Close Video

Current Events

Mitt Romney's campaign strategist boasts about losing methods

Stuart Stevens, former campaign strategist for Mitt Romney's GOP run for the White House, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post, entitled "Mitt Romney: A good man. The Right Fight." This piece exudes arrogance and unwillingness to admit that the old GOP way can't be resuscitated.

But just like the Confederates, and the strong battle cry "the South will rise again," Stevens, too, believes the Republican party will rise from the dust. According to him, there's no need for change because a miraculous revival will occur -- with the same non-inclusive spirit and tired rhetoric.

Stevens went on about Romney never being a "favorite" in the Washington establishment, not because of his out-of-touch, lack of understanding about the common man ways, but because he didn't belong to the "professional political class." This campaign strategist, who every one knows didn't strategize correctly (or Romney wouldn't have lost), even says the former GOP presidential candidate "trounced" President Barack Obama in the debates. From most debate-viewers vantage point, there was no trouncing -- although Romney had an edge in the first debate. Obama himself joked about that one.

Offending the majority of Americans must be something both Stevens and Romney specialize in, because Stevens proudly states: "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."

Guess this means middle-class votes are the only votes that matter. Keep in mind that Romney believes voters who make $200,000 or more per year are middle class. Voters who make less than $50,000 yearly are low-income in Romney's world.

Wonder where Romney got the brilliant idea that 47 percent of Americans are government-dependent victims who pay no taxes. Perhaps it was in a strategical tête-à-tête with Stevens. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans didn't think it was a positive message, and therefore, didn't reward Romney with their votes.

Some where around mid-opinion piece, Stevens concedes the Obama campaign strategy was a "great" one. However, his admission, like Romney's concession, was not a gracious one, nor does it portray humility. Isn't it the mark of a true sportsman to shake the opponent's hand, say "good game," whether it's heartfelt or not, and sit down or bow out gracefully? Politicians should also play nice after the battle is won.

Just as Romney says "gifts" to minority and young voters is why Obama won, Stevens states that in the past Democrats had a problem with being "too liberal and too dependent on minorities." He credits Obama with the unique ability to turn these former liabilities into assets. It hasn't dawned on Stevens that African American, Latino, poor and young votes are necessary for winning an election. Yes, the times have changed.

Reading Stevens' piece was painful, and he, evidently, was hurting when he wrote it. Enough said.

References

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13431533-newt-gingrich-calls-mitt-romneys-gifts-comment-nuts

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/stuart-stevens-should-have-kept-it-to-himself/2012/11/28/98d3dbd6-3991-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_blog.html