Maybe Romney Really Is Gonna Run

Several months ago, a friend bet me $50 that Mitt Romney was going to run for president again. I thought it was a very safe bet that he wasn’t, but now I’m having doubts. Why? Because he’s clearly back in campaign mode now that he’s flip flopping on a position he already flip flopped on at least once before.

According to the Palm Springs Desert Sun, the former Massachusetts governor “said that while he hopes the skeptics about global climate change are right, he believes it’s real and a major problem,” and he lamented that Washington had done “almost nothing” to stop it.

For Romney, this is his second about-face on climate change. In his 2010 book, No Apology, he called human activity a “contributing factor” to melting ice caps. And in the run-up to the 2012 Republican primaries, Romney backed a reduction in emissions to curb anthropogenic global warming. “I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer,” he told the ManchesterUnion-Leader in 2011. “And…I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe that we contribute to that. So I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”

But as the 2012 campaign evolved, Romney reversed course. He said that he opposed curbing carbon dioxide emissions. He declared, “We don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.” Instead, he pledged to increase coal production and ramp up oil exploration.

And if he does run again, I bet he’ll flip right back to the second position he took because you don’t get the Republican nomination by being rational.

"Oh Sarah, don't you realise that in the age of Trump you're barely an afterthought? ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"Well, that could have happened too. Lord knows its possible"

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"The "questions at hand" are whatever I want them to be.Spoken like a True Christian, ..."

Lively: Gay Judges Can’t Be Impartial
"Psst Sarah - a word in your shell-like about the Streisand Effect..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • grumpyoldfart

    Don’t worry. The American voters are smart enough to recognize when politicians are talking bullshit.

  • scienceavenger

    Romney seems to have misinterpreted GOP attitudes that we’d be better off had Romney won, with a desire for him to run again. After all, he practically ran unopposed in the primaries, once you eliminate the loonies, then he faced a very weak incumbant in the general, and still got walloped. He was simply a godawful candidate, the epitome of what the GOP does not want to be their bannerhead: the out-of-touch, old, white, male, privileged plutocrat, convinced that sincerity is something he can fake, and blatantly pandering to whatever group stands before him, even if what he tells them completely contradicts what he told the previous group. I would love to hear him explain why this time would be any better.

  • Michael Heath

    Ed concludes:

    . . . if [Mitt Romney] does run again, I bet he’ll flip right back to the second position he took [denialism of warming] because you don’t get the Republican nomination by being rational.

    I doubt Mitt Romney’s concerned about that; not that Ed argued otherwise. The media’s already demonstrated they won’t scrutinize Mr. Romney in his interviews, nor will they do the same with the Democratic candidates. At least not to the point it becomes something to consider for voters who’d consider Mitt Romney.

    The Desert Sun reports (which Ed links to above):

    . . . [Mitt Romney] hopes the skeptics about global climate change are right, he believes it’s real and a major problem[.]

    What skeptics? I’d bet Mr. Romney couldn’t name one, let alone more than one; denialists yes – they’re a dime a dozen. This is really shoddy journalism, especially when the paper refers to skeptics and then uses the word “believes”. The Desert Sun doubles-down in another topic from that same article:

    “The reason I’m [Mitt Romney] a Republican is because I believe that the principles of conservatism are the best to help people get out of poverty and the best to help people have opportunity and rising wages,” he said.[Heath bolded]

    Credible journalists would report to their audience the credibility of this audacious claim, rather than keeping them uninformed or misinformed.

    I think Mr. Romney’s use of the term ‘believe’ here is accurate, which is why it’s even more imperative for the press to follow up to see if his beliefs are true or whether his beliefs regarding economics are as true as his religious beliefs (not).

    The press should be holding politicians to at least the minimal standard of basic truthtelling – with factchecking immediately following their lies. A religious politician’s use of the term ‘believe’ should be a major alarm that some major BS is coming our way. The media now allows such BS to go unchallenged; as we see here on two counts.

  • Michael Heath

    scienceavenger writes @ 2:

    I would love to hear [Mitt Romney] explain why this time [the 2016 race] would be any better.

    Mitt Romney has explained himself recently. You kind of allude to it in your lead:

    Romney seems to have misinterpreted GOP attitudes that we’d be better off had Romney won . . .

    The difference between what you and write and what Mr. Romney’s recently stated is that he thinks the majority of the country’s conclusion, not merely the GOP’s, is that the country would be better off now if he’d won. That events since Jan-2009 have vindicated him which should make him a more compelling candidate this time around. In my opinion that’s bullshit, but that’s what Romney’s been expressing recently.

  • Trebuchet

    Don’t worry. The American voters are smart enough to recognize when politicians are talking bullshit.

    Seriously? No! 47% of them voted for Romney the last time. Many of whom had voted for the assorted loons in the primaries.

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    Trebuchet, I read that as sarcasm.

  • marcus

    grumpyoldfart @ 1 “No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” (emphasis mine) H.L. Mencken

    Actual quote from which, the “No one ever went broke…” quote was paraphrased, September 19, 1926

    Same as it ever was.

  • raven

    Is the US ready for its first Reptilian Shapeshifter president?

    Maybe, but I’m not. Romney was a scary but unappealing candidate. His “47% of Americans are Moochers” showed not only a contempt for the American people but a contempt for the truth.

    You only get that number by adding in Social Security and Medicare. And these are self funded programs. Sure old taxpayers get benefits. Benefits that they spent decades paying for in their taxes.

    Ironically, as the GOP is the party of old white people, the “Moochers” are who mostly voted for him.

  • marcus

    @ 5 and 6 As did I.

  • raven

    The probable candidates for the GOP are mostly the same as last time. And mostly christofascist clowns of limited appeal outside of the fundie perversion of xianity.

    Palin, Ben Carson, Huckabee, Trump, Jindal, Satanorum, Perry, Cruz, are getting in or thinking about it.

    The only people that can pass for normal are Rand Paul, Romney, and Jeb Bush. Even though all three have serious baggage. Rand Paul is a Loonytarian kook, Romney is Romney, and Jeb Bush is a Bush.

    AFAICT, right now it looks like it’s between Rand, Romney, and Bush. The GOP establishment looks at the Oogedy Boogedy xians as useful idiots but has no interest in letting them run the party.

    Although, like Dr. Frankinstein, they are in danger of losing control of their monster. You will know it if one of the clowns get nominated.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Yes, but this time he’s got it clinched! He spent the last few years learning to mimic the patterns of human speech and everything! He’s already passed Algore in the Uncanny Valley, and is well on his way to passing Animatronic Lincoln. Just imagine what another year of upgrades will do! He’s certain to have that Common Man appeal once he computes what that is.

  • flatlander100

    Safest course for Mitt would be to answer all questions about politically dicey matters by saying “I’m waiting for the convention delegates to tell me what I think about that.”

  • http://mostlyrational.net tacitus

    @raven

    Is the US ready for its first Reptilian Shapeshifter president?

    David, is that you?

    The only people that can pass for normal are Rand Paul, Romney, and Jeb Bush.

    Try as he might (and I give him credit for trying) Paul will not pass for normal in the upcoming campaign. Even if he completely abandons his Libertarian past, the more moderate candidates will not let the voters forget it. Two probable candidates you omitted who are more likely to pass for normal are Chris Christie and Scott Walker. They are likely to run since they are almost certainly not going to have as good a chance again. Walker doesn’t have much of a chance, but I expect Christie to be in there for the long haul.

  • pixiedust

    Today’s paper revealed that Sarah Whatever wants it known that she might be interested in running. To be clear, she didn’t sound at all as if she plans to actually be a candidate. She just wanted everyone to know that she wanted to be thought of as someone who might be a candidate.

  • http://mostlyrational.net tacitus

    Gotta keep the money coming in now she’s a professional has-been.

  • birgerjohansson

    “Don’t worry. The American voters are smart enough to recognize when politicians are talking bullshit.”

    ROFL :)

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    Michael Heath: “The difference between what you and write and what Mr. Romney’s recently stated is that he thinks the majority of the country’s conclusion, not merely the GOP’s, is that the country would be better off now if he’d won.”

    It’s the old Republican “bubble.” You hear the Republicans hearing they have a mandate on everything from overturning the unconstitutional immigration to abortion. They think that winning the Senate in the third election in which they were supposed to after failing mightily when the teabillies snatched defeat from the jaws of victory the first two times means that the broad public supports their ideas.

    A January Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll in Georgia, a pretty red state, showed that 67 percent favor giving deportation deferrals and work papers to immigrant parents. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans supported that position.

    A Harper Polling survey done last summer showed that 35 percent of Georgians support legal status with another 26 percent supporting eligibility for citizenship. Only 34 percent wanted to deport them all. (So the antis have remained right at the one-third mark even after the president announced his plan).

    Just like Fox watchers have that reality filtered out and are just told that Republicans have a mandate on immigration, Romney doesn’t hear anything other than what he wants to hear from his family and political circle.

  • blf

    The only people that can pass for normal are Rand Paul, Romney, and Jeb Bush.

    They only seem “normal” when (rarely) compared-to the kook brigade by the (much of) the USAlienstani media. Elsewhere in the world, were real comparisons and analysis are done, all three are utterly horrifying and securely part of the kook brigade. The last time around, only Huntsman (and for awhile, Christy) passed as being possibly human and maybe not kooks. I am currently unaware of anyone (on the thug side) babbling about running who isn’t considered a kook.

  • abb3w

    Ed, you can console yourself that winning all your bets can be regarded as a sign you’re excessively cautious in your bookmaking.