Video: The Romneys interview

posted at 8:41 am on March 4, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Allahpundit highlighted a significant portion of Chris Wallace’s interview with Mitt Romney in last night’s QOTD, but the interview with both Mitt and Ann Romney is also worth a watch and its own post.  Some of this came out ahead of its air date yesterday, such as Ann Romney’s joking aside that she was “happy to blame the media” for the loss.  She also expresses frustration with the Romney campaign, which she and her son Tagg felt was too constrictive for the candidate.  Ann also attacked the Obama campaign for its “unfair” depiction of her husband.

Ann also scotches the rumors that the Massachusetts GOP approached her to run for John Kerry’s open Senate seat.  No one approached her, Ann says, although she also heard the speculation about the supposedly “fun” idea.  No one asked her if she thought it would be fun, and said there was no way she’d have ever agreed to run.

The Corner picks up on another part of the Mitt-only interview dealing with the primary fight.  Unlike most commentators, Romney doesn’t feel that the “long and blistering primary” made him any more conservative:

“The idea that somehow . . . the primary made me become more conservative than I was just isn’t accurate,” Romney said on Fox News Sunday. Instead, the “long and blistering primary” led to a series of attacks that he believed created an “unfavorable impression” of him.

Romney also criticized the debates, saying that sometimes there were “questions that are kind of silly, that end up hurting you in the general” election. He specifically highlighted the instance when GOP candidates were asked if they would accept a deal that had a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

Two thoughts on that topic.  First, many supporters of other candidates in the primary will argue that the “blistering” aspect of the primary had its source in Team Romney, which laid on the negative campaigning rather thickly in the months leading up to the actual primaries and caucus events.  No one will forget the heavy-handed attacks on Newt Gingrich, at least, as soon as his star began to rise after a debate in North Carolina.  That doesn’t mean that Romney’s wrong about the problem, but just seems to suggest that he didn’t contribute to it.

Romney’s right about the debates, too, but only to a certain point.  The questions in the debates were intended to tear down the candidates, but Republicans will have to expect that as long as they continue to insist on pairing with media outlets for the debates.  They can stage these debates themselves and narrowcast them on the Internet and invite C-SPAN to televise them, and then choose moderators that will focus on real issues rather than contraception and the latest TV ads.  Until the GOP makes up its mind to do that, Republican candidates will have to endure the freak-show moderation and game-show formats imposed on them by the mainstream media.


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

Dont you love it when Ed filters Athiests’ threads??? I do!!

Eph on March 4, 2013 at 8:50 AM

I’m surprised that Chris didn’t get them to “embrace” the GOP’s new found gaydar.

Eph on March 4, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Hear hear Ed…ya think RNC is listening?

No more lib moderators

cmsinaz on March 4, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Dont you love it when Ed filters Athiests’ threads??? I do!!

Eph on March 4, 2013 at 8:50 AM

I haven’t been in that thread at all. Jazz wrote it, and I assume Jazz was keeping up with comments issues. Also, what does that have to do with this topic?

Ed Morrissey on March 4, 2013 at 9:01 AM

“The idea that somehow . . . the primary made me become more conservative than I was just isn’t accurate,” Romney said on Fox News Sunday. Instead, the “long and blistering primary” led to a series of attacks that he believed created an “unfavorable impression” of him.

The more he talks the more I question my support of him. “Long and blistering”……

….YOU IDIOT. You ran off to Europe, you let those Mitt Romney killed my wife ads run and you partied around at your lake house on your freaking jet ski and YOU LET YOURSELF BE DEFINED by Obama.

But the worst part, YOU STILL HAD A CHANCE. You knocked it out of the park and you had a 6-7 point Gallup poll lead and then you just went all passive McCain in the 2nd and 3rd debates and agreed with the President on almost EVERYTHING. And you let the whole BENGHAZI gift that had been handed to you turn into a big nothing burger.

MITT Romney, HIMSELF lost the election and now he and his wife can sit there and yuck it up with their secure ruling class lifestyle and hundreds of millions while we in the serf class get to pay high prices, have thousands of illegals on the streets we didn’t have last week and have to come up with the money to pay for braces, clothes for our kids and all the other “stuff” that makes up life.

I don’t begrudge the prosperity you enjoy Mr. Romney but plllllllllllllllllllllllease spare us the “you had it ssssso supppper toughy wuffy” crap.

Me………..loathe………..the gop.

PappyD61 on March 4, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Please, please just go away Romney. We have enough libs. Keep on toting that water Ed. I really hope the GOP continues embracing and pushing Romney and Romney types, they’ll surely help with putting an end to the GOP.

air_up_there on March 4, 2013 at 9:02 AM

He specifically highlighted the instance when GOP candidates were asked if they would accept a deal that had a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

Nah, not the worst by far.

The snivelling little Clinton bootlicker who jumpstarted the “War on Women” meme takes that crown.

mudskipper on March 4, 2013 at 9:05 AM

……..and one other thing.

Mr. Romney, you had NO PROBLEM trying to destroy the gop field during the primary at every turn.

…..but just like your Progressive 2008 Nominee you seemed to lose all that “killer instinct” when you ran against the DOTUS.

Pathetic.

1,000th message to the gop and the rnc:

I want a freaking nominee with some testicles, that’s not afraid to WIN!!!
I want a freaking nominee with some testicles, that’s not afraid to WIN!!!
I want a freaking nominee with some testicles, that’s not afraid to WIN!!!
I want a freaking nominee with some testicles, that’s not afraid to WIN!!!
I want a freaking nominee with some testicles, that’s not afraid to WIN!!!
I want a freaking nominee with some testicles, that’s not afraid to WIN!!!
I want a freaking nominee with some testicles, that’s not afraid to WIN!!!
I want a freaking nominee with some testicles, that’s not afraid to WIN!!!

PappyD61 on March 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Mitt tossed away the election, trying to be Mister Nice Guy while Obama’s team played for keeps. Sometimes it truly felt like Mitt didn’t want the job, leaving many Republicans holding their noses and closing their eyes while they pulled the lever for him. Sadly, Rove and his crew are willing to send another just like Mitt the next time around–if there’s a next time, that is.

The only good thing of the interview that I heard, since I don’t watch squishes, is Ann Romney’s tweak of blaming the media. Joke or not, it has the MSM cabal feeling insulted. Good!

Liam on March 4, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Mr. Electability was above the dirt his team was shoveling during the primary campaign?

Sure…and I have a ginormous oil well in my backyard I’m looking to sell cheap.

workingclass artist on March 4, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Your 9:02am post was spot on, PappyD61.

The “long and blistering primary” is intended to winnow the field, Gov. Romney. It is intended to sharpen a candidate’s message in order to appeal to and resonate with potential voters.

If you were deft on your feet, Gov. Romney, you could have turned the loaded questions in the debates and the campaign itself into attacks against the current president, not those others vying as nominees. As it was, you never presented your own positions clearly and with conviction.

onlineanalyst on March 4, 2013 at 9:16 AM

I know Mitt doesn’t have many fans on this site, but watching that interview reminded me that he & his family are decent, moral, patriotic people and, though he definitely wasn’t the Next Reagan, he would have been 1000x the president than is the bitter, egotistical, vengeful, socialist amateur that occupies the White House now.

KS Rex on March 4, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Romney, greatest executive in history. Most awesome mind to ever run for president. The single most electable person on the planet. Smartest man in the room. Courageously blames his honorable competition for his failures!

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM

I know Mitt doesn’t have many fans on this site, but watching that interview reminded me that he & his family are decent, moral, patriotic people and, though he definitely wasn’t the Next Reagan, he would have been 1000x the president than is the bitter, egotistical, vengeful, socialist amateur that occupies the White House now.

KS Rex on March 4, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Or in my words. He would have been 2% differentiated from Obama on policy, but he would be doing it because he really believed it would help, not because he knew it would harm.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Mitt, Obastard’s team called you a out of touch, rich, tax cheating, vulture capitalist who actually killed a guys wife, and the whole time you sucked your thumb. That’s why you lost!

Thomas More on March 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Some of this came out ahead of its air date yesterday, such as Ann Romney’s joking aside that she was “happy to blame the media” for the loss. She also expresses frustration with the Romney campaign, which she and her son Tagg felt was too constrictive for the candidate. Ann also attacked the Obama campaign for its “unfair” depiction of her husband.

Well why didn’t they do something about all of that? Ok, Ann and Tagg reportedly took the reigns from Stu Stevens as the campaign wore on, but they could’ve done it sooner. They didn’t have to allow the dude to completely neuter Romney and the rest of the convention speakers. They came out of that thing with almost no bounce which is inexcusable. Even sh-tty conventions give the candidate a temporary boost in the polls(Bush in 1992 anyone?).

Also, why blame the media now? Like it wasn’t obvious years ago that they were in the tank for Obama and the Dems? Did the Romneys not see the traction Newt got in the primaries when he went after the debate moderators? Shoot, that alone nearly won him the nomination. Think of how fired up the base would’ve been had they seen even half that aggressiveness from the Romney campaign.

Regarding the unfair depiction of Mitt, again why complain about it now? I get that you didn’t want the campaign constantly reacting to the smear tactics of Obama and his cronies, but that doesn’t mean you completely shrug it off or merely make a passing reference to it. Turn the tables on Obama. Make a public statement demanding he disavow those disgusting TV ads(i.e. the cancer spot) and the remarks made by campaign surrogates(i.e. the felon comment from Cutter). Force him to either throw his own people under the bus or remain silent in which case you then can insinuate he agrees with that slime.

I don’t know. I like the Romneys. And I wish they were in the White House right now. And despite many problems I had with Mitt’s positions on various issues, I still enthusiastically voted for him(and Paul Ryan) last November. But these kinds of comments make it sound like it was amateur hour over at the Romney headquarters.

Doughboy on March 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Romney forgot to get the vote out.

albill on March 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM

he definitely wasn’t the Next Reagan, he would have been 1000x the president than is the bitter, egotistical, vengeful, socialist amateur that occupies the White House now.

KS Rex on March 4, 2013 at 9:17 AM

But he is not. Nor should he have been the nominee.

katy the mean old lady on March 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM

I know Mitt doesn’t have many fans on this site, but watching that interview reminded me that he & his family are decent, moral, patriotic people and, though he definitely wasn’t the Next Reagan, he would have been 1000x the president than is the bitter, egotistical, vengeful, socialist amateur that occupies the White House now.

KS Rex on March 4, 2013 at 9:17 AM

I couldn’t agree with you more. The Romney-haters somehow seem to think that Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum would somehow be more electable even though both of them couldn’t even get organized enough to get on the primary ballot in Virginia (where both of them live).

The worst kind of parasite that got the rat-eared wonder a second term are the people who proudly didn’t vote for Mitt Romney because “there was no difference between the two candidates.” That couldn’t be further from the truth and anybody who makes that claim is as much a moron as a parasite.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM

But he is not. Nor should he have been the nominee.

katy the mean old lady on March 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Well then katy, who should have been? I’m sick and tired of people making the comment you make without some logic behind it who would have done better in the general election. Certainly not Santorum or Gingrich.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:26 AM

But these kinds of comments make it sound like it was amateur hour over at the Romney headquarters.

Doughboy on March 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM

It has always been known Romney’s campaigning is amateur and ineffectual against any real opposition. The only reason he won the primary was because he had help from the supposedly right of center media outlets, such as Hot Air. It is like they enjoy the attention they get while Obama is in office or Romney has some chips on the sidelines that he could call in at just the right (prior to Florida) time.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:26 AM

“The idea that somehow . . . the primary made me become more conservative than I was just isn’t accurate,” Romney said on Fox News Sunday. Instead, the “long and blistering primary” led to a series of attacks that he believed created an “unfavorable impression” of him.

Yet another idea out the window. I seem to remember reading that a primary that at least tests the candidates should at least push Romney to the right. Apparently that never happened.

One reason less to support Republican moderates in the future.

Aitch748 on March 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Well then katy, who should have been? I’m sick and tired of people making the comment you make without some logic behind it who would have done better in the general election. Certainly not Santorum or Gingrich.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:26 AM

I take it you actually watched that pitiful campaign? Hell, any one of the primary contenders would have made more or an effort. Well, maybe not Mabel Huntsman. Next time we should get a nominee who actually wants the job.

katy the mean old lady on March 4, 2013 at 9:29 AM

0bama has been ready since 2007 to run against Romney. Romney didn’t have a plan for overcoming that.

Sekhmet on March 4, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Certainly not Santorum or Gingrich.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Gingrich would have done better than Romney. Not only that, he would have propelled the vote in the right direction for getting us the Senate at the same time. Newt Runs campaigns of ideas that coalesce and inspire. He would have had something concrete for conservatives to hold onto, in something similar to the Contract with America. He would not have been hesitant to attack the media or Obama. When Obama and the moderator colluded together do you think he would have just let it slide and allow himself to look bad? Dream on. That would have been a bounce and hold in the making.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:32 AM

watching that interview reminded me that he & his family are decent, moral, patriotic people

KS Rex on March 4, 2013 at 9:17 AM

So is most everybody on this site. A meaningless appellation in politics. Romney was a hemophiliac bubble-boy in the bloodsport of politics. Wrong man, wrong line of work, wrong time. Epically, utterly, world-beatingly wrong.

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM

I couldn’t agree with you more. The Romney-haters somehow seem to think that Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum would somehow be more electable even though both of them couldn’t even get organized enough to get on the primary ballot in Virginia (where both of them live).

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM

I do think there were better candidates out there who chose not to run. Mitch Daniels IMO would’ve done better since the whole “evil rich guy” smear campaign wouldn’t have worked. But from the ones who were in the 2012 field, Romney was definitely the best.

I’ll recap it again for the 100th time, but who would’ve been better? Bachmann had no resume and was just running to boost her national profile. Pawlenty couldn’t even make it past the Iowa straw poll. Huntsman was a joke. Cain was woefully unprepared on foreign policy and had a potentially fatal personal history. Perry was a disaster at the debates. Newt had so much personal baggage that he would’ve been toxic with women voters, even married ones who lean Republican. And Santorum was way too willing to fall into the trap of focusing on social issues when the economy and jobs were foremost on everyone’s minds. And can you imagine what kind of damage Todd Achin’s remarks would’ve done had Santorum been the nominee? No, that’s not entirely fair to Rick, but them’s the breaks.

The key to 2016 is to ensure that we have a solid field of candidates to choose from. And do everything possible to dissuade worthless people like Jeb Bush or Chris CRISTie from running.

Doughboy on March 4, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Are you guys really that stupid to believe that Democrats, given half a chance to cheat, would allow fair-and-square counting of the votes? GET THE COMPUTERS OUT OF ELECTIONS! Or, at least, demand full, verified publication of the code. Until then, stock up on lubricants and prepare to take it in the ass every four years, until Justice Scalia retires, and then it won’t even matter.

Archivarix on March 4, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Now that we have been forced to support two RINO’S in a row, GOP, lets nominate AND SUPPORT a TRUE Conservative for POTUS.

Palin 2016

ChuckTX on March 4, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I take it you actually watched that pitiful campaign? Hell, any one of the primary contenders would have made more or an effort. Well, maybe not Mabel Huntsman. Next time we should get a nominee who actually wants the job.

katy the mean old lady on March 4, 2013 at 9:29 AM

I’ll agree with you that the campaign was weak. They were too civil and thought that they could win on the strength of their economic plans. That ceded all sorts of ground to pander to the parasites. Stupid women who only care about their women parts. Gays who only want a President who tells them their lifestyle choice is going to be forced on society as normal. Entitlement program recipients who want the productive to pay thousands in more so they don’t have to get less for doing nothing. Etc.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Gingrich would have done better than Romney. Not only that, he would have propelled the vote in the right direction for getting us the Senate at the same time. Newt Runs campaigns of ideas that coalesce and inspire. He would have had something concrete for conservatives to hold onto, in something similar to the Contract with America. He would not have been hesitant to attack the media or Obama. When Obama and the moderator colluded together do you think he would have just let it slide and allow himself to look bad? Dream on. That would have been a bounce and hold in the making.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:32 AM

To me, Gingrich was cooked when he attacked Romney from the left. Anyone who does so in the primaries isn’t fit to be nominated. Other than that, yes, I agree that it would be much more fun to watch him take it to Ogabe, but he’d lose regardless. Anyone would. One can’t really lose an election while owning the vote-counting machines. Just ask Vlad Putin.

Archivarix on March 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM

The worst kind of parasite that got the rat-eared wonder a second term are the people who proudly didn’t vote for Mitt Romney because “there was no difference between the two candidates.” That couldn’t be further from the truth and anybody who makes that claim is as much a moron as a parasite.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM

There was a difference. About 2% on policy.
Healthcare, he was the originator.
Coal fired power plants. Same view as Obama, they are people killers!
Humanity? They both had as adviser the same Malthusian John Holdren.
Global Warming? Even to the left of Obama.
Minimum Wage? To the left of Obama.
The safety net? Same as Obama.
Auto Bailouts, it was Romney’s idea don’t you know?
Taxes? Here there is little evidence he actually believed his own rhetoric, but he was arguing to the right of Obama at least… Then again, I never heard him argue everyone should have skin in the game.

Pretty much across the board Romney’s executive actions are nearly Identical to Obama’s.

To many people, Romney was a good reason to excuse any negative opinions they had of Obama, because Romney created the precedent for each and every single Obama action.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM

So is most everybody on this site. A meaningless appellation in politics. Romney was a hemophiliac bubble-boy in the bloodsport of politics. Wrong man, wrong line of work, wrong time. Epically, utterly, world-beatingly wrong.

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Romney ran ahead of his party and maximized the vote for the GOP, which has too many “supporters” like you.

Basilsbest on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Are you guys really that stupid to believe that Democrats, given half a chance to cheat, would allow fair-and-square counting of the votes? GET THE COMPUTERS OUT OF ELECTIONS!

Archivarix on March 4, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Hell, we’ve got an election official in Ohio who proudly voted at least six times for the rat-eared wonder. One of the things that has to happen in 2016 is a GOP organization willing to sue the crap out of election outcomes where it is clear there is clear fraud.

In the meantime, VA has a new voter ID law that is awaiting the governor’s signature. But VA is one of those states that has to get DoJ approval of any changes to its voting law. How do you think that making it harder for the parasites to vote for Democrats is going to go over when it reaches Eric Holder’s desk?

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Gingrich would have done better than Romney. Not only that, he would have propelled the vote in the right direction for getting us the Senate at the same time. Newt Runs campaigns of ideas that coalesce and inspire. He would have had something concrete for conservatives to hold onto, in something similar to the Contract with America. He would not have been hesitant to attack the media or Obama. When Obama and the moderator colluded together do you think he would have just let it slide and allow himself to look bad? Dream on. That would have been a bounce and hold in the making.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Gingrich would’ve gotten smoked by Obama. He had high unfavorables from his time as Speaker, so you can forget about him winning independent voters(as Mitt did by 5%). He would’ve done far worse with women, even married ones(unlike Mitt). His alleged debating skills were exposed as highly overrated in Florida when Romney took it to him. And besides, could Newt have done any better than Mitt did in the first debate against Obama? I doubt it.

And one other thing? Are we all forgetting the guy’s constant meltdowns and unforced errors during the primary? Remember his stupid remark about “right wing social engineering” immediately after he declared his candidacy? Or how about the attacks on Bain Capital? You’re telling me that this guy was going to maintain his composure as our candidate once the Obama campaign started accusing him of things like murder or hating women and the poor?

Doughboy on March 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

To me, Gingrich was cooked when he attacked Romney from the left. Anyone who does so in the primaries isn’t fit to be nominated. Other than that, yes, I agree that it would be much more fun to watch him take it to Ogabe, but he’d lose regardless. Anyone would. One can’t really lose an election while owning the vote-counting machines. Just ask Vlad Putin.

Archivarix on March 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM

That is so much smoke and mirrors. Your argument is that any person in business is immune to criticism is not helpful for the free market. From the left? Last I heard honorable dealings was a conservative and virtuous part of life.

Lets see, didn’t Romeny argue that Newt should give the money back he earned for his consulting? Who did you support again? Didn’t Romney in fact start that set of points with his attacks on Newt? Why, yes, yes he did.

Romney IS A PROGRESSIVE, he gets a pass. Newt is a conservative, ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

To many people, Romney was a good reason to excuse any negative opinions they had of Obama, because Romney created the precedent for each and every single Obama action.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM

That isn’t true but the media did a very good job making the same claims you do.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

What a crock…. SECupp upset that mitt didn’t have his first interview on msdnc upset that he stayed in the fox bubble

Puhleeze

cmsinaz on March 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Summary: The base sunk us!!!!! Everyone else loved me!!

portlandon on March 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Paul Ryan – unhelpful
Republican govs in Va, Fla, Oh, Pa, Wi, Mi – unhelpful
Chris Christie – especially unhelpful

monalisa on March 4, 2013 at 9:51 AM

What a crock…. SECupp upset that mitt didn’t have his first interview on msdnc upset that he stayed in the fox bubble

Puhleeze

cmsinaz on March 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Did she really say that? She’s completely lost it if that’s the case.

Doughboy on March 4, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Romney ran ahead of his party and maximized the vote for the GOP, which has too many “supporters” like you.

Basilsbest on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Say whut? Seriously, let it go.

katy the mean old lady on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I do think there were better candidates out there who chose not to run. Mitch Daniels IMO would’ve done better since the whole “evil rich guy” smear campaign wouldn’t have worked. But from the ones who were in the 2012 field, Romney was definitely the best.

Mitch Daniels would have been 100xs better than Romney, but he had a screwy personal life. (His wife cheated on him.)

The key to 2016 is to ensure that we have a solid field of candidates to choose from. And do everything possible to dissuade worthless people like Jeb Bush or Chris CRISTie from running.

Jeb really needs to be stopped. Nothing says old GOP like running a random Bush at least once every eight years. As for Christie, I’m fine with him running as long as he gets utterly destroyed in the primaries and ends up having an epic meltdown ala Howard Dean.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

People bought the telegenic electability scenario because that’s how Obama won.

A successful governing record and smart policy ideas didn’t matter.

workingclass artist on March 4, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Basilsbest on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM

I’m delighted you’re pleased with his performance. His inauguration committee may have some openings.

And once again, I donated and voted for him.

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Mitch Daniels would have been 100xs better than Romney, but he had a screwy personal life. (His wife cheated on him.)

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

So what. His wife was not going to run.

katy the mean old lady on March 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM

That isn’t true but the media did a very good job making the same claims you do.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

No, they did not. They painted Romney as a far right lunatic. People had to come to the conclusion that Romney was really a leftwing moron on their own, and many did. The others, because of Romney’s own actions, were able to be convinced that Obama really must be moderate, because, well he is just doing the same things the Republican nominee did.

We all warned you about EXACTLY what a campaign run by Romney would be like. Hell and Brimstone against conservatives and buddy old pal to progressives. Even after watching it happen you are still so stuck on your hero worship that you continue these stupid arguments.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Paul Ryan – unhelpful
Republican govs in Va, Fla, Oh, Pa, Wi, Mi – unhelpful
Chris Christie – especially unhelpful

monalisa on March 4, 2013 at 9:51 AM

How exactly was Ryan unhelpful? It seems that he spent most of the campaign cleaning up Romney’s gaffes.

As for the R governors, Kaisch did quite a bit for Romney’s campaign (as did Portman). And Scott is pretty unpopular in FL, but Rubio and Jeb Bush did quite a bit for Romney in FL. They had a whole turnout structure set up in WI that Team Romney decided not to use. And PA and MI weren’t in play until end of October (and weren’t really in play.)

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 9:58 AM

The questions in the debates were intended to tear down the candidates, but Republicans will have to expect that as long as they continue to insist on pairing with media outlets for the debates. They can stage these debates themselves and narrowcast them on the Internet and invite C-SPAN to televise them, and then choose moderators that will focus on real issues

Ed Morrissey for moderator!!!

ITguy on March 4, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Archivarix on March 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Gingrich was cooked by the coup that cooked him as Speaker years ago…that and the wives.

He was fun to watch on TeeVee though.

workingclass artist on March 4, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Mitch Daniels would have been 100xs better than Romney, but he had a screwy personal life. (His wife cheated on him.)

Jeb really needs to be stopped. Nothing says old GOP like running a random Bush at least once every eight years. As for Christie, I’m fine with him running as long as he gets utterly destroyed in the primaries and ends up having an epic meltdown ala Howard Dean.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Regarding Daniels, yeah his personal life was bizarre, but it would’ve been very tough even for the Democrat/media complex to make an issue out of it cuz the infidelity was on his wife’s part, not his. Going after a candidate’s spouse in that manner would’ve been a really dangerous ploy by Obama, particularly considering how big the “War on Women” BS narrative was to his reelection.

I don’t want CRISTie running. One because I don’t want there to be any chance of him winning the nomination(don’t tell me it can’t happen). And secondly, it allows the media to constantly trash any candidate to the right of him(which will pretty much all of them) and portray the party as extreme. They’re gonna do that anyway, but let’s at least not serve it up to them on a silver platter.

Doughboy on March 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Mitch Daniels would have been 100xs better than Romney, but he had a screwy personal life. (His wife cheated on him.)

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

So what. His wife was not going to run.

katy the mean old lady on March 4, 2013 at 9:57 AM

It would have been the only thing the media wanted to talk about. The politics of personal destruction in action. They would have made his life (and his campaign) hell.

ITguy on March 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Jeb really needs to be stopped. Nothing says old GOP like running a random Bush at least once every eight years. As for Christie, I’m fine with him running as long as he gets utterly destroyed in the primaries and ends up having an epic meltdown ala Howard Dean.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 9:54 AM

If Jeb is the GOP nominee I won’t vote.

I voted for Romney and he picked Ryan…But I won’t vote for this Euro style dynasty crapola.

workingclass artist on March 4, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I want Gov. Oops! of Texas to run again…with debate coaching.

If Perry runs on his strengths…A successful conservative governing record, smart policy ideas and Retail Politicking.

Besides…It’s a hoot to follow Perry on the campaign trail…The liberals hate him.

At this point in his career he’s got nuthin’ to lose and he’ll cut loose.

Yeehaw!

Bring it.

workingclass artist on March 4, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Lets see, didn’t Romeny argue that Newt should give the money back he earned for his consulting? Who did you support again? Didn’t Romney in fact start that set of points with his attacks on Newt? Why, yes, yes he did.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

I didn’t support anyone actively, and quietly rooted for Ron Paul as the worthiest of a very pathetic stock. While I do have a problem with his impotent foreign policy, I don’t give a flying fock for his allegedly-racist views (especially since I’m a Jew and therefore have the victim’s right to agree with them).

Archivarix on March 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM

It would have been the only thing the media wanted to talk about. The politics of personal destruction in action. They would have made his life (and his campaign) hell.

ITguy on March 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Of course — just as they would have with any candidate. This is the point we can’t seem to absorb as a party: it’s the media. The media is who we’re really running against. Run against the media, the whole thing explodes. Make THEIR lives hell, and watch it all burn — the entire super-structure of Narrative lies. Watch the screaming, madness and mayhem. Can you take it? Are you brave enough? If you can, if you are, the world is yours, and ours.

Poor Romney, but really, poor us. Do you think he’ll be the last fool who doesn’t get it?

rrpjr on March 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM

We all warned you about EXACTLY what a campaign run by Romney would be like. Hell and Brimstone against conservatives and buddy old pal to progressives. Even after watching it happen you are still so stuck on your hero worship that you continue these stupid arguments.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Let me guess, you’re one of those idiots who think we all should have been backing Ron Paul, right?

I’m not interested in re-fighting the 2012 election but you know damned well that Mitt Romney would not have freed thousands of illegals being detained by ICE with a lame excuse about sequestration. Just as one example why Romney may not be conservative enough for purists but would have been a damn sight better than giving the rat-eared dictator another four years.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM

He specifically highlighted the instance when GOP candidates were asked if they would accept a deal that had a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

The easy answer to that questions is yes, provided the spending cuts are real spending cuts. Romney never effectively pointed out that the “cuts” offered by the Left were only reductions of planned increases. Romney never bothered to expose the government shell game. He always accepted the premise of the questions asked of him, and then tore down the only guy who did challenge those premises. He made huge, huge mistakes in this campaign, and he is doing nothing to change the narrative that it was those crazy tea partiers that lost the election for him. Unless he’s taking over Detroit, I never want to hear form this man again.

alwaysfiredup on March 4, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Just as one example why Romney may not be conservative enough for purists but would have been a damn sight better than giving the rat-eared dictator another four years.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Learn the lessons of 2004 and 2012, please: “Better than the other guy” is not a good enough reason for Americans to throw out an incumbent. He needed people to affirmatively want him to be president. His whole campaign was based on the idea that it didn’t matter whether people liked him. Of course it matters! It matters far more than a 96-point plan to turn around the economy.

alwaysfiredup on March 4, 2013 at 10:23 AM

I didn’t support anyone actively, and quietly rooted for Ron Paul as the worthiest of a very pathetic stock. While I do have a problem with his impotent foreign policy, I don’t give a flying fock for his allegedly-racist views (especially since I’m a Jew and therefore have the victim’s right to agree with them).

Archivarix on March 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Well, at least you have that.

Let me guess, you’re one of those idiots who think we all should have been backing Ron Paul, right?

I’m not interested in re-fighting the 2012 election but you know damned well that Mitt Romney would not have freed thousands of illegals being detained by ICE with a lame excuse about sequestration. Just as one example why Romney may not be conservative enough for purists but would have been a damn sight better than giving the rat-eared dictator another four years.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Nope, I am one of those supra geniuses that actually can figure out what is going to happen when given the starting points and the starting vectors of a situation.

Since you are not interested in learning from history, we can pretty much understand how you were such an easy mark.

As for Obama and immigration, I see the release as a tiny little action of no real consequence. Maybe a few people die as a result. Then again, anyone think Romney would not be pushing for amnesty for tens of millions, where when you count the dead and sidelined will cause tens of thousands of times as much damage.

The ICE release will be a hit against Obama, because of the timing happening before the sequester hit… Nepolitano was right, that it could have been done at a better time.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Ok, Ann and Tagg reportedly took the reigns from Stu Stevens as the campaign wore on, but they could’ve done it sooner.

That’s the thing – it didn’t work. Stevens threw a sh*tfit and threatened to quit. Fehrnstrom backed his play and Anne and Tagg, especially Tagg, got pushed aside.

I’ve been a Romney back since ’08, but his problem, as Allah said in another post some weeks ago, is that

1. When you’re entire campaign is predicated on the idea of Techno-Managerial Demigod…

2. …but you’re unable to fire inner-circle losers because of some emotional masochistic sense of loyalty…

3. …and those same losers end up:

A. Creating a one-dimensional message

B. Fail to quickly pushback on negative attacks

C. Develop ORCA

4. …than you’re not really that Techno-Managerial Demigod, but just a CEO with better brokering skills.

Mitt’s a great person. The whole family is and he would lightyears better than Barry Zero.

But to think “minorities who wanted 0Care” is the reason for losing, than he’s in a state of denial and trying to protect his friends careers.

I know the guy has internals and breakdowns no one else outside of the inner circle will ever see, but how delusional does it sound, to believe your only path to beating Obama was to go after black voters?

Black voters who weren’t already opposed to Barry had two choices: vote Obama or stay home. They were never going to vote against Obama, especially if that meant for a rich white guy. To think otherwise is a failure to understand black solidarity.

Mitt’s shot was with taking Rubio or Paul, dropping the conventional methods and talking directly to people. The more traditional his campaign became, the worse his odds rose.

In other words, if Romney came across more like Steve Jobs sans turtleneck, Obama would have finally looked like a typical politician because for him to change would have meant sacrificing the advantages of incumbency.

Cronies are only worthwhile when the hierarchy is understood. They’re deadly when they think it’s a committee. I know Mitt let his crew believe they had equal say.

budfox on March 4, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Romney, greatest executive in history. Most awesome mind to ever run for president. The single most electable person on the planet. Smartest man in the room. Courageously blames his honorable competition for his failures!

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM

SparkPlug on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM

How exactly was Ryan unhelpful? It seems that he spent most of the campaign cleaning up Romney’s gaffes.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Oh I don’t know. He sat there and let Biden act like an even worse assclown than normal.

Neither Romney nor Ryan had the fortitude to actually call Obama out on his deceptions, manipulations and broken promises.

The media is a given. We here on HA who voted for Romney did not need to be convinced he was better. Apparently most of America did. Sometimes you lead a horse to water and make em drink. At least it is reality water and not dem koolaid.

arnold ziffel on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM

WHERE ARE ALL THE THREAD UPDATES???????????????????

HHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!?

Eph on March 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM

I’ve been a Romney back since ’08, but his problem, as Allah said in another post some weeks ago, is that

1. When you’re entire campaign is predicated on the idea of Techno-Managerial Demigod…

2. …but you’re unable to fire inner-circle losers because of some emotional masochistic sense of loyalty…

3. …and those same losers end up:

A. Creating a one-dimensional message

B. Fail to quickly pushback on negative attacks

C. Develop ORCA

4. …than you’re not really that Techno-Managerial Demigod, but just a CEO with better brokering skills.

Hattip

SparkPlug on March 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM

How exactly was Ryan unhelpful? It seems that he spent most of the campaign cleaning up Romney’s gaffes.

As for the R governors, Kaisch did quite a bit for Romney’s campaign (as did Portman). And Scott is pretty unpopular in FL, but Rubio and Jeb Bush did quite a bit for Romney in FL. They had a whole turnout structure set up in WI that Team Romney decided not to use. And PA and MI weren’t in play until end of October (and weren’t really in play.)

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 9:58 AM

I think the Ryan pick was the wrong pick. He made the election about Washington, the Ryan budget and Mediscare. He did not deliver anywhere…Wisconsin, Midwest, Catholics etc. Romney would have been better off picking a successful governor and co-opting their record. The election was about Washington and budgets, the media’s domain, and not about the economy.

As far as the governors, you may be right but to pick up only Indiana and NC was a disappointment. I think after the Ryan pick there may have been some sour grapes.

monalisa on March 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Until the GOP makes up its mind to do that, Republican candidates will have to endure the freak-show moderation and game-show formats imposed on them by the mainstream media.

Well, if it’s T-Ball you want, why not just have the spouses of the candidate moderate the Republican debates?

Blaming the MSM is so sad. Except of course, when the rightists listened to their own echoes on FOX and talk radio and were stunned that Romney didn’t win the election with 300+ EVs. By ignoring the MSM you yobbos ended up hearing only what you wanted to hear.

That set the stage for comedy GOLD on election night!
Oh, the schadenfreude!

Grow up, losers. Romney was a terrible candidate, period. Neither he nor any other Republican could have beaten President Obama on their best day.

chumpThreads on March 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM

arnold ziffel on March 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Indeed. I agree with Ziff.

SparkPlug on March 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I don’t want CRISTie running. One because I don’t want there to be any chance of him winning the nomination(don’t tell me it can’t happen). And secondly, it allows the media to constantly trash any candidate to the right of him(which will pretty much all of them) and portray the party as extreme. They’re gonna do that anyway, but let’s at least not serve it up to them on a silver platter.

Doughboy on March 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Christie is definitely that big of an egoist that he’ll run, so let’s try to make lemonade out of the situation.

If it was Bachmann and the rest of the 2012 crew, then I’d say you were right. But it is really hard for the media to portray Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Susanna Martinez, Paul Ryan, etc. as extremists. Even Rand Paul has been really polishing up his statements. The 2016 primaries could end up looking alot like the 2010 FL Senate race. Despite the fact that they tried their darnedest to tie Rubio to some of the whack jobs like O’Donnell and Angle, the DNC and MSM couldn’t touch Rubio because he comes off as a reasonable guy. It is very hard to portray the articulate, fairly soft spoken guy as a rabid nut. Ditto with Jindal or Ryan who are policy wonks.

The best way to really go after Christie is to bring out the unpleasant part of his personality. He plays awfully among women and in any region of the country outside of NJ.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Summary: The base sunk us!!!!! Everyone else loved me!!

portlandon on March 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Hehe.

SparkPlug on March 4, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Mitt, you could have done many things differently including self funding in April and May to hit back on the smears, being more agressive in the last two debates, but the blame falls squarely on the GOP/RNC.

To expect any candidate to ramp up their own GOTV system in 4 months against an incumbent with so many inherent advantages in media/data mining/voter outreach/narhwal etc. was malpractice at worst,and incompetence at best.

The ONLY chance you have in 2016 regardless of the eventual candidate is to get your act together, start coding like Y2k is coming again and put together systems that have triple redundancy and workarounds. GOP is still in Pre-beta while DNC is going for V3.0

can_con on March 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM

“He knew in his heart he was going to win”…how is that “burning in the breast” deal working?

The fact is, he took it to Newt, and laid off Obama…he let Obama dictate the campaign.

I wish he would have won, but the better man was run out of the campaign by the press…we did what we could, but Mitt did not have the grass roots campaign that the Tea Party and the NRA could have provided…he was hoping the Mormon grass roots would carry him, but once he won the nomination, they abandoned. They felt they had won the battle, and they did, but they lost the war.

right2bright on March 4, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Mittens and Christie. We warned you about them.

SparkPlug on March 4, 2013 at 10:44 AM

I want Gov. Oops! of Texas to run again…with debate coaching.

Me too! At this point “what difference does it make?” if he forgot the third department to cut. Lots of Americans have back trouble too.

He could also just run as James Perry…Rick Perry’s identical twin.

monalisa on March 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM

gluebill.

SparkPlug on March 4, 2013 at 10:47 AM

I think the Ryan pick was the wrong pick. He made the election about Washington, the Ryan budget and Mediscare. He did not deliver anywhere…Wisconsin, Midwest, Catholics etc. Romney would have been better off picking a successful governor and co-opting their record. The election was about Washington and budgets, the media’s domain, and not about the economy.

As far as the governors, you may be right but to pick up only Indiana and NC was a disappointment. I think after the Ryan pick there may have been some sour grapes.

monalisa on March 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM

The race was always going to be alot about the Ryan budget. That was out there and it needed to be debated. So why not put the guy who created the budget on the ticket? The main issue was that they basically ran away from the fight after that.

As for choosing a running mate, the only person who might have been able to bring in alot of pizzaz was Marco Rubio and I think that was a high risk, high reward prospect. It is really hard to make the case about Obama’s lack of experience when your running mate is 41 and has been in the U.S. Senate about 18 months. And Rubio wasn’t ready this time around (but will definitely be in 2016.)

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 10:48 AM

To expect any candidate to ramp up their own GOTV system in 4 months against an incumbent with so many inherent advantages in media/data mining/voter outreach/narhwal etc. was malpractice at worst,and incompetence at best.

The issue is that the RNC was in huge debt in 2010 due to Steele. Preibus didn’t have money to invest in technology. It does seem like the candidates are getting started early however. There were some FL sources that figured out that Rubio essentially set up an exploratory committee. And I’m wondering if some of the other serious candidates have the same sort of thing.

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM

The worst kind of parasite that got the rat-eared wonder a second term are the people who proudly didn’t vote for Mitt Romney because “there was no difference between the two candidates.” That couldn’t be further from the truth and anybody who makes that claim is as much a moron as a parasite.

Happy Nomad on March 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM

^^^^THIS!!^^^^

+100

Solaratov on March 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM

To expect any candidate to ramp up their own GOTV system in 4 months against an incumbent with so many inherent advantages in media/data mining/voter outreach/narhwal etc. was malpractice at worst,and incompetence at best.

can_con on March 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM

That, right there, is the problem. His own GOTV system. He refused to approach the base of the party, and in fact spent more time attacking the base than his opponent in the general. Thus he needed an entirely new GOTV system with different people involved than the ones that were experienced!

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I agree with that assessment but they could have enlisted 100′s of GOP code warriors to start working on open source platforms similar to Obama for free. Either that or make some calls to the Stuxnet crew. Don’t forget that the GOP will be up against he DNC and Anonymous.

can_con on March 4, 2013 at 10:59 AM

^^^^THIS!!^^^^

+100

Solaratov on March 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM

What about it? It is Romney’s job to convince. Voters are not slaves tied to a party. I still am not convinced he would have been a better president when you look at the total effects of the presidency over say a 12 year period.
I tend to think Kerry would have been a better president than Bush’s second term, after having looked at the results, Housing Bubble and TARP as well as turning over the Nation to Obama.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM

It’s easy. Just blame the voters. MittChristie had nuttin’ to do with it.

SparkPlug on March 4, 2013 at 11:07 AM

PappyD61 on March 4, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Spot on. We need a candidate. Not a RINO.

dogsoldier on March 4, 2013 at 11:08 AM

I don’t give a flying fock for his allegedly-racist views (especially since I’m a Jew and therefore have the victim’s right to agree with them).

Archivarix on March 4, 2013 at 10:11 AM

That has got to be one of – if not the – saddest, most self-defeating, self-loathing statements I’ve ever seen on Hot Air.

Solaratov on March 4, 2013 at 11:13 AM

As for choosing a running mate, the only person who might have been able to bring in alot of pizzaz was Marco Rubio and I think that was a high risk, high reward prospect. It is really hard to make the case about Obama’s lack of experience when your running mate is 41 and has been in the U.S. Senate about 18 months. And Rubio wasn’t ready this time around (but will definitely be in 2016.)

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I think Obama has the inexperienced celebrity president down to a T so Romney didn’t need to compete with that. What Romney needed to cultivate…and he didn’t…is what a Romney presidency would have looked like. Right now, more Americans are living successfully under Republican governorships with growing economies. It would have been hard for the media to slam the Texas, Louisiana and ND economy. Perry, Jindal, McDonnell, Hoeven, better choices. Perry and McDonnell veterans too.

Rubio and Paul are Washington, better suited for VP. I hope Mike Pence is in the mix for 2016.

monalisa on March 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Yepper doughboy

She’s a total tool for msdnc now

cmsinaz on March 4, 2013 at 11:19 AM

As for Obama and immigration, I see the release as a tiny little action of no real consequence. Maybe a few people die as a result. Then again, anyone think Romney would not be pushing for amnesty for tens of millions, where when you count the dead and sidelined will cause tens of thousands of times as much damage.

The ICE release will be a hit against Obama, because of the timing happening before the sequester hit… Nepolitano was right, that it could have been done at a better time.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 10:24 AM

You know, for a “supra genius”, you sure do say some really stupid shit.

btw; Your Romney-hatred is becoming repetitive and boring.

Solaratov on March 4, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I think Obama has the inexperienced celebrity president down to a T so Romney didn’t need to compete with that. What Romney needed to cultivate…and he didn’t…is what a Romney presidency would have looked like. Right now, more Americans are living successfully under Republican governorships with growing economies. It would have been hard for the media to slam the Texas, Louisiana and ND economy. Perry, Jindal, McDonnell, Hoeven, better choices. Perry and McDonnell veterans too.

Rubio and Paul are Washington, better suited for VP. I hope Mike Pence is in the mix for 2016.

monalisa on March 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Low info. voters vote celebrity. They have to like the person that they’re voting for. Romney didn’t have to be as dopey as Obama, but he did have to show them the real Romney. As for Rubio, I think that it was a blessing he was passed over. He has made some mistakes recently that suggest that he wasn’t ready for primetime this time around. These would have been exaggerated because of the Romney campaign’s tone deafness. Rubio was able to recover from something like water bottle gate because Rubio is handling his own communications and he is an A plus political player.

However, he will most definitely be ready in 2016 and do to his “rock star” status I don’t think that he can play second fiddle. The only interesting governors are Krispy Kreme (aka persona no grata) and b. Governor Bobby (who doesn’t have any intangible appeal.)

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM

……..and like clockwork…….here comes the Bush!!!

It’s almost like its planned?????

Karl Rove setting up the gop ruling class protection PAC, and now Jeb warming up the media for 2016.

gop………DEAD!!

PappyD61 on March 4, 2013 at 12:12 PM

You know, for a “supra genius”, you sure do say some really stupid shit.

btw; Your Romney-hatred is becoming repetitive and boring.

Solaratov on March 4, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I remember Romney backing Bush on the comprehensive immigration reform. What do you remember?
You remember the campaign promises?

When the legislation was in the works, ready to be voted on, Romney wa there pushing for it to happen. When there was no legislation, but an opportunity to be on the right of his opponents on something that he thought did not matter much, he was on the exact opposite side. Of course, he also has NEVER been for enforcing our current laws, even in his own state as governor…

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Jeb Bush needs to go away…

Illinidiva on March 4, 2013 at 12:45 PM

IMO, the opponent was cheating with active help from corrupt referees. That’s when you send in your Enforcer. Romney was just too nice a man to do the needful.

Christien on March 4, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Romney ran ahead of his party and maximized the vote for the GOP, which has too many “supporters” like you.

Basilsbest on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Nationwide, in Senate races, yes, Romney ran ahead on average.

However, in gubernatorial races, he ran about even with the GOP candidates, and in House races he actually ran behind by a decent margin.

steebo77 on March 4, 2013 at 1:00 PM

gluebill.

SparkPlug on March 4, 2013 at 10:47 AM

gullible.

steebo77 on March 4, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Romney ran ahead of his party and maximized the vote for the GOP, which has too many “supporters” like you.

Basilsbest on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM

So, what you are saying is that Romney captured a small sliver of moderates and tired of Obama voters which might have otherwise stayed home, but who instinctively voted for Democrat senators, while at the same time left at home a large number of conservatives who would have helped us regain the senate because he had a terrible get out the vote effort.

So not only was Romney the wrong guy at the top, but even for coattails he was a negative for the party.

Thanks. I was always curious how you would try to twist things.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Nationwide, in Senate races, yes, Romney ran ahead on average.

However, in gubernatorial races, he ran about even with the GOP candidates, and in House races he actually ran behind by a decent margin.

steebo77 on March 4, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Read the above link, We have a big problem, and it isn’t Romney

http://www.policymic.com/articles/19101/popular-vote-2012-romney-actually-got-more-votes-than-bush-in-2004-and-still-lost

OrthodoxJew on March 4, 2013 at 1:20 PM

IMO, the opponent was cheating with active help from corrupt referees. That’s when you send in your Enforcer. Romney was just too nice a man to do the needful.

Christien on March 4, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Yep.

It didn’t help that Romney had Romneycare around his neck…his crew said that didn’t matter but it mattered.

2012 was not the election to play nice and Romney played nice after the first debate.

Romney killed whatever momentum he had after that first debate…imho

workingclass artist on March 4, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Read the above link, We have a big problem, and it isn’t Romney

http://www.policymic.com/articles/19101/popular-vote-2012-romney-actually-got-more-votes-than-bush-in-2004-and-still-lost

OrthodoxJew on March 4, 2013 at 1:20 PM

There was also massive voting fraud in places that counted.

workingclass artist on March 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM

First, many supporters of other candidates in the primary will argue that the “blistering” aspect of the primary had its source in Team Romney, which laid on the negative campaigning rather thickly in the months leading up to the actual primaries and caucus events. No one will forget the heavy-handed attacks on Newt Gingrich, at least, as soon as his star began to rise after a debate in North Carolina

Oh come on. Romney hit Gingrich for kissing Nancy Pelosi’s ring on climate change (a valid criticism, if a little hypocritical given Romney’s own shifting positions on climate change) and for being a “Washington insider,” which he is. Gingrich, in return, accused Romney of not paying his taxes and of being a vulture capitalist who shipped jobs overseas–criticism that was both malicious and is based on leftist populism, which is why Obama happily co-opted that line of attack in the general to smear Romney.

In the end, Romney was a weak tea candidate; I don’t think Romney was a great candidate brought down only by the malevolence of other Republicans. But there is much merit to what he says about that lengthy primary and debate process bringing out the absolute worst, and most vicious, in our candidates.

Outlander on March 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3