Ironic, in a sense; Barack Obama was running for re-election as Dictator, not President, while Mitt Romney was running for President but got elected Prophet instead:
In the nearly twenty months since Mitt Romney lost the election to President Barack Obama, many of the former Massachusetts governor's predictions have played out on the world stage.
For instance, Romney called Russia the nation's "number one geopolitical foe"; he pledged strong support for Israel amid tense relations with Iran and other neighbors; declared that corporations are "people" — and said that illegal immigration remained a continued threat to the American economy.
As many realities have developed in the U.S. and abroad, Romney's popularity has increased in national polls — and it is believed that he is considering a White House run in 2016.
"Mitt Romney, in retrospect, was not omniscient," Bradley Blakeman, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, told Newsmax. "He saw what was there to be seen. He saw the world as it was — not the way he wished it would be.
Yes, Romney was right. About pretty much everything. And if presidential elections were about policy and issues anymore, that would have mattered in 2012, when the same domestic and foreign perils bedeviling the nation today were hardly any less day-glo obvious. But policy and issues didn't matter then and still don't now. Presidential elections in the post-American Age of The One are about tribalism, Alinskyite group identity, and federally-mandated pro-Regime voter fraud. For all the recent polling showing a purported ten-point "buyer's remorse" wave (Obama won the popular vote 51%-48%, but respondents now say Romney would be a better president by a 45%-38% margin), the brutal reality still remains that if a "mulligan" 2012 rematch were held next Tuesday, Barack Obama would win yet again.
"How can that be?", you may be asking. Well, actually, I just told you why. One reason, anyway. An additional reason is that being right on the issues does not render a man, or woman, presidential timbre. A candidate also needs the right resume (i.e. having been a State governor, not a senator), boatloads of campaign cash, and the infamous "it" factor - charisma, telegeneity, call it what you will. Mitt had the resume, he had the cash, but the Obamedia convinced LIVs and NIVs that he was a dork, the twenty-first century Clark Griswald....
....and a serial "binderizer" of women....
....not nearly "cool" enough to be
All of which is to say, having been vindicated in spades does not make Mitt Romney any more viable of a candidate in 2016 than he was in 2012. There'd be the additional drawback of his age; Mitt would be 69 years old in 2016, as old as Ronald Reagan when he ran (successfully) in 1980; not that he wouldn't wear it well or be up to the task, but it can be taken for granted that the Obamedia would bring it up a time or a billion - plus his prior defeats, and his having sabotaged their messiah's second term by planting all his '12 predictions as hypnotic suggestions using Dick Cheney's planetary mind control machine....
There are a couple of additional factors weighing against a third Romney run. (1) The GOP base, particularly Tea Partiers, would ragingly oppose it to their last spluttering being-fiber; and (2) maybe Mitt means it when he insists he'll never run again. Would you, in his shoes? He's had a wildly successful business career, he's wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, he's got a big, loving family - wife, children, grandchildren - and no lack of activities to keep himself busy. He served as governor of Massachusetts and had a couple of cracks at the Big Chair. Perhaps that's enough for him. He's not obsessed with power like a Democrat.
Unless 'Pubbies like Bradley Blakeman want him to incur that particular psychological disorder for some strange, fetishistic reason, I would suggest letting next-generation rising stars like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker carry the Reagan banner, and leaving, um, sleeping dogs lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment