I know Mitt Romney vows that he won’t be running for president this time, and it does seem a bit late for that now anyway, but I wonder if the Republican Party should just draft him — tell him his country, or at least his party, needs him — a call to duty.
And that is not to say I personally think he would make a good president or that he would be better than, say, Hillary Clinton. I certainly think he would be better than the presumptive GOP nominee, but then that is a rather low bar and not a fair comparison to Romney.
On the other hand, Trump seems to be coming on so strong that the GOP die-hards or establishment might be wary of going with the perennial loser Romney because injecting a third person into the November election would most likely split the GOP vote and give Mrs. Clinton the win. They seem to be stuck with the man with the wild comb-over and the loud and dirty mouth.
To be honest, I cannot remember well what Romney is for or against. I look at him as a seemingly level-headed and pragmatic businessman politician, not given to extremes, except maybe patriotism, which is no vice (I think I borrowed that last line from Barry Goldwater).
I do seem to recall that Romney called for expanding our Navy. I personally feel we need to maintain and expand all branches of our military as needed. And even though in these modern times we may not need as many actual boots on the ground as it is sometimes put, I see an expanded troop strength as both something vital for defense and a safety valve for unemployment among young people.
Also, I recall Romney addressing the issue of upside-down mortgages. He took the prudent business approach, suggesting we just needed to let foreclosures clean things up — or something like that. Sounds heartless almost, and coming from such a rich man, but really it made sense. Some of the people injured most during the mortgage crisis were hardworking honest people who paid their mortgages and taxes and then had to watch abandoned houses on their blocks devalue their properties. One has to remember that all mortgages are a risk. And while it is true buyers were taken advantage of or at least lulled into highly risky ventures by unscrupulous and greedy people in the financial industry, except in cases of out-and-out fraud, the buyer has mostly himself (herself) to blame.
I don’t recall what his position might have been on the Wall Street bailouts. Those were wrong. I have never understood why the big banks should not have been put into receivership. Too big to fail set a terrible precedent and in part is what has led to the ongoing rebellion against the old-order establishment.
Yup just writing this stream-of-consciousness, and via the magic of the internet did instant background and found out Romney had good words for the Wall Street bank bailouts, spearheaded by the George Bush (GOP) administration but was opposed to the auto company bailouts pushed through by Democratic President Barack Obama. I opposed both of them, for the record.
But without going completely over everything Romney has supported and not supported — well he did come up with the model for Obamacare when he was governor of Massachusetts — I think it is safe to say he is more of a moderate than anything else. And while Romney is a member of the ultra-big money set as a hedge fund manager, I don’t see him beholding to anyone, where as Mrs. Clinton must owe some favors by now for all the millions Wall Street has sent her way.
And even so, Hillary is the only plausible choice to avert disaster at this time.
While a change is needed, extremism to the point of unreason or extremism with no coherent policy to allow us to know what we are getting into is not the answer.
Romney could offer stability and moderation and prudent thought.
I did not mention Bernie Sanders for the simple reason it seems impossible now that he can get the Democratic nomination.