Uh boy. Not even two weeks removed from the Presidential Election, and Mittens is back at it again:
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is telling top donors that President Obama won re-election because of the “gifts” he had already provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters and because of the president’s effort to paint Romney as anti-immigrant.
“The president’s campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift,” Romney said in a call to donors Wednesday. “He made a big effort on small things.”
Romney said his campaign, in contrast, had been about “big issues for the whole country.” He said he faced problems as a candidate because he was “getting beat up” by the Obama campaign and that the debates allowed him to come back.
Romney called his loss to Obama a disappointing result that he and his team had not expected, but he said he believed his team had run a superb campaign. He said he was trying to turn his thoughts to the future, “but, frankly, we’re still so troubled by the past, it’s hard to put together our plans for the future.”
Romney’s finance team organized the call to donors. A person who listened to Romney’s call provided details about it to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the call was private. The Los Angeles Times first reported Romney’s remarks.
Among the “gifts” Romney cited were free health care “in perpetuity,” which he said was highly motivational to black and Hispanic voters as well as for voters making $25,000 to $35,000 a year.
What always make me chuckle about these kind of comments is that Romney (and, to be fair, all politicians) are the beneficiaries of very generous “gifts” from wealthy donors; usually with the expectation that they’ll receive very generous gifts themselves. But I digress. To the real heart of this article:
I concede one important point to Mr. Romney. There was a consistent – if not exceeding turnout among black and latino voters. But Romney – delusional as ever – neglects an equally important point by dismissing that strong turnout as a transaction where votes were somehow exchanged for gifts. To this day, my gift has arrived in the mail, as I suspect yours haven’t either (dear readers, if Obama has directly you something, please let me know. I’m dying to hear about it). Instead of taking a long look at himself and asking serious questions as to why he actually lost, Romney’s first instinct was to make this about minorities who apparently are expecting a bunch of stuff. Romney is clearly suffering from selective amnesia if he has so quickly forgotten about his antagonistic speech to the NAACP, his decision to keep bigoted surrogates like John Sununu and Donald Trump within his campaign, his party’s blatant attempts to discourage minority voting with voter ID laws, and even his infamous 47% speech a mere month or so ago. That, my friends, is why the current Republican party is a dying brand amongst minorities.
Lest we forget, many white working class voters also opted for Obama. And that probably has a little something to do with an op-ed he wrote advocating for the bankruptcy of particular automotive suppliers. We should also not discount the hoards of single women who were aghast at the idea that certain people in Romney’s party adopted archaic ideas regarding equal pay, reproductive rights, contraceptive, and rape. We’d also be remiss to not include the young voters who opted for the man who advocated for more Pell Grants in a time of over-the-top tuition hikes over the party who wanted to slash and burn the Department of Education. I’ve been over all this before. So talking about now is a moot point.
Look. I don’t possess the level of business acumen of a person like Mitt Romney. But I do know that in order to earn and keep customers (or voters, as the case may be), you can’t go around insulting them; suggesting they are nothing but freeloaders. Are there people always with their hands out? Sure. But just like there a people abusing systems on the poor end, there are also people abuse systems on the wealthy end.
Instead of recognizing any of that, Romney has decided to double down on his “makers vs. takers” argument implying that people who voted for Obama only did so because they wanted “free stuff.” The Republican party can keep going down this path if they so choose. But they shouldn’t be shocked
if when they find themselves decreasingly irrelevant to the population.
Instead of whining about losing, perhaps the Republican party should be refocusing their strategy.