How the Romney camp sees the election outcome

James M. writes:

I discovered your website during the past year and it has quickly become one of my favorites. I feel that I learn something new every time I log on.

I believe this article, an op-ed piece by the chief strategist for the Romney campaign, pretty much confirms everything you have been saying about the mindset and outlook of today’s Republican party. The author sounds almost proud of coming in second in a two-man race against a President who did nothing to deserve re-election. The left plays to win and they play for keeps. At best, the right plays not to lose, and, as we increasingly have seen, they seem more concerned with how they conduct themselves during the game than with the final score.

- end of initial entry -

November 29

Ed H. writes:

It is important to notice that the article James M. posted is from the Washington Post. Last spring this uber-liberal publication was fervent that Romney be chosen as the Republican candidate. For the left’s purposes Romney was perfect. He could be easily pegged as plutocrat. He was cold, distant. He was a nice guy but devoid of any real political savvy. Above all he was incapable of understanding the left’s modes of control. The left could smear him, create fake issues, slant interviews, rig “debates,” and Romney would not have the intellectual resources to fight back against it. It all worked out just as planned. So now we have Romney’s own campaign manager writing an article in the Washington Post on Romney being such a good guy and such a great loser. They must be rolling on the floor down at the Post. The image I get is of Bugs Bunny recruiting Elmer Fudd, patting him on the back, telling him he is a great guy, thanking him for playing the game, giving him a big kiss and then ushering him off a cliff with the parting phrase “what a mah –ron.”

LA replies:

As I keep saying, where would the Democrats be, without the Republicans?

JC in Houston writes:

Romney’s chief strategist seems out of touch with reality. Romney was nominated because he was the clear choice of the voters? Once he started his etch-a-sketch backpedaling routine on immigration and ignored any other issue than the economy and jobs, many many conservative voters, myself included, had to hold our nose and vote for him only because Obama was so much worse. No matter how you slice it, Romney LOST!

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 28, 2012 09:18 PM | Send