OK not in the those actual words.
Thompson lays out his reasons for the Romney loss and they boil down to four points which convey the following:
Wall Street rich guys who bury their primary opponents through the use of their wealth advantage in a wave of negative ads, who cannot articulate a convincing defense of free enterprise capitalism due to their own limitations as communicators, and who can't inspire folks into believing that their leadership is going to change their lives for the better in any meaningful way - are not sympathetic or believable and therefore lose.
Who would have thunk it?
In the process Fred makes a compelling case for why Huckabee was far better positioned to close the two point gap and overtake Obama in 2012. And while we are at it - 2008. Of course Fred will admit that as soon as he admits that his role in South Carolina was as a spoiler. Never.
Exerts:
Quote:
“Being a businessman worked against him.” It seemed to me that, although Romney was the kind of guy you’d want to “fix” the economy, Obama persuaded a lot of people that Mitt was also the kind of guy who caused the problem in the first place: the Wall Street fat cat. And Romney never properly explained how turning a private business around improved our national economy.
...snip...
“Role of money.” Here I was thinking that Mitt didn’t have the money to defend himself early on when Team Obama was ruthlessly attacking him. Ironically, it was the tremendous money advantage Romney had in the primary that allowed him to decimate his opponents, which is also the reason that fewer people felt sorry for Romney when the shoe was on the other foot.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... d-thompson