Replies

Of course this, was a fake controversy. I don't believe Romney was any less conscientious or dutiful than other candidates or office-holders with respect to poorer or humbler citizens, but it's a matter of appearances, and Romney lost that battle.

I actually think the voters have a way of sniffing out a sense of who a candidate is as a person, even when they don't understand policy. Romney saying he "wasn't concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net" may have been a gaffe, but it was more in the vein of a Freudian slip. Romney was out-of-touch with the average American and it showed in so many things that he said and did.

This is exactly why he was such a heavy promoter of the welfare state in Taxachusetts. He doesn't relate to poorer people, thinks they're inherently disadvantaged as compared to him, and therefore thinks they need handouts. He consistently gave the impression he didn't believe in the class mobility inherent in the American dream. He was Democrat lite and a poor standard-bearer for the Republican party from day one.

Now, it's true that Obama believes the same things, even more passionately. But Obama didn't try to hide it, he ran on it. Romney was insincere and uneasy as he tried to balance his own liberal record on economics with what he thought the conservative base wanted to hear (such as that he was "severely conservative"). People trusted Obama more because Obama was actually being more honest than Romney about who he was. Swing voters don't understand the issues but they can sniff out the candidates' personal qualities, so they vote on those.

Again, Romney was an obviously bad candidate from the get-go. No intelligent, informed, conservative Republican had any excuse for nominating him.

I spent more time than I wanted reading what Willard Mitt said. He just appears to be a real believing latter day Saint. His charitable giving beyond tithing to the LDS is consistent with being a good Mormon. His statist acts also fits in with Mormonism. The LDS combines a unique set of beliefs in individual responsibility with a form of church oriented collectivism which is shared only by a few of the pietist groups such as the Amish (the real Amish). Being an observant temple going Mormon obedient to the church leadership and a charitable but hard working self respecting individual is the core of LDS behavior. Willard is all of this and his relentless cheerfulness is all a part of the rather panglossian mentality that envelopes Mormon true believers.

Again, Romney was an obviously bad candidate from the get-go. No intelligent, informed, conservative Republican had any excuse for nominating him.

I contend that no "conservative republican" did nominate him, it was more that we failed to nominate one of our own. We've yet to figure out a way to keep a half dozen fairly conservative candidates from vying for the top spot against one well heeled liberal and make no mistake, Romney was, is and always will be a liberal.

It didn't help that Hannity, Coulter, Rove, et al were pushing liberal Romney from the git go.

Unless the system is changed radically, we'll have a repeat in 2016, it is inevitable.