Of course Dukakis and Romney are the only losers not to attend inauguration

[question everything]

Neither had any reason to be in D.C.

1988 - Dukakis, governor of Massachusetts. No reason to be in D.C.

1992- Bush I, outgoing president, had to be there to transfer the keys

1996 - Dole, a senator, was there

2000 - Gore, outgoing V.P. was there for the transfer

2004 - Kerry, a senator, was there.

2008 - McCain, a senator, was there

2012 - Romney, a freelancer, can be anywhere he wants.

It is not as if there is nothing to throw at Romney, but this case is really not relevant, even deceiving.

[elleng]

1. Yes. Thanks.

There are enough things to throw at him; we don't need to manufacture any.

[dsc]

2. actually four Presidents who were alive at the time didn't attend their successors Inauguration

Both Adamses, Andrew Johnson, and Nixon. I have to say, I would have attended had I been Dukakis or Romney barring any family issues that haven't become apparent.

[question everything]

3. Well, I am sure things were different in previous centuries. As for Nixon

certainly not a sunny personality.

And I think it will difficult for you to put yourself in their shoes. They ran long, exhaustive campaigns. In Romney's case, he was certain he was winning. It has to be hard, and humiliating. And you really cannot know how the crowd would react, especially today with all the cell phones captivating every facial muscle, every blinking.

[dsc]

5. I am no expert

but I do recall that both Adamses had major problems personally with their successors and Johnson had been impeached by the opposing party. Nixon left town right after his resignation and didn't bother to stay for Ford's taking of the oath.

[madinmaryland]

12. Nixon was also the losing candidate and VP when JFK took office. nt

He definitely did not stay to see Ford take the oath of office. Not sure which time they are referring to, though it would not surprise me if he did the same thing after the 1960 election.

[Mutiny In Heaven]

13. Nixon was there in 1960

[Img]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0147e1b7f83d970b-pi[/img]

[BlueStreak]

4. but, but, but ... Monday is laundry day.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Agreed. I think Dukakis and Romney should have attended each inauguration...

It makes the transition that much more clean to have the losing candidate there. I think we take for granted the whole transition of power thing in America ... especially after I've watched other nations fail time and time again at just getting that basic aspect underway (I'm thinking Egypt most recently).

If you can't be there ... don't come. But if you're perfectly able, as Romney was, you should show up. I know it's hard. But imagine how hard it was for H.W. Bush to attend the inauguration as a PRESIDENT who had just been rejected by millions of American voters?

[madinmaryland]

14. But there was no transition with Dukakis and Romney. Neither of them had a national position like

anyone else listed in this thread. All federal government officials are there that are required to be there.

GHWBush was the current President when he was voted out of office. Though it has not happened very often in our life times with an incumbent being voted out of office they were there when they were voted out of office. Carter, Ford, and GHW Bush come to mind. LBJ chose not to run for a second term in 1968 and Nixon was long gone by 1976. I believe Herbert Hoover attended FDR's inauguration.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. It doesn't matter. There was an election.

To show that the power remains pure, even if there are problems, the losing candidate should show up. I don't care if Obama didn't technically transition his power to himself - the idea still stands. Dukakis and Romney staying away just adds to the political divide.

[madinmaryland]

16. Well, I will have to disagree with you on this...

Two question I have which I don't know the answer to are: does the POTUS have the ability to invite who he/she wants to the inauguration and in the rare case when the challenger who lost have a requirement to show up. Based on your comments, it should be stated as "losing candidates". What if Mr. Ralph Nader showed up at the 2001 Inauguration or Ross Perot at either the 1993 or 1997 Inaugurations, or John Anderson at the 1991 Inauguration. They were all "candidates"

Unless the losing candidate is in a high federal government office, then I don't think there should be a requirement that they be there. I sure as shit would not have wanted Donald Trump there at the 2013 Inauguration if he had been the Republican nominee, though it would have been pretty fucking funny!

[BlueStater]

6. Did Mondale attend Reagan's inauguration in 1985?

Like Romney, he wasn't holding elected office when he ran for president.

[question everything]

17. The "count" started with Dukakis in 1988

so I suppose previous ones do not count. At least, with this specific observation.

[One of the 99]

7. Dole had resigned his senate seat by then.

He didn't need to be in D.C.

[FSogol]

8. Who cares if Romney shows up or not?

An I take exception to Dukakis being called a loser. The country would have been much better off with him in the White House than another f'ing Bush administration.

[question everything]

9. True. I should have used the ones who lost the Presidential elections

but wanted to limit words on the title line.

And you are correct that we should not care about Romney, except that it is kinda viral. Maher and others mentioned it.

[RudynJack]

11. I think it's perfectly fine...

maybe even preferable for the losing candidate to stay away and let the winner have his day (incumbent Presidents excluded.)

[tarheelsunc]

18. I can imagine if Romney DID show up,

a lot of people here would say things like "Why is this irrelevant guy putting his face in the picture again? He lost and it's not like he's the outgoing President or anything, he has no business being there." I for one am glad he's not being a political opportunist and using exposure from the election to make countless television appearances on a certain right-wing propaganda network.