Ethical Quote Of The Day: Mitt Romney’s Indictment of Donald Trump

Thanks, Mitt. Well done.

Thanks, Mitt. Well done.

Mitt Romney took the podium in Utah and delivered one of the most remarkable attacks on a public figure since Marc Antony went after Brutus. I cannot recall anything like it. This was Mitt’s finest moment in the public arena, and every American who values responsible leadership and abhors the execrable values Donald Trump stands is in his debt. Romney was thorough, sharp, and did not resort to hyperbole or dishonest characterizations, not that he needed to. I like to think that I could have compiled an equally persuasive brief, but I’m not sure of that at all.

Romney’s timing was superb. On the day of the GOP debate, he provided all of Trump’s opponents with twenty times the ammunition needed to sink most candidacies, and deftly alerted his audience to look for the personal attacks on Romney sure to come. The news media, which is so shameless in pursuit of a storyline, has been relentless characterizing Romney’s speech as “the establishment’s” declaration of war on The Donald. That unfairly minimizes what Romney did. Romney spoke for all Americans—you know, the responsible ones—who don’t want an unstable buffoon succeeding Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Ronald Reagan. He did it with the skill and power, and presenting anyone trying to rebut his points with a daunting, indeed, impossible task.

Here is the speech:

I am not here to announce my candidacy for office. I am not going to endorse a candidate today. Instead, I would like to offer my perspective on the nominating process of my party. In 1964, days before the presidential election which, incidentally, we lost, Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America saying that it was a “Time for Choosing.” He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all, and the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path. I’m no Ronald Reagan and this is a different moment but I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country.

I say this in part because of my conviction that America is poised to lead the world for another century. Our technology engines, our innovation dynamic, and the ambition and skill of our people will propel our economy and raise our standard of living. America will remain as it is today, the envy of the world.

Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”

That doesn’t mean we don’t have real problems and serious challenges. At home, poverty persists and wages are stagnant. The horrific massacres of Paris and San Bernardino, the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian mullahs, the aggressions of Putin, the growing assertiveness of China and the nuclear tests of North Korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times.

But if we make the right choices, America’s future will be even better than our past and better than our present.

On the other hand, if we make improvident choices, the bright horizon I foresee will never materialize. Let me put it plainly, if we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.

Let me explain why.

First, the economy: If Donald Trump’s plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession.

A few examples: His proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America. His tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. So even as Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.

But wait, you say, isn’t he a huge business success that knows what he’s talking about? No he isn’t. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn’t create it. And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there’s Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.

Now not every policy Donald Trump has floated is bad. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. He wants to bring jobs home from China and Japan. But his prescriptions to do these things are flimsy at best. At the last debate, all he could remember about his healthcare plan was to remove insurance boundaries between states. Successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that make America the place businesses want to plant and grow. You can’t punish business into doing the things you want. Frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront, come today from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee.

I know that some people want the race to be over. They look at history and say a trend like Mr. Trump’s isn’t going to be stopped.

Perhaps. But the rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.

Let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. Trump’s bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies. Insulting all Muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against ISIS. And for what purpose? Muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country.

What he said on “60 Minutes” about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme.

Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I’m afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart.

I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament of be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.

Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.

There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured.

Dishonesty is Trump’s hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong, he spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong, he saw no such thing. He imagined it. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.

The President of the United States has long been the leader of the free world. The president and yes the nominees of the country’s great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren.

Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as “The Donald.” He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn’t because he had attributes we admired.

Now imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. Will you welcome that? Haven’t we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have, and it always injures our families and our country.

Watch how he responds to my speech today. Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult? This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president.

Trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. But polls are also saying that he will lose to Hillary Clinton.

On Hillary Clinton’s watch at the State Department, America’s interests were diminished in every corner of the world. She compromised our national secrets, dissembled to the families of the slain, and jettisoned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power.

For the last three decades, the Clintons have lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances. They embody the term “crony capitalism.” It disgusts the American people and causes them to lose faith in our political process.

A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president. But a Trump nomination enables her victory. The audio and video of the infamous Tapper-Trump exchange on the Ku Klux Klan will play a hundred thousand times on cable and who knows how many million times on social media.

There are a number of people who claim that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake. There is indeed evidence of that. Mr. Trump has changed his positions not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign, and on the Ku Klux Klan, daily for three days in a row.

We will only really know if he is the real deal or a phony if he releases his tax returns and the tape of his interview with the New York Times. I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn’t give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told the New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk. And I predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, he will never ever release his tax returns. Never. Not the returns under audit, not even the returns that are no longer being audited. He has too much to hide. Nor will he authorize the Times to release the tapes. If I’m right, you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is a phony.

Attacking me as he surely will won’t prove him any less of a phony. It’s entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. All he has to do is to release his back taxes like he promised he would, and let us hear what he said behind closed doors to the New York Times.

Ronald Reagan used to quote a Scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations couldn’t last more than about 200 years. John Adams wrote this: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” I believe that America has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons.

First, we have been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us. Men of character, integrity and selflessness have led our nation from its very beginning. None were perfect: each surely made mistakes. But in every case, they acted out of the desire to do what was right for America and for freedom.

The second reason is because we are blessed with a great people, people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interests of the country above their own.

These two things are related: our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the occasion. John F. Kennedy asked us to consider what we could do for our country. Lincoln drew upon the better angels of our nature to save the union.

I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.

Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.

Here’s what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

America has greatness ahead. This is a time for choosing. God bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality.


62 thoughts on “Ethical Quote Of The Day: Mitt Romney’s Indictment of Donald Trump

    • Not a fan, but I agree. VERY good speech. Will anyone who can do anything about the current situation take it to heart?

  1. While I agree with nearly every point in the speech, Romney was exactly the wrong guy to deliver it. It’s establishment-type Republicans like Romney that the Trumpians are rebelling against. Romney’s speech won’t change a single mind in that cohort. It may even drive more people into Trump’s camp.

    Further, given Romney’s gleeful acceptance of Trump’s endorsement in 2012, he is more Brutus than Antony.

    Taranto spends some time on the subject today. Worth reading.

    This speech would have been more effective had it been delivered by someone who isn’t seen as the embodiment of the RINO Republican elite. Paul, father or son; Scott Walker; Pat Buchanan and a number of other non-mainstream Rs could have made the case far more convincingly. Would the media have pounced this hard? No. But they would have jumped on the speech anyway because they’re scared to death of Trump, and any major Republican non-candidate who wanted to step out would have gotten coverage.

      • It implies there are no people in the country other than conservative Republicans and anyone who doesn’t insist that every conservative tenet should be adopted by the entire country is a traitor. It’s terrible and moronic. In fact, “apocalyptic: comes to mind. The only acceptable politician is one who refuses to ever compromise? Idiotic.

        • Other Bill,I specifically wrote “This speech would have been more effective had it been delivered by someone who isn’t seen as the embodiment of the RINO Republican elite.” You may not like the term – I’m not wild about it either – but that’s how a lot of people view Romney and other more centrist Republicans. One can discuss the views of others without necessarily agreeing with them.

          • I disagree. Pandering to ideologues is bad business. Insisting a Buchanan or a Paul or a Walker add a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down is absurd. Anyone who wants to have Trump as the GOP candidate for president is an idiot. Why walk around them as if on eggshells.

            I’m watching the golf at Doral which has evidently been turned into a tacky, marble veneered, statuaried eye-sore that would be considered unseemly in Rome. In addition to being all the things Romney has enumerated, Trump is completely devoid of taste.

            • Trump’s appeal is based in large part on his willingness to tell the Republican establishment to go pound sand. Sending out a person who many view as the embodiment of that establishment to try to counter the damage is just plain foolish. Sending out someone who can be so easily branded a traitor (Romney liked Trump just fine when Trump gave him HIS endorsement in 2012) is a tactical error. And it’s not pandering to select the appropriate spokesperson for a given audience. It’s called effective communications.

              The message needed to be sent. Romney was the wrong guy to send it.

              • Who is the “right” person?

                Someone in Trump’s camp? They’re all blind acolytes and none would do it.

                Someone outside Trump’s camp? They’re all immediately disregarded as RINOs or establishment.

                Someone in Cru’s camp? Nope. Disregarded as a typical campaign attack.

                I think Romney was a great option.

                For anyone bellyaching that Romney “liked” Trump in ’12, get over it, Romney “evolved” on his views. Isn’t that pretty much Trump’s excuse for pretty much only becoming “conservative” in the past… lemme look at my watch…year or so?

              • The message is what matters, and since it is 100% true and undeniable, it doesn’t matter that much who delivers it. As I said, the establishment crap has got to stop. Is it establishment to object to fools, liars and con artists? Romney is a statesman and a leader, and he knows how to give a speech. The “betrayal” argument is weak: there are many people I’d accept money from that I wouldn’t want to see as President, and Trump, who had bragged that he’ll give money to anyone, is estopped from making that argument.

        • For goodness sake. How can people busy themselves calling Romney a Republican in name only and ignore what he’s saying when Trump isn’t even a Republican? At all. Not even in name.

          Trump is running his campaign on the Obama model. He’s a blank canvas or a Rorhsach test upon which voters of all stripes are projecting their gripes and seeing in Trump everything they want to see. That guy Roger Stone is making David Axelrod look like Thomas More.

    • It was a very good speech. However, the wrong guy to deliver it. Trump, is no Ceasar for sure, but Romney happily accepted his endorsement back in 2012. He also wasted the opportunity to endorse one of the other candidates. Knowing Romney, it probably would have been Kasich or Rubio. It will make absolutely no difference with Trump supporters.

      • Somebody’s got to start attacking Trump. If Romney had to be the first, fine. There’s still time for the other candidates to come to their senses and start making speeches like Romney’s.

      • Where did the idea come from that accepting someone’s endorsement means you have to think they are fit to be President themselves? Trump accpeted Ted Nugent’s endorsement—does that mean he’ll have to say Ted deserves to be POTUS?

  2. The fact that John McCain, who was also a losing candidate for president, jumped on this right after, didn’t help. It’s creating the image that there’s this go-along-to-get-along, wimpy class of centrist, thin-blooded RINOs who are more interested in keeping their cozy DC lifestyles than in changing this nation for the better. Romney appeals to the thinking Republican, not the visceral one. This is a visceral campaign.

  3. I am glad Romney made that speech about Trump. But I can’t buy in to Romney when he talks about conservatism. Not when he championed a health care system that provided a prototype for Obama’s Affordable Care Act. I also can’t agree with Romney about the democracy of this country being still vibrant and sure to endure longer than democracies in other lands in history. I will say it again: For as long as the federal Executive Branch is as big and intrusive as it is now (and as it continues unabatedly to grow ever bigger and more intrusive), one essential element of democracy – namely, power of representatives who are truly representing those who have elected them – is dead and rotting. But the culture is predominantly pro-authoritarian now, too, so even that notion (of honest representation) is being turned on its head; we are now largely being “represented” by increasingly lawless, over-empowered, unaccountable “rock stars.” Will Romney’s speech make a difference? On the margin, probably a small difference. Overall, though, Romney’s admonitions notwithstanding, it looks like the Republicans are stuck with Trump, and the country is stuck with Hillary.

    • Brilliant. Thank God Romney’s not the President.This way we Republicans can make sure we all get eight more years of the Clintons. Brilliant. Frankly, I’ll vote for HRC to make sure Trump doesn’t become president. And I can’t stand her and her entire family.

      • “I’ll vote for HRC to make sure Trump doesn’t become president.”
        That is how Jack is playing it.
        I have had enough of Trump. I have said I would vote for him over Hillary. I take that back. I won’t be stuck with him. I will vote for a third party. I don’t care if Hillary wins because “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

        The whole damned system is going to crash soon, and I want to maximize my schadenfreude by making sure as many Democrat Party members and sympathizers as possible are in power, so that they can suffer the crash from the top down. French Revolution Reprise, off with their heads, etc.

          • Given the nearly existential choice between a Trump presidency and a Clinton Restoration, I will go out of my way to vote for HRC and against Trump. She’s by far the lesser of two evils. Voting for Trump is dumber than voting for Mussolini or Franco or Huey Long (I’ll leave Hitler out of this because that’s too freighted an analogy). HRC is a greedy, corrupt conniver but at least she’s not an unpredictable, near sociopath with no political or management skills or experience whatsoever.

            • Other Bill, HRC is an unindicted criminal who, while certainly predictable, despite her padded resume’ STILL lacks political and management skills and experience sufficiently to not be entrusted with the office of POTUS.

            • Voting for the lesser or two evils is still voting for evil. Even if such a vote is meant to prevent a greater evil, it’s dangerously close to saying, “There are worse things.” (See 22 in Jack’s list of Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions.) I suspect that if more of us had not succumbed to this type of thinking in the last several presidential elections, we would not be facing the apparent crisis in which we now find ourselves.

  4. Trump is not inevitable. He has massive unfavorables among people who have voted for the other candidates. Why are Republicans, even thinking ones, acting like lemmings?

    • Jack,
      These words are eloquent, insightful, and on completely point. However, and this is what bothers me the most, where were all of these poignant critiques a month or even six months ago (before he started winning primaries and blew up Super Tuesday)? Trump has been ahead in the polls since the beginning and it’s only now, as the sun is finally setting on the chance of an alternate nominee, that suddenly the GOP speaks out en masse? It seems like too little, too late.

      The leadership has been so fearful of alienating his “supporters” (not only do I not know a single person who identifies as his supporter, but I don’t know of anyone who knows anyone directly — instead it’s always “my Aunt’s roommate’s nephew”) that no one has had the guts to hit him with anything substantive until now. Everything he said, literally all of it, has been known since before he ran. I personally iterated the points regarding his bankruptcy numerous times (even within this esteemed forum) and yet the issue was mostly ignored during the debates. As far as I’m concerned, the fact that it took a non-candidate to lay everything out at once is signature significance that none of the others are worthy alternatives.

      What really makes this depressing is, in a race of Trump v. Hillary, I would be at a complete loss. I’ve hated Hillary for years and Trump about just as long. On the one hand, Trump is awful, but is also liable to be ineffectual; meaning he might not be able to do too much policy damage, only ruin America’s esteem. Clinton, on the the hand, has proven herself a masterful manipulator and someone able to get (the wrong) things done even in the face of huge opposition. In other words, she could do real policy damage.

      In other words, a plague on both their houses.

      A salaam alaikum,

      • I was thinking just like you, Neil, as you write in your last major paragraph at 6:59 pm – until about an hour ago. Now, I say, “Bring ‘er on.”

        • For me, my positional switch about Trump vis-a-vis Hillary is similar to a Ronald Reagan position back in his California days (when he was referring to no-gooders): “If it’s a bloodbath they want, let’s get it over with.”

      • Of course you are right, but don’t you also think this is hindsight? I think Romney et al assumed Trump would have crashed on his own by now, as did I. In other words, we over-estimated the intelligence of the GOP voter, ad under-estimated their capacity for self-destructive fury.

        • Agreed. Every single one of Romney’s points have been made before (including here, repeatedly, in multiple vocabularies), but not together in a single solid piece of extremely well-written rhetoric, and not before the largest audience that needs to hear it.

          I was surprised to see so many (the majority of) comments taking off on Romney — not that every word of criticism might not have been accurate — as if in response to his speech. Is it just that there was nothing left to say? Or could it be a variation on the Blame the Messenger game by insisting someone else should have brought the message or that it should have been brought sooner? Or is it that a Trump triumph is looming so dangerously close that we are playing rabbit-frozen-in-the-headlights, behaving in our heads as if the situation were otherwise and ourselves elsewhere?

          I believe the speech, given on that platform, will be efficacious in several ways: by letting those who tend to conservative government know that at least one well known (if not here respected) name in the Party knows his onions and is not afraid to speak out; by recovering some Trump-lost respect from the Other Side, other governments, and those of our enemies who don’t already see Trump as their friend (all of which is necessary if this republic will continue to function “small d” democratically); and in general by ironing out some of the mis-convoluted brains of otherwise intelligent people who are amused by Trump’s antics and idiocies.

          I also believe, however optimistically — and I guarantee you I am no optimist — that we will survive the four years of the next presidency (or its impeachments). If I’m wrong, at the end of that period and if Jack’s head and/or our world hasn’t already exploded, I hereby give him permission to use my name fick-ly as a false prophet.

        • I stopped overestimating the intelligence of voters when they claimed that “[r]equiring government officials to do their jobs violates religious freedom” and a “public university’s code of conduct overrides the First Amendment”

    • I scooped John Oliver before than. Three very different audiences. Olive is an anti-Republican, anti-conservative by definition. A republican making those points is infinitely more significant. I assume the John Oliver would mock whatever GOP candidate emerged. He hasn’t mocked Hillary much, and that means he’s biased hack, because she’s a mockable as anyone, including Trump.

  5. Donald Trump’s campaign is a symptom of a problem. Just read the following views held by large portions of the electorate.

    – Employers impose their religion and violate women’s rights if they refuse to offer health care coverage that includes contraception without co-pay, but somehow do not do this by refusing to offer coupons for BevMo.
    Citizens United means that corporations are people.
    – Requiring government officials to do their jobs violates religious freedom.
    – Universities are perfectly competent to investigate rape claims
    – The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has the power to interpret law.
    – Hate speech is not free speech.
    – A public university’s code of conduct overrides the First Amendment.
    – Requiring a photo ID to vote is racist because it places a disparate burden on minorities,but universal background checks on firearm purchases would not be racist even though it would place a disparate burden on greatyer magnitude.
    – Police are racist, and yet can be trusted with discretion as to who may carry a concealed weapon.

    In various comments on Facebook and sdisqus, I have read all of the above.

    And for icing on the cake, just take a look at this derp

    No, I think [the film] is provocative and threatening because it puts limits on men’s entitlement to a woman’s body. Honestly, profoundly and deep down, it’s when you said — you know, it’s interesting; we didn’t get the same backlash with the military that we’ve gotten with this film. And when you look at why is that, or if you, you know, sort of dig deep and question, the military — the critique is of a male population in the military, whereas the critique of our film is of a white, middle-class or upper-class, privileged male population. And so now you’re seeing, suddenly it’s a controversy; suddenly there’s a problem with the statistics. No problem with statistics when it’s about serial predators in the military. Suddenly now there’s, you know, a fake — you know, and this whole even — I’m so irritated, like really, we’re spending 40 minutes talking about a controversy? There’s no controversy. It’s like talking about climate change and controversy right now. It’s exactly analogous. But what you’re hearing is this backlash because there’s a threat to the dominant white male power. That’s the deep-down thing, and that’s why all these sort of crazy, hysterical articles; that’s why a crazy reaction from Harvard Law professors; this is nothing — all we have is a film in which people are going forward to report a crime, and most of the time they’re only going forward to report a crime because someone committed it to someone else! So this is not about any kind of glory — I wish — I’ve got better things to do with my time than run around talking about fake [accusations]! This is happening, it’s a horrible thing; there’s no controversy; let’s just get busy worrying about the problem!

    People like that are where Donald Trump’s support comes from.

    • Michael, I know nothing about the film to which your refer, but I assume it’s like, you know, like something that, you know is, is like something that, you know is like somewhat intelligent, but like somehow is unintelligible, and somehow, you know, makes you think it must be important, even though it like says nothing at all that, you know, you didn’t already know. [Disclaimer: No offense toward Michael Ejercito is intended, but there’s plenty intended for Ziering.]

      • The Hunting Ground was about rape on college campi.

        Amy Ziering claimed that the only motivation for challenging the factual allegations in the documentary is to defend the “dominant white male power”.

        I do wonder how many authors, columnists, and bloggers would end up sounding like David Duke if their use of “white male” was replaced with “Zionist”.

  6. What struck me about Romney’s speech is just how much more appealing to me he is compared to the current Republican candidates. If Romney couldn’t beat Obama, I can’t imagine that Trump or Cruz would stand a chance against Clinton — who essentially is running a “Eight more years of Obama” campaign.

    • Obama was a sitting President and is a much, much better campaigner than Hillery. The news media disgracefully slanted coverage, Harry Reid spread lies about him intentionally, Obama hid multiple scandals and bad news from voters, and most of all, the jerk Tea Party types refused to vote for Mitt. I don’t think you can draw any useful comclusions regarding this election.

        • True, but I have the same problem Jack does with “I can’t imagine that Trump or Cruz would stand a chance against Clinton” Trump or Cruz might seem less electable than Mitt, but Hillary was definitely less electable than Obama. I mean… She lost. This entire election is like a marathon to be everyone’s second choice.

      • Jack, I don’t know which “jerk Tea Party types” you are referring to. But, I am one out-and-proud “teabagger” (or, perhaps the double-standard standard [for bigoted name-calling] is now strong enough to “confess” to being a “teatard?”) who voted for Mitt. I voted for Mitt despite my misgivings about Mitt – despite Mitt’s likely acceptance of “Obamacare” to the extent he would have only “mended” it, not ended it.

        The vote tally for Mitt was exceeded by the vote tally for Obama, but not because of “teatards” refusing to vote for Mitt. I am convinced of that. History has been air-brushed to say that Mitt lost because of voters who stayed home. But I will stand by what I am convinced is the untold, scandalous story of the 2012 presidential elections – namely, that Obama was re-elected as a result of massive vote fraud in his favor. The bastards almost lost anyway – it’s not like they fabricated a landslide – but of course, practice makes perfect, so this time there is no way the Democrat Party will fail while doing the same as they did in 2012. Gotta have that first woman.

            • Oh good grief. There has never been evidence of anything other than isolated, random, and insignificant incidents of voter fraud in recent history.

              My instincts (and I’m being serious) inform me that Cruz is a pervert, but I can’t shout that to the heavens without being labeled a crazy person. There is no evidence. And because there is no evidence, it is highly likely that my instincts are wrong and he just *looks* like a sex offender. In which case, I feel sorry for him because I can’t even concentrate on his message as my mom spidey-sense goes on high alert every time I hear his voice or see his face.

              • What kind of pervert is Cruz that you are informing yourself about? Come on, don’t be shy, we’re all safe here. Queer bathhouse whore? Kiddie porn addict? Late night bathroom tripper with Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue? I don’t have much of an imagination, but I can imagine Cruz and his wife cross-dressing and role-playing. But never in front of the kids. It does bother me that he allows those very young girls out on stage, under the bright lights and in front of God-knows-who-is-in-those-crowds. The kids are just. too. young. for all that. I fear those kids’ lives are already ruined. Just the other day, I almost sobbed, thinking of Caroline and John-John.

                “There has never been evidence of anything other than isolated, random, and insignificant incidents of voter fraud in recent history.” Sucker!

                Random?! I don’t think you meant that.

  7. It was a great speech. Yes, I would have preferred it to have been given by Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, or Ronald Reagan, but they were not available for the task. Of the living, George Bush (the senior and arguably senile) or Paul Ryan (the establishment) might have been effective, but it is difficult predicting what might have been or could be. Given our situation, I think Romney was the best option for delivering a message that absolutely had to be sent. I will vote for neither Trump nor Clinton nor Sanders. I cannot have such a thing on my conscience. As for me, give me sanity…or give me death.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.