Loser’s Lunch

Inspected and rejected by 62 million Americans.

There’s a question being asked over Mitt Romney breaking bread with Barack Obama at the White House today and that is why?  Why would Obama want to dine with the man he beat soundly three weeks ago?   Better still, why would Romney accept the invitation?

Because it costs the president nothing to be gracious to his challenger and for Mitt’s part, it’s not as if he has anything better to do.

Speculation runs rampant that Romney might be offered some advisory role to the president or even a lesser Cabinet position such as Secretary of Commerce.   Not going to happen.   Obama has plenty of qualified people to select from for his second-term Cabinet and there will be some Republicans included, but let’s not take this “team of rivals” thing too far.

There’s no place for Romney in the Obama Administration.   Romney brings nothing to the table Obama can’t get from somebody better qualified and on his side.   The worst kept “secret” of the entire campaign was how much these two guys don’t like each other.   Unless Obama makes him the ambassador to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands so he can visit the millions of dollars he’s off-shored,  Romney couldn’t be less interested in spending the next four years deferring to the man who denied him his heart’s desire.

If Obama doesn’t want to hear Romney’s suggestions and Romney is praying Obama doesn’t embarrass him by offering him a gig, what exactly will they talk about?

“I love you honey.” “Me too.”

Still President Obama: So Mitt, how’s Ann doing?

Not President Romney: Fine.

Still President Obama:  How’s your coffee?  Need it freshened up?

Not President Romney:  No.

Still President Obama:  U Mad, Bro?

Not President Romney:  Hell to the yeah.  

I hate to be a bad winner…no, that’s a lie.  I love being a bad winner because I don’t like Mitt Romney and it gave me a great deal of personal satisfaction to not simply see him lose, but to completely fail.  The moment was there for Mitt Romney to show his character and he passed on it.  He could have said the president ran a better campaign.  He could have given some credit to those who voted against him.   Even in defeat, Romney could have done more to put aside the rancor and division of a bitterly fought and highly contentious election.

But Mittens wasn’t going on like that.  All those millions and it still didn’t buy Romney and .   He had to go out crying like a little bitch about Obama handing out “gifts” to his base.   Paul Ryan dealt from the bottom of the race card deck himself when he credited (or blamed) Obama’s victory to turnout in “urban areas.”

The “Obama Is Your Santa Claus” riff is one you hear and read being pushed by Republicans refusing to face the cold, hard facts.   Romney’s “chief strategist” Stuart Stevens offered up an alternate take on reality in a op-ed explaining why his candidate lost, but he couldn’t resist playing the race card.
On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain. ..There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?

Really, Stuart?   You’re proud that your boy appealed only to White voters making over $50,000 a year?     That’s what you’re thumping your chest about.   No wonder Mittens lost.   Apparently it’s impossible and particularly when you’re getting bad advice from a “strategist” that all you need to do to win is to appeal to pissed-off White men and ignore the rest of the country.   Who at the Washington Post thought it was a good idea to give a loser a podium to brag about how he lost?

This lunch  is gonna be a little awkward, but through a confidential source I can reveal what’s  on the menu for Mittens.    The White House chefs whipped  up a feast of sour grapes as the appetizer , an entree of crow,  dessert of a big slice of  humble pie and a glass of curdled milk.

Bon appetit. 

Romney and friends.
“Hi, I’m Mitt and I’m down with my brown and black peeps.”
About these ads

2 thoughts on “Loser’s Lunch

  1. I can see where you’re going and I share your joy that Mitt lost and lost so badly. But before we get too excited about his downfall, losing the presidential race is alwas tough and it’s a hard place to fall from. I cannot remember any presidential candidate ever who lost that race with grace. The presidential race is an all or nothing race and there is no second place but just a winner and a loser, and the loser always falls on his face hard and is an ultra-nobody from then on.

    I cannot imagine that Obama will be offering Romney any new role. Romney’s positions are too far off the radar of reason to make that thinkable. At best he’s going to try and mend fences a bit.

  2. Stuart’s comments/analysis of why Romney lost really pisses me off. It’s as if they’re saying: Yeah, Romney lost because their weren’t enough white male voters. Does that mean that a vote from a non-white male voter is worth less? What kind of BS is that?

    My take on the lunch meeting is that our president is showing class by letting the thing happen in the first place. Who knows, maybe he’s willing to hear any positive suggestion on Romney’s part.

    I’d love to be a fly on the wall though. Awkward.

Comments are closed.