Shock: The new documentary about Mitt Romney looks … really good

posted at 11:21 am on December 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

It’s early for a palate cleanser but I’m not sure this doesn’t qualify as legit news. I … did not expect to find myself eager to revisit the Romney 2012 campaign on film, but here we are, my friends. Here we are.

It’s true that the trailer is more humanizing than anything Romney’s campaign did for him, but the deck is stacked. The bio video that the GOP produced for the convention was solid but nothing as stage-managed as campaign propaganda will ever have the disarming charm of behind-the-scenes footage of the candidates in unguarded moments. Plus, the trailer’s cheating by putting the agony of defeat up front. Watching this guy try to hold it together while struggling with the weight of defeat, surrounded by his wife, kids, and grandkids, would melt the heart of anyone who doesn’t work at MSNBC. He seems … so lifelike. So incredibly lifelike.

I’m going to say two words to you. A la Ron Burgundy, if you like it you can take it, if you don’t you can send it right back: Romney/Cruz?


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

Over

Bmore on December 18, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Mitt was so-so through the primaries, but by the time of the general election, I was convinced that he would be a very good president.

Deafdog on December 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Totally agree. I was in the Anybody But Romney camp for quite some time. But the fact is he would have made a great president. I know once the primary shooting was all over I worked my butt off to get him across the finish line. My efforts were not good enough.

Texas Zombie on December 18, 2013 at 3:13 PM

It actually would make electoral sense for Romney to run again. He’s pre-vetted, and he already convinced almost half the country to vote for him, he’d just need to convince 3% more.

Jon0815 on December 18, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Um, no. He’d have to convince more than that, to offset the people that voted for him last time that are now swearing to never vote for another GOP squish, and similarly swearing to not vote GOP *period*, so long as they continue to be at war with the base.

Midas on December 18, 2013 at 11:34 AM

There is no one name, much less a paired ticket, that you can offer who will satisfy the radical wing and the moderates, and then go on to win the general election. I like Cruz very much, but he has already offended half the country, Dems and GOP alike, and brings nothing to the ticket if the GOP is serious about winning. People who sit out the election because the Republicant candidate they wanted didn’t win the nomination should be prepared to live under a permanent Democrat presidency.

2ndMAW68 on December 18, 2013 at 3:15 PM

He did, and then he put on silky gloves for the next two, and so much more. I’m bored.

Schadenfreude on December 18, 2013 at 3:06 PM

I guess you don’t remember Romney being accused of being too aggressive and disrespectful in that second debate? I will concede that he was overly passive in that third debate, though. He was told that he had a comfortable lead, and he decided to play prevent defense. Boredom has sunk in for me as well.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I would love to see Mitt run again. I think the Romney/Cruz ticket is just the ticket, as well.

Like my boss told me after he had met Romney one-on-one, “if you don’t like what you see on TV, you would like him in person. If you like what you see on TV, you would want to go to bed with him if you saw him in person.”

DuctTapeMyBrain on December 18, 2013 at 3:17 PM

I like Cruz very much, but he has already offended half the country,

There is no future for America with idiotic crap like this psing as political commentary from a “conservative.”

Murphy9 on December 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM

The election was lost by Romney’s conservative critics who failed to rally around the nominee. The next election will be lost as well if conservatives continue to kid themselves into believing that Barack Obama’s America is a centre right country.

Basilsbest on December 18, 2013 at 1:50 PM

It wasn’t lost by Romney’s staff, or by Romney’s critics. It was lost by Romney. And it was sadly all too easily predictable.

I actually had some hope after that first debate. But he had two more debates and … nothing. In the foreign policy debate, he spent almost the entire time saying, “I agree with the president.”

The sabotage by Candy Crowley was clearly unfair, and I can sympathize with him being caught flat-footed for a moment. But he behaved like a good little Republican and allowed her interruption to be the final word. In short, he allowed Candy Crowley to be the judge of what was factual.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that he had no response, though. He had clearly decided that his strategy was to go through the entire foreign policy debate in a clinch.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM

2ndMAW68 on December 18, 2013 at 3:15 PM

I appreciate you trying to be a good Republican, but the fact is, you are a regressive turd like so many people who claim to be (R). Do yourself and the nation a favor and go where you belong, the Democratic party.
Cruz is not extreme in the least.
The Democrat party on the other hand, I cannot think of a remotely moderate one, can you?
Sick of your type trying to move the center to the hard left and proclaiming, EXTREMIST!

astonerii on December 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM

2ndMAW68 on December 18, 2013 at 3:15 PM

The people who are ranting against you have no interest in bettering the USA, conservative principles or reality. astonerii is another one who actually vowed to vote for a democrat last election… and to instruct his white trash brood to do the same. Take it with a big grain of salt.

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM

The people who are ranting against you have no interest in bettering the USA, conservative principles or reality. astonerii is another one who actually vowed to vote for a democrat last election… and to instruct his white trash brood to do the same. Take it with a big grain of salt.

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Astonerii and I often clash about various matters, but come on…calling him/her “white trash”? Is that really necessary? And no, I’m not defending his/her use of “regressive turd,” but don’t stoop down to their level.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM

The people who are ranting against you have no interest in bettering the USA, conservative principles or reality. astonerii is another one who actually vowed to vote for a democrat last election… and to instruct his white trash brood to do the same. Take it with a big grain of salt.

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Your loser did not win, did he?
He was barely one of 63 million shades to the right of many Democrats on a large swath of issues.
For being the great competent CEO he could not run a campaign even remotely competitively, eventually having to have his hack regressive’s and greedy selfish scumbags in the media and blogs knock out any competition he had in the primary.
But his incompetence did not end there, it continued. He spent all his money winning a primary for a general he did not want to win, planned or incompetence, either way, not a good thing.
It bled into every aspect of his campaign, starting with pastel colors in his advertising spots, the few that his incompetence was not enough to prevent altogether from being viewed by the people who vote. Despite being broke coming out of the primary, when the general came along and he had some money to spend, spend it wisely, hell no, 4 times the going rate for campaign commercials. Way to go CEO!
But hey, we have not tried a real conservative for president in quite a while, I think Reagan was the last one. What we need to do is move further to the left, why? Because you are a REGRESSIVE turd that wants REGRESSIVE government.

astonerii on December 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM

And no, I’m not defending his/her use of “regressive turd,” but don’t stoop down to their level.

GOPRanknFile

We have a history, but fair enough. I honestly think he’s here to help elect democrats, take a look at what he wrote about Breitbart when he died and you will see how one could have come to that conclusion.

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM

I will never understand why Romney didn’t demand a recount. The only reason he lost was due to massive voter fraud. And the GOP still turns its head and looks the other way, pretending nothing hapapened, while our votes were stolen.

Mean Granny on December 18, 2013 at 4:13 PM

I will never understand why Romney didn’t demand a recount.
Mean Granny on December 18, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Really? How long have you been paying attention to these people? They wouldn’t have asked for a recount if they’d lost by five votes in Utah.

But it doesn’t matter anyway. The brilliant GOP years ago signed a consent decree barring them from fighting voter fraud.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/gop-legally-barred-from-fighting-voter-fraud/

rrpjr on December 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM

I like Cruz very much, but he has already offended half the country

I know this, because the MSM told me. And they have no agenda and never lie.

rrpjr on December 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM

I understand. I don’t like the way some people on here approach debates and discussions, but I try to conduct myself in a civil manner. It does bug me that instead of engaging in robust debate, there are people who immediately resort to name-calling and calling someone a RINO or an establish hack or a regressive turd if you don’t like a particular conservative, even if you like all the other conservative, who may even be more conservative than that one person.

For example, I agree with Palin on just about every issue, but I don’t think she would be a strong candidate nationally. I was called a RINO, even though I agree with her on 99% of the issues (and that’s being conservative). It’s sad, but what can you do? I don’t blindly follow any politician, and no politician deserves that type of devotion. With the exception of Ron Paul, I’ll probably vote for the Republican candidate in 2016.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM

We have a history, but fair enough. I honestly think he’s here to help elect democrats, take a look at what he wrote about Breitbart when he died and you will see how one could have come to that conclusion.

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM

What, the fact that he took the side of gays over conservatives? Yeah, I can hold that against him even in death. I am not like the regressive pieces of sh!t that have to deify the evilest of scum on the earth after their deaths. Not that I think he was evil, not completely anyways. But he certainly had no issues associating himself with those of detestable natures.

Hmmm, makes one wonder. Let me see if I get this correct.

You want to move the party to the left, towards where the Democrats are right now. A position that has not shown any value to getting Republicans elected to the presidency at this point, and if you look at the last 6 Presidential elections shows that it does not work and likely harms our chances of winning.

What this tells me is that YOU want to elect regressives to office, either with an (R) or a (D) and likely would rather go with (D) over (R).

I on the other hand prefer to give the people a choice that is clear, one which when given the opportunity in the past has resulted in victory, victories that last a generation as it gives the party gravitas and admiration is bestowed. Reagan Revolution, the Contract with America.

You want to give Americans the choice of the European Union nations. Socialist total or Socialist 90%.

I think I know who loves America and who wants to harm her.

astonerii on December 18, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Definitely going to watch this, even though it means re-living some painful memories.

And, yeah a Romney/Cruz ticket probably would win, but it’s never going to happen. I think Mitt is more or less done with politics. My impression of the man is, that he was never particularly comfortable with some aspects of politics, particularly aspects that are central to campaigning. He didn’t like falling back on the sort of empty platitudes politicians like Obama live on, didn’t like pretending being something he wasn’t, and didn’t enjoy being too critical of his opponents.

This wasn’t enough to deter him, the last few times he’s ran, of course. Since then though, he’s shown no inclination to assert himself back into since the election, where-as at the same time after 08, he was already quietly but visibly doing pre-work to restart his campaign.

So, I think chances are that his ambition is spent, and he’ll remain out of politics save for the occasional commentary during interviews. It’s kind of a shame, because I have tremendous respect for the man, even if we don’t agree on every little issue. I desperately wish that there were a dozen more elected officials in our party, with his sort of good nature and somber level-headedness.

Granted, I’m assume have these ten be a bit further to the right, and better campaigners, still. Romney’s a good guy, and I’m not going to begrudge a good man for the occasional flaw, or a slight difference in opinion.

WolvenOne on December 18, 2013 at 4:45 PM

and besides, we are to used to, and have had so much success with the Crony Career politicians we’ve been electing on the R side….
.
Lets keep it in the family, for sure…………
.

FlaMurph on December 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM

I honestly think he’s here to help elect democrats…

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM

No, those who are p****whipped by the media into pimping this or that “super-electable moderate because the NYT won’t say nasty things about him/her” are the ones who are here to elect Democrats. It’s the only thing they’re good at.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM

For example, I agree with Palin on just about every issue, but I don’t think she would be a strong candidate nationally.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Hm. Did you think Mitt was going to be a strong candidate nationally?

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 5:50 PM

I lived in Massachusetts when he was Governor, met him a couple times, followed his career.

He’s a good man, he is what he seems to be and he is a savant at business/organizational leadership. He would have been a great President.

And to the Levin sycophants who litter this place – Levin endorsed him in 2008 and to the pea sized memories of many of us, he was welcomed into CPAC after he dropped out in 2008 as a Hero to Conservatives.

AYNBLAND on December 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Also……and I guarantee this. If Ted Cruz runs for President, he will do and say things that Mark Levin and others will proclaim him a RINO. Guaranteed.

AYNBLAND on December 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM

He’s a good man, he is what he seems to be and he is a savant at business/organizational leadership. He would have been a great President.

AYNBLAND on December 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Yeah? What makes you think do? And if he is such a “savant”, why did he run such a half-assed campaign?

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 6:12 PM

* “so”, not “do”

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Hm. Did you think Mitt was going to be a strong candidate nationally?

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 5:50 PM

I did. Let me rephrase that. Based on the candidates that ran for the nomination, I did think he would be the strongest candidate, and I still do. Newt, Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Cain would probably have lost NC, IN, and probably even MO.

I hope that Palin does run in 2016 just to see how she would fare. I suspect she wouldn’t get very far.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Actually this documentary was supposed to be aired the night before the election, but Romney’s tech team accidentally labelled the release date as 11/4/13 instead of 11/4/12.

portlandon on December 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM

The election was lost by Romney’s conservative critics who failed to rally around the nominee.

Basilsbest on December 18, 2013 at 1:50 PM

That’s funny, 23 days after Romney lost you were blaming Sarah Palin for it.

if Sarah Palin had backed the only candidate with a prayer of defeating Obama and the Primary had ended after Florida Mitt Romney would likely have won.

Basilsbest on November 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Whose job was it to get people to vote for Romney?

portlandon on December 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM

I did.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM

So your judgement is suspect.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 6:40 PM

So your judgement is suspect.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 6:40 PM

You’re certainly entitled to that opinion.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM

I hope that Palin does run in 2016 just to see how she would fare. I suspect she wouldn’t get very far.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM

I think she’d win the nomination. As for the final tally, it wouldn’t be any worse than what SuperElectable Mitt garnered.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM

You’re certainly entitled to that opinion.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM

That goes beyond the realm of “opinion” to “demonstrable fact”.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 6:43 PM

I have been on the Romney bandwagon since day one. I can’t help but think that Nov 2012 might have been the absolute worst electoral mistake ever made by the American voter.

Thanks to the IRS targeting (suppression of Tea Party vote) and the nasty truth about Obamacare – this election was truly stolen.

This man was the most qualified in history to inhabit the Oval Office. Just imagine, no Obamacare and with this man at the helm, our economy would be going gangbusters.

Shame on you, America – you screwed the pooch BIG TIME!

BabysCatz on December 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Thanks to the IRS targeting (suppression of Tea Party vote) and the nasty truth about Obamacare – this election was truly stolen.

Delusional. If it was stolen by anyone, the GOPe were the thieves.

This man was the most qualified in history to inhabit the Oval Office.

BabysCatz on December 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM

If he was the “most qualified”, then Bill Gates would be transcendentally qualified. So would Warren Buffett. Romney was no more “qualified” than McCain was in 2008 or Dole was in 1996. It’s not a resume contest, which is a fact that apparently still escapes the Mittbots-in-rehab.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM

That goes beyond the realm of “opinion” to “demonstrable fact”.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 6:43 PM

If you think that a candidate, who consistently did the best in polls against Obama, isn’t a stronger candidate than other candidates who consistently was behind him outside of the margin of error, then it’s your judgment that’s suspect. And I’m entitled to that opinion…or in your world, I guess that would just be a “demonstrable fact.”

The point of my initial post wasn’t even an attack on Palin. I actually said that I agreed with her 99% of the time. The fact that you felt the need to respond anyway when that post really had nothing to do with her at all speaks volumes. I’ll use Cruz’s name next time. Happy?

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM

If you think that a candidate, who consistently did the best in polls against Obama, isn’t a stronger candidate than other candidates who consistently was were behind him outside of the margin of error, then it’s your judgment that’s suspect.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 7:02 PM

As soon as I saw this article, I thought, why couldn’t Romney run again? The media have shot their wad, Obama turned out to be a complete loser, and the dems have Hillary Clinton.
Romney should be a shoe in.

gordo on December 18, 2013 at 7:21 PM

If Romney had been elected, he would have continued the same policies that have been shifting the electoral playing field left, and left, and left for fifty years. Mass immigration, 90% non-white and thus about 80% Democrat-voting, would have continued. Affirmative action would have continued to rule unchallenged. Universities would have continued to be hard-left indoctrination mills. The mass media would have continued to enjoy disguised rents through excessive copyright. Nobody would have ended the Hollywood tax cuts.

Mitt Romney got 59% of the white vote and still lost, because previous generations kicked the can down the road; he would have done the same thing till later generations were placed in a hopeless position anyway.

All that a Romney win would have meant was: he would not be the one standing there when it became official that massive white majorities had no power against the imported liberal majority, but the blow would have fallen on some other, equally nice guy later.

David Blue on December 18, 2013 at 7:24 PM

I’ll just preface this with- I didn’t torture myself with reading the previous two pages of comments; I know what the usual posts about Romney are. What I will say is that we would have been incredibly blessed to have had Romney as our President. I’m over the crybabies who say he was stiff, and too moderate. He’s an awesome man with an awesome family, and America might be in a whole better place if he’d won. A pox on all who sat home because “he wasn’t conservative enough”.

BettyRuth on December 18, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Looks like a interesting documentary..Should be a good watch..:)

Dire Straits on December 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM

I would love to be able to vote for this man again. His loss was heartbreaking.

Dork B. on December 18, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Arguing with lefties and self professed “independent” minded folks the other day and, as they are crying in their onesies about their disillusionment over the current president and the state of the US economy in general, I made the suggestion that it would be great to have a real troubleshooter step into the white house with a history of working with both sides to get things done in government to stop the Washington gridlock. It would be great if he also had governing experience(unlike the current dolt) and had been successful in anything he had ever done with a specific focus on economics.

You can see where I’m going here but, no surprise, not one of them got the reference…sad really.

Romney (and any other Republican) was screwed from the start up against a media machine that wouldn’t let them win. If Democrats attacked, the MSM would amplify the attacks, if Republicans attacked, it’s “going negative” and swiftly buried.

Romney went through trial by fire in the primaries and smoked Obama in the most one sided debate in modern times. You can say he was too cautious after that but can you blame him? He went after Obama for his bizarre response to Egypt and it was reported that Romney did something wrong by the MSM (remember the media all discussing how they were going to attack Romney in the scrum?). He went after Obama in the second debate on Benghazi and the moderator quickly (and wrongly) jumped in to defend her hero (she quietly apologized 5 minutes after the debate to little media attention)….it was Romney who was wrong again in MSM reports.

I thought Bush had it bad but the assault on Romney was epic. Bain, mormonism, war on women, the freaking leader of the Senate spouting off about rumours that hes a tax cheat without paying a price…..

A man who should have been president based on every metric accept media fairness and in the end the final vote.

Zybalto on December 18, 2013 at 9:05 PM

If you think that a candidate, who consistently did the best in polls against Obama, isn’t a stronger candidate than other candidates who consistently was behind him outside of the margin of error, then it’s your judgment that’s suspect. And I’m entitled to that opinion…or in your world, I guess that would just be a “demonstrable fact.”

And those polls meant exactly jack shite in November 2012, didn’t they? A “demonstrable fact” is that a moderate like Romney had zero chance of winning. Many of us here told you poll-humpers that at the outset. But of course we were “trolls”. Or OWSers. Or OFAers. Whatever.

The point of my initial post wasn’t even an attack on Palin. I actually said that I agreed with her 99% of the time. The fact that you felt the need to respond anyway when that post really had nothing to do with her at all speaks volumes. I’ll use Cruz’s name next time. Happy?

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Cruz is just as “toxic” and “divisive”, so sure, go ahead. The point is about being so gullible or gutless as to be led around by the nose by the MSM in determining who’s “electable” and who’s “toxic”.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 9:14 PM

No, those who are p****whipped by the media into pimping this or that “super-electable moderate because the NYT won’t say nasty things about him/her” are the ones who are here to elect Democrats. It’s the only thing they’re good at.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM

He (astonerii) voted for Obama and advocated that others do the same in a months long, drama queen diva temper tantrum, supposedly over Newt Gingrich… This site is infested with Mobys, people can’t be that stupid.
I promise you, I don’t care what the NY times says about me.

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 9:14 PM

This site is infested with Mobys, people can’t be that stupid.

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 9:14 PM

I’ve been commenting here on and off for 4 or 5 years and was called a “Moby” among other things simply for pointing out that Romney was not going to win. I was surprised that people could have been so stupid as to believe he was not only going to win, but win convincingly. Don’t talk to me about “stupid”.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Romney (and any other Republican) was screwed from the start up against a media machine that wouldn’t let them win. If Democrats attacked, the MSM would amplify the attacks, if Republicans attacked, it’s “going negative” and swiftly buried.

Zybalto on December 18, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Oh, come off it. One of the Romney selling points we were told over and over again was that he he was the most desirable candidate precisely because he was so media-savvy, so “unifying” and “non-divisive”, so immune to parody and ridicule and unfair attacks.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 9:19 PM

I think I know who loves America and who wants to harm her.

astonerii on December 18, 2013 at 4:31 PM

You voted for Obama and instructed others to do the same… Additionally, you just have no class.

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 9:19 PM

As soon as I saw this article, I thought, why couldn’t Romney run again? The media have shot their wad, Obama turned out to be a complete loser, and the dems have Hillary Clinton.
Romney should be a shoe in.

gordo on December 18, 2013 at 7:21 PM

.
Romney embodied decency in a country where the majority prefer the indecent, dishonest, amoral world. Romney just happened to be the last Republican who would have a chance to be President. Anyone who thinks there would ever be enough votes to elect an R to the Oval Office ever again is a fool. The decay in this country is staggering and irreversible. Just visit a college campus. They blindly embrace the most corrupt government on earth.
.
The future belongs to a very different America.

FlaMurph on December 18, 2013 at 9:21 PM

ddrintn

I’ve been commenting here on and off for 4 or 5 years

Quite a legacy.

and was called a “Moby” among other things simply for pointing out that Romney was not going to win.

He could have.

I was surprised that people could have been so stupid as to believe he was not only going to win, but win convincingly.

They weren’t counting on so many who regard themselves as “conservative” or “patriotic” or even “sentient” staying home on election day in the face of an existential threat to the country. They thought the best of those who claim to be conservative. I guess that was “stupid”.

V7_Sport on December 18, 2013 at 9:25 PM

I was surprised that people could have been so stupid as to believe he was not only going to win, but win convincingly. Don’t talk to me about “stupid”.
ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 9:16 PM

.
Hey genius….who was your candidate? Who other than Romney were you supporting?
Enlighten us. You did have a sure lock to beat Ocommie and his corruption, yes?
.
Absent of any solution, you should just shut the front door.
.

FlaMurph on December 18, 2013 at 9:30 PM

And those polls meant exactly jack shite in November 2012, didn’t they? A “demonstrable fact” is that a moderate like Romney had zero chance of winning. Many of us here told you poll-humpers that at the outset. But of course we were “trolls”. Or OWSers. Or OFAers. Whatever.

In elections, you must have a winner and a loser. You question my judgment because I said Romney had the best shot of beating Obama, which just about every single poll showed. Which candidate do you think had a better shot? Let’s see how great your judgment is. Everyone has opinions. Some people have opinions that they can back up with evidence. Some people have opinions backed up by nothing. You’ve been sour ever since Palin quit her job. It’s okay. She’ll be just fine.

Cruz is just as “toxic” and “divisive”, so sure, go ahead. The point is about being so gullible or gutless as to be led around by the nose by the MSM in determining who’s “electable” and who’s “toxic”.

ddrintn on December 18, 2013 at 9:14 PM

I didn’t need Palin’s abysmal poll numbers to tell you that she’s “toxic.” I just needed to listen to her answers to difficult questions like “What do you read?” and “What’s a Supreme Court decision with which you disagree?” Cruz isn’t nearly as toxic as Palin, and never will be.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Romney could have been a monumental level President.

If you had a different horse, so be it.

But if you were one of these losers who jumped on every single also ran at the behest of talk radio jerks than shame on you.

Anyone who thinks that Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum were all better than Mitt should punch themselves in the groin & quit conservative activism.

That is how this Tea Party activist lined himself up with Boehner and Ryan. Just couldn’t support the embarrassing wing of angry idiots anymore.

swamp_yankee on December 18, 2013 at 11:12 PM

It still makes me sad that he didn’t win – I think he would have been a very good president.

acasilaco on December 19, 2013 at 2:13 AM

I like Cruz very much, but he has already offended half the country,

There is no future for America with idiotic crap like this psing as political commentary from a “conservative.”

Murphy9 on December 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM

The comment was correct. The problem is how we deal with it. Also, that comment could pretty much be said for any strong conservative candidate that is out there because eventually the media will ensure that half that country hates them.

It’s up to ***US*** to counteract the liberals and media (redundant). But we aren’t. We still continue to buy what they sell, watch what they show us and give them our money and time.

We *must* starve the beast and build our own. Andrew Breitbart was and still is 100% correct.

And even though Romney is a RINO with a lot of issues, he would have been monumentally better than the stiff in office right now who still has three years to finish his mission of destroying the country.

kim roy on December 19, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Romney is a good, honest, conservative man who was right about a number of things before the MSM could admit it. He’s almost too sane to run again though. He was too easy to paint as an out of touch rich guy, but if there was such a thing as white privilege (which there isn’t) Hillary would the poster girl.

xuyee on December 19, 2013 at 4:21 PM

I didn’t need Palin’s abysmal poll numbers to tell you that she’s “toxic.” I just needed to listen to her answers to difficult questions like “What do you read?” and “What’s a Supreme Court decision with which you disagree?” Cruz isn’t nearly as toxic as Palin, and never will be.

GOPRanknFile on December 18, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Yeah, I figured. You just regurgitate MSM memes like a good little squish. And I suppose I could harp on Mitt’s idiotic “47%” remark. The fact is, Palin’s “toxic” merely because you want her to be so. And yeah, you do need your little poll fetish to back that up. I guaran-damn-tee you in a matter of months you’ll be in here telling us what a lubblyjubbly sure-fire-winner Christie is. Or Jeb. Or whatever “non-toxic” loser mannequin the GOPe puts out there.

ddrintn on December 19, 2013 at 6:51 PM

But if you were one of these losers who jumped on every single also ran at the behest of talk radio jerks than shame on you.

swamp_yankee on December 18, 2013 at 11:12 PM

The “losers” were those who deluded themselves into thinking that a squish was going to do it. MITTMENTUM!!!!! Those you call “losers” merely saw what a loser Romney was sure to be. Hence the affection for “NotRomney”.

ddrintn on December 19, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Yeah, I figured. You just regurgitate MSM memes like a good little squish. And I suppose I could harp on Mitt’s idiotic “47%” remark. The fact is, Palin’s “toxic” merely because you want her to be so. And yeah, you do need your little poll fetish to back that up. I guaran-damn-tee you in a matter of months you’ll be in here telling us what a lubblyjubbly sure-fire-winner Christie is. Or Jeb. Or whatever “non-toxic” loser mannequin the GOPe puts out there.

ddrintn on December 19, 2013 at 6:51 PM

You’re more than welcome to harp on his 47% remark. Politically, it was stupid, but he was right. Not knowing a Supreme Court case with which she disagreed and not being able to name anything she reads not only killed her politically, but also exposed her as an intellectual lightweight. Those weren’t just MSM memes btw. Plenty of conservatives cringed when she couldn’t answer two rather simple questions. There are a lot of other things I can name as well. Romney’s statement was politically dumb because he spoke the truth. Palin’s responses or lack thereof were just dumb period.

It’s too soon to say if the GOP has a sure-fire winner. I just know if you’re not doing too well in your red home state, like Palin and Cruz, then you’re probably not viable nationally. I also noticed that you still haven’t responded to who in the 2012 field would have fared better against Obama than Romney, since your judgment is so sound.

GOPRanknFile on December 19, 2013 at 10:14 PM

There’s a lot of revisionist history in this thread. Romney didn’t lose because cons stayed home. Self-ID’s conservatives voted in greater proportions for Romney than McCain. Look it up. He lost because the casually-attached Republican voter didn’t bother to go to the polls for someone as uninspiring as Romney.

Charisma matters in political campaigns and he didn’t have enough, which was obvious in 2008, much less 2012.

alwaysfiredup on December 20, 2013 at 12:33 AM

Not knowing a Supreme Court case with which she disagreed and not being able to name anything she reads not only killed her politically, but also exposed her as an intellectual lightweight… Plenty of conservatives cringed when she couldn’t answer two rather simple questions. Palin’s responses or lack thereof were just dumb period.

GOPRanknFile on December 19, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Damn, dude. You are seriously going to use that hack-edited interview, her first national televised interview EVER, under absolutely unimaginable pressure, as proof that she is stupid. (Remember, CBS would never release the unedited interview, which lasted several days.)

It may have been a campaign error, but your conclusion is completely unfair. I’m sure you would have been Einstein in such circumstances.

alwaysfiredup on December 20, 2013 at 12:39 AM

Damn, dude. You are seriously going to use that hack-edited interview, her first national televised interview EVER, under absolutely unimaginable pressure, as proof that she is stupid. (Remember, CBS would never release the unedited interview, which lasted several days.)

It may have been a campaign error, but your conclusion is completely unfair. I’m sure you would have been Einstein in such circumstances.

alwaysfiredup on December 20, 2013 at 12:39 AM

Those were just a couple of examples. Were some of the interviews edited? Sure, but even she admitted that the “what do you read” question caught her off guard and she didn’t want to answer it for whatever reason, but then proceeding to “answer” it the next day in some campaign release. There was nothing edited about the Supreme Court case question. She tried avoiding the question altogether. And then of course to the Sunni and Shia, she responded with “I’ll have to look into it and get back to ya.” I’ve never even served in politics, and I know the answers to these simple questions. She was running to be VP and she couldn’t answer it.

I don’t think she’s an idiot, but it’s easy to portray her as one because of how she comes off in interviews, and it’s not just interviews by the liberal media either. She didn’t come too well in her many appearances with Beck and Hannity either. My initial post really didn’t have anything to do with Palin, but ddrintn got offended just because Palin’s name was mentioned.

GOPRanknFile on December 20, 2013 at 12:52 AM

He’s a good man, he is what he seems to be and he is a savant at business/organizational leadership. He would have been a great President.

And to the Levin sycophants who litter this place – Levin endorsed him in 2008 and to the pea sized memories of many of us, he was welcomed into CPAC after he dropped out in 2008 as a Hero to Conservatives.

AYNBLAND on December 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM

those were different times. When Mittness bowed out in early ’08, most of us weren’t even aware of RomneyCare. If anything, the timing of his “suspending” the campaign was wimpy to say the least.

“Do you even believe in your own raison d’etre for wanting to be POTUS?” was my thot. In hindsight, from reports in the immediate aftermath of ’12, seems like Mittness just gave up interest at the end. So when the going gets tough politically, he just loses interest.

But because he could have been the right man for the job in 08 (of all the candidates in the primaries, he was my favorite) does not translate to being the right man in ’12. Primarily because he failed to see that out of control spending, managing entitlements rather than reforming them and of course the biggest elephant in the room, RomneyCare made him unsuitable to take on Oboobi and turn things around.

Kind of like as a company heads towards bankruptcy, you could bring in new management to turn things around, but you wouldn’t use the same team to salvage a company already in bankruptcy and only worth 10 cents on the dollar.

I think many a folks felt the same way; they could support him in 08 and no way would support him in 12, simply based on his prescriptions.

That said, he would have never been a GREAT president, just on par with Dubya – but that’s hard to quantify because Dubya was great at WOT, but it came at a price of damaging free-market principles to save the free market and damaging the constitution to ‘save’ us from terrorism. Overall, his domestic ploicies kept us on cruise control towards the fiscal cliff. Because greatness is achieved only in battling the forces arrayed against what you’re fighting for. Eisenhower wasn’t a great POTUS, but he was a great warrior. Of all the great POTUS in the last 100 years, only Reagan and Cal comes to mind, the rest made their mark in 18/19th century. Pretty sad track record.

AH_C on December 20, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2