Mitt Romney announced yesterday that he will not seek a 3rd run for the White House.
[poll id=”469″]
[poll id=”470″]
[poll id=”471″]
[poll id=”472″]
What else do you have to add to the conversation?
Weekend Poll: Mitt’s Out
Mitt Romney announced yesterday that he will not seek a 3rd run for the White House.
[poll id=”469″]
[poll id=”470″]
[poll id=”471″]
[poll id=”472″]
What else do you have to add to the conversation?
It WAS a tossup between ‘relieved’ and ‘meh’…it’s still 21 months to elect another Chump-in-Chief in the “Noo-Nited-Statez”.
I liked Mitt a LOT though like many Libertarians I considered him a ‘Big Gubmint, Lite’, or what some in “Wascally Wepublican” circles call a RINO. He did seem to be a decent sort and an effective administrator and leader, though a bit plain on the personality.
However, TWO failed attempts and the man would be almost 70 add up to one thing: He’s had his day. I prefer to see his as an “Elder” (pun intended) statesman. Each major party would do well to try some new blood. I’d REALLY like to see a serious “third” party or some form of Independent run. Too bad the actor Charles Napier has passed on, else we’d get this guy: (WARNING: the humor is twenty years old, so some of it is lost to the youth…)
IF Penn Jillette runs as the Libertarian candidate, “Green Acres, we are there!”. In light of the paucity of impressive candidates out there, his viability doesn’t seem all that far-fetched.
When it comes to presidents, I like to find someone who probably won’t screw it up rather than someone I think is going to do something great. Doing something great can backfire. I prefer my presidents to be unexciting.
Our government is totally corrupt so it makes very little difference. it mostly comes down to who would annoy the least to have to listen to for 4 years.
I was surprised to see both Jon Huntsman and Elizabeth Warren leading the poll so far. Not surprised that Ted Cruz is seen most negatively. (I can’t stand the guy.)
I voted “relieved”. I was a supporter of Mitt Romney, had met him (as well as his father) and tried to see past all of the cringe-inducing moments of the past campaign. A competent campaigner should have been able to beat Mr. Obama. Mitt is a better man and manager than he was able to convey but what it took to survive the circular firing squad of a primary season left him too impaired to win. A third attempt would have revived memories of former Governor Harold Stassen–who was credible in 1948 and 1952, but kept on running in ’64, ’68, ’80, ’84, ’88 … you get the idea.
I am more intrigued by when he choose to announce his un-candidacy. Just days before headlines touted how he was owning his Mormonism, and how he felt it was his religious duty to serve his country and so on. Then we have the fantastic Tuesday Press Conference and suddenly Mitt is sure this isn’t his turn. I know it can never been proven, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we learn someday that having the shadow of the Tuesday Massacre on his record as he tried to own his “real self” killed the whole enchilada.
Mitt may be hoping that the White Horse will be drafted as a black horse. Who knows?
In any case. both major parties are so thoroughly controlled by the Gadianton faction that it’s more than a little irrelevant who gets elected. Differences between Bush and Obama amount to window dressing; on the fundamentals it takes to run a nation, they’re nearly identical. No one of either party in a serious position to win nomination (including Mitt, were he still in it) is anything new and different.
#7 (and possibly others)
One of these days you’re all going to admit that the late George Wallace was ‘right’ and it was a shame that Arthur Bremer took him out of the ’72 campaign. There is truly NOT a dime’s worth of difference between Democrat and Republican.
Vote for DUKE!