Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.

[_bcspace]

Over the years, one of the more troubling characteristics of the Democratic Party and the left in general has been a shortage of loyalty and an abundance of self-loathing. It would be a shame if we Republicans took a narrow presidential loss as a signal that those are traits we should emulate.

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins.

But having been involved in three presidential races, two of which we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004. Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the electoral college in 2012. Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire.

In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics.

There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?

Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-good-man-the-right-fight/2012/11/28/5338b27a-38e9-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html

[_beastie]

I agree that the republican party should not change a thing.

[_ajax18]

The idea that another Republican candidate could have done better is foolishness in my view. I just wish he had chosen Marco Rubio or Condeleeza Rice as a running mate. Clearly Romney would have been one of the finest presidents in US history.

[_Quasimodo]

The idea that another Republican candidate could have done better is foolishness in my view. I just wish he had chosen Marco Rubio or Condeleeza Rice as a running mate. Clearly Romney would have been one of the finest presidents in US history.

There are many Republicans that would have done better. They just didn't choose to run in the primaries. The one exception is Jon Huntsman. He might have given Obama a serious challenge. Of course, he was tossed aside by the Tea Party members in favor of people like Herman Cain and Rick Santorum.

[_ajax18]

There are many Republicans that would have done better. They just didn't choose to run in the primaries. The one exception is Jon Huntsman. He might have given Obama a serious challenge. Of course, he was tossed aside by the Tea Party members in favor of people like Herman Cain and Rick Santorum.

You wouldn't have voted for any of them though, correct?

[_Analytics]

There are many Republicans that would have done better. They just didn't choose to run in the primaries. The one exception is Jon Huntsman. He might have given Obama a serious challenge. Of course, he was tossed aside by the Tea Party members in favor of people like Herman Cain and Rick Santorum.

You wouldn't have voted for any of them though, correct?

Although this question wasn't addressed to me, I personally gave financial assitance to only one campaign this election cycle: I gave $50 to Jon Huntsman.

[_Quasimodo]

There are many Republicans that would have done better. They just didn't choose to run in the primaries. The one exception is Jon Huntsman. He might have given Obama a serious challenge. Of course, he was tossed aside by the Tea Party members in favor of people like Herman Cain and Rick Santorum.

You wouldn't have voted for any of them though, correct?

I certainly wouldn't have voted for any of the Republican primary candidates over Obama. It's hard to image anyone, Republican or Democrat that could have done a better job.

Given the cards he was dealt, I doubt anyone could have done a better job than he did in his first term. I also suspect that he will do an even better job in his second term and in future years will be considered one of the best Presidents we have ever had.

I suspect that Huntsman will run again in 2016 and, after Republicans do some soul searching, he might win the primary. I have doubts that he can win against Hillary in 2016 if she decides to run.

How sad for you. That could mean a straight sixteens years of Democrats in the White House. Of course, if that happens, there will be no more Republican party. They will self destruct. I wonder what opposition party will emerge?