After a year and a half of campaigning, Mitt Romney will need some time to decompress from his presidential loss. Like fellow Bay Staters Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, Romney will be haunted by various might-have-beens and what-ifs. When he hears the word Sandy, he won’t think of Little Orphan Annie’s dog.
Romney’s presidential ambitions drew him apart from the Bay State, which he led ably as governor. The conservative stances he took in order to win the Republican presidential nomination doomed him with Massachusetts voters. But it’s worth remembering that when he found his voice after the first debate, he offered a moderate, bipartisan, patriotic vision. It felt sincere and reflective of his commitment to public service.
Comments
I've seen and heard all I need to of Mitt Romney. It's not for me or you to interject our opinions as to what he does with the rest of his life; hopefully he finds something productive to do with his time. One of the reasons he was not elected, (at least a reason I would never vote for him) is because I never bought into this notion that he was some kind of national economic expert. Thereare plenty of people out there with Harvard business degrees. The guy was a salesman and his company found a niche in the Greenspan Bubble. He had a formula for making a ton of dough and he rode it like a Capitalist-Cowboy. He used the fine art of the leveraged buyout to hit one "home run" after another. What that has to do with national economics is a leap that has consistently escaped me. The way he made money was basically unscrupulous even if technically legal. Buy a distressed company with loads of borrowed money, fire a bunch of people, charge a ton of fees, get the company to show a bit of a turnaround on paper and then totally misrepresent that company on the market for outrageous returns on the sale. Buy it, strip it, burn it, and sell it to some sucker-there's one born every minute. No, no, no, no.
Mitt Romney is going to be exhaling, figuratively speaking, after a life-long quest with roots in his father's history. He was not elected because enough people saw enough problems with him, whatever they were. Obama's overture to have a conversation with him was generous, and a symbol of why America can be a great nation. And as a symbol of working with the other side of the debate, the overture has value. Functionally, since Mitt's position on any given issue was totally impossible to ever discern, a conversation with him is perfectly futile, since it would be impossible to know whether you would hear the same thoughts and opinions if you were to have the same conversation the following day. Engaging the opposing side of the debates crucial to the evolution of the country is key to continued success. Mitt Romney is not the person to add real substance to that conversation.
I think Mitt would have been more succesful if he hadn't adopted such a chameleon-like personality. He's a good manager but got seduced by his own ambition.
President Obama and Mitt romney spoke their last words to each other on election night. Conservatism is now dead in America, our country will now become a very progressive country, the people spoke, that's what they want, there's no room for Romney, his ideas are for a capitalist society not a government society.
This comment has been removed.
The best thing the Republicans can do is to refudiate (sic) the radical right wing extremists and Tea-partiers, and return to policies of moderation and "compassionate conservatism". The current gang of ideological corporate fascists has all but destroyed the GOP, and should go start a party of their own.
Agreed. If the President wants to do some LBO's Mitt's your guy.
Not a bad idea. Just make sure he pays his campaign bills first.
Sorry but Mitt doesn't have and never did truly have an economic plan. He had what he considered a vision and GWB's economic advisors. Sorry my portfolio didn't like those guys then and doesn't like them now. Before anyone writes it I know the market took a hit yesterday, nothing new there move on.
The American public had a stark choice, they chose. I don't like everything Obama likes but the man won. We go with his team for good or bad. I liked old man Bush's economic plans, didn't like his son's. Loved Clinton and Reagan and I don't have a problem with Obama. So let's quit with bickering and impliment the policies that won. For just once could we have a loyal oppostion and not one that is constantly seeking to discredit their opponents. It'd be nice, but probably not.
Good man, perhaps, from a once great party. May it be so again.
Excellent suggestion! Like Willie Sutton, Romney could reveal the secret tax dodges of the wealthy.
People like Mitt Romney the problem rather than the solution on fiscal policy, and he can buy whatever access he wants anyway. This is also an excellent example of the deeply stupid obsession with bi-partisanship that rendered most of our national media utterly useless in recent years. Finally, the suggest that the Mitt the writer likes is the real one is shockingly naive.
He found his voice by becoming less tethered to the reality of Romney past. And less tethered to reality in general.
He offered "a moderate, bipartisan, patriotic vision"? Were you listening to what he was saying? He spoke from the least cooperative party in history, and unfairly and unobjectively dissed our current president from day one.
No, he smiled and tried to act friendly and reasonable, but was genuinely neither.
The man had less understanding of our economy than he claimed. And Obama had a lot more understanding than Romney ever acknowledged. Most economists felt Obama understood the complexities of the economy better than Romney.
Interesting idea, but would Romney avail himself of the opportunity?
"He offered a moderate, bipartisan, patriotic vison. It felt sincere...". Seriously?? I had to read this over twice before I could believe I'd read it correctly; then, I wondered briefly if it was somehow the April Fools edition. The man is a chameleon, not to be trusted, and certainly no expert on any economic policy that would benefit the country.
And it was "the conservative stances he took" *after* he won the nomination that doomed him... with any sane, rational voter who could read.
At first I thought Jacoby had written that. Then again maybe he did.
You've got to be kidding! Right?
Excellent point. If Romney is so hipped up about America's future, he should be willing to serve. But it ain't gonna happen -- not while there are billions to be made.
Bad idea. Obama brought in Larry Summers and TIm Geitner, among others, to try to create a Lincolnesque team of rivals, and look what that got him. Romney has plenty of money, doesn't need a job, and would be best dumped on the ashpile of history.
"he could be an adviser on an issue of mutual concern, such as reforming the corporate income tax."
That line is just plain silly. The voters rejected Romney's (alleged) plan for repairing the economy, the Number 1 issue in the campaign, so why on earth would Obama now take Romney on as some kind of economic advisor?! Romney may be able to run a small corporation, but that doesn't mean he understands how a national economy works, much less how to repair it when it's faltering.
How to buy a good company, loot it and pocket the money. How to find where corporations and the rich hid the profits, including his own. How to cut state taxes, raise and invent fees and cause skyrockting property taxes. How to have all the positions in any debate. How to anger everybody in the world community. How to be anti-immigrant and use illegals to maintain your property. How to be super religious, giving more to the rich and stiffing the poor. How to promote "trickle down", universally recognised as a failed concept, trying to reverse and obfuscate the original meaning in the debates. These are just some of the things where Mitt could be instructive.
Hey - the Dems will lose if they start to think it is always about winning! That is the problem, not the solution.
Romney should be delegated to the dust bin of history. Repubs have already thrown him under the bus.
Malarkey! Romney lies with impunity and without compunction! What in the world is the Globe's editorial board smoking?! P.S. Don't blame question 3 neither!
Are you people crazy?!?! Did you not notice that Romney's version of economics was just broadly rejected by a big majority of Americans?!?!? Did you not get the memo that Obama and Romney genuinely and intensely dislike each other?!?! Yes, Romney should be an economic adviser the President. Have a weekly meeting, listen to what Romney advises, and do the exact opposite. Enough of this crap! Send Romney to one of his vacation homes... permanently!
Are you out of your minds? Ask ROMNEY to help?!?!?! He is not respected by the Republicans and completely repudiated by the Democrats. Romney has NO clout of any kind. Having Romney "advise" Obama is akin to asking the fox to consult on chicken house security. Your editorial people must live in some kind of weird bubble. ReTHUGlicans have no intentions of working seriously and responsibly with Obama and Democrats.
No thanks. Bipartisanship for its own sake does not good policy make.
Romney could remain in politics by purchasing a condo and establishing residence in Utah. Then run for senator, win by a landslide to restore his self esteem. Thereafter, summers in Winnepisaukee, New Hampshire, springtime in Belmont, skiing winters in Utah, occassional visits to his California mansion and most importantly, care for his ailing wife who has M.S.
Might-have-beens and what-ifs? I don't think that's the case at all, when defining Romney's loss. Trust, ability, and an understanding for his fellow man were the job skills that I required of the man who I gave my vote to. Romney failed in those requirements.
Romney’s stints via the Salt Lake City Olympics and by his term as Massachusetts Governor were certainly successful enough. Yet sometimes, leadership roles take the humanity out of the man, when the moment calls for empathy, compassion, or a true understanding of the matter at hand. For myself, Romney lacked what Obama could provide there. Obama may be insulated by four years in the Oval Office, but I have confidence in Obama's ability to find his heart and soul, and not treat his decisions as if they were the annual shareholder's meeting.
And Romney should refuse the job.
Still think so after Romney's latest comments of Obama's "gifts"?
Boy are you guys who write Globe editorials off the wall. Have you learned nothing about Romney? Even the Republicans are now shunning him. What could you have been thinking?
See my blog on "A Defective Human Being" (ThatMansScope.blogspot.com) for a realistic appraisal of Romney the man.