Associated Press
Between a rock and a hard-right place.
As recently as a few weeks ago, the conventional wisdom was that President Obama was having an awful June, and that his campaign was in deep trouble. The evidence to bolster the thesis was thin, but the political establishment was convinced that Obama's summer was off to such a horrendous start, he might not be able to recover.
These perceptions, naturally, led to quite a bit of handwringing in Democratic circles. Much of this was pointless, and Obama's poll numbers don't look much different than they did in the Spring.
Now, apparently, it's the Republicans' turn to panic.
Over the weekend, it was Rupert Murdoch leading the way, questioning Mitt Romney's staff and overall campaign strategy. Today, it's the Wall Street Journal editorial page -- arguably the nation's most pro-Republican venue in American print media -- sounding the alarm.
[T]he campaign's insular staff and strategy ... are slowly squandering an historic opportunity. Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years. But Mr. Romney hasn't been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground.
The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it's Mr. Obama's fault.... What [Americans] want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President's policies aren't working and how Mr. Romney's policies will do better. [...]
The biography that voters care about is their own, and they want to know how a candidate is going to improve their future. That means offering a larger economic narrative and vision than Mr. Romney has so far provided. It means pointing out the differences with specificity on higher taxes, government-run health care, punitive regulation, and the waste of politically-driven government spending.
As with the panic in Democratic circles in June, there doesn't seem to be any reason for Republicans to be so overcome with anxiety in early June. There's been no major shift in the polls; there have been no meaningful new scandals; there haven't been any noticeable party defections. The Journal is right to be concerned about the health care fiasco Romney and his advisors have created for themselves, but it's a stretch to think this will have a major impact on the larger race.
Still, the scathing editorial is notable for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the peek it offers into the mind of the Republican establishment at this point in the campaign.
It's interesting, for example, that the WSJ is tired of Romney's avoidance of policy specifics. As we discussed last week, a growing number of observers have noticed the Republican candidate's reluctance to talk in any kind of detail about his own agenda, but when even the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is sick of a Republican's evasiveness, it suggests Romney has pushed his luck a little too far.
As Greg Sargent explained this morning, "The GOP-aligned Journal editorial board is implicitly agreeing that one of the leading critiques of Romney -- one being made by the Obama campaign and Dems, but also by more and more media commentators -- is entirely legitimate: That he's refusing to detail his policies with any specificity to speak of on issue after issue. This goes right to the heart of the central dynamic of this race: The Romney campaign's gamble that he can edge his way to victory by making this campaign all about Obama, and that along the way, voters won't notice that he isn't meaningfully telling us what he would do if elected president. The Journal is calling this out as a non-starter. "
I was also struck by this line in the editorial: "Team Obama is now opening up a new assault on Mr. Romney as a job outsourcer with foreign bank accounts, and if the Boston boys let that one go unanswered, they ought to be fired for malpractice."
Perhaps, but what's the answer, exactly? Isn't it quite obvious that Romney really is a job outsourcer with foreign bank accounts?
It leads to a point Jon Chait raised today: "Conservatives say they want Romney to change his staff or alter his campaign tactics. But what they really want is a different candidate and a different electorate."
And so, Romney is once again stuck. He's getting slammed by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal -- and Bill Kristol -- for not being the Republican candidate of their dream, but if he were to do as they demand, he'd be soundly rejected by the American mainstream. Still, the former governor wants to do just enough to make the WSJ and Kristol satisfied, assuming that their support is key to keeping the GOP establishment on board.
The results is a candidate who, on a nearly daily basis, is an uncomfortable combination of fear, incoherence, and evasiveness, unsure of who he is, what he thinks, or what he's supposed to say in response to any given question. If Romney had a strong core that defined his character, this wouldn't be an issue.
But the Republican Party is going into the general election with the candidate they have, not the candidate they might want or wish to have under different circumstances.
Leave a Comment:
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, … to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”
George Orwell
(Courtesy of Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/07/05/george-orwell-explains-the-romney-campaign/)
Perfect . Thanks for that one .
And Willard can not state his policies as they re the same policies of the Bush Administration, which opens him up to another line of attack .
They have lived so long in the lifestyles of the Fox And Confused that they believe their own hype .
The bubble eats its own.
This isn't so much the bubble eating its own. It is just the media being lazy, lazy, lazy. Same was true a month ago.
i don't know that its the media being "lazy", but rather, being sidetracked by the "drama" of the day! But you could say that is true of Democrats also!
There is a little over four months left to determine this election. What the Democrats should have been doing is tapping into whatever "altruism" and "public activism" that still exists in this country instead of fending off every "drama of the day" being thrown at them. While it is necessary to combat some of this stuff like "Fast and Furious", it also necessary to have an overreaching policy and direction about where they are going and they need to constantly be communicating that first and foremost, and making the "drama" fit into it, and right now, I just don't see it!
What you ""don't see" exists in plain sight.
And, let's not forget where the derangement is strongest:
The most terrifying thing about 21st century Republican Party is that its members have voluntarily adopted a mental system that Orwell believed it would take a totalitarian state with all-pervasive surveillance and police power to impose upon people.
Reveal,
Perhaps you could outline it for me then?
What? No answer from anybody? If YOU Democrats don't know, how am I supposed to know? I go to the Republican websites and read about Obama. I go to the Democratic websites and read about Romney. So WHAT does the Democratic Party stand for? Or maybe it is just that you don't know what I am asking.
Here let me give you a hint:
I took these exerpts from an old platform (granted these don't usually come out until the conventions, but usually the ideas are being talked and were out there for everyone to see FAR in advance:
For those who wonder WHERE this came from:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25839#axzz1znGWy7X2
Ah, the Republican platform of 1960. Too bad the GOP of today has none of those goals or aspirations. Nor any of the rationality or sense of common good. None of the balanced approach. None of the clarity. My father's GOP had at least some points that I could agree with or, even if I disagreed, could respect. (I can't say how much of that they really believed in, nor can I say how much of anything any political party says is truthful, as opposed to being a platform for gaining power.) In fact, that platform is a lot closer to the points that today's Democratic Party -- and Obama -- supports, a result of the slippage to the right that both parties have undergone. (Or, in the GOP case, the full slide down the slippery slope into pure support of oligarchy and abdication of goals that further democracy.) Today's Democratic party is, perhaps, a bit to the right of that 1960 GOP platform.
Thanks for the walk down memory lane and the clear lesson that a lot has changed in 50 years. Scary, really.
As to your point that the Democrats don't have clear platforms, I'd say they are much more clear than the GOP rallying cries, while still lacking, in my mind, in the progressive liberalism that I'd actually like to see. They also seem unwilling to develop the politically energizing manipulative talking points designed to appeal powerfully yet subconsciously to their base. Perhaps they believe that truly thoughtful approaches to complex issues should not be distilled into prepared lines. And that, perhaps, people need not be manipulated to vote for a rational approach. I hope that this dearth of simplification is intentional and not simply a result of disorganization.
And if you want to know Obama's goals and plans, there are some pretty good reports at the White House and Obama websites. Or you could check Obama's YouTube. It's not all about Romney. Really.
Donni,
Thank you for your response. I am still going to vote for Obama ONLY because there is no way he can possibly hurt the country as much as this new brand of "Republicans" can, but I would still like to know what it is I am voting FOR!
I am also mystified that the Democratic Party isn't supporting local candidates better - is this ALL just about Obama? Haven't we learned Obama can't do it alone?
I agree with you that the Republicans aren't stating what exactly what they are going to do, but that is a concerted effort to "misinform" the public so that they can come in and do what they want - they want people to buy the "brand" instead of the cow! I would sincerely hope that the Democratic Party is not that devious.
Murdoch last week, Murdoch today, is it a panic of Republicans or Ruperts?
Steve,
I disagree. The WSJ has every reason to be concerned. Obama is winning, not by much but he is winning. The trend lines are clear, unless Romney grabs the race by the throat, Romney will politely lose. If you have invested as much as the Wall Street Journal has in hating the President, you have to be worried, really worried, especially when you watch Romney's boneheaded staff flail around seemingly leaderless. Romney can still win, but he is going to have to start doing smart things. For one, he might try demonstrating some of the qualities people look for in a President.
The Health Care “debate” is now simpler, just the way the American voter likes it. Repubs forced the game and set the rules for the SCOTUS contest, claiming Obamacare was unconstitutional. Well, what do you know? The Repubs lost - end of story. The American voter has moved on. The Repubs can say "Hey wait! Look. It's a tax!" but that wasn't the game. They just look like sore losers and Americans don’t like sore losers.
Obamacare is constitutional. Obama wins. Repubs should be very angry with Roberts, and worried about Romney.
If the WSJ wants Romney to really discuss specifics, I must say that, for once, I hope they get their wish. What will happen if Romney does start talking specifics is yet a new spate of ridiculous lies for Steve to put in the master list. Because Romney simply can't talk honestly and expect to be elected.
Almost certainly the WSJ is clamoring for yet another new focus group tested misinformation campaign that simply serves to sow confusion and not shed light on the real Republican objective and consequences of their ideas and policies. We've already seen the consequences of their ideas and policies: a worldwide Great Recession.
Gobama 2012!
Romney embraced the Ryan budget and that is what Obama can tag as Romney's economic plans. Make that stick and Romney is going to have to disavow the plan. If he says he did not agree with the plan, there is video coverage. If he disavows the Ryan budget, then he infuriates the Tea Party. The Ryan plan is the only Republican budget on the table. Box Romney and the Republicans with the Ryan budget and make them pay in November.
The Ryan budget is the ONLY budget on the table. Obama presented and was totally voted down. The Senate has not presented one. Have a Dem present a budget and then debate before the financial cliff arrives
Does anyone know the sceduel for debates? I for one can't wait for the general populace to observe the stark contrast between a man who 30 years from now will b considered a GREAT president, and a wishy_washy corporate bully, with no actual ideas for the betterment of society, but only for the lining of his pockets. When he doesn't answer the questions, it must be pressed over and over by the moderators and the president himself, that Willard has not answered the question at hand, and that an actual answer is compulsory. Anyway dates anyone?
Right here -
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
not until October .... there's a lot of BullShMitt between then and now
Here you go, Buster:
Commission on Presidential Debates:
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2012-2
I wonder if the debates will really happen. On some level Romney must know that facing off with Obama directly won't go well for him. Maybe he'll take a page out of Scott Brown's playbook and lay out some poison-pill conditions, such as:
1. Obama must wear a ball gag throughout each debate.
2. Each debate must begin with Obama setting fire to an American flag and spitting on a cross.
3. The pool of acceptable moderators are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins, and Alan West.
5. All potential audience members must swear a loyalty oath to Mitt Romney and have good throwing arms.
6. All audience members will be supplied with a wicker basket full of sharp rocks.
7. Mitt Romney will speak from behind bullet-proof glass. Obama will be naked except for boxers or briefs (his choice).
8. From time to time Obama's mic will be switched off and selections from the speeches of Adolf Hitler will be played over his statements.
9. At the end of each debate Romney will kick Obama in the bollocks.
I'm stuck on the "historic opportunity" the WSJ thinks Rmoney is squandering. What could that possibly be? To be the first white man to defeat a sitting black president? WTF?
To win a campaign by blatantly lying your way through it .
see this one - even the Brits are taking notice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chief?INTCMP=SRCH
Fixed that for you.
Unfortunately you are right . There sure as ShMitt ain't no MSM people noticing here
Remember 2008 when republicans were accusing the President of taking so much money from Wall St.?My how times have changed.Since the President turned on them and sided with the middle class,wow are they mad.So mad that they're giving all their money to one of their own compadre's, Mitt Romney.They know he will be an obedient stooge for promoting their intrest.Like for instance repealing Dodd-Frank,would'nt they love to run roughshod over the economy once again.Dodd-Frank is'nt the most perfect piece of legislation,but it must have some effect,otherwise Wall St would'nt be fighting so hard to have it repealed.We have a President that is on the side of everyday working people right now,so we do'nt need some wealthy, plastic man, stooge liar in the office,whose only purpose is to make his children and friend's wealthier.
Gobama!
The Wall Street Journal is absolutely correct!
Mittens should go all in on the fact that his economic platform is Bush's economy on steroids. They should emphasis that the only reason that the tax cuts for the wealthy did not create jobs was that they were not deep enough cuts for the 1%. Mittens should push for eliminating the 'death tax' and explain that it would be unfair that he sons not inherit all of his quarter billion. Mittens should push for eliminating capital gains and explain that it is unfair that he has to pay all of a 15% tax rate on his income. After all, all good republicans understand that the only fair taxes are those on labor and not on capital.
Fixed that for you...
Willard won the primary, beating a bunch of amateurs and grifters, burying them in ads, without having to define HIMSELF.
He's now going up against professionals that elected a Black Man President of the United States.
He thought somebody was playing with him.
NOBODY at the Prudential Building in Chicago is playing with him.
Conspiracy theory du jour -
Why do we assume Murdoch wants Obama to lose?
After all, what's bad for America is good for business over at Fox News, Murdoch's print empire (such as it is, as it includes the Wall Street Journal). Plus, while no conservative wants to admit it, Obama is better for business, which means for a meda mogul, better ad revenue.
Murdoch possibly stands to greater profit from Obama getting re-elected, even if he can never publicly say so for fear of antagonizing his audience. So the trick is to instill doubt about Romney without ever ever mentioning an endorsement for Obama...and then start hammering him again the day after Election Day.
I'm not saying it's the way it is, just saying it's the way it might be. It's also just as likely that, as Steve writes, it's too early to know ANYTHING, and Murdoch's handwringing now allows him to look prescient if/when Romney's approvals start upticking...and if they never get better, Murdoch can insist that it's because no one ever listened to him, damn it.
We know that major corporate media controls and creates the narrative to a large degree. Generally speaking the malaise and vapidity and shallowness of major media may be attributable to corporate suppression of real investigative journalism to a large degree. . We know the major media and pundits create heated contrast which they exploit for advertising dollars. We know that cable and opinion pieces and expert analysts are pieces on the corporate chessboard. We know corporate media is exploitational by nature. We also know that corporate pontificators chase each other's tails all over the chessboard in a neverending not so merry chase. Most of the political dialogue is nonconsequential in any important sense. It's fodder for the tail chasers, and we, their audience. The problem is that major corporomedia has become distinctly disattached and affected and manipulated and compromised to a French Aristocrat degree. Peggy Noonan comes to mind. haha Media is a contrived facade designed to not step on corporate sponsors toes, to pad the bottom line, and to create a quasi reality for mass consumption by we the exploited masses.
Romney as personality and career is a selfish self-centered loser and I predict that no matter how the media tries to keep this horse race watchable, Obama will win a second term.
The entire republican party has overstepped their grab for power and offer no workable solutions what so ever. They are running totally on the "We hate liberals and Obama" platform so vote for us. Their hypocrisy and blatant lies is leading to their destruction...they just continue to have a very loud megaphone but no credibility or integrity. The era of selfish greed is ending. In normal times Romney would not even be a candidate for president because he is just too embarrassing. We are so done with people like Romney who block progress for the many just to cater to the few. People are starting to get it...you'll see. Obama will win by a landslide.
It isn't that Mitt is being evasive about his program. It's that he doesn't have a program. He is totally lost when it comes to anything outside of buying and selling businesses. He has no knowledge whatsoever of foreign affairs. He knows nothing about health care. He has no experience with public education. The only thing he knows about tax policy is how to avoid paying taxes.
The man is lost at sea, dead in the water. He can't talk about his plans because he has none.
Mr. Romney is relying on all of the voter suppression laws instituted by the 2010 G.O.P. governors and the purging of voters by Mr. Scott in Florida. He is relying on the negative campaign ads funded by the G.O.P supporters in the 1%. He is relying on the daily negative propaganda from Fox News and Right-Wing radio to sell him as the G.O.P. candidate. He is also relying on the United States House of Representatives' majority and the G.O.P. United States senators to continue to thwart any kind of legislation that will help to move the country and all American citizens forward on the road to recovery. He is hoping that all of these will help to pull him across the finish line so that he can serve as the puppet for them... the Koch Brothers' Regime. Therefore, he feels that it's okay to say NOTHING!
He'll say nothing, he'll say anything, he'll say them at the same time and then disagree with himself while saying he stands by whatever he said...Romney is like a Woody Allen character.
Chris Matthews used this Woody Allen euphemism on his weekend July 8, 2012 "Chris Matthews' show in regard to a John Kerry image at NASA ... when he was campaigning for President. I posted the comment on July 5th, 2012. Matthews used the Woody Allen euphemism 3 days after I posted the Woody allen euphemism.
" If Romney had a strong core that defined his character, this wouldn't be an issue." Mr. B.
Romney's core is solid, it's also a distasteful thing to behold for far too many people thus the core must be hidden and misdirection must be SOP.
I think he actually has a dual core. One being the Romney unit itself, and the other being the mormon foundation of the Romney worldview.
Certainly the Romney priorities of greed and self preservation cleave more to the conservative perspective so he's as close to being part of the correct party as he's going to get. But in reality, Romney is a mormon before he's an r. Mitt has a variety of reasons to stay under the RADAR of serious analysis.
It's kind of impressive how much time he can spend in the open with his mouth moving, yet nothing is said, leaving mysteries for all observers, regardless of partisan stance.
There are two entities that don't have any questions about what Mitt Romney would do if he won the election. His family and his church. And his tax returns would prove to be an x-ray of his relationship with both. An x-ray that would tell too much.
I'm curious, why no news coverage from the left on the Stericycle issue and no outrage from the right to life groups? It would seem to be a great issue to press home for the Democrats. so why no coverage? By the way , I really like your show.
I'm curious, why no news coverage from the left on the Stericycle issue and no outrage from the right to life groups? It would seem to be a great issue to press home for the Democrats. so why no coverage? By the way , I really like your show.
The pols will shift more in Obama's favor once the Republicans define their party platform. It will be a drastic shift to the right that the independents will not follow. Pols are pretty much meaningless now as relatively few are following politics now - IT'S SUMMER for crying out loud! So Romney can avoid the specifics (that he himself is afraid of, let alone committed too) for now, but it will all begin to take shape around Labor Day. Then we can all sit back and watch the Tea Party et al heads explode as the extreme right positions begin to fade in the pols.