Bush lining up Romney aides for possible presidential run

20 Jan 2015 | Author: | No comments yet »

Dana Milbank: No freshness in our 2016 presidential contest.

Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential nominee, speaks during the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting aboard the USS Midway Museum Friday, Jan. 16, 2015, in San Diego.

Jan. 19, 2015: Former Massachusetts governor at 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney delivers as speech in Indian Wells, Calif. (Photo courtesy Mark Cieslikowski) INDIAN WELLS, Calif. – While he’s “seriously considering” another presidential run, Mitt Romney provided some new insight Monday night into how a potential campaign would differ from his two previous attempts.Mitt Romney begins the 2016 Republican presidential primary campaign with significant advantages over Jeb Bush, his chief rival for GOP establishment support, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.The Sunday news shows had a ring of 2012, with President Barack Obama and his presidential foe Mitt Romney both grabbing headlines for their intentions to boost the country’s middle class. The 2012 Republican nominee said one of the lessons he learned from that failed effort was the need to communicate to voters “who I am – not just through the policies I talk about but the places that I go and the audiences I speak to.” Romney specifically identified a desire to personally address minority communities and younger audiences. “If you show up at businesses it looks like you’re a business person. More than half (52%) of all Republicans still maintain a positive view of the party’s 2012 nominee, compared to just 37% who said the same about Mr.

Not only did political reporters write reams about Mitt Romney’s last-minute appearance, but newspapers also wrote the sort of ancillary news features that are a staple of full-blown campaign season coverage. Obama will use Tuesday’s State of the Union address to call for raising taxes on the country’s wealthiest Americans and biggest financial institutions in order to pay for middle-class tax cuts and other initiatives—plans that pundits said Sunday will go nowhere with the new Republican-led Congress.

My colleagues Mark Barabak and Seema Mehta interviewed dozens of Republican activists to gauge their response to Romney’s newfound emphasis on fighting poverty and income equality. (While Romney has an admirable history of personal philanthropy and charitable giving, as a candidate in 2012, he was hardly a champion of the poor. “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” he said. “We have a safety net there. And that’s something that I want to do.” Romney gave no ground when asked by the event moderator when a presidential announcement decision would come. Judging from reader response about the renovation, Americans are primed to find political bias in every mention of their candidate. “And so it begins,” wrote a reader in South Carolina. “You guys can’t wait to jump on that elitist train highlighting the wealth of Mitt Romney. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., questioned whether Romney was making a sincere point or just trying to get past his image as the rich guy caught dissing the 47 percent of Americans on government assistance during the 2012 election cycle. “Listen, when he stands in front of all these Republicans on Friday night and laments the fact that the rich have gotten richer under Barack Obama when, you know, he pays less tax than the guys who installed his car elevators, there is an authenticity problem,” Granholm said.

Monday night’s speech at an event called Desert Town Hall, held in a Coachella Valley hotel, was a paid appearance publically announced last summer. Granholm, who did not return our request for comment, is referring to a small but unwelcome bit from the last presidential election that did not help to soften Romney’s image as a corporate raider. (And we assume she is talking about tax rates, not tax amounts.) In the spring of 2012, the public learned that Romney’s plans for a multi-million dollar beach house in La Jolla, Calif., included an elevator to move cars from the basement to street level. If the field develops the way it appears to be, this will be my fourth Clinton campaign, fourth Bush campaign, third Romney campaign, third Paul campaign, second Huckabee campaign and second Santorum campaign. Notably, Romney did not repeat his call to “end the scourge of poverty” but rather breaking what he called the cycle of poverty. “The reason that I am a Republican is because I believe in 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.” Romney twice cited a Brookings Institution study showing a high school graduate who marries before parenthood and at some point in time holds a full time job is unlikely to live in poverty.

The likely slate of candidates will include the son of a governor and presidential candidate, the son of a congressman and presidential candidate, the wife of a president, and the brother of a president, son of a president and grandson of a senator. For those who have expressed concern that stories like these invade the Romneys’ privacy, be aware that the home abuts the street and is clearly visible from the beach below.) First, he ran for president and may do so again.

Billionaire Warren Buffett distilled this down to the line that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary thanks to the favorable treatment of capital gains. Second, the plans sparked a public battle at the California Coastal Commission, which has ultimate authority over construction projects in the coastal zone. In a bid to block Coastal Commission approval, a former Dunemere Drive neighbor claimed the Romneys had inappropriately included public beachfront in the formula for calculating the allowable size of their new home, which was to grow from 3,000 to 11,000 square feet. After much pressure, Romney released two years of income tax returns in 2012 that showed he paid 13.9 percent in federal taxes in 2010 and 15.3 percent in 2011, a bit less than the national average. That is why, if a Clinton or a Bush wins in 2016 and is re-elected in 2020, a member of one of those two families will have been president for 28 of 36 years since 1989.

If the installers were single with no children, then a simple tax calculator gives them a total effective federal income tax rate of 17 percent—more than Romney. On Fox News Sunday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins faced off against former U.S. solicitor general and Republican attorney Ted Olson about the U.S.

Dynastic politics is nothing new in this ostensibly meritocratic land, going back to John Quincy Adams and continuing through the Roosevelts and Tafts and Kennedys. Supreme Court’s decision to take up same-sex marriage this year. “Never once in any of those cases did it say that it had to be between a man and a woman,” Olson said. “Fifteen times it said it was a matter of privacy, liberty, association, dignity and respect for the individual.” Olson pointed us to a brief he and his colleagues filed as the respondents in the 2013 case Hollingsworth vs. A 2009 academic study found that, since the beginning of the republic, 8.7 percent of members of Congress had a relative who previously served in the body. The percentage has declined over time, but a 2010 article in Legislative Studies Quarterly found that kin of officeholders continue to have large “brand name advantages” allowing them to raise more money and achieve more success with less experience. A neighbor told me that a Romney construction representative kept residents up to date about the work, and had told them recently that construction is weeks ahead of schedule and will be finished before the end of the year.

The cases he cited cover a range of topics, including privacy and parental and reproductive rights, and span from 1888 to 2003, but all touch on marriage as a “fundamental right” in some way. The question was never asked until the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to strike down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, ensuring same-sex couples get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples, said Clifford Rosky, a law professor at the University of Utah. Until recent decades, some experts told us, the court likely assumed that when they said “marriage,” others would interpret that as meaning a heterosexual union, not a homosexual one, due to societal norms. Their presence in the race virtually guarantees we’ll be revisiting Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, the Iraq War and torture, Rafalca the dancing dressage horse and poor Seamus strapped to a car roof, Huckabee’s guitar and waistline, and Santorum’s sweaters.

Bush family matriarch Barbara Bush said last year, before her son Jeb began to make noises about a run: “If we can’t find more than two or three families to run for higher office, that’s silly. …

Here you can write a commentary on the recording "Bush lining up Romney aides for possible presidential run".

* Required fields
All the reviews are moderated.
Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts

About this site