I knew the Rambler, and Mr Romney, you're no Rambler.
A year ago when Romney first started campaigning, Polistra liked him and wrote at some length
about Romney's father and his beloved Rambler.
Mitt has recently started to tell this story, but after a longer exposure to Mitt we can see that the analogy doesn't work.
George Romney took over Nash in 1954, at a time when the Establishment (Ford and GM) were running strong, exhibiting all the worst qualities of Ruthless Desire and Reckless Greed. GM and Ford were pushing Numerical Superiority in every possible way: more length, more flash, more horsepower, more advertising, more gas usage. Worst of all, GM and Ford conspired to lower prices below cost in '54, for the specific purpose of knocking out the competition.
Romney Senior knew that Nash couldn't run the same race. He chose instead to emphasize quality over quantity, value over price. The Rambler was just large enough to hold a family comfortably; had just enough power to drive safely; had no flash whatsoever, but had a sense of firmness and solidity, combined with proven durability. These qualities kept Nash alive when the other small companies failed, and later took Rambler up to third place in the market, ahead of Plymouth in 1960-61.
Romney Junior has failed to learn the lesson, or perhaps his 'product' just isn't up to Rambler standards. In fact he's following the GM model, not the Nash model. What does he offer? Not something different, but a continuation of the same old Bush brand. He's had plenty of chances to separate himself from the Bush record, and every time he refuses. Instead, he concentrates on maximum flash, maximum advertising, maximum expenditure, and price cuts (i.e. Zero Zip Nada Taxes).
He's running on quantity, not quality.