I think Romney was right to do so. I wouldn´t trust O´Reilly not to sandbag him.

I do not blame Mitt, I wouldnt want to deal with the big O either and I am not sure that the big jerk would help him or hurt him. The election was so much of a fraud that I don´t think anything would have changed the outcome.

I don´t like O´Reilly all that much but I must say that I practically never saw Romney the entire campaign except in news stories. I´m not in a battleground state. If I hadn´t made the effort, I wouldn´t have believed there was an election going on. I voted for him. But who was he? Where was he?

I am still depressed over the election....but I don´t believe an interview the night before would have gained mitt the votes to win.
I´m still trying to figure out how he lost......did his message turn off potential voters, was there rampant fraud, or did conservatives stay home?
All I know is that we have four more years of Obama....it looks very bleak.

O´Reilly would have done all the talking.

#4, "..how he lost.." It´s called massive vote fraud that is only possible when you have billions of taxpayer dollars to spread around, an opposition party who entertains a consent decree starting in 1982 that they essentially can´t check for cheating or conduct investigations of what is obvious (all under the guise of not being allowed to do ´caging´ which is ludicrous) and a citizenry who keep expecting the federal gooberment to police itself and clean itself up - when the founders expected the citizenry to closely watch the politicians and bodily drag them from their office if needed to deal with the tyranny or criminality. The last is also why they warned about permitting a ´standing army´ which can be the police, national guard or federal forces, these days, and who could be used to suppress the citizenry.

No doubt the campaign thought they had it in the bag and that an eleventh hour interview was more of a risk than an opportunity or a necessity. Who now knows whether it would have changed anything? It certainly could not have hurt.

Many -though not all- of us were increasingly alarmed from the start that the Romney campaign was being mismanaged and placing his election in serious jeopardy. I wish those responsible for the campaign(besides Romney) would give us a candid assessment, in 100 words or less, just what they thought they were doing. I didn´t understand it then and I do not understand it now. Romney allowed the Obama machine to put and keep him on the defensive from the beginning. He refused to fight back, i.e. to fight fire with fire. He refused to get in the gutter and sling some mud back at Obama even though there was plenty of mud to sling. Failure to mount a strong counter-offensive was a big factor in the outcome. I am not sure he knew who and what he was dealing with or how gullible the American electorate can be. He knows now.

Only near the very end, after the first debate, did the campaign seem to catch fire. I began to be encouraged and thought he might win after all. And if he had had another month or two to campaign like he meant it, and if he could have punched back hard at least some of the time... If - the saddest word in the language.

It could just be that Mitt Romney is too decent a human being to swim with the sharks.

O´ Reilly´s ego is bigger than the won´s....

During the small period in that hour when O´Reilly was not talking over him, Romney would have generally been preaching to the choir.

Romney was a dead duck last summer when he was relaxing at his New Hampshire lake house, when the liberal Democrats were already busy fraudulently adversely defining Romney to the voters in the so-called swing States. Romney never responded and never told the voters who he really was. To ordinary people who did not know Romney, the liberal Democrats had him pegged as a millionaire tax cheat, a felon, and someone out of touch with ordinary people who would send their jobs overseas and take away all their government provided benefits and services.

After the liberal Democrats had a chance to seriously demagogue Romney´s ill advised 47% remarks, all they had to did is wait for Hurricane Sandy to show up and blow Romney away.

Maybe the election should be discussed in terms of increasing the difficulty of the Dem´s efforts to subvert the results, rather than of Mitt actually winning.

I think that if Mitt had dominated the last 2 debates it would have raised the bar for the Dems. As it is, he came across as just another McCain [pardon the profanity.]

If Mitt had appeared on O´R´s show and had not been letter-networked by Bill it probably would have helped raise the bar for the Dems.

If "Orca" had worked it probably would have raised the bar for the Dems.

And so on. If enough positives had occured, the Dems would have risked exposure for fraud even with the expected media cover.

But we´ll never know now.

How and why the governor lost. Just a thought and as it is now being expressed by others, perhaps a thought in the right direction. So many figures floating around Up, down, The internal numbers in Mitt´s campaign staff were wrong. He relied on the bogus numbers and planned his campaign using the falsified figures. Who´s to say that Two Won didn´t have his own bought and paid for bums deep into Mitt´s campaign. Wouldn´t put it past o dark won. Mitt planned a strategy based on the info he had. If he had had truer figures, would he have done it differently? We´ll never know.

This is just some more of O´Reilly´s self importance behavior. He can´t be trusted in interviews and also monopolizes them.
Fraud is what lost the election. The Dems have been perfecting it since JFK and LBJ. They now have it down to a fine art.

If I am not mistaken O lost the states that had voter I.D.

The election was stolen which explains why the O cabal are such sore ´winners´.

They know!

Romney was too nice to call Obama a liar.
When he DID very publicly challenge Obama on Benghazi being terrorism, Romney was sandbagged by the bag, Candy Crowley.
Romney had to not only defeat Obama, he had to defeat a united media out to get him.

#13, re fraud ... You would have thought Romney and Team knew about this former lawsuit... or at least the RNC... never to be able to contest fraud ... amazing!

More than reason enough to start a Constitution/Conservative party ...

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/113923491

Complete link:

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/11/the-lawsuit-that-has-stopped-the-rnc-challenging-voter-fraud-since-1981-2528296.html

Any attorney comment...

I believe massive fraud..no one gives a rat´
s...we are doomed, seriously. I am not even upset about it. I have faith that the next life will be much better than this...Can´t anyone else see that Lucifer is in control right now? Take that for what it´s worth.

It´s over.

As for an interview with O´Reilly, the pompous pontificator, I´d rather have my hair pulled out than do one with him. He´d have played devil´s advocate and interrupted Romney every five words. Leave him with Lamont Hill.

This is not something to beat Romney about the ears with. It was a good decision.

In ´92 George H. W. Bush did an interview with Larry King the Friday before the election. Lawrence Walsh had just pulled a dirty trick indicting Cap Weinberger. King let George Stephanopoulus thru on his call line to ambush the President on the indictment. You can´t trust these people and O´Reilly is among the worst. Who knows what type of dirty trick he´d try to pull.

Election fraud: not so much at the polls in various precincts/wards/states, as the fraud inherent in:
1) Benghazi coverup
2) suppression of military votes
3) handouts to the 47 percent
4) Obamaphones, etc. to bussed-in SEIU protestors at Romney events
5) Media complicity with all-things-Obama
6) Early voting

O´Reilly could not be considered a "friendly" by the Romney campaign. I was instead hoping for Mitt to buy time, like 30 minutes, on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN & FOX on election eve and make his case in a frank talk w/the American people.

It was a "prevent" defense.

The takers already had there minds made up...
It would have done no good....Bill O´Reilly
just wanted just wanted to increase his viewership.....

For a number of years now oreilly has contorted himself into a pretzel to protect and preserve obama. Nothing was ever obama´s fault in oreilly´s book. He could always find someone else to blame for whatever the nitwit did.
Sort of like obama´s dept. of education secretary claiming that minorities should not be expected to perform at the level of "others" so they get a free pass.

One thing that really bothered me was, even though Texas was in the bag for Romney, he never spent any effort to even run a campaign ad. Obama knew he would lose Texas yet even he aired campaign ads! It makes one feel taken for granted. I still voted for Romney but I took no pleasure in it.

I don´t understand why Romney did not go on O´Reilly or on Rush. It is free air time to get your message out. I still think there was fraud but Romney, a really decent man, just did not run a very smart campaign. After the first debate I really thought Romney could pull it off. In the second debate when Obama conspired with the gal moderating I thought Romney would nail him, but it was all downhill from there. The last straw was when Christie praised Obama I knew in my heart that that it was over. Obama´s victory has me very depressed.

Would the interview have come before or after prognostications of a landslide victory?