GOP reassures itself with bizarre theories on Romney’s loss, Obama’s foreign policy

>>> carry the day for us and the success we had, it obviously wasn't enough to win the race, was based on the candidate mitt romney and on his ideas.

>> president kennedy once said that victory has 100 fathers but defeat is an orphan. sadly, this singular truth has somehow managed to evade a number of republicans , including stuart stevens , the romney campaign's stop strategist. he's the late nest a long line of apologists including the candidate himself that try to explain the loss that come close to insulting the electoral. joining us is bob shrum and matt miller . welcome to you both. matt, first it was mitt romney who accused the president of bribing the electorate with free stuff. that was very effective. now we have mr. stevens , another olympic gymnast of self-justification who comes out and his big silver lining is mr. romney only lost among vote whose make less than $50,000 a year. is the painful truth too hard for these men to bear?

>> well, stuart is a friend of mine, i know him from politics for a long time so i wouldn't trash him personally. i think he's being loyal and describing an election when he puts his spin on it was closer than some others would like to say. i think the big thing that republicans like stuart are missing is that there's a whole new electorate out there that the they are not appealing to, and by failing to offering solutions to ordinary americans' problems the republicans had nothing to offer besides the same tax cut mantra and demonization of obama that won't work anymore.

>> we all remember mr. romney 's explanation for why he lost. you know, you can't beat free stuff was his excuse in a nutshell. mr. stevens was asked about those comments this morning. take a listen, bob.

>> we have the governor speaking about the fact that the obama campaign paid its voters and certainly its lower income voters. that seems to me a bit sour grapes .

>> i don't think that's what he was saying. they had certain groups they wanted to do well with, and they did well with.

>> but where is theed a admission from mr. romney or mr. stevens or republican that they many a nasty, mean-spirited campaign that deserved the thumping it received?

>> you're not going to get that and, you know, i have met stuart . he's not a friend of mine, but you read the piece he wrote in "the washington post ," you listen to what he said, you say no wonder romney make. the arguments he's making are fantasy and they're pernicious. he says crazy things like no one in washington, in the washington green room , ever thought mitt romney was going to be the nominee. it took a movement to get him the nomination. everybody thought he was going to be the nominee, and what was the cause that was at the heart of this movement? secondly, he says, well, look, the guy won the whiter, wealthier vote, and, therefore, we carried the day. that's a line out of "saturday night live." the truth of the matter is if that's all you got and you didn't get 270 electoral votes , i suppose you have received the jim crow prize for second place finish in the presidential campaign . it's crazy.

>> only thing i would say to my friend bob is i think stuart is being loyal the way people are when they've lost hard-fought campaigns. you have bon on the losing side --

>> i don't remember bob shrum not telling the truth in the light of a spanking.

>> no, bob is not a fantasist. joopt to suggest that all republicans lack moral and intellectual resources to confront what happened. mike murphy said, folk, that the party needs to realize that the party's brand is dying, its strategists are incompetent and it's campaign methods are hopelessly outmoded. that's right, isn't it?

>> it's largely right. again, if you want to dissect the infighting among republican strategists, there's probably a lot of blame to go in why the republicans have not evolved their position in a way that would be more relevant to the everyday problems of average americans, which is to my mind why the party is going to be in big trouble . i think, look, wherever the dust clears on this, if the republicans don't get a rethinking like clinton provided for the democrats between '88 and '92 to actually address the problems, to get rid of the vul vulnerabilivu vulnerabilities they have, the older, rich image they have, they won't make the headway they want to.

>> bob, on top of this trend of pop republicans saying bizarre things, congressman louis gohmert of texas gave a radio interview and he expounded on some interesting theories about the president's foreign policy . take a listen.

>> the only way you can explain the horrendous decisions that were so completely wrong-headed would be if this administration had a bunch of muslim brotherhood members giving them advice.

>> so, bob, it's pretty clear the president has lots of people in the muslim brotherhood working for him like all thots those guys that killed osama bin laden and what about those who command the drone strikes?

>> that whack job with texas is the person who went after the woman who works for hillary clinton . this is the kind of conspiracy mongering you would hope was over after this election. instead, it may get worse. and it may take two or three presidential thumpings for the republican party to come to terms with the fact that it can't be anti-immigrant, can't come across as anti-women, and it's never going to get the vote of young voters as long as it's anti-gay. these are hard questions. bill clinton , and matt is right about this, bill clinton brought the democratic party -- it wasn't a break with its fundamental values but he brought it forward to a place where it could win elections again. it's going to be tougher for the republicans because those folks in the iowa caucuses are going to stand there and say who is the most anti-gay candidate, who is the most anti-immigrate candidate and the person who is is most likely to win the caucuses.

>> what clinton did was took on tough issues for the party, crime, welfare, trade, and he repo significanced with a substantive debate.

>> indeed. let's hope they can begin by being no longer anti-factual. our thanks to bob and matt. thank you.