But, but, but he;s just so electable!
[/sarc]
He backed off from campaigning about the Benghazi issue. Unexplainable and unforgiveable.
I think this image explains it: 
Posted on 10/15/2014 5:23:45 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Romney had Obama dead and buried. He just didn’t throw the last shovel of dirt on the grave. All he had to do was say Benghazi. That was it. Nothing more.
But noooooooo.
Romney was right.
The American Public opted to vote for the lie.
Can’t blame Mitt for that.
It was Romney who made the mistake four years ago for not taking his campaign seriously.
His only job was to prevent a conservative from getting the Republican nomination. He accomplished that.
I don’t think Deutsch was really giving a Phlegmocrat endorsement of Romney as much as he was trying to tell us that is what America thinks right now.
That said, I supported Romney in 2012 and if he were the Republican nominee in 2016, I would support him again and as of right now I would support him over the current board favorites. I could potentially back Cruz, but I am not yet convinced he will be able to get over the maelstrom of utter crap Phlegmocrats, fiberals and their lackeys in the media will pound him with in a campaign. If Cruz is the nominee, he will have my support even though he will eventually drift left in during the campaign.
He would have made a great democrat candidate!
I don’t know.
Romney seemed to be on the right track in the primary election.
He SUCKED as a presidential candidate.
Miserable. No way he would win again as things stand now, he would just mess up the GOP field once again, leaving us with four more years of p*ssing and moaning.
However I repeat.
Romney stand up for American production.
That would win a whole lot of voters, from both political parties.
Please think about that.
America needs to rebuild. Now.
Rush said it best - you can’t beat Santa Clause.
“It’s not your fault” is far more appealing than “get off your ass”.
Why would anyone with even one functioning brain cell take the advice of a LIB on how to win? Romney is a proven loser. No to Romney.
What do they all have in common?
Well, the country did make a mistake in the last election. Lots of people here hated Romney so much they effectively cast a vote for barry. I’m pretty sure the same folks will find something wrong with the next republican candidate, something like they have a cat for a pet or maybe they will be Catholic, and end up putting Clinton in.
Romney had Obama dead and buried. He just didn’t throw the last shovel of dirt on the grave. All he had to do was say Benghazi. That was it. Nothing more.
But noooooooo.
But, but, but he;s just so electable!
[/sarc]
He backed off from campaigning about the Benghazi issue. Unexplainable and unforgiveable.
I think this image explains it:
Winner! They think any Dem can beat Romeny- again.
Yes, we would; the borders have been utterly open for years and it would take someone with balls to close them given how many of the DC elites are open-borders types.
We would not be seeing 60 million people on food stamps.
Yes we would; Romney is not for the things that would decrease this (like reducing burdensome regulation) because he is a statist.
We would not be seeing ISIS taking over the M/E.
Really? And how do you think he would have stopped that?
Or are you saying that you'd support the massive boots-on-the-ground operations that it would take to control things there? (Think WWII-like draft and population:fighting-man rations.)
We would not be seeing 14% real unemployment.
Yes, we would.
Romney is not against the things that make it difficult for employers to hire. (See RomneyCare.)
Romney didn’t want to win then, and he doesn’t deserve a second chance. A Republican party that nominates him as their candidate, obviously doesn’t want the presidency.
At least if that party nominated him, Romney could enthusiastically endorse their party platform.
That's right! Otherwise, we'll confirm that donny is a lyin' sack. Key principle involved here: liberals love republicans who LOSE.
Romney, for all his shortcomings, is infinitely preferable to Obama.
But, for 2016? No. Just, no.
How exactly do you know that? After four years in office, the Republicans in Massachusetts were about as happy to be rid of Romney as the Democrats were. His term was hardly a rousing success or he would have run for re-election. I have no doubt that Romney would have been more effective than Obama but that doesn't mean that Romney would have been successful in any of those situations - just less incompetent.
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.