Skip to comments.Devastating Info About Mitt Romney's Unelectability that He Wants to Keep from the Public!
Posted on 01/11/2012 5:50:49 PM PST by xzins
Mitt Romney is a loser...an election loser.
In his 1994 senatorial campaign, he lost by a huge margin (by more than 17 points) in a year when Republicans took over Congress. Despite everyone elses success, Romney managed to lose.
Of all his campaigns he has won only once when he won a single term as governor of Massachusetts, but he quickly tarnished that close victory.
After becoming governor in 2002 with Kerry Healey as his running mate, Romney proceeded to mismanage his position so that his approval dropped rapidly into the 40's and then the 30's. He left that mess to Lt Gov Kerry Healey when he jumped ship to avoid the huge loss he knew was coming in the next election. Left in the lurch, Healey was not able to rebound above 36% due to Romney's terrible performance as governor.
With no thought to his poor performance, Romney then entered the 2008 campaign for the presidency on the strength of a losing senatorial campaign and a destroyed governorship.
He lost again miserably against inept, weak John McCain. McCain more than DOUBLED Romney's numbers by attacking Romneys flip-flop record as a tax increaser.
The summation of Romney's election history: he tends to lose. Yet Romney is the man we are told is "the most electable".
His election record says that is simply a falsehood.
Add to his history of losing his political record as a flip-flopper, as a vulture capitalist, and as an advocate of liberal, pro-tax, pro-choice and anti-gun causes, and it's easy to see that the man will continue to be a loser....of elections.
We cannot afford to watch Romney get taken to the woodshed by Barack Hussein Obama.
Problem for George was that he didn't start running early enough and didn't chose to make his name in a state close to the state with the early primary, NH.
I’ve thought that there’s something to his father’s failure that motivates Romney.
At the same time, he could be a narcissist with an extremely exalted view of himself.
It amazes me, though, that on the strenght of a shellacking in a senatorial race and a governorship that he destroyed that Mitt Romney saw a necessity for himself to run for president.
Whatever else he is, he certainly is misguided.
From their perspective they think Christianity is a joke and they are only fiscal conservatives. For them it’s all about getting rid of obama and we should not consider our beliefs.”
If they are fiscal conservatives, they must not know his Massachusetts record or they wouldn’t want to vote for him. Plus his jobs record as governor was near the bottom of the barrel compared to other states.
He wears a high collar and cape and can’t see himself in a mirror, oh my...
It is possible to push the limits in taking fees out of borrowed money, and Romney did that.
It is essentially what Fannie/Freddie did in bundling worthless mortgages and claiming they were just fine.
That should have been illegal because it certainly was unethical.
Romney salted a mine, borrowed huge amounts of money on the false appraisal of the salted mine, paid himself millions out of the borrowed money, and then let the creditors/investors/contractors get pennies on the dollar when it became evident there was no gold left in the mine and it had to declare bankruptcy.
That is vulture capitalism.
Can't remember the time when the primaries begin winner take all.
next wake up call in thursday. :>)
Maybe they’ll dream themselves to the right place by tomorrow morning.
I’d vote for Pat Paulsen over Romney...even if he is dead. I hear he always shows up on a ballot somewhere.
It is not right that Obama gets to pick who he runs against by using the MSM to weed out who he does not want to run against.
I am just saying the obvious...
The man who couldn’t beat McCain is endorsed by the man who couldn’t beat Obama...enough said.
Well put. . That all said. agree with most of the comments. . . Now what? If Newt loses in SC and then Florida. . . and Mitt will lose to Obama. . do we just sit and watch it all play out? It's hard to see the pre-planned destruction of our Sacred Republic just play out in front of our eyes and we're supposed to sit on our hands. .
South Carolina is the firewall that must not be breached. The next couple of weeks are going to be incredibly important in what transpires there in the primary.
I believe there are a couple of debates (one Monday night in Myrtle Beach?) which could help to re-calibrate things for Newt. Plus the fact that now Romney is even getting scrutiny on this whole issue of his “electability”. And don’t think that if Romney gets the nod that Obama won’t pull Duvall Patrick (the current MA gov) out on the campaign trail to tell the American public what a mess he inherited when he took over as governor there.
If Newt makes a comeback against the onslaught that took place against him in IA and NH, he will be stronger for it.
This is one time Obama can get what he wants by telling the truth.
nice of you to point out several of the companies that failed to make it...but never mind mentioning the businesses which were saved by his techniques...they were asked to come into a company with capital to invest....they rearranged, poked and prodded, and saved many companies and lost many....without them...all would have been lost. Did people lose their jobs...yes...did many keep their jobs that would have disappeared without him...yes. thats the way that companies like that work. Free enterprise is not painless...I've owned several businesses, some successful, some not..that's the way the game is played. Some people get wealthy, some rich, some above average, some average, and some don't make it!!
Do you know if Perry will be in the South Carolina debates or are they just taking the winners in Iowa?
Which would be stupid.
This argument did not apply in 1980: the man who lost to the man who lost to Jimmy Carter still unseated Carter.
There really is nothing we can do, for the judgment rests with the uninformed Republican primary voters. I can see Santorum, Newt, and Perry all self-destructing. They practically already have.
Right...where's the new, devastating info as advertised in the headline?
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.