Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Why this fierce battle over a Cabinet pick?

donald-and-mitt

I’ll admit that I haven’t always watched closely the process a president-elect goes through to fill Cabinet picks.

Still, the growing tempest over Donald J. Trump’s vetting of secretary of state candidates has me wondering: Is this normal? Have previous presidents-elect faced this kind of outward and public tumult?

The Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, is in the running to lead the State Department. A lot of Trumpkins don’t want him anywhere near the new president. Why? Mitt said some harsh things about their guy during the campaign. They want Mitt to apologize before Trump picks him. They also don’t believe Mitt will be loyal to the president.

I happen to believe Mitt was right when he called Trump a “fraud” and a “phony.” At one level, Mitt seems like the absolutely wrong choice to be the vicar of Trump’s foreign policy — whatever it is. Then again, selecting Mitt would verify what many of us have believed all along, which is that Trump has no policy and he’s looking for someone to help him build one from scratch; Mitt could do that for Trump.

Who’s other “favorite” for State? Rudy Giuliani, that’s who. The one-time “America’s mayor” would be a terrible choice. He has no foreign policy experience, other than the money he earned representing foreign governments — which presents a serious conflict of interest.

I keep hearing that former U.N. ambassador John Bolton is in the hunt, too, for the State Department post. He has called for the bombing of Iran, which surely works against any effort to develop “diplomatic initiatives” from the Trump administration. Don’t go there, either, Mr. President-elect.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/battle-over-secretary-of-state-opening-goes-public/ar-AAkP9nE?li=BBnb7Kz

Former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said she isn’t even sure Mitt voted for Trump in the election. My response? That’s no one’s business how someone votes; that’s why the ballots are cast in secret.

This melodrama is going to play out eventually, I reckon.

If only the president-elect had a deeper pool of applicants to consider for this post. He’s going to need plenty of help developing a foreign policy doctrine. Mitt could deliver it … if only he can get the Trumpkins on his side.

Hold on for a rough ride.

Apology tour on tap for Trump? Hardly!

161124160848-trump-new-york-times-exlarge-169

Donald J. Trump might consider going on an apology tour as he prepares to become president of the United States.

He won’t, of course. Trump doesn’t apologize. He has no regrets. He doesn’t seek forgiveness. He said all that, correct?

I mention this because some of Trump’s supporters think Mitt Romney needs to say he’s sorry for those mean things he said about Trump. Mitt’s apology needs to be a precursor to him becoming secretary of state, they say; Trump is considering Mitt for the job at State.

CNN contributor Dean Obeidallah has it exactly right: Trump needs to do the apologizing, not Mitt.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/opinions/trump-should-apologize-not-romney-obeidallah/index.html

Trump cruised down the escalator at Trump Tower in the summer of 2015 to announce his presidential candidacy and launched into a tirade that insulted Mexicans, who he described as rapists, murderers, drug dealers.

Then it got worse. He insulted Muslims, a disabled New York Times reporter, a Gold Star family, Sen. (and former prisoner of war) John McCain, women … you name it he insulted ’em.

Trump trampled all over people’s sensibilities while winning the presidency. His performance on the campaign trail will remain — likely for decades, maybe forever — as one of the great mysteries of this campaign. Imagine for as long as you wish — take all the time you need — any other candidate saying what Trump said about any of those groups.

An apology tour would be a good thing for Trump to do. It would cleanse his soul.

Of course, the next president won’t do anything of the sort.

In Trump’s world, apologies are for losers.

Mitt emerges as State contender; Trumpkins are furious

romneyandtrumpmeet

Mitt Romney’s emergence as a top contender for secretary of state in the Trump administration makes me chuckle.

I might even laugh out loud if Mitt actually gets the call from the president-elect.

Mitt said some pretty harsh things about Donald J. Trump during the election. He called him a “fraud,” a “phony”; he questioned whether Trump was hiding criminal activity by refusing to release his tax returns; he said Trump University demonstrated Trump’s lack of real business acumen.

Now the 2012 Republican presidential nominee is being vetted for the top job a State.

Trumpkins are upset about it. They don’t want this man speaking for the president on foreign policy. They distrust him.

If the 2012 GOP nominee hadn’t said those things about the 2016 nominee, then I would be all for Mitt joining the Trump team. You see, given Trump’s absolute absence of any government experience — at any level — someone such as Mitt could be seen as a leavening influence. After all, he did serve one term as governor of Massachusetts. What’s more, Mitt has considerable exposure to foreign heads of government. Isn’t he a BFF with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu?

A part of me understands the angst that’s boiling up within the ranks of true-blue Trumpkins.

Mitt could be an asset to the Trump team. Except that he did deliver that blistering — and in my view accurate — critique of the president-elect during the campaign.

Which version of Mitt would Trump hire if he chose him to run the State Department?

Pols say mean things, then they change their tune

romneyandtrumpmeet

My friends and acquaintances on the right are fond these days of reminding me of something I knew already.

It is that U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said angry things to and about each other when they ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008.

Then Sen. Obama was nominated. He went on to be elected president. Then he hired Sen. Clinton to be secretary of state in the first Obama administration.

All was “forgiven,” more or less. The rivals became allies. Then they became friends … or so they said.

The pushback on this issue comes from those on my right and far right who keep yapping at my continuing observation about Donald J. Trump’s former foes/enemies are now lining up for spots in the president-elect’s Cabinet.

Mitt Romney is being considered for secretary of state; Mitt called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.”

Rick Perry is being considered either for secretary of defense or energy; the former Texas governor called Trump a “cancer on conservatism.”

Chris Christie once led the Trump transition, then he got pushed aside and now he’s back in Trump’s semi-good graces; Christie once said Trump was “unfit” to be president.

The list of “establishment Republicans” who have condemned Trump is long and distinguished. Here they are, though, lining up behind the new president.

Sure thing. Democrats do the very same thing. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson weren’t exactly BFFs when they ran against each other in 1960; then JFK picked LBJ to run with him on the winning ticket.

I guess one’s reaction to this kind of political mood swing depends on your own point of view.

Therefore, I won’t apologize for overlooking how Democrats have played this very same game … at least not until my Republican friends acknowledge publicly what’s occurring at this moment in history with their guy and his former foes.

Surely, Mitt doesn’t need a paycheck

Mitt Romney once called it exactly right about Donald Trump.

He called the next president of the United States a “phony,” a “fraud.” Romney questioned whether Trump was hiding some potentially criminal activity by refusing to release his tax returns.

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee said some amazingly harsh things about the 45th president. Romney endeared himself so much to many Americans — me included — that we actually begin thinking kindly of him, wishing he were the GOP candidate instead of Trump.

Why, I even began referring to him by his first name, which actually is his middle name. Mitt this, Mitt that.

So, what in the world is Mitt doing by making himself available to be considered for secretary of state in the Trump administration?

Hey, Mitt’s a rich guy, too. He doesn’t need the money. Nor does he need to the embarrassment of representing Donald Trump’s world view to a world still reeling by the very thought of Trump becoming president of the greatest nation on Earth.

Doesn’t the next president recall what Mitt said in 2012 about Russia? I’ll remind him here. Mitt declared that Russia presented the “greatest global geopolitical threat” to the United States. Trump, meanwhile, is accepting high praise from Russian strongman/dictator/former spook Vladimir Putin. Which is it? Greatest threat or potential ally?

Frankly, Mitt’s assessment looks more accurate and prescient than anything Trump has said about Russia.

Then we have the nature of the criticism. The video I’ve attached to this blog post is quite revealing. It’s only 17 minutes long. But it’s a doozy.

Oh, and Trump’s response to it? He called Mitt a “loser” who “begged” Trump for his endorsement four years ago.

Say it won’t happen, Mitt. Tell us that you’re just stringing Trump along. While you’re at it, when you get him in that room in private at Trump Tower, please reiterate what you said about him on the campaign trail. It was all true then … and it’s true to this very day.

You’re better than this, Mitt.

What about a Hispanic voter ‘surge’ in Texas?

hispanic-voters-fr-afp-1

We’ve been hearing a lot in the past three days about a “surge” in Hispanic voter turnout in places like Florida, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona.

But … what about Texas?

We have an enormous Hispanic population here. The conventional wisdom has been that newly registered Hispanic voters would tend to favor the Democrats, given Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s fiery — and many say anti-Hispanic — rhetoric on the campaign trail.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/decision-day-2016/

Texas Monthly blogger Erica Grieder seems to think that Trump’s expected victory in Texas this year will fall far short of the big win posted in 2012 by GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

What might fuel the decline? I guess it would be a larger-than-normal turnout among Hispanic Texans flocking to the polls.

It won’t be enough, more than likely, to turn Texas’s red hue to blue.

But the times — and the state’s demographic mix — are a changin’.

A campaign of paradoxes staggers to its finish

evangelicals

There may be no greater example of just how weird the 2016 presidential campaign has become than this example right here.

It speaks volumes. Hideous volumes.

The evangelical Christian bloc that is so critical to Republicans’ ballot-box success remains — more or less — devoted to the party’s current presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Yet many of those folks just couldn’t bring themselves to support the candidacy of its most recent nominee, Mitt Romney. The 2012 GOP nominee is a Mormon. There were many within the evangelical movement who contend that Mormons belong to a “cult.”

As for Trump, the current nominee … well, the photo accompanying this blog posts says plenty about him.

Those of us who oppose this man’s presidential candidacy are left to ponder what we thought was the imponderable: that evangelical voters would continue to give this guy a pass on some of the most reprehensible behavior imaginable.

Sure, many of them have bolted. That recording of Trump boasting to “Access Hollywood” about his behavior toward women have sent many of those evangelicals packing. Many others, though, remain.

The rest of us are asking, simply: Why?

These pro-Trump evangelicals are more than willing to convict Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton of crimes for which she hasn’t even been accused of committing. Due process? It doesn’t apply in their minds to a leading politician.

Yet, they look the other way when their guy acknowledges seeking to seduce a married woman, who has boasted about previous extramarital affairs, has hung ghastly labels on women he believes are physically unattractive.

Ugh!

Someone has to explain this to me. I’m all ears.

Moderator deserves a good word

161004220339-elaine-quijano-cbs-780x439

Elaine Quijano has earned a good word on this morning after the vice-presidential “debate.”

The CBS News correspondent/anchor didn’t do a great job refereeing the exchange between Democratic nominee Tim Kaine and Republican nominee Mike Pence.

As I look back on it after a good night’s sleep, my conclusion is that it wasn’t totally her fault. She sought to reel in the fellas, sought to keep them answering the questions, she sought to avoid the constant interruptions that were initiated by the amped-up Kaine.

She got caught in a buzzsaw of campaign rhetoric, throwaway lines, talking points, insults and, oh yeah, the occasional policy differences that emerged from the candidates.

I want to echo something I heard last night from the post-“debate” analysis about the best question of the evening. It dealt with candidates’ religious faith and how it informs their public policy.

Both men exhibited clear understanding of faith and explained in clear and concise language how it works for them in their public life. Bravo to them both for ending the evening on somewhat of a civil note — and bravo to Quijano for the question.

As we’ve been seeing, though, in these joint appearances, the media moderators are becoming a bit of a distraction. Dating back four years ago when CNN’s Candy Crowley corrected GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s incorrect assertion that Barack Obama didn’t call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism, media and politicians have been waiting for future moderators to interject themselves into the political dialogue.

Quijano, unfortunately, became part of the story again last night.

From my perch out here in Flyover Country, though, I believe she delivered a creditable effort at staying above the fray. I only wish the candidates would have done a better job of focusing on the issues at hand.

Debate prep matters … it really does!

trumpclintonill927

Donald J. Trump blew it in that first joint appearance with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No doubt about it.

Now he’s got to ready for the next one. Will he do what he needs to do or will he follow his misdirected instincts and do what he seems to always do: ignore the best advice he can get?

Dan Balz, a veteran political columnist for the Washington Post, seems to think he’ll do the latter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-trump-shift-gears-in-time-for-the-next-debate/2016/10/01/92ac526c-87e7-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html

Lessons learned from the first debacle seem to have gone unheeded by Trump, according to Balz. Contrast that with what happened when Barack Obama fell asleep during his first debate in 2012 with Mitt Romney. He thought initially he did well; then his staff told him otherwise. Obama listened, then got ready for the next one.

Trump, according to Balz, instead is relying on “Internet polls” that have told him he did just fine during that first encounter.

Keep thinking it, Trump.

This “unconventional” campaign of his worked well in securing the Republican presidential nomination. That’s because the base of his party was willing and ready to accept someone wholly unqualified, unfit and unprepared for the office he is seeking.

The rest of us know better.

Moderators should, uh, moderate

NBC NEWS - EVENTS -- Decision 2012 -- Pictured: Lester Holt -- (Photo by: Michele Leroy/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

Call me an old-school fuddy-duddy.

Lester Holt of NBC News has a big task ahead of him Monday night. He gets to moderate the joint appearance between Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

I liken his role to that of an athletic event referee. The best officiating jobs are done by those you don’t notice.

Accordingly, some of the chatter leading up to the event has been whether the moderator should correct candidates’ misstatements.

I’ve thought about this for about the past four years and I’ve concluded that Holt should not interfere. He should not interject himself into the storyline. He shouldn’t become part of the story … as CNN’s Candy Crowley did in 2012 when she corrected a statement that Mitt Romney made about whether President Obama had declared the fire fight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya to be a terrorist attack.

That wasn’t Crowley’s job.

Her job then — and Holt’s will be Monday — was to ask questions of the candidates and to let them correct each other if and when the need arose.

If the moderators were to correct the candidates, then how do they determine which misstatements they let pass and which ones do they correct?

I prefer that they not make the call.

Of course, given the nature of social media these days, a non-call also would become “news.” Commentators no doubt would make them have to answer for their decision to let the candidates’ statements go unchallenged.

Sigh …

Still, my old-school tendency leads me to believe the moderator’s job isn’t to become a fact-checker. It is to be a referee. The best refs are those we don’t notice during a competitive event.