Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Mitt Again?
On Politico at this hour:
The day after Mitt Romney opened the door to another possible presidential run, a new poll shows he has a huge lead among likely 2016 Iowa Republican caucus voters.
Further:
According to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday, 35 percent of likely GOP caucus voters would vote for the 2012 GOP nominee in 2016. When Romney’s name was added to the pool, no other candidate received double-digit votes.
The survey comes as rumors have begun to swirl about a potential Romney bid for president in 2016. After months of insisting that he will not run again, the former Massachusetts governor on Tuesday acknowledged that “circumstances can change.”
Well, good people of Ricochet? In a field including, let us say, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush, where would you rank Mitt Romney?
Published in General
Peter, What’s with the hate on Romney? He seems like you: an exceptionally good man, prone to moderation and intellectualism. If he has a fault it is that he doesn’t hit hard enough.
if he is nominated, I will vote for him with zero enthusiasm. He is surely a lot better than Warren or Clinton but not what we need.
The Picks:
1. Walker
2/3. Perry/Jindal
4. Romney
5. Let’s hear about some other governors
Why is Walker so often omitted from lists?
Reagan was also the second of a two-man streak from his state.
His predecessor did a pretty good job of prosecuting a war that was thown away by Democrats, followed by genocide.
The president between them became a watchword for incompetence.
Mitt reminds me of the character Jerry (aka Hands) from Boston Legal. Jerry was probably the best attorney at Crane, Poole, and Schmidt. Yet when partnership offers came around, he wasn’t extended one. Why? Because he didn’t golf, or be a member of societies, or have wealthy friends, or have alumni connections. For as his skill as an attorney, he wasn’t good enough, because partners had to bring in business. The firm understood that a good attorney who could land accounts was more valuable than an excellent attorney who couldn’t and would never make it rain.
Likewise, Mitt could be (and probably is) the best potential president we have. But he doesn’t bring in votes from anyone who wouldn’t vote generic (R). Now, we can whine that it’s unfair that he’s the subject of anti-Mormon bigotry, or class envy from the 47% of moochers, or values envy from a culture that accepts, even celebrates bastardy. To that:
The candidate like Scott Walker who isn’t as solid on wonkish policy but can bring in the Reagan Democrats is just more valuable.
Can you imagine Mitt massively cutting the budget in a state like Massachusetts? If you look at the state budget under Mitt, you might find the exercise easier. Can you imagine him being far more hardline on immigration than any other Republican mentioned in this thread? Can you imagine him successfully battling teacher’s unions, turning a gun grabbing legislature’s measures into stuff the NRA likes, and campaigning successfully to protect down ticket races like Scott Browns during a wave year for Democrats (Kerry ’04 was very popular in Massachusetts)? Can you imagine him successfully preventing environmental legislation from being passed during a period when it formed the primary aim of many legislators?
If you don’t think he can roll back the state, it’s because you haven’t looked at his record of rolling back the state. Although it should be clear by now that Romneycare isn’t terribly similar to Obamacare, there’s quite a lot of people who get blinded by Romneycare and decide that Mitt never did the other stuff he did as governor.
@#67: Do you think he should and could make another stab at it and … succeed?
I agree with almost all of Amy’s post. Mitt’s experience grappling with large organizations, inhaling the enormous amounts of information required to learn how, say, the paper industry in general, and these specific plants in particular, work, and the insight to then work out how to make them work more efficiently is precisely what we need in a chief executive that we want to approach multiple massive and complex organizations and transform them into smaller, less harmful, groups. His experience with an 85% Democratic legislature shows that he can get conservative legislation through a difficult Congress (although his Congress won’t be that tough). His passion for foreign policy showed through even in 2008, to those who were paying attention.
But Mitt’s rich, is conservative across the board with very few populist Huckabee/ Santorum concessions, Mormon, and Newt happened to him. I don’t get the impression that Walker has the same degree of insight and raw talent for policy wonkery, but he’s much more politically appealing.
Where I would disagree, though, is who Walker would bring in; white independents and democrats voted for Romney in reasonable numbers. If you look at the classic Reagan Democrat territories, they went Republican in 2012. Romney didn’t get the activists in July-October, and he had tremendous problems with wreckers, particularly at the convention. I suspect that the left’s hatred for Walker would insulate him from that, so we’d have fewer unhinged attacks from the right, which I think somewhat likely to be decisive.
I hadn’t thought that he could succeed, but I think that Iraq changes a lot, and that Obamacare’s continuing struggles may change a lot. Clinton would also be a lot easier to run against, since she means that he can only be attacked for his wealth and for being out of touch in the primary.
I suspect he’s more interested in making himself a useful fundraiser and activist for the party and for conservative causes than in preparing for the primary (he encouraged his staff to move to the campaigns of other presidential hopefuls). If the competition is between him and Walker I’m not sure I’d be passionate (I’d greatly prefer a President Romney, but I think Walker slightly more likely to defeat the Democrat). Still, where before I thought there was no chance, I now believe an ideal outcome possible in 2016.
And avoiding booze.
Perry’s the most successful governor currently serving. If you think he’s a dummy, you should probably stop throwing stones…
Agreed. The “Perry is dumb” meme is ridiculous.
Romney said (contrasting himself to Gingrich), “I’m not a bomb-thrower.”
But that’s exactly what we need. A bomb-thrower.
Which told me Romney doesn’t understand the problem. Hardly surprising, as the problem is Progressives, and he is a Progressive.
Next candidate, please…
I’ll throw it out there that Nixon was a worse president than Carter. Substantially worse.
So was the “Bush is dumb” meme. Perry doesn’t have so many false quotes attributed to him yet, but anti-southern bigotry (which is basically the problem there) is probably as much of a problem for him as Mormonism is for Mitt. It means that Perry has to run a near flawless campaign, because people will be extremely ready to have their prejudices confirmed, and “oops” will be all that many people know about him. Maybe the glasses will help.
And wearing sweaters!
(And no, darn it, I can’t find a picture of Mitt Romney with a sweater knotted around his neck. What good is the internet?)
Treasury is a job for a Wall Street guy.
Mitt was a reformer. He’d work in any cabinet position where radical reform was called for (HHS for entitlement reform, VA for obvious reasons, with Labor being my preference, but with every office except Treasury and State having the potential to see that department radically shrunk). I agree that State would have some scope for his ideas, but I’d have thought that a trade position (Commerce or the USTR) with an expanded role, giving State to a security focused secretary might be a more creative way forward. Quite a lot of the Pax Americana is based on trade negotiation.
We needed a bare-knuckle brawler. We got a shadow boxer. Time for someone else.
Happilly, anti-southern bigotry is mainly a problem in the Northeast, which will vote Democratic as a block anyway.
To beat on poor ctlaw, who’s generally a reasonable fellow, he’s the one who started this with his line, “Perry (not bright enough to win)”.
Anti-Texan bigotry is obligatory in the North East. I had this same conversation with my father, who brought me to CT, and still lives here.
He also said Perry wasn’t bright enough, and was too conservative (the two notions go hand-in-hand here in the NE). I said he’s the most successful governor, and a winner, and that’s what we need. That was the end of the conversation. Possibly because my Dad’s girlfriend (an arch-conservative) snorted in laughter.
:)
Romney, btw, for all his business success, is a political loser.
One other thought: to judge from the evidence (other than the fact that they’re one of the most conservative states), Texas has been the most successful state for the last quite a few years. This implies that they’re smarter than the rest of us, since we live in a meritocracy. And all those smarter-than-you Texans chose Perry three times in a row.
Who are us NE dummies to disagree with our betters?
:)
Democrat California Governor Jerry Brown?
Democrat Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown?
Well, that’s one way to win California and Ohio. Run a pair of Democrats on the Republican ticket.
Former Democrat California Speaker of the House Willie Brown?
Former Democrat Kentucky Governor John Y. Brown?
Former Republican Colorado Senator Hank Brown?
I think Jack Kemp was friends with Jim Brown.
Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate Harry Browne passed way in 2006…
Do you perhaps mean former Republican Senator Scott Brown?
Bush became President because he won New Hampshire. It’s always a mistake to generalize excessively.
The North East (and California, which is similar) are pretty darn important when it comes to fundraising, which could easily be a real problem in 2016.
Also, you’ll find anti-southern bigotry depressingly common in large chunks of the Mid-West and Mountain states, too. It’s not unknown in the more metro parts of Florida, although there are parts of Florida where it’s an asset, too.
That’s a good point. Even though Romney was a Massachusetts governor, he didn’t carry one New England state. You have to go back to 2000 to find a NE state (New Hampshire) that voted for the Republican. I suspect any other states where there are a sizable number of people with an anti-Texas or anti-south bias are also going to have a strong anti-Republican bias, too.
He’s clearly referring to Bad, Bad Leroy Brown.
Really?
You don’t think capitalism is good for everyone? Or you think Romney being rich is an adequate explanation to the electorate?
I think I’ve made myself clear on this topic. I assumed — perhaps incorrectly — that your remark was a facetious one. As for your second question re: Romney, I’ve already answered this on numerous occasions and specifically on this thread.
As you guys keep bickering on and lose yet another election to an even more dangerous loony toon Leftist because you don’t like the cut of Mitt’s haircut, I’ll be left to say “I told you so”.
Just getting my “I told you so” in now, 2 years earlier.
That’s ok. Mitt can be my President anytime.
I cannot see the other candidates standing up to the latest round of crackpots around the world with the strength, confidence, and courage that Mitt Romney has.
I remember when the Ayatolla Khomenei came to Boston. Romney was horrified and refused to give him state protection.
Romney is a dear and old friend of Netanyahu.
Romney is also a very good personal friend of Pope Benedict.
I’d want to see him elected based on his foreign policy beliefs alone. He suffers so illusions on the subject of the Caliphate.
Yeah, to compare Romney to Nixon is downright offensive. After all, Nixon carried 49 states, while Romney couldn’t even beat Obama…
I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist, please don’t sic the hornets on me! :-)