Image 01 Image 03

Mitt Romney 2016 slogan could be: “Actually, I was right about everything”

Mitt Romney 2016 slogan could be: “Actually, I was right about everything”

What difference, at this point, does it make that in 2012 Mitt Romney was right about everything and Democrats were wrong about everything?

Mitt Romney has something big going for him if he wants to run again: 20/20 hindsight.

Was Mitt Romney Right About Everything? McCay Coppins at Buzzfeed asked in September 2013. Obamabot heads exploded.

Mitt is looking better every day. Obama failures and false promises creating Mittmentum for 2016?.

Jason Chaffetz seems to think so:

And Romney backers are pushing the meme on Facebook:

Draft Mitt sponsored ad Facebook

Romney may never be loved by the base, but he was, actually, right about everything.

Depending upon which of the Republican candidates survive the Democratic-Media Industrial Complex “kill the baby in the cradle” strategy of crazying Republican rising stars, Mitt may be the last man standing, again.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Mitt-mentum.” Up, up with people! You meet ’em wherever you go!

I wish that being a good man was enough.

I wish that being right about many issues was enough.

What I REALLY wish is that Mitt had so much passion for this nation…that he could effectively project…that he could have translated that passion into messaging to the Conservative base that he was THEIR guy, and into rolling over Pres. ScamWOW with a KILLER campaign that pulled no punches.

But those are wishes…

Subotai Bahadur | July 8, 2014 at 3:13 pm

He was right about everything but one.

He did not want the presidency enough to be willing to actually fight for it. He would rather let the Left destroy his candidacy and his party rather than actually oppose them.

There is no reason to believe that he has changed in that matter one iota.

Nobody likes a know it all.

His victims in MA don’t think that he was right about Romneycare.

And his record on the Bill of Rights blows goats.

Sure, he’s not hell-spawn of Obamaesque magnitude. But the cure for malignant socialism is not “socialism lite”.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | July 8, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    Were the voters of Massive-two-spits GOING to get a health-care law regardless of who was in the the governor’s chair?

    I DO believe they WERE. AND it could have been MUCH WORSE.

    Elaborate on your “Bill Of Rights” hand-wave, please.

I was right about Obama too. So were millions of other people. Just being right about Obama does not mean your right for the White House. I was right about Mitt as well. You can’t just be better than Obama, that’ a recipe for disaster. You need to be the right person for the Job, and nothing since 2012 has convinced me that he has become that person. The only Person right now that still holds my convictions is Newt, the most Brilliant master legislator our country has had since Lyndon B Jonson, except that he is on our side and truly conservative.

What difference does it make, at this point, that Mitt was right? The same difference it makes that conservatives are wetting their pants over Obama’s low poll numbers; none!

I want Ted Cruz.

    RuthC in reply to janitor. | July 8, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Ted Cruz would certainly be a wonderful, terrific and fabulous candidate. But Mitt Romney has the ability to win against Clinton and I do not see any other candidate on the Republican side who can beat Hillary.

    Many voters will vote for Hillary out of regret that they didn’t vote for her when Obama got the nomination. Romney can peel off those regret voters by reminding them that there is a better alternative to express their regret.

    The general mood is one of great Obama fatigue and regret that “the movie didn’t match up to the trailers”. Republicans have to be careful not to over interpret this mood as an endorsement of the Republican party policies, it’s a voting bloc up for grabs but the default is that it goes to Hillary and it is key to have the right candidate in order to change that dynamic.

      Phillep Harding in reply to RuthC. | July 8, 2014 at 5:06 pm

      ” Republicans have to be careful not to over interpret this mood as an endorsement of the Republican party policies, ”

      That, unfortunately, is exactly what they will do.

      janitor in reply to RuthC. | July 8, 2014 at 5:06 pm

      You make a valid point.

      breakn70 in reply to RuthC. | July 8, 2014 at 6:54 pm

      “But Mitt Romney has the ability to win against Clinton and I do not see any other candidate on the Republican side who can beat Hillary. Doesn’t that sound familiar to you.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to breakn70. | July 9, 2014 at 3:46 am

        I agree with most of what Ruth said, except for the point you make.

        Just because Ruth sees nobody else NOW who can beat Hitlery, doesn’t mean somebody won’t surface.

        We have some time. Let’s see what happens in the mid-terms.

        I believe there are some other more promising candidates. If all Mitt has is “I was right” but he’s still the same ol’ Mittens, he’s not going to get the vote out.

        We need more of a brawler who doesn’t wet his pants every time the media belches out some accusation.

        What I DON’T want to see is what happened in the last prez primary. The food fight and attacks on each other was so detrimental in the general. Once upon a time I basically liked Rick Santorum; now I can’t stand the sight of him. I’ve read that he may be gearing up for another run. God help us. I really detest how absolutely tone-deaf and half-retarded politically the candidates we end up with usually are.

        I want a candidate who can think on his feet, knows facts and details through and through, and has a pair with a spine to hold them up!

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to RuthC. | July 8, 2014 at 7:43 pm

      I am reminded of the tactical brilliance of the French who poured the nation’s wealth into building the Maginot Line. Hillary is even less attractive today than she was in 2008 and she now has a sitting President of her own party who does not want her to be his successor.

      Matt_SE in reply to RuthC. | July 8, 2014 at 8:05 pm

      Hillary! will be challenged from the left. Half of her party don’t like her because she’s not a “true believer” like Obama…in other words, not liberal enough.

      This will split the Democrat vote. It will be easier to run a conservative this time.

Newt Gingrich was more right, and Romney and Jeb Bush destroyed his candidacy in Florida. Lots of “passion” in the wrong places.

DINORightMarie | July 8, 2014 at 3:50 pm

Mitt won’t get voters to turn out. Quite the opposite.

If Lizzie Warren runs against Mitt – disaster!!!

His wife said she was DONE with this process; I think Mitt will respect that, ego and hubris aside.

There are way too many who can run who would be INFINITELY better, won’t have the RINO record, and won’t be a “move to the middle to win that all-important “independent vote” since the 47% are out of his reach……..

Ted Cruz, Allen West, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Tim Scott, Scott Walker all come readily to mind. And that doesn’t include the ones who people LOVE, like Sarah Palin (she is so much like Reagan, IMHO).

NO MORE RINOS!!! No Dole, no McCain, no Mitt. We need a Conservative!!!

    snopercod in reply to DINORightMarie. | July 8, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    His wife said she was DONE with this process;

    Mine wife is also done with this process. She swears she’s never voting again and I believe her.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to DINORightMarie. | July 9, 2014 at 3:50 am

    All of what you said is correct. Add to that the fact that the country hates obastardcare which is a far more robust version of Romneycare. Obastardcare makes Rpmneycare more of an albatross than it was the first time around.

According to Mark Levin, Mitt Romney is working to destroy Tea Party Candidates.

Mitt is not good enough.

    Matt_SE in reply to gettimothy. | July 8, 2014 at 8:07 pm

    When he’s appeared, it’s been to support only the establishment candidates.
    Mitt is a country-club Republican, and that’s what he’ll stay.

Sorry, but I was pilloried for my lukewarm response to his candidacy, being told that we needed to vote for him, etc. I did with great reluctance.

Not this time. I can’t want the victory more than the candidate does and clearly, after the first debate, this guy wanted to be liked more than he wanted to re-right the ship of state.

I wish him well in his future endeavors, but no way this time. I’ll be sitting this one out if it’s him, because between Killary and him, no difference whatsoever!

    Estragon in reply to persecutor. | July 8, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    No difference between Romney and Hillary?

    I strongly suggest you have a conservator appointed to make important decisions for you, as you have clearly lost your mind, such as it may have been.

      snopercod in reply to Estragon. | July 8, 2014 at 5:52 pm

      Oh just stop it. Reasonable people (maybe more reasonable than you) have come to the conclusion that voting for one party or another just doesn’t make a difference in their lives. The last fifty years have certainly added weight to that assertion.

    Ragspierre in reply to persecutor. | July 8, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    No difference…!?!?

    Why, Mitt was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and never earned a dime of his own. He made his VAST OTHER fortune by taking away people’s health insurance…personally!

    Hillary was bone’ dirt po’ in a dirt-floor shack in Roosterpoot, Ark-ken-saws.

    And she’s STILL (sniffle) one of us…the lil’ peoples.


    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to persecutor. | July 9, 2014 at 3:54 am

    There would indeed be significant differences in the way they govern in terms of conservative positions on issues and governance.

    Mitt is a glass 60% full; Hitlery 10%. But we can do better, much better than Mitt.

Captain Keogh | July 8, 2014 at 4:53 pm

He is a good man and would have made a good president, America was the loser in November 2012. HoweverI don’t believe in repeats.

    snopercod in reply to Captain Keogh. | July 8, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    Romney would have been a good executive. I’m not sure his internal compass would have been pointing to “Smaller Government, More Freedom” though.

Ming the Merciless | July 8, 2014 at 5:05 pm

Romney is a RINO idiot…there was no daylight between his positions and those of la Clinton or Hussein O’Bummer’s…(Global warming nutcase, Friend of Islam’s head cutters…etc…etc…)He is a shrub clone, a stealth demon-rat.

We have a lot of qualified Governors – Walker, Jindal, Perry, Kasich, Christie, and Jeb, to name a few, the first three certainly acceptable to the conservative base and TP caucus – but none has the national machine that Mitt does.

But we are over a year away from the first contests – Iowa is doing away with the stupid Ames Straw Poll the year before – and there is not yet any field formed, even. Let it take its course.

The voters will decide our nominee, as they always do. Our nomination process is the most democratic in the world, including the Democrats’, because we reserve fewer slots for bosses and activists as delegates. More are elected.

So if “your” guy fizzles, it’s not because “the Establishment crushed your dreams,” it’s because there aren’t enough who think like you. Learn to live with it.

I will support our nominee, of course, because I am a Republican. But I will never vote in the primaries for a candidate without management experience on a serious level, and certainly not for any first-term Senator.

It would be foolish to do so with a bench as deep in real experience.

    Valerie in reply to Estragon. | July 8, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    That crop of governors is very attractive, especially because their states have implemented some successful responses to the economic challenges we face. They have some training in the directions we need.

    Machiavelli taught that it is more important for a man’s temper to suit the times than it is for him to be brilliant. He did have a point, albeit limited. If we elect a governor from a state that has handled the present economic times well, we know he will do at least a few things right on the national scale.

    Captain Keogh in reply to Estragon. | July 8, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    “But I will never vote in the primaries for a candidate without management experience on a serious level, and certainly not for any first-term Senator.” – I agree. Let’s not lower the bar because the community organizer got in with zero qualifications. I want someone who actually as drawn up a budget in his political life. The governors of Nevada (Brian Sandoval) and New Mexico (Susana Martinez) are interesting possibilities – however I doubt that Susana Martinez wants to run.

Henry Hawkins | July 8, 2014 at 6:01 pm

WALKER/PERRY 2016 and f**k the Romney crowd.

Walker’s elective and executive record in deep blue Wisconsin reveals character, ability, and a willingness not to just ‘fight’, but to win and win BIG. (I put Perry in at VP because having a GOP cowboy in the WH just tears liberals up).

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 9, 2014 at 4:05 am

    Walker is sharp as a tack. He’s got guts and chutzpah, walks softly and carries a very big stick. I imagine he could get up a pretty good national machine on anti-union $ heavy-hitters, quietly. He’s real good behind the scenes and appears to be a realist. He’ quiet, but he has “presence”.

    I would like to see him move to the front of the pack, and I hope it’s a relatively small pack.

    I think Cruz would be a better running mate in terms of getting out the vote, firing up the vote, and garnering the conservative Hispanic vote (yes, Virginia, there is a conservative Hispanic vote), but Perry has a unique style and would present a down-home flair contrast to Walker’s quiet “gray suit”.

G. de La Hoya | July 8, 2014 at 7:34 pm

Romney was right on much. He must have had very informed assistance as well. His 1st debate with Obama was sweet. Too bad he lost his Mittmentum for the following debates. I would again plug my nose & vote for him, RINO as he is, we are sinking too fast into European socialism.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to G. de La Hoya. | July 9, 2014 at 4:12 am

    I really don’t see him throwing the heavy punches needed against a lying, corrupt POS like Hitlery.

    Then there’s always the girlie thing, although Hitlery is a bit too long in the tooth to play the “Poor, pitiful Pearl tied to the railroad tracks/shrinking violet/ wallflower/poor me” sympathy-evoking femme anymore. A montage of her finer moments ranting, hissing, spitting and raving would disavow that image pretty quickly.

not just no, but HELL NO.

Mittens had his chance, and, instead of running, deliberately threw the election.

to hell with him and anyone stupid enough to push him as a candidate ever again.

No More RINOS.

    Captain Keogh in reply to redc1c4. | July 8, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    Deliberately through the election – that is a bit of a stretch. A man does not prepare for three years to run for POTUS to deliberately lose. He lost because he did not run (until the end) on what he really was i.e. an Eisenhower Republican instead of being a Santorum-lite yahoo. The real Romney who showed up on the night of the first debate (October 3, 2012) was the Romney that he always should have run as.

Was Mitt right when he rolled over like a nancy-bitch and let fat Candy Crowly ram him up the ass on national tv with her lies?

Conservatives stayed home when Mitt ran, thinking he represented an establishment Republican party that didn’t differ enough from Democrats (you can see some comments below along these lines).

The shenanigans in Mississippi haven’t dispelled that notion.
The appointment of McCarthy to the #2 spot after Cantor’s defeat haven’t dispelled that notion.

If Mitt runs again, it’s possible that the tone-deafness may make even more conservatives stay home this time.

    Captain Keogh in reply to Matt_SE. | July 8, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    Then they so fully and richly deserve to live under first the Obama and then the Hillary autocracy.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Captain Keogh. | July 8, 2014 at 8:37 pm

      The point is that they’ve already done this in 2012 and the GOP is offering even more reason for conservatives to abandon the GOP this go-round. Who richly deserves what is irrelevant. The GOP is doing more of the same but expecting a different result.

      Whenever and wherever the GOP loses it is no one’s fault but the GOP. They’ve made a calculated, purposeful decision to abandon the conservative base, even to the point of insulting Tea Partiers with accusations of being racists, and scrubbing conservatives off important congressional committee chairmanships and memberships.

      Conservatives have always been the base of the GOP. The GOP is now willfully telling us to f**k off. And if we stay home accordingly, the election loss is our fault?

      Staying home helps the Democrats, but guess what? So does ignoring the GOP conservative base. The former is an effect of the latter, and defines who owns the blame.

      Matt_SE in reply to Captain Keogh. | July 8, 2014 at 11:43 pm

      Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr., McCain, Romney.
      When do conservatives get a nominee? Why does compromise only seem to go one way with the establishment? Why are we the ones who always have to grit our teeth when pulling the lever?

      BTW, if a Hillary! autocracy happens, you’ll have to live with it, too. Why not join the team…come in for the big win, son?

    If the GOP runs Romney (or any establishment clone like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie), they’ll lose. Again. And you’re right, they just don’t learn. Instead of looking at 2008 and 2012 and seeing that the base was not showing up due to a lack of adherence to the stated GOP platform, they look at Obama voters and wonder how they can appeal to them. They don’t call the GOP “the stupid party” for nothing.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | July 9, 2014 at 12:41 pm

      It began in 1999 with the George W Bush configuration “compassionate conservatism”, which implied time-honored conservatism was without compassion and apathetic to the needs of the people, an outright calculated lie. All compassionate conservatism meant in the Bush configuration was “we’ll keep some conservative ideas, but we’ll also go all big government because folks’ll vote for that.”

      All other mainstream American political philosophies are considered inherently compassionate and the mention of compassion a redundancy – of course they are all compassionate, of course they all want to do for the people. But Bush created a false distinction between conservatism and *compassionate* conservatism, and where it was accepted, which one would anyone choose? It was cover for the big government, center/left GOP establishment currently running the party (into the ground).

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 9, 2014 at 3:40 pm

        The GOP would rather bend over and spread ’em for the ‘rats than stand for true conservatism. They give conservatism lip service during primaries, then get all teary-eyed and missing the whippings from their masters, the ‘rats, so back they go to their dog houses, tails between their legs, subordinate and obedient.

Captain Keogh | July 8, 2014 at 8:23 pm

Stuart Stevens (I have never met a normal guy named “Stuart”) was such an incompetent fool that he should never be allowed anywhere near a Republican campaign. The same with that bald jerk Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace (McCain’s campaign honchos).

Romney said Obama was a nice guy.

Right about everything? I don’t theenk so.

He was very very wrong about a few key things, though: he was intimidated by Obama’s “intellect” (completely surreal, especially after the first presidential debate); he didn’t then and doesn’t now understand why he lost (he really thinks it was because he didn’t get enough Hispanic votes, apparently the number of conservatives who stayed home didn’t register with him or his team); he didn’t then and doesn’t now advocate for conservative principles (he’s a big government guy, always was and always will be).

Romney is by far the better man, but let’s not hand the WH to leftists by running him–or anyone like him (ahem *McCain* cough *Jeb* cough)–in 2016.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | July 9, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    My dream scenario: During the 2016 GOP primaries, McCain and Romney get nowhere due to records as abyssmal campaigners, Christie is too damaged to assume the role of conservative talking but RINO acting GOP candidate, and Jeb can’t shake his last name or the anti-dynasty sentiment. With no viable RINO getting any traction, the GOP leadership slowly loses power over the primary process and a conservative like Reagan starts amassing support and momentum, eventually to ‘steal’ the nomination from the GOP establishment, which sees nothing but doom and gloom ahead. Then our upstart conservative GOP nominee goes out and wins big time, taking the WH and destroying the power structure within the GOP.


    If only…

Bruno Lesky | July 9, 2014 at 7:29 pm

Probably too late in the day to comment, but I have a take.

I like as a candidate a person with a record. I see where he /she has been. Then (if needed … examples to follow) sincere (= believable) exposition re: where he/ she was wrong and what would be done differently now with new-found knowledge and reflection.

Take Romney. I actually don’t know about his economic theories as they relate to me (I’d say in 25 words or less as a small biz libertarian gal: I want free market and rule of law). Has Romney worked against the Tea Party? Is he a crony capitalist by record? If I find out yes I’m a NO for the guy.

But a few other issues, for example. Romneycare. What was his intention … What went wrong … How would he handle Obamacare.

A second more explicated example: his perception of Obama. (1) what he thought … (2) why he thought that … (3) what changed his viewpoint … (4) what he’s going to do to implement his revised vision

Can the guy get a grip?

I got more examples re: Romney and others but my bottom line is the ________ (fill in X candidate) a sentient being? I fear that there are not too many of that ilk choosing to shepherd our nation.

Oh, please. Mittens Romney being ‘right?’ Who of us WASN’T right?

Mittens would have been as crappy a president and as big a punching bag as George Bush.

Id vote for Romney in an instant but it’s hard to elect anyone other than a democrat these days simply due the the LameStream media…

Rep. Jason Chaffetz thinks Mitt Romney will run again. The argument for another shot by Mitt Romney is potentially significant.

He’s been vetted, nothing of tragic importance was found; how about that; a politician with no dirty laundry. Hey! The dog loved being up there! The equation of the campaign was bulldozed early with Romney defined in advance of being willing or able to bring “fight back” money to the table. He was likely the recipient of bad advice from a national campaign rookie. It seemed like months of battering with little response. Does anyone think Romney’s not smart enough to learn from mistakes?

Last time around there was only one primary fight, the Republicans. This time around there will be two, expected to be equally bloody. The question is which one will last the longest. Hillary lost Iowa last time around, she could again. If Hillary opts out based on the quality of her recent performance and the critiques of same, we are nearly guaranteed Obama’s third term. Right now, the Progressive wing of the party controls the agenda, the organization and the money. Will eight years of the Progressive agenda, performance and corruption be enough to motivate change in the form of a landslide?

The Middle, the independents who really are independent, are still there and you simply have to ask yourself, ideology aside, who would be highly acceptable to them. Who would it be “easy” to vote for? Rand Paul? Rand Paul satisfies the “let’s lash out” wing of the party; (I attend that party on occasion out of sheer frustration) but questions of his electability in a national campaign are shades of grey.

Based on what we’ve seen; the polls, the “late to the game” criticism in the main stream media, the sheer weight of disappointment argues against election of another Progressive President. Obama supporters and surrogates are slowly being forced to accept what they were hell bent to deny; that Obama is incompetent, disengaged, arrogant and a classic narcissist. Well, they haven’t gone that far but they have taken a hit from the gateway drug; incompetence.

Too late in the last campaign we began to find out that Romney walks the talk, especially within the context of his faith. Some of the testimonials were powerful. No one knew, not even in Massachusetts. We discovered that Romney was a genuinely good man; charitable, smart, officer of his church, a wife with tremendous class and grace, beautiful family; hard to imagine how he made space for everything. So, if based on our recent experience with Presidential performance, and faced with the opportunity to elect a President with no real baggage who is a genuinely good man, smart and a proven manager; what are the odds?

The Left isn’t the only guilty party for circular argument. The argument is made that moderates can’t win. They can’t, when significant portions of the base that they depend on opts out and waves at the opposition and spends Election Day on the couch. Past behavior is predictive, will they do it again? Are they not desperate enough? Does Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton satisfy what those folks see as absolute necessities? Will those ladies adopt a “more” Conservative agenda? Hell no, it’s Obama’s third term in a skirt; or, maybe a pants suit. Progressives can’t resist the opportunity to make history; “it doesn’t have to make sense, it’s our policy.”

We’ve had a pure politician absent management skills. Will a politician with a background as a manager resonate? Romney, as a manager, was able to evaluate symptoms on the ground and convert it to policy at the top. The Olympics story is proof enough.

The RNC has committed to change the nature of the debate formats; Candy Crowley is off the preferred list, as is George S.

There is, of course, a downside.

The theories and analysis of the loss in 2012 are all over the map, however, Conservative Christians stayed home because they think Mormons are a cult. Hard core Conservatives believed Romney was not Conservative enough. Conservative enough compared to what? Barack Obama? The absence of an action is action enough.

Two time loser! The third shot almost never happens; my research assistant is on vacation (LOL) so I can’t be sure that’s a fact; excluding of course Harold Stassen and his nine attempts at Presidential campaigns; complete with a clown car.

Who’s on the Romney team? If we see the same team as we saw last time reduce the odds and make it a drama filled tossup. Is Romney smart enough to figure out that the entrenched Republican consultant class hasn’t won a big one in quite some time?

Anne Romney fights health issues, can she be a force? Is she the perfect counterpoint to what we’ve had; yes! Can she do it, how much can she do? No one knows.

Romney is not Conservative enough! I agree; but then again, I’m having a hard time coming up with anyone I agree with 100%, you might have the same problem. To change direction you must first stop the momentum; political physics.

If Hillary is the nominee Wall Street is in a bind, they know Romney but they’ve committed they’re avarice to Hillary. The return on investment with Hillary is significant and proven. They don’t know if Romney can be bought; they probably doubt it.

Women! Romney has to be able to speak to Women but he can’t move all women. Progressive women, young single women are likely off the table. Suburban women, women with families, women concerned about economic opportunity are on the table despite the Potemkin Village of the contraception controversy. Who speaks to them?

What about the minorities? If the Republican ticket is absent a woman or a minority it’s a mistake of massive proportion. Lots of choices: Suzanna Martinez, Nicki Haley, Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, etc. The hard fact is you don’t need a majority of the minority vote; you just need less of a majority. The Obama team has made race and gender as much of an election factor as regions and states.