Perhaps that's a question for another thread.
eace
I voted no in the poll, but I don't think Romney voted his conscience. Luther's right; it's up to the Utah GOP and the people who elected him to deal with him and his representation of them.
They will have to wait four more years (and I've seen that Romney intends to run for another term). From what I understand only the Senate can remove one of their own. So Utah might be stuck with him unless they loudly call for his removal prior to that.
I've always considered Romney to be a phony. What makes you think he wasn't being honest?
Humbolt, I'm not sure what the Bidens have to do with the topic of this thread. Isn't there plenty of threads discussing that issue?
eaceHis flip-flops.
Not that they didn't know before, but now it's quite obvious who Romney is and how he rolls. If the people of Utah call for his ouster he'll likely resign....and move in with Jeff Flake. If Utah supports him then the rest of the senate will just need to take him into consideration going forward.
Yep, that's why I considered him very early on to be a phony. His speech explaining his decision sorta reminded me of Jimmy Carter who in my opinion seemed to think his being religious should win him the Office. I don't mind one living by their beliefs but didn't Jesus say something about the hypocritical Pharisees wanting to be seen praying for optics? (Gee, don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion.
).Nicely said!
The Bidens were central to Romney's decision, according to Romney. I'm assuming his vote on impeachment is the basis for your question. If the reasons Romney offered to explain his vote aren't pertinent, then I suppose, "I don't like his hair," is sufficient.Humbolt, I'm not sure what the Bidens have to do with the topic of this thread. Isn't there plenty of threads discussing that issue?
I see your point. Still not sure the Biden's were central to Romney's decision. Other than the fact that he thought Trump shouldn't be asking a foreign nation to investigate a political opponent. Whether they (the Bidens) deserved to be investigated is a separate discussion. I happen to believe they should be. Nevertheless, (and I"m probably gonna regret saying this) if Trump was concerned about Ukraine's corruption why zero in on one example? Why not speak of it in general terms?
In answer to your question, I mentioned it because Romney declared it central to his decision. Mentioning the Bidens with regard to Ukrainian corruption is general in nature. If you believe Hunter's appointment to the board at Burima was just a fluke, perhaps it's not general in nature to mention the Bidens. However, that these things are widely and publically known would fall into the category of general knowlege, I believe. Trump didn't mention anything not previously known and questioned.
True. I think if he stuck to questioning what happen in the 2016 election as far as corruption goes it would have been fine to bring up. But like Biden, he zeroed in on one element of corruption (who clearly tied aid to it) the prosecutor.
I don't know that aid was clearly tied to an investigation of the Bidens, specifically. The result suggests not. I don't believe Trump's decision to mention the Bidens was a wise one, but I also don't believe it was an impeachable offense. As I said, I think Romney's personal dislike for Trump colored his decision. I believe we should hope for more objective consideration from senators in these matters.
His expedient journey from never-Trumper to groveler to Brutus.
Yeah, I think you pretty much nailed it. I forgot about his groveling for a spot on Trump’s cabinet. I think Trump made the right decision in that instance.
Romney never really has figured out that playing in the middle of the road generally leads to everyone and their uncle running you over.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see him switching party affiliation. He’s now the hero of the Dems.
Except that the vast majority of republicans dont support him being removed.