Obama, Romney to meet for lunch at White House on Thursday < br />

2012-11-29 10:17:59 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- U.S. President Barack Obama will host former Republican challenger Mitt Romney for a private lunch at the White House on Thursday afternoon, marking their first meeting since Obama defeated him in the presidential election earlier this month.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama will meet Romney for lunch at approximately 12:30 p.m. local time at the Private Dining Room of the White House. He said Obama is looking forward to meeting Romney but said there will be no press coverage. "It's a private lunch; only the two men will be in the room," he said.

Obama secured a second four-year term in the White House earlier this month when he defeated Romney, who served as Governor of Massachusetts from January 2003 until January 2007. Obama received a total of 332 electoral votes, well above the 270 electoral votes required to win re-election.

On election night, Obama said he would sit down with Romney to talk about where they could work together to move the country forward. But Obama later said he was not suggesting he has a specific assignment for his former political rival, and Carney agreed on Wednesday that there is a "symbolic element" to the lunch.

"I'm not either prejudging what he's interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I've got some specific assignment," Obama said on November 14 during his first post-election news conference. "But what I want to do is to get ideas from him and see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together."

Obama praised Romney for his work during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and said there are "certain aspects" of Romney's record and ideas that he believes could be helpful. "He presented some ideas during the course of the campaign that I actually agree with," he explained. "So it would be interesting to talk to him about something like that. There may be ideas that he has with respect to jobs and growth that can help middle-class families that I want to hear."

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-11-29

It was a mistake to propose this meeting in the first place, but now Obama has to follow through with it. He should have realized at the moment Romney was defeated that Romney would instantly become 100 percent irrelevant even to republicans, and that is exactly what has happened.

Edited November 29, 201213 yr by Jingthing

Romney had some good ideas in his campaign and his positive characteristics are not diminished by having lost the election. It is prudent and wise for the President to meet with him and I hope it is a productive luncheon.

Romney failed to communicate his "good ideas" to the voters. This lunch isn't about being productive and you can be sure nothing at all will come of it as Romney represents not ONE American citizen except himself. It's about fulfilling a misguided promise and that's it. The public doesn't get this meeting. Democrats are happy Romney lost and republicans wish Romney would completely fade away (and even they never really warmed up to him in the first place), which BTW, he has. Yes it's no big deal. Obama has to eat lunch anyway and I'm sure his chefs will whip up something tasty. It's the same as a lunch with a nobody. No big loss. Has Romney ever been in the white house before? You know, they have TOURS for the public.

Edited November 29, 201213 yr by Jingthing

Romney failed to communicate his "good ideas" to the voters. This lunch isn't about being productive and you can be sure nothing at all will come of it as Romney represents not ONE American citizen except himself. It's about fulfilling a misguided promise and that's it. The public doesn't get this meeting. Democrats are happy Romney lost and republicans wish Romney would completely fade away (and even they never really warmed up to him in the first place), which BTW, he has. Yes it's no big deal. Obama has to eat lunch anyway. It's the same as a lunch with a nobody. No big loss. Has Romney ever been in the white house before? You know, they have TOURS for the public.

I guess you consider the voters who voted for Romney irrelevant too?

Romney failed to communicate his "good ideas" to the voters. This lunch isn't about being productive and you can be sure nothing at all will come of it as Romney represents not ONE American citizen except himself. It's about fulfilling a misguided promise and that's it. The public doesn't get this meeting. Democrats are happy Romney lost and republicans wish Romney would completely fade away (and even they never really warmed up to him in the first place), which BTW, he has. Yes it's no big deal. Obama has to eat lunch anyway. It's the same as a lunch with a nobody. No big loss. Has Romney ever been in the white house before? You know, they have TOURS for the public.

I guess you consider the voters who voted for Romney irrelevant too?

Romney won't be invited to speak at the next republican convention and you can bet the house on that. That says it all. He is NOT the leader of the republican party. At least W. Bush had been a president even though he is also now a political nobody. The ways of national politics may be cruel, but that's the way it is.

No, I am not making this stuff up just because I personally despise Romney and am well pleased that he is now a political nothing representing nobody:

http://www.washingto...c857_story.html

Ten days after failing to sail into the White House, Mitt Romney is already being tossed overboard by his party.

Edited November 29, 201213 yr by Jingthing

Nothing like a gracious winner.

Wouldn't it be good to have people doing politics and disagreeing meeting more and talk about something else than elections? I read some posts above and I'm thinking "shouldn't it be more about who won and who lost?".

This fake Darwinism in politics makes bright people disappear, do we only want to hear only about the ones having not failed yet? does it mean that others don't have good ideas? can't we be right against what most people think?

I'm actually glad to see this lunch happen, and the more disagreeing people can talk about broad ideas over a beer, the better... (not talking about those on Suk 4, 7/1, 22, 23 and 33 )

Edited November 29, 201213 yr by GaiUan

The menu has been leaked:

Green Veg

Sour grapes

Pints of Bitter

The menu has been leaked:

Green Veg

Sour grapes

Pints of Bitter

You forgot the drinks:

Romney: sour milk (Romney can't drink bitter ale)

Obama: White House-made sweet honey ale.

Edited November 29, 201213 yr by keemapoot

Romney had some good ideas in his campaign and his positive characteristics are not diminished by having lost the election. It is prudent and wise for the President to meet with him and I hope it is a productive luncheon.

Agreed. The man's political base did not vaporize overnight. I expect that the man still retains some influence with some GOP supporters and Representatives. Even if small, that 10-20% support makes a difference.

President Obama is giving the nation a lesson in civics, reconciliation and non partisanship. The President is president for all of the USA including Romney. I admire the President for reaching out and I think the US population will too.

How do you think Bush got elected and then re-elected? The democrats had no viable candidates, that's how. This election is the same, the republicans had no viable candidate. Obama was re-elected as the better choice of two poor candidates. Anyone who thinks Obama has done a good job should seriously re-think things. It's a hell of a way to elect a president, the lesser of two evils!

Talk about rubbing salt in the wound, I love it. At some point the conversation will go

Romney:......Hey Barrack, this dining room is absolutely amazing, totally beautiful and full of history.

Obama.........Well I hope your memory is good because you will never see inside of it again. Now come into my office for coffee, thats right there is a seat for you over .......there, and my seat is of course behind this desk....here.

How do you think Bush got elected and then re-elected? The democrats had no viable candidates, that's how. This election is the same, the republicans had no viable candidate. Obama was re-elected as the better choice of two poor candidates. Anyone who thinks Obama has done a good job should seriously re-think things. It's a hell of a way to elect a president, the lesser of two evils!

It is likely that many many Democrat voters would have jumped ship to vote for Ron Paul, had the Republicans had the balls and the vision to nominate him. The US has lost its last real chance for decades to come.

Talk about rubbing salt in the wound, I love it. At some point the conversation will go

Romney:......Hey Barrack, this dining room is absolutely amazing, totally beautiful and full of history.

Obama.........Well I hope your memory is good because you will never see inside of it again. Now come into my office for coffee, thats right there is a seat for you over .......there, and my seat is of course behind this desk....here.

How do you think Bush got elected and then re-elected? The democrats had no viable candidates, that's how. This election is the same, the republicans had no viable candidate. Obama was re-elected as the better choice of two poor candidates. Anyone who thinks Obama has done a good job should seriously re-think things. It's a hell of a way to elect a president, the lesser of two evils!

It is likely that many many Democrat voters would have jumped ship to vote for Ron Paul, had the Republicans had the balls and the vision to nominate him. The US has lost its last real chance for decades to come.

Beg to differ Huntsman made a good showing. Have heard he was just positioning himself for 2016.

I for one think the two meeting at a private lunch is a good idea. I do not believe Romney has much political pull now but on a one to one conversation where their is no audience and no on Right or Wrong. There is a chance for a productive idea to come into being, Bottom line Obama is being gracious and no harm can come of it.

The republicans aren't going to nominate another Mormon for another 200 years. So Huntsman is out.

Bottom line on this meeting: it is well known from insiders on both sides that both men detest each other personally. Sometimes opponents don't feel that way, but in this case, they did.

Edited November 29, 201213 yr by Jingthing

How do you think Bush got elected and then re-elected? The democrats had no viable candidates, that's how. This election is the same, the republicans had no viable candidate. Obama was re-elected as the better choice of two poor candidates. Anyone who thinks Obama has done a good job should seriously re-think things. It's a hell of a way to elect a president, the lesser of two evils!

Perhaps if you had known the mess Obama was handed and that it was on the way down you would have a better understanding of what Obama has done for the country. The states has turned the corner and is on a slow growth pattern again. It is out of one war and on it's way out of another.

Didn't President Obama already have Romney for lunch?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

It was a mistake to propose this meeting in the first place, but now Obama has to follow through with it. He should have realized at the moment Romney was defeated that Romney would instantly become 100 percent irrelevant even to republicans, and that is exactly what has happened.

All of Obama's policies have been a mistake.

Edited November 29, 201213 yr by Time Traveller

How do you think Bush got elected and then re-elected? The democrats had no viable candidates, that's how. This election is the same, the republicans had no viable candidate. Obama was re-elected as the better choice of two poor candidates. Anyone who thinks Obama has done a good job should seriously re-think things. It's a hell of a way to elect a president, the lesser of two evils!

It's always the lesser of two evils. Has been for a very long time.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

How do you think Bush got elected and then re-elected? The democrats had no viable candidates, that's how. This election is the same, the republicans had no viable candidate. Obama was re-elected as the better choice of two poor candidates. Anyone who thinks Obama has done a good job should seriously re-think things. It's a hell of a way to elect a president, the lesser of two evils!

It's always the lesser of two evils. Has been for a very long time.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Not sure if that was a tongue in cheek comment but it certainly has a lot of truth in it. Who ever gets elected no matter how good they are is going to tee of a lot of people.

Well, it's over.

Mr. Romney, private citizen, arrived to meet the PRESIDENT at 12:30 P.M. and departed at 1:41 P.M.

There was no press documentation opportunity. A white house staff photo and briefing about the meeting will follow. Ho hum.

You were elected to keep Romney out of the White House, did you miss that, its the only reason you were elected.

You were elected to keep Romney out of the White House, did you miss that, its the only reason you were elected.

Word on the street is he used the back entrance.

The republicans aren't going to nominate another Mormon for another 200 years. So Huntsman is out.

Bottom line on this meeting: it is well known from insiders on both sides that both men detest each other personally. Sometimes opponents don't feel that way, but in this case, they did.

The republicans aren't going to nominate another Mormon for another 200 years. So Huntsman is out.

Bottom line on this meeting: it is well known from insiders on both sides that both men detest each other personally. Sometimes opponents don't feel that way, but in this case, they did.

Apparently Romney isn't the only one who detests Obama, look at the number of secession petitions that have gotten started. Much like this meeting, they are just symbolic, but considering how many voted against Obama, the stock market reaction, and the disdain for Reid and Polesi, the Democrats may have their hands full and could use all the help they can get.

Edited November 30, 201213 yr by beechguy

It was a mistake to propose this meeting in the first place, but now Obama has to follow through with it. He should have realized at the moment Romney was defeated that Romney would instantly become 100 percent irrelevant even to republicans, and that is exactly what has happened.

All of Obama's policies have been a mistake.

Is there a Fox News talking head registered on TV?

It was a mistake to propose this meeting in the first place, but now Obama has to follow through with it. He should have realized at the moment Romney was defeated that Romney would instantly become 100 percent irrelevant even to republicans, and that is exactly what has happened.

All of Obama's policies have been a mistake.

Is there a Fox News talking head registered on TV?

Aparently

But then honesty is not always what you get from Fox so maybe they didn't register.

Romney had some good ideas in his campaign and his positive characteristics are not diminished by having lost the election. It is prudent and wise for the President to meet with him and I hope it is a productive luncheon.

I don't see how anyone can take Romney seriously, at least during the campaign. He would say anything to make the sale, and if there was some contention with what he previously said he would simply backtrack, claim he never said it, or just ignore the backlash.

"He presented some ideas during the course of the campaign that I actually agree with,"

When you're listening to someone who says whatever comes into their head there's a good chance there will be at one thing that you find interesting. Keep throwing darts and one just might hit the target.

For me the tell-all was the clown-car primaries, particularly that one debate where the audience cheered whenever one of contestants (if the shoe fits...) said the words war, kill or bomb.

Ol' Mitt did what he had to for his share of the applause.

I agree with JT, O had to make good on his consoling Election Night promise. Now it's over, and we may never hear his name again (enshallah!)

Mitt shouldn't complain, he has enough $$ to do anything, even buy his own country.

Personally, I agree with LBJ who said "you have to be crazy to want this job." He should feel about losing the same way I felt when I missed my flight in Indonesia: it might be my good luck.

On that note I think John Kerry would be nuts to trade his cushy Senate seat for the manic SoS position.

How do you think Bush got elected and then re-elected? The democrats had no viable candidates, that's how. This election is the same, the republicans had no viable candidate. Obama was re-elected as the better choice of two poor candidates. Anyone who thinks Obama has done a good job should seriously re-think things. It's a hell of a way to elect a president, the lesser of two evils!

A certain amount of auditing is done to come up with odds of beating the incumbent. They knew there was slim chance of beating Bubba in 1996 so they let Dole do his run. I think Huckabee didn't run this year because the numbers would be against him (actually, in hindsight, I think he could have won). I think in 2004 I believe Dean could have beaten Sonny Boy, and I think a lot of GOP members thought so too. The GOP helped promote Kerry in the primaries because they knew he'd be an easier opponent.

Wither Bro' Jeb? If the words Afghanistan and Iraq are still in the news in 2015 Jeb knows he doesn't have a chance.

Also, the GOP has (or had?) this sense of ascendancy regarding who's turn it is to run. 2000 was McCain's turn, but in 1999 an even darker force took over the party. Am I the only one who noticed that no one contested Bush II in the primaries in 2000? Even McCain didn't take his own campaign seriously.

I recommend a Robert Redford movie from the '70s called The Candidate. Someone approaches the son of a prominent veteran politician known for alternative views, asks him to run for their party, and he can say whatever he wants on the stump because he's going to lose regardless.

My sympathies to you Aussies out there: Gillard vs Abbot? Would you rather be thrown under a bus or a truck?

Edited December 1, 201213 yr by bendejo

Given the horrid things Obama said about Romney, I'm surprised Romney has gone to meet Obama.

Perhaps he'd like to go inside the White House at least once.

How do you think Bush got elected and then re-elected? The democrats had no viable candidates, that's how. This election is the same, the republicans had no viable candidate. Obama was re-elected as the better choice of two poor candidates. Anyone who thinks Obama has done a good job should seriously re-think things. It's a hell of a way to elect a president, the lesser of two evils!

Are you surprised that there were no decent candidates? The way US politics is, I'm not surprised that no decent person would allow themselves to be trashed like that. The US people are the losers because of their media.

No statesmen any more.