Ted Cruz endorses John Cornyn

Washington Post ^ | March 5, 2014 | Sean Sullivan

[flaglady47]

“If Romney had been even marginally electable, you two might have a point.
But sadly he wasn’t.
He’d have to actually had some conservative principles to be electable, which he did not and does not have.”

I’m sure Barak Obama has much better principles than Romney has, right? You’re living under Barak’s principles now, toots, for 3 more years. I’m sure you’ll just love his principles at the expense of what Romney’s were.

[Norseman]

>>This is beyond delusional — “let’s burn the village to save it” attitude, <<

Hardly. The GOP could emerge from four years of Obama far stronger than it would have after four years of Romney. After all, look at what Bush’s first four years did for the Dems. We lost the Senate and barely won the Presidency again. Under Obama’s second term we are quite likely to regain the Senate handily if present trends continue, with even several blue state senators now concerned about their re-election prospects.

In addition, the public has soured on Obamacare and the youth vote is likely to start swinging toward the GOP. If Romney had, instead, tinkered with Obamacare, as I think would have been the likely outcome, that swing might not have happened.

And his foreign policy is so bad someone taking Reagan’s approach to it might even get a fair hearing by 2016.

But to clarify, I was only talking about his last four years, not both terms, and I wasn’t addressing the condition of the country, but rather, the condition of the GOP.

[ozzymandus]

Don’t lie and claim to know who I would vote for. Romney was “unelectable” because fools stayed home and didn’t vote for him, giving us another 4 years of Obama. It’s not “tough having principles” when all you do is sit at your keyboard and bitch and whine.