Mitt Romney out for ’16; what’s it mean to the “establishment”?

Mitt Romney said on a conference call this morning that he would not run for president next year.

Romney is a good man, and I think I would like more about a Romney presidency than I would dislike. But he’s not strong in this field of candidates. I do wish he’d stayed in long enough to tie up Bush a bit. Romney’s departure will likely accelerate the coalescence of “the establishment” around Bush.

Thing is, “the establishment” GOP hasn’t won out of the chute since 2000, and that was by a hair’s width, if you’ll recall. Jeb Bush can’t win even a vaguely competitive general election. His last name alone is at least a 5-point penalty.

The successful Republican candidate will be a small-government conservative with grown-up and sensible ideas on foreign policy. These are the arenas in which Obama has done the gravest damage; consequently, I think little else matters. Right now, of those who could plausibly win, I think that candidate is either Scott Walker or Ted Cruz, with Rick Perry and/or Marco Rubio on the bubble.

You might also like:

8 thoughts on “Mitt Romney out for ’16; what’s it mean to the “establishment”?”

    • He has no college degree. Easy to hit him on that, but I question how much longevity it will have. Will people care? Doesn’t bother me.

      Reply
        • Part of why I’m excited about that starting in earnest, though, is that he’s already survived a serious and sustained offensive from the national Liberal Hate Machine. If there were anything serious to club him with, I’d think he’d have been clubbed with it already. Instead he’s the only U.S. governor to ever win a recall election.

          So bring on “you didn’t finish college” and “wow dude, your wife’s old.”

Leave a Comment

CAPTCHA


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BoWilliams.com