Politics

Here's a succinct summary of Romney that matches what I said about him in the primary.

"But hindsight will probably view Mitt Romney a poor presidential candidate who appeared to have no core values, was selected only reluctantly by his own party and campaigned as if the whole experience was deeply uncomfortable for him.
He made plenty of mistakes but his biggest failing was that even after running for the White House for the best part of six years it was hard to fathom exactly who he was or what he really believed – as opposed to what he thought voters wanted him to believe."

That's about it.

Four years ago I made the case that only dozen people or so could lose to Clinton or Obama. The people were the top of the Republican ticket. McCain won, then lost. This year I made the case that Romney was uniquely qualified to lost to Obama. I don't know that any other American could have lost to Obama, so Republicans nominated him, and he lost. Conservatives got what they vote for.

Does anybody remember when the Tea Party powered an 80 or so seat gain for Republicans in 2010? Of course you do. There are several reasons why the same didn't happen this year. First, Boehner refused to hold the line on the debt ceiling. That is the single most important thing that undermined Republican momentum. Second, the Republican establishment attacked Ron Paul supporters, broke their bones, had them arrested and changed the rules to screw them out of being delegates. Third, Romney pushed through and ex post facto rule with a phony voice vote excluding Ron Paul from the nominating process even thought Romney had the nomination sown up.

This article wants us to believe the tea party is not dead, but worse, counterproductive.