Skip to comments.In new film, a dramatic look at Mitt Romney's loss of confidence
Posted on 01/18/2014 4:27:38 PM PST by gusopol3
A new documentary about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney premiered Friday night at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. The film, "Mitt," is an extraordinarily intimate look at the former Massachusetts governor as he ran for president twice, in 2008 and 2012. Director Greg Whiteley had impressed Romney with his 2005 documentary "New York Doll," which brilliantly chronicled a broken-down rock musician's conversion to Mormonism, and for the new film, Romney gave Whiteley unprecedented freedom to record behind-the-scenes moments as the candidate and his family endured the trials of two presidential campaigns.....
the old lack of confidence came out again as Romney suggested he never felt comfortable in the race. He passed on something someone at headquarters had told him: "In some ways, we kind of had to steal the Republican nomination. Our party is southern, evangelical and populist. And you're northern, and you're Mormon, and you're rich. And these do not match well with our party."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
At this point, what difference does it make???
Race car guys go by feel in the "set-up", sometimes after it feels good don't try to tweak it anymore, run what ya brung at that point. Ditto that Rock and Roll bands they know the music or the song is a hit by a reaction of the crowd. I get the sense Romney didn't have the 6th sense that what he was doing was working even when he hit on it, he kept trying to tweak it more, maybe it is because it wasn't in his core. Ronald Reagan had this 6th sense, and unfortunately I think BHO has it too.
I’ll watch it right after I watch Weinstein and Streep’s film.
He should have gone negative from day 1 and kept poring it on for the whole election. It could have been a rout.
But he was too too goody good to do that.
Why did the big donors insist upon a candidate that did not “match well with our party”?
That’s such an obvious recipe for failure.
Yet they could have guaranteed the Republican candidate’s failure just as well by denying funding to any candidate.
Why spend money to get what they can have for free?
I had Republicans here try to tell me that Romney was a good candidate. Same with McCain.
he was also never a conservative
They will save that move for a conservative
At this point, what difference does it make???
seems to make a great deal of difference to the RomneyBots who are already pushing Willard for 2016..
Over the last 8 or 9 years I have tried to dig very deeply into who Romney is and has been all of his life.
Artificial is the word, from his youth to everything else, he is an artificial man, totally driven to check off boxes of success.
Even after decades in elective politics and two major presidential runs, his life as the son of two major politicains, and as the husband of a small time politician who has held office, an attempt to decide what his true politics and positions are, is impossible for almost everyone, he is just an ambitious, artificial man, driven to win things.
someone at headquarters had told him: “In some ways, we kind of had to steal the Republican nomination
Yep that’s the only way liberal Willard got the nomination...
killed off the Conservatives in the race...
Romney helped Obama in 2008, for Soros, by directing
the attack on the Palin Family.
As a reward, the miserable GOP gave him the nomination
of which he had no real interest.
I guess not. Compared to the other wild-eyed liberal fanatics, he APPEARED conservative.
I'd have to disagree. In the last few days of the 2012 race, Obama couldn't draw flies to his rallies. Those who showed up seemed dispirited.
In his last appearance, in Des Moines, Obama was clearly acting like he had lost the race. His attending media sensed the vibe...and started writing political obituaries. Even the NYT did a long think piece discussing "Could Obama really lose?"
At that point, Obama had no sense of winning. If there is somebody on his team who has that sixth sense, it is probably Axelrod. Certainly, his campaign team kept assuring a nervous media that the race was well in hand.
Romney didn’t know he was going to debate two people in the second debate (Obozo and Crowly), and he didn’t know Obozo would be wearing a wire. When I saw Obama months later speaking to someone with a foreign language and he had a wire, he had the same look on his face.
The fact somebody at his headquarters told him this, and that he believed it, is pretty much exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party.
First, look at the red/blue map. The Republican Party is an everywhere Party, not just in the South. The Democrats big problem is that they're entirely an URBAN Party, with no support outside of large cities to speak of.
Second, evangelical? Please be serious. For those with religious affiliation, the Republican Party is almost evenly split between mainline Protestants and non-Latino Catholics, Of the Protestants, only 65% percent identify as Evangelicals. And, as a matter of fact, 25% of Republicans identify as atheist, agnostic, independent, or nothing at all. [numbers from Pew Research, 2011 -- this agrees well with earlier Pew and other supporting polls.] That makes Evangelicals a large, important minority within the Party, but hardly a makes the Republican Party an "Evangelical" Party.
Third: Populist? That's the dumbest part of all. The squishy RINO's are hardly "populists," they're blue-blood hereditary and elitist types, and the conservatives are principled ideologues, with no populist inclinations at all.
If Romney had jackasses like this in his headquarters, and worse yet, believed them, it's no wonder he lost. They didn't even understand the composition of their own party, or what would be needed to reach them, let alone the Indies.
I don’t know; this review makes him sound like somebody who was contemplating his navel just a little too much.
Yet he was plenty negative in the primaries, not to mention utterly dishonest in his attacks on Mr. Newt — typical GOP-e RINO, eating his own. I hope and pray he will not return to politics, EVER!
Simple. Because the Big Donors don't "match well with the party", either.
In their view, the "base" is a mob of Bible-thumping, gun-toting redneck hicks.
It explains why they're so anxious for amnesty -- they want a more civilized class of voters.
Even when he won, he could not overcome the fraud.
At this point, what difference does it make???
If he had only fought Obastard in the general as hard as he fought Conservatives in the primaries.
Newt had his chance. He has too much negative baggage and no matter when/if he tries again, it will sink him.
They had no problem going negative on Newt, in fact the carpet bombed Newt in Iowa. They succefully destroyed the 3 more conservative canidates in the primary by going negative. Yet, they treat liberals as if they are royalty.
And that is the problem, he fit with his party all too well. It has nothing with being Northern or Morman.
Our party is southern, evangelical and populist. And you’re northern, and you’re Mormon, and you’re rich. And these do not match well with our party.
Had Romney not ignored the base then he would’ve won. The guy went to the mushy center in the primary...who does that and expects the Conservative base to vote for you!!!!
At the Convention, no SArah Palin...really...why watch if Romney and co treat her like Democrats did.
Even more unfortunate is that the GOPe is doubling down on stupid rendering themselves worse than useless, they have become the enemy of conservatism and can go the way of the Whigs.
Yes. No matter what the next GOP candidate better be squeaky clean, because no matter how tiny the skeleton in the closet, the MSM will make it huge.
Romney would have been a much better POTUS than Obama though.
Hell, I'd take Jerry Ford or Nelson Rockefeller over Obama.
At least their goal wasn't to destroy the USA.
I think the explanation is that the big donors have to “pay to play” anyway so they figure they mught as well pick the candidate.
Obviously we’ll know we’ve won the war against the GOPe when the Party tells them: “If you don’t ‘pay to play’ and support whatever candidates our people nominate... well, you know what happens to those who don’t pay.”
If we ever win that war. The big donors are now dependent on subsidized consumer spending- which is the antithesis of Conservatism and is unsustainable besides.
and he didnt know Obozo would be wearing a wire.
well Willard himself wore a secret wire during the 2008 primary debates...
They did far worse than ignore conservatives, they made it plain as day that they did not want us and did not need us.
I thought it was a replay of McCain, attack hard in the primaries then go squishy soft on Obama.
Ann B. sums it up the best.
Saw a vanity plate today that read “NO MITZ” and wasn’t sure what to make of it. Romney comment? Rep or Dem? Baseball Fan?
Why didn’t he play his ace in the third debate, the one about foreign policy? I kept yelling at him through the TV screen to bring up Benghazi, but he never did.
All he had to say was, "Hell yeah, I'm rich, and I'm damn proud of it. Why does Obama want people to be poor in America?"
And they're still around on this board--They especially dislike Sarah Palin ("uneducated"; "a quitter").
They'll be back...they'll be back. Won't matter which loser the GOPe picks next year, they'll be back.
The GOPe didn’t make pro-homo adoption Mitt Romneycare their candidate to beat Obama. They put him in to make sure conservatives didn’t have a chance. They knew that anyone even slightly conservative would crush the witless, charmless, classless, talentless, meritless Barry Soetoro.
“ANYone who would buy THAT lie simply was never a Christian.”
and who are you to sit in judgment of any man? as a Christian you should recall the following:
Matthew Chapt 7:
” 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
“he is just an ambitious, artificial man, driven to win things”
compared to the real, authentic man we now have in the White House ? i know who i would have rather had as president.
Blame the victims. Empower the oppressors.
Save your lectures. I just laugh at you. And not a jolly laugh.
During the primaries which wild eyed liberals would those be?
“Newt had his chance. He has too much negative baggage and no matter when/if he tries again, it will sink him.”
Newt’s baggage probably pales in comparison to the baggage BO had hidden from the voting public by the MSM. Newt would have eviscerated BO in the debates, but then the MSM would have painted NEWT as some sort of radical, right wing extremist. but at least, i believe, that Newt wouldn’t have hesitated to respond to the MSM attacks. Romney was too vulnerable because of his self doubt, thinking he could never do better than his idolized dad.
consider how America has done with those presidents who have had missing fathers?