Posted on 01/18/2014 4:27:38 PM PST by gusopol3
A new documentary about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney premiered Friday night at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. The film, "Mitt," is an extraordinarily intimate look at the former Massachusetts governor as he ran for president twice, in 2008 and 2012. Director Greg Whiteley had impressed Romney with his 2005 documentary "New York Doll," which brilliantly chronicled a broken-down rock musician's conversion to Mormonism, and for the new film, Romney gave Whiteley unprecedented freedom to record behind-the-scenes moments as the candidate and his family endured the trials of two presidential campaigns.....
the old lack of confidence came out again as Romney suggested he never felt comfortable in the race. He passed on something someone at headquarters had told him: "In some ways, we kind of had to steal the Republican nomination. Our party is southern, evangelical and populist. And you're northern, and you're Mormon, and you're rich. And these do not match well with our party."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
The fact somebody at his headquarters told him this, and that he believed it, is pretty much exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party.
First, look at the red/blue map. The Republican Party is an everywhere Party, not just in the South. The Democrats big problem is that they're entirely an URBAN Party, with no support outside of large cities to speak of.
Second, evangelical? Please be serious. For those with religious affiliation, the Republican Party is almost evenly split between mainline Protestants and non-Latino Catholics, Of the Protestants, only 65% percent identify as Evangelicals. And, as a matter of fact, 25% of Republicans identify as atheist, agnostic, independent, or nothing at all. [numbers from Pew Research, 2011 -- this agrees well with earlier Pew and other supporting polls.] That makes Evangelicals a large, important minority within the Party, but hardly a makes the Republican Party an "Evangelical" Party.
Third: Populist? That's the dumbest part of all. The squishy RINO's are hardly "populists," they're blue-blood hereditary and elitist types, and the conservatives are principled ideologues, with no populist inclinations at all.
If Romney had jackasses like this in his headquarters, and worse yet, believed them, it's no wonder he lost. They didn't even understand the composition of their own party, or what would be needed to reach them, let alone the Indies.
I don’t know; this review makes him sound like somebody who was contemplating his navel just a little too much.
Yet he was plenty negative in the primaries, not to mention utterly dishonest in his attacks on Mr. Newt — typical GOP-e RINO, eating his own. I hope and pray he will not return to politics, EVER!
Simple. Because the Big Donors don't "match well with the party", either.
In their view, the "base" is a mob of Bible-thumping, gun-toting redneck hicks.
It explains why they're so anxious for amnesty -- they want a more civilized class of voters.
Even when he won, he could not overcome the fraud.
At this point, what difference does it make???
LESSON LEARNED.
If he had only fought Obastard in the general as hard as he fought Conservatives in the primaries.
Newt had his chance. He has too much negative baggage and no matter when/if he tries again, it will sink him.
They had no problem going negative on Newt, in fact the carpet bombed Newt in Iowa. They succefully destroyed the 3 more conservative canidates in the primary by going negative. Yet, they treat liberals as if they are royalty.
And that is the problem, he fit with his party all too well. It has nothing with being Northern or Morman.
Our party is southern, evangelical and populist. And you’re northern, and you’re Mormon, and you’re rich. And these do not match well with our party.
Had Romney not ignored the base then he would’ve won. The guy went to the mushy center in the primary...who does that and expects the Conservative base to vote for you!!!!
At the Convention, no SArah Palin...really...why watch if Romney and co treat her like Democrats did.
Even more unfortunate is that the GOPe is doubling down on stupid rendering themselves worse than useless, they have become the enemy of conservatism and can go the way of the Whigs.
Yes. No matter what the next GOP candidate better be squeaky clean, because no matter how tiny the skeleton in the closet, the MSM will make it huge.
Romney would have been a much better POTUS than Obama though.
Hell, I'd take Jerry Ford or Nelson Rockefeller over Obama.
At least their goal wasn't to destroy the USA.
I think the explanation is that the big donors have to “pay to play” anyway so they figure they mught as well pick the candidate.
Obviously we’ll know we’ve won the war against the GOPe when the Party tells them: “If you don’t ‘pay to play’ and support whatever candidates our people nominate... well, you know what happens to those who don’t pay.”
If we ever win that war. The big donors are now dependent on subsidized consumer spending- which is the antithesis of Conservatism and is unsustainable besides.
and he didn’t know Obozo would be wearing a wire.
_____________________________________
well Willard himself wore a secret wire during the 2008 primary debates...
So ???
They did far worse than ignore conservatives, they made it plain as day that they did not want us and did not need us.
I thought it was a replay of McCain, attack hard in the primaries then go squishy soft on Obama.
Saw a vanity plate today that read “NO MITZ” and wasn’t sure what to make of it. Romney comment? Rep or Dem? Baseball Fan?
Why didn’t he play his ace in the third debate, the one about foreign policy? I kept yelling at him through the TV screen to bring up Benghazi, but he never did.
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.