Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Romney's Blitzkrieg Flop

By Glenn Kessler
For those keeping score, Romney's 48-hour campaign blitz before Super Tuesday was an abysmal failure.

He crisscrossed the country, campaigning in Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, Oklahoma, California and West Virginia. At every stop, he argued that he was the true conservative in a two-person race.

He lost every single one of those states, three of them to Mike Huckabee, who Romney suggested had no chance to win the nomination.

The loss in California was especially galling because he upended his campaign schedule to fly to California on the strength of polls that turned out to be wildly wrong. He did not carry the county in which he campaigned -- Los Angeles County, where he trailed McCain by 11 percentage points -- and in the end won only three of California's counties in a state where he once had hoped to split the delegate haul with McCain.

Romney might have saved a little cash -- and certainly jet fuel -- if he'd just stayed home in the days before Super Tuesday.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 6, 2008; 5:12 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Aide Crunches the Delegate Numbers
Next: An Endorsement Post-Mortem

Comments

I think that Romney's main problem is that he sounded like Bush with brains. We don't need another reminder of what the last seven years have done to divide the nation. The republican appeal to greed, fear and bigotry may not work this year, and they may have to actually run on the issues and Romney, or for that matter none of the candidates, have been very issue specific.

Posted by: jwpulliam | February 7, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

He was despised and rejected...all men are created equal...the dream goes on.

Posted by: adamscar | February 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what would the middle class look to Romney for in 2012? He built his fortune taking over troubled companies reducing staffing and salaries and reaping the profits. This is making people work harder for less. Now in some cases this might be the only realistic choice, but for this the Republican party has awarded the upper classes less taxes and less regulation and onerous legislation such as new bankruptcy law which refuses to make a distinction between medical debt and other debt as if cancer treatment is the same as buying a plasma screen for every room.
I am not so much interested in income transfers having the government take money from the wealthy as a restoration of opportunity. I want the chance to earn prosperity. Enforcement of existing labor and consumer protection laws would be a start. The middle class and the working poor have seen their income remain flat as prices soar and people wonder why there is a mortgage crisis.
Check this out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/business/06wachovia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=wachovia&st=nyt&oref=slogin Wachovia bank processed forged checks for several corrupt telemarketing firms despite warnings from other banks, the Justice Department credit union, and several of their own high executives that these firms were stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a glaring example of a lasse faire attitude run amok.
Romney is just a rich guy that spent $35 million plus to find out people don't trust him as a conservative or a leader.
Capitalism is a wonderful thing but to work it has to be an honorable thing and it has to work for everyone. Certainly some people will be rewarded handsomely, but a trickle down economy is an unstable economy. As people can WORK their way up it offers a growing middle class that can buy more goods and services and increase the fortunes of the rich who earn their prosperity by doing something as opposed to tax cuts geared to the top. If the working poor can earn a living and hopefully move into the middle class that means less money for welfare, medicaid, food stamps.
Romney may be a personally nice man and an ethical business man, I don't know. But he has prospered while others struggled to make ends meet and that does not give him the right to lead those people. Perhaps donating millions to charity like Bill Gates or others would have been a better use of his time and energy.

Posted by: scorpio1eagle1 | February 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what would the middle class look to Romney for in 2012? He built his fortune taking over troubled companies reducing staffing and salaries and reaping the profits. This is making people work harder for less. Now in some cases this might be the only realistic choice, but for this the Republican party has awarded the upper classes less taxes and less regulation and onerous legislation such as new bankruptcy law which refuses to make a distinction between medical debt and other debt as if cancer treatment is the same as buying a plasma screen for every room.
I am not so much interested in income transfers having the government take money from the wealthy as a restoration of opportunity. I want the chance to earn prosperity. Enforcement of existing labor and consumer protection laws would be a start. The middle class and the working poor have seen their income remain flat as prices soar and people wonder why there is a mortgage crisis.
Check this out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/business/06wachovia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=wachovia&st=nyt&oref=slogin Wachovia bank processed forged checks for several corrupt telemarketing firms despite warnings from other banks, the Justice Department credit union, and several of their own high executives that these firms were stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a glaring example of a lasse faire attitude run amok.
Romney is just a rich guy that spent $35 million plus to find out people don't trust him as a conservative or a leader.
Capitalism is a wonderful thing but to work it has to be an honorable thing and it has to work for everyone. Certainly some people will be rewarded handsomely, but a trickle down economy is an unstable economy. As people can WORK their way up it offers a growing middle class that can buy more goods and services and increase the fortunes of the rich who earn their prosperity by doing something as opposed to tax cuts geared to the top. If the working poor can earn a living and hopefully move into the middle class that means less money for welfare, medicaid, food stamps.
Romney may be a personally nice man and an ethical business man, I don't know. But he has prospered while others struggled to make ends meet and that does not give him the right to lead those people. Perhaps donating millions to charity like Bill Gates or others would have been a better use of his time and energy.

Posted by: scorpio1eagle1 | February 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

It's fair to say Mr Kessler is perfectly comfortable dropping the pretense he writes here in a professional capacity.

Posted by: zukermand | February 7, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

It is not about Romney "pandering" to the Republican Conservatives. It is about the Republican Party and the so-called "BIG TENT". In an effort to get votes - the Party has forfeited conservative values in an effort to attract independents and some Democrats to cross over. Today the Republican Party is almost identical to the Democratic Party. It has people wondering why vote for a Republican when you have people on the other side more youthful - exciting - and appealing?
My prediction - in 2012 this country will see the middle class down - non-existant - with jobs no where to be found and people begging the government for hand outs. That is when everyone will look to Romney for the clean up!

Posted by: mksaad | February 7, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Romney has McCain right where he wants him, riding off into the sunset on a golden elephant.

Posted by: steve_valeriote23 | February 6, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

For years Romney was my favorite Republican because he actually seemed to get it. Fiscally conservative but socially moderate. He was smart enough to realize that playing the "culture war" game was a losing proposition and took a more libertarian stance. Now of course he panders to the far right and is getting roundly spanked by a more moderate candidate.

What the GOP really needs is a candidate like the "old Romney" or Arnold Schwarznegger. Conservatives say he isn't a real Republican...I have to agree. He is popular and actually WINS elections.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | February 6, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company