Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Mitt Romney goes all improvident on Donald Trump

My favorite moment from Mitt Romney’s effort Thursday to deter Republicans from nominating Donald Trump was when he warned against making “improvident” choices.

You can go a long time between hearing the word “improvident” thrown around like a grenade, so in case you’re wondering, my online dictionary defines it as “not provident; lacking foresight; incautious; unwary.”

Ouch. Trump wasn’t about to take any of that improvident smack. A couple of hours later, as the world awaited Trump’s riposte, The Donald parried and thrust, thus: He said he has made a lot more money than Romney, who was only a hundred-millionaire; that Romney was a loser (he’s got a point there in terms of the outcome of the 2012 election) and a “choke artist,” since there was no way any real man could’ve lost to Barack Obama.

Trump didn’t engage directly on the issue of providence.

During the year of The Donald, things keep happening that have never happened before. On the one hand, I don’t recall any instance of the party’s last nominee joining publicly into a movement to stop the party’s front-runner in the middle of the contest for the nomination. So there’s that.

And then, too, in the old days, the party’s last previous presidential nominee was some kind of semi-titular leader of the party and expected to be treated with respect, notwithstanding a laughably small net worth. On the third hand, Romney started the exchange and Trump is famous for treating others with respect until they disrespect him first, and then hitting back with savage improvidence.

I’m pretty committed to not pretending I understand what is going on here. But if Romney, or whoever has been urging him to make public his feelings about Trump, thinks today’s Romneyan peroration (a long speech characterized by lofty and often pompous language) is going to take the air out of the Trump bandwagon, I fear they may be chagrined.

Comments (14)

  1. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 03/03/2016 - 06:00 pm.

    John McCain

    Nice to hear John McCain weighing in on the needed qualities to assume the position of Commander in Chief of the US. He knows Trump lacks it and Sarah Palin had it.

    All of the establishment types who are in full hysteria over the potential of President Trump ran around 8 years ago pumping their fists in the air to support Sarah Palin as the best person to be one heart beat away from the Presidency.

    Someone, anyone, please tell me why I should have had confidence that President Palin was up to the job then and Donald Trump is a crazy risk now.

    • Submitted by Jim Million on 03/04/2016 - 09:31 am.

      Smiling at Midnight

      Ah, Mr. Blaise, your comment here sent a smile and chuckle across my memory. I went to bed smiling. Thanks.

      I do believe, however, Palin would have looked fabulous in her 6-Star CIC uniform.

  2. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/03/2016 - 07:11 pm.

    Tax returns

    I wonder how Trumps’ tax returns compare to Romney’s.
    Mitt might have more real money (and his money came from actually producing something).

    And while Romney’s jeremiad ( a prolonged lamentation or complaint; also : a cautionary or angry harangue) might not affect Trump directly, it might convince other Republicans to get up on their hind legs.

  3. Submitted by Logan Foreman on 03/03/2016 - 11:12 pm.

    The complete failure and phony

    Was Romney. The secret tape about the middle class, the fact that Romney made money off his old man and hedge funds, and a pathetic campaign makes Trump look a lot better than Romney. Desperate last days for a republican party that would not even elect Reagan today.

  4. Submitted by Jim Million on 03/03/2016 - 11:41 pm.

    Was Waiting for This

    Desperation (maybe panic) after JEB never ignited.
    If any readers have caught recent anti-Trump TV spots, they may hear the same voice used against Rubio. That voice is now blasting Trump.

    To me, this is the voice of establishment Republican money now very nervous.

    Hearing yesterday about Romney’s volley, I immediately thought:
    1. This from the symbol of irrelevance?
    2. The old guard is definitely beginning to panic.

  5. Submitted by Jim Million on 03/03/2016 - 11:58 pm.

    Secondary observation, Eric

    Somewhere in my English Comp classes I was told: If you feel you must define your own words, you probably should select different words.

    (Well, this is just a post-debate personal chuckle.)

    • Submitted by Pat Berg on 03/04/2016 - 07:07 am.

      Personal chuckles

      Has it occurred to you that perhaps Eric was having a personal chuckle of his own?

      • Submitted by Jim Million on 03/04/2016 - 09:25 am.

        Only just now…

        I figured Eric as just a bit scattered rushing to his personal deadline.
        I’ll re-read the piece. Also, please note my midnight time stamp.
        Thanks, Pat…

      • Submitted by Jim Million on 03/04/2016 - 09:41 am.

        Oh, also

        My remark to Eric was in reference to Romney.
        Who would use “improvident” in a speech to the Republican masses?

        I wonder how many hours the RNC attorneys evaluated lofty yet riskless adjectives before settling on “improvident.”

    • Submitted by Bill Gleason on 03/04/2016 - 07:36 am.

      I think Paul

      was in on the joke.

      When you have to cover this fiasco, you have to get your fun wherever you can find it.

      Nice, Eric.

  6. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 03/04/2016 - 07:47 am.

    Fragile ego and glass house (well, perhaps glass mansion)–that’s the Trump take-away from the debate.

  7. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 03/04/2016 - 11:59 am.

    Given the gutter-level rhetoric of the recent GOP “debates,” it is refreshing to be reminded that there are Republicans besides Governor Kasich who can not only make an argument using reason rather than manhood-insulting jibes (eew!), but can use some eloquent, apt vocabulary, like “improvident.”

    Let’s see if those more educated Republicans can pull their party back from this flame-out called Donald Trump (originally, before branding efforts, “Drumpf”).

  8. Submitted by Steve Titterud on 03/04/2016 - 02:39 pm.

    The Republican party has no wise men.

    When assessing the performance of its leadership, one might ask: how did they let things get to this current state of affairs ?? By excoriating Trump, they merely highlight their extreme reluctance to look in the mirror.

    Methinks the American people are going to judge them harshly in the upcoming election, NO MATTER what they do or say from this point forward. Would you trust your government to this outfit ??

    • Submitted by Jim Million on 03/04/2016 - 05:38 pm.

      No wise men, for sure…

      It’s the likelihood of a few “wise guys” lurking in the wings that intrigues me.

Leave a Reply