Saturday Open Thread [11.10.12]

Filed in Open Thread by on November 10, 2012

Scott Farris. author of Almost President, a history of failed presidential candidates, told the Washington Post that Mitt Romney’s concession speech didn’t reflect the urgency of healing a divided nation: “While he congratulated Obama, he never really validated the result by saying ‘the people have spoken’ … Praying for the president is nice, but it is not the same as validating the election. [...] It was a speech that sounded as if he did not emerge from the election with much respect, let alone affection, for the president. He sounded as if he really expected to win and was immensely disappointed in the result — even more so than usual.”

Oh well, the feeling is mutual.

Mary Alice Williams at Salon agrees:

[C]ontrast Romney’s defeat speech to that of John McCain, in 2008. Whatever you think of McCain, he didn’t sit around stewing forever before getting on the horn with his opponent. And when he stood before his supporters, he shushed the members of his constituency who tried to boo their new president, and instead offered Obama his “respect for his ability and perseverance” in “inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president.” McCain said he “admired” Obama and “applauded” him, and he ended by saying, “I hold in my heart nothing but love for this country and for all its citizens, whether they supported me or Sen. Obama.”

Romney, on the other hand, merely managed to grunt out that the Obama campaign “deserves congratulations” and “I wish all of them well.” He then moped that “I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead the country in a different direction, but the nation chose another leader,” and ominously declared that “Ann and I join with you to earnestly pray for him and for this great nation.” It seemed as tired and halfhearted as a little league player muttering, “Good game. Good game. Good game,” to the winning team before heading to the showers.

He wanted it to be “different,” and he’s praying for you, America. That is not “gracious.” What it is instead is a pretty typical Romney, a man who would arrogantly refuse to entertain the notion of defeat and then grind in his heels and refuse to accept it for as long as possible. A man who would pout that his wife would have made a kickass first lady, who thanks men for their tireless work and “wives” for picking up the slack. That was your glimpse, Tuesday night, of what your President Romney would have looked like. And maybe it doesn’t sound gracious to say so, but thank God that’s the last look we’ll have.

About the Author ()

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    By the time he spoke, I was just relieved that Romney cowboyed up enough to say anything. He could have said, “He won.” and walked off the stage as far as I was concerned.

  2. Liberal Elite says:

    McCain gave a great speech. But even better, he kept Sarah Palin off the stage when she was itching to say too much at the wrong time.

    Romney was too late and too little. It will be remembered as being one of the worst concession speeches of the modern era. Al Gore’s was, by far, the best, but he had plenty of time to make it perfect.

  3. Dave says:

    If you know McCain, you also know that he believed what he was said. It wasn’t just heartfelt clap trap. McCain, fumbles and falters as many of us do, but the guy has integrity and class. The McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is just one example of John McCain’s desire to govern responsibly.

    Would that Romney had an ounce of the graciousness of McCain. McCain jumped over the net to hug his opponent. Romney basically just packed up his racket and left the court after mumbling something that might have been a congrats.

  4. Jason330 says:

    The Onion did the math and “the Obama campaign deserves congratulations” and “I wish all of them well.” were the 273,465th and 273,467th Romney lies of the campaign.

  5. cassandra_m says:

    As gracious as the McCain speech was, what good did it do to “heal a divided nation”? The crazy base of the GOP never quite trusted the guy and that same base spent 4 years chasing after birth certificates, college transcripts and other stupidity. The tea party base of the GOP never had an ounce of grace or of patriotism. Romney spent years trying to make these people accept him and he very likely knew from first hand experience that grace was the last thing anyone in the room he was in was remotely interested in.

  6. Dave says:

    It didn’t do any good of course, but that’s not on McCain. He said (and felt) the right things. Romney did not. It just pointing out the difference between the two. And the people in that room won’t be judging what Romney said. History will.

  7. cassandra m says:

    McCain said the right things. What he felt neither of us will really know. History may indeed judge Romney on that speech and it will be withing the context of the astonishing smallness of spirit of the people who got him to that place. A smallness of spirit McCain certainly seems to have adopted.

  8. pandora says:

    How low is the bar set for Republicans? So low that McCain, who condoned Sarah Palin’s hate filled speech only until it looked like someone was going to get hurt, is now the example of honorable behavior. A model Presidential candidate.

    I’m going to become a Republican. Apparently I can say horrible things, then do one thing right – only when the sh*t is about to hit the fan – and get held up as all that is good and honorable.

    Sorry, but I remember 2008.

  9. Dave says:

    And I don’t expect perfection from anyone. Mostly because I’ll always be disappointed. I’ve never seen a president or candidate that was all that is good and honorable yet. They all have faults. They all disappoint. It doesn’t make them evil, nor should they be the subject of scorn, at least not by me (but I’m not above a joke or two at their expense).

  10. Dana Garrett says:

    My understanding is that Romney had not prepared a concession speech because he expected to win. The speech was cobbled together once the Romney team accepted that Obama had won. The lack of content might have simply reflected events that evening and nothing more.

  11. auntie dem says:

    I’m just grateful that we dodged that bullet. I still have dreams about where we’d be today if Nov-Dec 2000 hadn’t turned into the nightmare it became for this nation and the rest of the world.

  12. Jason330 says:

    Owning the voting machInes and corrupt officials gave them a false sense of security. We need some serious change in our voting practices. No close race is going to be regarded as legitimate until we do.