Today in oh-fer-cryin-out-loud:
In
an article titled “Romney 2016 is for real,” The
Washington Examiner’s Byron York looks at the movement to keep
Mitt Romney—yes, that Mitt Romney, the oddly robotic
candidate who looks like Mr. Fantastic, the wealthy former
consultant who casually makes $10,000 bets with his opponents, the
policy-specifics averse former Massachusetts governor who inspired
so little enthusiasm as he topped the GOP ticket and lost by three
points in 2012—in the mix as a potential contender for the
Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2016.
Why, you might wonder, would anyone want Romney to run again? He
offered almost nothing to the ticket in 2012 except a bland
respectability. Against the weak GOP lineup he was facing, that was
enough to win the nomination. But most Republican voters never
really loved the guy, and he never really seemed particularly fond
of Republican voters or conservative policies (remember, this is
the guy who as Massachusetts governor signed into law the model for
Obamacare, hoping that the rest of the nation would follow).
His domestic policy agenda, in particular, was intentionally
kept vague and largely substance free; he wasn’t running on what he
would do so much as what he wouldn’t be—Obama. There was almost no
positive case to vote for Romney, and he and his team barely
attempted to present one. Another nod for Romney would only serve
to further cement the already pervasive notion that the Republican
party is an agenda-free-zone when it comes to policy.
Romney was nominated because he seemed
more electable than the rest of the field. Relatively speaking,
that impression may have been right, but it’s hard to run on
electability after having soundly lost a major national
election.
So what’s the case for another Romney campaign? York’s piece
implies that part of it is the sense that he could represent the
interests of some of the party’s moneyed establishment, large
segments of which supported him in 2012. The establishment is
looking for a contender, and they think Romney could be their best
bet, especially if former Florida governor Jeb Bush decides not to
run. Romney seems to think of his own campaign as a kind of
alternate to a Jeb Bush candidacy. But once again, the reasoning
relies on dubious assumptions about electability. According to
York, “Romney is said to believe that, other than himself, Bush is
the only one of the current Republican field who could beat Hillary
Clinton in a general election.” How’s that for
unshakable confidence?
There’s still no agenda, just a sense of unease amongst an
influential part of the Republican donor class that Romney could be
the best hope they have. That a Romney run is being discussed as a
live possibility suggests that some of the party’s old guard is
worried about losing that influence.
They’re not the only ones with an interest in a Romney run,
however. York quotes a GOP operative who suggests another reason
why some in the party want to keep the Romney 2016 dream alive:
money. Romney spent a lot of it in 2012, and there are plenty of
people in the GOP campaign business who stand to make quite a bit
from another run. “All his people want him to run again because
they made so much money off it the last time,” the operative, who
didn’t work on Romney’s last campaign, tells York.
In other words, the case for Romney in 2016 is rather like the
case for Romney in 2012: Romney, who was in the GOP primary fray in
2008 as well, would still like to be president, there are some
party bigwigs who see him as their best shot, and some campaign
professionals would like to cash in on yet another
sure-to-be-pricey run. That’s not an argument for why Romney should
run. It’s an argument for why he shouldn’t.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1v4GbY0
via IFTTT