Bye, Mitt


So Mitt Romney announced this afternoon that he won’t run for president next year after all. I’m torn between heaving a sigh of relief — because we’ve been there, done that, twice already — and thinking there’s still plenty of time for him to change his mind. Again. He’s proven himself adept at doing that. Wouldn’t be at all surprised if he did it yet again. Oh, and of course there was the fleeting thought that his wife must have talked him out of it. She’d already made it clear she was against another run.

To date the whole not-yet-a-campaign has looked like a giant rerun or just a continuation of the last time. Same names. Same faces. I’m sick of all of them. Clinton, Perry, Huckabee, Santorum, Bachmann. And until today, Romney. Seriously? No means no, people! You all had you chance (or chances). And you all lost. There’s a word for people who’ve lost …

It’s been so easy to not write about all the posturing and positioning for 2016. I’ve already said what I think about these people. Several years ago. Has anything changed? I was tired of them three years ago. And I’m still tired. I’m not interested in another presidential campaign. Certainly not one with all the same old faces.

And I’m already tired of the “new” old faces — Paul, Cruz, Christy, Jindal, Rubio, Bush, Palin, Graham. I’ve had my say on most of them, too.

Do any of these people ever work? Or do they just spend all their time campaigning? Don’t answer that.

I’d love to wake up tomorrow and hear names I’ve never heard before, see fresh faces, hear new voices.

Fat chance.

9 thoughts on “Bye, Mitt

  1. You are quite right PIEDTYPE. I am tired already of listening to the same old names of those who are thinking of running for President in 2016. They are saying nothing new.

  2. I agree, PT. I too would like to see some fresh faces, and I’m thinking of one in particular that would be good. Here, for what it’s worth, is my comment I made on a different blog with the same subject:

    Romney’s peripatetic dalliances with politics are depressing reminders of what politics has become. He shares the common denominator among would-be candidates which appears to be indefatigable hubris. Maybe it has always been that way, I don’t know, but humility appears to be absent in the mix.

    Thinking back in history, I can only think of a few presidents who had selflessness. Did Washington? I think so – some wanted to crown him king, but he shunned the spotlight. John Adams. Abe Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt? There was an odd mixture of hubris and humility if ever there was one. He worked himself to death. Harry Truman, Ike, and I think Bush 41 had it too.

    How about Obama? I personally think history will include him in the mix of greats too, guiding the nation to end two wars and out of the Great Recession despite the most intense political calumny of the modern era. But I don’t see this quality in the present roster of would-be candidates. How about Hillary Clinton? I’m skeptical. I understand that as a New York senator she buckled down and did praise-worthy work. As Secretary of State, she appeared to be a hard worker and traveled more than any of her predecessors, but left me with the impression that she liked the spotlight too much. Significantly, she refused to dump her philandering husband in favor of her political career. How she runs the coming campaign will be instructive, I think. Personally, I would prefer to see Elizabeth Warren run – she clearly has the passion of a true believer and I see little hubris in her.

    1. I agree with Mak. That was well said. Not sure yet what I think of 41 and Obama. Hillary has done nothing to endear herself to me. Questionable activities in Arkansas. A carpetbagging opportunist who moved to NY just because there was going to be an open Senate seat. Putting up with Bill’s shenanigans because it was politically expedient for her. I like Liz Warren a lot, not the least because she’s an Oklahoma City gal like me. She seems to tell it like it is regardless of the political consequences. She’s got grit. Gumption. Principles. I don’t see a Republican that I would vote for today. Certainly none as interesting as I found Huntsman in 2012. Pretty dismal to be surveying the field at this point and not seeing anyone I particularly like. Hate the idea of voting for whomever I dislike the least.

  3. I’m already so sick of all the 2016 talk that I’m even having a hard time thinking of ways to mock it PT. It is funny, however, that just before Romney’s announcement, the talking heads were showing him ahead of Jeb Bush in GOP polls despite their not-so-secret belief that the Mormon religion is a cult. And with the latest reports showing that Jeb Bush was a pot smoking bully in high school, I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that Romney may still be hoping to get the nomination by way ofby religious acclamation! 😉

    1. It’s narrow minded of me, but Bush is a Bush. That’s all I need to know. Romney may have been one of the least objectionable (to me) of the Republicans mentioned so far, but that’s not saying much. How pathetic is it that it may all come down to who the Koch brothers decide to back.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *