A unified opposition would have, and perhaps still could, beat Romney. In spite of all your points.
A weak field and lack of a unified opposition got us here. A strong candidate with unified support behind him and we wouldn’t be here. There’s nothing permanent about the party that hasn’t been changed in the past and can’t be in the future.
I don’t see your alternatives having any good effect. Do you, does the opposition to Romney, even agree on who to unite behind? I don’t see it. All I can see is taking the same infighting somewhere else; and, I don’t see what good that would do.
thanks for your replies.
You would have been saying the same thing no matter who ran. Who has better credentials than Newt? No one; he singlehandedly took down the leading Democrats, putting some in jail, and then took the House, when Dole and other RNC losers were talking just like you.
So who? DeMint? What if he stumbled like Perry did, would you call him weak? Sarah? You'd be saying the media destroyed her, and that's why conservatives can't win. Jindal? Not ready. Rubio? Not ready.
You want to blame the field rather than place the blame where it belongs, with the GOPe and the media-e that they play footsie with. The fact is, no matter who got into the race who was conservative, that person was enemy no. 1 until they were gone. And it was Mitt, the GOPe and the MSM cooperating on that task. It went from Bachmann to Cain to Perry (or was it Perry to Cain, I forget) to Newt to Santorum. And in turn, each was attacked by Mitt's GOPe money and RNC insiders (like Rove, et al.) and the MSM, and they were ultimately done in by a process that lets Democrats vote in primaries that are held in the most liberal states.
No, it was not for lack of talent or fortune that conservatives were killed in this election. It was murder in the first degree.