Saturday, August 30, 2014

Mitt Romney a viable republican presidential nominee

Might the third time be a charm for Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney said recently that "circumstances can change" when asked if he'd run for president in 2016. While he is not my favorite candidate, sometimes we have to play it safe to win, and I'd much rather have him than risk another Obama-type presidency.

A Romney-Ryan ticket would look appealing
I also like the concept of another Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan ticket. I think that knowing right off the bat who the presidential and vice presidential candidates are would be a good seller.
Plus, and perhaps best of all, I think that all the dirt about Romney has already come out, of which there really isn't much other than the fact that he's run as a moderate republican and supported state-run healthcare while governor of Massachusetts.

However, he has the business and economic expertise from his past experience to run a country and get our economy running again.

So there's actually lots to like about the prospects of a Romney-Ryan ticket.  Now, we do not know for sure the he'd even choose Ryan again, but the prospects that he would sounds good anyway.

However, there are reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney, and one of the main ones was noted by Rush Limbaugh during his show on August 4, 2014.  He said:
If the Republicans nominate somebody that forced four million Republicans to sit home and not vote in this climate, why in the world are they thinking of doing it again?
He added:
A, Romneycare, Obamacare, they cancel each other out. But with the economy as bad as it was, with Obamacare lingering, with everything that was known -- Benghazi and everything that was known -- if poor Mitt was not able to capitalize on the absolute worst four years of a presidency we've had in my lifetime, what in the world makes people think he's gonna be able to do it again? I mean, history is history.
Rush said that one of the main reasons Romney lost was that he was afraid to attack the first black president, afraid to paint the first black president for who he really was: a failure.  People would call that racism, even though it's not.

During the last election Romney didn't have a chance, Rush said, because people didn't want to send the first black president packing, even though they had to know he was a failure.  And this time around, in 2016, Romney might be running against the first female presidential candidate, which would result in the same thing all over again.  Would Romney be able to paint Mrs. Clinton for who she really is: a hard-core-out-of-touch-with-common-Americans-liberal?

Rush also added a disclaimer about a Romney candidacy:
You won't find, in terms of just a nice man, you won't find anybody greater. Morality and family, you won't find anybody better. But it takes more than that. And there was a lot. Obama was screwing up left and right big time. There are some who think that 2012 should have been a slam dunk Republican landslide. And I'm close to being one of them. 
In the meantime, Rand Paul would best protect natural rights, and I think Rick Perry is the most presidential.  However, Paul would be a dark-horse candidate, and Perry already has people out to find dirt on him, even if they have to make it up.

So, the safe bet for 2016 might be an already run and tried Mitt Romney.  His skin has got to be tough as rubber by now, something that would help him retract all the mudslinging he'd face for being a republican president.