All about Mitt
I know, I know, it’s piling on, but I can’t help sharing a thought or two about Mitt Romney, and I’m guessing In Boxers have a thought or two as well.
Here’s the irony of 2012: This campaign was supposed to be all about President Barack Obama. A referendum. An election defined by unemployment skyward of 8% and behemoth debt.
The Obama campaign was already well on its way to redefining the terms of engagement, making the debate much more of a “you have to pick one of us” challenge for disgruntled voters.
Then Romney stepped in (or stepped in it, rather) and took the whole paradigm one degree further:
Somehow, the former Bain Capital tycoon managed to make the election a referendum on himself, and on guys like him.
Let me pause for a moment and nod at a couple of realities: Political campaigns at some point reduce politicians to caricatures. Barack Obama was never the “hope-change” messiah that some of his followers wanted to believe in.
And Mitt Romney isn’t the Thurston Howell plutocrat that even some conservatives are now lampooning. But when you’re selling a set of ideas and leadership to hundreds of millions of people, in a short period of time, branding matters.
Right now, Mitt Romney’s brand is all about “47%” and those fancy horses of his that competed in the London Olympics and the car elevator and the $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, and the casual dismissal of “victims.”
He’s the “New Coke” of conservative politics. Really, it doesn’t get much worse, unless you’re Todd Akin. So the question now is, what next?
The bad news for Republicans is that there is no evidence — none, zero — that Team Romney has the mojo to turn this around.
Democrats had the Come Back Kid. Remember that? Bill Clinton knew that when his side was on the ropes politically, he had to storm back with big rallies, big ideas. You couldn’t help feeling that he was having fun, fighting for his life with a grin on his face.
But the GOP is stuck with the grinchy guy who insults his hosts in London, muffs the crisis in the Middle East, and (still) won’t release his taxes.
Oh yeah, and the guy who gave the green light to Clint Eastwood’s infamous “chair” speech, which became the symbol of this year’s Republican National Convention. Oh yeah, and the guy who insulted the cookies of a supporter who had invited him into her home.
“I’m not sure about these cookies,” Romney said during an April campaign stop. “They don’t look like you made them. Did you make those cookies? No, no. They came from the local 7/11…bakery…or whatever.”
So it’s not about one “gaffe” or awkward moment. It’s turning into a question about leadership, about basic skill as a messenger of political ideas, about the ability to connect.
(One of the ironies of modern politics is that it’s still a flesh-and-blood, human contact, one-on-one, let me look into your eye and kiss your baby business. Romney just doesn’t seem comfortable with that stuff, by which I mean comfortable with, you know, people.)
Some Republicans are urging Romney to resurrect his campaign by giving some big, hefty policy speeches, really digging into the challenges that face the American people. I’m all for it. But if Romney had that kind of stuff up his sleeve, wouldn’t we have heard about it by now?
This is a mature, experienced and intelligent politician who still — years after he started running for president – can’t figure out how to talk about his own impressive record tackling healthcare reform.
There’s one other reason for pessimism. While Romney’s campaign has been astonishingly inept, the Democrats have been almost scarily effective this year.
And they’ve been “oppo” researching the Republican — a man who is still not well known by the public — for months.
Even if he doesn’t hand Barack Obama more gift moments, like the one we saw this week, and last week, and the week before, you can bet that Romney will find himself in the hot seat at least a couple more times.
That may be an ugly side of American politics, but it’s been that way since about 1776 and it’s not about to change in 2012. Is Romney ready for the final gauntlet? Let me put it this way: He’ll have to surprise us.
Tags: election12
.png)
It’s true that I like a leader who is visibly strong; fires up the crowd. And unfortunately, we live in a time when people like to be dazzled. We put alot of stock on what we see and how it makes us feel.
Romney is criticized for being boring. Let’s hope still waters run deep.
I don’t care if he doesn’t warm up to people (Obama doesn’t either). I want someone who has experience and a record of success.
The upcoming debates will be very revealing. Perhaps Romney holds his cards close. We shall see.
He has to once again try to pivot to the economy, and now it is way to transparent to really distract people and get them back on the track that he wants. He still has the debates. But if the election is about Romney, and it is this week, he is in big trouble.
The best outcome this election for the country and, in the long run, for the Republican party would be a landslide victory for Obama.
Such a result would precipitate a re-thinking of the Republicans’ message. Either that, or the party would become more and more marginal.
By embracing positions congenial to Ayn Rand and far removed from the realities of governing, the Republicans are not giving Obama the informed criticism he should receive and we should expect from the opposition party.
For example, Obama hasn’t addressed the need for additional revenue beyond saying that we should increase taxes for the wealthy. From what I’ve read that won’t be enough even with some modifications in programs such as Social Security.
Yes, as an independent who supports Obama my first reaction to Romney’s hapless campaigning is delight. Go shoot yourself, and help elect my candidate.
My second reaction is that it’s a pity that Obama is not being held to account as he should be.
It just shows how pathetically weak the GOP talent pool was. Of the candidates who seemed likely to have a chance at the nomination (which excludes Huntsman because he was too moderate to have a chance and Paul because he was too honest), Romney was by far the least awful of them.
Mr. 47% Mitt is still in this race!
The media can’t flog him enough. Everything that can be done is being done and he is still in this.
Obama is under 50% in both Gallup and Rasmussen in swing states. That’s not good.
Keep floggin. There’s still 48 days to try to pull your man across the finish line.
Mr. 8.3% Obama hopes to shift the attention away from his failures.
Nice work, Brian. You, and the rest of the liberal, soi-disant “media” have nearly completed the Romney character assassination instead of objectively reporting the news. It shouldn’t surprise me, though, there’s nothing in Obama’s resume to recommend him other than the fact that he’s not Romney. That’s all you’ve got, but I do congratulate you on making the best of a dismal situation. Do me a favor; try and come up with some new material. If I read one more smarmy blog post that starts off with “I know, I know, it’s piling on, but I can’t help sharing…” I’m going to puke. You might even try some unbiased reportage; who knows?
Brian you missed what this gaffe really revealed, he is completely and utter clueless. And sorry Kathy but the only depth he has is his cluelessness. He took one statistic, the percent of people who paid no federal income tax, and piled on a whole bunch of stereotypes and false assumptions to support his view of the situation. I won’t go into the list. Suffice it to say it is long and you can see it all on the fact checking sites. The only thing he got right was the number. The picture of the electorate that he drew based on the number couldn’t be more wrong.
He doesn’t even see his own success clearly. He says (with a boringly straight face) “I didn’t inherit anything. Not one dime.” Aside from being factually wrong (turning around and giving your inheritance away does not negate the fact that you inherited millions) he fails to recognize the intangible inheritance of example, connection and influence that he had in growing up the son of George Romney, (highly) successful businessman, Republican politician and governor of Michigan. Anyone who doesn’t see that alone as an inheritance is the poster child for clueless.
The question in the voting booth is “Do we really want to risk the future of this country on a leader who makes his assessment of situations on such a fairy dust view of the world?” That’s the same sort of thinking that got us into a war with Iraq to get rid of WMD that didn’t exist and lowered taxes on the notion that it would increase growth and revenues. It’s even worse than that.
Romney is a panderer. We knew that about him already. Larry – how would you report this as “unbiased reportage”? I’m guessing you wouldnt report it at all. Or, alternatively you could report what he meant to say?
The irony about the Romney gaffe is that his father, the family of George Romney,’s was on relief, welfare when they came to this country. There is a tape on youtube where his mother Lenore mentions this. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DgB3WASwXA
In other words, Mitt Romney is denying the lessons of his own family history.
His father benefited from welfare, was given an opportunity, the fruits of which Mitt built on. Now he is disdainful and disparaging of people today who find themselves in the same position as his father’s family many years ago.
George Nagle – Excellent and insightful post. Perhaps the Republican Party needs its own version of Bill Clinton, someone who can bring the party back toward the center.
Peter: unbiased reporting to Larry means reporting that’s uncritical of conservatives and critical of liberals. I mean, he wasn’t sniveling about the mythical liberal media when the ‘you didn’t build that’ flap erupted.
“Nice work, Brian. You, and the rest of the liberal, soi-disant “media” have nearly completed the Romney character assassination…”
Larry, no one needs to assassinate Romney’s character– he’s doing a fine job on his own.
“Either that, or the party would become more and more marginal.”
George I agree with some of your comments but describing a party that basically has about the same percentage of the electorate as the democratic party is hardly “marginal”? In fact you could argue that it is quite impressive how much support the republican party has despite all their missteps.
A landslide might have some of the effect that you describe but there isn’t going to be a landslide. Many, many people dislike the other guy as well. Both candidates have said some petty dumb things as well.
I think Saturday Night Live said it well this past weekend. When the Obama character said “so there you have it a clear choice stick with what is barely working, or go with THAT guy (they had the Romney character making these hilarious gaffes).” There are low points in history where we just don’t have any good choices. That may be where we are this time, and that is just a reality of our electoral system.
What I don’t get is that nobody, apparently, here or in the outside the Inbox world, seems to be reporting Romeny’s apparent conflation of the “47%.” In one sentence he seems to be talking about the 47% of voters who have decided for Obama. Then he says all of us are dependent on government aid, and don’t pay any income tax, expect to be taken care of, etc.
I worked 45 years, and still work part-time, my wife works, we were never on welfare (unless you count WICK food we got when we were pretty poor, but working, and had a new baby to feed), we paid over $10,000 in income Federal income tax last year. And we will happily vote against Romney on Nov. 6th. I suspect a big chunk of that 47% is alot like us.
If he counts the 47% who don’t pay income tax, etc.,those include a lot of (self-deluded) Romney voters.
I just don’t get his math, and why no one has pointed it out.
I think he’s confused.
Jon Stewart did a pretty good job, Newt:
Stealing a line I read yesterday:
The only way Obama could lose now is if he killed a puppy on prime-time TV and named next Tuesday Fidel Castro Appreciation Day.
I listened to an interview with Larry Sabado this morning and I believe he identified what I believe is true.
The Democrats are mostly Liberals and the Republicans are mostly Conservative. Obvious. Yet, we are not the “united” states. We have become more and more polarized with our ideologies.
I want to take it a step further. Setting aside the economy, foreign policy, immigration, health care, etc., I believe we are really more socially driven.
Liberals want social progress in the form of abortion, gay marriage, health care, welfare, etc.
Conservatives want to pull back the reigns on these things.
And that is what makes us loyal to one camp or the other. And it makes us crazy. That’s why we cannot have a common sense approach in remedying our problems since we will never see eye to eye on these things.
In scanning the news this morning I think that there is a chance that democratic supporters could overplay the hand that Romney has dealt them here. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
erb, even then he wouldn’t lose.
That’s because everything he does is worshiped by our idol worshiping society.
History has shown people will throw away truth for a lie. We are not above being deceived. And if people are unwilling to appropriate common sense, they will likely follow anyone – no matter what they do.
The weird thing is I like Romney better in his more candid moments. I can’t stand his stump message or at least messaging. I realize the does not sound like a political leader, he sounds like a corporate PR guy trying to say nothing.
I heard a one on one interview with him a couple of weeks ago and he sounded introspective and thoughtful I didn’t know who it was at first. It was a good interview.
I read an article (on npr?) or CNN, (New Yorker?), anyway it made the point that unlike the other people that were in this race, Romney came to politics after being a businessperson, his formation is not as a political leader but a fixer, a manager a person who solves business problems and then explains them. He sees his goal as getting elected so that he can take on the management challenge of the Presidency.
If he loses, which I think is likely, the future will be very interesting. Because what are the conservatives the tea party people going to say?
I feel a bit bad for JDM and Larry. I remember how I felt when Bush was re-elected.
Geez, Kathy, I do not worship Barrack Obama, and I don’t know anyone who does.
And “Liberals want social progress in the form of abortion, gay marriage, health care, welfare, etc.”
Gimme a break! …and we want to invest money in education and infrastructure and jobs programs and we want to rein in corporate subsidies and corrupt business and banking practices.
Conservatives just want to cut taxes and shrink government till they can drag it into the bathtub and drown it. Oh, except they want a huge military with which they can attack the weaker corners of the planet. Oh yeah, and they want to get government off the back of big business, but they want to put it into everybody’s bedroom.
Walker and Kathy you sound like the dueling extremists!
PNElba, you make a good comment. My wife was ready to move to Canada when Bush was re-elected. I felt terrible for her. She would take an Obama defeat much harder than I will take it when Romney loses. Partially that is because some people have unrealistic expectations of what the government is capable of doing.
Hey Paul, at least I didn’t accuse anyone of worshiping Mitt Romney.
GWB showed clearly enough what the government is capable of doing and the thought of a return to that direction horrifies me.
And… Walker, the Democrats and/or Liberals want to follow Obama’s “prosperity is shared” agenda. The Republicans and/or Conservatives want to follow Romney’s create an environment for individuals to be successful in a capitalistic society.
Two completely different views driving both camps.
I read the Inbox alot, but rarely comment. Kathy’s “idol worship” post spurred me on this time.
I would like to see a lower deficit, and keep seeing it decrease. I would like everyone, and I mean everyone to face that Social Security, Medicare, and health care are on unsustainable track and AS A COUNTRY we need to find solutions that don’t include scaring everyone (ie death panels or Mediscare tactics).
I would like all parties to acknowledge that governance is completely different than politics. Politics is about winning the game. Governance is about being on a team where everyone has a position to play in order to be successful. Government can benefit from applying some principles of business such as standards of accountability and efficiency but, some parts of government have to be done no matter what – unlike an unprofitable product line which a company can eliminate, some things just have to be done. I am pretty proud of my country and think we are a pretty special people. However, just like I can’t stand people who can never admit they are wrong, I can’t stand it when people refuse to accept that as a country we have made mistakes. Best thing in either situation is to admit you are wrong and strive to do better the next time. The first step is always to own your mistakes.
I’d like to think that a rational, humane approach can solve most problems. That includes acknowledging basic scientific facts. You most likely see a Dr. occasionally, and don’t usually visit the witch doctor for that heart bypass. I’d venture you’re relying on that Dr. to have a background that included accepted scientific facts.
I’m an Obama supporter because I think he gets closest to what I envision my country to be. Sure he hasn’t done everything I’d hoped, but I can’t name a president who has.
Worship is probably not a good word but anyone who thinks that president Obama does not (or at least did) have rock star status in some circles is fooling themselves. That is why I think he has been such a disappointment to some people on the far left, they had unrealistic expectations. The far right (or maybe any of the right) certainly does not consider Romney to be a rock star.
I will echo the sentiment that I do not “worship” Obama. I would have preferred Hilary and was disappointed that Obama backed away from supporting a single payer health plan, Medicare for all approach. I was also disappointed that he didn’t federalize the failed mega-banks, break them up and sell them off ‘small enough to fail without crashing the economy’.
I will vote for Obama again because he is a thinking, rational leader as opposed to a pandering opportunist whose view of the electorate is guided by his (dare I use the word?) prejudices. I also prefer a leader who will put limits on rampant abuse of consumers and the environment but will stay out of my personal relationships. It’s not that I ‘want’ things like abortion and gay marriage. Rather those are areas I don’t think the government should be regulating. Remember that this country was founded to protect life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in there did they mention profits. In fact the draft version said life, liberty and property but they changed it. Lately I feel like the Republican party wishes they could drop the liberty part altogether and put “property” back in place of the pursuit of happiness.
Kathy is sort of right. The left believes that one succeeds or fails within a society. The right believes that one does so apart from it.
No matter how individualistic one fancies him/herself, one gets one’s goods to market (or the customers get to one’s store) via government-maintained roads where chaos doesn’t (usually) reign thanks to government rules of the road… those goods often then end up in public ports. One gets most of one’s employees from public schools. One doesn’t get one’s shop windows broken into thanks to government-run police. If one’s shop catches fire, one calls the government-funded or –run fire department. One doesn’t get conquered by communists bent on seizing one’s business thanks to the government military. Oh and by the way, we’re having this debate on a PUBLIC radio website via the Internet, which was created and nurtured in its profit-free early years by… the government.
If you think you’re that rugged, move to government-free Somalia for six months. Then you’ll see how “individualistic” you really are.
Pandering is not good, taking hold of a god opportunity is what built this country to where it is. So I hope our president (whoever he or she is) is opportunistic.
“Two completely different views driving both camps.”
Kathy not really. You can create the environment for success and share in that success??
Paul – hopefully you mean a good opportunity.
I would like to see a lower deficit, and keep seeing it decrease.
Weren’t we on that track back in 2000? Whatever happened? Unpaid for wars, drug benefits, tax cuts, and a crashing of a financial house of cards.
I’ve have always known the media is very biased toward the left but it has never been more apparent than this year. My guess is because the election is so close and Obama needs all the help he can get, the media is coming to his rescue. I guess in a very close race it will make a difference in some of the undecided voters.
Turns out James Carter IV was instrumental in obtaining the Boca moment YouTube video. Ironic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-a-mother-jones-reporter-pursued-the-romney-47-percent-story/2012/09/18/c6dc17e8-01d1-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_story.html?hpid=z1
Paul – hopefully you mean a good opportunity.
Yes, thanks for the correction. I should be careful not to make that mistake on this blog!
Some might call it sweet revenge for some of the things said about his grandfather.
For all the bad things that are said about Jimmy Carter you have to admire the mans tenacity.
He could have easily crawled into a hole after his presidency but he picked himself up dusted himself off and really tried to make a difference in the world. No matter your political inclination you have to respect that in a person. Carter may have been a bad president but the man has character.
Carter was an unlucky president.
Obama also failed to take strong legal action against any but a tiny few of the perpetrators of the financial meltdown, establishing a disgusting precedent for future financier-thugs.
For this, alone, I will always despise him, not worship him. But Obama is immeasurably better than his opposition in 2008 (clueless John McCain, whose main economic adviser was former Senator Phil Gramm, one of the top 10 or so deemed most responsible for the crashwww.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877330,00.html), or this year’s model, Mitt (needs no further introduction) Romney.
Those Americans who actually oppose free enterprise capitalism could all fit comfortably into the Harrietstown hall, and without even opening the balcony seats.
Obama, and is supporters, just want a capitalism that works for all the people, not a tiny, slimy, privileged fraction.
This is too great not to share.
The House passed a bill allowing “the rich” to pay more taxes than they have to.
Hahahahahahaha. Come on Buffet. Put your money where your blabber mouth is. Pay the same rate as your secretary or shut up.
——-
If Warren Buffett and others like him truly feel they’re not paying enough in taxes, they can use the Buffett Rule Act to put their money where their mouth is and voluntarily send in more to pay down the national debt
Read more: House passes new Buffett Rule – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/19/house-passes-new-buffett-rule/#ixzz26xE4HkDq
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
and like Obama says in his speeches,
“there are some of us umm who make enough to be in ummm the higher tax bracket. We ummm should ummm be paying more ummm than some of you.”
Ok, Obama. Let’s see you honor your ummm words.
I was trying to frame my response to the liberal tsunami on this blog but then I read the comment “Jimmy Carter was an unlucky president” and it kind of took my breath away. I don’t know what’s worse, nonsensical excuse making 40 years in arrears, BS from a guy who can’t even spell Barack Obama or the comments of an imbecile who corrects my language and speaks about what I think as if he actually knows what I’m talking about. There wasn’t any serious reporting of fact in the original blog post and there’s precious little in the comments. And let’s not forget the guy who called Romney a “panderer” and asked how I would report that “fact”. If he’s actually a sexual procurer that’s a fact. If you think he appeals to the electorate’s base desires, that’s an opinion. The inability to discern the differene is truly shocking. The whining from the left would be more tolerable if was more fact-based than opinion driven.
All you inboxers who want higher taxes, consider your taxes raised.
Just check the box and make a contribution and leave the rest of us alone.
OK, Larry, here’s some facts for you:
Please stick to facts in your response. Thanks.
larry, have you ever linked to anything when commenting here? do you seriously want to put yourself up against someone like walker?
If Newt were the GOP candidate I think this would be more fun. Lets face it even the Liberals have a hard time generating passion to oppose Romney.
OK, Walker, no argument on your facts. What’s the point? Reciting a few facts now and then mitigates the character assassination blog posts or the opinion-based Obama love fest commentary? All the crap is still out there. You can’t un-ring a bell.
Hermit,
I didn’t realize this blog was a clipping service – I thought it was a place to discuss fact-based news reporting. I never saw myself as “up against” anyone, including Walker or you. Is it meant to be a contest? I’m game.
Where is the attack from Romney? He should be pounding this guy with one liners, I would be talking about Jimmy Carter a LOT, I know Gingrich would have, the food stamp president resonated, because its true on the facts, under his watch poverty and food stamps have grown more than any president in the past 30 years, well probably since his political twin, Jimmy Carter. That is where Mitt needs to be going. instead he is out rambling about Libya, stumbling about talking about how he does not care about half of the electorate. Come on.