For the past few days, I have forgotten about Mitt Romney. Without seeing him on his commercials or seeing clips of him on the campaign trail; its hard to believe that just a short ten days ago, he was in the running to be President of the United States.
As embarrassing details on how exactly the Romney campaign ended and then the revelation that Romney campaign was “shellshocked” at the extent of his loss trickled in, we never really got to hear anything from the horse’s mouth. How did Mitt Romney take the biggest loss of his likely finished political career? Who was there to blame? Was it internal polls that improperly “unskewed” the likely results? Was it Paul Ryan’s polarization? Perhaps even they were too overtly ambitious at expanding the electoral map?
Nope. It was “gifts” that had him lose the election. No, not literal presents or even direct bribery but no, it was clearly “welfare”-type gifts.
On a conference call with advisors, in which reporters were granted access to listen in, Romney had this to say about his loss (as per the New York Times):
In a conference call with fund-raisers and donors to his campaign, Mr. Romney said Wednesday afternoon that the president had followed the “old playbook” of using targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”
“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said, contrasting Mr. Obama’s strategy to his own of “talking about big issues for the whole country: military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.
Usually when the failed nominee of the losing party talks about the election in the immediate aftermath, they usually try to throw out the usual cliches like “I look forward to working with the President” or “the American people have spoken”, ya know the stuff we hear publicly. You normally don’t want to come across as a “sore loser” because there is still a career after elections for most.
But instead, Mitt Romney decided to go out with a long whimper. No, the Romney campaign didn’t necessarily fail but they just had to deal with the Obama team bribing minority voters and young people with special programs.
Surely though Paul Ryan, considering he still has a likely long political career ahead of him, doesn’t think the same way. He knows how politics works being that he has been in the House since 1998 and a party leader since after the 2008 election. Though what did Ryan say in his first television interview post-election and a day before the Romney “gift” comment?
He blamed “urban voters”.
The surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview with WISC-TV. “When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.
Now what Ryan said isn’t necessarily “wrong” in the sense that yes, the urban vote overwhelmingly went for the Obama team. No one can really deny that. However, again there is continued finger-pointing at “urban” (i.e. minority) voters for the reason why the Romney-Ryan ticket lost.
Let’s ignore the whole “47 percent” comments, the proposed Medicare overhaul, the bashing of gay marriage, the constant flip-flopping, the debacle that was the foreign policy debate, the “binders full of women“, the constant degrading of women voters, the plans to cut Planned Parenthood, the “not-Romney” candidates throughout the primaries, the tepid endorsements of Mitt Romney from supposed political allies and really everything that Mitt Romney has said starting in 2008. Those never existed because in the Romney world, nothing that you said ever before can be used against you (unless you aren’t him).
But hasn’t this been the Romney playbook since he decided to jump into national politics? Hasn’t it always been to run away from what you’ve done, try again as a newly “re-invented” candidate, and then point the finger at others for your loses? Mitt was a successful venture capitalist, shouldn’t he (of all people) know when something fails and it’s beyond help?
Of course not. “You people” should realize that. But not all of “you people” just the ya know, “those people” who are good-for-nothings and live off the government. They are totally just “urban” voters.
From now on, when dealing with Mitt Romney; I think it’ll be safe to refer to him as “Mitt Romney” because there is always an underlying premise to the words that he states. “Paul Ryan” too.