Skip to comments.Life After Defeat For Mitt Romney: Public Praise, Private Questions [Recriminations Begin!]
Posted on 11/07/2012 10:26:27 PM PST by Steelfish
Life After Defeat For Mitt Romney: Public Praise, Private Questions
By Philip Rucker November 7
BOSTON Mitt Romney began his retreat from public life Wednesday at a private breakfast gathering with a couple hundred of his most loyal and affluent campaign benefactors. The former Massachusetts governor, humbled by the thumping that ended his six-year pursuit of the presidency, reminisced about the journey and tried not to cry.
Romney waxed about the roaring crowds in the campaigns closing days and the feeling that he was winning, said donors in attendance. He commended Stuart Stevens, his chief strategist, as well as his senior aides, and then went around thanking donors one by one.
Mitt was vintage Mitt, said L.E. Simmons, an oil investor on Romneys national finance committee. He was analytical, no notes, spoke from the heart and was very appreciative.
But Romneys top aides, who only a couple of days ago were openly speculating about who would fill which jobs in a Romney administration, woke up Wednesday to face brutal recriminations.
Some top donors privately unloaded on Romneys senior staff, describing it as a junior varsity operation that failed to adequately insulate and defend Romney through a summer of relentless attacks from the Obama campaign over his business career and personal wealth.
Everybody feels like they were a bunch of well-meaning folks who were, to use a phrase that Governor Romney coined to describe his opponent, way in over their heads, said one member of the campaigns national finance committee, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Strangely enough, that's what they said about Reagan when he was in office. Obviously there's a difference in the way they are treated by the media - Reagan was reviled as a drooling, senile warmonger whereas Obama is the One we've been waiting for, who puts FDR (my #1 candidate for worst president ever) in the shade.
But the idea that they stood him up is, in my view, misguided. Why him? There are large numbers of ambitious liberal pols out there who want to be President, none of whom would defer to Obama just because he's black. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi or the rest of the overwhelmingly white Democratic congressional delegation would stand aside for any number of black politicians to run for their seats in their place? Obama had to fight his way to the top, like anyone else. It's not as if Clinton gave Obama a free pass during the primaries - her people went at the Jeremiah Wright angle hard. Clinton's problem is that while it might have worked in the general*, it failed in the Dem primaries. Dukakis certainly did not stand aside for Jesse Jackson in 1988, any more than Mondale did in 1984.
* In not working the Wright angle, McCain gave up his only chance at the presidency.
Democrats are good at projection, so of course they’d say that about Ronald Reagan. But not even he used a teleprompter all the time, making gaffes that made it crystal clear that he wasn’t the writer for that box.
Just the teleprompter would have made a very good plot device for a novel written a few decades ago, or for The Twilight Zone.
You decided to dodge the question by making a personal attack.
I'll ask you again.
How is a population with a 53% illegitimacy rate "family-values oriented"?
And why would any fiscal conservative pander to an immigrant population that loves big government and government handouts such that a majority will accordingly vote for big government democrats?
The only thing amnesty and open borders accomplishes is more Democrat voters.
Let's stand for individual freedom, personal responsibility and limited government and appeal to those hispanics who want those things.
On that point, it's amusing Obama is so disengaged that he delegates speech-writing to the point that he doesn't even read them beforehand. It boggles the mind as to how much more of his agenda he could achieve with more of a work ethic. Reagan was a workaholic who always worked on his speeches along with speechwriters. Overall, I'm glad that Obama is so lazy when he's not working on winning elections. Think of the damage he could do if he actually worked at passing bills. However, he's probably a more engaged father than Reagan was. Our consolation prize is that he's nowhere near as effective as he could be at passing his extremely damaging agenda if he merely applied himself.
It’s more than lazy. If I were a President, why would I ever want to commit myself in public to a speech I hadn’t even vetted?
No problem. Without conservatives your GOP can share a phone booth with the Libertarians for your conventions. LOL
It is said that hypocrisy is vice’s tribute to virtue.
It might be better to have a society of hypocrites than a society of sincere scoundrels.
You are advocating destruction. Begone yourself, Obot!
Are you serious? Even my Spanish mother is upset that they are not following immigration laws as she did. Try immigrating to any country, even Mexico without papers...they will throw you in jail or our of the country. This is not about if they are ‘nice’ or ‘moral’. It’s about laws!
The losers who advised Mitt should only be certified to manage school board races or democrat national tickets. They obviously had a hard job and were not up to the task.
A candidate needs to be his own adviser, Reagan didn’t need advisers.
you’re calling Mitt Romney......a “weirdo”? That’s just what liberals do, name call
I was right. People like you - ignored from now on.
I’m sure you’re having fun posting on your liberal site.
Yeah, I knew you would flame. I remember you. You can flame on all you want, but the fact is, Ronald Reagan WAS a better candidate than Romney. Ronald Reagan won.
Well, apparently Sean Hannity agrees with me. Soon you will too. Or you will go away mumbling to yourself as you fashion your tin foil hats.
Mitt Romney believes that he is in the process of becoming God, a God just like our God is to us, except for a different planet of people. Mitt has taught that belief for many years
Mitt believes that our God on this planet, and his father before him, and so on, were once men just as Mitt is today, and that through living like Mitt, that they ascended to become Gods, as they are now.
Mitt believes that the God of planet Earth was once a man, and is now God the Father, but that there are countless such Gods, and that He Himself will become one of them as well.
You don't think that is a little weird for a man who almost became president? What do we normally think of a man who thinks that he is ascending to becoming a God?
Well, there's your sign! ROTFLOL
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.