“I Would Have The Best Chance Of Beating The Eventual Democrat,” Says Mittens. Then He Quits.

It’s now official. Mittens ain’t gonna do it.

Vladimir Putin must be thanking his lucky zvezdy. Mittens would have no doubt done something terrible to him, had the loser of the 2012 election decided to become president. ISIL leaders are today giving thanks to Allah for this rare bit of good news. They can now safely take over the world.

And all those poor out there in America, who Mittens, as President Obama said, was “suddenly” and “deeply concerned” about helping from the White’s House, are obviously depressed today, having been consigned to a Romney-less future. There will be no Cayman Islands hero coming to their rescue.

It appears that, after today, Rand Paul will be right: Mittens is “yesterday’s news.”

But he couldn’t depart the presidential stage without one more falsehood. In his remarks today, he reportedly said:

I am convinced that with the help of the people on this call, we could win the nomination.

No one, no one in his right mind, would actually quit, if he were really “convinced” he could win the nomination. But he wasn’t done lying to himself:

I also believe with the message of making the world safer, providing opportunity to every American regardless of the neighborhood they live in, and working to break the grip of poverty, I would have the best chance of beating the eventual Democrat nominee…

Again, if he really believed all that stuff, deep down in his Bain-stained heart, he wouldn’t give up before the thing even started. He qualified his statement by offering the opinion that his confidence in winning comes “before the other contenders have had the opportunity to take their message to the voters.” Then he took a shot at Jebby the Bush:

I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case.

Take that Jebby!

So, all of this leaves us with Bush, Chris Christie, and Scott Walker to fight over who can best represent millionaires and billionaires in the 2016 election. The rest of the potential Republican field, which ranges from Rand Paul to Marco Rubio to Lindsey Graham, with every variety of wingnut in between, will only imagine themselves as being worthy of big-donor dough, the kind of money it takes these days to win the voting allegiance of a tiny sliver of the electorate.

As for Mittens, he did leave the door slightly open for the future, should things get really, really messy in the Republican primary process next year and the party comes running to him for a convention bailout:

I’ve been asked, and will certainly be asked again if there are any circumstances whatsoever that might develop that could change my mind. That seems unlikely.

That does seem unlikely. But there could be such a brutal fight break out in 2016 between the party’s heavyweights that one of the nuts could emerge with enough delegates to throw the whole thing into a tizzy. And Romney, the Master Predator, could be asked to takeover the party and do what he has always done best: enrich himself at the expense of others.

______________________________

[Image: Wisconsin Jobs Now]

9 Comments

  1. Troy

     /  January 30, 2015

    Good “rittens” to Mittens” !!

    Like

  2. Romney’s peripatetic dalliances with politics are depressing reminders of what politics has become. He shares the common denominator among would-be candidates which appears to be indefatigable hubris. Maybe it has always been that way, I don’t know, but humility appears to be absent in the mix.

    Thinking back in history, I can only think of a few presidents who had selflessness. Did Washington? I think so – some wanted to crown him king, but he shunned the spotlight. John Adams. Abe Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt? There was an odd mixture of hubris and humility if ever there was one. He worked himself to death. Harry Truman, Ike, and I think Bush 41 had it too.

    How about Obama? I personally think history will include him in the mix of greats too, guiding the nation to end two wars and out of the Great Recession despite the most intense political calumny of the modern era. But I don’t see this quality in the present roster of would-be candidates. How about Hillary Clinton? I’m skeptical. I understand that as a New York senator she buckled down and did praise-worthy work. As Secretary of State, she appeared to be a hard worker and traveled more than any of her predecessors, but left me with the impression that she liked the spotlight too much. Significantly, she refused to dump her philandering husband in favor of her political career. How she runs the coming campaign will be instructive, I think. Personally, I would prefer to see Elizabeth Warren run – she clearly has the passion of a true believer and I see little hubris in her.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jim,

      I think time and history will be very kind to the Obama administration and to its leader, who has managed the country fairly well through tough times and with an often disloyal opposition sticking shivs in his back (latest one is that Netanyahu invitation).

      Now on to the Clinton-Warren dilemma. I have admitted to never being a fan of the Clintons. Both she and Bill have a lot of baggage. But I suppose if you spend almost your entire life in politics, that is to be expected. No doubt there are a ton of lies, little and large, told in such a long career. No doubt there are a lot of mistakes to answer for. But I was somewhat impressed by her Senate career—she could have done a lot of other things besides the often unexciting work of a senator—and I was much more impressed by her time at Foggy Bottom. All of the years she spent in the Senate and at the State Department make her, as many have said, one of the most technically qualified people to ever run for the office.

      That said, I also prefer Warren over Clinton in a purist sense. I, like you, don’t think Warren is in politics to satisfy her own ego. She seems as genuine a politician as I have seen and she is certainly an undisputed champion of the working class. But I am not convinced she could get over half the country to vote for her, particularly after what would be a bruising primary battle against the Clintons. It would all depend on who the GOP candidate was, of course, but I think the Democrats’ chances to win another term diminish without Hillary at the top. It is all moot anyway, since Warren has very plainly said she is not running.

      Thus, I am firmly on the side of Hillary Clinton, if for no other reason than I think she can beat any potential rival on the other side. And, perhaps just as important, I think she can make a difference in the down-balloting. Winning the next presidential election is essential for the Democrats, as there are a lot of Senate seats we can win and a lot of House seats to recover, not to mention that there will likely be more Supreme Court vacancies, possibly on the conservative side, that could change the course of the country for a generation.

      Duane

      Like

  3. ansonburlingame

     /  January 31, 2015

    I only hope Jim gets his wish, for Elizabeth Warren to win the Democratic nomination to run for President. I wonder if Duane feels that way as well!!!

    Anson

    Like

    • I will remind you that people on the left said the same thing about Ronald Reagan in 1979. He was widely perceived as unelectable, since he was so far right. The same thing could happen in reverse. You could wish for a liberal like Warren and end up with her in the White House.

      Having said that, as much as I like Warren and as much as I think she would make the better president, in terms of my ideological preferences, she has said she isn’t going to run and I believe her. And even if she ran, as I told Jim, I don’t think she would come out of a primary battle with the Clintons in good enough shape to survive a general election assault by the Republicans, who would build upon the Clinton attacks and call her a communist and worse.

      Of course, it would all depend on who the GOP finally selects. Clinton can beat all of them and Warren could probably beat only some of them.

      Duane

      Like

  4. To me, it all depends on the “October Surprise” in 2016.

    Like

  5. ansonburlingame

     /  February 4, 2015

    Herb,

    Unfortunately you might well be correct. Some “crisis” a couple of months before an election for President could turn the tide one way or the other. We had the tanking of the economy in 2008 and Bush alone caused it if you listened to the left. You had Benghazi and the left did everything possible to minimize that debacle. Most voters react to single events and elected Presidents based on such things, in many cases.

    Today the country is deeply divided between the Democrat Party and GOP. Right now the voters are leaning towards (or were last fall) the GOP path. Read this blog for the details in rebuttal to such “leanings” within the voting public.

    But the divide is exacerrbated by the radical left and radical right as well. While I respect Duane’s research and ability to cherry pick his arguments, I also consider the tone of this blog to be radical left, that part of the left within the Warren camp if you will. Duane would love to vote for Warren I suspect but recognizes she might well fail in a general election were she to be nominated. Spoken plainly, I believe a Bush/Warren general election would put the GOP back into the White House and sustain GOP control of Congress as well.

    That is dangerous ground for America, single party government. Until both parties move closer to the center, as it did in the first Clinton years, leaving all federal government decisions in the hands of either party alone could well cause great harm.

    To me at least, the Tea Party was a “natural” political reaction to the Obama Presidency. Put a liberal, almost radically liberal Dem coalition in power, exclusively and you see strong reaction from the other side. We are both old enough to see the Dem reaction to Nixon for example. But at least in foreign affairs Nixon got a lot of things right, at least in my view. From 1968 until 1992 Dems flailed around trying to build a majority party. I wonder if it will take 24 years for the GOP to do so now. Certainly a Warren candidacy would help a lot in that political effort, at least in my view, October suprises be damned.

    This country’s best political hope in 2016 would be a Clinton/Bush campaign with both sides focused on the left and right of center votes, not the radical wings of each party. No one will be completely satisfied with such a campaign or outcome, regardless of the winner, but either one stands a better chance of governing with great restraint, rather than leaping into radicalism on either side, which happened in 2008 – 2010, at least in my view.

    Such should be the basis for voting in 2016, finding a relatively “clam” middle ground. But I doubt that will happen as well.

    Anson

    Like

  6. ansonburlingame

     /  February 5, 2015

    calm, not “clam”!!!!

    AB

    Like

%d bloggers like this: