Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

national news, political news, State news

Mitt falls far short of saying 'no' to 2016 run

Don’t believe Mitt Romney’s non-denial about whether he wants to run for president one more time.

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee told Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace that “I am not running. I have no plans to run.”

OK, Mitt. That ain’t one of those Shermanesque statements, you know, where you’re supposed to say “If nominated I won’t run; if elected, I won’t serve.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/09/romney-195006.html?hp=r6

Mitt says he’d be a better president than Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrats’ presumed frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. He also says he’d do better than the man who beat him in ’12, President Barack Obama.

Mitt told Wallace that his time had “come and gone.”

Hey, doggone it, he still hasn’t said he won’t run under any circumstances.

These non-statements about political futures are so frustrating. Politicians keep saying they “have no plans” to do something, then turn around and do what they said they have no plans to do.

The problem with that non-statement is the verb “have.” It’s a present-tense verb that doesn’t rule anything out, say, for tomorrow. Or the next day, or the day after that.

I remember in 1988 I asked the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen if he would consider running as Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis’s running mate on the Democratic Party presidential ticket. Sen. Bentsen said his plate was full serving as Texas’s senior U.S. senator. He never actually answered directly: yes or no. Turned out he was dodging. Dukakis selected him to run with him for the White House.

Bentsen had an out. He was able to run successfully for re-election to the Senate that year.

Is Mitt Romney really and truly not going to run for president in two years?

I’ve heard nothing from him that says “not just no, but hell no.”

 

 

national news, political news

Hillary vs. Mitt in 2016 … seriously?

This just in: A new Iowa poll says Mitt Romney is miles ahead in a poll of 2016 Republican caucus participants.

Run, Mitt, run.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/mitt-romney-2016-election-iowa-poll-110392.html?hp=r2

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee has dropped a hint or two that might be thinking about a third run for the presidency in 2016. He lost the GOP nomination to John McCain in 2008, then got thumped — surprisingly, in the eyes of many — two years ago when President Obama thumped with a decisive Electoral College victory.

“Circumstances could change,” Mitt said recently when asked about a possible run once again for the White House.

What might those circumstances be? Only he and, I presume, his wife Ann, know the answer. OK, throw in his five sons; they’ll know when something is up.

Frankly, I’d like to see Mitt go again. I am curious to see if the Olympic organizer/business mogul/former Massachusetts governor has learned from the mistakes that might have cost him the White House in 2012. Will he steer clear of “47 percent” comments? Will he refrain from saying that “corporations are people, too, my friend”? Will he forgo making $10,000 wager offers on a debate stage with other Republican rivals?

He might also be a bit more specific than he’s been about how he’d handle these international crises differently than the man who beat him in 2012.

For my money, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the candidate to beat in 2016, even though she’s looking less inevitable than she was looking about six months ago.

Mitt, though, could give her a tussle.

You go, Mitt.

Uncategorized

Third time a charm for Mitt?

The political chattering class is clattering these days about a possible Mitt Romney run for the presidency — again.

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

History might be on Mitt’s side.

I think I’ll refer, incidentally, to the 2012 Republican presidential nominee by his first name from now on, given the media’s insistence on referring to the presumed Democratic frontrunner as Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-case-for-mitt-romney-in-2016-108532.html?hp=l7#.U7Vc31JOWt8

Mitt captured nearly 61 million votes in 2012, the highest total ever for a losing presidential candidate. He cut into President Obama’s electoral vote count from four years earlier. He had a serious chance to win the White House two years ago, but then stumbled badly when he was overheard talking about that dreaded “47 percent” of the population who’ll vote for Democrats no matter what, as they depend on government to do everything for them.

Some other stuff got in the way, too, such as Hurricane Sandy — which provided Barack Obama a chance to do some highly visible presidential things, such as go to New Jersey and put his arm around Gov. Chris Christie while promising all kinds of federal assistance.

History may foretell another Mitt candidacy.

Richard Nixon lost narrowly to John Kennedy in 1960; two years later he got thumped in the race for California governor and declared the media wouldn’t have “Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.” He came back to win the White House in 1968, got re-elected in a landslide in ’72 and, then, well, resigned because of that scandal called Watergate.

Ronald Reagan became president on his third try. He threw his hat into the ring at the 1968 GOP convention. He then challenged President Ford in 1976 and nearly took the nomination away from him. He came back in 1980 to be nominated and then went on to defeat President Carter in a blowout.

Republicans seem willing to give their show horses second and third chances.

Mitt’s capable of running a stellar campaign. He’s got the pedigree, the money and now the experience. He lost the GOP nomination in 2008, won it against a field of Republican weirdos — e.g., Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain, to name just two of them — in ’12.

The 2016 field might not be so tough to conquer if he were to try one more time. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie? They all have soft spots in their armor.

Bring on Hillary vs. Mitt in 2016!

Uncategorized

Top cop calls it quits in N.H. town

Bye, bye, Police Commissioner Robert Copeland.

Your moment of infamy has taken you out of office — as it should.

http://news.msn.com/us/police-commissioner-resigns-in-wake-of-obama-slur?ocid=ansnews11

Copeland is the now-former police commissioner of Wolfeboro, N.H., who had the indecency the other to be heard referring to the president of the United States using the n-word. Copeland at first refused to apologize for the highly disgusting word to describe President Obama.

Then he got a bellyful of complaints from residents of the town he had been elected and re-elected to protect. They didn’t like the extreme disrespect he exhibited toward the president. They told him so in no-uncertain terms.

So, he quit.

Fine. The commissioner disgraced himself and, more importantly, the town he represented.

Why is this important? Well, for my money it’s important because this kind of slur has no place coming from any public official at any level of government. Indeed, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and the 2012 Republican presidential nominee who owns a home in Wolfeboro, said it correctly when he demanded Copeland’s resignation. Romney said Copeland’s “vile epithet used and confirmed by the commissioner has no place in our community.”

It has no place anywhere in a civilized society.

Is the ex-commissioner entitled to speak his mind? Sure he is. But when he disgraces the public office he holds and shames the public trust, then he should be called to account.

That’s what happened in a small New Hampshire town.

Uncategorized

Romney switches course on minimum wage

Do you recall the 2004 presidential campaign political ad that lampooned Democratic nominee U.S. Sen John Kerry for saying he was “in favor of the Iraq War before I opposed it”?

Well, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney once opposed increasing the minimum wage but now he favors it.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/romney-on-minimum-wage-raise-it-251118147687

Romney spoke correctly on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” broadcast this morning by saying Republicans should be the party of more and better-paying jobs. He reminded his hosts that he parted company with the conservative wing of his party by favoring an increase in the minimum wage.

Indeed, Romney now is aboard the same wagon with a majority of Americans who favor increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

His Republican colleagues in Congress need to listen to the party’s most recent presidential nominee who, let’s not forget, received nearly 61 million votes in the 2012 election.

To their discredit, though, congressional Republicans are listening instead to tea party conservatives who don’t want to lift minimum-wage earners who have to support their families out of poverty.

And hasn’t President Obama been saying that no family relying on the minimum wage should live in poverty? Strangely, Mitt Romney’s stance put him squarely in the same corner with the man who defeated him in the 2012 election.

Don’t wait for Romney to extol the president’s correctness on the minimum wage issue. That would go beyond the pale.

Uncategorized

No such thing as 'private conversation'

An old axiom is even truer in today’s world.

It is that one should never say anything that he or she doesn’t want repeated.

Welcome to the 21st century, Donald Sterling.

The Los Angeles Clippers owner has been banned from the National Basketball Association for life. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver imposed the ban and fined Sterling $2.5 million because he went off on a disgusting, racist rant in what he thought was a private conversation with his, um, girlfriend.

The rant, which has become the talk of much of Planet Earth, has consigned Sterling to a most unwelcome role of pariah. He’ll likely have to sell his team. He is no longer able to participate in any team or league activities. He’s a goner.

What does this mean, though, in terms of privacy? It means that in this world of instant communication, where everyone has a camera or a listening device, one must take the greatest care to keep from saying something he or she doesn’t want known. He likely didn’t know he was being recorded and he surely didn’t believe his girlfriend would be the one to reveal the conversation, which I am certain is the case.

Sterling went off for about an hour, telling his girlfriend he doesn’t like her associating in public with African-Americans; he said he doesn’t want her bringing African-Americans to games involving his team. He made an absolutely disgusting spectacle of himself and in the process made a hero out of Commissioner Silver, who acted decisively — and correctly — in issuing the harshest sanction possible against the team owner.

Recent history is full of examples of public figures being “outed” by people with cameras or audio recorders. For example, Mitt Romney fell victim to a recording of his infamous “47 percent” comment about Americans who vote Democratic because they depend on government. Others have had their private behavior exposed for all the world to see. They have said things they’ve later regretted.

Donald Sterling provides the latest shining example of the price one pays for speaking from the depths of his soul, which in this case has been shown to be a dark place, indeed.

Uncategorized

'Money is not speech'

The late President Gerald Ford chose well when he selected John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1975.

The former justice today provided proof of President Ford’s wisdom.

Justice Stevens went to the Senate today and told senators that “money is not speech,” and that anonymous unlimited campaign donations harm the democratic process.

Good for you, Mr. Justice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/john-paul-stevens-campaign-finance_n_5240779.html

Stevens, in a rare appearance by a former court justice before a congressional committee, said: While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protections as speech itself. After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglary, actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment.”

At issue is whether unlimited campaign donations give rich donors greater access to power than average folks, such as, you know, you and me. Stevens said “yes.”

Billionaires are giving huge amounts of money to Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hiding behind the anonymity that recent Supreme Court decisions give them.

At the very least, there needs to be full disclosure of these donations. The public needs to know who’s giving the money. Citizens deserve to understand their motives for giving it and what they perhaps expect in return for those enormous cash gifts.

A better solution would be to limit those donations to reasonable amounts.

What is so un-American about leveling the playing field and giving all interested voters a shot at influencing those who would seek to lead our country?

As the Huffington Post reports: “Recent Supreme Court rulings have permitted individuals and corporations to write unlimited checks to independent political committees, while other groups can accept cash and disclose the donors’ identities months or years later, if ever.”

Mitt Romney said famously during the 2012 Republican primary presidential campaign that “Corporations are people too.” Actually, they are not. They are juggernauts that are able to trample the political process.

Uncategorized

Speak carefully … always

Secretary of State John Kerry is the latest victim of the urge to record everything everyone says every time they say it.

That does not for a moment excuse what he said the other day in what was supposed to be a closed-door meeting, which is that Israel may be turning into an “apartheid state” if it doesn’t hammer out a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/john-kerrys-private-remarks-taped-by-reporter-187578.html?hp=l8

The term “apartheid” is poison in polite international policy company. South Africa implemented that disgraceful policy for many decades in which it denied the black majority living there the rights of citizenship. Whites and blacks couldn’t interact with each other. The policy ended with the release from prison in the early 1990s of the late Nelson Mandela. The rest is history.

Kerry’s use of the term at the very least was careless. It well may have damaged U.S.-Israel relations beyond repair.

Why wasn’t he smarter than to make his point another way? Didn’t he learn from recent history, such as the time Mitt Romney was caught on an audio recording at a fundraising dinner making his infamous “47 percent” remarks about how nearly half of Americans are going to vote Democratic because they depend on government subsidies and handouts? Didn’t he learn from the video recording of Congressman Vance McAllister making out with his staffer? There are countless other instances of people in high places being caught saying and doing things they regret because someone had a recording device hidden somewhere.

A Daily Beast reporter recorded Kerry’s statements the other day, getting past detection and apparently not heeding ground rules stipulating the meeting wasn’t open to the public.

In this world of instant communication where everyone has a set of electronic eyes and ears, the only response simply is: Too bad.

Uncategorized

What would Mitt have done?

Mitt Romney’s hindsight is as good as it gets.

It’s picture perfect. The former Republican presidential nominee can see the past. Can he see the future? Well, no better than the man who beat him in the 2012 presidential election.

Still, the former Massachusetts governor blames President Obama’s “naivete” for the escalating tensions in Ukraine precipitated by the surprising virtual annexation of Crimea by Russia.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mitt-romney-blasts-president-obama-naivete-ukraine-crisis

Romney did tell the world during the most recent presidential campaign that he considered Russia to be this nation’s No. 1 geopolitical foe. I recall thinking at the time that Romney seemed to be selling short the international terror network with which this country has been at all-out war since 9/11.

Did he know in advance that Russia was going to interfere with Ukraine’s internal political squabble? Did he foresee Russian troops moving into Crimea, or did he envision Crimean residents of Russian descent voting to ally the region with Russia and pull out of Ukraine?

I think not.

But more than a year after making that seemingly absurd claim, Romney’s assertion now seems oddly prescient.

Still, it’s fair to ask: How would President Romney have handled the Russian incursion?

He says leaders are able to foresee the future better than Barack Obama foresaw it. I guess he would have been more proactive in working our European allies to head off any Russian threat. That would have worked … how? What would have the Euros been able to do?

Russian President Vladimir Putin is a bully’s bully. My own sense is that he wouldn’t be dissuaded from acting no matter what NATO or the European Union threatened to do. The Russians faced another U.S. president in 2008, George W. Bush, when they invaded Georgia. W’s reputation was that of a no-nonsense guy who was unafraid to use force, right? Well, President Bush’s rep didn’t forestall military action by the Russians, either.

The sanctions that the United States and others have imposed on Russia’s key leaders are beginning to bite. They’re going to hurt. Will they force the Russians to back out? Probably not. Short of going to war with the Russians, I’m thinking the president of the United States is handling it about it right.

Uncategorized

Texas’s Cruz missile misfires once again

You have to love that Ted Cruz.

He gets elected to the U.S. Senate and immediately makes a name for himself — while embarrassing many of the people he purports to represent.

The Texas Republican did it again today, speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference in which he denigrated the likes of Sens. Bob Dole and John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — all of whom ran for president but lost to Democratic opponents.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cpac/mccain-dole-scorch-cruz-cpac-comments-n47126

It was Cruz’s criticism of Dole that drew the most intense response from McCain.

“All of us remember President Dole, and President McCain and President Romney,” Cruz told the CPAC crowd. “Those are good men, they’re all decent men but when you don’t stand and draw a clear distinction, when you don’t stand for principle Democrats celebrate.”

McCain has demanded that Cruz apologize to Sen. Dole, the 1996 GOP presidential nominee.

“He can say what he wants to about me, he can say anything he wants to about Mitt. Mitt can take it,” McCain said. “But when he throws Bob Dole in there, I wonder if he thinks that Bob Dole stood for principle on a hilltop in Italy when he was so gravely wounded and left part of his body there fighting for our country.”

Ouch!

Dole responded as well, noting that he was a strong supporter of President Ronald Reagan’s agenda and declared his voting record is as conservative as it gets. Dole also worked well with Democrats, including leading liberals such as the late Sen. George McGovern — another World War II hero with whom he had a lasting friendship.

This still-new senator has some work to do to understand that he needs to respect his elders. He just might need them in his corner if he intends to run for president himself in 2016.

I’m betting he is going to be marching to his own cadence.