Skip to main content

As the Mitt Romney campaign careens through a truly horrific week, featuring one self-inflicted wound after another followed by feeble attempts to explain or deny, sometimes both, the punditocracy has looked on in a state of despair (conservative), wonder (centrist), and amusement (liberal). Plus an undercurrent of surprise that Mitt Romney has suddenly turned into a truly terrible candidate.

Well, I'm not surprised. When I look back at Romney's political career, I see a consistently lousy candidate, capable of winning only when the circumstances are stacked overwhelmingly in his favor.

His first foray was 1994's attempt to out-liberal Teddy Kennedy. Yep, Mitt's masterstroke was to try to position himself to the left of the most famous liberal in the U.S. Senate. Didn't go too well, and it left behind a barrel of embarrassing video that would establish his reputation as a waffler with no real convictions.

His image as a canny pol derives entirely from his run as Governor of Massachusetts. Winning the top office in a notoriously blue state was taken as a sign of political merit. But wait; his candidacy and Governorship coincide with the darkest hours of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, which was caught in a seemingly bottomless well of corruption, incompetence and cronyism. Plus, after all, he didn't take the office away from the Dems; he succeeded not one, but two Republican Governors.

After the jump: Standing on the shoulders of nonentities, leaving a party in shambles, and bumbling his way through two Presidential campaigns.

His predecessors were Republicans Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci*, two men who were also given a lot of credit for electoral success in the bluest of states -- but who, in the long run, have proven to be political ciphers. (Weld, you may recall, was thumped by John Kerry in a 1996 bid for U.S. Senate, and his brief pursuit of the New York governorship in 2006 was a complete disaster.)

*Followed by a brief and hapless intermezzo by Lt. Gov. Jane Swift, who occupied the Big Chair after Cellucci became US Ambassador to Canada.)

Back to Mitt. His 2002 gubernatorial campaign was substantially underwritten by himself; he was responsible for more than $6 million of his total campaign kitty of less than $10 million. And he beat a weak Democratic candidate by five percentage points. In fact, he got less than 50% of the total vote, but the left-wing electorate was split between the Democrat and the Green Party candidate.  

He racked up some early success as Governor, most notably the Health Care Reform He Dare Not Name. But as time went on, his charm wore thin; by the end of his term, his approval rating was pathetically low, and he left the state Republican Party in tatters. His designated successor, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (owner of the $3.9 million Vermont hideaway where Romney recently did some debate prep) was walloped by Democrat Deval Patrick by 20 percentage points.

And then, in 2008, he ran for President. He established himself as a contender by spending a boatload of his own money -- $45 million in all, nearly half of his 2008 campaign total. Even so, he was outvoted in in Iowa by genial ultraconservative Mike Huckabee, and in New Hampshire by John McCain, a man who is greatly esteemed in Washington circles but who (like George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole before him) failed to warm the cockles of Republican hearts.

Huckabee got the cockles but not enough of them; Romney failed to out-cockle the cockle-free McCain, and lost the race for the nomination in spite of a substantial monetary advantage. Journalist Evan Thomas, looking back on the race, wrote that Romney "came off as a phony, even when he was perfectly sincere." Hmm, that sounds familiar.

Romney's second-place finish in 2008 gave him the early edge for 2012, which he tried to cement by spending the ensuing four years running for President. He failed. Throughout 2011 and early 2012, Romney was beset by an onslaught of truly uninspired and truly ridiculous candidates. Putative technocrats Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty failed to generate any enthusiasm whatsoever, leaving Romney to face a clown-car of a field -- Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.

Every one of them was a complete joke of a candidate, and yet Romney consistently struggled to dispatch them. Republican operatives and political pundits constantly begged for someone -- anyone -- to enter the race: Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, etc., etc. They all stayed on the sidelines, as Mitt stumbled his way to victory over a bunch of tomato cans.

Throughout the spring and summer, as the economy continued to sputter, Mitt had plenty of time to make a case against President Obama. He couldn't. The polls didn't budge. Consistently, throughout the primary and general campaigns, Mitt Romney has shown a propensity for missteps, misstatements, and unconvincing rhetoric. And now his campaign has hit the rocks.

Color me unsurprised. This past week was of a piece with the rest of Mitt Romney's political career. It's just that now, he's all by himself in the glare of the klieg lights, fully revealing his fundamental flaws for all to see.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There may also be an ego issue here... (13+ / 0-)

    ... as Romney thought he could out-wit Senator Kennedy and now is attempting to unseat a popular sitting president.  

    Both Kennedy and Obama are iconic figures.  Romney thought he could take them both down.  Didn't work against Kennedy, ain't workin' now against Obama.

    But evidently Mitt thought he'd be very successful.  What a headline he might grab by beating a Kennedy!  What a smashing victory to be the guy who beats Obama!  

    As you say, when "he's all by himself in the glare of the klieg lights," he ain't got nothin'.  No 'there' there.  No real rationale for him to run except his ego told him to.  

    •  MeThinks an empty chair would be a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator

      better candidate. Oh that is the candidate, he is just channeling it for us.

      Conservatives supported slavery, opposed women’s suffrage, supported Jim Crow, opposed the 40-hour work week, the abolishment of child labor, and supported McCarthyism. from 'It's The Conservatism, Stupid' by Paul Waldman July 12, 2006

      by arealniceguy on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 12:53:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Remember what a bad candidate McCain was? (14+ / 0-)

    Mitt Romney is the guy who proved himself to be a much worse candidate than John McCain.

    I think people overestimated Romney's abilities as a candidate because they compared him with Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich.

    People in Massachusetts do this, too, because they compare him to Jane Swift and Shannon O'Brien.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 10:50:31 AM PDT

  •  He did a lot of our oppo work for us (12+ / 0-)

    a few years ago. I remain bemused at the potency of using Romney's past statements against the ones he makes now.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 10:51:10 AM PDT

  •  It's not just weak salesmanship (14+ / 0-)

    It's the weakness of the agenda that Republicans are selling to the rest of the country.

    Talk that only the rich the powerful and the strong deserve the good things in life - even survival - doesn't resonate with everyone.

    It rings too closely to historical ideologies that no one likes but aren't allowed to mention under the Godwin Laws.

  •  We live in the world of video and you-tube. (13+ / 0-)

    Mitt has been on every side of issues like abortion and gay rights, not to mention being the godfather of Obama care. As a liberal, I wouldn't trust him, but I would not trust him if I were a conservative either. You have to stand for something. All Mittens seems to stand for is lowering his already low tax rate.

  •  Who could have known that running a (8+ / 0-)

    'Fat Cat' in this economic environment might be a bad idea?

  •  You know you are a pathetic candidate (9+ / 0-)

    when even the horrid Ann Coulter prophecizes your utter doom.

    He should peer deep into the abyss. He should look straight into the heart of darkness where lies a Republican defeat - Peggy Noonan

    by Steven Payne on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 11:04:09 AM PDT

  •  notice any similarities to his father (9+ / 0-)
    Romney was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968. While initially a front-runner, he proved an ineffective campaigner, and fell behind Richard Nixon in polls. Following a mid-1967 remark that his earlier support for the Vietnam War had been due to a "brainwashing" by U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Vietnam, his campaign faltered even more, and he withdrew from the contest in early 1968.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/....
    Presidential historian Theodore H. White wrote that during his campaign Romney gave "the impression of an honest and decent man simply not cut out to be President of the United States."
    Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio more memorably said, "Watching George Romney run for the presidency was like watching a duck try to make love to a football."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/....
  •  And the other side of this tale is that Obama may (7+ / 0-)

    ... be one of the luckiest pols on the planet.

    In his U.S. Senate run, he faced the last-second GOP fill-in, Alan Keyes, a true fringe lunatic who had zero chance of upsetting Obama.

    Obama's toughest race (excluding his loss in a congressional primary to Bobby Rush in 2000) was against Hillary Clinton.

    McCain? He was to Obama what Bob Dole was to Bill Clinton. And now for Obama to get Romney... Well, it is obvious why Obama's team was always hoping for Romney.

    Romney is a monumentally shitty candidate for all the reasons you state.

    When Romney insisted on picking Paul Ryan over the objections of some senior campaign folks, I'm sure the cheering from Obama campaign headquarters in downtown Chicago could be heard across the lake in Michigan.

    One bad decision after another. One has to admire Mitt's consistency.

    •  take Romney's advice (5+ / 0-)

      and do the opposite. Seriously, he made money by losing money. If he had to create anything he'd have gone broke.

      The Spice must Flow!

      by Texdude50 on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 11:26:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So what's your point? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sophie Amrain

      That Obama has won because he's faced a woman, an old man or otherwise shitty candidates?

      Did it ever occur to you that Obama's effectiveness at defining Romney is one of the reasons you regard Romney as a shitty candidate?

      Your comment implies that Obama hasn't faced a candidate that people would take seriously.  I beg to differ.

      Have you googled Romney today?

      by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 11:28:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am agreeing with the diarist... (3+ / 0-)

        ... and with the Obama campaign team who always wanted to face Mitt Romney because they viewed Romney as a weak candidate who would be easy to define as an out-of-touch rich guy.

        Which is what he is.

        My comment is not a comment on Obama's qualities as a candidate. It is on the quality of his opposition. He beat Hillary Clinton who will end up being the toughest candidate he ever faced.

        •  The suggestion that Obama is lucky (0+ / 0-)

          implies that his current lead over Romney and his victories over Clinton and McCain had little if anything to do with his effectiveness as a candidate.

          I don't believe the diarist made that point.

          Have you googled Romney today?

          by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 11:38:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, it does not suggest that. (0+ / 0-)

            It suggests that he is fortunate that the Republicans have fielded such weak, feeble candidates against him.

            Did you even read my previous post? I made it clear that my initial comment has nothing to do with Obama's qualities as a candidate.

            •  Again, I beg to differ. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sethtriggs, Thestral

              George W. Bush was an incompetent President and he had gaping flaws as a candidate, similar to those Romney has.  He was stupid, many of his businesses failed by design because he was an opportunistic vulture capitalist in the same mould as Romney.

              However, W. didn't face a candidate who effectively defined him.  Instead he faced a snorting know-it-all who ran away from his would-be predecessor's popularity and lost his home state.

              By contrast you have Romney who, despite his apparent flaws, is a well-connected establishment candidate with donors who can write 9-figure checks to placate an already docile media.  The fact that his flaws have been magnified despite all of the structural advantages he enjoys is a credit to the Obama campaign's effectiveness.

              Luck has little to do it with it.

              Have you googled Romney today?

              by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 12:04:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So you disagree with the diarist? (0+ / 0-)

                The point of the diarist is that Mitt is, was, and will always be a shitty candidate.

                No matter what Obama or Obama's campaign team does.

                My point is simple: Obama has faced weak challengers.

                That, in itself, is not a comment on Obama's qualities as a candidate or his team's ability to astutely strategize their path to victory.

                •  No, I disagree with you. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sethtriggs
                  The point of the diarist is that Mitt is, was, and will always be a shitty candidate.

                  No matter what Obama or Obama's campaign team does.

                  You seem to think "shitty" is some inherent flaw in a candidate that has nothing to do with our perception of that candidate.  You seem to think we can assess a candidate's weaknesses independently of his opponent's ability to define him.

                  That is completely untrue.  I think you fundamentally misunderstand politics if you believe this is true.

                  I don't believe that was the diarist's point.  

                  Have you googled Romney today?

                  by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 12:38:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Read the diary. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    slothlax

                    It outlines every campaign Mitt has ever run. He has sucked in all of them. He has been always been a shitty candidate and a lousy campaigner.

                    What do you think the diary is about? Just curious.

                    •  Stop hiding behind the diarist. (0+ / 0-)

                      You made a stupid point.

                      If you read the diary again, you'll notice that Romney in fact won some of those campaigns because he lacked effective opposition.

                      Obama isn't lucky.  Case closed.

                      Have you googled Romney today?

                      by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 01:00:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I "made a stupid point?" (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        slothlax

                        Because you're a person who can't hold two, independent thoughts in your mind at the same time? Seriously?

                        The title of the diary (in case you missed it) is:

                        "So Mitt Romney is a terrible candidate. Mitt Romney has ALWAYS been a terrible candidate."
                        And my point was two-fold:

                        1. I agree with the diarist. Mitt Romney is, and always has been, a terrible candidate.

                        2. Obama has been lucky in general elections in that he has had very weak GOP opponents.

                        For some reason, this must strike you as a put-down of Obama and his campaign skills. As I have tried to explain to you a few times here, the suggestion that Romney sucks as a candidate (and that Alan Keyes and McCain suffered from the same affliction) is no way related to Obama's qualities as a candidate.

                        But I now realize that you are unable to grasp that, so I will just leave it at that.

                        Have a nice day!

                        •  Yep, you did. (0+ / 0-)

                          You continue to make the same stupid point because you misunderstand politics, and because you can't grasp the simple point I was trying to make: that it's meaningless to assess a candidate's weaknesses independently of his opponent's strengths.

                          You keep saying that Romney's flaws have nothing to do with the strength of his opponent because you're not an astute political observer.

                          For some reason, this must strike you as a put-down of Obama and his campaign skills.
                          Don't be ridiculous.  It doesn't make sense that I would think you're putting down something that you don't understand.  I think you're completely unable to comprehend Obama's effectiveness because you seem to think that Romney is "naturally" weak, and that your perception of his weakness has nothing to do with Obama's effectiveness in defining him.

                          With the possible exception of Alan Keyes, Obama has never faced an unviable opponent.  He's always faced a viable, well-funded, well-established opposition.  Obama is no more or less lucky than any other politician, but he's able to maximize his strengths and effectively define his opponents.  That's why he wins.

                          Have you googled Romney today?

                          by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 08:28:30 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Romney won only because (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        slothlax, sethtriggs, Thestral

                        The MA democratic party had imploded so badly, there was no credible candidate facing Mitt, and no functional party apparatus to support a decent opponent if there had been one. (Having been a politically active MA teen at the time, I can tell you, things were f*ed up).

                        Mitt was and remains a crappy candidate - he just happened to be able to exploit a major structural weakness to weasel his way into office. He was not a popular governor, and the entire state heaved a sigh of relief when he toddled off to Utah to play Mr. Olympics Guy.

                        Romney can be a shitty candidate without reflecting in any way on the Obama campaign. Obama can be brilliant, and still face crappy opposition. His brilliance is what makes it possible for him to face down the untold billions of $$ being arrayed against him by the masters hoping to have Mitt as their puppet (after having also failed to get McCain as their puppet). Taking on the economic hit men is where Obama's strength is, and where it needs to be. Mitt is only the window dressing on the real opposition.

                      •  Hiding behind the point of the diary? (0+ / 0-)

                        The comment expanded on the point of the diary, that Romney is not a strong candidate, historically. Neither was Alan Keyes or John McCain. Hillary was a quality opponent, but there was a strong anti-Hillary vein to be tapped in 08. Now Obama deserves some credit for his success and I think he may have bested stronger opposition, but he hasn't had to.

                        There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                        by slothlax on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 01:54:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  That's pure hogwash fou. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                radical simplicity

                Not to take anything away from Obama but he is in the easiest election of ANY Democratic Presidential candidate in history.

                Frankly, calling Gore a 'snorting know-it-all' when he had to face opposition in his own party not to mention being hated by the press, is trying to rewrite history. If Gore had it nearly as easy as Obama has today then the country would be much better off.

                •  You ignore the current economic conditions. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fou, sethtriggs

                  This is not an "easy election" by any means. Gore was coming off the heady days of the Clinton economy. Granted, he was also dealing with the leftovers of the failed GOP effort to oust Clinton, but he had a much easier climate in which to run than the current state.

                •  You're making my point for me. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LordMike, sethtriggs
                  Frankly, calling Gore a 'snorting know-it-all' when he had to face opposition in his own party not to mention being hated by the press, is trying to rewrite history. If Gore had it nearly as easy as Obama has today then the country would be much better off.
                  You believe Gore's flaws as a candidate are everyone else's fault, but Romney's are intrinsically his because of your perception, not because of any objective fact.  That's precisely my point.
                  Not to take anything away from Obama but he is in the easiest election of ANY Democratic Presidential candidate in history.
                  Gore was the incumbent Vice President in the most robust economy in nearly a half century!  His would-be predecessor had approval ratings in the 60-70% range!  He faced an idiot!  And "lost!"  Just because you like Gore doesn't mean that he didn't run a shitty campaign.

                  OTOH, yes Obama's winning, but by an average of 2-3 percent.  He's struggled to have approval ratings at or above 50% throughout the campaign and the economy is barely moving.  Plus, he's the first AA incumbent facing a phalanx of anonymous billionaires and a challenger who looks like he was plucked from central casting.  If Obama did not effectively define Mitt Romney, he'd be in a lot of trouble right now.

                  You can't have it both ways.  Gore lost because he was an ineffective candidate that allowed his opponent to define him as unstable.  Romney's losing because he's been effectively defined as a jerk.  Pure and simple.

                  Have you googled Romney today?

                  by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 12:51:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Obama's team was not hoping to face Romney. (0+ / 0-)

      They were as clueless as the prognosticators on this site that thought Romney would be the toughest foe.

      But, they got lucky as you say and are in their easiest election in Obama's career. This Romney guy is a disaster and anyone should have seen that coming from a mile away.

      •  They WERE hoping to face Romney. (3+ / 0-)

        I can tell you that for a fact.

        •  Yeah right. I'm not sure what you base that on (0+ / 0-)

          but if true I'm impressed.

          •  Romney was who they wanted. (3+ / 0-)

            The campaign to define Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy was in place long before the GOP primaries ended.

            They wanted Romney. They knew his history and they knew what a lousy candidate he was, as outlined by the diarist here.

            They were hoping and planning for Romney.

            This is straight from some of the folks running the show.

          •  They wanted to face Romney. (0+ / 0-)

            When Romney was struggling in the primaries, the Obama campaign expressed public confidence that he would eventually be the nominee.

            An incumbent President would not lend such confidence to Romney's aura of inevitability unless he wanted to face Romney in the general election.

            But don't you just love how Bob Johnson claims that Obama's lucky to face Mitt Romney while at the same time insisting that Obama took action to ensure that Romney was his opponent?

            Yeah that's right.  It's pure luck that Obama's in command of the race.

            Have you googled Romney today?

            by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 01:27:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama is lucky to face Mitt. (0+ / 0-)

              Just as he was lucky to face Alan Keyes and John McCain.

              I bet even he would tell you that.

              Again (since you really seem to have trouble holding two, independent thoughts in your mind at once), this is no comment on Obama's political or campaign acumen.

              •  Why do you think John McCain was weak? (0+ / 0-)

                McCain is a war hero.  McCain has bi-partisan cred and is one of the most senior statesmen in the country.  

                By what standard is he weak?

                Obama forced him into what proved to be a fatal tactical error: his choice of Sarah Palin.  McCain chose Palin to shake-up what looked like an un-winnable race.  At that point, the dynamics of the race and McCain's tenuous position had everything to do with Obama's political prowess and his ability to maximize the advantages of his historic candidacy.  If you recall, they chose Palin because she was "a fresh face" and a "first" like Obama.  His choice of Palin was as much a concession that Obama had run an effective campaign as it was an attempt to change the game.

                And it worked briefly.  McCain was winning the election in mid-September 2008 because he had chosen Palin.  

                If you want to say that Obama's lucky, it's more accurate to attribute his luck to the market crash than to facing John McCain.  (I'm not convinced that McCain would have lost had the market not crashed, even with that idiot Palin).  But to say Obama's more lucky than most politicians because the market crashed is meaningless, because these kinds of catastrophic events could happen to any politician.  Obama was able to take advantage of it.

                I think McCain was just as viable a candidate as Hillary.  McCain didn't lose because he was weak.  He lost because he misunderstood Obama.

                Have you googled Romney today?

                by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 09:15:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, Romney was so strong, McCain kicked his ass. (0+ / 0-)

                  And Bob Dole was a war hero, too.

                  •  McCain came from nowhere to beat Romney (0+ / 0-)

                    and the rest of the GOP field.

                    Yeah, Romney was so strong, McCain kicked his ass.
                    Everyone had written off his campaign until he started showing signs of strength relatively late in the game.  That's to his credit.  He didn't just walk into the nomination due to 'luck' that he faced a weak opponent.

                    McCain was just as viable a candidate as Hillary Clinton.  He had access to just as much money as she did, and to the highest levels of the establishment.  And before he said that bullshit about "the fundamentals" he was winning.  Obama didn't just walk into the White House because he faced John McCain.

                    I'll grant you that Alan Keyes was a completely unviable candidate.  Obama got upwards of 70% of the vote in his race against Keyes which is statistically unanimous.  But you seem to think that John McCain and Alan Keyes are similarly weak, and nothing could be further from the truth.

                    All losers are not alike.  McCain is nothing like Dole, and neither are anything like Keyes or Romney.  Your comparisons make no sense.

                    Have you googled Romney today?

                    by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 10:32:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Look, try this... (0+ / 0-)

                      You wrote this:

                      Obama didn't just walk into the White House because he faced John McCain.
                      Go back and read every one of my posts in this thread. Nowhere do I claim that Obama won because of he had weak opponents. Nowhere. Never. Not said. Or implied. In fact, it's just the opposite. I have stated time and time again that what I wrote is not a commentary in any way, shape or form on Obama's skills as a candidate or a campaigner.

                      I know you can't grasp that because you seem to have some reflexive need to think that what I wrote is Obama bashing, but it just isn't.

                      And I am sure that nothing I write will clear up this misconception of yours.

      •  Yeah they were. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy, FiredUpInCA

        It was obvious during the primaries that they were.

        Have you googled Romney today?

        by fou on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 11:51:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Only b/c they would've preferred Santorum/Gingrich (0+ / 0-)

        Those two disasters would indeed be losing even more badly right now, not to mention Bachmann or Cain.  

        But I'm pretty sure the Obama campaign much preferred Romney over someone like Huckabee or Christie, who didn't run, or Huntsman, who dropped out very early.

    •  I agree with all that. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax, Bob Johnson, Nowhere Man

      Romney is a terrible candidate, Obama has had all pushovers (except Hillary) , and Paul Ryan is looking like an epic bad call, although better candidates may simply have told Romney no.

    •  Perhaps, Obama is "lucky" (0+ / 0-)

      ...like Harry Reid was lucky in Nevada.

  •  Any candidate (7+ / 0-)

    who has been running for 5 years and has not cleaned up all the messes in his past proves his incompetence. He is an Epic Fail on the campaign trail.

    The Spice must Flow!

    by Texdude50 on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 11:20:30 AM PDT

  •  The apple doesn't fall..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama

    ...well you know the rest.

    This is our moment...this is our time! President Barack Obama

    by ankae on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 11:25:14 AM PDT

  •  Rmoney has certainly run the most (4+ / 0-)

    shambolic of campaigns - ok, in part because he has been outrun and outmanoeuvred.  

    He has had no consistent message, no control of his own image, no steady line on any issue at all - and shoots himself in the foot a lot. (47%, anyone?)

    I love it!

  •  He's always been about $$$$... (0+ / 0-)

    He's obsessed with idea that if only you JUST HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, you can do anything, buy anything, rewrite anything, bully anyone and anything, convince anyone and anything, etc. There was no way he was ever going to see the light on this. It was impossible.

    Money can't buy happiness and it certainly can't buy the presidency.

    If he's capable of learning this (which I tend to doubt), he's certainly learning it the hard way.

    "If you're looking for somebody with George W. Bush's economic policy, Dick Cheney's foreign policy, and Rick Santorum's social policy, then Mitt Romney's your man." -- James Carville

    by terabthia2 on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 12:13:07 PM PDT

  •  I voted for Stein (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    My only Mass election. I thought Romney was an underwhelming, bland, run of the mill northeastern moderate Republican, nothing more, nothing less. Not presidential material. And I was right. Thanks for highlighting the nuances of the political picture in Mass leading up to that victory and the way Romney effectively destroyed what had become a GOP lockdown on the Governorship in MA.

    That said, its still within 5%, regardless of how shitty a candidate Romney is. The 47% comment works both ways. GOTV!

    There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

    by slothlax on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 02:02:28 PM PDT

  •  When I wrote him off (0+ / 0-)

    When he liked the trees and lakes of Michigan. This guy won his primary by carpetbombing his helpless opponents. He cannot win any real race

Click here for the mobile view of the site