More.

Politico is running another pre-postmortem on Romney’s campaign, blaming his failure to connect with voters on his campaign manager.

Can you name Mitt’s campaign manager? Yeah, I couldn’t either.

I liked this part:

As mishaps have piled up, Stevens has taken the brunt of the blame for an unwieldy campaign structure that, as the joke goes among frustrated Republicans, badly needs a consultant from Bain & Co. to straighten it out.

“You design a campaign to reinforce the guy that you’ve got,” said a longtime Romney friend. “The campaign has utterly failed to switch from a primary mind-set to a general-election mind-set, and did not come up with a compelling, policy-backed argument for credible change.”

So where is Romney in all this? The Great Executive, the Savior of Mount Olympus, the Wise Steward of Massachusetts, the Glorious Light of Capitalism manifested in the world? Is he being led around like a steer at a cattle show, with nothing to say for himself?

It appears establishment Republicans who have lived through a few election cycles recognize a disaster in the making, and they are rushing to pin the blame on anybody but, you know, Republicanism and the whackjob ideology it stands for these days. This means that after the President is re-elected they won’t feel a need to modify themselves. It wasn’t us. It was him.

On the other hand, one of Booman’s readers suggests that Romney is running a campaign based on Mel Brooks’s The Producers. Maybe when the votes are counted Mittens will grab the rest of the war chest and head for the Cayman Islands. Or is there a tax shelter to be had somewhere?

Best good news so far today: Elizabeth Warren is leading Scott Brown in two new polls.

Truly, the more I try to fathom where Mitt Romney keeps his head, the more I suspect he really does think it is still 1980, and he is Ronald Reagan running against Jimmy Carter.

As I remember, Ronald Reagan’s main shtick in 1980 was —

1. Jimmy Carter’s alleged foreign policy ineptness (e.g., Tehran, Moscow)
2. Voodoo economics
3. Evil welfare Cadillac queens

Plus there was some stuff about Carter being bad for the oil industry, and Carter supported the Equal RIghts Amendment while Reagan opposed it.

Today, Mittens is running on

1. Barack Obama’s alleged foreign policy ineptness (e.g., Tehran, Moscow)
2. Fantasy economics
3. Barack Obama as the king of evil welfare Cadillac queens. Or maybe it’s Volt queens now.

Plus, Mitt says President Obama is bad for the oil and coal industries, and there’s the war on women. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Mitt is only about four years older than I am, and I’ve managed to keep up with the times. Well, I don’t have a smart phone. But at least I’ve figured out it’s not 1980 any more.

There is new violence in the Middle East today; protesters are storming the American embassy in Yemen. I don’t believe Mittens has made any new foreign policy statements today; maybe the criticism he got from Republicans yesterday penetrated his thick skull.

Seriously, his judgment on matters such as the attack on the Libya consulate and refusal to release any details of his economic policy, never mind his tax records, has been so abysmal I wonder for his mental health. He doesn’t seem to be living in the same time-space continuum as most of the rest of us.

It’s possible events in the Middle East will unfold in a way that favors Mitt, but so far he’s made the President look better by comparison. He wants the election to be a referendum on President Obama, and he’s making it into a referendum on himself. He wanted to portray the President as alien to America. I think we should demand Mitt’s birth certificate to be sure he’s from planet Earth.

Via Kevin Drum, Andrew Sprung writes,

You do not have to be expert in anything to assess the merit of Romney’s reaction — or his fitness for the presidency. You need only be a social mammal of the human species.

In response to everything Obama does or says — or, for that matter, anything his primary opponents did or said — Romney’s reaction is so knee-jerk condemnatory, so extravagantly worded, so predictably self-serving that the instinctive response for most listeners or readers not themselves besotted with hatred for the target has got to be, “this guy is faking it.” His condemnations have the rote extravagance of a Soviet communique.

At the very least, Mitt appears to be very, very bad at “reading” people and situations and responding appropriately. And this points to something very deficient in basic socialization — I started to say “character,” but it’s something even deeper than character. I don’t know if there’s a name for what Mitt’s problem is, but he appears to be miswired somehow.

Great Obama ad, I must say.

Interesting observation from The American Conservative, where Daniel Larison admits that the case Clinton made against Romney and Ryan was devastating —

… it was all the more devastating because Romney and Ryan made no concerted effort to make the case for their ticket and their agenda last week. … Part of what made Clinton’s speech so devastating is that he compiled all of these objections, linked them together, and presented them to a large television audience all at once in a way that was easily digestible.

Another reason the speech was so devastating to them was that he gave the sort of speech that Ryanmaniacs might have once imagined that Ryan would deliver and the sort that some Romney supporters still imagine Romney is capable of giving. Romney-Ryan was supposed to be the presidential ticket of the “data-driven” manager and his budget wonk sidekick, and between the absence of any significant policy discussion last week and what happened tonight that has lost all credibility. Clinton outperformed both of them in terms of discussing policy details, and underscored just how meaningless the “campaign of ideas” phrase has been. Ryan fans had been convinced for over a year that the election had to be a contest over “big ideas,” and when it came time to engage in that contest their party leaders didn’t even try.

There are several possible reasons they didn’t even try. It might be that they do have a substantive argument for themselves tucked away somewhere, and they haven’t trotted it out because they think the electorate is bored with that detail stuff. I get that vibe from a lot of the Right, actually; they just want the red meat, not the wonky vegetables.

So instead, the GOP decided to package Romney as a swell guy who can be trusted to take care of things, and you don’t need to worry your pretty little head how he’s going to do it. That approach also assumes that people are so disappointed with Barack Obama that no one has to make a substantive pitch about why Romney would be better. They think the electorate is so desperate to find an alternative they’ll vote for anybody who has a nice family and looks good in a suit.

If that’s the case, IMO it’s a miscalculation. A lot of people probably would consider voting for someone else, but not necessarily ANYBODY else.

Or, maybe Romney and Ryan are saving the juicy details for the debates. They aren’t trotting them out beforehand because they don’t want to give the Dems time to craft counterarguments. In which case, maybe those arguments aren’t all that solid.

Another possibility is that they have a substantive argument, but they are keeping it hidden because they know most of the electorate would run away screaming if they knew what it was. (Along those lines, do read Tom Levenson, “Visions of the Apocalypse: Not in Fire, Nor in Ice, But in the Emptying Beds of a Nursing Home.”)

Or, maybe they don’t have a substantive argument, just a facsimile of one. Ryan’s budget possibly seemed brilliant to a lot of journalists who briefly looked at it — I assume it has, like, numbers and stuff — but the few knowledgeable people who actually studied the thing generally have been aghast at how flimsy it is. Krugman has been calling it a “fantasy.”

This takes us to two sets of sub-possibilities — I should be diagramming this — one, they honestly didn’t understand their calculations were hallucinatory; or two, they knew all along the calculations were hallucinatory and didn’t think anyone (but a few liberal wonks) would notice.

If we go with sub-possibility one — I can easily imagine that Ryan has such faith in his ideology that he didn’t think he had to make all the numbers crunch; his ideas are just so self-evidently true (to him). However, if he still thinks that, I don’t know why he would be shy about defending his ideas. Possibly someone recently got through to him that his grand ideas really are not defensible. Drag them out of the Fairy Castle of True Belief and they melt into a pathetic little puddle.

And, finally, maybe they’ve both been faking it. In which case the debates will be fun.

Update: Another possibility, from Ed Kilgore:

Larison’s analysis strengthens my growing belief that in choosing Ryan as a running-mate, Romney had zero intention of making a robust defense of the Ryan Budget or pursuing anything else the conservative movement was panting for him to say or do (other than the racially-tinged demagoguery about welfare). It was precisely the opposite: he figured he could shut up the noisy ideologues by offering them the symbolic prize of Ryan and then running his campaign in exactly the non-substantive way he always intended. This end-the-primaries strategy, as I’ve called it earlier, depended, of course, on swing-voter ignorance about Ryan and indeed the entire GOP agenda, and on Democratic complicity in a campaign about pre-set cartoon caricatures rather than anything that might look like an “idea.”

Plausible. And if that’s the case, it’s also plausible Romney will shift and allow Ryan more leeway to make a case for his ideas. But his ideas are nuts — see above about the Fairy Castle. And if that’s what Romney thought he got very bad advice from somebody (Karl Rove?).

Nate Silver says Mittens may have gotten a teenie little bounce of maybe two or three percentage points — more of a bouncette — out of the GOP convention. He really needed better than that to change momentum in his favor.

And on to Charlotte.

Via Digby — GLoria Borger actually said this —

“In 1968, France was a dangerous place to be for a 21-year-old American, but Mitt Romney was right in the middle of it.”

I immediately envisioned a comic book cover showing Young Mitten (“La Mitaine Jeune”) running through the streets of Paris, dodging a barrage of stale croissants and irate taunts, armed with nothing but the Book of Mormon. I so wish I could draw. This would be perfect for Mad Magazine.

The quote comes from Tommy Christopher at Mediaite, and you should just read the whole thing. La Mitaine Jeune was in France avoiding military service the same year 16,592 Americans died in Vietnam. La Mitaine got four deferments, no doubt made possible by money and family connections.

Borger says the French were très désagréable to La Mitaine because of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. French attitudes toward the U.S. war were complicated, as I remember. Vietnam had been part of French Indochina, and there was a lingering attitude that if France had gotten some help from the U.S. they might not have lost at Dien Bien Phu. So, yeah, he may have gotten some attitude. Poor baby.