Erick Erickson points his finger at "elitists":
There are a lot of elitist Republicans who have spent several years telling us Mitt Romney was the only electable Republican. Because the opinion makers and news media these elitists hang out with have concluded Romney will not win, the elitists are in full on panic mode. They conspired to shut out others, tear down others, and prop up Romney with the electability argument. He is now not winning against the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
Friedersdorf notes Erickson's amnesia:
Whether considered judgment or dishonest hackery explained their 2007 praise for Romney, it is that very praise that won him considerable support in the rank-and-file and next-in-line status in the GOP. It isn't surprising that some of these figures are trying to assign blame elsewhere as the possibility of a Romney loss sends waves of fear through the right, but they're as responsible for putting Romney in this position as anyone, and certainly more responsible than the center-right pundits on whom they try to blame everything that goes wrong in the Republican Party.
[I]t’s not the fault of the "DC-Manhattan elite" that the Tea Party rallied briefly around wannabe cable-news personalities Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, or that Rick Perry made Pawlenty look like Cicero, or that the voters of South Carolina decided to give Newt Gingrich an extra two weeks in the spotlight instead of rallying around the strongest remaining not-Romney candidate. Indeed, given how lukewarm the pundits and donors were to Romney’s candidacy all along, perhaps Republican populists need to look in the mirror, and recognize that the lackluster performance of all the Tea Party candidates in what was supposed to be the Tea Party’s year might say more about that movement’s limitations than about the machinations of its enemies.