[gusopol3]

I disagree with your characterization of the ideal the Republican voters are looking for. The explosion of Republican interest in '10 was based on a return to the Constitution as the gyroscope of the ship of state. Focusing on Obama as the anti-Constitutional President would have been accurate, targeted, effective and easy. His own words that we've known since before '08, ("It's a charter of negative liberties, the civil rights movement failed in being too focused...blah, blah)could have been the center of the Republican message with the anti-Constitutional Obamacare as the vehicle. Any other Republican candidate could have made Obama defend it as a tax on the middle class. The options in that playbook are too numerous to count, where Romney had to go with a one-line plunge between the tackles, "I'll repeal it." The inflection point of the campaign, even according to Nate Silver's graph, was after the first debate, when Romney failed to capitalize on the trend. To me, his most shining moment was bringing up and quoting both the Declaration and the Constitution in his closing. But he never did it again nor did Paul Ryan.

[Chewbarkah]

I welcome disagreement, and the voter fantasy angle is no substitute for serious analysis and programs. If you (or others) have a different concept, I would be interested. From your comments, we don’t seem all that far apart. Defense of the Constitution is certainly part of the conservative ideal (some Republicans are conservatives).

The conservative rebellion of 2010 fits the mind-set I was trying to describe — people who believe in merit, self-reliance, and heroic action stood up for the Constitution against creeping totalitarianism, even against their own party “leadership”. Your list of Romney’s shortcomings shows failures to adequately embody or project the ideal I described.

I agree that Romney should have attacked Obama and Obamacare relentlessly on Constitutional grounds (and economic grounds, to help idiots understand why they are unemployed). Reagan won broad support by using Libertarian rhetoric (even if he didn’t govern that way) and being consistent for decades. Tough talk with a smile, and believing what you are saying, works.

Obama is of course correct on one thing. The U.S. Constitution IS a charter of negative liberties: it recognizes the pre-existing natural rights of Man, and establishes and limits the purpose of government to securing those rights. Obama despises this, and wants a Constitution with “positive” guarantees (like food, housing, clothes, “freedom from fear”, employment/minimum income, free education, etc....), with government redistributing wealth in a totalitarian collectivist welfare state. This would seem an easy target to go after, but explaining Obama’s philosophical hatred of our Constitution requires a more complicated discourse than our campaign system capable of. Obama voters either already hate the Constitution, are too dumb to understand, or would think guaranteed free stuff sounds credible. Republican candidates should at least try.