Romney’s awful campaign
Lately I’ve heard a lot of people saying Romney is running one of the worst campaigns ever. At the same time they’re saying this, they’re also saying that media coverage is completely biased against Romney.
And so I wonder how would they even know what sort of campaign Romney is running, because the entire undertaking has been filtered through the media coverage, and the media only reports (and hammers home) things that it judges to be unfavorable to Romney, like his 47% remark or his criticism of the Cairo embassy’s apology. For Obama, it’s the opposite.
Right now it seems that Romney’s campaign appearances such as these recent ones are in a lull in preparation for the debate, although Paul Ryan is soldiering on. I don’t know much about TV ads because I hardly watch TV, and the few times I have I’ve not seen an ad for either candidate.
I do know that for the first few months of the campaign Romney was hitting Obama pretty hard. I also know that conservatives were very fired up when he picked Ryan. But then the MSM swung into full gear, and has been quite successful with an incessant drumbeat of negatives and outright lies about both men. It takes a great deal to counter that no matter who you are.
Reagan managed to do it in 1980. But back then the media wasn’t quite as ruthless, the candidate himself was unusually charismatic (neither Romney, nor most politicians, could compete with Reagan in that department) and the composition of the electorate and perhaps even the basic beliefs and values of Americans have changed so much that I’m not at all sure Reagan could get elected were he to run today.
People point to Reagan’s race in 1980 as proof that Romney can pull it out. And it’s widely accepted that Reagan’s debate with Carter turned the tide for him and gave the public a chance to see him unfiltered by the media. But although Romney could do the same, it is also the case that Romney is no Reagan—and when I say that it’s not really a criticism of Romney, because Reagan was sui generis.
I also wonder whether the American public pays as much attention to the debates as it used to. My sense—and it’s just a gut sense, but it’s a strong one—is that political decisions have become more surface and shallow than ever, and the public has become more susceptible to propaganda.
Or maybe twas ever thus.
One thing I believe is that, if Romney loses this election, the right will start tearing itself apart in anger. That’s another thing the left banks on, and—if indeed some of the polls are being rigged to favor Obama at present—it would also be one of the goals of such deception: to demoralize the right and cause the usual circular firing squad to begin. I already see some evidence of it in articles and comments from the right that accuse Romney of not wanting to win, of not going on the attack enough (as though that would elude the negative media spin), of not doing whatever it might be that the brilliant armchair strategists would be doing if they were running for president, an election they of course would win by dint of their brilliant strategy. If Romney loses, the RINO theme will rise again undiminished, and the hatred of the “Republican establishment.”
My opinion of what’s going on is quite different: if the American people re-elect Obama despite his failures, lies, betrayals, immaturity, gaffes, arrogance, destructive foreign policy, demonstrated leftism, small-mindedness, lack of leadership, executive power-grabs, fiscal irresponsibility, and a host of other negatives I may have forgotten to list but which have been operating for the last four years, then it will prove that the American people have fundamentally changed in the direction they want this country to take, and it will require some major upheaval to reverse that trend. We can’t wait around for the perfect candidate; a good-enough candidate like Romney should be good-enough to beat Obama, and if that’s not possible it says more about the country than the candidate.
And if Romney manages to pull it out (which I believe is possible) I will be heartened and encouraged, although I have no illusions that Romney’s election would stem the Gramscian tide. But it would be a beginning, and it would buy us time.
My feeling is if the vote is even close, it is a very bad thing, because of what it says about the American voter. Obama should be polling less then 30%.
I also think Romney is running a good campaign, the problem is the media filter.
Romney is right to avoid hitting Obama too hard on some things. Obama would love to run against a birther or someone talking up Rev. Wright’s radical church.
I’m somewhat embarrassed to have to confess my ignorance, but until just now the term “Gramscian tide” was not part of my vocabulary (though I know you’ve used it before).
I have now read this 2001 piece by Steven Yates — Understanding the Culture War: Gramscians, Tocquevillians and Others — and don’t know what to say other than “My God, a war has been waged against us during my entire lifetime, and I never realized it until now!” I feel like that Harry Potter character, “Dobby”.
Now I’m really worried that if this election is lost we will have really passed the point of no return. Hell, for all I know we passed it long ago…
carl in atlanta: exactly.
That’s also what Fabians have been working on for over a century. See this.
DonS:
First consider that most analysts put the impact of a favorable media at 5%-7%. Then consider the various questionable sampling discussions that have been discussed here and elsewhere. Corrected for those factors Obama would be in the upper 30s right now. Given the environment I don’t think the American voter is in quite as bad shape as the reported polling suggests.
I think Romney will win (because the country is much more anti-Obama than the MSM-commissioned polls suggest) but ask yourself if Romney stopped campaigning would you notice? Is it a conspiracy that his speeches and ads do not resonate or is it just that he is an uninspiring speaker?
Steve: His speeches are not being covered unless he makes a gaffe. The one exception was his convention speech, which they pretty much had to cover.
So if we’re not seeing them, he must be doing pretty well.
I saw this comment at Gay Patriot:
“The one cataclysmic flaw in all of this logic about Dem/Repub turnout is the fundamental presumption that registered Dems turning out will vote for Obama. The Dem turnout could be +1,or even +3, but if those Dems vote for Romney or at least refuse to vote for Obama it destroys the polls’ premise.
Take Pennsylvania, as an example. In the April, 2012 Democrat primary some counties had as high as a 40% undervote (refused to mark Obama on the ballot) event though Obama was the only Dem candidate for president on the ballot. Based upon the 2008 PA vote, this would have meant a loss of ~513,000 Obama votes. Does anyone really believe that union blue Democrat coal miners will be casting their votes en masse for Obama? And they are but one single example. Now multiply that by other demographics (Catholics? Small business owners?) and expand that nationwide . . . .”
I’d forgotten just how badly Obama did in some of his primaries. Remember how he lost to a felon in 10 West Virginia counties? I think we may see a lot of split ticket voting by Democrats. So, as I keep reminding my worried wife, “We’re going to win; they’re going to lose”.
Thank you for writing so well what I have been thinking for some time. I am currently bewildered by the barrage of criticism currently coming from the right. Do they think it really helps a month prior to an election? In all honesty, I think some of these critics do it for the sake of self-promotion than for any real criticism they have of Romney. From high school to beyond, many times our trash talking is nothing but a space-filler meant to make us look big…
Agree that this election is about the direction our country will take. For us. Unfortunately, for too many it’s still a beauty contest.
As for Romney’s campaign, from my perch in a swing state his campaign commercials have been pretty underwhelming. I’ve seen one played a very few times that I thought was good. 90% of the ads I’ve seen are the China is Cheating one. This is supposed to appeal to blue-collar workers. The problem? I live in Northern Virginia that is almost completely white-collar federal workers. Just last night that ad played several times after 11pm, when most blue-collars have already gone to bed.
At the least, that’s a bad use of ad money.
We have to hope enough people have woken up. I know I’ll be voting even if polls tell me Obama is up by 99 points.
Forty years of bad education and media indoctrination are paying off for the Democrats. We are at the tipping point. Obama has not delivered for blacks and young people for four years. Will they care if he doesn’t deliver for four more? When the blue model hits the wall they will continue to suffer greatly. For me that’s the only good thing. Being in the cool group will be thin gruel.
I’m stashing away “stem the Gramscian tide” for future use in multiple arenas.
People who say “Romney is running one of the worst campaigns ever” were obviously zygotes during the McCain campaign of 2008. Since they are so new they can’t vote and don’t count.
I wish I were seeing more Romney ads that specifically target Obama. No more of this “nice guy in over his head” thing.
Maybe the ads are out there and I’m just not seeing them. I do live in PA, which isn’t even considered a battleground state anymore (if ever). I do see Obama ads all over the internet (you know the ones…”Join Michelle and wish Obama a happy birthday”…”wish the Obamas a happy anniversary”…”are you in?” etc.
I do think its true that Dems are better campaigners, generally speaking. But beyond the overt MSM bias, which has hit a new low this year, there is just so much “noise” out there that it’s harder and harder for anyone to break through with a clear message. Think about how much things have changed just since 2008. It’s certainly nothing like the communication climate when Reagan got elected.
As another data point… any time you see a headline either pro-O or anti-O, pro-Rom or anti-Rom…
Look at the comments, if the venue allows them.
What’s the distribution — critical of O, critical of Rom, what? And the likes/dislikes, if a part of that site. Are they supportive of critical of O? Supportive of critical of Rom?
I cite to you that the commentariat is generally running strongly against Obama. That might be astroturfing,b but I bet it’s actually the true mood of the country, as opposed to the fantasy numbers put up by the polls.
OK, about NOW you’re asking WHY? To what purpose?
The following is admittedly A Conspiracy Theory. I’m just noting some facts, trends, and other data I’ve observed, and looking to formulate an explanation for what otherwise seems odd behavior.
I’m not claiming it’s RIGHT by any means — I just say it’s…. interesting. We’ll see if the results pan out…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
====================================
Notice this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/el-paso-co-voter-registra_n_1909234.html
NOW, notice the absolute lack of any connection to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of fraudulent registrations done for the Dems by ACORN, which, of course, the Obama DOJ made at most a cursory “investigation”…
This is not a trivial one person job, here, this is sufficient that, in the county that Indianapolis, IN is located in, the voter roll was 105% of the eligible-age residents of that county. Others in the MidWest were not dissimilarly skewed….
Now consider — with all the supposed “polls” claiming The One is sooooo far ahead, despite lots of evidence to the contrary…
What do you think the average Obama voter is going to think when Romney wins by a decent margin? You think they’re going to scream that “The GOP STOLE THE ELECTION!! AGAIN!!!” and have a massive temper tantrum?
I think they’re setting up for that. I really do. Because THEN what happens?
Obama gets to reject the results as “clearly fraudulent”…?
Hmmm?
So it’s between what Americans’ lying eyes tell them about the economy, and the MSM’s narrative. That the media should have such power to affect the course of history…
Last time I suggested here that the media be held accountable for its political partisanship, there were protests that my suggestion was tantamount to a call to curtail freedom of speech. Here we are now with free speech being curtailed anyway (“The future must not belong to…” yada yada), and if through media malfeasance Obamarx wins another term, expect blasphemy laws in Husseini America to be expanded to cover anti-Marxist as well as anti-Islamic messages.
That’s what happens when so many “righteous souls” put down Senator Joe M. as worse than Generalissimo Joe S. That’s the Spaceballs Maxim as to how evil triumphs.
Concerning the flurry of polls, I find it more amusing than anything else. They mean nothing, they’re merely the modern equivalents of ancient oracles and other fortune-tellers, in much the same way as spreadsheets and statistics are numerology and astrology updated. Only after the votes are cast will there be any meaningful data.
Neo:
I definitely agree with your point at 3:12PM: “His speeches are not being covered unless he makes a gaffe.”
I second Pat Caddell: The MSM’s most egregious betrayals of their sacred trust have been those of omission rather than commission (and those those are bad enough).
Neo wrote:
I agree. That’s precisely why I’ve been reasonably optimistic. You know the “Christopher Columbus/sea monsters” thing, the “in our DNA” thing. I fundamentally believe that the citizenry will not let this happen.
All this talk about Romney’s bad campaign is, as noted above, filtered through the commentariat which is becoming less trustworthy by the day (fully 60% of American’s don’t trust the media). This is that “judging the depth of the pond by its surface” thing. Remember that much of the conservative commentariat comes from the same ivy league that gives birth to the progressives. Liberal or conservative, those Crimson people, those Elis, those Princetonians are all cut from the same cloth. Take them with a grain of salt.
Pat @3:12 above.
Thanks for noticing. That was me spewing on another site a version of what I’ve oft repeated here. First time, though I’ve been cross-referenced from blog to blog; kinda neat!
One of my running friends, a young, single woman, wrote this on her FB page:
“Dear Obama,
I just received my explaination of benefits and while math isn’t necessarily my strong suite. How is it that increasing my detuctible from $350 to $2,500 and an anticipated annual $1,000 tax for having private insurance affordable?
Sincerely,
A very budget wise constitute of a previously sound body and mind however your ObamaCare my trigger a panic attack resulting in a very expensive hospital stay in a pyschiatric unit”
I replied “That must be a mistake. All the extra costs of Obamacare weren’t supposed to emerge until after the election.”
And she said “Haha, yeah its crunch time for politicians and unfortunately for Obama it happens to coincide with open enrollment options for benefits packages.”
She makes a good point; it is open enrollment season and a lot of people are going to get a shock when they see what Obamacare is going to do to them.
No matter who wins, we’ll always have that two weeks back in November ’08 when we weren’t racists.
Here in Colorado, we see back to back non-stop campaign ads from both sides, but plenty from Romney. I’ve recently relocated here from San Francisco, mostly due to the economy. Any way, I think in Colorado, since it’s a swing state, both sides are working very hard to get the vote.
I am an optimist by nature so of course, I am somewhat optimistic but I also know that Obama has managed to rally even the lefties I know who think he is not leftist enough (remember, I am from San Francisco), and he also has backers who believe that he is — “Ghandhi”. Yes, you read that right, I actually had a friend write me that she was now convinced that Obama was “Ghandhi”. Sigh. This when the riots were breaking out in the Middle East and it looked to me that all hell was loosed upon the world. So, people are still stuck on this guy though I will never, ever understand it. I tend to agree with you Neo in that I think the man is a cold fish, not very likable and well, just a disaster in terms of leadership in all the ways you list.
I don’t know what will happen. Anything could happen and it will probably be close, and it should not be. I also agree that if Obama wins, it says something very bad about the present day American electorate, something I would prefer not to believe. Of course, the media is definitely in the tank for Obama, but even so… people are HURTING. This economy is punishing and there are wars about ignite, or one big war… However, it could be that the effects of the last twenty years of media bias and — academic bias toward the left have created an American population that does not understand fundamentals. How I managed to wake up is a miracle. If I can (I am a changer) than anyone can, but really – it is not a good picture if Obama wins.
“My opinion of what’s going on is quite different: if the American people re-elect Obama despite his failures, lies, betrayals, immaturity, gaffes, arrogance, destructive foreign policy, demonstrated leftism, small-mindedness, lack of leadership, executive power-grabs, fiscal irresponsibility, and a host of other negatives I may have forgotten to list but which have been operating for the last four years, than it will prove that the American people have fundamentally changed in the direction they want this country to take, and it will require some major upheaval to reverse that trend. We can’t wait around for the perfect candidate; a good-enough candidate like Romney should be good-enough to beat Obama, and if that’s not possible it says more about the country than the candidate.”
I also have begun to think this election is more about the American electorate than the candidates. It would be amazing to me if the very incompetent and dishonest Obama were to beat a fine upstanding and competent man like Romney. And of course there are the issues – far left versus right of center.
I’m sorry if this sounds unpatriotic, but if Obama wins, I’m gonna wish Texas could secede from the country that I believe is no longer the America I have loved so much of my life. If it could happen without a war, I’d vote for it in a “New York minute”. That’s coming from an ex-Navy officer who has always been proud to be an American.
I know, I know…some will say I should work to correct the situation but I’m sure many said the same thing about our Founding Fathers.
I like our values and way of life here in Texas. I think we live and think like Americans of the past.
By the way, yesterday, I put a bumper sticker on my car (in the back window so it can be seen better) that reads “THE MEDIA IS LYING TO YOU”.
I think a commenter in this blog pointed me to it. It’s at zazzle.com.
I recommend that everyone here get one and put it on your car.
T (at 4:17 PM)
Not all Eli’s are bad…
🙂
Jamie Irons
Yep, texexec, I’ve got that one too.
It reminds me of the hidden signs in the movie “They Live” that only became visible when the hero put on the special sunglasses.
If it gives low information voters a moment’s pause, then I think it will do some good. And if they saw that message everywhere they looked, like in the movie…
“things that it judges to be unfavorable to Romney, like his 47% remark or his criticism of the Cairo embassy’s apology”
These weren’t unfavorable to Romney like the media had hoped. My SIL in liberal CT was confused by the media’s classifying the 47% comment as a gaffe – she agreed with Romney. And the media saw how the Cairo statement shined a light on Obama’s ineptitude and .
So the media has basically blacked out Romney’s campaign because even his so-called “gaffes” hurt Obama.
sorry about the unfinished sentence… And the media saw how the Cairo statement shined a light on Obama’s ineptitude and gave Romney a voice/political weight/campaign coverage…etc.
Jamie Irons,
I did not say that all Elis were “bad,” or even that any Elis are bad. For clarification, my point is that whether one leans to the right or leans to the left, the ivy league creates a fraternity of sorts which leans toward protecting its own. I saw it in my own field; Columbia hires from Princeton, Yale and Harvard, Harvard hires from Yale, Columbia and Princeton, etc., etc., and this is what passes for diversity.
They share a certain similar mind set by virtue of their common educational environment, thus my comment of being “cut from the same cloth.”
libertywolf: Gandhi and Obama.
Send your friend a link to that.
Perhaps I should say “they share a certain credentialed mindset . . . .”
PJ has a piece on some problems that Obama has:
1) Libya and foreign , now being noted by CNN and USA Today
2)Fast and Furious, with the Mexican deaths being covered by Univision
3)Telling defense contractors not to notify workers of impending layoffs despite WARN, which could be big in VA if the word gets out
4) Sebelius campaigning on government time (not a game changer in my mind)
I think the CNN and Univision questions could crack through the MSM Obama defenses. If Romney finds the right way to bring these issues up, maybe the MSM will have to cover them.
Sorry, 1) should be Libya and foreign policy
“I’m sorry if this sounds unpatriotic, but if Obama wins, I’m gonna wish Texas could secede from the country that I believe is no longer the America I have loved so much of my life.”
No need to apologize. Over the last 4 years I have frequently considered how beneficial the break up of the 50 states (57 in the alternate universe of Obama) into regional alliances would be for many of us in flyover country.
“Yep, son, we have met the enemy and he is us.”
— Pogo
Neo said:
“And so I wonder how would they even know what sort of campaign Romney is running, because the entire undertaking has been filtered through the media coverage, and the media only reports (and hammers home) things that it judges to be unfavorable to Romney”
Answer: it’s not a good campaign because first and foremost, it’s a contingency he had no plan to overcome, and it was not only predictable, but guaranteed. The idea that its an excuse is not acceptable- a Romney presidency will/would encounter the same
His campaign needs/needed to control the news cycle, as Obama’s has
The oldest tricks in the democrat book are being used and they have no answer for it. Lyndon Johnson was famous for making outrageous claims about his opponents, and “let the sonofabitch deny it”. While the media ran off to get the reaction of the lie de jour, Johnson was thinking up another one, and his opponents spent all their time defending ludicrous accusations.
Romney’s campaign must believe Americans are tired of all that. Maybe, but the media never gets tired of reporting rumors, and its a technique to keep your opponent off balance, and Obama has used the media to do that. A few well placed innuendos, rumors, and misleading statements are not what Romney is about, but that’s what campaigns are about, and failing to recognize that could be a mistake. Using the media is something he needs to learn, especially if he gets in office. That’s how we know its a crappy campaign.
I have to confess that it seems (out here in the wilds of Northern California) that there just plain is no Romney campaign. At all.
Now, I know Romney’s camp will have (wisely) decided not to put any effort or expense into advertising or campaigning up here, as Mr. Romney can hope at best for two or three votes from this state, but shouldn’t I be hearing something about a national campaign?
I have come to like Mr. Romney, in spite of my initial misgivings.
But it seems to me like he is not even trying.
Jamie Irons
Jamie Irons: I don’t see why the Romney campaign would waste a penny to place ads in California. He needs to put his resources where they would matter.
And as far as the news goes, the MSM controls that for the most part. So I’m not sure what you’d expect to be seeing, there in the belly of the beast.
Jamie- likewise here in Texas for opposite reasons. But Obama has not conceded Texas because I have to watch his ads. I can’t think of a single Romney ad on TV Or the radio. It would be nice to know he hasn’t taken Texas for granted, but it is obvious he hasn’t put any effort at all in the Houston area.
southpaw: “His campaign needs/needed to control the news cycle, as Obama’s has.”
Are you kidding me? Seriously, if the “news cycle” is completely in Obama’s pocket, how can you compare the two situations? It’s very easy to “control the news cycle” when you own the news cycle (metaphorically speaking). It is very easy for the news cycle to ignore you when you try to get their attention if the news cycle is determined to make sure you lose.
Short of stripping to the buff on the Mall in DC, I’m not sure how Romney (or any other Republican nominee, by the way) could control the news cycle—although I suppose he could get attention by making error after error. But that would be the wrong sort of attention.
Rumors and innuendos about Obama? Surely you jest. Been there, done that, from 2008 to the present (not on the part of Romney, but on the part of others). Didn’t work, plus the public is now hardened to it. It doesn’t make a ripple. Here’s a joke about that.
neo–
You didn’t read my remarks (for whatever they may be worth!) carefully. Very unusual for you!
I conceded that I didn’t expect to see anything here, that is, in my state — what worries me is that I see nothing in the national news that suggests he is running a campaign.
Jamie Irons
Jamie Irons: I was agreeing that you wouldn’t expect to be seeing ads in California on the state level, but I was also trying to say that I’m also not sure what more you’d expect to be seeing about a national campaign by watching the news in California, since the MSM controls the news you see (“belly of the beast” was just an attempt at a joke). Apart from the Convention (which I assume was covered), the national news has concentrated on his “gaffes” (the 47% tape, the critique of the embassy apology).
It’s my impression that most of Romney’s efforts at the moment are state by state. Then there are his news conferences and interviews (like the one he gave on 60 Minutes, which was broadcast nationally). The MSM hasn’t highlighted them much, I suppose because he has looked pretty good in them. Other than that, I guess I’m just not sure what sort of “national” campaign you’d see at this point other than those things (although the debates will be national).
This time around the sway of the MSM is severely limited. Even we pawns may hold a grudge and statutes made of matchsticks crumble.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbyRtEhCTlg
I am hoping Mr. Obama is defeated, not necessarily because I see the End of America if he is re-elected — no; I wouldn’t even mind if like Grover Cleveland he ran again in 2016.
But I strongly feel — more strongly than I’ve ever felt before — that The Press has to be defeated in 2012. They have abandoned their duty and station. They must be refuted at the ballot box. And if Gov. Romney wins, then at least — as they did under Mr. Bush — they will be hostile to the administration, which is light-years better than being the administration’s propaganda arm.
Regarding Gramsci, here’s an excellent piece: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7809
Hearkening back to Neo’s original post, a couple of thoughts come to mind.
First, there is something about presumed conservatives that is similar to the drive among some animals to eat their young. Can anyone remember a Liberal or Democrat Pundit publicly criticizing their official candidate the way that Noonan, Kristol, and a host of others routinely do? I stopped paying attention to those two some time back. I recently informed William Katz who blogs at http://www.urgentagenda.com, that I would not read him again until after the election–at least. I have followed and respected him for years, and subscribed to his blog, but cannot tolerate the daily slings and arrows aimed at Romney and his campaign. I have asked him what he expected to accomplish, but never received an acceptable answer.
A second thought follows on to one expressed earlier. Over and above the media filter, if you are not in a battleground state, or part of a targeted demographic, you cannot know how well the Romney campaign is doing. I moved to California six months back. I would be disappointed if Romney spent a nickle in this woe begone state; although he has flown into Orange County a couple of times recently to pick up some cash from high rollers. If I were still in Virginia I would expect to see a vigorous campaign. That is the way Presidential politics are played these days.
I have read hints from folks in show business, the media, etc. that not all are brain dead for Obama. I still suspect that there are more people out there in vulnerable professions; or people who just don’t want to seem “racist” among their sophisticated friends who, while keeping their mouths shut, will never pull the handle for Obama again. Not everyone who got sucked in in ’08 is actually stupid.
I really don’t know what else Romney could reasonably be expected to do. He’s had to walk a razor’s edge in attacking Obama hard but not hard enough to “turn off independents and regretful former Obama voters.” He has to take on the media without seeming like he’s whining. He has to propose reforms for problems most people don’t want to see honestly addressed. And so on.
I think he’s been straddling those lines pretty well. There’s nothing he could do to get more favorable media coverage, that’s for sure.
Blaming Romney for this loss – if we lose – is actually the easy way out. The truth will be – again, if it happens – much darker than that. Neo has stated what it is.
P.S. – I have to say I also don’t like much of the conservative media constantly nitpicking and tearing down everything Romney does and says. I understand they are filled with angst and want Romney to do better, but again, the reason he is not doing better is, with respect to polls, right in the mirror. Obama should realistically be at no higher than 40 or so percent running against a rubber duck.
Oldflyer –
You posted while I was typing, but regarding your first point – exactly. It’s astounding how cannibalistic of their own the conservative media has been.
kolnai and Oldflyer: See this.
If Romney is going to be gun shy about fighting the left (which he seems to have reverted to)… even if he wins we will loose the long game. We need someone to bring up conservative arguments or more people will grow up having never been exposed to them. It will be Bush 3. Beat up all day with no defenses or push back.
Wow Neo! I learned something new reading about Gramsci. Thank you I guess 🙂
blah. I didn’t need to see that bumper sticker!
Jamie Irons,
Apropos of our earlier discussion about ivy leaguers, Megan McArdle said it much more eloquently that I did (H/T Instapundit @ 6:41 PM, emphasis mine):
“The purpose of an elite education, the thinking goes, is to equip you to design and run the system by which 300 million Americans live together—and to ensure that you never, ever have to actually interact with the 280 million who did not graduate from an elite academic program.”
This is the “credentialed mindset” to which I was referring.
Neo-
No I’m not kidding. I’ve been listening to “the media is against us” for 20 years! It’s the same story every election- our guy can’t get his message out. It’s NOT a secret and should be no surprise to a man who wants to be president, he’s up against this going in. We have “journalists” who pee themselves every time Obama speaks. They were just as gaga over Clinton. Rush used to call CNN the Clinton News Network.
Not news. Not a surprise. Romney’s been wanting to be president for years. What did he expect? A fair game? A man that naive has no business asking for my vote. Sorry. It’s getting old to hear this every election. I throw things at the TV in frustration with the media’s obvious bias. It’s his job to figure out how to manipulate them. And that is what I expect. Not excuses that he can’t figure it out, or its too hard, or it goes against his principles. Anybody can get his message out thru a friendly media. It takes a uniquely clever person to get an unfriendly media to work in your favor. But it’s hardly impossible.
Here’s what I expect- I expect a guy who wants to be president, to realize he is in a fight for the most powerful position in the world, and to bring every ounce of energy and creativity to that battle. I expect him to pick people who unequivocally understand the stakes, and take no prisoners. I expect him to leave nothing for granted, to contest every accusation. I expect my candidate to go to war, and above all, understand that is what he’s in -A WAR for the hearts and minds of a country. I don’t want an “aww shucks” concession speech. I most of all don’t want to enable his half ass attempts by whining about how unfair things are. Too much is at stake to expect less of our representatives. Alexander the Great said “Fortune favors the bold”. You need a bold courageous plan to take down a sitting president who is beloved by the media. Cross your fingers and say “bad economy under this president” every speech does not capture the imagination, and is not news to anyone. Don’t ask me what he should do- ask HIM what he plans to do.
I expect him not to talk just about a bad economy, I expect him to to explain to Americans what specific policies this president has implemented that make it worse. Sorry- “too many regulations” won’t due.
How about running ads about how much oil we’ve discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, and explaining how many jobs have been lost, and how many more could be gained if drilling contracts were approved there. Be bold. America needs bold solutions. Not timid half steps. He could lay out an energy PLAN talking about natural gas reserves that will last us for 2 centuries, create millions of jobs, and make us energy independent and safer as a country. An infrastructure to support it. I could go on with this stuff for pages. With specifics. There are hundreds of people qualified to help him with specifics, and marketing those ideas to the general public. He’s supposed to be a business genius, but as a marketer of ideas, his campaign gets an F. It’s abysmal.
He could accuse Obama of lying about gun running, libya, cutting Medicare, etc. There is an endless supply of things his campaign could target. There are NO successes save Bin Laden, which now isnt even that,and yet all I hear is poor Mitt can’t get thru the media. Before him it was poor McCain, poor Dole, poor George Bush senior. Always the media.
NO KIDDING! -they hate you? What a news flash. If this were some new development I could buy it. These guys want to run a country and nobody has figured out how to communicate to people in a world where everybody has a cell phone they can’t stop looking at when they drive or use the toilet.. How dumb are they?
My bigger point is this: it’s not my job to figure out how to run for president, that’s Romney’s. but if I were running, I would surely have expected this from the media, and had a plan.
Love your blog and your columns, but this theme is way past old, and silly and coveys tragic weakness for a man who wants to run executive branch of the most powerful nation on earth.
The plan should be realizing that you can’t get the attention of all voters but there are certainly teaching moments where people tune in to figure out what is going on.
For me it was the LA riots in 1991. I was able to discover AM radio and see that there was an alternative point of view.
Romney can capture a percent of voters with each big event.
Univision is providing a different perspective.
southpaw: You may notice that I didn’t talk anywhere near as much about this theme in 2008 (although I certainly mentioned it and was aware of it). The reason? I saw only the ordinary MSM bias for Democrats then. This year I see something much much more extreme. That is what is different. I actually think it is so bad now it has become far harder to overcome it.
Have you seen all of Romney’s ads? I certainly haven’t. I do remember that for many months the blogs were praising how great they were. All of a sudden, now that the polls have been going south, his ads are considered lame.
I don’t mean to indicate that I think Romney’s campaign is perfect. But I think it’s been much better than McCain’s so far (of course, that’s a low bar to clear). I do NOT think the MSM being against him has surprised him in the least. I just think that the situation has gotten so very bad that it’s very difficult to overcome.
In 2000 and 2004 Bush was very lucky because his opponents were just about the most uncharismatic and unappealing Democrats possible, Gore and Kerry. You and I may think Obama isn’t charismatic, but a great many people would beg to differ. And the media is behind him far more than it was for his predecessors (Gore, Kerry, and even Clinton, although Clinton was somewhat of a darling of the media).
So to me this isn’t old news. It’s a situation that has gotten much, much worse.
Neo,
I would add that a major difference between the 2000 and 2004 campaigns and the 2012 campaign is that formerly, the MSM favored a candidate. This cycle they’re in the tank and actively proselytizing for one. It’s the difference between conscious bias v. manipulating/spiking the stories for a preconceived result, aka fraud.
Love this post, Neo. Beautifully expressed. And Romney is a very good man, very intelligent and accomplished, and an American in his heart; none of which is true of the treasonous jerk in the WH at present. Yes, treasonous: giving aid and comfort to our enemies!
But it might be more useful for all of us to brainstorm ideas to help him get through the media chaff (in the military sense of that term). Or, to use another metaphor, to split a diamond, find its flaw. What is the media’s weak point? How can we exert leverage?
I agree also that the press/media are almost wholly corrupt and eagerly doing propaganda for Hussein and Plagiarizin’ Joe Biden, while embargoing all good news about our men. So let’s just take it as a given that we’re up against Pravda and Isvestia and State-run television, etc.
How did the Russian dissidents fight back? Personal connections; word of mouth; FAX machines (huge factors in the fall of the Soviet Union, remember?) and samizdat publications. All of which the tyrant State did its utmost to extirpate, but which led, nevertheless, to word getting out. And we in America were broadcasting The Voice of America and Radio Free Europe; the Brits were using the Beeb.
Current analogues will occur to all of us here. The internet is critical to our efforts, but let’s remember who controls the internet — and that it can be choked off. Fox News can’t do the job alone, but it’s a huge help; still, I’ve read that Roger Ailes told his on-air talkers to cool it, moderate their tone (he might have been taken to the woodshed by those in power). The [Un]Fairness Doctrine is waiting in the wings to cut off our radio Paul Reveres. They, also, have to watch themselves: Don Imus was made an example of and publicly humiliated before he was allowed to crawl back into his chair, and he’s become more acerbic and critical about Republicans since then, including Romney, tho he says he’ll vote for him.
Gerry Rivers? (aka Geraldo Rivera); well, he’s flying a false flag, claiming to be a Republican even though he supports every lefty idea out there. They’ve got him shoehorned into the talk radio schedule between Imus and Rush Limbaugh, replacing a conservative guy. Eroding our position by 3 hours of prime airtime.
In Lassky’s book “It Didn’t Start with Watergate,” recommended [horrifying] reading, Lassky recounts how Democrat presidents pre-1975 used the IRS and the FBI to pursue and persecute opponents; cute little phone calls to people like Ben Bradlee of WashPo threatening to “cut off your b***s” if he didn’t suppress certain stories; various naked threats to destroy people’s businesses and livelihoods, and so on.
And that was 40 years ago, and earlier (back to FDR). The reason it’s gotten worse, I think, is that the power-mad Left can taste the Power that is within their grasp. Like Gollum, they’re maddened by it: all they can see is that Ring.
The TEA Party was hugely successful in 2010: we had the best out-year election since, what, 1928? HUGE victory, and that was the real grass roots turning out. The TEA Party is still active in cells across the country. I hope all of you will join them and/or the Republican Party and do whatever you can to roll the boulder.
Funny…Joe Bite-Me’s huge gaaaafffffee yesterday in N.C. about,”the middle class has been buried the last 4-years..”, even on Drudge, was linked to some French news service that does English. WTF..??
What a lovely age…The fate of our country and possibly the world hinges on(bottom line)which kid is the most verbally nimble and facile in tonight’s high school debate contest. Profoundly UNSERIOUS crap.
GRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr….!
I can think of one point where Romney has used the media brilliantly. His 47% “gaffe”. Could it possibly be a coincidence that with one “leak” from a private speech, the narrative went from the 99% to 47%? He reframed the conversation and I don’t think any of those offended 47% would have ever considered voting for him anyway.
Beth West,
Tha is an interesting observation. Thanks
Unfortunately for us, back before WWII–and before the media even progressed anywhere near to the multiplicity of distribution mechanisms and the saturation coverage and near universal penetration it has today–Italian Communist Party member and Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci realized that propaganda–delivered via the media, and with the help of certain influential educators, “experts” and “scientists,” “thinkers,” journalists, novelists and playwrights, artists, elites, singers, actors and other entertainers, celebrities, influential figures, trend setters, and opinion makers–could win a war for the Communists that guns couldn’t and likely wouldn’t.
I don’t think that our Founders–in an era when the printing press, expensive and fairly rare books, and the one page broadsheet newspaper, tacked up on a post on the village green, were the height of communications technology–really anticipated just how important a role–in the absence of a broad-based, thorough, good education, experience, and an alert citizenry– the “Press” i.e. the Media, would play in a future America. Nor did they anticipate that the Press would abdicate its role as “the guardian of our liberties,” and become an instrument of our deception and oppression, and hostile to a free American Republic, and to us as a free people–see Pat Cadell’s rant this week, and Roger I. Simon’s thread of two days ago on PJM about the “Media Coup d’état”–I guess better late than never.
Right now, the MSM is still in the dominant position of largely setting the agenda, visualizing and painting our picture of Reality for us, mapping the landscape for us, and pointing out who and what is good, who and what is bad, what is possible and not, what is reasonable and what is not, what is silly, or pernicious, or just impossible, and the “good” and “noble” ideas, causes, people and places we should want to be associated with, and those “bad” and “ignoble” ideas, and causes, people and places we should avoid–wouldn’t want to be “up-tight,” “old fashioned,” “uncool,” a “dweeb,” a “hick” or a “rube,” wouldn’t wanna be an “Islamophobe” or a “racist’ would ya?
In effect, for many people, the MSM defines pretty much all of their “Reality,” and its boundaries. The old, ”if a tree falls in the forest” thing is operative here i.e. if the MSM studiously avoids reporting about something, how do we know that it happened or exists, or any details about it?
If the MSM declares that something is not “news” and, therefore, not worth telling us about, how can we find out about it, know that it is news, and important, never having known about it from the MSM?
Think, for instance, about Frank Marshall Davis, or Obama’s long-standing and deep relationship with Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn and Ayer’s very rich, powerful, and politically connected father, or Obama’s forged long form birth certificate, brazenly put up on the White House website-all information that is just starting to emerge out of the “information blackout” for many people.
Think about the prevalence of the idea–disputed by a daily increasing pile of evidence–and a pile of dead bodies, too, that ”Islam is the Religion of Peace,” that is still so prevalent today, inside of government and out. Such an information blackout is what the Left, Obama & Co. and their MSM Ministry of Truth are counting on. They get a few “leakers” when something is reported on the Internet, but the Internet does not yet have sufficient power to be decisive in an Information War, which is what we are in the midst of.
In this Election and elsewhere, what the Right needs is some very good Psyop experts who are on our side.
For instance, those posters that appeared many months ago, of Obama as a zombie clown, seemed to be very effective, and irritated the White House enough that and it and its surrogates reacted against it, apparently found and leaned on their creator, and they just basically disappeared.
Forget about a sign that says Romney/Ryan on your front lawn or a sedate little bumper sticker.
What if there were a leaderless, distributed, really broad-based propaganda campaign, in which images and slogans, and Obama quotes that were just as effective as that zombie clown image–appearing all over the country, on every available wall space–were just one aspect of a non-stop, ever mutating, guerrilla, Psyop campaign of Internet postings, posters, leaflets, stickers, slogans, images, publications–you name it–drawing attention to and getting certain images and memes about Obama and his beliefs, his policies and his actions into general circulation, and into the public’s consciousness?
That’s the kind of thing we really need at this moment, and should have had long before today’s late date.
In short, if the MSM blocks/smothers/ignores/ridicules your message, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi–go around, over top of, and under the MSM, and use other means of communication to get your message out.
Gramsician theory at work in the Catholic Church:
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/gramscian-theory-at-work-in-the-catholic-church/
‘because I hardly watch TV’
Good for you!
Reagan managed to do it in 1980. But back then the media wasn’t quite as ruthless
And make no mistake, following the Reagan debate incident the Media has worked virulently to never ever let this happen again.
By the way, has anyone been reading Isaiah 65:2-7 recently? Even G-d is pissed at Democrats.
click for Isaiah
Since we have morphed on this thread, a little bit at least, into the socialist Obama (and Gramsci) v. the capitalist Romney, I’d like to offer a thought FWIW.
As an avowed capitalist, I believe that socialism does play a necessary, albeit limited role in life. For example, if my neighbor asks to use my lawn mower, my response is not “sure you can rent it for $25 an hour.” I willingly loan my neighbor my lawn mower first because I like him/her and we get along, secondly, I enjoy helping people (especially people I like) and third, someday, if necessary, I might need to call on my neighbor for their help for something too, or they might simply volunteer to help when when I least expect it (although I don’t mean this as a quid pro quo issue).
This kind of voluntary cooperation is the grease on the wheels which permits us to coexist on a personal level. Socialism breaks down, however, when sanctimonious busybodies attempt to institutionalize and legislate voluntary good deeds. I don’t mind helping other people, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to allow anyone to legislate so that I’m forced to do so. Good will is not a dictum; you can’t legislate “good will” yet such a structure is at the heart of any socialist “utopia.”
NJcon’s link above to Gramscian theory in the Catholic Church makes perfect sense. Churches characteristically preach self-abnegation and helping one’s fellow man so it actually makes sense to me that clergy should be predisposed to socialism. They fail, however, in the same way as their earlier counterparts. To say, hypothetically, that if you don’t perform good deeds you’re “going to Hell” is nothing more than legislating good deeds under the threat of being fined or thrown in prison.
To the extent that socialism represents this interpersonal interaction it can’t be legislated because then it ceases to become interpersonal. This brings me back to Romney, the subject of this thread. With his demonstrated “under the radar” willingness to help people he stands as a polar opposite to Obama/Biden who speak of helping people, but who choose to do such through the bludgeon of legislation.
They argue that to do it any other way results in an inequality. I think that is a true statement, but as we know, life is inherently unfair. More to the point, that’s precisely why immigrants have thronged to this country for over 200 years; they seek a piece of that unfairness for themselves to better their lives and the lives of their progeny. Do we see immigrants lining up to enter socialist utopias to share in their legislated cooperation and fairness? ‘Nuff said.
One additional note:
I wrote above “They argue that to do it any other way results in an inequality.”
I add that to try to legislate good deeds also results in inequality, so there’s really no escaping inequality, is there?
Beverly and Wolla Dalbo: that’s why I miss Andrew Breitbart. He was a master at getting things out there despite the MSM, and/or in using it to his purposes. But he was a very rare person, not easily copied at all.
neo –
thanks for responding to the scotch-inspired rant. I do agree that it seems worse, but I have to ask myself if it’s perceived that way or not. After I chose sides some years ago, I became acutely aware of bias. I remember Capt. “Ahab” Rather and his obsession with George Bush jr, which led him to deliberatly manufacture and seek out dirt, and eventually led to his own downfall. His contempt for “Bush” (as he dropped the title president early on) was in retrospect much nastier and more devious than the giggling school girl Chris Matthews. I even recall him urging voters on national TV “theres still time for US to win” when the election results were coming in for the Gore/Bush election.
I remember Peter Jennings stating “tonight, the country has thrown a collective tempertantrum” when reporting the results of the midterm elections that swept the Gingrich congress to power. Looking back to that time, I remember the press couldn’t talk enough about how smart and slick Clinton was. Everything he did was wonderful. They dripped with admiration for his style in defeating his political opponents.
That war where we dropped a million bombs on Eastern Europe, while questionable for many, was reported widely as a proof that we didn’t just drop bombs on Muslims, we dropped bombs on people who didn’t like Muslims too. Or something like that. I can’t even remember what the cause was, but Christopher Hitchins commented Clinton should be handcuffed and taken away — in his opinion, it was pure distraction from personal scandals.
Anyway, I wonder if it’s really that much worse, or if it’s our perspective. We really, really, want this president to be exposed for what he is. If I really think about it, I remember feeling exactly this frustrated before.
southpaw,
If I might intrude with an observation. You wrote: “We really, really, want this president to be exposed for what he is.”
I submit that Obama already has been exposed. In fact he’s been exposed as a fraud and an incompetent for the past four years. I suggest that what you’re really implying is that we really really want the media to notice. That’s very different.
southpaw: you may be correct. And of course, since I was a Democrat during the Clinton years I wouldn’t have noticed it as much.
But I certainly noticed it in 2004 and 2008, and I felt those elections were very very important. And I think this year is the worst of all, by several orders of magnitude.
Interesting to note that despite years of people musing this and that about things, that they have no real idea as to what to tilt over.
its pretty easy to know what they are hoping to pull out here, because you know where the focus is, and who is being maximally bribed.
Cui buono
by the way, if you want to disarm them, then negate the illogical of disparate impact arguments which only apply if negative, if positive its seen as privilege (which counts even if it turns negative).
however, the birth rate collapsed these 4 years hastening the situation i was talking about a bit farther back.
also, i find it interesting that no one is even paying attention to the world. the world had lots of financial interest and manipulations in the last election, how bout now?
take some time reading the college press and women’s press… you wont know whats in black neighborhoods unless you go there, which is why Obama old speeches are in churches and so forth. no press to just pick up and read.
also no one is even thinking of a Romney win and an electoral college giving it to Obama. OR even an event after the election, but before the turn over.
as i noted before – 2/3rd of the population has been taught the scape goat is responsible for all their ills, and when you tax your taxing that, not them too.
Its minorities against one class
and its women against one class
and its gender warriors against one class
and the only class that seems not to want communism (in one form or another) is the one class the other three raised consciousnesses are focused on.
declining births translated into 4% fewer voters for that one class and its connected others..
Why Minorities Will Decide the 2012 U.S. Election
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/05/01-race-elections-frey
2012: The Year Demographics Catches up With Politics
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/2012-the-year-demographics-catches-up-with-politics.html
Barack Obama won two-thirds of the Latino vote in 2008, and no Republican has come close to winning a majority in 40 years.
U.S. Census figures now estimate that more children of color are being born than Caucasians.
Anyone want to explain to the young modern feminist women in college what the outcome will be soon for them?
but dont worry… years ago i brought it up, and everyone says its not a problem and it isnt happening, and that when these people full of hate have the dominant vote, they will be nice and make affirmative action for the new minorities, yes?
now.. what did Obama give them all for candy this election? was it an executive order? how fair is that for elections?
[edited for length by n-n]
Pingback:Instapundit » Blog Archive » GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE: when I was deep in the political closet, I used to read neo-neo con and be …
My take on the Romney campaign has been that it’s generally competent, and often better at quick-response ads and the like than I expected, but not outstanding. I have no idea why people who are not in the tank for Obama would think Romney’s campaign has been especially bad. I also believe the media environment has been intensely hostile to Romney, as it was for George W. Bush, and in stark contrast to the support President Obama has enjoyed. I guess other peoples’ mileage has differed.