Mitt Romney to speak at CPAC for some reason

posted at 4:01 pm on February 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Everyone will applaud politely, of course, but there’s no way to avoid the ineffable awkwardness that will surround this speech. Then again, if there’s one thing Romney does well, it’s ineffable awkwardness. (“Severely conservative”?) Maybe it’ll just feel like old times.

Alternate headline: “Man to appear at event devoted to repudiating him.”

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will appear at the Conservative Political Action Conference next month, according to two sources familiar with the event’s itinerary. Romney’s speech, which will be delivered at the Gaylord National hotel in Prince George’s County, Md., marks the former Massachusetts governor’s return to the political scene.

After he lost the presidential election, Romney decamped to his beachfront home in La Jolla, Calif. But friends say he has become somewhat restless, and he’s eager to contribute to the national debate. Sources say he’ll likely focus on economic and fiscal issues, and that his message will be optimistic.

“This is really an opportunity for Governor Romney to thank all his supporters and friends,” says a senior Romney aide.

Sample Twitter reaction:

He’ll be okay. As angry as people are at him for the catastrophic technological gap with Obama’s campaign, I think there’s some sympathy for him as a guy who was ultimately crushed by larger forces. He did himself no favors with the “self-deportation” line but Republicans have been getting creamed among Latino voters for decades and there are now more Latino voters than ever before. He did himself no favors with the “47 percent” line either but Harry Enten made a compelling case yesterday at the Guardian that, as counterintuitive as it seems, economic indicators ahead of the election all pointed to a close but comfortable Obama win. No one, I think, disagrees with the proposition that the GOP has big problems and that those problems are bigger than Romney. That’s not to excuse his screw-ups during the campaign, just to say that I think that awareness will inform the audience’s reception of him at CPAC.

But yeah, it’ll still be awkward. For two reasons. One: The whole GOP storyline of the past three months has been about tomorrow’s party rock stars trying to undo the damage from the “47 percent” and “self-deportation” business. Jindal’s been killing him on the former and Rubio, through his immigration efforts, has been killing him on the latter. (This recent headline says it all.) It’s bizarre to have the avatar of the old order speaking alongside guys whose big pitch is all about how wrong he was. Two: Romney’s split personality as the ObamaCare-pioneering RINO who wants illegals to self-deport and the “takers” to do more to become “makers” is emblematic of the party’s split personality right now. The leadership, in the form of Rubio, Jindal, Ryan, Christie et al., desperately wants to carve out space in the center but there’s still a chunk of the conservative base that agrees with Mitt about attrition through enforcement and makers-and-takers. Look no further than McCain’s town hall last night. Which Romney shows up at CPAC? Which gets applauded?

Exit question: Er, how does Romney intend to “contribute to the national debate”? Apart from occasional guest shots on Fox News, what platform does he have?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7

Thats right. Beat up on our most recent nominee. I used to think I was a conservative. But I suppose I do not agree with citizens armed with machine guns and forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist child. I suppose after decades of considering myself conservative I must now adopt the centrist moderate label.

Dennis D on February 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM

The rest of you out there, you should really spend more time reviewing your idol…

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Let me change that argument. You should be shedding your idols and learning to hold people to the standards of accomplishment.

I tend to figure it has much to do with your lack of religion. You need to have something to look up to, so instead of God you find a person and attach all your dreams to that person and ignore every aspect about the person. You are no better than those who idolize and look to Obama for salvation. It is really sickening and unfortunately you seem to be the majority in the party.

As I said before though, popularity does not make one right. Being constantly wrong, as your idolatry ensures will eventually make you detested and in the minority.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Can’t wait for the photo of Romney and Palin together!!! LOL

Seriously, its as Newt said. We need to get away from the
campaign running the candidate. It should be the other way
around.

We should be adult and give the man thanks for running. It didn’t
work out. Who could overcome massive voter fraud coupled with
the no information 47% voters who worship Obama?

I held my nose and voted for him as I am a conservative and
don’t think he is one, no matter how often he and his campaign
described himself as one. Same as I don’t think Rubio is all that
conservative either, no matter that he looks conservative next
to Crist who turned democrap.

Romney is a classy guy who knows something about economics and
jobs. He has a lot to offer; just not as president perhaps.

Amjean on February 20, 2013 at 5:00 PM

I voted for him, and I was sad when he lost, thought it had more to do with who won. If November cut him down to size, he’s still a bigger man than me. But he was a smaller man last August. I’m glad he was invited second, as the afterthought perhaps.

cbenoistd on February 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Amjean on February 20, 2013 at 5:00 PM

+1

kingsjester on February 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM

He never made any efforts to reach out to … Sarah Palin supporters.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 4:39 PM

What would it have cost him?

A loser doofus surrounded by as*hole Dartmouth parvenus and establishment hacks. They played all-out attrition against conservatives and constipated patty-cake with the Left.

rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Thats right. Beat up on our most recent nominee. I used to think I was a conservative. But I suppose I do not agree with citizens armed with machine guns and forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist child. I suppose after decades of considering myself conservative I must now adopt the centrist moderate label.

Dennis D on February 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM

You’re certainly ignorant so you will fit in well on the left.

Machine guns aren’t legal without a special government license.

Most conservatives don’t believe in forcing a victim of rape to have the child.

In fact I suspect you aren’t really a conservative at all, or perhaps at best a retarded one.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Thats right. Beat up on our most recent nominee. I used to think I was a conservative. But I suppose I do not agree with citizens armed with machine guns and forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist child. I suppose after decades of considering myself conservative I must now adopt the centrist moderate label.

Dennis D on February 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Nobody here advocates for MACHINE gun carry for citizens…
Why is the child an expendable entity just because it came from rape? Do the feelings of one person trump the right to life of another absolutely totally free from sin other person?

You are right, you wrongly considered yourself conservative. Now that you have seen the light, you might be able to correct towards conservatism or you can at least self identify properly.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Having been around here in that same period, I can assure you there was plenty of sin to go around.

I saw some snarkiness from people who really supported Romney.
And I saw a whole lotta ugly, nasty, hate from the ABR crowd.

But, water under the bridge, I say.

My only suggestion to you is that, as disappointing as the prequels may have been, Yoda was on sound footing when he said:

…Anger leads to hate, Hate leads to suffering…

What preceded and followed is debateable… but the meat in the center is very correct. ;-)

We aren’t going to get anywhere and change anything if we give into anger and frustration. It’s a losing (and personally destructive) mentality.

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Because we didn’t have to select a candidate as terrible as Mitt, and we could have guaranteed a controlled transition of SCOTUS judges, including the retirements of Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, with conservative justices.

The establishment decided to p*ss that away by going with Romney.

Stoic Patriot on February 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Um, primary voters went with Romney, because the rest of the field was horrid. People wanted a credible not-Romney, and we got stuck with a former House speaker talking up moon colonies and a former senator who liked to wax poetic about birth control. Incidentally, neither had the organization necessary to even get on the primary ballot in my state, a battleground.

changer1701 on February 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Mitt Romney speaking at #CPAC? Was Herbert Hoover unavailable?

How about this one?

Marco Rubio speaking on “common sense, bi-partisan, immigration reform” at CPAC or anywhere else?

Was Barack Obama unavailable?

VorDaj on February 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Romney is a classy guy who knows something about economics and
jobs. He has a lot to offer; just not as president perhaps.

Amjean on February 20, 2013 at 5:00 PM

…ditto EVERYTHING …you said!

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM

I know literally no one who idolized Mitt Romney. The Republicans that I know fell into 1 of 2 categories about Romney. They either didn’t like or trust him because he’s a rich New Englander, or thought of him as a good decent man who would be a thousand times better than Obama. Whoever you’re talking about is largely a construct of your imagination.

Also some basic courtesy advice: holding a different ideology or having less money than you does not make someone lazy or stupid or inferior to you. Condescension combined with reveling in someone else’s hardship is not becoming.

LukeinNE on February 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

What would it have cost him?

rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM

It would have cost him what it costs the left to have any respect for conservatives. Even if it would help them…they just can’t do it. I suspect for Romney it is the same reason.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 5:05 PM

The last week of the campaign is what did him in.

The Hurricane, Chris Christie kissing Obama and acting like he’s the greatest President that ever lived and then Romney repeating in speeches “I want to reach across the aisle and work with democrats.” You just can’t make that last line up, man. When I heard him say that… I thought.. “My God.. who is advising this man. Conservatives are going to react to that like vampires to the cross (sorry.. I’m old school. Real vampires fear the cross.)

And lets not forget that last debate where he agreed with the President on everything and ignored Fast and Furious and Benghazi.

Add Democrat voter fraud and there you go.

Now here I am just sitting here in my underwear, in my basement in front of my PC, nobody special, not paid to think or anything and yet I am able to state exactly and coherently why Romney lost.

And yet high paid power people within the Republican party wearing $100. neckties say it’s because the GOP isn’t more like Obama. Why are these high paid power people so stupid?

JellyToast on February 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM

LukeinNE on February 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Did you never see the rantings of “Gunlock Bill? Or bluegill? Or Jailbreak? Or a bunch of other assorted characters that conventiently popped up after the last dual open registrations?

Posters that dared have a concern about nominating the Godfather of Obamacare were called everything but a child of God.

kingsjester on February 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Anger leads to hate, Hate leads to suffering…

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

I don’t agree. Anger gets a bad rap. Anger can lead wherever you want it to, which can be to reformation. Anger at Mitt Romney and what he represents — the reactionary fear-based monolith of the GOP — is natural and necessary right now.

rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Our pundit betters have decided that if you don’t object to cpac excluding goproud, you are a bigot. That’s their meme. They can all stuff it!

Blake on February 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Um, primary voters went with Romney, because the rest of the field was horrid. People wanted a credible not-Romney, and we got stuck with a former House speaker talking up moon colonies and a former senator who liked to wax poetic about birth control. Incidentally, neither had the organization necessary to even get on the primary ballot in my state, a battleground.

changer1701 on February 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

One of those guys who was speaking idiotically about our space program was Romney. I remember the guy claiming that NASA didn’t know what they were doing during one debate.

Santorum was a far better sight than Romney. He connected with working class voters, and could clearly articulate socially conservative principles. Unlike some candidates, he never spat on 47% of Americans.

Did each of them have little organization? Absolutely. And look at what they achieved with how little they had. It speaks volumes when you consider their performance relative to Romney’s. Stack up the monetary advantages, media advantages, and organizational ones, and I bet you that either of them could have gotten much further than Romney did with the same resources.

Stoic Patriot on February 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Mitt, you’re a nice guy and a fine human being, but please go away. Am I the only one who wonders why the Republican “leadership” backed the only candidate that would take obamacare off the table?

rjh on February 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Afterall, the man is practically Andrew Cuomo 2X!!

ToddPA on February 20, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Ha! I have just the visual for you. Plus a new one I did today. I am in serious need of a Christie thread to link them to. ; ) Here.

Bmore on February 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Yikes.

Dude, a warning with that, Please!

ToddPA on February 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Whether you were gung-ho on Gov. Romney (or any of the candidates for that matter) it is a lead pipe cinch any of them would have been 100% better then the azzhat we are going to have to endure for four more years.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Bmore on February 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Nice work.

rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Yes, ma’am.

kingsjester on February 20, 2013 at 5:12 PM

He never made any efforts to reach out to … Sarah Palin supporters.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 4:39 PM

What would it have cost him?

A loser doofus surrounded by as*hole Dartmouth parvenus and establishment hacks. They played all-out attrition against conservatives and constipated patty-cake with the Left.

rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Yeah, and this was the thing. Romney holds some conservative positions and he certainly could have found common ground with conservatives, but he refused to put out the effort – and a lot of people were begging him to. One big meet-up with conservatives and a few public events with Sarah Palin and other would have put Romney over the top – it was hard to watch Romney throwing it all away. And, of course, after the election, we found out from his son, that he really didn’t want to win – he didn’t want to be president (which explains a lot).

Pork-Chop on February 20, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Why is the child an expendable entity just because it came from rape? Do the feelings of one person trump the right to life of another absolutely totally free from sin other person?

I’ll call back in 2020.

cbenoistd on February 20, 2013 at 5:13 PM

The line up for CPAC 2013 is a mixed-bag … (Jeb Bush is speaking too – weird)

http://conservative.org/cpac/2013/

Pork-Chop on February 20, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Very mixed bag, they did get some big names.

Kelly Ayotte
Jeb Bush
Eric Cantor
Artur Davis
Carly Fiorina
Newt Gingrich
Ron Johnson
Mike Lee
Mitch McConnell
Sarah Palin
Rand Paul
Mitt Romney
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Rick Santorum
Pat Toomey
Scott Walker
Allen West

In regard to people doing good work for conservatism, Scott Walker and Mike Lee are top tier. Can’t get better than that. Toomey, Johnson, and Rand Paul are on the second tier, also good. A few more (Palin, Gingrich,West) have done well in the past. Ayotte is fine for NE. Bush, McConnell, Rubio, Cantor and Ryan are actively undermining conservatism. Romney, Santorum Fiorina and Artur Davis are irrelevant.

sauldalinsky on February 20, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I don’t agree. Anger gets a bad rap.
rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM

How about this then… “Anger usually, mostly, like 89 or maybe 90 % of the time, leads to Hate”?

I hear what you are saying… Righteous Anger, perhaps?

Although I would suggest that Jesus turning over tables in the Temple was quite different than us being mad at a politician.

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Mr Romney is good at talking about economics, which is obviously where his real passions are. That may not be the platform that gets people riled up these days, but its still plenty important and worth talking about.

Frankly, seeing as I like the guy, I’m looking forward to hearing him speak, amongst other people.

WolvenOne on February 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM

We aren’t going to get anywhere and change anything if we give into anger and frustration. It’s a losing (and personally destructive) mentality.

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

He who ignores history is ripe to repeat its worst periods.
He who only looks on the outside for value frequently finds the detestable inside later.

Those who were pretty much anyone but Romney were right.

Those who were pretty much only Romney were absolutely wrong on many levels. Beginning with who he was as a person and finally on his ability to actually run a campaign for victory.

Righteous anger is just that, righteous, and I doubt anyone here would claim Jesus was sinning when he tore down the money changer tables. But had he been attacking something that was not wrong, he would have been in sin.

Think through that. Also note your argument. The Romney people were snarky, I am guessing you mean that positively… The ABR people were ugly, nasty and hate which cannot be twisted into a positive sounding statement. Your bias totally destroys any objectivity you might have, added to the fact that you were absolutely wrong makes it a total mockery of debate.

I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours reading positive spin on Romney, and hundreds of hours reading his accomplishments and his own arguments about those accomplishments. I gave him every benefit of the doubt that could be given to him.

Here is where it ends.
Obamacare… He is proud of his version of it. He thinks mandates are good because they work. They are nothing less than slavery. You are mandated to DO X period. That is slavery. He is proud to tell you that states can do this.
Welfare state… He likes the welfare state, why? Because it allows him to not have to think about the poor. Now that there is character.
Entitlements… Here again, he thinks it is perfectly fine to enslave people to pay for the benefits of others. Sure, they could just not work and die off instead, but if they work, they are forced to provide a livelihood of someone else that they should not be responsible for outside of CHARITY.
Entitlements… He thinks they are charity.
Environment… Agrees with Malthusians enough to ask them for advice.

This list goes on for hundreds of points.

He is a nice enough guy. Those he feels responsible for he is extremely generous to. That does not make him conservative, and it also does not make him a good choice to be the President representing the supposedly Conservative party.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Rick Santorum

I’d be happy to never see him on the stage again.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Mitt Romney hit a grand slam in the first debate and felt he didn’t have to step into the batter’s box again.

There were so many things that he could have attacked Obama on, but Romney listened to the typical RINO strategists (Ed Gillespie, Mike Murphy and Kevin Madden) who told Mitt he didn’t need to attack Obama, just look Presidential.

Romney spent 6+ years seeking the nomination and spent $50 million of own money and ended up running one of the worst campaigns in recent history.

bw222 on February 20, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Although I would suggest that Jesus turning over tables in the Temple was quite different than us being mad at a politician.

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM

I don’t know. I’d have to think about that.

rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Can’t wait for the photo of Romney and Palin together!!! LOL

Amjean on February 20, 2013 at 5:00 PM

The only one I had on hand I could whip up quickly.

Bmore on February 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Stoic Patriot on February 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM

I’m sorry, but if you think Santorum was a great candidate, you’re living in another reality. All the data shows that he appealed most heavily to socially conservative voters, a brand within the Republican party that has gone so heavily out of favor in the mainstream that SoCon candidates even lost races in Bible Belt states during the last election.

Santorum was a one trick pony, worse yet he was a one trick pony who was disorganized, constantly went off message, and frequently stuck his foot in his mouth clear up to his knee.

He was NOT a viable candidate, in any way shape or form. I’m sorry, but there just isn’t any way of getting around that.

WolvenOne on February 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Think through that. Also note your argument. The Romney people were snarky, I am guessing you mean that positively…
astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Actually, I abhor snark.
And, it is quite possible that objectivity is impossible… but from my perspective, it certainly seemed like the hate and derision was flowing mighty freely from the ABR folks.

I honestly didn’t see much of it going the other way… granted, I may have just missed it.

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Mitt Romney hit a grand slam in the first debate and felt he didn’t have to step into the batter’s box again.

bw222 on February 20, 2013 at 5:18 PM

He did not offer me one thing to care about him up to that first debate, and then he left it lying on the ground.

I would have gotten probably 30 people to the polls to vote for Romney if he would have offered one rock solid conservative achievement as his offering.
I argued for the Cut, Cap and Balance amendment would make it to the states during his first term as President for ratification.

Of course, the first debate only had one descent pitch from him for me. Spending so much money and leaving this huge debt on the backs of our children is not moral! But again, he left it lying on the ground. It was a card he practiced for hours in advance, and all he did was pull it from his vest pocket and toss it out there and let it rot.

If he just made that one point constantly from that point forward, I think he could have won.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:25 PM

You will vote for Malia Obama and you will like it, or you will have your daily norm of bread and water halved.

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Are we that screwed D:?

p_incorrect on February 20, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Say what you want… but if Mitt Romney were president today, this Sequestration mess would already be settled and the we wouldn’t be seeing op-eds about repealing the Second Amendment.

Gotta love all those purists who couldn’t accept three-quarters of a loaf though. lol
Now, not only did Obama get your whole loaf, he got your kid’s and grandkid’s too. But hey… at least you didn’t settle for a “RINO”. /sarc

Murf76 on February 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

One of those guys who was speaking idiotically about our space program was Romney. I remember the guy claiming that NASA didn’t know what they were doing during one debate.

Santorum was a far better sight than Romney. He connected with working class voters, and could clearly articulate socially conservative principles. Unlike some candidates, he never spat on 47% of Americans.

Did each of them have little organization? Absolutely. And look at what they achieved with how little they had. It speaks volumes when you consider their performance relative to Romney’s. Stack up the monetary advantages, media advantages, and organizational ones, and I bet you that either of them could have gotten much further than Romney did with the same resources.

Stoic Patriot on February 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM

You’re deluding yourself if you think either of them would’ve gotten much further, particularly with the war on women raging. Rick Santorum, really? Sure, maybe he’d connect better with working class voters (though apparently not so much in his Senate re-elect…), but he wouldn’t have connected with just about any other group.

changer1701 on February 20, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Um, primary voters went with Romney, because the rest of the field was horrid. People wanted a credible not-Romney, and we got stuck with a former House speaker talking up moon colonies and a former senator who liked to wax poetic about birth control. Incidentally, neither had the organization necessary to even get on the primary ballot in my state, a battleground.

changer1701 on February 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Actually, people voted for Romney in the primaries because he outspent his opponents by a margin of 5 – 1. Santorum was the leading not-Mitt at the time of the Michigan primary and all the Mitt PACs did was carpet-bomb Santorum for three weeks prior to the primary. After he gained the nomination, Romney acted like “Chicken Little” in the general election.

bw222 on February 20, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Actually, I abhor snark.

I honestly didn’t see much of it going the other way… granted, I may have just missed it.

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM

see below…

Gotta love all those purists who couldn’t accept three-quarters of a loaf though. lol
Now, not only did Obama get your whole loaf, he got your kid’s and grandkid’s too. But hey… at least you didn’t settle for a “RINO”. /sarc

Murf76 on February 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

sauldalinsky on February 20, 2013 at 5:29 PM

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM

It was there. We were unpatriotic. Hell we were even deemed worthy of being tried as traitors or having our citizenship revoked by several commenters, who became popular posters here with the open registrations. Never before conservative enough people to come here suddenly were swarming the place and became the new in crowd. They used their buddy system to great effect.
I called it the Obamification of the Republican party. Where they used the same tactics that the worst of the democrat supporters use. Like the SEIU, the Wisconsin Teachers Union thugs.

If you missed that, it was because you were allied with it.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Should be interesting…I can take mitt for 15 minutes…lawd I have to hear John McCain every week.

Least he had the courage to face Obama, unlike our so-called awesome bench.

rubberneck on February 20, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Establishment narrative, circa November 2012: “The economy is so bad, Mitt can’t lose!”

Establishment narrative, circa February 2013: “The economy was so good, Mitt couldn’t win!”

Stoic Patriot on February 20, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Spot on. And absolutely, breathtakingly shameless on their parts, to boot.

Kent18 on February 20, 2013 at 5:30 PM

we wouldn’t be seeing op-eds about repealing the Second Amendment.

(Gov. Romney’s news release, 7/1/2004)

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Gotta love all those purists who couldn’t accept three-quarters of a loaf though.

Murf76 on February 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

So tell me what Romney was going to cut other than Big Bird?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Murf76 on February 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

LOL, you might be right about the sequestration. Instead we would be talking about a new and more conservative spending program! As for the guns? Why would we not be having that conversation, Romney hates guns for the slaves as much as Obama does. Remember, he supported weapon bans.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:32 PM

OMG yes, I was called a traitor if I didn’t vote for him. If I decided to stay home, I was a Democrat who was voting for Obama. I had concerns about Romneycare- I needed to shut it because SCOTUS was going to take care of it anyways. And on and on…

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

LOL, you got off easy. I was called a (and I quote) filthy commie bastard.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 5:36 PM

If you missed that, it was because you were allied with it.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Well, that’s a bit of baseless accusation, sir.

No hard feelings, though.

All I can do is request you take me at my word when I say that I came here of my own desire for the purposes of joining the conversation. And furthermore, I never participated in or supported any kind of nastiness.

I’m an old school Traditional Conservative (Burke, Kirk, et al). I believe that hateful bile has no place in civil discourse.

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:37 PM

^ Oh, and Terrye there attributed my distaste of Romney to the fact that Palin has a nice butt or something. Yeah, the Mittbot thuggery was pretty bad.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Scott Walker, John Kasich and Rick Scott Paul Ryan could not even deliver their his own states but somehow it’s Romney’s fault?

NeoKong on February 20, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Fixed it for you.

bw222 on February 20, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Actually, people voted for Romney in the primaries because he outspent his opponents by a margin of 5 – 1.
bw222 on February 20, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Closer to 7-1. 15-1 in parts of the South. He even outspent Gingrich nearly 2 to 1 in South Carolina, where he lost. Given the money he spent, the closeness and duration of the race was a further poor reflection on his appeal.

rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM

I’m sorry, but if you think Santorum was a great candidate, you’re living in another reality. All the data shows that he appealed most heavily to socially conservative voters…

WolvenOne on February 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM

You mean just as all the data showed that Mitt was the awesomest most electablest EVAH?

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 5:41 PM

You’re deluding yourself if you think either of them would’ve gotten much further, particularly with the war on women raging. Rick Santorum, really? Sure, maybe he’d connect better with working class voters (though apparently not so much in his Senate re-elect…), but he wouldn’t have connected with just about any other group.

changer1701 on February 20, 2013 at 5:28 PM

First, Rick Santorum would have actually fought back against the War on Women. Romney accepted Obama’s premise, and ended up trying to say “See?! I love women! Look at my binders! Look at the ones I pay!” When you’re fighting on the enemy’s terms, you lose. Santorum wouldn’t have been afraid to call it out as a thinly-veiled cover for talking about abortion, and he wouldn’t have hesitated to bring up Obama’s resistance to BAIPA.

Also, the thing about working-class voters is that they also live where you need to win: North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, etc. We’re not going to take California or Massachusetts, so we should stop running candidates geared towards appealing to those states.

Stoic Patriot on February 20, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Santorum …

sauldalinsky on February 20, 2013 at 5:13 PM

(My take …)

Well, Santorum was the runner-up for the 2012 GOP nomination – he still has a lot of conservative support – he’s still a player.

The GOP did not want Santorum to be the nominee because he is conservative (although big-governemnt at times), and when he was leading Romney in the primaries, they spent a lot of time trying to force him to drop out.

But remember, Santorum was the loudest voice against Romney on the RomneyCare/obamacare issue. Santorum is wildly patriotic, solidly pro-life and pro-family, a big defender of the 2nd amendment (and a life-long hunter), pro-business and pro-military, strong on national defense, and he spoke emphatically about securing our borders and enforcing current immigration laws. AND, Santorum was the only one during the primaries, effectively speaking out against radical islam and the danger that islam poses to the U.S..

Really, when it became clear that it was a two-man race between Romney and Santorum, Gingrich should have dropped out (instead of purposely splitting the vote when he knew he was toast) – and Santorum may have won the nomination. And even though some of his conservative social position turn some folks off, he would have been a much better nominee than Romney and would have had a much better chance of beating obama.

Pork-Chop on February 20, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I’m sorry, but if you think Santorum was a great candidate, you’re living in another reality. All the data shows that he appealed most heavily to socially conservative voters…

WolvenOne on February 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Yeah, because socially conservative voters have never been on the winning side of an election. Remember, 2004 never happened.

Stoic Patriot on February 20, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Scott Walker, John Kasich and Rick Scott Paul Ryan could not even deliver their his own states but somehow it’s Romney’s fault?

NeoKong on February 20, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Fixed it for you.

bw222 on February 20, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Hell, Mittens couldn’t deliver either Michigan (his own birth state) OR Massachusetts (the one, sole state in which he’d previously whizzed away a governorship) — !!!

Kent18 on February 20, 2013 at 5:47 PM

The Mitt supporters were relentless bullies; it was ridiculous.

MustLoveBlogs on February 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM

RightWay79 on February 20, 2013 at 5:37 PM

I get your statement. You did not participate. But like many on the left who turn out to support the Wisconsin Teacher’s Union who did not participate in any of the violence and disgusting other activities, they were immune to seeing those activities because they were perpetuated by their allies. I do not recall your name, so I am sure you were not involved in the ugly parts. But if you were able to see the hate on one side and ignore the hate on the other side, i tend to imagine that is because you were more allied with the other group.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM

So….what.
The 2012 loss was all Romney’s fault…?
Really?
Scott Walker, John Kasich and Rick Scott could not even deliver their own states but somehow it’s Romney’s fault?

NeoKong on February 20, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Yeah, it’s Romney’s fault. He was the nominee who was (we were assured) on his way to a win of at least near-landslide proportions. Scott Walker won his state twice in two years, with the union hounds of hell on his tail; Romney/Ryan and Tommy Thompson couldn’t manage it once.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 5:52 PM

The Mitt supporters were relentless bullies; it was ridiculous.

MustLoveBlogs on February 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Yeah, and the ones whining “Leave Mitt alone!!!!” were many of the same ones who made a hobby of dumping on Palin at every mention of her name for the past 4 years.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Romney ran a terrible campaign. I still don’t even know what his message was. He never drilled home how uneployment was only slightly better because peope have given up. And that “EMPLOYMENT” was dramatically worse since Obama took over. And yet “JOBS” was Romney’s theme and message? The lack of mentioning the word Tea Party at the convention. Giving Christie the key note address. The lack of public appearences and interviews. I live in a battle ground state and I can’t remember 1 comercial. I almost can’t even remember the campaign there was so little of it.

KMav on February 20, 2013 at 5:54 PM

kingsjester on February 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Beat me to it with the list. :)

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Anyways, Romney is Romney, I could give a rats ass about him now. The only problem I have, and I got squirreled from it, is that CPAC is giving someone like him a platform to spread his progressive views from.

Time for them to rebrand andbe honest about who they are. The Republican Establishment Political Action Committee of Knaves. REPACK

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 5:55 PM

He needs to speak first so they can say: “This is an example of the PROBLEM people we need to replace.”

michaelo on February 20, 2013 at 5:59 PM

OMG yes, I was called a traitor if I didn’t vote for him. If I decided to stay home, I was a Democrat who was voting for Obama. I had concerns about Romneycare- I needed to shut it because SCOTUS was going to take care of it anyways. And on and on…

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

LOL, you got off easy. I was called a (and I quote) filthy commie bastard.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Don’t forget the constant barrage of “If you don’t immediately drop to both knees and pay Him all due homage, you’re just a lousy, stinking anti-Mormon BIGOT!” spewings from the harpies of Mittens’ online shill squadron. Those didn’t do their anointed appointed candidate any favors, either.

Kent18 on February 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM

I know literally no one who idolized Mitt Romney.

LukeinNE on February 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

You know I’ve changed my mind. Mitt Romney looks more like Don Draper from Mad Men or Don Draper’s “non-drinking, non- smoking, faithful to his wife” older brother.

And if you’ve never had a man speak French to you, don’t knock it until then….it’s is very sexy….and I don’t really care if that makes me a RINO to HA.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 8:12 PM

steebo77 on February 20, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Kent18 on February 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Funny thing is a lot of the Mittwits crying “anti-Mormon bigot!” at the drop of a hat were the same ones who oozed anti-Catholicism when Santorum was riding high.

steebo77 on February 20, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Christie a centrist? Please Allah, don’t make me laugh, I have chapped lips. Christie aint got a shot in h*ll with most conservatives I know and is one of this twisted losing Republican Establishment’s darlings. Romney was not right for me, Christie certainly isn’t and unfortunately neither is this article.

Tangerinesong on February 20, 2013 at 6:04 PM

No one, I think, disagrees with the proposition that the GOP has big problems and that those problems are bigger than Romney.

The biggest problem facing the GOP is the lack of competent pundits. The guy who wrote the above quote is Exhibit A.

Basilsbest on February 20, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Are we all enjoying Round Two of the Obama presidency so much then? lol

Right now, Romney wouldn’t have time to spare for non-economic subjects like gun control. He’d be too busy trying to take the pacifier out of the mouths of socialist Democrats. And really, if one is making the argument that the guy is a political windsock, where’s the public will to repeal the Second Amendment? Sheesh.

Murf76 on February 20, 2013 at 6:06 PM

forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist child

Dennis D on February 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM

You claim to be a conservative, but seem to have problems seeing the pro-life perspective here. Isn’t the baby also the mother’s child? I know it wasn’t desired, but it is a family member by blood. A simple DNA test would prove that. And is elimination a valid way of removing embarrassing family members? (Hmmm…) And why is it ok to punish a third party witness to a crime? And how will killing a third party make the victim feel better about what happened? Just asking some questions to stimulate some thought…

dominigan on February 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Interesting, a Romney thread gets the left column honor… And with a measly 172 comments.

Sharr on February 20, 2013 at 6:12 PM

I know literally no one who idolized Mitt Romney.

LukeinNE on February 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Romney had absolutely 0 conservative accomplishments in politics his entire life. Anyone supporting him in the Republican party either are stupid or they idolized him, meaning he was given greater than actually earned status.
Hell he even voted for Democrats. He ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy! Seriously, people do not understand this stuff or is it that you just refuse to face reality?

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Christie a centrist? Please Allah, don’t make me laugh, I have chapped lips. Christie aint got a shot in h*ll with most conservatives I know and is one of this twisted losing Republican Establishment’s darlings. Romney was not right for me, Christie certainly isn’t and unfortunately neither is this article.

Tangerinesong on February 20, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Nor are “Rubio, Jindal, Ryan, Christie et al.” the “GOP leadership” in any meaningful sense of the term. The GOP “leadership” consists of the Rove types; otherwise it’s pretty much rudderless. Conservatives have leaders, and all those AP mentioned with the exception of Jindal (for whom I and other conservatives have great respect) are not on that list.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

I would have gotten probably 30 people to the polls to vote for Romney if he would have offered one rock solid conservative achievement as his offering.
asteronii
and therein lies why we lost. So how’s that working out for you? How was Romney not conservative enogh? Was being the ONLY candidate in 50 years who promised to cut entitlements? How about having the stones to pick Paul Ryan as his running mate? Hey you morons who didn’t pitch in to help win- enjoy the fruits of your labors.
This is why the country is done. When “conservatives’ pine for a man who fought for global warming tax and disdained capitalism (Gingrich) or another who had NO conservative acheivements outside the pro-life field (Santorum)
Enjoy the decline, losers.

drballard on February 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Thats right. Beat up on our most recent nominee. I used to think I was a conservative. But I suppose I do not agree with citizens armed with machine guns and forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist child. I suppose after decades of considering myself conservative I must now adopt the centrist moderate label.

Dennis D on February 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM

I generally wouldn’t call you a conservative either. Especially considering that you are repeating uninformed, ignorant, uneducated leftist talking points about conservatives.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

and therein lies why we lost. So how’s that working out for you?

drballard on February 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

How’s it working out for YOU? The guy says he voted for Romney. What else was he supposed to do, mimic your pimping routine?

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Why don’t these people ever just go away? Is he going to hold himself up as the prime example of how not to run a campaign? Other than that, he doesn’t have anything else to add to the national debate, whatever that is.

Kissmygrits on February 20, 2013 at 6:17 PM

I must now adopt the centrist moderate label.

Dennis D on February 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Which, according to centrist moderates, is no label at all.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 6:17 PM

OMG yes, I was called a traitor if I didn’t vote for him. If I decided to stay home, I was a Democrat who was voting for Obama. I had concerns about Romneycare- I needed to shut it because SCOTUS was going to take care of it anyways. And on and on…

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

LOL, you got off easy. I was called a (and I quote) filthy commie bastard.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I think I was called a terrorist.

Good times. The Romneybots were, without a doubt, the most obnoxious commenters of those who claim to be in the center.

INC on February 20, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Good deal to see Gov. Romney speaking at CPAC..:)

Dire Straits on February 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM

This is why the country is done. When “conservatives’ pine for a man who fought for global warming tax and disdained capitalism (Gingrich) or another who had NO conservative acheivements outside the pro-life field (Santorum)
Enjoy the decline, losers.

drballard on February 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

LOL, and Romney was a mixture of both. Ironic.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I think I was called a terrorist.

Good times. The Romneybots were, without a doubt, the most obnoxious commenters of those who claim to be in the center.

INC on February 20, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Yeah, it got to be pretty bad in here after those two open-registration periods. I’ve never attacked Romney personally as a human being. But boy, the slime that was being thrown at Perry, Gingrich and Santorum.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 6:21 PM

How was Romney not conservative enogh?

Name his conservative accomplishments and we could make a judgment about that.

Many have asked for them…no one ever tells us what they were.

Was being the ONLY candidate in 50 years who promised to cut entitlements?

And my campaign has made it very clear: the President’s cuts of $716 billion to Medicare, those cuts are going to be restored if I become President and Paul Ryan becomes Vice President. – Mitt Romney

When “conservatives’ pine for a man who fought for global warming tax

‘I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.’- Mitt Romney

Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

and disdained capitalism

No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work. – Mitt Romney

who had NO conservative acheivements outside the pro-life field (Santorum)
Enjoy the decline, losers.

drballard on February 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

You were going to tell us about Romney’s conservative achievements.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 6:22 PM

and therein lies why we lost. So how’s that working out for you? How was Romney not conservative enogh? Was being the ONLY candidate in 50 years who promised to cut entitlements? How about having the stones to pick Paul Ryan as his running mate? Hey you morons who didn’t pitch in to help win- enjoy the fruits of your labors.
This is why the country is done. When “conservatives’ pine for a man who fought for global warming tax and disdained capitalism (Gingrich) or another who had NO conservative acheivements outside the pro-life field (Santorum)
Enjoy the decline, losers.

drballard on February 20, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Does not hurt me one bit really. Only if Obama starts a shooting war will I find myself not feeling so hot about things. That is the only reason i decided to vote Romney. Then again, I think Obama will not start that war after all.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Great!!!
Willard can lead a panel discussion on Learning to Love Obamneycare and other conservative topics.

james23 on February 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Yeah, it got to be pretty bad in here after those two open-registration periods. I’ve never attacked Romney personally as a human being. But boy, the slime that was being thrown at Perry, Gingrich and Santorum.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Oh yes, I forgot what they called Perry, but I do remember the Gingrich left his wife while she had cancer- sweater vest comments. And then didn’t they say some nasty things about Santorum’s little girl Bella as well. It was like being at the Huff Post or the Daily Kos for awhile except it was friendly fire..

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 6:26 PM

But – PALIN, WEST, Walker, Rand Paul, Santorum and Wayne LaPierre … (and others) should be enough to excite conservatives.

Pork-Chop on February 20, 2013 at 4:29 PM

I agree. It’s a disgrace that our candidate from 2012 should speak at CPAC, but very exciting that the quitter who wouldn’t run against Romney and the guy who lost to Romney in the primary after making himself a national laughing stock over contraception will be there.

Can’t wait.

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 6:26 PM

I know literally no one who idolized Mitt Romney.

LukeinNE on February 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

That is a sign of the last days and you are fullfill [sic] it. You call [...] Mitt bad.

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 1:15 AM

You refuse to believe the only honest man in this race [...] You can stop now… and just trust the decency of Mitt Romney [...] he never really lies about anything.

petunia on January 30, 2012 at 1:15 AM & 1:29 AM

*cough*cough*

Kent18 on February 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

INC on February 20, 2013 at 6:17 PM

I always liked the term Mittwitts better.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Er, how does Romney intend to “contribute to the national debate”? Apart from occasional guest shots on Fox News, what platform does he have?

Good point..But I applaud him for making an effort..:)

Dire Straits on February 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM

always liked the term Mittwitts better.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

:)

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Is that what we became after the primary???…I was wondering..:)

PS..Good evening..Hope all is going well..:)

Dire Straits on February 20, 2013 at 6:30 PM

2016 plans?

lester on February 20, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Just go live your life in peace with your wonderful family Mr. Romney.

tom daschle concerned on February 20, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Forgot that one!

INC on February 20, 2013 at 6:33 PM

2016 plans?

lester on February 20, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Jeb Bush, Rubio, and/or Christie.

It’s gonna be great!!!

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I agree. It’s a disgrace that our candidate from 2012 should speak at CPAC, but very exciting that the quitter who wouldn’t run against Romney and the guy who lost to Romney in the primary after making himself a national laughing stock over contraception will be there.

Can’t wait.

Mr. Arkadin on February 20, 2013 at 6:26 PM

The quitter?

Well I see that Mittwits continue to emulate the Daily Kos..:)

idesign on February 20, 2013 at 6:34 PM

The quitter?

Well I see that Mittwits continue to emulate the Daily Kos..:)

idesign on February 20, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Well she did quite the Governorship, but then we had to watch Mitt quit campaigning right in the middle of the election so I guess the GOP is rife with quitters. :)

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7