I just have to laugh at the British and Canadian fascination with U.S. politics.
The fact is that Romney WAS a good candidate. He was singularly equipped with the skills to turn this country around.
Over two million less Republicans voted for Romney than they did McCain. Total Republicans that didn’t vote for him probably double that.
Once I discovered that I went outside, faced the West and yelled, “I hope your farking happy, Jim Robinson!”
I blame many others here as well but it’s not really any of your fault. You were simply mirroring a popular sentiment.
I hope all of you are happy. The damage in the next four years will be unrepairable.
The fact is Romney was chosen by the media to run. The liberal media knew Romney was the one in the race that provided the Dems all the ammunition needed to shoot him down, and they were right.
Class warfare, religious differences that would alienate the evangelicals, corporate raider history that would enrage blue collar voters, unlikeable stage presence, and the list goes on.
We got punked
“The fact is that Romney WAS a good candidate. He was singularly equipped with the skills to turn this country around.”
Yes. He was.
“The fact is that Romney WAS a good candidate.”
Up against the worthless slacker, he was an EXCELLENT candidate. But the slacker owned the “media”. I hope the 2 million who sat this one out are proud as hell of themselves. Just keep re-arranging those chairs on the deck. SS 2016 is underway. Thar she blows!!!
The story title is dead on. You have filters on your sight. Romney lost Massachusetts, a former governor of this state. So did the most "bipartisan Senator" Brown. Both had unclear values.
Ronald Reagan won Massachusetts twice. Here is the pattern. Reagan was able to tell America his vision, a conservative one. He was able to say it with grace. His emphasis on freedome, small taxes, and limited government appealed to enough to crush the liberals. He kept his grace all the while the liberals would rely on their name calling tactics. Democrats crossed over and voted for him in droves because his values appealed to many of them.
Even as gracious as he was, he was no push over. During one of his early primaries, he refused to be cut off from talking, grabbing the microphone reminding the moderator he paid for this microphone.
Reagan had class.
Romney is a good family man and a good businessman. Reagan was a good leader. He had vision. We knew what he saw.
The story title is dead on. You have filters on your sight. Romney lost Massachusetts, a former governor of this state. So did the most "bipartisan Senator" Brown. Both had unclear values.
Ronald Reagan won Massachusetts twice. Here is the pattern. Reagan was able to tell America his vision, a conservative one. He was able to say it with grace. His emphasis on freedome, small taxes, and limited government appealed to enough to crush the liberals. He kept his grace all the while the liberals would rely on their name calling tactics. Democrats crossed over and voted for him in droves because his values appealed to many of them.
Even as gracious as he was, he was no push over. During one of his early primaries, he refused to be cut off from talking, grabbing the microphone reminding the moderator he paid for this microphone.
Reagan had class.
Romney is a good family man and a good businessman. Reagan was a good leader. He had vision. We knew what he saw.
The story title is dead on. You have filters on your sight. Romney lost Massachusetts, a former governor of this state. So did the most "bipartisan Senator" Brown. Both had unclear values.
Ronald Reagan won Massachusetts twice. Here is the pattern. Reagan was able to tell America his vision, a conservative one. He was able to say it with grace. His emphasis on freedome, small taxes, and limited government appealed to enough to crush the liberals. He kept his grace all the while the liberals would rely on their name calling tactics. Democrats crossed over and voted for him in droves because his values appealed to many of them.
Even as gracious as he was, he was no push over. During one of his early primaries, he refused to be cut off from talking, grabbing the microphone reminding the moderator he paid for this microphone.
Reagan had class.
Romney is a good family man and a good businessman. Reagan was a good leader. He had vision. We knew what he saw.
So, you’re blaming Jim Robinson for Obama’s reelection?
That’s just childish.
Next time you put up a candidate, pick one that’s not a pale copy of the Democrat and maybe you’ll get some votes.
“I hope all of you are happy. The damage in the next four years will be unrepairable.”
Next 4 years? Obama will get illegals to vote and Puerto Rico will become our 51st state. This was the end game and the last chance for any Republican to win.
You are supposed to ping freepers that you are talking about, when you launch a straight out attack against a freeper, especially the owner, then you really need to ping him.
“The fact is that Romney WAS a good candidate. He was singularly equipped with the skills to turn this country around.”
Those are two very different things. He was the candidate best suited to be Zero’s punching bag.
RINOmney failed to unite the base - or represent their collective values.
He ran a take no risk, Dewey-styled campaign.
He looked uncomfortable in his own skin from start to finish.
He represented exactly the wrong thing as the citizens blame Wall Street and Big Business for the economic woes they are experiencing.
... all known from day 1. The GOPe pushed for him anyway.
He joins a similar line-up of losers:
Ford
Dole
McCain
Romney
Romney wasn't a good candidate.
The GOP heads knew that Romney would never get elected. They just used him to trot out and get donations. They had no intentions of even trying to unseat Obama.
The only thing that could make me happier is when the lemmings get tired of following the GOP over the cliff.
You misspelled your FR name.. it should be TheRINOlander.
The truth is he WAS a poor candidate and conservatives overlooked all their misgivings about Mittens even though he and his inner circle despised conservatives and wanted nothing to do with them. He was a liberal Republican and wasn’t the party’s first choice for its nominee. 60% of Republican voters wanted someone else. Romney got the party nod only because he had the least damaging political baggage of any of the candidates in the field. Unfortunately, the political baggage he carried was still a significant enough liability enough to sink him in the general election.
If the GOP establishment continues to insist on nominating liberal Republicans, the party will continue to lose elections. The GOP needs to stand for something, not just to agree with the prevailing liberal ideology. If it can’t remake itself, then it will die. If we get another candidate like Mittens, we’re guaranteed another loss in 2016, only bigger.
------------------
Umm, no.
Mitt Romney got at least 60,848,333 votes (a few states have yet to report final numbers) in 2012:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=1&year=2012&off=0&elect=0
John McCain only got 59,950,323 votes in 2008:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=1&off=0&year=2008
So Mitt Romney got around 1 million more votes than did John McCain.