I don't find the (“you-didn’t-build-it”) argument that offensive. It's pretty obviously true. But what was wrong about it, I realize upon reflection, was the tone. It was condescending; it was rhetorically hostile to an imaginary entrepreneur complaining about class warfare. And that rhetorical aggression effectively - and unnecessarily - alienates anyone who has ever built a business or made a success of herself. I doubt Obama would have used those words in a composed speech - the speechwriters and the president himself would have red-flagged the construction. ... But ...

Then we just finish our journey on the road to serfdom.  We totally become a totalitarian, centrally planned, police-type state, where Constitutional rights go out the window.  And really the only thing you can do as an American is leave. We might have to have a violent revolution years in the future or maybe our children or grandchildren will have to fight for their freedom...

Agree about "sole shareholder." This doesn't seem to jibe with story about how Mitt was persuaded to run it. (These professional outfits are strange, though; my son works for a law firm that has both "partners" and "shareholders.") Clearly he wasn't the "real" CEO in 2002, and I wonder if he wasn't the real owner either -- if Bain Capital was structured on paper differently from its actual structure. If so, I assume this might reopen some tax issues.

Mitt must have been one tough mofo in the business world to amass such a fortune – there are plenty of anointed sons who never amounted to anything, and Mitt was not one of those. 

But you’d think that coming up as a Republican in MA would have given him some gumption, some fight. Instead it seems to have imbued in him a an infuriating equanimity where nothing seems to get him riled –and a compulsive need to avoid political attacks on issues at all costs. In his political experience, in Massachusetts, once the drumbeat starts, there is no one to go to, no one to bail you out. It was a one message state,  echoed by most of the local media outlets – He had to finesse things at all times and craft messages delicately. He seems to have carried this lesson to the national stage. Why doesn’t he seem to understand that America respects a fighter, even if they don’t always like your message. He wants to be liked, and seems to be baffled as to why he isn’t, so he tries extra hard. 

I sense that he seems to think that he can recreate his greatest political triumph – his trouncing of Shannon O’Brien in the sit-down debate – in the same way he beat her. He was more even tempered, more reasonable, and yes dammit, more likeable. Shannon was gruff, entitled, arrogant, ideological not likeable. He sensed the people warm to him, and it swayed the vote his way. I can understand, at some level, why he has ingrained this tactic in his public personality. The problem is that Obama may be arrogant, ideological, entitled too, but he’s smooth and generally likeable – why doesn’t he see this? 

As for Murdoch, Laura Ingraham and other conservatives who have urged him to take up the fight ( any fight ), I believe they think they are rallying him as much as they are excoriating him. 

They don’t think it is too late or they wouldn’t jump on him, and they will give him plenty of love once he starts running things in a way they can approve – This is much the same way the journalistic left jumped on Obama late spring, or really until last Wednesday. But for both camps, when the game clock is running past half time, they can point to this past criticism as evidence of their objectivity, and bust out the pom-poms until election day.

“We shouldn’t lose sight of the forest for the trees. The trees are the tactical and rhetorical missteps of the Romney campaign, and the problems posed by Romney’s Massachusetts record,” said conservative William Kristol. 

“The forest, which matters much, much more, is that Obamacare is unpopular, and Romney opposed it and will repeal and replace it.”