Mitt Romney blasted Donald Trump last May, calling Trump a “phony” and a “fraud”, and saying Trump’s refusal to release his tax return:
It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity of a candidate’s representations regarding charities, priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. Trump’s equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it’s a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)
Mitt met with Donald today as the two held a “thorough and in-depth” meeting. Mitt is rumored to become part of the Trump administration, and is rumored to be the next Secretary of State. What are your thoughts? Does this continue the “Mormon Moment”?
Wheat & Tares 
It is just like all of the other republicans…the have no moral core or ethics. How can you denigrate someone and then become part of their government? It makes absolutely no sense therefore making them look like fools and someone who cannot be trusted; however, I would rather have Romney as Sec. Of State above someone as awful as Guilianni. We need someone that does not want to blow up our foreign relations with our allies.
If invited to serve his country, I hope Mr. Romney will give the matter sincere consideration.
I see a big difference between opposing Trump as a candidate and trying to help Trump the president be successful. We’re stuck with him now. It’s time to do everything we can to mitigate his worst instincts. Romney would be a great asset toward that end. And my own opinion is that Secretary of State is a far far better job than POTUS.
I would be shocked if Trump asked Romney to be his Secretary of State. Meeting with Romney allows Trump to look open-minded and magnanimous, but he will choose someone loyal to him. It would be great to have Romney, but it’s not going to happen. Trump will not soon forget that Romney spoke out against him throughout the campaign.
I understand the desire of principled people to refuse to work with Trump. However, I’d rather see principled people in the Trump administration than unprincipled ones.
Angela C: Usually I am on the “same page” as you. However, you are voicing the currently common refrain voiced from Obama to Hillary to Romney…”help the new president be successful.”
If the goals and objectives of this new president were acceptable and defensible, yes. But, most are not, And, his goal to create jobs is simply political rhetoric. His methods for doing that will very, very likely have the opposite effect…Among others: his ridiculous tax cuts and screwing up international trade deals. The majority of the manufacturing jobs were lost to robots, not foreign workers (though those losses were due to much lower labor costs in those foreign countries (the labor unions wouldn’t take pay cuts).
Although I do agree Mitt would be a far better Secretary of State than the ridiculous Giuliani, or equally dangerous Bolton.
@fbisti
“…’help the new president be successful.’ If the goals and objectives of this new president were acceptable and defensible, yes. But, most are not…”
I am hoping this is just rhetoric from the Democratic side. Nobody as intelligent as Obama or Clinton thinks Trump will be a success. With his latest idiotic twitter wars and ridiculous cabinet picks, it’s pretty clear he’s headed toward self-destruct. I have a pet theory that some of his picks (Romney, for example) are his middle-school attempt to taunt President Obama.
He’s picking them, not because he thinks they are good candidates, but he thinks they are the most irritating choices. His comments calling General Mattis “a general’s general and the real deal” are equally stupid… as if Trump knew *anything* about the military, being a soldier or being a leader.
I think the only reason the Democrats are playing nice is to defuse conspiracy theorists when Trump fails spectacularly and is removed from office. Fingers crossed…
I’m really torn on this one. On the one hand, I can see the rationale that Mitt will be a good influence on Trump and should try to help. On the other hand, I think Trump is a despicable human being. That’s going to rub off on Mitt, and (1) he’s going to be painted with Trump’s racism and sexism (of which Mitt has so sterling record himself, unlike his father George), and (2) it makes Mitt look like a hypocritical opportunist. He loses a lot of respect by embracing Trump.
I see a big difference between opposing Trump as a candidate and trying to help Trump the president be successful. We’re stuck with him now. It’s time to do everything we can to mitigate his worst instincts.
By all means, let us mitigate his worst instincts. But many would claim that mitigating his worst instincts means he would not NOT be successful, at least in the eyes of his core supporters, because his worst instincts tell him to build a wall, impose tariffs, deport Latinos, register Muslims, and throw 22 million people off their health insurance. But if, by flattering him and reinforcing his best instincts, we can make people’s lives better, we should swallow hard and do it (think Joseph in Egypt or Daniel in Babylon). I suspect that’s what Obama and Romney are thinking.
Keep in mind. If we get through the next four years without a recession, that will make 11 consecutive years without one–the longest stretch ever. What are the odds of that happening (regardless of who is President)? And who will get the blame when it happens?
Count me doubtful that Romney gets the call at State. If asked, he should probably serve. If mass deportation of (non criminal) Latinos or across the board bans of immigrant Muslims is seriously contemplated, Mitt will likely not be asked and would almost certainly refuse to accept if that were the policy goal. More likely, the actual policies of the Trump administration will be more border enforcement without the most draconian policies dreamed by some Trump supporters and many opponents.
In the still less likely scenario of Romney being asked to lead the State dept., he should then accept and serve to the best of his ability. Would this be an extension of the “mormon moment”? I think in some ways, yes. The 3rd and 4th in line for the presidency would be active, faithful latter-day saints. If something were to happen to President Trump or VP Pence, Secretary Romney would be high on the list for the VP slot also.
Personally, I can’t imagine Trump really intends to fulfill the majority of his campaign promises. I tend to think he did what any good reality TV personality does: said outrageous and insulting things in a dramatic manner to build up ratings, but the reality is that these are just sound and entertainment. I’m one of those people who thinks he was a non-serious candidate from the get-go. He doesn’t really hate Hillary–he’s friends with the Clintons. He doesn’t know much about immigration or how government works. He knows how to oversee building projects. He knows how to sexually assault women and get away with it. He doesn’t know how to shut his mouth. He doesn’t know how to surround himself with the best people, although he’s pretty good at getting other people to do the work for him. He’s thin-skinned and easily manipulated.
In most of the political postings/comments on W&T, I see the legacy of Mike Stivic. He was the Liberal college student son-in-law on TV’s “All in the Family”. He hated the Military, mocked Religion, and saw injustice in every aspect of American society. He offered only one solution to them all: government intervention. The show was a huge hit and creator/producer Norman Lear made sure that Mike’s views were the “correct” ones when pitted against Archie’s.
Now, 40 years later, Mike has careers in Law, Journalism, Government, Entertainment, and Education. His views have not changed except for one aspect. In the 70’s he was fighting for his views to have an equal voice; now he’s fighting to have his views the ONLY voice. I’m all in favor of different ideas being presented and giving everyone a chance to examine/study them. Afterwards, people can choose to accept, have a neutral tolerance, or reject. But that’s no longer acceptable. Religious displays/songs/expressions are BANNED, military info booths at schools are BANNED, Speakers with a different opinion than Mike’s are BANNED. There is no longer the tolerance/sensitivity once espoused by the Liberal counter-culture.
It’s kinda fun to watch reruns of the show and see how many of Mike’s views were misguided, misinformed, or just completely false. But he is still passing them on to the younger followers; and the comments prove it. Give me as many thumbs-down as you want, but you can’t dispute it.
@markag
“Religious displays/songs/expressions are BANNED, military info booths at schools are BANNED, Speakers with a different opinion than Mike’s are BANNED. There is no longer the tolerance/sensitivity once espoused by the Liberal counter-culture.”
1. The supreme court has ruled that public schools can host religious clubs. Religious clubs aren’t banned. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92875
2. Military recruiters are allowed in schools. Military info booths aren’t banned. http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=10852
3. Speakers with a “different opinion than Mike’s” are protected by the first amendment. Their speech isn’t banned.
What isn’t protected is hate speech, bigotry, racism, favoritism, and discrimination on the basis of race, color, religious belief, sexual orientation, or gender. The problem with having Christian prayers in federally-supported institutions is that (a) such prayers might embarrass or marginalize some children who don’t happen to be Christian, (b) schools are supported by taxpayers and roughly 20% of those taxpayers aren’t Christian or are opposed to any religious practice, (c) there’s no particular hardship imposed, since Christians can pray at home, in church, and silently any time they want to.
The bottom line: nobody is “banning” anything, so long as it’s legal under U.S. statutes. The things that are “banned” are illegal. If you don’t like it, then work to change the law. Go ahead. It’s a free country.
According to this article, Jon Huntsman is being considered of Sec of State (ahead of Romney and Giuliani.) http://www.wbaltv.com/article/giuliani-romney-no-longer-top-contenders-for-secretary-of-state-sources-say/8462296