Mitt Romney Will Not Run Again
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by azurnoir (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Political Wire
Hugh Hewitt has the text of remarks Mitt Romney will be making to his supporters shortly:
After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, Ive decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee.
Read more: http://politicalwire.com/2015/01/30/mitt-romney-will-not-run/
So much for all the idiots in the media who were insisting he would run.
As politicalwire was posting the news, Kornacki on MSNBC was telling us why he would run. I love Steve, but this shows the limits of believing sources.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)One wonders when these entitled asshats will decide when that time will come. With regards to the GOP, apparently it is only religious kooks, and Ayn Rand worshippers.
God save us all if they get into power. (So to speak.)
yuiyoshida
(45,415 posts)She won't at all be embarrassed, nor will mind looking stupid, its what she does best..
snooper2
(30,151 posts)yuiyoshida
(45,415 posts)Whether or not her party gives her the nomination is questionable.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)besides that-
You think ANYBODY who has any skills whatsoever as a speech writer or campaign manager or even makeup would want to be on her team?
yuiyoshida
(45,415 posts)whether she has enough of them, is the question. SHE will crash and burn and it will be fun to watch.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)now THAT would be really fun. See her try and run on her own dime, without a professional machine behind her, and with her spewing her nonsensical diatribe against both the left and the not-right-enough.
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)There just aren't enough stupid people to put money behind her.
Mitt had become a pretty easy target for us. I guess we'll just have to deal with another useful idiot that they put forward to try and lead their envisioned plutocracy.
calimary
(90,021 posts)jimlup
(8,010 posts)Would the electorate in our country sucker for that again?? I guess the possiblity exists as more than half of the electorate seems capable of being bought by the Koch propaganda. We also understand that the Bush machine can steal elections as they demonstrated clearly in 2000 and in my opinion again in Ohio in 2004. I think they tried in 2012 as well noting what's his faces deep surprise that evening on FOX when Ohio didn't go his way.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)It looked all along like the crime family was grooming his son, George P. Bush, to be their next anointed. Being young, half-Hispanic and a Reservist, as well as being in the political landscape in Texas, I thought for sure that they were going to let George Pee lead the charge as a fresh young face to combat Bush fatigue. I'm really sick of these prolific plutocrats and their power grabs.
maryellen99
(3,798 posts)karynnj
(60,968 posts)He did get caught saying some politically very damaging things last time, but he actually could have been more a threat than he was. However, his 2015 remake was beyond strange. Income inequality could be the best thing to run on -- but not if you are already Mitt Romney!
Oddly, in some polls, he was the closest thing we had to threat. In the majority of polls, Clinton won - but there were a few where it was a tie or a narrow Romney win.
Fortunately, I don't see a pleasant, inspiring, young Republican - who can step into the race and convince people that he is better than HRC. (This is where the over 50 % of people saying they could see HRC as President (not that they are for her ) comes in -- I don't think they have anyone that many people will even "settle" for.)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Mitt Romney Is Running for President - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141001659
Mass
(27,315 posts)The Daily Beast published without any credible source. Most other media predicted he would not run, given the date and means of announcement.
BumRushDaShow
(169,758 posts)...away with it!
toddwv
(2,831 posts)flushing out his offshore accounts...
BumRushDaShow
(169,758 posts)These PACs have become sure fire GOP Ponzi schemes. You'll notice every clown in their clown car sets one up and not a one has any intention of making it through any primaries.
George II
(67,782 posts)rurallib
(64,688 posts)consider the Mittman's history of lying and changing positions this may be only a temporary position.
I still think he believes he has been chosen by his gawd to be the first Morman president. Thus this is only today's position.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Oh, sure, the base will whine and moan, but the party establishment always gets who they want. The Bushes still run the show in the GOP.
You may see a series of not-Bushes bounce around in the polls, like the not-Romneys of 2012, but in the end, big money will be with Jeb.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)everyone can enjoy the clown show, but we know how it will end, with Jeb.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)A party elder sacrificed against Hillary.
forthemiddle
(1,459 posts)I predict one of the lowest turnouts in history!
Anybody else sick of retreads?????? I want new faces.
I may be completely wrong, but I think Obama brought out the new voters mainly because of the fresh face in the race. The excitement of a new, young, and yes black President was a new enough concept that it energized the base. Sorry, even though she is a woman, I don't see the newness of that. Although Obama won in 2 landslides, we have to remember the two elections before that the younger, "funner" (wanna have a beer with him) candidate won.
Let's face it, Clinton and Bush are last generation, we need new blood. She just isn't that exciting.
We certainly can't use the "dynasty" theme against Bush if Clinton is running.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Women, of all ages, will have Hillary's back.
forthemiddle
(1,459 posts)I think if its a newer, younger, more exciting woman you would be correct, but let's face it, "The Clintons" are so last century!
If, instead Bush, the GOP runs either Walker, or Cruz (younger, "newer" candidates) I think Hillary could be in trouble. If it is Bush then I have no doubt that Hillary runs away with it.
As for the mid terms, here in Wisconsin we had the highest midterm election turn out in 60+ years, and Walker still won.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)If Hillary is the Democratic candidate against Bush, I see Bush winning. In fact I think it is the only way he or any other Republican could win.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"Interesting" theory you have there.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Now we can get a base vs base election, which Clinton can lose.
The "marginally attached voters" that caused Obama to win the 2008 primary aren't going to come out for Clinton, either in the primary or the general. We're left with base versus base, and 2010 and 2014 show how that works for us.
Nay
(12,051 posts)had many AAs coming out for the historic vote -- I don't see that happening with a Clinton/Bush election. They didn't come out for the mid-terms. I see people either yawning with boredom or mad as hell that it has come to this: two paid-for dynasties spending billions for votes.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I think it's going to be down to those two but both of them carry heavy baggage with Christie and all his scandals vs. Jeb Bush just being a Bush.
In the end either candidate just needs to keep it close so the discriminating Voter ID laws and a Supreme Court that favors the GOP can push the win for the Republicans just like they did in 2000.
Hopefully whomever runs for the democrats does not alienate Obama the way Al Gore did with Clinton in 2000. I think if Clinton, who left office a very popular guy, campaigned for Gore we might have seen Gore win hands down in 2000.
Aristus
(72,187 posts)"No, no, no, everybody! He's the SMART one!"
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)But whoever it is will not be a Carson, a Huckabee, or any other such loose cannon with a wingnut delusional syndrome. It'll be someone they can count on to do what they want.
That's why Scott Walker remains a possibility in my mind. Scott's a valueless opportunist, not an ideologue. That makes him entirely trustworthy in the eyes of his potential handlers.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)He speaks well, has that folksy manner that will remind many of Raygun, and (most importantly) he will do *exactly* as his masters say, as you correctly note.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)You won't be missed, Milt.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Having Jeb steal all of his donors has to hurt.
The party owners have made their pick, and he had no choice but to bow out.
Couldn't happen to a bigger prick. Hope Ann-toinette is crying, too.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)horse's head in his bed this morning courtesy of the Bush crime family.
Nay
(12,051 posts)BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Corporate Media U.S.A. is no different than Fox "News" Channel - only, they hide it better.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)The Bushes are like the Corleone family in The Godfather. They made him an offer that he couldn't refuse.
bullwinkle428
(20,662 posts)LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)to match the one already there
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)calimary
(90,021 posts)The OTHER dancing horse. The two-legged one.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Back in 2012 many of the top tier GOP Candidates like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie sat out that election because Obama was perceived to be pretty much unbeatable. (I use the word 'Top Tier' loosely but they were some of the bigger names).
To be honest, Romney isn't a bad person he's just out of touch with the working people of America. And what's worse Romney is a moderate who tried playing a right-wing conservative during 2012 and he just came across looking silly. I mean before Obamacare there was Romneycare which was the Massachusett-state healthcare program that some say was the precursor to Obamacare. If anything Romney should have ran on that instead of avoiding it. But he was so gung-ho to suck up to the right-wing that he alienated the moderate votes and Obama coasted to an easy win. The race could have been closer.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)a bully.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)But in perspective to the other GOP candidates he is a far cry better than most of them. Still didn't want him as president.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)karynnj
(60,968 posts)As to his youth, I always wondered what the French thought of the Romneys and some supporters equating his missionary service in France with others going to Vietnam. Not to mention, he was supposedly completely unsuccessful converting the French to become Mormons.
He might want to lead a Republican administration's effort to better hide funds overseas.
GreatCaesarsGhost
(8,621 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,536 posts)And he'd again be asked for his tax returns.
Gamecock Lefty
(708 posts)I disagree with an earlier comment that Bush v Clinton would generate a low voter turnout. If Hillary runs for Prez and wins our nomination (shell get my vote) she will generate as much excitement (or close to) as Obama did in 2008 that we might, just might, be able to take back the Senate and gain quite a few seats in the dreaded House.
And remember, most important of all, we need to keep a Dem in the WH to move the Supremes leftward!
calimary
(90,021 posts)Glad you're here! I'm with you. If Hillary is our nominee, we all need to get behind her. Because the alternative is more scalias and more altos and more clarence thomases in the Supreme Court. It all comes down to that, I'm afraid. If you stay home on Election Day (because you didn't get YOUR preferred candidate as Democratic nominee), then YOU will have brought that down on the rest of us.
I understand the Warren wing. I feel like I'm in it. But she says she isn't running, and she may well be better-positioned to get a few things done where she is. And she could always change her mind later. Even Bernie Sanders says he won't be a spoiler, so he gets it, too. The White House HAS TO STAY BLUE. Beyond ANY doubt!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Democratic nominee is not entitled to votes. The Democratic nominee actually has to earn votes.
That's why so many voters stayed home in 2010 and 2014. We gave them nothing to vote for. We said "well, of course they'll show up and vote against Republicans, so we'll run our campaigns to the center, DLC-style. And we got crushed.
We must stop acting like we're entitled to votes, and start working for them instead.
2016 is our election to lose. And I'm confident we can lose it by trying to run 1992 yet again.
forthemiddle
(1,459 posts)But I am really missing something, because "exciting" is never the adjective that comes to mind when I think of Hillary. I am sure it is just me,but when I think ofClinton V Bush, I just think "oh no not again".
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Um......how?
Remember, Democratic-leaning voters don't turn out for "vote against". That's a very large part of why they didn't show up in 2010 and 2014 - we only gave them things to vote against. You need a "vote for" argument. The SCOTUS is a "vote against" argument - they're voting against Republicans.
While Sotomayor and Kagan are nice additions, they aren't the kinds of firebrands you could use to turn it into a "vote for" argument.
So what's so drastically different now? So far, Clinton looks like the same candidate she was in 2008.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)
Gothmog
(179,869 posts)EileenFB
(360 posts)was about. Makes sense.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)less influential and savvy than "the smarter Bush", he might have thought it's best to bow out.
I believe Jebbie is going to run...and the only Democrat who can beat him is Hillary Clinton.
EileenFB
(360 posts)Mitt may have been promised a cabinet position.
I've been saying for awhile now it is going to be Bush/Paul vs Clinton/Mark Warner
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I'll be looking forward to your predictions.
I, myself, would prefer - IF SoS Clinton wins the Nom - a Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro ticket. If Democrats want to add Texas to their tally, Julian Castro will be able to deliver due to his Mexican roots and, of course, Texas roots.
Latinos in Texas made up 38.4% (Whites @ 40%) of the population in 2013. I wonder what the numbers will be in 2016.
2naSalit
(102,793 posts)is collecting taxpayer funds which he never contributes to. Talk about takers.
All the more reason to reject Bush... but first, we have to clean up the vote stealing machine thing or we don't stand a chance.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)They didn't help the Republicans in 2012 - and I know they used them. I guess only in low turnout elections can those machines be effective. Let's not forget that we still have a Democratic president with his DoJ in place by the time the 2016 elections begin and end.
2naSalit
(102,793 posts)becomes a reality... a DoJ that actually corrects that problem, among a few others which impede true elections.
I think you have a valid point about the low turnout elections though. And I hope that there will be a big change by Nov. 2016.
itcfish
(1,835 posts)Gave him his marching orders!!!
2naSalit
(102,793 posts)He was NOT invited to the beauty pageant last weekend, a clear sign of his inability to gather other peoples' money to run on... unless Adelson decides to to trump the kocktopus.
Other than that, since running for votes, Mittens is probably much more happy with the appointment process since he can't win elections.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)critical of Democrats and especially President Obama no matter all the good the Democratic Party and the president have accomplished for this country so far.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)There jobs just got a little harder.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Where does Mitt the Twit get off talking about "other leaders" in the Republican party as if he's a leader?
The only leaders the Republicans have are the dead presidents they receive from the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson. They'll follow them anywhere, especially to the bank.
OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)"I have decided to give other leaders in the Party a chance"
translates to:
"Damn if I'm going to spend the next 18 months traveling around the country in the company of the craziest bastards the Republican Party has to offer."

Exactly!
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)calimary
(90,021 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Reality can come even to a Republican, just like death and sometimes taxes.
Dopers_Greed
(2,647 posts)Sadly, all the repubs and libertarians (but really aren't they the same thing?) I know is pining for the "good old days" when G.W. was creating havoc. Even the ones who I finally got to admit that he was awful by the end of his term.
niyad
(132,440 posts)and queen ann so richly merit?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)the the cluster-fuck of 17 Republican hopefuls during the last half of this year.
So we're down to 16, which isn't bad so long as they all hang in there for a while.
However, I'm going to be a bit serious, and suggest that the Republican field will get down to no more than three or four serious contenders by the end of this year.
demigoddess
(6,675 posts)Thank God!
merrily
(45,251 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)In other words, "Waaaaa, no one supports me anymore"....
I'm glad he bought a vowel early this time around.
-1 on the clown bus.
I welcome new arrivals. Who's next?
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)TRoN33
(769 posts)aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)C Moon
(13,643 posts)I detested him more than McCain and Palin put togetherokay, Palin was tough to stomach now that I think back on it.
Retrograde
(11,419 posts)I was looking forward to more of your pearls of wisdoms, such as how corporations are just regular folks, and to your dissing your supporters cookies. Not to mention Ann and her dancing horse - not to mention your new excuses about why you can't release your tax returns.
Oh well - I suppose the new Koch-annointed president can have you named to the Supreme Court, or at least ambassador to France.