Thursday, November 29, 2012

Stupidest Election Analysis So Far


The horrible Washington Post Op-Ed section had someone write a piece about what a great campaign Mitt Romney ran. It was written by one Stuart Stevens who was, um, Mitt Romney's chief campaign strategist because, you know, objectivity!




Opinions

Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.


Yeeeeeahhhhh.... Mitt Romney may be a lot of things, but a "good" man? I've seen no evidence of that.

Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing.


 

 It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.

Narrow?

 



I don't know how you define narrow.

 I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians

Or of anyone.
Pretty much everyone hates him, but only because he's kind of a horrible person.

That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.

Everyone knew Mitt Romney was going to be the Republican nomination. No one wanted him to be, but he was the only one who didn't seem crazy


Or retarded



Or weird



Or all of the above




He was the default nominee since the 2008 campaign ended.

But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. 

They liked him so much that they flitted from Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich to Perry, only finally settling on Romney after each and every one of them had imploded.



 What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement

What began? Nothing began in any small field in New Hampshire. It began in Karl Rove's "American Crossroads"boardroom.

It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates

Yeah, that must have been tough!

  
OOPS!

and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

He was behind all the other candidates because the voters loved him so much!

In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. [sic]

In debate. Yes, he won A debate. One out of three. And only because Barack Obama didn't show up for the first one.

He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

Using his Bain capital experience as a good object lesson, he sure made a moral case for something, but it wasn't for "free enterprise" or "conservative economics." It was more of a moral argument for tar and feathers.


When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed.  

And with Paul Ryan at his side, he won the elect. . . .oh, wait! Maybe the intelligentsia had apoint?
And there is nothing rational or persuasive about Paul Ryan's position on Social Security or Medicare.


The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin.  

So the people who would not be affected by the future slashing and burning of SS and Medicare voted for the boring white guys over the scary black man? Well, I'm certainly convinced!
 

It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

No, it will always be the same tired lies trotted out again and again by the Ryans of the world.

 
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTlL8S8ly_f1Nn9cFouSJBbeboRqmOWMh8bW-apKLNDHULFJMRVMQ


On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

Hmm, the affluent voted Republican?  You don't say!

 
 But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000

Mainly because it really didn't?
Although, getting away with that level of chicanery could be described as brilliant, in a way.


 Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012.

Really?

Obama Victory Margin Grows

As the votes keep coming in, David Wasserman notes President Obama's national lead over Mitt Romney is now 50.9% to 47.4%. 


Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed.


 Yeah, it kinda is.

In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans


 
Pictured: millions of people, sweeping rally.

 
He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. 

The vision of a country where people can get medicine when they're sick and we still make cars? The horror!



He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics. 

Natural grace? Good humor? Are you kidding? Mitt?

 
That's either Mitt Romney or Cary Grant!

 

There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. 

  

Yeah, when the Democratic party was really liberal, they totally had lots of problems!


Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. 

Maybe if they can be ridden to victory, they don't really qualify as "problems?" 

 

 But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical.
 
  

Yes, he could never survive a primary!

Yes, the Republican Party has problems

  but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day. 

I'm not sure which day that was, but it sure as hell wasn't Election Day!

 
On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future. 






1 comment:

Brewella Deville said...

Also, too, Stuart Stevens mother thinks he's cool. Yeah, Milhouse cool.