Mitt: I am not running in 2016 |
Then two months later, the
background noise among elite Republican donors murmured that Mitt was mulling
another run for President. He sure looked like he was preparing for a third
campaign. His wife, Ann Romney, who had appeared opposed to another national
campaign, also hinted that he was in it to (try and) win it. Close staffers
affirmed that Romney was still ambitious, and very bored, interested in another
shot. That revelation was confusing, in part because Romney's own sons avowed
his lack of interest running the second time.
Would the third time be the charm
for the savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics and the one-term governor of
Massachusetts? Romney supporters argued yes, comparing their favorite
to the generic GOP standard-bearer Ronald Reagan, who had run for President in
1968 and 1976 before gaining the nomination and finally the Presidency in 1980.
Some of the rumors indicated
concerns left and right that 2016 could be the Massachusetts moderate's year
because the country was desperate for leadership, and Anyone But Obama or
Hillary would do. Yet that was the argument in 2012, and even then the
Republican base never embraced Romney, including the five million Republicans
would did not vote.
Besides, the fault
comparison between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan fails on many levels.
As Governor of California, Reagan
did represent a liberal-leaning state, although the Golden State was still
swinging Republican. Reagan served two terms in Sacramento with unswerving
resolve against liberal protestors at UC Berkeley, and progressive agitators in
the state legislature. He balanced budgets year after year, leaving office
with a surplus and bestowing California was a statewide legacy of conservative
progress. In contrast, Romney the governor of Massachusetts served
only one term on Beacon Hill, and even then he faced a supermajority Democratic
legislature. Despite vetoing 700+ bills, he waffled on gun control, supported
homosexual accommodation, and introduced Romneycare to the Commonwealth, the
blue print for Obamacare, neither of which has controlled costs nor
increased health care quality and efficiency.
Reagan governed conservatively, and
won reelection in the process. Romney was a moderate who di not bother
fighting for another term, then tried two years later to run from his
record when seeking the Presidency in 2008. Arizona Senator and ultimate
GOP Presidential candidate John McCain called Romney "the real candidate
of change". McCain was right even though he was hardly the strongest
candidate himself to represent Republicans nationally.
Despite their string of failures,
Establishment power players still worried about a conservative
candidate winning the nomination, and they pressed Mitt to step in. Last week,
Romney met with another favored Establishment candidate, Jeb Bush, the former
governor of Florida. Photo-ops of the two men riding an airplane and discussing
their plans suggested a thin veneer of comity, despite their dueling
ambitions. What were they discussing? Some news reporters suggested that they
were ironing out their differences on immigration reform. Most agreed that the
two of them were seeking ways to avoid a long fight over donors and press
coverage over the next year to clinch the Establishment nod for the GOP nom.
Whatever transpired during their tete-a-tete, Mitt
left the meeting upbeat, then announced what he had declared in November last
year: "I will not be running for President in 2016."
Mitt has done the right thing by
honoring his prior commitment not to commit. However, the fact that he subtly
yet actively explored another bid in the last two months affirms conservative
resistance to any Establishment candidate, and welcome Romney's
withdrawal. His furtive actions to reconsider the "final"
decision confirm his instability both in perception and character. Fox
News anchor Chris Wallace reminded Romney of his numerous gaffes during the
2012 Presidency, including "I like being able to fire people" and his
infamous 47% remarks to private donors in Florida. These sudden
reconsiderations emphasized the unavoidable pitfalls of a third Romney campaign
for President.
Mitt is no longer in it for
2016. Finally, he is doing the right thing, not just for himself and his
family, but for the country, not just hoping for hope and change, but demanding
battle-tested, uncompromising leadership with a vivid eye toward America's
better future.
Hmm is anyone else experiencing problems with the pictures on this blog
ReplyDeleteloading? I'm trying to determine if its a problem on my end or if it's the blog.
Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated.