2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Berkut]

RUbio is not nearly barking enough for the current Republican party.

[CountDeMoney]

Conservatives are just not digging the idea of Romney running again.  You could even say--WAIT FOR IT DERSPIESS--they're having kittens over Mittens.

Mitt Romney backlash intensifies
Conservatives argue he has too much baggage and the GOP needs a fresh face.
POLITICO
By Katie Glueck
1/14/15 7:56 PM EST
Updated 1/15/15 11:39 AM EST

"Recycled." Not the "new blood" the GOP needs. A man who "had his shot." A "terrible candidate."

A Republican backlash against Mitt Romney that had been simmering for days boiled over on Wednesday as conservatives across the GOP spectrum panned the prospect of another presidential bid by the former Massachusetts governor and two-time loser on the national stage.

Leading the anti-Romney charge was the voice of the GOP establishment wing, the Wall Street Journal editorial page. "The question the former Massachusetts Governor will have to answer," the newspaper wrote, "is why he would be a better candidate than he was in 2012. ... The answer is not obvious."

The Journal's owner, News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, piled on: "He had his chance, he mishandled it, you know? I thought Romney was a terrible candidate."

And in a Wednesday evening interview with POLITICO, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who's considering a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, said that the reemergence of Romney could offset the Republicans' advantage if their Democratic opponent is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"I think the best way to counter something from the past is with something new," Walker said.

On it went from there.

The critical reception marked the latest stage of post-2012 conservative sentiment toward Romney. In the immediate aftermath of his loss, he was the feckless, wooden candidate who blew a prime opportunity to snatch the White House from an unpopular Democratic incumbent. Next came the "maybe he wasn't so bad, after all" phase, when Romney seemed vindicated by President Barack Obama's recurring second-term missteps. That lasted through most of 2014.

Now it's reality-check time. The faded memories of Romney's 2012 shortcomings are snapping back into focus as he drifts, with apparent seriousness, toward yet another run for the White House. The harshly negative reaction presents an early test of Romney's resolve, against what's certain to be a more formidable field than he encountered last time.

An opinion piece titled "The problem with Romney nostalgia," by the conservative writer Jonah Goldberg, was typical of the backlash.

"The problem is that 'Romney for president' is now an art-house film thinking it's a blockbuster franchise and that there's a huge market for another sequel," Goldberg wrote. "There's not."

Former Oklahoma governor Frank Keating told The New York Times, "People say he is a very fine man, but he had his chance."

Even Sarah Palin took a shot.

"We need new energy," the former vice presidential nominee told "Inside Edition." "We need new blood. We need new ideas."

Romney's allies insist that conservative pundits and GOP voters see the 2016 field differently.

"Mitt happens to lead all the polls, so clearly there is a good deal of affection and loyalty to him among rank-and-file Republicans," Eric Fehrnstrom, a longtime Romney aide and associate, wrote in an email Wednesday night.

They also point to the other failed presidential candidates eyeing another run: former Sen. Rick Santorum, outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, ex- Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Clinton.

Republican political history is littered with examples of candidates who have run at least once before going on to win the nomination. Veterans of those campaigns say that there are benefits to having run before, including an already-existing donor network, high name recognition and firsthand knowledge of the stresses of a presidential campaign.

Some Romney backers feel that the former candidate has been vindicated on many of the issues on which he ran in his last campaign, including foreign policy. They say he would be better-prepared and "different" this time around.

"Our economy is still not as strong as it could be, long-term growth is in doubt, workers have gone a long time without pay raises and can't save for a kid's college or their own retirement, and around the world there's deep concern that as America's leadership has unraveled, hostile forces have filled the vacuum," Fehrnstrom said earlier this week. "Mitt Romney spoke to these issues in the last campaign, he was right on many of them, and I expect if he runs again they will form the core of another campaign for president."

Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Kentucky Republican, has already sought to exploit the old-vs.-new fault line that Romney's re-emergence threw into sharp relief.

"I think he could have been a good leader of the country," Paul said in an interview with POLITICO. "But I think many people are going to say, 'He's had his chance.'"

[Razgovory]

Deficit reduction too. Obama's going to go down historically as a very successful President.

What has Obama done to deserve any credit for deficit reduction?

Prevented Austerity measures, which would increase deficit and simply waited till the economy got back on it's feet.

[Jacob]

Yeah, it does seem that austerity measures have proven counterproductive in growing the economy in most of the places they've been introduced in the last handful of years.

[11B4V]

NO MORMONS FOR PREZ!!!!!!!!

[Admiral Yi]

Prevented Austerity measures, which would increase deficit and simply waited till the economy got back on it's feet.

So your position is that things such as the stimulus bill reduced the deficit, whereas contractionary measures such as the sequester increased it?

[Razgovory]

No... I never said anything about the sequester.

[Admiral Yi]

No... I never said anything about the sequester.

Then perhaps when you say austerity measure you mean something different than that which is commonly understood.

What do you mean by austerity measure?

[Razgovory]

Ryan Plan.  Path to Prosperity.

[Admiral Yi]

OK Raz.  So by austerity measure you didn't mean austerity measure, and by Obama reduced the deficit you didn't mean Obama reduced the deficit.  But other than that I agree with you.

[Sheilbh]

What has Obama done to deserve any credit for deficit reduction?

Presided over it, just like Truman and Clinton. The White House - wrongly - 'pivoted' to deficit reduction in 2009, which was way to soon. And the Administration and Senate Democrats negotiated with the House for quicker deficit reduction. It seems perverse to give all the credit to one side.

The sad thing is everyone in DC got caught up in the deficit moral panic which was totally untethered from reality and will, in twenty years time, look as ridiculous as violence in video games and Dungeons and Dragons.

[Admiral Yi]

Clinton did much more than preside over it.  He made it, at Rubin's suggestion, the cornerstone of his first term.  He proposed to Congress an across the board increase in tax rates.  He also asked Al Gore to invent the internet, so the Treasury could make oodles in capital gains taxes on the resulting dot.com bubble.

In contrast Obama has been dragged kicking and screaming to deficit reduction, constantly making the case to the American public for just one more stimulus bill, one that would be sure to do the trick, or just a little more deficit spending on our crumbling infrastructure so that we can put more hard working middle class American back to work, and warning the people of the terrible havoc that would be wrought by both the fiscal cliff and the sequester.

The deficit has been reduced in spite of Obama, and over his strong objections, not because of Obama.

[Razgovory]

OK Raz.  So by austerity measure you didn't mean austerity measure, and by Obama reduced the deficit you didn't mean Obama reduced the deficit.  But other than that I agree with you.

They were described as Austerity measures by you back in 2009.

[Sheilbh]

Nonsense. That's a Republican talking point.

His message has been deficit reduction since mid-2009 - and the deficit was falling before the GOP won the House. He was widely criticised on the left for the speed with which they moved from stimulus to deficit reduction and a lot of moaning that he was too weak (all sides moan about this) and not Rooseveltian enough. There was lots of pressure for a second stimulus, which I think would've been the right decision. Obama, centrist that he is, decided not to do that but to start focusing on deficit reduction.

Geithner was key in this. Remember the big debate in the White House over whether stimulus was like sugar (Geithner and Orszag) or antibiotics (Romer and Summers).

Obama's jobs plans, which is what you're talking about, also included new taxes. Their effect on the deficit would be minimal.

[Ed Anger]

Raz has Yi's missing 18 minutes of tape from 2009!