It costs people nothing to be magnanimous, but it's so seldom done. Especially in politics. I've written volumes about Romney and his campaign. Most of it bad. So it was somewhat shocking when his concession speech was so un-Romney-like. I actually thought it was pretty good. But of course, Mitt being Mitt, he can't go more than a week without contradicting some thing he said.
In explaining his loss to his financial backers, Romney struck an entirely different tone. Apparently, the President bought off all of his constituents with "gifts." Especially Blacks, Latino, and young people.
With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loanJeez, and people think I'm cynical. What Romney calls gifts and I call keeping campaign promises. And there's nothing nefarius about it. Sort of like how if Mitt had won the election, he would have reduced tax rates on high income earners and reduced regulations on businesses. But when Romney does it it's just him making good on his campaign platform. But the President is doing something decidedly unseemly? How one goes from congratulating the President and his campaign staff on running a good race to bitching about how they won via constituent giveaways is anyone's guess. But with Romney, all things are possible.
interest was a big gift," Mr. Romney said. "Free contraceptives were very big
with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a
difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and
younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift
to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this
election even than in 2008."
Health care reform, like student loan reform, were things that the President promised to enact and then did. Maybe if you weren't on every side of every issue, Mitt, people might take you seriously. It's difficult to keep up with all of your views. You've been for an against abortion. You've been for and against gay rights. You've been for and against timetable for withdrawal in Afghanistan. But let's stick to the groups that you singled out earlier, blacks, Hispanics, and woman. I threw in Asians to since they're the fastest growing minority.
won the election had substantially more support among all of these groups than either of the losers, and since then, the proportion of the vote that these groups have represented has been moving up, not down.
Maybe you could have gotten more than 29% of the Latino vote if you didn't say that you'd veto the DREAM Act and wanted to make life so miserable here for immigrants that they would elect to "self-deport." Maybe if your top advisor on immigration wasn't the guy who wrote the Arizona "Papers Please" Law, things might have gone better for you. The best way to court the growing Hispanic vote in the U.S. may not be to align yourself with the policy that says that law enforcement can single out American citizens for harassment specifically because they might look like an illegal immigrant. We tend to have a problem with laws like that. But then again, this is a man who thinks Latino outreach is getting a spray tan and going on Univision.
Perhaps you could have gotten more than 45% of the women's vote if you believed in choice -- or at least made a good-faith effort to distance yourself from the most draconian anti-choice policy and rhetoric flying around during the Republican primaries. Or maybe you wouldn't have lost by 11 points among women if you actually believed in equal pay for woman rather than letting them go home early to cook dinner for their families. Perhaps next go round (God help us) you won't pick a running mate who co-sponsored anti-women legislation with Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin.
Now everyone knows that Republicans have a hard time courting the Black vote. But even Bush cracked double digits. I wonder why your percentage was so low. Could it be that the co-chair of your campaign committee was known for saying very racists things? Maybe it was that debunked welfare adyour campaign put together that said Obama was making it so public assistance recipients just got to stay home and collect their welfare checks? Nothing like dog-whistle politics to make African-Americans feel right at home. But what do you care? It's not like you'll be able to convince 47% of the country that they aren't victims and to take responsibility for their lives. Right Mitt?
Let's see, African-Americans make up about 13% of the country. Latinos make up about 17%. And Asians make up approximately 5%. That's already more than a third of the country you pissed off by consistently putting your foot in your mouth. Throw in gays, women and pet owners (at least the ones who don't like their pets strapped to the roofs of vehicles) and its amazing you got as many votes as you did.
You can cry sour grapes now and bemoan the fact that Obama brought the election with "gifts" or you can face facts. You suck.
Aren't you guys supposed to be the party of personal responsibility? Try taking some and then fade away into obscurity like you should.