Gingrich was on Fox news every second day for more than a year, he certainly had ample opportunity to make his case.
Michele Bachmann had access to the Tea Party and all the support that implies.
Herman Cain had the support of the Republican rank and file for a time, raised ample money, and could not hold the support.
Rick Perry had the support of the Republican rank and file for a while and access to all the money he needed, and fell short all by himself with no help from the establishment.
Rick Santorum proved that if one perseveres and runs a truly courageous campaign he will be given a fair hearing but he simply could not convince enough Republicans that he was presidential timber.
On the other hand, darlings of the establishment had problems gathering traction.
Virtually no one was consistently denied access to the debates, each had an equal right to raise money, all had reasonable access to the media.
Was there perfect equality in all things at all times, of course not this is, after all, politics. But the process was substantially fair. Do not confuse anger at the result with unfairness of process.
And I could just as substantively advise you not to confuse naïveté of the techniques of sociological manipulation for fairness.
Conservatives lost the primary when Sarah Palin concluded pursuing a presidential run was not the right course of action.
What "establishment darling" did you see beside Romney?
I saw a few "teaser horses" to give Romney legitimacy, but as you said, nothing intended to gather any traction.
Honestly, who would have bet a hundred dollars Romney WOULDN'T be the candidate, a year ago?
I appreciate your posts, especially these. You are correct, sir.