[Hat tip: commenter “holmes”]
Great piece in the National Review’s Corner, dealing with the newest Obama ad that features none other than Romney’s former garbage man.
Yes, you heard me right. Please read the whole thing.
Question: how many will see and/or hear of the ad vs. the number who will read and/or hear of the National Review article?
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.
Obama is trying to lower expectations about his upcoming performance in the debates:
“Governor Romney – he’s a good debater,” said the president. “I’m just okay.”…
“[Obama] has had less time to prepare than we anticipated,” said [Obama campaign press secretary] Psaki. “It’s difficult to schedule significant blocks of time when you’re the president, regardless of your party.”…
In rare praise of Romney, the Obama campaign spokeswoman said: “He’s been disciplined and has been able to give short answers, so we know that’s a strength.”
One thing you can count on is that Obama doesn’t think he’s “just okay” as a debater. The phoniness of his rare attempt at humility is transparent, and I’m not even sure it’s meant to fool many people. Maybe instead it’s intended as sarcasm; I don’t know, because I haven’t heard the audio.
I don’t know about you, but as I’ve written before, I dislike political debates and speeches. My preferred mode of processing such information is not auditory. So I usually find watching the debates a chore.
But it’s worse than that. I long ago learned that with debates, the winner is in the eye of the beholder. So many times I’d find myself thinking my guy had won, only to hear that there was hardly ever any objectivity, and people tended to think their guy had won no matter what. The press likewise, and since the vast majority are deep in the tank for Obama, their opinion on the debates is a foregone conclusion.
I suppose they could surprise me, although I doubt it.
Debates make me very nervous. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is my over-active imagination; I can’t help but put myself in their places, and knowing how nervous I would be be under similar circumstances, it always amazes me that they can muster up the cojones to speak at all. This, I know, is an absurd reaction on my part, because this is what politicians do—it’s their meat and potatoes, and they are both probably quite at home in the venue.
But my nervousness goes beyond projecting myself into their places. It always seems to me that the debates don’t mean a whole lot—sound bites and surface answers to surface questions—but offer vast opportunities to put one’s foot in it in a way that, although often meaningless, can have hugely negative repercussions. Think of Ford and Poland, Bush I glancing at his watch, or Dukakis and the death penalty for his wife’s hypothetical rapist/murderer.
So I tend to be on edge while I listen, pacing around and almost unable to watch. Add to that the fact that, if you believe the polls (and although I don’t necessarily believe the extent of the Obama lead, I do believe he’s slightly ahead and that the debates could loom large for Romney and the undecideds), it seems Romney must make a good showing in the debates, whereas Obama only has to avoid major slip-ups.
The debates are one of those occasions when I wish I were a drinking person.
[NOTE: Think Ford made a major boo-boo when he said, during a debate against Carter, that “There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe”? It’s widely thought that the remark cost him the election.
In 1989, Ford explained what had seemed truly inexplicable:
Well, you may have read the little piece I did, the op-ed piece for the Washington Post about a month ago which I was very pleased to write at the request of Meg Greenfield who said to me on the phone, “well, I think you got a bad deal from the press and with all the things that are happening, would you like to write an op-ed piece?” And I said I’d love to. Well, in that piece I go into the details of what happened as the debate moved along. There’s no question I did not adequately explain what I was thinking. I felt very strongly, and I, of course, do so today, that regardless of the number of Soviet armored divisions in Poland, the Russians would never dominate the Polish spirit. That’s what I should have said. I simply left out the fact that at that time in 1976, the Russians had about 10 to 15 divisions in Poland. Well, of course the presence of those divisions indicates a domination physically of the Poles, but despite that military occupation of Poland by the Soviets, it never in any way ever destroyed the strong, nationalistic spirit of the Polish people. And I felt, and of course, I’m pleased now, the Poles are going to throw the Russians out. And, the quicker they do it, the better. And I’m proud of what they’re doing, and, of course, I get a little satisfaction that maybe I was right in 1976.
Ford was not a seasoned campaigner on the national front. He’d been catapulted into the presidency by a series of errors on the part of the previous administration: VP Agnew’s forced resignation, Ford’s own appointment by Nixon to fill the spot, and then Watergate, which (I believe, unless I’m forgetting something) made him the first and still the only president to achieve the office without having been part of a national campaign. He was not an especially popular president, nor did he have much debate experience. It’s not surprising that he wasn’t especially good at articulating what he actually meant.
Another interesting fact about Ford, at least according to this interview he gave, is that around the time of the Republican Convention in 1976 he was thirty-one points behind Carter in the polls. Wow. He said that was why in his acceptance speech he challenged Carter to a debate, the first presidential one since the famous Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960.
One could say it’s ironic, except that it’s also true that Ford rapidly closed the gap with Carter and the result was remarkably close. So I wonder about the common wisdom that that debate hurt him so much:
In the end, Carter won the election, receiving 50.1% of the popular vote and 297 electoral votes compared with 48.0% and 240 electoral votes for Ford. The election was close enough that had fewer than 25,000 votes shifted in Ohio and Wisconsin ”“ both of which neighbored his home state ”“ Ford would have won the electoral vote with 276 votes to 261 for Carter. Though he lost, in the three months between the Republican National Convention and the election Ford managed to close what was once a 34-point Carter lead to a 2-point margin. Despite his defeat, Ford carried 27 states versus 23 carried by Carter.
See this for more about the course of the 1976, and whether the debates helped or hurt Ford.]
…that Obama’s election has improved our standing around the world.
And I would submit that, although I agree with the headline that this is an endorsement Obama “doesn’t want,” I’d amend it to say that what he actually doesn’t want is for this particular type of support to be made public. He certainly has courted the support otherwise (see this, for example).
[NOTE: For a more in-depth analysis of the Obama/Chavez link, see this.
Also, recall that one of the earliest presidential actions of Obama in foreign policy—and one that unfortunately has gone largely down the memory hole—are his actions vis a vis Honduras. See this and this for a small refresher course.]
In the continuing press effort to turn people against Romney because he’s rich, here’s the latest effort.
If the first few comments there are any indication, though, it seems that the article isn’t resonating with its target audience.
I just noticed that when the main page on the blog opens, the video in this post starts playing automatically.
That’s the sort of thing that sets my teeth on edge. I don’t know how to fix it (any suggestions?), and don’t have time right now to try, but my apologies. Just click on the button in its lower left corner to make it shut up.
[ADDENDUM: Thanks for the suggestions. Changing the code didn’t work, though, so I think I’ll just do what “sdferr” suggested and put it below the fold.]
Commenter KL Smith writes:
Neo: slightly OT but, since you’ve mentioned another blogger ”¦ I think getting a post/discussion going on Ann Althouse’s meltdown over the Obamaphone lady video would be very interesting. I’d like to see what your regular commenters think.
Now, it just so happens that (a) I read that piece of Althouse’s last night and did some research on related issues and wrote a rough draft of some things I want to say about them; (b) I’m too busy to fix it and publish it right now, although I plan to; and (c) I noticed that her post (and several related posts on her blog from today) has about 700 comments right now.
Clearly a nerve has been touched. And so now, with KL Smith’s request, I thought I’d provide this open thread for you to talk about it while I go do some stuff. Hopefully, some fun stuff.
You don’t have to talk about the Althouse post, either. Talk about whatever you want to talk about. There’s no dearth of topics, that’s for sure.
There’s a new way to break up with a significant other. It’s called “ghosting,” and essentially it involves disappearing from the person’s life suddenly and without explanation. Continue reading →
…that Dr. Sanity is back blogging. You may remember her from the old “Sanity Squad” podcasts.
“Podcast”—that has a retro feel, doesn’t it?
If you are a denizen of the blogosphere, you’ve probably already encountered the Obamaphone lady:
I already knew about the program she’s referring to—which actually wasn’t started under Obama, by the way—so she didn’t seem quite as crazy as she may have seemed to others. In fact, she’s exactly correct.
But I didn’t know the details that are explained in this video (hat tip: Ace):
Interesting, no?
It’s not just about this particular program, either. It’s a good example of the trend for such programs to ascend to ever-expanding heights of waste and fraud, outside of general public awareness. Who knew that all cell phone owners pay a user tax (although it’s not called that) to fund not only free emergency landlines for those on welfare, but free cell phones, to the tune of over a billion dollars?
Once such a program exists, it’s only a matter of time between its implementation and efforts such as the one made by the woman in the first video to try to drum up votes for Obama and/or other Democrats under its promise.
Bread, circuses, and cell phones. The Grand Inquisitor may not have predicted the cell phone. But still, he kind of foresaw it all, didn’t he?:
Oh, never, never can [people] feed themselves without us [the Inquisitors and controllers]! No science will give them bread so long as they remain free. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, “Make us your slaves, but feed us.” They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man?
Here’s a great post on polling. It manages to be highly informative, easy on the math, and funny too.
How is all that possible when you’re talking about polls? I wouldn’t have thought it could be done, but Charlie Martin seems to have accomplished it.
Please read the whole thing.
Remember the economy?
Sometimes I think that people get used to almost anything. Who would have thought people would get used to $4 gas without blaming it on Obama?
So perhaps the lousy economy has just become non-business as usual: “We have always been at war with Eastasia.”
And it’s Emmanuel Goldstein‘s—uh, I mean Bush’s—fault.