You've got to be kidding.
Now Mitt Romney has taken a little, harmless off-the-cuff remark made by President Obama Friday and tried to turn it into a big negative deal on the campaign trail.
President Obama, at a campaign appearance in Ohio on Friday, Nov. 2, heard some people boo-ing at the mention of Romney. Obama responded by saying: "Don't boo, vote....voting's the best revenge.."
Now, Romney is running a campaign commercial focusing solely on this "nothing" moment. Except Romney has attempted to transform it into a very serious matter.
In the TV ad, Romney is seen asking an audience of his supporters, "Did you see what President Obama said today? He asked his supporters to vote for revenge -- for revenge..."
The ad then shows an excerpt of Obama's remark, with just his words about "revenge" so that it's taken completely out of context. (with nothing showing Obama's response to the people supporters booing Romney's name,etc.)
Then, the camera focuses back on Romney, who says, "Instead, I ask the American people to vote for love of their country."
So, Romney uses this pitiful ad to portray himself as the "good" person with only the most noble, patriotic intentions while trying to make Obama look like a "bad man" motivated by revenge. Romney had to know that Obama was NOT really urging his supporters to vote out of revenge, but that didn't stop him. He's got no moral compass. Anything to win. He's much more of a sleazy huckster than members of the media or the public seems to think. Do you think Romney's campaign decisions and moves are motivated by his "love of country"? He'd probably try to sell you on that.
You can't tell how desparate Romney felt when he made this ad because he distorts, lies and misleads every single day.
In my view, while some might view this ad as irrelevant, I see it as a metaphor for Romney's entire campaign. He's got the media covering this lame, little negative ad as a "campaign development" without, instead, explaining how misleading and base-less the ad is or questioning how Romney could even run such an ad. Shame on the news media, including those political reporters assigned to the campaign fulltime for failing to draw attention to the mendacity of Romney's campaign remarks.
If Romney wins this election blatantly twisting events and facts like this, he surely will not deserve the victory. Win or lose, Romney has displayed "new lows" in terms of the bull he slings on the campaign trail.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
Romney is the biggest liar in presidential campaign history!
With just a few days before the 2012 presidential election, I want to go on record with this:
I believe Mitt Romney is the most dishonest of all the presidential candidates I've observed in my entire life.
I started following elections as a 12-year-old in 1968, so, that shows you how strongly I feel about Romney. I know almost all politicians lie and I admit it's hard to rank Romney below Richard Nixon, but, I do. (My impression is that Nixon did the vast majority of his lying after he was president.
Every time I watch Romney, it's hard for me to take him seriously. He just doesn't seem authentic about anything most of the time. He seems like a big phony. He lies so openly that he's almost daring voters to care. For just two recent examples: He aired a controversial advertisement in Ohio suggesting that Chrysler might move jobs to China to produce Jeeps. He was criticized by many parties, including Chrysler itself. Yet, Romney left the inaccurate ad airing.
That's Romney. He lies right out in front of everyone. In the first debate, when President Obama referrrred to his plans for a tax cut that would be given to the most wealthy, Romney denied having such a plan. Romney has spoken about the plan for months and months, but he denied it about three times to the President's face, and misled some viewers into thinking he was the "bold aggressor" in the debate, when, in fact, he was being as shifty and reckless as possible. He should've lost ground due to that lying, but, the media propelled him, citing his gains in the "horserace."
He and his running mate Paul Ryan are the most glaringly anti-choice ticket in our lifetimes; yet, Romney, in a devious, sleazy way, made a few, off-the-cuff remarks, about two weeks ago, to create confusion about his stance on abortion. Remember it? Romney said something about how, he didn't know of any abortion-related legislation out there that he felt required action on. As if to suggest, his anti-choice position wasn't as "threatening" to women. Nice try, Mitt, but, that's a bit too glaring a contradiction!
I could go on for 40 pages with Romney's lies and contradictions. He's made a false claim in the first debate that his health care plan covered pre-existing conditions when, in fact, it didn't and his staff had to correct the record afterward. That's pretty low. Seventy-million people in the audience heard the false statement but, I'm sure the correction didn't reach as many. (And the Romney camp was not pleased?)
Romney indicated very clearly he'd prefer to do away with FEMA and give that federal agency's responsibilities to state and local governments, but, then, predictably, after Sandy hit this week, Romeny first avoided press queries and then said he'd not eliminate FEMA.
Romney has repeatedly accused Obama of allowing states to weaken their rules for requiring welfare recipients to get jobs, but, the facts prove Romney's lying. Obama has, in fact, allowed states to try different approaches, but has not loosened the rules regarding work.
For many months, Romney has been aggressive in warning that the US must take a tougher posture toward Iran. He's sounded more hawkish than almost any national leader on this. Then, in the foreign policy debate - unbelievably - Romney "converted" on this, and said he supported Obama's sanctions and presented no concrete difference in his position to the President's.
Romney's positions on many foreign policy issues are unclear because, as Obama said, he's been "all over the map."
Romney, in the primaries, rarely mentioned his job as governor of Massachusetts. He was too busy appealing to the far right-wing side of the Republican party. Now, with only weeks before the Election, after his sudden transformation into a centrist in the first debate, Romney is raising is record as governor a lot more often. Clearly, he's trying to create an impression that he's a "centrist" and can work with Democrats, blah, blah, blah.
OK, I'll stop here. I challenge anyone reading this: Think slowly about all the candidates who have campaigned in past presidential elections on either side. Did anyone but Romney behave like a "super-chameleon" by switching so often that one can't track him? Anyone else make the term "flip-flopper" seem way, way too mild a term for the frequency of shifting? Anyone else who couldn't even do "small" things in a natural, authentic way? ("Binders full of women..") For example, Romney's lame attempt to put on an event this week in Ohio to help victims of Hurricane Sandy: Romney switched what was scheduled as a campaign event into a "storm relief" event and asked people to donate goods to the Red Cross without apparently doing so in a way that would be as helpful to the Red Cross. Plus, US Sen. John McCain, who attended, ended up speaking to reporters and blasting Obama's handling of the Libya tragedy. It looked like Romney was "going through the motions" at a contrived event, and, he was.
Romney has "gotten away" with releasing only two years of his income tax returns; He simply refused to release more and the press simply gave up on asking anymore or making any more fuss. Romney has gotten away with not discussing details of all his years at Bain Capital. Romney has not discussed his serious involvement with the Mormon religion and its influence on his life, views and values. No one has really prodded him on either large topic.
Now, in a highly unusual move, in the last two weeks of the campaign, Romney has refused to talk to any members of the press He's locked them out, apparently to minimize any risk of mistakes or problems. He and his camp must think that will increase his chances to win.
It's interesting. Even now, it's hard to tell why the amorphous Romney wants to be President besides just wanting the power and influence. He's been so shifty and the press has failed to make a real effort to hold him accountable for his shifts, denials and lies.
Tonight, I heard a rare, refreshing excepton to the press norm of letting Romney "off the hook" for his chronic lying. I heard the legendary Gloria Steinem, interviewed on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show, bluntly heap substantive criticisms on Romney. At the very end of her interview, Steinem said, spontaneously, "He (Romney) is the least honest, most plastic candidate I have ever seen in my life."
Right on, Gloria. Where are other public figures who know Romney is a documented, chronic liar?
No matter what the outcome on Election Day, I believe Romney is the biggest liar of all the presidential candidates I've seen in my life. I don't trust him. I hope very much that he loses, for the sake of our country.
I believe Mitt Romney is the most dishonest of all the presidential candidates I've observed in my entire life.
I started following elections as a 12-year-old in 1968, so, that shows you how strongly I feel about Romney. I know almost all politicians lie and I admit it's hard to rank Romney below Richard Nixon, but, I do. (My impression is that Nixon did the vast majority of his lying after he was president.
Every time I watch Romney, it's hard for me to take him seriously. He just doesn't seem authentic about anything most of the time. He seems like a big phony. He lies so openly that he's almost daring voters to care. For just two recent examples: He aired a controversial advertisement in Ohio suggesting that Chrysler might move jobs to China to produce Jeeps. He was criticized by many parties, including Chrysler itself. Yet, Romney left the inaccurate ad airing.
That's Romney. He lies right out in front of everyone. In the first debate, when President Obama referrrred to his plans for a tax cut that would be given to the most wealthy, Romney denied having such a plan. Romney has spoken about the plan for months and months, but he denied it about three times to the President's face, and misled some viewers into thinking he was the "bold aggressor" in the debate, when, in fact, he was being as shifty and reckless as possible. He should've lost ground due to that lying, but, the media propelled him, citing his gains in the "horserace."
He and his running mate Paul Ryan are the most glaringly anti-choice ticket in our lifetimes; yet, Romney, in a devious, sleazy way, made a few, off-the-cuff remarks, about two weeks ago, to create confusion about his stance on abortion. Remember it? Romney said something about how, he didn't know of any abortion-related legislation out there that he felt required action on. As if to suggest, his anti-choice position wasn't as "threatening" to women. Nice try, Mitt, but, that's a bit too glaring a contradiction!
I could go on for 40 pages with Romney's lies and contradictions. He's made a false claim in the first debate that his health care plan covered pre-existing conditions when, in fact, it didn't and his staff had to correct the record afterward. That's pretty low. Seventy-million people in the audience heard the false statement but, I'm sure the correction didn't reach as many. (And the Romney camp was not pleased?)
Romney indicated very clearly he'd prefer to do away with FEMA and give that federal agency's responsibilities to state and local governments, but, then, predictably, after Sandy hit this week, Romeny first avoided press queries and then said he'd not eliminate FEMA.
Romney has repeatedly accused Obama of allowing states to weaken their rules for requiring welfare recipients to get jobs, but, the facts prove Romney's lying. Obama has, in fact, allowed states to try different approaches, but has not loosened the rules regarding work.
For many months, Romney has been aggressive in warning that the US must take a tougher posture toward Iran. He's sounded more hawkish than almost any national leader on this. Then, in the foreign policy debate - unbelievably - Romney "converted" on this, and said he supported Obama's sanctions and presented no concrete difference in his position to the President's.
Romney's positions on many foreign policy issues are unclear because, as Obama said, he's been "all over the map."
Romney, in the primaries, rarely mentioned his job as governor of Massachusetts. He was too busy appealing to the far right-wing side of the Republican party. Now, with only weeks before the Election, after his sudden transformation into a centrist in the first debate, Romney is raising is record as governor a lot more often. Clearly, he's trying to create an impression that he's a "centrist" and can work with Democrats, blah, blah, blah.
OK, I'll stop here. I challenge anyone reading this: Think slowly about all the candidates who have campaigned in past presidential elections on either side. Did anyone but Romney behave like a "super-chameleon" by switching so often that one can't track him? Anyone else make the term "flip-flopper" seem way, way too mild a term for the frequency of shifting? Anyone else who couldn't even do "small" things in a natural, authentic way? ("Binders full of women..") For example, Romney's lame attempt to put on an event this week in Ohio to help victims of Hurricane Sandy: Romney switched what was scheduled as a campaign event into a "storm relief" event and asked people to donate goods to the Red Cross without apparently doing so in a way that would be as helpful to the Red Cross. Plus, US Sen. John McCain, who attended, ended up speaking to reporters and blasting Obama's handling of the Libya tragedy. It looked like Romney was "going through the motions" at a contrived event, and, he was.
Romney has "gotten away" with releasing only two years of his income tax returns; He simply refused to release more and the press simply gave up on asking anymore or making any more fuss. Romney has gotten away with not discussing details of all his years at Bain Capital. Romney has not discussed his serious involvement with the Mormon religion and its influence on his life, views and values. No one has really prodded him on either large topic.
Now, in a highly unusual move, in the last two weeks of the campaign, Romney has refused to talk to any members of the press He's locked them out, apparently to minimize any risk of mistakes or problems. He and his camp must think that will increase his chances to win.
It's interesting. Even now, it's hard to tell why the amorphous Romney wants to be President besides just wanting the power and influence. He's been so shifty and the press has failed to make a real effort to hold him accountable for his shifts, denials and lies.
Tonight, I heard a rare, refreshing excepton to the press norm of letting Romney "off the hook" for his chronic lying. I heard the legendary Gloria Steinem, interviewed on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show, bluntly heap substantive criticisms on Romney. At the very end of her interview, Steinem said, spontaneously, "He (Romney) is the least honest, most plastic candidate I have ever seen in my life."
Right on, Gloria. Where are other public figures who know Romney is a documented, chronic liar?
No matter what the outcome on Election Day, I believe Romney is the biggest liar of all the presidential candidates I've seen in my life. I don't trust him. I hope very much that he loses, for the sake of our country.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Find the Truth Outside the Regular News Section
I wrote in my last blog about how difficult it has been to find the truth in the media coverage of this 2012 presidential campaign. That has applied mostly to the mainstream news departments of television networks, local TV news, and, to a lesser, but still significant extent, to most newspapers' news sections.
That's why this has been such a big deal; You often cannot find good, substantive versions of the truth in the normal places where you would see it or look for it.
However, if one (like me, a political junkie) looks hard enough, you can find pieces of the truth in magazine articles or on newspapers' editorial pages or occasional television stories or from discussion and commentary on television interview shows. MSNBC's regular shows on weeknights from Chris Matthews' "Hardball" to Lawrence O'Donnell's "The Last Word" all regularly feature discussion and interviews that at least some of the time, attempt to get at the truth and key aspects driving the main stories on the presidential campaign. I think O'Donnell is particularly good at not only identifying overlooked angles to campaign developments, but, then, to share his original insights, opinions or arguments.
For example: try reading this terrific, timely piece by Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012.10/23/the_man_without_a_soul/print/)
Or, read about a rare guest appearance on one of the Sunday talk shows when rare guest, Andrew Sullivan, actually expressed spontaneous truths about Mitt Romney in his comments:
(http://news.yahoo.com/andrew-sullivan-mitt-romney-alien-ripped-off-mask-163618529--)
Or, try reading Paul Krugman's New York Times column that appeared the day after the first debate, when he pointed out one of Romney's enormous lies: (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?_r=0&pa)
Or, read Matt Taibbi's thorough, in-depth piece in Rolling Stone on Mitt Romney's record at
Bain Capital: (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829)
Or, for a rare, very different take on the first debate, try reading Juan Williams' opinion piece, apparently done for Fox News: (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/04/obama-didnt-lose-debate-romney-didnt-win-it...)
Or, lastly, read an article about the astonishing remark by Neil Newhuose, a Romney pollster, at the Republican National Convention, about fact-checkers: (http://www.bendbulletion.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120902/NEWSO107/2090020401...)
These are just a few examples, but, in general, seeking publications where truth-seeking and free expression of opinions is encouraged will get you on the right track.
That's why this has been such a big deal; You often cannot find good, substantive versions of the truth in the normal places where you would see it or look for it.
However, if one (like me, a political junkie) looks hard enough, you can find pieces of the truth in magazine articles or on newspapers' editorial pages or occasional television stories or from discussion and commentary on television interview shows. MSNBC's regular shows on weeknights from Chris Matthews' "Hardball" to Lawrence O'Donnell's "The Last Word" all regularly feature discussion and interviews that at least some of the time, attempt to get at the truth and key aspects driving the main stories on the presidential campaign. I think O'Donnell is particularly good at not only identifying overlooked angles to campaign developments, but, then, to share his original insights, opinions or arguments.
For example: try reading this terrific, timely piece by Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012.10/23/the_man_without_a_soul/print/)
Or, read about a rare guest appearance on one of the Sunday talk shows when rare guest, Andrew Sullivan, actually expressed spontaneous truths about Mitt Romney in his comments:
(http://news.yahoo.com/andrew-sullivan-mitt-romney-alien-ripped-off-mask-163618529--)
Or, try reading Paul Krugman's New York Times column that appeared the day after the first debate, when he pointed out one of Romney's enormous lies: (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?_r=0&pa)
Or, read Matt Taibbi's thorough, in-depth piece in Rolling Stone on Mitt Romney's record at
Bain Capital: (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829)
Or, for a rare, very different take on the first debate, try reading Juan Williams' opinion piece, apparently done for Fox News: (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/04/obama-didnt-lose-debate-romney-didnt-win-it...)
Or, lastly, read an article about the astonishing remark by Neil Newhuose, a Romney pollster, at the Republican National Convention, about fact-checkers: (http://www.bendbulletion.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120902/NEWSO107/2090020401...)
These are just a few examples, but, in general, seeking publications where truth-seeking and free expression of opinions is encouraged will get you on the right track.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
The Media Have Helped Romney Get Away with Lying
Mitt Romney's success, to this point, is living proof that the media fail to cover presidential campaigns adequately anymore.
Romney has been telling enormous lies - "whoppers" - right in nationally televised debates, and, the media have, largely failed to identify them and put them in the context they deserve. I'll cite a most recent example: In the last presidential debate on foreign policy, Romney criticized President Obama
for going on "an apology tour" to different countries early in his presidency. It was a line Romney used frequently during the Republican primaries. It was a lie. Obama never went on a trip "apologizing" to countries. (He made a speech or two when he acknowledged the United States, in the past, had made some mistakes). So, the day after this Oct. 22nd debate, did the media play up Romney's repeating a lie he had used all year? No. It got mentioned briefly on a few TV talk shows, but the point is Romney has never really been held accountable for characterizing the President's actions in a completely false way. Of course, Romney has made numerous false statements in just the past few weeks. I could write 15 blogs about that topic alone, but, right now I want to focus on just one aspect of this that has been overlooked: Romney is the perfect candidate for today's media covering the election.
Why? Today's entertainment-driven news media pay less and less attention to seeking and identifying the truth than at any time in our history.
So, there is a convergence of two forces:
1) Romney does more lying, distorting, omitting, misleading than any past presidential nominee. In fact, he lies and misleads on the run because he also has changed his positions more than any candidate in history AND his has also changed his entire political persona more than any past nominees. Romney is a chameleon. His aide warned us that the Romney campaign could "Etch-a-Sketch" themes for his general election campaign and that's exactly what has happened. It was even more jarring to see Romney do that "Etch-a-Sketch" all in one night - during the first debate. Romney transformed himself, like a butterfly, from a right-winger into a "reasonable centrist" before our very eyes.
2) The news media, going back to the 1970s, has become worse and worse about reporting on the substance of presidential campaigns. Covering "the horserace" on a 24-hour basis became the dominant goal and this left less time for truth-telling. I recall my frustration in 1980 when President Reagan's little quip about "not holding the youth of his opponent (Walter Mondale) against him" immediately prompted political reporters to declare that election over because Reagan has somehow overcome the damage of the first debate when he performed very poorly against Mondale, who did very well. Every four years, we've seen evidence that the media cares more about entertainment and sound bites more than telling us who's telling truth. Look at Sarah Palin four years ago. She demonstrated she was poorly equipped to even be a vice-presidential candidate, but, the press didn't hold her accountable for reckless anti-Obama remarks she made in the general election campaign. I could give 100 example of how superficial the coverage has become, but I don't think people will argue. Maybe that's part of the problem: The public doesn't even seem to care anymore.
You can bet that the Romney campaign has noticed the press and public doesn't seem to care if Romney switches his positions in the same week or tells incredible lies.
If Romney wins, and he implements huge tax cuts - including for the wealthiest Americans - that he can't pay for - just as President Obama tried to point out repeatedly in the first debate - I think I will partly blame the media for that. I recall that the media, after that first debate was so busy talking about "Romney's Big Win" that they forgot to identify the big lies about his tax cut that he relied on to get that "Win" It wasn't a "Win" in my book.
Romney has shown he has no core. It's not clear what he believes in because he's lied and reversed himself so many times. And everyone, including the media, seems to accept this.
That's how bad things have gotten.
Romney has been telling enormous lies - "whoppers" - right in nationally televised debates, and, the media have, largely failed to identify them and put them in the context they deserve. I'll cite a most recent example: In the last presidential debate on foreign policy, Romney criticized President Obama
for going on "an apology tour" to different countries early in his presidency. It was a line Romney used frequently during the Republican primaries. It was a lie. Obama never went on a trip "apologizing" to countries. (He made a speech or two when he acknowledged the United States, in the past, had made some mistakes). So, the day after this Oct. 22nd debate, did the media play up Romney's repeating a lie he had used all year? No. It got mentioned briefly on a few TV talk shows, but the point is Romney has never really been held accountable for characterizing the President's actions in a completely false way. Of course, Romney has made numerous false statements in just the past few weeks. I could write 15 blogs about that topic alone, but, right now I want to focus on just one aspect of this that has been overlooked: Romney is the perfect candidate for today's media covering the election.
Why? Today's entertainment-driven news media pay less and less attention to seeking and identifying the truth than at any time in our history.
So, there is a convergence of two forces:
1) Romney does more lying, distorting, omitting, misleading than any past presidential nominee. In fact, he lies and misleads on the run because he also has changed his positions more than any candidate in history AND his has also changed his entire political persona more than any past nominees. Romney is a chameleon. His aide warned us that the Romney campaign could "Etch-a-Sketch" themes for his general election campaign and that's exactly what has happened. It was even more jarring to see Romney do that "Etch-a-Sketch" all in one night - during the first debate. Romney transformed himself, like a butterfly, from a right-winger into a "reasonable centrist" before our very eyes.
2) The news media, going back to the 1970s, has become worse and worse about reporting on the substance of presidential campaigns. Covering "the horserace" on a 24-hour basis became the dominant goal and this left less time for truth-telling. I recall my frustration in 1980 when President Reagan's little quip about "not holding the youth of his opponent (Walter Mondale) against him" immediately prompted political reporters to declare that election over because Reagan has somehow overcome the damage of the first debate when he performed very poorly against Mondale, who did very well. Every four years, we've seen evidence that the media cares more about entertainment and sound bites more than telling us who's telling truth. Look at Sarah Palin four years ago. She demonstrated she was poorly equipped to even be a vice-presidential candidate, but, the press didn't hold her accountable for reckless anti-Obama remarks she made in the general election campaign. I could give 100 example of how superficial the coverage has become, but I don't think people will argue. Maybe that's part of the problem: The public doesn't even seem to care anymore.
You can bet that the Romney campaign has noticed the press and public doesn't seem to care if Romney switches his positions in the same week or tells incredible lies.
If Romney wins, and he implements huge tax cuts - including for the wealthiest Americans - that he can't pay for - just as President Obama tried to point out repeatedly in the first debate - I think I will partly blame the media for that. I recall that the media, after that first debate was so busy talking about "Romney's Big Win" that they forgot to identify the big lies about his tax cut that he relied on to get that "Win" It wasn't a "Win" in my book.
Romney has shown he has no core. It's not clear what he believes in because he's lied and reversed himself so many times. And everyone, including the media, seems to accept this.
That's how bad things have gotten.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Obama Should Give Strong Comment on Libya Topic in 3rd Debate
Barack Obama should be able to respond to any questions or criticisms from Mitt Romney about the attack on the US Consulate in Libya. I refer in particular to the speculation that Romney will try to go after Obama on this topic aggressively at Monday night's presidential debate on foreign policy.
I've been puzzled and disappointed that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have gotten away with all of their criticisms of Obama over the tragedy in Libya so far. Yes, I understand why Romney would want to raise questions about the Administration's "evolving" account of what happened at the embassy.
What's harder to understand is why Obama and his administration has not responded more directly to these partisan attacks.
We will all learn, over time, considerably more about what led to the attack on the US Mission in Benghazi that left US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. My guess is there are some good reasons and an array of factors that will help explain the different descriptions of the attack that have come from various Obama administration officials. It appears likely the Administration could have handled aspects of communications better.
However, even with the sensitive circumstances surrounding this, I will find it inexcusable if President Obama does not handle this Libya subject without any problem on Monday night. In fact, I hope and expect him to make comments that are more clear and direct and show a bit more leadership on this than he has shown until now. Why? Obama should have nothing to hide and nothing to stop him from being more direct and candid. Even if he cannot disclose some large details and has to keep some of his comments more general, he can still sound more decisive and responsive.
The only thing that would prevent Obama from providing a good response would be if he and his administration had been engaged in a clear "cover-up" of what happened at the embassy. I do not believe there was such a coverup. (If there were, then Romney's criticisms would all seem "justified" later) Right now, Romney has no evidence of a "coverup." Instead, he's pieced things together in order to make charges and maximize his political benefits. Romney, from the moment, he put out a press release in the earliest hours after the attack on the US Consulate until now, has behaved irresponsibly on this
topic. He's come off as a guy who will do anything to benefit his candidacy - even in a matter involving national security. I think many Americans share my view that Romney has shown very poor judgement on this and appeared to put his own interests ahead of everything else.
Yet, as we approach Monday night's debate, I've heard many speculate that Romney will really try to hammer away at Obama's poor handling of the Libya matter. Obama is the President. He knows a hell of a lot more than Romney about what's going on regarding the US embassy in Libya. He knows far more about foreign policy, in general, than Romney. Why should Obama not be the one to hit the topic of Libya out of the park?
If, by some chance, Romney "does significant damage" to Obama on this topic of Libya, I will not only be surprised and disappointed, but I will have new questions myself about the President's outlook and approach on this subject.
Obama has made some mistakes in his campaign for re-election, and, he may lose in November, but, as a sitting president, he should perform better than Romney at a foreign policy debate - including on the topic of Libya. Period.
I've been puzzled and disappointed that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have gotten away with all of their criticisms of Obama over the tragedy in Libya so far. Yes, I understand why Romney would want to raise questions about the Administration's "evolving" account of what happened at the embassy.
What's harder to understand is why Obama and his administration has not responded more directly to these partisan attacks.
We will all learn, over time, considerably more about what led to the attack on the US Mission in Benghazi that left US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. My guess is there are some good reasons and an array of factors that will help explain the different descriptions of the attack that have come from various Obama administration officials. It appears likely the Administration could have handled aspects of communications better.
However, even with the sensitive circumstances surrounding this, I will find it inexcusable if President Obama does not handle this Libya subject without any problem on Monday night. In fact, I hope and expect him to make comments that are more clear and direct and show a bit more leadership on this than he has shown until now. Why? Obama should have nothing to hide and nothing to stop him from being more direct and candid. Even if he cannot disclose some large details and has to keep some of his comments more general, he can still sound more decisive and responsive.
The only thing that would prevent Obama from providing a good response would be if he and his administration had been engaged in a clear "cover-up" of what happened at the embassy. I do not believe there was such a coverup. (If there were, then Romney's criticisms would all seem "justified" later) Right now, Romney has no evidence of a "coverup." Instead, he's pieced things together in order to make charges and maximize his political benefits. Romney, from the moment, he put out a press release in the earliest hours after the attack on the US Consulate until now, has behaved irresponsibly on this
topic. He's come off as a guy who will do anything to benefit his candidacy - even in a matter involving national security. I think many Americans share my view that Romney has shown very poor judgement on this and appeared to put his own interests ahead of everything else.
Yet, as we approach Monday night's debate, I've heard many speculate that Romney will really try to hammer away at Obama's poor handling of the Libya matter. Obama is the President. He knows a hell of a lot more than Romney about what's going on regarding the US embassy in Libya. He knows far more about foreign policy, in general, than Romney. Why should Obama not be the one to hit the topic of Libya out of the park?
If, by some chance, Romney "does significant damage" to Obama on this topic of Libya, I will not only be surprised and disappointed, but I will have new questions myself about the President's outlook and approach on this subject.
Obama has made some mistakes in his campaign for re-election, and, he may lose in November, but, as a sitting president, he should perform better than Romney at a foreign policy debate - including on the topic of Libya. Period.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Five Random Observations After the Oct. 16th Presidential Debate
1. Some of the television coverage "building up" the second presidential debate got really crazy. News anchors and correspondents were all but saying this event WILL determine the outcome of the election. While I could accept it was important for President Obama to rebound, I reject the notion that a 90-minute "performance" on television should ever be labled as that dominant a factor. What does that say about our system? It's one of a thousand reminders that our process is all about the media's influence. It's the media that places the incredibly distorted, enormous weight on debates and the media that then subjectively "scores" the debates. It's then the media that then "creates" "momentum" for one candidate and negativity for the other. For example: This year, the media went way, way overboard in its emphasis on Romney's supposedly "huge win" over Obama in the first debate. (I argued that Romney lost because he relied on enormous lies) What if the media had chosen to be more "balanced" in that post-debate coverage? Well, Romney might not have been able to burst even with Obama. The media fueled a sizeable chunk of Romney's "momentum." The media has become far too powerful in this whole game -- period. Case closed.
2. It's 48 hours after the event and I am still disgusted that Mitt Romney treated the President with open disrespect in several moments during that debate. I've never seen an incumbent President treated that way in my life. Gee, I wonder why that happened. (sarcasm) Romney thought he could get away with that and it reflects on his character, in my opinion. First, Romney can act like a rude little baby at debates; he displayed that in Republican primary debates, when he became all uptight when any opponent really challenged him to his face. He fussed about the moderators and the rules. (He acts like he's back in a prep school competition..) Second, he's been disrespectful in his rhetorical attacks and barbs aimed at Obama consistently on the campaign trail; so, this was an extension of that. Third, and the big, ugly reason in my opinion: Romney treats Obama condescendingly because Obama is black, and even if Romney himself is not racist, he acts like other white people who inexplicably still feel they don't have to apply the same standard of decency, respect and reciprocity to minorities.
How else can one explain Romney getting in Obama's face when: a) he asked him rudely & sharply what permits existed for drilling oil, or, b) when he told Obama, in an abrupt, curt manner, to stop asking a question and wait his turn, and, c) at the end, when Romney tried so hard for his "gotcha" moment by asking the President if he had just said he called the attack on the Libyan embassy "an act of terror." Romney seemed to forget who he was talking to. He acted like he was in a debate competition with "just another opponent" and all that mattered was his getting a win - by any means.
3. Romney's spontaneous reference to "binders with women" (referring to his recruitment efforts when he was the newly-elected governor of MA.) was very typical of an uncountable number of instances in this campaign when he's revealed he acts like a character out of a 1950s TV series. Yes, to Romney, he still thinks it was a big deal that he and his team "found" so many qualified women to serve in his administration. Romney, one senses, seems to be "stuck" in a time tunnel. He seems to fit in with the Cleaver family or perhaps on "Father Knows Best" - although these shows might have been too far ahead for old-school, old-fashioned, old-values Mitt.
4. I think, at the very end of the debate, when Romney thought he had "caught" President Obama in a contradiction, his very serious expression and his ultra-competitiveness were on display. I've sensed for a long time that Romney would do almost anything to win this election. Romney seemed oblivious to the fact that the President has just scolded him on national television for taking advantage of a tragedy to make political points.....Romney didn't care about that at all. He was too busy trying to go for the jugular. Question: Would Romney "go for the jugular" for all the people in this country OR or just his elite constituents who are not in the infamous "47 percent" of the public who, Romney said, are dependent on governent and makes not effort to be responsible for themselves?
5. Romney demonstrated, again, that he's willing to lie openly, to deny, to distort just about anything in an attempt to "look good" to voters and win. When Obama pointed out the factual differences between him and Romney on women's health issues, Romney felt compelled to issue a quick denial, arguing, falsely that he didn't want to take decisionmaking away from women. The facts all indicate Romney and Ryan support doing just that. And, again, when Obama explained, this time, even more persuasively, that Romney's tax cut plan doesn't add up, Romney offered an empty reply about how one might pick any one of several tax deductions to eliminate as a way to pay for his cuts. His answer was so openly a BS job to "sound good" and confuse voters.
The problem is that the media, after this event, doesn't seize enough on Romney's deceptions. Hopefully, the media will try to steer its audience toward the truth more in the last few weeks. If not, Romney might suceeed in lying and distorting his way to the presidency.
2. It's 48 hours after the event and I am still disgusted that Mitt Romney treated the President with open disrespect in several moments during that debate. I've never seen an incumbent President treated that way in my life. Gee, I wonder why that happened. (sarcasm) Romney thought he could get away with that and it reflects on his character, in my opinion. First, Romney can act like a rude little baby at debates; he displayed that in Republican primary debates, when he became all uptight when any opponent really challenged him to his face. He fussed about the moderators and the rules. (He acts like he's back in a prep school competition..) Second, he's been disrespectful in his rhetorical attacks and barbs aimed at Obama consistently on the campaign trail; so, this was an extension of that. Third, and the big, ugly reason in my opinion: Romney treats Obama condescendingly because Obama is black, and even if Romney himself is not racist, he acts like other white people who inexplicably still feel they don't have to apply the same standard of decency, respect and reciprocity to minorities.
How else can one explain Romney getting in Obama's face when: a) he asked him rudely & sharply what permits existed for drilling oil, or, b) when he told Obama, in an abrupt, curt manner, to stop asking a question and wait his turn, and, c) at the end, when Romney tried so hard for his "gotcha" moment by asking the President if he had just said he called the attack on the Libyan embassy "an act of terror." Romney seemed to forget who he was talking to. He acted like he was in a debate competition with "just another opponent" and all that mattered was his getting a win - by any means.
3. Romney's spontaneous reference to "binders with women" (referring to his recruitment efforts when he was the newly-elected governor of MA.) was very typical of an uncountable number of instances in this campaign when he's revealed he acts like a character out of a 1950s TV series. Yes, to Romney, he still thinks it was a big deal that he and his team "found" so many qualified women to serve in his administration. Romney, one senses, seems to be "stuck" in a time tunnel. He seems to fit in with the Cleaver family or perhaps on "Father Knows Best" - although these shows might have been too far ahead for old-school, old-fashioned, old-values Mitt.
4. I think, at the very end of the debate, when Romney thought he had "caught" President Obama in a contradiction, his very serious expression and his ultra-competitiveness were on display. I've sensed for a long time that Romney would do almost anything to win this election. Romney seemed oblivious to the fact that the President has just scolded him on national television for taking advantage of a tragedy to make political points.....Romney didn't care about that at all. He was too busy trying to go for the jugular. Question: Would Romney "go for the jugular" for all the people in this country OR or just his elite constituents who are not in the infamous "47 percent" of the public who, Romney said, are dependent on governent and makes not effort to be responsible for themselves?
5. Romney demonstrated, again, that he's willing to lie openly, to deny, to distort just about anything in an attempt to "look good" to voters and win. When Obama pointed out the factual differences between him and Romney on women's health issues, Romney felt compelled to issue a quick denial, arguing, falsely that he didn't want to take decisionmaking away from women. The facts all indicate Romney and Ryan support doing just that. And, again, when Obama explained, this time, even more persuasively, that Romney's tax cut plan doesn't add up, Romney offered an empty reply about how one might pick any one of several tax deductions to eliminate as a way to pay for his cuts. His answer was so openly a BS job to "sound good" and confuse voters.
The problem is that the media, after this event, doesn't seize enough on Romney's deceptions. Hopefully, the media will try to steer its audience toward the truth more in the last few weeks. If not, Romney might suceeed in lying and distorting his way to the presidency.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Five Quick Suggestions for Obama
President Obama, suddenly, had better get performing better in debates and on the campaign trail, or, he just might lose this thing. After the past two debates, I've developed five quick ideas for Obama:
1. Find a way in Tuesday's debate to ask Romney to discuss his view of those people who depend on government and those who don't. Romney will be defensive if asked to get into details of his "47 percent" remarks at the Florida fundraiser, but you can word a question in such a way to force Romney to essentially address the topic. You can lure him into it because Romney described his outlook in blunt, simple terms. Romney even stuck to his remarks when they were discovered. He said up to 47 percent of people are dependent on goverment, that they believe they'e victims, etc, etc.
Romney believes what he said, and, Obama should try repeatedly to hold him accountable for those remarks. If Romney keeps admitting to less and less of what he said, Obama could say: "But, Governor, you have, on other occasions, discussed poor people as if they're a separate class of people -- You said, in one debate, I think, that "they're covered by the safety net".....You said, in our last debate that I advocate "trickle-down government" -- so, I think you owe it to voters to explain your outlook toward people who receive government benefits. (Do you see them in as a group separate from the rest of us - or from you and your potential administration? You could say, "Governor, you've accused me of encouraging "class warfare" with my proposals to tax the wealthy, but, your remarks (on the 47 percent) are much more of a damaging, negative assault on a economic class of Americans, aren't they?
2. You absolutely MUST discuss your several most important ideas for improving the economy and do so in a concise, understandable way. Further, you should describe your policies and iniativies in a short bullet-type form --quickly and in simple terms -- plus, with energy and excitement and optimism
It has been a long time since you brought much to the table in terms of "what you're going to do" in an upbeat way. I've heard you discuss repeatedly your economic proposals that the Republicans prevented you from getting through Congress - like defeat of the proposed cutting of the payroll tax.
Joe Klein of Time wrote an excellent article on Obama's need to discuss his proposals.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2126665,00.html
3. You should try to prod Romney into a full acknowledgement of what his running mate, Paul Ryan, said in the VP debate about the abortion issue (and, to acknowledge what he's said too). Ryan said that not only do he and Romney want to appoint Supreme Court justices who oppose Roe vs. Wade, but they intend to press for a new law outlawing abortion. Ryan indicated they'd suppport efforts to change the law - meaning an unprecedented effort in the US Congress to ban abortion forever by law.
You should press Romney on his opposition to funding for Planned Parenthood and other related women's health issues.
4. Governor, stop telling Americans the lie that I've gone around "apologizing for America." It's simply not true. You and know you have no evidence that it is true. So, stop misleading people and if you want to challenge me, challenge me with facts."
5. Govenor, stop misleading people about what my administration accomplished with the economic stimulus package when I arrived in office and by bailing out the auto industry and taking other actions. You make it appear like I had a big choice and that the stimulus amounted to a waste of money more than anything. But, economists of all persuasions recommended that the government pass that stimulus and you've been good at whining from the sidelines - but I don't think you could have done anything any better if you had been President.
1. Find a way in Tuesday's debate to ask Romney to discuss his view of those people who depend on government and those who don't. Romney will be defensive if asked to get into details of his "47 percent" remarks at the Florida fundraiser, but you can word a question in such a way to force Romney to essentially address the topic. You can lure him into it because Romney described his outlook in blunt, simple terms. Romney even stuck to his remarks when they were discovered. He said up to 47 percent of people are dependent on goverment, that they believe they'e victims, etc, etc.
Romney believes what he said, and, Obama should try repeatedly to hold him accountable for those remarks. If Romney keeps admitting to less and less of what he said, Obama could say: "But, Governor, you have, on other occasions, discussed poor people as if they're a separate class of people -- You said, in one debate, I think, that "they're covered by the safety net".....You said, in our last debate that I advocate "trickle-down government" -- so, I think you owe it to voters to explain your outlook toward people who receive government benefits. (Do you see them in as a group separate from the rest of us - or from you and your potential administration? You could say, "Governor, you've accused me of encouraging "class warfare" with my proposals to tax the wealthy, but, your remarks (on the 47 percent) are much more of a damaging, negative assault on a economic class of Americans, aren't they?
2. You absolutely MUST discuss your several most important ideas for improving the economy and do so in a concise, understandable way. Further, you should describe your policies and iniativies in a short bullet-type form --quickly and in simple terms -- plus, with energy and excitement and optimism
It has been a long time since you brought much to the table in terms of "what you're going to do" in an upbeat way. I've heard you discuss repeatedly your economic proposals that the Republicans prevented you from getting through Congress - like defeat of the proposed cutting of the payroll tax.
Joe Klein of Time wrote an excellent article on Obama's need to discuss his proposals.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2126665,00.html
3. You should try to prod Romney into a full acknowledgement of what his running mate, Paul Ryan, said in the VP debate about the abortion issue (and, to acknowledge what he's said too). Ryan said that not only do he and Romney want to appoint Supreme Court justices who oppose Roe vs. Wade, but they intend to press for a new law outlawing abortion. Ryan indicated they'd suppport efforts to change the law - meaning an unprecedented effort in the US Congress to ban abortion forever by law.
You should press Romney on his opposition to funding for Planned Parenthood and other related women's health issues.
4. Governor, stop telling Americans the lie that I've gone around "apologizing for America." It's simply not true. You and know you have no evidence that it is true. So, stop misleading people and if you want to challenge me, challenge me with facts."
5. Govenor, stop misleading people about what my administration accomplished with the economic stimulus package when I arrived in office and by bailing out the auto industry and taking other actions. You make it appear like I had a big choice and that the stimulus amounted to a waste of money more than anything. But, economists of all persuasions recommended that the government pass that stimulus and you've been good at whining from the sidelines - but I don't think you could have done anything any better if you had been President.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Media Should Be Prodding Romney On His "47 %" Remarks
Many people, by now, have heard about Mitt Romney's disturbingly revealing remarks he made about the "47 percent" of the country who depended on the federal government.
Romney made the remarks at a private fundraising event in May in Boca Raton, Florida that someone videotaped surreptitiously - before it became public.
That Romney made the later-publicized remarks, quickly labled one of the most unusual, enormous campaign mistakes in history, drew initial heat and and controversy. Then, the Obama campaign used the remarks in paid television commercials.
But, in recent weeks, the story of the "47 percent" incident has been largely absent from campaign coverage. Obama certainly could have mentioned it more in the first debate!
But, where has the media been on this? Given the extent to which Romney's remarks revealed his actual outook on the "haves" and "have-nots" in our society, at least in terms of taxation, the political media should have persistently asked Romney about this. Instead, Romney was pressed on it only the night that it became public and then, in an interview with his friendly media organization, FOX News.
His remarks, in my view, are repugnant enough and harmful enough to be considered - at face value - "disqualifying" to Romney.
Let's revisit the "meat" of Romney's remarks, which came in reply to someone in attendance:
"...Well, there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," he said, according to Maureen Dowd's Sept. 19th, NY Times column. "All right?There are 47 percent who are with him. Who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it....These are people who pay no imcome tax. So my job is not to worry about those people," "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives...."
To me, any presidential candidate who utters these words, deserves, at a minimum, to be questioned vigorously and thoroughly to determine if he or she should be taken seriously as a candidate from that point on. My view is that Romney's remarks were, in fact, virtually "disqualifying" on their own. Then, when Romney was first asked about it and he didn't deny the substance and said only they were "inelegant," that response did further damage to Romney because he had really "owned" the substance.
Romney did not disavow the remarks for quite a few days, then, he began a different pitch about how he cares about "100 percent" of the American people and he has made little attempts to un-do the damage.
Again, where is the media? If reporters had a chance to press Romney about his feelings of those dependent on goverment - and he was prodded, maybe he'd be led to tell more of the truth - about his viewpoint. Of course, if he commented candidly, he might further damage his chances to be President of the United States!
I've observed how the media covers presidential campaigns for my entire adult life and I've identified hundreds of instances when the media fails to ask questions, fails to follow up, fails to investigate, fails to ask how or why, but this particular media failure to press Romney for an explanation of his "47 percent" remarks has been one of the worst. The task is easy. The material has been gathered. All news organizations have to do is decide it's a priority to keep asking Romney about it and instruct their reporters to do so.
So far, this has NOT happened and Romney has controlled his handling of the matter - like it's all up to him. He's been questioned directly on it only a few times by my count.
This is not a healthy democracy if the media can't get the voters prod and pry for better answers than that -- especially when Romney's initial comment was to not take the remarks back. If he meant them, he owes of all us a much better explanation how he can own them and believe, at the same time, that he possesses an outlook that qualifies him to be President.
Romney made the remarks at a private fundraising event in May in Boca Raton, Florida that someone videotaped surreptitiously - before it became public.
That Romney made the later-publicized remarks, quickly labled one of the most unusual, enormous campaign mistakes in history, drew initial heat and and controversy. Then, the Obama campaign used the remarks in paid television commercials.
But, in recent weeks, the story of the "47 percent" incident has been largely absent from campaign coverage. Obama certainly could have mentioned it more in the first debate!
But, where has the media been on this? Given the extent to which Romney's remarks revealed his actual outook on the "haves" and "have-nots" in our society, at least in terms of taxation, the political media should have persistently asked Romney about this. Instead, Romney was pressed on it only the night that it became public and then, in an interview with his friendly media organization, FOX News.
His remarks, in my view, are repugnant enough and harmful enough to be considered - at face value - "disqualifying" to Romney.
Let's revisit the "meat" of Romney's remarks, which came in reply to someone in attendance:
"...Well, there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," he said, according to Maureen Dowd's Sept. 19th, NY Times column. "All right?There are 47 percent who are with him. Who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it....These are people who pay no imcome tax. So my job is not to worry about those people," "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives...."
To me, any presidential candidate who utters these words, deserves, at a minimum, to be questioned vigorously and thoroughly to determine if he or she should be taken seriously as a candidate from that point on. My view is that Romney's remarks were, in fact, virtually "disqualifying" on their own. Then, when Romney was first asked about it and he didn't deny the substance and said only they were "inelegant," that response did further damage to Romney because he had really "owned" the substance.
Romney did not disavow the remarks for quite a few days, then, he began a different pitch about how he cares about "100 percent" of the American people and he has made little attempts to un-do the damage.
Again, where is the media? If reporters had a chance to press Romney about his feelings of those dependent on goverment - and he was prodded, maybe he'd be led to tell more of the truth - about his viewpoint. Of course, if he commented candidly, he might further damage his chances to be President of the United States!
I've observed how the media covers presidential campaigns for my entire adult life and I've identified hundreds of instances when the media fails to ask questions, fails to follow up, fails to investigate, fails to ask how or why, but this particular media failure to press Romney for an explanation of his "47 percent" remarks has been one of the worst. The task is easy. The material has been gathered. All news organizations have to do is decide it's a priority to keep asking Romney about it and instruct their reporters to do so.
So far, this has NOT happened and Romney has controlled his handling of the matter - like it's all up to him. He's been questioned directly on it only a few times by my count.
This is not a healthy democracy if the media can't get the voters prod and pry for better answers than that -- especially when Romney's initial comment was to not take the remarks back. If he meant them, he owes of all us a much better explanation how he can own them and believe, at the same time, that he possesses an outlook that qualifies him to be President.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Guess what? Romney Lost the First Debate
I don't think Mitt Romney "won" the first presidential debate.
Sorry, I guess that means I'm "nuts" or something, huh? Everyone in the news media and on
talk shows has walked in lockstep, emphasizing how Romney so decisively defeated President Obama. The discussion of the resulting media-driven "momentum" is changing the entire contest.
But, did Romney actually deserve all the praise? Think about it.
Romney, in the debate, told several enormous lies about important positions he's held for nearly two years on important topics to the country. Early on, he stunned Obama and the audience by suddenly denying that he even had a position in support of 20 percent cuts in income tax rates for the wealthy - which the President, like many others, had projected would cause a loss of about $5 trillion in revenue.
Obama repeatedly referred to Romney's position on tax cuts and Romney repeatedly denied having that position.
After the debate, I did my own verification by finding several instances (of MANY) when Romney, in fact, had publicly stated his support of the 20 percent tax cuts in during his long campaign.
In all the presidential debates I'd ever watched, I had never seen a party nominee flatly deny their own position with only a few weeks left before the Election. It was outrageous.
Then, when asked about his position on health care, Romney had the gall to say: "No. 1," "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan..." The facts, however, contradicted Romney's statement and his own campaign immediately tried to correct that statement after the debate. Romney's statement had made it appear that far more people were covered under his plan than would be. In fact, Romney's plan
requires that more qualifying conditions are met.
Further, Romney transformed his entire political outlook and political persona in the first debate for the first time in his long campaign. Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist." It was the first time he seemed like he was acting like he did when he was governor of Massachusetts. He talked like a pragmatic, approachable politician who was eager to work with Democrats to get things done. Compared to his constant attempts earlier this year to appear just as right-wing as the extreme right-wing candidates he competed with in the primaries, Romney's recent debate emergence was as a "Super Chameleon" unlike any chameleon in the political universe.
To me, it makes no sense to separate the content of a debate from the theatrics, but, that's what the mainstream media now does in American politics. The post-debate coverage stressed Romney being "more agggressive" and "Obama kept looking down at his notes" and, "Obama looked like he didn't want to be there." Now, I freely admit that Romney "outperformed" Obama in several indicators pertaining to his demeanor, energy, outlook and "hunger" to promote himself. Obama was far too passive all night.
But, shouldn't the mainstream media care more about who tells the truth more, who backs up their arguments and who is more authentic? On those (my) "criteria," Romney failed in dramatic fashion.
In fact, I think he emerged as one of the most fraudulent presidential candidates I've ever seen.
Romney didn't just lie on long-held positions on important issues, but he put on a misleading act about his entire political outlook and persona. Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed and promised for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist."
I'd argue that we've gotten to the very depressing point in media coverage of presidential campaigns that most people now accept that the substance simply won't be covered. Yeah. That's right. So, if someone (like Romney) looks good and "aggressive" as he's telling huge lies and misleading millions of Americans, the media feels no qualms about telling us "Romney won big" and "Obama had a very bad night"
What does all this mean? It means that because coverage of American politics is so extensively entertainment-driven now, that the "performance" of the candidates at the theatrics of the debate are often more important than the content of what the candidates say.
That's pretty scary, don't you think?
Sorry, I guess that means I'm "nuts" or something, huh? Everyone in the news media and on
talk shows has walked in lockstep, emphasizing how Romney so decisively defeated President Obama. The discussion of the resulting media-driven "momentum" is changing the entire contest.
But, did Romney actually deserve all the praise? Think about it.
Romney, in the debate, told several enormous lies about important positions he's held for nearly two years on important topics to the country. Early on, he stunned Obama and the audience by suddenly denying that he even had a position in support of 20 percent cuts in income tax rates for the wealthy - which the President, like many others, had projected would cause a loss of about $5 trillion in revenue.
Obama repeatedly referred to Romney's position on tax cuts and Romney repeatedly denied having that position.
After the debate, I did my own verification by finding several instances (of MANY) when Romney, in fact, had publicly stated his support of the 20 percent tax cuts in during his long campaign.
In all the presidential debates I'd ever watched, I had never seen a party nominee flatly deny their own position with only a few weeks left before the Election. It was outrageous.
Then, when asked about his position on health care, Romney had the gall to say: "No. 1," "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan..." The facts, however, contradicted Romney's statement and his own campaign immediately tried to correct that statement after the debate. Romney's statement had made it appear that far more people were covered under his plan than would be. In fact, Romney's plan
requires that more qualifying conditions are met.
Further, Romney transformed his entire political outlook and political persona in the first debate for the first time in his long campaign. Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist." It was the first time he seemed like he was acting like he did when he was governor of Massachusetts. He talked like a pragmatic, approachable politician who was eager to work with Democrats to get things done. Compared to his constant attempts earlier this year to appear just as right-wing as the extreme right-wing candidates he competed with in the primaries, Romney's recent debate emergence was as a "Super Chameleon" unlike any chameleon in the political universe.
To me, it makes no sense to separate the content of a debate from the theatrics, but, that's what the mainstream media now does in American politics. The post-debate coverage stressed Romney being "more agggressive" and "Obama kept looking down at his notes" and, "Obama looked like he didn't want to be there." Now, I freely admit that Romney "outperformed" Obama in several indicators pertaining to his demeanor, energy, outlook and "hunger" to promote himself. Obama was far too passive all night.
But, shouldn't the mainstream media care more about who tells the truth more, who backs up their arguments and who is more authentic? On those (my) "criteria," Romney failed in dramatic fashion.
In fact, I think he emerged as one of the most fraudulent presidential candidates I've ever seen.
Romney didn't just lie on long-held positions on important issues, but he put on a misleading act about his entire political outlook and persona. Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed and promised for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist."
I'd argue that we've gotten to the very depressing point in media coverage of presidential campaigns that most people now accept that the substance simply won't be covered. Yeah. That's right. So, if someone (like Romney) looks good and "aggressive" as he's telling huge lies and misleading millions of Americans, the media feels no qualms about telling us "Romney won big" and "Obama had a very bad night"
What does all this mean? It means that because coverage of American politics is so extensively entertainment-driven now, that the "performance" of the candidates at the theatrics of the debate are often more important than the content of what the candidates say.
That's pretty scary, don't you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)