but twice is a sign.

If, as Obama likes to say, the country has decided to “move forward,” it has also decided to move further away from the values and beliefs of a state where Romney won 60 percent of the vote, a county where he won 70 percent, and a town where he won nearly 80.

Among so many Romney voters, perhaps none had been as devoted to the cause — as indefatigable, as confident, as prayerful — as 44-year-old Beth Cox, a member of the school board and a volunteer who had committed to Romney early in the Republican primaries. She had run the small GOP campaign headquarters in Sumner County by herself for six days a week during the last four months. She had been the first in line to vote on the first day of early voting.

Now it was left to her to clean up the aftermath. She stood next to a space heater in a small building in the exurbs of Nashville, taking inventory of what supplies they had left and packing up boxes of red-white-and-blue streamers. She put away the pink Romney shirts, the white Romney-Ryan hats and the GOP bumper stickers with the Tennessee logo. Down came the sign that read: “We Built It!” Down came the elephant flag and the George W. Bush commemorative emblem. Down came the signed picture of Romney, with a typed inscription that read: “This is a great time to be a Republican.”

But now Cox was wondering: Was it?

She had devoted her life to causes she believed were at the heart of her faith and at the core of her Republican Party. She counseled young married families at church, spoke about right to life in area schools and became a stay-at-home mom with two daughters.

Now, in a single election night, parts of her country had legalized marijuana, approved gay marriage and resoundingly reelected a president who she worried would “accelerate our decline.”

While she took apart the office, a dozen friends and neighbors stopped by to share the same concerns.

“I just don’t get it,” the county sheriff said.

“I’m worried we won’t see another Republican president in our lifetime the way it’s going,” a GOP volunteer said.

“What country would want more years of this?” asked the newly elected alderman.

Cox shrugged back at them. “I don’t know anymore,” she said. “What the heck happened to the country? Who are we becoming?”

****

She turned on her computer and pulled up an electoral map that she had filled out a few days before the election. She had predicted the outcome twice — once coming up with a narrow Romney win and once more with a blowout.

Florida: red.

Colorado: red.

Virginia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin: all red.

Everything in her version of America had confirmed her predictions: the confident anchors on Fox News; the Republican pollsters so sure of their data; the two-hour line outside her voting precinct, where Romney supporters hugged and honked for her handmade signs during a celebration that lasted until the results started coming in after sundown. Romney’s thorough defeat had come more as a shock than as a disappointment, and now Cox stared at the actual results on her computer and tried to imagine what the majority of her country believed.

“Virginia went blue? Really?” she said. “Southern-values Virginia?”

“And Colorado? Who the heck is living in Colorado? Do they want drugs, dependency, indulgence? Don’t they remember what this country is about?”

It was a country that she had thought she knew. As a kid, she had seen it from the back of a station wagon, traveling to 40 states in a blur of peanut butter crackers and Holiday Inns with a mother who taught U.S. history.

“I am not naïve. I’m not ignorant,” Cox said. She had graduated from the University of Kentucky and lived for a few years in California before moving to raise her family in Tennessee. But suddenly the map on her computer depicted a divided country she could barely recognize.

She blamed some of the divisiveness on Republicans. The party had gotten “way too white,” she said, and she hoped it would never again run a presidential ticket without including a woman or a minority. The tea party was an extremist movement that needed to be “neutralized,” she said, and Romney’s campaign had suffered irreparable damage when high-profile Republicans spoke about “crazy immigration talk and legitimate rape.”

But many other aspects of the division seemed fundamental and harder to solve. There was the America of increased secularism that legalized marijuana. And there was her America, where her two teenage daughters are not allowed to read “Harry Potter” or “Twilight,” and where one of them wrote in a school paper: “God is the center and the main foundation of my family.”

There was the America of gay marriage and the America of her Southern Baptist church, where 7,000 came to listen on Sundays, and where church literature described marriage as “the uniting of one man and one woman.”

There was the America of Obama and her America in Tennessee, where last week Republicans had won 95 percent of local races and secured a supermajority in the state legislature.

She could sense liberalism creeping closer, and she worried about what Red America would look like after four more years. Nashville itself had gone for Obama, and 400,000 more people in Tennessee had signed up for food stamps in the last five years to further a culture of dependency. The ACLU had sued her school board for allowing youth pastors to visit middle school cafeterias during lunch. Some of her friends had begun to wonder if the country was lost, and if only God could save it.


She closed her computer.

“God put us in the desert,” she said. “We are in the desert right now.”

****

Later that night, she left her two-story house in the suburbs and headed to a church a mile outside of town. It was her place of comfort — the place where she always found an answer. She drove onto the church’s sprawling campus, past the children’s center, the volleyball courts and techno-lit recreation room for teenagers and parked in front of a small building. Then she walked up to the second floor to lead her weekly prayer group of 25 women.

It was a demographic that, in so many other places, would have voted for Obama: white women, college-educated and in their early-to-mid-20s, most of them upper-middle class. But here they had almost all voted for Romney, and they consoled each other as they entered the room. Cox joined them in the circle and bent her head in prayer.

“Yes, Lord,” she said. “We are saying yes to honoring you, but no to the junk of this world, to the wickedness, the self-gratification, the path that we are just saddened by. We choose your path, Lord.”

It was a path that had worked for her, providing strength and stability during her parents’ rocky divorce, and then helping her transform from a stubbornly independent woman — the “feminist, I-am-woman, hear-me-roar type,” she said — into a mother and a wife who respected what she called the “natural order of the household.” She had two beautiful daughters who earned A’s and a husband who took time off from his job as a pastor for annual family “playcations” to museums and amusement parks. Local Republicans were encouraging her to run for state office, but she didn’t want to give up her volunteering, her scrapbooking, her weekend getaways with her daughters — her “Godly life,” she said.

It was the same life she wanted for the women in this room — newly married, new to motherhood and beginning to sort out priorities of their own.

“The world will tell you to be so many things,” she advised them, and on this night she talked to them about the importance of preserving life, the sanctity of marriage, the advantages of raising children at home and the importance of “relying on family, and on your core values, and not on the government.”

“It’s not an easy road to be a Christian, and if it was, everybody would be on it,” she said. She passed out blank white note cards and asked each woman to write down a worry to surrender to God. Then, before closing, she asked what they wanted to pray for.

“Our president,” said one, and the women in the group nodded.

“Our values,” said another.

“All people in our country who are lost.”

“The soul of America.”

“Amen,” Cox said.

****

She came back into the Romney office again the next morning. The moving truck was waiting outside.

“It’s so depressing,” she said, walking into the office. “Let’s just get it done.”

They threw out yard signs, hauled office supplies into storage and donated some furniture to Goodwill. Cox swept the floor and then came outside to watch the mover climb on top of his trailer to take down the “Sumner County Republican Party” banner that had hung on the front of the building. Four months of dedication and work — the sale of 1,600 signs, 500 bracelets, 1,200 buttons and a few hundred hats — reduced to nothing in 48 hours.

She stood in the cold and stared at the two-story building. It had belonged to a doctor’s practice that had closed, and then to a newspaper that had downsized, and finally to a campaign that had failed to win office based on its vision of America.

She took out her phone and snapped a picture.

“So that’s it,” she said. “It’s all gone.”


What a stupid uninformed bitch


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: WOOO on November 13, 2012, 07:17:53 AM
seems simple enough to me...

Mitt's god wanted Obama to win...

what other explanation can there me for Mitt and his devotees?

fool...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 13, 2012, 01:18:54 PM
Electoral Votes  270 needed to win.

Obama  vs.   Romney
  332              206

Thanks for playing.  Bye.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 13, 2012, 01:22:06 PM
seems simple enough to me...

Mitt's god wanted Obama to win...

what other explanation can there me for Mitt and his devotees?

fool...

Mitts Gods know that after death Mitt will have to spend eternity running his own planet

maybe he just didn't want him to be too tired


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 13, 2012, 01:54:09 PM
How the Republican party can rebuild — in 4 not-so-easy steps
by Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake

One week ago, the voting public roundly rejected Republicans at the presidential and Senate level and, while the party kept control of the House, it did so while winning fewer overall votes than Democrats.

Most GOP strategists and politicians acknowledge that the 2012 election amounted to a moment of reckoning for the party — a time when Republicans finally came face to face with the demographic realities and base problems that badly jeopardize its future as a national majority party.

(There are some who argue that, had a few hundred thousand votes in Virginia, Florida and Ohio switched sides, then Mitt Romney would have been president and the talk of the necessity of overhauling the Republican brand would be nonexistent. Maybe. But that’s like saying that if the Washington Nationals had held on to their six-run lead over the St. Louis Cardinals they might have been World Series champs. They didn’t, and they aren’t.)

Less clear is what the party needs to do in order to reverse a slide — particularly at the presidential level — that has been in progress since the 2006 midterm elections. We put the question of how the party begins to rebuild to a handful of smart GOP operatives and aggregated their four best thoughts below.

One other point before we get to it: Several strategists pointed to the Republican Governors Association annual meeting later this week in Las Vegas as the semi-official kickoff of that rebranding. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — two of the party’s brighter stars – will be chosen as co-chairs of the RGA at that meeting.

And away we go! Here’s how to begin the reconstruction of the Republican party in four not-so-easy steps.

1. Stop running against things and start running for things: “We have entirely defined ourselves over the last several years as the ‘not Obama’ party,” said Todd Harris, a veteran Republican consultant. “At the same time, few GOP candidates have given people any positive rationale to vote Republican, beyond that we’re against Obama.”

The 2010 midterm election — seen through Harris’s lens — proved to be a bit of fool’s gold for Republicans. After the whitewash election of 2006 and 2008, Republicans were on the verge of this reckoning in early 2009. But Obama’s decision to push the economic stimulus, followed by the health care law, united Republicans around a common enemy. And the gains they made in 2010 affirmed that strategy for some of them.

Running simply as the “other guy” in a midterm election is very different than running to oust an incumbent in a presidential year, however. Voters expect some sort of positive vision from a party in a presidential year. They didn’t get it in 2012 from Mitt Romney or the Republican Party more generally.

“We need to rethink our public policy,” said one veteran GOP consultant granted anonymity to offer his candid assessment of the state of the party. “It seems that no matter what the problem is, the solution is a tax cut. That ain’t gonna cut it on many issues.”

2. Find a way into the Hispanic community: Perhaps the most daunting demographic data point coming out of the 2012 election was that Romney lost Hispanic voters nationwide by 44(!) points. Given the rapid growth of the Latino population — and the relative youth of that community — there are increasingly few paths to the presidency for Republicans unless they can reverse the party’s downward spiral among Hispanics. (John McCain got 30 percent of the Latino vote in 2008, while George W. Bush won 44 percent in 2004 — though some have suggested the latter number skewed high.)

“We have to stop closing the door on Hispanic voters,” said Republican pollster Glen Bolger. “Without them, we can’t win another national election.”  Harris pointed out that 50,000 Hispanic teenagers turn 18 (voting age) every month; “That means that every two months there are enough potential new Hispanic voters to make up Romney’s losing margin in Ohio,” he added.

What Republicans can do — from a policy perspective — to convince Hispanics that they are on their side is a bit murkier, although every Republican strategist we talked to insisted that the party needs to cut a deal on immigration reform — a move that would allow a values conversation to happen. And that’s a conversation GOPers believe they can win.

3. Innovate on voter contact: The 2012 election proved that the Obama campaign’s neighbor-to-neighbor grassroots targeting and mobilization approach was vastly superior to the more traditional GOP turnout operation, which relies heavily on a series of automated phone calls to voters. (The failure of the Romney campaign’s ORCA program simply highlighted the huge gap between Democrats and Republicans in terms of ground operation.)

“How do you spend a billion [dollars] and get less voters to the poll than 2008,” asked Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan Republican party chairman and one-time candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee. Added Steven Law, head of American Crossroads, a leading conservative outside organization: “The Obama campaign has lengthened the Democrats’ lead over Republicans on modern list-building, connecting voter list development to social media engagement and online fundraising in powerful new ways.”

4. Vet and select candidates in a more rigorous manner: The last two elections at the Senate level have exposed the problem with nominating the wrong person.  In Nevada, Delaware and Colorado in 2010 and Indiana and Missouri in 2012, Senate Republicans got the least electable general election candidate out of the primary process and watched as five very winnable races were lost.

“We need to allow the party to do everything it can to stop sure losers from winning primaries,” said Bolger. Law echoed that sentiment: “The one consistent refrain I’m hearing is the need to dramatically improve candidate quality, especially in the Senate.  Republicans have an almost insurmountable hill to climb to retake the Senate in 2014, but they won’t even get close unless we do a much better job of recruiting, vetting and selecting candidates.”

That is, of course, easier said than done. In 2010, the National Republican Senatorial Committee tried to get involved in primaries for what who it believed to be the most electable candidates (Charlie Crist in Florida, Mike Castle in Delaware) only to see their support trigger a revolt in the conservative base. In 2012, the NRSC took a hands off approach — and that didn’t work either.

It remains to be seen whether the party establishment retains anything in its campaign toolkit that allows it to pick its preferred candidate and push them to victory.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 15, 2012, 01:34:33 PM
Republicans to Mitt Romney: Exit stage left
Posted by Chris Cillizza

Republicans don’t want Mitt Romney to go away mad but they do, it seems, want him to go away.

That sentiment was in full bloom following Romney’s first post-election comments — made on a phone call with donors earlier this week. On the call, Romney attributed his loss to the “gifts” President Obama’s campaign doled out to young people and minorities. For many, the comments had an eerie echo of the secretly taped “47 percent” remarks Romney made at a May fundraiser.

“There is no Romney wing in the party that he needs to address,” said Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist. “He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn.”

Added Chris LaCivita, a senior party operative: “The comment just reinforced a perception —  fairly or not – that Romney, and by default, the GOP are the party of the ‘exclusives’. It’s time for us to move on and focus on the future leaders within the GOP.”

Speaking of those future leaders, several of the candidates talked about as 2016 presidential possibilities quickly condemned Romney’s comments as well.

“We have got to stop dividing American voters,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. “I absolutely reject that notion, that description … We’re fighting for 100 percent of the vote.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker added that the Republican party isn’t “just for people who are currently not dependent on the government.”

The strong intraparty reaction — just nine days after Romney lost the presidential race — speaks to the desire within the professional political ranks of the Republican party to move on as quickly as possible from an election that badly exposed their weaknesses.

The prevailing opinion among that group is that there is much work to be done and that Romney will have a hand in almost none of it. Put more simply: Thanks for playing. Now go away.

Romney, of course, likely doesn’t share that opinion — still reeling from an election that he quite clearly expected to win but, well, didn’t. (And didn’t even really come close to winning.)

What Romney seems most interested in doing at this point is rehashing why he didn’t win — with an emphasis (at least in his comments to donors) on what was wrong with voters, not what was wrong with his campaign.

That MO, while understandable for someone who has spent the last six-plus years of his life running for president, is tremendously problematic for a party that needs to get away from the stereotype that it is of, by and for white, affluent men even at a time of growing diversity in the country and the electorate.

“The recent comments about what happened in the election are 100 percent wrong,” said Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “The 47 percent comments represent both a fundamental misunderstanding of the country, they offer a constricted vision of the Republican party and the potency of a big tent conservative message."

Former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis was even more blunt: “It shows a huge misreading of the electoral landscape. A rather elitist misread. Where does he think his votes came from in rural America?”

Also worth noting: The White House was quick to jump on Romney’s remarks. “That view of the American people of the electorate and of the election is at odds with the truth of what happened last week,” Carney said Thursday morning.

Here’s the two-pronged problem for Republicans at the moment: 1) Romney has no motivation to toe the party line now, and refrain from making such comments, given that he will never again be a candidate, and 2) even if Romney quietly steps aside now, the party is left without any sort of elder statesman to help broker future policy and political fights.

To the latter point: While Democrats have Bill Clinton as their triager-in-chief, using his gravitas to help extend and articulate the Democratic brand, George W. Bush seems perfectly content to spend the rest of his days outside of the public spotlight in Texas. And, while John McCain remains an active force in the Senate, he was never someone that Republicans truly saw as one of their own. Now, in Republicans’ best case scenario, Romney is headed to that same path of obscurity.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2012, 01:41:05 PM
Jindal was attacking Romney for those statements as well.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2012, 02:02:09 PM
Jindal was attacking Romney for those statements as well.

Romney needs toadress the failure of "Beached Whale"  aka ORCA


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: magikusar on November 15, 2012, 02:11:56 PM
I guess mitt will have to sadly sit around with his 1bilion net worth,
poor fella



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Necrosis on November 15, 2012, 02:40:21 PM
You guys are hilarious, you buy into the shit about romney argue for him till your blue in the face then buy into the bullshit against him once it's convenient. You are a group of fucking retards, Fox has admitted liars, false polls and had anchors magically switch positions after the election. It is a reflection of the idiots they pander to.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on November 15, 2012, 03:55:22 PM
You guys are hilarious, you buy into the shit about romney argue for him till your blue in the face then buy into the bullshit against him once it's convenient. You are a group of fucking retards, Fox has admitted liars, false polls and had anchors magically switch positions after the election. It is a reflection of the idiots they pander to.

+1


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on November 15, 2012, 04:17:28 PM
So since Mitt lost... he is going to take his grand plan of getting 12 million people jobs back home with him huh?  Not need to share a big secret like that?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 15, 2012, 04:37:37 PM
Romney Blames Loss on Obama’s ‘Gifts’ to Minorities and Young Voters
By ASHLEY PARKER

Saying that he and his team still felt “troubled” by his loss to President Obama, Mitt Romney on Wednesday attributed his defeat in part to what he called big policy “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies, including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.

In a conference call with fund-raisers and donors to his campaign, Mr. Romney said Wednesday afternoon that the president had followed the “old playbook” of using targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said, contrasting Mr. Obama’s strategy to his own of “talking about big issues for the whole country: military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.”

Mr. Romney’s comments in the 20-minute conference call came after his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, told WISC-TV in Madison on Monday that their loss was a result of Mr. Obama’s strength in “urban areas,” an analysis that did not account for Mr. Obama’s victories in more rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire or the decrease in the number of votes for the president relative to 2008 in critical urban counties in Ohio.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

The president’s health care plan, he said, was also a useful tool in mobilizing black and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers: 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

Nationwide, Mr. Obama won a slightly smaller share of 18- to 29-year-old voters than he did in 2008, according to exit polls, though he increased his share in battleground states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Exit polls showed little appreciable difference between Mr. Obama’s performance among black voters nationwide and in many swing states in this election and in 2008. Among Hispanic voters nationwide, Mr. Obama won a greater share in 2012 than in 2008, but perhaps more important, he succeeded in increasing the share of Hispanic voters among the total voting population in key states, including Colorado and Nevada, exit polls showed.

During the call, Mr. Romney was by turns disappointed and pragmatic, expressing his frustration at the outcome on Election Day. A person who was on the call, which included hundreds of participants, let The New York Times listen in.

“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win,” Mr. Romney said on the call. “I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close, but close doesn’t count in this business.”

He continued: “And so now we’re looking and saying, ‘O.K., what can we do going forward?’ But frankly, we’re still so troubled by the past, it’s hard to put together our plans for the future.”

He added that he was hoping to find a way for the close-knit group, which excelled in fund-raising but was ultimately unable to propel him into the Oval Office, “to stay connected so that we can stay informed and have influence on the direction of the party, and perhaps the selection of a future nominee, which, by the way, will not be me.” (He suggested an annual meeting, as well as a monthly newsletter.)

In a news conference of his own Wednesday, Mr. Obama, asked if he still planned to meet with Mr. Romney for a postelection discussion, spoke positively of his former opponent, saying that he “did a terrific job of running the Olympics,” and that he appreciated Mr. Romney’s ideas on government efficiency.

“I’m not either prejudging what he’s interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I’ve got some specific assignment,” the president said, when asked about Mr. Romney. “But what I want to do is to get ideas from him and see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: GigantorX on November 15, 2012, 04:40:24 PM
Romney Blames Loss on Obama’s ‘Gifts’ to Minorities and Young Voters
By ASHLEY PARKER

Saying that he and his team still felt “troubled” by his loss to President Obama, Mitt Romney on Wednesday attributed his defeat in part to what he called big policy “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies, including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.

In a conference call with fund-raisers and donors to his campaign, Mr. Romney said Wednesday afternoon that the president had followed the “old playbook” of using targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said, contrasting Mr. Obama’s strategy to his own of “talking about big issues for the whole country: military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.”

Mr. Romney’s comments in the 20-minute conference call came after his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, told WISC-TV in Madison on Monday that their loss was a result of Mr. Obama’s strength in “urban areas,” an analysis that did not account for Mr. Obama’s victories in more rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire or the decrease in the number of votes for the president relative to 2008 in critical urban counties in Ohio.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

The president’s health care plan, he said, was also a useful tool in mobilizing black and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers: 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

Nationwide, Mr. Obama won a slightly smaller share of 18- to 29-year-old voters than he did in 2008, according to exit polls, though he increased his share in battleground states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Exit polls showed little appreciable difference between Mr. Obama’s performance among black voters nationwide and in many swing states in this election and in 2008. Among Hispanic voters nationwide, Mr. Obama won a greater share in 2012 than in 2008, but perhaps more important, he succeeded in increasing the share of Hispanic voters among the total voting population in key states, including Colorado and Nevada, exit polls showed.

During the call, Mr. Romney was by turns disappointed and pragmatic, expressing his frustration at the outcome on Election Day. A person who was on the call, which included hundreds of participants, let The New York Times listen in.

“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win,” Mr. Romney said on the call. “I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close, but close doesn’t count in this business.”

He continued: “And so now we’re looking and saying, ‘O.K., what can we do going forward?’ But frankly, we’re still so troubled by the past, it’s hard to put together our plans for the future.”

He added that he was hoping to find a way for the close-knit group, which excelled in fund-raising but was ultimately unable to propel him into the Oval Office, “to stay connected so that we can stay informed and have influence on the direction of the party, and perhaps the selection of a future nominee, which, by the way, will not be me.” (He suggested an annual meeting, as well as a monthly newsletter.)

In a news conference of his own Wednesday, Mr. Obama, asked if he still planned to meet with Mr. Romney for a postelection discussion, spoke positively of his former opponent, saying that he “did a terrific job of running the Olympics,” and that he appreciated Mr. Romney’s ideas on government efficiency.

“I’m not either prejudging what he’s interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I’ve got some specific assignment,” the president said, when asked about Mr. Romney. “But what I want to do is to get ideas from him and see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together.”

I ran a bad campaign, that's the major reason for his loss.

But don't think for a second that Obama wasn't pandering with his executive orders and attacks on AZ.

It's politics, it's what happens.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 15, 2012, 04:54:22 PM
No one likes a sore loser.

Isn't his the party of "take personal responsibility"?  ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 15, 2012, 05:14:27 PM
From the 47% to ‘gifts’: Mitt Romney’s ugly vision of politics
Posted by Ezra Klein

During the campaign, Mitt Romney repeatedly promised seniors that he’d restore President Obama’s $716 billion in Medicare cuts. He promised them that, unlike Obama, he wouldn’t permit a single change to Medicare or Social Security for 10 years. He promised them, in other words, political immunity. While the rest of the country was trying to pay down the deficit and prioritize spending, they’d be safe.

He also promised the rich that they’d see a lower overall tax rate, and while he did say he would try to pay for some of those tax cuts by closing loopholes and deductions, he also said he expected faster growth would pay for those cuts — which means he really was promising tax cuts to the rich at a time when he said deficit reduction should be a top priority. Oh, and let’s not forget his oft-stated intention to roll back the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and replace them with…something.

Keep all that in mind when you hear Romney blaming his loss on “the gifts” that Obama reportedly handed out to “the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.” Romney was free with the gifts, too, and his promises to seniors and to the rich carried a far higher price tag than any policies Obama promised minorities or the young.

But to Romney, and perhaps to the donors he was speaking to, those policies didn’t count as “gifts.” They were…something else. Good ideas, maybe. Or the fulfillment of past promises. Or perhaps it wasn’t the policies that were different, but the people they were being promised to. ::)

The last time Romney’s comments to his donors leaked, he was telling them about the 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay taxes, refuse to take responsibility for their lives, and will support Obama come hell or high water. These new comments are continuous with those: Romney really does appear to believe that there’s a significant portion of the electorate that’s basically comprised of moochers.

That’s Romney’s political cosmology: The Democrats bribe the moochers with health care and green cards. The Republicans try to free the makers through tax cuts and deregulation. Politics isn’t a conflict between two reasonable perspectives on how to best encourage growth and high-living standards. It’s a kind of reverse-Marxist clash between those who produce and those who take, and the easiest way to tell one from the other is to see who they vote for.

When Romney thinks he’s behind closed doors and he’s just telling other people like him how politics really works, the picture he paints is so ugly as to be bordering on dystopic. It’s not just about class, but about worth, and legitimacy. His voters are worth something to the economy — they’re producers — and they respond to legitimate appeals about how to best manage the country. The Democrats’ voters are drags on the economy — moochers — and they respond to crass pay-offs.

Romney doesn’t voice these opinions in public. He knows better. But so did the voters. That’s what you see in the overwhelming rejection Romney suffered among African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and young voters. They sensed that Romney fundamentally didn’t respect them and their role in the economy, and they were right.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: GigantorX on November 15, 2012, 05:50:28 PM
Ezra Klein?

Oh brother....


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 24KT on November 15, 2012, 07:41:55 PM
You guys are hilarious, you buy into the shit about romney argue for him till your blue in the face then buy into the bullshit against him once it's convenient. You are a group of fucking retards, Fox has admitted liars, false polls and had anchors magically switch positions after the election. It is a reflection of the idiots they pander to.

+2


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 15, 2012, 10:59:20 PM
GOP governors back away from Romney remarks
By Karen Tumulty and Dan Eggen

LAS VEGAS — Republican leaders have begun reckoning with the fact that their party has grown increasingly out of step with a broad majority of American voters.

While party leaders remain confident in their beliefs, they have identified a litany of problems and a steep set of challenges: flawed candidates, a problematic message, the alienation of nonwhite Americans who account for a growing share of the population, outdated technology and a political operation that is not up to that of the Democrats.

A telling sign of their determination to change course was their swift denunciation of the latest tone-deaf comments by Mitt Romney, who little more than a week ago they were all trying to help elect president.

In a conference call with campaign donors on Wednesday, Romney blamed his loss in part on “gifts” that a “very generous” President Obama had given to African Americans, Hispanics and young people. It was similar in sentiment to his earlier suggestion — also to a group of wealthy contributors — that 47 percent of the American public consists of government-dependent deadbeats who view themselves as victims.

Asked about Romney’s latest comments, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal bristled and told reporters at a Republican Governors Association meeting here: “I absolutely reject that notion, that description.”

“We need to stop being a dumb party, and that means more than stop making dumb comments,” added Jindal, the RGA’s incoming chairman and a rising star in the party.

The need to reorient and rebuild the party was a major topic of conversation at the governors’ meeting. Among the top concerns was the party’s failure to attract Hispanics, the fact that its voter turnout operation did not live up to expectations, its flatfooted response to Obama’s attacks on Romney and its misplaced optimism that Romney would win.

At one session, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour laid out the need to take an ungentle approach to fixing those problems: “We’ve got to give our political organization a very serious proctology exam. We need to look everywhere.”

Jindal and other governors insisted that putting the party back on track does not mean betraying its traditional principles.

“In the face of the losses, we do have to make changes,” Jindal said. “We need to modernize our party. We don’t need to moderate our party.”

Added Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, who survived a recall effort earlier this year: “It’s not that our beliefs are wrong. We’re not doing an effective enough job articulating those beliefs.”

He also was critical of Romney’s comments. “We’re the party that helps people find a pathway to live the American dream,” Walker said. “They want to have a chance to live the American dream. They want to have a job.”

Just two years ago, fueled by the insurgent forces of the tea party movement, Republicans took back the House in a midterm election that was viewed as a repudiation of Obama. But the president’s relatively easy victory last week suggests that the gains of 2010 masked deeper problems for the GOP.

Still, Republicans see reason for optimism, particularly at the state level. In January, the number of GOP governors will reach 30 — the highest number either party has claimed in a dozen years.

Some of them are considered to be among the Republicans’ brightest prospects for the 2016 presidential election — a topic that was much discussed outside the formal sessions of the meeting, which was held at the luxurious Wynn Encore casino and resort and attended by a large contingent of lobbyists.

Among the attendees was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, on his first trip outside his home state since it was ravaged by Hurricane Sandy. As he made his way through the halls, Christie was frequently stopped by well-wishers and congratulated on his performance following the storm.

Back-to-back presidential losses have often forced political parties to look for a new path.

After losing in 1984 and 1988, for instance, the Democrats moved away from their traditional New Deal liberalism and turned to the “third way” centrism advocated and embodied by then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.

GOP governors are well positioned to lead a similar movement now, said Craig Shirley, a biographer of Ronald Reagan who advises conservative groups. “They’re going to know sooner than the people in Washington what is politically feasible and viable.”

Added Pat McCrory, who last week was elected North Carolina’s first GOP governor in 24 years: “Politically, I think the power and influence of the Republican Party is at the state and local level. Governors, I think, are going to have more influence on national policy than the White House or Congress.”

As recently as the 2000 election, Republican governors united early around then-Gov. George W. Bush of Texas and played an important role in easing his path to the nomination.

“He was one of us, and he was able to get a lot of governors on board early,” recalled Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.

But Branstad said he was not certain whether Republican governors would form such a phalanx leading up to 2016.

“At this point, people are just trying to analyze what happened” in the most recent election, he said.

While some defeated presidential candidates remain influential figures in their parties, Republicans appear ready to treat Romney as a dinner guest who has stayed too long after coffee.

“There is no Romney wing in the party that he needs to address,” said Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist. “He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP, so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn.”

Added Branstad, whose state will hold the first presidential nominating contest in 2016: “We’ve got [Florida Sen.] Marco Rubio coming for my birthday on Saturday. We’re going to turn a page.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 16, 2012, 12:43:11 PM
Ryan Sees Urban Vote as Reason G.O.P. Lost
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and JENNIFER STEINHAUER

WASHINGTON — As Representative Paul D. Ryan casts about to find an explanation for the defeat of the Republican presidential ticket, on which he was Mitt Romney’s running mate, he is looking to the nation’s big cities for answers.

“The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview with WISC-TV back home in Wisconsin on Monday before returning Tuesday to Capitol Hill for the start of the lame-duck session.

“When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in,” Mr. Ryan said, “and those ones coming in as tight as they were and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.”

Mr. Ryan, now a potential 2016 presidential candidate, has repeated the sentiment in subsequent interviews. And he is not the only conservative who has embraced the notion that a surge of voters in urban America gave Mr. Obama the prize, as many Republicans try to come to grips with how an election they believed was theirs for the taking instead got away.

But his voice carries new weight as he returns to Congress with a larger responsibility to help lead his party back to the White House in the years ahead. Mr. Ryan’s blunt assessment of the failures of his ticket are sure to shape the party’s political future even as he returns to the immediate business of the fight over spending and taxes.

Mr. Ryan’s concerns follow on the heels of other Republicans who argue that the party’s lack of appeal to minority voters — many of whom live in the nation’s largest urban centers — has made it more difficult to win the presidency.

There is some anecdotal evidence to back up the analysis that Mr. Obama was helped by his appeal in the nation’s population centers. In Philadelphia and Ohio, for example, local news reports have documented dozens of city precincts where Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan failed to get a single vote. And in Ohio, turnout among blacks, many of whom live in urban areas, increased significantly over 2008.

In the nation’s largest cities, exit poll data show that the president won overwhelmingly, earning almost 7 out of every 10 votes. In some states, like Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama did even better in the big cities, winning 85 percent of the vote. Mr. Romney won the nation’s suburbs by a narrow margin.

But pointing to urban voters for the Republican failure to win last week does not take into account that the Republican ticket also lost big in some rural, mostly white states, like Iowa and New Hampshire.

And there is little proof from the results of the election that urban turnout over all played the decisive role in swing states like Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Wisconsin, where Mitt Romney lost in Mr. Ryan’s suburban home district.

“What Paul Ryan misses is that the Republicans have been losing the urban vote for a long, long time,” said Marc Morial, the president and chief executive of the National Urban League. “Now they are losing the suburban vote, too. They are becoming more urban in their character, in their makeup, in the problems.”

In Ohio, for example, Mr. Obama received 63,000 fewer votes in the three big urban counties in 2012 than he did in 2008. In the big urban counties in Virginia, Colorado, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama also won by smaller margins than in 2008, typically receiving fewer votes. In Milwaukee, voter turnout did increase, but the Romney/Ryan ticket picked up more than half of the increased number of voters there.

Mr. Morial said he did not know why Mr. Ryan was focusing attention on the nation’s urban core as the cause of the Republican losses. But he said the decision by Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan not to attend his group’s annual conference was not a good sign that Mr. Ryan wants more outreach in the future.

“Certainly those types of comments do not suggest that those who lost last Tuesday are interested in an open dialogue about the challenges that our communities face,” Mr. Morial said.

Democrats say that Mr. Ryan’s remarks mask the larger issues behind the loss, and represent an inability to grasp other factors behind it.

“In our state, urban voters had two good reasons to come out,” said Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania. “One was to support the president, and the other was the state had tried to implement voter ID laws. But assigning one factor to the case of an electoral defeat is usually pretty dangerous.”

Representative Michael M. Honda, Democrat of California, said that “urban” is “just another code word for people of color.”

“But a lot of people of color live in the countryside, too,” he added. “He is just grabbing at straws to justify his loss.”

In an interview broadcast Tuesday with ABC News, Mr. Ryan said he did not think that the nation’s voters had given Mr. Obama a mandate to raise taxes on the wealthy.

“I don’t think so, because they also re-elected the House Republicans,” Mr. Ryan said. “So whether people intended or not, we’ve got divided government. This is a very close election, and unfortunately divided government didn’t work very well the last two years. We’re going to have to make sure it works in the next two years.”

Some of Mr. Ryan’s aides said that as a candidate he had hoped to spend more time in poor urban areas to explain his theories of fighting poverty, and was restrained by his schedule. He gave an antipoverty speech in Cleveland, one of a handful of such events.

Not all his colleagues agree with Mr. Ryan’s analysis, arguing that the party needs to focus on reaching a broader coalition.

“We lost many demographic groups,” said Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. “The issue to me is why. I don’t think we are one comprehensive immigration bill away from winning Hispanic voters, any more than we are one marginal rate increase from economic nirvana.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 16, 2012, 05:24:57 PM
At Republican governors' gathering, plenty of blame for Romney
The conference is the first meeting of party leaders since the election, and there's ample discussion of what went wrong.
By Michael A. Memoli, Washington Bureau

LAS VEGAS — A week's worth of soul-searching among Republicans has yielded no shortage of explanations for the party's failure to win the White House. They point to the Obama campaign's early and aggressive effort to disparage Mitt Romney. They admit Democrats had a superior voter-turnout operation. Some point to Superstorm Sandy, saying it robbed Romney of momentum.

What they won't say is that President Obama won a mandate for his vision, or that the GOP has veered too far right in its outlook.

"The president won the election. But I think it wasn't on the issues," Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said Thursday at the annual Republican Governors Assn. conference. "He ran a heck of a good grass-roots organization and was able to basically convince enough people that they couldn't trust Gov. Romney."

The meeting of Republican governors and governors-elect here, which also attracted party strategists, donors and lobbyists, is the largest gathering of GOP leaders since the election. And few were shy about laying much of the blame squarely at the feet of the former Massachusetts governor, who was once the group's chairman.

"The fatal flaw with this presidential election, more than anything, wasn't just the last few weeks. It was early this summer, after an extended and lengthy and onerous primary season, the president's campaign did an effective job at branding Mitt Romney before he fully had a chance to identify himself to the people of this country," said Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who in June defeated a recall effort by Democrats and labor. "We didn't have a well-defined case against the president and, of even greater importance, we didn't have an effective means by which to counter the attacks."

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, the group's incoming chairman, pointedly criticized Romney for continuing to advance the idea, most recently in a Wednesday conference call with donors, that Obama owed his victory to "gifts" his administration had doled out to key demographic groups.

"We have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100% of the votes, not 53%," Jindal said, in a reference to Romney's videotaped comments from earlier in the year that the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes see themselves as victims. "I think that's absolutely wrong. I don't think that represents where we are as a party and where we are going as a party."

Jindal and others offered the GOP's governors as a model for how the party can succeed "without abandoning our principles." Although the party lost Senate and House seats, as well as the White House, it won a gubernatorial post in North Carolina, a Democratic seat for 24 years, while also holding onto its other seats.

Walker noted that he won his recall campaign by a larger margin than his 2010 election.

"So for those who look at the presidential election and are somewhat upset, remember that in probably the clearest-choice election in a gubernatorial election, we came out on the right side of things, and it was largely because we defined it in the clearest of terms," he said.

Democrats point out that they won seven of the 11 gubernatorial races, including three of the hardest-fought ones — in New Hampshire, Montana and Washington. The GOP failed to win a single state that Obama carried, while Democrats also triumphed in Romney states, such as Missouri and West Virginia.

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, in typically colorful terms, said the party's establishment needed "a very serious proctology exam" to find out why its use of technology and its efforts to get out the vote had fallen so short.

Barbour also said the party needed to make a stronger effort to court minority voters and that there was an urgent need for immigration reform. "We can catch up in four years," he said. "This isn't rocket science. But it is hard work, and we can't wait and start in 2016."

The Republican National Committee is conducting its own self-examination. An initial review notes how close the party came to unseating Obama. A swing of a combined 333,000 votes in four states would have handed Romney the presidency, the document states.

And diverging from the assumption held by Republicans that undecided voters would break in favor of the challenger, it was Obama who held a 5-percentage-point advantage among those who made up their minds in the final few days of the campaign, and a 7-percentage-point edge among those who decided on the final day.

It is that latter statistic, from exit polls, that prompted several here to speculate that Superstorm Sandy blunted Romney's campaign. Pollster Glen Bolger noted that a swing of just 3 percentage points in some states could have swayed the outcome.

"Any day in a campaign that wasn't about the economy or jobs was a good day for Obama," Barbour said. Seated just feet away was Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who was criticized by some for praising Obama's handling of the storm in its immediate aftermath, just a week shy of the presidential vote.

The next test of the party will come next year in races for governor's offices in New Jersey and Virginia, both held by Republicans. But in those races a historical quirk may be on their side — since 1989, the party that won the White House has lost the governorship in those off-year states.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Option D on November 16, 2012, 05:28:19 PM
You guys are hilarious, you buy into the shit about romney argue for him till your blue in the face then buy into the bullshit against him once it's convenient. You are a group of fucking retards, Fox has admitted liars, false polls and had anchors magically switch positions after the election. It is a reflection of the idiots they pander to.


Right!!!!!

thats what ive been saying.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 16, 2012, 05:45:29 PM
This doofus not only lost him home state but he also lost him hometown



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 16, 2012, 06:01:27 PM
Romney sinks quickly in Republicans’ esteem
By Dan Eggen

Ten days after failing to sail into the White House, Mitt Romney is already being tossed overboard by his party.

The former Massachusetts governor — who attracted $1 billion in funding and 59 million votes in his bid to unseat President Obama — has rapidly become persona non grata to a shellshocked Republican Party, which appears eager to map out its future without its 2012 nominee.

Romney was by all accounts stunned at the scale of his Nov. 6 loss, dropping quickly from public view after delivering a short concession speech to a half-empty Boston arena. Then came a series of tin-eared remarks this week blaming his loss on Obama’s “gifts” to African Americans and Hispanics, among others — putting him squarely at odds with party leaders struggling to build bridges with minorities.

“You can’t expect to be a leader of all the people and be divisive,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said Friday on MSNBC, adding: “Someone asked me, ‘Why did Mitt Romney lose?’ And I said, ‘Because he got less votes than Barack Obama, that’s why.’ ”

It’s a remarkable fall from grace for Romney, who just 10 days ago held the chance of a Republican return to power at the White House.

The messy aftermath of his failure suggests that Romney, a political amalgam with no natural constituency beyond the business community, is unlikely to play a significant role in rebuilding his party, many Republicans said this week.

“He’s not going to be running for anything in the future,” said Rep. Raúl R. Labrador (R-Idaho), who sharply criticized Romney’s comments about Hispanics. “He’s not our standard-bearer, unfortunately.”

Romney adviser Stuart Stevens strongly disagreed, calling Romney “the most popular Republican on the national scene at the moment,” given the votes he received on Election Day. Views of defeated candidates can change dramatically over time, Stevens added.

“Even those who have been critical of the campaign on our side realize in the end that Governor Romney was resonating with millions of Americans and was running the kind of campaign we could all be proud of,” Stevens said. “I think the governor can have the political road of his choosing. I have no idea what that would be.”

The fate of failed presidential nominees varies widely in modern times. Republican nominee and former Senate majority leader Bob Dole still wields influence as a party sage since his failed 1996 run, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is still sparring publicly with the man who defeated him in 2008. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who lost to President George W. Bush in 2004, is now a candidate to be Obama’s secretary of defense or state in the second term.

Former vice president Al Gore (D) went into the political wilderness for a time after his 2000 loss to Bush before remaking himself as an antiwar and environmental crusader. The most famous loser of all might be Richard M. Nixon, who was defeated in a presidential bid in 1960 and a California gubernatorial race in 1962, only to come back to win the White House in 1968.

Romney, by contrast, appears well on the way to disappearing, with a not-so-gentle shove from his own party. The private-equity firm founder, who listed his profession as “author” on campaign disclosures, has no political stage from which to operate and few voices of support to spur him on.

It’s possible that the 2012 nominee could be headed for the kind of political ignominy occupied by another former governor and presidential candidate from Massachusetts, Democrat Michael Dukakis, who essentially dropped from sight after his drubbing by George H.W. Bush in 1988.

“There is life after presidential defeat in some cases, but not all,” said Stephen Hess, a presidential historian at the Brookings Institution. “There are still possibilities for service, whether public or otherwise. If you live long enough, there’s often a process of restoration.”

Romney aides and advisers have offered varying explanations for the Nov. 6 election results — which gave Obama 332 electoral votes and about 51 percent of the popular vote — including flawed polling and bungled turnout efforts. But much of the discussion has revolved around Romney’s heavy reliance on older, white voters and his overwhelming losses among blacks, Latinos, young women and other emerging demographic groups.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Romney’s running mate, has pointed to high turnout in “urban areas” as a key factor in the outcome. But Romney, in a post-election call Wednesday with some of his key donors, went further by arguing that young and minority voters supported Obama because of the health-care law, immigration reforms and other “gifts.”

“The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Romney told hundreds of donors on the call, according to a Los Angeles Times account. “In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups.”

He added that “it’s a proven political strategy” to “give a bunch of money to a group, and, guess what, they’ll vote for you.”

That theory — which fails to explain how Romney lost whiter and more rural states such as Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa — was quickly condemned as offensive by figures in both parties.

The remarks were reminiscent of Romney’s comments during a Florida fundraiser in May that 47 percent of Americans are government freeloaders who see themselves as “victims” and cannot be persuaded to take personal responsibility for their lives. Romney later disavowed the comments as “completely wrong.”

First-term Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who is calling on his party to tackle immigration reform, said Romney’s latest remarks amount to “blame and disregard” for voters.

“I don’t like the fact that we lost this election; there’s no doubt about that,” Gardner said. “But I’m not going to place the blame for this election on the shoulders of people who didn’t vote for the Republican Party. We need to figure out the reason why we lost the election honestly.”

Craig Shirley, a Ronald Reagan biographer and adviser to conservative groups, said the comments underscore Romney’s fundamental weakness as a nominee. “Conventional wisdom in Republican circles was that Romney was the best candidate,” he said. “In hindsight, he may have been the worst choice.”

Indeed, one of the few people who seems to think Romney should have a future on the national stage is the reelected president, who has said he will seek out his vanquished opponent’s advice on the economy. “There are certain aspects of Governor Romney’s record and his ideas that I think could be very helpful,” Obama said during his first post-election news conference Wednesday.

So far, though, the two haven’t been in touch. “We haven’t scheduled something yet,” Obama said. “I think everybody forgets that the election was only a week ago.”



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 16, 2012, 06:31:48 PM
Ryan is never going to be on a national ticket again either


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: War-Horse on November 16, 2012, 08:39:27 PM
Ryan is never going to be on a national ticket again either


Dont underestimate the delusional repubs.  They will make up a new poll on fox news and repeat it ad naseum.  But on the good side the party is so fractured and all over the place....You have mcway way saying "Go right"!!!     Its a death sentence. lol


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 16, 2012, 10:08:25 PM
Ryan is never going to be on a national ticket again either

Definitely not ready for prime time.  :-[


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 16, 2012, 10:29:21 PM
yeah, 33, woudl you agree that there are probably TEN republicans who would be better choices than Paul Ryan?

he ended up being a timid liability they had to HIDE for the last 3 weeks of the campaign. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 17, 2012, 05:30:32 AM
yeah, 33, woudl you agree that there are probably TEN republicans who would be better choices than Paul Ryan?

he ended up being a timid liability they had to HIDE for the last 3 weeks of the campaign. 

Yes.   Both are finished.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 17, 2012, 06:02:23 PM
Hey GOP, take the Palin cure
She's hot, she's blue collar, she's electable.
By Charlotte Allen

The Republican Party has been doing a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing since the presidential election. Half the conservative columnists and bloggers say the GOP lost because it overemphasized social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The other half says the party didn't emphasize them enough. And everyone denounces Project ORCA, the campaign's attempt to turn out voters via technology.

But I've got a suggestion for cutting short the GOP angst: Sarah Palin for president in 2016.

You think I'm joking? Think again.

In 2008, Palin, running as my party's vice presidential candidate, was widely supposed to have cost John McCain the election. But that wasn't so. A national exit poll conducted by CNN asked voters whether Palin was a factor in their voting. Of those who said yes, 56% voted for McCain versus 43% for Barack Obama.

Furthermore, Mitt Romney, the GOP's anointed contender this year, got almost a million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. (Meanwhile, President Obama, although winning reelection, lost far more voters than the Republicans, with nearly 7 million fewer voters checking his name on their ballots than did in 2008).

Millions of Americans didn't much care for Obama and his Obamacare spending blowout, but they didn't feel like voting for Romney either. Some said that Romney didn't resonate with recession-hit blue-collar folks in swing states because he "looked like the boss who outsourced their jobs," as one blog commenter quipped.

Gabriel Malor, writing for the New York Daily News' blog, pinpointed another reason: By focusing his campaign mostly on serious economic and political issues such as the national debt and tax incentives, Romney failed to take into account the fact that large segments of the electorate neither know nor care much about serious economic and political issues. What they — a group sometimes euphemistically called "uninformed voters" — do know and care about are the tugs on their emotions, fears, revulsions and heart strings provided by hours and hours of uninterrupted television watching .

The Democrats understood how to reach that constituency. When a barrage of Obama campaign TV ads told them that the GOP wanted to take away their contraceptives or that Bain Capital killed someone's wife, they took notice. When Obama strolled the hurricane-stricken beaches of New Jersey in his bomber jacket, they were snowed. As Malor put it, Obama won on "binders, Big Bird, birth control and blame Bush."

Palin can more than keep up with the Democrats in appealing to voters' emotions. Hardly anyone could be more blue collar than Palin, out on the fishing boat with her hunky blue-collar husband, Todd. Palin is "View"-ready, she's "Ellen"-ready, she's Kelly-and-Michael-ready.

A Palin "war against women"? Hah! Not only is she a woman, she's got a single-mom daughter, Bristol, to help with the swelling single-mom demographic. On social issues, Palin, unlike Romney, has been absolutely consistent. And let's remember that most Americans, whatever their view of choice, disapprove of most abortions.

Gay marriage? Palin opposes it. But she is also a strong advocate of states' rights, and I'm betting she'd be fine with letting states and their voters grapple with the issue on their own. Remember that all of America didn't swing toward approval of gay marriage on Nov. 6. Three reliably blue states and their voters did. If she were smart, Palin would recruit a member of her impressive gay fanboy base — yes, she has one — to help run her campaign. I nominate Kevin DuJan of the widely read gay conservative blog HillBuzz, a Palin stalwart since 2008.

Palin's son Track is an Iraq war veteran, so she can be proudly patriotic without being labeled another George W. Bush, looking to do aggressive nation-building. She seems aware there is only one nation in need of building right now: America.

Furthermore, looks count in politics, and Palin at age 48, has it all over her possible competition, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will be 69 by election day 2016 and who let someone talk her into adopting the flowing blond locks of a college student, making her look like Brunnhilde in a small-town Wagner production. Men love Sarah Palin, and she loves men.

She's tough as nails too. After Election 2008, she was supposed to have been through. This year eight of the 14 GOP candidates Palin endorsed for Congress won election or reelection, including tea party favorite Ted Cruz for a Senate seat in Texas.

Sure, there is going to be never-ending nastiness from the left, but she's already lived through that once. Katie Couric? A has-been. Tina Fey? Her shtick was already wearing thin in 2008.

There are also the snooty East Coast Republican intellectual types, such as Peggy Noonan, who look down their noses at a woman who doesn't shop at Neiman Marcus and didn't attend an Ivy League university. But Peggy made a fool of herself calling the election for Romney on Nov. 5. Who's going to care what she and her ilk have to say next time?

Some Republicans will say Palin has too much baggage from 2008, and we need to look for a new Sarah Palin. But I don't see what's wrong with the one we've got. Ever since the 1990s, Republicans have been looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Reagan is now revered in bipartisan circles, but during his presidency he was, like Palin, ridiculed by liberals. They cited "Bedtime for Bonzo" and sneered at his no-name college degree.

Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan: charming and affable and unwilling to back down if she's right. I can't see what's wrong with that.

Charlotte Allen writes frequently about feminism, politics and religion.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 18, 2012, 07:18:19 AM
i have to admit, it's SO nice not to hear repubs fawning over paul ryan or palin anymore.

Christie has matured a lot - his Sandy handling and SNL appearance showed he's probably taking his meds and very much under control now.
Rubio is a little wet behind ears, but a very good choice for a party in need of attracting hispanic voters
Rand Paul is developing right on pace, not making any mistakes, getting shrewd quick, and a great 2016 option.

I think suzanna martinez is the next paul ryan - looks good on paper but too eager to please, too wet behind ears - namedropping various calibers of gun is great red meat for the base, but will turn off women voters and swing voters very quickly.  If she's pandering with that fake smile - like palin in 08 and ryan in 2012 - she's still 5 or 7 years away from being a shrewd, tough MFer that doesn't NEED to put on the tense smile and high pitched voice to make people happy.  You hear newt, jeb, hilary, bill clinton speak - their faces are calm, their words mean something.  They're not doing the "it's so nice to meeeeeeeeet you!" spiel that phony people make in job interviews when nervous.

GOP in good shape for 2016 :)   Still, if hilary chooses to run, they better choose a grown-up.  Scott Walker or Scott Brown, stay home, you are one-trick ponies.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 18, 2012, 08:13:08 AM
The relative fawning over Rubio is ill advised and reflects a lack of nuance.  Rubio background is Cuban.  Latinos from Central and South America do not identify with Cubans for very good reasons most people are aware of, and they are not going to vote for Rubio simply because he has a Latin name and speaks Spanish.  By the way, just from listening to him speak for one or two sentences anyone from Mexico or Central America can tell that he is not from their country.  Americans tend to think that Latinos are all like.  Wrong.  He may have made it to the Senate, but his voice will not resonate with many Latinos outside of the Cuban community. 

Throw in his financial stains from his days as a GOP operative, and he is a flawed national candidate.  Many in FL were willing to look past that scandal, but a national audience would not.  In the same way that Palin could impress in Alaska but flop on the national stage Rubio can only be a big fish in small pond.

Rubio Speaks Spanish, Not Truths To GOP In Tampa
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/rubio-speaks-spanish-not-truths-to-gop-in-tampa.php

Marco Rubio Speech Proves He Does Not Speak for Latinos
Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/08/31/opinion-marco-rubio-speech-proves-does-not-speak-for-latinos/#ixzz2CaTZraGr


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 18, 2012, 08:15:52 AM
Rubio will be prepared in 2020, and possibly in 2016.... but he will look like a rookie up there.

you KNOW the look of a person who is probably prepared for a position.
and you know the look of a person who is DEFINITELY prepared for a position.

Rubio will have the 1st look.
Hilary, jeb, and others will have that 2nd look.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 18, 2012, 08:19:50 AM
Republicans: GOP needs to get with the times
By KASIE HUNT and STEVE PEOPLES

To hear some Republicans tell it, the Grand Old Party needs to get with the times.
Some of the early prescriptions offered by officials and operatives to rebuild after devastating elections: retool the party message to appeal to Latinos, women and working-class people; upgrade antiquated get-out-the-vote systems with the latest technology. Teach candidates how to handle the new media landscape.

From longtime GOP luminaries to the party's rising stars, almost everyone asked about the Republicans' Nov. 6 election drubbing seems to agree that a wholesale update is necessary for a party that appears to be running years behind Democrats in adapting to rapidly changing campaigns and an evolving electorate.

Interviews with more than a dozen Republicans at all levels of the party indicated that postelection soul-searching must quickly turn into a period of action.

"We've got to have a very brutally honest review from stem to stern of what we did and what we didn't do, and what worked and what failed," said former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who ran the party in the 1990s.

The party "has to modernize in a whole wide range of ways," added former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who ran against White House nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential primary. "We were clearly wrong on a whole range of fronts."

To determine what went wrong, the Republican National Committee is examining every detail of the 2012 elections, with the goal of rebuilding the party for the future — much as the Democratic Party did in the 1980s after suffering a series of stinging losses at all levels of government.

Now, as was the case back then, the stakes are enormous for the party that failed to win the White House and has lost the popular vote for several national elections in a row. They're perhaps even higher for Republicans grappling for ways to court a rapidly changing electorate whose voting groups don't naturally gravitate toward the GOP. The dangers of failing to act could be severe: permanent minority status.

So it's little surprise that after the election, some Republicans were quick to sound stark warnings.

The scale of the losses largely shocked a party whose top-shelf operatives went into Election Day believing Republicans had at least a decent chance of capturing the White House and gaining ground in Congress, where Republicans controlled the House and had a sizable minority in the Senate.

Instead, Romney lost all but one of the nine contested states, North Carolina, to President Barack Obama and was trounced in the electoral vote. Republicans also lost ground to Democrats in both houses of Congress, though Republicans retained their House majority.

How to move forward dominated the discussions at last week's Republican Governors Association meeting in Las Vegas, where some of the party's leading voices castigated Romney's assessment — made in what was supposed to be a private telephone call to donors — that Obama won re-election because of the "gifts" the president had provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. These governors faulted Romney.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal attributed Romney's loss to a lack of "a specific vision that connected with the American people."

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who describes himself as a "pro-choice moderate Republican," echoed Republicans across the spectrum when he said last week: "We need to be a larger-tent party." Brown lost his seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

Across the board, Republicans say that arguably the most urgent task facing the party is changing its attitude about immigration as it looks to woo Hispanics. This rapidly growing group voted overwhelmingly for Obama, by margins of 7-to-1 over Romney, who had shifted to the right on the issue during the GOP primary.

It didn't take long after the election for even staunch conservatives to start changing their tune on immigration. Days after the election, even conservative TV host Sean Hannity said he would support an immigration bill.

Said Barbour: "If we would be for good economic policy in terms of immigration, that would go a long way toward solving the political problem."
It's not just Hispanics.

Republicans said they also have work to do with single women and younger voters, many of whom tend to be more liberal on social issues than the current Republican Party. These Republicans said a change in tone is needed, though not a change in principles such as opposition to abortion.

"We need to make sure that we're not perceived as intolerant," said Ron Kaufman, a veteran Republican strategist who advised Romney's campaign. "The bottom line is we were perceived to be intolerant on some issues. And tone-deaf on others."

Republicans also said the party has to work on its relationship with working-class voters.

"Republicans have to start understanding that small business and entrepreneurs are important, but the people who work for them are also important," said Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., who lost his seat to Democrat Ann Kuster. "We've got to be compassionate conservatives."

Party leaders also said the GOP needs to change how it communicates its message. Obama's campaign, they said, was particularly effective at talking directly to voters, and building relationships over long periods of time, whereas the GOP was more focused on top-down communication such as TV ads and direct mail.

"There are whole sections of the American public that we didn't even engage with," Gingrich said.

Others pointed to the pressing need to recruit candidates who know how to stick to a carefully honed message, especially in a Twitter-driven era. Among their case studies: Senate candidates Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri, who both discussed rape and pregnancy during the campaign, to the chagrin of party leaders looking to narrow the Democrats' advantage among women.

"We need candidates who are capable of articulating their policy positions without alienating massive voting blocs," said Kevin McLaughlin, a Republican operative who worked on several Senate races for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Many Republicans say the party doesn't have a choice but to change — and quickly.

Said Kaufmann: "In this business, either you learn and grow or you die."


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on November 18, 2012, 08:21:11 AM
Rubio will be prepared in 2020, and possibly in 2016.... but he will look like a rookie up there.

you KNOW the look of a person who is probably prepared for a position.
and you know the look of a person who is DEFINITELY prepared for a position.

Rubio will have the 1st look.
Hilary, jeb, and others will have that 2nd look.

You think Jeb will be a contender?

Another Bush?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 18, 2012, 09:14:43 AM
You think Jeb will be a contender?

Another Bush?

i think he's going to be among the top 3 experienced GOP statesman in the discussion.   I can't name many repubs with the connections, $, power, confidence, respect, and ability to lead, that jeb possesses.

It'll be laughable... a Rubio lecturing Jeb on how the world really works lol...  Jeb's family WROTE the fcking history books.

I think another Bush/Clinton matchup in 2016 is entirely possible.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 18, 2012, 12:41:10 PM
Actually I would vote for Jeb or Hillary


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: chadstallion on November 18, 2012, 02:52:41 PM
life for MR?
which home to live in and directions on how to work his garage car elevator.
easy.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: avxo on November 18, 2012, 02:58:48 PM
i think he's going to be among the top 3 experienced GOP statesman in the discussion.   I can't name many repubs with the connections, $, power, confidence, respect, and ability to lead, that jeb possesses.

Ability to lead? Really? ::)


It'll be laughable... a Rubio lecturing Jeb on how the world really works lol...  Jeb's family WROTE the fcking history books.

So what if his family "wrote the history books"? What does that - whatever it's supposed to mean - say about Jeb himself? Sure it tells us much less that his own actions do - actions like those in the Terri Schiavo case. Coincidentally, that one case is enough for me personally to never want that guy near a position of power ever again.


I think another Bush/Clinton matchup in 2016 is entirely possible.

It's not. Hillary Clinton will not run.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on November 18, 2012, 03:33:43 PM
i think he's going to be among the top 3 experienced GOP statesman in the discussion.   I can't name many repubs with the connections, $, power, confidence, respect, and ability to lead, that jeb possesses.

It'll be laughable... a Rubio lecturing Jeb on how the world really works lol...  Jeb's family WROTE the fcking history books.

I think another Bush/Clinton matchup in 2016 is entirely possible.

Yes but do you think the Bush's wrote a "good" history?
Compared to the Clintons?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 18, 2012, 04:55:38 PM
Future for Republicans is not so bad
by Chris Cillizza

It’s not a good time to be a Republican. The circular firing squad — it was Mitt Romney’s fault! Demographics did it! Conservatives messed everything up! — has begun in earnest even though the 2012 election is less than two weeks gone.

Regardless of whom you choose to blame — we lean toward demographics and a GOP turnout operation that is a pale imitation of what Democrats have put in place — it’s clear that the Republican Party needs an overhaul. And the sooner everyone in the party recognizes that, the better.

That said, things aren’t that bad for Republicans. Here are four reasons for optimism.

1. The party’s superstars are coming of age. The 2012 election for Republicans was sort of like the 2004 election for Democrats in terms of candidate quality. The candidates who ran in 2004/2012 were a mix of people who had to run this time around (Romney, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty) or who figured the weakness of the field gave them a chance to score an upset (former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania). In each case, the superstars-in-waiting for the party were one election away from making runs in their own right. So, in 2008, we saw Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton run. And in 2016, we are likely to see Republicans such as Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) — all of whom have significantly more star power than Romney — make the race.

2. There are a historic number of GOP governors. Next year, 30 states will be run by Republicans — the highest number for either party in more than a decade. Those 30 chief executives include Jindal and Christie, who are already getting major 2016 buzz, and also New Mexico’s Susana Martinez, the first Hispanic woman elected governor from either party, and Nevada’s Brian Sandoval, a Hispanic former federal judge. Both are likely to play leading roles in the party’s attempts to court Latino voters. And then there are the other 26 governors who all will have real opportunities to rebrand the Republican Party based on how they choose to govern between now and 2016. (Keep an eye on Indiana’s Mike Pence, who has designs on a national candidacy down the line.) Remember that when the Democratic Party found itself in the political wilderness after the 1988 election, it turned to its governors — including the boy wonder from Arkansas — for ideas on how to remake itself. And we know how that turned out.

3. The electoral map is bad, but not that bad. We’ve written extensively on how where Republicans currently find themselves in terms of the electoral map is similar to where Democrats found themselves in the 1980s. That’s broadly true, but things for Republicans today aren’t nearly as dire as they looked for Democrats three decades ago. From 1968 to 1988, Democratic presidential nominees averaged a paltry 113 electoral votes. From 1992 to 2012, Republicans have averaged a much more robust 210. While demographic and population trends are clearly working against Republicans — Texas as a swing state in 2020, anyone? — the party is not that far, electorally speaking, from creating a credible path back to 270 electoral votes. Find a way to make the industrial Midwest — Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin and even Pennsylvania — competitive again and the map suddenly doesn’t look so bad for the GOP.

4. History is on their side. Presidential politics in the post-World War II era tend to be defined by the pendulum effect. The pendulum swings one way for eight (or so) years and then has a tendency to swing back the other way — almost no matter what. Al Gore lost his bid for 12 straight years of Democratic control of the White House even though the economy was humming along and public opinion on President Bill Clinton remained positive. The exception to that rule was the 12 years that Republicans controlled the White House from 1980 to 1992, but George H.W. Bush was unable to win a second term thanks to Bill Clinton. Of course, historical trends are true until they aren’t anymore (No president can be reelected with unemployment above 7.4 percent!), but the tendency of the American public to bounce between the two parties — at least at the presidential level— every eight years is pretty consistent.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 18, 2012, 06:45:05 PM
Romney, Boehnerm McConnell, akin, murdouck, et al need to go FAR FAR away. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 18, 2012, 06:57:38 PM


New Rules for the board - go read them.  


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 07:01:03 PM
New Rules for the board - go read them. 

there is no "personal attack" in my post

you stated you were leaving and even made a thread about it

I'm simply asking you if you're going to live up to your word


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 07:05:29 PM
Not Allowed: "Abusive Ad-Hominem", meaning: No insults, name calling, or personal attacks what so ever or Blatant baiting/bagering to get an angry response

Failure to follow this rule will lead to a ban.

Thank you.

I'm not expecting an "angry" response

why would you be angry because I asked you a question about something you said you were going to do?





Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 18, 2012, 07:58:11 PM
Republicans abandoning Romney over 'gifts' remark
Republicans abandoning Romney over 'gifts' remark
By Morgan Little

Mitt Romney, who just two weeks ago was the Republican Party’s standard-bearer, seen by many as the all-but-elected president of the United States, has turned into a punching bag for fellow Republicans looking to distance themselves from his controversial “gifts” remark.

“What the president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote,” Romney said during a call with campaign donors Wednesday.

Whether it’s an instance of politicians smelling blood in the water as the party, following Romney’s defeat, finds itself without a figurehead, or genuine outrage, a number of Republicans have eagerly castigated their former nominee.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has seemingly been on a campaign to refute Romney’s remark, once again reiterated his opposition on “Fox News Sunday.”

“We as a Republican Party have to campaign for every single vote. If we want people to like us, we have to like them first. And you don’t start to like people by insulting them and saying their votes were bought. We are an aspirational party,” Jindal said.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker echoed Jindal’s remarks, and offered the recent success of Republican governors as an example for the party as a whole.

“We have to show that we are serious about reaching out and helping everyone, not just a group here, not just a group there,” Walker said, “but everyone in the country, live their piece of the American dream. And I think that starts with our governors as great messengers.”

Former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who made several memorable comments of his own on the campaign trail, deemed Romney’s remark “nuts.”

“I think it’s nuts. I mean, first of all, it’s insulting. The job of a political leader in part is to understand the people,”
he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “If we can’t offer a better future that is believable to more people, we’re not going to win.”

And South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” tied Romney’s remarks to a Republican “death spiral.”

“When you’re in a hole, you stop digging. He keeps digging,” Graham said.


The party’s new outreach efforts, it appears, are first aimed toward Latino voters, who overwhelmingly supported President Obama over Romney, 71% to 27%. Republican leaders have begun toting immigration reform as a new objective, evangelical leaders have requested a deadline for Congress and Obama to take action on the issue, and the co-founder of Romney’s top “super PAC” is founding another PAC: Republicans for Immigration Reform.

 As for the future of the party, perhaps all one has to do is look to a rerun of the latest episode of “Saturday Night Live,” where New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made an appearance capitalizing on his bipartisan displays alongside Obama following Superstorm Sandy. Or look toward Iowa, where Florida Sen. Marco Rubio delivered a 24-minute speech during Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s birthday celebration today, a trip that has sparked early speculation about his 2016 presidential aspirations.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: OzmO on November 18, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
I'm not expecting an "angry" response

why would you be angry because I asked you a question about something you said you were going to do?



As far as I am concerned that post of yours was baiting and badgering.  If you want to know what 3333 is going to do, PM him or take it to another board.

333333, is free to post here as is anyone as long as they follow the rules and guidelines. specifically in this case highlighted in the new rules.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 08:42:42 PM
As far as I am concerned that post of yours was baiting and badgering.  If you want to know what 3333 is going to do, PM him or take it to another board.

333333, is free to post here as is anyone as long as they follow the rules and guidelines. specifically in this case highlighted in the new rules.

when did I suggest he wasn't free to post

he started a thread saying he was leaving (after also making the same statement many times)

I just asked him if he still intends to leave

bfd


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 18, 2012, 08:50:53 PM
when did I suggest he wasn't free to post

he started a thread saying he was leaving (after also making the same statement many times)

I just asked him if he still intends to leave

bfd

The biggest cry for attention one can imagine!  Pathetic.

“There is no Romney 333333 wing in the party that he needs to address,” said Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist. “He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn.”

Thanks for playing.  Bye.  ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 18, 2012, 09:00:50 PM
The biggest cry for attention one can imagine!  Pathetic.

“There is no Romney 333333 wing in the party that he needs to address,” said Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist. “He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn.”

Thanks for playing.  Bye.  ::)

Mittens needs to explain the failure of his prject ORCA and how his store rippoed so many off.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 09:04:09 PM
The biggest cry for attention one can imagine!  Pathetic.

“There is no Romney 333333 wing in the party that he needs to address,” said Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist. “He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn.”

Thanks for playing.  Bye.  ::)

it's really too bad that Romney doesn't drink
I can't think of a better reason to get hammered than getting your ass kicked in a national election and not even have any clue that it was going to happen


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: avxo on November 18, 2012, 09:14:53 PM
As far as I am concerned that post of yours was baiting and badgering.  If you want to know what 3333 is going to do, PM him or take it to another board.

333333, is free to post here as is anyone as long as they follow the rules and guidelines. specifically in this case highlighted in the new rules.

Nobody said he can't post here. But pointing out that someone says X but does Y isn't "baiting and badgering" and if you think it is, well... you must have some weird definition of what constitutes "bating" and "badgering". And I'm putting it mildly.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: OzmO on November 18, 2012, 09:18:51 PM
Nobody said he can't post here. But pointing out that someone says X but does Y isn't "baiting and badgering" and if you think it is, well... you must have some weird definition of what constitutes "bating" and "badgering". And I'm putting it mildly.

There's far more to it than that.  Quite a bit of history over the last few years.  Time to move on.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: OzmO on November 18, 2012, 09:29:19 PM
when did I suggest he wasn't free to post

he started a thread saying he was leaving (after also making the same statement many times)

I just asked him if he still intends to leave

bfd

And i never said you couldn't ask him.  

However you have already asked him quite a bit (not including some i removed):

That's exactly how i would feel if you and your ghetto welfare family were killed in any way though i suspect in your case it would be murder/suicide

Note to mods.  My statement is the equivalent of 333's so if you're going to allow him gratuitous personal attacks on the POTUS then it must be acceptable for someone to say the exact same thing about him

Note to 333 - only a few hundred more posts and you're gone right?

only 257 more posts and then you're gone.....right?

only 308 more posts until you're gone for good......right?

only 381 posts until you are gone for good

right?

only 435 more posts and you're gone

right?

you should quit at 99,999 as you said you would



I'm sure that's how it appears to you

btw - are you still leaving @ 99,999



Why all the PM's instead of being a man and showing up to take your beating
You're still leaving at 99,999 right?

Time to move on and quit badgering him on threads and in this forum.  Feel free to do it else where.



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 09:37:32 PM
There's far more to it than that.  Quite a bit of history over the last few years.  Time to move on.

LMAO @ "history"

all I did was tolerate his crap like everyone else while the mods did nothing

why suddenly give a shit now ?



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: OzmO on November 18, 2012, 09:41:18 PM
LMAO @ "history"

all I did was tolerate his crap like everyone else while the mods did nothing

why suddenly give a shit now ?



I explained why earlier. 

PM me back



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 09:52:08 PM
I explained why earlier. 

PM me back



you obviously take this board much more seriously than I do


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: OzmO on November 18, 2012, 09:55:26 PM
you obviously take this board much more seriously than I do

I am a mod.  I should.  People should be able to post and debate in a civilized way free from getting maliciously insulted in place of good counter points.

Don't you agree?

Or do you think a play ground culture of frequent vile attacks is better?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 09:56:38 PM
I am a mod.  I should.  People should be able to post and debate in a civilized way free from getting maliciously insulted in place of good counter points.

Don't you agree?

Or do you think a play ground culture of frequent vile attacks is better?

welcome to the board

when did you get here?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 18, 2012, 10:00:50 PM
it's really too bad that Romney doesn't drink
I can't think of a better reason to get hammered than getting your ass kicked in a national election and not even have any clue that it was going to happen

I can think of another reason.  A week after the election officials throughout the part effectively banish you from their company.

And therein lies Romney's problem: he was never one of them and they never considered him one of them.  Dole and McCain are considered party elders; Romney will not have that honor.  They want him to go away and stay away.  That's gotta hurt!  It is one thing to sort of know that you were never really wanted at the party and quite another to have it declared by so many party officials so publicly across the country.  :-[


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: OzmO on November 18, 2012, 10:02:37 PM
welcome to the board

when did you get here?

 :). I am certainly not without sin here.

When will you get back to the straw I knew who debated threads with great info, good arguments and counter points free from ad hom?

Let's roll and let the debating begin.   ;)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 10:06:59 PM
I can think of another reason.  A week after the election officials throughout the part effectively banish you from their company.

And therein lies Romney's problem: he was never one of them and they never considered him one of them.  Dole and McCain are considered party elders; Romney will not have that honor.  They want him to go away and stay away.  That's gotta hurt!  It is one thing to sort of know that you were never really wanted at the party and quite another to have it declared by so many party officials so publicly across the country.  :-[

he was a contractor

kind of funny that he doesn't see it


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 10:08:14 PM
:). I am certainly not without sin here.

When will you get back to the straw I knew who debated threads with great info, good arguments and counter points free from ad hom?

Let's roll and let the debating begin.   ;)

there is no "ad hom" in me asking 333 about a position he stated and promoted



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: OzmO on November 18, 2012, 10:13:31 PM
there is no "ad hom" in me asking 333 about a position he stated and promoted



I know.


 I am sure you can see the wisdom in having a no badgering and baiting rule.  

Like I said, badger him some place else or PM him.

It's all good.

Now com on man.  Let it go, let's move on.

We got 4 more years of OB, what can he do?  What should he do?  What will he do?  Will it be right, wrong, effective, in effective.......?


I wanted Romney to win.  Not for best of reasons, but more the worse kind stemming from Obama.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on November 18, 2012, 11:03:00 PM
I know.


 I am sure you can see the wisdom in having a no badgering and baiting rule.  

Like I said, badger him some place else or PM him.

It's all good.

Now com on man.  Let it go, let's move on.

We got 4 more years of OB, what can he do?  What should he do?  What will he do?  Will it be right, wrong, effective, in effective.......?


I wanted Romney to win.  Not for best of reasons, but more the worse kind stemming from Obama.

 ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: OzmO on November 18, 2012, 11:54:13 PM
::)

 :)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: avxo on November 19, 2012, 08:12:07 AM
I am sure you can see the wisdom in having a no badgering and baiting rule.

The owner of the fora and his chosen moderators can come up with any rules they want. As for me, I see no “wisdom” in a rule as vague and poorly worded as that. I won't even argue that this rule cannot be enforced properly, consistently and with objective criteria.

I'd call you a buffoon for thinking the rule is wise, but I wouldn't want to "badger" or "bait" you. That would be against the rules! ::)

See what I did there?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 19, 2012, 08:16:41 AM
As for me, I see no “wisdom” in a rule as vague and poorly worded as that. I won't even argue that this rule cannot be enforced properly, consistently and with objective criteria.

I'd call you a buffoon for thinking the rule is wise, but I wouldn't want to "badger" or "bait" you. That would be against the rules! ::)

See what I did there?


I understand what you are trying to do Ozmo,....and I back you 100%....but I think what causes most of the arguments on here is that there is no objective person who can verify facts and call people out for baiting and lying......I think that should be your role but I realize that this would entail a lot of work by you and thats not fair to you since you have to work, have family to take care of , etc....

the conservatives on here NEVER EVER admit to being wrong.....they just continue to spew out nonsense even when they are shown proof that they are wrong....this then leads to name calling on their part and from the liberal side as well..............

when was the last time that you saw McWay, 333386, Fury,Tommy, etc concede a point????????????????
Tommy will sometimes concede a point and then in the next sentence will backtrack and again tell you why he is right :)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on November 19, 2012, 08:22:58 AM
I'm still waiting for Romney to share how he was going to get 12 million people working again with us.  He kept stating it over and over... now that he lost I guess he wants to take his little ball (read : plan) and go home with it.  Sour grapes huh?  Some patriot.  I guess you can't love your country unless you are the winner.   ::)

The above is sarcasm for those followers who were stupid enough to believe for one minute that he actually had a plan.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Grape Ape on November 19, 2012, 08:44:29 AM



when was the last time that you saw McWay, 333386, Fury,Tommy, etc concede a point????????????????


Pure hypocrisy or just plain lack of self awareness.  Both sides are guilty of this, and I'd venture that those who you tend to agree with most are the most guilty.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: avxo on November 19, 2012, 08:49:08 AM

I understand what you are trying to do Ozmo,....and I back you 100%....but I think what causes most of the arguments on here is that there is no objective person who can verify facts and call people out for baiting and lying......I think that should be your role but I realize that this would entail a lot of work by you and thats not fair to you since you have to work, have family to take care of , etc....

the conservatives on here NEVER EVER admit to being wrong.....they just continue to spew out nonsense even when they are shown proof that they are wrong....this then leads to name calling on their part and from the liberal side as well..............

when was the last time that you saw McWay, 333386, Fury,Tommy, etc concede a point????????????????
Tommy will sometimes concede a point and then in the next sentence will backtrack and again tell you why he is right :)

That cuts both ways - the conservatives do it and the liberals do it. People like 333386 and Benny B. are different sides of the same coin. They say the same things - it's only the details that change.

The blind partisans do it.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Fury on November 19, 2012, 09:01:01 AM

I understand what you are trying to do Ozmo,....and I back you 100%....but I think what causes most of the arguments on here is that there is no objective person who can verify facts and call people out for baiting and lying......I think that should be your role but I realize that this would entail a lot of work by you and thats not fair to you since you have to work, have family to take care of , etc....

the conservatives on here NEVER EVER admit to being wrong.....they just continue to spew out nonsense even when they are shown proof that they are wrong....this then leads to name calling on their part and from the liberal side as well..............

when was the last time that you saw McWay, 333386, Fury,Tommy, etc concede a point????????????????
Tommy will sometimes concede a point and then in the next sentence will backtrack and again tell you why he is right :)

When do you ever concede a point? Do we need to point out how asinine "OBAMA IS KICKING SOANDSO'S ASS - BLAHBLAH DOING AMAZING" only for you to whine when it's later refuted?

The hypocrisy of some people on here is astounding.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 19, 2012, 09:33:41 AM
That cuts both ways - the conservatives do it and the liberals do it. People like 333386 and Benny B. are different sides of the same coin. They say the same things - it's only the details that change.

The blind partisans do it.

yes..but I myself and many others have disagreed with Benny many times....I consider him to be far left wing...plus the libs on her argue with and debate each other all the time..the conservs on here walk in lockstep....you guys never ever criticize 333386 for his dumb threads which shows how he leads you guys around...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 19, 2012, 09:34:32 AM
When do you ever concede a point? Do we need to point out how asinine "OBAMA IS KICKING SOANDSO'S ASS - BLAHBLAH DOING AMAZING" only for you to whine when it's later refuted?

The hypocrisy of some people on here is astounding.

you have GOT to be looking in the mirror while saying this


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Option D on November 19, 2012, 09:35:07 AM
This board is hilarious


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 19, 2012, 10:53:30 AM
Gingrich on Romney’s ‘gifts’ comments: ‘It’s nuts’
By Dylan Stableford

Like several other prominent Republicans, Newt Gingrich slammed Mitt Romney's assertion in a conference call with donors last week that he lost the 2012 presidential election because of "gifts" President Barack Obama gave to blacks, Hispanics and younger voters during his first term in the White House.

"It's nuts," Gingrich told guest host Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "First of all, it's insulting. This would be like Wal-Mart having a bad week and going, 'The customers have really been unruly.' I mean, the job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can't offer a better future that is believable to more people, we're not going to win."

Last week, the former House Speaker admitted he was "dumbfounded" by Obama's victory--and Romney's poor performance at the polls.

"The president won an extraordinary victory," Gingrich said on NBC's "Today" show. "And the fact is we owe him the respect of trying to understand what they did and how they did it. But if you had said to me three weeks ago, Mitt Romney would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he'll be 2 million fewer, I would have been dumbfounded."
But the disbelief soon turned to disillusion over Romney's divisive comments.

"I'm very disappointed with Governor Romney's analysis, which I believe is insulting and profoundly wrong," Gingrich said in an interview with KLRU-TV in Austin. "First of all, we didn't lose Asian-Americans because they got any gifts. He did worse with Asian-Americans than he did with Latinos. This is the hardest-working and most successful ethnic group in America--they ain't into gifts.

"Second, it's an insult to all Americans," he continued. "It reduces us to economic entities. You have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy. If it had been that simple, my question would be, 'Why didn't you outbid him?' He had enough billionaire supporters, if buying the electorate was the key, he could have got all his super PAC friends together and said, don't buy ads, give gifts. Be like the northwest Indians who have gift-giving ceremonies. We could have gone town-by-town and said, 'Come here, let me give you gifts. Here are Republican gifts.' An elephant coming in with gifts on it."


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on November 19, 2012, 11:49:30 AM
Gingrich on Romney’s ‘gifts’ comments: ‘It’s nuts’
By Dylan Stableford

Like several other prominent Republicans, Newt Gingrich slammed Mitt Romney's assertion in a conference call with donors last week that he lost the 2012 presidential election because of "gifts" President Barack Obama gave to blacks, Hispanics and younger voters during his first term in the White House.

"It's nuts," Gingrich told guest host Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "First of all, it's insulting. This would be like Wal-Mart having a bad week and going, 'The customers have really been unruly.' I mean, the job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can't offer a better future that is believable to more people, we're not going to win."

Last week, the former House Speaker admitted he was "dumbfounded" by Obama's victory--and Romney's poor performance at the polls.

"The president won an extraordinary victory," Gingrich said on NBC's "Today" show. "And the fact is we owe him the respect of trying to understand what they did and how they did it. But if you had said to me three weeks ago, Mitt Romney would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he'll be 2 million fewer, I would have been dumbfounded."
But the disbelief soon turned to disillusion over Romney's divisive comments.

"I'm very disappointed with Governor Romney's analysis, which I believe is insulting and profoundly wrong," Gingrich said in an interview with KLRU-TV in Austin. "First of all, we didn't lose Asian-Americans because they got any gifts. He did worse with Asian-Americans than he did with Latinos. This is the hardest-working and most successful ethnic group in America--they ain't into gifts.

"Second, it's an insult to all Americans," he continued. "It reduces us to economic entities. You have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy. If it had been that simple, my question would be, 'Why didn't you outbid him?' He had enough billionaire supporters, if buying the electorate was the key, he could have got all his super PAC friends together and said, don't buy ads, give gifts. Be like the northwest Indians who have gift-giving ceremonies. We could have gone town-by-town and said, 'Come here, let me give you gifts. Here are Republican gifts.' An elephant coming in with gifts on it."

I never liked Gingrich but i like what he is saying here.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on November 19, 2012, 01:18:41 PM
I'm still waiting for Romney to share how he was going to get 12 million people working again with us.  He kept stating it over and over... now that he lost I guess he wants to take his little ball (read : plan) and go home with it.  Sour grapes huh?  Some patriot.  I guess you can't love your country unless you are the winner.   ::)

The above is sarcasm for those followers who were stupid enough to believe for one minute that he actually had a plan.

Back to Romney...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 19, 2012, 03:31:23 PM
Republican 'Young Guns' effort misfires
by Carla Marinucci

Mitt Romney's loss in the 2012 presidential election this month brought unexpected collateral damage on another Republican drive - the much-touted "Young Guns" effort to bring a new crop of party stars to Washington.

The GOP's recruitment campaign was led in California by Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the House majority whip, who joined Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia and 2012 vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as the founders of the group touted as "a new generation of conservative leaders" on Capitol Hill.

Their nationwide effort, funded by the National Republican Congressional Committee, aimed to recruit and promote rising new stars in the party who were chosen for their viability and fundraising potential. It was billed as the best way to revive the party and cultivate new GOP legislators in California and other blue states.

But the results at the polls weren't impressive. All but one of the Young Guns candidates in California were defeated, including Ricky Gill, the 25-year-old Indian American from San Joaquin County, while some longtime GOP veterans lost, including Rep. Dan Lundgren of Gold River (Sacramento County), who fell to up-and-coming Democrat Ami Bera.

One winner
McCarthy's effort to increase the ranks of Republicans in Congress, assisted by fellow Rep. Devin Nunes of Tulare, ended up with just one winner: Republican David Valadao, a dairy farmer who challenged Democrat John Hernandez in the new 21st District on the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley.

"If this is Kevin McCarthy's idea of resuscitation, we should all be pretty glad he's not a doctor," quipped Andy Stone, communications director of the Democratic House Majority PAC.

But Republicans, including McCarthy - who admitted on election night that he was "depressed" by his party's losses across the nation - already seemed to be looking ahead.

"The Young Guns program will absolutely continue in the 2014 midterms - as will our members' and candidates' efforts to complement Young Guns by putting infrastructure and resources on the ground in places that have been without such support for quite a long time," McCarthy spokesman Mike Long said last week.

"These efforts will put us in a better position in a non-presidential election cycle," Long added. "In 2008, when Young Guns first started, House Republicans lost 21 seats and President Obama was elected president. Two years later, 62 Young Gun candidates were elected to the House and Republicans took the majority. Whip McCarthy has always said that our efforts in California would take two cycles and that we're in it for the long haul."

Still, McCarthy said after the Nov. 6 election that Republicans would have to make some tough assessments about where they can get the best results in the future.

"We're going to look at it and see where we made mistakes," McCarthy told reporters. "There's always places we look at and see where we can improve."

Some state political watchers say McCarthy gets credit for taking on a tough challenge in a state where Republican voter registration has fallen to 29 percent.

"Kevin did the best he could with a short hand," California Republican strategist Patrick Dorinson said. "In California, the Democrat naturally starts off with an advantage. You have a popular president. But in the midterm, there won't be Obama to bring people out to the polls, and if they think they're going to re-create the Obama machine, they're mistaken."

Hopes for future
Dorinson said mentoring promising candidates such as Kim Vann, the moderate, pro-choice Colusa County supervisor who lost her race against incumbent Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove (Sacramento County), will help the Young Guns program put a spotlight on future GOP stars in the state.

Some Republicans have suggested that such candidates could get a boost if the state party, troubled by financial and leadership problems, gets a fresh start. Jim Brulte, the former Republican leader in the California Senate and Assembly, could take over as chairman of the California Republican Party in February, after current leader Tom Del Beccaro leaves the post, sources say.

California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton, whose party picked up six Congressional seats in California in the 2012 cycle, said the Democrats' wins were directly related to issues that the Young Guns failed to address.

"We had the ground game and we have the demographics," he said, adding that Latinos, Asians, youth voters and women were solidly Democratic in 2012.

That overwhelming support was a result of seeds planted long ago by the party, Burton said. "In California, we were doing things in 2000, working with county committees, labor leaders and activists. We had good candidates" at the local, state and congressional levels.

Dorinson said such efforts will take time for Republicans to develop and added that the majority party shouldn't get too comfortable.

"Democrats are getting older in this state," he said, adding that California's U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco are in their 70s.

"The longer they stay, the more they keep down the young folks," he said. "And they'll eventually go through the same soul-searching as the Republicans are."


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 19, 2012, 03:39:06 PM
Gingrich on Romney’s ‘gifts’ comments: ‘It’s nuts’
By Dylan Stableford

Like several other prominent Republicans, Newt Gingrich slammed Mitt Romney's assertion in a conference call with donors last week that he lost the 2012 presidential election because of "gifts" President Barack Obama gave to blacks, Hispanics and younger voters during his first term in the White House.

"It's nuts," Gingrich told guest host Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "First of all, it's insulting. This would be like Wal-Mart having a bad week and going, 'The customers have really been unruly.' I mean, the job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can't offer a better future that is believable to more people, we're not going to win."

Last week, the former House Speaker admitted he was "dumbfounded" by Obama's victory--and Romney's poor performance at the polls.

"The president won an extraordinary victory," Gingrich said on NBC's "Today" show. "And the fact is we owe him the respect of trying to understand what they did and how they did it. But if you had said to me three weeks ago, Mitt Romney would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he'll be 2 million fewer, I would have been dumbfounded."
But the disbelief soon turned to disillusion over Romney's divisive comments.

"I'm very disappointed with Governor Romney's analysis, which I believe is insulting and profoundly wrong," Gingrich said in an interview with KLRU-TV in Austin. "First of all, we didn't lose Asian-Americans because they got any gifts. He did worse with Asian-Americans than he did with Latinos. This is the hardest-working and most successful ethnic group in America--they ain't into gifts.

"Second, it's an insult to all Americans," he continued. "It reduces us to economic entities. You have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy. If it had been that simple, my question would be, 'Why didn't you outbid him?' He had enough billionaire supporters, if buying the electorate was the key, he could have got all his super PAC friends together and said, don't buy ads, give gifts. Be like the northwest Indians who have gift-giving ceremonies. We could have gone town-by-town and said, 'Come here, let me give you gifts. Here are Republican gifts.' An elephant coming in with gifts on it."

I think that Mitt basically doesn't care any more because he realizes he will never be president....so basically he now is saying what he really believes.....


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 19, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
Marco Rubio: A hip-hop fan unsure of Earth's age
By Morgan Little

Looking for a sign that the Republican Party might have some leaders who can appeal to younger voters? Mitt Romney cited the Beach Boys, Garth Brooks and the Eagles among his favorite musicians, but Sen. Marco Rubio raised some eyebrows Monday with hat tips to N.W.A and Public Enemy.

Rubio, 42, who has sparked early 2016 presidential hype with a headlining visit to Iowa over the weekend, spoke to GQ about a number of topics, but his opinions on music and the Earth’s age overshadowed his perspective on President Obama and young Republicans.

The Florida senator highlighted N.W.A’s “Straight Outta Compton,” “Killuminati” by Tupac Shakur and “Lose Yourself” by Eminem as his three favorite rap songs and offered his own views on the modern hip-hop scene.

“Hip-hop’s 30 years old now and it’s crossed over and sort of become indistinguishable from pop music in general,” Rubio said. “You know, many people say Nicki Minaj is a rapper, but she’s also a singer. Kanye’s another guy who’s also a rapper, but his songs aren’t pure rap anymore. There’s also all these collaborations going on, which confuses everything. You know you’ve got the guy from Miami, Pitbull, who’s on TV selling a car and then he’s advertising for Dr. Pepper.”

N.W.A, which broke new ground during the late 1980s, drew attention from groups like Focus on the Family, with its debut album, “Straight Outta Compton,” among the first to be given the new “parental advisory” status. And the chorus of the second song from that debut, dedicated to the group’s pointed rebuke of police brutality, by itself is still bound to raise hackles among social conservatives.

As for Eminem, Rubio acknowledged that “It’s harder to listen to than ever before because I have a bunch of kids and you just can’t put it on.”

Rubio’s preferences may seem inconsequential to his politics, but musicians played a prominent role in this year’s presidential election. Obama campaign events leaned heavily on stars like Bruce Springsteen and Jay-Z, with the two performers joining forces on the final day of campaigning.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another potential Republican presidential contender in 2016, highlighted his love for Springsteen in an appearance on “Saturday Night Live.” And Romney’s vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), used his music preferences to contrast his relative youth with Romney’s age during his address at the Republican National Convention, referring to his iPod, which "starts with AC/DC and ends with Zeppelin."

But if Rubio’s playlists don’t necessarily play to the Republican base, his stance on the Earth’s age edges a bit closer to appealing to the party’s religious base.

“I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to team them all,” Rubio said.

“Whether the Earth was created in seven days or seven actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 19, 2012, 05:42:58 PM
The Florida senator highlighted N.W.A’s “Straight Outta Compton

LMAO, i actually believe this one.   I firsrt heard that tape in 1988, i remember pretty clearly. 

Rubio thuggin, who would have thought?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 19, 2012, 10:03:09 PM
h


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 19, 2012, 10:03:48 PM
In some cases, Romney paid four times as much for TV ads as Obama
 Daily Caller ^ | 11/19/2012 | Matt K. Lewis

Posted on Monday, November 19, 2012 10:42:26 PM by SeekAndFind

Mitt Romney didn't just pay too much in taxes. As Politico reported last month, he paid too much for his TV ads, too.

(The following graphic represents early September media buys in Columbus, Ohio. It was provided to TheDC by a national media buyer with extensive background buying in America's most competitive state, and is representative of other examples we have seen):



The cost differential is attributable to the fact that Team Obama bought "preemptable" or or "lowest unit rate" ads --- while Team Romney paid for "fixed," non-preemptable rates.

"Obama could deliver 1,000 points for a fourth as much as Romney," said one source.

So why didn't Team Romney negotiate better rates? Since spots are typically not bumped in early September, the notion of reserving non-preemptable ads --- in order to guarantee they would air --- seems implausible.

According to our source, Team Obama simply did the “due diligence to find where the lowest unit rate was,” a tedious process which “takes manpower.”

Conversely, it appears Team Romney simply didn’t want bother with the hassle. So they threw money at the problem — and walked away.

This, no doubt, saved a lot of time and energy. But it also cost a lot of money.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 19, 2012, 10:07:50 PM
Correct - Rupert Murdoch actually called Obama's media buys smarter: "Obama tv buying operation infinitely smarter"

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2012/10/14/rupert-murdoch-plunges-into-u-s-presidential-election-on-twitter/

Obama bought the ads months before the election - Romney team claimed they PREFERRED to pay more if it meant they could choose the EXACT times/stations/shows in which the ads would run.  Obama ran the ads in bulk - while ROmney tried to very specifically target certain viewers.

The win on the media buys goes to the community organizer.   Romney was disorganized and all of the map the entire campaign. 



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 19, 2012, 10:09:44 PM
Correct - Rupert Murdoch actually called Obama's media buys smarter: "Obama tv buying operation infinitely smarter"

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2012/10/14/rupert-murdoch-plunges-into-u-s-presidential-election-on-twitter/

Obama bought the ads months before the election - Romney team claimed they PREFERRED to pay more if it meant they could choose the EXACT times/stations/shows in which the ads would run.  Obama ran the ads in bulk - while ROmney tried to very specifically target certain viewers.

The win on the media buys goes to the community organizer.   Romney was disorganized and all of the map the entire campaign. 



Obama had an amazing organization...he has perfected campaigning to a fine art.....just him beating Hillary was amazing considering the influence and big money donors of the Clintons


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 19, 2012, 10:13:20 PM
Obama had an amazing organization...he has perfected campaigning to a fine art.....just him beating Hillary was amazing considering the influence and big money donors of the Clintons

remember all the people who said he was a mess with no campaign strength, and that community organizers aren't a real job?

He beat mccain, beat hilary, beat romney...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 19, 2012, 10:20:14 PM
Obama had an amazing organization...he has perfected campaigning to a fine art.....just him beating Hillary was amazing considering the influence and big money donors of the Clintons
[/quote

He had the jobless welfare thugs. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 19, 2012, 10:21:01 PM
remember all the people who said he was a mess with no campaign strength, and that community organizers aren't a real job?

He beat mccain, beat hilary, beat romney...

Obama also has David Axelrod.....that guy is a genius plain and simple..also he knows how to run black candidates for office.....there have been only three black senators since reconstruction...David got two of them elecxted and got Obama to the presidency

as for your comment about community organizing, you are right...people make fun of Obama for having such a job but his chicago organization is amazing in how they run his campaigns


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 19, 2012, 10:26:42 PM
Obama also has David Axelrod.....that guy is a genius plain and simple..also he knows how to run black candidates for office.....there have been only three black senators since reconstruction...David got two of them elecxted and got Obama to the presidency

as for your comment about community organizing, you are right...people make fun of Obama for having such a job but his chicago organization is amazing in how they run his campaigns

axelrod will be probably make ten million dollars getting the 2016 Dem elected. 

Yes, people will gloat "rats fleeing the ship" when he quietly resigns to start his consulting firm.

Then the dude will community organize his way to another win - Imagine his ass with a superPAC, $300 mil to spend, and all his experience...

Add in Hilary, Bill, Obama campaigning for them if he's popular at the time... and the theme being "One last clinton term".

It'd be tough to beat.  Any-other-dem would be easy to beat though.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 19, 2012, 10:36:07 PM
axelrod will be probably make ten million dollars getting the 2016 Dem elected. 

Yes, people will gloat "rats fleeing the ship" when he quietly resigns to start his consulting firm.

Then the dude will community organize his way to another win - Imagine his ass with a superPAC, $300 mil to spend, and all his experience...

Add in Hilary, Bill, Obama campaigning for them if he's popular at the time... and the theme being "One last clinton term".

It'd be tough to beat.  Any-other-dem would be easy to beat though.

agreed...and blacks LOVE Hillary...and so do women who view her as their cross-bearer......she would do well with independents as well I think....not to mention Hillary would clean up with foreign donations since everybody in the world knows her..and her foreign policy experience would destroy the Republicans


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Shockwave on November 19, 2012, 11:01:24 PM
.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 20, 2012, 05:47:52 AM
agreed...and blacks LOVE Hillary...and so do women who view her as their cross-bearer......she would do well with independents as well I think....not to mention Hillary would clean up with foreign donations since everybody in the world knows her..and her foreign policy experience would destroy the Republicans

4 dead in Benghazi salt disagree. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 20, 2012, 06:16:10 AM
4 dead in Benghazi salt disagree. 

not the first time our embassies have been attacked...not the last either...the British embassies have been attacked as well....Embassies are vulnerable.....embassies are attacked all the time


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 20, 2012, 08:04:58 AM
Conservative Republicans fight back after Romney loss
By Paul Kane and Rosalind S. Helderman

Evangelical leaders and conservative activists have a simple message for establishment Republicans about Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid: We told you so.

After nearly two weeks of listening to GOP officials pledge to assert greater control over the party and its most strident voices in the wake of Romney’s loss, grass-roots activists have begun to fight back, saying that they are not to blame for the party’s losses in November.

“The moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader. Vander Plaats is an influential Christian conservative who opposed Romney in the Iowa caucuses 10 months ago and opposed Sen. John McCain’s candidacy four years ago.

The conservative backlash sets up an internal fight for the direction of the Republican Party, as many top leaders in Washington have proposed moderating their views on citizenship for illegal immigrants, to appeal to Latino voters. In addition, many top GOP officials have called for softening the party’s rhetoric on social issues, following the embarrassing showing by Senate candidates who were routed after publicly musing about denying abortion services to women who had been raped.

Ted Cruz, a tea party favorite, trounced Texas’s establishment candidate in a primary on his way to becoming the second Hispanic Republican in the Senate, and the battle he waged in the Lone Star State epitomizes the fight between the two sides. Although he is considered a rising star with a personal biography that GOP leaders wish to promote, Cruz falls squarely in the camp that thinks Romney was not conservative enough and did not fully articulate a conservative contrast to President Obama, except during the first presidential debate.

“It was the one time we actually contested ideas, presented two viewpoints and directions for the country,” he said at the Federalist Society’s annual dinner in Washington. “And then, inevitably, there are these mandarins of politics, who give the voice: ‘Don’t show any contrasts. Don’t rock the boat.’ So by the third debate, I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama.”

Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania who finished second to Romney in the GOP primary, lampooned Romney’s assertion that Obama’s victory was fueled by “gifts” to core liberal constituencies in the form of legislative favors.

“The American people do not want ‘gifts’ from their leaders, particularly when these gifts leave a steep bill for our children to pay, but they do want us to be on their side,” Santorum wrote in a USA Today op-ed published Monday. He placed the blame on the national party, saying it lacked an appealing agenda: “We as a party, the party of Ronald Reagan and ‘Morning in America,’ failed to provide an agenda that shows we care.”

The dispute began to take shape soon after Obama was declared the winner and Republicans, who had hoped to claim the Senate majority, lost two seats. Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans’ mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: “How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?”

The fight ahead will come in two phases, the first being legislative debates on taxes, entitlements and immigration, and the second in the GOP primary battles in the 2014 midterm elections.

Congressional Republican leaders have rejected Obama’s call for higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, but they have opened the door to more revenue streaming into the Treasury by limiting exemptions and closing loopholes as part of a broad tax-code overhaul. The president says those measures would not produce enough revenue.

More problematic for Republicans is the drift of Hispanic voters into the Democratic fold. Obama won among Hispanic voters by 44 percentage points this year, up eight points from 2008.

“Hispanics are an ever-important part of the electorate that can’t be ignored. The scope of the challenge is broad, but there is opportunity ahead for conservatives to engage,” Jennifer S. Korn of the Hispanic Leadership Network, a Republican-funded group designed to do outreach, wrote in a memo circulated over the weekend.

Korn warned that two reliably Republican states worth 49 electoral votes combined could become swing states if demographic trendlines continue. In 2004, George W. Bush tied in the Hispanic vote in Texas and lost in Arizona by 13 percentage points. Romney lost the Hispanic vote by more than 40 points in both states.

After several years of focusing on border security as the centerpiece of their immigration proposals, many senior party officials have reversed course and suggested that they should at least support the DREAM Act, which would allow the children of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation.

Such a move would spark a huge internal fight with some conservatives. Dan Stein, president of the hard-line Federation for American Immigration Reform, insisted that the 2012 election was decided on issues other than immigration and that the push for the party to change its position represents opportunism by those who have always favored a more accommodating approach. He said the party’s elite is captive to business interests who favor increased immigration to reduce labor costs.

“There’s no evidence, none, that amnesty will bond Hispanics to the Republican Party,” he said. “This post-election chatter is coming from people who, for the most part, have generally disagreed with the need for stronger border control or less immigration. . . . This is going to be a long, protracted debate.”

The 2014 Senate races will serve as a test for establishment control of the political process. For the third consecutive cycle, Republicans will begin as heavy favorites to gain a large bloc of seats, and some party leaders want a bigger role in choosing those nominees. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans say, bad nominees in Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Missouri and Nevada cost them what should have been easy victories. If those seats were in GOP hands today, the Senate would be deadlocked at 50-50.

Some outside groups, however, stand ready to fight for the most conservative nominee, pointing to Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) as examples of rising stars who won Senate races without establishment support.

“The party is rarely in a position to determine the best candidate,” said Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth. “When you have someone who can articulate a clear, convincing, conservative message, they win.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on November 20, 2012, 08:06:27 AM
not the first time our embassies have been attacked...not the last either...the British embassies have been attacked as well....Embassies are vulnerable.....embassies are attacked all the time

No they are not.  This only happens on Obama's watch.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 20, 2012, 08:22:18 AM
No they are not.  This only happens on Obama's watch.

First time ambassador killed in 30 years.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on November 20, 2012, 08:34:30 AM
First time ambassador killed in 30 years.

Yup and its Obamas fault


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on November 20, 2012, 08:38:16 AM
First time ambassador killed in 30 years.

But not the first time an ambassador has ever been killed huh?

 ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Benny B on November 20, 2012, 09:19:19 AM
Obama also has David Axelrod.....that guy is a genius plain and simple..also he knows how to run black candidates for office.....there have been only three black senators since reconstruction...David got two of them elecxted and got Obama to the presidency

as for your comment about community organizing, you are right...people make fun of Obama for having such a job but his chicago organization is amazing in how they run his campaigns

David Plouffe is every bit equally important to the success of Obama's two presidential campaigns as Axe.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 20, 2012, 01:12:03 PM
Jim Messina: Jeep ad was Romney’s biggest mistake
Posted by Rachel Weiner

President Obama’s campaign manager said Tuesday that an ad suggesting Jeep was moving production to China was the biggest mistake made by Mitt Romney’s campaign.

“They ended up spending the last 14 days of the election in the Midwest on the defense,” Messina said at a Politico Playbook breakfast. The ad was criticized by factcheckers and by major car companies.

Messina said that one of the best decisions made by the Obama campaign was to hire non-political tech staff — advice he got from Google chairman Eric Schmidt.

If you asked Harper Reed, the campaign’s chief technology officer, what the campaign did, Messina said, he would say, ”They just built a whole bunch of things to make door knocking easier.”

Some of those tools — in particular, the social Dashboard — will be used to pressure lawmakers on a fiscal cliff deal, Messina suggested.

“People want to be involved in supporting the president’s agenda in the next four years,” he said. Supporters were asked in a recent email how they would ”like to stay involved in the future.”  That’s a shift from 2008, when Obama shut down his network after the election.

Messina, who worked in the administration from 2009 to 2011, said he too will likely be working from the outside this term.

“I think my future is probably outside the White House,” helping advocate for Obama’s agenda, he said. A decision on his future role will be made by the inauguration, Messina said. To start, he’s taking a vacation for the first time in five years. “The president and I were joking recently about how bad I look,” he said.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: MCWAY on November 20, 2012, 01:42:33 PM
Conservative Republicans fight back after Romney loss
By Paul Kane and Rosalind S. Helderman

Evangelical leaders and conservative activists have a simple message for establishment Republicans about Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid: We told you so.

After nearly two weeks of listening to GOP officials pledge to assert greater control over the party and its most strident voices in the wake of Romney’s loss, grass-roots activists have begun to fight back, saying that they are not to blame for the party’s losses in November.

“The moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader. Vander Plaats is an influential Christian conservative who opposed Romney in the Iowa caucuses 10 months ago and opposed Sen. John McCain’s candidacy four years ago.

The conservative backlash sets up an internal fight for the direction of the Republican Party, as many top leaders in Washington have proposed moderating their views on citizenship for illegal immigrants, to appeal to Latino voters. In addition, many top GOP officials have called for softening the party’s rhetoric on social issues, following the embarrassing showing by Senate candidates who were routed after publicly musing about denying abortion services to women who had been raped.

Ted Cruz, a tea party favorite, trounced Texas’s establishment candidate in a primary on his way to becoming the second Hispanic Republican in the Senate, and the battle he waged in the Lone Star State epitomizes the fight between the two sides. Although he is considered a rising star with a personal biography that GOP leaders wish to promote, Cruz falls squarely in the camp that thinks Romney was not conservative enough and did not fully articulate a conservative contrast to President Obama, except during the first presidential debate.

“It was the one time we actually contested ideas, presented two viewpoints and directions for the country,” he said at the Federalist Society’s annual dinner in Washington. “And then, inevitably, there are these mandarins of politics, who give the voice: ‘Don’t show any contrasts. Don’t rock the boat.’ So by the third debate, I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama.”

Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania who finished second to Romney in the GOP primary, lampooned Romney’s assertion that Obama’s victory was fueled by “gifts” to core liberal constituencies in the form of legislative favors.

“The American people do not want ‘gifts’ from their leaders, particularly when these gifts leave a steep bill for our children to pay, but they do want us to be on their side,” Santorum wrote in a USA Today op-ed published Monday. He placed the blame on the national party, saying it lacked an appealing agenda: “We as a party, the party of Ronald Reagan and ‘Morning in America,’ failed to provide an agenda that shows we care.”

The dispute began to take shape soon after Obama was declared the winner and Republicans, who had hoped to claim the Senate majority, lost two seats. Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans’ mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: “How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?”

The fight ahead will come in two phases, the first being legislative debates on taxes, entitlements and immigration, and the second in the GOP primary battles in the 2014 midterm elections.

Congressional Republican leaders have rejected Obama’s call for higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, but they have opened the door to more revenue streaming into the Treasury by limiting exemptions and closing loopholes as part of a broad tax-code overhaul. The president says those measures would not produce enough revenue.

More problematic for Republicans is the drift of Hispanic voters into the Democratic fold. Obama won among Hispanic voters by 44 percentage points this year, up eight points from 2008.

“Hispanics are an ever-important part of the electorate that can’t be ignored. The scope of the challenge is broad, but there is opportunity ahead for conservatives to engage,” Jennifer S. Korn of the Hispanic Leadership Network, a Republican-funded group designed to do outreach, wrote in a memo circulated over the weekend.

Korn warned that two reliably Republican states worth 49 electoral votes combined could become swing states if demographic trendlines continue. In 2004, George W. Bush tied in the Hispanic vote in Texas and lost in Arizona by 13 percentage points. Romney lost the Hispanic vote by more than 40 points in both states.

After several years of focusing on border security as the centerpiece of their immigration proposals, many senior party officials have reversed course and suggested that they should at least support the DREAM Act, which would allow the children of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation.

Such a move would spark a huge internal fight with some conservatives. Dan Stein, president of the hard-line Federation for American Immigration Reform, insisted that the 2012 election was decided on issues other than immigration and that the push for the party to change its position represents opportunism by those who have always favored a more accommodating approach. He said the party’s elite is captive to business interests who favor increased immigration to reduce labor costs.

“There’s no evidence, none, that amnesty will bond Hispanics to the Republican Party,” he said. “This post-election chatter is coming from people who, for the most part, have generally disagreed with the need for stronger border control or less immigration. . . . This is going to be a long, protracted debate.”

The 2014 Senate races will serve as a test for establishment control of the political process. For the third consecutive cycle, Republicans will begin as heavy favorites to gain a large bloc of seats, and some party leaders want a bigger role in choosing those nominees. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans say, bad nominees in Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Missouri and Nevada cost them what should have been easy victories. If those seats were in GOP hands today, the Senate would be deadlocked at 50-50.

Some outside groups, however, stand ready to fight for the most conservative nominee, pointing to Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) as examples of rising stars who won Senate races without establishment support.

“The party is rarely in a position to determine the best candidate,” said Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth. “When you have someone who can articulate a clear, convincing, conservative message, they win.”

This is precisely what I said would happen among the conservatives in the party.



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 20, 2012, 01:45:50 PM
How does being Demo-Lite win anything at all?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Option D on November 20, 2012, 01:55:46 PM
How does being Demo-Lite win anything at all?

Being super Neo Con didnt do the trick...

LSC


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 20, 2012, 02:09:33 PM
Being super Neo Con didnt do the trick...

LSC

Yes it did - it got O-blah blah re-elected.   :P


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on November 20, 2012, 11:46:23 PM
David Plouffe is every bit equally important to the success of Obama's two presidential campaigns as Axe.

really?...I've never seen the guy on TV..are you saying that Axelrod just steals all the glory? :)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 21, 2012, 12:05:20 AM
life after defeat is still good... Mitt's doing a bulk right now.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Primemuscle on November 21, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
I am a mod.  I should.  People should be able to post and debate in a civilized way free from getting maliciously insulted in place of good counter points.

Don't you agree?

Or do you think a play ground culture of frequent vile attacks is better?

One can only hope.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on November 21, 2012, 03:19:06 AM
life after defeat is still good... Mitt's doing a bulk right now.

Mitt is done his dream that he sold his soul for is not happening.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 21, 2012, 07:53:23 AM
Spurning Chris Christie, Republicans continue to dig own hole
By James Rainey

Republicans seem to have no lack of understanding about how badly their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney,  damaged the party brand by demonizing a good chunk of the electorate as “victims” and “gift” grabbers — the slothful masses who just can’t wait to take a government handout.
The party faithful might also want to reconsider their recent demonization of one of their previous favorites, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, if they hope to recapture the heart of America. And have a better shot in the next presidential election.

The New York Times’ Michael Barbaro reported Tuesday on how the immensely likable, plain-talking governor remains persona non grata among GOP mainstays following the lost presidential election. His crime: suggesting that President Obama performed admirably in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

Make no mistake, Democrats would also be hounding one of their own who heaped praise on a Republican in the waning hours of a close presidential campaign. Imagine if California Gov. Jerry Brown had waited until late October to say he viewed Mitt Romney as a  principled, post-partisan leader who could work with one and all. He would need a team of bodyguards to move safely in the deep-blue state Capitol.

But this is one of those moments when tried-and-true partisan hackery and the thoughts of average Americans diverge in a big way. The rapprochement between Obama and Christie  — who praised the president’s Sandy response as  “outstanding,” “incredibly supportive” and a “great credit” to leadership — pleased a lot of ordinary people. Exit polls found  that roughly 1 in 4 voters called Obama’s response to the giant storm an “important factor” in their vote. Christie’s warm embrace of the president presumably went a long way toward affirming that Obama acted presidential, not political, during the crisis.

Christie may have been thinking about his own reelection prospects next year against Newark Mayor Cory Booker. So perhaps his motivations were not pure as the waves driven across the Atlantic City boardwalk. But most New Jerseyans will see his work with Obama through a positive lens. They won’t care why the two men worked together, just that they did.

That’s what even the most cynical and fatigued citizens expect political leaders to do during true crises — to put their differences aside (Christie had said not long prior to the storm that Obama flailed desperately to find the “light switch” of leadership) and get things done.

One need only go back to 2005 and the uneven to invisible response to Hurricane Katrina for a model of what Americans won’t abide. FEMA and the federal government, under Republican President George W. Bush, stalled in getting help to the residents of New Orleans.

Louisiana's governor at the time, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a Democrat, feuded with Bush. When federal aide arrived, her state moved too slowly to distribute it to its increasingly desperate citizens. Yet evidence emerged that the Republicans in Washington had sought to embarrass the Democrat and that the Bush administration moved more rapidly to help Republican-governed Mississippi.

In short, the Katrina response embarrassed most of those who came anywhere near it. Any politician paying attention should have learned that the overt politicization of tragedy does not amuse the victims. They tend not to forget. Gov. Christie internalized that lesson, especially after he got walloped in the press for being on vacation in Florida when a massive blizzard shut down his state in early 2011.

New Jerseyans surely appreciate that distinction. Republicans nationally would be wise to absorb it, too. The more they spurn their onetime favorite, Christie, the more they look like the party that just lost the last election by focusing on their own and shunning everyone else.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 26, 2012, 04:55:39 PM
Romney’s final share of the vote? You guessed it: 47 percent
By Aaron Blake , Updated: November 26, 2012

Call it irony or call it coincidence: Mitt Romney’s share of the popular vote in the 2012 presidential race is very likely to be 47 percent.

Romney’s campaign, of course, was doomed in large part by comments made on a hidden camera in which he suggested that 47 percent of the country was so reliant on government services that those people would never vote for him.

The words ’47 percent’ came to define what was already evident: that Romney struggled to connect with lower- and middle-income voters and with groups such as Latinos. And in the end, it looks like 47 percent also just happens to be the share of the vote that Romney will get.

The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent noted a few days ago that Romney was flirting with 47 percent, and now it appears to be happening.

According to the latest numbers tallied by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, President Obama has expanded his share of the popular vote to 50.8 percent, while Romney has fallen to 47.49 percent.

By virtue of rounding, Romney’s share of the popular vote will be recorded here and elsewhere as 47 percent, so long as it doesn’t rise above 47.5 percent again.

That seems unlikely. Wasserman projects that Romney’s vote share will actually head more toward 47 percent flat — 47.1 percent or 47.2 percent — because many of the outstanding ballots in the presidential race come from California and New York, which both voted for Obama by a large margin.

And Obama’s popular vote margin, in the end, is likely to be 51 percent to 47 percent.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Skip8282 on November 26, 2012, 05:28:14 PM


And Obama’s popular vote margin, in the end, is likely to be 51 percent to 47 percent.



Pretty much most other political margins.

I see Bay continues to be pathetically jealous of other people's financial success.  That's too bad.  Spend less time crying over their success and more time on your own.  You might just feel better.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 27, 2012, 05:37:48 PM
David Axelrod Surprised by Romney Campaign’s Missed Opportunities
Obama’s top election strategist tells a Chicago audience he was surprised Mitt Romney’s team did not attack Obama more, stuck so narrowly with their base—and chose Paul Ryan for VP.
by James Warren  | November 27, 2012 4:45 AM EST

President Obama’s top reelection strategist conceded surprise Monday that Republican super PACS didn’t attack Obama far earlier, Mitt Romney didn’t invest much more in ground operations, and that the Republican nominee played narrowly to the party base in picking Rep. Paul Ryan as a running mate.

Offering a lengthy dissection of the campaign, David Axelrod told a Chicago audience that he was “a bit surprised that super PACS, which spent an unbelievable amount of money,” didn’t hit television and radio with anti-Obama ads until May.

“Our air defenses weren’t ready,” he said, alluding to his side’s early lack of resources. “They gave us a pass, for whatever reason.”

At the same time, he was surprised that a plausible, distinctly positive image of Romney as successful businessman was not central to Romney’s media strategy until late fall. In part he ascribed that to Romney’s “Faustian bargain” to get the Republican nomination and tacking far to the right while also unleashing a barrage of mostly negative ads against GOP primary rivals.

The Obama camp assumed that after Romney sewed up the nomination, he would offer that more upbeat aura in his ads. “They never did that,” Axelrod said at the evening gathering at the University of Chicago.

As for Ryan, Axelrod personally figured former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty would be the choice, possibly Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. His doubts about Ryan were a function of tough-minded views on privatizing Social Security and making significant changes in Medicare.

And as for the Republicans’ field operation, their comparatively small investment played into the Democrats’ hands and was not forecast by Axelrod, either.

Axelrod’s comments to a large audience amounted to a postmortem on his final political campaign and a segue to his career’s next chapter, overseeing the university’s new Institute of Politics.

He conceived the notion of a future rival to Harvard’s Kennedy School, among other institutions, with an accent on undergraduate education; pitched the concept to Chicago and Northwestern University; cut a deal with his alma mater, and has assembled a solid staff to execute the initial vision, including fellowship and internship programs. For example, this past campaign’s plethora of polling, some both erroneous and influential, will be an early topic of examination, he revealed Monday.

The session itself touched a wide variety of topics, mostly involving the campaign and the state of American politics. It had its languid spots and one moment in which Axelrod came off as somewhat defensive, namely when asked about political consultants and negative ads “degrading the system,” as one student questioner put it.

While agreeing that the two campaigns were beneficiaries of ads that degraded the political process, he cited just one, by a pro-Obama PAC and not approved by the campaign, as an example. Other anti-Romney ads that some observers felt were unfair were not mentioned.

“This was a very tough election,” he said. “And we had to make a case as well.”

He asserted that the earliest Obama ads in battleground states were distinctly positive. But it became clear that “if we allowed Romney to be the hazy, local Chamber of Commerce president” in his ads, “that was not in our interest.” A barrage of harsh anti-Romney ads ensued early and, many observers contend, did irreparable damage to Romney even before he officially was the GOP nominee.

In the final days of the campaign, Axelrod told Fox's Chris Wallace that Romney was behind in battleground states.

As for the dramatic increase in super PAC dollars, Axelrod noted that Obama has underscored his own disagreement with the Supreme Court decision, known as Citizens United, which opened the floodgates. At the same time, “I would not advise the Democratic Party to lay down arms and get mowed over in the next campaign” by eschewing such support.

Axelrod was his frequent droll and insightful self at times, including when discussing his return to the White House one Saturday after he’d left his West Wing position. His purpose was to assist in writing jokes for Obama’s speech that evening at a Washington dinner.

One line he’d written made fun of Pawlenty by claiming his middle name was bin Laden. “That’s so hackneyed,” he recalled Obama saying. “That’s so yesterday.” Axelrod didn’t think what replaced his line was especially funny.

Little did he know that the poker-faced Obama had just approved the raid that would result in the killing of Osama bin Laden in a few hours. His boss didn’t think a bin Laden joke was appropriate. Thus, said Axelrod, “Obama knew he had ordered the mission. And if that hadn’t gone well, his political career was probably over.”

One subject of curiosity Monday was the president’s poor performance in the first presidential debate. Axelrod was asked by moderator Steve Edwards, a respected Chicago journalist now with the institute, as to his true feelings immediately after, and before he spoke to media at the debate.

“I was thinking, ‘Can’t somebody else do this?’”

But, as uninspired as Obama might have been, Axelrod was taken aback by “our friends in the media,” meaning the reaction of obvious ideological allies in the press.

“MSNBC was relentless that night. And Andrew Sullivan was on a suicide watch after that debate,” said Axelrod.

By and large, the Axelrod on display before his new constituency, students and academics, was the fellow long known to friends, colleagues and even professional rivals: a distinctly likable, self-questioning journalist turned political operative who has often led with his heart and will go down in history as perhaps the most important figure in Obama’s decision to run for president in 2008.

“He thought big in the same way Obama did; he had something to prove in the same way Obama did,” is how Obama biographer David Maraniss puts it. “They both had holes in their lives in different personal ways. Axe was able to connect him to power in a way that previous consultants could not, and they shared a sensibility of being outsiders who could play the inside game.”

The bond with Obama was ever clear Monday, as Axelrod reverently recited a litany of what he considers historic achievements that, in some cases (notably the auto industry bailouts and his health-care legislation), were acts that ran contrary to Axelrod polling on what he should do. As he’s said before, he was often glad Obama didn’t take his advice.

And, now, after once-unimaginable opportunities have come his way, including shepherding the rise of the first black president, meeting world leaders, and doing well financially while doing good professionally, he will change course, targeting students, not prospective voters. He’ll settle down at his alma mater and try to make a famously cerebral enclave a more high-profile and influential player in the contentious world of politics and policy he deems central to a democracy.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 28, 2012, 05:45:55 PM
Romney’s campaign strategist on 2012 election: No apologies for loss

The chief strategist for the Republican’s campaign says sometimes losing is just losing.




Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.
By Stuart Stevens

Stuart Stevens was the chief strategist for the Romney presidential campaign.

Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing. It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.


When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins.

But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004. Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012. Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire.

In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics.

There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?

Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 29, 2012, 08:38:46 AM
Sour grapes alert: Romney’s campaign guru final whine toast 
by Joe Garofoli

Nothing sounds lamer than a political strategist trying to explain why his candidate lost — while studiously avoiding the facts. Or a lot of responsibility. But that’s how Mitt Romney’s chief strategist Stuart Stevens sounded when he dropped an op-ed in the Washington Post Wednesday.

The world through Stuart’s Rearview Mirror glasses often looks different than, say, reality. Here’s a couple of examples:

Sez Stu: “I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.”

Uh, not really. According to a RealClearPolitics.com analysis of major polls on Nov. 28, 2011, Mitt and Newt Gingrich were in a virtual dead heat in the polls.

Sez Stu: “Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney.”

Aren’t they interchangeable? And it sure helped that starting in Iowa, Mitt’s Super PAC — led by former Romneyites and funded by largely untraceable money — dropped millions on crushing TV ads to destroy pretenders to the throne.

But Stu’s money quote comes when he attributes the loss not just to Obama running a better campaign but, in part, to his race:

“There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?”

No primary? True. But incumbents rarely have primary challenges. We’ll ignore the blame-the-media whine (Stuart didn’t blame media meanies when his candidate George W. Bush won TWICE.) He didn’t lose because of the “billion dollars,” either. The Romney camp wasn’t hurting for money.

The question for Stu: Please explain what the significance of being a “charismatic African-American” had to do with winning the presidency. Last we checked the interwebs, Obama was the first African-American — charismatic or not — to have won the office. Quick history reminder on the political “advantages” of being an African-American candidate: Obama was only the fifth black U.S. Senator. Ever.

Stu sez: “Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters.”

And so, Stuart reasons that “Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right.”

Wow.

So what do you call the party that loses the electoral college 332-206 and the popular vote by around 4 million?

You got to appreciate that Stuart had a lot of nice things to say about Romney — particularly his strong first debate performance. But really. The campaign, like all losing campaigns, made a lot of mistakes. Two words: Own it.

Meanwhile, Mitt will be at the White House Thursday for a private lunch with President Obama.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 30, 2012, 09:46:45 AM
f


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 30, 2012, 09:49:24 AM
f

Obama still owes Springfield from 2008 remember?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 30, 2012, 09:50:47 AM
Obama still owes Springfield from 2008 remember?

yep.   two bags of shit right therre, great point man.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on November 30, 2012, 09:52:42 AM
Obama still owes Springfield from 2008 remember?

oh wait - that was a secret service incurred cost, as it was for security for a person not yet in office?

I guess they should be paying their bill and not getting hookers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/obamas-unpaid-bill-spring_n_1256993.html


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on November 30, 2012, 09:59:50 AM
yep.   two bags of shit right therre, great point man.

This.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Option D on November 30, 2012, 10:09:58 AM
Obama still owes Springfield from 2008 remember?

LMAO,,,


BUT BUT ... OBAMA...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA H


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on November 30, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
MITT ROMNEY NEEDS TO GO ON AN APOLOGY TOUR
By Michael Tracey

A guy named Mitt Romney had lunch with the president yesterday at the White House. Consequently, our nation is far from done seeing the words “Mitt Romney” splashed all over the goddamn place, because even after spending six long years in vain pursuit of the presidency, here he is—out and about once again, making us aware of his existence.

On election night, Romney was reportedly “shell-shocked” after learning he’d been resoundingly defeated. “Intellectually, I've felt we were going to win this and have felt that for some time,” the candidate had mused to campaign trail reporters aboard his private jet, mere hours before news agencies declared Barack Obama the victor. “But emotionally, just getting off the plane and …” Romney trailed off, then concluded: “Seeing people there cheering as they were connected emotionally with me—I not only think we're going to win intellectually, I feel it as well.”

He “felt” this despite the preponderance of crystal-clear polling data available for the world to view on the New York Times’ website, which projected a decisive loss and had for weeks. Romney chose instead to rely on his own perceived “emotional connection” to cheering supporters as the most authoritative predictor of election outcomes, which is an excellent metaphor for his campaign’s chronic refusal to acknowledge empirical reality.

Weeks later, the failed candidate should finally account for his wrongdoings—look in the mirror, own up to his most glaring bad actions and lies, and reckon with the public’s negative perception of him, instead of continuing to blame his loss on “gifts” Obama supposedly gave minorities. In other words, isn’t it time for Romney to do something truly drastic and redemptive? I think so. The solution is to embark on an “apology tour.”

The phrase “apology tour,” of course, refers to when Romney—in one of his many substance-free talking points—accused Obama of going around the world to genuflect before unfriendly foreign leaders and “apologize for America.” This was a charge that had percolated within the fever-dreaming fringes of the GOP, and emanated into the mainstream. No “apology tour” ever happened, of course, but Romney went on repeating the allegation till the bitter end. Given his interest in “apology tours,” here’s one the failed candidate might consider taking:

Stop 1: Washington, DC
When the two men met in private yesterday, perhaps Romney took the opportunity to apologize for his decision in September to accuse Obama of “sympathizing” with Islamist radicals during a major diplomatic crisis. (As you might recall, in response to news that the American embassies in Egypt and Libya had been besieged, Romney issued a statement pronouncing that Obama was on the side of the US’s enemies.) Post-election reporting has revealed that at the time, Romney realized he’d leveled an erroneous charge—but he decided to press on with it anyway, for fear of how neoconservative hawks in the Republican Party might react if he changed course or showed indecisiveness. Incredibly, the next morning, when the deaths of the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were announced, Romney convened a press conference specifically to reiterate that line of criticism.

If Romney opted not to apologize for basically calling Obama a traitor, I imagine their lunch would be a little... tense.

Stop 2: Seaside Heights, New Jersey
Next, Romney should head northeast for the New Jersey coastline. Any of the many areas wrecked by Superstorm Sandy would be an acceptable as an Apology Tour stop, but I personally recommend Seaside Heights, where the smell of gas spillage may still linger in some neglected coves.

Following the storm, Romney’s operation orchestrated a hasty, last-minute transformation of long-scheduled Ohio campaign rallies into fake “storm relief” events. Neither Romney nor Paul Ryan bothered to survey any of the affected areas; Sandy’s devastation was largely confined to solid “blue states,” and therefore it would have been strategically imprudent for Romney to visit those places when he could have been politicking in swing states. (By the way: Let’s get rid of the Electoral College already!) Upon arrival to the New Jersey barrier islands, Romney should be forewarned that the sight of storm surge-barraged neighborhoods and other miseries may come as a bit of a shock.

Stop 3: Trenton, New Jersey
Romney should then head to Trenton, the state capitol, where he can apologize directly to Governor Chris Christie. Campaign operatives launched scurrilous attacks on Christie after he dared praise Obama for overseeing the federal government’s relatively competent response to a mammoth natural disaster. Funny how freely the fat jokes flowed on right-wing sites after they decided their former idol betrayed Team GOP. After all, it was only August when Christie proclaimed, to rapturous applause from the Republican National Convention, “Tonight, we are going to choose respect over love.”

If there’s one thing that made the GOP fume with hatred this election cycle, it was any sign of a fellow Republican expressing even the mildest support for Obama. Christie’s praise was therefore deemed not just unacceptable, but morally despicable. While New Jersey residents shivered in the wet darkness, members of Romney’s operation saw fit to anonymously leak their “sour grapes” to every campaign hack’s favorite tabloid, POLITICO—which of course gleefully egged on the saucy intra-party feud. Weeks later, major Romney donors are still whining about Christie’s kind words for Obama having been some kind of “game-changer,” and they blame Governor Wrecking Ball (as he was once more commonly known) for handing re-election to Obama. Mitt will probably understand why he should apologize to Chris for this nonsense when he observes firsthand the wreckage on the coast.

Stop 4: London
Romney—who endlessly touted his “rescue” of the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics—should return to the UK to repent for his previous trip there this summer, during which he bashed the City of London’s Olympics preparations for no reason—though the rebuke delivered by Mayor Boris Johnson was enjoyable. Eh, on second thought—screw the Olympics. Mitt can insult annoying gymnasts all he wants.

Stop 5: Salt Lake City, Utah
Here, Romney is advised to seek forgiveness from the hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As president of the Church’s Boston stake from 1986 to 1994, he established strong ties to top church officials; in January 2008, Romney suspended his first failed presidential campaign to attend the funeral of church president and “prophet” Gordon B. Hinckley, described by USA Today as Mitt’s personal “spiritual leader.” How well did he carry out his duties as a global representative of the faith?

Well, the LDS ought to consider casting judgement on Romney’s partnership with conspiracy hate websites like Breitbart.com, which churns out a daily avalanche of wild, resentment-filled invective under the guise of “news.” Breitbart readers include many folks who still harbor big questions about Obama’s “background,” incriminating past “associations” that have yet to be uncovered, and the like. Few will relent on their demand that Obama release his undergraduate college transcripts, as he eventually did his long-form birth certificate.

While in Salt Lake, Romney is advised to apologize for his cynical prevarications about LDS doctrine. When prompted, he’d typically offer only generic platitudes on “Judeo-Christian values.” Fortunately for Romney, national political media generally agreed that adversarial questions regarding Mormonism were impolite and therefore not to be asked, so it never became a major general election campaign issue. (Members of the national political media also have a lot to apologize for)

Stop 6: Lake Jackson, Texas
One of Ron Paul’s two district offices is located in Lake Jackson, and it’s being packed up. At age 77, the iconoclast is retiring from Congress on January 3, having opted not to seek a 14th term in office. Ron Paul was personally cordial with Mitt Romney throughout the 2008 and 2012 presidential primaries and they appeared together in dozens of televised debates. But the Romney operation and GOP “establishment” decided to sandbag his supporters anyway, shocking even some in the Ron Paul apparatus who hoped for reconciliation with party power brokers. At the RNC, fervid Ron Paul cadres adopted “Remember Maine” as a rallying cry after part of the Maine delegation was arbitrarily blocked from being seated, prompting a mini-uprising on the floor.

Romney campaign spokespeople would occasionally make overtures geared toward appeasing Ron Paul people, but on the issue that most animates Ron Paul himself—non-interventionist foreign policy—Romney was horrendous, far worse in his sabre-rattling and war-mongering than Barack Obama and perhaps even George W. Bush.

As if by karmic law, Ron Paul will ultimately get the last laugh. His peculiar advocacy engendered a powerful, decentralized grassroots movement and aroused political consciousness for a very unorthodox assortment of young people, many of whom first became aware of Ron Paul by watching YouTube clips of his debate performances. Paul’s supporters typically feel great personal affection for the man. By contrast, Romney almost never inspired any such feelings, except maybe among his former colleagues in the private equity business.

Stop 7: Grand Rapids, Michigan
This will be Romney’s final stop; his home state, where his father served as governor and where last spring he declared admiration for the fine vegetation: “The trees are the right height.” In Grand Rapids, Romney is advised to deliver his last remarks and then withdraw peacefully from the public arena forever.

First, Romney should apologize for subjecting innocent Americans to repeated renditions of the song “Born Free” by Kid Rock, one of his most prominent surrogates on the campaign trail (other prominent surrogates included Meatloaf, Pat Robertson, and Donald Trump). Second, he’ll apologize for signing a pledge to support a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and nullify all existing marriages in states that recognize them. Third, he’ll apologize for suggesting that the federal government ought to make things so hard on undocumented immigrants that they’ll voluntarily “self-deport” in order to escape the suffering.

Upon successful completion of this proposed Apology Tour, Romney will have done his part to put America back on the right track. Good luck, Governor.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 01, 2012, 10:05:24 AM
Mitt Romney's loss creates GOP leadership vacuum
By By STEVE PEOPLES

BOSTON (AP) — Mitt Romney's shadow looms over a Republican Party in disarray.

The face of the GOP for much of the last year, the failed presidential candidate has been a virtual ghost since his defeat Nov. 6. He has quietly weathered the fallout of the campaign from the seclusion of his Southern California home, emerging only momentarily for a private lunch at the White House with President Barack Obama on Thursday.

His loss and immediate withdrawal from politics, while welcomed by most, has created a leadership vacuum within his party. It's left the GOP rudderless, lacking an overarching agenda and mired in infighting, with competing visions for the way ahead, during what may be the most important policy debate in a generation.

In his final meeting with campaign staffers at his Boston headquarters, Romney promised to remain "a strong voice for the party," according to those in attendance. But so far he has offered little to the Capitol Hill negotiations over potential tax increases and entitlement program changes that could affect virtually every American.

He declined to comment on the Treasury Department's recent refusal to declare China a currency manipulator, which was one of his signature issues over the past 18 months. He made no public remarks after his meeting with Obama, quickly fading away, again.

"If I had to tell you somebody who is the leader of the party right now, I couldn't," said Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, which is among the conservative factions vying for increased influence. "There's a void right now."

There's no shortage of Republicans maneuvering to fill it, from House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio to a number of high-profile politicians looking to boost their national profiles, if not position themselves for a 2016 presidential run. That group could include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, son and brother of presidents, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Republican officials acknowledge party tensions between the moderate and conservative wings, as well as the tea party and evangelical constituencies. But they dismiss the leadership vacuum as a standard political reality for the losing party in the presidential race. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, never had a strong relationship with the conservative base, given his more moderate past.

Party officials are optimistic that a team of younger and more diverse leaders, drawn from the ranks of governors and Congress, will emerge in the coming months to help strengthen and unify what is now a party grappling with its identity. That list includes Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

The GOP was in disarray following its 2006 showing, searching for a new path and leader at a time when President George W. Bush was deeply unpopular.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 presidential nominee, briefly assumed control of a party that he long had criticized, but it never really warmed to him. He lost to Obama, and shortly after that, the party turned to an African-American official, Michael Steele, to serve as its chief spokesman. But the decision was widely seen as a mistake, as Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, presided over major financial problems as head of the Republican National Committee.

All that created a leadership vacuum that helped give rise to the tea party movement in 2009 and sparked rounds of internal battles between party pragmatists and more extreme conservatives.

Republican strategist Phil Musser is among those suggesting that the current void presents a breakout opportunity for the party chairman, Reince Priebus. The 40-year-old Midwesterner largely played a supporting administrative role in his first two years on the job.

"To some degree it's a challenge in as much you don't have a standard bearer to rally behind that unifies central themes of the conservative movement," Musser said. "The bottom line is that a little bit of messiness and frank family discussion is not a terrible thing after an election like this."

But Democrats are emboldened, both by their Election Day successes and the subsequent Republican discord.

GOP factions are fighting over multiple issues: the "fiscal cliff," which will dominate the debate on Capitol Hill at least through the end of the year; blame for Romney's defeat; and how to appeal to a shifting and more diverse electorate and unify its message.
The party's most passionate voters are reluctant to abandon hard-line immigration policies that have dominated their thinking for years. But Washington-based strategists describe a dire need to win over more Hispanic voters and other minorities who overwhelmingly supported Obama in the swing states that decided the election.

At the same time, rank-and-file Republicans on Capitol Hill are struggling to coalesce behind a single message during fiscal cliff negotiations that have exposed a new rift with fiscal conservative guru Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge.

There's also evidence that the fight isn't over between the conservative and pragmatic wings of the party in Senate primaries.
Conservatives wasted little time signaling that they would work to defeat Shelley Moore Capito, a popular congresswoman from a storied West Virginia political family, as she seeks the nomination for the chance to challenge Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller in 2014. Within an hour of Capito's announcing her candidacy, the deep-pocketed conservative Club for Growth branded her as the "establishment candidate" whose record in Congress of supporting prominent bailouts has led to bigger government.
Democrats already are working to exploit the GOP divisions to strengthen their own political standing.

Obama has taken his party's message directly to voters. He visited a Pennsylvania toy manufacturer on Friday, calling for Republicans to embrace the immediate extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 percent of wealthiest Americans.

Though Boehner has taken the lead in negotiations with the White House, Republicans generally did not have a standard-bearer to counter that message. Instead, they're relying on familiar Capitol Hill leaders to guide party doctrine during his debate.

"We don't have one person out there carrying that torch. You'll have (South Carolina Sen.) Lindsey Graham, Speaker Boehner, (Wisconsin Rep.) Paul Ryan, John McCain — same old, same old," said Republican strategist Hogan Gidley, a senior official on former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's unsuccessful presidential bid. "Void of a singular leader, we're going to have to rely on some of the younger more dynamic speakers to go out and make our argument."

No one, it seems, is talking about Romney assuming any sort of leadership role.

"I don't think that we need to be looking toward Mitt Romney to articulate our principles," said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots.

It appears Romney may cooperate, choosing business over politics in defeat.

The former businessman is subletting office space at the Boston-area venture capital firm, Solamere Capital, which was founded by his oldest son. Former aides expect Romney to stay out of the spotlight for the foreseeable future — spending colder months at his California home and warmer months at his New Hampshire lake house.

"It might be better for him, better for the party, to start fresh," Gidley said.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 02, 2012, 02:11:20 PM
Friends say Romney isn’t bitter after election loss. But he is bored.
by Phillip Rucker

SAN DIEGO — The man who planned to be president wakes up each morning now without a plan.

Mitt Romney looks out the windows of his beach house here in La Jolla, a moneyed and pristine enclave of San Diego, at noisy construction workers fixing up his next-door neighbor’s home, sending out regular updates on the renovation. He devours news from 2,600 miles away in Washington about the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, shaking his head and wondering what if.

Gone are the minute-by-minute schedules and the swarm of Secret Service agents. There’s no aide to make his peanut-butter-and-honey sandwiches. Romney hangs around the house, sometimes alone, pecking away at his iPad and e-mailing his CEO buddies who have been swooping in and out of La Jolla to visit. He wrote to one who’s having a liver transplant soon: “I’ll change your bedpan, take you back and forth to treatment.”

It’s not what Romney imagined he would be doing as the new year approaches.

Four weeks after losing a presidential election he was convinced he would win, Romney’s rapid retreat into seclusion has been marked by repressed emotions, second-guessing and, perhaps for the first time in the overachiever’s adult life, sustained boredom, according to interviews with more than a dozen of Romney’s closest friends and advisers.

“Is he disappointed? Of course he’s disappointed. He’s like 41,” adviser Ron Kaufman said, referring to former president George H.W. Bush. “Forty-one would hate to lose a game of horseshoes to the gardener in the White House, and Mitt hates to lose. He’s a born competitor.”

The defeated Republican nominee has practically disappeared from public view since his loss, exhibiting the same detachment that made it so difficult for him to connect with the body politic through six years of running for president. He has made no public comments since his concession speech in the early hours of Nov. 7 and avoided the press last week during a private lunch with President Obama at the White House. Through an aide, Romney declined an interview request for this story.

After Romney told his wealthy donors that he blamed his loss on “gifts” Obama gave to minority groups, his functionaries were unrepentant and Republican luminaries effectively cast him out. Few of the policy ideas he promoted are even being discussed in Washington.

“Nothing so unbecame his campaign as his manner of leaving it,” said Robert Shrum, a senior strategist on Democratic presidential campaigns. “I don’t think he’ll ever be a significant figure in public life again.”

Yet friends insist Romney is not bitter. Bitterness, said one member of the family, “is not in the Romney genetic code.”

One longtime counselor contrasted Romney with former vice president Al Gore, whose weight gain and beard became a symbol of grievance over his 2000 loss. “You won’t see heavyset, haggard Mitt,” he said. Friends say a snapshot-gone-viral showing a disheveled Romney pumping gas is just how he looks without a suit on his frame or gel in his hair.

“He’s not a poor loser,” said John Miller, a meatpacking magnate who co-chaired Romney’s finance committee and owns the beach house next door. “He’s not crying on anybody’s shoulders. He’s not blaming anybody. . . . He’s doing a lot of personal introspection about the whole process — and I’m not even sure that’s healthy. There’s nothing you can do about it now.”

By all accounts, the past month has been most difficult on Romney’s wife, Ann, who friends said believed up until the end that ascending to the White House was their destiny. They said she has been crying in private and trying to get back to riding her horses.

Romney has been keeping in shape with bike rides around La Jolla, past the bistros and boutiques that hug the rugged coastline. The son of Detroit — who boasted of the Cadillacs he owned as a sign of support for the U.S. auto industry during the campaign — was spotted driving a new black Audi Q7, a luxury sport-utility vehicle manufactured in Slovakia.

Over Thanksgiving, one of Romney’s five sons, Josh, his wife and their four children packed into a single bedroom at the Spanish-style villa on Dunemere Drive here. One friend said they ordered their turkey dinner from Boston Market, the home-style restaurant chain, because there were too many kids running around the house to bother with cooking a feast.

That big renovation to transform the Romney beach house into an 11,000-square-foot manse complete with a car elevator? It hasn’t begun yet.

Romney also is plotting his next career steps — a return to business, perhaps, or something in the charitable realm or with the Mormon Church, said friends who have discussed possibilities with him. He kept a diary on the campaign trail and is considering writing a book.

“He’s a very vibrant, young 65-year-old. He looks 55 and acts 45,” Kaufman said. “He’s got a lot of life left in him.”

Romney has ruled out running for another office, adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said. Still, he doesn’t plan to recede completely from public life. “He’ll be involved in some fashion because that’s the commitment of his family to public service,” Fehrnstrom said.

After Romney’s father, George, lost his 1968 presidential race and finished serving in President Richard M. Nixon’s Cabinet, he ran a national nonprofit organization that advocated volunteerism. Friends said Romney has mentioned the Clinton Global Initiative as a model he might replicate.

Unlike the last two unsuccessful nominees, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Romney had no job waiting for him. His public platform fell out from under him on election night.

“That transition, to happen so fast — it’s got to be hard. He doesn’t talk about it or really show it, but I know it’s got to be painful,” said L.E. Simmons, an oil investor and close friend who visited the Romneys here the Friday after Thanksgiving.

In private, Romney has told friends he has little interest in helping the Republican Party rebuild and re-brand itself.

Advisers also said he felt no need to explain himself after his comments to donors about Obama using the power of incumbency to give “gifts” to female, black and Latino voters leaked into the public sphere. One adviser said Romney regretted the remarks “coming out the way it did.” Fehrnstrom, meanwhile, said, “He was expressing the frustration that any challenger would feel about an incumbent who used the powers of his incumbency — as we would have if the shoe was on the other foot.”

Romney relied heavily on like-minded millionaires such as Simmons to raise more than $1 billion during the campaign, and he has been calling many of them to thank them individually for their help. Last week, he called Jet Blue Airways Chairman Joel Peterson, an old friend.

“He just said, ‘I’m sorry I let you guys down,’ ” Peterson said. “He sounded really calm, upbeat, warm. There was no anger or sense of defensiveness or anything.”

So far, however, Romney hasn’t called up some supporters who contributed in other ways.

For years, as he competed for the affections of GOP activists in Iowa, Romney called Joni Scotter over and over again— on her birthdays, on her 50th wedding anniversary. When Scotter’s husband died this spring, Romney had white roses and lilies delivered to her.

Scotter said she hasn’t heard from Romney since he lost Iowa on Nov. 6.

“He hasn’t called,” she said. “I know they’re moving to California . . . so he’s doing his very best to stand back.”

On Nov. 15, his last night in Boston before jetting west, Romney rented out Il Casale, an Italian restaurant whose owner is a friend, for about 30 top advisers and staffers.

According to one aide, as everyone went around the dinner table sharing stories, Romney told the group, “Even though I don’t always show it, I’m very emotionally attached to you, as if you were all part of my family, and I’m going to miss you all.”

Friends said Romney plans to reside mostly in La Jolla during the colder months and in Wolfeboro, N.H., where he has a lakefront compound, during the warmer months. But he will maintain his official residency in Massachusetts.

Romney will keep a small office in Boston — he is subletting the space from Solamere Capital, the private-equity firm founded by his eldest son, Tagg, and his campaign’s finance chairman, Spencer Zwick — where his only remaining aide, assistant Kelli Harrison, will manage his affairs.

Romney has personally helped his out-of-work staffers land new jobs, holding office hours inside the campaign headquarters for anyone who wanted his counsel. Campaign chairman Bob White created an internal résumébank and marshaled the vast donor network to help.

Here in California, there is still some joy, friends say. A photo surfaced before Thanksgiving showing a grinning Romney riding a roller coaster during a visit with his grandkids to Disneyland.

Romney also wrote to Miller, who has been out of town, that his La Jolla neighbor’s house was “a mess” from an ongoing renovation project and that “nobody was working.”

“He was pulling my leg,” Miller said.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on December 02, 2012, 02:37:48 PM
Ryan/Romney 2016.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on December 02, 2012, 03:23:04 PM
Other than morbid curiosity, does anyone give a shit what Romney is doing, what he thinks or how he feels about anything

I have to say though I do enjoy hearing that Queen Ann is too depressed to ride her horse



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 02, 2012, 06:11:38 PM
Other than morbid curiosity, does anyone give a shit what Romney is doing, what he thinks or how he feels about anything

I have to say though I do enjoy hearing that Queen Ann is too depressed to ride her horse

 ;D


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 13, 2012, 01:07:29 PM
Mitt Romney’s ’47 Percent’ Gaffe Tops Yale’s Quotes of the Year
By Glen Levy

We’re nothing if not good sharers at NewsFeed, which is why we don’t just point you in the direction of TIME’s top 10 quotes of the year but — as the saying sort of goes — to others that are also available.

Case in point: Fred Shapiro, associate librarian at Yale Law School, released his seventh annual list of the most notable quotes of the year. Spoiler alert: politics features pretty heavily.

Ironically, in an ideal world for Mitt Romney, Yale’s most memorable quote of 2012 would never have come to light if it hadn’t been secretly filmed and released to the wider world by an anonymous source, who gave the film to Mother Jones magazine in the run-up to the election Romney would eventually lose to President Barack Obama. Romney’s infamous “47 percent” remark — referring to the vast swath of the electorate who Romney felt he had no chance of attracting, because of the fact they paid no federal income tax — is Shaprio’s most notable quote of the year.

In total, nine of Yale’s top 10 quotations are of a political nature. “Debate remarks and gaffes actually seemed to play an important role in the ups and downs of the election campaign and may even have affected the ultimate outcome of the election,” Shapiro said, and his list certainly backs up his belief. Romney won’t be pleased to have the first and second quotes of the year, with his almost-as-damaging misstatement from the second Presidential Debate, “binders full of women,” high on Yale’s list as well.  (See below for the entire top 10).

Quote three is President Obama’s “you didn’t build that,” which he’d intended to refer to the public resources that even the most independent entrepreneur must rely on, but which opponents took as yet another symbol of the President’s crypto-socialism. Obama’s zingers during the debates — “Please proceed, Governor,” and “We have these things called aircraft carriers” — round out the top five.

The lower half, apart from Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin’s outrageous remarks about rape (which actually topped TIME’s own list) is fairly standard political fare, from the Romney campaign’s “Etch-a-Sketch” comment to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s outburst on Fox News during Hurricane Sandy (“I have a job to do … If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics, then you don’t know me.”) But it’s interesting to note that the lone non-political quote is courtesy of the ubiquitous South Korean rapper Psy, who took the world by storm with his viral video “Gangnam style.”

The Best Quotes of 2012:

1. “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. … These are people who pay no income tax. … and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
— Mitt Romney, remarks at private fundraiser, Boca Raton, Florida, May 17

2. “We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet [in Massachusetts]. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, “Can you help us find folks?” and they brought us whole binders full of women.”
— Mitt Romney, second presidential debate, Hempstead, New York, Oct. 16

3. “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”
— Barack Obama, remarks at campaign appearance, Roanoke, Virginia, July 13

4. “Please proceed, Governor.”
— Obama, during the second presidential debate in Hempstead, New York, Oct. 16, as Romney insisted (incorrectly) that the President had not called the Libya attack an act of terrorism.

5. “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”
— Obama, third presidential debate, Boca Raton, Florida, Oct. 22

6. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
— Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin, KTVI-TV interview, Aug. 19

7. “You hit a reset button for the fall campaign; everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”
— Romney senior campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom, CNN interview, March 21

8. “I’m an honorary consul general, so I have inviolability.”
—Jill Kelley, in a telephone call to an emergency dispatcher, Tampa, Florida, Nov. 11, regarding media crews at her home as news broke of her involvement in the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus

9. “Oppan Gangnam style.”
—South Korean rapper PSY, “Gangnam Style”

10. [tie] “Under current law, on January 1st, 2013, there is going to be a massive fiscal cliff of large spending cuts and tax increases.”
—Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, testimony at House Committee on Financial Services hearing, Feb. 29

10. [tie] “I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.”
—Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, WMAZ-TV television interview on the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, Nov. 21


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on December 13, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
Romney has officially won Lie Of The Year award over the Jeep claim he made according to articles on the internet.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on December 13, 2012, 02:44:24 PM
Romney has officially won Lie Of The Year award over the Jeep claim he made according to articles on the internet.

No wonder BB, Mcway, Coach voted for him.
They need those lies to keep themselves happy.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: War-Horse on December 13, 2012, 02:51:17 PM
That Jeep thing!!  When americans learned the truth of it.....not the fox news 1/2 story, that was a nail in the coffin. They knew they couldnt trust a thing romney was saying.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 13, 2012, 02:52:55 PM
btw, in San Diego Romney is driving a new Audi Q7--not a Cadillac.   :D


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: War-Horse on December 13, 2012, 02:55:49 PM
btw, in San Diego Romney is driving a new Audi Q7--not a Cadillac.   :D


LMAO.  I remember that video of him sweating bullets at the auto plant. Omg he was squirming around and desperate to belong..."I even owned a few cadillac's"     Probably the help drove them.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on December 13, 2012, 03:01:03 PM

LMAO.  I remember that video of him sweating bullets at the auto plant. Omg he was squirming around and desperate to belong..."I even owned a few cadillac's"     Probably the help drove them.

 :D


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 13, 2012, 04:10:41 PM

LMAO.  I remember that video of him sweating bullets at the auto plant. Omg he was squirming around and desperate to belong..."I even owned a few cadillac's"     Probably the help drove them.

x2.  Remember when he started blabbering about liking the trees in Michigan because they were “just the right height”?  Talk about looking and sounding out of place.  The man was just plain awkward and grasping at straws.  It was embarrassing and painful to watch.  :'(


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on December 13, 2012, 04:23:12 PM
x2.  Remember when he started blabbering about liking the trees in Michigan because they were “just the right height”?  Talk about looking and sounding out of place.  The man was just plain awkward and grasping at straws.  It was embarrassing and painful to watch.  :'(

LOL - yeah I forgot all about that

to think we missed out on 4 year of weird awkward statements like that



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 13, 2012, 04:24:40 PM
LOL - yeah I forgot all about that

to think we missed out on 4 year of weird awkward statements like that



And instead traded that for 4 more years of chaos, depression, collapse, decay, destruction, etc. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on December 13, 2012, 04:44:19 PM
And instead traded that for 4 more years of chaos, depression, collapse, decay, destruction, etc. 

no doubt about it for your house but the rest of the country is doing much better than that



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 15, 2012, 09:21:13 AM
Three lessons from the near-final popular vote
By David Lauter

More than five weeks after election day, almost all the presidential votes have been counted. Here’s what the near-final tally reveals:

The election really wasn’t close.

On election night, President Obama’s victory margin seemed fairly narrow – just slightly more than 2 percentage points. White House aides anxiously waited to see if Obama would surpass the 2.46-percentage-point margin by which President George W. Bush defeated Sen. John F. Kerry in 2004.

They needn’t have worried. In the weeks since the election, as states have completed their counts, Obama’s margin has grown steadily. From just over 2 percentage points, it now stands at nearly 4. Rather than worry about the Bush-Kerry precedent, White House aides now brag that Obama seems all but certain to achieve a mark hit by only five others in U.S. history – winning the presidency twice with 51% or more of the popular vote.

As of Friday, Obama had 50.97% of the vote to Mitt Romney’s 47.3% with 47 states having certified  their final count, according to the statistics compiled assiduously by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

Most of the nation’s remaining uncounted ballots, perhaps as many as 413,000, Wasserman estimated, are in heavily Democratic New York, where officials have until next week to finish their tabulations. The other two states yet to certify a final count are West Virginia, which Romney carried, and Hawaii, which went heavily for its native son, the president. Once all those get tossed into the mix, Obama’s margin almost surely will rise slightly, allowing him to claim the 51% mark without rounding up.

There’s more involved here than just a historical trivia contest (to which Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, William McKinley, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower would be the other answers). The growth of Obama’s victory margin probably strengthens his hand politically.

Even some of Obama’s political aides were surprised by the size of the overall margin. The campaign intensively polled battleground states, but did not survey the national vote. Since most public polls projected an Obama win of 2 percentage points or less, that’s what many of Obama’s aides expected.

Very few polls correctly projected the size of Obama’s victory.

One notable exception was the poll for Democracy Corps by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which has also conducted polling for the The Times. The firm’s final poll pegged Obama’s lead at 3.8 points.

Stanley B. Greenberg, who was the chief pollster for President Clinton’s 1992 campaign and Al Gore’s in 2000, attributed the result to a major effort to get enough cellphone calls into the firm’s sample and to ensure a proper representation of young voters and minorities.

Counting the vote still takes a long time and sooner or later, that will cause trouble.

This time around, the length of time needed for a final certification didn’t matter. But as the shift in Obama’s victory margin shows, in a truly close election, counting all those final ballots could make a huge difference. It’s not hard to see that allowing the process to take weeks will, eventually, lead to trouble.

Two groups of ballots account for much of the delay in tabulating votes – absentee ballots that arrive on election day and provisional ballots cast by voters whose names, for one reason or another, don’t appear on their precincts’ voting lists. Both types of ballots require a lot of hand processing. For absentee ballots, clerks need to check signatures. For provisional ballots, they need to determine whether the voter really was eligible.

Those problems could be reduced. States could, for example, encourage voters to cast ballots early in person at voting locations rather than send absentee ballots by mail. They could make the voter registration process more transparent and less prone to error and thereby reduce the number of provisional ballots. And if states paid for more people to process ballots, they could get through the count faster.

Tinkering with the voting machinery, however, inevitably hurts the political interest of one party or the other. For that reason, reform of the election system remains a distant goal.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 19, 2012, 10:45:44 AM
Is Mitt Romney's Campaign Team Gouging Press Corps with ‘Exorbitant Charges’?
By Heather Manes, Tue, December 18, 2012

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s press corps received unexpectedly high bills for expenses while following the campaign trail, and is now collectively contesting those expenses with Romney campaign officials.

Nine news outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today, sent a joint letter detailing the contested costs to Romney’s former campaign manager Matt Rhoades and some senior advisers on Monday.

The news outlets, which have reported on quite a few campaign trails and understand the usual costs of following a candidate during a national election, wrote that they were surprised about “what appear to be exorbitant charges for food, filing centers/holds and ground transportation.”

The letter points out specific, unexpectedly high charges: “Some examples: $745 per person charged for a vice presidential debate viewing party on Oct. 11; $812 charged for a meal and a hold on Oct. 18; $461 for a meal and hold the next day; $345 for food and hold Oct. 30.”

The press corps also mentions that ground transportation costs exceeded $1,000 per day at times, which was a higher cost than Romney’s campaign charged in the primaries.

To combat the charges, the press corps is asking the campaign officials for details on charges over $200. A few outlets, according to the letter, have already alerted American Express to contest the charges.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on December 19, 2012, 02:36:51 PM
Is Mitt Romney's Campaign Team Gouging Press Corps with ‘Exorbitant Charges’?
By Heather Manes, Tue, December 18, 2012

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s press corps received unexpectedly high bills for expenses while following the campaign trail, and is now collectively contesting those expenses with Romney campaign officials.

Nine news outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today, sent a joint letter detailing the contested costs to Romney’s former campaign manager Matt Rhoades and some senior advisers on Monday.

The news outlets, which have reported on quite a few campaign trails and understand the usual costs of following a candidate during a national election, wrote that they were surprised about “what appear to be exorbitant charges for food, filing centers/holds and ground transportation.”

The letter points out specific, unexpectedly high charges: “Some examples: $745 per person charged for a vice presidential debate viewing party on Oct. 11; $812 charged for a meal and a hold on Oct. 18; $461 for a meal and hold the next day; $345 for food and hold Oct. 30.”

The press corps also mentions that ground transportation costs exceeded $1,000 per day at times, which was a higher cost than Romney’s campaign charged in the primaries.

To combat the charges, the press corps is asking the campaign officials for details on charges over $200. A few outlets, according to the letter, have already alerted American Express to contest the charges.

Romney is still a business man it seems.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on December 19, 2012, 03:29:54 PM
more accurately still a con man


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on December 19, 2012, 04:29:12 PM
more accurately still a con man

Indeed.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 19, 2012, 08:33:31 PM
more accurately still a con man

Can you imagine electing a President who kept his money in the Caymen Islands, Swiss bank accounts, and god knows where else offshore?  When he was on the scene, George Romney insisted that candidates should reveal 10+ years of tax returns because recent returns could be prepared and doctored specifically in anticipation of a run for office.  Mitt (who frequently spoke of his father's example) balked at that particular suggestion and declined to share his tax returns.  ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 19, 2012, 09:28:38 PM
Can you imagine electing a President who kept his money in the Caymen Islands, Swiss bank accounts, and god knows where else offshore?  When he was on the scene, George Romney insisted that candidates should reveal 10+ years of tax returns because recent returns could be prepared and doctored specifically in anticipation of a run for office.  Mitt (who frequently spoke of his father's example) balked at that particular suggestion and declined to share his tax returns.  ::)



As if Obama is any better.    LOLn.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on December 19, 2012, 09:38:48 PM
Can you imagine electing a President who kept his money in the Caymen Islands, Swiss bank accounts, and god knows where else offshore?  When he was on the scene, George Romney insisted that candidates should reveal 10+ years of tax returns because recent returns could be prepared and doctored specifically in anticipation of a run for office.  Mitt (who frequently spoke of his father's example) balked at that particular suggestion and declined to share his tax returns.  ::)

It just shows you thedifference between born rich and havng worked for it.

Mcway, 333, Fury, Coach all voted for Mitt.

If they had any selfresponsibility they would never open their mouths regarding politics again.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on December 19, 2012, 10:55:42 PM
It just shows you thedifference between born rich and havng worked for it.

Mcway, 333, Fury, Coach all voted for Mitt.

If they had any selfresponsibility they would never open their mouths regarding politics again.

agreed


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: magikusar on December 19, 2012, 11:51:42 PM
as non democrats our chances are good that we did earn our money at a non welfare job and earn it fairly


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on December 20, 2012, 06:51:32 AM
as non democrats our chances are good that we did earn our money at a non welfare job and earn it fairly

keep believing that...this type of mentality is what led to your defeat in the last election


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 20, 2012, 06:54:46 AM
agreed

Romney would have been far better than the base head choomer coke fiend drunk in the wh


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on December 20, 2012, 11:18:05 AM
Romney would have been far better than the base head choomer coke fiend drunk in the wh

Post some proof of this claim or you are nothing more than a pathetic LIAR


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 20, 2012, 11:30:33 AM
Post some proof of this claim or you are nothing more than a pathetic LIAR

Drinking publicly all the time - CHECK 

Admitted coke use and gay lover said he did coke w obama - CHECK

Choomer Wagon - CHECK


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: whork on December 20, 2012, 11:35:16 AM
Drinking publicly all the time - CHECK 

Admitted coke use and gay lover said he did coke w obama - CHECK

Choomer Wagon - CHECK
[

Yeah but who do you want to party with?

O-pimp choomer coke drunk fiend
or
An awkward Mormon

?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on December 20, 2012, 11:36:41 AM
Drinking publicly all the time - CHECK 

Admitted coke use and gay lover said he did coke w obama - CHECK

Choomer Wagon - CHECK

your personal delusions and fantasies are not proof

post some proof or you are a pathetic LIAR


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 20, 2012, 01:06:14 PM
Drinking publicly all the time - CHECK 

Admitted coke use and gay lover said he did coke w obama - CHECK

Choomer Wagon - CHECK

You're still here?  Please follow your leader and exit stage right.  ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on December 20, 2012, 01:07:41 PM
You're still here?  Please follow your leader and exit stage right.  ::)

The LIAR can't stay away


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on December 20, 2012, 01:16:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmQPx8DUZCc


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Primemuscle on December 20, 2012, 01:28:43 PM
Post some proof of this claim or you are nothing more than a pathetic LIAR

He's just unhappy and delusional, that is why he makes up shit about our President. Lucky for 333386 that there is still freedom of speech in the U.S. In some places, he'd be hauled off to jail for his remarks about the Commander-in-Chief.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on December 20, 2012, 01:31:00 PM
He's just unhappy and delusional, that is why he makes up shit about our President. Lucky for 333386 that there is still freedom of speech in the U.S. In some places, he'd be hauled off to jail for his remarks about the Commander-in-Chief.

I'm fine with him saying whatever he wants

Too bad we don't all have the same freedom of speech on this board

kind of ironic too, given the right wing leaning of this board and the constant talk about "freedom"


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 20, 2012, 01:31:04 PM
He's just unhappy and delusional, that is why he makes up shit about our President. Lucky for 333386 that there is still freedom of speech in the U.S. In some places, he'd be hauled off to jail for his remarks about the Commander-in-Chief.

Obama and most politicians like him are wortheless scumbags, leeches, parasites, thugs, sludge, slime, and criminals, as are those worshipping them. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Primemuscle on December 20, 2012, 01:38:57 PM
Obama and most politicians like him are wortheless scumbags, leeches, parasites, thugs, sludge, slime, and criminals, as are those worshipping them. 

Shall I forward your comments to the White House, or will you be doing this?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 20, 2012, 01:39:53 PM
Shall I forward your comments to the White House, or will you be doing this?

Go ahead.   I could care less.  Obama is a pile of dog feces as far as I am concerned, 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on December 20, 2012, 01:48:05 PM
Can you imagine electing a President who kept his money in the Caymen Islands, Swiss bank accounts, and god knows where else offshore?  When he was on the scene, George Romney insisted that candidates should reveal 10+ years of tax returns because recent returns could be prepared and doctored specifically in anticipation of a run for office.  Mitt (who frequently spoke of his father's example) balked at that particular suggestion and declined to share his tax returns.  ::)

people hated obama so much - they would have accepted anything from romney.

he had SO MANY moments that should have sunk any campaign.  it was the hate for obama that kept Romney a viable candidate.

In the end, repubs were just too $#%*@#^% LAZY to show up to vote Romney.   Obama had almost 10 mil fewer votes than in 2008... but Romney had 2 million fewer votes than Mccain.   Repubs were just too LAZY to get up and vote out obama.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on December 20, 2012, 01:50:46 PM
people hated obama so much - they would have accepted anything from romney.

he had SO MANY moments that should have sunk any campaign.  it was the hate for obama that kept Romney a viable candidate.

In the end, repubs were just too $#%*@#^% LAZY to show up to vote Romney.   Obama had almost 10 mil fewer votes than in 2008... but Romney had 2 million fewer votes than Mccain.   Repubs were just too LAZY to get up and vote out obama.

in the end that number of 10 mil was far less


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on December 20, 2012, 01:53:32 PM
in the end that number of 10 mil was far less

true, i guess youre right. 

REpubs can never blame obama - obama would have lost if they had just bothered to show up to vote.  They didn't.   

Romeny ending up with 47% of the popular vote is one of the great historical ironies of our time.  If repubs hated obama so much, they should have voted him out.  They didn't bother.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on December 20, 2012, 01:56:47 PM
Obama and most politicians like him are wortheless scumbags, leeches, parasites, thugs, sludge, slime, and criminals, as are those worshipping them

Like you worshiping :

Palin
Trump
Perry
Cain
Bachmann
West
Romney


Nice self analysis you got going on there.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on December 20, 2012, 01:58:10 PM
Like you worshiping :

Palin
Trump
Perry
Cain
Bachmann
West
Romney


Nice self analysis you got going on there.

kind of funny that it's primarily one person on this board who starts the "adoration" threads


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Benny B on December 20, 2012, 02:51:44 PM
I'm fine with him saying whatever he wants

Too bad we don't all have the same freedom of speech on this board

kind of ironic too, given the right wing leaning of this board and the constant talk about "freedom"

QFT


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Benny B on December 20, 2012, 02:56:26 PM
Like you worshiping :

Palin
Trump
Perry
Cain
Bachmann
West
Romney


Nice self analysis you got going on there.
add

Thune
Pence (this dude used to ALWAYS be on tv (FOX, CNN, & MSNBC) flapping his gums...As my Latino brothers often say, "Wha' happen"? ???)
etc.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Primemuscle on December 20, 2012, 06:32:22 PM
people hated obama so much - they would have accepted anything from romney.

he had SO MANY moments that should have sunk any campaign.  it was the hate for obama that kept Romney a viable candidate.

In the end, repubs were just too $#%*@#^% LAZY to show up to vote Romney.   Obama had almost 10 mil fewer votes than in 2008... but Romney had 2 million fewer votes than Mccain.   Repubs were just too LAZY to get up and vote out obama.

Which people? Almost all of the people I spoke with during the campaign were avid President Obama supporters. Romney remained a candidate only because he was the Republican party pick. As to how viable he was....well, the results of the election should be enough to answer this.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: Alex23 on December 20, 2012, 06:37:08 PM
This loss has got to hurt--bad!  Everyone knows Romney has been running for President for at least six years.  I think it is safe to say no one in recent memory wanted to be President more badly than Mitt Romney.  The look of defeat and resignation in their faces...  Their transition teams were already in place... practically measuring drapes for the White House and to have it end with such finality.  Wow!  I almost feel sorry for them.  :'(

true that.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: Primemuscle on December 20, 2012, 06:50:21 PM
This loss has got to hurt--bad!  Everyone knows Romney has been running for President for at least six years.  I think it is safe to say no one in recent memory wanted to be President more badly than Mitt Romney.  The look of defeat and resignation in their faces...  Their transition teams were already in place... practically measuring drapes for the White House and to have it end with such finality.  Wow!  I almost feel sorry for them.  :'(

I don't feel sorry for anyone. Folks shouldn't "count their chickens before they hatch."


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on July 28, 2013, 10:31:36 AM
From doubts to confidence to defeat
By Dan Balz

Adapted from “Collision 2012: Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America,” by Dan Balz. The book is due out Aug. 6.

Mitt Romney sat in an armchair at his home in Belmont, Mass., dressed in blue jeans and a checked shirt. It was late January 2013, almost three months after voters rejected his bid for the White House, and the next hour and a half marked the first time he had talked to a reporter about the campaign. I asked him what made him want to be president and why he thought he didn’t become president.

“I wanted to be president because I believe that my background and experience and my perspective and point of view would be helpful to get America back on track, to keep America the economic powerhouse it’s been and the champion of freedom here and around the world,” he said. “I happen to believe that America is on a course of decline if it continues with the policies we’ve seen over the last couple of decades, and we need to take a very different course, returning to more fundamental principles, if you will.”

I asked whether part of his decision to run was an effort to fulfill an ambition that his father, the late Michigan governor George Romney, never did. “I love my dad,” he said. “It’s fair to say that I probably would not have thought of politics had I not seen my mom and dad involved in politics. . . . But my decision to run for office was really in no way a response to my father’s campaign. It was instead a recognition that, by virtue of a series of fortunate events, I was in a position to run for president and potentially become president. And I felt if I didn’t do so, given that opportunity, I would have been letting down my country, my family and the future.”

Romney’s confidence about his reasons for running masked considerable ambivalence as he was preparing for the 2012 campaign. Based on what he told family members in private conversation, there were times when he seemed anything but certain about his commitment to running or his confidence of winning.

At Christmastime in 2006, he and his family — his wife, Ann; five sons; five daughters-in-law; and many grandchildren — had gathered at their home in Utah. They were there to make a final decision about a 2008 presidential campaign, which Romney had been pointing toward for more than a year. A video of their activities showed Romney energetically shoveling snow off the deck of their home, him sledding with his grandchildren, children sliding down stairs on mattresses, the general chaos of a house filled with people and constant activity. The video concluded with the family seated in the living room discussing the pros and cons of Romney running for president, with the prospective candidate taking notes on a pad of paper.

Family members cajoled and flattered. “If people really get to know who you are, it could be a success,” Craig Romney said. Tagg Romney, the oldest son, said: “I don’t think you have a choice. I think you have to run.” He added, “I look at the way your life has unfolded. You’re gifted. You’re smart. You’re intelligent. But you’ve also been extraordinarily lucky. So many things have broken your way that you couldn’t have predicted or controlled that it would be a shame not to at least try, and if you don’t win, we’ll still love you.”

“Maybe,” Romney interjected, to chuckles from his family. “Maybe.” Tagg picked up again: “The country may think of you as a laughingstock, and we’ll know the truth and that’s okay. But I think you have a duty to your country and to God to see what comes of it.”

At that Christmas gathering, the family took a vote on whether Romney should run. The five sons voted yes, their wives voted yes. Mitt and Ann Romney voted yes.

Four years later, in December 2010, when they gathered for their Christmas holiday, they faced a similar decision. This time they were in Hawaii and they sat together on a balcony one evening to share their thoughts about a second campaign. This time there was no video of the meeting, and the vote would have shocked a political community closely monitoring the preliminary maneuvering for the 2012 race. Even some of Romney’s closest political advisers might have been surprised. When the family members took a vote, 10 of the 12 said no. Mitt Romney was one of the 10 who opposed another campaign. The only “yes” votes were from Ann Romney and Tagg Romney.

Some of the reservations were personal. All of them knew how disruptive and invasive a presidential campaign would be. “None of us were looking forward to the process,” Tagg Romney said. “We’re a pretty private family, to be honest with you. Having that privacy yanked away was not going to be fun. That was an underlying reason — but not the driving reason. You tasted the bitter pill once, you didn’t want to go bite into it a second time.”

The more fundamental reason so many were opposed was that they feared the campaign would be as brutal as it would be uncertain. “The basic reason was I think a lot of them thought, looking at it, saying, ‘This is going to be a really tough primary campaign to win,’ ” Tagg Romney said. And if his father were to win, he would face an incumbent with $1 billion, much of it used to attack and attack and attack.

Mitt Romney had other reasons to think that not running might be the wiser choice. Winning as a moderate from Massachusetts who happened to be Mormon was always going to be difficult. “A lot of the thinking on the part of my brothers and my dad was, ‘I’m not sure I can win a primary given those dynamics,’ ” Tagg Romney said. The prospective candidate also knew the sheer physical and family toll another campaign would take. “He’s a private person and, push comes to shove, he wants to spend time with his family and enjoy his time with them,” his son said. “Even up until the day before he made the announcement, he was looking for excuses to get out of it. If there had been someone who he thought would have made a better president than he, he would gladly have stepped aside.”

In our interview, I asked Romney why he cast a “no” vote that day. “I knew how grueling the process was, and I felt that there may be others who could be more effective in actually winning and then getting America on course,” he said. “And I thought, for instance, if someone like [former Florida governor] Jeb Bush were to have run, that he might well be able to do what was necessary to get the country on track. I got into this out of a sense of obligation to the things I believed in and love for the country, but not because it was something I desperately wanted so that I could feel better about myself.”

Eventually, after looking over the field of potential GOP candidates, Romney decided he was the right candidate for the time.

“I didn’t think that any one of them had a good chance of defeating the president . . . and in some cases I thought that they lacked the experience and perspective necessary to do what was essential to get the country on track.”
 
Whatever doubts Romney harbored about running, his political advisers never lacked for confidence that he was in the race. They had been mapping the campaign for many months.

On Dec. 9, 2010, just weeks before the family vote in Hawaii, Romney gathered his senior advisers at the family’s oceanside home in La Jolla, Calif., for a full-scale discussion of a 2012 bid. The team was full speed ahead, and Romney had done nothing to slow the machinery. In fact, he had done everything a likely candidate needed to do. He had spent the previous year helping to elect Scott Brown to fill the Senate seat in Massachusetts of the late Edward M. Kennedy; meeting with prospective donors; promoting his book “No Apology”; campaigning around the country for and giving money to Republican candidates.

As with all front-runners, no matter how strong or fragile, Romney’s struggle would be a familiar one. He was starting off in an enviable position: better funded than his rivals, his message honed and sharper than in his first campaign, the confidence and serenity that come with having run before. He understood the pace of a campaign better than his rivals. But could he truly rally this new and more conservative Republican Party behind him? Or would he find himself in constant conflict over Massachusetts’s health-care law, his conservative convictions and his authenticity? Even Romney’s family put his chances of winning the nomination at no better than 50-50.

Romney confirmed to me that at one point in the spring of 2011, he was so pessimistic about his chances that he called Tagg early one morning to say he thought he would not run after all. He was being hammered by conservatives, in large part over the idea that the health-care reforms he passed as governor of Massachusetts would hurt Republicans’s ability to attack the president for the controversial “Obamacare” law that had fueled GOP gains in 2010.

Tagg Romney, who was heading to the airport for a 6 a.m. flight to New York, got a message from his father. The prospective candidate was scheduled for a conference call with his staff at 7 a.m. to discuss a Wall Street Journal editorial that skewered him on health care. Romney told his son, “I’m going to tell them I’m out.” “He said there’s no path to win the nomination,” Tagg Romney told me. “At that moment, he thought his chances were zero.”

Tagg Romney was alarmed by his father’s statement. He remembers thinking, “This can’t happen.” He believed that he and his mother were gradually winning the battle to make his father fully comfortable with running again. Now his father was somehow convinced that the party he sought to lead would never accept him as its nominee. Here was the most conservative major newspaper in the country bashing him and calling him a liberal. He didn’t see how he could win a primary under those conditions. Why waste everybody’s time and money?

“I recognized that by virtue of the realities of my circumstances, there were some drawbacks to my candidacy for a lot of Republican voters,” Romney said. “One, because I had a health-care plan in Massachusetts that had been copied in some respects by the president, that I would be tainted by that feature. I also realized that being a person of wealth, I would be pilloried by the president as someone who, if you use the term of the day, was in the 1 percent. Being Mormon would obviously be a challenge for some evangelical voters. I didn’t know whether that would persist or whether that would go away during the primaries. I think it was [top strategist] Stuart Stevens who said, ‘You know, our party is more Southern, and you’re from the North. It’s more evangelical, and you’re a Mormon. And it’s more populist and you’re a rich guy. This is going to be an uphill fight.’ ” Romney laughed. “And so I didn’t want to get into the race and make it more difficult for the leader of our party to beat the president. And so for me the gating issue was: Am I the person best able to defeat President Obama and therefore get the country on track?”

On the call, his advisers were insistent, Romney said. This will pass, they said. Be patient. This is part of the process. There will be good days and bad. You don’t need to worry about it. At the end of the call, Romney accepted their advice. He told me that he never shared the private thoughts he had expressed to his son.

“There were many other times between December and May where my dad had made up his mind not to run,” Tagg Romney said. “He was hoping for an exit. I think he wanted to have an excuse not to run.”

Romney acknowledged that there were also several times during the early stages of the 2012 nomination contest when he thought he might lose.

“Almost everybody was ahead of me at one time or the other,” he said. “And so I’d look at those and say, ‘Well, right now they’re more likely to get there, but I’m going to keep on battling.’ ” He said a betting person might not have put much money on him at those moments, although he always had confidence that he eventually would prevail. “But I think for certainly two or three weeks there — maybe longer — I thought it was more likely that Rick Perry would be the nominee, or even Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich.” He paused. “I have to tell you that, in the discussions I had with my senior staff, people like Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer said, ‘Look, Newt is not going to be the nominee. I don’t care what the polls say, he’s not going to be the nominee.’ I was far less sanguine about that.”

Eventually each of Romney’s Republican competitors had seen their moment, burned out and fallen by the wayside, and it was clear that he would be the nominee. Even before the process was finished playing out, Obama and his campaign were making Romney the focus of their attacks, targeting his record at Bain Capital, questioning his consistency on key issues and his ability to relate to middle-class Americans.

The bruising race ebbed and flowed, with Obama maintaining a lead in polls that appeared insurmountable at one point in September but would then become a much closer race. Romney began to believe he could win.

“There are so many things you could point to as being decisive,” he said. “For instance, I had a lousy September; I had a great October.”

His great October began in Denver, at his first debate with Obama. Not surprisingly, he remembered that night as the high point of the year. After months of Romney being pounded in ads, voters finally saw him stand face to face with Obama.

“People would get a chance to see that I was not the person that President Obama had been portraying me as being, and the things he was saying about me and my positions were wrong. I mean, his ads were not accurate. His ads were just pillorying me, saying things that were simply not true, and so I recognized this as a chance for people to see who I really am, and understand what I really believe.” When I said he seemed to reappear in that debate as “moderate Mitt,” he offered this interpretation of what happened: “People saw the entire me as opposed to an eight-second clip of me. . . . And if people watched me on the campaign trail and heard my stump speech, what I said in my stump speech was the same thing I said in that debate. I’m the same guy. But in the debate, they saw the whole thing.”

Romney believed the debates produced a fundamental change in his relationship with the party’s rank and file. “What had begun as people watching me with an interested eye had become instead more of a movement with energy and passion,” he said. “The rallies we’d had with larger and larger numbers and people not just agreeing with me on issues, but passionate about the election and about our campaign — that was something that had become palpable.”

As a result, he woke up on Election Day thinking he would win. “I can’t say 90 percent confident or something like that, but I felt we were going to win. . . . The campaign had changed from being clinical to being emotional. And that was very promising.”

His last hours on the trail, especially the arrival at the Pittsburgh airport on the afternoon of the election, where he was greeted by a spontaneous crowd of supporters, gave him added confidence. “We were looking at our own poll numbers and there were two things that we believed,” he said. “We believed that some of the polls that showed me not winning were just simply wrong, because they showed there was going to be more turnout from African American voters, for instance, than had existed in 2008. We said no way, absolutely no way. That can’t be, because this was the first time an African American president had run. Two thousand eight — that had to be the high point. . . . We saw independent voters in Ohio breaking for me by double digits. And as a number said, you can’t lose Ohio if you win independent voters. You’re winning Republicans solidly, you’re winning independents, and enthusiasm is overwhelmingly on your side. . . . So those things said, okay, we have a real good chance of winning. Nothing’s certain. Don’t measure the drapes. But I had written an acceptance speech and spent some time on the acceptance speech. I had not written a concession speech.”

Once Romney landed back in Boston, a different reality set in as he joined a conference call with advisers to review the early exit polls and turnout patterns. “We’re seeing much more turnout from groups that we thought would not be voting in as large numbers. The enthusiasm gap is not playing out in who’s voting as we might have expected. . . . This is not the picture we had expected.”

I asked Romney about the comments attributed to him on election night, that he was now deeply worried for the country. “I’m fearful that unless we change course, if we keep borrowing $1 trillion a year, this is — we’re walking along a precipice. I can’t tell you we’ll fall over it. Maybe we just walk along it for a year and the private sector will be able to pick up the gap and things will work out. That’s possible. But as a guy who’s occasionally walked the mountains, I don’t like to walk along the precipice. I like to walk back from the precipice.”

When Romney had mentioned his “lousy September,” it was an evident reference to what may have been the low point of his campaign: the “47 percent” video. He was in California and said at first he couldn’t get a look at the video. His advisers were pushing him to respond as quickly as he could. “As I understood it, and as they described it to me, not having heard it, it was saying, ‘Look, the Democrats have 47 percent, we’ve got 45 percent, my job is to get the people in the middle, and I’ve got to get the people in the middle,’ ” he said. “And I thought, ‘Well, that’s a reasonable thing.’ . . . It’s not a topic I talk about in public, but there’s nothing wrong with it. They’ve got a bloc of voters, we’ve got a bloc of voters, I’ve got to get the ones in the middle. And I thought that that would be how it would be perceived — as a candidate talking about the process of focusing on the people in the middle who can either vote Republican or Democrat. As it turned out, down the road, it became perceived as being something very different.”

You mean that you were insensitive to a whole group of people? I asked. “Right,” he responded. “And I think the president said he’s writing off 47 percent of Americans and so forth. And that wasn’t at all what was intended. That wasn’t what was meant by it. That is the way it was perceived.” I interjected, “But when you said there are 47 percent who won’t take personal responsibility — ” Before I finished, he jumped in. “Actually, I didn’t say that. . . .That’s how it began to be perceived, and so I had to ultimately respond to the perception, because perception is reality.”

Scanning his notes on an iPad, he began to read a long quotation, offering commentary as he read. At one point, he focused on the question posed at the Florida fundraiser. “Audience member: ‘For the last three years, all of us have been told this, ‘Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you.’ How are you going to do it in two months before the elections, to convince everyone you’ve got to take care of yourself?’ And I’m saying that isn’t my job. In two months, my job is to get the people in the middle. But this was perceived as, ‘Oh, he’s saying 47 percent of the people he doesn’t care about or he’s insensitive to or they don’t care — they don’t take responsibility for their life.’ No, no. I’m saying 47 percent of the people don’t pay taxes and therefore they don’t warm to our tax message. But the people who are voting for the president, my job isn’t to try and get them. My job is to get the people in the middle. And I go on and say that. Take a look. Look at the full quote. But I realized, look, perception is reality. The perception is I’m saying I don’t care about 47 percent of the people or something of that nature, and that’s simply wrong.”

I asked whether he thought that video helped to crystallize another issue he faced: Was it possible for someone with his biography and background and wealth to win the election at a time when there were widespread feelings that struggling families were being left behind while the rich were doing just fine?

“Well, clearly that was a very damaging quote and hurt my campaign effort,” he said. “I came back in October. I led in a number of polls. I think I could have won the presidency. We came remarkably close. Would I like to have been closer? Absolutely. But the number of votes that could have swung to our side could have made a difference. You have to congratulate the president on a very good turnout effort. We were not competitive on our turnout effort with his. So could I have won? Absolutely. And did I recognize that coming as a person who has a great deal of wealth that in that environment that would be an obstacle? Yeah, I recognized that. But I thought I could get over it.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on January 18, 2014, 12:58:43 PM
‘MITT’ documentary offers rare, intimate look at Mitt Romney’s six-year quest for presidency
By Philip Rucker

SALT LAKE CITY — A few hours earlier, Mitt Romney was marveling at his big crowds and chewing over lines in his victory speech. But now, in a Boston hotel suite, the camera zooms in on a roomful of family and advisers. The would-be president is on the couch, an iPad on his lap, and asking, “So what do you think you say in a concession speech?”

Silence.

His wife, Ann, arrives and sits down next to him. “What’s going on?”

“We’re writing a concession speech,” Mitt says.

“It’s finished?” she asks.

“My time on the stage is over, guys,” the Republican nominee says.

Ann stares ahead, stricken. Their sons are in disbelief. The grandkids are crying. The nation, the Romneys are learning, had rejected them.

The dramatic collapse of Romney’s six-year quest for the presidency is revealed in a new documentary, “MITT,” a rare, intimate look into how a family endures the 24-7 psycho-drama that is a modern U.S. presidential campaign.

The film, which premiered here Friday night as part of the Sundance Film Festival and will be available on Netflix starting Jan. 24, provides a stark contrast to the stilted, robotic caricature of Romney the politician. It shows him as a three-dimensional figure — devoted to the Mormon faith that he played down on the campaign trail, capable of flashes of raw emotion and often harboring doubts about his political abilities.

The documentary captures the Romney family in moments of hopeful prayer and tearful anguish. There are glimmers of joy and celebration, but more often there are fatigue and frustration. “How many more debates do I have to go to?” Mitt blurts out at one point.

Filmmaker Greg Whiteley gained extraordinary access to the Romneys, capturing them during private moments — in hotel rooms, vans, planes, hallways and elevators — at critical junctures of Romney’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

In 2009, after viewing Whiteley’s footage from the first campaign, Romney’s campaign advisers would not allow him to release the film. But now that Romney has run his last campaign, the family gave Whiteley its blessing. Romney and his family convened Friday night at the Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center for the film’s first public screening.

The documentary reveals a human, sometimes playful side of Romney that his campaign largely kept buttoned up. He laughs and he cries. He kneels down to pray and he comforts his crying wife in his lap. He calls his large extended family “the gopher village” and scoops up his grandchildren in monster hugs.

He goes sledding wearing gloves held together with duct tape, and he places a hot iron to his wrist to straighten out his tuxedo shirt cuff. He bickers with son Tagg about whether the Delta Shuttle terminal at New York’s LaGuardia Airport contains a large food court. (Tagg was right; it does not.) As his face is applied with television makeup, he quips, “Be careful not to break my hair.”

In 2008, when adviser Beth Myers tells him he won the primary in his native Michigan, he’s wearing only a bathrobe. “We won one!” he exclaims. “Can you believe it?”

The film also shows Romney’s imperfections. On stage, he’s a sunny optimist (“Believe in America” was his slogan). But in private, he’s gloomier, predicting the worst outcomes. When he returned backstage following his second debate with President Obama — the one where he flubbed an answer about the Benghazi attacks — his family tells him he did a good job, but Romney rolls his eyes and shakes his head.

“I’ll bet it’s 70-30 in the polls,” he says. “80-20? 90-10?”

Romney gets testy in 2008 when David Chalian of ABC News explains the “dining room table conversation” concept of that night’s debate. “A dining room conversation is among members of the family,” Romney says, getting hot. “These are all people competing for the same job, all right?”

Romney also is obsessed with his caricature from the 2008 campaign — “The Flippin’ Mormon,” he says over and over again. He solicits advice from his team. “I won’t fix the Mormon side,” he says. Of the “flip-flopper” label, he says: “There’s nothing I can do. ‘He was at Burger King last night, McDonald’s the night before.’ . . . It’s so damaging to me.”

But “MITT” is not a film about campaign strategy. Little time is spent on issues such as Romney’s “47 percent” comments and the ensuing damage to his campaign, although one scene shows Romney rehearsing lines about it as Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) stands in for Obama.

Mostly, the film is about the Romney family’s travails — starting around Christmas 2006, when Romney grabs a legal pad and convenes a family meeting around the fire at his Utah ski chalet to chart the pros and cons of running for president.

“You’d be bald in about a month,” son Josh says. Josh’s wife, holding a baby, says, “I think emotionally it would just be hard on everybody.”

Says eldest son Tagg: “If you don’t win, we’ll still love you. The country may think of you as a laughingstock, and we’ll know the truth.”

On Oct. 3, 2012, the night of his first debate with Obama, Romney whistles around his Denver hotel suite picking up trash after his grandkids. He scarfs down a bowl of takeout pasta. “Get a little something in your tummy,” Ann instructs him.

“So,” Romney asks her, “any advice?”

Ann takes a long pause. “Conviction from your heart as to why you’re running,” she says. “Conviction that this country’s on the wrong course and that you are able to put it on the right one. Conviction. Complete power from within your heart. That’s all.”

Son Matt asks whether Obama intimidates him. “Sure. Are you kidding?” Romney says. Ann interjects sternly: “You should not be intimidated by him. I’m not joking, Mitt. You should not be — at all.”

The debate later that night would become the finest moment of his campaign.

At a fundraiser, Romney raises his hand and makes an “L” shape over his forehead, a forecast of what might happen. “Loser for life,” he says. “Mike Dukakis — you know, he can’t get a job mowing lawns.”

Fast forward to Nov. 6, 2012, when Romney and his family gather at a Westin in Boston to watch their White House dreams evaporate, swing state by swing state.

Only a few hours earlier, Romney is so sure of winning that he reads aloud lines of his victory speech: “. . . that freedom so integral to the American experience will again propel us forward to new heights of discovery, to new horizons of opportunity and to new dimensions of prosperity.”

A wrenching scene plays out in the hotel suite that night. Son Ben is on a laptop in the corner studying vote tallies. Granddaughter Chloe breaks the news that Wisconsin is gone. “It’s down to Ohio, folks,” Romney concludes.

Campaign manager Matt Rhoades comes in to say that they’ve come up short there, too. He says adviser Ed Gillespie — now a U.S. Senate candidate in Virginia — called Karl Rove to tell him that the Ohio numbers won’t add up and to back down on Fox News.

With Romney pondering his concession speech, Stuart Stevens, the campaign’s chief strategist, suggests he play “a pastoral role, not a political role, and that part of what you’re [doing] I think is soothing people.”

Romney isn’t having any of it. “To get up and soothe is not my inclination,” he says. He is fearful the country will reach “the tipping point” and fall into decline under Obama. So he writes a quick speech saying that his “principles endure” and that he and Ann will “earnestly pray” for Obama and for the nation.

“We’re 593 words,” Romney says. “That’s about six minutes.”

Two days later, Mitt and Ann drive themselves home. They pull into the garage of their Belmont, Mass., townhouse, take off their jackets and head into the living room.

For the first time in forever, nobody else is around. Mitt just stares out the window, and Ann, looking at him, simply sighs.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on January 18, 2014, 04:35:07 PM
No LANDSLIDE huh?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: RRKore on January 20, 2014, 01:11:08 AM
The documentary sounds like it'll be worth a look. 

Pretty sure it'll show that you have to be a least a little bit mental to want to be president.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Dos Equis on January 20, 2014, 11:36:20 AM
Probably still busy counting his money. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on February 02, 2014, 07:34:03 AM
Republicans face 2016 turmoil
By Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa

As Republicans look ahead to the 2016 presidential race, they are hoping to avoid the kind of chaotic and protracted nominating battle that dismayed party elders and damaged the eventual candidacy of Mitt Romney.

That, however, could be a hard thing to prevent.

The party is divided and in turmoil, with a civil war raging between its establishment and insurgent factions. For the first time in memory, there is no obvious early favorite — no candidate with wide appeal who has run before, no incumbent president or vice president, no clear establishment pick.

Meanwhile, an enormous number of potential contenders are looking at the race, including, perhaps, a return of virtually everyone who ran in 2012. Come this time next year, 15 or more of them could be traveling the early primary states, jockeying for attention and money.

The Republican National Committee is doing its best to prevent a replay of the spectacle of 2012, which saw one candidate after another pop up as a mortal threat to the front-runner. Late last month, the RNC began putting into place rules that would shorten the primary season and make it begin later.

This is a party that used to pick its standard-bearer in a relatively orderly fashion, notwithstanding the occasional slip on the ice of Iowa or New Hampshire. “Typically, Republicans have a front-runner, and the front-runner wins,” said Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor and RNC chairman.

But two years out from the Iowa caucuses, the Democrats are the ones who are closing ranks. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows presumed contender Hillary Rodham Clinton holding the support of 73 percent of those likely to vote Democratic. In the poll’s 30-year history, no one has ever had such a strong grip on the party at this early point.

On the Republican side, things are so wide open that even 2012 nominee Romney is getting another look, although the former Massachusetts governor recently told the New York Times: “Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no.”

That, apparently, was not definite enough for some.

“I’ve had one or two semi-serious conversations about whether it could happen,” said Lanhee Chen, Romney’s former policy adviser, who noted the recent release of a documentary showing Romney in a new light. “The overwhelming consensus is ‘probably not,’ but it’s not completely far-fetched.”

Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), is expected to stay in the House in the coming years, with the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee or the speaker’s gavel on the horizon. But he told CNN, “I’m not closing my options.”

Nor, it seems, is anyone else...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on February 02, 2014, 07:38:02 AM
the presidential race is 2 years away and the libtard line is that b/c the reps dont have someone locked in like Hillary "what difference does it make now" Clinton they are in turmoil?

LMFAO makes about as much sense as homosexuality ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: chadstallion on February 02, 2014, 12:52:58 PM
the presidential race is 2 years away and the libtard line is that b/c the reps dont have someone locked in like Hillary "what difference does it make now" Clinton they are in turmoil?

LMFAO makes about as much sense as homosexuality ::)
butt lesbians make sense, right?!:)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on February 02, 2014, 01:08:58 PM
butt lesbians make sense, right?!:)
no lesbians dont make sense but at least the lip stick ones are sexy


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on February 02, 2014, 01:54:56 PM
I liked Mitt because he was so in tune with real people.

When he stood in crowd at an an urban event and sang "Who let the dogs out, who who", he was showing he was very much in tune with songs that may have been sang 12 years prior.  


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on February 02, 2014, 01:59:11 PM
I liked Mitt because he was so in tune with real people.

When he stood in crowd at an an urban event and sang "Who let the dogs out, who who", he was showing he was very much in tune with songs that may have been sang 12 years prior. 
yea maybe he should have rapped to kendrick lamar ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on February 02, 2014, 03:01:23 PM
yea maybe he should have rapped to kendrick lamar ::)

my in-laws were over today and having a big political debate.  I really wish the great minds of getbig would have been there to destroy them. 

"Obama ain't perfect, but it's a start, and in 10 years we'll all be saying how did we live without it!"

"I've always voted for the winner of every election since 1992, so I'd say I'm pretty good at politics!"

That last comment, I was speechless.  Like she "wins" by picking the person leading in the polls lol.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on February 02, 2014, 03:04:02 PM
I see where you get your bull shit from 240...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on February 02, 2014, 04:44:36 PM
I see where you get your bull shit from 240...

LOL!  I want to pwn them but i know that's rude, especially because they haven't had the getbig spankings/education that I have.

Seriously, high-fiving and bragging that she's picked every winner so far lol...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: AbrahamG on February 03, 2014, 12:34:02 AM
We seem to have gotten off track.  Let me help.  I would fuck Ann Romney's Mormon mouth.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: chadstallion on February 03, 2014, 06:02:02 PM
We seem to have gotten off track.  Let me help.  I would fuck Ann Romney's Mormon mouth.
and several of his sons.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 03, 2014, 08:47:00 PM
stock market doing great lately w o-pos! 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on February 03, 2014, 09:17:08 PM
stock market doing great lately w o-pos! 

Well, this is a tough criticism... when the stock market was 7000 under bush, it wasn't bush's fault, and when it spiked to double that under obama, it wasn't to his credit.  It's just the market being the market, right?

soul/33, if you're going to blame obama (which I'm sure you're not), then you have to credit him for the good times.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Straw Man on February 03, 2014, 09:47:02 PM
Well, this is a tough criticism... when the stock market was 7000 under bush, it wasn't bush's fault, and when it spiked to double that under obama, it wasn't to his credit.  It's just the market being the market, right?

soul/33, if you're going to blame obama (which I'm sure you're not), then you have to credit him for the good times.

it's very simple

if stock market goes down or gas prices go up it's Obama's fault

if stock market goes up or gas prices goes down Obama gets no credit

there are many variations to this

for example if unemployment goes down Obama get's not credit

If unemployment goes up it's Obama's fault



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: RRKore on February 06, 2014, 06:42:24 AM
LOL!  I want to pwn them but i know that's rude, especially because they haven't had the getbig spankings/education that I have.

Seriously, high-fiving and bragging that she's picked every winner so far lol...

Ya know, this touches on a funny thing I noticed recently which is that our custom of using less than polite talk here on this board is starting to have an effect on my writing style in other venues. 

I won't go into detail but some old woman was mildly attacking my (40-year old) sister on FB and I chimed in with an objection to which her daughter responded with "Who the f*&k are you?" and then tried to "put me in my place". 

Well, I checked out her FB page, found out she was a cashier at Walmart in Bumfuck, Idaho and I was off to the races with my own response in GetBig Style.  She actually ended up apologizing to me, haha. And my mom, 2 sisters and my niece were falling all over themselves to thank me privately.  Too funny.  (TL;DR:  This board is no place for diplomacy.)

Just so this isn't a total thread-hijacking, I noticed that the Romney flick in on Netflix streaming right now (but haven't been bored enough to check it out yet).


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: chadstallion on February 06, 2014, 12:53:43 PM
stock market doing great lately w o-pos! 
it is!  I'm buying up stuff like a mad woman at Filene's Basement sales


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on March 18, 2014, 04:16:46 PM
Maybe Mitt should run for president again.   ;D

Romney Continues to Nip At Obama's Heels
by Alan Colmes

Mitt Romney, rather than gracefully accepting defeat, continues to let us know he would have been a better president. Ann Romney, too, has expended energy bashing President Obama, ungraciously. Now comes a Wall Street Journal op-ed via Mitt Romney telling us what a failed leader the president is.


Why, across the world, are America's hands so tied?

A large part of the answer is our leader's terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options...

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world in pursuit of their promise to reset relations and to build friendships across the globe. Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine. Part of their failure, I submit, is due to their failure to act when action was possible, and needed.


Okay, Mitt and Ann. We get it. Obama sucks, Hillary Clinton sucks in advance of 2016, and you would have made a much better President and First Lady. It's heartbreaking, obviously, to lose the presidency. But if you care about your country more than your bitter loss, perhaps you might consider what signal you're sending out when you tell everyone what a weak failure our Commander-in-Chief is. Thankfully, we live in country, unlike Russia, where we have First Amendment rights. You also have the right to just shut up.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 18, 2014, 06:41:56 PM
LMFAO!!!!!  Obama is the laughing stock of the world and universally mocked.  Romney is just again pointing out how utterly absurd the entire Obama junta is


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Option D on March 19, 2014, 09:24:20 AM
Well, this is a tough criticism... when the stock market was 7000 under bush, it wasn't bush's fault, and when it spiked to double that under obama, it wasn't to his credit.  It's just the market being the market, right?

soul/33, if you're going to blame obama (which I'm sure you're not), then you have to credit him for the good times.
Bump


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 19, 2014, 09:35:09 AM
Bump

LOL Good times - record food stamps, record low work force, record debt, etc etc etc. 

A Federal Reserve Ponzi scam stock market most people are not connected to is all you got in the Obama failed admn?  laughable. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Option D on March 19, 2014, 09:41:11 AM
LOL Good times - record food stamps, record low work force, record debt, etc etc etc.  

A Federal Reserve Ponzi scam stock market most people are not connected to is all you got in the Obama failed admn?  laughable.  
Talking about the stock market tho. When its bad, you use it to call Obama a failure. When its good you say its worthless. Gotcha


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 19, 2014, 09:44:36 AM
Talking about the stock market tho

And what does O-CHOOM have to do w that?  The best thing going on right now is that he cant pass anything or sign any laws so that gives the market confidence I guess.

The less he does and sooner he goes off to Kenya to od on drugs and live the life of some arabist nomad in the desert the better for all of us. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 19, 2014, 09:52:34 AM
The funniest part is seeing Obama cultists and slaves defend this disastrous presidency.  Romney turned out to be correct on everything he predicted while that worthless ghetto crackhead horrifingly wrong on Russia, obamacare, etc and yet you morons still defend his criminal junta admn. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on March 19, 2014, 09:54:11 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/0LbnH.gif)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on March 19, 2014, 09:56:02 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/7tbRJTK.gif)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 19, 2014, 09:56:59 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/7tbRJTK.gif)

That would not happen w a GORUCK bag - just saying. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Option D on March 19, 2014, 10:11:37 AM
And what does O-CHOOM have to do w that?  The best thing going on right now is that he cant pass anything or sign any laws so that gives the market confidence I guess.

The less he does and sooner he goes off to Kenya to od on drugs and live the life of some arabist nomad in the desert the better for all of us. 

So dont blame him when its bad. Because then you just sound like an in consistent ass hole


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: AbrahamG on March 21, 2014, 12:12:49 AM
So dont blame him when its bad. Because then you just sound like an in consistent ass hole

It is what it is.  You cannot polish a turd.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on April 18, 2014, 04:20:13 PM
Mitt Romney returns to political stage as Republicans prepare for midterms
By Robert Costa and Philip Rucker

One rainy morning this month, the man who thought he would be president boarded a train near his beach house in San Diego. He stepped off in Burbank, Calif., and caught a ride to a sound stage, where his on-again, off-again political consigliere, Mike Murphy, was waiting to shoot a commercial on a set that bore more than a passing resemblance to the Oval Office.

Looking and sounding like a president out of central casting, he nailed his lines. The crew called him “one-take Romney,” and before he departed, they swarmed, extending arms around his shoulders and angling their iPhones for pictures.

With that, Mitt Romney’s long winter was over.

After retreating from public view following his crushing loss to President Obama in the 2012 election, Romney has returned to the political stage, emerging as one of the Republican Party’s most coveted stars, especially on the fundraising circuit, in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

He may not direct a high-powered political-action committee or hold a formal position, but with the two living former Republican presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — shying away from campaign politics, Romney, 67, has begun to embrace the role of party elder, believing he can shape the national debate and help guide his fractured party to a governing majority.

Insisting he won’t seek the presidency again, the former GOP nominee has endorsed at least 16 candidates this cycle, many of them establishment favorites who backed his campaigns. One Romney friend said he wants to be the “anti-Jim DeMint,” a reference to the former South Carolina senator and current Heritage Foundation chairman who has been a conservative kingmaker in Republican primaries. Romney’s approach is to reward allies, boost rising stars and avoid conflict.

Romney has signed his name to sharply partisan e-mail appeals and headlined recent fundraisers from Las Vegas to Miami to Boston. This week, he appeared in his first television ad: a U.S. Chamber of Commerce spot supporting Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, who faces a tea party challenger in a state where Romney remains widely popular. And Romney’s confidants said he will appear in more ads, record robo-calls and stump at rallies later this year.

“He believes in the cause, he wants us to win the House and Senate, and he wants to be useful,” said Murphy, who oversaw production of the Simpson ad on April 2 near Hollywood.

Added Tom Rath, a New Hampshire-based former Romney adviser: “He never said he would take a vow of political abstinence. . . . He is a man at peace, but I don’t think that he has politics totally out of his blood.”

Romney’s resurfacing has spurred chatter among elite financiers and operatives that he is eyeing a comeback in 2016, much as he tries to silence such speculation. On March 25, Romney visited New York to raise money for Ed Gillespie, a former adviser running for Senate in Virginia. Sitting around the dining table in the Park Avenue home of private equity titan Stephen A. Schwartzman, Romney poked fun at some of his campaign trail missteps and, according to attendees, assured the two dozen donors that he would not run again.

Romney is heartened, his intimates said, that the GOP has not cast him aside as a loser. Spencer Zwick, the 2012 campaign’s national finance chairman who is so close to the family that Romney calls him his “sixth son,” said he believes Romney has become more popular over the past six months than he was during the election.

“The level of interest in him has skyrocketed,” Zwick said. “I think there is an enormous sense of buyer’s remorse, that he was right on Russia and a whole range of issues. I believe if the election were held today, he would win.”

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who was a Romney surrogate in 2012 after clashing him early on in the GOP primaries, said Romney is poised to “remain a leading voice in the party for a long time to come,” and that he is “way too young, smart, and service-oriented to just fade away.”

But some conservative activists would rather see Romney disappear again. Asked about Romney’s moves, organizer Richard Viguerie quipped, “It seems like Groundhog Day.”

L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of ForAmerica, a conservative advocacy group, said: “His career is finished. He ran an astonishingly inept campaign, and it is fine if he wants to be a senior statesman for the party. But I hope he’s not trying to advance himself or his moderate philosophy. That would be destructive.”


Romney has downsized his once vast political operation to a single aide, Kelli Harrison, and his inbox and cellphone. He keeps up on political developments with a small cadre of loyal former advisers and regularly consults Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who stood in for Obama in his debate preparations, and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), his vice-presidential running mate. Ronna Romney McDaniel, his niece and one of Michigan’s members of the Republican National Committee, keeps him updated on party affairs.

Romney also e-mails with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R). In late February, when the two appeared at a Republican Governors Association fundraiser at the Lenox Hotel in Boston, Romney pulled Christie aside to remind him to attend his June summit in Utah.

The conclave in Park City, where Romney purchased a sprawling ski chalet last year, serves as a reunion for Romney’s major donors and top aides, as well as a sales session for Solamere Capital, the private equity firm run by Zwick and Romney’s eldest son, Tagg.

Romney has invited most prospective 2016 presidential candidates to attend. Instead of being another cattle call showcasing well-rehearsed pitches, Romney is giving this year’s retreat a theme — the future of American leadership, at home and abroad — and he has asked all of the featured guests to tailor their remarks around it.

Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Ryan are making the trek to Utah this year, as is Portman. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush declined because of a scheduling conflict.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a longtime aide who still counsels Romney, said the event is “an important touchstone” for the Romney network.

“Mitt Romney was the first Republican candidate to raise $1 billion for a campaign,” Fehrnstrom said. “That is the new bar. And I think Mitt’s personal help and the support of his network is going to be crucial in helping the next Republican candidate for president achieve that $1 billion mark and hopefully surpass it.”

Scores of candidates in the midterm elections have sought Romney’s endorsement, including Mark Hutchison, a Nevada state senator and fellow Mormon, who is running in a June primary against former state party chairwoman Sue Lowden for lieutenant governor.

On March 20, Romney visited Las Vegas to raise money for Nevada Rep. Joe Heck, a Romney supporter in 2012, at the home of businessman Travis Brady. There, Hutchison approached Romney and asked for assistance.

“We went over what I have been doing as an attorney to fight Obamacare in the courts, and after we finished our brief conversation, he said he’d be in touch,” Hutchison said.

As with other such requests, Romney consulted his informal circle of advisers. These conference calls often include his former business partner, Bob White, as well as former aides Fehrnstrom, Stuart Stevens, Russ Schriefer, Matt Rhoades, Beth Myers, Peter Flaherty, Ron Kaufman and Lanhee Chen.

On Monday, Romney wrote a letter endorsing Hutchison, calling him a “champion for Nevadans’ constitutional rights.”

Romney doesn’t say “yes” to every entreaty. In Illinois, state Treasurer Dan Rutherford and businessman Bruce Rauner each pressured Romney to endorse his gubernatorial primary. For weeks, Romney mulled weighing in, but concluded he would sit out the primary — even though in 2012, Rutherford was Romney’s state chairman and helped him beat former senator Rick Santorum in the Illinois primary.

A map of Romney’s other stops and endorsements is a reflection of his relationships and his tendency toward even-tempered fiscal hawks. “He’s looking for pragmatic conservatives,” said former Minnesota senator Norm Coleman, a Republican. “It’s not so much about scoring political points with every segment of the party, but about finding people who, like him, understand the need for governing.”

In the first quarter of this year, per his federal filing, Romney donated to Elise Stefanik, a former Ryan aide running for a House seat in New York; to Steve Daines, a Montana Senate candidate who has been encouraged by Portman; and to state senator Tony Strickland, a former Romney state chairman who is seeking an open House seat in southern California. In Iowa, after his former state adviser David Kochel reached out to him, Romney endorsed state senator Joni Ernst, a GOP Senate candidate and the only elected official in a crowded primary.

In Virginia, Del. Barbara J. Comstock (R-Fairfax), who is running for the seat of outgoing U.S. Rep. Frank R. Wolf, worked on Romney’s 2008 campaign and was a key surrogate in 2012. She received a supportive Twitter message from Romney in January and $2,000 from him in March.

Romney is also backing former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, who is running this year in neighboring New Hampshire. Romney and Brown share several advisers, including Ryan Williams, who said he hopes the two march together on July 4 in the Wolfeboro parade, where the Romney family vacations on Lake Winnipesaukee.

On June 9, Romney is scheduled to attend a reception at the Metropolitan Club in New York, hosted by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to help raise money for Brown and other GOP Senate contenders.

Romney’s appeal has limits, though, especially in states with a more conservative tilt. In South Carolina, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham has not sought his support in his competitive primary, nor has Romney helped Gov. Nikki Haley, a Romney endorser in 2008 and 2012.

Romney advisers said he is willing to help Sen. Thad Cochran fend off a tea party challenger in Mississippi, but Cochran has not asked. “It’s not in the playbook right now,” said a Cochran adviser.

Robert Shrum, who advised unsuccessful Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry, said Romney wants “significance” but that “he can be more helpful at this point with money than electorally. The clearest instance to me of the situation is the decision of [Ohio Gov.] John Kasich to airbrush him out of his ad.”

As the Columbus Dispatch reported last week, Kasich’s gubernatorial campaign scrubbed a Romney placard from Kasich’s campaign Web site. Romney lost Ohio to Obama.

Romney is more welcome in Idaho. Strategist Scott Reed said that when the Chamber of Commerce surveyed voters recently, it found that Romney’s approval rating among Republicans in Simpson’s district was a whopping 86 percent. So Reed asked Kaufman if Romney would cut an ad for Simpson, and Romney agreed.

“He was a champ,” Reed said. “It’s going to help us win this race.”

When Romney visited Boise and Idaho Falls in March for events helping Gov. Butch Otter, Sen. James E. Risch and Simpson — all former Romney backers — he felt at home. Gone was his campaign entourage and Secret Service agents.

“He decided to go jogging by himself, out on the greenbelt trail along the Snake River,” Otter said. “When he got back, he told me he just loved sucking up all that good, clean oxygen. He may have been here for politics, but that run can be a tonic, and he liked that tonic.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on June 14, 2014, 10:04:12 AM
At elite donor summit featuring 2016 GOP hopefuls, a longing for Romney to run again
BY PHILIP RUCKER

PARK CITY, Utah — Mitt Romney’s ideas summit here was intended to be a passing of the torch to the Republican Party’s would-be saviors, with five potential 2016 presidential candidates jetting in to schmooze with many of the GOP’s biggest donors and present their agendas for the country’s future.

Instead, the scene at a luxury resort in the Rocky Mountains quickly became a Romney revival. Minutes after the 2012 Republican presidential nominee welcomed his 300 guests, Joe Scarborough, the MSNBC host and former GOP congressman, urged them to begin a “Draft Romney” movement in 2016.

“This is the only person that can fill the stage,” Scarborough said at the opening-night private dinner, according to attendees.

The Republican elite rose early Friday morning to go skeet shooting with possible 2016 hopeful Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.). Then, over breakfast, they questioned Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), another potential candidate, about how he thinks he could defeat the expected Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yet in hallway chats and over cocktails, they’ve been abuzz about recruiting someone else — Romney — into his third presidential race.

“Everybody realizes we’re devoid of leadership in D.C.,” said Harold Hamm, a billionaire energy investor who was one of Romney’s biggest fundraisers in 2012. “Everybody would encourage him to consider it again.”

Former Utah governor Michael Leavitt, a Romney confidant, told reporters, “I’d be for it, but it’s not my decision.” And George P. Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, said of Romney in his talk here, “I wish we could call him Mr. President.”

Romney even got encouragement from a Democrat, former Montana governor Brian Schweit­zer, who told reporters, “He would be a giant in a field of midgets.”

The heightened interest in Romney among the business leaders, donors and policy wonks gathering in Park City this weekend speaks volumes about their anxiety at the disarray in the Republican Party. There is no clear 2016 front-runner, and there is deep doubt about the two leading establishment favorites.

Donors here said they fear New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is permanently damaged by the George Washington Bridge traffic scandal. And while many would back former Florida governor Jeb Bush, they believe he will not run.

Enter Romney, who stoked the speculation Friday by delivering a sweeping, campaign-style speech condemning President Obama’s foreign policy and serving up biting critiques of Clinton, the overwhelming favorite for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

“The Obama-Biden-Hillary Clinton foreign policy is a monumental bust,” Romney said.

He referred to Clinton’s comments this week that Russian President Vladi­mir Putin “might not be happy” when he reads her new book. “Please — this is from a woman who was gushing with smiles when she presented a minion of Vladimir Putin with that red ‘reset’ button,” Romney said, referring to an episode recounted by Clinton when the Obama administration was seeking greater cooperation with Russia.

Romney has been positioning himself as an elder statesman and establishment patriarch. Pressed by reporters about a 2016 campaign, Romney insisted he has no interest.

“I think people make a lot of compliments to make us all feel good, and it’s very nice and heartening to have people say such generous things,” he said. “But I am not running, and they know it.”

Then how does he explain the buzz here?

“The unavailable is always the most attractive, right?” Romney said. “That goes in dating as well.”

Asked about the 2016 chatter, Romney’s eldest son, Tagg, burst into a big smile but said nothing. Scott Romney, Mitt’s older brother, smiled, too, but said: “It’s a lot of crazy speculation.”

Spencer Zwick, who organized the summit and in 2012 served as Romney’s national finance chairman, said many attendees believe if the election were held today, Romney would defeat Obama handily.

“There’s a sense of buyer’s remorse — a sense of, ‘Oh, what could have been?’ ” he said.

Zwick added, “This is a powerful group of people. How do we use them to make sure we win against Hillary Clinton? That seems unclear because these people don’t know where to go.”

Anthony Scaramucci, a prominent investor who traveled the country raising money for Romney in 2012, said nobody in the 2016 field has motivated him to do the same.

“We’re in sort of a limbo period,” Scaramucci said. “The Republican Party is in a very big need of re-engineering . . . unless you identify who the strong leader is to knit that coalition together, but I don’t see it.”

Some Republicans here tried to tamp down the Romney 2016 buzz and look to the future.

“Mitt has made it clear that he is not running,” said Bobbie Kilberg, a leading GOP donor from Northern Virginia. “I think folks should take him at his word.”

Paul, Ryan and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) addressed the summit, and Christie is due here Saturday. Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were invited but declined, citing scheduling conflicts. Two key Bush associates, fundraiser Jack Oliver and strategist Ana Navarro, worked the crowd, however.

The establishment lights here eyed Paul with interest. He made the case that he is growing the Republican Party and talked about his recent appearances before black and liberal audiences.

When a donor asked whether Clinton was beatable, Paul said he believed she was “really vulnerable” on foreign policy and for being too hawkish, according to one attendee.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a Romney rival in 2008, spoke as well. He was sharply partisan — he said sending Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) “to the back of the room” is “the greatest single gift we can give to the people of America this year” — but also called for more compromise.

At day’s end, the donors heard from Ryan, who enjoys favorite-son status with the crowd after being Romney’s vice presidential running mate in 2012.

But Ryan’s interest in a 2016 run is unclear. When a reporter asked what he thought of Clinton, Ryan said only, “What Mitt said.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on June 14, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
But Ryan’s interest in a 2016 run is unclear. When a reporter asked what he thought of Clinton, Ryan said only, “What Mitt said.”

I think paul Ryan doesn't know what he is these days.  He defended everything lib that mitt said, he was tea party before that, and now he's sliding RINO with everyone else.  Ugh.  Dude is bright but 1) didn't show balls against Biden and 2) We don't know what the heck he stands for.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Jack T. Cross on June 14, 2014, 10:38:33 AM
Good to see you back, Bay.

(Great thread btw!)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on June 16, 2014, 12:10:06 PM
Romney blasts Hillary Clinton as 'clueless'
Her tenure as secretary of state was 'a monumental bust,' former GOP nominee says
By Dylan Stableford

Mitt Romney had some harsh words on Sunday for the person many believe will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016: Hillary Clinton.

"Consider what's happened around the world during the years that she was secretary of state," the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican presidential nominee said on NBC's "Meet the Press", calling her tenure "a monumental bust."

Romney slammed U.S. foreign policy, saying both Clinton and President Barack Obama have "repeatedly underestimated" America's enemies on the international stage.

"This administration, from Secretary Clinton to President Obama, has repeatedly underestimated the threats that are faced by America," Romney said. "It has repeatedly underestimated our adversaries. And whether that's Russia or [Syrian President Bashar] Assad or ISIS or al-Qaida itself, it has not taken the action necessary to prevent things from happening. We have not used our influence to do what's necessary to protect our interests."

Romney also blasted Clinton for comments she made during her recent book tour about the decision to release five Taliban prisoners in order to free U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl.

"She was asked whether the Bowe Bergdahl trade was one that presented a threat to the United States," Romney said. "And she came back with a clueless answer. She was clueless. She said, 'Look, these commandos don't represent a threat to the United States.' Well, of course they do. And then she went on to say, 'They only represent a threat to Afghanistan and Pakistan.' Are you kidding? I mean, we're in Afghanistan. And we're in Afghanistan in part to protect America's security."

To defeat Clinton in 2016, Romney said, the GOP "playbook, I believe, is to look at her record."

"I think her clueless comments about the Bergdahl exchange as well as her record as the secretary of state are really going to be the foundation of how a Republican candidate is able to take back the White House," he said.

Romney also downplayed House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's shocking loss in last week's Virginia GOP primary, saying Cantor's defeat doesn't signal the tea party's resurgence within the GOP.

“Our party is becoming stronger,” Romney said, noting South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham's primary victory against tea party challengers on Tuesday.

“In a very conservative state, Lindsey Graham won in a landslide,” Romney said. “This has a lot to do with the effectiveness of relative campaigns.”

Romney spoke after a GOP fundraising event he headed in Park City, Utah. He dismissed talk that the event — attended by heavy hitters including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan — was precursor to another presidential run for him.

"I'm not running for president," Romney said. "I brought a number of the 2016 contenders here to meet with my fundraisers. If I had been running, I wouldn't be doing that.

"Look, I want to find the best candidate for us to take our message to the American people," he added. "That we can bring better jobs, higher incomes, and more security globally. We can do that. And I'm convinced that the field of Republican candidates that I'm seeing is [in] a lot better position to do that than I am."


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on June 16, 2014, 05:40:48 PM
LOL @ Romney.

It's maddening to look back and realize the repubs, just a year after their smashing tea party victories, chose Romney.  The dude wrote and signed one of the strictest anti-gun bill in any state's history.  He supported sanctuary cities. 

And they made him the nominee.    Looking back, don't ya just shake your head and say "Really?"   And fcking hermann cain, who admitted to shady sex stuff after a dozen accusers called him out... and Trump, a dude paid tens of millions by liberal ass NBC to embarrass the birther movement?

Looking back, it's hard to believe repubs chose THOSE candidates as their top options.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on June 19, 2014, 01:33:18 PM
Poll: Romney the frontrunner in 2016?
by Paul Steinhauser

He's said over and over that he won't run for the White House a third time, but a new poll indicates that if Mitt Romney changed his mind and made another bid for president, he'd be the frontrunner among Republicans in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire.

According to the Suffolk University/Boston Herald survey, which was released Thursday, 24% of Granite State Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say that Romney would be their first choice for their party's presidential nomination.

Among the potential 2016 GOP contenders, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was a distant second, at 9%, with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 8%, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 7%.

While the survey may make headlines, it's important to remember that Romney's very well known in New Hampshire. He owns a vacation home in the state, has often appeared at GOP events in New Hampshire, and was governor of neighboring Massachusetts. Romney easily won the 2012 Republican primary, but lost the state by six percentage points to President Barack Obama in the general election.

And the 2012 GOP presidential nominee has been very clear about his 2016 intentions.

"I'm not running," Romney said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," a line Romney's used in interviews every time he's asked about whether he'll make a third bid for the White House. Romney's wife, Ann, has also been adamant against another run.

"Very sorry, Mrs. Romney. We had to ask the question," Suffolk University Political Research Center Director David Paleologos joked to CNN.

Paleologos added that the results speak to "the weakness of the GOP field at this point in time."

Without Romney, Christie and Paul were tied at 11% as the first choice for the nomination among Republicans in New Hampshire, with Bush and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas each at 8%.

The Suffolk University/Boston Herald poll was conducted June 14-15 and June 17-18, with 800 likely voters in New Hampshire questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on July 03, 2014, 05:58:26 AM
No, Mitt Romney isn’t running for president
By Chris Cillizza

Mitt Romney hasn't disappeared from the political scene the way many people thought he would after coming up on the losing end of the 2012 presidential race. But, that doesn't mean he's running for president -- or even thinking about running for president -- in 2016.

Talk of a possible third presidential bid for Romney has surfaced of late -- with poll numbers that show he is well regarded by Republican voters and a growing sense within the GOP smart set that no candidate has really emerged from the pack as of yet.

Romney has, of course, batted down such speculation. "I'm not running, and talk of a draft is kind of silly," Romney told "Meet the Press" moderator David Gregory earlier this month. That's consistently been his position for quite some time; he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in February that  "I'm not running for president in 2016. It's time for someone else to take that responsibility and I'll be supporting our nominee." (Kudos to CNN for gathering the many ways Romney has said he's not running for president into a single blog post.)

But, one quirk of human nature is this: We always want what we can't have. Or, in Romney's own incredibly awkward (but accurate) phrasing: "The unavailable is always the most attractive, right? That goes in dating as well."

The more Romney insists he's not interested, the more people become intrigued at the prospect of him running. Remember how Al Gore suddenly became a figure of maximum intrigue in the political world just a few years removed from losing an ultra-winnable presidential race in 2000?  He did it by making clear he didn't want to run.  Works every time.

Now, Romney has been around the political game long enough to know that people are only interested in you as long as you are uninterested in them. As soon as Romney indicated that, well, sure, he might want to run again, all of the old complaints -- he's too wooden! he's out of touch! -- would come roaring back.

Think of Romney's current popularity like this: There is a ball just out of his reach. He could definitely grab it. But, as soon as he lunges for it, the ball starts to move away from him. The faster he runs toward it, the further it gets away from him.

Say what you will about Mitt Romney but he is no dummy. He gets it. And that's why he's not running.

Now, on to the 10 men (no women!) with the best chance of winding up as the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. Agree or disagree with our picks? That's what the comments section is made for.

10. Paul Ryan:  The Wisconsin Republican's total lack of interest in making a play for a House leadership post following Eric Cantor's stunning loss earlier this month left me, again, wondering just what the heck he wants out of his political career. The answer is elusive but now seems to be that he wants to bide his time and see where the party -- in Congress and nationally -- goes over the next few cycles. At 44 years old, he can afford to wait. (Previous ranking: 9)

9. Bobby Jindal: The Louisiana governor is running for president. The latest piece of evidence was a two-day swing through Iowa, stopping by the state Republican convention and raising money for the state party. Jindal, in his day job, is building a record that hard-core conservatives will love. He rejected the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act and, more recently, issued an executive order to withdraw the state from the Common Core education standards program. (Previous ranking: 7)

8. Ted Cruz: The last week in politics has to give the Texas Republican Senator some pause. His preferred candidate in Oklahoma's Republican Senate primary got walloped on Tuesday, the same night tea party insurgent Chris McDaniel inexplicably lost to establishment pick Thad Cochran in the Mississippi Senate runoff. Cruz has a loyal base of support. But, it's not big enough to be the nominee. (Previous ranking: 6)

7. Mike Huckabee: The former Arkansas governor is doing the sorts of things one does when he wants to run for president.   He stumped for Mike Campbell, a candidate for North Carolina South Carolina lieutenant governor earlier this month. He's giving the wink and nod statements of interest that are part of the game. And, polling in Iowa at least shows he remains popular; a recent Des Moines Register poll showed Huckabee had the second highest favorable ratings of any potential 2016 GOPer. (Paul Ryan was at the top.) (Previous ranking: 8)

6. John Kasich: The Ohio governor is the "it boy" of the smart-set in DC at the moment. He looks to be on his way to a comfortable re-election victory in the swingiest state in the country at the presidential level. He's run for president before and no one we talk to says he doesn't want to again.  If Kasich wins this fall and shows some interest in the race, he could move up these rankings. (Previous ranking: N/A)

5. Chris Christie: Just when he thought he was out, they pulled him back in. The news, which broke this week, that the feds are investigating the New Jersey governor's use of Port Authority funds to repair the Pulaski Skyway, further complicates Christie's political rehabilitation efforts. Whether or not anything in this latest investigation gets to Christie remains very unclear but it's just another bad storyline that he has to deal with at a time when he wants to pivot to the process of running for president. (Previous ranking: 4)

4. Scott Walker:  Speaking of bad headlines, the Wisconsin governor has had to weather some of his own lately over allegations of illegal coordination between his 2012 recall campaign and outside groups aiding that effort. But, earlier this week, an attorney for the special prosecutor tasked with looking into the allegations made clear that Walker was not a target of the probe. That was a nice piece of news for Walker -- and should help him quiet the storm of coverage that had popped up over the past 10 days or so. (Previous ranking: 5)

3.  Rand Paul: Paul is the most interesting candidate running for the Republican presidential nomination. He's also the one -- with the possible exceptions of Rubio and Jeb Bush -- who can make a credible case that nominating him would expand the GOP into parts of the electorate it hasn't been able to reach in recent years. Paul remains somewhat unpredictable -- that's also part of his appeal -- and it remains to be seen whether he could win a one-on-one fight with a more establishment candidate. (Previous ranking: 2)

2. Marco Rubio: The last time we wrote about the 2016 presidential field in this space, we recommended buying stock in the Florida Senator. That's still our recommendation -- particularly as Walker and Christie have stumbled a bit as of late.  Rubio's record in the Senate -- with the exception of immigration reform -- is solidly conservative and he is probably the most naturally gifted candidate in the field.  We keep hearing whispers that Rubio's record during his time as Speaker of the Florida house is ripe for an opposition researcher but we're not there yet. (Previous ranking: 3)

1. Jeb Bush: Until he says "no" -- and we still think that's more likely than him saying "yes"  -- we are going to keep the former Florida governor at the top of these rankings. That ranking is largely built on his last name and the political and fundraising muscle it represents. As Philip Bump noted in a recent Fix post, however, Jeb's record on core conservative policies is not so good. (Previous ranking: 1)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: mik1111 on July 03, 2014, 06:51:48 AM
these guys spending millions to a job that pays 100k...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on July 03, 2014, 07:28:09 AM
No, Mitt Romney isn’t running for president
By Chris Cillizza

Mitt Romney hasn't disappeared from the political scene the way many people thought he would after coming up on the losing end of the 2012 presidential race. But, that doesn't mean he's running for president -- or even thinking about running for president -- in 2016.

Talk of a possible third presidential bid for Romney has surfaced of late -- with poll numbers that show he is well regarded by Republican voters and a growing sense within the GOP smart set that no candidate has really emerged from the pack as of yet.

Romney has, of course, batted down such speculation. "I'm not running, and talk of a draft is kind of silly," Romney told "Meet the Press" moderator David Gregory earlier this month. That's consistently been his position for quite some time; he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in February that  "I'm not running for president in 2016. It's time for someone else to take that responsibility and I'll be supporting our nominee." (Kudos to CNN for gathering the many ways Romney has said he's not running for president into a single blog post.)

But, one quirk of human nature is this: We always want what we can't have. Or, in Romney's own incredibly awkward (but accurate) phrasing: "The unavailable is always the most attractive, right? That goes in dating as well."

The more Romney insists he's not interested, the more people become intrigued at the prospect of him running. Remember how Al Gore suddenly became a figure of maximum intrigue in the political world just a few years removed from losing an ultra-winnable presidential race in 2000?  He did it by making clear he didn't want to run.  Works every time.

Now, Romney has been around the political game long enough to know that people are only interested in you as long as you are uninterested in them. As soon as Romney indicated that, well, sure, he might want to run again, all of the old complaints -- he's too wooden! he's out of touch! -- would come roaring back.

Think of Romney's current popularity like this: There is a ball just out of his reach. He could definitely grab it. But, as soon as he lunges for it, the ball starts to move away from him. The faster he runs toward it, the further it gets away from him.

Say what you will about Mitt Romney but he is no dummy. He gets it. And that's why he's not running.

Now, on to the 10 men (no women!) with the best chance of winding up as the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. Agree or disagree with our picks? That's what the comments section is made for.

10. Paul Ryan:  The Wisconsin Republican's total lack of interest in making a play for a House leadership post following Eric Cantor's stunning loss earlier this month left me, again, wondering just what the heck he wants out of his political career. The answer is elusive but now seems to be that he wants to bide his time and see where the party -- in Congress and nationally -- goes over the next few cycles. At 44 years old, he can afford to wait. (Previous ranking: 9)

9. Bobby Jindal: The Louisiana governor is running for president. The latest piece of evidence was a two-day swing through Iowa, stopping by the state Republican convention and raising money for the state party. Jindal, in his day job, is building a record that hard-core conservatives will love. He rejected the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act and, more recently, issued an executive order to withdraw the state from the Common Core education standards program. (Previous ranking: 7)

8. Ted Cruz: The last week in politics has to give the Texas Republican Senator some pause. His preferred candidate in Oklahoma's Republican Senate primary got walloped on Tuesday, the same night tea party insurgent Chris McDaniel inexplicably lost to establishment pick Thad Cochran in the Mississippi Senate runoff. Cruz has a loyal base of support. But, it's not big enough to be the nominee. (Previous ranking: 6)

7. Mike Huckabee: The former Arkansas governor is doing the sorts of things one does when he wants to run for president.   He stumped for Mike Campbell, a candidate for North Carolina South Carolina lieutenant governor earlier this month. He's giving the wink and nod statements of interest that are part of the game. And, polling in Iowa at least shows he remains popular; a recent Des Moines Register poll showed Huckabee had the second highest favorable ratings of any potential 2016 GOPer. (Paul Ryan was at the top.) (Previous ranking: 8)

6. John Kasich: The Ohio governor is the "it boy" of the smart-set in DC at the moment. He looks to be on his way to a comfortable re-election victory in the swingiest state in the country at the presidential level. He's run for president before and no one we talk to says he doesn't want to again.  If Kasich wins this fall and shows some interest in the race, he could move up these rankings. (Previous ranking: N/A)

5. Chris Christie: Just when he thought he was out, they pulled him back in. The news, which broke this week, that the feds are investigating the New Jersey governor's use of Port Authority funds to repair the Pulaski Skyway, further complicates Christie's political rehabilitation efforts. Whether or not anything in this latest investigation gets to Christie remains very unclear but it's just another bad storyline that he has to deal with at a time when he wants to pivot to the process of running for president. (Previous ranking: 4)

4. Scott Walker:  Speaking of bad headlines, the Wisconsin governor has had to weather some of his own lately over allegations of illegal coordination between his 2012 recall campaign and outside groups aiding that effort. But, earlier this week, an attorney for the special prosecutor tasked with looking into the allegations made clear that Walker was not a target of the probe. That was a nice piece of news for Walker -- and should help him quiet the storm of coverage that had popped up over the past 10 days or so. (Previous ranking: 5)

3.  Rand Paul: Paul is the most interesting candidate running for the Republican presidential nomination. He's also the one -- with the possible exceptions of Rubio and Jeb Bush -- who can make a credible case that nominating him would expand the GOP into parts of the electorate it hasn't been able to reach in recent years. Paul remains somewhat unpredictable -- that's also part of his appeal -- and it remains to be seen whether he could win a one-on-one fight with a more establishment candidate. (Previous ranking: 2)

2. Marco Rubio: The last time we wrote about the 2016 presidential field in this space, we recommended buying stock in the Florida Senator. That's still our recommendation -- particularly as Walker and Christie have stumbled a bit as of late.  Rubio's record in the Senate -- with the exception of immigration reform -- is solidly conservative and he is probably the most naturally gifted candidate in the field.  We keep hearing whispers that Rubio's record during his time as Speaker of the Florida house is ripe for an opposition researcher but we're not there yet. (Previous ranking: 3)

1. Jeb Bush: Until he says "no" -- and we still think that's more likely than him saying "yes"  -- we are going to keep the former Florida governor at the top of these rankings. That ranking is largely built on his last name and the political and fundraising muscle it represents. As Philip Bump noted in a recent Fix post, however, Jeb's record on core conservative policies is not so good. (Previous ranking: 1)

Not a single one of those candidates will win.  Jindal would be the first one I would bet on to drop out of the primary.  Rubio would be another Huckabee, staying in the race long past the point where everyone else has ignored him.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on July 03, 2014, 09:59:48 AM
76% of republican voters - all very aware of the strengths of Romney - choose "other".

That says it all.  What is hilary polling for 2016 right now?  I'm guessing a little higher than 24%?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on August 02, 2014, 04:32:41 PM
Romney is in demand on the midterm campaign trail
By Robert Costa and Philip Rucker

President Obama thumped Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, but now their political standings seem reversed. During a summer in which Democratic candidates are keeping their distance from an unpopular president, Romney is emerging as one of the Republican Party’s most in-demand campaign surrogates.

Over three days in mid-August, Romney will campaign for GOP Senate and gubernatorial candidates in West Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas, aides said. In September, he is planning visits to the presidential swing states of Colorado and Virginia.

Romney is filling up his October schedule, as well. Senate hopefuls in Iowa and New Hampshire are eager for him to return before November’s midterms, while Romney is weighing trips to other Senate battlegrounds. At least one high-profile Senate campaign said it has produced a television advertisement featuring Romney ready to air in the fall.

“Democrats don’t want to be associated with Barack Obama right now, but Republicans are dying to be associated with Mitt Romney,” said Spencer Zwick, a longtime Romney confidant who chaired his national finance council. He added: “Candidates, campaigns and donors in competitive races are calling saying, ‘Can we get Mitt here?’ They say, ‘We’ve looked at the polling, and Mitt Romney moves the needle for us.’ That’s somewhat unexpected for someone who lost the election.”

For a party without a consensus leader — nor a popular elder statesman like Democratic former president Bill Clinton — Romney is stepping forward in both red and blue states to fill that role for the GOP.

“There’s a pretty big void in the party right now for national leaders, and Romney’s in a unique position, having been around the track, to help fill that void,” said Scott Reed, a veteran GOP strategist who oversees the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s political operation.

Romney continues to deny interest in a third presidential run in 2016, but his moves have his supporters yearning for him to give it a go and arguing that he would be a stronger candidate than last time.

In recent months, Romney has been endorsing candidates, including a number of establishment favorites who went on to defeat tea party firebrands in hard-fought primaries. Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R), whom Romney recently endorsed for reelection, said in an interview that Romney remains the GOP’s best hope of winning back the White House.

Asked whether he and other Republican officials are coalescing around Romney as a 2016 favorite, Mead said: “There is a movement afoot. . . . I’d tell him, ‘Governor Romney, people here in Wyoming and around the country would encourage you to take another look at it.’ ”

Supporters also point to Obama’s struggles on crises ranging from his health-care law to Russian aggression to conflict in the North African country of Mali — all issues Romney raised in the 2012 campaign — and say time has proved Romney right.

Obama won the popular vote 51 percent to 47 percent in 2012, but a CNN/ORC International poll this past week showed Romney winning 53 percent to 44 percent if a rematch were held today. The same poll showed Romney losing to former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton 55 percent to 42 percent in a hypothetical 2016 matchup.

Democratic strategists said GOP candidates who appear with Romney in their states are misreading voters.

“He is a walking, talking caricature of a Republican Party that favors only the very rich and big powerful corporations at a cost to middle-class families,” said Matt Canter, deputy executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Republican 2016 contenders such as Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) also are building political capital while stumping for GOP candidates this summer and fall.

But in the minds of many Republican operatives and financiers, Romney stands apart from the others because he appears above the fray and without any overt personal ambition. He is also one of the few national Republicans who can raise significant amounts of money and capture the attention of voters in most GOP blocs.

After a retreat into seclusion following his 2012 loss, Romney’s reemergence on the political stage coincides with a softening of his public image. “Mitt,” a Netflix documentary about Romney’s campaigns released this year, shows him as a devoted family man committed to his Mormon faith. And last week, Romney posted widely shared pictures on social media showing him, wife Ann and five of their 22 grandchildren hiking, swimming and rock climbing during a summer tour of national parks in the West.

In June, Romney’s donor retreat in Park City, Utah, had the feel of a revival. Although Christie and Paul spoke at the elite confab, the buzz was about drafting Romney.

Romney insisted to reporters he would not run
: “The unavailable is always the most attractive, right? That goes in dating, as well.”

Still, the Chamber’s Reed said he expects Romney to assess the GOP field sometime in 2015 and give serious consideration to another candidacy.

“He could come on the scene around Labor Day [of 2015] because he’s able to flip his switch,” Reed said. He argued that Romney could activate his fundraising network and be in a “commanding position” faster than any other prospective candidate.

For now, Romney’s associates said, he is focused entirely on helping Republicans win the majority in the Senate in November. He communicates regularly about the campaign landscape with Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who is a close friend, and other political allies. Longtime advisers Beth Myers and Ron Kaufman, as well as aide Kelli Harrison, help field requests from candidates and manage his travel.

During the week of Aug. 18, according to aides, Romney is set to campaign in West Virginia with Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R), who is favored to win the seat being vacated by the retiring Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D); in North Carolina with state House Speaker Thom Tillis (R), who is challenging Sen. Kay Hagan (D); and in Arkansas for gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson (R).

Aides said Romney has also scheduled September campaign trips to Colorado, for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez (R), and Virginia, where he has campaigned for Ed Gillespie (R), a senior Romney adviser in 2012 who is challenging Sen. Mark R. Warner (D).

Romney campaigned this year with Scott Brown (R), the former senator from Massachusetts now running in neighboring New Hampshire against Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D). Romney has deep political roots in New Hampshire, where his family owns a summer vacation home. In June, he returned to the farm in Stratham where he announced his 2012 campaign to stage a rally with Brown.

“Mitt Romney is one of the most unifying figures in the party, and having him here was a huge shot in the arm,” said Colin Reed, Brown’s campaign manager.

Advisers said Romney is expected to return this fall to New Hampshire and to Iowa, where he campaigned in May for Joni Ernst in the run-up to the Republican Senate primary, which she won handily.

Romney called Ernst “a real Iowan,” telling voters that she “didn’t just sit at home needle-pointing” but was raised doing “squealing work on the farm” — a reference to Ernst’s television ad in which she boasts of “castrating hogs.”

“When he was here last time, he offered to do whatever we felt he needed to do,” said David Kochel, who was Romney’s top Iowa adviser and is informally advising Ernst. “He’s invested. He wants her to win.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on August 12, 2014, 03:36:46 PM
Mitt Romney 2016? Advisers try to squelch effort, but it's gaining steam.
Mitt Romney and his top advisers are adamant: He won't run for president in 2016. But draft efforts by serious players – including the chairman of the Utah GOP – are picking up momentum.
By Linda Feldmann

 Chicago — Talk to any of Mitt Romney’s closest political advisers, and the answer is the same: He won’t run for president in 2016.

“I take Mitt at his absolute word. He’s not running,” says Ron Kaufman, Republican national committeeman for Massachusetts and a senior adviser to Mr. Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.

“He’s been very clear – he loved running, gave it his best, and lost,” Mr. Kaufman told this reporter at the RNC’s summer meeting in Chicago last week. “Now he’s helping the Republicans win the Senate.”

Romney’s former finance chair, Spencer Zwick, has also put out word that Romney is focused on the 2014 midterms and to please stop the draft efforts, which are a distraction. Most significant among them is DraftMitt.org, organized by the chairman of the Utah Republican Party. The three-month-old site is closing in on 117,000 signatures. The campaign's Facebook page is also getting a lot of traffic.

"Look, the focus needs to be on the midterm elections. That's what Mitt is doing," Mr. Zwick told the Deseret News in Salt Lake City last month. "The organization has no merit. None."

But in Chicago last week, when asked about his draft effort, Utah GOP chairman James Evans was happy to talk.

“We are mindful of Romney insiders’ concerns, but we’re not going away,” says Mr. Evans.

He hasn’t shut down the site, but he did cancel the national launch he had planned in South Carolina – an early primary state – later this month. And he’s not actively raising money. There’s no “donate” button on the site. Any money that’s coming in to support his “low-cost operation,” Evans says, is from people with whom he already has a relationship.

“This is a grass-roots efforts,” Evans says, “and we want to demonstrate that, collectively, America got it wrong” in 2012, when President Obama beat Romney.

As head of the Utah GOP, Evans is well-positioned to keep his effort going. Utah is one of Romney’s “home bases.” He lived there for a time when he ran the 2002 Winter Olympics and owns a home there. Utah is also headquarter of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which Romney is a prominent member. 

But Evans is, in other ways, an unlikely champion. He’s originally from South Carolina, a Southern Baptist, and black – the only African-American state GOP chair in the continental US.

Evans says he told Romney directly that he wanted to launch a draft effort, and the former Massachusetts governor smiled and was polite.

“He was kind,” says Evans. “I appreciate that.”

What about Romney’s wife, Ann? Evans hasn’t asked her. “She would be kryptonite to the plan,” he says. “If I don’t ask, then she can’t say no.”

In interviews, other Republican leaders attending the Chicago RNC meeting either ruled out a Romney run, saying they take him at his word, or expressed interest, depending on how the still-forming 2016 field shakes out.

Several pointed out that, under RNC rules, there’s no way to “draft” someone onto the GOP ticket. Romney would have to consent to be on the ballot.

Others chalked up all the Romney talk to “buyer’s remorse,” now that Obama is struggling both internationally and at home and mired in low job approval ratings.

“People tell him that if we could do the election over today, we might have President Romney,” says Steve Duprey, GOP committeeman from New Hampshire, home of the first primary (and another of Romney’s home bases). “He’s flattered by those comments, but I will say this, I think Governor Romney has the luxury of making a decision later than anyone else."

So far, the early, prospective GOP field for 2016 is large and has no clear front-runner. Mr. Duprey suggested that, despite their protestations, close Romney supporters have said “never say never” and advised him to keep an eye on how the field shakes out.

“Is it an early breaking field toward one candidate? Is it a late-breaking field? Who’s in?” Duprey says.

“I will tell you personally, not based on knowledge…. I think it would be a smart move to look at it and consider running,” Duprey said of Romney. “I think if there’s anyone who would have an easier go of winning the nomination, it would be him. The more you do it, the better you get at it.”

Still, for a top-tier presidential prospect like Romney, a third try would be unusual. In 2008, he lost the GOP nomination to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, then won it in 2012. One comparison is to William Jennings Bryan, who won the Democratic nomination three times (1896, 1900, and 1908) but never reached the Oval Office.

“A better model for Mitt might actually be Richard Nixon, who lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960, then lost the California gubernatorial election in 1962, only to win the presidency in 1968,” writes Matt Lewis in the Daily Telegraph.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 05:00:42 PM
like him or not a person with a background similar to romneys business background is what is needed for this country.

obama and the left have proven time and time again that they do not understand how businesses operate or how to get their goals accomplished while being business friendly, the tax inversion stupidity is just the latest in a long list of examples.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on August 12, 2014, 05:05:37 PM
like him or not a person with a background similar to romneys business background is what is needed for this country.

obama and the left have proven time and time again that they do not understand how businesses operate or how to get their goals accomplished while being business friendly, the tax inversion stupidity is just the latest in a long list of examples.

Mitt would be the PERFECT VP selection.   He's not the personality/likeable enough to win the election.  I mean, obama sucked, it was on the tail end of obamacare and benghazi, and obama looked like crap in debate #1... but still, he won 53% and 330? electorals... pretty bad beating. 

Americans WANT a president they would have a beer with.  Mitt was just too rich, too out of touch.  Too much of the "who let the dogs out" and "i'm out of work too, haha!" - in this media age, a presidential candidate MUST be in touch with the people.  Mitt was perfect on paper, but people just didn't like him because they felt ZERO connection with him.   There was so so little for the average american to connect with mitt on (and being a RINO meant the base stayed home too)

But yes, to your point... a likeable Romney would win the job.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 05:12:44 PM
Mitt would be the PERFECT VP selection.   He's not the personality/likeable enough to win the election.  I mean, obama sucked, it was on the tail end of obamacare and benghazi, and obama looked like crap in debate #1... but still, he won 53% and 330? electorals... pretty bad beating. 

Americans WANT a president they would have a beer with.  Mitt was just too rich, too out of touch.  Too much of the "who let the dogs out" and "i'm out of work too, haha!" - in this media age, a presidential candidate MUST be in touch with the people.  Mitt was perfect on paper, but people just didn't like him because they felt ZERO connection with him.   There was so so little for the average american to connect with mitt on (and being a RINO meant the base stayed home too)

But yes, to your point... a likeable Romney would win the job.
my point was not about likeability at all...

my point was to what this country needs and to think that a person who has gone to private school since grade school is in touch with people is pretty damn laughable.

A person who understands how a business works and what their goals are is whats needed. Obama could probably get alot of his going if he would go about it in a way that was in line with a businesses goals or made it easier for them to work


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on August 12, 2014, 05:27:12 PM
my point was not about likeability at all...

my point was to what this country needs and to think that a person who has gone to private school since grade school is in touch with people is pretty damn laughable.

A person who understands how a business works and what their goals are is whats needed. Obama could probably get alot of his going if he would go about it in a way that was in line with a businesses goals or made it easier for them to work

People will never elect "what is needed".  They'll elect who they like.

In truth, there is probably a fat old bald dude, 60 years old, with stacks of PhDs and decades of thinktank work, who can TRULY understand the concepts and content of running the USA.  I mean, Cain didn't know shit about libya, he didn't know who the nuclear powers were lol.   Perry, lol, he's a haircut and a shifting amnesty position, but he sure has that presidential look.  Mitch McConnell?  he has more brains in his ten remaining hairs than Perry has in his entire body... but given his height and bald head, he'll never be prez.

and anyway... the last 2 "businessman" presidents were Hoover and Dubya... lol...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/the-wrong-resume/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Businessman are sexy choices but they dont' work "in real life" where you cannot CUT THE FAT like you can in business.  Why was Romney 47th in nation in Job Creation?  Well, he used to be able to SELL OFF those shitty companies.  He can't sell off shitty, low IQ counties with poverty issues.

I have an MBA and I love the idea of a businessman president, but really, I believe the best presidents are those with a decent IQ, ability to learn fast, and above all, to FIND COMMON GROUND with people.   Anyone who can get boehnner and Pelosi on the same page is WAY smarter than a brilliant romney whining about 47% to a room full of decamillionaires lol.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on August 12, 2014, 05:39:45 PM
my point was not about likeability at all...

my point was to what this country needs and to think that a person who has gone to private school since grade school is in touch with people is pretty damn laughable.

A person who understands how a business works and what their goals are is whats needed. Obama could probably get alot of his going if he would go about it in a way that was in line with a businesses goals or made it easier for them to work

You mean like Romney lol


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 06:01:38 PM
You mean like Romney lol
exactly, morons like you think obama can relate when he has essentially the same priviledged background.

At least I call it the way it is, both of them cant relate to regular everyday people.

The difference is obama cant relate to businesses either....


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 06:08:34 PM
People will never elect "what is needed".  They'll elect who they like.

In truth, there is probably a fat old bald dude, 60 years old, with stacks of PhDs and decades of thinktank work, who can TRULY understand the concepts and content of running the USA.  I mean, Cain didn't know shit about libya, he didn't know who the nuclear powers were lol.   Perry, lol, he's a haircut and a shifting amnesty position, but he sure has that presidential look.  Mitch McConnell?  he has more brains in his ten remaining hairs than Perry has in his entire body... but given his height and bald head, he'll never be prez.

and anyway... the last 2 "businessman" presidents were Hoover and Dubya... lol...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/the-wrong-resume/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Businessman are sexy choices but they dont' work "in real life" where you cannot CUT THE FAT like you can in business.  Why was Romney 47th in nation in Job Creation?  Well, he used to be able to SELL OFF those shitty companies.  He can't sell off shitty, low IQ counties with poverty issues.

I have an MBA and I love the idea of a businessman president, but really, I believe the best presidents are those with a decent IQ, ability to learn fast, and above all, to FIND COMMON GROUND with people.   Anyone who can get boehnner and Pelosi on the same page is WAY smarter than a brilliant romney whining about 47% to a room full of decamillionaires lol.
damn it youre fucking dense, you dont have to run the govt like a business to make use of business experience.

You see if you understand how a business works and its goals you have a much easier time to get achieve your goals b/c you can help align your interests and make it where businesses want to change.

Tax inversion is a great example, what obama wants to do is simply do away with it and then tackle corporate tax reform. The issue is that not a single fucking person believes that he will play tit for tat with any fairness. If he made it where business paid less of a % in taxes but also made it more advantageous to keep money here the US would eventually end up getting more in tax money.

You see working with business, not against them like obama has continually done.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 06:09:46 PM
what was bush's business acumen?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on August 12, 2014, 06:13:05 PM
and anyway... the last 2 "businessman" presidents were Hoover and Dubya... lol...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/the-wrong-resume/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing that out.  ::)

What I find most interesting about Romney’s candidacy is how his campaigns effectively ignored his tenure as governor.  In the course of his campaigns (especially the most recent one) his time in office was almost completely ignored.  Typically, former governors point to their many accomplishments in office as evidence of what they can, and will, do if elected President.  That was not the case with Romney.  Why is that?

Any one living in Massachusetts can tell you why: when Romney left the governor’s office he was deeply unpopular to put it mildly.  He only served one term and he did not stand a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a second term and everyone knew it—including him.  He did not even try to run for a second term. :-X


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 06:23:24 PM
Thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing that out.  ::)

What I find most interesting about Romney’s candidacy is how his campaigns effectively ignored his tenure as governor.  In the course of his campaigns (especially the most recent one) his time in office was almost completely ignored.  Typically, former governors point to their many accomplishments in office as evidence of what they can, and will, do if elected President.  That was not the case with Romney.  Why is that?

Any one living in Massachusetts can tell you why: when Romney left the governor’s office he was deeply unpopular to put it mildly.  He only served one term and he did not stand a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a second term and everyone knew it—including him.  He did not even try to run for a second term. :-X
what was bush's business acumen?

try and follow along here and use specific examples of why you think a person with a business background is bad for the country.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on August 12, 2014, 06:24:13 PM
what was bush's business acumen?

Dubya = MBA, ran companies.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush#Business

Business experience is nice, but you're talking theory.  I'm not sure you can really show us examples of how presidents from the business world had success.  Like I said, Hoover and Bush, who essentially brought us Great depression 1 and nearly part 2 in 2007/2008, they were the two big business background presidents.

Like I said, it looks good on paper, but in real life, it's really those good with people and good with organizational structure that have the success.  Presidents are given advice by those in business, but more specifically, those with advanced economics and statistics training.   We're talking macro to the tune of trillions of $ and 300 million americans.  Bush running an oil company, talking to execs all day, really doesn't help there.  Reagan running a massive state with many interdependent systems and diverse populations, interest groups, yet that helped a lot.  


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on August 12, 2014, 06:28:52 PM
damn it youre fucking dense, you dont have to run the govt like a business to make use of business experience.

You see if you understand how a business works and its goals you have a much easier time to get achieve your goals b/c you can help align your interests and make it where businesses want to change.

Tax inversion is a great example, what obama wants to do is simply do away with it and then tackle corporate tax reform. The issue is that not a single fucking person believes that he will play tit for tat with any fairness. If he made it where business paid less of a % in taxes but also made it more advantageous to keep money here the US would eventually end up getting more in tax money.

You see working with business, not against them like obama has continually done.

History says your wrong,but that never got in your way of making an argument  :D


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 06:29:18 PM
Dubya = MBA, ran companies.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush#Business

Business experience is nice, but you're talking theory.  I'm not sure you can really show us examples of how presidents from the business world had success.  Like I said, Hoover and Bush, who essentially brought us Great depression 1 and nearly part 2 in 2007/2008, they were the two big business background presidents.

Like I said, it looks good on paper, but in real life, it's really those good with people and good with organizational structure that have the success.  Presidents are given advice by those in business, but more specifically, those with advanced economics and statistics training.   We're talking macro to the tune of trillions of $ and 300 million americans.  Bush running an oil company, talking to execs all day, really doesn't help there.  Reagan running a massive state with many interdependent systems and diverse populations, interest groups, yet that helped a lot.  
bush's business experience looks sub par to me. Founded a company that was in bad shape and got bought out, was made president of the acquiring company and it folded into another company.

What did bush do to bring us the great recession again?

I guess I can agree with you so long as the president is smart enough to know what he doesnt know place ppl around him that know about business and take their advice.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 06:32:31 PM
History says your wrong,but thatnever hot in your way of making an argument  :D
really? hows that?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on August 12, 2014, 06:50:57 PM
really? hows that?

Look at history business men havn't done well as president .but i'm sure you'll make up your own history, most repubs do LOL


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 06:53:03 PM
Look at history business men havn't done well as president .but i'm sure you'll make up your own history, most repubs do LOL
and non businessmen have?

would you care to point out some examples of the different policies that each group have passed and how they have effected the country?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on August 12, 2014, 06:59:53 PM
and non businessmen have?

would you care to point out some examples of the different policies that each group have passed and how they have effected the country?


You said a businessmen would make a good president history says your wrong.sorry lol


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on August 12, 2014, 07:00:01 PM
bush's business experience looks sub par to me. Founded a company that was in bad shape and got bought out, was made president of the acquiring company and it folded into another company.

What did bush do to bring us the great recession again?

I guess I can agree with you so long as the president is smart enough to know what he doesnt know place ppl around him that know about business and take their advice.

So now you're narrowing down the two "business" presidents of the last century to "those who kicked ass in business"?

LOL there were only two, Bush and Hoover.  

And if you want to know what Bush and both the dems/repubs did from 2001 to 2007 to lead us to nearly a second depression, well, that's funding two wars, remember?  Oh, and Bush's ability to "work WITH business", as you stated, sure helped when he essentially bailed out banks to the point of 700 billion because, well, he sure hated the idea of regulatin' them haha.  

Aside from what looks good on paper, there ARE NO GOOD EXAMPLES of modern presidents from the business world being good at the job of President.  they'd probably do fine, but historically, the examples aren't there, sorry.  

Bottom line?  Business presidents are good for the top 1% that profit from wars and depressions.  History shows that.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on August 12, 2014, 07:02:55 PM
So now you're narrowing down the two "business" presidents of the last century to "those who kicked ass in business"?

LOL there were only two, Bush and Hoover.  

And if you want to know what Bush and both the dems/repubs did from 2001 to 2007 to lead us to nearly a second depression, well, that's funding two wars, remember?  Oh, and Bush's ability to "work WITH business", as you stated, sure helped when he essentially bailed out banks to the point of 700 billion because, well, he sure hated the idea of regulatin' them haha.  

Aside from what looks good on paper, there ARE NO GOOD EXAMPLES of modern presidents from the business world being good at the job of President.  they'd probably do fine, but historically, the examples aren't there, sorry.  

Bottom line?  Business presidents are good for the top 1% that profit from wars and depressions.  History shows that.

This clown can never admit hes wrong


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on August 12, 2014, 07:04:19 PM
bush's business experience looks sub par to me.

Bush was an EXCELLENT businessman.   He used other people's money, made trades before everyone else, beat the rap on insider trading, and made KILLER ROI in baseball.  Bush personally received $14.9 million for his $600,000 investment in the Rangers.  

Stop hatin' on bush lol.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 07:05:31 PM


You said a businessmen would make a good president history says your wrong.sorry lol
no I said a businessman who understands businesses goals and how they work and uses that to align their goals with govt is what the country needs

again I am waiting for you to back up your statements.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on August 12, 2014, 07:09:28 PM
So now you're narrowing down the two "business" presidents of the last century to "those who kicked ass in business"?

LOL there were only two, Bush and Hoover. 

And if you want to know what Bush and both the dems/repubs did from 2001 to 2007 to lead us to nearly a second depression, well, that's funding two wars, remember?  Oh, and Bush's ability to "work WITH business", as you stated, sure helped when he essentially bailed out banks to the point of 700 billion because, well, he sure hated the idea of regulatin' them haha. 

Aside from what looks good on paper, there ARE NO GOOD EXAMPLES of modern presidents from the business world being good at the job of President.  they'd probably do fine, but historically, the examples aren't there, sorry. 

Bottom line?  Business presidents are good for the top 1% that profit from wars and depressions.  History shows that.
LOL yes starting a business with your family and their money and then having it bought out b/c it wasnt doing good then having your next company bought out b/c it wasnt doing good doesnt make you a succesful business man

the bailouts of the banking system as shitty as they were was a necessity for the country.

IF its true that they are the only 2 with business experience then I dont think any honest person can say that a business man is not what is needed based on such a small sample.

If anything what we can conclude is that a non business presidents have destroyed this country, that is unless you think only these two were responsible for the shitty state of the union?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on August 12, 2014, 07:13:46 PM
no I said a businessman who understands businesses goals and how they work and uses that to align their goals with govt is what the country needs

again I am waiting for you to back up your statements.

Hahaha can't admit he's wrong , what i said is that the successful bissnessmen has not made a good president sorry thats history. Lol. Look it up


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on August 12, 2014, 07:35:25 PM
no I said a businessman who understands businesses goals and how they work and uses that to align their goals with govt is what the country needs

again I am waiting for you to back up your statements.

you're always shitting on my MBA... what's your degree in again? 

Dude, "a president that understands business goals and how they work" - WTF does that even mean? 

There's a reason we don't have many business presidents, and the ones we do have, end up putting us into depressions lol.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on August 12, 2014, 07:41:02 PM
you're always shitting on my MBA... what's your degree in again? 

Dude, "a president that understands business goals and how they work" - WTF does that even mean? 

There's a reason we don't have many business presidents, and the ones we do have, end up putting us into depressions lol.

Hey hey stop thowing facts around.getbigs own Shawn hannity uses his own made up factsLOL


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on August 12, 2014, 08:05:02 PM
f


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: blacken700 on August 12, 2014, 08:06:50 PM
f

Lol


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on August 12, 2014, 08:31:42 PM
did they base president business on pres. bush?

i know they used will ferrell, and he did a really funny Bush. 

Bush WAS the business president.

and he kicked serious ass at business, no doubt.  Made a fortune with other people's cash, totally smart.  Could have retired, decided to be governor lol.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on August 23, 2014, 05:56:57 AM
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Beg Each Other to Run for President
By Russell Berman

Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan sat down for their first joint interview since losing the 2012 presidential race on Thursday night, and after the customary round of bashing President Obama, Megyn Kelly of Fox News got down to the key question of the moment: Which of them is going to run for president in 2016?

What followed was some awkward laughter and a presidential game of chicken.

RYAN: "I'll give it to him."

ROMNEY: "He's very generous, but I had my turn. It's his turn now."

RYAN: "He should do it."

The mutual fawning continued after the interview at an event afterward in Chicago, where according to the Associated Press, Ryan teased Romney, who has twice run for the White House, that "the third time's the charm."

Romney returned the compliment by saying his former running mate "wouldn't be a bad president" himself. Earlier this week, Ryan joked to Bloomberg Television that if Romney tried again, "I'd drive his bus if he asked me to."

In reality, neither of the two men is likely to run in 2016.

Romney has settled into a role of elder G.O.P. statesman since his loss to Obama, and "third time's the charm" has never really applied to presidential campaigns, unless your name is Ronald Reagan.

Ryan, the House Republican budget chief, is considering a bid next time around, and he now out on tour promoting a new book that reads suspiciously like a campaign-style memoir. But he has also made clear that he is eager to take on the powerful-but-taxing job of chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee next year, and colleagues doubt that the 44-year-old father of three young children will jump into the race.

Ryan heaps praise on Romney in his new book, The Way Forward, but his push for Republicans to reach out to new voters and preach beyond the choir is an implicit critique of Romney's 2012 campaign, which made little headway with young or minority voters.

The two running mates capped off their reunion with, what else, an ALS Ice Bucket Challenge video. Ryan dumped the water on Romney, who in typical Romney fashion, barely reacted. "It is cold," he said, before challenging his wife Ann and his former Saturday Night Live impersonator, Jason Sudeikis.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on August 27, 2014, 09:59:01 AM
Mitt Romney: 'Circumstances can change'
By: Lucy McCalmont

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said he is not planning to run for president in 2016 but acknowledged Tuesday that “circumstances can change.”

“Circumstances can change, but I’m just not going to let my head go there,” Romney said during an interview on the nationally syndicated radio PROGRAM “The Hugh Hewitt Show.”

“I had the chance of running,” the 2012 Republican presidential nominee told Hewitt. “I didn’t win. Someone else has a better chance than I do. And that’s what we believe, and that’s why I’m not running.”

Romney referenced a scene from the movie “Dumb and Dumber,” when pressed about running again for the GOP nomination, saying the chance he’d run is “one of a million.”

“Let’s say all the guys that were running all came together and said, ‘Hey, we’ve decided we can’t do it, you must do it.’ That’s the one of a million we’re thinking about,” Romney said.

Romney’s former running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, is one person who has said he wishes Romney would run again.

“I sure wish he would,” Ryan said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I think he’d make a phenomenal president. He has the intellect, the honor, the character and the temperament to be a fantastic president. … But he keeps saying that he’s not going to run.”

On Tuesday, Romney CONTINUED to bat away a bid, saying a possible GOP contender “not defined yet” and “perhaps … from the next generation” could take on Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

“Had I believed I would actually be best positioned to beat Hillary Clinton, then I would be running,” Romney said.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 01, 2014, 06:22:16 PM
Mitt Romney will run in 2016 and crush the opposition
by Dwight L. Schwab Jr.

It was exactly 34-years-ago today Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 bid to replace President Jimmy Carter. In New York Harbor, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, Reagan gave an inspiring speech about freedom in what would be a campaign that ended in his landslide victory some 60-days later.

There are many pundits, frightened Democrats, even Mitt Romney himself, who scoff at the thought of him running a third time for president in 2016. But 34-years-ago today, it was the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s third try also. Last night in New York City, Mitt Romney could be heard in a roundtable radio discussion hosted by John Catsimatidis beginning his third attempt at the presidency.

Romney spoke with passion of Barack Obama's critical mistakes that have enabled the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) and created the immigration crisis at the country's southern border. Not unlike Ronald Reagan’s style, he was soft-spoken as he said of his 2012 opponent, “Mistakes were made and now we have ISIS."

The two-time presidential contender argued with conviction that ISIS has only gained power because America did not listen to his plan to contain Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He convincingly laid out the reality that a president cannot draw a line in the sand, as Obama did, and then relent when it is crossed.

With refreshing candor missing from any established presidential contenders thus far, Romney said, "If you go back a few years when Syria fell into revolution and tumult, when rebels were pushing against Assad, I laid out what I thought was a prudent course for us to see stability in Syria. Had we followed that course, there's a good chance you would not see an ISIS today."

He accused Obama of failing to heed American intelligence reports of the growing threat while he tended to domestic projects like Obamacare and redistribution of wealth. He said had proposed plan, which much of the mainstream press labeled “warmongering,” been done to back the revolutionaries in Syria, America wouldn’t be where it is today.

It was a very different, more forceful Romney many heard on the radio in New York City last night. Instead of his usual speech that is left unfinished, he finished his thoughts with a highly critical critique of President Obama’s handling of the Middle East crisis. He said, "We saw ISIS roll into Iraq and, instead of attacking them immediately and knocking them in their convoy when they would have been easy to knock down, relatively easy to knock down, the president again watched. And now we're in a position where ISIS has run throughout major portions of Iraq. There have been horrific human rights abuses, tragedies."

America is seeing the new Mitt Romney who would not have basically left the 2012 campaign two weeks before the job was completed. Hillary Clinton and others most certainly are watching this Mitt Romney with keen interest. He is indeed a candidate in 2016. Those who think otherwise are the most worried they are wrong.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: AD2100 on September 01, 2014, 07:07:59 PM
Mitt Romney will run in 2016 and crush the opposition
by Dwight L. Schwab Jr.

It was exactly 34-years-ago today Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 bid to replace President Jimmy Carter. In New York Harbor, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, Reagan gave an inspiring speech about freedom in what would be a campaign that ended in his landslide victory some 60-days later.

There are many pundits, frightened Democrats, even Mitt Romney himself, who scoff at the thought of him running a third time for president in 2016. But 34-years-ago today, it was the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s third try also. Last night in New York City, Mitt Romney could be heard in a roundtable radio discussion hosted by John Catsimatidis beginning his third attempt at the presidency.

Romney spoke with passion of Barack Obama's critical mistakes that have enabled the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) and created the immigration crisis at the country's southern border. Not unlike Ronald Reagan’s style, he was soft-spoken as he said of his 2012 opponent, “Mistakes were made and now we have ISIS."

The two-time presidential contender argued with conviction that ISIS has only gained power because America did not listen to his plan to contain Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He convincingly laid out the reality that a president cannot draw a line in the sand, as Obama did, and then relent when it is crossed.

With refreshing candor missing from any established presidential contenders thus far, Romney said, "If you go back a few years when Syria fell into revolution and tumult, when rebels were pushing against Assad, I laid out what I thought was a prudent course for us to see stability in Syria. Had we followed that course, there's a good chance you would not see an ISIS today."

He accused Obama of failing to heed American intelligence reports of the growing threat while he tended to domestic projects like Obamacare and redistribution of wealth. He said had proposed plan, which much of the mainstream press labeled “warmongering,” been done to back the revolutionaries in Syria, America wouldn’t be where it is today.

It was a very different, more forceful Romney many heard on the radio in New York City last night. Instead of his usual speech that is left unfinished, he finished his thoughts with a highly critical critique of President Obama’s handling of the Middle East crisis. He said, "We saw ISIS roll into Iraq and, instead of attacking them immediately and knocking them in their convoy when they would have been easy to knock down, relatively easy to knock down, the president again watched. And now we're in a position where ISIS has run throughout major portions of Iraq. There have been horrific human rights abuses, tragedies."

America is seeing the new Mitt Romney who would not have basically left the 2012 campaign two weeks before the job was completed. Hillary Clinton and others most certainly are watching this Mitt Romney with keen interest. He is indeed a candidate in 2016. Those who think otherwise are the most worried they are wrong.
Yep, 2016 will finally be his year.  lol ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 02, 2014, 03:27:45 AM
Romney 2016? Nooooo!
By Marc A. Thiessen

In the 1991 movie “Naked Gun 2 ½,” Police Lt. Frank Drebin drinks away his sorrows in a blues bar while sad music plays and the camera pans across a wall with pictures depicting the worst disasters in history: the Chicago fire . . . the Hindenburg . . . the Titanic . . . and Michael Dukakis.

If they did a remake today, they would replace Dukakis’s picture on the wall with one of another Massachusetts governor: Mitt Romney.

Talk of a Romney 2016 run is heating up. A USA Today poll shows Romney with a huge lead in Iowa, far ahead of 14 other potential GOP candidates. And after months of Shermanesque denials, Romney recently cracked the door open to another presidential bid, telling radio host Hugh Hewitt that “circumstances can change.”

To which I say: Nooooo!

Don’t get me wrong, I wish Mitt Romney were president right now. And apparently so do a majority of Americans. A recent poll found that if the 2012 election were held today, Romney would beat Obama by 53 percent to 44 percent. But those numbers more likely reflect buyer’s remorse with Barack Obama than a sudden longing for a Romney administration. Indeed, the very same poll showed Romney losing to Hillary Clinton by 55 percent to 44 percent — not exactly the result Republicans are looking for in 2016.

In 2012, Romney got the nomination because he was running in one of the weakest fields the GOP had ever put forward. Just as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld used to say that Guantanamo Bay was the “least worst” place to hold captured terrorists, Romney was like the Guantanamo Bay of candidates — the “least worst” person the GOP could nominate that year.

In 2016, Republicans have a much stronger field of potential candidates to choose from. Thanks to the GOP’s sweep of statehouses in recent years, a slew of successful governors other than Romney could run, including Mike Pence, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Scott Walker. There is no need to settle for the “least worst” candidate this time around.

No doubt Romney has been vindicated since 2012. He was right about Russia and correct when he warned that Obamacare would force millions to lose their health plans. But let’s not forget that Romney was also a horrible presidential candidate. He faced one of the most vulnerable incumbents in modern times — and found a way to lose.

He made huge tactical errors — from not responding to Obama’s devastating personal attacks all summer to letting Obama harness the power of data like a Bain Capital numbers-cruncher while Romney’s data-mining effort crashed and burned like, well, Solyndra.

But what ultimately cost Romney the election was a lack of vision — a flaw that is uncorrectable. Romney had changed positions so often over his career that by 2012 no one knew what he really believed.

Because he presented such a blank canvas, Romney allowed Obama to paint him as an unacceptable alternative. Indeed, he often took the brush in his own hands and did Obama’s job for him. Like when he told auto workers his wife “drives a couple of Cadillacs” . . . or described himself as “severely conservative” (something no actual conservative would say) . . . or declared that “corporations are people, my friend” . . . or offered to bet Texas Gov. Rick Perry “10 thousand bucks” . . . or said “I like being able to fire people” . . . or declared his immigration policy was “self-deportation” . . . or announced “I’m not concerned about the very poor” . . . or dismissed 47 percent of the country as a bunch of moochers “who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.”

After this series of self-inflicted wounds, little wonder that only 35 percent of Americans said they believed that Romney cared about the poor, and just 38 percent said Romney “cares about people like me.” You can’t win an election when most Americans think you don’t care about them.

Why would Republicans want to relive that debacle? Mitt Romney is an utterly decent man who certainly would have been a much better president than Barack Obama. But he was given a golden opportunity to save the United States from a second Obama term and blew it.

Do Republicans really want to count on him to save the United States from Clinton’s first term?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Shockwave on September 02, 2014, 04:26:03 AM
Jesus Christ..... not Romeny again... fck that guy.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 03, 2014, 07:48:05 AM
Jesus Christ..... not Romeny again... fck that guy.

Yes, Romney again.  Please!  ;D


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 03, 2014, 07:51:52 AM
The ghost of Mitt Romney 2012 looms over this year’s campaign
by Sean Sullivan

There are plenty of reasons Mitt Romney lost to President Obama in 2012, but here's a big one: the brutally effective campaign to paint him as a stiff, out of touch millionaire that he painfully reinforced in his infamous "47 percent" video.

The same formula that felled Romney threatens to derail some of the most promising candidates of the midterm campaign.

The latest to open himself up to Romney vintage attacks is Bruce Rauner, the Republican nominee for governor of Illinois. Rauner on Tuesday acknowledged to reporters that he belongs to an exclusive wine club that costs more than $100,000 to join. The Democratic attack ad practically writes itself.

After all, Democrats have long been eager for any chance they get to cast Rauner as the Romney of 2014. The Democratic Governors Association released a video last month tying the two together and accusing Rauner, a former private equity executive, of outsourcing jobs.

With less than nine weeks until the election, Rauner is one of a handful of top recruits running in key battleground races who are vulnerable to being tagged with the same kind of attacks Democrats lobbed at Romney in 2012. From Democrats Bruce Braley in Iowa and Sean Eldridge in New York to Republicans Rauner and David Perdue in Georgia, history could repeat itself in some of the most pivotal contests of the election cycle.

In the case of Rauner, viewed widely as the Republican with the best chance of unseating a Democratic governor, Democrats have been trying to build a he's-just-like-Mitt narrative for months. Rauner, who made more than $50 million in 2013, has unintentionally fueled their attacks with head-scratching comments like the one he offered to the Chicago Sun-Times in March to describe his wealth: "Oh, I’m probably .01 percent."

In the Georgia Senate race, the parallels to 2012 are hard to miss. Democratic nominee Michelle Nunn recently ran an ad accusing Perdue, the former chief executive of Dollar General, of profiting off others' misfortunes. The firm that produced the ads crafted strikingly similar anti-Romney commercials for the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA.

It's not just Republicans getting stung by Romney-style broadsides. To wit: Braley. He's not a mega-rich businessman like Perdue or Rauner. But like Romney, he was caught on camera making comments that instantly raised questions about how tone deaf he was to the lives of everyday Iowans.

In March, footage of Braley, a lawyer and congressman, disparaging Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R) as a "farmer from Iowa" at a private fundraiser became his version of Romney's infamous "47 percent" video. It laid the foundation for a series of GOP attacks on Braley's appeal to working class Iowa voters that have transformed what once looked like a contest that tilted Democratic into a pure tossup.

Eldridge, the husband of Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Democrat challenging Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), made headlines for all the wrong reasons this spring when he and his campaign dodged a Politico reporter eager to ask him questions about his investment firm.

All these examples reveal something important about 2014: Despite the all the discussion about President Obama weighing down Democrats and far-right Republicans foiling GOP candidates, personal attacks and missteps could be just as toxic on Nov. 4 -- if not more so.

If the personal complications become lethal in November, they could have far-reaching consequences. There are few races as pivotal in the battle for the Senate as Iowa and Georgia. There are no Democratic governors as vulnerable as Rauner's opponent, Pat Quinn. And Gibson's race won't tilt the majority, but it's one national strategists in both parties have been eyeing for months.

No matter the larger political climate, it never bodes well for a candidate when the public perceives them as out of touch. And sometimes, as Romney learned the hard way, it's enough to sink them.



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: headhuntersix on September 03, 2014, 08:12:44 AM
Oddly Romney was right about just about everything...and Obama was wrong.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 03, 2014, 08:23:54 AM
Romney was right about everything


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 03, 2014, 08:57:45 AM
Gentlemen, being "right" on the sidelines does not matter if you cannot put together and run an effective campaign.  Romney could not.

Like when he told auto workers his wife “drives a couple of Cadillacs” . . . or described himself as “severely conservative” (something no actual conservative would say) . . . or declared that “corporations are people, my friend” . . . or offered to bet Texas Gov. Rick Perry “10 thousand bucks” . . . or said “I like being able to fire people” . . . or declared his immigration policy was “self-deportation” . . . or announced “I’m not concerned about the very poor” . . . or dismissed 47 percent of the country as a bunch of moochers “who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.”

Stashing your money in Swiss bank accounts and the Caymen Islands... failing to disclose your tax returns... the list goes on and on...  

Even in the absence of his opponent, Romney shot himself in the foot repeatedly.  As you reappraise Romney look closely at his record in Massachusetts.  When he left office after one term (he did not even try for a second term) he was deeply unpopular and his job creation record ranked 47th out of 50 states.  There are a handful of compelling GOP candidates, but Romney is not one of them.  

Romney looks good... if your alternative is Meg Whitman.  :'(


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: headhuntersix on September 03, 2014, 11:32:42 AM
No excuse for the campaign he ran.....no idea what he was thinking. He was the guy running against the guy who is destroying the country so I had to support him. The fact that he's been right about a lot of things especially foreign policy.....and already having a long track record of successful private sector financial work...this all hurts just a little more.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 03, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
No excuse for the campaign he ran.....no idea what he was thinking. He was the guy running against the guy who is destroying the country so I had to support him. The fact that he's been right about a lot of things especially foreign policy.....and already having a long track record of successful private sector financial work...this all hurts just a little more.

Interesting that this is how you choose to measure Romney.  What do you make of his tenure as governor?  And what do you think is the best predictor of how effective he would be as President: his business record or his record as governor?  I suppose you have to choose the former because if you look at his record as governor he does not come out looking so good.   :-X


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 03, 2014, 11:59:48 AM
Interesting that this is how you choose to measure Romney.  What do you make of his tenure as governor?  And what do you think is the best predictor of how effective he would be as President: his business record or his record as governor?  I suppose you have to choose the former because if you look at his record as governor he does not come out looking so good.   :-X

Right - but Obama's non tenure in the Senate and failed 1st term led you to vote to re-elect him why again? 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on September 03, 2014, 12:11:33 PM
Oddly Romney was right about just about everything...and Obama was wrong.

people just didn't like him.    plain and simple. 

he lacked the gravitas needed for office.  Obama was SO beatable in the polls, obama sucked in debate 1.  Romney coudln't close the deal with the voters.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Dos Equis on September 03, 2014, 12:21:37 PM
Oddly Romney was right about just about everything...and Obama was wrong.

Truth.  He really did show that he has a much better understanding of domestic and foreign policy than Obama. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on September 03, 2014, 12:46:53 PM
Romney showed it's not just paper resume that wins elections.  Because he had that.

He should have spent the last 2 years talking with PEOPLE every day.  Not wearing a suit singing "who let the dogs out!" for urban photo shoots.  Don't hang out with state senators and reps collecting votes and donor dollars... spend time talking to poor people.  Most good presidents know how to make people feel good.  Romney never did that to normal people. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 03, 2014, 12:48:54 PM
Right - but Obama's non tenure in the Senate and failed 1st term led you to vote to re-elect him why again?  

Here is why:

When Obama took office
• there was no end in sight for the unnecessary 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq (how many US service men and women died unnecessarily? 4000+)
• Osama Bin Laden was on the loose (remember when Bush said he didn’t know where Osama was and wasn’t even thinking about him?)
• the US auto industry was on the verge of collapse
• the housing market had collapsed
• Fannie/Freddie Mac collapsed
• big insurance (AIG) and reinsurance were on the verge of collapse
• banking big and small had collapsed (we came perilously close to nationalizing the banks in the US—something I never would have imagined possible)
• health insurance companies were routinely denying claims for “preexisting conditions”, etc. The Affordable Care Act put a stop to that.
• the worst downturn since the Great Depression had gripped the country.

All of that changed during the first term so the President was reelected.  Of course, it helped that his opponent ran an ineffective and self-sabotaged campaign.  Indeed, I think we can all agree that Obama was primarily elected the first time because of the failed presidency that preceded him.  People would have voted for a cat on the heels of the Bush presidency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: headhuntersix on September 03, 2014, 01:47:30 PM
Yeah cause this was all Bush's fault.....


Lets see..no real fix to the economy since the bail out
world on fire
gas at 3 buck plus ...ne end in sight
You guys act like 2008 was all dust bowls and bread lines. Bad loans and bubble's burst....people who had no business buying the house they were in or houses in general got hit hard. Bad business practices, greed and loans forced on banks by bad politics all contributed. Has anything changed? I remember buying a house in 2007..the agent tried to sell me a 200K house in Missouri. That's a big friggen house with land...it was me and 2 dogs at the time. The good times started under Clinton and continued under Bush...Obama has done nothing but bring everybody down.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 05, 2014, 10:30:56 AM
Mitt Romney: The need for a mighty U.S. military
By Mitt Romney

The writer is the former governor of Massachusetts. In 2012, the Republican Party nominated him for president of the United States.

Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen,” according to the defense secretary ) threatens — and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.

Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.

The president asserts that we must move to “a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity.” The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.

It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place — if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to “common humanity” as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good.

There are those who claim that a multipolar world is preferable to one led by a strong United States. Were these other poles nations such as Australia, Canada, France and Britain, I might concur. But with emerging poles being China, Russia and Iran, the world would not see peace; it would see bullying, invasion and regional wars. And ultimately, one would seek to conquer the others, unleashing world war.

Some argue that the United States should simply withdraw its military strength from the world — get out of the Middle East, accept nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere, let China and Russia have their way with their neighbors and watch from the sidelines as jihadists storm on two or three continents. Do this, they contend, and the United States would be left alone.

No, we would not. The history of the 20th century teaches that power-hungry tyrants ultimately feast on the appeasers — to use former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour’s phrase, we would be paying the cannibals to eat us last. And in the meantime, our economy would be devastated by the disruption of trade routes, the turmoil in global markets and the tumult of conflict across the world. Global peace and stability are very much in our immediate national interest.

Some insist that our military is already so much stronger than that of any other nation that we can safely cut it back, again and again. Their evidence: the relative size of our defense budget. But these comparisons are nearly meaningless: Russia and China don’t report their actual defense spending, they pay their servicemen a tiny fraction of what we pay ours and their cost to build military armament is also a fraction of ours. More relevant is the fact that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is significantly greater than our own and that, within six years, China will have more ships in its navy than we do. China already has more service members. Further, our military is tasked with many more missions than those of other nations: preserving the freedom of the seas, the air and space; combating radical jihadists; and preserving order and stability around the world as well as defending the United States.

The most ludicrous excuse for shrinking our military derives from the president’s thinking: “Things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago.” The “safer world” trial balloon has been punctured by recent events in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Iraq. “Failures of imagination” led to tragedy 13 years ago; today, no imagination is required to picture what would descend on the United States if we let down our guard.

The arguments for shrinking our military fall aside to reveal the real reason for the cuts: Politicians, and many of the people who elect them, want to keep up spending here at home. Entitlements and programs are putting pressure on the federal budget: We either cut defense, or we cut spending on ourselves. That, or raise our taxes.

To date, the politicians have predictably voted to slash defense. As Bret Stephens noted in Commentary magazine this month, the Army is on track to be the size it was in 1940, the Navy to be the size it was in 1917, the Air Force to be smaller than in 1947 and our nuclear arsenal to be no larger than it was under President Harry S. Truman.

Washington politicians are poised to make a historic decision, for us, for our descendants and for the world. Freedom and peace are in the balance. They will choose whether to succumb to the easy path of continued military hollowing or to honor their constitutional pledge to protect the United States.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on September 05, 2014, 11:07:22 AM
Mitt wanted to expand military spending by 2 trillion.

I think all of us agree it's well worth the expense, right?

sure some liberals want to "cut the military spending in half in 5 years", but conservatives think there shouldn't be any limit to spending on tanks and planes.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 05, 2014, 11:40:20 AM
Mitt wanted to expand military spending by 2 trillion.

I think all of us agree it's well worth the expense, right?

sure some liberals want to "cut the military spending in half in 5 years", but conservatives think there shouldn't be any limit to spending on tanks and planes.

When you want to give the Pentagon more money than they are asking for something is very wrong.  ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on September 05, 2014, 11:45:03 AM
When you want to give the Pentagon more money than they are asking for something is very wrong.  ::)

he's just being proactive.   It comes with being severely conservative.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: AD2100 on September 06, 2014, 05:31:41 PM
Repubs should stop poking fun and rally around this guy. I really think he's learned from his mistakes and he's got what it takes to finally break through in 2016.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 13, 2014, 06:32:09 AM
The one reason Mitt Romney 2016 makes no sense
By Aaron Blake

The idea that Mitt Romney will wage a third presidential campaign in 2016 just won't die. And it's being sustained by stories like today's in Politico magazine, titled "Third Time's the Charm."

This will continue for three basic reasons:

1) He's staying in the news

2) GOP leaders genuinely like Romney

3) Polls show Romney doing well in the 2016 primary and beating Obama in a hypothetical re-do 2012 election.

That first two reasons probably won't go away. For as much as Romney was criticized for not connecting with most Americans, GOP leaders see him for the strengths he has: He's a serious politician with business experience and huge unrealized potential.

But the third reason Romney-for-president won't go away -- the polls -- is overblown. Yes, Romney leads the GOP caucuses in Iowa by more than 20 points, but that's because he's the one guy that people really know. And yes, he beats Obama, but that's because Obama is pretty darn unpopular these days.

And therein lies the real reason Romney 2016 makes no sense: His image. Despite very much remaining in the news in recent months, Romney's image hasn't gotten any better since 2012. And in fact, it's probably worse.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll this week showed 33 percent of Americans have positive impressions of Romney, while 39 percent have negative ones. That's six points underwater.

By contrast, the last NBC/WSJ poll of the 2012 campaign showed a 43/44 split on Romney's image numbers. So he's losing ground.

Similarly, NBC/Marist College polls this week showed Romney's numbers are way underwater in swing state Colorado (40 percent favorable/51 percent unfavorable) and aren't even good in deep-red states like Kentucky (44/41) and Arkansas (38/45). That's right, Romney is also underwater in Arkansas, a state he won by 24 points.

There is a certain corner of the Republican Party that won't let the 2012 election go and will continue to pine for another Romney redux, truly believing he has the goods to deliver the third time.

But as these numbers show, if Republicans really want to win back the presidency, he's still a pretty flawed vessel.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on September 13, 2014, 06:58:55 AM
Here is why:

When Obama took office
• there was no end in sight for the unnecessary 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq (how many US service men and women died unnecessarily? 4000+)
• Osama Bin Laden was on the loose (remember when Bush said he didn’t know where Osama was and wasn’t even thinking about him?)
• the US auto industry was on the verge of collapse
• the housing market had collapsed
• Fannie/Freddie Mac collapsed
• big insurance (AIG) and reinsurance were on the verge of collapse
• banking big and small had collapsed (we came perilously close to nationalizing the banks in the US—something I never would have imagined possible)
• health insurance companies were routinely denying claims for “preexisting conditions”, etc. The Affordable Care Act put a stop to that.
• the worst downturn since the Great Depression had gripped the country.

All of that changed during the first term so the President was reelected.  Of course, it helped that his opponent ran an ineffective and self-sabotaged campaign.  Indeed, I think we can all agree that Obama was primarily elected the first time because of the failed presidency that preceded him.  People would have voted for a cat on the heels of the Bush presidency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

1. obamas policies have helped lead to the rise of ISIS, to which we are now facing yet another never ending war.
2. OBL was taken out with the help of intel gathered during the bush administration
3. Bush not obama "saved" the auto industry, who initiated the legislation that obama passed?
4. Bush not obama "bailed out" the banks which helped stabilize the country after the sub prime mortgage crises.
5. The country would be in a much better place without a number of obama policies included the ACA.

Its amazing the revisionist history you have bay...

Romney is not a great leader, neither is obama for that matter but Romney is what the country needed. Obama has held the economy back in so many ways.

Idiots who come out and say I like him b/c he has helped the economy really show how uninformed and ignorant they are on the subject.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 19, 2014, 03:01:19 PM
Why not look at Mitt Romney now?
By CLAY WIRESTONE

He’s back.

But he was never gone. Not in our hearts.

Mitt Romney has been making noise recently. And not the noise one might expect a 67-year-old financier to make – cranky mutterings about how the maid lost his best cutlery or how the groundskeeper hasn’t been keeping up with the hedge pruning. No, he’s been making noise about running for president.

Oh, he denies it. He told Fox News Sunday that “I’m not running.”

But then he added a bit of wiggle room: “I’m not planning on running.”

And when asked whether he’d outperform Hillary Clinton as president, he chucked caution to the wind and went for it: There’s “no question about that in my mind.”

A Politico Magazine feature just last week made the case. Its headline? “Third Time’s the Charm.”

On one hand, this seems like a great idea. Have you seen this man’s resume? He built an impressive business, was the Republican governor of a majority-Democratic state and oversaw a masterful Olympic games.

On the other hand, Mitt has already tried this before. Twice. And neither time showed him as an impressive political figure.

A nice guy? Yes. An endearingly awkward Ned Flanders wanna-be? Most definitely. But someone willing and able to slice and dice at the highest levels of our nation’s cutthroat politics?

Naaah.

As I’ve mentioned before in this space, Mitt definitely has one group rooting for him. That would be journalists, who would get out of the tiresome business of having to research other, different Republican candidates.

Unlike last time, the 2016 GOP hopefuls seem less likely to be actively flaky, which means no Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann, for example.

So Mitt would save everyone work! He would also surely provide gaffe after lovable gaffe, focusing on his Scrooge McDuck-like wealth and Mr. Magoo-like perception of the problems of ordinary Americans. Just remember these two words: “car elevator.”

The real problem with this burst of Mitt-mania is it points to the skewed perspective of our current political landscape. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, just to pluck a name from the air, has articulated an array of provocative positions, some going against party orthodoxy, and shows a genuine interest in reaching out to minority voters. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio spent time and political capital on reforming our nation’s broken immigration system.

But can Paul win? Maybe not. Rubio’s efforts sputtered out. And it’s so darn difficult writing about policy proposals when so little policy is actually made these days in Washington, D.C. Grand theatrics cooked up by Sen. Ted Cruz? Sure. Interminable broadsides against the Koch brothers from Harry Reid? Of course. But the exhaustive, compromise-laden practice of actual lawmaking takes real effort.

Mitt was never one for content, anyway. Much of his appeal as a candidate was based on the most super of superficialities. Look at the hair! The eyes! Those perfect teeth! He exudes president from every pore. And when it came time to elucidate actual stances, he was comfortable parroting back whatever the crowds he spoke to wanted to hear. In the 2012 debates, he exuded the warm glow of a compassionate conservative. At a GOP fundraiser, he talked icily about the 47 percent of voters who would support Obama no matter what because of government handouts.

Which Romney was the real one?

Both.

He was a content free candidate, reciting what he thought each audience wants to hear. And that’s why he’s an ideal candidate for this era and this generation of political reporters. Facts, positions and policy are secondary. Political advantage is all.

Unfortunately for his fans, that’s probably why he won’t run again. In his eagerness to please Fox News viewers and voters who may have buyer’s remorse, Mitt just can’t help himself from saying things that people want to hear. But even he must know, deep down, that the time has come to turn over the reins to a new generation of content-free bloviators.

And maybe one or two folks with actual ideas.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 23, 2014, 10:24:40 AM
The GOP’s tall order for broader appeal in 2016
by Michael Gerson

It is the most important development so far in the 2016 presidential race, at least on the Republican side: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is evidently not a total meathead. Which he would have needed to be to have anything to do with the politically motivated lane closures of the George Washington Bridge — a dirty trick oddly and aimlessly directed at the public. According to recent reports, nine months of federal investigation into e-mails and text messages have produced nothing implicating Christie.

The Ford Gran Torino of GOP politics — a bit ungainly, but a V-8 under the hood — emerges with some dents. The proof Christie offers that he is not a bully is an admission that he surrounded himself with bullies. But the problem of picking the wrong people can be solved by picking better ones. And the attacks of Democrats and MSNBC commentators can now be worn as a badge of honor in the Republican primaries. While relatively moderate, Christie could appeal to conservatives who want to see a fight, which his opponents have helpfully provided.

Christie’s apparent victory in the juridical primary clarifies the Republican contest without doing anything to resolve it. According to GOP money types I’ve surveyed, many large donors are currently frozen in the choice between Christie and Jeb Bush, who are considered the most serious competitors to Hillary Clinton. Contributors are unlikely to jump to one until the intentions of both are clear.

Talk of another Mitt Romney run is idle. He is an almost unnaturally decent man. He has been vindicated in many of his campaign criticisms of President Obama. Since his loss, he has been fluent, funny and at peace with himself. But Romney’s choice as the Republican nominee in 2012 will be remembered as an act of political self-harm. How could Republicans, as the effects of massive financial panic still lingered, have chosen a specialist in leveraged buyouts as their nominee? Romney managed to depress the enthusiasm of white working- and middle-class voters in key states while also actively alienating Hispanic and Asian voters (with talk of “self-deportation”). And still, alarmingly, he was the best Republican candidate of the 2012 field.

The next GOP presidential nominee cannot be the richest and whitest person in the room, prone to Reagan-era rhetoric about tax rates and regulatory burdens. While I oppose literacy tests for voting, I would support a requirement that Republican primary voters read the Republican National Committee’s 100-page “Growth and Opportunity Project” report issued in 2013, also known as the Republican autopsy. The short version: Republicans have a class problem — a disconnect with “middle-class workers [who] have not had a meaningful raise in years.” They also have a demographic problem, which requires Republicans to make a major shift in policy and attitude toward new Americans. “If we do not,” declares the autopsy, “our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”

The typical argument between the Republican establishment and the conservative movement is pretty much irrelevant here. An establishment candidate who reinforces the perception of an elitist, out-of-touch, ethnically homogeneous party is not the answer. Neither is a candidate of conservative purification who has little appeal beyond core constituencies. The RNC autopsy is an establishment document calling for a revolution against the image and message of an establishment party — a plea to reach beyond the base before the GOP is overwhelmed by economic, cultural and demographic change.

Christie, with serious blue-collar appeal, might address the Republican class problem — unless he is out of his class. So far, his presidential indecision has allowed him to avoid comment on topics from immigration to the Islamic State. And it is an open question how his regional vividness will play in other regions of the country. (Recall Rudy Giuliani.) Jeb Bush, who has been called an “honorary Hispanic,” might address the Republican demographic problem — unless his support for comprehensive immigration reform and the Common Core educational standards provoke too much unfavorable conservative enthusiasm. And Republicans might, at some point, realize that Sen. Marco Rubio (who is doing serious policy speeches while others play Hamlet) manages to address both the class and demographic problems at once — unless it is a political problem to be confused for a very bright and earnest college student.

Predicting anything about the eventual shape of this race is premature. But this much is clear: The task of the next Republican nominee is not only to motivate his or her party but also to transform its appeal.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on September 30, 2014, 10:39:29 AM
Mitt Isn’t Ready to Call It Quits
By MARK LEIBOVICH

“Hey, Ann, can you come here a sec?” Mitt Romney called out, sinking into the cushions of a walnut-colored easy chair, his legs outstretched on a matching ottoman. Romney’s blue work shirt was tucked into faded jeans; sockless ankles peeked out from his New Balance sneakers. He paused as Ann Romney entered from the kitchen, where she was baking chocolate-chip cookies. “Sweetie,” he continued, “what are some of the items we gave away at the Yankee swap?”

It was a September morning, and the Romneys were closing up their summer house in Wolfeboro, N.H. The place, which is vast and uncluttered, had a decidedly empty-nester vibe. Framed family photos were clustered on shelves; half-packed bags were strewn around the kitchen. The silence in the living room was accentuated by the distant whine of motorboats on Lake Winnipesaukee. After years of traveling entourages, the Romneys now live alone. There were no staff members or aides or handlers; no phones rang. Nothing announced the presence of an almost-president, other than a sign on the porch: “Ann and Mitt Romney: Tennis, Volleyball, Water-Sports.” A single Cadillac SRX was parked in the driveway as a flock of geese orbited overhead. “Darn geese,” Romney said, “keep pooping all over the lawn.”

The Romneys are in downsizing mode. They have sold their Belmont, Mass., townhouse, and they also might sell the villa in La Jolla, Calif., which they purchased for $12 million in 2008 — the one with the zoning and renovation troubles, the disdainful Democratic neighbors and the much-derided plans for a car elevator. On a lark, they recently decided to make their permanent home in Utah, where they are building a house adjacent to one of their five sons’ 2.5-acre property.

The relocation has not been without its practical concerns. When you run for president twice, you tend to accumulate huge amounts of campaign souvenirs, gifts and other detritus. However elusive the ultimate prize, the trunkloads of consolation trophies endure: There are the plaques, the awards and the occasional engraved glass eagle (“I got it for a speech or something”). Then there are the homemade portraits of the candidate, sent in by supporters. The Romneys have also saved 22 of each campaign T-shirt, button and poster — one for each of their grandchildren. From Ann’s $1,000-a-plate birthday luncheon in April 2012, they have saved the cake topping of her on horseback that was commissioned by Donald Trump.

Had the election turned out differently, these tokens might have found a nice home in some government facility, en route to a presidential library. Instead, Romney was forced to cram them into his garage in Wolfeboro. When he began to worry that the snowy winters would foster mold, he loaded what he could into a horse trailer and paid a guy named Poppy to drive it across the country. Before he left, the Romneys hosted a giveaway party, or Yankee swap, for the things they didn’t want.

“What about that elephant purse?” Ann said, arriving from the kitchen in a light blue blouse and jeans. “Did you mention the elephant purse?”

“Ah, the elephant purse,” Mitt said, nodding. A very nice woman had given it to him, perhaps in Iowa, or maybe Ohio or Nevada. “She made it with that puff paint,” Mitt said. “It had those, what do you call them, bedazzle beads.” Ron Kaufman, a longtime adviser, snared this particular keepsake at the Yankee swap.

“Very appropriate,” Ann said. “Ron is the king of tchotchkes.”

“The best was the bust of Ronald Reagan,” Romney continued. “It was plaster but bronzed. Or it looked like it was bronzed. It said, ‘Governor Mitt Romney, the Reagan Freedom Award,’ or something of that nature.” His tone had hardened a little, acquiring the edge of a sarcastic boast. “I actually have several busts of Ronald Reagan that have been presented to me,” he said. Then the room fell silent as Ann returned to the kitchen to set out a small buffet of sliced turkey, corned beef, two loaves of Pepperidge Farm bread (white and wheat) and a selection of both mayonnaise and Miracle Whip. Romney, sinking back in his chair, looked out the window as more geese flew by.

After losing the presidential election to Barack Obama in 2012, Romney expected to become a political empty-nester of sorts — a “loser for life,” as he predicted in “Mitt,” the Netflix documentary about his two presidential campaigns. (“Mike Dukakis, you know, he can’t get a job mowing lawns,” he remarked at the time.) Unlike John McCain and John Kerry, Romney didn’t have a job to return to in the Senate. Unlike Al Gore, he had already amassed extraordinary wealth. Romney, who is 67, was left to confront the vacuum of a long retirement, come what may.

Being the first nominee to nurse his defeat fully in the social-media age brought its own indignities. Gore could go away and grow a beard, then get rich, fat and separated from his wife, all in relative obscurity. Romney, by contrast, has posed dutifully for Instagram photos with commercial-airline companions (“airports are the worst”), supermarket employees and staff members at Wahoo’s Fish Taco. He briefly inspired a hashtag, #SelfiesWithMitt. Recently he was taking an early-morning jog in Arkansas, where he was campaigning for the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Asa Hutchinson, when a woman accosted him. “You’re John Kerry! You’re John Kerry!” she yelled. He tried to correct her, but she wasn’t buying it; she kept running alongside him. “I said, ‘I’m not John Kerry — I’m Tom Brady,’ ” Romney recalled. At that, she left him alone.

As a candidate, Romney often appeared as if he were bracing for a light fixture to drop on his head. On this September morning, though, he seemed far more at ease. No doubt some of his buoyancy could be ascribed to a postdefeat surge of popularity. G.O.P. candidates had been begging him to campaign and raise money for them; polls had found that he would defeat Obama in a rerun of 2012. A number of Romney’s seemingly askew assertions during the campaign — like identifying Russia as the United States’ greatest geopolitical threat — now looked prescient. An online “Draft Mitt” petition had already accumulated more than 120,000 votes of support.

Romney shrugged off the recent attention, citing the natural human tendency to covet the unavailable. (“If you live in the mountains, you long for the trees and the lakes,” he said. “If you live in the trees and the lakes. . . .”) And yet a confluence of political realities has created a genuine opening for a Romney third act. As Obama struggles through a difficult final term, there is a lack of a clear Republican heir apparent. Presumptive early front-runners, like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, have shown themselves to be flawed or reluctant or both. A splintering of possible movement candidates (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz) could beget a need for a default consensus choice.

Romney, for his part, is noticeably playing along. He recently told a radio host that he was not planning on running for president but allowed that “circumstances can change.” A recent column by the conservative pundit Byron York noted that Romney had kept in close contact with many of his advisers and aides. As we spoke, Romney compared the barrage of 2016-related questions to a scene in the film “Dumb and Dumber.” After Jim Carrey’s character is flatly rejected by Lauren Holly, she tells him that there’s a one-in-a-million chance she would change her mind. “So,” Romney told me, embodying the character, “Jim Carrey says, ‘You’re telling me there’s a chance.’ ”

This was the obvious opening for me to ask if there was a chance. Romney’s response was decidedly meta — “I have nothing to add to the story” — but he then fell into the practiced political parlance of nondenial. “We’ve got a lot of people looking at the race,” he said. “We’ll see what happens.”

As deftly as Romney plays the self-deprecating bridesmaid, he is open about his dread of becoming irrelevant. After his father, George Romney, a three-term Michigan governor, lost the state’s primary in 1968, he struggled to get meetings. “I remember my dad becoming quite frustrated,” Romney said. “He used to say that Washington is the fastest place to go from ‘Who’s Who’ to ‘Who’s That?’ ” In the saturated media landscape of today, the son has been luckier. “I have been able to get on TV, get key interviews, get op-eds published,” Romney said. When I showed up in Wolfeboro, as Romney led me to the living room, he made sure we were on the record. “You have a tape recorder? Notebook?” he asked me as he was describing the potential mold problems of New Hampshire storage. He wanted to make sure I got this.

Romney also seemed eager to put much less frivolous points on the record. He spoke dismissively about his visit to the White House shortly after the 2012 election — the cursory meeting in which the former combatants are supposed to play gracious, take pictures together and make noises about issues on which they might work together in the future. “It was intended to check a box,” Romney said of the president’s invitation. He was not offered any follow-up, which was typical, Romney said, according to what he heard from some of his executive friends. “No one gets the impression that what they are saying is being incorporated,” he told me. “I won’t mention who it was, but I met with one of the nation’s top Republican leaders, and he said, ‘You know the strange thing is that the president seems to answer to only two people — Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama.’ ”

Romney derided Obama for his continual complaints about Republican intransigence. “That’s the nature of democracy,” he said, shaking his head with an exaggerated grimace. He contrasted this with the exemplary bipartisan record of, for instance, himself. When he was governor of Massachusetts, Romney reminded me, he always worked with the state’s liberal stalwart, Ted Kennedy. “Ted Kennedy would do the work,” Romney said, in contrast to the state’s other longtime senator. “John Kerry was always in front of the camera but not out doing the hard work.” He called Hillary Clinton an “enabler” of Obama’s foreign policy and said he was concerned by the isolationist inclination of likely Republican presidential candidates like Rand Paul. Romney told me that he was more passionate about foreign affairs than he showed in the 2012 campaign, which was largely given over to domestic affairs. It went without saying that this probably wouldn’t be the case in 2016.

“Mitt,” which was released in January, portrayed the candidate as a family man — vulnerable, funny and cognizant of the absurdity of his undertaking. “One of the big frustrations a lot of us had on the campaign is that people weren’t seeing the guy we all know in private,” said Representative Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate in 2012, offering a familiar complaint. “The ‘Mitt’ documentary was a very good picture of that guy.” I asked Ryan if the film’s warm portrayal might argue for a looser, less scripted approach to campaigns. “The pressure you get from the consultant class to conform to the norm and do these stock standard things drives me nuts, personally,” he said.

When I asked Romney the same question, however, he said the exact opposite. “There will be no free time in the back of the plane where you’d just go back and shoot the breeze with the media,” he told me. He would do this occasionally, but his aides argued against it. “They were always afraid that, you know, I’d make some little joke or someone would ask some question that couldn’t be answered — you know, ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ ” Romney told me that during the campaign, the F.B.I. informed him that a foreign government — he wouldn’t say which — was reading his emails. This was another reminder that there could be no safe zone, no such thing as an unplugged candidate. “The era of spontaneity in politics is over,” he declared, as I immediately wondered when it had started.

“I was talking to one of my political advisers,” Romney continued, “and I said: ‘If I had to do this again, I’d insist that you literally had a camera on me at all times” — essentially employing his own tracker, as opposition researchers call them. “I want to be reminded that this is not off the cuff.” This, as he saw it, was what got him in trouble at that Boca Raton fund-raiser, when Romney told the crowd he was writing off the 47 percent of the electorate that supported Obama (a.k.a. “those people”; “victims” who take no “personal responsibility”). Romney told me that the statement came out wrong, because it was an attempt to placate a rambling supporter who was saying that Obama voters were essentially deadbeats.

“My mistake was that I was speaking in a way that reflected back to the man,” Romney said. “If I had been able to see the camera, I would have remembered that I was talking to the whole world, not just the man.” I had never heard Romney say that he was prompted into the “47 percent” line by a ranting supporter. It was also impossible to ignore the phrase “If I had to do this again.”

Romney’s camera-at-all-times plan, however, reflected his own limitations as a candidate. By the same token, it was quite an indictment that “Mitt” — made by a little-known filmmaker on a shoestring — created a more palatable rendering of Romney than his campaign, which spent hundreds of millions on genius operatives and image makers. Romney, for his part, seemed to understand this. No matter how content he appeared, when the conversation turned to his disappointment in losing, his voice dropped. “It really kills me,” he said. “It really kills me.” He became inaudible, and it seemed as if he might tear up.

As if to rescue him, Ann called out from the kitchen that lunch was ready. Mitt remained in the living room, now staring at the floor. “The consequences of my loss are very clear to me and to a lot of people,” he said. “And that’s really hard.” His voice dropped to nearly a whisper, before he caught himself and quickly pivoted. “Let’s get a sandwich!” he bellowed.

Following behind, I informed the defending Republican nominee that I would now be turning off my tape recorder and that he could relax. “Oh,” he said, “you can keep recording.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: AD2100 on October 01, 2014, 08:31:07 AM
Mitt's going to go for it!
I cannot wait for another embarrassing loss Romney presidential campaign! :)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Necrosis on October 01, 2014, 08:41:29 AM
The amount of lying and flip flopping he did was insane, during the debates he didn't care about who was right, he simply wanted to say "gotcha" it was embarrasing.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on October 01, 2014, 10:12:59 AM
Mitt's going to go for it!
I cannot wait for another embarrassing loss Romney presidential campaign! :)

x2.  And to think, he is rising to the top because the rest of the GOP field is so very weak.  :-[


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tu_holmes on October 01, 2014, 10:16:42 AM
The amount of lying and flip flopping he did was insane, during the debates he didn't care about who was right, he simply wanted to say "gotcha" it was embarrasing.

I think the first debate definitely went more his way... It was all down hill from there.

Add to that, the VP debate, which went 100 percent to Biden, it just ended up looking bad all around for them.

I kind of want Romney to win the nomination because I have a bet going that the Republicans will put forth a rich white guy... If they do, I get free dinner!



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: chadstallion on October 01, 2014, 11:40:47 AM
I think the first debate definitely went more his way... It was all down hill from there.

Add to that, the VP debate, which went 100 percent to Biden, it just ended up looking bad all around for them.

I kind of want Romney to win the nomination because I have a bet going that the Republicans will put forth a rich white guy... If they do, I get free dinner!


I could live with any republican; the pendulum will be swinging back toward the GOP anyway; and then people will hate them and it will revert back to the Dems.
plus, I can't wait for fox news to have to start defending all the silly things that will begin to happen.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Primemuscle on October 01, 2014, 01:57:26 PM
I think the first debate definitely went more his way... It was all down hill from there.

Add to that, the VP debate, which went 100 percent to Biden, it just ended up looking bad all around for them.

I kind of want Romney to win the nomination because I have a bet going that the Republicans will put forth a rich white guy... If they do, I get free dinner!



Monica Wehby a Republican candidate running the Senate has refused or baked out of two debates with her opponent Jeff Merkley.

Wehby, a pediatric neurosurgeon making her first run for public office, made news in recent days when she refused to participate in two proposed joint forums with Merkley.

In televised campaign adds she rarely speaks. Is she afraid to reveal something?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on October 01, 2014, 02:24:13 PM
x2.  And to think, he is rising to the top because the rest of the GOP field is so very weak.  :-[

true that.  Romney lost to a senile mccain in 2008, and the worst polling prez since Carter in 2012. 

Mitt is the ultimate underachiever in big elections.   

BUT since this really is a weak GOP class... Cruz being the only anti-amnesty voice... romney could well win it.

Granted, without a punching bag named obama, lol, good luck.

IMAGINE if Liz warren won the nomination... she's "for the people, against the banks".  She HATES the banks. Mitt is EVERYTHING wrong with america, as far as she's concerned.  She'd wreck his shit in the debates lol".

She's a liar about a college application on being indian.   But nobody here can say she's not a very smart person.  Liberally misguided and a bedwetting crybaby... but she's no dummy.  She'd tear mitt up for everything he stood for.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on October 03, 2014, 05:10:25 PM
Romney's in demand as Republicans' future unclear
By Associated Press

ATLANTA — Almost two years after his Election Day drubbing, Mitt Romney is the Republican man in demand.

The twice-defeated White House contender is campaigning across seven states this week, covering nearly 6,000 miles in five days to raise money and energy for Republican midterm candidates from Georgia to Colorado.

Romney has repeatedly insisted he's not running for president again, and his closest aides laugh off a possible 2016 bid. But top GOP strategists and donors suggest his continued high profile in Republican politics highlights the party's murky future and a crowded 2016 field that is both flawed and without a clear front-runner

"There's a vacuum," said John Jordan, a major Republican donor based in California. "When there's 10 people in a possible presidential field, it's difficult for anyone to look presidential. None of these figures is overly compelling."

Just a month before the unofficial beginning of the next presidential primary season, Democrats have already begun to rally behind prospective candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. The race for the Republican nomination, however, is as wide open as most political veterans can remember.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had begun to assume a party leadership role before a traffic scandal tainted his brand. Major questions persist about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's commitment to the 2016 contest. And the rest of the potential field features conservatives, such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who have yet to demonstrate widespread appeal.

That leaves Romney as this season's strongest draw for Republican midterm candidates battling for control of Congress.

He's earning a rock star's reception at virtually every appearance this week. At a rally for Michigan GOP Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land in suburban Detroit on Thursday, several people told Romney they wished he had won the presidency.

"I wish we had won," Romney said.

It was much the same the day before in Atlanta, where he campaigned alongside Attorney General Sam Olens after headlining a closed-door fundraiser for Senate candidate David Perdue. In thanking Romney for making the trip, Olens said, "I wish you were on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

"I'm just sad I'm not able to be there either," Romney said, responding to a reporter's question about his interest in another run. "I'd like to be in the White House. I wish I would have had the chance."

The appearances were part of an aggressive five-day campaign swing covering some of the nation's premier midterm battlegrounds: Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Oklahoma, Michigan, Kentucky and Louisiana. Having swapped his private campaign plane for commercial travel, Romney is working long days to attend private fundraisers and public rallies to help leading Republican governors, Senate candidates and former allies like Olens.

Talking to reporters, Romney downplayed his role in a Republican Party that has "a whole series of different voices that are pulling in different directions."

"My role is just as one more voice," he said. "I was honored to become the Republican nominee, so I continue to have some voice. But I'm not running for anything — just trying to run to help people who are running for something, and I'm making my effort known in the states that welcome me."

After the Michigan rally, Romney was scheduled to finish the day at a Kentucky fundraiser to benefit Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It's the kind of schedule usually reserved for a political party's elite, not a twice-defeated elder statesman who insists his political career is over.

"The wandering eyes for Romney are a byproduct of the uncertainty of the field," said former Romney aide Kevin Madden, who described Romney as a "known commodity."

Hogan Gidley, a South Carolina-based veteran of presidential politics, explained Romney's appeal with a sports analogy.

"The most popular player on a football team is the backup quarterback when your team's struggling," Gidley said. "The party is struggling."

Indeed, even as the GOP's prospects this fall look good, polls suggest the party's brand is unpopular. And Republican leaders have ignored recommendations to address key issues such as immigration legislation ahead of the next presidential contest.

Still, donors like Jordan say they aren't yet worried.

All the Republican hand-wringing, he said, is like retailers worrying about Christmas sales in July.




Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: tonymctones on October 03, 2014, 08:28:40 PM
Here is why:

When Obama took office
• there was no end in sight for the unnecessary 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq (how many US service men and women died unnecessarily? 4000+)
• Osama Bin Laden was on the loose (remember when Bush said he didn’t know where Osama was and wasn’t even thinking about him?)
• the US auto industry was on the verge of collapse
• the housing market had collapsed
• Fannie/Freddie Mac collapsed
• big insurance (AIG) and reinsurance were on the verge of collapse
• banking big and small had collapsed (we came perilously close to nationalizing the banks in the US—something I never would have imagined possible)
• health insurance companies were routinely denying claims for “preexisting conditions”, etc. The Affordable Care Act put a stop to that.
• the worst downturn since the Great Depression had gripped the country.

All of that changed during the first term so the President was reelected.  Of course, it helped that his opponent ran an ineffective and self-sabotaged campaign.  Indeed, I think we can all agree that Obama was primarily elected the first time because of the failed presidency that preceded him.  People would have voted for a cat on the heels of the Bush presidency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

LMFAO this is everything anybody needs to know about your dumb ass!!!


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on October 12, 2014, 03:01:27 AM
Why 2016 May Be Mitt Romney’s Year
by Josh Barro

One of the main problems with Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy was that it was never clear what he wanted to do if elected.

Mr. Romney’s case for himself was heavily bound up in his careers in consulting and private equity. He was the skilled manager who could identify problems, root out dysfunction and make anything work better. The guy who rescued the Olympics. The guy who led the search for his co-worker’s missing daughter. The Romney pitch was, in large part, about being manager-in-chief. It was a pitch with little policy content.

That didn’t fly in 2012. But it might actually work pretty well in 2016.

The 2012 election had to be about the big “what is government for?” questions because huge policy decisions loomed in 2013. The Affordable Care Act would be implemented, or not; parts of the Bush tax cuts would expire, or not; entitlements would be greatly reformed in an effort to shrink deficits, or not. A large fiscal adjustment was needed, if not right away, sometime within the next few years.

Whichever candidate won was going to have a lot of power to determine the shape of the federal government for years to come, so he had to talk about what he would have the government do.

Barack Obama defended the principle that government ought to take a strong and active role in the economy, by using fiscal policy to offset the effects of recessions, by regulating the financial sector more tightly, by offering a near-universal health care entitlement, and by taxing the rich more.

Mr. Romney proved an awkward messenger for Republicans’ big idea that the government should tax and spend less, and not discourage people from working and supporting themselves. The “47 percent” speech — essentially, a declaration that we’d have to grow the economy by making Americans less lazy — was the clearest example of Mr. Romney offering a big-picture vision that did not sell.

That failure sounds like a good reason for Mr. Romney not to run again. But in 2016, he might actually be able to bracket the big ideological questions and run on the small stuff.

The big questions from 2012 mostly got resolved in 2013. Tax rates went up, the spending cuts known as sequestration went into effect, and the Affordable Care Act is proceeding. The federal budget deficit has fallen below $500 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will be stable as a share of the economy over the next decade. As a result, Congress will probably leave the federal budget more or less on autopilot for the next several years.

The health act has already been de-emphasized in 2014 midterm campaigns, in part because the existence of popular provisions in the law makes it awkward for Republicans to demand repeal without specifying a clear replacement.

While “what will government do?” was very much an open question in 2012, greater policy certainty means there will be more room to run on “I’ll be a better manager” in 2016. That will be especially true if the news continues to be dominated by stories of managerial and technical failure in the government.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

Healthcare.gov was plagued by “glitches.” The Secret Service let a man with an arrest record and a gun get in an elevator with the president, and a man with a knife get near the Obamas’ private residence. The Department of Veteran Affairs failed to provide timely medical care to sick veterans, then falsified records to hide that fact. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was overwhelmed by a surge of child migrants. The administration has faced criticism on coordinating response to Ebola in West Africa.

Even the big scandal obsessions of the conservative fever swamps — the Benghazi attack, the I.R.S. scandals and Fast & Furious — are, after you strip away the conspiracy theories, fundamentally stories about managerial failure. And while foreign policy debates obviously have huge ideological components, there’s a lot of room for dissatisfaction with this administration’s execution on its strategies in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Whether the increase in gaffes is real or just perceived, there have been a lot of news stories that might lead voters to say, “Gee, this looks like the sort of problem Mitt Romney might have handled better.”

Of course, to get to the point of making this case in a general election, Mr. Romney would first have to be renominated. The Republicans haven’t renominated a losing presidential candidate since Richard Nixon in 1968, but then, no losing Republican nominee has sought renomination during that time either.

In most of the last 50 years, there has been a clear heir apparent for the Republican nomination, whether a sitting vice president or a runner-up in a former primary campaign. The existence of a strong next-in-line candidate has been one reason not to try again. In this case, nobody is next in line. Especially if Jeb Bush does not run for the nomination, the Republican establishment figures who backed Mr. Romney in the last campaign will have no obvious place to go, putting him in an unusually good spot to seek renomination.

Candidates run all the time on airy ideas about leadership and competence, and win. Look at Rick Snyder’s election as governor of Michigan in 2010, or Mr. Romney’s own election as governor of Massachusetts in 2002. It’s standard to say Washington is “dysfunctional,” but that can mean several different things. If people mean the government has the wrong priorities, Mr. Romney has already shown his difficulty in convincing voters he has the right ones. But if people mean the government is not executing well on the priorities it has, Mr. Romney may find himself on favorable ground.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: AD2100 on October 12, 2014, 04:45:59 PM
Why 2016 May Be Mitt Romney’s Year


...the Affordable Care Act is proceeding. The federal budget deficit has fallen below $500 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will be stable as a share of the economy over the next decade. As a result, Congress will probably leave the federal budget more or less on autopilot for the next several years.

The health act has already been de-emphasized in 2014 midterm campaigns, in part because the existence of popular provisions in the law makes it awkward for Republicans to demand repeal without specifying a clear replacement.

President Barack Obama aka Mr. Getting It Done!  :)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on October 14, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
Can’t quit Mitt: Friends say Romney feels nudge to consider a 2016 presidential run
by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Officially, Mitt Romney returned to Iowa, the quadrennial presidential proving ground, to give a boost to Joni Ernst. But at a closed-door breakfast fundraiser here Monday, the first question from a donor had nothing to do with Ernst’s Senate campaign.

“When you get elected to the Senate, your job should be to convince Mitt Romney to run for president again,” a donor told Ernst, according to several attendees. The Republican candidate said she would, while Romney laughed.

When Romney and Ernst gathered in a West Des Moines boardroom with about 40 agriculture executives Sunday night, one businessman after another pleaded with Romney to give the White House another shot.

And at a rally for Ernst in Cedar Rapids on Monday, the state legislator who introduced Romney said, “If his address was 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I would sleep a lot better.” After Romney and Ernst finished speaking, some activists chanted, “Run, Mitt, run!”

Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee and now the tacit head of the Republican Party, visited Iowa as part of a feverish nationwide tour designed to help the GOP take control of the Senate. He has insisted that he is not interested in running for president a third time. But his friends said a flurry of behind-the-scenes activity is nudging him to more seriously consider it.

Romney has huddled with prominent donors and reconnected with supporters in key states in recent months. Because of the vacuum of power within his party and the lack of a clear 2016 front-runner, confidants said Romney is grappling with this question: If drafted, would he answer the party’s call?

Further juicing the speculation was a Des Moines Register-Bloomberg News poll released over the weekend showing that Romney is the only potential 2016 candidate who would beat Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) among likely Iowa voters, 44 percent to 43 percent.

People in Romney’s vast political orbit who are waiting and wishing on him to launch another campaign said Romney has done little to quiet them and has been hazy about his plans following next month’s midterm elections.

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (R), who briefly ran against Romney in 2012 before becoming a close ally, said he wants to see Romney give it another go.

“There is a feeling that the country missed out on an exceptional president,” Pawlenty said. “If he runs, I believe he could win the nomination and the general election. It’d be the right person at the right time, and I would encourage him to do it.”

Pawlenty noted that Ronald Reagan ran unsuccessfully for president twice before being elected in his third attempt “and was stronger for it.” In contrast with Romney, Pawlenty said, “the emerging class of Republican candidates is untested and unproven.”

Within Romney’s political network, there has been informal chatter about a third run since early 2013, according to people familiar with the discussions. It bubbled up in phone calls and at dinners and has gained steam this year. Requests continue to pour in for him to appear on the campaign trail, and advisers said he is eager to mount a multi-state fly-around swing before Nov. 4.

In Iowa, however, Romney seemed uncomfortable with the 2016 talk. At the West Des Moines rally, he spoke for only five minutes, criticizing President Obama on income inequality, foreign affairs and other issues. When reporters tried to question him afterward, he sneaked into a dark maze of cubicles.

He also said that now that he was no longer a candidate, he had a joke to share involving Obama, golfer Phil Mickelson and tennis great Andre Agassi.

As Romney told it, Obama shows up at a bank to cash a check without his ID. The teller asks him to prove who he is, saying that Mickelson proved his identity by hitting a golf ball into a cup and Agassi proved his by hitting a tennis ball at a target. “Is there anything you can do to prove who you are?” the teller asks.

“I don’t have a clue,” Obama replies in the joke.

The crowd ate it up.

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.”

Romney is returning to Boston on Tuesday for a dinner that he and his wife, Ann, are hosting for former campaign advisers and business associates. The event — to benefit neurological research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital — has Romney intimates abuzz.

Save-the-date notices have gone out for the third annual Romney policy retreat in Park City, Utah, in June 2015 — a signal that he wants a platform to promote his issues as the presidential primary campaign season gets underway.

Romney is also mingling privately with top donors who could fund a third campaign. Romney visited Sept. 23 with Joe Ricketts, a billionaire investor who finances the Ending Spending super PAC, at Ricketts’s palatial penthouse apartment covering the entire 78th floor of the Time Warner Center in New York.

On Oct. 6, Romney also took part in a GOP fundraising dinner at the Manhattan apartment of Woody Johnson, the New York Jets owner and former Romney campaign finance chairman. Several 2016 hopefuls gave presentations to the donors, while Romney served as a co-host and made no pitch.

At Johnson’s home, Romney and media magnate Rupert Murdoch spoke about Romney’s political future. According to two Romney allies familiar with the conversation, Romney was cagey with Murdoch but expressed concerns about the developing GOP field. Romney told Murdoch that he felt uneasy about the party’s non-interventionist drift on foreign policy and the base’s embrace of ideological hard-liners.

Many Romney boosters believe that his window of opportunity will be in mid- to late 2015, should Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) or Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) ascend and party establishment types turn to Romney as a savior.

If former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) opts out of a campaign, “there is going to be more pressure on Mitt to go,” said Tom Rath, an influential New Hampshire Republican.

At a luncheon this month in Atlanta to help GOP Senate nominee David Perdue, “people sat up and paid attention” to Romney, said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). “I pulled him aside afterward to thank him for coming. He said he’s not running, and I take him at his word. But I don’t think the door is entirely closed, and circumstances can change.”

That phrase — “circumstances can change” — has been repeated by many Romney backers since the former nominee used it to describe his own thinking about 2016 in a radio interview last month with Hugh Hewitt.

Spencer Zwick, Romney’s former national finance chairman, talks regularly with Romney and said he has been receiving daily calls from donors and other supporters. “There are still plenty of donors who hope circumstances will change and there will be an opportunity for Romney to run again,” he said.

Zwick is part of a slimmed-down inner circle, including longtime advisers Beth Myers, Peter Flaherty, Stuart Stevens, Lanhee Chen and aides Kelli Harrison and Matt Waldrip, who are advising Romney on political activities this fall.

Romney traveled through Iowa with three trusted advisers and friends: David Kochel, Ron Kaufman and Lucken. He also reunited with supporters from campaigns past. In Cedar Rapids, Romney spotted Jim Wilson, a Virginia man who logged more than 40,000 miles chasing the GOP nominee from coast to coast in his campaign-festooned GMC pickup. The two hugged. “You son of a gun,” Romney said.

Another fan, Gary Chidester, 64, came to the West Des Moines rally with a full coterie of Romney paraphernalia for the former candidate to autograph: campaign placards, enlarged photographs and buttons of Mitt and wife Ann, and paperback and audio copies of Romney’s book “No Apology.” He also held a framed drawing that a friend gave him of a black cruise ship named Obama sinking into the sea and a white ship named Romney with the caption, “We’re here to save you.”

“He’s the only qualified person to run this time,” Chidester said. “Mitt is a business genius. That’s why I’ve listened to this tape three times. He had it all down — he had Russia down, he had the debt down — and all the other Republicans are novices by comparison.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: AD2100 on October 15, 2014, 08:33:21 AM
Can’t quit Mitt: Friends say Romney feels nudge to consider a 2016 presidential run
by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa —
He also said that now that he was no longer a candidate, he had a joke to share involving Obama, golfer Phil Mickelson and tennis great Andre Agassi.

As Romney told it, Obama shows up at a bank to cash a check without his ID. The teller asks him to prove who he is, saying that Mickelson proved his identity by hitting a golf ball into a cup and Agassi proved his by hitting a tennis ball at a target. “Is there anything you can do to prove who you are?” the teller asks.

“I don’t have a clue,” Obama replies in the joke.

The crowd ate it up.

A guy gets his ass kicked in a presidential election and the next thing you know, he's prancing around like he's Shecky Greene at the MGM Grand.  ::)

;D


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on October 27, 2014, 09:22:45 AM
Donald Trump to Mitt Romney: ‘Don’t Run Again’
By Megan Turchi

The Donald has spoken: Mitt Romney should not run for president in 2016.

Though Romney has yet to throw his hat in the ring, Donald Trump has given his opinion anyway.

“He had his chance and he blew it,” Trump told Breitbart News.

He added:  “He had a great chance of winning. He should have won. That was an election that frankly should have been a much easier election than the probable 2016 candidate Hillary. That was an election that should have been won by the Republicans.”

Not content to share his thoughts with just one media outlet, Trump then brought his opinion to Twitter in his usual blunt style, "If Mitt Romney were in the private sector & he suffered the horrendous loss of 2012, do you think he’d rehire himself for 2016?—I don’t!"

This is not the first time Trump has spoken out against Romney. At the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting in 2013, Trump explained why Romney lost, "He didn’t brag enough about his own triumphs (unlike certain outspoken real estate tycoons)."

Last week Romney’s wife Ann told The Washington Post that he was not planning on running in 2016—but “we’ll have to see what happens.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 01, 2014, 05:48:09 AM
Please, Not Romney Again
By Ron Lipsman

The 2014 election is over, and attention has already turned to 2016.  Does the Republican success in this election portend a similarly favorable outcome in two years – as the Democrat congressional sweep in 2006 heralded the election of a Democrat president in 2008?  Perhaps.  But, of course, a great deal depends on whom the GOP nominates.  And lately, there has been a lot of talk that one of the serious possibilities is Mitt Romney.

Well, I am about to tell you why that would be an unmitigated disaster for the Republican Party and for our country.

First of all, Romney ran a terrible campaign in 2012.  Barack Obama's litany of failures in his first four years was clearly evident to the American people well before the election.  Yet Romney was unable to capitalize on them.  It is almost beyond imagination that Romney was unable to articulate clearly why Fast & Furious, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and the Benghazi outrage were colossal failures that endangered the nation.  Moreover, his equal inability to describe clearly and simply what he would do differently, what philosophy motivated him, and how his policies would benefit the country was also a glaring failure.  He came across as a wooden, detached corporate type with no flair, no charisma, and no passion.  The final nail in his coffin was when he allowed Candy Crowley to intervene in the second presidential debate in order to rescue Obama from a debacle on the Benghazi issue.  If Romney could not stand up to Candy, how could he be expected to stand up to the Chinese and Russian presidents or to the Iranian ayatollahs?

Next, the Obama camp was able to cast Romney as a corporate stooge, beholden to big business interests and out of touch with the average American worker.  The Dems portrayed rich Mitt as aristocratic, unsympathetic, and heartless.  Romney was unable to counter these impressions.  In fact, he reinforced them with his ill-advised 47% remark.  Moreover, he never launched any counterattack.  Mitt was content to talk about what he'd done at Bain, but – like McCain – he made no effort to point out the unsavory nature of Obama's history, associates, or polarizing proclivities.

Third, there was the Mormon thing.  It's disturbing to think so, but it might have played a role in the vast number of evangelicals who declined to vote.  That may be unfair, but Mitt should have anticipated it.  Like Kennedy did with the Catholic issue, Romney should have gotten in front of it, argued strenuously that his religion would play no role in his presidency, and thereby not turn off the evangelicals.

Finally, he never conveyed any sense of historical political understanding.  He never discussed the increasing role that collectivism has been playing in our society, how it is a betrayal of the Founders' vision, and how it damages the nation – and why the continuation in office of Barack Obama would push us dangerously close to a transformation of the Republic into a Euro-style social welfare state.  Yes, he said "big government bad, free market capitalism good."  But it always seemed like the recitation of a mantra rather than an articulation of why progressives like Obama are destroying the nation.

Which leads to an even more devastating evaluation of Romney's candidacy.  Had he won, he certainly would have been better than Obama.  But I seriously doubt that it would have made any difference in the long-term trajectory of these United States.

In the last century, the progressive movement has captured the culture of the nation.  Progressives now control virtually all of the opinion-molding organs of American society: the media, libraries, museums, public education, the legal profession, seminaries, higher education, foundations, the federal bureaucracy – and, of course, the Democratic Party.  A half century ago, very few – for example, Bill Buckley, Barry Goldwater – understood what was happening.  It is only since Reagan that more Americans have begun to catch on.  And while a substantial part of the GOP has grown conservative and aware of the historical transformation, alas, many – especially those in the so-called GOP establishment – are either in the dark or, worse, in agreement with the program.

Reagan made an effort to thwart the leftward drift of the nation.  And while he had great success in foreign and economic affairs, he had hardly any lasting impact on cultural or social matters.

Furthermore, neither of the two Republican presidents since Reagan (coincidentally, both named Bush) made any effort similar to Reagan's.  They both came from a long tradition in the party – exemplified by Eisenhower and Nixon – of GOP leaders who apparently believe one of two things:

    1. The conversion of the U.S. from a constitutional republic, practicing free-market capitalism and devoted to individual liberty into a Euro-style social welfare state, is a good thing.  It's just that we in the GOP can do it so much more effectively and efficiently than the hare-brained Democrats can.
    2. The aforementioned is not a good thing, but it seems to be inevitable because that is what the people want.  Repeat second sentence in #1 above.

Mitt Romney is, without any doubt, one of this type of Republican.  Whether he comes from camp 1 or 2 is unclear – he governed Massachusetts according to #1, but his book paints him as #2.  Whichever he is, it is irrelevant.  If there is to be any hope of reversing America's century-long slide toward socialist oblivion, we will need to experience a cultural counter-revolution.  A key part of that movement would be a succession of GOP presidents who understand the issue and have the leadership skills to guide the country's politics back to the ethos of the Founding Fathers.  Mitt Romney is not such an individual.

Ron Lipsman, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Novena on December 01, 2014, 07:03:57 AM
Wait a minute....This Ron Lipsman thinks Eisenhower and Nixon weren't conservative enough?!...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on December 01, 2014, 07:40:09 AM
Repubs would be NUTS to choose Romney again.

He support minimum wage.  He wants MORE amnesty.   He's wearing spray tan on Univision, telling hispanic viewers that the illegals need PERMANENT permission to stay.

and don't forget, Gruber was his right-hand man for Romneycare... so all the grubergate stink with obama goes right back to Romney.  

Plus, he LOST to the very beatable obama, even after leading in polls after debate #1.   Romney isn't liked by people, period.   great veep choice, great for secretary of anything... but president?  nah,


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 01, 2014, 08:05:09 AM
Repubs would be NUTS to choose Romney again.

He support minimum wage.  He wants MORE amnesty.   He's wearing spray tan on Univision, telling hispanic viewers that the illegals need PERMANENT permission to stay.

and don't forget, Gruber was his right-hand man for Romneycare... so all the grubergate stink with obama goes right back to Romney.  

Plus, he LOST to the very beatable obama, even after leading in polls after debate #1.   Romney isn't liked by people, period.   great veep choice, great for secretary of anything... but president?  nah,

But he wants to be President.  He wants it very badly!  :-[


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on December 01, 2014, 08:08:32 AM
But he wants to be President.  He wants it very badly!  :-[

it's a flaw for most ambitious people.  "Play your position" - Most people that smart, that successful, don't settle.   They don't know when to say "This is probably the ceiling for me".  There can only be one president.  the combo of factors... romney doesn't have them all. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 01, 2014, 08:45:09 AM
it's a flaw for most ambitious people.  "Play your position" - Most people that smart, that successful, don't settle.   They don't know when to say "This is probably the ceiling for me".  There can only be one president.  the combo of factors... romney doesn't have them all. 


But... but... but his father was a governor.  It is Mitt's destiny!  :'(


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Grape Ape on December 01, 2014, 09:44:39 AM

But... but... but his father was a governor.  It is Mitt's destiny!  :'(

Well, he appears to have been right on most of what he campaigned on.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on December 01, 2014, 09:47:57 AM
Well, he appears to have been right on most of what he campaigned on.

How so?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on December 01, 2014, 10:01:56 AM
Well, he appears to have been right on most of what he campaigned on.

he said he woudln't raise min wage. He said he was against amnesty.

Since 2012, he's said we need a min wage, and we need permanent amnesty. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on December 01, 2014, 10:05:51 AM
he said he woudln't raise min wage. He said he was against amnesty.

Since 2012, he's said we need a min wage, and we need permanent amnesty. 

agreed......THE ULTIMATE FLIP FLOPPER.........Hillary will destroy him on all of the flip flops and contradictions


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Grape Ape on December 01, 2014, 10:05:55 AM
How so?


he said he woudln't raise min wage. He said he was against amnesty.

Since 2012, he's said we need a min wage, and we need permanent amnesty.  

I said what he campaigned on - Russia, Obamacare, working with congress, Iraq.....

I'm sure there's a ton of articles.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on December 01, 2014, 10:11:54 AM
I said what he campaigned on - Russia, Obamacare, working with congress, Iraq.....

I'm sure there's a ton of articles.

working with congress???..congress won't work with him....they spent the first four years talking about Obama's birthcertificate and trying to de-legitimaize him as president......and then taking some 40 some odd votes to try to repeal Obamacare........

Russia is not really much of threat and their actions actually show how weak they are as a country.........you culd argue a bnit about Iraq..but they did not want us there and wanted us to leave...they wouldn't sign the immunity from prosecution agreement adn so we had to leave hence you would have seen a slew of American soldiers on trial on false trumped up charges.........jury is still out on Obamacare but millions more people have insurance and many republican governors have jumped on the bandwagon....


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 01, 2014, 10:39:53 AM
working with congress???..congress won't work with him....they spent the first four years talking about Obama's birthcertificate and trying to de-legitimaize him as president......and then taking some 40 some odd votes to try to repeal Obamacare........

Russia is not really much of threat and their actions actually show how weak they are as a country.........you culd argue a bnit about Iraq..but they did not want us there and wanted us to leave...they wouldn't sign the immunity from prosecution agreement adn so we had to leave hence you would have seen a slew of American soldiers on trial on false trumped up charges.........jury is still out on Obamacare but millions more people have insurance and many republican governors have jumped on the bandwagon....


Obama is not to be worked with - but blocked, tried for treason, and sent home. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: AbrahamG on December 03, 2014, 11:05:19 PM

Obama is not to be worked with - but blocked, tried for treason, and sent home. 

Midget


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 05, 2014, 04:54:49 AM
Romney's Inner Circle Is Convinced He's Running
by Linette Lopez

Mitt Romney held meetings with donors in New York this week that left one attendee convinced he is running for president again in 2016.

A member of Romney's inner circle who spoke to Business Insider said the former governor of Massachusetts traveled to New York City on Monday where he met with key financial backers of his past campaigns to lay the groundwork for a 2016 White House bid.

The source, who was at one of the meetings, said other attendees included developer Stephen Ross, New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, and hedge funders Julian Robertson and Paul Singer.

A representative for Romney did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the meetings from Business Insider.

Romney, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, previously ran for president in 2008 and in 2012, when he was the GOP nominee. In addition to potential donors, the source said Romney met with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) this week.

Christie endorsed Romney during his last race. However, he is expected to mount his own White House bid in 2016.

Christie's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about his meeting with Romney.

During his time in New York, the source said Romney also attended Monday night's football game between the Miami Dolphins — owned by Ross — and Johnson's New York Jets. Dom Cosentino, a Jets beat writer, reported seeing Romney and Johnson walking across the field together before the game.

Romney's meetings this week are not his first efforts to reconnect with former donors and campaign staff. In October, The Washington Post reported on a "flurry of behind-the-scenes activity" that Romney's "friends" said was leading him to "more seriously consider" running for president again. This activity included multiple meetings with donors and "supporters in key states" as well as an October dinner in Boston that Romney and his wife hosted for "former campaign advisers and business associates."

Romney made a series of campaign appearances for Republicans around the country ahead of last month's midterm elections.

Publicly, Romney has insisted he has no interest in a third presidential campaign. In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt in August, Romney said he "loved running for president," but his past losses made him think another Republican might have a "better shot."

"I love the country enough to know that I’m not as good a candidate this time around as I think the other guys would be, because they’re new and not defined," Romney said. "I want the country to win. I do not want to see Hillary Clinton as our next president."

In spite of these comments, in that very same interview he indicated "circumstances can change."

"Let’s say all the guys that were running all came together and said, 'Hey, we’ve decided we can’t do it, you must do it.' That’s the one of the million we’re thinking about," said Romney.

In September, Romney's wife, Ann, indicated Romney would be discouraged from mounting another White House bid if former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) enters the 2016 field. Both Bush and Romney are relatively moderate Republicans who would likely compete for the same voters, and donors. They are also especially appealing options for Wall Streeters in a GOP field that is otherwise likely to be dominated by the libertarian leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Tea Party darling Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and the infamously combative Christie.

Bush has said he is thinking about launching a campaign. In an October interview, Ann said Romney was "done" running for president. However, the source who spoke to Business Insider said she would be fully supportive if her husband does decide to run in 2016.

A Quinnipiac poll released late last month showed Romney and Bush were the two potential 2016 presidential candidates with the most support from Republican voters.

Romney led Bush by eight points in that survey.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on December 05, 2014, 05:15:27 AM
running mitt?   lol just give the dems the white house now.  if romney coudln't beat obama - when he was SO unpopular - can he beat a dem who is polling 10 or 15 points higher?   Base doesn't want a RINO.  See 2008 and 2012.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 05, 2014, 05:22:12 AM
"I'm not concerned about the very poor..."

"Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom."

"Let Detroit go bankrupt"

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me"

                               --Mitt Romney


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on December 05, 2014, 07:49:59 AM
running mitt?   lol just give the dems the white house now.  if romney coudln't beat obama - when he was SO unpopular - can he beat a dem who is polling 10 or 15 points higher?   Base doesn't want a RINO.  See 2008 and 2012.

Hillary is going to destroy Mitt...the only way Hillary loses is if something devastating comes out..adn i'm sure Bill has that covered already.....he's done his research and paid off who he needed to pay off to make sure nothing comes out


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on December 05, 2014, 07:51:17 AM
"I'm not concerned about the very poor..."

"Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom."

"Let Detroit go bankrupt"

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me"

                               --Mitt Romney

The primaries haven't even started and the dems have enough on Romney to beat him again...and wait until Rand Paul begines to beat up on him


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: 240 is Back on December 05, 2014, 07:52:50 AM
Hillary is going to destroy Mitt...the only way Hillary loses is if something devastating comes out..adn i'm sure Bill has that covered already.....he's done his research and paid off who he needed to pay off to make sure nothing comes out

I'd love to see the BASES get fired up.   Let's put Cruz vs Warren.  

Seriously, looking at their lifetime records... Hilary and Mitt are so close on so many issues.  AND toss in Mitt's sudden support of minimum wage and declaring we need PERMANENT amnesty lol...

Mitt schwerved far left after losing this election.  He was far left before the election.  The only time Mitt's ever been conservative was when he was calling himself "severly conservative" when running for President in 2012.

Mitt's a liberal.   It's undeniable now.   Any repub that chooses mitt in the primary, you want a lib in office.   He's not "electable" - he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in 2012.  And he doesn't represent the base, not even a little.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 05, 2014, 08:30:14 AM
The primaries haven't even started and the dems have enough on Romney to beat him again...and wait until Rand Paul begines to beat up on him

I can disqualify Mitt with three words:  Swiss bank account.  
Give me two more words and I can do it again: Cayman Islands.  

Do we really want a candidate and President who parked his money in a Swiss bank account?  Or elsewhere offshore?  There is nothing wrong with money in a Swiss bank account if you are from Switzerland, but most Americans do not know anyone with money in a Swiss bank.  In fact, most of us only know of Swiss banks via television, movies, and news reports and it is almost always in connection with someone hiding money, laundering money, or otherwise engaged in criminal/shady conduct.   :-X

Remember, this is the same guy who refused to disclose his many tax returns--even though his own father insisted that candidates should do exactly that.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2014, 11:28:42 AM
"I'm not concerned about the very poor..."

"Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom."

"Let Detroit go bankrupt"

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me"

                               --Mitt Romney

I only looked up the first one, and it is out of context.  I'm sure the rest are as well, but I'm not going to bother checking.

Mitt Romney: "This is a time people are worried. They're frightened. They want someone who they have confidence in, and I believe I will be able to instill that confidence in the American people. And, by the way, I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation."

CNN's Soledad O'Brien: "Alright, I know I said last question, but I've got to ask you. You just said, 'I'm not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net,' and I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, 'that sounds odd.' Can you explain that?"

Romney: "Well, you had to -- finish the sentence Soledad. I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them. The challenge right now. We will hear from the Democrat Party, the plight of the poor. And there's no question, it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign -- you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can't find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college. These are the people who've been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it, but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor. But the middle income Americans, they're the folks that are really struggling right now, and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/01/romney_im_not_concerned_about_the_very_poor.html


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 05, 2014, 03:29:11 PM
I saw Mitt a few months ago.

Was surprised at how scatter-brained and weak he seemed to be, especially in the presence of his wife. She clearly has him by the balls, but good.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 05, 2014, 04:23:17 PM
I saw Mitt a few months ago.

Was surprised at how scatter-brained and weak he seemed to be, especially in the presence of his wife. She clearly has him by the balls, but good.

That's very much my impression as well... but when you pause to think about it that is not an uncommon dynamic with political wives.  Michelle Obama and Nancy Reagan give off the same vibe.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: loco on December 06, 2014, 07:09:21 AM
I can disqualify Mitt with three words:  Swiss bank account.  
Give me two more words and I can do it again: Cayman Islands.  

Do we really want a candidate and President who parked his money in a Swiss bank account?  Or elsewhere offshore?  There is nothing wrong with money in a Swiss bank account if you are from Switzerland, but most Americans do not know anyone with money in a Swiss bank.  In fact, most of us only know of Swiss banks via television, movies, and news reports and it is almost always in connection with someone hiding money, laundering money, or otherwise engaged in criminal/shady conduct.   :-X

Remember, this is the same guy who refused to disclose his many tax returns--even though his own father insisted that candidates should do exactly that.

In Mitt's case, it's most likely capital gains tax evasion.  Many Americans did this through UBS, until the IRS put a stop to it around 2009.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on December 13, 2014, 04:45:35 AM
The public is more interested in Mitt Romney’s 2016 prospects than the media
By Philip Bump  

In one sense, Mitt Romney has been running for president for nearly 13 years, ever since he stepped on-stage at the Salt Lake City Olympics, bolstering his gubernatorial run, which bolstered his first presidential run, which bolstered his second presidential run. And now, talk of a third run, which has progressed from "No no no no" he won't run to well, actually....

It's fair to wonder the extent to which Mitt Romney 2016 and the coverage of it is a reflection of the media doing its media thing. Political reporters know Romney and his staff from 2012; they have not-disinterested sources who are willing to speculate.

That's certainly part of it. If you consider the number of articles each week that mention Clinton (as in Hillary) and Romney alongside "running for president," there are two obvious trends. The first is that the media has written much more regularly about a Hillary Clinton candidacy than a Romney one -- in part since she's much more likely to run and in part because that's led the press to re-scour her record. (That accounts for some of the spike in September.) The second obvious trend: Articles about Romney happen more when other news is slow, like June, August, and now.

But here's the surprising thing. We have a decent means of determining how much interest there is in a topic among the public at large: Google searches. When you compare searches in the United States for "Romney 2016" and "Clinton 2016," Romney has caught up with -- and sometimes eclipsed -- Clinton.

This is not polling; it is barely scientific. This does not mean that Romney will run or that if he ran he would win. What it means is that speculation about a Romney candidacy is not merely the idle work of reporters with one eye on the calendar. For some reason -- apparently not media speculation, given how little that's changed -- the public is curious about the prospect of Mitt Romney running for president.

Just in time for the 13th anniversary of his starting to do so.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney & the GOP
Post by: Jack T. Cross on December 13, 2014, 02:12:01 PM
That's very much my impression as well... but when you pause to think about it that is not an uncommon dynamic with political wives.  Michelle Obama and Nancy Reagan give off the same vibe.

Yes, I'd definitiely agree on that.


Title: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 10, 2015, 05:31:52 AM
Romney to GOP donors: ‘I want to be president.’
By Philip Rucker, Robert Costa and Matea Gold

Mitt Romney forcefully declared his interest in a third presidential run to a room full of powerful Republican donors Friday, disrupting the fluid 2016 GOP field as would-be rival Jeb Bush was moving swiftly to consolidate establishment support.

Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee, has been mulling another campaign for several months, but his comments Friday marked a clear step forward in his thinking and come amid mounting tensions between the Romney and Bush camps.

“I want to be president,” Romney told about 30 donors in New York. He said that his wife, Ann — who last fall said she was emphatically against a run — had changed her mind and was now “very encouraging,” although their five sons remain split, according to multiple attendees.

Advisers said Romney discussed the race with his family over the holidays, when they spent time skiing in Park City, Utah, but he insisted that he has not made up his mind whether to run. Advisers said he recognizes that he would not be able to waltz into the nomination and that the intra-party competition is shaping up to be stiffer in next year’s primaries than it was in 2012.

Bush’s sudden focus on the race in recent weeks has put pressure on Romney to decide soon. Romney has been in regular conversations with major donors, some of whom are pushing him to run again, but confidants have also warned him that his window of opportunity could shut if he does not declare his intentions within 30 to 60 days.

Romney’s comments at Friday’s meeting, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, electrified the world of Republican financiers, who are being courted aggressively by Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and other hopefuls. Romney’s dalliance could freeze enough donors to spoil Bush’s plan to post an intimidatingly huge first-quarter fundraising haul this spring.

“What he has said to me before is, ‘I am preserving my options.’ What he is now saying is, ‘I am seriously considering a run,’ ” said Bobbie Kilberg, a top donor from Virginia who raised millions of dollars for Romney’s 2012 bid. She was briefed by attendees on Romney’s Friday comments. “And he said that in a room with 30 people. That is a different degree of intensity.”

Striving to keep his network intact, Romney on Friday also e-mailed his donors with invitations to his fourth annual policy summit in Park City, scheduled for June 11-13. Called the E2 Summit, the event is billed as an “intimate” gathering of Wall Street titans, politicos and former government officials.

Romney’s associates said that he has become restless since conceding to President Obama on a cold night in Boston two years ago. Romney’s motivation to run again stems from a lingering dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies, both economic and foreign, and a belief that he would have set the country on a better course.

Romney also harbors doubts that Bush and other Republican contenders can defeat likely Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, advisers said, and is wary in particular about Bush’s political skills.

“I believe Mitt Romney is too much of a patriot to sit on the sidelines and concede the presidency to Hillary Clinton or [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren when he knows that he can fix the country,” said Spencer Zwick, Romney’s 2012 national finance chairman, who accompanied Romney to Friday’s New York meeting.

“I think, at the end of the day, he believes he could actually make a difference,” Zwick said. “He won’t make a decision to run for president based on who else is in the race. He will make a decision based on his own desire and his own abilities.”

Romney’s advisers said he is approaching the decision pragmatically. “He does not go into things looking through rose-
colored glasses,” said one Romney adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

This adviser said Romney is far from having his mind made up: “He knows he’ll have to earn it, and he believes in that; that the presidency is too important to hand it over to somebody. He doesn’t talk like that at all. He wants to go out and make his case to the American people and see what happens. But he’s not that far.”

One immediate hurdle Romney would face is that many of the prominent donors that backed his last campaign, as well as some senior operatives who worked for him before, have already been scooped up by Bush or other candidates. GOP lawyer Charlie Spies, who co-founded the pro-Romney super PAC Restore our Future, is now representing Bush’s leadership committee, the Right to Rise PAC, as well as a pro-Bush super PAC of the same name.

Some Republicans have sharply criticized him since 2012 over his missteps on the campaign trail and his final performance — he lost every swing state except North Carolina and finished with 206 electoral votes to Obama’s 332. Democrats successfully cast him as out of touch with the middle class after he was caught on video telling wealthy donors that 47 percent of Americans do not take personal responsibility for their lives.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), a 2016 presidential hopeful, assailed Romney shortly after the 2012 election: “We have to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), also eyeing a 2016 run, wrote in his 2013 book that Romney did a “lousy job” talking about the economy “in a way that is relevant to people’s lives.”

Friday’s declaration of interest by Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and businessman, was not welcomed by all of his former allies — especially those close to the Bush family.

“Frankly, he has been bypassed by Jeb,” said Doug Gross, Romney’s 2008 Iowa campaign chairman and longtime Bush ally. “The time for Governor Romney has probably passed. He has already lost twice. The jury is very much out on whether Republican voters would go with him again.”

Romney’s relationship with Bush’s orbit has evolved from warm to strained in recent months. Bush’s chief political strategist is Mike Murphy, who also is close to Romney and advised his successful 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Last year, Murphy helped Romney on TV ads for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, shooting on a California set that bore more than a passing resemblance to the Oval Office.

But as Bush has ramped up his own efforts, Romney’s coziness with Murphy has dissipated. They last met shortly before Christmas, when Romney asked Murphy about preparations for Bush’s campaign and told Murphy he had not ruled out a bid of his own, according to Romney backers with knowledge of the conversation.

Romney has been talking frequently with Stuart Stevens, his top 2012 strategist and a Murphy rival, while keeping a watchful eye on Bush’s moves to woo Romney’s former supporters. On Friday, Bush was in Boston, Romney’s home base where he headquartered his past campaigns, trying to persuade Romney donors to get behind his effort.

Veteran GOP consultant Ed Rollins said, “Romney knows that he can block donors from going to Bush if he sends a clear enough message.”

“If you put Romney and Bush head to head, I think Romney probably wins that fight,” Rollins said. “Nobody is wholesale walking away from him. The donor base and operatives are still there. Bush thought he’d have an open field to easily beat Christie. Romney, if he gets in, changes that plan.”

On Wednesday, Romney lectured at Stanford University in a class titled “Understanding the 2016 Campaign from Start to Finish,” which is taught by his former policy director, Lanhee Chen. Romney later had dinner in Menlo Park, Calif., with Chen, former spokeswoman Andrea Saul and former campaign lawyers Ben Ginsberg and Katie Biber Chen.

Romney has remained close to such power brokers as New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, a Republican fundraiser who co-chaired Romney’s 2012 campaign and who attended Friday’s meeting.

“When I walked into Woody’s box a few weeks ago, Romney was sitting there in a turtleneck,” recalled former New Jersey governor Tom Kean. “He was in good spirits.”


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 10, 2015, 11:32:25 AM
Romney to GOP donors: ‘I want to be president.’
By Philip Rucker, Robert Costa and Matea Gold

Mitt Romney forcefully declared his interest in a third presidential run to a room full of powerful Republican donors Friday, disrupting the fluid 2016 GOP field as would-be rival Jeb Bush was moving swiftly to consolidate establishment support.

Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee, has been mulling another campaign for several months, but his comments Friday marked a clear step forward in his thinking and come amid mounting tensions between the Romney and Bush camps.

“I want to be president,” Romney told about 30 donors in New York. He said that his wife, Ann — who last fall said she was emphatically against a run — had changed her mind and was now “very encouraging,” although their five sons remain split, according to multiple attendees.

Advisers said Romney discussed the race with his family over the holidays, when they spent time skiing in Park City, Utah, but he insisted that he has not made up his mind whether to run. Advisers said he recognizes that he would not be able to waltz into the nomination and that the intra-party competition is shaping up to be stiffer in next year’s primaries than it was in 2012.

Bush’s sudden focus on the race in recent weeks has put pressure on Romney to decide soon. Romney has been in regular conversations with major donors, some of whom are pushing him to run again, but confidants have also warned him that his window of opportunity could shut if he does not declare his intentions within 30 to 60 days.

Romney’s comments at Friday’s meeting, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, electrified the world of Republican financiers, who are being courted aggressively by Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and other hopefuls. Romney’s dalliance could freeze enough donors to spoil Bush’s plan to post an intimidatingly huge first-quarter fundraising haul this spring.

“What he has said to me before is, ‘I am preserving my options.’ What he is now saying is, ‘I am seriously considering a run,’ ” said Bobbie Kilberg, a top donor from Virginia who raised millions of dollars for Romney’s 2012 bid. She was briefed by attendees on Romney’s Friday comments. “And he said that in a room with 30 people. That is a different degree of intensity.”

Striving to keep his network intact, Romney on Friday also e-mailed his donors with invitations to his fourth annual policy summit in Park City, scheduled for June 11-13. Called the E2 Summit, the event is billed as an “intimate” gathering of Wall Street titans, politicos and former government officials.

Romney’s associates said that he has become restless since conceding to President Obama on a cold night in Boston two years ago. Romney’s motivation to run again stems from a lingering dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies, both economic and foreign, and a belief that he would have set the country on a better course.

Romney also harbors doubts that Bush and other Republican contenders can defeat likely Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, advisers said, and is wary in particular about Bush’s political skills.

“I believe Mitt Romney is too much of a patriot to sit on the sidelines and concede the presidency to Hillary Clinton or [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren when he knows that he can fix the country,” said Spencer Zwick, Romney’s 2012 national finance chairman, who accompanied Romney to Friday’s New York meeting.

“I think, at the end of the day, he believes he could actually make a difference,” Zwick said. “He won’t make a decision to run for president based on who else is in the race. He will make a decision based on his own desire and his own abilities.”

Romney’s advisers said he is approaching the decision pragmatically. “He does not go into things looking through rose-
colored glasses,” said one Romney adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

This adviser said Romney is far from having his mind made up: “He knows he’ll have to earn it, and he believes in that; that the presidency is too important to hand it over to somebody. He doesn’t talk like that at all. He wants to go out and make his case to the American people and see what happens. But he’s not that far.”

One immediate hurdle Romney would face is that many of the prominent donors that backed his last campaign, as well as some senior operatives who worked for him before, have already been scooped up by Bush or other candidates. GOP lawyer Charlie Spies, who co-founded the pro-Romney super PAC Restore our Future, is now representing Bush’s leadership committee, the Right to Rise PAC, as well as a pro-Bush super PAC of the same name.

Some Republicans have sharply criticized him since 2012 over his missteps on the campaign trail and his final performance — he lost every swing state except North Carolina and finished with 206 electoral votes to Obama’s 332. Democrats successfully cast him as out of touch with the middle class after he was caught on video telling wealthy donors that 47 percent of Americans do not take personal responsibility for their lives.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), a 2016 presidential hopeful, assailed Romney shortly after the 2012 election: “We have to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), also eyeing a 2016 run, wrote in his 2013 book that Romney did a “lousy job” talking about the economy “in a way that is relevant to people’s lives.”

Friday’s declaration of interest by Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and businessman, was not welcomed by all of his former allies — especially those close to the Bush family.

“Frankly, he has been bypassed by Jeb,” said Doug Gross, Romney’s 2008 Iowa campaign chairman and longtime Bush ally. “The time for Governor Romney has probably passed. He has already lost twice. The jury is very much out on whether Republican voters would go with him again.”

Romney’s relationship with Bush’s orbit has evolved from warm to strained in recent months. Bush’s chief political strategist is Mike Murphy, who also is close to Romney and advised his successful 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Last year, Murphy helped Romney on TV ads for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, shooting on a California set that bore more than a passing resemblance to the Oval Office.

But as Bush has ramped up his own efforts, Romney’s coziness with Murphy has dissipated. They last met shortly before Christmas, when Romney asked Murphy about preparations for Bush’s campaign and told Murphy he had not ruled out a bid of his own, according to Romney backers with knowledge of the conversation.

Romney has been talking frequently with Stuart Stevens, his top 2012 strategist and a Murphy rival, while keeping a watchful eye on Bush’s moves to woo Romney’s former supporters. On Friday, Bush was in Boston, Romney’s home base where he headquartered his past campaigns, trying to persuade Romney donors to get behind his effort.

Veteran GOP consultant Ed Rollins said, “Romney knows that he can block donors from going to Bush if he sends a clear enough message.”

“If you put Romney and Bush head to head, I think Romney probably wins that fight,” Rollins said. “Nobody is wholesale walking away from him. The donor base and operatives are still there. Bush thought he’d have an open field to easily beat Christie. Romney, if he gets in, changes that plan.”

On Wednesday, Romney lectured at Stanford University in a class titled “Understanding the 2016 Campaign from Start to Finish,” which is taught by his former policy director, Lanhee Chen. Romney later had dinner in Menlo Park, Calif., with Chen, former spokeswoman Andrea Saul and former campaign lawyers Ben Ginsberg and Katie Biber Chen.

Romney has remained close to such power brokers as New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, a Republican fundraiser who co-chaired Romney’s 2012 campaign and who attended Friday’s meeting.

“When I walked into Woody’s box a few weeks ago, Romney was sitting there in a turtleneck,” recalled former New Jersey governor Tom Kean. “He was in good spirits.”

I think Mitt just wants to stay relevant so potential candidates can go to him and kiss his ring.....or he wants to hang around in case a scandal comes up with Jeb or in case the party feels Jeb is too liberal and turn to him....although I feel Mitt's more liberal than Jeb


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 10, 2015, 11:36:14 AM
Romney has paid for more andreisdafag welfare checks than any other politician out there.  FACT


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 10, 2015, 11:37:07 AM
Romney has paid for more andreisdafag welfare checks than any other politician out there.  FACT

paid for your college loans as well


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 10, 2015, 11:44:15 AM
paid for your college loans as well

Really/  Explain you perverted freak


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 10, 2015, 11:48:12 AM
Really/  Explain you perverted freak

did you pay for college out of your pocket??????...probably NOT..therefore....free stuff!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 10, 2015, 11:49:46 AM
did you pay for college out of your pocket??????...probably NOT..therefore....free stuff!!!!!!!!

paying every month - UNLIKE YOU WELFARE PEOPLE FOR YOUR FREE PHONES , HUD, APARTMENTS, MEDICADE, FOOD, DIAPERS, ETC


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 10, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
paying every month - UNLIKE YOU WELFARE PEOPLE FOR YOUR FREE PHONES , HUD, APARTMENTS, MEDICADE, FOOD, DIAPERS, ETC

Lot of people of ALL persuasions getting the above.....I'm sure your mom and dad received food stamps and Medicare as well


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: chadstallion on January 10, 2015, 12:05:28 PM
YEAH !
third time's the charm; this time get Sarah Palin as running mate.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: Primemuscle on January 10, 2015, 01:35:23 PM
YEAH !
third time's the charm; this time get Sarah Palin as running mate.

Good idea!  ;)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: Straw Man on January 10, 2015, 02:12:41 PM
paying every month - UNLIKE YOU WELFARE PEOPLE FOR YOUR FREE PHONES , HUD, APARTMENTS, MEDICADE, FOOD, DIAPERS, ETC

on loans you never would have been given if they were not guaranteed against default by the government

you're still sucking on the government teat


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 10, 2015, 02:15:15 PM
on loans you never would have been given if they were not guaranteed against default by the government

you're still sucking on the government teat

 ;D...the truth sure does hurt...so Chris, does this mean that you can owe your success as a SUPPOSED lawyer to GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE???????????????????????


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: whork on January 10, 2015, 02:42:23 PM
on loans you never would have been given if they were not guaranteed against default by the government

you're still sucking on the government teat


Uppss ;D


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 10, 2015, 02:54:12 PM
;D...the truth sure does hurt...so Chris, does this mean that you can owe your success as a SUPPOSED lawyer to GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE???????????????????????



Geez all this time and im no different than any other welfare thug drunk pissing himself in Penn station and voting for Obama - go figure.   :D


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 10, 2015, 02:56:23 PM


Geez all this time and im no different than any other welfare thug drunk pissing himself in Penn station and voting for Obama - go figure.   :D

I destroyed your entire world :D

OWNERSHIP!!!!! 8) 8) 8)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: Victor VonDoom on January 10, 2015, 04:52:27 PM
Again?  Really?  He wants to be President too badly; that alone is reason enough not to vote for him.  His performance in the last campaign is another reason.  Bah!


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: B_B_C on January 10, 2015, 05:29:39 PM
paying every month - UNLIKE YOU WELFARE PEOPLE FOR YOUR FREE PHONES , HUD, APARTMENTS, MEDICADE, FOOD, DIAPERS, ETC

so the taxpayer funded your debt collector career?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 11, 2015, 06:30:50 PM
For Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, a history of ambition fuels a possible 2016 collision
By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa
   
Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney have much in common. Both were pragmatic as governors, mild-mannered as candidates and more comfortable balancing budgets at their desks than clinking glasses at a political dinner.

The two Republican leaders’ personal rapport is cordial. But they are hardly chummy — and at moments their relationship has been strained, with each man’s intertwined political network carrying some grievances with the other’s.

As Bush, 61, and Romney, 67, explore presidential campaigns in 2016, they are like boxers warming up for what could become a brutal bout, sizing each other up and mulling whether or when to step into the ring.

Their early maneuvering reveals a level of competitiveness and snippiness that stems from a long history following similar career paths in business and politics prescribed by their dynastic families.

“We’re seeing the first shots of the war between clan Romney and clan Bush,” said Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist who has worked for both men. “Both bring to the battle incredibly powerful fan clubs as well as wounds they have to heal. How ugly could it get? You’re only competing to lead the free world.”

Bush has been trying to consolidate support among establishment donors, leaders and operatives since announcing in December that he would begin laying the groundwork for a likely campaign.

“The Bush connection is a centrifugal force, and it’s drawing back a whole generation of public servants and politicos,” said former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, one of Romney’s 2012 opponents.

But on Friday, Romney sought to slam the brakes on Bush, telling about 30 powerful donors that he, too, was seriously considering a 2016 bid. “I want to be president,” he said, adding that his wife, Ann, was supportive.

Romney has begun methodically calling donors, staff members and endorsers from his two prior campaigns to measure how deep his reservoir of support would be if he runs for a third time, his advisers said. He also has scheduled a series of public speeches, including a Jan. 28 address at Mississippi State University.

The entry of both Bush and Romney is far from certain, and Romney’s dalliance is preliminary. But the prospect of two center-right heavyweights entering a 2016 field likely to be fluid, crowded and diverse forces other contenders and the party’s stable of donors to adjust their thinking.

“Awkward,” was the reaction from several past Romney supporters when they learned he was weighing a 2016 campaign. If both he and Bush run, they would occupy similar space as favorites of the party brass and business community.

“The abundance of great candidates developing on the Republican side is making life very tough for me because I’m going to have to choose amongst friends,” said former New Hampshire governor John H. Sununu, who was White House chief of staff under Bush’s father but a top campaign surrogate for Romney.

But, Sununu added, “it’s applesauce right now. Let’s not try to pick up applesauce and move it to the other side of the plate.”

More personal race
The two candidates would invite comparisons to each other, which could be tense for Bush, who was sharply critical of Romney’s 2012 campaign — in particular, his lack of outreach to minorities — and has pledged to run a more inclusive and transparent campaign.

“A Romney-Bush race could end up being nastier than Jeb against someone like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul,” Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said of the Texas and Kentucky senators. “A Cruz-Bush race is pretty straightforward and ideological. A Romney-Bush race would be more personal — about whose turn it is and who is owed it.”

Associates of both men insist there is no animosity between them and that each will make his decision about a 2016 run irrespective of the other.

“Governor Bush respects Governor Romney,” said Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell, who worked on Romney’s 2012 campaign. “His process moving forward won’t be impacted by Governor Romney’s decision to explore a run — and I would assume it is the same on the reverse side.”

Beth Myers, a longtime adviser to Romney, said he and Bush have been friends since 2002, when Romney was elected to his first term as Massachusetts governor and Bush to his second as Florida governor.

“Mitt has great respect for Jeb’s ability and integrity, and they’ve worked together many times over the years to promote conservative principles,” Myers said. “At the end of the day, whatever decision Mitt makes about running for president, I’m 100 percent certain he will still value and maintain his friendship with Jeb.”

Mitt and Ann Romney also have nurtured a friendship with Bush’s parents, former president George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara. In 2007, when Romney gave a personal speech on his Mormon faith, which had become a touchy issue with evangelical Christian voters, he did so at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Tex., where he was warmly introduced by the 41st president.

Working on Romney’s 2008 primary campaign were several Jeb Bush lieutenants: Sally Bradshaw, Bush’s longtime political adviser; Ann Herberger, a Miami-based fundraiser; and Al Cardenas, a fixture in Florida Republican politics. All three stayed out of Romney’s 2012 campaign, although Cardenas, then the chairman of the American Conservative Union, endorsed him as the primaries were ending.

The Bush-Romney family dynamic has been one of intrigue and ambition, dating at least to the 1950s, when Romney’s father, George Romney, then president of American Motors, was striving to make political connections as he eyed a run for office.

In 1957, Romney wrote a letter to Prescott Bush, Jeb’s grandfather then serving in the Senate from Connecticut, urging him to test-drive a Rambler or a Metropolitan. Both were popular AMC models, and Romney told Bush the latter got 40 miles to the gallon, according to car-industry historian Patrick R. Foster’s book “The Metropolitan Story.” But, Foster writes, it remains unknown whether the efforts resulted in a sale — or even if Romney’s solicitation drew any notice in Bush’s office.

Eyeing one another
In recent weeks, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush have been quietly trying to ascertain the other’s motives and playbook. Bush has asked Romney’s former donors about what Romney is up to, while Romney met shortly before Christmas with Bush strategist Mike Murphy and inquired about Bush’s preparations, according to political consultants who know Romney and Bush.

Romney has said little publicly about Bush, but in exchanges with intimates, he has focused on Bush’s past advisory work for Lehman Brothers and Barclays, two major financial institutions. He argued that it makes Bush vulnerable to the same kind of Democratic attacks that he faced in 2012 over his career as Bain Capital co-founder and chief executive. He also has voiced doubts about Bush’s political skills and ability to beat likely Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ana Navarro, a GOP operative and Bush confidant, said: “I’m not going to get worked up over comments Romney has allegedly made to donors behind closed doors — yet. We all know he sometimes misspeaks.”

Bush has vowed to more vigorously defend his business record than Romney did. Comparing their careers is like “comparing an apple to a peanut,” Bush said in a December interview with a Miami television station.

Those comments irritated Romney’s family and loyalists, who took them as a slight against his career managing a complicated enterprise on a scale far larger than Bush’s business dealings, according to Romney associates.

Bush also is considering releasing a decade or more of his tax returns after Romney faced heat for only reluctantly releasing two years of his returns. And Bush has advocated a more welcoming message on immigration reform than Romney’s hard-right position, which he criticized in 2012.

“He got sucked into other people’s agendas, and I think it hurt him a little bit,” Bush said in the TV interview. He added, “Winning with purpose, winning with meaning, winning with your integrity is what I’m trying to talk about.”

Before announcing his 2012 campaign, Romney, sensing that immigration policy would be a contentious issue in the primaries, sought Bush’s advice.

“I went to see Jeb, I flew down to see him, and said: ‘I’d like to take immigration off the issue list for the primaries. And wouldn’t it be great if Republicans could come up with an immigration plan that all of the contenders could say, yeah, I agree. And then we could sweep that aside,’ ” Romney told The Washington Post’s Dan Balz in an interview for his book “Collision 2012.”


“We were unable to get there,” Romney continued. “I mean, there just wasn’t enough consensus among Republicans generally.”

Rival strategists
As Bush and Romney explore a run, whispering into their ears are two political professionals with big egos, eccentric personalities and a long-simmering rivalry: Romney’s Stuart Stevens and Bush’s Murphy. They are fierce competitors with roots in each other’s turf. Stevens worked on George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, while Murphy worked on Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign.

Members of Bush’s team have not forgotten Stevens’s role in Bush’s 1994 gubernatorial race, which became Bush’s lowest point politically. Stevens advised one of Bush’s primary opponents, Jim Smith, who waged a bruising TV ad assault against Bush over his business experience and character.

“This begins the destruction of Jeb Bush,” Stevens told the New York Times as the ads began. Bush won the primary, but he didn’t win the governorship until four years later.

During the 2012 campaign, Murphy mocked Stevens on Twitter as Romney struggled in the primaries against relatively weak opponents. More recently, Romney backers have been murmuring fresh questions about Murphy’s work for the political action committee of former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), who is anathema to the conservative base.

Some Romney allies are bitter that Bush was slow to endorse Romney in 2012. In the run-up to the Florida primary, with Romney fighting to beat back a surge from Newt Gingrich, Bush sat on the sidelines when Romney’s team thought he could have made a difference. Romney called, e-mailed and met privately with Bush to try to win him over, but he could not be convinced.

“I voted absentee,” Bush said on CNN. “And thank God it’s a secret ballot.”

Romney won Florida nevertheless, and by the time Bush announced his endorsement, on March 21, the day after Romney’s decisive victory in the Illinois primary, the nomination was all but officially his.

Bush called Romney on his cellphone, with no tip-off from an emissary, and their talk was brief, according to aides. Back at headquarters, advisers were pleased by the news, but grumbling still, wondering why it had taken so long.



Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: LurkerNoMore on January 12, 2015, 07:18:51 AM
^^  Photo above brings to mind the same reaction everyone had when Rubio recently told the media he was presidential material and could win the election.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 12, 2015, 07:49:55 AM
^^  Photo above brings to mind the same reaction everyone had when Rubio recently told the media he was presidential material and could win the election.

HA!....Rubio is seriously butthurt over Obama's decision to open up Cuba.....he looked like he was going to cry when he was asked to comment on it...I'm really going to miss Obama in a way, when he leaves the presidency......I love the affect he has on the GOP..they spend all day and night whining about him, looking sad and butthurt.....makes me laugh that they are so obsessed with Obama they can't get themselves together and do anything 8)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 13, 2015, 05:34:32 AM
Romney moves to reassemble campaign team for ‘almost certain’ 2016 bid
 By Robert Costa, Philip Rucker and Karen Tumulty January 12 at 9:37 PM

Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign.

Romney’s message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he “almost certainly will” make what would be his third bid for the White House. His aggressive outreach came as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — Romney’s 2012 vice presidential running mate and the newly installed chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — announced Monday that he would not seek the presidency in 2016.

Romney’s activity indicates that his declaration of interest Friday to a group of 30 donors in New York was more than the release of a trial balloon. Instead, it was the start of a deliberate effort by the 2012 nominee to carve out space for himself in an emerging 2016 field also likely to include former Florida governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Romney has worked the phones over the past few days, calling an array of key allies to discuss his potential 2016 campaign. Among them was Ryan, whom Romney phoned over the weekend to inform him personally of his plans to probably run. Ryan was encouraging, people with knowledge of the calls said.

Other Republicans with whom Romney spoke recently include Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Rob Portman (Ohio), former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Hewlett-Packard chief executive Meg Whitman, former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, former Missouri senator Jim Talent and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah).

In the conversations, Romney said he is intent on running to the right of Bush, who also is working vigorously to court donors and other party establishment figures for a 2016 bid. Romney has tried to assure conservatives that he shares their views on immigration and tax policy — and that should he enter the race, he will not forsake party orthodoxy.

On New Year’s Eve, Romney welcomed Laura Ingraham, the firebrand conservative and nationally syndicated talk-radio host, to his ski home in Deer Valley, Utah. Romney served a light lunch to Ingraham and her family as they spent more than an hour discussing politics and policy, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

“He was relaxed, reflective and was interested in hearing my thoughts on the American working class,” Ingraham said in an e-mail Monday. “He was fully engaged and up to speed on everything happening on [the] domestic and international front. To me, it didn’t seem like he was content to be just a passive player in American politics.”

Romney’s undertaking to re-engage and pursue anew the GOP’s leading financial and political players began Friday, when he told a private gathering of donors, “I want to be president.” He also told them that his wife, Ann, was “very encouraging” of another campaign.

Romney is considering attending this week’s meeting of the Republican National Committee in San Diego and is working on a new message about economic empowerment, advisers said.

“He’s a lot more focused in these calls on developing a path to victory and talking through a message, rather than talking about money,” said Spencer Zwick, Romney’s 2012 national finance chairman. “Mitt Romney has proven that he can raise the money.”

This comes as Bush — another favorite of the Republican elite — is holding meetings with party leaders and financiers as he explores his campaign. Bush and Romney have overlapping political circles.

Many of Romney’s past supporters may feel torn — not only between him and Bush but also among Christie, Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and other Republicans who are weighing a run. Some already have publicly aligned with Bush and others.

“They’re competing hard and it’s going to get complicated for Bush,” said former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). “But Romney still has to prove that he has the ability to reach out to ordinary, hardworking people and emote — smiling with one eye and crying with the other.”

Romney’s outreach extends beyond his cheerleaders to onetime foes as well. He called Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who relentlessly attacked Romney on the stump and debate stage in 2012 during his presidential run. Gingrich said he told Romney, “There are no front-runners” in the 2016 race. “We have runners, but no front-runners.”

Romney is measuring how much of his 2012 operation would gear up behind him again. He is particularly intent on rebuilding his past political infrastructure in New Hampshire, where he owns a vacation home in Wolfeboro. The state, which holds the first presidential primary, ignited his 2012 campaign when he won it resoundingly in a crowded field.

As of Monday, Romney had secured the backing of his top two New Hampshire-based advisers, Thomas D. Rath and Jim Merrill.

“He called me right after the Patriots beat the Ravens, so we were both in good moods,” Merrill said. “It was a good conversation. He was very clear that he is seriously considering a run. I’ve been with Mitt Romney since March 2006, so if he decides to do it, I’ll be there for him.” Rath, a former New Hampshire state attorney general, concurred in a separate interview: “I’ve been with Mitt Romney for eight years. If he’s in, I’ll make the coffee or drive the car — whatever he needs.”

Romney also has called Brown, who ran unsuccessfully for Senate from New Hampshire in 2014, as well as former governor John Sununu, who was a surrogate for Romney in 2012 but has close ties to the Bush family after serving as chief of staff under then-president George H.W. Bush.

Judd Gregg, a former U.S. senator from New Hampshire who backed Romney in 2008 and 2012, said, “He’s reaching out to people. My sense is he feels strongly he has an opportunity to do what was incomplete last time. He figures there’s a lot of buyer’s remorse now and that his message is a good message and it’ll resonate.”

Romney is also paying attention to Iowa, which holds the first-in-the-nation caucuses, calling his former Iowa strategist, David Kochel. Romney, however, has not connected with Iowa Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley or Joni Ernst. “I haven’t talked to him in two years,” Grassley said Monday.

One Romney adviser, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said, “Mitt’s a very restless character. He is not the type to retire happily, to read books on the beach. . . . He believes he has something to offer the country and the only way he can do that is by running for president again.”

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the GOP presidential nominee in 2008, was skeptical of a Romney candidacy and endorsed the idea of a “dark horse” run by his longtime friend in the Senate, Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.).

Eric Fehrnstrom, a former Romney spokesman, ticked through issues that he said were motivating Romney to try again. “At home our economy is still not as strong as it could be,” he said. “Long-term growth is in doubt. And around the world there’s really deep concern that America’s leadership has unraveled and hostile forces have filled that vacuum.”

Romney’s national finance network — which raised roughly $1 billion on his behalf for the 2012 campaign — came alive in the hours after he declared his interest in a 2016 bid.

“When the news broke Friday, my phone started blowing up with texts, calls and e-mails from people that had donated to the campaign before and pledging their help,” said Travis Hawkes, a Republican donor in Idaho who served on Romney’s national finance council. “They say, ‘Let me know when you need my credit card number.’ My response to everyone has been, ‘Let’s just slow down and see what happens.’ ”

“I don’t know, man, it’s a free country,” McCain said of a possible Romney campaign in 2016. “I thought there was no education in the second kick of a mule
. . . . I respect his judgment, he’s a strong leader.”  ;D


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 14, 2015, 06:27:46 AM
It makes no sense for Mitt Romney to run for president again
By Chris Cillizza

Ever since the news broke last Friday that Mitt Romney is not only thinking about running for president again in 2016 but also making moves that suggest he is going to run, I've been trying to figure out why.  I've talked to Republicans who are close to Romney and Republicans who are only interested observers.

For people outside of Romney's direct orbit, there is bafflement about what Romney is doing. Closer allies explain, without their names attached, why Romney running again isn't as odd as it is being portrayed. "Lots of people get elected to governor or senator on their third try," said one Romney supporter urging the former governor to run. "Nothing magical about that not being a presidential."

More on that later. But, in short those conversations -- and my own thinking -- have produced three basic reasons to explain why Romney is doing what he is doing. They are:

1. He doesn't believe Jeb Bush is a terribly strong candidate/frontrunner.

2. He doesn't think anyone in the current field can beat Hillary Clinton

3. He believes he has something more/new/different to offer the country at a critical moment in history.

Numbers one and two are, of course, intricately linked.  Romney doesn't like Bush's public critique of the sort of campaign he ran in 2012 and believes that Bush drastically misunderstands how the modern political world works. Bush, who has not run for any office since 2006 2002, has deep vulnerabilities on the work -- from finance to education -- that he has done since leaving office, Romney believes.  And, Bush simply doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) the problems he has on that front. (This story by WaPo's Lyndsey Layton on Bush's education group is fodder for that Romney argument.)

And, if you believe, as Romney does, that Bush is much weaker than most people -- including many Republican donors -- currently regard him, then the prospect of a Clinton presidency seems very real.  "Romney is only person who is beating anybody thinking about running in both parties," said one Romney supporter. "He only beats Hillary by a point or two but still, if you are beating everyone and can raise money, that's not a reason to run but it's certainly not a reason not to run."

Fair enough. It is absolutely true that Bush remains largely untested in the world of Vine, Instagram and Twitter on the campaign trail. And that his gubernatorial -- and, more importantly, post-gubernatorial -- record has not taken anywhere near the scrutiny it will if/when he runs. And that Romney is a proven fundraiser and vote-getter.

It's that third point though that Romney, according to those who know him best, sees as most important  -- and on which he and I part ways.

"There is something in Mitt that drives him to solve problems," explained one Romney confidante of the governor's mindset. "When he sees something is a mess, he doesn't have it in his DNA to sit back and let someone else just try to clean it up."

Added another: "He believes he can help the country and help people."

I don't doubt Romney's sincerity. But I do think he and those close to him are fooling themselves that he can simply proclaim that he is running a new and different campaign -- one based on foreign policy and poverty, according to Politico -- and that will be that.

It's literally impossible for me to imagine such a scenario.  The reason Romney is in the position he is -- nationally known, a massive fundraising network -- is because of his 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Those are the pluses of having run twice before. But, there are also significant minuses in having done so. Does Romney think either his Republican opponents or, potentially Hillary Clinton in a general election, are going to just let the whole "47 percent" thing drop? Or that the car elevator, "severely conservative" and the picture of him with money coming out of his suit jacket are going to disappear?

Um, they won't. The second Romney declares -- and, even now as he moves toward a candidacy -- all of the things people didn't like about him will start to creep back to the front of their minds. The image of him as an out-of-touch plutocrat, which the Obama team so effectively painted, will linger no matter what Romney says or does as a candidate. And, unlike in 2012 when he was seen as the de facto frontrunner due to his close-but-no-cigar bid in 2008, the logic (or lack thereof) for why he would choose to run again in 2016 would make him a puzzle in the eyes of many Republican primary voters. People don't usually vote for puzzles.

There's no question that Romney feels a call to service and believes that he is uniquely able to solve the problems of the GOP and the country at the moment. But, the assumption that he can pluck the good things from his past candidacies while wiping away -- "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"-style -- all the bad stuff from voters' minds is a deeply flawed reading of how politics works. And it's why it makes little sense for Romney to run again.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: JOHN MATRIX on January 14, 2015, 08:20:04 AM
cant believe this guy is gonna try yet again. what a waste and a distraction.

oh well, at least he will split the RINO vote with Jeb and Chrispy


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 14, 2015, 06:29:13 PM
Mitt Romney vs. Jeb Bush vs. Chris Christie
by Marc Ambinder

If Mitt Romney really does jump into the presidential race, he'll join a field already crowded with contemporaries who are talking to the same set of voters and the same donors as he is. Each of these guys — particularly Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) — has a theory of their case, a linear scenario that justifies their presidential flirtations.

Jeb Bush has the simplest case (though not the easiest). Get voters to forget/acknowledge/embrace his last name. Endure the primaries and stay above the fray as much as possible. Run as the responsible candidate in the primary and on a Middle Class™ renaissance in the general. The longer the race, the more formidable he becomes. Focus relentlessly on the governing failures of President Obama. (Immigration: Obama messed it up for everybody.) He can beat Hillary Clinton because the demographics are with him.

With more of his dad's maturity than his mother's moxie, Jeb Bush has waited his turn. On a national level, he has not yet truly exposed his political vulnerabilities to the incantations of movement conservatives. He hasn't really lost (or won) anything outside of Florida, and this bolsters his confidence that he can withstand their criticism. He thinks he can do as a presidential candidate what he did as a gubernatorial candidate, and what his brother did as a Texas gubernatorial candidate: put together a cross-cutting coalition to include upwardly mobile minorities (with more than a fair share of Latinos) and women who do not believe he's a scary conservative.

Bush hopes that voters much prefer a real human with conservative instincts than a phony conservative with occasional flashes of human-ness. He will risk losing the primary to win the general election.

Common Core, he thinks, is an issue that will go away shortly after the first few primary states. On immigration, Bush believes, he will have to lead his party where it knows it needs to go, but so far hasn't been able to reach.  

Bush is an economic conservative who can quickly suck up the GOP's Southern entrepreneurial money pod, steal a large portion of the party's New York-Wall Street cash haulers, and convince the party's wealthy Midwestern and California donors that his appeal to Latinos makes him viable in the general election.

Enormous sums of money will keep him viable when he inevitably dips in the polls after opponents score points off him at debates; he will play the long game, rather than the tactical one.

Jeb Bush is Mitt Romney with a heart, a Mitt Romney who doesn't shed his skin each time the environment changes. He can win the most viable national candidate race. He has the fewest edges, and the most obvious vulnerability (he's a Bush), so voters know exactly what to expect.

If establishment Republicans thought Chris Christie was viable as their nominee, they wouldn't have pressed so hard for Bush to get in. In a one-on-one race with Hillary Clinton, Bush focuses on the upper Midwest, and on ethnic whites without college degrees who want someone like them to fight for their interests.

Chris Christie's presidential run is based on the expectation that voters are fed up with government paralysis and with the somewhat effete and affected governing style of President Obama. The combative New Jersey governor is the most un-Obama like of any of the candidates, in that he's always described as the "combative New Jersey governor." So long as he doesn't get caught in the bully trap, voters will feed off his energy.

His theory of the case counts on Jeb Bush's belly fire being doused early, and on Bush's donors quickly viewing Christie as the second best alternative. Unlike Bush, Christie will visit the rest of the candidates in their chicken coop and crack eggshells when he needs to. He can't hang back; he needs to be viable, in the mix, and always doing something. Back in 2012, the GOP tried to get Christie to run because they thought Romney was too flawed. Christie is Romney with an edge, without an obvious incentive to pander. And perhaps he can win New Jersey, too.

Mitt Romney might have been elected president. He was close to being president. He's been there. He knows how to run; he knows how to survive a GOP primary, and he's human now, dammit. He'll take the start of an economy recovery and kick it into high gear; he'll fix the problems with ObamaCare. He's got more conservative cred than he did when he first ran. And he'll win the general, not with any tricks or extra charm, but simply because voters won't want to elect Democrats to power anymore.

Chris Christie, Romney will argue, is scandal-plagued and too mean; Jeb Bush is a Bush who won't survive the primaries.

We'll see if it works.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 15, 2015, 03:59:39 PM
A third Romney run for the White House is a sad quest for relevance
By Jonathan Capehart

The Wall Street Journal should have given its readers a piece of chalk with every copy Wednesday. The better to draw a chalk outline around the blow-torched image of Mitt Romney after reading the paper’s scorching editorial that belittles the 2012 Republican presidential nominee’s chances for a third attempt at the party’s nod in 2016.

I and others, particularly Democrats, have been giving side-eyes to the idea of a Romney repeat ever since the former Massachusetts governor started hinting at the prospect late last year. Whatever criticism I could articulate would have been dismissed as partisan harping of an Obama water-carrier, as I’ve been called by more than a few charmers in my inbox. But when the equivalent of the principal’s office of the GOP takes it upon itself to lambast the wanna-be favorite son, folks pay attention.

The opening line signals the brutality to come. “If Mitt Romney is the answer,” the editorial begins, “what is the question?”

    Mr. Romney is a man of admirable personal character, but his political profile is, well, protean. He made the cardinal mistake of pandering to conservatives rather than offering a vision that would attract them. He claimed to be “severely conservative” and embraced “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants, a political killer. But he refused to break from his RomneyCare record in Massachusetts even though it undermined his criticism of ObamaCare. A third campaign would resurrect all of that political baggage—and videotape.

    The businessman also failed on his own self-professed terms as a superior manager. His convention was the worst since George H.W. Bush ’s in 1992, focusing more on his biography than a message. This left him open to President Obama ’s barrage against his record at Bain Capital, which Mr. Romney failed to defend because that would have meant playing on Democratic turf, as his strategists liked to put it. The unanswered charges suppressed GOP turnout in key states like Ohio.


The editorial hammers everything about the Romney 2012 campaign. Noting that the 2016 field will be “far better” than the clown car of four years ago, the WSJ sneers at Romney’s potential candidacy. “It’s hard to see what advantages Mr. Romney brings that the many potential first-time candidates who have succeeded as governors do not.” Ouch.

Romney fatigue among Republicans is the basis of a story on the front page of the New York Times on Wednesday. The report by Jonathan Martin is notable for the number of people willing to go on the record to praise Romney while trashing his presidential ambitions. Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating bluntly said of Romney, “People say he is a very fine man, but he had his chance.” A Republican strategist from South Carolina asked a question that will dog Romney throughout another bid for the White House: “How does he define what he is trying to do besides the fact he just wants to be president?”

This gets at a point highlighted in a profile by Mark Leibovich on Romney in The Times last September that has influenced my view of his political machinations ever since.

    As deftly as Romney plays the self-deprecating bridesmaid, he is open about his dread of becoming irrelevant. After his father, George Romney, a three-term Michigan governor, lost the state’s primary in 1968, he struggled to get meetings. “I remember my dad becoming quite frustrated,” Romney said. “He used to say that Washington is the fastest place to go from ‘Who’s Who’ to ‘Who’s That?’ ” In the saturated media landscape of today, the son has been luckier. “I have been able to get on TV, get key interviews, get op-eds published,” Romney said.

Romney is within his right to run a third time for president. Lord knows he has the national campaign experience the other prospective candidates don’t have. Sure, Romney might be a better candidate this time around “by virtue of experience.” But the notion that he might give it another go to escape the fate of irrelevance suffered by his father is rather sad.



Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 16, 2015, 05:50:58 AM
Mitt Romney Faces Skepticism, Frustration as He Looks to 2016
by Zeke J Miller

“I think the party wants to see a new candidate,” said the party's Pennsylvania chairman

When former Mitt Romney steps across on the deck of the U.S.S. Midway on Friday evening, the former GOP presidential nominee who is considering a third bid for the White House will be greeted by many skeptical faces from his party’s leadership.

Four years after the Republican establishment’s support propelled him to the nomination, many members of the Republican National Committee are telling him to step aside.

“I just don’t believe it’s Gov. Romney’s turn,” said New York national committeeman Charles Joyce. “He’s missed the boat. We’d rather try something else.”

A week after Romney allies and donors sent the strongest signal yet that he is exploring a third bid for the White House, Romney aides announced Thursday that Colin Reed, the campaign manager for former Sen. Scott Brown’s New Hampshire Senate race, was joining Romney’s team in a volunteer capacity. But at the GOP’s winter meeting, many in the Republican Party elite expressed frustration with the way their former nominee has conducted himself. Last year, Romney repeatedly ruled out running again, but has sent signals that he is seriously considering doing so, scrambling the equation for donors, operatives and supporters who previously supported him but interpreted his denials as a license to explore supporting other candidates.

“Obviously, I think all of us feel like if he had been elected in 2012, the country would be in much better shape,” said John Ryder, the party’s general counsel and the committeeman from Tennessee. “He’s got to make a case as to why this time would be better than the last time, and how he can reclaim the loyalty of some of the folks who have started to drift off.”

“[Romney] doesn’t clear the field for anyone,” he added.

Henry Barbour, the committeeman from Mississippi and one of the authors of the party’s autopsy that was sharply critical of the previous Romney effort, said, “clearly getting past 2012 is going to be his challenge.”

But Barbour added his previous candidacy was hardly disqualifying. “We want to nominate the person who’s going to win the White House, period. If that’s someone who has never run before, if that’s somebody who has been our nominee before, if that’s somebody from Mars, if they will advance our policy agenda and take back the White House, that’s who we want to have win the nomination.”

Romney faces lingering frustration from some in his party that he spoiled an opportunity to defeat President Barack Obama.

“When he went into that race, people thought there was a very good chance for Republicans given the state of the economy and it looked like it should have been the Republicans to lose, and he did,” said Maine party chairman Rick Bennett. “He needs to find a way to answer that.”

“Governor Romney is a good man,” echoed South Carolina chairman Matt Moore. “But my question is, ‘how would this campaign be different than 2012″‘ Because if everything is the same, the result will be the same.”

Republican leaders expressed doubts that Romney could reverse the public perception that his wealth has placed him out of touch with ordinary Americans, while worrying that lingering controversies over his suggestion that illegal immigrants “self-deport” and that 47% of Americans “believe that they are victims” would set the party back in its efforts to rebrand.

Steve King, the committeeman from Wisconsin, said Romney’s candidacy could undermine Republican efforts to put a new face on the party. “We need freshness. If Mitt Romney wants to win he’s going to have to figure out how to be fresh,” he said.

Romney supporters on the committee have been making the case that his name recognition and experience make him the ideal candidate to take on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, adding that he has been vindicated on some foreign policy issues. But their behind the scenes efforts to convince RNC members to keep an open mind are falling on many deaf ears.

“I think the party wants to see a new candidate,” said Pennsylvania chairman Rob Gleason. “The people here want to see someone new,” he added, of the RNC membership. “I think the whole country is looking for someone new.”

One RNC member from the South said nominating Romney again would be tantamount to electing Clinton. “We may be saddled with that again,” the member said on the condition of anonymity, “but if we are, then we better be making provisions for Hillary.”


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 17, 2015, 05:27:30 AM
GOP guarded over possible Romney run
Support among voters, within party questioned
By Matt Viser

CORONADO, Calif. — Mitt Romney’s potential presidential candidacy was being met with curiosity and wariness — but far from a full-fledged embrace — by Republican power brokers and activists gathering Thursday in California for the party’s winter meetings.

The candidacy injects the possibility of a hotly competitive primary that could either energize the party, or distract voters from the ultimate goal of winning in November 2016. While Romney and former Florida governor Jeb Bush have attracted most of the early attention, nearly two dozen candidates are now considering a run.

“This really kind of throws a wrench in everything,” said Saul Anuzis, a longtime Michigan Republican leader who backed Romney in 2012. “Mitt Romney is truly respected and loved here. No doubt the committee has a great deal of positive feelings for him. But I also think everybody’s kind of surprised.’’

In conversations with more than a dozen Republicans gathered near San Diego for the Republican National Committee’s winter meetings, most said Romney’s potential candidacy demonstrates the party’s vibrancy, even while they cautioned that he would need to mount a much better effort than he did in 2012.

Some of Romney’s potential rivals and the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page dismissed Romney this week as “yesterday’s news’’ and “recycled,” saying the same thing that Romney himself has said for the last two years: He had his shot, and now it’s someone else’s turn.

“I’m not happy frankly with the way he’s chosen to reenter presidential politics and I think his friends need to be honest with him about that,” Vin Weber, a former cochairman of Romney’s campaign, told Bloomberg Politics. “He’s a great man, he’d be a great president but there’s not a lot of precedent for somebody losing the election and coming back four years later, becoming the nominee.”

As Romney continues to weigh whether to run again, one of his biggest tests is whether he can convince the broader party faithful that he deserves another shot at the White House.

While his most ardent supporters and most loyal donors are nudging him into the race, it is an open question how deep the support will be in his party.

There is almost universal agreement that no one is going to step aside for him and that Romney has a more difficult path to the nomination than he did in 2012, particularly with Bush strongly contemplating a campaign and already competing with Romney for donors.

There also appeared to be a consensus that Romney, who trumpeted his business management skills on the stump, oversaw a poorly run general election campaign that allowed President Obama to return to the White House.

RNC members said he will be under pressure to explain what lessons he learned and how he will improve if he runs again.

“Mitt comes in as a strong contender. Most of the members of the committee feel the campaign was not as well run as it should have been,” said Steve Duprey, a RNC committeeman from New Hampshire. “So if he runs again, they want to see how it’s going to be done differently.”

Even some of Romney’s supporters who again may work on his campaign say privately that they already see some warning signs in his early rollout over the past week.

His advisers have been outlining a pathway for him to again win the nomination, but Romney himself has not fully articulated his rationale for jumping into the race after two years of saying he wouldn’t.

They worry that, without a clearly articulated reason for running, he will come across as merely an ambitious man who wants to be president without knowing why.

Romney is planning to give a speech on Friday to the conference, his first public remarks since he disclosed that he was considering getting into the race.

Romney will deliver the address from the USS Midway aircraft carrier.

Romney is also starting to hire staff for a potential campaign, bringing on Colin Reed to help with press inquiries. Reed ran Scott Brown’s Senate campaign in New Hampshire.

The committee meeting is being held at a sprawling resort with expansive views of the ocean.

Several other potential presidential candidates are addressing the conference — including former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, outgoing Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin — but Bush and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey are not planning to attend.

In quiet meetings over coffee, in strolls along the beach, and in conference halls, Romney was the topic du jour.

“Governor Romney is one of the finest public servants this country has ever known,” said Robert Asher, an RNC committeeman from Pennsylvania. “There’s an old saying: In politics, 24 hours is a lifetime. People are allowed to change their mind.”

Reince Priebus, the RNC’s chairman, strolled around the resort Thursday with an entourage and a broad smile.

“It’s going to be a lot of fun,” he said in an interview. “It makes our party the exciting, interesting party that has intrigue, a little drama. But a lot of fun.

“The Democrats, what do they have?” he added. “It’s the most boring, day old bread, same old, same old.”

Still, there are some concerns that a Romney candidacy — or one by Bush — will have the feel of same old, same old, as well.

“Some of the newer candidates say, ‘We need to look forward not back,’ ” Duprey said. “We need to do to Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton what President Obama did to John McCain, play the generational change.”

Christopher Jacobson, a 62-year-old Republican from Orange County, Calif., said that if Romney runs again, he would support him.

“My car still has a Mitt sticker on it,” he said. “I didn’t take it off, in case he ran again.”


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: 240 is Back on January 17, 2015, 08:29:41 AM
Jeb refused to even endorse Romney in 2012.   The party knows how toxic this guy is.  He won nomination not because "repubs believed in him" but rather because his campaign was just better organized, more $ to keep it going, and because FOX went from hating him to loving him once the GOP primaries became a rotating clown car of "9-9-9 love affairs" and "bachmann went undercover at the IRS" and "Trump can't run suddenly because he prefers his TV show..."

Looking back, the 2012 race really was a fcking train wreck.  Half of the competitors were serious, half were just obnoxious idiots.  Romney won by just showing up, being a polite RINO, and having better organization.

Maybe in 2016 repubs will be smart enough to choose a candidate they LIKE, and one with views that MATCH THEIR OWN.  Otherwise, it'll be more of the same... Romney wins primaries due to $/organization, and loses election by a landslide because base won't bother voting for him.  (again).

Cruz or lose. 


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 17, 2015, 08:43:37 AM
Jeb refused to even endorse Romney in 2012.   The party knows how toxic this guy is.  He won nomination not because "repubs believed in him" but rather because his campaign was just better organized, more $ to keep it going, and because FOX went from hating him to loving him once the GOP primaries became a rotating clown car of "9-9-9 love affairs" and "bachmann went undercover at the IRS" and "Trump can't run suddenly because he prefers his TV show..."

Looking back, the 2012 race really was a fcking train wreck.  Half of the competitors were serious, half were just obnoxious idiots.  Romney won by just showing up, being a polite RINO, and having better organization.

Maybe in 2016 repubs will be smart enough to choose a candidate they LIKE, and one with views that MATCH THEIR OWN.  Otherwise, it'll be more of the same... Romney wins primaries due to $/organization, and loses election by a landslide because base won't bother voting for him.  (again).

Cruz or lose. 

would love for Romney, trump, Palin, and Rick Perry to run.....hey bring back ole Herman Cain as well.....the gaffes would be amazing....along with Biden, I'd be laughing my way through the primaries ;D


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 17, 2015, 08:49:10 AM
You know you are in trouble when your own base is not too keen on you.  The truth is they do not like him (they never did) and they will not turn out for him.  Like many successful people, Romney surrounds himself with "yes men" or people who think just like he does (which is just as bad) so he never gets a reality check.  The party seems to be turning on him rather quickly this time so maybe he will get the message.  My guess is his ego will get the better of him and he will enter the race.  If he does he will lose (Bush or Christie will beat him) and then he will finally go away for good greatly diminished and/or humiliated.  :(


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: 240 is Back on January 17, 2015, 08:58:57 AM
You know you are in trouble when your own base is not too keen on you.  The truth is they do not like him (they never did) and they will not turn out for him.  Like many successful people, Romney surrounds himself with "yes men" or people who think just like he does (which is just as bad) so he never gets a reality check.  The party seems to be turning on him rather quickly this time so maybe he will get the message.  My guess is his ego will get the better of him and he will enter the race.  If he does he will lose (Bush or Christie will beat him) and then he will finally go away for good greatly diminished and/or humiliated.  :(

he might just keep on winning nomination every time now lol.  he knows the formula for winning that, he has the $ and network in place.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 17, 2015, 09:19:45 AM
he might just keep on winning nomination every time now lol.  he knows the formula for winning that, he has the $ and network in place.

I think not. He had no real competition last time.  Bush and Christie will not roll over for him.

Does anyone really think Romney is interested in "poverty" as an issue?  The word "shift" and Romney in the same sentence is toxic for him.  See next post...


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 17, 2015, 09:23:23 AM
Romney shifts focus to poverty, opportunity
By Dan Balz and Philip Rucker

SAN DIEGO — Mitt Romney laid down a marker for a prospective presidential campaign in 2016, telling a Republican audience here Friday night that the party can win the White House with a conservative message that stresses security and safety for the American people, opportunity for all regardless of background and a plan to lift people out of poverty.

In his first public appearance since his surprise announcement that he will seriously consider a third campaign for the White House, Romney offered an economic message that represented a dramatic departure from the themes he sounded in losing the 2012 campaign to President Obama.

“Under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before,” Romney said. “Under this president, his policies have not worked. Their liberal policies are good every four years for a campaign, but they don’t get the job done.”

In his last campaign, Romney was hampered by an image, pushed by the Democrats, that he was a wealthy business executive who was out of touch with ordinary Americans. On Friday, he seemed determined to send a signal that he would try to deal with that problem from the start, should he run.

“It’s a tragedy -- a human tragedy – that the middle class in this country by and large doesn’t believe the future won’t be better than the past or their kids will have a brighter future of their own,” Romney said. He added, “People want to see rising wages and they deserve them.”

As with others in his party, he raised the issue of social mobility and the difficulty of those at the bottom from rising into the middle class. He cited former president Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty half a century ago. Johnson’s intentions were good, he said, but his policies had not worked. He argued that Republicans must persuade voters that conservative policies can “end the scourge of poverty” in America.

Beyond a focus aimed more at struggling middle-class families and those in poverty, Romney’s brief remarks Friday included comments about the work he had done as a lay pastor in the Mormon Church, a topic he rarely spoke about in his past campaigns. He invoked his wife Ann, who stood on the stage with him.

“She knows my heart in a way that few people do,” he said. “She’s seen me not just as a business guy and a political guy, but for over 10 years as you know I served as a pastor for a congregation and for groups of congregations... She’s seen me work with folks that are looking for better work and jobs and providing care for the sick and the elderly. She knows where my heart is.”

Romney joked also that the question he’s been asked most frequently in recent days is what Ann thinks about another campaign. “She believes that people get better with experience,” he joked. “Heaven knows I have experience running for president.”

The one element of Romney’s substantive remarks that did not mark a departure from his last campaign was criticism of Obama on foreign policy. Citing threats across the globe to U.S. security, Romney said, “The results of the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama foreign policy have been devastating, and you know that. Terrorism is not on the run.”

Romney’s appearance came aboard the USS Midway, an aircraft carrier museum docked in downtown San Diego, where the Republican National Committee held a reception to conclude its winter meeting here. His appearance drew a throng of reporters, with about two dozen cameras awaiting him and his wife when they arrived shortly before 7 p.m. PT.

Before taking the stage, Romney mingled with RNC members and reminisced about happy times on the campaign trail in 2012. When he saw some friends from Puerto Rico, he recalled the thunderous rally he attended in San Juan during the territory’s primary campaign.

“I don’t think anybody thought we’d be getting any delegates in Puerto Rico, but we got ‘em all, thanks to you,” Romney said.

Ann chimed in, “That was the most extraordinary night.”

Ann told a few reporters she was excited to be back on the campaign trail, but said this was a “time to think.” Asked whether her husband would run again, she said, “We don’t know yet.”

As the Romneys walked to their SUV to leave the aircraft carrier, a few fans asked Mitt to autograph a few baseballs.

"Look at this," he said with a smile and a chuckle. "Isn't that nice to get the chance to sign a baseball again?"

He signed a few, but then told them, "One more. I don't want to flood the market with these -- might drop the price below 50 cents again."

His last words as he got into the waiting SUV were: “I’m thinking – thinking about it. Giving it consideration.”

Romney’s remarks came at the end of a tumultuous week in the Republican presidential race — and a roller-coaster ride for the 2012 nominee. His declaration that he will seriously consider running again generated both surprise and excitement within GOP circles. The announcement foreshadowed a potentially dramatic clash between the former Massachusetts governor and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

Romney and his inner circle worked the phones in an effort to gauge interest and potential support for a third campaign, and to begin to reassemble the team that carried him to the nomination and into the general election.

But within days, another reality set in, which was resistance to his possible candidacy. A few one-time Romney supporters expressed public skepticism while others privately said they hoped he would not go forward.

There was criticism as well about the way the rollout was handled, which appeared to have been little planned and caught even some close to Romney by surprise. There was criticism as well about the rationale that some of those around Romney were using to justify a new campaign.

Many Republicans, however fond they are of Romney personally, are unforgiving about the campaign he ran, arguing that Obama was highly vulnerable and that a more skilled campaign and candidate would have won.

Romney quickly came under pressure to explain not only the substance behind his belief that he should be the 2016 nominee but also to show that a new campaign would be run differently, with new faces and an expanded operation.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: AbrahamG on January 17, 2015, 05:17:12 PM
I think not. He had no real competition last time.  Bush and Christie will not roll over for him.

Does anyone really think Romney is interested in "poverty" as an issue?  The word "shift" and Romney in the same sentence is toxic for him.  See next post...

I don't think Christie is capable of rolling over.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 17, 2015, 08:00:26 PM
I don't think Christie is capable of rolling over.

Good line :D...I don't think Romney could win the presidency because I think the public will always have a sneaking suspicion that Romney couldn't care less about the poor and that he won't be a president for ALL people, but only for the rich and well off


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 17, 2015, 08:17:19 PM
Good line :D...I don't think Romney could win the presidency because I think the public will always have a sneaking suspicion that Romney couldn't care less about the poor and that he won't be a president for ALL people, but only for the rich and well off

That would be obama Who under his failed admn only the top 1 percnt have benefitted


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: BayGBM on January 18, 2015, 06:24:56 AM
That would be obama Who under his failed admn only the top 1 percnt have benefitted

You are still here?  Stop making a fool of yourself.   ::)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 18, 2015, 07:12:56 AM
They are "baffled" because they know what we all know: it is such a phoney agenda no one can even pretend to believe him.  :(


Mitt Romney's new focus on poverty has many allies baffled
by Seema Mehta, Mark Z. Barabak

Mitt Romney's announcement that he is pondering a third run for the White House with a focus on fighting income inequality and poverty presents a host of challenges that would appear to be particularly difficult for Romney to surmount.

After running in 2008 on his record as Massachusetts governor, and in 2012 as an economic turnaround specialist, Romney will have to convince voters that his new emphasis is heartfelt. That would be a stretch for any candidate, not the least a man already skewered for flip-flopping and viewed by many voters as caring little about the poor.

These perceptions were hardened by Romney's own words as he sought the Republican nomination in 2012. At one point, he appeared to dismiss concerns about the "very poor" because, he said, they were aided by a safety net that could be repaired if necessary. He was caught on video telling donors that 47% of voters were unavailable to him because they were dependent on the government. After the election, he blamed President Obama giving "gifts" to black, Latino and young voters for his loss.

Polls taken during the campaign consistently showed that voters believed Romney's policies would benefit the wealthy, not those lower on the economic scale, and he was assaulted by Democratic ads accusing him of boosting businesses without concern for workers.

Even some Romney aides found it difficult to explain how his new focus on poverty — one of three principles Romney laid out to Republican leaders Friday night in San Diego, without adding specific policy details — would mesh with his previous messages.

"I don't understand the angle that he's taking," said one Romney loyalist, who, like many Republicans interviewed at a party gathering in Coronado last week, would not discuss Romney's strategy by name in order to preserve relations. "I don't understand why it's one of his top three talking points. I'm still trying to sort that out on my own."

Advisors to Romney said that if he runs, he plans to counter criticism of his approach by emphasizing his years as a leader in his Mormon church — work that Romney highlighted Friday. He cited his wife, Ann, as testifying to his intent.

"She knows my heart in a way that few people do," Romney said. "She's seen me not just as a business guy and a political guy, but for over 10 years, as you know, I served as a pastor for a congregation and for groups of congregations.... She's seen me work with folks that are looking for better work and jobs and providing care for the sick and the elderly."

Romney is known as a man of deep faith who has donated generously to his church, but public emphasis on his religious background is new. In 2008, concerned that evangelical voters would be hostile to his Mormonism, Romney rarely spoke of it.

Four years later, he was somewhat more open, allowing reporters to accompany him to services, but he did not emphasize his faith. One of the most compelling moments of the 2012 GOP convention featured testimonials from people whom Romney helped when he was a Mormon leader in Massachusetts. But their appearance was scheduled during a part of the gathering that was not televised.

One Romney advisor said his reluctance to tout his good works was driven by humility — but acceding to that instinct was a political mistake.

Besides having to sell voters on his new approach, Romney faces the additional job of convincing Republicans anxious for a fresh face that the best visage is that of a political veteran and two-time presidential loser.

In more than two dozen interviews with party leaders in Coronado and Republicans across the country, little organic groundswell for Romney appeared to be developing.

Many said they liked him and believed that the nation would be better off had he been elected president; many were grateful for the role he played as party booster as recently as the November election. Others declined to criticize Romney but said that if he runs, he would compete without any particular advantage against a score of other candidates already vying for support.

"I think Gov. Romney has built up lot of goodwill and earned lot of respect from Republicans across the country," said New Hampshire state GOP chairwoman Jennifer Horn. But "whether it's Gov. Romney or anyone else, it's a new cycle and they're going to have to come back and earn every vote, one by one."

Others, from conservative media pundits to longtime GOP strategists and leaders, were openly caustic.

"I certainly hope that Romney is not our nominee again," said Morton Blackwell, a Republican National Committee member from Virginia since 1988. He and his wife contributed $30,000 to efforts backing Romney's 2012 bid. "Look, having contributed more money to him than any other candidate in my lifetime, I think I have the right to say we've given him his shot."

Henry Barbour, an influential member of the committee from Mississippi, said Romney's 2012 campaign was both "a pro and a con" for 2016, sharpening the candidate's political skills but also displaying his weaknesses.

"Should he decide to run, he's going to be competitive and anyone who takes him lightly is a fool. But everybody starts on the go, and that's probably a hard thing if you've already been the nominee," Barbour said. "2012 in many ways for him is his hurdle."

For some, potential competition from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush complicates loyalty to Romney.

Gordon Sondland, a hotelier and real estate investor, was a member of Romney's 2012 national finance committee; he co-chaired multiple Southern California fundraising events for Bush last week. He said he and other former supporters took Romney at his word when he said he would not run again.

"Many of us that have other relationships with other candidates have begun coalescing behind and supporting them. Once we do that, we dance with the one that brung us," Sondland said.

Todd Cranney, who served as Romney's deputy political director in 2012 and hopes he runs in 2016, said Romney's decision would come down to the once and potentially future candidate's assessment of the circumstances.

"Mitt's not going to sit around and let someone else make decisions for him. He's going to decide for himself," he said.

Several Romney advisors noted that President Reagan won the White House on his third attempt, but Stuart Spencer, Reagan's chief campaign strategist, dismissed the comparison to the late president.

Romney "didn't win over hearts and minds" like Reagan did in his first campaigns, Spencer said. "He was just the opponent of a guy [Republicans] didn't like, named Obama."

"I don't think it is good for the party," he said of a potential third Romney run. "They need some new blood and new ideas. … He can't just switch and say, 'I'm the new Romney' and get away with it."


Ouch!  ;D


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 18, 2015, 08:15:13 AM
You are still here?  Stop making a fool of yourself.   ::)

in Buddhism we have a saying..."a fool who thinks he is wise is indeed a fool...but a fool who knows he is a fool is wise"......I think you've already guessed which of these applies to Soul Crusher 8)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 18, 2015, 08:44:24 AM
LOL @ Romney suddenly giving a shit about poverty.   that 47% comment is one he can't outrun.  The impoverished live in that 47%.  Never gonna win them over, sorry.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 18, 2015, 09:42:11 AM
 :'(


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 18, 2015, 01:07:14 PM
What I will NEVER forgive him for is running away from ACA, and criticizing it when it was HIS idea...shows a complete lack of sincerity on his part


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 19, 2015, 06:55:01 AM
Ted Cruz Blisters Mitt Romney
By By BILL BARROW

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. (AP) — Sen. Ted Cruz urged archconservatives on Sunday to help nominate a Republican from their own ranks in 2016 or risk losing a third consecutive national election. The unspoken message: someone like him.

Cruz called GOP nominees like Mitt Romney in 2012, John McCain in 2008 and Bob Dole in 1996 "good, honorable and decent men" but not conservative enough. All lost their bids for the presidency.

"If we nominate a candidate in that mold, the same people who stayed home in 2008 and 2012 will stay home in 2016 and the Democrats will win again," Cruz told hundreds of activists at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention.

South Carolina will cast the South's first primary ballots in 2016, shortly after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

Cruz's appearance came days after Romney confirmed at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting that he's considering a third White House bid. Romney weathered an uneasy relationship with the GOP's conservative wing in 2012 in part because no single candidate among several conservative alternatives could sustain a viable campaign.

But this time former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are in the picture, courting some of the same donors, consultants and media attention that went to Romney four years ago. Neither has committed to a campaign yet.

Tea party convention goers from several states this weekend have expressed optimism that the new dynamic could create an opening for Cruz or another establishment critic if he can consolidate rank-and-file conservatives who distrust the GOP's traditional power structure.

Cruz, beloved among tea party conservatives for his role in the partial government shutdown in October 2013, pointed to the GOP's success in the November midterms as proof that the nation is ready for an unapologetically conservative president. The "Washington graybeards" warned that the fight over the nation's borrowing limit was "too risky" and would cost Republicans in 2014, he said.

"We just saw an historic tidal wave of an election," Cruz said, adding that the "graybeards" still haven't admitted their political calculus was wrong.

The senator mocked President Barack Obama, comparing him to one-term President Jimmy Carter, who lost in 1980 to GOP icon Ronald Reagan. He repeated his calls to repeal the federal Affordable Care Act and the Common Core education standards adopted by many states.

As part of his call to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, he joked that the 100,000-plus IRS bureaucrats should be positioned at the U.S.-Mexico border. "I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek," he said.

To Republicans who say such moves are too sweeping, Cruz again invoked Reagan, framing him as a bedrock conservative who battled the establishment of his day. Cruz did not acknowledge that Reagan, while animating conservatives and attracting Democrats from the middle, also fashioned a series of compromises with Democrats and moderate Republicans on taxes, budgets, immigration and Social Security, among other issues.

Another conservative favorite, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, offered the convention a long indictment of what he called a welfare state that has locked millions of Americans in poverty.

"We have to get that message to Americans, that you are not a victim," Carson said.

The author and frequent television commentator said in an interview that he will decide by May 1 whether to run for president. He has never held public office.

Earlier Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he is considering a presidential bid. Graham, who was re-elected in November, said he is exploring his viability beyond his home state.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 19, 2015, 07:37:12 AM
Ted Cruz Blisters Mitt Romney

Mitt doesn't have to worry... a horde of getbig RINOs will arrive to defend Mitt's honor.

On a side note, Cruz looking lean and ge got a haircut... definitely looks like he's running.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 19, 2015, 08:06:37 AM
Mitt doesn't have to worry... a horde of getbig RINOs will arrive to defend Mitt's honor.

On a side note, Cruz looking lean and ge got a haircut... definitely looks like he's running.

If Cruz wins the presidency I'd rather live in Mexico..or maybe even move to Cuba ;D


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: whork on January 19, 2015, 12:43:13 PM
That would be obama Who under his failed admn only the top 1 percnt have benefitted


So he is a super capitalist now ???

You are very confused friend...


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: doison on January 19, 2015, 02:08:13 PM

So he is a super capitalist now ???

You are very confused friend...

Capitalism is defined by only the top 1% benefiting?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: loco on January 19, 2015, 03:07:56 PM
Didn't Romney lose the primaries twice before winning his third attempt?  Third time's a charm, and perseverance pays off.   ;)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 20, 2015, 03:54:22 PM
Meghan McCain: Dear Mitt, For your family’s sake, don’t run
Helping my dad run for president, twice, was the hardest thing I've ever done. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
by Meghan McCain

There’s really no way to explain what it’s like to watch your parent run for president. Those of us who’ve been through it are members of a very small, bizarre club.

Those of us who’ve been through it multiple times, who’ve watched our parents be rejected by the American public more than once? We make up a weird, lonely island of political misfit toys. I’m on it. So are the Romneys. And when I think about what they might go through again, if their father runs a third time, I shudder.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Mitt Romney. I like his wife and children. But take it from someone who knows — being the direct spawn of a presidential nominee is arduous and excruciatingly public. It’s an experience that will always hold a very special place in my heart, but I wouldn’t put myself or my family through it again for anything in the world. And it’s inconceivable to me that anyone else would either — especially after losing as your party’s most recent nominee.

* * *

The first time my father ran for president, I was 14 years old.

As a freshman in high school, I was excited but blissfully naive to the gravity of the situation. I got to leave school and join my dad while he campaigned in New Hampshire. I remember riding around in the “Straight Talk Express” with reporters — some who became household names (looking at you, Jake Tapper). I heard Chuck Berry’s “Go Johnny Go,” my father’s campaign song, blasted more times than I could count at each rally.

I also remember the harder, darker moments – Karl Rove’s notorious whisper campaigns about my adopted sister Bridget. Having my hypothetical abortion discussed on television and in newspapers because of my father’s response to a reporter’s question about what he would do if I became pregnant. I couldn’t focus in school and started performing badly in my classes because it seemed like every five seconds, someone would bring up my father. For the first time in my life, I was treated differently by both my classmates and teachers.

The experience strengthened my patriotism and love of America. But it was also terrifying. Ultimately, politicians and their families don’t belong to themselves. They belong to the media, and they’re often eviscerated and torn apart. Anything and everything you have done or will do will be held against you, scrutinized, and possibly held up for late-night fodder. Your clothes, your more colorful extended family members, the way you talk, if you’re too edgy, if you aren’t edgy enough, what music you listen to, where you live, who you hang out with.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, cannot be used for ammo by the other side.

The Romneys know this. They know the negatives, they know that anything can and will be used against them. This time, they’ll contend with an added insult – this is their father’s third attempt.

I thought I was more prepared the second time around. I was 22 and had just graduated from Columbia University. I knew what to expect from the press and the voters. But no one is ever truly 100 percent prepared. There will always be outside variables you don’t have control over, and no one makes it to the White House without a few good juicy media scandals. To this day, some people who meet my mother for the first time comment that she’s not “the ice princess” the media painted her out to be. Narratives like those never truly go away even after elections pass.

Honestly, though, the hardest part was the physical moment on stage on election night watching my father lose and concede the White House to President Obama. It felt like standing in front of a metaphorical firing range as a family but instead of guns there were cameras.

It all feels terribly personal. It is not just a rejection of your personal beliefs on the direction of your country that your parent personifies, it is a rejection of your entire family unit. You, your brothers, your sisters, the way you look, act and the entirety of how your family is made up is rejected in place of something else deemed all together better and more fitting to the American public. The days and weeks that follow felt like the aftermath of complete and total heartbreak.

* * *

When you believe in someone you love, and believe that they can change history and make your country a stronger, better place, it trumps everything else. But this is the trade-off. When your parent runs for president, no family member gets out of it without a few battle scars.

And the experience stays with you. Every job I have, every date I go on, every time someone recognizes my last name, people bring up my father’s campaign. It’s still, so many years later, a constant in my life.

The experience I had campaigning with my father and watching him almost become president was equally exhilarating and dejecting. I’m sure that’s true for the Romney family as well. So I’m perplexed as to why they are considering doing it all over again. Yes, I’m sure they believe in him in the same intense way I believe in my father but why put your family through it again so soon? Especially given that this time will most likely be harder than the last, not easier and a lot of people in the party are looking for new, fresh blood to inspire voters. The Romney family may be looking for a fresh start, but it’s not something they’ll find on the campaign trail again.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 20, 2015, 06:27:37 PM
Meghan McCain: Dear Mitt, For your family’s sake, don’t run
Helping my dad run for president, twice, was the hardest thing I've ever done. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
by Meghan McCain

There’s really no way to explain what it’s like to watch your parent run for president. Those of us who’ve been through it are members of a very small, bizarre club.

Those of us who’ve been through it multiple times, who’ve watched our parents be rejected by the American public more than once? We make up a weird, lonely island of political misfit toys. I’m on it. So are the Romneys. And when I think about what they might go through again, if their father runs a third time, I shudder.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Mitt Romney. I like his wife and children. But take it from someone who knows — being the direct spawn of a presidential nominee is arduous and excruciatingly public. It’s an experience that will always hold a very special place in my heart, but I wouldn’t put myself or my family through it again for anything in the world. And it’s inconceivable to me that anyone else would either — especially after losing as your party’s most recent nominee.

* * *

The first time my father ran for president, I was 14 years old.

As a freshman in high school, I was excited but blissfully naive to the gravity of the situation. I got to leave school and join my dad while he campaigned in New Hampshire. I remember riding around in the “Straight Talk Express” with reporters — some who became household names (looking at you, Jake Tapper). I heard Chuck Berry’s “Go Johnny Go,” my father’s campaign song, blasted more times than I could count at each rally.

I also remember the harder, darker moments – Karl Rove’s notorious whisper campaigns about my adopted sister Bridget. Having my hypothetical abortion discussed on television and in newspapers because of my father’s response to a reporter’s question about what he would do if I became pregnant. I couldn’t focus in school and started performing badly in my classes because it seemed like every five seconds, someone would bring up my father. For the first time in my life, I was treated differently by both my classmates and teachers.

The experience strengthened my patriotism and love of America. But it was also terrifying. Ultimately, politicians and their families don’t belong to themselves. They belong to the media, and they’re often eviscerated and torn apart. Anything and everything you have done or will do will be held against you, scrutinized, and possibly held up for late-night fodder. Your clothes, your more colorful extended family members, the way you talk, if you’re too edgy, if you aren’t edgy enough, what music you listen to, where you live, who you hang out with.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, cannot be used for ammo by the other side.

The Romneys know this. They know the negatives, they know that anything can and will be used against them. This time, they’ll contend with an added insult – this is their father’s third attempt.

I thought I was more prepared the second time around. I was 22 and had just graduated from Columbia University. I knew what to expect from the press and the voters. But no one is ever truly 100 percent prepared. There will always be outside variables you don’t have control over, and no one makes it to the White House without a few good juicy media scandals. To this day, some people who meet my mother for the first time comment that she’s not “the ice princess” the media painted her out to be. Narratives like those never truly go away even after elections pass.

Honestly, though, the hardest part was the physical moment on stage on election night watching my father lose and concede the White House to President Obama. It felt like standing in front of a metaphorical firing range as a family but instead of guns there were cameras.

It all feels terribly personal. It is not just a rejection of your personal beliefs on the direction of your country that your parent personifies, it is a rejection of your entire family unit. You, your brothers, your sisters, the way you look, act and the entirety of how your family is made up is rejected in place of something else deemed all together better and more fitting to the American public. The days and weeks that follow felt like the aftermath of complete and total heartbreak.

* * *

When you believe in someone you love, and believe that they can change history and make your country a stronger, better place, it trumps everything else. But this is the trade-off. When your parent runs for president, no family member gets out of it without a few battle scars.

And the experience stays with you. Every job I have, every date I go on, every time someone recognizes my last name, people bring up my father’s campaign. It’s still, so many years later, a constant in my life.

The experience I had campaigning with my father and watching him almost become president was equally exhilarating and dejecting. I’m sure that’s true for the Romney family as well. So I’m perplexed as to why they are considering doing it all over again. Yes, I’m sure they believe in him in the same intense way I believe in my father but why put your family through it again so soon? Especially given that this time will most likely be harder than the last, not easier and a lot of people in the party are looking for new, fresh blood to inspire voters. The Romney family may be looking for a fresh start, but it’s not something they’ll find on the campaign trail again.

Great article


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: loco on January 21, 2015, 02:44:41 AM

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=447139.0;attach=595364;image)


Nice!


Great article


What article?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Victor VonDoom on January 21, 2015, 08:15:52 AM
Nice!

What article?

Hard to believe she came from McCain. Looking mighty fine.  Doom approves.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
Post by: andreisdaman on January 21, 2015, 10:25:47 AM
That would be obama Who under his failed admn only the top 1 percnt have benefitted

That makes him a republican then


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 21, 2015, 04:53:53 PM
Romney’s speaking fee at public university is $50,000, far less than Clinton’s
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Philip Rucker

Mitt Romney will charge Mississippi State University $50,000 to deliver a lecture on campus next week, most of which will go to charity — a dramatically lower fee than the $250,000 to $300,000 Hillary Rodham Clinton requires for her university lectures.

Romney — the 2012 Republican presidential nominee who is weighing a third run for the White House — will speak as part of the university’s Global Lecture Series, a speaking series administered by the student government, a university official said.

Romney has directed that most of his $50,000 fee go to Charity Vision, a nonprofit organization that partners with doctors to provide free eye surgeries that is led by one of Romney’s sons, according to a contract obtained Monday by The Washington Post under a public records request to the university. The remaining portion of the amount will be set aside to cover Romney’s travel, according to the contract.

Romney’s fee stands in stark contrast to Clinton’s, the presumptive 2016 Democratic front-runner who has spoken to dozens of industry associations, Wall Street banks, universities and other groups.

The former secretary of state’s speaking fees at universities have typically also gone to a family-connected charity — in her case, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. However, her high fees have drawn campus protests and sharp criticisms from Republicans, who have said they demonstrate a likely presidential candidate who has grown out of touch.

At the University of California Los Angeles, Clinton’s $300,000 fee prompted a university official to inquire with her speaking agency whether the university could receive a discount. The official was told that the $300,000 was her special university rate.

She is scheduled to deliver two paid speeches Wednesday in Canada at events sponsored by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Romney’s speaking schedule has received less attention, particularly since his return to the private sector following his loss in 2012. According to a financial disclosure released during that campaign, he collected more than $360,000 in speaking fees in 2011 from appearances at Barclay’s Bank, Goldentree Asset Management and other companies.

Sid Salter, a spokesman for Mississippi State University, said the former Massachusetts governor was chosen by the campus’s student leadership for the annual lecture. Past speakers have included former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and broadcaster Dan Rather. He said Romney’s fee is on the low end for the series, which is funded using a portion of sales taxes collected from on-campus sales.

“Mitt Romney is not going to personally receive any compensation for the speech,” Romney spokesman Colin Reed said. “It’s all going to Charity Vision and travel costs.”

The Chartwell Worldwide Speakers Bureau, which represents Romney, advertises on its Web site that he offers “a clear vision of the key challenges facing America and the world” and “will bring a huge draw to any event or conference.”

According to the contract, Romney will spend about six hours on campus, including a reception for students, a VIP meeting and an hour-long lecture, including a question-and-answer session. He is then tentatively scheduled to attend a dinner with alumni.

Clinton tends to spend less time on the ground with each appearance, typically attending a short reception prior to her speech. A university official at UCLA asked that groups be prepared to snap photos with her before she arrived, noting that Clinton “doesn’t like to stand around waiting for people.”

Romney’s contracts set some limitations similar to Clinton’s, such as banning the university from releasing recordings of his speech without his permission and requiring his sign-off for promotional materials. It outlines no requirements for luxury amenities, such as food or equipment in his green room, though it is possible those kinds of requests have been made by his representatives in private communications with the university.

Romney has long been a supporter of Charity Vision, a Provo, Utah-based organization that provides medical care to people in the developing world. The group’s president is one of Romney’s sons, Josh.

In 2013, Mitt and Ann Romney, along with their family and friends, traveled to rural Peru on a mission for Charity Vision. There, they helped conduct eye exams for local villagers, including many children. In a video promoting the trip, Mitt Romney described eye screenings at a local school.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 22, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Mitt Romney Has a Koch Problem
Mitt's not on the guest list for the billionaire brothers' donor confab this weekend. Here's why.
—By Andy Kroll

This weekend, a select group of Republican presidential hopefuls will arrive in southern California to attend one of Charles and David Koch's biannual donor retreats, a coveted invite for GOP politicians seeking the backing of the billionaire brothers and their elite club of conservative and libertarian mega-donors. Featured guests at the conclave will include Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was also invited to the confab but is unlikely to attend.

Notably absent from the guest list for the Koch winter seminar: Mitt Romney.

Romney recently barged his way back into the political fray, suggesting he might launch a third presidential bid. He told a group of donors earlier this month, "Everybody in here can go tell your friends that I'm considering a run." In a presentation over the weekend at a resort near Palm Springs, California—as it happens, the same venue that has played host to previous Koch seminars—Romney delivered what sounded an awful lot like a presidential stump speech, talking about poverty ("I believe that the principles of conservatism are the best to help people get out of poverty"), education ("We have great teachers. I'd pay them more"), and even climate change.

But if Romney decides to run, he'll most certainly find himself with what could be called a "Koch problem." Comprised of some 300 well-heeled business leaders and often their spouses, the Koch donor network has become one of the most influential forces in politics today, marshaling hundreds of millions of dollars to advance free-market causes, elect Republicans, and defeat Democrats, chief among them President Obama. The network is not monolithic, but by and large, the organizations it bankrolled stayed out of the 2012 GOP presidential primary, directing resources instead at Obama, congressional races, and policy debates. But as the New York Times recently reported, the Koch network's donors are mulling whether to get more involved in GOP nomination battle, with the possibility that one of the Koch brothers or their lieutenants throws his or her weight behind a handpicked candidate.

Romney, despite earning David Koch's endorsement in 2008, has never been beloved by the Kochs and their allies. In fact, donors who travel in the Kochs' circles singled out Romney for blame after his 2012 defeat at the hands of an unpopular sitting president. Judging by the reception to Romney's flirtation with a 2016 race, Kochworld is unlikely to embrace Romney should he run again—and may actively work to oppose him.

A Romney aide, Colin Reed, did not respond to a request for comment. Koch Industries spokesman Rob Tappan and James Davis, the spokesman for Freedom Partners, which organizes the donor summits, also did not respond to requests for comment.

In the 2012 presidential race, the Kochs and their allies threw their weight behind Romney once he'd clinched the nomination, but he didn’t always appear to be their first choice. In September 2011, months after Romney had announced his candidacy, David Koch, who is an executive vice president and board member at Koch Industries, joined a group of other business titans to urge New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to get into the race. At the time, the businessmen were dubbed the Draft Christie committee.

Earlier that summer, Christie had scored an invitation to the Kochs' summer donor retreat at the Ritz-Carlton in Vail, Colorado. The audio of Christie's closely guarded speech, first reported by Mother Jones, included David Koch introducing Christie before the governor's remarks to donors as "my kind of guy."

During the 2012 primaries, Romney aggressively sought the support of David Koch. An internal campaign memo obtained by the Washington Times revealed that Romney courted Koch in October 2011 after Christie chose not to run. The October 4, 2011, memo characterized David Koch as the "financial engine of the Tea Party" even though Koch "denies being directly involved." But David Koch withheld his endorsement.

After Romney emerged as the presumptive Republican nominee, David Koch jumped on the bandwagon. In July 2012, Koch and his wife, Julia, hosted a $50,000-a-head and $75,000-a-couple fundraiser for Romney's campaign at their oceanfront home in the Hamptons. And the flagship organization in the Kochs' political and advocacy network, Americans for Prosperity, spent $120 million in opposition to Obama and the Democrats throughout the 2012 election cycle.

After Romney's defeat, donors far and wide—including several who attend the Kochs' events—were quick to blame the candidate for their party's defeat. "You've got a bad candidate, you're gonna lose," Stan Hubbard, a Minnesota telecommunications mogul who typically attends one Koch seminar a year, told me a few months after the 2012 election. "You can spend all the money on a candidate you want, but if they’re talking about self-deportation, or betting $10,000, or 47 percent, you're gonna lose." Hubbard went on, "Romney may be a nice man, but he didn't understand where the average person's coming from. He didn't understand how people were suffering. He was a losing candidate."

Hubbard, who says he gives to Americans for Prosperity, remains no less critical of Romney. In an interview last week, he called Romney a "terrible" candidate. "We have to put forward candidates who can win," Hubbard said, listing Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie. (Hubbard says he has not picked a 2016 favorite.)

Randy Kendrick, the wife of Arizona Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick and a fixture in the Koch donor network, recently pledged to aggressively oppose a third Romney presidential bid. "My family spent enormous time and money to elect Mitt Romney despite our concerns," Kendrick said in an email to donors obtained by the Daily Caller. "However, lesson learned, I will work early and tirelessly now to make sure he is not our nominee again."

Having run for president twice before, Romney knows all too well the staggering sums of cash required to mount a credible bid for his party's nomination, let alone the presidency. (Jeb Bush's team has reportedly set a goal of raising a whopping $100 million—in just the first three months of 2015.) But unless something drastic changes between Romney, the Kochs, and their club of free-market-minded donors, Romney will find himself shut out of the biggest wellspring of political cash in modern American politics.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 23, 2015, 06:19:43 AM
Themes hint at reengineered Mitt Romney
By Matt Viser

WASHINGTON — The politician on the stage talked about the “human tragedy” of middle-class people struggling to make ends meet. He lamented income inequality, saying “People want to see rising wages — and they deserve them. They’re working hard.”

Then, winding up a 15-minute speech to loud applause, he vowed, “We’re going to . . . finally end the scourge of poverty in this great land!”

The lines could have easily been delivered by President Obama or Senator Elizabeth Warren.

But they came from the mouth of Republican Mitt Romney, who is undergoing another reinvention as he considers whether to mount a third presidential campaign.

As he tests the waters, Romney has at times sounded like a Democrat, suggesting that fighting poverty would be a core tenet of his candidacy. He has advocated higher teacher pay, said more needs to be done to fight global climate change, and reinforced his previous call for a higher minimum wage.

“On both sides of the aisle, we just haven’t been able to take on and try and make progress on the major issues of our day,” he said Wednesday night during an address at an investment management conference in Salt Lake City.

To his supporters, it is a heartfelt way for Romney to address publicly some of the issues he has been passionate about privately, dating back to his years working as a Mormon pastor.

But to his critics, this is just the latest Etch A Sketch moment for a candidate who, perpetually in search of a pathway to the presidency, picks his positions strategically, rather than out of any firm conviction.

He ran as a moderate in Massachusetts — first unsuccessfully for the US Senate in 1994 and then successfully for governor in 2002 — before changing his positions on topics such as abortion in an apparent effort to appeal to national Republicans. By 2012, the man who a decade earlier said he was “someone who is moderate” whose “views are progressive,” was declaring himself “severely conservative.”

He’s now back on a softer note.

“A successful presidential campaign message relies on the credibility of the messenger, and on this topic Romney has zero credibility,” said Rick Tyler, a Republican consultant who formerly advised Newt Gingrich and led a firm that has worked with other conservative candidates, including Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, but is so far unaligned.

“Romney is now immune from the flip-flop charge because he’s changes so much you can’t tell which side of the flip or the flop he’s on,” said Tyler. “The problem with Romney is he doesn’t hold any core convictions, or at least any anyone could articulate.”

Romney’s spokesman declined to comment, and other aides declined to comment on the record.

In the two weeks since Romney told a group of donors that he was considering another run, Republicans have begun to question his focus on poverty, recalling that he was tagged as a wealthy businessman during his 2012 campaign after he was caught on a video disparaging 47 percent of Americans who depend on government assistance.

Democrats are eager to use some of the same lines of attack, with plenty of old footage to recycle.

“He’s hoping everyone completely forgets about his failed campaign and allows his campaign to start from scratch. And that’s just not going to happen,” said Rodell Mollineau, a Democratic consultant and former president of American Bridge, a super PAC that pilloried Romney during the 2012 campaign.

Republicans have increasingly been discussing ways that their party can credibly talk about empowering the middle class. But as Romney formulates a rationale for running, he has been ridiculed by conservative pundits as the wrong messenger.

“Until Romney’s expression of interest in a third run for the presidency, when has he ever shown an interest in the poor?” Jennifer Rubin, a conservative commentator at the Washington Post who was once one of Romney’s chief advocates, wrote this week. “When has he departed from the view that cutting marginal tax rates would create the tide that raises all boats?”

Republicans, she said, should nominate someone new who can forcefully articulate ways to empower middle-class families.

“Whomever it comes from it must be authentic and come from someone with a record of doing what the candidate says he believes in,” she wrote. “It can’t come from a candidate who discovered the poor a few weeks ago.”

In recent days, Romney has not provided specific proposals for fighting poverty, raising wages, or combating climate change, but the mere fact that he is talking about the subjects is getting attention.

“I’m one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that,” Romney said Wednesday night during an investment management conference in Utah.

It’s a similar stance that he held early on during the 2012 campaign, but one that bucks many in his party and never became a core component of his candidacy.

Romney first revealed Jan. 9 that he was considering a run in a private meeting with wealthy donors in midtown Manhattan. He followed that with his first public comments relating to a potential run last Friday, at a Republican National Committee meeting in San Diego.

“Under President Obama the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse, and there are more people in poverty in America than ever before,” Romney told the crowd of party insiders and campaign contributors in San Diego.

Romney has previously written about poverty, in his 2010 book “No Apology,” released in the lead-up to his 2012 campaign.

“Far too many American families live below the poverty line, and many more live with worry and insecurity,” he wrote. “Racial minorities especially have not shared equally in the nation’s economic success, and there is a growing gap between the highest-earning households and the lowest.”

But during his 2012 campaign, he did not emphasize poverty. When he did mention it, it was to extol the virtues of the free-enterprise system — not government intervention — in pulling people up the economic ladder.

“Free enterprise has done more to lift people out of poverty, to help build a strong middle class, to help educate our kids, and to make our lives better than all the programs of government combined,” he said in a stump speech in April 2012.

Government intervention seems more on his mind now. During an event in Indian Wells, Calif., on Monday night, Romney turned his attention to boosting teacher pay.

“We have great teachers. I’d pay them more,” Romney said, according to the Desert Sun newspaper.

After his 2012 loss, Romney came out in favor of raising the minimum wage, breaking from many in his party and distinguishing himself from some leading contenders in the 2016 presidential field.

But even then, he cast it not in moral terms but as a tactical stance, required to attract support among Hispanic voters, a group he lost overwhelmingly in 2012.

“The key for our party is to be able to convince the people who are in the working population, particularly the Hispanic community, that our party will help them get better jobs and better wages,” he said last May on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 23, 2015, 06:32:51 AM
Aside from being severely conservative, I think we all remember Mitt as the candidate that has always cared most about stopping poverty.  At some point, I hope he addresses that 47% of people.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 23, 2015, 07:44:18 AM
Aside from being severely conservative, I think we all remember Mitt as the candidate that has always cared most about stopping poverty.  At some point, I hope he addresses that 47% of people.

I really believe that Mitt's a good man but he's simply the wrong guy to win the GOP nomination due to no one really believing he cares genuinely about the poor...those bank accounts in the Cayman Islands don't help because it looks like Mit took money and hid it overseas to avoid taxes...which he did.....its legal but the American people are gonna always have a problem with that

By the way..loved the picture of him holding the black adopted grandson ;D ;D...looing at that pictue HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY BELIEVE he doesn't care about minorities and the poor???


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 23, 2015, 10:27:26 AM
mitt would do a *standard* job as president.  more of the same.  a safe choice, if you're happy with the spend-happy ways of Boehnner and obama.  and many people are.  NOBODY should believe that prez romney will change much of anything, just like prez hilary won't change much.

Now, warren or Cruz?  They will shake things a bit, love it or hate it.  Mitt's going Mr. Superwalmart suddenly, but everyone sees thru it.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: whork on January 23, 2015, 10:44:03 AM
mitt would do a *standard* job as president.  more of the same.  a safe choice, if you're happy with the spend-happy ways of Boehnner and obama.  and many people are.  NOBODY should believe that prez romney will change much of anything, just like prez hilary won't change much.

Now, warren or Cruz?  They will shake things a bit, love it or hate it.  Mitt's going Mr. Superwalmart suddenly, but everyone sees thru it.

Why is Beach Bum always calling you a troll?

You are pretty spot on with a lot of your posts.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 23, 2015, 11:13:14 AM
Why is Beach Bum always calling you a troll?

You are pretty spot on with a lot of your posts.

when I'm wrong on a point, he debates that point.
when I'm right on a point, he insults me.

lately, i've been fairly spot on with things.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: loco on January 23, 2015, 11:38:24 AM
BayGBM, why don't you tell us how you really feel about Romney?  And while you're at it, post some more pics of curvy, hot blondes.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 23, 2015, 03:18:24 PM
BayGBM, why don't you tell us how you really feel about Romney?  And while you're at it, post some more pics of curvy, hot blondes.

At this point I think he is cartoonish.  His own party does not like him... does not want him... he has been rejected by voters... and he still wants to be president so badly that he won't go away.  He is even now claiming to care about the poor... as I said: cartoonish.  ;D


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: JOHN MATRIX on January 23, 2015, 03:25:19 PM
Romney needs to just step away and enjoy his time and wealth.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Dos Equis on January 23, 2015, 03:49:11 PM
At this point I think he is cartoonish.  His own party does not like him... does not want him... he has been rejected by voters... and he still wants to be president so badly that he won't go away.  He is even now claiming to care about the poor... as I said: cartoonish.  ;D

Loco asked about Mitt Romney, not Joe Biden. 


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 23, 2015, 04:13:20 PM
Romney needs to just step away and enjoy his time and wealth.

When Anne is good and ready.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: whork on January 23, 2015, 11:50:30 PM
when I'm wrong on a point, he debates that point.
when I'm right on a point, he insults me.

lately, i've been fairly spot on with things.

Dont worry. Try reading his response to my question as to why he didnt serve in the Moore/Sniper thread.

I bent over backwards to get a reply. He is a pathetic coward and a troll. This board deserves a better Mod.

Ron or whatever the uber-mod's name is must be retarded for hiring Beach Bum. GB deserves a lot better.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: James28 on January 24, 2015, 02:46:10 AM
I've always maintained that the guy who REALLY wants to be president, is exactly the guy you don't need as president. Personal glory whores, psychopaths. Romney doesn't give a fuck about the poor or anyone for that matter. And when he pretends to, it's calculated. Hilary is the same. Just more psychotic.

But hey, don't let anyone stopped the shrieking morons that truly believe that this time it'll be different.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 24, 2015, 01:51:56 PM
I've always maintained that the guy who REALLY wants to be president, is exactly the guy you don't need as president. Personal glory whores, psychopaths. Romney doesn't give a fuck about the poor or anyone for that matter. And when he pretends to, it's calculated. Hilary is the same. Just more psychotic.

But hey, don't let anyone stopped the shrieking morons that truly believe that this time it'll be different.

you know...I agree with this


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: loco on January 26, 2015, 09:37:01 AM
Loco asked about Mitt Romney, not Joe Biden. 

LOL   ;D


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 27, 2015, 05:08:56 AM
Iowa Republicans not seeing much of Mitt Romney lately
By Cameron Joseph

DES MOINES, Iowa — If Mitt Romney is serious about another presidential bid, you wouldn’t know it from his presence in Iowa.

Romney has gathered his national campaign team for meetings, quietly reached out to top donors and started calling lawmakers. But there’s little action from him in the Hawkeye State, which kicks off the presidential primary schedule.

The 2012 Republican nominee skipped Iowa’s first big candidate event over the weekend and has made little to no outreach in a state whose caucuses he lost twice, say local Republicans. Romney’s inaction contrasts sharply with his potential foes, many of who are ramping up in the state.

“Gov. Romney hasn’t called me yet. And I’m waiting — literally every night I sit besides the phone,” Iowa Republican Party Chairman Jeff Kaufmann said with a laugh to reporters in Des Moines Friday night. He then predicted all the major candidates would compete in Iowa. “The only disappointment that I’d have is if any candidate believes they can get the Republican nomination and not spend time in this state.”

Some previous Romney backers agree.

“I’ve had one contact from Boston — not from him, I would add. I don’t pick up that a lot of calls have been made to date,” said David Oman, one of Romney’s 2012 campaign co-chairmen and a former state party chairman.

Oman said he was “very comfortable” waiting a bit for Romney to make a decision, but that he’d had conversations with other campaigns as well — and is looking to back a candidate who plans to play hard in the caucuses.

“I’d like to know what Gov. Romney is thinking about and specifically thoughts and plans for what will unfold in Iowa,” he said.

And while some previous supporters have fielded calls from Romney’s staff, he hasn’t personally reached out to many.

The former Massachusetts governor worked Iowa hard in 2008, spending months and millions of dollars there only to finish second to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R).

In 2012, after more than a year of playing wait and see, Romney came on hard in the last month of the caucuses, only to fall a handful of votes short of a win against former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) that could have helped him quickly sew up the nomination. Instead, he slogged through a long primary season that hurt his chances against President Obama.

Romney advisers say it’s “to be determined” whether he plays in Iowa. But they point out that he’s well-known in the state and argue he has plenty of time to decide what to do.

“He’s talked with several people in Iowa,” said one source close to Romney. “It’s now two-and-a-half weeks since he decided to seriously look at this ... and unlike the others, he doesn’t have to learn the state. He knows it and knows it well.”

Even if Romney runs, he might be best served to skip the state. Iowa’s caucusgoers tend to be older and more conservative, especially on social issues, than GOP primary voters elsewhere.

The former nominee was used as a punching bag over the weekend by speakers at a gathering of more than 1,200 activists in Des Moines organized by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Citizens United.

“It can’t be Mitt. … He choked. Something happened,” business mogul and reality TV star Donald Trump declared to snickers from the audience during his speech. “Sort of like a deal-maker who can’t close the deal.”

The event’s conservative audience only represents a slice of caucus voters, however. Romney has even led in some recent Iowa GOP polls, though that’s likely due to his high name identification in a very crowded field. And he’s campaigned in the state as recently as last year, for now-Sen. Joni Ernst (R).

Other establishment-leaning Republicans are already working the state hard.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) spoke on Saturday to generally positive reviews and has already locked down a top Iowa consultant, Jeff Boeyink. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) has been calling party leaders and politicians throughout Iowa, and held fundraisers for some local candidates, including Gov. Terry Branstad (R) last year.

While others set up campaign structures, it’s unclear whether Romney will reassemble his previous team.

His top Iowa adviser from 2008 and 2012, David Kochel, declined to comment when asked whether he was planning to help Romney or what contact he’d had with Romney’s national team. Kochel instead pointed The Hill to a recent statement saying he has “great affection and respect” for Romney and looks forward “to hearing more from him as he considers his future.”

Freshman Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) said Romney is one of the few candidates he hasn’t heard from.

“I can’t believe Mitt Romney’s going to run. I can’t believe it. Jeb Bush I believe, I talked to him for a half-hour on the phone,” he said Saturday. “A fresh face is what people are looking for. ... That’s why with Mitt Romney — I’m kind of taken aback by it; I can’t believe it’s for real.”


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 27, 2015, 04:09:16 PM
As in 2012, Romney Can Do No Right in Murdoch’s Eyes
By AMY CHOZICK and MICHAEL BARBARO

The usually grim-faced media mogul practically swooned in his seat. Moments after Jeb Bush delivered what many in the audience described as an unremarkable talk at a conference in Washington, Rupert Murdoch turned to his seatmate, Valerie Jarrett, the White House adviser, to gush over its content and tone.

Mr. Murdoch was pleased that Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida, had listed the economic benefits of overhauling the nation’s immigration system, confiding in Ms. Jarrett that Mr. Bush, a likely Republican presidential candidate, had said all the right things on the fraught issue, according to three people with firsthand knowledge of the conversation.

It was the kind of warm embrace, from the powerful and widely courted owner of The Wall Street Journal and Fox News Channel, that Mr. Murdoch denied Mitt Romney during his 2012 bid for the White House — a snub that Mr. Murdoch is already signaling he will repeat if Mr. Romney runs in 2016.

In the delicate and unseen campaign underway for Mr. Murdoch’s affections in the next presidential campaign, this much is clear: Mr. Romney is out of the running, a reality that has pained and angered his allies.

Presidential politics is rife with grudges and grievances, but it is hard to recall a display of animus as unsubtle as that which Mr. Murdoch and corners of his media empire have unleashed on Mr. Romney in the past few weeks as he has tried to build support for a third presidential run.

An editorial in Mr. Murdoch’s most prominent American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, has called Mr. Romney’s last run a “calamity.” Mr. Murdoch has dismissed Mr. Romney as a “terrible candidate.” And, in a final indignity, Mr. Murdoch has heaped praise on Mr. Romney’s potential rivals, no matter how long a shot they have at the Republican nomination. (“Watch Ben Carson,” Mr. Murdoch wrote on Twitter a few days ago, labeling Mr. Carson, a conservative physician and political neophyte, a “principled brave achiever.”)

The disfavor that Mr. Murdoch has showered upon Mr. Romney could have a genuine impact on the early stages of the Republican primary, as Mr. Romney, the party’s nominee in 2012, weighs whether or not to push ahead with a campaign, a decision he is expected to make in the next few weeks.

For Mr. Romney and those around him, the memory of Mr. Murdoch’s aversion in 2012, and its expression in forums like The Journal, still stings.

“It was a concern during the campaign, one that had to be actively managed,” said Kevin Madden, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney’s campaign in 2012.

He acknowledged that The Journal’s editorial page, a battering ram against Mr. Romney then and now, “does have an impact in shaping opinions of many within the party.”

A few of Mr. Romney’s closest friends have lost their patience with Mr. Murdoch. Ron Kaufman, a longtime confidant and adviser, said that Mr. Murdoch “has proven tone deaf” when it comes to politics and bemoaned what he said were the media executive’s ill-informed outbursts.

“It’s like trying to make sense of what Trump does sometimes,” Mr. Kaufman said.

“Vacuous” is how Mr. Murdoch has privately described Mr. Romney, said a person close to the executive who, wanting to preserve his relationship with him, would not discuss private conversations for attribution. That remark is a blunter version of those Mr. Murdoch has made in public in the past month or so.

After reading this article online Tuesday, Mr. Murdoch took to Twitter to advise Mr. Romney to stand down in 2016. “Know and like Mitt Romney as a very nice person,” Mr. Murdoch wrote, “but he had his chance and seemed to lack big vision for this country.”

Mr. Murdoch took special umbrage at Mr. Romney’s handling of immigration in 2012, when the candidate, as an alternative to forced deportation, called for “self-deportation,” in which people in the United States illegally would voluntarily go back to their home countries and apply to emigrate legally.

During a closed-door meeting at the Union League Club in Manhattan that year, Mr. Murdoch called the position foolhardy and asked Mr. Romney to back away from it. Mr. Romney, according to two attendees, replied that he had already softened his language on immigration and that if he abandoned his position he would look like a flip-flopper, a label he loathed. Mr. Murdoch was baffled and dismayed, the attendees said.

A spokesman for Mr. Romney declined to comment.

Asked two weeks ago what he thought of Mr. Romney’s consideration of another candidacy, Mr. Murdoch responded: “He had his chance. He mishandled it, you know?”

The rejection has a personal dimension for Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor whose relationship with The Journal dates back decades. The newspaper assiduously chronicled the career of his father, George Romney, a prominent automobile executive. And Mr. Romney is a devoted Journal reader who has repeatedly sought to reach its readers through his own opinion articles.

Those close to Mr. Romney said he had all but given up on trying to win over Mr. Murdoch. Several of them spoke of the situation as frustrating and inexplicable for him. Mr. Romney, they point out, has nothing negative to say about Mr. Murdoch. “He doesn’t hold it against him,” Mr. Kaufman said.

But these people insist that Mr. Murdoch’s harsh assessment is neither an obstacle nor a deterrent as Mr. Romney decides whether to pursue another White House campaign.

Meanwhile, about a half-dozen mainstream Republican candidates are angling for Mr. Murdoch’s blessing, not to mention Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has developed her own growing rapport with him.

Mr. Murdoch seems eager to play a role in the political process. “I am deeply interested in the future of our country, and I enjoy meeting with potential candidates of both parties,” Mr. Murdoch said by email, responding to an inquiry about his political activity. “I am keen to hear their views, whether it’s on tax reform, immigration or defense and foreign policy.”

Mr. Murdoch remains fond of Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who played his own role in the billionaire’s plans to foil Mr. Romney. In 2011, Mr. Murdoch joined a group of wealthy and influential Republican leaders who encouraged Mr. Christie to enter the presidential race, convinced he was a more exciting alternative to Mr. Romney, and with broader appeal.

Last May, Mr. Murdoch expressed doubts about the New Jersey governor, saying he expected more damaging stories to emerge about Mr. Christie’s aides in the aftermath of the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge. Still, the two men remain in contact, speaking by phone about once every month or two, according to advisers close to both.

Mr. Murdoch remains intrigued by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, privately extolling his appeal to younger voters and his plans for a flat tax. The two meet often in New York and Washington. But Mr. Murdoch worries that Mr. Paul may face an uphill battle in a general election, said a person who has spoken with Mr. Murdoch.

Then there is Mr. Bush, who calls The Journal his “paper of record.” The fact that he sat between Mr. Murdoch and Ms. Jarrett at the conference hosted by The Journal in Washington was no accident: Mr. Murdoch requested it. Their ties have deepened over the years. Mr. Bush has collaborated frequently on education issues with Mr. Murdoch’s close friend and adviser Joel I. Klein, the former New York City schools chancellor who now leads Mr. Murdoch’s education business, Amplify.

Mr. Murdoch, 83, is executive chairman of News Corporation, which owns The Journal, The New York Post and HarperCollins, among other assets, and is chief executive of 21st Century Fox, the parent company of film and television assets including Fox News and the Fox broadcasting network.

With his characteristic candor and deep, Australian-accented mumble, Mr. Murdoch is making known his high regard for Mr. Bush these days.

“I like Jeb Bush very much,” Mr. Murdoch said in New York two weeks ago. “He’s moving very cleverly, very well,” he added.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 27, 2015, 04:50:13 PM
Murdoch has been around forever.  He's very wise.  He knows people don't like mitt, and he watched mitt lose to a VERY beatable, tired and unpopular obama in 2012.

I have to wonder how many elections romney has to blow before his kneepadding supporters here give up on him.  I mean, 2020 rolls around and "oh, this one is TOTALLY mitt's after the great race he ran to lose in 2016..."

Seriously.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 27, 2015, 05:10:17 PM
Murdoch has been around forever.  He's very wise.  He knows people don't like mitt, and he watched mitt lose to a VERY beatable, tired and unpopular obama in 2012.

I have to wonder how many elections romney has to blow before his kneepadding supporters here give up on him.  I mean, 2020 rolls around and "oh, this one is TOTALLY mitt's after the great race he ran to lose in 2016..."

Seriously.

One cannot lead if people do not want to follow you.  Normal people understand this, but Romney (and I think his wife is guilty of this too) wants it so badly he is willing to ignore the fact that folks do not want to follow him.  He surrounds himself with "yes" people so he never gets the reality check most people are exposed to.  His reaction to the last loss spoke volumes: he blamed everyone but himself.  His handlers wouldn't let him show his true self; the press was against him; the attack ads were against him... blah blah blah.  Never mind that he was talking about "self deportation," refusing to disclose his tax returns, and alienating 47% of the population.  "I'm not concerned about the very poor..." is not something you say if you are trying to become President.  ::)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 28, 2015, 06:27:13 AM
Romney built expensive homes after 2012 loss
By Matt Viser

LA JOLLA, Calif. — On a recent weekday, a half-dozen construction workers crowded onto a small plot of land in this pricey community, banging away on an 11,000-square-foot house with expansive oceanfront views that will soon replace one a fraction of the size.

There’s a large master suite, a room for all the beach gear — and a car elevator. Outside, scrawled in graffiti on a wall separating the property from the beach, was a message touting Mitt Romney for president.

Two years ago, Mitt Romney didn’t think he would run for political office again. And in the aftermath of his bitter defeat in the presidential campaign, he embarked on something of a real estate spree. He simultaneously began building two multimillion-dollar homes, one here on the Pacific Ocean and another outside Salt Lake City. He also bought a third, a slopeside ski chalet in Park City, Utah.

For the first time in more than a decade, unencumbered by political considerations, the two-time presidential candidate and former private equity executive was free to spend his many millions without concern of how it might look. But now that he’s considering a third presidential bid, the monuments of his wealth could become a political inconvenience, particularly as one of his key themes has been America’s growing income divide.

Romney is traveling on Wednesday to Mississippi State University, a campus in the country’s poorest state, where aides say he will outline his vision for a better America.

Romney, whose last presidential bid was hampered by his image of excessive privilege and insensitivity, may recognize the trouble his real estate holdings could cause in another campaign.

He is taking steps to shed some of his property, including retaining a broker who is currently showing the La Jolla home to potential buyers, according to a Romney aide. The aide would not disclose the asking price or explain why the former Massachusetts governor and his wife, Ann, want to sell the home after more than four years of city permitting, hearings, and construction.

In all, Romney has four homes. All of them are at least twice as large as the average home in the United States. They contain spas and hot tubs, and garages to hold up to four cars. They’ve built kitchens and dining rooms large enough to accommodate their large, sprawling family (5 sons, 5 daughters-in-law, and 23 grandchildren and counting).

“He wants to be close to his family,” said Ron Kaufman, a longtime Romney confidant. “There’s nothing more important to him than his kids and grandkids. . . . And if you could afford a house, and you’re as close as the Romneys are to their kids, that’s what you do.”

Romney’s plans to tear down and rebuilt his home in La Jolla were already underway during his last campaign. But since he lost the 2012 election, Romney has also purchased a six-bedroom home that was listed for $8.9 million in Park City, Utah, and he’s built another 5,900-square-foot home 30 miles away near Salt Lake City.

He still has his New Hampshire vacation home on Lake Winnipesaukee, but last year sold his condominium in Belmont for $1.2 million, cutting his remaining ties to Massachusetts and raising questions about whether his 2016 campaign would again be headquartered in Boston.

“During the campaign neither Ann nor I had any time to think about home projects,” Romney said in an interview a year after the 2012 election. “But now that the campaign is over, we have a little more time.”

The new home in California includes an infamous “car elevator,” first reported in 2012 by Politico and used by Romney’s opponents to cast him as out of touch. A May 2013 planning document described it this way: “The proposed garage will have the appearance of a two-car garage, but will include a lift inside that will rotate two cars below grade to the basement area.”

Building the home was the culmination of a long battle, which at times became heated with neighbors who said Romney’s new home — much larger than his former one — was out of character with the neighborhood. Some neighbors also complained that he was incorporating square footage from a beach long believed to be public in order to build a larger home. Romney’s home is on a street where houses are clumped together on small lots, with cherished views of the Pacific Ocean.

“It was contentious,” said Anthony A. Ciani, a local architect and the chief opponent of Romney’s expansion. “The issue was the bulk of it compared to the houses right next to it. It’s not compatible with the gingerbread houses that are immediately adjacent. It’s two, three times bigger than those.”

A group of neighbors appealed to the state, but local and state officials ruled in the Romneys’ favor, a process followed by the Los Angeles Times. Their former 3,000-square-foot home has been demolished — except for a swimming pool and spa — and a new one is under construction.

Planning documents call for a first floor that includes a library, and a large combined living room and dining room. The basement includes an exercise room, recreation room, and a room to hold the beach gear. Outside there will be a wraparound porch, as well as several palm trees, and a mixture of shrubs — boxwoods, coffeeberry, and California blue sage — to cover the property.

The work is expected to be completed by the end of the year, although it is unclear whether the Romneys will move in or find a buyer.

“Mitt and Ann’s plans are firm,” Matthew Peterson, the Romneys’ San Diego-based attorney, said in an e-mail. “They will be completing the construction of the home by the end of the year, but no decision has been made at this time whether to keep it, or sell it.”

He said that the home has been shown to potential buyers already, but “it is the Romneys’ expectation that if the home were to be sold, it would best be sold after it is completed.”

Romney’s wealth defined him in 2012, with a mixture of inadvertent comments, a reluctance to talk about his successful business career, and a video showing him disparaging 47 percent of Americans who rely on government assistance.

In a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken shortly before the 2012 election, 53 percent of likely voters said that Romney’s policies would favor the wealthy, with only 34 percent saying he would favor the middle class. Romney often seemed more comfortable talking with donors than he did in diners.

But those close to Romney have long described him as far more frugal than the caricature of him suggests. He frequently flies in coach, carrying his own bags. He repairs winter gloves with duct tape, refuses to spend money on apps for his iPad, and has a go-to meal that consists of a home-made peanut butter and honey sandwich.

Romney is donating his $50,000 honorarium from Wednesday’s speech to charity, a contrast with Hillary Rodham Clinton, who collects fees that are five times higher. Clinton, too, has struggled in talking about her wealth, saying she was once “dead broke” while in her $5 million home.

“It’s going to be hard for Hillary Clinton to make Mitt Romney’s wealth a fruitful line of attack, with her multimillion dollar mansions in Georgetown and Chappaqua and her jet-setting lifestyle of the rich and famous,” said a Romney aide, who declined to be identified.

But even if he is modest in some of his personal spending decisions, one area Romneydoes splurge on is real estate. His properties are all close to where his five sons are living. Every summer, they all gather at the home in Wolfeboro, N.H., and they spent last Christmas at the home in Deer Valley, where the massive stone fireplace was large enough to hold stockings for nearly two dozen grandchildren.

In August 2013, a holding company managed by Ann Romney purchased the home in Park City that had been listed at $8.9 million. The 8,730 square-foot home — which has six bedrooms, eight bathrooms, an outdoor hot tub and a sauna — was once featured in Architectural Digest, showcasing blond wood, two-story windows, and a chandelier made from antlers.

A Romney aide said that he co-owned the home with L.E. Simmons, a prominent Romney donor who runs a Houston-based private equity firm.

The Romneys also bought property in Holladay, Utah, where they tore down a smaller home and built a 5,900-square-foot house that features a fountain, terraces, a gazebo, a fire pit, and a spa, according to plans reviewed by the Salt Lake Tribune.

The plans also called for a hidden room, an 11-foot-long area masked by a bookshelf that swings open. But Romney told the Globe that it was much less mysterious than initial news reports suggested.

“It’s a closet where we plan on keeping the copying machine, and the printer, and paper,” he said, laughing. “Not even a lock on the door. It’s hardly a secret room.”


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 28, 2015, 10:01:53 AM
Murdoch has been around forever.  He's very wise.  He knows people don't like mitt, and he watched mitt lose to a VERY beatable, tired and unpopular obama in 2012.

I have to wonder how many elections romney has to blow before his kneepadding supporters here give up on him.  I mean, 2020 rolls around and "oh, this one is TOTALLY mitt's after the great race he ran to lose in 2016..."

Seriously.

I think even Obama was surprised at his margin of victory over Mitt


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 28, 2015, 10:07:16 AM
I think even Obama was surprised at his margin of victory over Mitt

mitt was leading polls after winning that first debate handily against a tired, weak obama. 

then he had to go open his mouth and motivate the 47% of voters that didn't care about obama at that point.  big mistake there.  That little "I'm not concerned with that 47% of people..." turned the tide. 

Anyway, only a half-liberal would support Mitt, because he's half liberal on many current positions. 


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 28, 2015, 11:59:38 AM
mitt was leading polls after winning that first debate handily against a tired, weak obama. 

then he had to go open his mouth and motivate the 47% of voters that didn't care about obama at that point.  big mistake there.  That little "I'm not concerned with that 47% of people..." turned the tide. 

Anyway, only a half-liberal would support Mitt, because he's half liberal on many current positions. 

I give Biden some credit because after that first debate when Obama got served by Romney, Biden stiopped the bleeding by winning his debate....had Biden looked bad as well, it would have been doom for Obama going into the second debate....in that fiorst debate, Obama was so tight he looked constipated


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 28, 2015, 12:30:23 PM
I give Biden some credit because after that first debate when Obama got served by Romney, Biden stiopped the bleeding by winning his debate....had Biden looked bad as well, it would have been doom for Obama going into the second debate....in that fiorst debate, Obama was so tight he looked constipated

I was shocked to see Paul Ryan get quiet, dribble his water, and just put his eyes down as drunk Uncle Joe just yelled and ranted and quoted all over him.

IMO, IF Paul Ryan had been able to take control of that debate - then maybe mitt wins that election.  Imagine a Jeb or a Ron Paul in that room with Drunk uncle Joe yelling - no way they let him pull that bullshit.  Paul Ryan just showed he didn't have balls or the killer instinct. sometimes you have to be a badass, show the nation you are tough.  As smart as Ryan is... nobody sees him as tough, sorry.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: whork on January 28, 2015, 01:48:42 PM
I was shocked to see Paul Ryan get quiet, dribble his water, and just put his eyes down as drunk Uncle Joe just yelled and ranted and quoted all over him.

IMO, IF Paul Ryan had been able to take control of that debate - then maybe mitt wins that election.  Imagine a Jeb or a Ron Paul in that room with Drunk uncle Joe yelling - no way they let him pull that bullshit.  Paul Ryan just showed he didn't have balls or the killer instinct. sometimes you have to be a badass, show the nation you are tough.  As smart as Ryan is... nobody sees him as tough, sorry.

Romney won the first debate by lying on every issue and Obama didnt call him on it.

Biden called Ryan on his BS and Ryan had no plan B.

By the way for anyone who says MSNBC is at the same level as FOX look at how they reacted to the first debate. MSNBC has a lot more credibility than FOX.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 28, 2015, 01:56:43 PM
Romney won the first debate by lying on every issue and Obama didnt call him on it.

Biden called Ryan on his BS and Ryan had no plan B.

By the way for anyone who says MSNBC is at the same level as FOX look at how they reacted to the first debate. MSNBC has a lot more credibility than FOX.

Oh I definitely agree with you....Biden did a good job and may have saved Obama's presidency with his debate performance...I agree with your comment on MSNBC as well.....yes they are partisan but no where near the overt homerism of FOX


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 28, 2015, 02:02:03 PM
I was shocked to see Paul Ryan get quiet, dribble his water, and just put his eyes down as drunk Uncle Joe just yelled and ranted and quoted all over him.

IMO, IF Paul Ryan had been able to take control of that debate - then maybe mitt wins that election.  Imagine a Jeb or a Ron Paul in that room with Drunk uncle Joe yelling - no way they let him pull that bullshit.  Paul Ryan just showed he didn't have balls or the killer instinct. sometimes you have to be a badass, show the nation you are tough.  As smart as Ryan is... nobody sees him as tough, sorry.

Uncle Joe used every debate trick in the book.....he spoke over his opponent (as if what Ryan was saying didn't matter)...interrupted him and corrected him with factual information,,,,smiled the entire debate and openly laughed and shook his head "no" at some of Ryan's comments thus giving the impression he was mocking his untruthfulness....I was very entertained...Biden also had a smug look on his face which signaled "I know everything kid, you don't" ...and was dismissive of Ryan


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 28, 2015, 02:15:09 PM
Uncle Joe used every debate trick in the book.....he spoke over his opponent (as if what Ryan was saying didn't matter)...interrupted him and corrected him with factual information,,,,smiled the entire debate and openly laughed and shook his head "no" at some of Ryan's comments thus giving the impression he was mocking his untruthfulness....I was very entertained...Biden also had a smug look on his face which signaled "I know everything kid, you don't" ...and was dismissive of Ryan

a lot of viewers that didn't know much about the issues just saw a powerful laughing man, and an intimidated weaker man.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 28, 2015, 02:17:57 PM
a lot of viewers that didn't know much about the issues just saw a powerful laughing man, and an intimidated weaker man.


yep...by the way...I really think Uncle Joe's wife is still really HOIT for her age..I get turned on when she's on TV


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 28, 2015, 08:13:47 PM
Mitt Romney, signaling a hunger to step back into ring, attacks Hillary Clinton
By Philip Rucker

STARKVILLE, Miss. — Signaling a hunger to step back into the ring, Mitt Romney took aim at Hillary Rodham Clinton in a speech here Wednesday and predicted that a nation he sees as in decline could turn a corner “with the right kind of leadership.”

Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee who is actively exploring a third White House run, made clear that his prospective 2016 bid would focus squarely on foreign affairs and poverty — and that Clinton, the heavy favorite for the Democratic nomination, was in his sights.

Declaring that the country must restore economic opportunity for the middle class, Romney said, “How can Secretary Clinton provide opportunity for all if she doesn’t know where the jobs come from in the first place?”

He went on to attack the former secretary of state on foreign affairs, calling her record in the Obama administration “timid” and saying that she “cluelessly pressed a reset button for Russia, which smiled and then invaded Ukraine, a sovereign nation. The Middle East and much of North Africa is in chaos.”

Adrienne Elrod, spokeswoman for Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton group, responded by saying “Mitt Romney’s reckless, inaccurate attacks against Hillary Clinton are laughable.”

Romney’s evening speech to about 1,000 students and faculty at Mississippi State University comes as he and his political team are preparing for a potential 2016 run. He shied away from revealing his current thinking or outlining any plans. When pressed on what he would do differently this time from his last campaign, Romney told his questioner, former lieutenant governor Amy Tuck, “That’s another question I won’t answer.”

Romney did, however, offer thoughts on how the Republican Party and its eventual nominee could be more successful. He said the party’s leaders must close the “gap in communications” with American electorate, especially minorities and young people — and not only in the general election, but throughout the primaries as well. He argued that Republican ideas are better for working-class people than Democratic policies, but that the GOP doesn’t deliver that message effectively.

“The reason I’m Republican is because I want to help the poor, the middle class,” Romney said. “The rich in America, by the way, are fine.”

Romney said that President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty in the 1960s “came from a good heart . . . but I’m afraid the policies weren’t as good as the heart.” But Romney extended some blame to his own party as well.

“Republicans and Democrats have not taken action to actually do the things necessary to restore opportunity in America and make sure the American dream is alive for all Americans,” he said.

Romney sounded a call for conservative solutions to “get people out of poverty forever,” yet he only offered a few broad ideas. One of his proposals was to incentivize “the permanent commitment of marriage” for young people. He cited a study from the Brookings Institution showing that single people have a much higher likelihood of falling into poverty than those who are married.

Throughout his visit to Mississippi, Romney was haunted, if indirectly, by thoughts about his 2012 loss. Eating a pulled pork sandwich at The Little Dooey, a local barbecue joint, Romney asked Mississippi State football coach Dan Mullen about leadership and adversity.

What can you do, the politician asked the coach, to motivate a team after a bruising defeat? How do you help people improve upon their weaknesses?

Then Romney talked politics, telling Mullen, “It’d be nice if people who run for office — that their leadership experience and what they’ve accomplished in life would be a bigger part of what people focus on, but it’s not. It’s mostly what you say.”

Romney has told friends he is determined to run as a more authentic candidate in 2016 than he did in 2012, when he often came across as stilted and overly scripted. On Wednesday night, he seemed unusually comfortable on stage, cracking jokes, some of them self-deprecating, that had his audience in stitches.

Recalling advice he received on the campaign trail in 2012, Romney said that one man told him to “stop shaving and grow stubble to become more sexy.” Then he deadpanned: “As if I needed that!” He also recalled that after getting a massage at a Marriott hotel in San Francisco, the masseuse told his aide: “Mr. Romney has strong legs. He’s a dancer, is he not?”

Later, Romney joked that he’s not thinking of running for president again because of the promise of lucrative speaking fees he could receive after leaving office. “As you’ve no doubt heard,” he said, “I’m already rich.”


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 28, 2015, 08:26:00 PM
To be honest with you I can understand why Romney feels he should be the nominee...in republican politics it is traditional for the past and most recent loser to become the nominee......Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain...all lost primary fights before eventually becoming the nominee...Romney feels he should be anointed partly for that reason,,,hence he doesn't want Jeb or Rand skipping over him....he may have a point based on the structure of Republican politics


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on January 28, 2015, 08:42:13 PM
Romney's attack on the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is laughable on a couple of levels. One, since Romney has never served as Secretary of State, he has no performance record and no experience in that position and two calling her clueless when he was so "clueless" that he totally screwed up his last bid for the Presidency by disenfranchising a large portion of the voting public with his offhanded remarks....some people never learn.

I hate to say it, but there is nothing new here; what we are faced with is a bunch of losers running for President once again. It is no wonder people don't bother to vote.

To all U.S. citizens, how does it feel to be the laughing stock of the rest of the developed world? I am beginning to find it very embarrassing.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: polychronopolous on January 28, 2015, 09:08:04 PM
Romney's attack on the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is laughable on a couple of levels. One, since Romney has never served as Secretary of State, he has no performance record and no experience in that position and two calling her clueless when he was so "clueless" that he totally screwed up his last bid for the Presidency by disenfranchising a large portion of the voting public with his offhanded remarks....some people never learn.

I hate to say it, but there is nothing new here; what we are faced with is a bunch of losers running for President once again. It is no wonder people don't bother to vote.

To all U.S. citizens, how does it feel to be the laughing stock of the rest of the developed world? I am beginning to find it very embarrassing.

Fuck those guys...they have their own problems to tend to.

I don't now, nor have I ever cared what the rest of the world thought of The United States.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on January 28, 2015, 10:04:43 PM
Fuck those guys...they have their own problems to tend to.

I don't now, nor have I ever cared what the rest of the world thought of The United States.

No man is an island.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: polychronopolous on January 28, 2015, 10:12:50 PM
No man is an island.

True but those same guys are on here bitching 10 times a day about the US.

After a while you simply begin to drown it out.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 29, 2015, 04:21:19 AM
To be honest with you I can understand why Romney feels he should be the nominee...in republican politics it is traditional for the past and most recent loser to become the nominee......Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain...all lost primary fights before eventually becoming the nominee...Romney feels he should be anointed partly for that reason,,,hence he doesn't want Jeb or Rand skipping over him....he may have a point based on the structure of Republican politics

The party acknowledged your argument during the last cycle, which is why they allowed him to become the nominee.  Almost everyone in the party now agrees that he had his chance and he blew it.  Time to turn the page.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 29, 2015, 04:28:58 AM
An ‘authentic’ Mitt Romney is in a real bind
By Jonathan Capehart

“If he runs again in 2016, Romney is determined to rebrand himself as authentic, warts and all, and central to that mission is making public what for so long he kept private,” reports The Post’s Philip Rucker. The story is all about how the Mormon faith of the 2012 Republican presidential nominee would be front and center of his potential third run for the White House. Great, Romney should talk more about his faith. What won’t fly is his using it to “rebrand himself as authentic” because it would raise more questions than it would answer.

The best thing to come out of the Romney campaign last time was the biographical video shown at the Tampa convention. People got to see a three-dimensional Mitt, a man who loves his family and looks out for his flock as a leader in his church. But no one saw the 10-minute film because it didn’t run in prime time. Not that anyone would have remembered seeing it thanks to Clint Eastwood.

But how does such a good man let loose on the “47 percent” at a fundraising dinner in Boca Raton, Fla., in May 2012?

    There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

    And, I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 [percent], he starts with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years.

    And so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon, in some cases, emotion, whether they like the guy or not….


This was in keeping with Romney’s belief during the campaign that President Obama was giving away “more free stuff” and his assertion in defeat that “The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift.” But never mind.

Romney friend Fraser Bullock told Rucker that people around the former Massachusetts governor now realize that voters wanted to see more than a relentless campaign on the economy. “They want to see the human being behind all the positions and platforms,” he said. That’s very true. But how can we trust positions and platforms espoused by Romney 3.0? Rolling Stone detailed in August 2012 how Romney has flipped and flopped on a host of hot-button issues during his political career.

Romney once said that abortions should be “safe and legal” and that Roe. v. Wade should be “sustain[ed] and support[ed].” Today, he’s “firmly pro-life” and supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Romney once supported and signed an assault weapons ban for Massachusetts. In his last presidential run he was against “any gun control legislation.” Romney once believed that the planet was getting warmer and that humans were contributing to the problem. He was even at the vanguard of governors pushing to address climate change through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. During the campaign, he questioned climate-change science. But then last week, Romney said, “I’m one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that.” Romney once touted his signature health-care legislation. In the last campaign, he disowned it. And Romney said he would be stronger on gay rights than Sen. Ted Kennedy when he ran to unseat him in 1994. He supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2012.

As I argued in posts in February and October 2012, changing one’s mind on a core issue, an issue of conscience, is not uncommon in a politician. In fact, when it happens it should be respected because no doubt a lot of thought and soul-searching went into it. But changing on all of the core issues? This strains credulity and calls into question whether a politician who does so has a core at all. It bespeaks a person of unmoored convictions. One, quite frankly, who cannot be trusted. And this is why only 18 percent of voters in a national exit poll said Romney “cares about people like me.”

“In spite of the comments about the ‘47 percent,’ he now talks about lifting the poor,” Bullock told Rucker. “That’s something he’s done his whole life, but he’s done it quietly, ministering his faith and helping people who are struggling with this issue or that issue. That was all hidden last time.” This is another flip-flop that will not be helpful in Romney’s sad quest for political redemption. What’s even sadder is that if the “authentic” Romney does show up this time around, no one will believe it is really him.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 29, 2015, 08:35:38 AM
The party acknowledged your argument during the last cycle, which is why they allowed him to become the nominee.  Almost everyone in the party now agrees that he had his chance and he blew it.  Time to turn the page.

Good point and I agree with you...unfortunately Mitt may not see it that way.....LOL...I think Romney should have just been himself.....he should have acknowledged the liberal side of himself..he tried to be too many things to too many people.....He destroyed himself with the 47% comment...but he may have been able to skirt around the fallout if he had pointed out all the liberal policies he had put in place to help people


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Victor VonDoom on January 29, 2015, 10:54:50 AM
He just doesn't know it yet. Bah ha ha ha ha ha


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 29, 2015, 06:57:54 PM
David Kochel, Romney’s Iowa Strategist, Jumps to Bush
Jonathan Martin

David Kochel, a Republican strategist based in Iowa who worked on both of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns, is joining Jeb Bush’s political action committee as a senior strategist and is in line to serve as Mr. Bush’s national campaign manager.

“David is one of the most talented state-based operatives in the nation and brings a different focus and different set of priorities to our effort to communicate Governor Bush’s focus on economic and social mobility,” said Sally Bradshaw, Mr. Bush’s longtime strategist.

The move to tap Mr. Kochel, who advised Mr. Romney for over six years, represents a shot across the bow of the 2012 Republican nominee, who is now considering a third bid for the White House.

Mr. Kochel offered only praise for Mr. Romney, while also promoting Mr. Bush’s strengths.

“I really believe Governor Bush is the right person for the right time,” he said. “He has a successful conservative record in Florida, and I’d put that record up against anybody else.”

Mr. Kochel is moving this spring to Miami to join Mr. Bush’s national effort, but his hiring also indicates that Mr. Bush is likely to compete aggressively in Iowa, where hard-line conservatives are a force in Republican contests.

“There are a number of people here who will be interested in signing up,” Mr. Kochel said. “You compete everywhere because that’s how you win delegates.”

Mr. Kochel, a native of central Iowa, worked his way up in state politics, serving as state party executive director in his 20s and, most recently, as a senior adviser to Senator Joni Ernst in her vaunted campaign last year. A direct mail strategist, he has also worked on a number of campaigns outside Iowa.

Mr. Bush’s advisers declined to speak about what the hiring said regarding Mr. Romney, but emphasized that they are fond of Mr. Kochel in part because he is not based in Washington and his political experience is mostly in state races.

“This is a reflection of Governor Bush’s intent, should he go forward with a campaign, to make the race focused on early states, Super Tuesday states and running governors-style races,” said a senior adviser to Mr. Bush. “This is not going to be a D.C.-driven, top-down structure. That’s not the Jeb Bush way.”

There has been intense speculation in Washington in recent weeks that Mr. Bush was likely to tap an operative based in the capital and the matter of who to hire had even become a topic of some debate within Mr. Bush’s circle. One name often mentioned as a likely prospect, and reported by CNN as such this week, was Sara Fagen, who was once White House political director under George W. Bush.

But Mr, Kochel has long been close to a close adviser to Mr. Bush, Mike Murphy – the two worked together in the campaigns of Gov. Terry Branstad of Iowa – and has been friends with Ms. Bradshaw since they both began helping Mr. Romney early in the 2008 presidential election cycle.

Mr. Bush’s loyalists are determined to create an identity for him separate from his brother, former President George W. Bush. But in organizing the makings of a presidential campaign, they are reprising the early moves of the former president.

Ahead of his 2000 campaign, George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, relied mostly on advice from his own cadre of Texas-based strategists, creating some distance from operatives connected to his father, former President George Bush.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on January 29, 2015, 09:55:40 PM
True but those same guys are on here bitching 10 times a day about the US.

After a while you simply begin to drown it out.

I get it. I live in the U.S. and life is pretty good here all-in-all. No complaints from me. I do think politics has gone to shit the last decade or so. It is really hard to know who to believe lately. Maybe they were always a bunch of idiots and crooks, but it seems worse lately regardless of which party you affiliate with.

As you may know, I live in Oregon. Our governor and his paramour are presently in the spotlight. Seems she's been gaining a huge financial advantage as a result of her relationship with the governor. She's apparently lied to the IRS regarding her income which she grossly under reported. Governor Kitzhaber and his much younger girlfriend appear to be a couple of scam artists and it is the taxpayer who is getting scammed as usual.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/01/john_kitzhaber_will_address_cy.html#incart_river


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 30, 2015, 05:17:57 AM
I get it. I live in the U.S. and life is pretty good here all-in-all. No complaints from me. I do think politics has gone to shit the last decade or so. It is really hard to know who to believe lately. Maybe they were always a bunch of idiots and crooks, but it seems worse lately regardless of which party you affiliate with.

As you may know, I live in Oregon. Our governor and his paramour are presently in the spotlight. Seems she's been gaining a huge financial advantage as a result of her relationship with the governor. She's apparently lied to the IRS regarding her income which she grossly under reported. Governor Kitzhaber and his much younger girlfriend appear to be a couple of scam artists and it is the taxpayer who is getting scammed as usual.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/01/john_kitzhaber_will_address_cy.html#incart_river

I read that article.  Quite a circus you've got going on with the governor and his lady.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 30, 2015, 05:21:01 AM
Obama Mocks Mitt Romney For Being 'Suddenly Deeply Concerned About Poverty'
by Igor Bobic

WASHINGTON -- Thought the 2012 presidential campaign was over? Think again.

President Barack Obama didn't have much to say about Mitt Romney's rekindled aspirations for the White House when he delivered a flat, "No comment," earlier this month. But apparently he couldn't resist much longer, following reports that the former GOP candidate was weighing entering the ring in 2016 on a platform focused on lifting up the middle class and eliminating poverty.

Addressing House Democrats at their annual retreat in Philadelphia on Thursday night, Obama referred to one “former presidential candidate” who was "suddenly deeply concerned about poverty."

"That's great. Lets do something about it," Obama said, according to a White House pool report.

Romney fired back on Twitter, by noting poverty levels under the Obama administration.

"Mr. Obama, wonder why my concern about poverty? The record number of poor in your term, and your record of failure to remedy," Romney said.

Obama also said in Philadelphia that he had heard a Republican senator, who he did not name, was "suddenly shocked, shocked, that the 1 percent" was doing much better than the vast majority of Americans.

"I consider imitation the highest form of flattery," Obama said of Republicans' sudden embrace of populist rhetoric.

Three Republican senators considering bids for president -- Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Marco Rubio of Florida -- spoke about the need to address income inequality at a summit organized by the Koch Brothers on Sunday.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: blacken700 on January 30, 2015, 09:37:55 AM
he just announced he wii not run


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Victor VonDoom on January 30, 2015, 09:42:16 AM
Wasn't he the Democrat's candidate of choice?  Bah ha ha ha ha ha 


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 30, 2015, 10:23:43 AM
he just announced he wii not run

RINOs gonna cry in the car.

(http://gifsoup.com/view1/3348041/red-running-to-car-o.gif)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: chadstallion on January 30, 2015, 12:34:55 PM
a vacancy in the GOP Klown Kar; quick, Sarah, Run, baby, Run!


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on January 30, 2015, 03:37:03 PM
I read that article.  Quite a circus you've got going on with the governor and his lady.

I used to think Kitzhaber was an okay politician. I even worked on his election campaign. That was a long time ago. He's shafted the very people who got him elected over and over again. I am done with him. Whatever happens, if his life blows up, he probably deserves it. What goes around, comes around.

It is fascinating to think he may be taken down because of his relationship with a much younger woman who has quite a history of illegal activities. She once married an illegal for money to pay her college tuition. She was also once involved in a pot growing venture up in Washington state. This was before pot was marginally legalized. 


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Dos Equis on January 30, 2015, 03:58:42 PM
a vacancy in the GOP Klown Kar; quick, Sarah, Run, baby, Run!

(http://themellowjihadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/16438-clowncar.jpg)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 30, 2015, 04:16:00 PM
Mitt Romney decides against running for president again in 2016
By Philip Rucker and Dan Balz

Mitt Romney told supporters Friday that he would not run for president in 2016, ending three weeks of public speculation and sparing the Republican Party a potentially bruising nominating battle between its past nominee and its rising stars.

“After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the party the opportunity to become our next nominee,” Romney said in a statement he read to supporters on a conference call Friday morning.

Romney insisted that he would have had enough support from potential donors to be “more than competitive” and that the positive reaction he heard from Republican activists was “surprising and heartening.” He noted that he led the GOP field in recent public polls.

“I am convinced that we could win the nomination, but fully realize it would have been difficult test and a hard fight,” Romney said in remarks he delivered by phone from New York with his wife, Ann, by his side.

“You can’t imagine how hard it is for Ann and me to step aside, especially knowing of your support and the support of so many people across the country,” he added. “But we believe it is for the best of the party and the nation.”

Romney spoke for four minutes before signing off by telling supporters, “Bye bye.” He encouraged his allies to “stay engaged” in the 2016 campaign and to “feel free” to sign up with any of the other potential candidates.

Romney had been publicly weighing a third run at the White House for three weeks after telling a group of former campaign donors in New York on Jan. 9 that he still wanted to be president.

His dalliance invited a barrage of critical reaction from many Republican leaders, conservative commentators and major donors. The influential Wall Street Journal editorial page was particularly harsh, describing Romney’s political profile as “protean,” his political team as “mediocre” and his managerial skills as questionable based on his 2012 loss to President Obama.

Romney’s advisers discounted the impact those criticisms would have on the former Massachusetts governor’s ultimate decision. Instead, they said earlier, Romney was spending his time as he always had under such circumstances: gathering data, speaking to as many people as possible and then weighing the evidence before making any final decision.

Romney’s decision to forgo a third run came after a lengthy meeting of Romney’s inner circle in Boston last Friday, during which they evaluated feedback from former campaign donors and activists in key early voting states. The assessment was realistic — “we were not Pollyanaish,” one adviser said — and included reports from Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, where Romney would have lost some key precinct leaders although still had considerable support.

Many participants left that session convinced that it was all but certain he would run again. In the end, however, Romney balked. One person close to the family said he made up his mind last weekend, but wanted to give himself the week to think it over before making his decision final.

“It’s a very personal decision,” said a senior adviser, who like others interviewed requested anonymity to speak candidly. “All the political metrics were positive. Ultimately, running for president, you just have to feel right about it in your heart. They just didn’t feel it was right. He’s a happy person. He’s not a needy, desperate guy.”

Ron Kaufman, a longtime Romney adviser and confidant, said he and others in the circle believed Romney would have made an excellent president and that he was sad the country would not have the chance for him to serve.

“As much as you might want to be the candidate, you sometimes realize you can be more effective at helping fulfill a different role,” Kaufman said. “He’s an amazing person and he doesn’t need to have the captain’s seat.”

Romney, in recent conversations with intimates as well as his public appearances, sounded eager to step back into the political ring. Those who have spoken to Romney said they came away from the conversations believing he was likely to run again for several reasons, including that he views the emerging GOP field of contenders as too weak to defeat likely Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, that he believes he would be a better candidate after his experiences in 2012, and that he sensed an opportunity to win.

Romney signaled that if he ran again, his campaign would focus on three themes: foreign policy, expanding opportunities for the middle class and eradicating poverty.

In Friday’s call, Romney said: “I also believe with the message of making the world safer, providing opportunity for every American regardless of the neighborhood they live in, and working to break the grip of poverty, I would have the best chance of beating the eventual Democrat nominee, but that’s before the other contenders have had the opportunity to take their message to the voters.

“I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders — one who may not be as well-known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started — may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case.”

Romney’s announcement comes as former Florida governor Jeb Bush has taken aggressive steps toward a campaign, traveling around the country meeting with donors and other party figures, many of them loyal to Romney in 2012. Bush has set up a leadership PAC and a super PAC, both with the name “Right to Rise,” and has been test-driving a campaign message centered squarely on middle-class opportunity.

Bush wrote in a Facebook post on Friday that Romney “has been a leader in our party for many years” and that “there are few people who have worked harder to elect Republicans across the country than he has.”

“Though I’m sure today’s decision was not easy, I know that Mitt Romney will never stop advocating for renewing America’s promise through upward mobility, encouraging free enterprise and strengthening our national defense,” Bush added. “Mitt is a patriot and I join many in hoping his days of serving our nation and our party are not over.”

Another potential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), said of Romney, “He certainly earned the right to consider running, so I deeply respect his decision to give the next generation a chance to lead. I wish him, Ann and his entire family the best and hope he will continue to serve our country and his community as he’s done throughout his life.”

Romney is scheduled to have dinner Friday night with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who also is eyeing a 2016 run, a get-together was planned before Romney’s announcement. Romney was already scheduled to be in the New York area Friday, because he and Ann are slated to attend a lunchtime function in Manhattan.

While the two men are friends, longtime supporters do not expect Romney to throw his weight behind Christie or any other candidate in the immediate future.

In a speech to the Republican National Committee meeting in San Diego two weeks ago, Romney said that dealing with wage stagnation, the middle class economic squeeze and lifting people out poverty should be among the handful of pillars for a 2016 GOP campaign.

At the same meeting, Romney also signaled that, if he ran, he would be far more forthcoming about — and presumably comfortable with — his Mormon faith, which he largely avoided talking about in his first two campaigns. Romney told friends that he wanted to be a more authentic candidate if he ran in 2016 than he was in 2008 or in 2012.

This was Romney’s way of trying to tell people that the stereotype of him as a cold-hearted businessman was a false construct by his opponents, and that his faith and good works would show a more empathetic side to the public.

But Romney also dealt with some serious defections from his political operation and donor network. On Thursday, David Kochel, an adviser to Romney for more than a decade and his top strategist in Iowa, announced he would work instead for Bush. Should Bush launch a presidential campaign, Kochel is in line to become national campaign manager.

The Kochel move shook some in Romney’s orbit, which had included the former aide on some recent strategy talks and believed he would be on board with Romney in 2016. But two close Romney advisers said Kochel’s departure had no impact on his decision.

Many longtime figures in Romney’s political orbit advised him through his deliberations, including former Utah governor Michael O. Leavitt, strategist Stuart Stevens, close friend Bob White, political advisers Kaufman, Beth Myers, Eric Fehrnstrom and Peter Flaherty, and policy adviser Lanhee Chen.

Romney’s announcement Friday comes a day before arriving in Washington for the annual dinner of the exclusive Alfalfa Club, where he is being inducted as a new member.

Seven Bush family members are members, but none is attending the annual dinner on Saturday night. As a result, one member says, attention will focus heavily on Romney. The former Massachusetts governor will be seated at the head table next to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, both potential 2016 rivals.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on January 31, 2015, 07:05:31 AM
Support Waning, Romney Decides Against 2016 Bid
By ASHLEY PARKER and JONATHAN MARTIN

WASHINGTON — On a ski lift high above the powdery slopes of Deer Valley, Utah, Mitt Romney made it clear: His quest for the White House, which had dominated nearly a decade of his life, was coming to a close.

In a talk with his eldest son, Tagg, between runs down the mountain on Monday, Mr. Romney, 67, said he had all but decided against a third bid for the White House.

The conversation, according to a person familiar with it, came after days of increasingly gloomy news reached the Romney family.

Donors who supported him last time refused to commit to his campaign. Key operatives were signing up with former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida. The Republican establishment that lifted Mr. Romney to the nomination in 2012 in the face of scrappy opposition had moved on.

The news on Friday that Mr. Romney would opt out of the race revealed as much about the party in 2015 as it did about the former Massachusetts governor’s weaknesses as a candidate. Republican leaders, especially the party’s wealthiest donors, are in an impatient and determined mood. They are eager to turn to a new face they believe can defeat what they anticipate will be a strong, well-funded Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“People were much more excited about Jeb than Mitt,” said Ron Gidwitz, a Chicago financier who helped raise millions for Mr. Romney and allied groups in 2012. “Mitt ran twice before unsuccessfully. He’s a great guy. But winning is everything in this business.”

Mr. Romney’s decision not to run frees up scores of Republican establishment donors and campaign operatives, and sets off an intense battle for their support. A key question, given the early strength demonstrated by Mr. Bush and his network, is whether there is room for a candidate of similar policy views, such as Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey or Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, to emerge. So far, Mr. Bush has fared well among the party’s moneyed donor class, but its grass-roots activists, crucial to the early nominating states, have yet to coalesce around any candidate in a still evolving field.

Mr. Romney’s departure could also deprive Democrats of what they had hoped: a protracted and damaging confrontation between Mr. Bush and Mr. Romney — and the prospect of facing off again against Mr. Romney, who they believe would be just as vulnerable as he was in 2012.

The campaign to deny Mr. Romney another chance began almost immediately after he mused to donors at a Friday get-together in New York City on Jan. 9 that he was open to the possibility of another run. By that Sunday afternoon, William Oberndorf, a prominent California investor who supported Mr. Romney in both of his previous presidential campaigns, had emailed a group of 52 powerful Republicans, including former Secretary of State George Shultz, the investor Charles Schwab, Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois and the Michigan billionaire Betsy DeVos with a blunt message: we need to support someone else.

Mr. Oberndorf wrote: “We are fortunate in Jeb Bush to have an extremely talented and able candidate who, I believe, has a far better prospect of winning a general election than Mitt. Moreover, Mitt has now run twice and has had his chance to be president. It is now time to cede the field to others.”

Mr. Oberndorf requested that those on the email contact Mr. Romney’s longtime finance chief, Spencer Zwick, to make it clear that they did not want Mr. Romney to run again. And many of them did, Mr. Oberndorf said in an interview on Friday.

“Of everybody I contacted, I only heard from one person who thought Mitt should give it another shot,” said Mr. Oberndorf. In the weeks after he expressed renewed interest in running, Mr. Romney contacted some of his most loyal supporters. But often, he found Mr. Bush had gotten there already.

The former Massachusetts governor called Eric Tanenblatt, an Atlanta lobbyist, who reminded him they had talked the previous month and that Mr. Tanenblatt was supporting Mr. Bush.

It was a recurring theme: Mr. Romney’s supporters had taken him at his word when he had said repeatedly after 2012 that he would not run again.

Mr. Romney was losing important backers, including the New York City hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, and in the gossipy universe of wealthy Republicans, word was spreading about the defections. Robert Pence, a Northern Virginia developer and major contributor to Mr. Romney, appeared at a fund-raiser in Virginia for Mr. Bush last week. Mr. Tanenblatt helped organize an event for Mr. Bush in Atlanta this week.

Mr. Bush’s strategy, mainly behind the scenes, was smooth and effective, as he reached out to potential supporters, mixing wonky ideas with personal charm. In a December telephone call with Joe Craft and Kelly Knight, the husband and wife who are coveted contributors in Kentucky, Mr. Bush offered his views on business and education and seemed to have all the time in the world for the couple, who raised millions for Mr. Romney’s 2012 candidacy. And, in a follow-up email, he flattered the pair, who are also the largest financial boosters of the University of Kentucky basketball program, with his careful attention to their passion.

“Saw the Wildcats did pretty well on Saturday,” Mr. Bush wrote, after Kentucky thrashed UCLA by nearly 40 points. “Congrats.”

The former Florida governor’s supporters were not as gentle as they made the case to Mr. Romney’s former backers. They argued that, because of his awkward persona and business background, Mr. Romney could not win a general election, had no rationale for a third campaign and would not be as strong as Mr. Bush in such battleground states as Florida and Colorado.

On Jan. 23, about two dozen of his advisers gathered in Boston for a cleareyed assessment of Mr. Romney’s challenges. “It was, ‘Let’s cut the cheerleading rah-rah and talk about what it is that you know and what it is that you’re hearing,’ ” said someone with knowledge of the meeting, speaking anonymously to talk about a private discussion. “Could this thing get going again?”

Mr. Zwick said he felt confident that Mr. Romney could raise the $50 million to $100 million necessary for a primary, but the softening support among contributors emerged as a concern. Even if he prevailed in a primary, he would be battered and bruised by the general election. And they puzzled over how to appease donors, still frustrated from the stumbling 2012 campaign, who were demanding a new message and a shake-up of advisers.

On Sunday, Mr. Zwick flew to Utah and delivered the message to Mr. Romney: Yes, the team believed Mr. Romney had a path to the nomination, but he faced far more challenges than in 2012, and needed to make up his mind this week. By that point, Mr. Romney and his wife Ann had already decided against another bid, but wanted to “sit with it for a few days to make sure.” By Thursday night, Mr. Romney was ready, phoning his closest friends, family and advisers to tell them what he would make public the following morning: He would not run.

But by then it was clear the political world was already moving on. In a particularly stinging blow, David Kochel, who oversaw Mr. Romney’s Iowa caucus campaigns in 2008 and 2012, had signed on to manage Mr. Bush’s campaign. That added to the bitter feeling of Mr. Romney’s inner circle toward the Bush operation.


For the Romney family, it meant the end of a dream that had consumed Mr. Romney since he was elected governor of Massachusetts (2002) and that had eluded his father over a generation earlier.

“There’s a deep sense of both sadness and relief,” Tagg Romney said in a telephone interview Friday. “Sadness that he won’t be president, but relief that we will be able to lead private lives.”


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 31, 2015, 09:15:47 AM
Can we let this go already?  He is not running. 

Now back to the Kenyan Immaculate Conception


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 31, 2015, 10:27:22 AM
Can we let this go already?  He is not running. 

Now back to the Kenyan Immaculate Conception

imagine YOU wanting to let something go....LOL.....that's what we've been saying about you and your Obama obsession


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 31, 2015, 10:44:38 AM
imagine YOU wanting to let something go....LOL.....that's what we've been saying about you and your Obama obsession

Oe idiot is not running for office - the other is coddling terrorists and taking selfies w thugs w green lips. 


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on January 31, 2015, 12:19:31 PM
I'd come around with Romney, honestly. That Murdoch is against him (see above), and that Ann is his main source of direction, made him seem less like a suspect than the others from either party.

It will be the height of stupidity to see Bush "vs." Clinton, won't it? Can you believe what a bunch of idiots we are, to have gotten ourselves in this situation?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: LurkerNoMore on January 31, 2015, 01:57:11 PM
NY Times headline:

Mitt Quits. Again. Probably.  Maybe.  You know... let's wait until Monday see what happens....


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on January 31, 2015, 03:45:53 PM
I'd come around with Romney, honestly. That Murdoch is against him (see above), and that Ann is his main source of direction, made him seem less like a suspect than the others from either party.

It will be the height of stupidity to see Bush "vs." Clinton, won't it? Can you believe what a bunch of idiots we are, to have gotten ourselves in this situation?

I am not sure just how we got ourselves into this situation, as you say. What exactly has the American public done to deserve the political candidates we have running for office these days? Can you elaborate on this for me?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 31, 2015, 04:18:07 PM
I am not sure just how we got ourselves into this situation, as you say. What exactly has the American public done to deserve the political candidates we have running for office these days? Can you elaborate on this for me?


In Hilary's case - the morons on the left still defend her lies on benghazi. 


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on January 31, 2015, 04:57:05 PM

In Hilary's case - the morons on the left still defend her lies on benghazi. 

How is John Kerry doing as Secretary of State?



Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 31, 2015, 06:13:43 PM
How is John Kerry doing as Secretary of State?



He sucks


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on January 31, 2015, 06:35:05 PM

In Hilary's case - the morons on the left still defend her lies on benghazi. 

That's funny......the Republicans have cleared the administration and said there was no coverup....I guess the Republicans agree with Hillary


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 31, 2015, 08:53:06 PM
That's funny......the Republicans have cleared the administration and said there was no coverup....I guess the Republicans agree with Hillary

False


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on February 02, 2015, 06:04:24 PM
Mitt’s White Horse Pulls Up Lame
by Maureen Dowd

SALT LAKE CITY — WHEN the Mitt Romney documentary premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival last year, one member of the audience was especially charmed by the candidate up on the screen.

That guy is great, Mitt Romney thought to himself. That guy should be running for president.

It was an “Aha” moment that came to him belatedly at age 66, after two failed presidential runs that cost more than $1 billion.

Mitt had a revelation that he should have run his races as Mitt — with all the goofiness, Mormonism, self-doubt and self-mockery thrown into the crazy salad.

Some of his strategists had argued against the movie. But wasn’t it endearing, when the tuxedo-clad Romney ironed his own French cuffs while they were on his wrists? When he listened to “This American Life” on NPR with his family? When he wryly called himself a “flippin’ Mormon”? When he and Ann prayed on their knees just before the New Hampshire primary? When he went sledding with his grandkids?

He was himself as a moderate Massachusetts governor. But when he ran for president in 2008, he was “severely conservative,” as he would later awkwardly brag, and that wasn’t him.

In 2012, he was closer but still not truly himself, putting his faith and centrist record off to the side. He had surrounded himself with Stuart Stevens and other advisers who did not have faith that the unplugged Mitt could win, and the candidate did not have enough faith in himself to push back against them.

“It’s a sad story of discovery,” said a Republican who is friends with him. “He kept going through campaigns and evolving closer to himself. Then he saw the documentary and it was liberating, showing 100 percent of himself instead of 80. But it was too late. You don’t really get three shots.”

Romney got bollixed up by dueling fears that the unkind arena would rage at him if he put up his guard and rage at him if he dropped it. He was haunted by the collapse of his father’s 1968 campaign for president after his father dropped his guard, telling a Detroit TV broadcaster that he thought he had been brainwashed into supporting the Vietnam War by American commanders and diplomats there.

But after Romney saw the documentary “Mitt” — by Mormon filmmaker Greg Whiteley — and felt that he could be Mitt “all the way,” as one friend put it, he was ready to run “a hell of a race.”

Mormons learn firsthand that rejection — as the young Mitt learned in Paris on his mission when he got less than 20 converts in two-and-a-half years — doesn’t mean you should stop trying.

Recent polls had Romney ahead of Jeb Bush and other Republican contenders. He was more in demand on the trail than President Obama during the 2014 campaign. He had shied away in 2012 from explaining the role of faith in his life, worried that Mormonism might still sound strange to voters if he had to explain lore like the white horse prophecy, that a Mormon white knight would ride in to save the U.S. as the Constitution was hanging by a thread.

But, in the last few weeks, Romney had seemed eager to take a Mormon mulligan. Less sensitive about his great-grandparents fleeing to Mexico to preserve their right to polygamy, Romney began joking to audiences that when he learned about the church at Brigham Young University, “Emma was Joseph Smith’s only wife.”

It was foolish to ever think he could take his religion — which is baked into every part of his life — and cordon it off.

In Park City Wednesday, I talked to Jon Krakauer, the author of “Under the Banner of Heaven,” a history of Mormonism, and executive producer of “Prophet’s Prey,” a Showtime documentary, which was premiering at Sundance, about the most infamous Mormon polygamous cult.

“I don’t think he has a choice,” Krakauer said. “I don’t know how people will react, but he has nothing to be ashamed with, with his faith. And by not talking about it, it looks like he does.”

It was the same mistake Al Gore made in 2000 when he listened to advisers who told him he would seem too tree-huggy if he talked about the environment. When that was off-limits, Gore lost the issue he was least likely to be wooden on; it was the one topic that made him passionate — not to mention prescient.

If Mitt was 100 percent himself, he began to think this time, he could move past the debacles of his 47 percent comment caught on tape and his cringe-worthy 13 percent tax rate — both of which had made him seem like the pitiless plutocrat conjured by Democrats.

Two weeks ago, at a Republican meeting in San Diego, Romney talked about his decade as a Mormon bishop and stake president, working “with people who are very poor to get them help and subsistence,” finding them jobs and tending to the sick and elderly.

He changed his residency to Utah and started building a house in a wealthy suburb of Salt Lake City. He got a broker for the luxe La Jolla oceanfront home with the four-car elevator.

It was reported that a 2016 Romney campaign could be based here. Romney had been burning up the phone lines with donors and past operatives and was reassembling his old campaign team. But Jeb Bush popped Mitt’s trial balloon by peeling off the money and the talent.

“He thought there was more interest than there was,” one strategist close to Romney said. “There wasn’t a big groundswell. The donor-activist-warlord bubble had moved on. It’s a tough world. Mitt didn’t want to claw and slug.”

 Or as his 2008 presidential campaign adviser Alex Castellanos put it, “Mitt Romney found he had walked out on stage without his pants.”

At an appearance Wednesday in Mississippi, where he seemed to be honing talking points and attack lines for a possible run, he said Hillary Clinton had “cluelessly” pushed the reset button with Russia.

He blamed the news media and voters for concentrating on the wrong things. “It would be nice if people who run for office, that their leadership experience, what they’ve accomplished in life, would be a bigger part of what people are focused on, but it’s not,” he said. “Mostly it’s what you say — and what you do is a lot more important than just what you say.”

But both in what he said and did, Romney came across as clueless in 2012. He was hawking himself as a great manager, but he couldn’t even manage his campaign. His own advisers did not trust him to be himself. They did not adapt what the Obama team had taught everyone in 2008 about technologically revolutionizing campaigns. His own campaign was in need of a Bain-style turnaround and he was oblivious.

The reel Mitt could have told the real Mitt, as Romney said in the documentary, that the nominee who loses the general election is “a loser for life.”

He seemed shocked, the night of the election, to learn that his White Horse was lame. But how could he have won? The wrong Mitt was running.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: whork on February 02, 2015, 06:30:11 PM
False

Link or shut up.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 03, 2015, 07:25:30 AM
Link or shut up.


I think its gonna be shut up :D


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Victor VonDoom on February 03, 2015, 08:01:39 AM
I think its gonna be shut up :D

Doom is amused.

This is such a humiliating loss: swatted down by your own party before the primary race even begins.  What is your favorite Mitt quote?

"binders of women"
"the trees are the right height"
"I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said whatever it was"
"corporations are people, my friend"
"the nominee who loses the general election is 'a loser for life.'"
"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax... My job is not to worry about those people."
"I'm not concerned about the very poor"
"severely conservative"

Bah ha ha ha ha ha


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on February 03, 2015, 09:38:01 AM
I am not sure just how we got ourselves into this situation, as you say. What exactly has the American public done to deserve the political candidates we have running for office these days? Can you elaborate on this for me?

If we didn't get ourselves into the situation: who did?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: whork on February 03, 2015, 10:36:39 AM
Doom is amused.

This is such a humiliating loss: swatted down by your own party before the primary race even begins.  What is your favorite Mitt quote?

"binders of women"
"the trees are the right height"
"I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said whatever it was"
"corporations are people, my friend"
"the nominee who loses the general election is 'a loser for life.'"
"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax... My job is not to worry about those people."
"I'm not concerned about the very poor"
"severely conservative"
Bah ha ha ha ha ha

I loved you in Marvel vs Capcom2 Dr.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 03, 2015, 11:02:51 AM
I loved you in Marvel vs Capcom2 Dr.

As opposed to that gay muslim twinkletoes pos Obama right? 


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: whork on February 03, 2015, 12:18:18 PM
As opposed to that gay muslim twinkletoes pos Obama right? 

Im pretty sure there were no such character in that game.

Is everything Obama to you?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on February 03, 2015, 04:42:29 PM
Mitt had the heart, but not the guts
Romney could not face the presidential meat grinder.
By Roger Simon

Mitt Romney has done a lasting service to America. By returning once again to the dustbin of history, he leaves behind a powerful message for future generations:

When the going gets tough, the tough fold up.

On Jan. 9, Romney told his base — fat cats, plutocrats, magnates, moguls and tycoons — that he was considering a run for president in 2016. Who else, after all, had the knowledge and experience to best protect the interests of fat cats, plutocrats, magnates, moguls and tycoons?

Romney then did what any canny businessmen would do: He assembled a group of people to tell him what he wanted to hear.

He brought together much of the same coterie he had when he ran for president in 2012. This was his innermost clique, his band of brothers, his ring-kissers.

He asked them a few questions.

Could they raise oodles and oodles of money for him? He wanted to know.

Romney has oodles and oodles of his own money. But if there is one rule of modern campaigning, it is this: When other people are daffy enough to give you their money, there is no reason to risk your own money.

The ring-kissers answered quickly. They could raises tons of money. No worries. The nation was full of rich saps.

But, Mitt asked, could the campaign coterie make Mitt warm and likable? He had read all these stories the last time he ran that he was inauthentic. Was there any way he could fake some sincerity for 2016?

Not to worry, the coterie said. They would have Mitt mingle with the hoi polloi and find out how the 99 percent live. So Mitt went down to Mississippi State University last Wednesday.

He gave a speech saying ending poverty was a real goal of his and then stopped at the Little Dooey barbecue joint for a pulled pork sandwich. He even gave every indication he actually knew what a pulled pork sandwich is.

During his visit he poked fun at Hillary Clinton, saying that he didn’t care about massive speaking fees. “As you may have heard,” he said, “I’m already rich.”

His coterie was delighted. Romney really seemed to get it. There would be a new Romney for 2016, a Romney 3.0, who would be warm, caring and authentic, whenever such emotions needed to be feigned.

Romney led in the polls. Though not everybody was convinced. I, for one, have a simple rule about polls: When I disagree with what the polls are saying, the polls are wrong.

Which is why on Jan. 14, I tweeted: “There is no significant constituency within the GOP that thinks Romney is the solution and not the problem.”

I believed it then, and I believe it now. The right wing thought he was a phony. The religious right thought he was a phony. The establishment wing of the party — a doddering handful of survivors with checkbooks and defibrillators — preferred Jeb Bush and his blue-blood credentials.

Who really liked Mitt Romney? Which was to ask: Who really liked a loser?

Romney believed in himself, but he wanted a guarantee that he was going to win. And his coterie could not deliver that.

Yes, his inner circle said, they could raise money and he would probably win the nomination. But he would get roughed up and might lose to Hillary Clinton.

According to The New York Times, Romney’s longtime finance chief, Spencer Zwick, told him: “Even if he prevailed in a primary, he would be battered and bruised by the general election.”

Tagg Romney, Romney’s eldest son, said: “He decided he could be the nominee. The fear was that in order to get there it was going to be so hard-fought that he could not emerge from a position of strength.”

A Romney adviser said: “We thought it was possible. But it would be hard. The polls had him up. That was residual name ID. But he can’t carry that for a year. It would have been a fight.”

So Romney decided not to fight. Kevin Madden, a former Romney adviser, said that, ultimately, it was a question of the head versus the heart.

Madden is a very smart guy and I respect him, but I think he’s got his anatomy wrong. Ultimately, Romney lacked not heart, but guts.

Running for president is a grueling test, a meat grinder. And why shouldn’t it be? The presidency is a tough job, and it demands a tough test to weed out those without the stamina and strength to perform in it.

So 21 days after sticking his toe in the water, Romney withdrew it.

“I am convinced that we could win the nomination,” he told supporters in a conference call, “but fully realize it would have been a difficult test and a hard fight.”

He got some credit from Republicans for dropping out. But some Democrats crowed. “Congratulations to Mitt Romney for finally saying something the American people want to hear,” John Dingell, a former congressman from Michigan, tweeted.

Mitt Romney made the right decision. Why should he want difficult tests and hard fights?

Running for president is a trial by combat. You can’t get there by riding in a car elevator.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on February 03, 2015, 09:04:26 PM
If we didn't get ourselves into the situation: who did?


Classic response. I asked a question which you didn't answer, instead posing another question. Answer my question and then we can move on to what or who got us into this mess, if that is in fact what it is.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on February 04, 2015, 06:40:20 PM

Classic response. I asked a question which you didn't answer, instead posing another question. Answer my question and then we can move on to what or who got us into this mess, if that is in fact what it is.


Prime, if you're going to make a statement to suggest that something other than ourselves may be responsible for our situation (as you did), then you need to explain.

Your question doesn't make sense, otherwise.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on February 04, 2015, 11:25:59 PM
Prime, if you're going to make a statement to suggest that something other than ourselves may be responsible for our situation (as you did), then you need to explain.

Your question doesn't make sense, otherwise.

It is only our situation if we own it. I don't.

I know what I am responsible for and I am not responsible for the quality of political candidates currently put before the voters. I personally have done nothing to support such a situation.

In the most recent election in Oregon, I felt there were a couple of offices where there was no candidate that deserved my vote. One was our Governor who was running for reelection and who I had voted for in the past. During the last legislative session, he turned his back on his supporters and his promises. Unfortunately, there were no other better candidates to vote for. I cast a non-vote by writing in my own name.

I did not create a system where we are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to political candidates. It is frustrating to realize there are no viable candidates running for office. I don't have a solution to this. I don't have an answer. What I am asking is this, does anyone else know how we can fix a system that has been broken for a long time?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on February 04, 2015, 11:59:39 PM
It is only our situation if we own it. I don't.

I know what I am responsible for and I am not responsible for the quality of political candidates currently put before the voters. I personally have done nothing to support such a situation.

In the most recent election in Oregon, I felt there were a couple of offices where there was no candidate that deserved my vote. One was our Governor who was running for reelection and who I had voted for in the past. During the last legislative session, he turned his back on his supporters and his promises. Unfortunately, there were no other better candidates to vote for. I cast a non-vote by writing in my own name.

I did not create a system where we are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to political candidates. It is frustrating to realize there are no viable candidates running for office. I don't have a solution to this. I don't have an answer. What I am asking is this, does anyone else know how we can fix a system that has been broken for a long time?

What does your experience in this life tell you, Prime? I'd really like to know what you think, if you're the age you claim to be. (not doubting you, necessarily) What things have changed, to alter the political process toward what we're faced with in 2015-16, etc.?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on February 05, 2015, 09:50:03 PM
What does your experience in this life tell you, Prime? I'd really like to know what you think, if you're the age you claim to be. (not doubting you, necessarily) What things have changed, to alter the political process toward what we're faced with in 2015-16, etc.?

I think for me it has been a long process. When I was in my 20's and 30's politics barely interested me. I suspect I imagined our elected officials would take care of everything. I was very naive, obviously.

BTW, I am the age I claim to be although I can understand why someone might question this because I still can be very immature acting at times. LOL

Sometime during my late 30's and onward, I became a union activist. Along with this, I started getting more politically involved. The leadership at the union I associated with saw potential in my ability to speak from the heart with politicians regarding issues which concerned the folks I represented.

Over the last several decades, I lobbied in D.C. and at the state level many times. What this experience taught me is that most of the folks we elect to represent us are just like ourselves. There is nothing special about them other than their willingness to step up and sometime that enormous ego that motivates them to do so.

When I converse with Senators, Representative and even the President, I speak with them on a fairly equal level now. When I was young, I might have been awestruck. I am so over this now. They've lost whatever celebrity status they had in my mind as I have gotten to know them on a one-on-one basis.

Having said this, I don't want to give the impression that I have some manner of inside track to these folks. I'm just a regular citizen, like the rest of the folks in this country. You'd be surprised at how accessible our politicians are when all is said and done.

I worry that I've become somewhat jaded as I've matured. Some politicians do and say things which worry me because they seem so ignorant. I also worry that the financial benefits of being an elected official have clouded a lot of politicians viewpoints. I worry that we are not being well represented and I am concerned that there is no easy way to resolve this. The election process today is complex and getting elected is very expensive. Without the support of a heck of a lot of people and/or from corporate American (including foreign interests) no one could get elected. High principals and the desire to improve things is simply not going to cut it anymore, unfortunately.

Sorry for the windy reply, but this is not a topic that should be taken lightly....although I am a great believer in humor.



Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: BayGBM on February 06, 2015, 05:37:06 AM
Let’s Find Mitt Romney a New Job
By Margaret Hartmann

In the last week there's been a flurry of speculation about how Mitt Romney's decision not to make a third run at the presidency affects the other 2016 candidates, but what about the man who 47 percent of Americans wanted to lead the country in 2012? Romney is intelligent, energetic, experienced, and still possesses a driving need to shape the future of our country. You won't find binders full of candidates like that, which is why some Americans have been suggesting new career paths for Romney. (Plus, in a statement posted minutes after Romney's announcement, Jeb Bush said, "Mitt is a patriot and I join many in hoping his days of serving our nation and our party are not over," which seems fishy.) If Romney still wants to get back into politics, these are the jobs he should be applying for.

Vice President of the United States
Qualifications: Losing by a few percentage points is kind of like being a "heartbeat away" from the presidency. Plus, he's already a well-known character in The Onion.
Signs He'll Get the Job: Romney met privately with Jeb Bush, his biggest competition for the GOP establishment vote, just a week before he made his announcement. This prompted speculation that the two made a deal, and Glenn Beck had an idea of what that might be. “You run and let the people decide with their votes. And it bothers me a great deal that Jeb Bush clearly went and talked to Mitt Romney," he explained. ” If Jeb Bush wins, there will be a position, you know, vice president Mitt Romney, or treasury secretary Mitt Romney or whatever. There will be a position in the Jeb Bush cabinet for Mitt Romney.”

Secretary of State
Qualifications: Foreign policy was one of the three planks of Romney's short-lived 2016 bid. He was president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics, and currently heads the annual Romney Olympics. Also, it's less ridiculous than the Republican 2016 presidential nominee balancing the ticket with a Mormon millionaire.
Signs He'll Get the Job: On social media, this was the most popular guess for Bush's theoretical offer to Romney. No one has made a good case for why Romney should get the job, but it seems like the kind of thing that could make someone drop a presidential bid.

Secretary of the Treasury
Qualifications: The former Bain Capital CEO clearly knows his way around the finance industry. Back in 2012, columnists in the Daily News and The Hill suggested Romney should be nominated for the position, but for some reason President Obama didn't want to pull another "team of rivals," as he did with Clinton.
Signs He'll Get the Job: On Friday Charles Krauthammer said during a Fox News panel that Romney's move was good for the GOP because "it removed what was going to be a nasty internecine fight and gave them a future secretary of the Treasury."

Secretary of Health and Human Services
Qualifications: He knows how to put together a universal health care system, and has a lot of ideas for tearing them down as well.
Signs He'll Get the Job: Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post reminded Twitter followers on Friday that she suggested Romney would make a good Health and Human Services secretary ... back in 2009. Six years ago, following a post Tumulty wrote in TIME, Marc Ambinder seconded her idea in The Atlantic. "Like Hillary Clinton, Romney might be willing to trade his political ambition for the chance to do something awesome for the country." You know, or not.

Senator from Massachusetts
Qualifications: Massachusetts voters already elected Romney once, and some suggested he should run for the seat after he lost his first presidential campaign. Senator Elizabeth Warren seems to have a bright future ahead of her, which could mean another vacancy in the coming years.
Signs He'll Get the Job: Romney joked about the position last month, saying, "Let me state unequivocally… that I have no intention of running for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts." If what we've seen in the last two years is any indication, that means he's definitely running.

Politician's Father
Qualifications: Romney still works at Solamere Capital, the investment firm founded by his son Tagg, and as he noted recently, he's "already rich." His best bet for remaining active in politics may be pressuring one of his sons to run for office. It's not hard to picture Romney as a lovable party elder who posts quirky photos on Instagram.
Signs He'll Get the Job: Mitt is the son of a former governor and failed presidential candidate, so Tagg's unsuccessful bid to avenge him in 2036 almost seems inevitable.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on February 06, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
I think for me it has been a long process. When I was in my 20's and 30's politics barely interested me. I suspect I imagined our elected officials would take care of everything. I was very naive, obviously.

BTW, I am the age I claim to be although I can understand why someone might question this because I still can be very immature acting at times. LOL

Sometime during my late 30's and onward, I became a union activist. Along with this, I started getting more politically involved. The leadership at the union I associated with saw potential in my ability to speak from the heart with politicians regarding issues which concerned the folks I represented.

Over the last several decades, I lobbied in D.C. and at the state level many times. What this experience taught me is that most of the folks we elect to represent us are just like ourselves. There is nothing special about them other than their willingness to step up and sometime that enormous ego that motivates them to do so.

When I converse with Senators, Representative and even the President, I speak with them on a fairly equal level now. When I was young, I might have been awestruck. I am so over this now. They've lost whatever celebrity status they had in my mind as I have gotten to know them on a one-on-one basis.

Having said this, I don't want to give the impression that I have some manner of inside track to these folks. I'm just a regular citizen, like the rest of the folks in this country. You'd be surprised at how accessible our politicians are when all is said and done.

I worry that I've become somewhat jaded as I've matured. Some politicians do and say things which worry me because they seem so ignorant. I also worry that the financial benefits of being an elected official have clouded a lot of politicians viewpoints. I worry that we are not being well represented and I am concerned that there is no easy way to resolve this. The election process today is complex and getting elected is very expensive. Without the support of a heck of a lot of people and/or from corporate American (including foreign interests) no one could get elected. High principals and the desire to improve things is simply not going to cut it anymore, unfortunately.

Sorry for the windy reply, but this is not a topic that should be taken lightly....although I am a great believer in humor.

What do you mean by this, Prime?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on February 06, 2015, 12:30:12 PM
What do you mean by this, Prime?

Converse means to talk. I have met and spoken with my representatives in Congress, the President, Oregon's Governors, Senators and members of the House.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on February 06, 2015, 12:36:09 PM
Converse means to talk. I have met and spoken with my representatives in Congress, the President, Oregon's Governors, Senators and members of the House.

You'd said it as though it is a current involvement, in your last post. Is it?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on February 06, 2015, 03:01:29 PM
You'd said it as though it is a current involvement, in your last post. Is it?

Yes. Political activism continues to hold my interest. I am a congressional and legislative network activist for a labor union. I am also the Board Chair for a nonprofit corporation which represents a sector of retired people.
 

The last time I spoke with President Obama was when he was in Portland, prior to being reelected. On the other hand I just received an email today from SenatorJeff Merkly.

Everyone has the ability to dialog with their legislators. One way to do this is to attend their townhall  meetings. One on one meetings are easier to schedule when you represent a large number of people, even then you might end up conversing with one of their staff.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on February 06, 2015, 03:24:02 PM
Yes. Political activism continues to hold my interest. I am congressional and legislative network activist for a labor union. I am also the Board Chair for a nonprofit corporation which represents a sector of retired people.
 

The last time I spoke with President Obama was when he was in Portland, prior to being reelected. On the other hand I just received an email today from Jeff Merkly.

Everyone has the ability to dialog with their legislators. One way to do this is to attend their townhall  meetings. One on one meetings are easier to schedule when you represent a large number of people, even then you might end up conversing with one of their staff.

That's something, Prime. Was your interaction with Obama anything further than a few words as he was moving by? It would be interesting if you'd give a description of what happened.

And I trust you've worked hard toward clamping down on immigration, "legal" and otherwise, given your union interests.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on February 06, 2015, 03:33:06 PM
That's something, Prime. Was your interaction with Obama anything further than a few words as he was moving by? It would be interesting if you'd give a description of what happened.

And I trust you've worked hard toward clamping down on immigration, "legal" and otherwise, given your union interests.

The conversation with President was very brief. He thanked me for my campaign work.

Our union has not been involved in immigration issues.  These days, most of my political activism relates to senior issues.


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on February 06, 2015, 03:47:26 PM
The conversation with President was very brief. He thanked me for my campaign work.

Our union has not been involved in immigration issues.  These days, most of my political activism relates to senior issues.

Is it seen as some conflict of interest, politically speaking, given other affiliations?


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Primemuscle on February 06, 2015, 11:44:29 PM
Is it seen as some conflict of interest, politically speaking, given other affiliations?

I was writing a more detailed response when my computer decided to crash. I am taking this as a sign that a simpler reply is better.

My personal opinions about political issues is not in conflict with my professional ones, although they are often different. Sometimes there are conflicts of interest between labor issues and retiree issues, to be sure. The middle ground is that I am very clear about what my focus is today. As a senior and a retiree, that is where I am putting my energy.

Like most folks (I hope) I have opinions about a lot of issues before us today. Most recently, the controversy surrounding vaccinations. However, these extraneous personal opinions are not the issues which I was elected to lobby about. When I am speaking with legislators in one of my representative roles, it is not productive or even wise to not have a clear issue to discuss.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on February 09, 2015, 06:06:09 AM
Democratic effort to define Jeb Bush starts with Mitt Romney
By KEN THOMAS and THOMAS BEAUMONT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mitt Romney opposed the government's rescue of U.S. automakers. So did Jeb Bush.

Both worked in finance and backed the Wall Street bailout. Both are advocates of tax cuts that Democrats contend only benefit the wealthy and big business.

While the first actual votes of the next presidential campaign may be a year away, Democrats already are drawing such comparisons between the former Florida governor and the GOP's 2012 White House nominee — and they don't consider them flattering.

Democrats are unwilling to let Bush define himself as a reformer who aims to close the gap between the rich and poor, so they are trying to paint him as this campaign's Romney. The ex-Massachusetts governor struggled in 2012 against criticism related to his work in private equity and his portrayal by President Barack Obama's allies as a cold-hearted plutocrat.

"We don't need to try to show that Jeb is like Romney. He pretty much is Romney," said Eddie Vale, vice president of American Bridge 21st Century, a liberal group set up to conduct opposition research on Republicans. "When it comes to any ideas or policies, he's the same as Romney."

That line of criticism was noticeable this past week after Bush gave his first major policy speech as a potential presidential candidate. His remarks to the Detroit Economic Club emphasized an upbeat economic message and touched on overhauling the nation's immigration system and trying to improve the lives of children underserved by public schools.

Democrats countered by circulating the transcript of a 2012 interview in which Bush cited his opposition to the auto bailout. In the interview, Bush said the auto rescue, a key issue in Michigan, was "driven by politics" and he noted the Obama administration's role in shuttering car dealerships and providing the United Auto Workers union with an equity stake in Chrysler.

Obama's team successfully used that bailout as a wedge against Romney in Michigan and Ohio, repeatedly referring to a 2008 Romney op-ed with the headline, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." Although Romney did not write the headline and advocated a managed bankruptcy for the industry, it created the impression that he was willing to forgo thousands of U.S. auto jobs.

Bush's early approach to his potential campaign signals a desire to avoid such pitfalls, as well as Romney's most notable gaffe — his behind-closed-door dismissal of the "47 percent" of Americans who, he said, don't pay income taxes.

Lisa Wagner, Romney's 2012 Midwest fundraising director, said that once voters meet Bush, "they see his head and his heart are connected" and they are "very, very taken" with his "sincerity."

During a question-and-answer session after the Detroit speech, Bush said losing his first bid for Florida governor in 1994 taught him that winning campaigns requires building an emotional attachment with voters. When he won the job four years later, he said, he campaigned in places — from black churches to public schools in poor communities — where few expected a Republican to go for votes.

That, Bush said, allowed him to "to connect on a human level with people, and offer ideas that are important to people, so that when they think of me they think I'm on their side and that I care about them. ... You've got to care for people before you get their vote.

"That experience on a national scale has got to be part of a strategy," he said.

Democrats say that's a hollow argument and they point to Bush's record as governor, which included the eventual elimination of the state's tax on financial assets. Democrats argue that primarily helped the wealthy.

They also are eager to note how Bush, after leaving office, served on an advisory board for Lehman Brothers, a financial firm that collapsed in 2008 during the recession. They compare Bush's work in private equity to Romney's role at Bain Capital, which was criticized during the 2012 campaign for its leveraged buyouts of companies that in some cases led to job losses.

"Bush may claim a monopoly on the 'right to rise' now, but his history is full of elevating only the select few while leaving everyone else behind," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Ian Sams, citing the name of Bush's campaign-in-waiting.

The tenor of the campaign so far, however, suggests that in Bush and several of the other potential GOP nominees, Democrats will not have a target as easy to strike on economic policy as Romney. Many in the crowded GOP field are focused on the perils of stagnant wages and trying to demonstrate their middle-class bona fides.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, for example, talks about his affinity for shopping at Kohl's, a Milwaukee-based department store chain. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul recently allowed a reporter to interview him while he flew coach on American Airlines, saying, "We go to Target, Wal-Mart, TJ Maxx like other people. We look for bargains. We drive our own cars."

In fact, Republicans see the potential to flip the argument in their favor.

Paul's comment was a not-so-subtle jab at Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leading Democratic White House prospect, who told auto dealers in a 2014 speech that she had not driven a car in several years. GOP operatives, whenever they get the chance, talk about Clinton's use of private jets and her six-figure speaking fees.

"The Clinton's finances are the stuff opposition researchers' dreams are made of," said Dan Ronayne, a GOP strategist, in an email. The Democrats' early attacks on Bush, he said, are an effort "to try and muddy the waters."


Title: Re: Life after defeat for the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on February 12, 2015, 07:43:40 AM
No longer a candidate, Mitt Romney seeking a GOP kingmaker role
By Steve Peoples

BOSTON — A potential candidate no more, Mitt Romney is charting an aggressive course to help shape the Republican presidential field in 2016.

The GOP's 2012 presidential nominee will be a keynote speaker at the Republican Jewish Coalition's spring meeting in Las Vegas, one of several high-profile appearances he has scheduled to try and remain relevant in party affairs despite his recent decision not to launch a third presidential campaign.

"The thing that Mitt Romney has going for him is he has a microphone," said Spencer Zwick, who led the Romney campaign's massive fundraising operation and remains one of his closest advisers. "When he talks about an issue people are going to have to listen and they're going to have to respond."

Romney will be the keynote speaker at the Republican Jewish Coalition's April meeting at the request of the organization's benefactor, Sheldon Adelson.

Other confirmed speakers include former President George W. Bush, House Speaker John Boehner and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who would surely love Adelson's financial backing should he get into the GOP presidential race. Romney will speak on the first night of the gathering, which is traditionally a private event at Adelson's private residence.

"Gov. Romney is the perfect speaker for us to kick off our annual leadership conference," said Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks, citing Romney's "unflinching support for Israel."

"He has been proven correct on so many issues he talked about during the campaign," he said.

After a brief flirtation with a third presidential bid, Romney late last month took himself out of the running. He told supporters he expects and hopes that "one of our next generation of Republican leaders" will be the GOP's nominee.

But he has no plans to fade from presidential politics. Aides suggest he is in a unique position to shape the 2016 debate, maintaining a regular presence on the speaking circuit and in national media, speaking on issues such as foreign policy, immigration and the minimum wage.

"He'll be a very active player in helping us win the presidency," said longtime Romney aide Ron Kaufman.

Beyond the April Las Vegas appearance, Romney's schedule includes spring stops at the hometown chamber of commerce of his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, in Janesville, Wisconsin; the University of Chicago Institute of Politics; the commencement addresses at Jacksonville University, Utah Valley University and St. Anselm College in New Hampshire; and his annual Utah retreat in June, which brings together top donors and likely presidential candidates.

Romney maintains close connections to some of the most powerful Republican donors in the nation. He appears likely to lend his support to one of the younger faces in the 2016 field, although aides report he has yet to decide whether he'll make a formal endorsement or not.

"Is there such a thing as a kingmaker in the Republican Party? Mitt Romney is in a unique position to do that," Zwick said. "In some ways, you have more of an impact when you take yourself out of the running."


 ::)


Title: Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
Post by: Jack T. Cross on February 12, 2015, 11:50:55 AM
I was writing a more detailed response when my computer decided to crash. I am taking this as a sign that a simpler reply is better.

My personal opinions about political issues is not in conflict with my professional ones, although they are often different. Sometimes there are conflicts of interest between labor issues and retiree issues, to be sure. The middle ground is that I am very clear about what my focus is today. As a senior and a retiree, that is where I am putting my energy.

Like most folks (I hope) I have opinions about a lot of issues before us today. Most recently, the controversy surrounding vaccinations. However, these extraneous personal opinions are not the issues which I was elected to lobby about. When I am speaking with legislators in one of my representative roles, it is not productive or even wise to not have a clear issue to discuss.


Do you see how a conflict might arise between trying to preserve and grow the strength of your union, while the country becomes flooded with a potentially unlimited number of outsiders?

The politicians that are inclined to meet with unions have been the same ones to lay the groundwork for the other.

Have you union leaders discussed this, much?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on February 24, 2015, 04:22:19 AM
Mitt Romney's Niece Picked To Head Michigan Republican Party
by AP

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Republicans picked a niece of Mitt Romney on Saturday to lead the state party for the next two years.

Ronna Romney McDaniel got 55 percent of the vote on the first ballot before delegates made the selection unanimous. Bobby Schostak didn't seek another two-year term after four years as chairman.

Republicans control the state Capitol but haven't delivered Michigan to a GOP presidential candidate since 1988. President Barack Obama defeated Romney, a Michigan native, and picked up the state's electoral votes in 2012.

"We might not agree on everything, but we can agree that seven years of liberal Obama policies have a destructive effect on our nation and we need to get a Republican in the White House through Michigan in 2016," McDaniel, 41, of Northville, told the convention.

The other candidates for party chair were Norm Hughes, who worked for former President Ronald Reagan, and Kim Shmina, a nurse.

Mike Farage of Grand Rapids said he voted for McDaniel partly because she wants to make the party more appealing to minorities — "the elephant in the room" for Republicans.

Republicans made some changes in local leadership Friday night as Norm Shinkle in the 8th District and Paul Welday in the 14th District were defeated.

Gov. Rick Snyder, who was re-elected in November, recorded a video greeting but didn't attend the convention while he recovers from a blood clot in his leg, spokesman Dave Murray said.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for the GOP
Post by: andreisdaman on February 24, 2015, 07:39:10 AM
Mitt Romney's Niece Picked To Head Michigan Republican Party
by AP

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Republicans picked a niece of Mitt Romney on Saturday to lead the state party for the next two years.

Ronna Romney McDaniel got 55 percent of the vote on the first ballot before delegates made the selection unanimous. Bobby Schostak didn't seek another two-year term after four years as chairman.

Republicans control the state Capitol but haven't delivered Michigan to a GOP presidential candidate since 1988. President Barack Obama defeated Romney, a Michigan native, and picked up the state's electoral votes in 2012.

"We might not agree on everything, but we can agree that seven years of liberal Obama policies have a destructive effect on our nation and we need to get a Republican in the White House through Michigan in 2016," McDaniel, 41, of Northville, told the convention.

The other candidates for party chair were Norm Hughes, who worked for former President Ronald Reagan, and Kim Shmina, a nurse.

Mike Farage of Grand Rapids said he voted for McDaniel partly because she wants to make the party more appealing to minorities — "the elephant in the room" for Republicans.

Republicans made some changes in local leadership Friday night as Norm Shinkle in the 8th District and Paul Welday in the 14th District were defeated.

Gov. Rick Snyder, who was re-elected in November, recorded a video greeting but didn't attend the convention while he recovers from a blood clot in his leg, spokesman Dave Murray said.

Nepotism is an amazing drug


Title: Re: Life after defeat for the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on February 25, 2015, 04:30:56 AM
Nepotism is an amazing drug

It is annoying because it is true.  :(


Title: Re: Life after defeat for the GOP
Post by: AbrahamG on February 25, 2015, 07:31:43 PM
Mitt Romney's Niece Picked To Head Michigan Republican Party
by AP

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Republicans picked a niece of Mitt Romney on Saturday to lead the state party for the next two years.

Ronna Romney McDaniel got 55 percent of the vote on the first ballot before delegates made the selection unanimous. Bobby Schostak didn't seek another two-year term after four years as chairman.

Republicans control the state Capitol but haven't delivered Michigan to a GOP presidential candidate since 1988. President Barack Obama defeated Romney, a Michigan native, and picked up the state's electoral votes in 2012.

"We might not agree on everything, but we can agree that seven years of liberal Obama policies have a destructive effect on our nation and we need to get a Republican in the White House through Michigan in 2016," McDaniel, 41, of Northville, told the convention.

The other candidates for party chair were Norm Hughes, who worked for former President Ronald Reagan, and Kim Shmina, a nurse.

Mike Farage of Grand Rapids said he voted for McDaniel partly because she wants to make the party more appealing to minorities — "the elephant in the room" for Republicans.

Republicans made some changes in local leadership Friday night as Norm Shinkle in the 8th District and Paul Welday in the 14th District were defeated.

Gov. Rick Snyder, who was re-elected in November, recorded a video greeting but didn't attend the convention while he recovers from a blood clot in his leg, spokesman Dave Murray said.

Looks as retarded at Terry Schiavo.  LMFAO.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for the GOP
Post by: BayGBM on February 26, 2015, 04:26:02 AM
Looks as retarded at Terry Schiavo.  LMFAO.

Not a flattering portrait, true.  Presumably she does not always look like this.  :-\


Title: Re: Life after defeat for the GOP
Post by: LurkerNoMore on February 26, 2015, 07:14:34 AM
Not a flattering portrait, true.  Presumably she does not always look like this.  :-\

She has the Sean Allen Gum Effect going on...


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on March 19, 2015, 04:04:03 PM
Mitt Romney Exclusive: Former GOP presidential candidate talks Clintons and facing off against Evander Holyfield
By Jon Ward

Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric in an exclusive interview Wednesday that he decided not to run for president a third time for a simple reason.
 
“It just didn’t feel right,” Romney said in his first interview since deciding at the end of January not to mount another campaign. “Somehow, it just didn’t feel like this was the right time for us to step forward.”
 
He said, “I would love to be president. I just concluded I was not the best person to carry forward the Republican torch.”
 
If he had run, Romney said, he would have spent “a great deal of time taking my message to Hispanic Americans and to other minority groups in this country — African Americans, Asian Americans — and describing why it is that conservative principles are best for them and for their families.
 
“That’s something I wish I would’ve spent a lot more time doing” in 2012, he said.
 
The 68-year-old former Massachusetts governor told supporters at the time he announced he would not run again that he thought he could have won the nomination had he fought for it. And he has told advisers that he doubts any of the prospective Republican candidates will have trouble beating the expected Democratic nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
 
Romney, speaking with Yahoo News at his son Craig’s home in San Diego, heaped praise Wednesday on several of those Republicans — including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — and he even had kind words for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who had been outspoken in saying that Romney should not run.
 
“A lotta young people are very excited about Rand Paul. And of course, there’s a libertarian strain in my party, and he’s connected with a lotta folks who wanna see us take a different course as a party,” Romney said. “I mean, more power to him as he expresses his views.”
 
Romney said he does not plan to endorse anyone in the crowded Republican field, but he called Bush “a sound, effective governor” and “a very formidable and capable candidate.”
 
“And I think he’d be a very good president,” Romney said.
 
He was effusive in his praise for Walker, calling him “a man of integrity and character.”
 
“He was one that faced a recall, fought for his agenda; it was supported by the people of Wisconsin. I think a guy like that really has stood the test of a very close inspection,” Romney said. “I think he makes a very compelling case to become a nominee.”
 
And Romney said that Rubio “has really distinguished himself” on foreign policy, which may be a major issue in the coming 2016 presidential election.

On the Democratic side of the 2016 field, Romney said that the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private email address that routed through a server stored in her home was “a mess.”
 
“I mean, it’s always something with the Clintons,” he said. “They have rules which they describe before they get into something, and then they decide they don’t have to follow their own rules. And that, I think, is gonna be a real problem for her. ...
 
“She didn’t follow the rules and regulations of the federal government,” Romney said.
 
A bigger challenge for Clinton in 2016, said Romney, would be to explain and defend what he referred to as “the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama foreign policy.” He faulted Clinton’s attempt to “reset” relations with Russia and the Obama administration for not reaching a status of forces agreement with Iraq that would have left a residual force of U.S. troops on the ground there.
 
“That would’ve helped dissuade the creation of ISIS,” Romney said.

Romney called President Obama “the Pete Carroll of foreign-policy play calls,” a reference to the Seattle Seahawks football coach, who was maligned for his decision to throw a pass during a goal line play in the final seconds of this year’s Super Bowl. The pass was intercepted, and the Seahawks lost to the New England Patriots.
 
“In Syria, we should’ve worked with moderate voices there, armed them to make sure we could topple [Syrian dictator Bashar] Assad, as opposed to have this ongoing circumstance, which has allowed ISIS to grow,” Romney said. “And then ISIS begins to grow and thrive, and we’re not ready. We’re not there to immediately respond as they come rushing into Iraq.”
 
He said, “I’m afraid you’re gonna have to see more American military involvement in order to keep ISIS from spreading even further.” He expressed hope that the bulk of ground troops fighting Islamic State forces in the Middle East would be sent from “Turkey or Saudi Arabia or others. ... But I think, as the president of the United States, you have to say that we will defeat ISIS, period. Full stop. And we will do what’s necessary for that to happen,” he said.

Romney himself has been the subject of some criticism lately from former Obama adviser David Axelrod, who wrote in his recently released book that on election night in 2012, when Romney called to concede, he made an ungracious comment about the president owing his re-election to African American voters.
 
Obama was irritated during the call, according to Axelrod, and upon hanging up, he paraphrased Romney as having said to him, “You really did a great job of getting the vote out in places like Cleveland and Milwaukee.”
 
“In other words, black people,” Obama said, according to Axelrod. “That’s what he thinks this was all about.”
 
Romney told Yahoo News that he hadn’t made any race-related insinuations during his concession call.
 
“I certainly did not,” he said. “Sometimes misunderstandings occur. ... I remember going into the room with a few of my staff people, picking up the phone and being as gracious as I could possibly be at a very difficult time, and congratulating the president on winning and congratulating him on having a good campaign and running a good campaign. I may well have said what a good job they did turning people out, because they did,” Romney said. “By the way, I don’t even know what happened in Milwaukee, so some of those quotes are obviously a misunderstanding.
 
“But I had nothing but congratulations for the president and positive feelings that I expressed to him,” he said.
 
Now that he is no longer in politics, Romney said, he will divide his time between business, philanthropy, and spending time with his wife and family.
 
“People in politics always say they’re spending time with their family, but in my case, it’s a big family,” he said, laughing. “We got 23 grandkids, so I get to spend a lotta time with them, and it’s extraordinarily enjoyable.”

Romney will put his fame to good use in May, when he’ll step into a boxing ring with former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield for a charity match to raise money for CharityVision, which gives medical support to blind people.
 
Romney cautioned that the event “will not be a true bout. ... I think there’ll be a lot of Democrats there paying good money to see me get beaten up,” he joked.
 
That clearly won’t happen. What’s not clear is whether Romney will strip down to a pair of boxing shorts for the match. He said Wednesday that this is his plan.
 
“You don’t go in there wearing a T-shirt, you know,” he said.
 
Romney’s wife, Ann, said that she has “already made the physical therapy appointments after the bout.”


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on May 08, 2015, 05:16:06 AM
Mitt Romney convenes 2016 contenders, donors for Utah retreat
By Robert Costa

Mitt Romney, who earlier this year decided against a third presidential bid after briefly flirting with a run, will jump back into the national political scene next month when he hosts GOP presidential hopefuls and some of the party’s biggest donors in Utah.

Romney’s 2015 E2 Summit will take place June 11-13 in Deer Valley, a ski resort east of Salt Lake City, according to an invitation obtained Thursday by The Washington Post.

Confirmed speakers from the likely 2016 Republican field include Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.).

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, long seen as a Romney rival due to tensions between their camps, was invited but will not attend, per a Romney ally.

“The format will be similar to that of the past, with speakers on a range of topics throughout the day and outdoor enthusiast activities each morning and Saturday afternoon,” wrote Spencer Zwick, Romney’s former national finance chairman, in the invitation to Romney’s associates.

Zwick, Romney’s political confidant since the 2012 election, has so far remained uncommitted in the 2016 race. He has frequently expressed hope to Romney’s friends that the former Massachusetts governor will rethink the decision to forgo another campaign, which he announced in late January after weeks of consideration.

But Romney has resisted the encouragement. After watching Bush collect significant support from the Republican Party’s establishment, he and many of his advisers at the time were unsure of how he would fare.

The summer affair is Romney’s fourth annual summit. The events began as a way for him to personally connect with the power brokers and financiers backing his political operation. The theme of this year’s gathering is the “strength and future of American leadership.”

Other speakers listed are Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks, journalist Katie Couric, former defense secretary Robert Gates, former treasury secretary Lawrence H. Summers, and former Obama adviser David Axelrod, among others.



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: andreisdaman on May 08, 2015, 06:56:13 AM
I'mm having second thoughts about Mitt running...it may have been a mistake for him to have droped out so soon....if you look at Jeb's apparent weakness so far, Romney could have been the frontrunner possibly..


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on May 09, 2015, 08:15:53 AM
"I know I lost twice and dropped out of the race this time before it began, but I still want to be relevant.  Pay attention to me!"  ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: andreisdaman on May 09, 2015, 12:05:58 PM
"I know I lost twice and dropped out of the race this time before it began, but I still want to be relevant.  Pay attention to me!"  ::)

might be angling for a cabinet post........Secretary of the Treasury???....we know he sure loves money


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on May 09, 2015, 07:34:20 PM
might be angling for a cabinet post........Secretary of the Treasury???....we know he sure loves money

His ego could not handle being in someone's cabinet.  It is not the way Romney thinks of himself; Romney sees himself as the biggest fish in every pond.  He is smarter, richer, better, more worthy, more capable, etc.  Watching someone else campaign and win the brass ring that he failed (twice) to win is not something he could do.  It takes being a bigger person than he is to do that.  See Hillary.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on May 16, 2015, 04:39:56 AM
Mitt Romney lasts 2 rounds against Holyfield in boxing match
by Brian Skoloff

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and five-time heavyweight boxing champion Evander Holyfield squared off in the ring Friday at a charity fight night event in Salt Lake City.

Romney, 68, and Holyfield, 52, sparred, if you could call it that, for just two short rounds before Romney ran away from the boxer and threw in the towel, giving up a round early in the lighthearted fight that came amid several other fights by professional boxers and an auction.

The two barely threw any punches and largely just danced around, occasionally lightly jabbing each other in the midsection in what was much more of a comedic event than an actual bout.

The black-tie affair raised money for the Utah-based organization CharityVision, which helps doctors in developing countries perform surgeries to restore vision in people with curable blindness.

Romney's son Josh Romney, who lives in Utah, serves as a volunteer president for CharityVision.

Corporate sponsorships for the event ranged from $25,000 to $250,000. Organizers say they raised at least $1 million.

"He said, 'You know what? You float like a bee and sting like a butterfly,'" Romney said after the fight.
Attendees just enjoyed the festive atmosphere and the chance to see Romney in the ring.

"Oh, it was great. I was very proud of Mitt," said Katie Anderson, who attended the event with her husband.

"I was happy it went to the second round," Devin Anderson said.

Romney, the most-high profile Mormon in America, is hugely popular in the state, where more than 60 percent of the residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Beyond his religious connections, the former Massachusetts governor is remembered by many for turning around Salt Lake City's 2002 Winter Olympics after a bribery scandal.

Romney has recently built a home in the Salt Lake City area and registered as a Utah voter.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on May 16, 2015, 04:45:21 AM
He would never get my vote, but he gets my salute for his sense of humor here and entering the ring for charity at 68.  Had he been more authentic, humorous, and personable he would have won more support. I hope he spends his life in philanthropy and fundraising for needy causes.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: andreisdaman on May 18, 2015, 01:00:30 PM
To be honest he looks really good for a man his age....I wonder if he lifts?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: Jack T. Cross on May 18, 2015, 05:05:30 PM
To be honest he looks really good for a man his age....I wonder if he lifts?

Romney is the white guy.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on June 13, 2015, 05:25:39 AM
Mitt Romney gives a brutal PowerPoint critique of Obama’s foreign policy
By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa

PARK CITY, Utah — Ever since Mitt Romney’s loss to President Obama in 2012, it has become a mantra in the Republican Party that on foreign policy especially, “Romney was right.”

In a stuffy mountain lodge here Friday night, Romney joined the chorus. Dusting off a page from his management consulting playbook, the former Republican nominee delivered a speech by PowerPoint to more than 200 corporate CEOs and other attendees of his annual ideas festival about what he deemed (and titled his slides): “The Most Consequential Obama Foreign Policy Mistakes.”

Slide by slide, Romney ticked through 20 mistakes, from Obama’s “Middle East apology tour” to the president’s lack of support for Iran’s green revolution to the administration’s infamous “reset” with Russia.

“With all that bad news, is it not true that arguably President Obama is the worst foreign policy president in history?” Romney asked. “I think he is.”

Next came the slides about Obama’s first-term secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner. First, Romney showed a map of the globe, colored in for all the countries she visited.

Then he mocked her.

“Secretary of Schlep,” the next slide read.

“She was everywhere,” Romney said, but he insisted she made “mistake after mistake after mistake.”

In the back of the room, Robert Gates — Obama’s former secretary of defense, Clinton’s Cabinet Room ally and a featured speaker at the Romney conclave — listened awkwardly alongside news anchor Katie Couric.

Romney’s use of PowerPoint to illustrate his frustrations with Obama’s leadership was perhaps the most telling moment of his three-day E2 (for Experts and Enthusiasts) gathering, a donor confab that drew six presidential candidates as featured guests.

The presentation hinted at the kind of president Romney would have been — technocratic and hawkish. At one point, he showed how he would have reorganized the State Department bureaucracy by dividing the map into color-coded regions to exert soft power, much the way military commanders do at the Pentagon.

It also underscored his continued and keen interest in global affairs during his political winter. After critiquing Obama, Romney laid out a plan for getting the United States on what he called “the right course.”

“Strengthen, organize and strategize,” Romney said. “By the way, that’s S.O.S., and we do need help.”

Romney’s blame was not directed solely at Obama. He called former president George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq “a mistake.”

“I certainly supported it at the time, but today, given what we know, it was a mistake,” Romney said.

Romney reserved particular ire for Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the 2012 campaign, he was mocked for saying Russia was “our number-one geopolitical foe,” although many GOP analysts now say he has been proven prescient by Putin’s aggression in Ukraine.

With a slide titled, “What’s Putin’s strategy?” Romney deplored the reach of Putin’s propaganda. “Russia TV,” he said. “I mean, I turn on my TV here — and there’s RT!”

After Romney finished his speech to respectful applause, loyalists whispered that he could be positioning to be secretary of state in the next Republican administration.

But the atmosphere shifted quickly — and in a most undiplomatic way. The projection screens moved from Romney’s PowerPoint presentation to video clips of Romney, shirtless and sweating, in his charity boxing match with heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield.



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: Davidtheman100 on June 13, 2015, 06:58:04 AM
Life after defeat for Mitt Romney: Public praise, private questions
By Philip Rucker

BOSTON — Mitt Romney began his retreat from public life Wednesday at a private breakfast gathering with a couple hundred of his most loyal and affluent campaign benefactors. The former Massachusetts governor, humbled by the thumping that ended his six-year pursuit of the presidency, reminisced about the journey and tried not to cry.

Romney waxed about the roaring crowds in the campaign’s closing days and the feeling that he was winning, said donors in attendance. He commended Stuart Stevens, his chief strategist, as well as his senior aides, and then went around thanking donors one by one.

“Mitt was vintage Mitt,” said L.E. Simmons, an oil investor on Romney’s national finance committee. “He was analytical, no notes, spoke from the heart and was very appreciative.”

But Romney’s top aides, who only a couple of days ago were openly speculating about who would fill which jobs in a Romney administration, woke up Wednesday to face brutal recriminations.

Some top donors privately unloaded on Romney’s senior staff, describing it as a junior varsity operation that failed to adequately insulate and defend Romney through a summer of relentless attacks from the Obama campaign over his business career and personal wealth.

Everybody feels like they were a bunch of well-meaning folks who were, to use a phrase that Governor Romney coined to describe his opponent, way in over their heads,” said one member of the campaign’s national finance committee, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

“Romney World,” the fundraiser added, “will fade into the obscurity of a lot of losing campaigns.”

Stuart Stevens, who as Romney’s chief strategist was the recipient of some of the harshest blame, did not return requests for comment Wednesday. Nor did many of Romney’s other top advisers, who during Romney’s concession speech were visibly shell-shocked.

Bob White, Romney’s close friend and business partner who chaired the campaign, strongly defended Stevens and the rest of the staff in an interview a few weeks ago.

“Mitt never doubted his team, and the reports of infighting were not true,” White said.

In Washington, meanwhile, scores of transition-team staffers who had been preparing for a Romney administration started packing their belongings Wednesday.

Mike Leavitt, the former Utah governor running the transition, convened a conference call at 10 a.m. to inform the staff they had until Friday to organize their files, return their laptops and cellphones and vacate their government office.

At the Wednesday breakfast, Romney told the donors he believed Hurricane Sandy stunted his momentum in the final week of the campaign, according to multiple donors present.

Although Romney himself stopped short of placing any blame on New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who praised President Obama’s leadership during the storm, several Romney supporters privately pointed fingers at the outspoken governor.

“A lot of people feel like Christie hurt, that we definitely lost four or five points between the storm and Chris Christie giving Obama a chance to be bigger than life,” said one of Romney’s biggest fundraisers, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

Another major Romney fundraiser said Christie’s embrace of Obama after Sandy walloped his state only deepened a rift that opened between the Romney and Christie camps over the summer.

Christie and his wife were unhappy with Romney’s vice presidential search process, believing they were “led a little bit far down the garden path” without being picked, the fundraiser said.

Romney advisers have said they were disappointed with Christie’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention because they believed the speaker focused too much on himself and not enough on the candidate. Republicans close to Christie, however, said the Romney team approved the final draft of the speech.

Some Romney advisers insisted Wednesday that tensions with Christie have been overstated.

“The problem with Sandy was not Chris Christie,” said one political adviser. “The problem with Sandy was we couldn’t talk about the choice argument for the last week of the campaign. At a time when Barack Obama’s campaign was small, it allowed him to be bigger, and provided him a vehicle for him to show he can be bipartisan.”

Christie on Wednesday defended his work as a surrogate on Romney’s behalf, saying, ”I did my job.”

“I wouldn’t call what I did an embrace of Barack Obama,” Christie said at a news conference. “I know that’s become the wording of it, but the fact of the matter is, you know, I’m a guy who tells the truth all the time. And if the president of the United States did something good, I was gonna say he did something good and give him credit for it.”

He continued, “But it doesn’t take away for a minute the fact that I was the first governor to endorse Mitt Romney, that I traveled literally tens of thousands of miles for him, raised tens of millions of dollars for him and worked harder, I think, than any other surrogate in America other than Paul Ryan, who became his running mate.”

The time will come for Romney and his campaign leadership to fully assess what went wrong. Some of his top donors immediately pointed to the campaign’s early strategic decision to frame the race as a referendum on Obama rather than a choice between two different governing philosophies and leadership styles.

A second member of Romney’s national finance committee said that while the campaign’s tactics and fundraising organization were executed well, the strategy and message were “total failures.” This fundraiser added that the campaign’s cautious and adversarial relationship with the news media proved detrimental.

“That strategy was we don’t want to define differences, we want it to be a referendum not a choice, but it was always going to be a choice. Elections are a choice. Their fundamental premise was incorrect — and when you’re incorrect on this level, you are shunned by people in the party,” said the fundraiser, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

But Romney, those close to him said, is not second guessing the counsel or work of his staff. After he spoke at Wednesday’s breakfast, Simmons said he spoke privately with Romney.

“I said, ‘So what are you going to do for the next few weeks? Let’s do something fun,’ ” Simmons recalled. “And he said, ‘Uh, I’m going to be really busy.’ He said, ‘I have 400 people to get great jobs for.’ ”

Late Wednesday afternoon, as sleet fell in Boston’s North End, Romney visited his campaign headquarters for one final staff meeting. He thanked his aides and said goodbye. His Secret Service detail gone — and with it his code name, Javelin, after a car once made by his father’s company — Romney was spotted driving off in the backseat of his son Tagg’s car. His wife, Ann, was riding shotgun.


If anyone rewatches the presidential debate between Obama and Romney they'll realize that not only has Obama not come through with anything he had claimed he would, he was actually wrong statistically and in the economics category he was blown away in every way, shape and form by Romney. I think Obama is the reason for this politically correct full-of-bullshit America we have now where they're glorifying criminals over police and the self entitledness of the public is pathetic.. It shows in his pathetic approval rate.. Even crats getting sick of him..


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on June 13, 2015, 07:09:39 AM

If anyone rewatches the presidential debate between Obama and Romney they'll realize that not only has Obama not come through with anything he had claimed he would, he was actually wrong statistically and in the economics category he was blown away in every way, shape and form by Romney. I think Obama is the reason for this politically correct full-of-bullshit America we have now where they're glorifying criminals over police and the self entitledness of the public is pathetic.. It shows in his pathetic approval rate.. Even crats getting sick of him..

Perhaps Romney should run again.  Or did you think America was in a state of bliss when Obama took over and "ruined" it all? 

Stop making a fool of yourself.  ::)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: Davidtheman100 on June 13, 2015, 07:21:54 AM
Perhaps Romney should run again.  Or did you think America was in a state of bliss when Obama took over and "ruined" it all? 

Stop making a fool of yourself.  ::)

Whens the last time there was a riot to that extent where the city had to have a curfew and continued through new york as well... Where police were disrespected as they are these days? The likes of this has NEVER BEEN SEEN.. And to think that people support this lunatic is beyond me.. Cannot even call terrorists..Terrorists! "Islamic extremism" Of corse i'll be made a fool of myself if you put words in my mouth...Never said America was in a state of bliss..I've never heard a president brag about things that are either not because of his own doing, or because the public has no concept of things..

Gas prices has nothing to do with Obama..Had nothing to do with Bush either..Foreign economics not wanting America to be self-sufficient backfired wholeheartedly..But you'll hear the Obama lovers who drive a prius with the re-elected sticker on their back window bragging to the intelligent folk who are laughing in their head about how stupid this person is for saying that...who gives a shit if there are more jobs now? There is now petitioning for min. wage to be raised more than ever because all he did was create shit jobs through temporary programs..I'll even go as far as saying he's a pedophile..(just kidding)


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: andreisdaman on June 13, 2015, 08:22:35 AM
Whens the last time there was a riot to that extent where the city had to have a curfew and continued through new york as well... Where police were disrespected as they are these days? The likes of this has NEVER BEEN SEEN.. And to think that people support this lunatic is beyond me.. Cannot even call terrorists..Terrorists! "Islamic extremism" Of corse i'll be made a fool of myself if you put words in my mouth...Never said America was in a state of bliss..I've never heard a president brag about things that are either not because of his own doing, or because the public has no concept of things..

Gas prices has nothing to do with Obama..Had nothing to do with Bush either..Foreign economics not wanting America to be self-sufficient backfired wholeheartedly..But you'll hear the Obama lovers who drive a prius with the re-elected sticker on their back window bragging to the intelligent folk who are laughing in their head about how stupid this person is for saying that...who gives a shit if there are more jobs now? There is now petitioning for min. wage to be raised more than ever because all he did was create shit jobs through temporary programs..I'll even go as far as saying he's a pedophile..(just kidding)

This is so mind-boggling wrong that I can't even muster a response....I'm gonna blame your idiocy on your having only 39 posts..you need more experience here


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: chadstallion on June 13, 2015, 10:34:55 AM
Whens the last time there was a riot to that extent where the city had to have a curfew and continued through new york as well... Where police were disrespected as they are these days? The likes of this has NEVER BEEN SEEN.. And to think that people support this lunatic is beyond me.. Cannot even call terrorists..Terrorists! "Islamic extremism" Of corse i'll be made a fool of myself if you put words in my mouth...Never said America was in a state of bliss..I've never heard a president brag about things that are either not because of his own doing, or because the public has no concept of things..

Gas prices has nothing to do with Obama..Had nothing to do with Bush either..Foreign economics not wanting America to be self-sufficient backfired wholeheartedly..But you'll hear the Obama lovers who drive a prius with the re-elected sticker on their back window bragging to the intelligent folk who are laughing in their head about how stupid this person is for saying that...who gives a shit if there are more jobs now? There is now petitioning for min. wage to be raised more than ever because all he did was create shit jobs through temporary programs..I'll even go as far as saying he's a pedophile..(just kidding)

if this poster didn't write in complete sentences I would guess 333386/SC has returned!


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on June 13, 2015, 04:53:44 PM
if this poster didn't write in complete sentences I would guess 333386/SC has returned!

Ouch!  :-[


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: LurkerNoMore on June 13, 2015, 08:29:30 PM
if this poster didn't write in complete sentences I would guess 333386/SC has returned!

My first thought as well.  The mental impairment is about the same.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: Davidtheman100 on June 13, 2015, 08:54:21 PM
You know nothing of mental impairment based on a post you don't agree with...It is okay if the liberal Hilary Clinton fans band together and want to create change together it's rather cute to the queer eye...But not mine i see right through the politically correct bullshit and use the logical approach to things..Mentally impaired for that? I think not.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: chadstallion on June 14, 2015, 12:54:53 PM
You know nothing of mental impairment based on a post you don't agree with...It is okay if the liberal Hilary Clinton fans band together and want to create change together it's rather cute to the queer eye...But not mine i see right through the politically correct bullshit and use the logical approach to things..Mentally impaired for that? I think not.
except some of us have seen 35,000+ similar posts from SC/333386. so we know of what we speak.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on July 07, 2015, 03:24:40 PM
Welcome to the Romney primary
By Maeve Reston

Mitt Romney, the man Republicans were so quick to dismiss after his failed 2012 presidential bid, is suddenly in high demand among his GOP colleagues.

The former Massachusetts governor and his wife, Ann, dropped in for "a fun and informal" lunch Monday with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his wife, Columba, at the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, following through on an invitation extended by the Bush family months ago.

The meeting followed an overnight sojourn this weekend by Chris Christie and Marco Rubio at the Romney's vacation home in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, on the eve of their appearance in the town's July Fourth parade. The two candidates and their families joined the Romneys on their boat on 72-square-mile Lake Winnipesaukee.

Aides familiar with the Bush visit stressed it was purely a social occasion, and that the families talked not only about policy but also the triumphant finish of the U.S. women's team in the World Cup — noting that they were joined by President George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush, as well as Jeb Bush's son, George P. Bush, and his wife, Amanda. And everyone at the Christie-Rubio gathering similarly dismissed endorsement speculation by saying they passed the evening talking sports over a Fourth of July barbecue of hot dogs, baked beans and potato salad.

Since forgoing a third presidential bid in January, Romney has insisted he has no interest in being a kingmaker in the 2016 race. But as the contenders jockey for his favor -- and, in some cases, chase his lead on thorny issues -- it's beginning to look like the 2016 Romney primary is well underway.

And he seems more liberated to speak out than when he was fighting for the White House himself.

"Given the chaos that's going on on the Republican side of things, he has some ability to bring some order to the chaos and help remind people what big issues actually do matter — and to be a little bit of a rudder for these candidates, who he recognizes can sometimes get seared by the winds of the primary process," said GOP strategist Katie Packer, who was Romney's deputy campaign manager in 2012.

It is an ironic twist for a man once criticized as the very definition of the vanilla candidate, calibrated and cautious at every turn when he was the Republican presidential nominee in 2012.

Romney was one of the first prominent Republicans to bluntly call for taking down the Confederate flag in front of the South Carolina state capitol after the racially motivated massacre of nine people at a Charleston church last month.

"On the Confederate flag issue, he wanted to be out early making a strong statement — saying this is the right thing to do, irregardless of the South Carolina primary," Packer said. "He sees an opportunity for himself to be the voice of reason in the chaos."

Over the weekend, he denounced Donald Trump's suggestion that immigrants coming across the border from Mexico were rapists and criminals, saying the remarks were harmful to the image of the Republican Party.

"I think he made a severe error in saying what he did about Mexican-Americans and I feel it was unfortunate," Romney said.

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's longtime adviser and close associate, said the most likely scenario for the primary "is that he will remain neutral until we have a presumptive nominee."

"The reason for that is because there's a bunch of candidates who are close to Mitt on the issues — and if they're all competing with one another, he's going to stay out of it," he said.

Still, as much as the contenders might like an early endorsement, Romney seems far more interested in weighing in on the issues that matter to him right now.

On Saturday in Wolfeboro, Romney told reporters that he had "no plans to get behind anybody," noting that many of them had helped him during his campaign.

"I'm going to be as loyal to them as they were to me," he said.

Though many of the candidates frequently call on Romney for counsel, he declined to offer his advice -- at least publicly -- on how they should conduct their campaigns.

"These guys will make their own mistakes," he quipped to reporters. "Hopefully they won't follow mine."

With many friends in the race, he has also been generous in offering introductions to the donors who raised more than a billion dollars to power his 2012 run for the presidency. More than a half dozen 2016 candidates attended his annual "Experts & Enthusiasts" summit in Park City, Utah, where they were given entrée to donors who could help their respective bids.

In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly from Deer Valley, Utah, before that donor retreat in June, Romney insisted he would stay "forcefully neutral" in the Republican primary and would not give his stamp of approval to any of the contenders.

He told reporters at the "E2" summit that there were as many as eight GOP candidates who shared similar views on the issues and described a narrow scenario in which he would endorse. He might weigh in, he said, if the race got down to two contenders — and one of them came far closer to sharing his vision for America than the other.

"How it will sort out among those people, time will tell," Romney told reporters at the gathering in Park City. "You just can't predict who is gonna star in the debates, who is going to put in the time in New Hampshire with all of the town meetings, who is going to visit the different counties of Iowa and then emerge."

"I think it will probably narrow down at some point to a smaller group than 15, but I don't know who those (candidates) will be. I'm not sure they'll all be the eight that I'm closest to from a policy standpoint, it may be some I have a little more distance from," he said.

Romney has taken pains not to show favoritism, but he is clearly closer to candidates like Rubio — who worked hard for Romney from the early days of his campaign — than Jeb Bush, with whom he shares a cordial but not close relationship.

For now, his former advisers say he is pleased with the strength of the field and content to just watch the show — particularly on the Democratic side, where Bernie Sanders seems to be closing in on Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"I thought on the other side it would be kind of boring," he said this weekend, "but Bernie Sanders has made it kind of exciting, so we'll see."


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on October 01, 2015, 07:13:17 AM
Mitt Romney weighs in on 2016, says Trump ‘will not be the nominee’
By Philip Rucker

Mitt Romney long ago ruled out a presidential run in 2016, but he is hardly retired from politics.

As he answered questions from college students for an hour on Wednesday, it became clear that Romney is a keen if not obsessive observer of the campaign’s twists and turns and has strong ideas on what the Republican Party and its eventual nominee must do to win back the White House.

“The Democrats have done a great job characterizing my party as the party of the rich,” Romney said. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

He added: “Rich people have gotten richer under President Obama. It’s the poor and the middle class who are suffering. It’s the poor and the middle class who need conservatives.”

Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, spoke Wednesday afternoon at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business in Washington. One of his former campaign aides, Jake Kastan, who is now pursuing an MBA at Georgetown, invited Romney to visit and moderated a question-and-answer session with a few hundred fellow students.

Assessing the presidential contest, Romney said he was surprised at how it was unfolding. Romney seriously considered entering himself in what would have been his third quest for the presidency, but he decided against it in January.

“I would have never predicted that the leader of my party at this stage would be Donald Trump and the leader in their party right now would be a socialist,” Romney said, referring to Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont.

Romney had sharp words for Trump, a billionaire businessman and reality television star who endorsed Romney in 2012 and donated to his campaign. Explaining the Trump phenomenon, Romney said, “Frankly, when you light your hair on fire, you make the evening news, and some people have a lot of hair lit on fire.”

“The attention that Mr. Trump has brought to the process is welcome,” Romney said. “We like the fact that people are watching the debates. That’s the positive side. The negative side is that he’s said some things that he described the other day as being ‘childish.’ . . . I’m afraid he brought attention to [immigration] in a way that was not productive and not appropriate in saying the things he did about Mexican American immigrants.”

Romney said he is concerned that several candidates — he did not name names — have made statements “that some minority populations look at and say, ‘Wow, I guess they don’t like me very much.’ ” He said Republicans must communicate with heart and say, “We like legal immigration and we like helping people.”

Romney said he sees the Republican contest breaking into two brackets: “the more insurgent, outspoken, tea party perhaps bracket” and “the more mainstream conservative bracket.” In the former, he placed Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. In the latter, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, retired technology executive Carly Fiorina and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Romney was definitive in predicting the front-runner’s fate: “Donald Trump will not be the nominee. Ultimately our nominee will come from the mainstream conservative bracket. I don’t know who that will be.”

Reflecting on the anger many voters feel toward politicians, Romney said he has been reading the writings of John Adams, the nation’s second president, and cited a letter that Adams wrote to John Taylor: “He said, ‘Every democracy murders itself. Every democracy commits suicide.’ ”

But Romney said he believed the American people would “do the right thing.”

“I know there’s some skunks in any endeavor — business, politics — and they get most of the visibility, but there are also some really good people,” Romney said.

Throughout his hour with students, Romney repeatedly referenced specific things he would do if he were president. In Syria, for instance, he said he would “wall off” and “isolate” President Bashar al-Assad. Romney was particularly animated about the Iran nuclear deal, saying that “Donald Trump was right: [President Obama] is a terrible negotiator. I can’t imagine a worse negotiator.”

On domestic policy, Romney said he would “put a stick in the heart of generational poverty” and dramatically overhaul the 1960s-era social programs that he said had failed in the war on poverty. This was a core part of Romney’s message in January as he toyed with a run.

Romney appeared relaxed with the students, joking, “I was approached in the airport some time ago. Someone said, ‘You look familiar. Who are you?’ I said, ‘Tom Brady.’ ”

At another point, Romney sang the virtues of the Netflix series “House of Cards” — though he noted, “I will not take inspiration from Frank Underwood.” Playfully motioning to a reporter, he added that he does not endorse murdering journalists.

With the clock nearing an hour, Romney got his 15th and final question. It came from Kastan, who said his mom wanted to know whether Romney would reconsider his vow not to run again.

“We’ve made that decision,” Romney said.

Afterwards, a Washington Post reporter noted the continuing calls from Romney’s friends to draft him into the race and asked whether his answer was a definitive “no.”

“You know, the unavailable is always the most interesting, the most attractive. Ha, ha, ha,” Romney said, laughing as he made his way out of the auditorium. He was off to the airport and had a plane to catch.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: Primemuscle on October 01, 2015, 07:49:08 AM
“The Democrats have done a great job characterizing my party as the party of the rich,” Romney said. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

He  added: “Rich people have gotten richer under President Obama. It’s the poor and the middle class who are suffering. It’s the poor and the middle class who need conservatives.”

One might ask why Mitt, being super rich, would be a Republican. Are we to believe his higher purpose is to help the poor and middleclass so they can stop suffering?


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: andreisdaman on October 01, 2015, 11:58:41 AM
“The Democrats have done a great job characterizing my party as the party of the rich,” Romney said. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

He  added: “Rich people have gotten richer under President Obama. It’s the poor and the middle class who are suffering. It’s the poor and the middle class who need conservatives.”

One might ask why Mitt being super rich would be a Republican. Are we to believe his higher purpose is to help the poor and middleclass so they can stop suffering?

I think the public has never truly bought into "Mitt Romney...public servant"......and he destroyed himself with the 47% comment which really re-inforced that notion


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on November 16, 2015, 09:31:33 AM
Mitt Romney: Obama must wage war on the Islamic State, not merely harass it
by Mitt Romney

On Friday morning, hours before news broke that terrorists killed 129 people and wounded hundreds of other innocent victims in coordinated, bloody attacks all around Paris, President Obama told Americans that “we have contained” the advance of the Islamic State.

Now that the Islamic State is claiming credit for these attacks, we know just how wrong he was.

After Paris, it’s clear: Doing the minimum won’t make us safe. It’s time the president stopped hedging and took meaningful steps to defend us and our allies.

The president was right when he called the Islamic State a cancer, but it is a cancer that metastasized on his watch. Paris is proof. So are Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa. What we saw Friday we will see here if we continue on the present course. It’s time to change that course, secure the safety of our homeland and preserve our democratic values. Now is the time, not merely to contain the Islamic State, but to eradicate it once and for all.

We must begin by identifying the enemy. We will not defeat it if we are afraid to call it by its name. These heinous acts of terror are waged by radical Islamists: jihadists. And the Islamic State represents the branch of this ideology that currently poses the greatest threat. Islam is not the enemy, but the enemy lives within Islam. Accordingly, the broader Islamic world will play a critical role in this war.

We must wage the war to defeat the enemy, not merely to harass it. For over a year, the president has clung to the hope that an air campaign is sufficient. It demonstrably is not. He must call in the best military minds from the United States and NATO, actually listen to what they have to say and finally construct a comprehensive strategy that integrates our effort with the Kurds, Turks, Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians.

Leading Muslim nations and peoples must immediately engage in a sustained global campaign to promote tolerance and eschew violence. The Islamic State’s recruiting propaganda must be countered by a much larger, more focused effort to discredit it and replace it with traditional Islamic values.

The West must stop the insanity of welcoming hundreds of thousands of people from the Middle East without knowing who exactly they are. Women, children and the elderly, perhaps, but not thousands upon thousands of single young men.

Only America can lead this war, and that leadership means being willing to devote whatever resources are required to win — even boots on the ground. We have the best-equipped and most dedicated military for good reason. The president must stop trying to placate his political base by saying what he won’t do and tell Americans what he will do.

We must do what it takes.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on November 22, 2015, 05:21:37 AM
N.H. primary poll puts non-candidate Romney first
by James Pindell

For Republicans fearful of Donald Trump becoming their party’s presidential nominee, a new Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll of likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters offers a three-word solution: Willard Mitt Romney.

If the former Massachusetts governor were added to the mix of the 14 other Republican candidates running in the Feb. 9 first-in-the-nation presidential primary, New Hampshire voters would, if the election were held now, give him a 2-to-1 win over Trump, the leader of the field.

Romney, who said as recently as last week that he is not interested in running, did not file for the New Hampshire primary ballot by the deadline last Friday. He would have the support of 31 percent of Granite State Republicans compared with 15 percent backing Trump, the poll indicates.

With Romney, the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, out of the picture, Trump continues to dominate. Trump has 22 percent support, double that of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who ran second in the poll, with 11 percent.

“Donald Trump’s loyal 22 percent goes a long way in New Hampshire,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “As long as the remaining 78 percent is split relatively evenly among the six or seven major contenders, we’re getting close to ‘Trump-mate’ in the Granite State.”

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who has been in second place in New Hampshire in most polls for much of the past month, ran third in the new poll, with 10 percent — a showing that comes amid new scrutiny of Carson’s statements about his own past and about foreign policy.

Ohio Governor John Kasich and Texas Senator Ted Cruz were tied for fourth, with 9 percent, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush had 8 percent. All others had either 4 percent support or less.

The poll of 500 New Hampshire Republicans and independent voters who said they intend to vote in the Republican primary was taken last Tuesday through Thursday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

These poll numbers do more than simply provide a snapshot of where the race stands with 10 weeks to go before the New Hampshire primary. For the first time, polls in Iowa and New Hampshire will help determine who can make the cut at the next Republican debate in December.

On Friday, CNN released criteria stipulating that a candidate must have a polling average of at least 3.5 percent nationally or 4 percent in Iowa or New Hampshire. In this New Hampshire poll, eight candidates would quality for the main stage, but Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who registered at 3 percent, would be dropped for the first time. Paul also is below the necessary level in Iowa and nationally.

Still, the New Hampshire primary remains in flux, with 18 percent undecided on whom they would vote for. If Romney were in the field — having missed the filing deadline he could now participate only as a write-in candidate — roughly one in three voters would abandon their current choice to follow him.

Sean McDonough of Windham, N.H., a 49-year-old mortgage originator and father of three, is one of them. McDonough, who was among those polled, said in an interview that he wants a businessman to run the country.

Today he prefers Trump, but he would back Romney instead, given the opportunity, “because when it comes to talking with leaders in other countries, Romney is probably a better person to do that.”

The poll also found that New Hampshire GOP voters’ priorities have changed in the aftermath of the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks in Paris. All year, jobs and the economy had been the top issue among these voters, but now 42 percent said terrorism and national security are the most important issues facing the country.

This does not appear likely to have much effect on preferences in the race for the GOP nomination, however, with one in four saying that Trump was the “best equipped” to handle the American response to the Islamic State. Another 13 percent believed that Rubio could lead the response better than others.

Rubio, in fact, is emerging to be a consensus pick among mainstream Republicans. He had the highest personal favorability rating among those polled and he led others as the second-choice candidate of those polled. Further, Rubio was viewed as the second most likely to win in the general election, behind Trump.

Angie Murphy, an 87-year-old from Bedford, N.H., has become more interested in Rubio in recent weeks, drawn to his youth and his presentation.

“I think he is a young, intelligent man who has the perfect background of his Cuban parents that will be perfect for today,” Murphy said.

Meanwhile Carson, who officially filed to put his name on the New Hampshire ballot on Friday, still has a good deal of support in the state.

Sarah Hilman, a 68-year-old retired day care worker in Wakefield, N.H., said she liked that Carson “doesn’t panic” under the intense media scrutiny.

“He seems like he is very cool-headed, and he has been on the hot seat lately,” Hilman said. But Hilman said that if Romney suddenly got into the race, she would have to give him another look.

“I am on the fence on that one,” Hilman said. “He was a very successful businessman. The fact that he does have a little bit of political experience would probably not be a bad thing.”

Cruz is also becoming the choice of many conservatives in the state and has nearly doubled his support in the last month, compared with other polls of New Hampshire Republicans.

That Cruz “stands up for the Constitution” is the reason that Chuck Martin, a 44-year-old engineer from Merrimack, N.H., is supporting him. “The country is in crisis,” Martin said. He believes Cruz is the most likely to follow the Constitution because he has proven he will “not compromise on principles” and has argued in front of the US Supreme Court.

The poll put Bush at sixth place, but the difference between Rubio’s second place and Bush’s sixth was within the poll’s margin of error.

The person who fared worst in the poll was Romney’s 2012 primary rival, Rick Santorum.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: 240 is Back on November 22, 2015, 09:49:22 AM
Repubs have such little faith in their candidates... They put a 2 time loser like Romney first?

Gulp.  Not good. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on December 10, 2015, 10:26:41 AM
Mitt Romney Could Stop Donald Trump. Seriously.
But when will he make his move?
by Scott Conroy

CONCORD, N.H. -- The last man standing in the way of Donald Trump's increasingly viable path to the Republican presidential nomination may not be one of his 2016 rivals, but rather a reassuring face from the GOP’s recent past: Mitt Romney.

No, there is no longer any serious discussion of the 2012 Republican nominee making a late entry into the current contest as a white knight embarking on one last quest to derail a singularly dangerous foe or sideline the caustic front-runner’s ideologically similar GOP competitors. That window, which has long been closed, is now welded shut by a secure fusion of filing deadlines and logistical realities. 

But even from the sidelines, Romney holds serious leverage over the direction of the Republican primary -- more sway than many of the candidates themselves. And that's especially true in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire, where he remains particularly popular among the GOP rank and file.

“If Romney were to get involved in the last month before the [New Hampshire] primary and say, ‘Listen, there are a lot of great people in this race, but Candidate X is the person I’m going to stand with, I think the earned media would be tremendous,” said one high-level New Hampshire Republican strategist, who, like other sources in this story, requested anonymity in order to speak more candidly. “And if he decided not only to go in to endorse, but also hit the road with that candidate, it could be determinative.”

“He would be, more than anyone else, the game-changer on the ground in New Hampshire,” the strategist added.

The GOP race in New Hampshire, where all of the establishment-backed candidates are making their do-or-die stands has become -- for now, at least -- a battle for second place among a half-dozen contenders left in the front-runner's dust. Trump has held a comfortable and consistent lead in New Hampshire since July. But a Suffolk poll last month showed that if Romney himself were a candidate, he would have a 2-to-1 lead over Trump in New Hampshire -- where the former Massachusetts governor maintains a lakeside home and cruised to an easy victory in the 2012 primary.

If Romney were to take that goodwill and back one of the establishment-friendly GOP contenders, Republican powerbrokers agree, it would upend the race’s dynamic and, in turn, reverberate far beyond the Granite State.

But it's less clear which candidate Romney would be inclined to get behind.

Romney has long expressed public and private admiration for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) -- both of whom visited Romney’s Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, home for an intrigue-filled sleepover party last 4th of July weekend. Romney also exchanges emails from time to time with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and maintains a personal relationship with several other candidates.

With an unusually large percentage of key Republican donors still on the sidelines, Romney’s financial network could help shape the race into a binary choice by elevating one GOP contender as the consensus alternative to Trump, even before any voting begins. In the aftermath of Trump’s recent inflammatory comments calling for a ban on Muslims traveling to the United States, operatives from several campaigns are laying out the case quietly for why the Massachusetts Republican to do just that.

“I think there’s a world that exists where he sees how the environment looks in January and endorses then, before New Hampshire,” said one high-level operative to a candidate who has been seeking Romney’s support.

Former Romney aides and other party strategists told The Huffington Post that the 2012 GOP nominee is receptive to concerns about how a divided GOP field is helping Trump -- whose standing in the national and New Hampshire polls has topped out in the 30 percent range. But Romney isn't sure how to best respond.

“Mitt is reluctant, as nothing seems to touch this guy,” said one person who is close to Romney.

While the data-obsessed Romney is hesitant by nature to act impulsively, the consensus among those who know him is that he won't hold stubbornly to a preconceived timeline about when to make a move if he determines that Trump’s potential to wreck the party’s chances in 2016 demands haste.

"He probably won’t endorse right away," said one former top Romney campaign official. "But I could see him feeling a moral obligation to do so if Trump still is around."

Among the factors weighing on Romney’s mind, his associates say, is the mild sense of disappointment he harbors with the GOP field for allowing the race to get to a point where a gleefully deceitful reality TV star could be so far ahead with just two months to go until the New Hampshire primary.

As Romney sees it, the best strategy would have been for a GOP candidate to have adopted an overtly anti-Trump strategy some time ago. One former senior aide pointed to the way Romney successfully attacked former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Tex.) on Social Security and immigration as soon as the Texas Republican entered the 2012 primary; or how his super PAC promptly upended Newt Gingrich in Florida on the heels of the former House speaker's South Carolina primary victory.

In that vein, most people close to Romney do not believe that he is currently inclined to offer an endorsement prior to the New Hampshire primary. Better to have an anti-Trump candidate emerge on his own merit, the thinking goes, than to play kingmaker for one. And plus, the grind of the primary campaign -- even one pulled to these nativist depths -- builds political character that will be useful to the eventual nominee in the general election, assuming it’s not Trump.

"He recognizes from the candidate’s standpoint, the campaigns and candidates have put themselves on the line, they are doing the hard work and putting in the 20-hour days right now," said Kevin Madden, a former Romney adviser. "When you do that and have outside observers who don’t have stakes in the game making grand projections about the race -- it annoyed him when he was in the race, and I think he is sensitive to doing it now."

Yet by all accounts, Romney is moved by the drama of the moment. He cares about the Republican brand and is acutely aware of the damage that a vitriolic, demagogue-driven primary can inflict, having watched his own presidential bid suffer from rhetorical and policy shifts rightward.

And when it comes to grand gestures to help block the party from digging itself into an even bigger hole, Romney can draw from personal history.

His father, George Romney, famously protested the nomination of Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) in 1964. Lore has it that the elder Romney walked out of the convention hall when Goldwater was nominated, though some have called that tale into question. Regardless, the image of a conscience-driven son following in the footsteps of his beloved father -- staging a dramatic protest against an unsupportable potential nominee -- isn't difficult to conjure.

"Remember, his father wouldn’t endorse Goldwater," said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.). "It is important what the establishment figures do to a nominee if the candidate is too far to the right."


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: 240 is Back on December 10, 2015, 10:53:05 AM
there's a LOT of talk about the GOP making a Romney-Ryan II ticket to stop trump at the convention.



by that point, you'll have hilary donating millions of dollars to keep Trump in the race.  LOL.  She is benefiting so much.  Trump being anti-muslim is all over the news.  She skates on by, up 30 points over bernie. 


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: andreisdaman on December 12, 2015, 10:10:28 AM
there's a LOT of talk about the GOP making a Romney-Ryan II ticket to stop trump at the convention.



by that point, you'll have hilary donating millions of dollars to keep Trump in the race.  LOL.  She is benefiting so much.  Trump being anti-muslim is all over the news.  She skates on by, up 30 points over bernie. 

Agreed.....I've never seen Hillary with such a low profile.......all networks focusing on Trump is really helping Hillary fly under the radar and be less controversial than she is.....haven't heard anything about the email investigation....just birds tweeting in the trees


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: headhuntersix on December 12, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
I guess that's all a matter of perspective. They released email proof this week that DOD through AFRICOM had assets ready to go to support the fight in Benghazi and DOS turned them down. So all the rumors about Gen Hamm getting into with his staff...must have been something to it. Hil lied straight up multiple times and nobody was held accountable. I guess its good she's low key...she's just as surprised as the RINO's that Ol Donald has struck a nerve with the electorate. Most polls have his Muslim idea pretty popular along with favorable ratings on assault weapons. Must make her and Obama's head explode. Oddly the two highest least favorable ratings running...Trump and Hil.


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: andreisdaman on December 12, 2015, 11:42:21 AM
I guess that's all a matter of perspective. They released email proof this week that DOD through AFRICOM had assets ready to go to support the fight in Benghazi and DOS turned them down. So all the rumors about Gen Hamm getting into with his staff...must have been something to it. Hil lied straight up multiple times and nobody was held accountable. I guess its good she's low key...she's just as surprised as the RINO's that Ol Donald has struck a nerve with the electorate. Most polls have his Muslim idea pretty popular along with favorable ratings on assault weapons. Must make her and Obama's head explode. Oddly the two highest least favorable ratings running...Trump and Hil.

I don't know if Hillary is guilty or not...I suspect there is some lying going on....and no way should she have had her own server in her house...that's really shady in my opinion.....but the funny thing is that the FBI STILL has not definitively said that she did something wrong and that the emails have risen to the point of being top secret and harmful to national security....I don't know what is going on with the investigation but it makes you wonder if they REALLY have something or not

why would Obama be upset about what Donald trump says???..he's out the door soon.....I'm actually glad he's leaving.....he's too much of a lightning rod for guys like you who want to blame the president for EVERYTHING


Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on March 18, 2016, 05:11:30 PM
Mitt Romney urges voters to choose Cruz in Utah and ‘future contests,’ with an eye on delegates
By David Weigel

While Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) headed to the second of three long-scheduled town halls in Utah, Mitt Romney announced that he'd be voting for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in this coming Tuesday's caucuses.

"The only path that remains to nominate a Republican rather than Mr. Trump is to have an open convention," Romney explained on his Facebook page. "At this stage, the only way we can reach an open convention is for Senator Cruz to be successful in as many of the remaining nominating elections as possible.  I like Governor John Kasich. I have campaigned with him. He has a solid record as governor. I would have voted for him in Ohio. But a vote for Governor Kasich in future contests makes it extremely likely that Trumpism would prevail."

The call for an open convention by the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 GOP nominee contradicted messages that Kasich and Cruz were pressing as they campaigned ahead in Tuesday's Western contests. Cruz would need to win around 78 percent of the delegates available in coming primaries to win the nomination outright. Nonetheless, he claims that a delegate win, not an open convention, is his goal.

"Only two campaigns have a plausible path to the nomination: ours and Donald Trump's," he told supporters at his Tuesday night election rally in Houston. "Nobody else has any mathematical possibility whatsoever."

Kasich, meanwhile, is pointing to the late-voting Midwestern and Northeastern states to argue that Cruz's best primaries are behind him. Cruz, who lost every Southern primary outside his native Texas, has outperformed Trump in caucuses and Western states, but underperformed him in places like Ohio, Vermont and Massachusetts. Kasich, who has rarely been attacked on the trail or in ads, enjoys the biggest crossover support from Democrats and highest favorable ratings of any remaining Republican candidate.

Yet Utah, where Kasich has several key endorsements, is seen as the sort of place where he can only hurt Cruz. The Beehive State holds binding "winner-take-most" caucuses, where any candidate who wins more than 50 percent of the vote grabs all 40 available delegates. If no candidate reaches a majority, the delegates are distributed proportionately.

There's been no public polling of Utah since the primaries were narrowed down to three candidates, but there is strong evidence, based on the vote so far by Mormon Republicans, that Cruz has an advantage. (Trump fared terribly in the more Mormon parts of Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming.) Were Cruz to take 40 Utah delegates, he'd cut back into the lead Trump built on March 15. Were he to win 49 percent, he'd take just 20 delegates.

After March 22, the primaries shift to Wisconsin, then to a quintet of Northeastern states.

Romney's own vote and advice cut against Kasich's theory of the primary, and Cruz's confidence -- though they do allow the Texan to claim that the party establishment is acknowledging him as the stop-Trump candidate.

In Utah, Kasich has so far offered the same pitch that sold well in Michigan and Ohio, but poorly in the South. When one voter asked why he canceled a debate that had been scheduled for Monday in Salt Lake City, Kasich insisted that voters would get more from direct campaigning than from a debate Trump had already canceled on.

"If we don't have the number one guy there, there's no point in having a debate," said Kasich. "I can use my time more effectively by doing things like this."



Title: Re: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney
Post by: BayGBM on March 20, 2016, 07:05:49 PM
Romney argues to vote for an open convention
By Jennifer Rubin

Like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Mitt Romney does his party and the country a service by a no-nonsense stance on Donald Trump:

    This week, in the Utah nominating caucus, I will vote for Senator Ted Cruz.

    Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these.

    The only path that remains to nominate a Republican rather than Mr. Trump is to have an open convention. At this stage, the only way we can reach an open convention is for Senator Cruz to be successful in as many of the remaining nominating elections as possible.

    I like Governor John Kasich. I have campaigned with him. He has a solid record as governor. I would have voted for him in Ohio. But a vote for Governor Kasich in future contests makes it extremely likely that Trumpism would prevail.

    I will vote for Senator Cruz and I encourage others to do so as well, so that we can have an open convention and nominate a Republican.

Romney does not bother touting Cruz. The salient point is that Cruz is not Trump and can stop Trump from getting to 1,237 delegates.

Romney does not insist Cruz must be the nominee; to the contrary Romney makes clear Cruz is a vehicle to an open convention. It is an important distinction that should alleviate voters’ queasiness about voting for Cruz. They are essentially voting for an open convention to stop Trump.

Romney does not humor Kasich, who persists with the canard that he can arise from the ashes of the convention as the nominee. As the winner of one primary and a fraction of the delegates others have accumulated lay claim to the nomination, Kasich cannot be the answer to a deadlocked convention, especially in a year in which the electorate has rebelled against political insiders just like the crew trying to foist Kasich on the GOP. There is no groundswell of support for Kasich aside from his team of stale Beltway consultants. An effort to throw the nomination to him would be seen as no more legitimate than an effort to parachute in