Running attack ads--They all did it, but Romney had the most money and thus was able to inundate the airwaves. There is nothing wrong with paid advertising. Check out the ads run by all the candidates. Sadly, they're all politicians and they all told lies about one thing or another.
If Drudgereport supported Romney, more fool them. Their support didn't decide the election.
In the end, it came down to the fact that Romney had more money, more organization (he's been running since 2004) and more people on the ground. Some of the candidates not being on the ballet in some states wasn't the doing of Romney, it was due to their own disorganization. Santorum, for example was suprised himself by his success and just wasn't ready to capitalize on it.
Romney isn't the best of the lot (in fact he's the worst, except maybe for Paul), but he did win.
I'd rather say the truth - he didn't win. Perhaps you see win differently than I do. One earns wins by what they have done to warrant people to vote, not LYING about another's good record 24/7 with their media access and not robbing another of their reputation in what they HAVE DONE to deceive voters while having dirty politics going on in the background. He had NOTHING to offer any voter with his background. All he had was a bunch of denials and excuses. He earned nothing, he won nothing, he bought and stole it.
I guess if a thief went into the bank w/a gun (that you didn't see) pointed at the teller and the teller gave him the money - you would swear he didn't steal the money because with your own eyes you saw the teller give it to him. And now you call him rich.
If Drudgereport supported Romney, more fool them. Their support didn't decide the election.
IF?? Did you miss Bloody Thursday? If that Bloody Thursday wasn't done to trash BIG TIME - they wouldn't have done it!
It was way more than supporting Romney, don't make it sound so innocent. And don't say it didn't decide anything - that's the reason it was done!!