10/16/2012 08:58 pm ET Updated Dec 16, 2012

Devastating: Unlike Clinton and Reagan, Romney's Home State Rejects Him -- Overwhelmingly

This was the most unkindest cut of all (Julius Caesar III, ii)

If one's own mother shuns you, what should the rest of us think?

Consider this. Candidate Bill Clinton won his red home state of Arkansas against President George HW Bush in 1992 and, as sitting president, against Bob Dole (R-KA) in 1996. Ronald Reagan won his blue home state, California (a blue state), against President Carter, and, as sitting president, against Walter Mondale (D-MN).

But, the people of Massachusetts, who know what it is like to have Mitt Romney (R-MA) as their Chief Executive, do not want him in the White House.

No way. No how.

Romney was Governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007. There are many critiques about his tenure that Romney and his team have tried to counter. Romney's claim that he "knows" how to create jobs is, for example, questionable as he ranked 47th in the nation in job growth during his tenure.

But, one can eliminate all the claims and counterclaims, facts and spin, with one simple observation: The presidential election is a few weeks away. His home state, that knows his governance better than any place else in the country, will not only reject him, but reject him overwhelmingly.

Oh sure, he will say, (deliberately ignoring both Reagan's and Clinton's history to the contrary), it is a Democratic state. But, he convinced them (hoodwinked might be more accurate) to vote for him. He then served four years. At the end of his tenure, they could not wait to get rid of him. He could not run for re-election.

Let us, however, give Romney the benefit of the doubt [something he never did to the workers he fired to move jobs overseas, but, hey, we're nice guys over here]. Suppose we say that he "made the tough decisions" and that he had to upset powerful, entrenched interests to overcome stagnation and get done what was necessary. Hence, he was not very popular, but at least he did the right thing.

This is now six years later. If he had indeed alienated entrenched interests to "do the right thing," one might think that the general population would by now, at least, begin to notice that the "right thing" had been done. If so, there would be significant pro-Romney sentiment in Massachusetts.

There isn't. Romney is down by 16 percent among the people who know him the best.

The last thing the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will do is vote to inflict Mitt Romney's governance on the rest of the country. It will not even be close. Scott Brown (R-MA) who is running for re-election to the Senate cannot utter Romney's name without losing thousands of votes per utterance.

Not at all the same, by the way, with the president or vice president. Illinois and Delaware will vote overwhelmingly for their native sons.

Consider the opportunity for Obama campaign ads: Massachusetts citizens, the person-on-the-street, talking about how bad Romney was as governor. Throw in a little excerpt from the current governor's DNC speech about the mess he had to clean up.

Go back to a few "persons-on-the-street", and end with: If the people who experienced your governance would never vote for you [show his 35 percent approval rating], even six years later, why would anyone in America make that mistake? Finally, another Massachusetts citizen: "Please, America, don't put the country through what happened to us. We couldn't wait to get rid of him."

Pretty easy... and I'm not even an ad man.