Almost all of the opinion polls taken in the week following the Democratic National Convention have all pointed in the same direction: Barack Obama has a small, yet significant lead in his battle for re-election. These polls have depressed many Republicans and nothing the Mitt Romney campaign has been able to do in the past few days has relieved the sense of gloom in certain precincts of the right or diminished the glee being expressed in much of the mainstream liberal media.
At the root of this conservative depression is a sense that this is an election they couldn’t lose and they have reacted to the strength being shown by the Democrats with shock, disbelief and by tossing blame at the Romney campaign. These unrealistic expectations have endowed the president’s lead with a greater importance than it might otherwise have since even the most optimistic evaluations of his chances for re-election still put the race within pollsters’ margin of error. Yet rather than wasting time carping at Romney’s Boston headquarters or the candidate’s supposed missteps, the GOP needs to realize that all along they’ve been looking at this race through the wrong end of the binoculars. Instead of being shocked by the results, they ought to be somewhat encouraged or at least not be dejected by the numbers. Contrary to the right’s skewed view of the election, the president has huge advantages that, despite his failures, always gave him a leg up. The wonder is not that Romney isn’t ahead by 10 points, but that even liberal pollsters show him virtually even with Obama.
The strength shown by the Obama campaign and its ability to use its ace in the hole — a sympathetic mainstream liberal press — to help push public opinion in their direction on key questions, such as the blame for the economy, or about the character of the GOP positions on entitlement reform, should not have been a surprise. Nor should it shock anyone that an incumbent president, let alone one whose historic status as the first African-American in the White House renders him invulnerable to personal attacks such as those routinely used against Romney, should be winning.
It is true that the president’s record is generally one of failure at home and abroad. His only domestic achievements, the passage of a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus boondoggle that didn’t help the economy and his signature health care plan, are both unpopular. The recovery from the recession — dubbed the “Great Recession” by his supporters in the media so as to make his task seem even harder than it was — he inherited from his predecessor has been anemic and there is every indication that his policies of spending and debt will trigger another recession should he be re-elected. Abroad, other than the killing of Osama bin Laden, the president has nothing to boast about, having been rebuffed by the foes he sought to ingratiate such as Russia and Iran while alienating allies like Israel.
All that is enough to keep his approval ratings dangerously below 50 percent, but none of it changes the fact that as the first African-American president his mere presence in the White House makes a lot of Americans feel good about their country and themselves. What Republicans don’t understand is that these feelings or the willingness of much of the media to parrot Democratic talking points about Romney’s taxes or misstatements and the Republicans aren’t diminished by bad economic news or even foreign disasters such as attacks on American embassies in the Middle East. Though Obama may be as feckless as Jimmy Carter in many respects, he is an able politician and this was never going to be the rerun of 1980 many in the GOP foolishly expected. Nor was it going to be a repeat of the GOP’s midterm triumph in 2010 when the president’s policies were the issue but his name wasn’t on the ballot.
Rather than seeing the election as being one where their candidate is falling short of expectations, Republicans need to understand that they have misread this race all along. They should be pleased that a standard-bearer given to gaffes should be only a few points behind Obama even in the aftermath of the president’s post-convention bounce. Though Obama has the lead in the polls, he is still dependent on duplicating his party’s historic 2008 turnout rates. But he should not benefit from a false sense that Romney has lost an opportunity to generate a Republican landslide when none was ever possible.
The power of incumbency has always meant that any Republican had a narrow path to victory that depended on perfect execution of a campaign strategy of focusing on the economy while still being able to put forward a credible critique of Obama on foreign affairs. The Romney campaign is well short of perfection and the candidate has not always been perfectly on message either. But even so, he is very much in the fight and with luck and strong performances in the debates, he still has an opportunity to win.
Romney spit on most of the Youth in the Republican Party, and your analysis (and most others I have read) completely ignore this. Ten percent (or more if you realize Romney denied many duly elected delegates of Paul from even coming to the convention) supported Paul and the issues Paul brought to the table. n nRomney denied them, and insulted them, and insulted Ron Paul. So Romney thinks he can win by treating people this way? n nGood luck with that.
Jonathan- this is the best article and description of the race I have read anywhere. And you had the courage to include the "African-American" aspect in this, which I think is crucial. It probably is worht at least five points. I have seen so many good commetators (Brit Hume, O'Reilly and others) scratch their heads and ask, hmmm, what makes this President so invulnerable to the terrible economic news? They all skirt around the obvious answer: The President is the first African-American and many Americans will be reluctant to vote agaisnt him- for fear of being called a racist! If this would be a Caucasian President, he'd probably be ten points behind.That makes Romney's task more difficult and probably accounts for his reluctance to attack Obama personally (he is not a likeable fellow at all and those polls are clearly slanted).Add to that the power of incumbency and one other important fact: The Obama admnistration has- quite consciously- made the losing of a job less painful by its subsidies and fake welfare (the disability rate has doubled in two years). I think that Romney can still pull it out but it will be a close election and everyone will have to go out and vote.
"African American" is old and tired… Black American is quite acceptable and more honest.
Don't kid yourself, please. Average caucasoid folks don't bear a staggering guilt over being white and non-Afram minorities are not necessarily enamored of African Americans as a given, not Hispanics, not Asians for sure, etc. Romney is a lousy campaigner.
I can't speak for all Republicans, but Obama's "ace in the hole — a sympathetic mainstream liberal press" is the reason I'm depressed. no matter what Romney does or doesn't do, it's wrong. n nand the way the MSM has spun this statement of Romney's about Egpyt and Libya is itself disgraceful. ignoring the real story–that ur ambassador was tortured and then murdered, along with several others, because our embassies' security was breached, on 9/11–they decided to concentrate on Mitt Romney. did he speak too soon? did he say the wrong thing? how dare he not support the president during a time of national tragedy? and so on. n nthe president was sleeping when it first happened? and then, having been informed of the crisis, he swiftly–flew to Vegas for a fundraiser? that is also apparently fine with the MSM. had it been George Bush, well…I don't have to tell you what the coverage would have sounded like. n nbtw, Jonathan, you're falling into the same trap as the MSM. Romney is NOT "given to gaffes." he's given to telling the truth in sometime inelegant ways that the media insists are terrible mistakes. as someone said on TV today, they are in "full protect Obama mode" from now until the election.
The press bias, which just seems to grow every election cycle even as it becomes more obvious, is a big part of it. The notion that a sitting president with such a dismal record could even have a chance at re-election by simply tearing down his opponent without offering a positive vision is depressing beyond just party, but as what is says about the state of our nation. And identity politics, in general, is very depressing; that people might keep him in office just because of his skin color and how it makes them feel is sad. n nIn edit, I just wanted to add that what happened to our ambassador, and how exposed and unprotected this man was on 9/11 of all dates, should be one of the most disturbing scandals of the past decade. Is there even going to be an investigation into how this happened? And the ongoing mishandling of these events, especially Hilary Clinton's litany of moronic statements, is very depressing. Instead, the focus is on Romney and this movie, when it really is a complete unraveling of our foreign policy in that area of the world. And the fact that we can't even discuss this because of the potential damage it may do to our president, is just surreal.
All very well said, Jonathan, but it should be pointed out that Peter Wehner on this site has been very guilty of the foolishness of which you speak. I can't think of any of the elite Republican thinkers who has done more to build up the wrong kind of expectations than Wehner (who, by the way, has not been seen on this site for a while).
Thanks for this post and I also agree with blue, the MSM is completely out of control again this year as they do nothing but stump for Obama. n nThis administration is a lawless disgrace and really an embarrassment to our country. n nThe statements that have been made about the video are sniveling and I'm tired of hearing about how awful it is. What if someone made a great movie, a wonderful movie and it was "insulting" to Islam? n nThe treatment of the man who made the movie is an outrage. n nThis election isn't about Mitt Romney anymore, it's about ridding our country of an administration that our press will not challenge.
Jonathan and many of the responses raise interesting points. My view is that, as usual in relatively close elections, there are many contributing factors that explain why Romney is going to lose, rather than just one. Quantifying them is probably impossible, so I'll just go with what I believe to be the reasons in their order of importance. I'm sure there are more. n1. a very flawed candidate n2. a very flawed candidates' staff and election strategy n3. a changed electorate: one of "takers" n4 the Republican brand which is HATED by large segments of the population(blacks and Latinos) n5. the feel-good of having a black president n6. a very hostile media
please—–just because you may think that Romney is going to lose,doesn't mean he will Otherwise- let's just save time and lots of money and elect Obama by acclamation!
This is a candiate who responded to an interviewer reading back Team O's "jumping the gun" attack on Egypt/Libyan Team O fiasco by replying "I don't respond to politics. I'm not going to worry about the campaign." & his master strategerizers are relying on macro-models of the inevitable defeat of Obama in the current economy. If the GOP can't pull of a win against this President in this environment then a fundamental re-think is called for.
besht2003- you have been one of the depressed naysayers for a while , so your comments don't exactly break new ground. When Romney issued his original statement- surely this was 'jumping into politics- the whole MSM establishment came down on him. I don't blame him for keeping his peace for a while in face of the (surely) provocative question by the interviewer.You have read an accurate assesment of the race by Jonathan and yet- you still maintain that Romney (or any other candidate0 should romp over Obama. Why? Let's go back thirty odd years. Where was Reagan at this point of the race? Either behind or ,atm ost, a couple of points ahead. This is exactly where the race is now. (Rasmussen has Romeny ahead, CBS has Obama by one point), so let's not get depressed- this is exactly what the Obama campaign and the MSM intend to do to us, to depress voting. This is not to say that the campaign cannot use some new ideas (see Rubin ,as below) but this race is tight, will remain tight and this will be a re-run of 2004- with one or two states being the decider.It will not be 1980 and will certainlt not be 1996 or 2008.
You can't get around the fact that when Romney speaks on camera he is so self-abnegating by nature that he disappears before your eyes. As does whatever campaign messaging is half-heartedly thrust out there for the cycle of the week. He "jumps into politics" and then shudders and pulls back. He is running for President. He is either in the game or he isn't. Newt would have left track marks on the interviewer and Team O, not pulled back into a high-minded shell. He doesn't defend himself and worse, he doesn't defend his supporters, his base, and thereby, the Jews and Israel. n nI don't say romp, I say that in this time if the GOP can't win, by 1-4% then it's compromised as a political movement. For gosh sakes, if not now, when? And on average, I just don't get your takeaway assessment that the race is dead even rather than trending Democrat. n nMy call is that the race is 2004, with Obama eking out a victory as unpopular incumbent. Cause keep this in mind, even with the economy as sub-par, he and Bush have roughly the same negatives (Bush's were over foreign policy). And like Bush he runs against a deeply flawed opponent whose positives can be turned into negatives. On election day Bush's approval ratings were an average 52% and when "leaners" are included in the totals Obama carries 49%-48% *nationally.* And swing-state totals have been more dire. n nbtw Rubin's piece is more or less a polite way of stating my own points here. Just nicer.
besht- miracle of miracles- we seem to agree on the broad points of the campaign. both you and I say this is 2004 and surely not 2008,1996 or 1980. _but- here is my but- Bush almost lost the election to kerry and the negatives on obama are much bigger than on bush-economically. a tight race, by definition, means it can go any way-and we will see which way. Theo ne thing that is saving Obama is the fact that he is an African-American and the MSm is absoluyley in the tank- not seen ever. let's see how this race develops.
But michaelmas12, the Romney campaign surrogates have, AFIK, leaked that to them this is precisely Reagan's victory in 1980 and that underestimates, fatally if continued, the vicious flexibility and knife-fight tactical smarts of Obama. Take the current crises: his ideology caters to and permits/justifies a retreat left wards into American impotence (the constant carping on the responsibility for the mess not of Arab or Islamist predilections and religious hegemonism but on one little film trailer; the pretense that Arab resentment does not naturally support and feed the Al Qaeda associate attack in Libya–they are supposedly "extremist elements" from nowhere). n nBut on the other hand he actually does call in Marine reinforcement and warn Egyptian governments to protect embassies (or leaves those countries where they refuse to stop the negative bleed of unfavorable "film at six"). His is a strategic retreat with tactical forward blocking actions to prevent the appearance (or reality) of complete and precipitous sell-out. n nMoreover imo the economy is not only at a ceiling, it is at a floor, and the debt wall won't be hit by November. n nYet Romney's campaign has been floating on the assumption of an inevitable "are you better now than you were four years ago" victory, as along as a "reasonable" Romney gives voters the assurance (particularly in the debates) they need to reverse the trend line and go over to him. n
One more time it bears saying – despite all that Mr. Tobin says and all that Romney's detractors say, if Obama is reelected it will not be because Romney is a bad candidate or whatever, but because Americans are no longer worthy of their political and cultural inheritance. nAs for the specific arguments made here, they are too superficial for a continent-sized nation of 300+ million people. At any rate, I think there are forces working "under the radar" that just might surprise us, and that evidence of those forces is staring us right in the face. While we fret over MSM coverage – which is awful – the Chicago Teachers' Union has been warring with a Democratic mayor, Obama's right-hand man at one point. The union heavy voters of WI humiliated the unions there just a few months ago. Jewish voters seem increasingly disturbed by this administration's position on Israel. Dissatisfaction with Obamacare is real, and deep. The MSM didn't cover any of these issues any more responsibly than it has this election, but voters have seen through the obfuscation and water-carrying. But Obama's black, so he'll win? nOK. nThe real problem: We think "Anybody but Obama" should be creaming the President by at least 10 points. Since that isn't happening, we're worried. Worry means panic, and panic ain't good. Maybe the guy who is responsible for Staples and the successful 2002 Olympics knows how to handle a crisis – whether it's real or not?
Just noticed something – I don't mean to imply that I think of Romney as merely an "Anybody but Obama" candidate. I like him. I meant that many of us think that a lampshade should beat Obama, so the fact that the current candidate might not be is causing us severe consternation.
The media is part of the environment, yes, but so is the fact that there are alternative media, Fox has huge audience share, and an effective campaigner would have cut through the clutter. Does anybody think that Christie or even Newt (who was in the primaries as a brand burnishing lark–he made money from it for the Gingrich family business for himself and Callista even as the campaign floundered into debt) would stand for being pummeled for a week when embassies were being burned and Ambassadors murdered while their own safe houses were under attack? n nNo, the GOP standard bearer isn't Anybody but Obama but he comes across as Nobody in Particular and that ain't working.
But don't you think the MSM would have found other ways to attack any other candidate? It seems that many of my fellow conservatives have fantasies of watching Christie or Gingrich maul their MSM interrogators. That's a fine theory, but unprovable at this point, so convenient. And don't forget – Christie didn't run (I was hoping he would). Both of those men have (big) chinks in their armor, too, and I suspect many conservatives would have disapproved of them. Maybe not the same ones who are dissatisfied with Romney, but we'd be seeing the same internecine back and forth. nFox and cutting through the clutter – true, but the right people have to be watching. Do we know if they are? If the undecided and truly persuadable are reading Powerline or Commentary, we'll win, but one of the reasons those folks are still undecided, or are switching back and forth, is because they don't consume news the way we do. They are hard to reach, especially via alternative media, which has been successfully painted by the MSM as hopelessly biased! For all we know, anything they hear on Fox they dismiss as Republican propaganda (think Faux News) – which might hurt us. nAnd for Nobody in Particular, I think Romney's doing very well – up in Rasmussen by 1 today, for example.
I think Newt and Christie have the ability to take the fight to the Democrats *through the media* lapdogs. But no Christie didn't run and yes, Newt has his own baggage, stamped with all the ports-of-calls he and Callista have made on their international restaurant runs. n nBut I think at a certain level of discomfort the media will stop repeating its prior smears as the self-sustaining rationale for more stories. As in the current media slams against Romney for "jumping the gun"–the next wave of stories, based on their own misreporting, was that "Romney had a bad week"–the candidate needs to figure out a way to short-circuit the machine, even if that means directly attacking the media, down and dirty and personal. n nBut that means you have to risk polarization and the Romney campaign is built on a high-concept Republican strategy of persuading the supposed 1% margin of independents (who supposedly want everyone to be nice) to eat the acorns out of Romney's hands, their little squirrel hearts palpitating in wary gratitude. n nSometimes polarization works and the fence-sitters break the other way. George Wallace's polarization was rally-the-alienated-base and so was iffy for a general election campaign. But Nixon refined the Wallace themes of polarization (in admittedly different times and demographics) and won. n nYes, there was racism in that mix. But, oh, there is now anti-white, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic bigotry cheerfully deployed by the Dems. n nIf Romney does not effectively counter the smears against his own supporters (frothing Tea Partiers, Jewboy neo-con warmongering traitors) then those little squirrels could just end up peeing on his sneakers n fright.
You make a number of very good points. I agree, perhaps a different candidate would be better at short-circuiting the media cycle and increasing the discomfort level for the media. I also think your comments re Republican concerns about "being nice" have some validity.
mike_ste, thank you for your kind words.
I agree with you, and others need to realize this too. Remember, to the media any republican candidate is either stupid or evil and anyone who became the candidate against Obama was going to get the full treatment from the press. n nRemember McCain was the media's fave GOPer, until he became the opponent of their idol, Barack Obama. n nJust for the examples given, Gingrich would have been evil and Christie, probably stupid (he only attended U of Delaware and Seton Hall, so clearly he's a moron) and most certainly "obese" and as our First Lady instructs us: obesity is now the greatest threat to our nation. How many times would the press ask: don't you think you set a bad example by running for President when you're so fat (and so by implication: undisciplined, gluttonous, slothful, etc)? n nWe've all seen the zeal they've put into their "war on women" nonsense, including taking such a one as Sandra Fluke seriously. n nThe media is derelict here. Susan Rice was a disgrace this morning. Somebody over in NY Times land needs to wake up and realize that they are failing the nation. Or not, I suppose. n nBut don't think any other candidate was going to get more of a fair shake, or that they would have been able to easily overcome the OPPOSITION they are getting from the media. n nRemember, these are the people who wrote more about Bristol Palin's pregnancy than they did about Rev. Wright. Try and imagine that happening if the political parties involved were reversed. It can't be done. The republican would have been out of the race and the daughter of the dem veep candidate would have been shopping for baby clothes with Oprah Winfrey in tow. n
Do not discount the degree to which the most intense hostility toward religion in the Democratic Party is keeping Obama afloat. There evidently are millions of people who will cheerfully endure decades of great depressions, see the country spent into bankruptcy twice and three times over with enthusiasm, and nod approvingly as the United States is publicly humiliated around the world, BEFORE they will vote against a secular saint—yes, irony abounds here—or for anyone who may plausibly be represented as exhibiting a religious pulse or anything more than what Justice William Brennan, with exquisite condescension, described as ceremonial Deism. n nGeorge W. Bush was hated, to the extent he was hated (and he was) almost entirely because of his unashamed confession of religious belief and not much at all because of his policies. A like tsunami of hatred is heading toward Romney (a Mormon) and Ryan (a professing Roman Catholic). It matters not a whit how rational or prudential or non-sectarian their arguments for this, that, or the other policy may be. In a large portion of the Democratic electorate they stand condemned as Billy Sundays one and all. The influence of African-Americans, whose clear preference for religiously inspired candidates is a matter of historical record, has been neutered. Obama is (half) black. He could sacrifice his daughters to Baal at high noon on the steps of the Capitol and he would not drop 10 percentage points among African-American voters. The grotesque spectacles at the Democratic convention should make that much clear. And I'm not talking simply about the Orwellian voting procedures over the platform. n nUnlike just about any other subject you might mention, everyone—believer and unbeliever alike—has the strongest possible feelings about religion all of the time. In fact, I will suggest that this is a DEFINING characteristic of human beings: we all take metaphysics seriously, all believe in right and wrong, good and evil. Metaphysical even-handedness is a chimera. The so-called unbeliever is at least as metaphysical as the believer, perhaps more so, as he acknowledges no "realm celestial" into which his hostility might be channeled. All that he hates is right in front of him. All that he worships, too.
Based on your comment, you are a much deeper thinker than I am. "Metaphysical even-handedness is a chimera." You are way over my head! nBut – I think you are confusing the committed Democratic progressive base with the voters who will actually decide this election, who, I suspect, care much less about this stuff than the Circus-goers in Charlotte do. nBush, for example, was "hated" by only the Kool-Aid drinkers. Those who grew weary of him as time went on may have been ready for a change, but they didn't hate Bush.
"[T]he committed Democratic progressive base," if as large as I am suggesting it is and for the reasons I'm suggesting, ARE "the voters who will actually decide this election." n nBy "metaphysical even-handedness" I mean, among several possible polarities, a neutral attitude toward good and evil. That such an attitude is fantastical, assuming that the words "good" and "evil" have discernible meanings, is, I think, an obvious tautology, even for those who "claim" not to believe in such things. A claim or assertion is wholly propositional. A perception of right and wrong draws on quite a bit more of one's humanity. n nI'm unsure to whom "Kool-Aid drinkers" refers.
After reading all these posts, I'm reminded of a story. A man listens to a friend's argument and says, "you're right." Another friend says, "no, friend no1 is wrong." The man says, "you're right." After listening to this, the man's wife says, "look, both your friends can't be right." To which the man says, "you're right too." As I said earlier, there are many ways to explain what's going on politically and it's not easy to quantify them exactly. I have been very negative since Romney emerged as the nominee. But, in spite of this, I've contributed money, have gone to some Tea Party meetings, and will probably do some neighborhood canvassing. I'll go down fighting.
Quantification is difficult, agreed. But if you want to understand what "inspires" the Democrats and quite possibly a good many so-called independents, what makes it even thinkable that Barack Obama is NOT on his way out, what blinds partisans to the manifold and undeniable corruption in him and the abject failure of his policies, you MUST face up to the degree of anti-religious bigotry on the rise in this country. As with George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, whose selection actually heightened the hostility, are not faced with prosaic political disagreement, however sincere, so much as they are the objects of sheer metaphysical malice. They are hated because they are NOT ashamed or embarrassed by their religious convictions and because it is in fact assumed that religion alone is what motivates them, nothing they say or do not say withstanding.
But is Romney standing up for you?
Kool-Aid drinkers – the very progressives we're talking about. I think they are the only ones who really, truly hated Bush. And I don't think they are going to decide the election. It's the moderates – many of whom are still finding Libya on a map – who need time to let this stuff process, who are going to decide the election.
I know a Democratic-leaning guy who has a sophisticated and very minoritarian spiritual commitment to a self-proclaimed Bodhavista/divine avatar. Each to his own. But the same guy reflexively will attack Evangelical Christians (who also have faith in an Incarnation) as red-necled yokels. And the basis for that contempt imo is not the spiritual school to which he is a devotee but the metaphysical club of unbelieving contempt. A contempt which is ultimately reassuring through its optimistic promise that sophisticated materialism holds in store abundance and endless youth, and not dread.
I think a consensus is beginning to evolve as to why Romney/Republicans are having such difficulties in an environment that should be lethal for Obama/Democrats: hostility toward religion and a large sector's correct, regrettably or not, association of Republicans with the religious right. I have several personal stories that underscore this. I'll give just one. Several years ago my daughter asked if her boyfriend's parents could be invited to our Seder. They are very nice people; both professionals; both relatively active in their synagogue. It was a very nice religious experience, but after the recitation of "Next Year in Jerusalem," the wife added: "and may the religious right stay away from us." I was stunned by the remark and remarkably said nothing. I think one can not only extrapolate from that how many Jews feel, but also many secular non Jews as well.
". . . one can not only extrapolate from that how many Jews feel, but also many secular non Jews as well." n nAs they say: BINGO! n n Not being a Jew myself, I was somewhat reluctant to even bring the subject of religion and politics up at the website of a magazine that, at least once upon a time, was pointedly secular AND Jewish. I realize that I may be very wrong about that history, but in the context of the United States, where intermarriage with gentiles is approaching 50% of Jewish marriages, I believe, whether or not Jewish-Americans can accept, not simply coexistence with evangelical Christians (and that includes Mormons), but political cooperation with them has, in 2012, assumed a most acute significance for the future of the nation. The Jewish populations in both Ohio and Florida are well above the average for three quarters of the rest of the States, I'd guess.
I appreciate your reluctance, but, I would guess, most posters on Commentary's website would not be offended by anything said that is respectful and in good taste. More words, exponentially, have been written about Jews, Gentiles and Evangelicals than have appeared in the aggregate on this website since its inception. Personally, I believe a great deal of it now is hysterical and irrational, but, there are some strong historical factors that make those arguments plausible, and therefore they are applied to contemporary politics. The intermarriage fear has also been vented by writers, both rationally and irrationality. My own opinion is that, other than the Orthodox, and some seminary Rabbis, intermarriage is much less of a fear or rejection of children's desires than it was several decades ago. There just is too much it. With the arrival of grandchildren, religious differences between generations disappear quickly and the non Jewish spouse is welcomed warmly, even as members and participants in Jewish religious institutions. It does seem therefore, contradictory that many Jews, then, would have such a fear of the religion of the parents of the grandchildren that are so loved. One of my intellectual heroes, the late Irving Kristol, summed it up best: "gentiles don't want to persecute Jews; they just want to marry them." n
!!!!!!!!
"unbelieving contempt," yes, I see that. Yet it's the "contempt" part that holds the most interest. I do not imagine that an emotion as acute as contempt is even possible without the enthusiastic participation of the limbic regions of the brain or, further, without a judgment that some very elemental "belief" is threatened. To repeat, metaphysical judgments cannot be neutral. Such judgments are at least partially cognitive, true, but whether we like it or not the cortex is automatically connected—via the thalamus—to the hypothalamus, to feelings of rage and self-preservation. So I think that the unbelief in question is largely notional. n nKnowing whether, as David Hume airily asserted, "reason is the slave of the passions," or the other way round, would not be as helpful as realizing that, as often as not, we manage to cope with the conflict, suggesting, it seems to me, that there might be some third influence at work in and around us, call it spirit, whose ends WE serve. n nAs to your last sentence, it reinforces a belief that I've held for some time now, namely, there is nothing about so-called unbelief that the Four Horseman—Conquest, War, Famine, and Death—wouldn't sort out in an afternoon.
but a terrible road to self-knowledge, and sometimes unbelief is shouldered aside by the fanatical faith, and round about we go. Nihilist Germany drew some lessons from the collapse of the 12 Year Reich. But the mullahs did not learn open-eyed sobriety from their sacrifice in the Iraq. Can the MSNBC closed-mind be opened by anything?
The depressing aspect is that thinking over the poll data forces one to realize just how easily led by the left-wing press is such a large percentage of voters. That bodes ill for our future.
Obama's recent improvement in the polls is a combination of the "Clinton bounce" and the reluctance of a lot of people to make the President look (even more) bad during a time of international crisis. Both effects are already fading. Talk of a loss of momentum by Romney/Ryan is simply MSM wish-casting. People will come to their senses by November, and all is likely to be well.
Great post. I have had the same thought, i.e., if Romney is up slightly or even running even in Leftists' polls, then he must have a much larger lead in reality.
A well reasoned and articulate "there there, its not so bad " for Team Romney. n nWhy is it then, that conservatives are finding so many "chicken littles" in the hen house? n nI for one, as an Obama supporter, recognize that the election is far from over, and that Romney's polling position should be taken very seriously.
Color me a skeptic about the coverage and polling of this campaign. All summer, and now as begin fall, the stories were and are that Obama is starting to pull away or Romney is starting to slip (take your pick). Yet virtually every poll that makes its background information public, especially in the swing states, does everything imaginable to boost Obama and supress Romney. As examples, take the NBC/Wall Street Journal polls from late last week. It has Obama up 7 points, but in order to do so, it oversamples Democrats by 10 points (38-28, with the balance independents). Given the even split nationally and in Ohio, it strains the mind to believe that Democrats will vote in such far superior numbers. Also, this is the only way Obama seems to be able to get to anything resembling 50%. This has been the story behind the poll numbers all summer, except for Rasmussen, which had Obama flirting with the upper 40s for a brief couple of days after the D convention and now has him back consistently at 44-45 (I do not have access to Rasmussen's background data).
You are right on the mark. This is a very serious tactical weakness of Republicans: bashing certain groups, many of whom support conservative positions. I often think of how many Republicans ridicule policy, firemen and teachers. And what about the thousands of government workers who are performing important tasks: data collection, litigation, etc. These groups have widespread public respect. Republicans know how to make people uneasy and intensify the anxiety of the vulnerable. They must learn how to talk the game of smaller government without insulting people. My father used to say that "everyone likes to be treated like a menche." Calling government workers lazy and selfish is not doing so. Jonathan started this discussion by saying it is amazing that Republicans can be competitive. nHe's so right, but maybe not for long.