February 8, 2008
Mitt's Fatal Flaw: Massachusetts
A few days ago, everyone cared about the Commonwealth. Senator McCain was here, Senator Obama was here, Senator Clinton was in Worcester, the Kennedys were everywhere. Now we won't even have our ex-governor parading around the country insulting us. It all happened so fast.
To figure out exactly what went wrong, we headed to the epicenter of right-wing commentary: the National Review. And as it turns out, Romney's defeat was caused by something we're pretty proud of: Massachusetts.
Correspondent Byron York says that, "for Republicans across the country, Massachusetts was a symbol--a symbol of the problem at the heart of Romney’s candidacy: he was from one place, ideologically, and he acted as if he were from someplace else. "
By running hard to the right, by trying to represent "the Republican wing of the Republican party," while--as York discusses at length--never quite letting voters understand his motivations and passions, Romney couldn't escape being a Massachusetts politician playing conservative dress-up. He didn't give them anything else to work with.
It's too late now--and he never asked for our advice--but this should have been Romney's campaign speech: "This is a hard year for Republicans. The economy is rough, the challenges in Iraq are tough. But I know how to get things done. That's what I do. I'm the only candidate with executive experience, I'm rich, and I'm electable--even those Commies in Massachusetts elected me. So, would you rather have me or the Clintons?" And then he should have stood there and looked presidential.
He did always look presidential.



The guy was a lying douche bad and continued being a douche bag even as he was going down in defeat. To suggest that a Democrat in the White House would be tantamount to surrendering to the terrorists is just plain wrong and offensive.
I am reminded of his constant Massachusetts-bashing during the run-up to his campaign and I would like to use a jingoism often used by the people he panders to: love it or leave it. Since Mitt clearly doesn't love it, he should get the hell out of Massachusetts.
You missed the middle section about immediate Iraq withdrawal (no matter what) as part of the deal but hell, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Complaining about the tone of the campaign in a post like the one above is pretty typical around here. We really do get the government we deserve. (BTW, how that first year of "Yes we can" working out for you?)
Deval Patrick's slogan was "Together We Can"
and Romney's campaign was pretty terrible, for the record.
I missed the part about an immediate withdrawal fom Iraq, too. Did you hide it w/ the WMD?
The tone of Mitt's campaign didn't bother me. He seemed upbeat, appeared organized and very hands-on and intellectually curious. Unlike GWB.
Some of his actual plans did bug me. He adopted and seemed to buy into the warmonger approach. I'd have thought Mitt would have preferred to use a corporate proxy vote to fight terrorists instead of shock and awe.
They (Mitt and McCain) want more wars. We already have two too many.