So while some of us were celebrating the Jewish New Year and taking the last couple of days off from politics, it appears a video has more or less decided the election. That’s the assumption of much of the mainstream media about the impact of the release of the video of Mitt Romney speaking back in May at a private fundraiser about the 47 percent of the country that doesn’t pay taxes. They think this means it’s time to put a fork in the Republican candidate. They believe the pile-on from both the Democrats and their media allies will be enough to effectively push Romney far enough behind the president that he will never be able to make it up in the weeks remaining to him. This is, to understate matters, something of a self-fulfilling prophecy since the reason the video is considered to be such a big deal is because it has been covered as an earth-shaking gaffe that ought to spike Romney’s hopes of ever winning the presidency.
As much as I’ve taken a dim view of some of the pie-eyed optimism on the right that wrongly discounted Barack Obama’s advantages, the assumption that Romney has been fatally damaged is incorrect. The initial reaction to the video clips will probably damage Romney, but it will not affect the bulk of his support in a race that is still close. But it also offers him an opportunity, not so much as Rush Limbaugh said today to open up a dialogue about entitlements and taxes — though that would be welcome — as it does for him to take on the media that is pronouncing him dead. The reason the video hurts is that it played into Obama’s greatest advantage: a pliant media that is quick to dismiss his blunders but can be counted on to make a meal out of any of Romney’s gaffes. But it is time for the Romney campaign to understand they must exploit the fact that half the country believes the liberal media is out to get him. Romney must tell the country that it must not let the chattering classes decide the election before they’ve had a chance to vote.
Let’s specify that Romney’s statement was dumb. No presidential candidate should ever make such a sweeping generalization. Romney has a habit of making gaffes and this was yet another example of one of his weak points as a leader. Yet for all of the fact that he painted those who don’t pay income taxes with a broad and inaccurate brush, his comment was still based in a correct interpretation of the philosophical divide between the approaches of the two parties to the entitlement welfare state that has played such a destructive role in American society.
But as much as some of the carping about the Romney campaign from Republicans has been justified, let’s understand that the reason why this video is being seen as the turning point in the election is that a liberal media that is determined to re-elect the president says so.
This is the same media after all that was faced with a similar gaffe four years ago when Barack Obama was caught on tape at one of his private fundraisers making similarly stupid comments dismissing much of America as “clinging to guns and religion” because of their fears and small-minded natures. While that video did not go unreported at the time, the reaction from much of the press was indifference. Right-wing bloggers and columnists screamed about it but it was not treated as front-page news in mainstream newspapers. The explanation for that is not exactly a mystery. If most reporters and their editors didn’t play it that big it was because most of them shared Obama’s contempt for religion and guns and those that cling to them.
Let’s also remember that the president’s “you didn’t build that” gaffe has been endlessly defended and rationalized by the media instead of being covered as an open and shut case of his being out of touch with much of the country’s beliefs. The president’s “open mic” moment earlier in the year, in which he promised Russia’s president that he could be more “flexible” in accommodating Moscow after his re-election, was also underplayed.
Any Republican who runs for president and is surprised to find that the deck is stacked against him in the media doesn’t deserve the office. But that doesn’t mean Romney should take this double standard lying down. Rather than play defense on this issue, the Romney campaign must make it clear they intend to treat this story as being more about media bias than about the candidate’s stupidity. If played right, that could not only jazz up a GOP base that despises the media, but put the Republican’s tormenters on the defensive.
There is still plenty of time before November for an aggressive Romney push against the media’s double standards to undermine their narrative about him being finished. It’s a stance that can also help Romney win the debates. Not taking any guff and refusing to accept the premises of liberals posing as objective moderators could do even more for Romney that it did for Newt Gingrich during the GOP debates.
Trailing with less than seven weeks to go is not the position that Romney wanted to be in. President Obama was already the clear favorite, but if this becomes the moment when Romney finds his voice and hits his stride by speaking out on both his economic philosophy and against the media, it is not too late for him to turn this thing around.
"President Obama was already the clear favorite…" I don't know if you maybe meant to write "is" instead of "was", but taking this at face value, I must note AGAIN that this is what we were told all last year. How hard it is to unseat an incumbent anything, much less president, the one politician/office holder that every person in the country knows. I bet if we did a "man in the street" thing 60% at least couldn't name Biden as Veep without prompting. I wonder how many would answer "Romney". n nBut I really want to talk about these two "gaffes". One thing Rush Limbaugh said today about this tape was that it was typical of the "red meat" candidates throw out at fundraisers. Clearly Obama's "bitter clingers" remark was in that same vein. Is either remark out of character for the two candidates? No, but that is why they are the Republican and Democrat candidates for president, each is committed to his party's bottom line. OK, in both cases the candidates showed more ankle than might be prudent, but it must be remembered that in each case the candidate thought he was speaking off the record, and both were speaking off the top of their heads, insofar as I know. n nThere were much more disturbing issues that were swept under the rug when Obama ran in 2008 and many were matters of public record, not of a secretly recorded talk. His close association with Rev. Wright, who is a blatant racist, his association with Bill Ayers the (by his own definition) unrepentant terrorist, his close and possibly corrupt association with convicted crook Tony Rezko, and pretty much everything else about his career in Chi-town, hot bed not only of corruption but of anti-Americanism for many, many decades. n nBut, I beat a dead horse, I know. n n
Why are you taking it as true that Romney is trailing this race? It's a statistical dead heat. AND the polls are oversampling Dems. Romney is NOT behind!
There really is a difference between the Democratic base of support, the universe of non-Federal taxpayers, and the demographics of dependency. And it makes the atmospherics no rosier if this very wealthy guy was throwing out class resentment (against the poor) to hype up a room full of self-righteous plutocrats. Moreover, having thrown part of his own base under the bus (there are loads of folks just getting by, some with governmental support who were enthusiastic backers of Romney), he has doubled down on the original error. Repeating over and over that *of course* people who don't pay Federal taxes wouldn't support lower marginal rates for upper earners. Except we all know people who exactly fit that category who did. And suggests he still doesn't "get it." And so the argument shifts from a debate on a culture of dependency vs a culture of independence, self-respect, and the work ethos, to the far less sellable personalized mark-down version of the argument, the protest of the "givers" against the "takers" which is sorta like the first argument but crucially different, and not for the better.
I don't fault Romney. Yes, he is a mediocre candidate for many reasons (no clear ideology; gaffe prone; wooden) but it should not matter. Obama is so manifestly un-American in his ideology that he should have 0% support. A mediocre candidate should be more than enough. Although it is 100% true that Romney has done a million things wrong, it should not take a great candidate to beat Obama. We the voters are fault. We the voters who voted for surrender and retreat in 2006, then voted for a lawless, unAmerican deceiver against a moderate Republican "maverick" war hero are to blame. While Romney is wrong on the details of the 47% claim, it is absolutely true that some meaningful part of the electorate has been bought off (financially (as in unions or many on various forms of gov't assistance) or legally (as in illegal aliens)). It need not be 47% to be important. Another big chuck are, frankly, stupid. And the final big chuck are ideologically unAmerican like Obama. Any others are tricked by the media. Romney is not to blame that he is just so-so, but then, the voters are far worse than him.
I have written in a previous post that you cannot expect the average voter to read the WSJ editorial page, National Review, Commentary and the academic papers of the University of Chicago's economics department. Because they do not, and therefore may not be influenced by conservative/libertarian ideas, does not mean the public is stupid. I'm a cynical, critical guy, but when it comes to the public's decisions—-disagree with them as I do—-I give them a pass. To believe the public is stupid is to fall into the trap of pandering and avoiding discussing the truth in direct, hard-hitting formulations. In other words, doing exactly what the Republicans did in their convention and how Romney is running his campaign.
I agree, there is something very wrong with an electorate that even consider voting for someone like Obama.
Obama is the clear favorite? Really? With 43 months of OVER 8% unemployment (even using the fishy "official" number) which is more than all 11 post war presidents COMBINED? With the Fed shooting its last bullet, QE forever, to try and stop a downturn Obama's policies have worsened? With his Middle East bow and scrape policies melting down like so many solar panels from bankrupt green energy companies he plugged? And Romney is TRAILING with seven weeks to go? At what, failure? Seriously, stop reading the phony media polls, get out of your offices and go see what's going on sometime. I don't think the rest of the country wants another four years of this garbage.
Scott Brown ran two new ads last night during CBS' "NCIS". Brilliant – one ad starts with Brown proclaiming he is pro-choice, and had many different women voicing support, closing with a Brown family shot. The second ad was Brown pitching his bio "came from nothing", and Independent. The online ad here (for me) says "Scott Brown: Pro-Choice & an Independent". n nWhy does this matter? Well, maybe if the GOP had Scott Brown at the top of the ticket, Obama would be retiring. n nI am still considering a write-in for Clint Eastwood, the sole endorsement that has meaning.
Pro choice ADs may work well in New England but not play out well elsewhere.
I just can't take it anymore. Romney's ineptness. Conservatives trying their best to tell us the election is not over by parsing the polls which do indeed tell us the election is over. Conservatives telling us, once again, that Romney will find his voice(why doesn't he go out and find some new campaign staff). And liberals gleefully looking forward to their election night revelry. My personal strategy: pick good conservatives who are running for the House and Senate and contribute. I just did for Alan West.
With a fair media Obama would be down 20 points
At this point in 1980, Reagan and Carter were tied at 39% each. For the next few weeks, Carter took a substantial lead up until the debates, then his support vaporized. Today, it appears that Obama's convention bounce has vanished and we are back to where we were pre conventions (basically tied in the national polls with Obama a slight favorite in most swing states). What can't happen is for him to allow himself to get rolled by the press. Most of America knows the press is biased, but they're not going to vote for Romney if he can't neutralize them. He needs to treat them as hostile. (continued on next post)
Reagan took the lead in the 1980 primaries when he angrily said "I'm paying for this microphone". The other guys standing on stage looked like piker's at that moment. A little well placed anger goes a long way. It would be nice to see Romney boot a reporter out of a briefing the next time they ask a loaded question (or ask the reporter why they're asking him stupid questions and not asking the President about security failures in Libya). Most intelligent Americans would quietly be thinking "right on!". Romney can win this thing if he exposes and handles the biased media. If he allows himself to get rolled, he's toast. He's got to use their bias to demonstrate his Presidential qualities, not let the media show him to be un-presidential.
Very well said and exactly right!
I am confused. A 1988 video shows Obama endorsing wealth redistribution. Why isn't this deemed of far greater importance than Mitt Romney's off the cuff remark? n nWe should also scorn the disgraceful behavior of Bill Kristol. His attack on Romney is neither accurate nor reasonable. Kristol seems to want to continue being invited to the best parties in the Washington corridor.
It was 1994 and it doesn't show him favoring 'redistribution'. It shows him advocating a progressive tax system to make sure 'everyone gets a shot' (sic). And it WAS over a decade ago, vs being yesterday. Get over it.
Romney isn't toast: n nHe's burned toast.
If not toast, zwieback. What a fool.
Oh brother…the whining about the fact that not ALL the US media is like Fox is risible. You guys have your myths and, amazingly enough, not everyone believes them!!!!! Good heavens, what's next? People not believing His Holiness Rush? Is there no limit to the profane?
trailing…? nNot according to Rasmussen who has been the most accurate pollster in the past several elections. nalso…up +1 in Swing States and New Hampshire also ( as of today ) now for Romney . nEveryday is more Obama PsyOps n It's the video! n47% oh gasp, "kill Romney!" ooops…2 minutes edited out, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! n this is stupid.
Romney doesn't care about 47% of Americans. What does this make him? When you insult almost half the country how can you expect to win. I won't even watch the debates because Romney will just lie his way out of every question.
Obama has lied his way to his current position at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. I guess they all have to to get life paid for, but we will see if Romney drops the ball as bad as the rookie in office now, I doubt it.
I read the part of the video was 'missing' at the time of the remarks, is this true? if it was edited, no one will believe the recording stopped at a vital point, perhaps his words have more context. Not that I expect the MSM to tell anyone about that, is there a transcript anywhere?
The biggest most disgraceful mistake of President Obama – one that would have shamed the leader of the smallest most inconsequential nation on earth – continuin to toast the Queen of England while the all the Queen's guests stood at rigid attention during the playing of God Save the Queen (did Obama know it was their anthem?) was gossed over and simply dismissed as of no consequence – or exclaiming to the Austrian parliament he didn't know how to say a popular American expression in Austrian. Away from his teleprompters he is worse than a rank amateur.
That video means nothing. It may even help Romney._People are catching on the mainstream media is nothing more than political hacks in the tank for 0bama.
"Bullies" a very apt description of the mainstream media.
I've thought for awhile now that bloggers from Commentary, NRO and the Weekly Standard and other conservative sources are much too respectful to and solicitous of the left-wing media. n Romney has been well-positioned to win for months and still is, Bill Kristol notwithstanding. Commentary magazine bloggers seemed during the primaries to fall in love serially with fringe candidates who never had any chance of election, but disdained Romney all along. n Romney alone of well-knoiwn prospective candidates actualy had the guts to run while the Kristols and Hayeses of conservative media pined for others who chose to sit out the race. Kristol wrote the other day (he'd likely say tongue-in-cheek) that maybe Romney will drop out and make way for a possible Ryan-Rubio ticket.) These people are fools and don't deserve to be taken seriously. n Romney is leading or within striking distance in every ''battleground'' state and needs only a strong debate performance to win this election´despite the naysayers. n
Amen!
I agree with many readers that the liberal media is openly hostile to Romney and must be attact for this,not ignored or appeased. The phenomen of the " liberal" media supporting the blunt anti-American leftist candidate is shocking for the foreigner.
Sure Pauly, Of course it was racist – after all, he was criticising Obama, so what else could it be? Must be a not so subtle allusion to the country being 47% black, right?
He will be fine. When they look at the train wreck in office, those comments will be long forgotten. Why are we worried about Romney winning? Nobody screws up as bad as Obama and gets re-elected. Romney will end up making the country strong again, not just blowing kisses to the people and screwing them when they turn around.