I don't suppose it would be because most Massachusetts Republicans are slimy turds in the mold of Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee, would it?
It's more likely that their campaigns were poor risks.
Romney was the phenomenally successful CEO of Bain Capital, one of the world's great private venture capital funds. He achieved his extraordinary success by very coolly and exactly calculating the risk of each proposal brought to him.
It isn't that he is risk averse. Nor does he always win. But he clearly isn't swayed by personal or emotional factors when weighing risk. And over the long haul he comes out significantly ahead because he manages risk wisely.
As president he could be expected to shrewdly and decisively make fiscal policy and budgetary decisions based on hard evidence and sound business principles given the constraints he must operate within. He has world class business and economic sense and is quite possibly the most gifted pro-business presidential candidate in the past 100 years.
Giuliani? A former prosecuting attorney. Most of what he knows about business is what he learned while prosecuting the Mafia and white-collar crime in New York City. McCain? A former jet jockey, prisoner of war, and now full-time lawmaker. He's read articles about business but probably couldn't tell a balance sheet from a balance beam. Gingrich? A college professor--and not in a B-School either.
What these Massachusetts GOPers are doing is complaining that Romney didn't engage in pork barrell-style distributions of campaign funds based on subjective factors. If they had been more competitive or could have been made competitive, Romney likely would have spent money on them. They likely weren't, so he didn't.
It would be a delightful breath of fresh air to have a president who truly understands business and who wouldn't allow cronyism, personal friendship, or mere politics to drive his decisions on how taxpayer money is spent or invested.