Romney: It was an exciting roller coaster ride, but the ride ends

posted at 12:41 pm on March 1, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Last week, we learned that we’ll be hearing from Mitt Romney at CPAC on March 15, but in the meantime, Fox News snagged the Romneys’ first post-election interview to air this Sunday.


I’m inclined to agree with Byron York here: There’s a lot of residual anger out there over the shortcomings of Romney’s campaign machinery, but unseating an incumbent is also tough even in the best of circumstances. He bowed out gracefully from the public eye for awhile, took some time to reflect and let things simmer down, and I’m interested to hear what he has to say and further examine our mistakes.

Of course, Romney and his aides worked hard, but they were outplayed on many fronts by an Obama campaign that knew how to win.

A lot of the criticism directed at Romney is valid. He and his top advisers did make a lot of mistakes, big and small. But for a moment, perhaps, Republicans should appreciate one thing about Mitt Romney. After he lost, he has not disgraced himself and his party. And that is a lot more than can be said of the previous Republican presidential campaign. …

Romney lost and kept his mouth shut for a respectable period of time. His team hasn’t engaged in unseemly finger-pointing. And by staying out of the picture, he has allowed his party to begin the job of fixing its problems. Even in a bad situation, that’s still something to be thankful for.

Sidebar: I think David Weigel had a fantastic idea over at Slate for a way in which post-presidential candidate Mitt Romney could contribute to the national dialogue. The guy basically ran on his resume of solid business sense and managerial know-how; can I second that we give Detroit to Mitt Romney? The city is currently a hot mess of financial chaos, and it’s looking likely that Gov. Snyder is going to follow through on the state law that gives him the option to hire a fiscal-crisis emergency manager. Late in the game of the 2012 campaign, Team Obama started hitting Romney hard by purposefully misrepresenting his now-infamous 2008 “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” op-ed, and although in this case we’re now talking about the municipality rather that the auto industry, how much of a sweetly glorious yet highly productive poke-in-the-eye would it be if Romney took over the city’s finances and managed to pull them back from the fiscal brink?


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

Romney was The Only Electable Alternative ™ and The Only One Who Can Beat Obama ™ ever since 2009.
ddrintn on March 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Your perception..Not mine..:)

Dire Straits on March 2, 2013 at 9:14 PM

That wasn’t the perception, that was the mantric sales pitch, and you know it.

ddrintn on March 2, 2013 at 9:18 PM

..for all the rancor at Mitt here because he lost, …

The War Planner on March 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM

By the way, I don’t think the “rancor” is toward Romney so much as the stooges who tried to convince everyone how super-electable he was and how anyone else was a joke.

ddrintn on March 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM

ddrintn on March 2, 2013 at 9:18 PM

LoLz..Anybody that was showing interest in running for the GOP nomination had the same opportunity..:)

Dire Straits on March 2, 2013 at 9:32 PM

ddrintn on March 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM

That’s my take as well.

rrpjr on March 2, 2013 at 10:52 PM

By the way, I don’t think the “rancor” is toward Romney so much as the stooges who tried to convince everyone how super-electable he was and how anyone else was a joke.

ddrintn on March 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM

No one ever said “super-electable”. Only that he was more viable than Gingrich or Santorum.

Making up facts that aren’t true belies the weakness of your position.

That’s my take as well.

rrpjr on March 2, 2013 at 10:52 PM

And you’re as wrong as ddrintin.

That none of you can argue your case honestly with just the facts shows why you were rejected during the primaries.

Alberta_Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Please Mittens go away, you have done your part according to the know it all talking heads as being the most electable “NOT”!!!!!!!!
At least Sarah would have fought tooth and nail to the bitter end to beat the sorry excuse for a President that got re-elected. What this party does not need is advise from you,Mclame or any of the so called inside the beltway “we know how to win” and can’t we just compromise and get along in order move forward crowd!!!!!!!
STFU dude and go away, Thank you.

2eagles on March 3, 2013 at 8:58 AM

I too think Mitt should STFU and drop off the tube! Mitt was picked to lose and he was too dull to figure it out. I can’t imagine a bigger fool than Mitt who had nothing to do but campaign for the WH for 10 years and yet let himself be played like a dunce. In the long run we are better off w/o him in the WH and maybe his loss will finally either destroy the GOPe or bring about a real American Political Party!

el Vaquero on March 3, 2013 at 9:15 AM

That none of you can argue your case honestly with just the facts shows why you were rejected during the primaries.

Alberta_Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 11:52 PM

A cheap shot in the dying throes of a thread. The “case” made above is not about why others were rejected but about the rancor on the Right and, by extension, the reasons Romney was rejected. To suggest that the argument for Romney’s “electability” wasn’t made in the most insistent and superlative terms and “others” weren’t gratuitously trashed is ludicrous. In any event, Romney wasn’t extremely electable or slightly electable or even electable at all (and whether he was “more” electable than the others is unprovable), so your argument is a loser regardless. Just like Romney.

rrpjr on March 3, 2013 at 9:56 AM

rrpjr on March 3, 2013 at 9:56 AM

No one promised the things you think they did about Romney. Someone having to slow things down and use small words in order to get someone of your intellect to understand isn’t the same thing as “superlative”.

By your asinine and stupid logic, if two battleships get into a fight and one sinks, then it wasn’t really a battleship.

Also by your retarded logic, all the not-romneys were even less electable. Unlike everyone that you supported, Romney won the primaries. Everyone that you supported lost. Ergo, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Herr Doktor Paul and even the blessed Saint Sarah herself are all unelectable.

There were a number of incidents that influenced the election that no one could have predicted. If Romney had gotten one of his people to moderate the 2nd debate instead of someone from Obamas Atlanta media office, Romney would have won. If superstorm Sandy had expended itself in the middle of the Atlantic, Romney would have won (Obama ass-kisser in chief, Chrissie Mathews even said it was the storm that won the election, not anything Obama or Romney did). If Chris Christie hadn’t thrown away the White House in exchange for a phone call from Bruce Springsteen, Romney would have won.

And then there’s you. You mindless, spiteful, spoiled children who would rather see the Republic dissolved, its people driven into poverty and despair and the Earth succumb to a new dark age than to see Romney in the White House. You who continued bitterly campaigning against your candidate from the moment the last primary closed until November 6th. You… may well have lost the election, not Mitt Romney.

Thanks for nothing, assholes.

Alberta_Patriot on March 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM

No one ever said “super-electable”. Only that he was more viable than Gingrich or Santorum.

Making up facts that aren’t true belies the weakness of your position.

Alberta_Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Oh, bullshit. The only reason Romney was at all competitive was due to years of “super-electable” propaganda crap.

Also by your retarded logic, all the not-romneys were even less electable. Unlike everyone that you supported, Romney won the primaries. Everyone that you supported lost. Ergo, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Herr Doktor Paul and even the blessed Saint Sarah herself are all unelectable.

Alberta_Patriot on March 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM

We don’t know if any of those were less electable than Romney. And Palin didn’t run. What we do know is that contrary to all the crapola and propaganda, Romney was unelectable. The “field” had been pretty well-prepared with “Romney’s the only serious candidate” crap for the previous 3 years, which is one reason that Romney had only GOP third-stringers to contend with…and had problems even getting past them.

Thanks for nothing, a$$holes.

Alberta_Patriot on March 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Which is what we tell the ‘bots and the feckless GOPe ever single day.

ddrintn on March 3, 2013 at 6:58 PM

There were a number of incidents that influenced the election that no one could have predicted. If Romney had gotten one of his people to moderate the 2nd debate instead of someone from Obamas Atlanta media office, Romney would have won. If superstorm Sandy had expended itself in the middle of the Atlantic, Romney would have won (Obama ass-kisser in chief, Chrissie Mathews even said it was the storm that won the election, not anything Obama or Romney did). If Chris Christie hadn’t thrown away the White House in exchange for a phone call from Bruce Springsteen, Romney would have won.

Delusional. Romney trailed pretty much throughout.

And then there’s you. You mindless, spiteful, spoiled children who would rather see the Republic dissolved…

Alberta_Patriot on March 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM

By the way, just about all of us voted for Mr Electable. A$$hole.

ddrintn on March 3, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Thanks for nothing, assholes.

Alberta_Patriot on March 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Yes, the parting shot (it is parting, yes?). What a surprise. The irony and projection are too thick to cut: as if we’re the ones who beat the drum for this loser.

The rest is the frantic gibberish of denial. We have no way of knowing how any of the other candidates would have perfomed if they’d had Romney’s money to buy the primaries, but we know this — they couldn’t have done worse.

For the last three years all I said about Romney was that he would never beat Obama. More broadly, “Romney would never defeat a Leftist.” Each time I said it I gave logical, substantive reasons and offered insight into the strategies and patterns of the Left and how Romney was the least suitable candidate to face them. I cited his past political history, his experience with Ted Kennedy, the fact he has never changed or adapted to new realities as a candidate, that he has never attracted really good or smart people around him, and the fact that he was simply, unregenerately clueless about the nature and practices of the Left (indeed, inherently unable to do anything about it EVEN IF he could be made aware). Many others said as much. However, I still donated to him, voted for him, and even defended him on many forums.

We were stone cold right. The debate is over. The only “facts” history will care about are all in. He lost, 1. by proving to be exactly the candidate we predicted, 2. by making no effort to learn about the Left and adapt, and 3. by running the exact sorry campaign we predicted. A sad and agonizing ordeal, a truly tragic lost opportunity.

That’s it. Figure it out and maybe we can avoid this self-inflicted torture next time.

rrpjr on March 3, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Alberta_Patriot on March 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM

He lost. Just as anybody with a knowledge of who he was and who the Left was could have clearly seen from miles and years away. That’s all this is about.

rrpjr on March 3, 2013 at 8:52 PM

slow things down and use small words in order to get someone of your intellect to understand

[...]

your asinine and stupid logic

[...]

your retarded logic

[...]

You mindless, spiteful, spoiled children

[...]

assholes.

Alberta_Patriot on March 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Maybe Mitt lost because of the caliber of his ambassadors to the electorate. Ever stop to ponder that?

steebo77 on March 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

He lost. Just as anybody with a knowledge of who he was and who the Left was could have clearly seen from miles and years away. That’s all this is about.

rrpjr on March 3, 2013 at 8:52 PM

.

And you still sit there with no explanation for an alternative- a very safe position for you- no?

I’d rather have the conviction of standing by my vote for Romney/ Ryan – than find some comfort in maintaining allegiance to some invisible or non- existent candidate who could never be in a position to lose to the Messiah.

Romney wasn’t your guy. BFD.
Your guy probably lost much earlier on in the process. BFD.

Get over it.

FlaMurph on March 3, 2013 at 11:50 PM

Maybe Mitt lost because of the caliber of his ambassadors to the electorate. Ever stop to ponder that?

steebo77 on March 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

I learned from you people.

Alberta_Patriot on March 4, 2013 at 12:32 AM

For Romney to do as well as he did against the Messiah, is incredible. I personally (in hindsight) think that no one would have stood a chance against Obama and my heartfelt thanks go out to the Romney’s for their tireless efforts. I hope that we conservatives can survive the damage this president is inflicting. He is still campaigning against the right and building hurtful dialogue to pave the course to further government takeover in 2014 and 2016 while we sit aside still talking about whether or not Romney could have done more.

Meanwhile DHS stockpiles, guns, ammo and now tanks… stay tuned…

leftophobe on March 4, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Romney wasn’t your guy. BFD.
Your guy probably lost much earlier on in the process. BFD.

Get over it.

FlaMurph on March 3, 2013 at 11:50 PM

This party is being destroyed by a lack of imagination. The issue isn’t “my guy” or “your guy.” It’s how you fight the Left.

And the best and only way to “get over it” is to understand both the nature and urgency of this fight and find candidates who can act on it. Until that happens, not getting over it should be a point of principle. Because, you know, that old “history repeats itself” business.

I find it interesting how the story of this campaign is devolving from “Romney is supremely electable and doesn’t even need the base” to “Romney was the best alternative and the derelict base is why he lost.” My response to that is, 1. BS. I lived through it and know better. 2. if the GOP cultivated a warlike spirit and a comprehension of the Left we wouldn’t be stuck with the truly and bizarrely useless Romneys of this world, and 3. If any of the other candidates hadn’t been outspent 7:1 and had their own GOP institutional support maybe they could have bought the primaries themselves, and 4. None of the other candidates could have possibly done worse.

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 12:48 PM

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 12:48 PM

.
So who was your guy ?

C’mon – be honest……..

FlaMurph on March 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3