Your Nov. 8 editorial “Obama should utilize Romney as a special economic adviser” suggested that Mitt Romney not decline a role in the Obama administration “simply because he lost the presidency.” If Romney declines, it would be because of his character, not his pride. President Obama’s win-at-all-costs campaign ought to have consequences for him.
Obama painted Romney as a greedy, unprincipled guy looking out for the rich. Un-presidentially, Obama took advantage of society’s decline in civility to bully and mock Romney, who then had to spend his campaign proving that he was a highly principled and accomplished leader.
Comments
"Given Romney's values, he will forgive and forget Obama's behavior?" Give me a break...the guy is already out there blasting away at how President Obama won because of the "gifts" he gave to the 47% ( read blacks, Hispanics, women). Romney lost because he exhibits all the things that have come to be identified with the Republican party....greed, racism, intolerance, misogyny, shall I continue?People simply don't like him because he epitomized these things, and they saw his potential election as an invitation for the Taliban wing of the Republican party to take over the country and undo hard won basic civil rights. You are right that Obama will do just fine without Romney. The fox was outfoxed before he took over the henhouse. Why invite him in? I shudder to think what this country would have become under bishop Romney. I wish he'd just go away to California and do what he does best, promote himself.
Add this. The former Candidate Romney has determined that he lost because Obama handed out a slew of "gifts" to Hispanics, young women, and college students. First, that's a very self-serving conclusion. Second, it absolutely confirms that he meant everything he said about the 47 percent. Third, since our government is supposed to be "of, for, and by the people," where the money we pay in taxes is supposed to be collected and distributed for our benefit, Romney's conclusion suggests he has a different take on the responsibilities of government. I wonder what that take might be. Fourth, it calls into question what he thinks creates the wealth of this nation, because clearly equal opportunity, education, and a healthy population are not high on his list of of those requisites that create a true meritocracy. I, for one, am very happy Mitt Romney lost this election.
No one in the history of American politics has been demonized as much as President Obama by Romney and his henchmen. What fantasy universe do these people operate in? Romney lost. Goodbye. He can indeed go back to the private sector where he can buy companies, bleed them, fire the workers, take the profits and ship American jobs overseas. Unlike Romney's experience in the private sector, he couldn't fire the voters. They fired him.
Well put. Romney could not fire the voters, despite his best efforts to pick and choose who would show up for the election.
"Obama painted Romney as a greedy, unprincipled guy looking out for the rich."
Would that this were true; in reality, Obama was all-too kind to Romney. For this writer to describe Romney as a *victim* of bullying is a distortion of Karl Rovian proportion.
Yet another brain-washed victim of the radical right's propaganda campaign to discredit the President by attacking his character. This gentleman has got it all backwards. Any negative campaigning by the Democrats should be rightly seen as a counter-attack against the constant onslaught of mud-slinging by conservative Republicans. The biggest bullies always whine and cry the loudest when treated to a dose of their own medicine.
Romney actually is politically unprincipled. Even many Republicans believe that he is. All we had to do was listen to him and that's why he lost against Obama. He wasn't running against Obama when he ran against Ted Kennedy, Shannon O'Brien, Rick Santorum, Knute Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman.
Every contradiction is captured on video and in print. He went from moderate Mitt to "severe conservative" to Jeeps to be buillt in China and on and on. I'm sure someone will put together an entertaining documentary for all to see.
By the way, the decline in civility to bully and mock over the years has become a lucrative business led by Fox News and it's cast of characters like Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, etc.
I'm convinced this "Larry Lapide" is pseudonym for Mitt Romney himself, because aside from his spoiled wife and five pampered sons there can't be a single person out there besides Mitt who feels this strongly in his favor. "Larry" conveniently overlooks the endless attacks, flip flops and lies told by the Romney campaign - lies about Obama's record, Romney's own plans and history itself, which goes hand in hand with the four years of infantile screeching about Obama which we had to put up with from the snotnosed GOP. While I agree with "Larry" that there is no reason for Romney to have anything to do with the Obama administration it is because he has nothing of value to bring other than his expertise in laying off workers and storing money overseas. "Obama painted Romney as a greedy, unprincipled guy looking out for the rich" says "Larry." In reality, Romney revealed himself as such to the public at every apparent opportunity. Remember the "47% comments?" This "Larry" fellow would prefer you didn't, since it's not convenient for his biased world view. "Larry" is merely proof that some Republicans will continue to reject reality in favor of whatever delusions they've been handed by their AM radio puppetmasters. If Mitt Romney tried to run President Obama over with a car, the "Larry Lapides" lapdogs of the right would snivel and moan that Obama got in the way and how awful that poor Romney be punished for the attack, which was clearly a liberal conspiracy.
Very well said.
Obama didn't have to do any painting. Romney's was a "self portrait."
I was all set to comment on this letter, it angered me so much. But, once I read every one of the posts here, I will say "well done". There is nothing more to say. Thank you all
But Romney is a greedy unprincipled guy, that's why he lost.
Just another angry white guy whining about Obama winning the election. Get over it.
I respecfully disagree. Romney may be,and probably is a nice guy. But to say that Obama's win-at-all-costs strategy was no different from Romney's. Romney outlied Obama and I really believe the final straw was the blatant lie about Chrysler/Jeep moving jobs to China. Even the CEO's of both companies publicly denounced it as a lie. How often does that happen? Another tell tale sign of Romney's defense of the rich was his 47% rant. The closer was his recent schpiel of Obama handing out financial gifts to the minorities in exchange for their vote. He may be principled but in what we don't know and never will as he continued his secrecy in hopes of his win-at-all-costs hoping the American people would "trust me". It didn't work.