Ted Kennedy would approve. President Obama took down Mitt Romney the same way the late Massachusetts senator did.
In battleground states, it was all about Bain Capital. As veteran political analyst Charlie Cook recently explained, voters encountered an unending barrage of attack ads aimed at Romney’s tenure there. The ads highlighted plant closures, layoffs, and outsourcing — the same themes Kennedy used to beat Romney in 1994. Like Kennedy, Obama turned Romney into a businessman with a heart of cold. Once tagged that way in America’s heartland, it was hard for Romney to change minds, even after a much-lauded first debate performance.
Comments
Was he a "severe" conservative or a moderate, reach-across-the-isle kind of guy? Was he worried about his fellow Americans, or did he really feel that about half of us were mooching off the other half? Did he put his faith in foreign policy nuts like John Bolton, or did he have a more nuanced approach a la Bush I? The fact that no one can confidently answer these questions explains how he lost an election that could have been won. Very weak candidate ultimately.
Romney simply failed to define himself. A noble effort that ultimately failed. Gracious concession speech, however.
Romney could not help but fall victim to the forces pulling apart teh GOP, as well as the forces pulling the GOP away from the demographic trends of the country. The GOP can't change the latter, but they will have to get over the internal problem...once they have gotten past the immediate impulse to scapegoat and look for problems elsewhere but with themselves. charles Krauthammer (wonderful name for a GOP partisan) had a ludicrous analysis of the results last night: the GOP has an outreach/PR problem in the Latino community. As long as that view prevails there will be no redirection in the party.
Yes,Barack Obama took down Mitt Romney, with a lot of help from the Boston Globe. I'm not sure why the Globe isn't taking credit here. ,,,But Mitt also flubbed his chances to make a bigger deal out of the Benghazi, Libya embassy attack..Which, by the way, is STILL not being resolved.
Actually, Romney gave it away with a lot of help from the GOP primary echo chamber. Romney could have won the general had he not had to run hard to the right against Newt & Co. and then pivot back to the center. Yes we always see these pivots to the center, but there are apparently limits to the degree to which these position changes remain credible in the eyes of the voter, especially when a candidate already has a reputation for 'flexibility.'
The incredibly unpopular GOP Congress (which, itself, survived with a lot of helpful redistricting) didn't help Mitt much either.
Do you really think the Boston Globe has any influence in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, or North Carolina?
The US would be better served by having two good candidates and two good campaigns. As Republicans regroup, they should do some arithmetic and soul-searching -- drop the Religious Right (let them form their own party) and these social conservative issues, drop "trickle-down economics" (it has been shown not to work), drop warfare as a means of growth and security (also shown not to work). It appears that Romney had negative coat tails in many places -- definitely looks like a trust issue to me. I came to look at Romney as a liar and a tax cheat who threw a lot of flack in the air in order to hide a program for the rich. And, look at the map -- rural and religious areas go Republican (they can deal with small government), urban and industrial areas go Democratic (must have bigger government). Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas have 10 senators and about the same population as the Chicago area. Can we really work as one country without a foreign ememy?
Uh, not really. According to his tax returns and all other evidence that has been brought forth, Romney pays more taxes, and donates more to charities every single year than the average American does over a lifetime. To say such a man is a tax cheat is ridiculous and disingenuous.
Bringing up the "trickle down" nonsense is also of no value. Of course economic growth and prosperity has a ripple effect. Of course it lifts all boats. Romney's point about "trickle down government" is a valid one--that's the real trickle effect--trillions of dollars taken from hard working people, and millions given back to special interest groups that vote the right way.
Your other points regarding the religious right and social conservatism are valid enough. The Republicans have to reframe their message as one of economic growth and prosperity, and social moderate-ism. Trying to cater to these ultra conservative religious folks is what has marginalized the entire party. They have to return to what Reagan called the "big tent party" that has a place for everyone, not just certain cohorts.
Blisterpeanuts - Dont' entirely agree with you but find it so refreshing that you can disagree with a thoughtful response instead of hyperbole. Hope this approach is adopted by the Capitol Hill folks.
This column arguably comes closest to any I have read thus far today explaining why Romney probably did not succeed: trust. During the Republican primary, he was "severely conservative" -- that self-reference stuck with me. Then, during the general campaign, he suddenly became "moderate." It was as if his advisor Eric Fehrnstrom had pegged Romney's approach to a T: let's play political Etch-a-Sketch. That lack of . . . solidity? . . . stood out for me.
Joan,
President Clinton was in Pennsylvania, telling people you shouldn't vote for a president, who knows they are lying and tells you to your face that he isn't, to describe Romney!!! So Senator Kennedy who lied and covered up the death of an inoccent woman, this is your trust example, a man of integrity?
The Globe who printed pictures of US soldiers allegedly raping Iraqui women to try and embarrass George Bush, only to discover after they printed it, instead of verifying it first, that it was porn. The numbers of writers wh have had problems with the truth, the amount of stories not covered by the Globe because it would embarrass the politicians they support, and you are going to bring up integrity!!!
Does anyone at the Globe even know what the real meaning of integrity is? As opposed to if the are a liberal democrat, integrity or hnoesty doesn't become part of the equation!!! The late great Tip O'Neil is spinning over in his grave to see what the democratic party has become!!!!
This comment has been removed.
I doubt Tip O'Neil is spinning in his grave. He was an ultra-liberal of his day. He was able to negotiate with Reagan because he was a decent man and believe in compromise, but he was anything but a conservative.
It is true that Mitt Romney has an ideological identity problem that can be traced back to his 1994 run for the Senate. And this defect stems from the fact that his DNA is that of a practical businessman, not that of a man of ideas. Consequently, he has spent far less time than he should have in the conservative gym punching the ideological bag. Thus he appears always to be groping awkwardly for ideological self-definition, and in so doing appears to transgress the maxim "to thine own self be true." But only for ideologues on the left (like Ms. Vennochi) and the right does this constitute a "trust" problem, for there is no question that Romney is an honest man, unlike, say, the last four speakers of the Massachusetts House (all Democrats). If trust is to be the measure of all things, then I should like to have Ms. Vennochi apply the trust test to the performance of the Obama Administration and its mainstream media allies on the matter of Benghazi.
This comment has been removed.
Your stretching the definition of trust to the breaking point. Trust means keeping your word and keeping your promises. If someone can't even articulate what they believe in a consistent way, it becomes impossible to believe them and thus trust them. The inconsistency of Mitt Romney indeologies makes it impossibe for most thinking people to trust him. How can anyone trust in what they don't know.
And the problem with lack of trust in Romney was a few incidents, but the basic underpinnnings of who he is and what he stands for.
We don't yet know the details of Benghazi, but what is it about Benghazi that you want to trust. It doesn't seem like a correct use of the word to me.
This comment has been removed.
Mitt Romney shares a lot of common characteristics with State Street Corp's CEO Jay Hooley, they both are chamions of the OFF-SHORING of American jobs. They both portray themselves as "visionary" business leaders, and they both have failed the "TRUST" test. As Americans have firmly rejected Mitt Romney's Vision for America, State Street Corp must also live up to America's and its shareholder's rejection of OFF-SHORING and slaughtering the middle class, and this group must put an end to Mr. Hooley's vision of American jobs being scattered all of INDIA, and ask Mr. Hooley to resign, and end State Street Corporation's Joint venture with Syntel Corporation of Troy MI, whic has cost the US 3200 jobs, and North Quincy approximately 1,200 alone. Americans want to live in an honorable country, and the board of directors of State Street has the fiduciary responsibility to return one of our - that being, the commonwealth of Masachusetts' largess and once most honorable firms, back to its rightful place within our commonwealth.
The Jeep ad sealed Romney's fate in Ohio. All politicians stretch the truth, but that was SO over the line that Chrysler and GM CEOs had to publicly refute it. I suspect it generated more anger at Romney than at Obama.
Trust....that one word is what this campaign came down to. The President and his advisors thoroughly understood the value and use of this word. Listen to the President's speech the morning after the third debate when he talks passionately for a few minutes about trust. He basically says, "you can trust me to say what I mean and mean what I say". To me and apparently to many women it was the line that reelected him.
Excellent, laser-focused column. If there were "too many Mitts" were there too many Scott Browns? Did Scott Brown lose because he was evasive about his voting record and tacking back to center as well? Or did he lose becuase voters couldn't trust that he would serve as a liberal/moderate Republican when the Repubican powers-that-be require all of their elected officials to hew to the Hyper-Conservative party line, when it came to voting in the House.
Dear System: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! Thank God the System worked! LOL LOL LOL LOL At least you can keep complaining for another 4 years. Enjoy yourself.
Joan failed the plagiarism test.
Joan, I'm thrilled, can't wait for my SS disability and Medicare. Wait until you guys see what going to happen, I can't wait.
the rich are leaving and taking jobs with them, China will flourish, they're very happy today and so they should be. after all Joan, we don't have to be responsible anymore, the government is there for all of us, just ask Julia.
thank you so much for helpine getting President Obama elected, I will be one of the 600 people a day going on SS disability, can't wait.
You sound like you qualify for SSI. I'm sure you deserve it.
When you have someone running for the highest office in the land hiding money overseas and phantom locations thus denying the country you seek to represent tax revenue that is always needed,you have more balls than brains. When you lie like a kindergartner to the people you wish to represent,your're dumber than a tree. When you can't/won't explain policies you will enact if elected,you are dumber than the tree than you were before. When you fail to disclose more than two years of tax returns per Queen Ann,you ARE hiding something. You released ten years of tax returns while being vetted by John McCain and look at the disaster he ended up with. I wonder why? Even I will admit that Willard was more competent than Palin,so why didn't McCain pick you? Finally,when you claim 47% of the people don't matter,who and why will you represent? The clincher? When you flat out lie about jobs going to China by Jeep and the CEO comes out and tears you a new one. Guess you were having a Bain moment,the outsourcing. In closing,when you ignore the press and put a gag order on your running mate,you have as much common sense as a rock. You lost and derserved to and made a mockery of Presidential campaigns. Good bye,get lost,and don't let it hit you on the way out.