A “respectable loss”? Winning might not be everything, but losing isn’t ANYTHING.
Losing is what losers do. Don’t know what the business model is for that, but it cannot pay very well. In fact, the whole concept seems to be on the level of playing a board game, or at most, a gentleman’s athletic competition.
America’s future is a WAY more serious proposition than winning or losing a tennis match or a bowling tournament.
We HAVE to have an interesting headliner on the ticket, to pull along all the Congressional districts and Senatorial contests that could in any way be marginal. Once we have that assurance, the real fight is still ahead, as there is still some reluctance about “taking down” another’s legacy.
But the mischief these “legacies” visit upon our nation and our capability to meet future challenges are just the things that HAVE to be dismantled.
Is Mitt Romney the person to do this? I do not see him as the inspiring leader we need so desperately in the near term, and he is likely just as corrosive to liberty and freedom as Obama is sure to be and has been already.
Pray for a brokered convention. That way, we have the opportunity to DRAFT the person who was reluctant to step into the race at the beginning, but is sharply outspoken against the abuses we are suffering now both within our country and in the world at wide.
You're right, a loss is a loss and that's what is killing the rest of us conservatives. From what I've seen (in spite of JimRob's known opinion on Romney), there isn't a ground swell of support for Romney here or anywhere.
Maybe the author inserted the word "respectable" for somebody's digestion and it just isn't for you or me.
What are the chances that the real reason for Romney being the nominee isn't to be a respectable loser, it's so he get's clobbered. A land slide victory for Obama should do well to silence his critics and marginalize any Tea Party gains in Congress.
Who in the GOP would wish for that result is beyond me.