Oh this is classic. Jennifer Rubin assails Stuart Stevens--her man's former chief strategist--for his parting op-ed in which he "[refuses] to acknowledge real and material incompetence by himself and others on the [Romney] campaign."
You read that right. Rubin--yes, Rubin, yes, Jennifer Rubin, that Rubin, the Romney-triumphalist Rubin who blindly trumpeted every word, every step, every appearance, every speech, every debate, every awful minute of her candidate's prodigiously wretched campaign--is assailing Stevens for possessing inadequate self-assessment skills.
It would be fitting, and certainly less grating, if Stevens included some real acknowledgment that the narrow loss is, in large part, attributable to the errors (we now know) he and his fellow, well-paid advisers made.
That assault, notwithstanding that Ms. Rubin for months hailed Mitt Romney as a masterful CEO with a peerless history of brilliantly analyzing any organizational defects--whether corporate or state--and single-handedly repairing them, pronto. The ultimate technocrat, the consummate fixer, the veni and vidi and vici of American leadership. That was Mitt, according to Jennifer.
Now, Mitt Romney's a victim--he was merely a helpless cog in the uncomprehending machinery of Stuart Stevens' grinding incompetence.
And that's just classic.
I have been having second thoughts about how wretched Romney's campaign was. Granted, it was without a doubt the most mendacious campaign since before the Civil War. The number of lies that Romney told would fill an entire 24 volume set of campaign trivia.
Yet, could he really have done anything different? I do believe that if he hadn't told so many lies and then done a 180 in the debates, this would have been a blowout of epic proportions. An awful lot of voters of the non-base variety, believed those lies and then were soothed when he made the adjustment at the end.
Since we are people that tend to want a campaign discussing issues and being composed of honesty, we viewed his campaign as dismal at best. Yet from a vote getting perspective, it may have been as effective as was possible.
Posted by: japa21 | November 29, 2012 at 08:22 AM
Yeah. President Obama only got 62% of the vote that counts, the Electoral College vote, to her guy Mitt's 38%. That's what a narrow victory looks like in Jenn's mind. [Curiously, President Obama also managed to win 53% to 47% (there's that number again!) of the popular vote. As Al Gore will tell you, that popular vote thing doesn't get you elected.]
Well maybe she can bleach her hair and be another bimbo anchor on Faux Snooze.
Posted by: samcdc | November 29, 2012 at 08:38 AM
"Narrow loss"? Mitt somehow did manage to get his famous 47% and that's all he got. Wow, if that isn't delusional, I don't know what is!
Posted by: AnneJ | November 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Sorry, AnneJ. In GOPerSpeak, if your GOP candidate gets only the vote he cast for himself, it's still a narrow loss. Because any vote for anybody else is fraudulent by definition. On the other hand, if a GOPer candidate wins by one vote, it's an overwhelming landslide, a mandate of existential proportions, an Act of God.
Posted by: shsavage | November 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM
That first line of Rubin's you quoted was the funniest thing I've read all week. It took me a whole minute to stop laughing. Potomac Patty is so lacking in self-awareness that I doubt she'd pass the mirror test.
Posted by: mdblanche | November 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM
I'm waiting for Peggy Noonan's enlightened view of this....
Posted by: Bulworth | November 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM