And now for something completely different

If you haven't ever read "Bats Left/Throws Right" (check out my blog list), you should.  Doghouse Riley, whoever he is, writes some of the funniest, most insightful political commentary around.  Sort of like a Hoosier version of my literary hero, Hunter S. Thompson, only without the psychedelic drugs.

So today as I read Stuart Stevens op-ed piece in the Washington Post I felt myself starting to channel Mr. Doghouse.  And in a fit of sheer chutzpah I thought, "Hey, let me give this a try."

The article begins with the following biography:

Stuart Stevens was the chief strategist for the Romney presidential campaign.

Once I was at a large luncheon where a guy at my table bragged about how his company had done the sound system for the program.  As we were unable to hear speaker after speaker, he stopped bragging and slunk away.  Somehow that story came to mind here.  Who knows why.

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.

Or maybe he won the nomination because he was the last man standing after all the candidates that grassroots Republicans actually liked shot each other.  Look, Stu, I'm a Democrat and I remember 2004.  I'm not criticizing here - we've all been there, but self-awareness is the first step toward self-improvement.

Stu goes on to point out how Romney raised more money for the Republican Party than the party itself did.  To which I would reply:

1.  Whatever.
2.  That's his job, dude - he's the party's Presidential candidate.
3.  It helps to do this if you've spent your career working with people who have more money than God.
4.  Congratulations.  He raised a lot of money.  And honestly, I'm sure that took a lot of hard work.  Raising money in politics is the least fun part of the job.

At this point I am reminded of pearls of wisdom that I have heard over the years (to be fair and balanced - both of these came from Old White Guys - credit where credit is due).  First, being rich means having more money than you spend - and there are two sides to that equation.  Second, just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean you should waste it.

Hanging out as I am in Omaha, which functions as western Iowa's media market, I saw an interesting piece in the Omaha World-Herald about how much Obama was outspent by Romney.  If my math is correct, which it may not be because I'm doing this in my head and I'm just a girl, it was something like 20 to 1.  This is in an area where Romney was going to win - western Iowa is pretty Republican and for heaven's sake there is nowhere on earth more Republican than Nebraska.  The Democrats in Iowa live in areas where they don't get their TV from Omaha.  I'll grant you that Omaha is a bit more mixed than Nebraska overall (its single Electoral College vote went for Obama in 2008, creating my favorite made-up political word EVER, Obamaha).  Still, spending over $3 million on advertising in this media market is, IMHO, the act of someone with more money than brains.

Stuart continues:

...more than any figure in recent history, [Romney] drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

I'm having trouble understanding this, Stu, or getting it to fit with my observations of the events of the past twelve months, even though I really do want to give you the argument.  Didn't people like Paul Ryan (yeah, you picked him for Veep so that should count for something - I get that), Ron Paul - even Herman Cain seem to focus more on conservative economics?  And since Romney's "moral case for free enterprise" got awfully tangled up with his work at Bain Capital (see also:  "live by the sword, die by the sword") I'd say that the jury's still out on this.  Perhaps because they've already made their decision but are waiting to get their free government-provided lunch (47% of the jury being made up of "takers" after all), but let's agree that this may not be the best thing you can say about the Romney campaign.

And given the wastefulness of the Romney campaign, I'm not sure that I'd go too far out on the "moral case for conservative" limb here.  But that's just me.

As a Libra and the daughter of the Nicest Person on Earth, I have an often pathological compulsion to say something positive No Matter What.  So let me interject here that the Romney campaign seems to have avoided the kind of hideous back-biting that has plagued several Presidential campaigns (Clinton 08 and McCain 08 are the two that come quickest to mind).  Good work, Mitt and Stuart. 

Okay, the Pollyanna moment is over.  Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

...Romney brought the fight [about Medicare/Social Security] to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

Really?  Your "rational, persuasive case" included misstating your opponent's position on the issue, ignoring your running mate's position, and making sure that you told seniors that your changes weren't actually going to impact them.  Look, lying to the American people is a long and well established political tradition, so I'm not going to act like no one else has ever done that.  However, please don't insult our intelligence by then claiming that your case was "rational."  Except if by that you meant that it was rational for Romney to lie since it would help get him votes.

...Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

Something like 50% of Americans have annual household income below $50,000.  We know that your candidate knows that it's at least 47%, right?  Maybe if you and your buddies, Stu, were spending less time taking your huge paychecks to the bank and more time talking with some of your rank-and-file voters, you'd have a better sense of this.

The Obama organization ran a great campaign.

Stu, that's darned white of you to say.  And there were a lot of things that got in your way which certainly I would not blame you or your candidate for - not the least of which is a party platform that makes people like Alan Simpson appear moderate and the unfortunate tendency of your primary voters to select Senatorial candidates who were, um, outside of the mainstream.  No question that this rubbed off on your candidate - as well it should, but I know that you had to have gotten queasy last May when Dick Mourdock beat Richard Lugar, for example, or whenever that Akin guy in Missouri opened his mouth.  You definitely were dealt some lousy cards.

Still, Jennifer Rubin summed it up well: 

But Stevens fails in precisely the way in which the campaign failed: a refusal to acknowledge real and material incompetence by himself and others on the campaign. The piece stubbornly refuses to express regrets or apologies for a campaign that, as evidence has come forth, makes “The Perils of Pauline” look like the Rockettes.

And those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.  Unfortunately, they take the rest of us along for the ride.