Mitt Romney and the Futile Act

Mitt Romney and the Futile Act

I just finished listening to Mitt Romney making his speech about the state of the 2016 Presidential race. And though he made some salient points and sensible observations, my overwhelming takeaway is this: Who cares?

Look, I’m no special pleader for Donald Trump. I think that a lot of what Romney said about Trump is accurate.

But for heaven’s sake, what is the point of Romney weighing in on this at all?

Mitt Romney isn’t a former Republican President. Mitt Romney isn’t the putative leader of the Republican Party. What gives his opinion more weight or gravitas than the opinion of, say, John McCain?

If Romney were such a central figure to the direction and shape of the GOP, wouldn’t we be calling him “President Romney” right now?

He isn’t going to convince Trump supporters to bail on their guy. Trump supporters perceive Romney as a loser — in part because, well, he lost, and in part because their guy calls him a loser, therefore he’s a loser.

This 25-minute speech was nothing more than preaching to the choir. It is as useless as Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Trump or Lindsey Graham’s endorsement of Jeb Bush.

It isn’t as though Romney’s two cents was really necessary. Does anyone really believe there are people out there who are so hopelessly undecided on whom to vote for that they are waiting with baited breath to find out what Mitt Romney thinks before they make up their minds?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Romney doesn’t have a right to give his thoughts on the race. But both he and the media built this up as something significant when it really wasn’t. He isn’t some modern-day Elder Statesman. Frankly, Thomas Sowell’s opinion meant more to me than Romney’s.

Knowing Romney’s opinion on the race doesn’t change anything for me. Knowing that he isn’t a fan of Donald Trump doesn’t change anything for me either.

As a Constitutional Conservative, I don’t need a guy who claimed to be a “severe Conservative” (whatever the hell that is) telling me what’s wrong with the guy who calls himself a “common sense Conservative” (as if regular Conservatism lacks common sense).

As Emily Gilmore once said in an episode of Gilmore Girls, “When a woman gives birth to a crack baby, you do not buy her a puppy.” Mitt Romney lost what should have been the easiest win in the history of Presidential elections. When a guy loses an easy win, you do not turn around and ask for his input in the next election.

What’s more. In twenty-five minutes, Romney showed more fire against the putative Republican frontrunner than he ever showed when his competitor was Barack Obama.

This speech was nothing more than Mitt Romney wanting to appear relevant when he isn’t. If anything, all Mitt Romney managed to do was solidify Donald Trump’s current support and preach to the choir of people among 66% of the Republican voting base who do not support Trump. So again, I ask, who cares?

What an enormous exercise in futility.

If you like the work at Patriot Retort, please consider contributing

Hit the tip jar DONATE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!

8 thoughts on “Mitt Romney and the Futile Act

  • March 3, 2016 at 1:20 pm
    Permalink

    Why doesn’t the Republican party not just let the people decide who they want to be their candidate and just get the hell out of the way?

  • March 3, 2016 at 4:51 pm
    Permalink

    In case you haven’t been paying attention there is a political revolution taking place in both parties. Within the Dems it’s Bernie and within the GOP it’s Trump. The one party two-headed monster that has screwed over Americans for decades is ending. The Political Elite are going to fight like hell to maintain their power. They will pull every trick in the book. Example; Kasich, who has no chance in this race, staying in to block Trump in Ohio. Kasich comes across as a Boy Scout but in reality, he is a friggin weasel. The political elite will not go away quietly into the night. They will have to be forced out and forced out they will be. Regardless of the success of Sanders and Trump this go- around the political revolution has just begun. The next several years will be known as the years of political hell.

    • March 3, 2016 at 5:00 pm
      Permalink

      Problem is. Trump is part of the DC/Crony Complex. He IS part of the elite. Those desiring a “revolution” are being bamboozled by a pretender. Which makes it all manner of hilarious.

      • March 3, 2016 at 7:00 pm
        Permalink

        I think we can agree that governing is much different than campaigning. As Harry Truman so rightly reflected, “The buck stops here!” when the President is sitting in the Oval Office. What rolls off the tongue so glibly in rallies at whistle-stops becomes much more consequential after the oath of office is administered.
        Since Trump has not been in government, while you may extrapolate that he’s a pretender based on however you analyze his business history, there is no record of him actually being one in government. On the other hand, we have plenty of names on legislation and documented roll call votes to justify the pretender label for the professional politicians still in the race. Could Trump be different when governing than he is on the campaign trail — can he be trusted? Given the fact that none of the professional politicians still in the race exhibit much trustworthiness (the deceit and pretense on display by Cruz, Rubio, Sanders and Clinton has been epic), it’s apparent more and more people are willing to give Trump a chance. After all, he wouldn’t have to do much to be better than GHW Bush, Clinton, GWB, and Obama — it’s a pretty low bar.
        I think what seems revolutionary at this time is his “actionable vision.” Most people know that he may not be able to do all that he wants to do, but they are pleased that he’s demanding an end of the interminable circular arguments we get from our elected officials by challenging Congress to make things happen. Building a wall and deporting illegals, bombing the s**t out of ISIS, etc., are actionable items and discernibly more palatable to millions of Americans than the insufferable pablum about “comprehensive immigration reform,” “forming a coalition,” etc., being proffered by the other candidates ad nauseam. If he can’t make those things happen, well, I think that would tell us more about the true state of our Union than it would about him.

        • March 3, 2016 at 8:25 pm
          Permalink

          Consider this: If Trump is not part of the elite, why would Romney “beg him” for an endorsement as Trump claims Romney did? If Trump were really some maverick “outsider,” Romney wouldn’t have needed nor sought his endorsement in 2012 as Trump claims he did. So, either Trump is an outsider without his fingers in the pie and he’s lying about Romney begging for his endorsement in 2012, or Trump is in fact an insider with his fingers in the pie and Romney felt the need to beg for his endorsement and he’s lying to his fans about being such an outsider. Either way, he is filled with “deceit and pretense.”

          Finally. It is a terrible testimony of the state of our Union that you would think a President can “make those things happen,” when a President, by our own Constitution really doesn’t have a whole hell of a lot of power.

          • March 3, 2016 at 10:33 pm
            Permalink

            Regarding “make those things happen”…just a few lines before the line you cherry-picked I wrote “by challenging Congress to make things happen.” My repeat of that sentiment two sentences later with a President assumed you took into account the first statement that he needs Congress to act…and, Presidents normally take credit for what happens on their watch (regardless of whether it was legislative, judicial, or executive in nature) but apparently, the juxtaposition of those thoughts wasn’t close enough to register, or, you just simply chose to ignore.
            You’re right, a President doesn’t have “a whole hell of a lot of power,” although your candidate (not mine) gave the Executive power that was specifically prescribed to the Senate by the Constitution and not the Executive…I would call that criminal in the sense of impeachable…and that action by Cruz and the GOP senatorial cabal truly is “a terrible testimony of the state of our Union.”
            Regarding “He IS part of the elite” with Romney and Trump, what do you mean? I believe Romney (rich in his own right) wanted the rich businessman’s endorsement because he thought Trump’s recognition factor from his successful television show would add a bit of popular appeal to his candidacy. If that makes Trump part of the elite, so be it. But then I assume you consider Goldman-Sachs also part of the elite, don’t you? Not that there’s anything wrong with Cruz taking margin loans and campaign contributions from them, there’s not. Like it or not, businesses making campaign contributions are part of the way we do our political process. So what’s your issue with “the elite?”

          • March 3, 2016 at 11:07 pm
            Permalink

            I used elite in response to the initial comment on this thread where the phrase “Political Elite” was used. I don’t have an issue. But apparently Ken does.

  • March 3, 2016 at 6:14 pm
    Permalink

    When the race began, Romney was making noises like he wanted to run. When he finally announced that he wasn’t running, he did it in such a way that it sounded like he was leaving the door open for a “draft Mitt” effort, if the election went to hell and his country and party needed him.

    I guess I’m still not convinced that Romney may be praying for a brokered convention where he could “ride to the rescue” without all the pain and humiliation of actually campaigning for the spot.

Comments are closed.

Simple Share Buttons
Simple Share Buttons