Usually, Professional Politicians such as Willard Mitt Romney wait until they have officially taken their Oath of Office after an election before showing their true colors.
FoxNews.com reports that
Mitt Romney, former presidential candidate and a Republican senator-elect in Utah, has written a scathing op-ed for The Washington Post, saying President Trump “has not risen to the mantle of the office.”
Published in The Post on Tuesday, Romney’s piece reiterated past thoughts about Trump. That is, while Trump wasn’t his first choice to be the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2016, he hoped the billionaire businessman would “rise to the occasion” to lead and unite the U.S.
But, Romney said, he’s found that the president’s actions have proven otherwise.
“… On balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office,” Romney wrote.
Trump’s policies and appointments as president have not necessarily been “misguided,” according to the former Massachusetts governor, who said he was encouraged by the elevation of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Nikki Haley, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster, John Kelly and James Mattis — a majority of whom have since been fired or resigned from the administration.
Romney said Trump should be bringing the country together, inspiring Americans. He should demonstrate “the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect.”
“As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit,” he wrote. “With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”
The 71-year-old noted that the rest of the world often looks to the U.S. “for leadership” — and that the “world needs American leadership” — but that Trump’s “words and actions have caused dismay around the world.”
“To reassume our leadership in world politics, we must repair failings in our politics at home. That project begins, of course, with the highest office once again acting to inspire and unite us,” Romney wrote in the op-ed. He added that, “Our leaders must defend our vital institutions despite their inevitable failings: a free press, the rule of law, strong churches, and responsible corporations and unions.”
He said that regardless of the politician, he’ll support policies that benefit Americans and those he represents in Utah. Romney said he won’t comment on all of the president’s tweets or problems, but “will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.”
Average Americans living in America’s Heartland, Conservatives, such as myself, were presented a raw deal by the GOP in the Presidential Election of 2012. Their chosen one, Willard Mitt Romney, was a horrible candidate. He was a one of the GOP Elite. A Vichy Republican, Moderate, who, regarding many Social Issues in his past history, took stances to the Left of the Political Spectrum. On top of that, “Romneycare” in Massachusetts, was the Godfather of the State-run Healthcare Monster known as Obamacare.
That was an awful lot of baggage for a Republican candidate to be carrying.
When the Conservative Base raised questions about the GOP Elites’ predetermined candidate, were their concerns met with empathy?
the GOP Establishment and New England Moderate wing explained.
So, dutifully, out of love for our country, average Americans between the coasts held our noses and voted for Mitt Romney…because anyone would have been better than the Democratic presidential Candidate, the incompetent incumbent, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).
…And…Willard Mitt Romey lost.
Why? How could he? Obama was, and remains to this very day, an anti-American, Muslim-sympathizing, political-pandering, class warfare-preaching, tax-the-rich, spread-the-wealth, card-carrying Communist.
Michael Barone, writing for the Washington Examiner, presented the following theory after Obama won re-election:
In both elections [2004, 2012], each candidate concentrated on a more or less fixed list of target states, and in both elections the challenger depended heavily on outside groups’ spending that failed to achieve optimal results.
The popular vote margins were similar — 51 to 48 percent for George W. Bush in 2004, 51 to 47 percent for Barack Obama in 2012.
The one enormous difference was turnout. Turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections rose from 105 million to 122 million, plus 16 percent. Turnout between the 2008 and 2012 elections fell from 131 million to 128 million, minus 2 percent.
Turnout is a measure of organization but also of spontaneous enthusiasm.
In 2004 John Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore had four years before. But he lost because George W. Bush got 23 percent more popular votes than he had four years before.
Kerry voters were motivated more by negative feelings for Bush than by positive feelings for their candidate. They disagreed with Bush’s major policies and disliked him personally. The Texas twang, the swagger, the garbled sentence structure — it was like hearing someone scratch his fingers on a blackboard.
Bush voters were more positively motivated. Political reporters had a hard time picking this up. His job rating was weak, but Bush voters tended to have a lot of warmth for him.
He had carried us through 9/11, he had confronted our enemies directly, he had pushed through with bipartisan support popular domestic measures like his education bill and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
His criticism of his opponents was measured and never personal, and he blamed none of his difficulties on his predecessor (who had blamed none of his on his).
This affection evaporated pretty quickly, in the summer of 2005, with scenes of disorder in the streets of Baghdad and New Orleans. But it was there in 2004 and you can see it in that 23 percent turnout increase.
The 2012 election was different. Barack Obama got 6 percent fewer popular votes than he had gotten in 2008. And Mitt Romney got only 1 percent more popular votes than John McCain had four years before.
In retrospect, it looks like both campaigns fell short of their turnout goals. Yes, examination of election returns and exit polls indicates that the Obama campaign turned out voters where it really needed them.
That enabled him to carry Florida by 1 percent, Ohio by 3 percent, Virginia by 4 percent, and Colorado and Pennsylvania by 5 percent. Without those states he would have gotten only 243 electoral votes and would now be planning his presidential library.
But the conservative bloggers who argued that the Obama campaign’s early voting numbers were below target may have been right. If Mitt Romney had gotten 16 percent more popular votes than his predecessor, as John Kerry did, he would have led Obama by 4 million votes and won the popular vote 51 to 48 percent.
Romney, like Kerry, depended on voters’ distaste for the incumbent; he could not hope to inspire the devotion Bush enjoyed in 2004 and that Obama had from a diminished number in 2008.
But, to continue this counterfactual scenario, if Obama had won 23 percent more popular votes this year than in 2008, he would have beaten Romney by 85 million to 69 million votes and by 54 to 44 percent.
The reality was, Mitt Romney lost. Afterwards, his son, Tagg Romney, claimed that his Dad never really wanted to be president, in the first place.
Uh huh. Sure.
If he did not want to be president, why did he run?
If he did not want to be president, why did he attack the other primary candidates, especially the Conservative Republicans, with a fury reminiscent of Johnny Weissmuller as Tarzan, rolling around in an African river, as he killed a humongous crocodile with his knife?
Was he put up to this by the GOP Elite, so desperate for an easily-manipulated Washington Insider, that they overlooked Romney’s failures as a candidate in previous elections?
Immediately after the man-made disaster, known on November 6th, 2012, the GOP Elite were calling for the direction of the Party to move even farther Left, in order to “be more competitive”.
And that, gentle readers, if why the Vichy Republicans continued a streak of losing second only to the Harlem Globetrotters’ hapless foes, the Washington Generals.
A streak that would have continued to this very day if a Citizen Statesman by the name of Donald J. Trump has not decided that his company needed him and thrown his hit into the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary.
The majority of Americans, except for those little blue dots in the urban areas, denoting Democrat voters, on the map showing the election results, remain Conservative average Americans, “bitterly clinging to our Bibles and guns”.
Mitt Romney remains a Second Generation Professional Politician and member of the GOP Elite
Even back in 2012, when he attempted to present himself as a Conservative candidate, attempting to articulate Conservatism and the Party Platform, and trying to connect with us average Americans living here in the Heartland, his status as a member of the GOP Elite did not resonate well with those of us who are now known as “Deplorables” by the Democrat Hierarchy (ad probably by the GOP Elite, as well).
If Romney has exhibited the down-to-Earth, straight-talking charisma of Donald J. Trump during his 2012 Presidential Campaign, then he probably would have beaten the Manchurian Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).
Instead, what he had then was “a failure to communicate”.
And now, it appears that he is experiencing a failure to comprehend.
Until He Comes,