Mitt is un-electable now. He came out saying he believes in man made climate
change, and is in favor of raising the minimum wage. Not hardly stances to win
the republican nomination.
Todd from ??That is exactly why he should run. He is the only one having
sense enough to lead the country.
Romney would not have a chance. He is unelectable. The republicans would be
asking to lose if they put him up for election in 2016. They are too much to
'angry white guys' to attract the minority vote or the women's
vote. They need to proved that they are inclusive. With the changing of voter
laws they are trying and the anti women image they are projecting a large part
of America will not vote for them.
According to recent polls if Mitt Romney ran against Obama today, Romney would
win in a landslide! Maybe America has woken up!
The daily article on mitt Romney! I was wondering when it would pop up!
Mitt is far too qualified for the many takers and uninformed voters. Look what
we have in the WH now. Pathetic!
Republicans need to focus on mid-term elections, get out the vote, and WIN!
Morale is at an all time low with states now being required to take in these
illegals and house them, feed, them and educate them. The laws that
are already in place at the border aren't being enforced. We need to put a
fence to protect our southern border. With big money being requested by BHO for
everything except border security, Republicans need to stop the money flow in
the House. they have the power of the purse. "Come on Congress, come along
and pass these laws!" is not the battle cry the president should be giving
in my opinion. We'll never know what Romney would have done. I
think we need new leadership in Congress and in the Executive Branch with people
who actually love this country and will abide by the laws in the U.S.
Constitution! There are too many in big government who want power and money for
themselves!God bless America!
Who cares about Mitt at this point?
I'm personally looking for the right person to lead this country out of the
purgatory that we have been in for so many years... I really don't care if
that person is Black, White, Hispanic female or male... Don't care if that
person is hip, boring, old or young... I want someone who has the brains, the
know how, the patience and the willingness to deal with adversity, someone who
has the genuine talent to fix this this place we call America because it is
broken and broken bad. I don't care if that person has never
run for office or someone who has run multiple times... I want someone with a
track record. I am fed up with trying to figure out if a candidate appeals to a
certain race or gender... In fact, if I am in that race or gender I am offended
that so-called "strategists" believe that I belong to a block whose
personalities and demographics can be defined, labeled, and placed in a box with
a judgment on who I would vote for and who I would not. If Romney is
the best we got I want him... yesterday.
Yesterday in this very newspaper, there was a great editorial on how important
investigative journalism is. So what is the lead story the next day - Mitt
isn't running, or is he? Come on Deseret News, there are actual news
events happening in our state that need investigating. Mitt Romney maybe or
maybe not running for President in two years is hardly the stuff of a quality
My name's Mitt Romney. I'm thinking of running for president for a
third time. And I'm a Mormon.
Hey, Thid B.: It's pretty easy to win an imaginary election if your guy is
winning all 3 or 4 wars his party wanted him to start. I suppose the banks would
have regulated themselves too, right?
"retaining influence in the party"Sounds like self promotion
behind the scenes, not work for the betterment of the people at large. And
isn't that what politics has become in America.
I can only conclude that the former Governor did not learn his lesson the first
time. Even with a weak economy that did everything to provide
Americans with a reason to vote for him and not the incumbent, Mr. Romney still
lost most convincingly.
I agree that as a presidential candidate, Romney is probably unelectable now.
However, I think he could have massive influence as an advisor to the next
POTUS, assuming a Republican wins the next election. He absolutely belongs in
Washington, as his predictions about Russia, Syria, Iraq etc., have proven
correct. He doesn't need the scrutiny (read: distraction) of the
presidency, but working more behind the scenes as a Cabinet member, for example,
he would be perfectly positioned to both lead and inform the President.
Yawn. He was dead in the water after his 47% comments. Look, people, the guy
tried twice and failed both times. He's not going to be elected even if he
did run again, which apparently he doesn't want to. The Republican party
needs to look ahead at what is coming down the pike. The millenial generation
is not the same as the generations before it. They are much more likely to
identify as independent, and they hate the "establishment" Republican
party as well as the Tea Party faction. The only Republican candidates that are
going to get any traction with this group of voters are the libertarian-leaning
candidates who can demonstrate that they have an actual plan besides "oppose
Obama/Democrats." 53% of millenials would support candidates who are
"socially liberal and economically conservative," a common
characterization of libertarian ideals. Romney and his silver-spoon, big
business, establishment Republicans will continue to get pulverized in national
elections, as will hard-line religious/evangelical right Tea Party candidates.
Gotta find a new plan and re-tool, because this one isn't working, and
it's only going to get worse.
Strategically, one does not want to start running for president too soon. You
think Hillary really hasn't made up her mind yet? Mitt telling people
"no" at this point in time rather than just laughing it off leads me to
believe that he has already decided to run if the window of opportunity to jump
in as a viable candidate opens up. That condition must first be met, but
don't tell me Mitt wouldn't love the chance to be a viable candidate
again, if possible.
WOW is'nt hindsight great??? this country is having a bit of monday
morning quarterbacking, and we all blew it by not electing Mitt Romney in the
first place. What a opportunity we lost...To many people in our country
don't want to be led, they don't want a better life, they want a
free life, free from consequence, free from work, free from responsibility.
Things are just going to get worse.... GET READY!!!
It would be comical if Mitt Romney in two years from now were to run for a third
time , but then the nation needs a good laugh from time to time. Perhaps in
the meantime Mr Romney with all his money could be doing some good and paying
back to a nation and people that have given him so much.
The main reason Mitt is still in the news is because the "buyers
remorse" from Obama is so high and increasing everyday!
"his predictions about Russia, Syria, Iraq etc., have proven correct"Actually Romney said Russia was our number one geopolitical foe, and
then explained that by saying they line up with all the bad actors in the world.
At the same time Obama was taking heat for telling Russian leaders that he
would have more flexibility after the election. Yet it was Obama who got Russia
to cooperate with world to convince Syria to give up their chemical weapons.
That's the difference between a leadership style that
bloviates, calls people names, and threatens war, and one that gets us out of
wars we suffered through for ten years, and creates cooperation with our
"enemies" to accomplish peaceful ends.The first is obvious,
crass, and frankly juvenile. The second is less appreciated in the immediate
but praised by history and perspective.
Mitt is already being compared to Ron Paul as a chronic losing Presidential
candidate. I think he wants to avoid that.
Mitt, Hillary, Ted, anybody.It is offensive to start politicking so
soon after the last election. Can't we just wait a bit. Nov. 2016 is a
long, long way off.
Article after article about Mitt. It's almost like he is running. If he
does, that won't add to his credibility. His word will mean nothing and he
will be just like any other professional politician. So all you Romney
supporters, let it go.
Yup. No sense wasting time on Mitt.Too much work to do to convince
gullible people to vote for other Republicans.
Romney will always be gaffe-prone. In 2012 it was "47%" and
"corporations are people" and "binders full of women" among
other gems. He would still have these hanging over his head along with whatever
new ones he comes up with if he runs again.Huntsman is more
eloquent, qualified and (name recognition aside) more electable.
Maybe Willard can be the 1st guest on Palin's "news" channel? Oh,
the fun John Stewart would have.
What's that saying about the definition of insanity? Is it repeating the
same action and expecting a different result?
Does Mr. Romney have relatives in the DN newsroom?Does he have stock in
the DN?Does the DN really want him to run for President again?Is
there something the public does not understand, or has not yet heard about Mitt
Romney?Never seen any other losing candidate get this kind of repetative
news coverage week after week.
Run Mitt again Please. It will assure a Democrat as President. Rerunning Mitt
is like trying to repeal Obama care again and again, or the other favorite GOP
past time of Investigating Benghazi. The Party of Old ideas and old guys will
live up to the reputation for nothing new, and nothing getting accomplished to
move the country forward.
@pragmatistferlifeWhat good does it do to "make friends" with the
enemies who would just as soon stab us in the back? Obama is making best
friends with the illegals at the border who will eventually over run this
country and it's ideals with lawlessness, because he has swung the door
wide open, saying, "You are welcome to come right on in and break our
laws". He has sold us to China and told Putin he can do what he wants
around the globe without restraint from the US. Then he has discharged our
military and taken their livelihood, leaving us virtually unprotected. He has
America on our backs with our soft underbelly exposed to it's enemies, and
distracted his voters with all kinds of free stuff so they won't notice the
peril we are in. I don't think he'll be praised historically by
anyone but those who want to hurt and take advantage of us.
the moment came...and went.
Oh please let it be true--let it be true--please, please, please,
puh---leeeeeze. I yearn for the days of Rafalka, of the 47 percent and of
European road trips. I giggle at the memory of Haircut Gate and I would roll
around on the floor hugging myself to hear a debate opponent say "Proceed,
Governor," just one more time. Run, Mitt. I want to hear more about a little
thing called culture and see Karl Rove melt down to the point that Fox News
anchors are telling him he's nuts. Don't dismiss this out of hand, Mr.
Romney. When you speak, fun things happen.
Romney is doing what Nixon did in the mid-1960s...getting lots and lots of
Republicans beholden to him so that when he takes his next shot, they'll be
on top of the station wagon with him.
"The daily article on mitt Romney! I was wondering when it would pop
up!" LOL if it's daily, your still wondering when? Funny sarcasm.
Another example, The sunrises daily, I was wondering when it would
pop up.Another example, The daily Obama photo op, I was wondering
when it would happen. Thank you for the funny sarcasm.
@ Skeptic"Perhaps in the meantime Mr Romney with all his money
could be doing some good and paying back to a nation and people that have given
him so much."Yes skeptic, and those of us who haven't done
anywhere near well as Mitt has, can just pile on with the cheap shots.
The term "failure to launch" comes to mind.It's hard to
launch someone who doesn't want to be launched... Ref the 40-year-olds
still living in their mom's basement!=================RE: "Perhaps in the meantime Mr Romney with all his money could be doing
some good and paying back to a nation".... (skeptic 7:38 am)...Google "Romney donations to charity"...Politico:"Romney and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in
2011, donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in"...."Romney 2011 taxes: Mitt gives more to charity than President Obama, Joe
Biden"...Maybe you SHOULD be harping on Barack Obama and Joe
Biden???=================About gloating over him failing
twice.. that's twice more than most have even tried.Obama got
51% of the vote (hardly a lanslide). It's hard to beat an incumbent who
didn't fail (only happened twice in my lifetime). And with all the
"Stuff" Obama promised... while Romney proposed the TOUGH way out...
That's tough.He was correct on the 47% comment. Google it....
47% of Americans pay no Federal Income Taxes. So why vote against tax
@ 2 bits1% more of the vote needed to win, could have been easily bought,
stolen, miscounted or fraudulently grabbed. Not to mention the
"amnesty" given to illegals just before the election to insure a little
"push" ahead at the finish line. We have no idea how accurate the true
count really was. I say it was too close to call, and Obama won by default, not
because of the actual will of the majority of the people. I would be
in favor of spending money on the next election to ensure an accurate count with
a reliable system.
One of the earlier posts said Romney would never win because he has recently
said some non-kooky (rational) things. I guarantee you that if he does end up
running, he will disavow those non-kooky positions and everyone on here will
swear that he NEVER said them. He NEVER said climate change existed, etc. Just
like they swore up and down that he NEVER said his health care plan could be a
model for the nation, etc. Just watch the old flip flop begin, and all of his
supporters will rewrite history. So no worries on that front.
I think Mitt is really interested in seeing that good people are elected in 2014
and then sit back and wait. So far Rick Perry and Mitt seem to be the only
competent options, but Mitt would only accept the nomination if unanimously
drafted without all of the 2012 primaries. I hope Hillary stumbles and falls by
the wayside for the good of the country.
President Reagan was pro choice most of his life and even signed an abortion law
when governor of California allowing abortion at will. When running for
president, Reagan claimed to be pro life. However when he had the chance to
actually do something about it, he nominated Sandra O'Connor to the court
and she was confirmed. During her tenure, Roe v Wade did come up, and were it
not for Sandra O'Connors vote Roe v Wade would not be the law of the land
today. About a week after President Reagan left office, Nancy admitted that she
was pro choice. While running for president, when Reagan had the chance to speak
about cutting taxes he showed up in person. When he spoke to people about his
'commitment' to the life of the unborn, he spoke to them by teleFeed.
He needed the religious right's votes to become president, so he told them
what they wanted to hear, in spite of the fact that he really wasn't
enthusiastic about their views.The last thing we need is an other
president that pretends to be pro-life but really isn't.
I asked a Bostonian why they elected the Republican Mitt as Govenor in such a
blue state as Massachusetts, his response was a classic-"Every once in
awhile we realize we need to get an adult in the office to straighten out the
a THIRD run? why don't republicans give us a viable candidate? personally
, i am tired of the last 6 years.
@BU52 4:24 p.m. Aug. 1, 2014 I asked a Bostonian why they elected
the Republican Mitt as Govenor in such a blue state as Massachusetts, his
response was a classic-"Every once in awhile we realize we need to get an
adult in the office to straighten out the problems."-----------------------Massachusetts has a history of electing
governors from both parties -- there is nothing exceptional about Republican
Romney being elected.That Bostonian must have been speaking about
Deval Patrick -- an adult in office was definitely needed to clean up after
The Liberal Masses are alive and well in UtahThank goodness the
other 90% of the state's electorate is around to keep them in line.
Don't think that you are very pragmatic pramatistferlife... In fact you
sound very liberal to me.The idea that Obama rose above the fray to
snatch peace with Russia and Syria is laughable... First off, there is no proof
that Chemical Weapons are no longer in Bashar al-Assad's reach I have no
idea how you came up with that... Actually, President al-Assad has killed
hundreds of thousands of his own people and you think that's great?Putin has played Obama like a used fiddle... I guarantee you that
Putting is NOT shaking in his boots over Obama's sanctions... We need
Russia trade more than Russia needs U.S. goods right now and Putin knows it.In the meantime, Putin has invaded Georgia, put the fear into Obama so
that he reneged on our agreement with Poland to supply them with Defense
Missiles that were promised by the "W" Administration, He walked into
the Ukraine and informed them that he was in charge... Our own Military Advisors
say that we are in more danger today than we have been since WWII...Obama is incompetent and he is severely hurting this country.
So wonder, is the earth getting warmer? If it is, is it man-made warming? What
do you base your opinion on? Al Gore? a Failed Candidate who has made Billions
because of folks like you?Personally, I don't know, it might be
getting warmer... Might not... I think that it's pretty far fetched to say
that it is man-made.There are scientists on both sides of the
issue.... There are PACs and Activists on the "man-made" side and that
of course that is politically correct... But I have a question for you... Why is
that position Politically Correct when it was learned that some of the
Scientists who people like you lean on were caught red handed cheating the
numbers?Am I wrong? Is my position a flip flop if it appears both
sides to the issue have valid points? And most importantly, is it a cheap shot
to call someone a flip flopper when they are not a scientist? I personally think
it is and I am not flip flopping on that.
Mitt might have a tough go of it against Hillary. He comes from a patriarchal
culture that doesn't afford women the same opportunities as women.
We've even seen a questioning woman recently excommunicated from his
church. I think this issue would be a tough one considering its likely Mitt
would be running against Hillary.
His bowing to the tea party and Hannity ruined any nomination forever.
Mitt Romney was by far the best candidate in either party in both 2008 and
2012.Period.America, America, oh, how the mighty has