By any measurement, Obama should be sinking like a stone as it becomes more and more evident how over his head he is as a president and the dangers his incompetency has wrought. However, Romney keeps throwing Obama a life preserver with comments that could not be better suited for the press and media sharks constantly circling his campaign canoe.
Though Romney's honesty is refreshing it is ill suited for the guile type campaign Obama is running.
From a vote gathering standpoint Romney is correct. His message will never resonate with a certain number of voters. That is not to say Romney would not try and address their concerns should he become president and make a concerted effort to correct the crushing effect of government dependency policies by getting the economy turned upward. This is why candidates spend disproportionate sums of campaign money on a narrow few and many do not even visit certain states knowing it is a waste of time and resources but they cannot say it.
Yes, problems occur when politicians admit the obvious. Effective campaigning requires a degree of disingenuousness, not bluntness. "I feel your pain' is what the press and media want to hear. It is what sells and Clinton was a master at it as is Obama. Empty, soapy words, sound and fury amounting to nothing but they convey 'heartfelt compassion' and emptiness serves to protect those who spin when they fail to deliver.
Match Obama's words to his accomplishments and you have a chasm of deceit but the press and media focus on style not substance.
It is senseless to believe Romney has wide appeal among black Americans who have yet to develop independent judgement when a black candidate is running for office or, for that matter, a progressive promising the world. Savannah is a perfect example of this sad fact. We have a city manager who should never have been hired, should now be fired but being black she will be allowed to slide by and the same for the black County District Attorney whose incompetence is so evident a Federal District Court recently rendered a costly bias judgement against him. Furthermore, his failure as an administrator of a critical department in a city where crime is exceedingly high causes his own people to tragically suffer at the hands of these criminals who are also predominantly black.
Will black voters throw him out and help elect his more qualified opponent whose record of law enforcement and character are sterling? Time will tell but, to date, no prominent black has gone public in support of her campaign? That is truly sad but that is what American politics is all about in the 21st Century and this is why Obama, who should be beaten by his own words, his failed actions and utter incompetent leadership continues to ride high.
When it comes to Romney writing off half the population that is not what he has done but that is the way the press and media portray it because it makes Romney appear heartless while Obama remains the rhetorical savior. But, of course, Obama's policies have devastated those he professes to care about but again style not substance is the criteria by which the press and media judge their favored few.
While Romney is being realistic he must understand any gratuitous comment will be taken as a hammer by Obama's media and press wags.
The political structure has maneuvered our nation into a position where almost half the population is dependent upon the government for something and it would be politically dumb to expect/ask them to pay their 'fair' share (whatever that means) because only those who 'have' are expected to pay both their fair share and then more because dependency is not a matter for discussion. Dependency has become an entitlement and a way of life and the nation and those dependent are worse off for it. (See 1 and 1a below.)
---
Rabinowitz spots bias as well. (See 2 below.)
---
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Mitt Romney trashes the 47 percent
Back in February, Mitt Romney stuck his ample silver foot in his mouth when he told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” He went on to say, “We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”
Late Monday, Mother Jones released several video clips of a fundraiser where Romney (R-1 percent) tells weatlhy donors exactly what he thinks of those supporting President Obama. In one clip, he contradicts that botched expression of concern for the middle class. In fact, what the Republican presidential nominee said is reprehensible and unbecoming a man who claims to want to be president of all Americans.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
And, I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 [percent], he starts with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years.
And so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon, in some cases, emotion, whether they like the guy or not . . .
Mother Jones said it did not reveal the date of the fundraiser or its location in order to protect its source. But nothing should protect Romney from the avalanche of criticism already coming his way.
As Greg Sargent notes, “[T]he ranks of the oft-discussed 47 percent, many of whom pay no federal income taxes but do pay state and local taxes, are swelled with working class voters and seniors, and many of them are obviously Romney supporters — and hardly think of themselves as Big Government freeloaders.”
That one-minute-seven-second clip lays waste to Romney’s concern “about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.” Worse, it reveals it to be a lie. He couldn’t care less about them, it seems. That condescending clip shows a contempt for half the country that demands an explanation from Romney.
1a)Can Republicans Talk?
The first time I saw Chris Christie on television, shortly after he became governor of New Jersey, my immediate reaction was, "My Gosh! A Talking Republican!" It was almost like seeing a talking giraffe or a talking salamander.
Technically speaking, Republicans do talk, but talking is definitely not their strong suit. Nor do they seem to have put a lot of thought into what they say or how they say it. The net result is that articulate Democrats can get away with the biggest lies, without any serious rebuttal from most Republicans.
I have not heard any Republican official or candidate even try to answer a standard claim of the Democrats, that "deregulation" is the reason the housing market went haywire and brought down the economy. Therefore, according to the Democrats, Republicans who want to restore a free market are just trying to "go back to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place."
That sounds very persuasive, if you don't know the facts -- and it sounds like pure hogwash if you do.
But facts don't speak for themselves. And if we wait for the Republicans to speak, the whole country can be in big trouble.
The "deregulation" gambit is not new. It was tried out years ago, in California, when some of the most heavy-handed regulation of the electrical utility companies forced them to charge less for electricity than they had to pay to buy it. After this led to their financial collapse, and then to power failures and blackouts that outraged the public, the Democrats' response was that this was all due to -- you guessed it -- "deregulation."
It is the same story today on the national level. Federal agencies with powers of economic life and death over banks and other lenders forced these lenders to lower their lending standards. The words of the regulators themselves are a matter of public record, and they sound like something out of "Alice in Wonderland." They ought to be quoted, to give the lie to claims that "deregulation" is the reason for the housing boom and bust.
Some people think that nonsense is too silly to answer. But not answering it can just allow nonsense to prevail -- to the detriment of the whole country.
Much as I admire the approach of Congressman Paul Ryan, I cringed during one of his speeches when he said -- in just one sentence -- that none of his reforms would deny benefits to people already getting Social Security. When the truth is just a passing blip on the screen and the lies go on at great length, guess which one is likely to prevail politically.
Vulnerable people, depending on that monthly Social Security check, need to hear that you understand that they paid into Social Security for years when they were working, and that it would be unconscionable to now cheat them out of what they paid for.
Policy wonks already know that nobody in his right mind has proposed any such thing. But, if you depend on the votes of policy wonks to win elections, be prepared to lose in a landslide.
One of the biggest of the election year lies is that Republicans want to sacrifice the poor in order to have "tax cuts for the rich." That would be grossly immoral -- if it were true. Unscrambling the confusion in that argument can involve work. But if people on welfare can be expected to work, surely people running for high office can put in a little work too -- including the work of explaining in plain words what is totally false about the "tax cuts for the rich" argument.
I know it can be done because I have done it. You can see my essay on the subject on my website (www.tsowell.com) under the title "Tax Cuts."
But so long as Republicans don't seem to feel any urgency about refuting the Democrats' claim that they just want to help the rich at the expense of the poor, they are courting defeat on election day. Why lose to a lie because you didn't bother to explain the truth?
Some of the time that was spent at the Republican convention trying to "humanize" Mitt Romney could have been better spent debunking the Democrats' talking points. After all, we are not going to be voting for a Buddy-in-Chief in the White House, but for someone with some clear ideas about what this country needs -- and who is willing to share those ideas with us in plain English.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of '08
The governor's offense, as the world knows, had to do with his blast at the eye-popping apologias that had come from our Cairo embassy while mobs of the faithful were gathering to wreak havoc over a crude YouTube video insulting to Islam—apologies that Mr. Romney linked to the general inclinations of the Obama administration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of '08
The spectacle of reporters over the past week hounding Mitt Romney for speaking his mind does not come as a surprise.
After an astounding week of ardent media focus on Mitt Romney's criticism of the initial U.S. response to mob assaults on American diplomatic outposts, the furor is dying down—but it's not over by any means. Nor was the message that the furor sent a negligible one.
Condemnations of Mr. Romney had come thick and fast. He had been "crass and tone deaf," in the view of MSNBC's Chuck Todd. He had committed a "slander" against the president, according to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.
Journalists in pursuit of this story—to the exclusion of virtually all else going on—were quick to point out that denunciations of Mr. Romney were by no means limited to Democrats, that criticism came from Republican commentators too. This fact was hardly surprising—the sanctimony of the virtuous knows no political bounds.
The spectacle of those hordes of journalists in single-minded pursuit of the Romney story day after day—days that saw the killing of four Americans, embassies burned and trashed, mobs of the faithful running amok—shouldn't have been surprising either. It's the most dramatic indicator yet that in this election the pack journalism of four years ago is alive, and well, and in full cry again.
Especially wonderful to hear were all the charges about Mr. Romney's political opportunism and tone-deafness—this after three days of a Democratic convention distinguished by shameless, nonstop exploitation of the military raid that put an end to Osama bin Laden. It is impossible to imagine any other president in American history orchestrating even two minutes—much less three days—of the self-glorification and wallowing in a victory won by the nation's armed forces that was on display at the convention. If any of this orgy of boasting in the interest of a political campaign caught the attention of those commentators whose sensibilities were so offended by Mr. Romney last week, we haven't heard about it.
The governor's offense, as the world knows, had to do with his blast at the eye-popping apologias that had come from our Cairo embassy while mobs of the faithful were gathering to wreak havoc over a crude YouTube video insulting to Islam—apologies that Mr. Romney linked to the general inclinations of the Obama administration.
For this he was pilloried as having criticized the president in a time of urgent crisis. Or, as Andrea Mitchell put it Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Romney had come out with his statement when the State Department didn't know where Ambassador Chris Stevens was—"the body was missing."
At the time of Mr. Romney's initial statement, of course, no word had as yet come about Stevens's fate or those of his murdered colleagues. Which didn't prevent members of the press and pundits from proclaiming, all the rest of the week, that Mr. Romney had embarked on a political attack while the world was aflame and the president embroiled in the crisis. The same president who would, in the midst of that crisis, go tootling off to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.
By the time the presidential campaign had ended four years ago, the media's role in driving the outcome had become a fact too obvious to dispute. The impact of the journalistic horde's devotion to the Democratic candidates was clear, the evidence vivid—especially in the case of reporters transported to a state of ecstasy over candidate Obama's speeches. One New York Times reporter wrote of being so moved he could barely keep from weeping. Not for nothing did the role of the press become a news story in itself—an embarrassing one that might, serious people thought, serve as a caution during future campaigns.
In 2012 Barack Obama is no longer delivering thrilling speeches, but an unembarrassed press corps is still available, in full prosecutorial mode when it comes to coverage of the Republican challenger. If you hadn't heard the story about Mitt Romney's bullying treatment of another student during his prep-school days—1965, that is—the Washington Post had a story for you, a lengthy investigative piece. On the matter of Mr. Obama's school records, locked away and secured against investigation, the press maintains a serene incuriosity.
Mr. Obama continues to receive the benefits of a supportive media—one prone to dark suspicions about his challenger. The heavy ooze of moral superiority emanating from all the condemnations of Mr. Romney last week, all the breathless media reports on those condemnations, did not begin with something he said last week. But the moral superiority was certainly on its gaudiest display. Mr. Romney's tone was offensive, unpresidential, his critics charged.
Yet it is the president of the United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks "millionaires and billionaires." Who makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the other—the good—Americans. How's that for presidential tone?
No one could have missed the importance to Mr. Obama's campaign of the class-war themes that reverberated continually during the Democratic convention speeches. The references to "millionaires and billionaires" are by now a reliable applause line for the campaign. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm underscored the point with an address whose opening line declared, with a strange note of defiance—it wasn't the only thing strange about the speech—that the heart of America wasn't to be found in corporate board rooms.
But it is Vice President Biden who has been the most faithful purveyor of Mr. Obama's class-war theme. Earnest, affable, with a bottomless cache of wise maxims from his mother and father, the persuasive Joe Biden excels at explaining, in his accomplished infomercial tones, how the other side wants to ensnare you, the poor and the helpless. And how, I promise you, folks, Barack Obama isn't going to let them.
Mitt Romney isn't going to have an easy time defeating a president with Mr. Obama's advantages. A friendly press corps surpasses all wealth, sayeth the sages. The governor will stand a far better chance if he takes to heart the lesson of the past week, when he seems to have recognized, at last, that there are issues in addition to the economy—matters like foreign policy, Iran, America's stance in the world—that he must address. In the weeks that remain to this election, he will have to speak to those matters in depth and in unflinching terms that set him apart from his opponent. And he'll have to do it often.
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment