Jonathan Bernstein asks if the gauntlet of the Republican primaries somehow missed vetting its nominee, and he answers somewhat in the affirmative, and somewhat in the negative:
[W]e usually have a process that can reassure his party that whatever’s out there has probably been uncovered, and I’m not sure that’s the case this time ...
... conversely, "Romney did fight for two contested nominations over two cycles, and that's something no matter what."
True, something, but not nearly enough. Between vying for a nomination and possessing a nomination there are vast chasms of exposure. Yet, as Bernstein notes, even Romney's primary competition alternated amongst the extraordinarily weak, or inept, or clownish. Romney dominated by default--however the clownishly weak, inept presence of his primary opponents was nothing compared to the absence of others: a Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie would likely have crushed Romney, but they were smart enough to pass on poking the incumbent Obama.
Ayn Randian-like, Romney shrugged yet barely struggled his way to the partisan top through sheer brute force. He pulled a howitzer in every popgun showdown, which was arguably prudent, being little but the political equivalent of the Powell doctrine. His prudence, however, stopped there, as he launched into a loopy, spacey orbit of Bain-braggadocio. He was just asking for it, and boy did he get it.
Enter the near incomprehensibility of Romney so aggressively opening himself to Ted Kennedy's effective counteroffensive of 1994. I say nearly incomprehensible, because Romney indeed went on to vanquish his Democratic gubernatorial opponent, who again tried the Kennedy strategy, in 2002. Romney must have reckoned he had put the Bain threat to rest. He got sloppy, overconfident, and arrogant.
But let's cut to the chase: Mitt Romney cannot win, he cannot beat President Obama. He is mortally self-wounded. All this neurotic bugabooing by the Beltway commentariat about a down-to-the-wire contest is almost laughably revealing of either their mathematical subliteracy or their unquenchable theatrical longings. It seems no amount of empirical evidence can persuade the pundits of Romney's bottomless doom; nor does the happy predictability of 116 more diurnal blunders and his surefire devastation at the coming presidential debates appear to faze them.
Even Republicans--or, I should say, especially Republicans--know this; they know what the commentariat refuses to concede. Now, I don't know their nominating-convention rules and loopholes and fine print and technically permissible skulduggery. But all the above makes me wonder: Is an open convention still possible?
Cassius:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)
All of Romney's problems were vetted during the process, but the primary voters did not perceive them to be problems. They perceived them to be strengths.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | July 13, 2012 at 09:32 AM
An open convention? Sarah Palins dream.
Posted by: dr.e | July 13, 2012 at 10:15 AM
An open convention!!! I would love to see the Gingriches and Santourums once again beating up on Little Mitt...and oh yes, the tea party types shouting down any Republican that tries to make a sane case. RIP GOP.
Posted by: SueMe | July 13, 2012 at 10:16 AM
Never mind the Gingrich and Santorum camps; what you want to watch for at the convention are the Ron Paulites. They've been busy gobbling up unprotected delegates, they're fanatics, and they despise the Mitt-man even more than the power structure of the party. I predict some fireworks from that crowd at the very least, if not an outright rebellion.
Posted by: Janicket | July 13, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Right, Janicket! Rachel Maddow is the only pundit with a national program who has been keeping an eye on the Paulites. They have been slowly, but surely, taking over GOP state committees and racking up delegates for Ron Paul. Plus, they're seriously pizzzed because the GOPers in some states changed the state party rules to prevent the Paulites from taking over their state committees. The Paulites have filed a lawsuit challenging this practice. The GOP Convention should be very interesting. I don't think the Paulites will go down as easily as the GOP thinks they will.
Posted by: majii | July 13, 2012 at 04:25 PM
In 2002 Romney's opponent for governor ran a better campaign than the rest of this year's GOP nominees, but still not as good as Martha Coakley's Senate campaign. If he thinks he has a prayer of beating Barrack Obama without some event out of his control coming to his rescue, he's even more out of touch than he sounds.
As for a replacement candidate, I believe Alan Keyes is the traditional choice.
Posted by: mdblanche | July 13, 2012 at 07:13 PM
Well, Keyes has 27 percent of the vote locked up already; maybe he could out-perform Mitt in the general.
Posted by: Janicket | July 13, 2012 at 10:38 PM