Jaguar wrote:Heartland Patriot wrote:recaffeination wrote:Dave2 wrote:
This was not about whether or not Romney was the best candidate... My dead dog should've been able to beat Obama in the general election
I think the GOP cold have won with a better candidate. Now and in 2008.
And let us guess the name of that "better candidate"...at this point, I'm no longer downing your guy, who knows exactly what would have happened if he had gotten the nomination...but I just don't think anyone who wasn't willing to promise "free stuff" to those who won't work to get it could have won that election. Your guy wouldn't have promised "free stuff".
BHO promised "free stuff", he won.
Santa Claus is a tough opponent.
I'll say it again. Romney was doomed as a candidate. How exactly was he going to make his case for a bold change in direction? Let's review some notes. Despite all of his conservative rhetoric, his record was clear... and the record shows he's not significantly different than the President.
Let's see. Wanted to repeal ObamaCare, and replace it w/ something like RomneyCare, which was the government mandate model for ObamaCare. He would have kept "abortion safe and legal". He "absolutely" would have signed the NDAA which allows indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial (in direct violation of the 6th Amendment). He supported Tarp, the bank bailouts, and the debt ceiling increases. His fiscal plan would not balance the budget, much less reduce our national debt. And my personal favorite; when the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" was expiring, he advocated, lobbied for, and signed a more restrictive ban to replace it in MA.
Ultimately, 99% percent of voters voted for a Socialist candidate. The slight majority just happened to select the one who will admit those are his positions. Without a substantively different candidate, the Republican Party never had a chance.
