Romney Cites "Gifts" as Reason He Lost

There are a bunch of articles about this, as well as the responses to this issue, all of which I'll be more or less referring to. They can be found here:

Washington Post Original Report

Washington Post Commentary How GOP Wants Romney Gone

More WP Commentary, re: Latino "Gifts"

Boston.com: Louisiana Gov.'s Response

This action on Mitt Romney's part in itself is pretty interesting if for no other reason than the attention it is garnering. While true that Romney just recently stepped out of the spotlight of the Presidential campaign, usually the losers of those campaigns are rarely heard from much, especially outside of their locality.

The most obvious way this connects to our class is found in the second article, the commentary written by WP's Chris Cillizza, about how the GOP wants Romney to go away. The highlights pertaining to my reasoning are where Cillizza writes:

"What Romney seems most interested in doing at this point is rehashing why he didn’t win — with an emphasis (at least in his comments to donors) on what was wrong with voters, not what was wrong with his campaign.  

That MO, while understandable for someone who has spent the last six-plus years of his life running for president, is tremendously problematic for a party that needs to get away from the stereotype that it is of, by and for white, affluent men even at a time of growing diversity in the country and the electorate... 

...To the latter point: While Democrats have Bill Clinton as their triager-in-chief, using his gravitas to help extend and articulate the Democratic brand, George W. Bush seems perfectly content to spend the rest of his days outside of the public spotlight in Texas. And, while John McCain remains an active force in the Senate, he was never someone that Republicans truly saw as one of their own. Now, in Republicans’ best case scenario, Romney is headed to that same path of obscurity."

From this, it seems obvious that the GOP is lacking any sort of true central figure. Former Presidents are ideal, but as Cillizza points out, Bush II apparently doesn't feel like it. This is something of an opportunity when observing from the perspective of New Media.

I'm sure there are many people who would like to see the GOP go in a more conservative direction. However, as pointed out by Romney's comments, this doesn't seem particularly tenable because the old, white men for this strategy are no longer necessary to produce a viable candidate. This also assumes that only old, white men are pushing for a more conservative GOP.

On the other side, it's probable that many people would like to see a more flexible Republican party. One obvious example is myself. While I consider myself a liberal and a progressive in terms of social issues, I also think of myself as a fiscal conservative. Unfortunately for me, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans completely cover these two issues. Thus, if there are enough people like myself, it wouldn't be unimaginable for a group to come along and push the GOP in this direction. Especially if they're somewhat blinded at the moment, groping in the dark for way to proceed without falling on their political face.

While I'm unsure as to whether this need to adjust one of the two major American political parties is rare, I do know it is an opportunity. Indeed, with the progress of New Media and the apparent need on the GOP's part to appeal to new and different demographics, it seems prime -- kairotic even -- for the Republican Party to fulfill that role.

Will this happen? I doubt it, especially when considering the forces-of-old, fearful of losing any power. Still, the opportunity is obviously there, and I for one am curious to see how the Grand Old Party will react.