SO then what is the point. You list off a litany here about guys who couldn't win yet Mitt, with an almost 4 to 1 money advantage in many cases could never close the deal anywhere, even being bested by Huck out side the deep south.
Facts are a nasty thing.
And now you guys are out pimping the man for 2012. You say in this post, and I have seen you and other Mittbots saying the same thing, that Mitt was the best pick among bad choices in 08 but you are pre-picking him before we even know our choices in 2012.
Make up your mind there. Either start with backing a solid Conservative and then fall back to Mitt 4 years from now if need be, or just come out and say it is beauty or faith or whatever that guides your pick, not a desire to see Conservative principals served. It is ok to be honest, it is not like it is a secret with you guys anyways.
See you can not have it both ways, you can not tell me Mitt was a default choice among bad ones in 2008 and at the same time is the best choice among unknown ones in 2012, at least from a Conservative stand point.
I'm not saying Romney ran a great primary campaign...
I'm saying that, amongst the Republican candidates in the primary, Romney had the best chance of winning the general election... due to a variety of factors.
Money isn't the be all and end all of political campaigns.
The dozens of great conservative pundits and thinkers I've already named knew instinctively (as did I) that McCain would never attract enough cross-over votes to win... he NEVER had the motivation, drive, or personality necessary to win the general election (not to mention McCain's old-as-dirt age, boring white bread Washington insider liberal mentality)
Nor would Mike Huckabee, who is a great guy, but also didn't have the mainstream GOP (or conservative Democrat) support necessary to win the General Election.
Romney, like it or not, was the only one capable of winning.