deleted by creator
Eh, I’m not so sure about that. He correctly predicted that Russia was our largest geopolitical enemy (which Obama laughed at), and he also staunchly opposed Trump (being the only party member to vote to convict him). The ACA is also based on a plan that he created as Governor of Massachusetts. I think his track record shows him as a fairly different sort of Republican than whatever the hell is going on there today.
But yeah, his policy is terrible like the rest of the GOP. No argument from me there.
deleted by creator
Lawful evil concedes, chaotic evil prevails.
I think yall are getting cause and effect mixed up. He would be 83 at the end of his next term and he’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He can walk off into the sunset and enjoy his riches for a few years, and he was probably always going to do that.
Knowing he didn’t need to run for re-election, he was able to vote his conscience during the Trump Administration.
So, he was reasonable because he was retiring, he’s not retiring because he’s too reasonable.
He could easily get re-elected now even after voting conscientiously. His retiring has nothing to do with going against Trump / fascist GOP.
Romney in 2020 became the first senator in U.S. history to vote to convict a president from their own party in an impeachment trial. Romney was the only Republican to vote against Trump in his first impeachment and one of seven to vote to convict him in the second. …
Romney was booed by a gathering of the Utah Republican Party’s most active members months after his vote at the second impeachment trial, and a measure to censure him narrowly failed. Members of the party even flung the term “Mitt Romney Republican” at their opponents on the campaign trail in 2022’s midterm elections.
Still, Romney has been seen as broadly popular in Utah, which has long harbored a band of the party that’s favored civil conservatism and resisted Trump’s brash and norm-busting style of politics.Seems like he’s in the wrong party. There’s no room for actual conservatives or upholding the law against their own in the modern pro-fascism, post-truth, anti-democracy, GOP.
He wouldn’t have made it through a primary. Given it’s Utah he’ll be replaced by someone much worse.
Why do you think that? He’s staunchly Mormon, and been a political figure head for their interests. I can’t see them turning their back on him.
Seems like he’s in the wrong party. There’s no room for actual conservatives or upholding the law against their own in the modern pro-fascism, post-truth, anti-democracy, GOP.
Well he sure af isn’t welcome to the Democratic party.
Well he sure af isn’t welcome to the Democratic party.
Why not? Manchin and Sinema are. Mitt invented Obamacare back when it was Massachusetts’ Romneycare. There’s plenty of right-leaning, (or at very least, centrist,) Democrats.
Not sure his constituency would approve though.
Manchin and Sinema shouldn’t be either.
When we’re opposing fascism there’s no such thing as a tent that’s too big.
All they do is stall the system and prevent things that will genuinely help the working class. Want to win against the GOP? Pass meaningful legislation that improves people’s lives. The reason we’re in this mess is because the democratic party is too timid to actually take a solid stance and do what’s necessary against the problems in this country. Having a big tent only makes it more difficult to make meaningful changes. DNC infighting just helps the GOP.
If we want to move the Overton window leftward and do away with this issue, we need ranked choice voting. As long as we we are first-past-the-post, doing whatever is nessicary to defeat the greater evil is the right move.
Meaningful legislation doesn’t matter to voters who are willfully ignorant and hateful, who choose to believe outright lies over credible evidence and regularly vote against their own interests. Good governance by the opposition will never be acknowledged by that segment.
Of which he’s been along for the ride the whole time.
Well, you know…money, amirite?
no, you aren’t. racism, not money, fuels republicanism, and has since the end of the civil war.
Disagree. Excepting the recent extremist ideologues, Republicans have always been fueled by money. From the NRA, to Big Oil, to the tobacco industry, to megachurches, it’s always been about money (and the power that comes with it).
The heart of racism in the US is exploitation for profit.
there’s no room for actual conservatives
I’m not sure what you mean. What do you think it means to be a conservative?
I’m not sure what you mean. What do you think it means to be a conservative?
In this context I’m referring to what the American right historically purports to be and not what it arguably is; small government, pro-business, law and order, supports traditional American values like democracy, pro-religion, in opposition robust social programs. This seems to be in line with Mitt Romney’s version of conservatism, as opposed to the GOP’s more recent openly fascist and antidemocratic behaviors. I could see potential for him as a Manchin-like Democrat who leans hard right, if he were so inclined and his voters approved.
Interesting. It wasn’t loaded to be honest. I just don’t understand what is a “true conservative” as every time I hear it come up, it’s usually just in the context of “current conservatives aren’t real conservatives.” So I was curious what your definition is.
Like let’s take “law and order.” Who is against that? It’s a meaningless phrase designed to paint opposition as for “no laws and disorder.” So the phrase is sort of meaningless to me.
Like let’s take “law and order.” Who is against that?
Well, presently the Republicans Mitt Romney is at odds with. They consistently vote to shield Trump from consequences for his crimes.
Very true lol
People who are for “law and order” are generally just simping for cops. I do agree that it’s kind of a ridiculous phrase but there are strong connotations that come along with it.
I get what the connotations are but it’s like “pro-life.” The implication is opponents are “anti-life” or “pro-death” and so the entire conversation is immediately lopsided/in some ways poisoned and dishonest.
When you look at the conservative platform it’s all like this. “I am for families.” So that means opponents are against families. It’s very broad statements that make - when looked at closely - kind of ridiculous statements about their opponents. So if there is “real” conservative, which is usually a stand in for “reasonable,” I don’t actually know what their policies are. They used to hide behind “fiscal responsibility” but that was always dubious and their last 20 years of spending have eradicated any argument they make about spending lol
I guess it’s time to go home and watch the Great Salt Lake disappear while claiming humans aren’t capable of changing god’s climate.
Mah, now he’s retired he’ll suddenly realize how terrible he’s been all these years.
Climate change is real, we should help the poor, all that jazz, no more power to effect change.
I smell a biography book deal and a string of news appearances where he talks shit about how the GOP has lost its way.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Remember when “binders full of women” was enough of a gaffe to sink a presidential run? Man, do I miss those days.
Or a “hiyaaaa!”
Oh great, cue the criticism of the GOP from another EX-congress member
Sounds like someone’s planning to write a tell-all!
Back when we were all conspiring to take rights away from women and minorities, some of the tactics we used were unsavory
Going out by saying ‘enough of the boomers, give someone else a shot’ is nice. We’ll see who the Mormons pick to replace him.
Introducing… Matt Romney. Same policies, same lack of personality, same ability to fill a suit. But now slightly younger!
“second verse
Same as the first
A little bit louder and a little bit worse”
Headline should read “Mitt Romney Cashes Out” first line should read “During his x year senate career Romney’s net worth increased by …”
Never thought there would be a time where he would be more reasonable than most Republicans. The replacement will be more extreme than him.
I don’t like Mitt at all, but almost guaranteed that whoever takes the seat will be much less reasonable and more right wing than Romney. We’re more likely to get another Mike Lee than a Jon Huntsman.
Even this asshole has given up. He has enough wealth to at least live through the societal collapse for a few years maybe.
They found the photos
Never fear, they’ve got someone far worse to replace him with.
