The Meaning of Mitt’s Tears

By Ken Silverstein

Mitt Romney reportedly teared up during his withdrawal speech yesterday but so far the pundits aren’t analyzing his moist eyes. Did he really get choked up? Was it merely a ploy to build sympathy for his likely presidential run in 2012? Alas, that sort of penetrating insight is reserved only for tears shed by Hillary Clinton.

Nor have there been strenuous objections about Romney’s lamentable remarks, revolting even by his own low standards, in which he essentially accused Clinton and Barack Obama of being in league with Osama bin Laden. “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win,” Mitt said. “And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

Yes, as Jon Stewart noted last night, if Mitt were to keep on campaigning–the terrorists would win.

Romney didn’t drop out for the perceived good of the country; he bailed because his campaign has been a fiasco. Despite the construction of an impressive political machine and the expenditure of vast sums of money, including tens of millions of dollars of his own fortune, Mitt couldn’t win a single important state.

And why was that? Well, as another Daily Show segment last night put it, Romney is a douche. Beyond that, he was surely hurt by the Mormon issue (especially in the South) and by the fact that he’s an inveterate flip-flopper with no core values, and hence most voters just didn’t trust him.

Come 2012, there’s a good chance that Romney will be back for another shot at the presidency. Given his inherent political liabilities, a second bid is likely to end in crushing defeat as well.