Yesterday Politico published The Case for Mitt Romney in 2016 (subtitled I’m absolutely serious — probably so it won’t be mistaken as an Onion-style piece) by Emil Henry. Politico describes the author as assistant secretary of the Treasury under President George W. Bush, as well as a private equity firm CEO. The author describes himself as having served in multiple roles in Romney’s failed 2012 campaign.
Of course, last year Romney went to great pains to inform the public (through his son Tagg) that he never wanted to be president at all. The fact that Politico is publishing this would seem to indicate that either they are venturing into the field of political fan fiction, or the semi-moderate wing of the GOP is dangerously desperate.
In order to save you the trouble of reading this piece, I will simply give the author’s 3 points and then tell you why I think they are utterly ridiculous…although I think it will be rather obvious
1. Romney is re-emerging as the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
Chris Christie is damaged, Jeb Bush is far too reasonable on immigration, Santorum and Huckabee are both jokes, and pretty much everyone else is too afraid of being primaried (or too recently survived being primaried) to say anything meaningful. None of this makes Romney any kind of leader. How exactly has he demonstrated leadership?
2. There is no natural 2016 GOP nominee and the field is highly fractured.
This is true. However, there WAS a natural 2012 nominee…his name was Mitt Romney! The idea that he is not going to be the “next in line” in 2016 is really going to be enough to get him the nomination AND win the genera?!?
3. All failed nominees other than Romney were career politicians.
The author does qualify this by limiting the field to the last half century (so Nixon doesn’t count). Does anyone really think the reason Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry and McCain didn’t have a second go is because they were career politicians?!?!?!?
My final analysis?