Author Topic: Life after defeat for Mitt Romney  (Read 74176 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
« Reply #375 on: January 17, 2015, 07:17:19 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

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
« Reply #376 on: January 18, 2015, 05:24:56 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.   ::)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #377 on: January 18, 2015, 06:12:56 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

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
« Reply #378 on: January 18, 2015, 07:15:13 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)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #379 on: January 18, 2015, 07:44:24 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.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #380 on: January 18, 2015, 08:42:11 AM »
 :'(

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #381 on: January 18, 2015, 12:07:14 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

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #382 on: January 19, 2015, 05:55:01 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.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #383 on: January 19, 2015, 06:37:12 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.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #384 on: January 19, 2015, 07:06:37 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

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
« Reply #385 on: January 19, 2015, 11:43:13 AM »
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...

doison

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3448
  • Rum Ham
Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
« Reply #386 on: January 19, 2015, 01:08:13 PM »

So he is a super capitalist now ???

You are very confused friend...

Capitalism is defined by only the top 1% benefiting?
Y

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19013
  • loco like a fox
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #387 on: January 19, 2015, 02:07:56 PM »
Didn't Romney lose the primaries twice before winning his third attempt?  Third time's a charm, and perseverance pays off.   ;)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #388 on: January 20, 2015, 02:54:22 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.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #389 on: January 20, 2015, 05:27:37 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

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19013
  • loco like a fox

Victor VonDoom

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1424
  • ...and Doom shall control the world!
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #391 on: January 21, 2015, 07:15:52 AM »
Nice!

What article?

Hard to believe she came from McCain. Looking mighty fine.  Doom approves.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Mitt Romney--Again!
« Reply #392 on: January 21, 2015, 09:25:47 AM »
That would be obama Who under his failed admn only the top 1 percnt have benefitted

That makes him a republican then

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #393 on: January 21, 2015, 03:53:53 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.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #394 on: January 22, 2015, 04:37:30 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.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #395 on: January 23, 2015, 05:19:43 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.”

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #396 on: January 23, 2015, 05:32:51 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.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #397 on: January 23, 2015, 06:44:18 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???

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #398 on: January 23, 2015, 09:27:26 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.

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Mitt Romney... Again?
« Reply #399 on: January 23, 2015, 09:44:03 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.