The defeated Republican candidate told donors in a conference call that Obama targeted those demographics, along with young voters and women, through programs such as health-care reform and "amnesty" for children of illegal immigrants, according to articles posted online by the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Both papers appeared to have listened to the call or obtained at least partial transcripts.Bobby Jindal and others have moved with lightning speed to disassociate themselves from him. Perhaps no comment is harsher than this one:
In explaining his overwhelming electoral college defeat last week, Romney said Obama followed what he called the "old playbook" of seeking votes from specific interest groups, "especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people," the New York Times said. "In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,"
"There is no Romney wing in the party that he needs to address," said Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist. "He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn."
In the history of scathing repudiations, that's definitely the most scathingest ever!
Rogers essentially said out loud what everybody had been saying since Romney became the front-runner: We picked you because you were "electable" and that was it. Nobody likes you, your religion, your family, your vulture capital history or Romneycare You were Johnny Bravo.* We picked you because you fit the suit. Please go away now.
Here's the only thing though: The first part of what Rogers said? It's patently false. OF COURSE there's a Mitt Romney wing. Or at least a Mitt Romney IDEAS wing. We saw them! They were sitting right there feasting on beluga caviar and swilling $200-a-bottle-vino in those fancy glasses at that fundraiser in Boca Raton! There's no Romney Wing? Malarkey!
IMHO, we as a community, should say, "Oh No You Don't! Get Back Here You Rascal!"
Because he holds no public office, and probably never will again -- not even Dog Catcher (heh) - it is more than convenient for Republicans to hit the "Reboot" button and magically wish him away, like they tried to do with George W. Bush.
Alex Wagner, on her MSNBC show recently had a segment that said there is no such thing as "Romneyism". In other words, there is nothing that he'll be remembered for as opposed to, say, "Goldwater Republicans" or "Regan Democrats"
We missed our chance with "Bush Republicans" or "Cheney Republicans" but then again, it wasn't really necessary was it? Bush and Cheney are still in the national conversation, as much as conservatives try to make believe they are not. (As it turns out, the Republican party is pretty good at make believe!)
"Sarah Palin Republicans?" If Sarah Palin had any sort of policy theories in that vacuous black hole between her ears, that would have worked. But no.
But "Romney Republicans"??? Ah, that works. First of all, you've got alliteration. Always a good thing. Secondly, we now live in the YouTube age and that 47% video is NEVER going away. Ever. Not Ever. We should keep beating the party up with that for as long as possible.
A dictionary entry could look like this:
Romney Republican: One of the Elite, Moneyed class of society. Also defined as "Upper Crust" Also defined as "The One Percent" Also commonly described as "Tax Dodging Criminals" Essentially used to describe those who believe their immense wealth gives them the right to skirt responsibilities to society. Also believe those who have not achieved great wealth to be "moochers" "layabouts" "victims" and "Cadillac Welfare Queens."And then, right there, a picture of Mitt Romney.
Whaddya think? Feel Free to offer up your own definition!
*If you know from where the "Johnny Bravo" reference comes from without clicking the link, congratulations! You are now officially older than dirt!