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 ...
I’m not surprised to see some of the “conservative” anti Romney types trashing him now that the election is over. Heck, some of you did that for the last six months, trying your best to convince others to not vote for him. Maybe it worked. Maybe some who post here on the premiere conservative website decided to vote for Obama, who knows. Maybe you were successful.
America has spoken. The majority of the voters want the society to be ruled by the “have nots”. The country has changed, media has changed. The illiterate thugs who spend time on their twitter accounts (on the “Obama” phones that you and I pay for) are also in your corner.
All in all, nothing changed in this election. The White House is occupied by a democrat, the House is republican, the Senate democrat. I think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and I’m saddened beyond belief, my child will end up paying for all of this debt for the have nots, however, since this family isn’t lazy, we’ll continue to be part of the producing class, even if we have less cash as a result. We’ll cut back on something, maybe a dinner out, and the illiterates won’t realize that cutting back on a dinner out, times a hundred and you all of a sudden have 5 fewer jobs. It’s okay though, they’ll just get an Obama phone and a twitter account and they’ll be on your side, trashing Romney.
I’m still on America’s side. There will be primaries in three years and you can get your complaints ready ...........he or she isn’t conservative enough!!!! oh, who’s my candidate you’ll be asked, well it’s not that guy or woman!!!
And you supported, campaigned for and voted for..........?
Please read post 63. That says it all. No where is it written that you have to vote for someone based on the color of their skin — even though that probably applies to most blacks today. A good candidate, and a good leader, would take demography into account. And I believe Ronald Reagan would have found a way to convert enough Hispanics to his way of thinking into a victory. Reagan was a bit of a genius. But like I think he said before. He had the killer instinct. He fired the PATCO people. Romney didn’t have that. He would have demolished Candy Crowley if he did.
Herr Freiiheit, wake up Mitt needed more white voters: http://www.vdare.com/articles/romney-white-share-falls-short-of-2010
“Romney’s White Share Fell Short Of 2010, So He Lost
Only one metric really matters in the close 2012 Presidential race: according to CNN’s exit polling (scroll down), Mitt Romey’s share of the white a.k.a. American vote was just 59%, for a twenty-point lead over Obama among whites. That’s at the high end of the mediocre post-Reagan range, and four points above the hapless John McCain in 2008, but just not enoughas VDARE.com repeatedly remarked during the campaign as we prised white share data out of relectant MSM polls. (Counting is not complete as I write this, and the Pacific Coast results may reduce Romney’s white share and some other details).
In comparison, the Congressional GOP got a 60% white share in 2010. Ronald Reagan got a 64% white share in 1984. George W. Bush won, narrowly, with a 58% white share in 2004...”
The fact is, fewer people voted for the GOP candidate this time around than they did last time. I considered not voting for Romney because he is not a conservative, but as decision time drew nearer I couldn’t stomach the idea of not doing something to oust Obama so I voted for Romney. But your argument is specious. A true conservative, like Reagan, can articulate why a conservative system works better than what we have now. Romney couldn’t articulate that, because, in addition to a lot of other problems, he’s not a true conservative. And please, before flaming me, know that I also live in swpa. So we’re coming from the same place, in that sense.
Apparently a lot of “conservatives” allowed 0bama to win.
The real problem, and this is demonstrated across FR, that the republican party is an amalgam of people who stretch from center right to far right who are willing to accept people left of center right as presidential candidates. This applies to McCain and Romney. The far right people flame you if you’re not conservative enough, and the center right people flame you if you’re not liberal enough All we do is argue with other. What does that accomplish, especially now? The only thing that binds us together is certain conservative beliefs, and they’re different for everybody. So we need a true conservative on the ballot — someone who will demonstrate the difference between himself/herself and a candidate like Obama.For whatever reason, Romney failed to do that for enough people
Yeah, WTF does that tell you if you're intelligent enough to realize it! I'll post this until someone stops me from posting it:
Here's what the republican party has foisted upon the conservative element:
Dole - Rino - Loss
McCain - Rino - Loss
Romney - Rino - Loss
And Bush got ever so LUCKY against Gore! FGS, if the Republican party just would "TRY" a conservative candidate for once just to see what happens they'd have nothing to lose.
As far as I'm concerned the republican party can GFT!
If you had to be TOLD that another four years of Obama would be a continuation of a disaster, honestly, I don’t want you anywhere near the voting booth. With the economy going down the toilet, more people are on the government dole, and who knows, the working members of this family might be among those soon, since I rather doubt that any of our employers are going to pay for Obamacare. If that becomes the case, I’ll collect my government money, paid for by you and your family, and I’ll post to the premiere conservative website, telling everyone that the candidate isn’t good enough! I’ll work to convince others that they can’t possibly vote for him or her, why they’re not Ronald Reagan. Yes, that’s what I’ll do. I’ll offer nothing but complaints about the candidate, claiming they are not Ronald Reagan( even though I am of the belief that Ronald Reagan would not have been able to defeat Obamaphones on Tuesday).
In fact, let’s all become a nation of havenots. You don’t mind supporting us all, do you? At least you won’t be forced to vote for a non Ronald Reagan.......
I know its early but I am predicting Karl Rove,Ann Courer,and most of Fox News back Romney for President in 2016.
Do you have a link for that other than Huffington Post?
That simply isn't so. Romney campaigned for it, but he didn't fight for it. He totally disengaged from any discussion of Benghazi, the scandal of our lifetime. He avoided that real discussion of budget and ObamaCare that he promised with the nomination of Ryan. For all practical purposes, Ryan became a prop on stage, his mouth taped shut.
But Romney's most egregious ommission was Benghazi. He had a winning hand dealt to him and he refused to even play it, thinking he could just run out the clock on the strength of his first debate performance.
Reagan wouldn’t have beaten bama yesterday..
So, then why not run a Reagan ...you know just for kicks? Since we didn’t have a chance anyhow?
His basic strategy was wrong. It was all jobs, jobs, jobs without any sense of the danger of following the big government path. There was no urgency. It was Obama is over his head, not that his policies would destroy the country hurting the poor and single women the most. There was nothing on foreign policy and the danger and destruction caused by Obama's policies. He couldn't agree fast enough with Obama. There was the cowardice in refusing to attack Obama.
Mitt ran his campaign great. Unfortunately, that campaign could not win, because its strategic premises were wrong. Running the traditional Republican campaign was old when George Bush I did it. It's a joke now.
Gut the RNC. Replace the lot of them.
(1) 0bama was black
(2) 0bama was a black socialist-marxist, therefore received every fawning, gushing, endorsement from the MSM which is still where 90% of the sheeple will get their news, if anything only from the headlines.
(3) Reasons 1 & 2 repeated over & over again.
In 2008 America elected a black socialist marxist communist muzlim pig 0bama based on an infatuation & whim of electing a so-called black man, and in 2012 now a MAJORITY over 50% of the voters reaffirmed that decision. Amerika (one nation under socialist-marxist government) in 2012 is no longer the America (one nation under God) that we used to be. We now live in a socialist-marxist-union-LGBT-pro Islamic, anti-Christian, anti-conservative, anti-Israel, anti-God nation.
As much as I admire & yearn for Ronald Reagan, he would not be elected in today's socialist-marxist Amerika. 0bama & his rabid surrogates & his 100% fawning partisan media would have ravaged Reagan without regard for any truth at all, just as they do to any Repub today running against a demoRAT. Isn't it amazing that only Republican so-called gaffes are reported & relentlessly hammered on by the media, and yet 0dumb0 & bite-me Biden are given a free pass to say anything out of their mouths and it will be instantly forgiven & forgotten. 0bama is guilty of the murder of border patrol agents with Fast & Furious, the murder of our Libyan ambassador, 2 former Seals, and a 4th America while our Security council sat & watched the massacre broadcast from one of our drones....and 0bama refused to send in military assistance. A Repub who would have done that would be attacked so viciously by the media prior to the election and yet only Fox News carried any of their prior to the election.
As someone wrote in a posting yesterday, America is dead. We are now the new Socialist States of Amerika.
“Silence the Nativists”!
What the Hell part of ‘illegal’ don’t you understand?
There are literally a billion people around the world who want to get into the USA.
We cannot let them all into our nation.
In the USA, our Congress sets the immigration laws and the Administration enforces those laws. For polticial expediency, Presidents have NOT been enforcing our immigration laws.
I AM OFFENDED that your attitude screams that Latinos are offended at Americans wanting our laws enforced.
You and they can go to Hell!
Uh, how is a population with a 53% illegitimacy rate "family-values oriented"?
If you really are a "fiscal" Republican then you should understand the tremendous costs on our system that are being triggered by the epidemic of single women having children out of wedlock. This is a big driver of the high rate of Hispanic use of government handouts.
He had 12 years in elected office, first as a state senator, then as a US Senator. Before that he spent pretty much all of his time since graduation thinking* about how to acquire power and what to do with it after getting it. And just what is a "community activist"? He was a ward heeler - a cog in a political machine. His time as a community activist gave him the experience he needed to win an Illinois senate seat against native black Chicagoans with sharp elbows.
In retrospect, Obama's no flash in the pan. In terms of political skill, he's the Democratic Reagan, a guy who patiently learned the political trade and ultimately defeated the Clinton brain trust during the 2008 primaries. And his strategy for re-election was to set up an expensive operation in battleground states that employed party cadres (aka community activists) to perform constituent service, thereby giving the locals a reason to turn out for him. This is retail politics at its most basic and used to be standard issue practice in most big cities, financed as it was via political corruption. These days, I assume it's financed by PAC and union money, to avoid career-ending FEC problems.
* This stuff is detailed in his books and the biographies - friendly and otherwise - about him. There a lot of rhetoric about how he's a moron, incompetent, and so on. I think that's wrong. He's not incompetent or a moron - he's an ideologue. The guy's raw IQ is probably similar to GWB's, and that would stand to reason, given his dad was a Harvard guy and his mom had a PhD, back when colleges had standards, and women PhD holders were as scarce as hen's teeth.
I beg to differ. Barack was a groomed, celebrated figurehead. He did nothing on his own accord.
It is because of individuals like yourselves that we lost so badly. I very much hope that you leave the party. Form something else and let the GOP’s tent grow. Thanks for going away.
Actually this “premier conservative site” has been telling the truth about the hard left weirdo, Mitt, for at least 6 or 7 years.
Mitt has always been a political loser and an enemy to Reagan and conservatism, no wonder people didn’t show up to support him.
Even today, no one has any idea what his politics are or why he was obsessed with being president.
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.