“Romney’s flaws are well-known–all the more reason to get over them already. They are certainly nowhere near as deal-breaking as those of Hillary, or of Wampum Warren.”
Sure, sure, I even agree with this. Romney’s not a corrupt person like Hillary and he’s not a liar and an idiot like Warren.
But, he wasn’t those things last time.
Obama’s flaws were manifest at the last election. But, he still got re-elected.
Sorry, Romney would have made a much, much better President than Obama. I think perhaps he had potential to be a great president, even.
But he comes across as a rich, out-of-touch guy and he just couldn’t over come that.
The fact that he let Candy Crowley run interference for Obama over Benghazi is really what doomed him.
He should have been banging on the podium and asking again, and again: Why did you lie to the American people about the murder of our Ambassador, your own good friend? Why did you lie about it?
That would have been the sound bit of the election, but no, instead we got “binders of women”.
We need someone who is willing to take the fight to the left, all of the left, esp. the media. Someone who will not hesitate to rip their lungs out on national tv.
HELLO???? It isn't how he "comes across," it's WHAT HE STANDS FOR, you dolt! Are you ignorant of Romney's actual record? Informed folks turned away from Romney on sound, solid rightness. Listen, for the first time in 35-plus years of straight-party-ticket voting for me, and in nearly 60 years of the same for my staunch and active Republican mom, we both of us declined Romney in 2012, and I am ready to do the same in 2016, and expect my ol' ma would too.
You insult us, jocon, in your idea that it's just that Rommey came across wrong to us. The truth, understood by voters a lot more savvy than they get credit for being: Romney WAS and IS wrong, period. Wrong morally, and wrong politically. Thus he LOST, thank God.