... is the lies. But no, this isn't quite the thread you think it is.
Look, I know politicians lie. This will be the sixth Presidential election I've cast a ballot in, and I was interested well before that, so I've long since learned the ugly truth of politics. Lying is one of the key characteristics of politicians listed in the Audubon field recognition guide. Lying happens in practically every campaign, and is indeed happening on both sides of the current Presidential contest.
However, the strategy of lies coming from Romney's campaign does, I believe, represent something new and unwelcome.
If by now you've decided that I'm just robotically repeating Democratic talking points, then I recommend you take a nice cold shower and attempt to explain where John Stewart got it wrong yesterday. Or William Saletan. Or the folks at the Daily Kos blog. Heck, I can count several retractions made by Romney's campaign without having to look for them.
But what's unusual about this is the underlying strategy. Rachel Maddow today collected a large number of walkbacks and opined that it was in fact deliberate -- that Romney's campaign had purposely decided that Romney, the candidate, would publicly make one statement, while Romney, the election machine, would then quietly substitute another, conflicting, generally more conservative correction. She speculated this is to desensitize voters to what Romney actually says, either to protect him from any and all countermeasures, or to pander to both the conservative base and the moderate middle simultaneously.
Now this seems a bit overly conspiratorial to me -- or, to put it another way, I don't think Romney and his campaign are that clever. Certainly I don't think they've followed a coherent master strategy that only now begins to appear successful and "brilliant." But one has to admit that, however they arrived at it, this approach has yielded some bizarre and spectacular results. I was amazed that the recent debate score turned out to be so lopsided. Let's face it, the principal criticism of Obama's performance is that Romney lied his way through the whole thing, and Obama let him get away with it. Traditionally, this does not award the victory to the liar. At best, he gets credited with a clever escape. But not this time. Romney was credited for being "persuasive," despite the fact that nobody (Romney included) seems to know what it is that he's actually selling.
Except, of course, for himself.
This is what bothers me. Usually the lies are exaggerations, omissions, stretches, or even the odd fabrication in support of a philosophy or policy idea. All politicians do this, and some would even argue that's part of their job. But Romney brings an entirely new dimension to the art of prevarication. He has no policies. Or, at least, no one can say with any certainty exactly what they are, out of the vast and contradictory labyrinth of his claims. His running mate certainly doesn't know.
While this makes Romney difficult to attack, the real problem -- my real heartburn -- is that it also makes discussion of rational policy impossible. Consider, if you will, four years ago when Candidate Obama ran against a nice if stodgy old man named John McCain, someone I'd consider to be a rather mediocre GOP candidate. He had some different ideas, and he was often vague to the point of frustration, but we knew where he was coming from. One could draw a contrast between him and Obama, and one could see the pluses and minuses of each. McCain seemed like a reasonable guy even where I disagreed with him. Even if I thought he was dead wrong.
With Romney I can't do that. Nobody can. The whole contest has now devolved into a morass of trying to define him, which will prove as elusive as nailing Jello to the wall. There's no point to debating his policies. He'll just deny ownership and shift the goalposts. It's a strategy ideally coordinated for the Low Information Voter, someone who seemed to be courted by the GOP last time, but this time around it's not even subtle.
All of which leaves me to ask, again: Why is he even running? Narcissism? If so, he's done a masterful job of making the race about him instead of about governance of the country.
Alternately, does he have some secret plan? What is it? Why can he not articulate it?
It all reminds me of wrestling in the mud with conspiracy theorists, charlatans, and snake-oil salesmen. It means we won't even be able to discuss the legitimate gripes with Obama's policies, nor is there any incentive for him to shape up any longer. Now it's all about stagecraft.
And that, Romney, is where you have taken us, and for that I want to see you lose by a fifty point margin. But you won't, any more than Michael Bay will lose money on his stupid movies. Mediocrity is contagious.
I welcome your comments, complaints, even rants. Passion is a good thing. Just please don't change your position every time you post, that's all I ask.
Look, I know politicians lie. This will be the sixth Presidential election I've cast a ballot in, and I was interested well before that, so I've long since learned the ugly truth of politics. Lying is one of the key characteristics of politicians listed in the Audubon field recognition guide. Lying happens in practically every campaign, and is indeed happening on both sides of the current Presidential contest.
However, the strategy of lies coming from Romney's campaign does, I believe, represent something new and unwelcome.
If by now you've decided that I'm just robotically repeating Democratic talking points, then I recommend you take a nice cold shower and attempt to explain where John Stewart got it wrong yesterday. Or William Saletan. Or the folks at the Daily Kos blog. Heck, I can count several retractions made by Romney's campaign without having to look for them.
But what's unusual about this is the underlying strategy. Rachel Maddow today collected a large number of walkbacks and opined that it was in fact deliberate -- that Romney's campaign had purposely decided that Romney, the candidate, would publicly make one statement, while Romney, the election machine, would then quietly substitute another, conflicting, generally more conservative correction. She speculated this is to desensitize voters to what Romney actually says, either to protect him from any and all countermeasures, or to pander to both the conservative base and the moderate middle simultaneously.
Now this seems a bit overly conspiratorial to me -- or, to put it another way, I don't think Romney and his campaign are that clever. Certainly I don't think they've followed a coherent master strategy that only now begins to appear successful and "brilliant." But one has to admit that, however they arrived at it, this approach has yielded some bizarre and spectacular results. I was amazed that the recent debate score turned out to be so lopsided. Let's face it, the principal criticism of Obama's performance is that Romney lied his way through the whole thing, and Obama let him get away with it. Traditionally, this does not award the victory to the liar. At best, he gets credited with a clever escape. But not this time. Romney was credited for being "persuasive," despite the fact that nobody (Romney included) seems to know what it is that he's actually selling.
Except, of course, for himself.
This is what bothers me. Usually the lies are exaggerations, omissions, stretches, or even the odd fabrication in support of a philosophy or policy idea. All politicians do this, and some would even argue that's part of their job. But Romney brings an entirely new dimension to the art of prevarication. He has no policies. Or, at least, no one can say with any certainty exactly what they are, out of the vast and contradictory labyrinth of his claims. His running mate certainly doesn't know.
While this makes Romney difficult to attack, the real problem -- my real heartburn -- is that it also makes discussion of rational policy impossible. Consider, if you will, four years ago when Candidate Obama ran against a nice if stodgy old man named John McCain, someone I'd consider to be a rather mediocre GOP candidate. He had some different ideas, and he was often vague to the point of frustration, but we knew where he was coming from. One could draw a contrast between him and Obama, and one could see the pluses and minuses of each. McCain seemed like a reasonable guy even where I disagreed with him. Even if I thought he was dead wrong.
With Romney I can't do that. Nobody can. The whole contest has now devolved into a morass of trying to define him, which will prove as elusive as nailing Jello to the wall. There's no point to debating his policies. He'll just deny ownership and shift the goalposts. It's a strategy ideally coordinated for the Low Information Voter, someone who seemed to be courted by the GOP last time, but this time around it's not even subtle.
All of which leaves me to ask, again: Why is he even running? Narcissism? If so, he's done a masterful job of making the race about him instead of about governance of the country.
Alternately, does he have some secret plan? What is it? Why can he not articulate it?
It all reminds me of wrestling in the mud with conspiracy theorists, charlatans, and snake-oil salesmen. It means we won't even be able to discuss the legitimate gripes with Obama's policies, nor is there any incentive for him to shape up any longer. Now it's all about stagecraft.
And that, Romney, is where you have taken us, and for that I want to see you lose by a fifty point margin. But you won't, any more than Michael Bay will lose money on his stupid movies. Mediocrity is contagious.
I welcome your comments, complaints, even rants. Passion is a good thing. Just please don't change your position every time you post, that's all I ask.
Last edited:
Evidence points to "no."
