I´m sorry, but Romney was not a "good man."

He lied about and slandered good conservatives during the primaries -- both times, then pretended not to be responsible.

I knew he was a scum bag from the minute he had that fake Fred Thompson website in the first primary.

Was Romney better than Obama? Sure.

But is Romney worth a single tear? Nope.

#1 Go take a long walk off a short pier!

Wrong 31. I thought mitt was running against ted Kennedy again with Gingrich. he was using all the same bain bashing, capitalist bash kennedy used against Mitt in 94. We are going to pay big time for not electing Mitt. He is a great man. He is a great American. He would have made a great President. Yes I did shed a few tears. God help our nation.

#1, do you have a verifiable example of "lied about and slandered"? Or are you simply quoting convenient rumors.

The article is right. Mitt Romney is a good and honorable man of admirable accomplishment. He would have saved this country.

I second that #2

If I had been the chief strategist for Romney, I sure as heck wouldn´t admit it! I´d be thinking more about the witness protection program.

We will never have a perfect candidate. Romney is a good man and was a very good candidate. Would have made a very good president. He was up against the media and Democrat smear machine and the smears won.

I appreciate Romney´s efforts.

Romney´s a great guy who ran an outstanding race.

Remember that in 1980, Kennedy pummeled Carter in the Demo Primary.
The 1980 DimWit Cornvention was ugly and divided.
Obama, in contrast in 2012, had a free pass.

The electorate has changed.
Romney won the middle class and a bigger margin amongst whites than Reagan in 1980.
It´s just that whites are only 72 percent of voters in 2012.
In 1980 whites were 88 percent of voters.

The media blatantly boosted Obama all year,
and as with the Hurricane Sandy coverage the final week.

Reality is sometimes ugly.
Romney more than deserved to win this one.
Great guy, great family, great long run.
Our nation is screwed with his loss.

And losers like "Ken" from "Livonia" who phoned Rush a few weeks ago complaining
are just defeatist whiners.
The voters picked Romney - not the "Establishment."
That´s what the multiple state primaries are for.
Losers like "Ken" self-righteously wait for perfection in a conservative and refuse to
help Romney.
Thus they give us the Evil Obama and ruin.
And pat themselves on their backs for their purity.

We get a lot of losers like "Ken" from "Livonia" posting here.
Take a look above and find one.

#4 This gem from the first Republican primary was when I realized that Myth was a white-washed tomb, eager to bash Republicans, but would not bash his fellow Democrats.

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/09/attack-website-from-romney-camp-calls.html

(Yes, fellow Democrats.)

#1, nothing will top Obama´s Benghazi lie to 70 million people on live TV in the second debate. Mitt Romeny is a good man and he epitomizes everything that Obama is not and will never be! It is too bad that America lost the opportunity to experience what a really good president Romney would have been.

1. The Left has found that a sure path to power [their raison d´etre, of course] has been to turn national elections into a TV show: "The American Preezy." And, uhh, that "American" thing, well, hey, if he´s cool, looks kinda black [why isn´t 1/16th enough?], is a doper, who cares? We´re in.

There are answers, there are ways to beat the Left. Sorry that they may not be quick or easy, but they´re usually simple. Odd, but things that are right are often simple, but not easy. Well, unless and until you make them the norm. [Ahh, but that´s simple and not easy, isn´t it? Funny how that works....]

2. GRRRR! "one of... has been a shortage... and an abundance of...." I´m screaming here! "One of" has been "A and B"? Is everyone illiterate? Don´t editors work on Wednesdays at the WaPo? Is the difference between "one" and "two" now found only among the arcana? Known only to The Illuminati?

[Comment on several posts above -- yes, by all means, as Obama, an illegal usurper whose every official act is moot, whose borrowing is crippling us for generations, who is expropriating 1/6 of the economy to the gov´t in the quest for great power that enslaves us all via Obamacare, who eviscerates our military, who is fomenting war against Israel, who is cementing Islamist control of the Middle East, who is crippling our economy, who appoints incompetent America-hating apparatchiks everywhere [including the SCOTUS] -- yes, by all means, let´s have a name-calling food-fight over such flaws as Romney may have, rather than fight Obama.

I agree with #2, #3, #8, and everyone else who does NOT agree with #1. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Looks like some still subscribe to that adage. IMO, trash talk belongs to demonrats, not the GOP. BTW, I would like to thank Mitt Romney for being THE candidate who ran an honest campaign with integrity. Those qualities are non-existent in obama. Unfortunately these days, that´s just not enough to win. The election proved that.

How many decades has it been since a Dem exhibited anything resembling "self-loathing"? They hide, excuse, celebrate every bad habit, illegality, fraud, lie, cheat, whatever, as long as there is a D behind someone´s name.

dear Lord #9, at least I hope you are happy!

Obama four more years,

Fred Thompson would´ve lost by a wider margin not that you really care

I assume Stu advised Mitt that he could not attract some 47%-- who would vote for Obama no matter what. Turns out that it was Mitt who could garner only 47% of the vote. If I were Stu I would lay low.

I think Mitt is a decent, honorable man. I´m still sad he didn´t win.

The interesting thing about the Romney rah-rah crowd is the apparent inability to step back and have some introspection.

According to this cheerleader piece, Romney did nothing wrong – he just came up a little short against the worst president in modern history. Nobody but voters liked him? He didn’t get support from “politicians in Washington”? He wasn’t the inevitable candidate? What nonsense. He barely scraped out a win in a protracted 3-way primary against two other candidates - one a supposedly fringe wacko religious fundamentalist fool and the other apparently an irreparably media-damaged ego-maniac Wilsonite moonbat who cheated on his wife. Voters “loved” him? The media propped him up in the primary and helped him destroy everyone else, and it was barely enough.

Yes, Romney performed good in “debate” (singular as per the article). His last two were lackluster. But he did NOT present a compelling case for free markets and government restraint. Warning of the catastrophic consequences of NOT doing those things is not the same as laying out the case for why it’s better to do them in the first place. He offered voters half, where -0-bama offered all. He did not explain WHY personal responsibility and having a job is better than living the life of Julia.

We can no longer assume Americans understand freedom and capitalism or desire either.

The problem 11, is that we can´t fight Obama, since the representatives we elected to do just that kow-tow and cave to Obama as soon as they can. This same leadership, btw, is the that which made sure that the candidate was Romney, and not one of the other supposed unelectables.

Romney may be a good guy, and may have proven to be a good or even great President, but we´ll never know. Mr. Electable phoned it in after the first debate and blew it, if he actually ever could have won it. I for one will work as hard as I can to see the birth of a third party. The GOP actually managed to grasp defeat from the worst President in history, and alienate a large proportion of their support in the process. They don´t deserve to continue.

The scale of the negative campaign Romney ran against fellow Republicans during the primary was truly appalling. He relied on well-funded personal attacks, and they drove Romney´s national favorability numbers through the floor before anyone had the money to respond in kind. Romney didn´t run a campaign for conservative ideas; he ran a smear campaign against his rivals as people. It takes a special kind of naivete to believe that the synchronization between a rival topping Romney in a poll and the appearance of damaging stories in the press was just a lucky coincidence for Mitt. I suppose believing that Mitt Romney was a "severe conservative" requires a similar act of willful blindness. Romney was what he was--indisputably better than Obama but nowhere near the political candidate his followers continue to misrepresent on this site.

#17: Your last line sums it all up:

We can no longer assume Americans understand freedom and capitalism or desire either.