THE FIRST TIME I INTERVIEWED MITT ROMNEY, as I settled onto the couch in his State House office in the summer of 2006, I noticed the governor wince a bit as he rotated his arm, like an aging closer warming up in the bullpen.
“Everything OK?” I asked.
Comments
Nonsense. Romney lost because the right still acts like the media is playing it square. This is clearly untrue. The media is now an open enemy of conservatism. The media, including the Globe, has long been an advocate for the left. Now, at least, a rational person can't pretend the media are playing it straight. The media has covered up Fast&Furious, Benghazi and now the attack by Iran, and who knows what else. It is an outrage, shocking and disgraceful. You got what you want, Globe readers, let's see how you like it.
.
I'm so very tired of this parinoid position of the right. Never heard your complaints when Romney was lifted by the media and made an unimaginable upswing comeback having none of his false claims and comments questioned or corrected. It would serve you well to listen to more then talk radio and read more then the Herald before you trumpet your sour grapes. For instance, there was an 18 month congressional investigation into Fast and Furious and there is a 450 page public report. READ IT. As much as your paranoia would like there to be cover ups surrounding Benghazi, it appears it is more of the usual boring human error and communications break down with the CIA taking the hit. This country could go further faster if the many gloom and doom "patriots" would spend their energy actually helping instead of complaining.
This comment has been removed.
Did you really know Obama? Did you take into account the zero info from the media and wonder why? Did you ever question his background or lack of proof of it? Did you ever question the reason for little improvement in employment? Did you ever take the time to research the facts of the hugh dedt increases?Did you even consider the taxpayers financing of Obama phones or all of his lavish vacations at tax payers expense? Did you ever consider MORE OF THE SAME BUT WORSE?????You voted for the unknown and it will have consequences you will be unable to imagine.
This comment has been removed.
jedi, greastest modern day increases described as "percents" can be handed to Regan with G.W. Bush coming in second place but I can't pay for anything with "percents". The gentleman in the Oval Office today holds the lead in terms of greatest increases in terms of real dollars. Yes, you can massage some numbers to make him look slightly better but unless he doesn't conclude roughly half of his second term, he will be the clear and uncontested winner no matter how the numbers are worked. No one else will even come close.
Romney also lost his hometown, Belmont, as well with 65% going to Obama, 34% to Mitt. (According to the Boston Globe). Belmont is a small town, some 17,500 people. Doesn't that tell you something?
It tells you that the only people who voted for him don't know him.
You can add California to the list of "home" states Mitt lost, and Ryan did not help him carry Wisconsin either
I totally disagree that Romney has been running for president for six years. He actually started his run in 1992, when he ran for the senate against Kennedy.
Mitt lost priamrily because the poeple who voted for Obama back in the Hope & Change 2008 can't face the fact that they made a mistake in choosing him and can't admit to themselves it was the wrong choice, even in hindsight. Yes McCain was probabaly not the answer but I think we vote people on feel and not some much the details. The country was wanting a black president and they lloked at John McCain and said, let's give this guy a shot. With lnever having governed or lead an orgaization, the pole choose Obama and hoped he would be something. Turns out he was way over his head. Things got worse. He blamed Bush for everthing even though Bush's last two years there was a Dem controlled congress and drove most of the bad agenda. Barney Frank seems to get little blame for propping up Fanny Mae, etc which cause the housing bubble but it was under Bush's term so he gets the blame.
In the end, I think the primary process forced good candidated to take flip flop postions. Romney had to flip flop to get through the primary but had to move to the center, where he really is, to compete in the election. Romney would have been a good President. Obaam and the Dems have now figured otu the formula. Every four years, creat a war on women and a class war. Get all of the Black & Latino vote and win. This bodes will for Deval Patrick. Promise everyhting to the balck community and then deliver nothing as he did in the last four years.
Romney lost becasue he didn't go negative the way Obama did.
Romney didn't go negative? Well, I can't remember who sponsored what Romney add -- Crossroads, U.S. Chamber, etc. Romney's ads were mostly from supporting PACs and they were nasty.
I don't mind "negative" ads stating in a calm way what an opponent stands for or doesn't. What I mind are ads that personally belittle or insult the opponent -- ads that I consider mean and nasty. There was some of that on both sides, but mostly by PACs, and Romney had a lot more PACs.
Mitt lost priamrily because the poeple who voted for Obama back in the Hope & Change 2008 can't face the fact that they made a mistake in choosing him and can't admit to themselves it was the wrong choice, even in hindsight. Yes McCain was probabaly not the answer but I think we vote people on feel and not some much the details. The country was wanting a black president and they lloked at John McCain and said, let's give this guy a shot. With lnever having governed or lead an orgaization, the pole choose Obama and hoped he would be something. Turns out he was way over his head. Things got worse. He blamed Bush for everthing even though Bush's last two years there was a Dem controlled congress and drove most of the bad agenda. Barney Frank seems to get little blame for propping up Fanny Mae, etc which cause the housing bubble but it was under Bush's term so he gets the blame.
In the end, I think the primary process forced good candidated to take flip flop postions. Romney had to flip flop to get through the primary but had to move to the center, where he really is, to compete in the election. Romney would have been a good President. Obaam and the Dems have now figured otu the formula. Every four years, creat a war on women and a class war. Get all of the Black & Latino vote and win. This bodes will for Deval Patrick. Promise everyhting to the balck community and then deliver nothing as he did in the last four years.
Romney lost becasue he didn't go negative the way Obama did.
Nice try.
fendog66 - you make a good point about the country wanting a Black President and becasue McCain had chosen Barbie as VP they went with Obama. Many 'undecideds' probably did just that. But make no mistake - Obama got here due to his party. They would never let him (or any candidate/any color) get anywhere if he didn't agree to play ball. Thank you for not trotting out he 'lamestream media' excuse!. He was very much un-vetted and inexperienced, but the party was there to foist him up and then help him out after winning with their tried & true strategy as you've stated. ///While the Republican party clearly did not want Romney, they did eventually back him and you have to admit that he played the part very well - Socialist attack on job-creators, war on Christians, get all the white vote... I believe you that you think he would have made a good President and I don't think he would have been too much worse than Obama. He clearly WOULD have increased our debt just as much (triple Military spending while cutting taxes??). Bottom line is he picked that party and he has to take the blame.///And did you really mean to say "Romney lost becasue he didn't go negative the way Obama did"? Sorry, I have to disagree there. Thanks for caring about your Country
Most Massachusetts voters who paid attention realized early on that the only reason Romney became Governor of MA was for his resume when he ran for President. He calculated that he could win a MA governors race, and basically adopted the positions he needed to get elected in a Blue state. No one ever really beleived that he beleived what he was saying, he just said it to get elected. Then he flip flopped on the issues at the national level and basically left himself exposed, paticularly on womans issues. He also was hurt because he couldn't come close to even on the hispanic vote in the swing states. Romney observers are aware that Mitt succesfully deferred his Vietnam draft on several occasions. During the debate he said he that he didn't support the dream act, but would support citzenship for illegals that served our country in the military. Basically he said if you illegals go fight our wars for us in the Middle East, so my kids don't have to, I'll consider granting you citzenship. I'm not willing to fight, and I don't want Tagg fighting, but if you put your life on the line and survive maybe you can be a citizen. The bold arrogance is shocking. That cost him the hispanic vote, the flip flopping cost him the independant vote and the womans vote,he never had the democratic vote, and unfortunately for Mitt there just are not enough rich white guys in America to get him elected. The presidents office was a trophy for him and he didn't care what he had to say to get the trophy. The voters saw through it and saw the guy as he really is, and outside of other rich white guys nobody could relate to him, and even many of them went in another direction.
right, and the psychobabble in this story is beside the point. Romney lost because he represented a party even more beholden to the wealthy elite than Democrats and full of intolerant religious fundamentalists, racists, and just downright crazy people -- Alan West and Michelle Backmann, anyone?
"Romney’s first few years as governor suggested he was up to the challenge."
I can't agree with that. He wasn't a bad governor, nor a good one. Mostly he just filled the office for four years.
Romney's major failing was his inabilitiy to work with the legislature, something he was never able to learn. More than 800 vetos of legislation, with over 700 of them overturned, does not evidence legislative success. His only significant legislative accomplishment was the health care law, but the legislature was already working on health care before Romney started worrying about have no legacy and began to take part in the deliberations.
I have to give Romney credit for going after Billy Bulger when all the other politicians looked the other way. Kudos gov!
I agree that Bulger was a little unsavory, but once he was out of the legislature and at UMass, I stopped worrying about him. Frankly, I though he would be good for UMass and he would make it a major educational institution, which he was apparently trying to do. That project seems to have fallen by the wayside since.
In any case, I thought Bulger was at least harmless at UMass and Romney waged what appeared to be a personal vendetta. I don't think it was Romney who won the battle in the end, though. I think it was Bulger's refusal to testify against his brother that turned everyone against him. If not for that, he might still be at UMass.
I recently read a political scientist comment that - "democracy will end once people figure out they can vote themselves money". Sadly, I believe that day has come. The results on Tuesday had nothing to do with joblessness, the economy, foriegn policy, women's rights, immigration, bi-partisanship or what Govenor Romney ate for breakfast. President Obama presides over the government of "free stuff", and that is very important to far too many American's today. Warren over Brown is further validation. For the first time in my lifetime, the majority of American's cast a vote for themselves this week, not for their children. Shameful.
What's shameful is that you believe that. I can't see evidence or understand what kind of logic could lead you to that conclusion. Is it just that you can't come to grips with the fact that your candidates didn't come out on top?
If you believe what you wrote, then you don't believe in democracy. Which element of this sociiety do you want to run the oligarchy? Should that oligarchy be herediitary or self-perpetuating? What if you're excluded from the oligarchy?
Dear Who Cares - I would imagine you either don't have young children or your a recipient of the "re distribution", possibly both. Either way, this isn't the Fourth Century and you should understand that modern day oligarchy is very much present in today's political systems, regardless of your party affiliation. It takes a lot of money from a lot of powerful people with political interests to get elected into public office.
Lastly, I can come to grips with good candidates losing an election, what I'm having difficulty with is why so many American's want to extend more and more debt on our children. I have every right to feel ashamed of an outcome which is going to increase and extend that obligation onto our kids.
This comment has been removed.
What is really sad is that the posters here really believe what Romney said about the 47%. What is scarry is that the posters believe that most most people want to sit at home and collect a check, which doesn`t even begin to cover their expenses. During the campaign it was all about people who couldn`t find jobs. Now it`s all about these same people who want "free stuff". Please tell us what exactly is "free stuff". Is it unemployment checks? Is it social security checks? Is it medicaid benefits? Is it medicare? Oh, it must be Food stamps. Granted, there are certainly abuses that occur, but do you castigate all reciepients because of some abuses? You really need to come to grips with the fact that we are becoming a more ethnic country. Please don`t try to suggest that the reason is our borders. The republican leaders now realize this and will make great efforts to draw more of them into their fold, but that will require ridding the party of the likes of those who have similar views as some posters here.
What is really sad is that the posters here really believe what Romney said about the 47%. What is scarry is that the posters believe that most most people want to sit at home and collect a check, which doesn`t even begin to cover their expenses. During the campaign it was all about people who couldn`t find jobs. Now it`s all about these same people who want "free stuff". Please tell us what exactly is "free stuff". Is it unemployment checks? Is it social security checks? Is it medicaid benefits? Is it medicare? Oh, it must be Food stamps. Granted, there are certainly abuses that occur, but do you castigate all reciepients because of some abuses? You really need to come to grips with the fact that we are becoming a more ethnic country. Please don`t try to suggest that the reason is our borders. The republican leaders now realize this and will make great efforts to draw more of them into their fold, but that will require ridding the party of the likes of those who have similar views as some posters here.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
As a side light, the CBO and The Macroeconomics Group, to mention two, have estimated that the next four years will see the addition of up to 12 million new jobs no matter who became president. I guess Romney just "borrowed" that stat so that he could lay claim that it was he that created the jobs.
Romney lost because people didn't trust him. He came across as a political chamelion. He criticized the state he governed, and the voters who elected him, in his attempt to win the nomination. He lacked emotion, he was too guarded and cautious, and he measures his words too carefully. He lacks spontaneity.
However, he is an honest man. He kept his distance from even the hint of corruption and patronage on Beacon Hill and he faced down Billy Bulger while everyone (Beacon Hill Democrats) looked the other way. He could have been a great president if only he had the courage to look inside himself, discover who he really was, and presented that person to the rest of us.
Neil, I have always admired your writing. This piece however, has some serious factual errors that have become urban legends. Mitt is smart and sharp, but not consistently so. I think the case I make is best illustrated by "friendly" links. For this first point, it's the Wall St. Journal:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-11-08/finance/34984917_1_blind-trusts-tax-returns-mitt-romney
As far as problem solving, can you please give me one problem that Mitt solved? I agree his move on the MassTurnpikeAuthority and Billy Bulger were his alone, but I have to stop there. His positions were unrecognizable to the voter because he changed them so often, but some that he did not change were more egregious. For instance, the performance of Massachusetts' schools, the best in the country, were not the result of Romney's "plan" that came from Bain, but the result of Roosevelt, Birmingham and Weld, who signed the bill. This is well-known. Scot Lehigh has publicly wondered why Romney kept touting it as his own.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/10/14/mitt-romney-surges-also-expresses-pride-massachusetts/REhJOMdgAb9Hbq3DZnonUI/story.html
Turning around the Salt Lake Games? Mitt packaged all sorts of franchise and investment, naming, logo etc. opportunities then put them out to bid. No one offered what was necessary, so Mitt did what every good market-driven person did: he went to the government. WE saved the games! The US gave Mitt 1.5 Billion dollars! Perspective? The last games cost us $11,000 per athelete. Salt Lake cost us over $600,000 per athelete!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
He did not attract fresh faces to government. In fact, his initiative to contest every legislative race in Massachusetts was a dismal failure, with no durable consequences. As for health care, Mitt vetoed most of the important considerations that were overriden by a Democratic legislature, with DiMasi leading the way. Mitt signed the bill without knowing the cost! Money was never discussed in detail. It was simply another feather to place in his cap as he left MA.
The instincts that served him so well in business were essentially moves that rewarded his investors. His self-proclaimed reputation as a "job creator" is in serious doubt, and his record in business would hardly yield a batting average, hits and AB, unless the money involved were figured in:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html
All in all, the best person to lead this country on the upward slope we are now climbing is President Obama. Slow and steady still wins the race.
Thanks for the excellent reminders, sawmill2!
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.