After reading about Romney's appearance at CPAC there is only one possible conclusion to make

[grantcart]

[font color="blue" size="32" ]Romney for President 2016[/font]

[font color="black" size="16" ]Mitt Romney's CPAC Speech Was As Lackluster As His Campaign[/font]



You could call Mitt Romney’s return to this annual gathering of the conservative faithful a homecoming because he was well-received here during his presidential bids. He always came in first or second in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll, and he received enthusiastic standing ovations on Friday.

But the truth is that the reformed moderate from Massachusetts was never quite at home among movement conservatives -- though he tried very, very hard, describing himself as a “severely conservative Republican governor” at last year’s conference. His patrician demeanor also put off minorities, young people, and women. For a man who always looks great in a suit, Romney always looked uncomfortable in his own skin on the campaign trail.

His first public speech since his November defeat was as lackluster as most of his stump speeches and as about as forgettable as his candidacy. He will be better remembered for what he did wrong (“47 percent” and “self-deportation”) than what he did right (his first debate against President Obama). He was a transitional, not a transformational nominee.

Romney acknowledged that himself, saying, “As someone who just lost the last election, I’m probably not the person to chart the course for the next one.” Earlier he said, “It’s up to us to make sure we learn from our mistakes and my mistakes and take advantage of that learning and take back the White House.”

[MichiganVote]

1. The entitled one just can't comprehend he wasn't wanted.

[DFW]

2. Romney's hearing must not be too bad

He apparently heard the sigh of relief that went around the world when Obama won re-election.

[Zoeisright]

3. He looks a lot older than he did last November.

Good.

[DFW]

4. He'll look a lot older in 2016

But it won't matter, because he won't be a factor by then.

Like Bush Lite in 2012, his party won't want to know.

The main thing about the Republican Party these days is that their main concern seems to be defining who it is they hate most.

Who should they be concentrating on, anyway? "Nigras" are passé, they even have one in the Senate now, and he thinks he's Clarence Thomas with a voice. There's always gays, but that will pass, as more and more of the gays among them lose their terror of saying they're gay and what's the big deal? There are the brown people they are convinced are streaming across the border like an invasion of ants, except that they know that Hispanics voted against them by a margin of something like 3 to 1 last time. There's always the Taliban and North Korea, but no one much likes them anyway.

And that leaves the old, reliable standby.....LIBBRULS!!!! (that's us)

Except that they couldn't even tell you what a liberal is. Which leaves them pretty confused--which they are. They still have their anger, their guns and their "NO" votes. They are just having a tough time trying to figure out in which direction to point them, which is why they point them everywhere.