I have no interest in Romney at this time, as he is not currently running for any office. If he runs for office, I will have to evaluate who else is running, and make an informed decision about how many of the candidates I can support.
In the meantime, my history is to build up as many viable candidates as possible, so we have a choice and so we don’t make the opposition’s job easier. There are plenty of others here at FR who excel at destroying candidates they don’t like in the vain hopes it will make THEIR candidate win the election.
As I have corrected several others, my comment said nothing about Palin, and was specifically about the poster’s assertion that the 2008 election proved we don’t need a candidate with experience. That is the WRONG message, and it certainly won’t work in 2012.
It’s funny though how so many people who are already wedded to Palin for President read “ill-informed mouthpiece” and automatically think “Palin”.
Otherwise we will have to assume that you're walking your comments back. And that does not show the courage of your convictions.
Finally, and I hope for the last time, the assumption that experience is the hallmark of a successful presidential candidate is bizarre following the 2008 election. I have no idea why many on the Right keeps making that point because it's so obviously false.
I can understand why people want experience, but to tell us that it's a requirement to win - following Obama's victory - is simply stupid.