Posted on 11/07/2012 6:21:33 PM PST by Arthurio
Inside the ballroom in the Boston conference centre where Romney gave his perfunctory concession speech last night, his supporters were stunned by the scale of his defeat when just hours earlier they were confident of success or at least a nail-biting finish.
But hindsight will probably view Mitt Romney a poor presidential candidate who appeared to have no core values, was selected only reluctantly by his own party and campaigned as if the whole experience was deeply uncomfortable for him.
He made plenty of mistakes but his biggest failing was that even after running for the White House for the best part of six years it was hard to fathom exactly who he was or what he really believed – as opposed to what he thought voters wanted him to believe.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229083/US-Election-2012-analysis-Hindsight-view-Mitt-Romney-poor-candidate-says-Toby-Harnden.html#ixzz2BarVWZ5u Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Looking like he’s walking around with a broom handle up his ass didn’t help either.
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
If only he had been as ruthless with Obama as he was with all of his conservative primary challengers.
All of those things are true, and Romney only got bumps when (a) the party selected Paul Ryan as his running mate and (b) he had a rare flash of personal beliefs, such as in the first debate.
Romney was quite aggressive about eliminating his GOP opponents in the primary, but he lost all his aggressiveness once he became the candidate because the GOP honchos seemed to believe that the best way to beat Obama was by trying to be as similar to him ideologically as possible, only without some of his more annoying mannerisms.
I didn’t like him overall (except when he showed that rare flash of principle) but I voted for him, and I think he would have done a decent job as president if only because the people who would have surrounded him would not have been the dangerous band of radical leftist and Islamist flakes that surround Obama.
We actually needed someone who could have given a call to battle, but that might have been uncomfortable for the GOP-e, and we wouldn’t want that, would we.
“The fact is that Romney WAS a good candidate. He was singularly equipped with the skills to turn this country around.”
Yes. He was.
He tried to turn onto Reagan and failed.
“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!!!
Wow you guys really drank the koolaid.
It’s OK, He lost, you don’t need to pretend he’s a decent candidate anymore.
This gem of wisdom coming from a puking rag in the socialist armpit of Europe.
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.
I will view Governor Romney in a positive way looking back. Here was a truly decent man. Had he been running against another decent man, he would have won. In fact, I might go out on a limb and say he was one of the most decent men to run for president in history.
Romney will serve as a tragic example of character assassination at its worst. His is a story of a squeeky clean, all-American father and grandfather who had achieved the American dream, with the experience to fix our economic woes, demonized and turned into a monster by the MSM and the Chicago team.
By the end, I had a lot of respect for Mitt, and I wish him all the best, along with his wonderful wife and family.
You were up against Stalin, Mitt. Unfortunately, nobody beats Uncle Joe.
It will be interesting if we hear from Mitt over the next few years as we’ve heard from Palin and McCain. It would be good to see him again :)
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.
I don’t think that Romney was Main Sewer Media’s candidate. As I recall, our neighbours who registered as Republicans selected him as the candidate. Blame the MSM for protecting Obamao, even after Benghazi and Fast and Furious, bigger scandals than the scandal of the scotch tape on a door that was Watergate.
Yeah, yeah, Romney was bad, ran a bad campaign, we should have nominated a true conservative like a David Duke, etc, etc.
‘splain to me, Lucy, why the Republicans who had voted for Juan McCain in 2008 stayed home this year! Or have they all croaked in the meantime? By any measure Mitt wasn’t worse than Juan. Unless of course the Republican voters are as dumb as the Rats.
Romney was probably the best candidate that the GOP could have run this cycle. Republicans can’t sit around waiting for the next Reagan because it isn’t going to come unless some rich conservative wants to start a “Boys from Brazil” type program. He was a good candidate that ran a good campaign by conventional wisdom. He tried to build an ideological coalition and failed. Obama built an interest group coalition and succeeded. That might be the wave of the future,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.