I don't entirely understand (Willard) Mitt Romney. His father, George (the XXth C American politician, not the XVIIIth C British painter) was the governor of Michigan, and Mitt went into politics, too. He attended Harvard first -- yeah, blah, blah, blah -- then took a job in finance, at which point he was an "Independent" (aren't we sort of technically all independent?), and then, he declared himself a Republican. I think it was while Mitt was at Harvard that he met Bejamin ("Bibi") Netanyahu, which has created a problematic friendship.
Romney ran for Senator in Massachusetts, which he lost, but later became Governor there. Massachusetts, which is generally considered a very blue state, has an odd habit of electing (very moderate) Republican governors. Bill Weld was one of them, then Romney later, and most recently Charlie Baker.
After his stint as governor or Massachusetts, Romney moved to the San Diego area. It was from there that he ran for president against Obama. And didn't win. He's a Mormon, and had gone to BYU for college, and somehow decided to move back to Utah, He won a Senate seat there. And now, he's talking about running for president again in 2024. Apparently, he's put off by the other garbage who's running for president on the Republican ticket, and he thinks he has a better chance to beat Biden than it appears he did to beat Obama. He's still a Republican, though, although the kind of Republican who can be elected Governor of Massachusetts (so, not a MAGA nut job).
Normally, I have little or no use for Republicans. A couple of years after I was born, Eisenhower became president. I would certainly admit I have not many memories, and no understanding, of Eisenhower's terms, but I do know he presided over income tax rates as high as the 90%s, and he also presided over the establishment of the interstate highway network. No one would think of Republicans that way any more. And Eisenhower, who had been a revered WWII general, cautioned this country to "beware the military-industrial complex." Either the military-related contractors/donors hadn't gotten to him, or he actually cared more about the country than he did about military contractors. Also unheard of these days, especially among Republicans.
I gave Romney a thought in 2012. I wasn't happy with Obama, and I was open to someone else. But Romney, who had a lot of money, was playing games with his taxes, and I decided to vote for Obama again. (I had thought about McCain before that, but I thought W was a disaster -- little did I know what deeper disaster was coming after Obama -- and McCain didn't criticize W or specify one thing he would do different from W. So I voted for Obama then, too, even though he didn't have good enough experience.
But, as I said, or as I read, Romney is reportedly getting ready to try again. And it's an interesting choice. Biden is definitely too old, and has provided a few too many important disappointments, and the rest of the Republican field are nowhere near possibilities. The only other one who might come close, or who might have come close, is Christie, although he was very importantly instrumental to Trump in '16 and '20, so it would be really hard to believe he has suddenly turned away. In theory, that leaves Romney, if he runs. (Sanders is too old, too, and Ocasio-Cortez too young. Warren is just the right age and experience, but the DNC is backing Biden, and essentially won't let anyone run against him. Too bad. The others actually care about the American people, and this country, and democracy in general, and the climate and ecology, and are smart, and would make great presidents.)
Anyway, here's something about Romney: Mitt Romney on 2024 Presidential Run, Trump’s ‘Failure of Character’ and the Republican Party (msn.com) Not only is he willing to acknowledge that Trump has a "failure of character," or has no character, but he even (page 4, if that's not what displays first, acknowledges that today's Republicans don't believe in the Constitution. That's painfully obvious to people who are not Republicans, but it's unheard-of to hear a Republican admit it. Although on page 12, he does list his revered Republicans, and he includes Reagan and W. So that's not encouraging. And to make matters slightly worse, he celebrates those presidents for being anti-Putin, anti-Russia, anti-Kim Jong-un (why is it important to the Republican party to be "anti" things?), but he does not include his old buddy anti-Netanyahu.
I admitted I had little use for Republicans. Mitt Romney explained part of the reasons. Although he is one, so he's in conflict, which might explain the self-flagellation.
No comments:
Post a Comment