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
Pandering is the act of expressing one’s views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal. The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is verbally expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one’s personal values.
From Wikipedia
Larry – I was giving Romney the benefit of the doubt.
The tea party may have been right about this candidate, they might as well have thrown up an ultra conservative that could generate some passion.
“Romney is a panderer. We knew that about him already.”
What benefit? What doubt? Your statement becomes more incredible every time I read it.
Larry, you’re the one who asked for facts: ” There wasn’t any serious reporting of fact in the original blog post and there’s precious little in the comments… The whining from the left would be more tolerable if was more fact-based than opinion driven.”
So “character assassination” isn’t really character assassination if it’s based on facts, right? And Romney did imply that Obama was to blame for the increase in the number of citizens not paying taxes: thus the facts I put up in my last post.
And my September 19, 2012 at 11:58 am post quoting Jon Stewart was basically a factual rundown of Romney’s remarks. (I regret not having chosen a more serious source, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to find substantial errors of fact in his piece.)
Peter makes a good point. Politicians by nature pander. It is part of representative government. You govern based on what the majority of your constituents support, even if you are personally opposed to it. At least if you are doing a good job that is how it works. I hope that the next president keeps that in mind especially if he is a lame duck. The presidents remarks with Vladimir Putin about how he will be more “flexible”in a second term make me somewhat nervous.
Dale, maybe you should start moderating these blogs. I doubt that is possible but why not go in and delete the personal attacks and profanity. The lack of that stuff was a positive for this blog. Seems to be deteriorating lately. Must be the home stretch has folks acting kooky.
It doesn’t bother me but I think it has driven away a few contributors. Hopefully not.
Dale, please remove the last sentence of the second paragraph of my 11:58 am post linked above– I meant to remove that before posting. My apologies. I don’t think that there is anything else objectionable in that post.
Wow, how’s that for action? I ask for facts and Walker delivers. I wish it were that simple.
Paul, looking back, I don’t see much in the way of personal attacks on this thread, with the exception of Larry’s 5:46 pm post where he calls someone an imbecile. If there are others, I missed them. Who do you think has been driven away?
And Larry, if you read through this, I think you’ll find a substantial amount of factual content. And since this is a blog, I would think that opinion is appropriate.
Yeah (sigh).
Mr Romney did have a valid point, tho not well stated, in his “47 per cent” comments. Even those who did not pay income taxes (the 47 per cent), they still paid gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes on phone bills, taxes on beer, tobacco and liquor, Social Security-self employment and Medicare taxes, and other taxes which went to federal, state and local government. They just may happen not to pay income taxes. What did Leona Helmsley say? Taxes are for little people…..
For a number of non-wage earning people, paying income taxes is a matter of structuring your income into tax free investments, capital gains, deferrals, deposits into IRAs, and a wise use of income tax credits. The deductions, and credits, have been created over a period of years with bipartisan support. A reform of the income tax code is due and that is the intellectual point that Mr. Romney should be given credit for stating.
But Phillip, that doesn’t appear to be the point he was trying to make– he appears to be writing off the 47% as people who take no responsibility for their lives, and who will never vote for him. Even in his later attempts to clarify what he meant, he refers only to getting people out of the 47% by getting them to earn more, implying that he thinks the reason people are there is because they aren’t working hard enough. As many have noted, he’s conflating retired people living on Social Security and savings with those who won’t take responsibility for their own lives. If you listen to what he actually said, it seems clear that he is simply writing off the 47% as hopeless.
Well plus conflating all of the corporations who don’t pay any corporate income taxes.
He does not know who his market is. I think an interesting analysis would be how many people in that 47% who did not pay income taxes actually voted for Bush?
I think the answer is quite a few.
The whole Republicans rich Democrats poor narrative really is not that strong anymore, check out the thread on Santorum. Today who is wealthy? Smart people and people who inherited wealth from their families those are the wealthy. So if Santorum is ceding the smart people and Mitt is ceding the half of people who are not wealthy, who IS left for the Republicans?
All I know is that if I had just paid $50,000 to sit and watch that performance I would have been very disappointed. And those people weren’t spending $50,000 because they are stupid.
People who have the kind of money that they can afford to drop what is a pretty good year’s wage (before taxes) on a campaign donation tend not to hang out with people who struggle to put food on the table, and still be able to afford to pay the rent, make the car payments, keep up with the utility bills and the insurance payments, school and property taxes and hope and pray that they don’t get sick because they don’t get paid sick days at work.
Romney seems to feel that about half of us are afflicted with Sloth and Envy. And there may be some of that. But there are worse things, things like Disdain for those who work hard but can’t manage the degree of success that allows a person to ask for $50,000 so that he can be President. Like Hubris. And then there is Greed and there is Gluttony. How much more does a person need? A person who can give a donation of $50,000 or a $million or $10 million, what is it they are trying to buy?
I stand by the imbecile characterization. How else could you possibly describe someone who actually thinks he knows what someone else is thinking? When I think about the sniveling comment, I think I may even have been somewhat generous in my characterization. I do not snivel. So here’s the real question: What’s worse, calling someone an imbecile, a panderer or a prick?
They’re all unnecessary, Larry. But yours was the only offensive term directed at a fellow commenter.
Kathy, regarding your idea that liberals worship Obama:
Early in the responses to this post, George Nagle wrote
The response, from the liberal-leaning community that follow this blog? Twenty-three thumbs up, and two thumbs down.
People who have the kind of money that they can afford to drop what is a pretty good year’s wage (before taxes) on a campaign donation tend not to hang out with people who struggle to put food on the table …
Very good point.
There are people who have been fortunate in gaining their wealth and/or success. We tend to superimpose our experience on others – that if you work hard the system will reward you and you, too, can be as successful like me.
That’s not always the case.
Where I think the Democrats are weak in wanting to redistribute the wealth (causing a percentage of the population to expect it), the Republicans are weak in expecting every hard working person to be wealthy or successful because of capitalism.
How can we bridge the gap and meet in the middle? I don’t think we can. We can’t make everything fair. The solution lies in neighbor helping neighbor. But even that concept is a far reach nowadays and more government is only going to lessen us helping each other. But less government may allow for the concept to kick in.
Walker, my take on Nagle’s post is he was willing to speak the truth about Obama, too. The truth has a way of slapping us in the face and waking us up.
The 23 “thumbs up” tells me what I have always found to be true. The truth wades through all the muddled thinking; placing a demand on us to respond to it.
Point being, it doesn’t sway me. Perhaps the Obama worshipers are not on this forum. But they are out there. Mostly in Hollywood. And then those who worship the celebrities follow suit.
Kathy, I think there is a way to bridge the gap. It involves listening to each other and thinking about each other’s ideas.
Let’s consider the idea of neighbor helping neighbor. It sounds great in the abstract and there was a time in this country, not too long ago, when the richest guy in town lived within a few blocks of the poorer people in town. But the way things are today the rich tend to live in enclaves of other rich people and they have little interaction with poorer people on an equal footing.
I heard Russell Banks talk about this once. To paraphrase, he was talking to a wealthy neighbor who told Banks that the neighbor had several friends in the community – ordinary locals who he talked to regularly. Banks asked him if any of those locals were people he didn’t pay for services of one kind or another, not his caretaker, or house cleaner, or landscaper or the farmer he was buying from at the farmer’s market. Money makes a difference in a relationship.
I’ve been on jobs, doing an installation at a customer’s “camp”, places on lakes designed by renowned architects that cost a million dollars or more to build, and had the customer complain to me that the property taxes were too high, that the “locals” were trying to finance the whole school system on his back. I’ve been involved in this sort of conversation more than once, and I’ve been tempted to walk off the job – but by the time I’m doing an installation I’ve got a week or more in on the job, materials expenses and overhead to cover.
But I’m getting side-tracked. The best way for neighbor to help neighbor is to pool resources and have a committee that can assess real need vs available resources and has a way to judge people who may be working the system. And
that is what we call “government”.
Kathy, would you also grant that there are also millions of “wealth worshippers” out there, people who mindlessly glorify, and often politically support , anyone who has lots and lots of money, regardless of how they got it? I’m pretty sure there are, and I’m pretty sure they mostly are in the same party as many more spiritually-driven people like you are.
Strongest evidence of this is not support for Romney, who apparently nobody outside of his family worships, but the boomlet a while back for the odious birther-blingster Donald Trump. Trump had something like 30% Republican support for a candicacy while when using the possibility to gin-up publicty for his reality TV show.
Does sharing political preferences with people like these bother you at all? I’m serious.
What does it mean to live in a truly democratic society? I submit that it means every member of that society must be an equal. But human nature gets in the way of having a truly democratic mindset.
If my neighbor is a farmer and has a bad crop maybe I decide to buy food to feed his family for the winter. I don’t do that because I feel superior to him but because he has a need and his family has a need and I have the ability to help.
But every time I pass his farm I see him and notice the things he is doing, and sometimes he is just out there sitting in the sun. So I start to wonder why he isn’t working harder. I start to feel superior. I start to think that he is beholden to me. Then he puts a sign in his yard supporting a politician that I disagree with and I get pretty steamed. How is it he could insult me so?
Or what if it were the other way? What if I had no work and my neighbor gave me food to getme through the winter? And I certainly feel grateful. But then he starts asking me to do things for him – things I would have done for him anyway because we’re neighbors. But now the relationship is different and I after the second or third favor he asks I start to wonder “is he taking advantage of me?”
And maybe he’s thinking “KHL probably wants to pay me back for my kindness so I’ll find some things for KHL to do to maintain some dignity in our relationship.”
It is very hard to maintain a sense of equality in a democracy.
When a neighbor truly helps a neighbor, it is an example where one is spending one’s own money on someone else.
Value matters, and quality matters.
When people “pool” their money, and create a “government” or “committee”, that group spends someone else’s money on someone else.
Value doesn’t matter, because it’s not their money.
Quality doesn’t matter, because they’re getting it for someone to use.
The best “good neighbor” policy is where a “good neighbor” does their best with their own money to help someone else.
JDM, did you go to a public school? A state college or university? If there had been no public schools, could your parents have afforded to send you to private schools?
Would we be a better, stronger country if all of the people who couldn’t afford to attend private schools and colleges went without education? Would it be good for business? Do you really believe that taxpayers don’t care about the quality of the public education that they pay for?
And do you honestly believe that if all government programs for the poor were discontinued, people wouldn’t die of starvation and of easily treated diseases? Would it make us a better nation if they did?
The best way for neighbor to help neighbor is to pool resources and have a committee that can assess real need vs available resources and has a way to judge people who may be working the system. And
that is what we call “government”.
If pooling resources means money, then you are legislating something and there goes our free society. You can’t make people share.
If you are talking about pooling ideas and there is oversight of who is working the system, then I’m for that. On a local level, it is manageable.
I don’t normally ask you to check out a video. But I think anyone interested in this conversation would get a kick out of this video. Brian Mann, I think you will get a kick out of this also. From the New York Times site:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/the-gregory-brothers-political-video-game.html?_r=1
The text is good also.
Kathy, would you also grant that there are also millions of “wealth worshippers” out there, people who mindlessly glorify, and often politically support , anyone who has lots and lots of money, regardless of how they got it? Yes.
Does sharing political preferences with people like these bother you at all? I’m serious. Of course.
Bottom line is both parties have their faults.
However, I am talking about a person</i< who has the charm and appeal of a celebrity and seems to cater to the social needs/wants of his followers.
Oops too much coffee – only “person” should have been in italics.
KHL, the examples you’ve given are excellent. But it could work the other way, too, where people begin to take on a real concern for their neighbor.
Giving has a way of making you feel good. It also has the ability to not expect anything in return. It’s a principle that works.
There will always be the down-sides but I think in most cases, giving will win most of the time.
Kathy-
person</i< who has the charm and appeal of a celebrity and seems to cater to the social needs/wants of his followers.
Like Trump. People who admire him frankly give me the creeps.
But there are certainly folks like this in both parties. John Edwards, problably the most morally compromised of any candidate in either party in recent memory (well, tie with Gringrich), was a serious contender for the Dem nomination in 2008, largely because of his charm and cuteness, I'm sure. A factor for Obama's success, but not nearly what many would like to believe. I supported him mainly because he created a campaign that beat Hilary, showing managerial and political skill that would transfer into governing success. Also, because he could write, and I'm a sucker for pols who write their own stuff.
“If pooling resources means money, then you are legislating something and there goes our free society.”
Kathy, you seem to be saying that the existence of roads and bridges built at public expense have destroyed our free society. You know, they built roads at public expense back in the days you admire so much.
And then there’s the military.
I think if you look deep down inside, you’ll have to admit that it’s not spending of public money that galls you, it’s the spending of public money on things you deem unworthy. That applies to all of us, only we differ over what we think it should be spent on. But in and of itself, it clearly does not destroy “our free society.”
I saw the presidents comments of David Letterman. I found it troubling that he did not know what the US debt was when Letterman asked him. I also did not like to hear him say that these are not issues that are a problem in the “short term”. I hope that does not mean that he plans to do nothing about this in his next term if re-elected. Why even have these “commissions” if the plan is to just keep steering the ship toward the iceberg?
Walker, stop spinning this! : )
Seriously, I don’t place your list in the same category of pooling money (redistributing the wealth).
We already pool our money in the form of taxes and I have no problem helping people who need it.
I think KHL was talking about pooling our ideas for the oversight of those who work the system (and help them).
Walker: You seem to be confusing reasonable government with the out-of-control mess that we call government.
Food stamp use has grown because eligibility has been expanded (thanks to lobbying from the agrobusiness industry who benefits).
Paul – I think the question on Letterman was did the President know what the national debt was when he took office in 2009.
According to the Dept. of Treasury, when Jimmy Carter left office the National debt was $1 Trillion. Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 1.9 trillion, George H.W. Bush, by1.5 Trillion, Bill Clinton by 1.4 Trillion George W. Bush by 6.1 trillion. The national debt has increased under Obama 2.4 trillion. Of the 13.2 trillion added to the national debt since 1981 9.5 trillion was under Republican administrations and 3.8 trillion under Democratic administrations.
To answer the Letterman question, the national debt was 11.8 trillion when President Obama took office.
Just to clarify, the National Debt right now is $14T. According to the Dept. of Treasury figures the national debt more than doubled during the “W” years.
dbw, no, he asked him what the debt was now and he said “I don’t know specifically”. Now I don’t expect him to know it to the penny but he should be able to answer like you did above – 14T. I am not talking about who is to blame.
Actually the current national debt is 16T.
dbw, I also don’t think your numbers are correct:
“(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.”
Like I said, I don’t really care about these kinds of comparisons but I don’t think what you said is correct.
As I said I was using a Dept. of Treasury chart, but am not sure of the date. We would have to dig a little deeper, how much of the increase in national debt is attributable to the programs and policies started by this President. For example, if the Drug Prescription Program from the Bush years is still generating red ink that could be adding the national debt for years to come.
Hi guys –
One last thought. I first saw this video referenced on HuffPost today, and I have to agree with the basic premise of the article:
It’s a sign of how bumbly Romney’s campaign has been that this short film has only been seen 145,000 times.
http://youtu.be/jH-aoJ7BNIM
If Romney had made his campaign look like this, Obama would be in big trouble.
–Brian, NCPR
What Larry and JDM said.
The first campaign staffer jumps ship:
Pawlenty Departs Romney Campaign
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty has stepped down as the national co-chair of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to take a job as chief executive at a Washington lobbying firm, it was reported on Thursday. The onetime presidential candidate will take the job at Financial Services Roundtable following the retirement of Tim Wilson. “Few industries have more impact on the entire economy—and on the lives of average Americans—than financial services,” said Pawlenty in an announcement regarding his prestigious new gig. The top job at Financial Services Roundtable is considered among the most desirable—and most lucrative—jobs in Washington, and Pawlenty could stand to make as much as $1.8 million a year in salary.
Read it at The Hill
Yes, helping a neighbor is usually an expression of the generosity of spirit. But will you admit that sometime the act of generosity can turn into other, less positive emotions? On both sides?
What is your belief on the core nature of civil society?
Now THAT’s why you run for President! I always wondered why these long shots spend the money to run for President and the time and effort etc, personal marketing that’s why. Would Pawlenty have gotten that job without running for President and then taking on Romney’s campaign?
I have wondered why Romney would run for president, or a Kennedy, or the like? Not for the money that’s for sure. And maybe not for the power, as this president has learned you really don’t have that much power.
Knuck, I forgot to comment on this one and just saw it again:
“I’ve been on jobs, doing an installation at a customer’s “camp”, places on lakes designed by renowned architects that cost a million dollars or more to build, and had the customer complain to me that the property taxes were too high, that the “locals” were trying to finance the whole school system on his back. I’ve been involved in this sort of conversation more than once, and I’ve been tempted to walk off the job – but by the time I’m doing an installation I’ve got a week or more in on the job, materials expenses and overhead to cover.”
Thought it was interesting, who cares if it is a sidetrack.
First, I am surprised that you would even consider not taking a job just because a client made some comments like that that you didn’t like! Hey, I guess if you can afford to make those kind of judgment calls go for it.
But the comment is actually true despite the way it was said and the fact that the person is annoyed about the circumstances. I own “second home” property up there and I , like most everyone who lives up there full or part time (with a few exceptions like you and some others), think that property taxes are way high. And yes we are all financing the school systems “on our backs”. I happen to have family there and many nieces and nephews and friends kids who go to school there so I don’t feel quite the same as that guy you are describing. But without him (or her) and others we all would be paying considerably more in taxes. This is exactly the shared burden that has been described here. What that area needs like all of NYS and many places is more economic activity and then we wouldn’t have these problems. So I am glad you bit your lip and kept the job!
Romney is running to help the 1%. It’s as simple as that.
Scratchy, you’re dead right. And he is solidly in the 1%.
Paul, he may not be in it for the job’s salaray, but hey, what would be the cash value to him personally if he can push through more tax cuts for the rich? And then there’s those fat speaking fees ex-presidents can command. And the lifetime of gold-plated health insurance. I’m sure there’s more that I’m unaware of, but the value of forestalling a tax increase on the wealthy– priceless!