The NY Times' editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, has a flash of offensive brilliance--"Romney is so irrelevant now that’s it tempting to let his ['gifts'] comments gather dust on the remainder table of history"--but instantly retreats to a defensive position of briefly explaining just how ignorant Mr. Romney is, when it comes to the many whys of why he actually lost. I suppose Rosenthal's second thoughts were only right, but I sure liked that ghostly shroud he first had tossed over the vastly uncomprehending Mr. Romney.
The sad fact is that Mr. Romney is not out of touch with the Republicans’ post-election ramblings. It seems like no one in his party has figured out that it wasn’t "gifts" or bad luck that caused him to lose. It was his ideas.
Of course we'll never know if they were his ideas, since there was no Mr. Romney. This ... this thing was a creation, for sure, of others' ideas; it was an assimilated Borg; it was a Frankenstein monster, as freakishly constructed as Mary Shelley's. But was anyone else home? Who knows.
The greater puzzle lies in the reference to "Republicans' post-election ramblings"--or, merely, "Republicans." Who are they now? There are indeed Republican ramblings--such as Karl Rove's rather casual cures, from fixing the ground game to "appearing [less] judgmental and callous on social issues" (I particularly liked appearing)--to Republican rumblings, such as Bobby Jindal's Mitt-you're-an-idiot demurral. But which is the Republican one?
The game is on.
Meanwhile, such is the incoherence with which congressional Democrats are supposed to negotiate.