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 Romney Smashes Donald Trump in Utah Speech
Published in Politics
The comments about Muslims sounded like something straight out of a Hillary Clinton speech. I was turned off by that portion of his speech too.
Romney and others should have pointed out Trump’s warts 6 months ago. The timing of this is bad in my opinion.
Again, none of Trump’s supporters are even attempting to refute Romney’s arguments. All they’re doing is denying his right to voice his opinion about Trump. Amazingly, they see Romney’s exercise of free speech as “totalitarianism.”
I take your silence on the content of Romney’s speech as an admission that Romney was correct. By your silence you are admitting that Trump’s actions and words are indefensible and you are therefore implicitly admitting that he is not fit to be the President of the United States.
If you disagree with that statement, fine. I’m willing to listen to a reasoned refutation of Romney’s speech.
Amen, M.P.!
I actually agree with what Romney said about Trump, and if it had come from Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich, I would applaud it. I don’t support Trump, and think he is a disaster.
I just stand on the general principle that the party is supposed to allow the people to decide who represents them. They instead have sabotaged their own candidate because the election isn’t going their way. And even though I don’t support Trump, I would vote for him or anyone else over Hillary. By this speech, the party has conceded to Hillary, and that is way worse than any Trump presidency in my opinion.
You can go on pretending that Romney is just another citizen voicing his opinion, but it isn’t so. He is the figurehead of the party, by virtue of being their last presidential candidate. Is that really not understood?
I took your statement in post #45 to mean that Romney – as a spokesman for the party – was acting tyrannically by voicing his opinion. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.
No, PHenry — I advocated no such thing. I am not advocating party leadership choosing the candidate (although that’s the way it worked for much of our history). I appreciate party members being able to express their INFORMED choice about who our candidates should be. That implies that we have a right to information, such as the arguments and facts laid out in Romney’s speech. You don’t address those arguments or facts; you just want Romney to shut up. Now THAT sounds like Soviet-style democracy.
I’m not saying Trump is beyond criticism! Not even close!
I’m just saying the party should not be sabotaging their own candidates, and that by doing so to the leader, they are throwing in the towel on the election.
I essentially argued that Romney is at least as two-faced as Trump is supposed to be, posting footage of Romney praising Trump to the heavens for his business acumen and stating that Trump knew what it took to get the economy going. I didn’t include my own arguments, because frankly, I think Romney’s own words are damning enough.
I completely understand it. But I believe that, as a leader of his party, he has not only the right but the duty to speak out when he sees his party and his country endangered by a demagogue.
No, Romney was the right person. We needed an elder statesman who does not have a stake in the outcome. Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich have a politcal agenda for knocking Trump. Romney doesn’t.
By the way, Rubio has been saying most of that the last couple of weeks. Out of his mouth, it’s just politics.
Good speech.
Having the courage to speak the truth about the impending Trump disaster before it happens (even if it’s too late) is worth a lot more than a million I told you so’s after the fact, like Trump and Kerry’s positions on the Iraq war.
Put it this way. Imaging McCain making a similar speech about Romney during his primary.
I know it is a strained analogy, but put aside your opinions about Trump and put the speech in to perspective. It is the last candidate pulling the rug out from under the current leader, and likely candidate, late in the game. Is that really what we want our party to be doing?
Again, Romney is speaking for himself; he is not the voice of the party, whatever that would be. And the point is that Trump is not yet the leader. We are in the process of choosing a leader. And we need all the arguments we can get in making that choice. Do you think the Democrats will keep quiet about his scandals and shortcomings once he secures the nomination, and we are stuck with him?
Yes, if that candidate will be a disaster, and destroy the conservative movement for a generation.
Nominating Trump – with all his baggage – would be throwing in the towel. Trump is fatally flawed. If we make him the Republican nominee, we are implicitly saying that he is the candidate who best embodies our ideas and beliefs. If we do that, we will be shredded in the election. We will lose not only the White House but the Senate and House as well. What’s more, we will deserve to lose if we nominate someone like Trump.
Nice going, Mitt. Political Shock and Awe!
Donald Trump has heaped insults on the Republican Party and on President George W. Bush since he started his campaign.
If he reacts to this the way he reacted to every other criticism of him–“Oh they’re picking on me because they are losers who are losing”–he will prove Mitt right.
The nice thing about this speech is that it validates what people are probably thinking but ignoring because everyone else seems to be ignoring it. I’m guilty of that too. “Maybe it’s just me.”
He just told me in unequivocal terms, “Your instincts are right. Don’t ignore them.”
I realize people will criticize Romney, but what should a person do if that person feels that there is a threat to the safety of the country and the world? Romney’s most important point was that we will lose the help of the Muslim individuals and countries who have been by our side fighting the Islamic terrorists. Without that intelligence, we cannot protect Americans here and abroad.
PHenry — perhaps I’ve been a bit strident in my arguments with you. I think our fundamental difference is in whether or not Romney represents the “voice” of the party. I just don’t agree that he does. He is not Reince Priebus.
No worries. We’re all misunderstood these days, and there is no need for an apology.
Mitt Romney is absolutely free and right to be the spokesperson on any cause he wishes. And I do not wish to attack him or any part of the points in his speech today.
Truly, my only point is that it doesn’t matter at this point to the people that I think he wanted to sway. These folks have already tuned him, and the Party he speaks on behalf of, out like Charlie Brown’s teacher. I’m not advocating that as “good”, “correct” or “right”. Just that it is what it is.
And the numbers, while only a plurality, are large. If Jeb Bush had Trump’s numbers, he would have been coronated months ago.
And I think we all know that that is true too.
Mitt lost. If you want to see Republican come in a distant second in November, Mitt’s your guy. Trump already likes calling people “losers”, so how effective do expect an argument to be when it is delivered by a guy who already was a loser?
Except that that is from 2012, when Trump was not under consideration for any nomination. And while there were some warning signs all along, Trump appeared much more mentally balanced and emotionally stable in 2012. Since the bulk of Romney’s criticisms take place after 2012, it’s very irrational to use Romney’s words from four years ago against him.
Also implicit in your comment seems to be the argument that a candidate like Romney should vet the people endorsing him as much the GOP vets its Presidential candidates. But, of course, endorsements come from all quarters and while any smart candidate will reject endorsements from truly loathsome creatures like David Duke–something Trump was unable to do–expecting that candidates will subject potential endorsements to a rigorous litmus test makes little sense.
The fact is, Trump is a candidate now and the rules for candidates and those who issue endorsements are quite different. That Romney complimented the guy endorsing him in 2012 says nothing about whether Romney can issue an anti-endorsement of the same man four years later.
How does Romney being two-faced make Trump a good candidate? Is what Romney said about Trump true or not? If it’s true, then Trump should not be our candidate. If it’s false, say so. Explain to us why Trump University was not a fraud. Explain to us how Trump’s conduct during the campaign has been honorable and uplifting. Explain how his economic and foreign policies will help Americans and not hurt them. Explain to us how Trump will bring Americans together and make this country respected abroad.
We’re aways into this thread in both length and duration. I raised something similar at the start. We’ve had a bit of snark, and some concerns about Romney having helped HRC in the general election. As far as specific criticisms of the matters raised by Romney, not so much
If the Democrats had the principles that Republicans had, they would have someone doing with Clinton what Romney is doing with Trump. Trump is a very poor representative of Republican values. Hillary has committed serious crimes, which should be against the values of any American political party.
Of course. How could this not be immediately apparent?
If the person making the claim is untrusted, considered an adversary, looked upon as someone hostile to your interests how could this not reflect upon their claims?
The message is perfectly fine, the problem is absolutely the messenger. Let Cruz make these arguments, let Rubio do so but Romney doing so will have no positive effect. If anything his actions undercut Rubio and Cruz by anticipating and taking the wind out of their planned ripostes for tonight’s debate.
The only helpful action Romney can contribute is to sit quietly in a corner and keep his mouth shut. He actions today will in all likelihood become a cudgel which Trump will use against his opponents in this evening’s debate. Beyond foolishness.
Mitt’s won several more elections than Trump, who has won nothing. I had my issues in 2012 with Mitt, but I held my nose and voted for him. I don’t think he lost because he was a bad candidate, I don’t think there’s much evidence that anybody running in the GOP primary that year could have done better against Obama.
Trump can bloviate all he wants. One of the brilliant things about what Mitt has done here is that he’s clearly gotten inside Trump’s head and is driving him nuts. The more time Trump is criticizing Mitt is less time he can spend trying to sink the two great GOP candidates, Cruz and Rubio.
What’s more is that the last week has shown that it’s easy to get under Trump’s skin and when that happens he becomes even less coherent. Since the last debate where Rubio mercilessly mocked him he has become unglued, which is exactly what will help expose him for who he is to GOP voters. I’ve had people who said Trump wasn’t so bad months ago tell me in the last week that Trump seems like he has a mental illness now.
That’s the beauty of these attacks. Trump superfans, Democrats and the media tut-tut the insults Rubio and Romney have been using, and that’s how you know you are over your target and need to fire for effect. People who say this fighting is unseemly are right, but unfortunately sometimes you have to fight like your opponent to beat him. The more they can get inside Trump’s head and turn him into an erratic, sputtering mess, the better.
I hadn’t thought of it from this perspective, and see your point. I’m not sure about the “wind out of the sails” argument–time will tell, but you seem to imply that Trump supporters will shoot the messenger and are not inclined to listen to well thought out arguments if they dislike the messenger. I view that as a pretty serious indictment of a supporter of any political candidate.
The reality is that any person will do much less vetting of someone who endorses them than someone who is running for president. Besides, Trump’s behavior has gotten much worse since he started running for president. Many of the disqualifying statements he has made have come in the past year.
Absolutely! Many Democrats are uncomfortable with Hillary’s crimes, but they will not talk about them, because she is their front-runner, and to them, party loyalty is more important than the good of the country. Many other Democratic voters don’t even know about Hillary’s crimes because prominent Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) are refusing to talk about it lest they hurt their frontrunner’s chances. They wouldn’t want to confuse the rabble with the facts. It seems some on our side favor the same reprehensible approach.
If the candidate is Donald Trump than absolutely! In fact, I would have no problem with the GOP disqualifying Trump on the grounds that he is not a Republican.
Open primary voting means many of the people voting for Trump are not Republicans. Why should they get to choose our nominee?