In 2008 and 2012, in weak fields of GOP candidates, Romney eventually seemed to have the best chance of winning the general election. In 2008, I gradually came to prefer Romney to McCain, who seemed (and was) destined to lose the general election with an inept general election campaign. In 2012, I considered Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum but decided on Herman Cain as my first preference before settling for Romney after Cain's campaign imploded.
Despite running an inept general election campaign in 2012, in 2016, Romney may offer the best prospect of beating Hillary or whomever the Dems nominate. Yet my preference is for Cruz as president, and his or another conservative's chances in the general election would almost certainly be improved by defeating Romney for the GOP nomination.
In 1980, Reagan demonstrated his talent and determination as a candidate by winning the GOP nomination against George H. W. Bush and other rivals. Reagan's campaign organization also went through a major shakeup that resulted in the highly capable Bill Casey being installed by Reagan as his campaign manager.
Apart from insisting that Romney is a liberal, on what points do you disagree with my logic, whom do you prefer in 2016, and what case do you offer on their behalf?
So in 2008 you fought for the most liberal in the field, Romney, and you kept fighting for him for the next 4 years, and you are still fighting for him for the future.
That is just being a plain old liberal, and romneybot.
After FR spending 8 years trying to tell you how radically anti-conservative Mitt Romney is, it is clear that you are truly devoted to his liberal politics, and want him over any and all possibilities.
This is just true, hard core, personal devotion to the man, and his lefty agenda.
Romney won’t be running this time, but we can bet that you will swoon for the rino that he backs.