Yes, the new Romney documentary is worth your time

posted at 6:41 pm on January 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

Time to tear off the band-aid if you haven’t already. I watched this weekend and found it alternately agonizing and oddly consoling. Romney was indeed, per his own diagnosis, a “flawed candidate,” but it comes through palpably that he never wanted to be president. He was willing to be president — he gave it his all, despite his misgivings — but the vibe from the whole family (more than one member of which mentions the upsides of losing) is that they felt this was something he was duty bound to do, not something he did eagerly like every other power-sniffing politician on the planet. The late Dean Barnett, who knew Romney and supported him in ’08, told me once long ago that Mitt was a Boy Scout who was running because he genuinely believed he could make the country better. I always thought that was self-serving nonsense concocted to justify Dean’s own preference, no different from what you’d hear a McCain supporter say about Maverick. If anyone was running purely because he craved power, it must be the guy who changed his positions repeatedly to try to please voters, no? After watching the movie, I finally see what Dean meant. There’s a moment of psychodrama about halfway through, after the first debate, when Romney hints that part of his motivation in running was needing to prove himself the equal of his father, but he never seems so honest as he does on election night in his hotel room when he explains why O’s victory is no aberration. That mini-soliloquy has already been celebrated online, but it’s less what Romney says than when he says it that’s a gut punch. With the election lost, he had no reason left to lie; stopping America from heading down a doomed European track really was, I think, why he ran in the end, even though he hated the process and could never illuminate his fears to the rest of the country. But I think he meant it. I thought of Dean there.

The consolation is that his family really is wonderful, to the point where you begin to understand why they’d be reluctant to trade their idyll for a credible chance at the presidency. The last shot is the whole movie in microcosm — Romney staring out the window, pondering failure on a global stage, with Ann beside him searching for the words to make it better. It’s bleak but tender. Every scene is, really: The filmmakers track his failed campaign in 2008, then gloss over his many victories en route to the nomination in 2012 with a two-minute montage before picking the story back up before the first debate with Obama. Even that scene, capturing Romney’s finest hour, is weighed down by his pessimism that he can win the next one. His only respite on the trail is family time before and after events, when he finally (finally) seems to decompress and behave like the lovable guy his friends always swore he was. It’s strange but true that “Mitt” is basically a movie about how politics isn’t everything, even at the highest level. A small consolation to the many millions who now have to live under Hopenchange 2.0, but it’s something.

Here’s the man himself in a scene not from “Mitt.”


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

…….

renalin on January 27, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Enough with Romney.

He ran, he lost.

fogw on January 27, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Made me mad at the media. It turns our politicians to talking points robots.

Mitt was much more looser and likable when the media wasn’t around.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Looks like the Cult of Mitt has to rear its ugly head for one last hurrah.

Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2014 at 6:49 PM

For a man who didn’t want to be President, he sure fought hard against other Republicans who actually wanted the job.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 6:49 PM

He seemed like he wanted to be President when he went after Rick Perry like a rabid dog. Or, maybe he just wanted to make sure that the choice was an acceptable one in his eyes – i.e., Obama or Romney.

besser tot als rot on January 27, 2014 at 6:50 PM

He took a dive. The fat lady sang, had a heart attack, and is dead and buried. Stick a fork in it.

ElectricPhase on January 27, 2014 at 6:52 PM

even though he hated the process and could never illuminate his fears to the rest of the country.

Then he should have stood aside and let someone who could have a shot.

besser tot als rot on January 27, 2014 at 6:54 PM

I miss Dean Barnett. The initial reason I was willing to Romney a chance, was the persuasive way that Dean would cheer-lead for him.

juanito on January 27, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Hard to believe, considering his joke of a campaign wasn’t…

/s

Nice guy IMO, though again IMO he had no business running for POTUS given his obvious political flaws and now- acknowledged reluctance.

cs89 on January 27, 2014 at 6:55 PM

It’s strange but true that “Mitt” is basically a movie about how politics isn’t everything, even at the highest level. A small consolation to the many millions who now have to live under Hopenchange 2.0, but it’s something.

+ 100..I agree..:)

Dire Straits on January 27, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Then he should have stood aside and let someone who could have a shot.

besser tot als rot on January 27, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Who, exactly?

thebrokenrattle on January 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM

even though he hated the process and could never illuminate his fears to the rest of the country.

That’s the biggest lesson I got from the film. The process stinks. I think this nonsense of people running for president for 3 to 4 years needs to stop. Also the media needs to stop covering politics in dumb sound bites.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM

romney didn’t lose.

america did.

homesickamerican on January 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM

I didn’t like watching Mittens Part 1, why would I want to watch Mittens Part 2.

RickB on January 27, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Who, exactly?

thebrokenrattle on January 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM

If Mitt didn’t want it, anyone else who did.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Duty bound, huh?

Then he really should have stepped aside, or you know, not tried so hard to crush anyone else who stood in his way, who probably actually wanted to be president and, you know, beat Obama.

In end result is the same as McCain declaring, ‘we have nothing to fear from Obama as president.’ A person who really wanted the job would not make such declarations.

So, cry me a river.

Sharr on January 27, 2014 at 6:58 PM

I think this nonsense of people running for president for 3 to 4 years needs to stop.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Mitt ran for President from 2003-2012. That’s 9 years.

He sets the records for length of Presidential runs.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Policies aside, Mitt Romney is exactly the kind of person people say they want in a politician: intelligent, honest, selfless, decent, family oriented. It says a lot about this country that he didn’t (and in retrospect probably couldn’t) win.

SAZMD on January 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Then he really should have stepped aside, or you know, not tried so hard to crush anyone else who stood in his way, who probably actually wanted to be president and, you know, beat Obama.

Who on the Republican side could have beat Obama?

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Ap said,

The late Dean Barnett, who knew Romney and supported him in ’08, told me once long ago that Mitt was a Boy Scout who was running because he genuinely believed he could make the country better. I always thought that was self-serving nonsense concocted to justify Dean’s own preference, no different from what you’d hear a McCain supporter say about Maverick. If anyone was running purely because he craved power, it must be the guy who changed his positions repeatedly to try to please voters, no? After watching the movie, I finally see what Dean meant.

I hope you learn something from this, about what else you might be misperceiving in life because of your cynicism, Ap! :)

Anti-Control on January 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Mitt ran for President from 2003-2012. That’s 9 years.

He sets the records for length of Presidential runs.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Yeah and it is ridiculous for someone to run for that long.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Who on the Republican side could have beat Obama?

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Anyone willing to throw a punch.

ElectricPhase on January 27, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Haven’t seen the documentary yet and won’t for a long time because the wound is still raw for me. Election night 2012 was an eviscerating terrible god awful experience that still haunts me. Anyway, what I take away from what I’ve read is that Mitt felt it was his duty to make the country better. He didn’t want the power, he felt he had to do it. And why is that bad? Wasn’t George Washington the same way? How about having a candidate that just wants to make things better for a change?

Jack_Burton on January 27, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Anyone willing to throw a punch.

ElectricPhase on January 27, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Our field in 2012 stunk.

I do have some hope for 2016 though.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Yeah and it is ridiculous for someone to run for that long.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Whats more shocking is after running for President for 9 years, this movie on NetFlix finally showed some actual life & humanity out of the guy.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Whats more shocking is after running for President for 9 years, this movie on NetFlix finally showed some actual life & humanity out of the guy.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Right but in our 24/7 media campaign complex a candidate can’t be real. He has to give his talking points. If you go off message they hammer you. They hammered Mitt for that stupid 47% comment…..which he was right about.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Anyone willing to throw a punch.

ElectricPhase on January 27, 2014 at 7:04 PM

One who can take a punch and effectively counterpunch.

RickB on January 27, 2014 at 7:09 PM

If Mitt didn’t want it, anyone else who did.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Meh. No one was great but all were preferable to the One. Including Mitt.

thebrokenrattle on January 27, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Policies aside, Mitt Romney is exactly the kind of person people say they want in a politician: intelligent, honest, selfless, decent, family oriented. It says a lot about this country that he didn’t (and in retrospect probably couldn’t) win.

SAZMD on January 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM

The anyone but Romney crowd cant admit they were bamboozled by a liberal media narrative that bears no resemblance to his actual track record. Hook, line and sinker- To this day.

Resolute on January 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM

If you feel it is your duty, you throw yourself into it with abandon.

Mitt had reservations.

He did not do his duty because of them and it showed. You do not run to run, you run to win if you believe that is your duty.

Do or do not: there is no middle ground.

ajacksonian on January 27, 2014 at 7:14 PM

For a man who didn’t want to be President, he sure fought hard against other Republicans who actually wanted the job.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 6:49 PM

They didn’t want the job, he did. They wanted the power. That’s the point of dean’s comment.

Zetterson on January 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Looks like the Cult of Mitt has to rear its ugly head for one last hurrah.

Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2014 at 6:49 PM

LOL. So ridiculous…

It’s clear that a lot of people here can’t be bothered, because they made up their mind about him a long time ago and don’t want to see anything that might run counter to that, but it is excellent. I have to admit, though, that seeing that Benghazi portion of the 2nd debate, where Candy Crowley inserted herself into the debate, was excruciating. Made my blood boil all over again.

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM

MITT ROMNEY, PLEASE JUST GO AWAY.

Warner Todd Huston on January 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM

he never wanted to be president

Then he shouldn’t have messed up the Republican party by running. Yeah, I always had a sense that he just wasn’t destined to be president, and that there was something just plain off or awry about him. Honestly, it doesn’t take an Einstein to realize that there is something terribly wrong with someone who describes himself as a “severe conservative,” and weeks later when given the opportunity to retract, he stood by his bizarre words. Yes, Romney was seriously flawed. But we need to move on. And he needs to move on. Don’t let it linger. Be gone.

anotherJoe on January 27, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Notice how much media coverage Hillary is getting lately? And the only reason why the media covered Christie’s bridgegate is because he is possible contender for 2016.

The election isn’t till 2016 and the media is already starting to obsess over it!

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Good job America!
/

Your reality can be found in stories like this:

Connecticut’s unemployment rate dropped to 7.4 percent in December despite a decline in the number of jobs, labor officials said Monday. The state reported a loss of 3,900 job

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 27, 2014 at 7:18 PM

They didn’t want the job, he did. They wanted the power. That’s the point of dean’s comment.

Zetterson on January 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Oh, please. Poor old noble Mitt…the poor saint only wanted to do the job and not have the power, which is why in effect he had been running for president ever since being elected governor of Massachusetts, and by sliming every threat in the GOP primaries.

The anyone but Romney crowd cant admit they were bamboozled by a liberal media narrative that bears no resemblance to his actual track record. Hook, line and sinker- To this day.

Resolute on January 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM

The “liberal media narrative” up until St Mitt won the nomination was that he was the only “electable” possibility. It was the Mittbot crowd who bought the “liberal media narrative”.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Boy we sure dodged a bullet/sarc

sandee on January 27, 2014 at 7:20 PM

A Mittens movie eh!!

canopfor on January 27, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Yeah and it is ridiculous for someone to run for that long.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Whats more shocking is after running for President for 9 years, this movie on NetFlix finally showed some actual life & humanity out of the guy.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 7:06 PM

.
you two sound like the dishonest lying scum weasels that are the Left.
Get with it.
Romney was Governor to the end of 2006. H jumped in 2008 race when he was supposed to. 9 years ? duh….
Now Nixon was 8 years – from ’60-68′….oh, and 2 landslide victories I might add – so maybe that was a good thing…until that nosy Forrest Gump guy mucked it up…

FlaMurph on January 27, 2014 at 7:21 PM

H jumped in 2008 race when he was supposed to. 9 years ?

There is really no need for people to campaign that long…..especially when they are just going to be repeating the same thing.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:24 PM

It’s clear that a lot of people here can’t be bothered, because they made up their mind about him a long time ago and don’t want to see anything that might run counter to that…

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM

The movie can try to “humanize” him as much as it likes. It still won’t get rid of Romneycare. It still won’t change the fact that he was the first governor to implement gay marriage. It still won’t change his steadfast support of abortion in Massachusetts. It still won’t expunge his record of flip-flops, or serial stupidity from not caring about the very poor, to liking being able to fire people, to being a severe conservative, to the 47 percent.

Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2014 at 7:25 PM

There is really no need for people to campaign that long…..especially when they are just going to be repeating the same thing.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:24 PM

He was supposed to know when he started running that he’d be doing so in ’12, as well?

And what is the appropriate length of time for people to campaign for president, exactly, given the huge amounts of money and manpower needed?

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Romney was Governor to the end of 2006. H jumped in 2008 race when he was supposed to. 9 years ? duh….

FlaMurph on January 27, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Come off it. Romney didn’t just “jump in the race” in 2008. Romney had been running at least since 2004, and that was the real reason he didn’t run for re-election. He was sure to be beaten, and that would’ve ruined the prez candidate resume.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 7:28 PM

And what is the appropriate length of time for people to campaign for president, exactly, given the huge amounts of money and manpower needed?

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 7:28 PM

A campaign that is four or five months will do. But having a short campaign is not what the media wants since the networks get money from the millions of dollars the campaigns spend in advertising in the battleground states.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:31 PM

A campaign that is four or five months will do. But having a short campaign is not what the media wants since the networks get money from the millions of dollars the campaigns spend in advertising in the battleground states.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:31 PM

4 or 5 months, to get the staff in place and to raise the HUNDREDS of millions necessary to mount a campaign? Not sure how realistic that is.

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 7:33 PM

romney didn’t lose.

america did.

homesickamerican on January 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM

This.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Why would I want to watch this? I already know he was a good, decent man. I already know he was a deeply flawed candidate. I already know he is a better man that Barack Obama. And I already know the sickness I felt in my soul on election night.

SAMinVA on January 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Romney was Governor to the end of 2006. He jumped in 2008 race when he was supposed to. 9 years ? duh….

FlaMurph on January 27, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Mitt Ran for Governor to base his Presidential run off of.

Just like his father George did in Michigan.

He ran in 2002, and took office in 2003. He left office in 2007. He lost the nomination in 2008. He continued a presidential run through 2012.

2003-2012 = 9 years.

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Strangely I agree with AP. I watched Mitt and I found it interesting. I think that the biggest flaws in US politics today is the people who usually run don’t do so for noble reasons but for personal gain. On both sides of the aisle it is about power in one form or another. Our modern politicians tell themselves they want to serve the nation but in reality serve themselves. I think that in Mitt Romney’s case he truly felt a need to serve his nation, regardless of his personal reservations. Agree or disagree about Mitt Romney but I think our nation would be better served by reluctant Presidents as opposed to the power hungry candidates we have today.

JKotthoff on January 27, 2014 at 7:40 PM

4 or 5 months, to get the staff in place and to raise the HUNDREDS of millions necessary to mount a campaign? Not sure how realistic that is.

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Do you realize if we have short campaigns…..there will be NO need to raise a billion dollars (which is now the amount that presidential campaigns need)?

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:42 PM

4 or 5 months, to get the staff in place and to raise the HUNDREDS of millions necessary to mount a campaign? Not sure how realistic that is.

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Do you realize if we have much shorter campaigns….there would be NO need to raise a ridiculous amount of money?

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Ah, I see the Anybody But Romney crowd is out in full force again. 9_9

Seriously, you’d think that any half mentally balanced person would be tired of regurgitating that garbage rhetoric after all these years. But, really, how mentally balanced can you possibly be if you thought Gingrich or Santorum were good candidates.

And don’t give me that, “Mitt should have stepped down for somebody that wanted it,” line. Romney was essentially last in line for most of the nomination, and was pretty much the nominee by default when every other half credible candidate self destructed. The only people left after that, were the bozo’s and creeps that didn’t have enough juice between them to power a forty watt lightbulb.

Heck, Ron Paul was more credible than Gingrich or Santorum. At least with him you could tell he was running for reasons other than pure unmitigated self indulgence.

WolvenOne on January 27, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Mitt lost to a 2-year old who tweeted his pen today, no kidding.

Schadenfreude on January 27, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Mitt lost to a 2-year old who tweeted his pen today, no kidding.

Schadenfreude on January 27, 2014 at 7:50 PM

I had to check…you weren’t kidding.

Murphy9 on January 27, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Do you realize if we have much shorter campaigns….there would be NO need to raise a ridiculous amount of money?

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Of course, but that’s not the world we live in nor is it realistic to expect it’ll be that way. I’m not saying I wouldn’t like that (I would, very much), but I just don’t think it’ll happen. Sounds like you would support some form of campaign finance reform to limit them…?

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Of course, but that’s not the world we live in nor is it realistic to expect it’ll be that way. I’m not saying I wouldn’t like that (I would, very much), but I just don’t think it’ll happen. Sounds like you would support some form of campaign finance reform to limit them…?

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I don’t know if legislation is necessary. Haven’t thought about it.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM

“I don’t think it is a time for soothing and everything’s fine,” said Romney. “I think this is a time for [saying], ‘This is really serious, guys. This is really serious.’”
via Ace

After reading his mini-soliloquy at Ace I don’t think it’s “fine” to spend our time ripping on Romney. This nation has reached the tipping point and the socialists have taken control with the blessing of a majority of Americans! This is really serious guys!

wolverinefan on January 27, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Funny. The guy who led the whole race should of stepped aside for clowns like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich who could really have won… Its this type of stuff that made turned the Tea Party from a power in 2010 into marginalized joke.

swamp_yankee on January 27, 2014 at 8:41 PM

swamp_yankee on January 27, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Congratulations President Romney…oh wait…

cableguy615 on January 27, 2014 at 9:01 PM

It’s strange but true that “Mitt” is basically a movie about how politics isn’t everything, even at the highest level.

Don’t tell that to the pants poppers on this site.

somewhatconcerned on January 27, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Funny. The guy who led the whole race should of stepped aside for clowns like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich who could really have won… Its this type of stuff that made turned the Tea Party from a power in 2010 into marginalized joke.

swamp_yankee on January 27, 2014 at 8:41 PM

I’m convinced there’s a lot of people on our side who don’t want power. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, criticize the Left as the country circles the drain. That’s the only reason to support the candidacies of people like Newt Gingrich.

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Mitt Romney is a good man. He was a flawed candidate. And, even his own supporters would never let him forget it.
McCain should have never beat him. He is rancid refuse.

BedBug on January 27, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Yes, the new Romney documentary is worth your time

Nope.

Mittness’ problem is he had no fire in the belly for America. He’ll go toe to toe over personal/professional, but over America, Liberty the Constitution? Not so much. If pressed, he would never defend the inalienable rights of we the people with his life, treasure and/or sacred honor as did the founding fathers.

Piss off Mittness. You can’t achieve greatness by playing it safe.

AH_C on January 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM

Seriously, you’d think that any half mentally balanced person would be tired of regurgitating that garbage rhetoric after all these years. But, really, how mentally balanced can you possibly be if you thought Gingrich or Santorum were good candidates.

What state would either of those lost that Romney won? None of them.

And don’t give me that, “Mitt should have stepped down for somebody that wanted it,” line. Romney was essentially last in line for most of the nomination, and was pretty much the nominee by default when every other half credible candidate self destructed.

WolvenOne on January 27, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Romney was destroyed the moment that O-care became law. He was simply the Next In Line, and was the presumptive nominee from early 2009. That fact in part was why the GOP field was this unelectable moderate with the occupants of a Klown Kar nipping at his heels, with, nevertheless, those “Klowns” collectively garnering more support than Romney did, at least until his nomination was all but certain. The subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) message from 2009 onwards was that Romney was the only one worth considering. Period.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Do you realize if we have much shorter campaigns….there would be NO need to raise a ridiculous amount of money?

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Yup and in 1976/1980, there would be no Ronald Reagan as the elites cruse to primary victory. You wanted Mittness and all the GOPe RINOs? Keep them and choke on their crapsammiches.

AH_C on January 27, 2014 at 9:18 PM

I’m convinced there’s a lot of people on our side who don’t want power. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, criticize the Left as the country circles the drain. That’s the only reason to support the candidacies of people like Newt Gingrich.

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 9:12 PM

When they could’ve supported a winner like Mitt Romney!!!1111!!! The people who “don’t want power” are those who delude themselves into thinking that that SuperElectable NonPolarizing Moderate is really going to do it this time.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Reading these comments I see how this happened to our country. We had too many idiots on our side stay home. It’s a crying shame.

pageram on January 27, 2014 at 9:20 PM

We had too many idiots on our side stay home. It’s a crying shame.

pageram on January 27, 2014 at 9:20 PM

But we were told over and over that those “idiots” weren’t needed. The “smart” people were all going to vote for Romney anyway and show what a small sliver of “extremist purists” those “idiots” are part of. Now it’s their fault that Romney lost. All of this was predicted.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 9:22 PM

All of this was predicted.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 9:22 PM

This

AH_C on January 27, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Mitt? Who? Wake me up when a limited government Conservative with convictions and who takes on the leftists with boldness runs for office. I don’t care what Party he represents. Enough with The Establishment picks.

Decoski on January 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Agree or disagree about Mitt Romney but I think our nation would be better served by reluctant Presidents as opposed to the power hungry candidates we have today.

JKotthoff on January 27, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Romney wasn’t reluctant. He just realized all along that he didn’t have much of a base of support beyond the party establishment and their flunkies, and it takes more than that to win an election.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 9:39 PM

I don’t know if legislation is necessary. Haven’t thought about it.

terryannonline on January 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Legislation is usually the answer to every problem our nation faces.

steebo77 on January 27, 2014 at 9:50 PM

romney didn’t lose.

america did.

homesickamerican on January 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM

…^ THIS ^ ….again!

KOOLAID2 on January 27, 2014 at 9:59 PM

steebo77 on January 27, 2014 at 9:50 PM

…(miss you…in the Gulch!)

KOOLAID2 on January 27, 2014 at 10:00 PM

Romney wasn’t reluctant. He just realized all along that he didn’t have much of a base of support beyond the party establishment and their flunkies, and it takes more than that to win an election.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 9:39 PM

.
You didn’t want Romney. Ever. You worked against him all the way.
You preferred anyone to Mitt.
You preferred the commie Chicago Jesus to Mitt.
Well you got him. again.
Congrats.
How’s that working out for ya?

FlaMurph on January 27, 2014 at 10:07 PM

No. It’s not worth my time. He was a RINO that governed as a Leftist, the record is perfectly clear. I’m glad his church overlooks his pro-homosexual indoctrination he pushed on K-6 kids and his anti gun legislation, Romney-Care, etc, ad naseum, – no doubt $millions in charitable giving make the church elders look off in a different direction. I’m pretty tired of “well he’s a Northeast Republican…” – meaning, he’s not a Republican or a Conservative. There actually are, I’m sure, Democrats that can balance a checkbook. Pushing Christie much or just waiting till the hubbub dies down a bit?

John_G on January 27, 2014 at 10:20 PM

I’m truly stunned here by the insinuation that Mitt forced Gay marriage on Massachusetts. The big thing that started his rise among the national party was his standing up as best as he could to the gay marriage lobby.

The Mass Supreme Court legalized SSM early in Mitt’s governor term. 1st in the country. Thousands at the time flocked there, eager to get “married” and then return home and use the full faith and credit clause to legalize it across the country.

Mitt dug up an obscure 1908 era (or thereabouts) law that pretty much shut off the ability for carpetbaggers to show up and get hitched and go home. It was a very clever legal move that, for a time, stemmed the gay advance across the country.

Vanceone on January 27, 2014 at 10:39 PM

What state would either of those lost that Romney won? None of them.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Easy. Gingrich and Cain would have lost North Carolina, Indiana, and maybe even Missouri.

Out of all the polls during the time Newt was running, he led Obama in NC in exactly…none of them:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nc/north_carolina_gingrich_vs_obama-1782.html

Newt and Cain would have probably lost by about the same margin as McCain/Palin did. Maybe by even a greater margin because of of Newt’s personal and political baggage, and Cain’s personal baggage and lack of governmental experience.

GOPRanknFile on January 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM

You didn’t want Romney. Ever. You worked against him all the way.
You preferred anyone to Mitt.
You preferred the commie Chicago Jesus to Mitt.
Well you got him. again.
Congrats.
How’s that working out for ya?

FlaMurph on January 27, 2014 at 10:07 PM

I’m sure he/she thinks that Palin would have had a better shot too.

GOPRanknFile on January 27, 2014 at 10:56 PM

What state would either of those lost that Romney won? None of them.

ddrintn on January 27, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Only if your mind would Newt and Cain would do as well as Romney in swing states when Romney consistently outpolled both in their home state of Georgia, which is considerably more conservative than IN or NC.

GOPRanknFile on January 27, 2014 at 11:10 PM

Only if in your mind would Newt and Cain would do as well as Romney in swing states when Romney consistently outpolled both in their home state of Georgia, which is considerably more conservative than IN or NC.

GOPRanknFile on January 27, 2014 at 11:10 PM

GOPRanknFile on January 27, 2014 at 11:24 PM

Just when I think no group could be more vindictive, sanctimonious, short-sighted and downright stupid than the far left, comments like the ones here by “real conservatives” prove that the left are pikers when it comes to dishing out the vitriol.

The rightwingers decided long ago to hate Romney and they get high marks for staying consistent, despite all the evidence that Mitt is a decent man who felt it was his duty to help the country. So supposedly highly-principled conservatives are now denigrating the concept of duty?

Only the small, nailed-shut minds of the far right could somehow turn those facts into something to be mocked and criticized.

Meredith on January 27, 2014 at 11:34 PM

Why, is he going to endorse your buddy, Chris Christie?

What does watching a video about Romney do for the voters in 2014?
As Hillary would say, “What difference does it make?”

Amjean on January 27, 2014 at 11:45 PM

I’m convinced there’s a lot of people on our side who don’t want power. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, criticize the Left as the country circles the drain. That’s the only reason to support the candidacies of people like Newt Gingrich.

changer1701 on January 27, 2014 at 9:12 PM

They actually want the downfall of the country because they imagine themselves being in charge of the rebuilding, it’s the same kind of “world leader pretend” narcissism that propels the advocates of government central planning; they imagine themselves as the central planners.
They are fools who want their 3rd party or the destruction of the GOP because they have been “betrayed” and don’t care what the consequences to themselves or everyone else are. I am consistently gobsmacked at the self defeating stupidity on display here. Speaking of which:

Piss off Mittness. You can’t achieve greatness by playing it safe.

AH_C on January 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM

This idiot, for instance, wants to revive the Whig party. I am not making that up. The strategy? Trash the GOP on hotair even to the extent of voting for democrats. People like this aren’t “on our side”, they are worse than democrats.
This country will be paying for the stupidity that elected Obama twice for the next 150 years. We have ceded out status as superpower and will be overtaken in the world economy because so many “Conservatives” couldn’t be bothered to actually do anything to conserve what they were given.

V7_Sport on January 27, 2014 at 11:51 PM

Why, is he going to endorse your buddy, Chris Christie?

What does watching a video about Romney do for the voters in 2014?
As Hillary would say, “What difference does it make?”

Amjean on January 27, 2014 at 11:45 PM

If you only watch stuff based on what it does for the voters in 2014, then you lead a very sad life. There’s more to life than politics. If you’re not interested in watching it, then so be it, but if your criteria for what you should watch is based on that, then that’s pretty pathetic.

I’m no Palin fan, but even I watched a couple of episodes of her reality show. It doesn’t do anything for the voters in 2014, but hey, I figured maybe it could be interesting. It really wasn’t, but at least I gave it a shot.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2014 at 12:03 AM

This idiot, for instance, wants to revive the Whig party. I am not making that up. The strategy? Trash the GOP on hotair even to the extent of voting for democrats. People like this aren’t “on our side”, they are worse than democrats.

Aren’t you ever the idiot. How does comparing today’s GOPe to the Whigs of the 1850s equate to wanting to revive the Whigs? As the nascent Republican party killed the Whigs, it’s time for conservatives to kill the GOPe.

But then again it’s your reading comphrension, understanding of history and what’s in the founding documents…

This country will be paying for the stupidity that elected Obama twice for the next 150 years. We have ceded out status as superpower and will be overtaken in the world economy because so many “Conservatives” couldn’t be bothered to actually do anything to conserve what they were given.

V7_Sport on January 27, 2014 at 11:51 PM

Wrong again, we can’t be bothered with conserving team Red’ power & prestige with the likes of Boehner, McConnell, McCain, Ryan, Romney leading the party.

So tell me again who voted w/o hesitation to cut Soldiers’ pension on the latest reach-around deal? Feeling the love and appreciation yet from your fearless leaders yet? BOHICA.

But we conservatives will gladly use Article 5 to take back the country and restore the constitutional republic, with or w/o you, but it will necessarily mean the aforementioned will lose their place at the trough.

AH_C on January 28, 2014 at 1:08 AM

Yes, the new Romney documentary is worth your time

Tempting, but…I think I’d rather go in the bathroom and give myself a root canal with this old nail I found on the floor of my garage.

Cylor on January 28, 2014 at 1:50 AM

I never liked Romney, but we had a very flawed field in 2012, there’s no doubt.

However, everyone talks about the “strong field” we have in 2016.

Chris Christie? I’d rather have Romney again
Jeb Bush? I’d rather have Romney again
Scott Walker? You think the Left made fun of GWB’s education? And he went to Harvard and Yale.
Santorum? Well, I preferred Mitt the last time around.
Rand Paul? I’ve never been fond of legislators as Presidents. The last 5 years certainly haven’t changed my mind.
Ted Cruz? See “Rand Paul”.
Marco Rubio? Lying idiot. And see “Rand Paul”.
Huckabee? Well, he does support the Fair Tax, I guess.
Jindal? Him I like. Which means he has no chance of winning the nomination.
Perry? I like him, but let’s not kid ourselves. His 2012 campaign was nothing less than a complete disaster. That’s not very encouraging.

Chris of Rights on January 28, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Aren’t you ever the idiot. How does comparing today’s GOPe to the Whigs of the 1850s equate to wanting to revive the Whigs? As the nascent Republican party killed the Whigs, it’s time for conservatives to kill the GOPe.

So you aren’t out to promote a 3rd party, no matter what…. Your previous statements signified nothing evidently.

Wrong again, we can’t be bothered with conserving team Red’ power & prestige with the likes of Boehner, McConnell, McCain, Ryan, Romney leading the party.

What about conserving the country? That’s what you can’t be bothered with.

So tell me again who voted w/o hesitation to cut Soldiers’ pension on the latest reach-around deal?

You must have found that quite distasteful to read about how other people who actually served the country got screwed. Oh wait, had you cared about that you would not be encouraging people not to vote or actually vote for democrats.

But we conservatives…

Stop right there, anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to vote for socialists under any circumstances isn’t a conservative.

…use Article 5

Yay, another pipe dream. Whatever, that will require getting off your butt which might take time away from your whining on the internet that everything wasn’t done for you correctly so I it isn’t going to happen.

V7_Sport on January 28, 2014 at 8:23 AM

However, everyone talks about the “strong field” we have in 2016.

Chris Christie? I’d rather have Romney again
Jeb Bush? I’d rather have Romney again
Scott Walker? You think the Left made fun of GWB’s education? And he went to Harvard and Yale.
Santorum? Well, I preferred Mitt the last time around.
Rand Paul? I’ve never been fond of legislators as Presidents. The last 5 years certainly haven’t changed my mind.
Ted Cruz? See “Rand Paul”.
Marco Rubio? Lying idiot. And see “Rand Paul”.
Huckabee? Well, he does support the Fair Tax, I guess.
Jindal? Him I like. Which means he has no chance of winning the nomination.
Perry? I like him, but let’s not kid ourselves. His 2012 campaign was nothing less than a complete disaster. That’s not very encouraging.

Chris of Rights on January 28, 2014 at 8:14 AM

I agree, I also remember: “Got to go through Carter to get to Reagan” -Hotair excuses for staying home on election day circa 2008. So where is he? That couldn’t have been wrong, could it?

V7_Sport on January 28, 2014 at 8:28 AM

romney didn’t lose.

america did.

homesickamerican on January 27, 2014 at 6:57 PM

This.

Count to 10 on January 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Yes, this.

Run again Romney!

SauerKraut537 on January 28, 2014 at 8:34 AM

the comments on this thread reveal why we lost and why America may be done for. The spite and vemom from the right towards a man who embodies the ideal conservative life is why we are boned.

drballard on January 28, 2014 at 9:52 AM

As a pre-emptive to the Palin supporters, when considering her bona fides as a conservative, consider her endorsement of McCain for senator, and her endorsement of Gingrich, a man who has never had a job in the private sector in his life and is a multiple adulterer.

drballard on January 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Newt and Cain would have probably lost by about the same margin as McCain/Palin did. Maybe by even a greater margin because of of Newt’s personal and political baggage, and Cain’s personal baggage and lack of governmental experience.

GOPRanknFile on January 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM

Or Romney. And relying on a PPP poll pretty much what gave us the SuperElectable Moderate Loser in the first place. I still maintain that ANY of those in the so-called Klown Kar would have done no worse than St Electability himself. Who, by the way, was supposed to win more than NC. Heck, St Squish was supposed to turn Michigan red, remember? And he lost Ohio. So I’m wondering what you brilliant wizards of electability got for your devotion.

This idiot, for instance, wants to revive the Whig party. I am not making that up.

V7_Sport on January 27, 2014 at 11:51 PM

Yeah, you pretty much are making that up. The thinking is that the GOP itself is the Whigs. It’s showing it can make itself irrelevant all on its own.

You didn’t want Romney. Ever. You worked against him all the way.
You preferred anyone to Mitt.
You preferred the commie Chicago Jesus to Mitt.

FlaMurph on January 27, 2014 at 10:07 PM

If that were true, I wouldn’t have held my nose and voted for the moderate loser, you idiot. Just because I told the truth in saying that Mitt was going to get blasted at the polls doesn’t mean I’m a communist. It means I have sense enough to know a squish can’t win nationally. Apparently that’s a lesson that the Mittbots-in-rehab contingent can’t quite get.

ddrintn on January 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM

As a pre-emptive to the Palin supporters, when considering her bona fides as a conservative, consider her endorsement of McCain for senator, and her endorsement of Gingrich, a man who has never had a job in the private sector in his life and is a multiple adulterer.

drballard on January 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

And NONE of them ever signed RomneyCare into law.

ddrintn on January 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM

George Washington didn’t want the job, yet served anyway. Why is it so wrong for Romney to do likewise? Also, anyone familiar with the LDS church would know that serving your fellow man when called to do so, is an honorable way to live ones life.

In the end, he still has his family in spite of the idiocy of those who voted against Mitt. They chose the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people over a decent man who would have fixed this country.

It’s clear that God’s reason for establishing this country has been filled and now she will burn from the inside out. It’s time to gets ones affairs in order.

csdeven on January 28, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Or Romney. And relying on a PPP poll pretty much what gave us the SuperElectable Moderate Loser in the first place. I still maintain that ANY of those in the so-called Klown Kar would have done no worse than St Electability himself. Who, by the way, was supposed to win more than NC. Heck, St Squish was supposed to turn Michigan red, remember? And he lost Ohio. So I’m wondering what you brilliant wizards of electability got for your devotion.

ddrintn on January 28, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Your logic is so flawed that it’s not even worth responding to, but I’ll do it anyway. Yes, the only states he ended up picking up that McCain/Palin didn’t were North Carolina and Indiana. And yes, he was supposed to win OH, VA, and FL. Just because he lost those states doesn’t mean that he wasn’t our best shot to win those states. Cain, in most polls, was losing his home state of GA to Obama outside the margin of error (in some by double digits). Romney ended up winning GA comfortably. In all the polls of Gingrich vs. Obama in NC, Gingrich was only within the margin of error ONCE. Romney ended up winning it. You can keep contending that Cain and Gingrich would have done as well as Romney, but, as usual, you have absolutely no evidence to back it up. All you have is your own fantasies, which is not surprising coming from a Palin supporter. Or maybe Palin is a RINO too now because of the love letter she wrote about McCain?

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2