Posted on 04/28/2014 1:31:19 PM PDT by PaulCruz2016
Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney may take another run at the White House, "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer said.
"I have a source that told me that if Jeb Bush decides not to run, that Mitt Romney may actually try it again," Schieffer said during a panel discussion on the CBS Sunday morning news show.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
he didn’t last time either..
he’s not running to win. That was obvious from the last go around.
This may be true. There has to be ONE establishment candidate, and with Christie on the outs, Romney is the last man standing.
That’s the difference in the two sides: 4 conservatives will split the vote and do it anyway...the Establishment agrees that only one will run...
I think Mitt Romney said if wasn’t elected last time he was out of politics.
***********
Etch-a-sketch!
Hahahaha! Fooled you!
Romney wants to join Thomas Dewey and Adlai Stevenson among the all time putzes and losers.
Schieffer’s been nuts for decades.
“Really? Can you give me 4 of the 5 lottery numbers for this Weds too?”
No. I’m not clairvoyant.
I simply think Romney would match up against Hillary very well. Don’t take that as an endorsement of Romney from me. Is speculation now forbidden on FR or something?
I’m NOT saying Romney would do Conservatism any good. Read my initial comment. I do not want that man as President.
I think the GOP’s only sure fire losses are the scrub from NJ and anybody with the last name Bush. I think Romney would run well against any Dem in 2016. I don’t want him to run for that reason as I think the GOP could do far, far better assuming they’d want to swing in a more Conservative direction. I think I’m making the wrong assumption though ...
HERE is the TRUTH:
Carpetbagger and fascist Mitt RomneyCARE used improper executive authority
to impose HIS whim-of-the-day upon citzens
rather than the peoples' will as he micturated upon on the Mass. Constitution.
Note Romney’s use of improper executive authority. [The Romney Way™]
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
Also, when I do make predictions, I take the everything or nothing route. I would have been happy to give you all five of the winning numbers, but since you only asked for four, you are getting none :-).
(I’ll be sure to not post in absolutes from now on ... sorry about that ... I thought I typed IMO or something along those lines, but I clearly didn’t)
Lol, too funny! Not going to happen.
If it happens at the same time it’s diamitavorrhea.
My dogs get that when they think about Mitt Romney.
You left out Bolshevik Bill De Blasio.
I’d take Romney over ‘feel the love’
We might as well just run Newt! Same outcome!
It NEVER Stops!
Why are you a Republican?
Seriously. Why do you choose to be a Republican as opposed to being a Democrat, if you have no problems with Romney - ?
No Romney. No Shrubs.
Southern Baptists and a few other Protestant denominations will not vote for Mormons. Period.
Without them, the R candidate has no chance.
My point is that NEITHER Nitt nor Jeb will attain the GOP nomination.
Romney got the nomination last time because (besides having the most money) there wasn't anybody of comparable standing in the race -- no governors, no senators.
That’s the difference in the two sides: 4 conservatives will split the vote and do it anyway...the Establishment agrees that only one will run...
Well, a congresswoman, a defeated senator, a pizza executive, an ex-speaker: there wasn't any governor or sitting senator in the race who demonstrated vote-getting ability and administrative competence. Well, Rick Perry ran, but he managed to blow it anyway.
But here's the question: say you get some sitting governor to run (Walker, Pence, whoever) do you make that candidate the conservative hope, or do you just assume that he's too moderate and establishment? Compare with last time: if Pawlenty or Daniels could have stopped Romney would they be the conservative hopes, or just another GOPe bunch?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.