Secretary Of State Mitt Romney?
Team of Rivals?
Another name has emerged in the search for Donald Trump’s successor to John Kerry at the State Department, Mitt Romney:
Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will meet with Donald Trump this weekend to discuss the secretary of state position, a source close to the president-elect with direct knowledge of his thinking told NBC News.
In March, the former Massachusetts governor called Trump “a phony” and “a fraud” when discussing the then-candidate. Trump, who endorsed Romney in 2012, has called him a loser, adding that Romney begged for his endorsement and “would’ve dropped to his knees” for it. He has also said that he “choked like a dog” during his 2012 presidential campaign against President Barack Obama.
During the primaries, Romney campaigned with Ohio Gov. John Kasichin the Buckeye State. Last week after the election, however, Romney called Trump to congratulate him on his surprise win.
At first, it was only announced yesterday that Trump would be meeting with Romney this weekend, a development that in itself isn’t entirely surprising given the fact that Trump has spent this week taking meetings with a number of people who were rivals and critics during the campaign, including Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who was reportedly briefly considered as a candidate for Attorney General. Later in the day, though, NBC News was the first to report the news that Romney was under consideration for the position of Secretary of State, arguably among the three or four most important positions in a Presidential Cabinet. This part of the news was surprising given the fact that Trump and Romney haven’t exactly spent the last year or so saying the best things about each other. Trump, you will recall, called Romney weak and a ‘choker’ for losing what he claimed was an easily winnable race against President Obama in 2012, Romney, on the other hand, gave a scathing speech in March of this year in which he denounced Trump in no uncertain terms. Subsequent reports but Romney and members of his inner circle close to the groups of Republicans searching for a way to stop Trump from winning the nomination, or to challenge him via an independent candidacy in the General Election. Romney was reportedly also largely responsible for many top Republican fundraisers sitting out the Presidential election. Given the fact that Trump has a reputation for holding grudges, the fact that he’d even meet with Romney is surprising. The idea that he’d consider him for a Cabinet position that would work closely with the President on a near daily basis is surprising. And yet, there it is.
Of course, the fact that Romney is ‘being considered’ for the position at Foggy Bottom doesn’t mean that Romney will be offered the position, or that he would accept it if he was. In addition to Romney, other names have been floated for the position, including John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who seems like she would be an odd choice for such a position, and retired General David Petraeus. Of these, though, it seems clear that only Petraeus and Romney appear to be qualified for the position, and Petraeus’s previous conviction for violations of laws related to his treatment of classified information could pose a problem if he were nominated. As for Romney, while he lacks foreign policy experience the rest of his resume suggests that he’d be well-qualified for this job, especially if he were surrounded by the right group of aides. Would Romney accept the offer after everything he said about Trump? It’s been suggested that his sense of duty would likely lead him to accept the position. If that were the case, it would be among the smarter choices Trump could make for an important member of his inner circle.
We should be so lucky. Romney’s an odd choice for the reasons you cite, but also because Romney’s too good for Trump. He’s reliably conservative, but not nuts about it. I’d rather him than Giuliani or Bolton.
This would be a surprise to me, considering the other appointments already made and who got them. Someone on his team must be bargaining with him. “For every 4 loyalists you have to concede to one outsider” – Trump likes deals
I never thought that I would be thrilled to see Mitt Romney again, but here I am…
Of course, this appointment isn’t going to happen, so the idea was nice while it lasted.
If it is Bolton or Gulliani it will be time to start being extremely concerned!
Knowing Trump, I can’t imagine him being this magnanimous–not by a long shot. What I can imagine is him dragging Romney all the way out to Jersey and then canceling the meeting when Romney’s at the front gate, or inviting Romney in solely to taunt him.
Or possibly even offering Romney the post, and then retracting it after Romney had accepted it. Trump loves humiliating people.
And in any case, given Trump’s bromance (one-sided on Trump’s side, I’m sure) with Putin, appointing Romney as SOS would be completely contradictory.
For the same petty reasons I am guessing he offers Romney a deputy spot underneath Giuliani or Bolton – after summoning him from across the country for an in-person meeting.
considering how we’ve heard wild (and contradictory) assurances from different members of Trump’s team—
I really doubt this. I suggest that Trump will invite Romney out to visit, then turn around and plunk Bolton into the position. (Giuliani has supposedly fallen out of the running because he hogged the limelight too much this last week.)
Romney hasn’t smooched Trump’s ass enough for him to be tolerable to Trump. And this is too reasonable a placement.
Hence, it won’t happen.
@grumpy realist:
And don’t forget the fact that Romney’s a good-looking, fit man (with a great head of hair) who appears younger than he is, as opposed to a giant deliquescing yam with a lousy comb-over.
You have to know that must really chap Trump’s flabby posterior.
Nikki Haley gave a speech today, saying that Republicans need to be the party for immigrants and people of color, too. I think that means she’s out of the running.
Romney as SoS seems perplexing to me, and I just can’t picture the two of them getting along very well, but who knows. One article I just read said that he might be considered for the VA post.
…and Trump just agreed to settle the Trump U. lawsuit for $25 million. So at least that lawsuit and court case are off the table!
Oh please nominate Petraeus. I would laugh so hard listening to Senate Democrats oppose a candidate on this basis.
I am no Romney fan but he is way overqualified to answer to Donald Trump and serve as part of this ridiculous cabinet. The only reason I could even see Trump asking him to join the cabinet (besides the pulling his chair out from behind him reasons speculated on above) is if Trump still has a tiny grain of self-awareness left telling him he needs a grown up in the room at the cabinet meetings. Part of me hopes that Romney tells Trump what he can do with any job offers with Trumpian class and dignity. But sadly Romney would be a better cabinet secretary than just about anyone else who has been discussed and as such is probably needed.
@CSK:
I love a blog that sends me to the dictionary now and then.
But I have to disagree with,
It is not a lousy comb over, it’s a $60,000 hair weave. A gold plated comb-over if you will.
Or not. Gawker says weave, The Daily News says transplant. As with most dichotomies, my guess would be both.
@gVOR08:
Whatever he paid for it, and whatever it is, it looks like hell. And the spray tan is just as bad.
And he does resemble a deliquescing yam.
@gVOR08:
I was guessing “chia pet”.
@CSK: Hey, most bald guys go for shaving their heads. What he’s doing probably looks better than his surgically altered scalp would look shaved.
@gVOR08:
Ah, yes. I remember the surgically altered scalp incident. Wasn’t that the one for which he blamed his first wife and then raped her, according to her?
I think Romney is too sane for Trump. BTW, I think Romney could have beaten Clinton as easily or easier than Trump. And it would have been better for the country if he had.
Are we about to find out something disgusting about Romney? It’s the only way he would fit in with this bunch. I’m not a big fan of Romney, but he’s a bit above the Trumpiness.
The dog on the roof thing was more clueless than deliberately cruel, I suspect, and that’s the worst I can think of.
Is he secretly an anti-semite? Does he engage on dog fighting? Does he request a table where he does not have to see black people when he goes to the restaurant? Does he believe that 47% of America should be put into meat grinders?
I mean, if he is seriously being considered, he must have done something horrific…
@Terrye Cravens: I would have probably still voted for Hillary in such a case, but I certainly wouldn’t have the present sense of “we’re hanging over the edge of a cliff”.
Evil is one thing–and I don’t accuse Trump of this. I do accuse him of outright incompetence and stupidity, which is often worse. At least someone who is evil has some sense of self-preservation (usually). Someone who is dumb is likely to send the whole game over the edge of the cliff without realizing what he has done.
@Gustopher:
Well, I’m fairly sure he never publicly expressed a desire to grab anyone by the pussy.
I’m a big fan of Romney, but I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where he agrees to serve in what is shaping up to be a disastrous Cabinet rift with infighting.
@Terrye Cravens: Yup. Romney would be a bit of class compared to the rest of the crew. But in all this “both side do it” driven hunger for finding “reasonable” Republicans, let us not forget that Romney expressed contempt for “47%” of the country and that until the onset of Trump he pretty much held the record for lying while running for Prez.
I’d blame Romney’s 47% video for his loss, but I’ve noted elsewhere Larry Bartels’ very simple model which ignores polling and all of the horse race stuff and looks only at incumbent party time in office and change in personal disposable income per capita in the six months before the election. It predicted Obama’s margin over Romney within about 3/4%.
My personal favorite was when he was in London during the Olympics, where his wife’s dressage horse was competing, going, ‘Dancing horse, what dancing horse? I don’t know any dancing horse.’
nice
I hope the job is offered, and that Mitt Romney takes it. It would be reassuring. Foreign policy is the area where Presidents have the most autonomy. As we (unfortunately) saw with Colin Powell during the Bush Presidency, who the SoS is may not always make a difference. But given the choice of Gen Flynn to be National Security Advisor, we (the country) really need to see more “mainstream” choices for Secretaries of State and Defense.
I know that the Republicans were horrible to President Obama … both in words and deed. But personally, I honestly don’t want Donald Trump to fail as President. It would be a bad thing for all of us. I hope most of our worst fears about him turn out to be unfounded once he actually takes office.
When it comes to his political fortunes though, here’s something to keep in mind …
The odds of a recession happening sometime in the next 4 years (regardless of who had won this election) are probably greater than 50/50. If/when that happens, Democrats are likely to make significant gains, even if President Trump and his Republican Congress had been doing many things “right” up until that point (unlikely, but possible) … so I see no reason not to hope he does well.
@Todd:
Trump’s success will come at your expense. Think about what he wants, and remember that you voted against him for a reason.
Unless you want to live in a country built on a foundation of blacklists and brazen xenophobia, the very last thing that you should want is for him to achieve his goals. Imagine Joe McCarthy as president, but worse. You should want him to fail, and do what you can to make sure that he does.
Here’s the big difference between the Trumpers and everyone else. Romney opposed Trump but is willing to work with him for the good of the country. Obama despises Trump but is willing to work closely with him on the transition for the good of the country. Clinton despises Trump but she graciously conceded for the good of the country. I’ve heard way more outrage from devoted Trumpers about this than from mainstream Republicans or Democrats. Because we care about what’s best for the country and what’s best for the country is making sure Trump has people around him who can do their jobs.
If he doesn’t pick him for State, I do hope he find a role for Romney. I think Romney would be a very good influence on this Administration.
@Hal_10000: I’ve heard way more outrage from devoted Trumpers about this than from mainstream Republicans or Democrats.
Okay, this is setting a new record for obliviousness. You do know other people have access to the internet, right? Or that they can at least read the comments other people make on this very thread? Like Pch101?
I’m sure you can find places where Trump supporters are complaining about possible cabinet picks like Romney and continue to slag Obama and Clinton but I don’t think it’s worse than what we’re seeing on Salon, Slate, HuffPo, Daily Beast, liberal bloggers and the comment thread-etariat.
Mike
Considering the Cabinet of Deplorables he’s putting together, those fears don’t seem unfounded at all…
@Hal_10000:
If Trump chooses to listen to him. I thought Colin Powell would be a good influence on W, after all, and look how that turned out.
@Pch101:
Yes I voted against Trump. But unlike a lot of liberals, I’d like to wait until probably at least next summer to really make any sort of definitive assessment of exactly how bad it’s going to be.
There’s a difference between “hope he does well” and “achieves his goals” (especially those specific type of goals.
Look, for me there’s also a big difference between people wetting their pants and crying because Trump and the Republicans are going to enact some policies that liberals won’t like, and the fear that he will do something truly disastrous … like start a (trade or literal) war.
I want to see actual evidence of things to be truly worried about … and that can’t come until he takes office.
Until then, I think a lot of this freaking out (and especially the protesting) is counter-productive. When/if President Trump does do something legitimately deplorable, liberals will have already fired off all their powder on basically just a hissy fit, since there’s really no achievable goal that may come as a result. Trump is going to pick who he’s going to pick to serve in his White House. Positions like those that Bannon and Fynn are going fill are at his discretion. If he gets too far off the reservation with cabinet picks that require confirmation, then calls to our Senators may be somewhat effective … but less so if we’ve already been calling them for month to complain about the fact that Trump got elected and is going to choose people we don’t agree with primarily for ideological reasons.
What Todd said.
@Todd:
In short, keep your expectations low and reserve judgment for now, so you can be pleasantly surprised down the road.
As a partisan, it’s probably best to keep the powder dry, let Trump do what he wants, and then smile smugly in 2-4 years with an “I told you so” as voters have their eventual regret.
With. The exception of one commenter, this place reminds me more of the two angry old men on the Muppets than anything else.
To coin a phrase, “he won.”
@Todd:
The appointments thus far are a big hint.
His campaign was another big hint.
His Birther nonsense was yet another big hint.
How much more could you possibly need?
The hard right whined about Obama before he even took office. They have spent decades whining about stuff that they pulled out off their backsides, such as the birtherism nonsense that was advocated by the very same guy who were talking about here.
Every time Trump speaks, he keeps fact checkers busy because much of what he says are lies. If the GOP should have taught you anything, it’s that facts don’t matter.
@Guarneri: Yes, and we are already seeing the ramifications of that.
You may not mind living in a society where anti-semitic comments are taken for granted in normal conversation, but I see why some of our commentators are looking for a bolt-hole outside the country.
How bad a situation does it have to get before you realize that “he won” is not the ultimate rationale? What would Trump and his entourage have to start doing before you would take up the fight on behalf of your fellow citizen?
You may need to seriously ask yourself that during the next four years: how much is too much? This isn’t trolling for lulz anymore.
@Guarneri: Republican Math: Lose the popular vote, win by a relative whisker in the Electoral College, claim a mandate. OK . . .
Top secretaries of state:
Henry Clay
Daniel Webster
George Marshall
John Calhoun
Henry Kissinger
Dean Rusk
James Madison
John Hay
Cordell Hull
Dean Acheson
@Guarneri:
I don’t think anyone’s disputing the fact that Trump won the election. People–many Republicans as well as Democrats–are justifiably worried about how an unprincipled con man with no goal other than his own self-aggrandizement and a fearsome lack of knowledge of how government works will conduct himself in office.
@grumpy realist: What would Trump and his entourage have to start doing before you would take up the fight on behalf of your fellow citizen?
They haven’t done anything yet. Let me repeat…THEY HAVEN’T DONE ANYTHING YET. The only proper response to this kind of hysteria less than two weeks after the election is “he won” because there isn’t anything to actually argue about yet. What’s happening now is that a bunch of people who are desperate to avoid any self-examination are trying to continue on as if the campaign never ended.
Mike
@MBunge:
That’s true, but what about the Democrats?
@MBunge: More seriously, though, you’re right in a narrow sense. These people haven’t done anything yet as part of Trump’s administration, because there isn’t a Trump administration yet. But each has a long record of statements and actions that can be examined. Do you consider those things irrelevant? Trump certainly doesn’t, because he selected them based on their records. We’ve every right to speak out when we look at those records and conclude these people, in positions of power, would institute policies and take actions that would hurt a great many Americans.
That people are hoping Trump picks Romney for SoS says it all about how low expectations are for this Administration.Mitt Romney is at best minimally qualified to be Secretary of State. But he’s not a white supremacist or an anti Muslim bigot, so I guess it’s a good sign he’s even being considered!
My unpopular opinion: This is a head fake, as Nikki Haley was a head fake. Trump is going to pick John Bolton.
@Mikey:
I’d add only that Trump might have picked whomever the person closest to him told him to pick.
@stonetools:
I don’t think your head fake opinion is particularly unpopular. It seems quite reasonable. Trump hates Romney’s guts, as he hates anyone who doesn’t regard him with unreserved adoration. As I said, it’s possible he could offer Romney the post and then retract it in order to humiliate Romney.
@Todd:
I think the team Trump is assembling is a big tell as to what a Trump regime is going to be like. TBH, I don’t understand how you can see it any other way.
Trump’s appointments are evidence of things to be worried about.
If you appoint a white supremacist to be your chief policy advisor, then you intend to run your Administration in a white supremacist direction
If you appoint a pro-Drug War racist to be AG, you intend that your Justice Department be run in a pro Drug War, anti Civil Rights direction.
If you appoint a Muslim bigot as your National Security adviser, you plan to crack down on Muslims as the centerpiece of your National Security policy.
That’s how I see it. Do you have to wait till the Administration actually starts rounding up Muslims before you start to resist and protest?
@Mikey:
No one should expect the people who lost to be happy. But just it was wrong for McConnell to decide making Obama a one-termer the only thing that mattered, the “McConnell on steroids” attitude toward Trump is wrong. No one can govern if campaigning never ends and it doesn’t matter who started it, it has to stop.
Mike
@MBunge:
So the Democrats must once again be the adults in the room, and act right for the good of America? Why don’t you ask the Republicans to do that.
At this point, I’m for what works. Sadly, McConnell’s ‘scorched earth” policy works, and Obama’s “only adult” strategy didn’t. The US electorate in its wisdom, gave the adult no points at all for his grace and forbearance and screwed him and all of us by putting the “resist even if the country suffers” folks in charge.
We can start governing again after we dislodge this incompetent, white nationalist administration ( which is sure to f##k things up, maybe worse than last time). Until then, “McConnell on steroids”should be the Democratic approach. Among other things, it’s the only way to be sure we aren’t implicated in the public’s mind when the crack up does come. I want the “I told you so” to be clear and irrefutable.Sadly, a major part off Obama’s failure was his refusal to hammer home to the public the magnitude of the Bush Administration’s screw up.
@MBunge: Moreover, the GOP will be able to evade blame for it’s failures. And yes, I know that the base will never blame them anyway, but as I noted in another thread, if the base is big enough to elect Trump, the game as we have known it is ovah.
@CSK:
And you imagine that
DrewGuarnari understands this? Really? Mr. Zero Hedge will show us the truth? Really?Dude, the man wishes he were Trump, with all his heart.
@MBunge: I don’t advocate the constant, indiscriminate obstruction of Trump by the Democrats that Obama dealt with from the Republicans. On that we agree.
At the same time, there are circumstances that warrant obstruction. Appointing a white nationalist as his right-hand man is one. Nominating a man as terrible on civil rights as Jeff Sessions for Attorney General would be another.
@MBunge: If you were Jewish, do you think you would be comforted because “they haven’t done anything yet”?
The very least Trump can do is not appoint people of the alt-right to positions of power. There’s a reason why attendance at self-defense classes is exploding.
@stonetools:
Yes, actually it does make sense to wait until there are legitimately “deplorable” actions taken, Here’s the one simple reason: liberals/Democrats are not going to be able stop Trump from doing anything just on their own. If/when the Trump administration steps over the line, the only real check that *might* have any bite will have to come from Republicans in Congress. If a bunch of people who didn’t vote for Trump have been whining and protesting about anything and everything from Nov 9th on, it will be much harder for truly legitimate concerns to rise above the noise enough that some of those Republicans won’t be able to find an excuse to rationalize/downplay them.
@grumpy realist:
Why? It’s not as if this comes as a surprise. Bannon was Trump’s campaign chairman. It would be surprising if he didn’t have a role in Trump’s administration.
To quote President Obama: “elections have consequences”
p.s. He’s also going to appoint a Justice (or Justices) to the Supreme Court that many of us won’t like.
I’m all for it. I have my issues with Romney, but compared to this crowd he looks like Thomas Jefferson…