Ramona's picture

    Why is this man Romney even close?

     

    Okay, I'm breathing again--raggedly, to be honest, but I'm seeing clearly and whatever fun writing I was so longing for last week will just have to wait.  Mitt Romney is closing in on the home stretch and I can't stand it.  What can I say that will change that?  We all know there is nothing I can say that will change anything this monumental and incomprehensible.  But I repeat: I can't stand it.

    In any other true-life scenario, a man like Mitt Romney -- a confirmed liar, a clueless anti-populist, a shameless waffler -- would be laughed out of the political arena, never to be taken seriously again.  Considering the climate we live in, dire and dangerous to all but a few lucky souls, there shouldn't have been a moment when a man like Mitt Romney (or his running mate, the even more egregious Paul Ryan) would have been seen as anybody's choice to lead us out of this mess. 

    But a map of red states vs. blue states tells the tale:  The campaign against Obama and the Democrats has been hugely successful; the obfuscation and near-obliteration of the Romney/Ryan misdeeds equally so.

    It's a billionaires' election to win or lose, and Romney is their puppet.  It clearly doesn't matter what he says or does.  They run the show, and they've managed the impossible -- they've convinced enough voters that Barack Obama is their enemy; someone to fear, a man who only pretends to be a True American while attempting to hide his nefarious dark side.

    It's the New Century--maybe the strangest we've ever seen--and we live with the voters we have.  They call themselves "the values voters", without ever fully understanding that "values" means much more than anti-abortion or religious freedom or balanced budgets or the color of our president's skin.   It means a clear-eyed look at which servants of the people can best move us away from vulture capitalism and back into whatever concept of democratic freedoms and obligations work best for our society.

    As of a few days ago, more voters believed Romney can do more for the economy than Obama has or will.   Why?  Because Romney was a businessman and apparently knows more about how business runs.

    This is the same Romney who bought and sold companies, making millions off of the acquisitions with no thought to what it did to the communities that were disrupted by the actions of his group. 

    This is the same Romney who fought to keep his tax returns from going public, who hides his money in numerous off-shore accounts, who thrives because "ruthless" is legal and the name of the game.

    This is the same Romney who saw FEMA as one of those Fed entities best relegated to the states or better yet, private enterprise, using the word "immoral" to effectively brand it obsolete.  Astonishing.  (Now his handlers say he didn't mean it that way.  Apparently that's good enough for even those Romney voters who live in areas battered by Hurricane Sandy.  He's still running neck and neck with President Obama.  Really.)

    This is what the potential future president had to say:

    "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction," Romney said at a debate last June. "And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."

    Asked by moderator John King of CNN whether that would include disaster relief, Romney said: "We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids."

    So, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, because they finally realized that sounded really, really awful, his handlers had Romney issuing what looks like a reversal but is actually code for, "Okay, we'll keep the idea of FEMA because you people just don't get it, but the bulk of the money is still going to go to state and local governments, because even though I want to be the biggie in Big Government, Big Government is a bad, bad thing."

    Here's Romney's written statement from Wednesday, when the storm was still stormin':

     "I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters."

     No mention of what FEMA's mission will be under FEMA-haters Romney and Ryan, but it's not hard to imagine.  Centralized emergency relief apparently goes against every fiber of their beings, and no thing and no body is going to change that.

    Well, okay, all that, but what drives me to this today is what has been keeping me awake, fuming.

    It's this:  
     

    Romney's phony food drive.  Photo: Stephen Crowley/ NYT

     

    In the immediate aftermath of a raging, deadly storm, the presidential wannabee participated in a crass, phony, political opportunity dressed as "disaster relief", designed for no other reason than to make him look good in certain swing states.  (The Red Cross, downers that they are, said early on, "Don't send supplies, send money."  Spoilsports.)

     So, heedless of real needs, Romney's pack set up a hasty relief station and then went to WalMart to buy the appropriate props to make it look like they were actually concerned with the citizens of the storm.  They spent $5,000 on emergency supplies like diapers, toilet paper and canned goods to hand out to long lines of Romney voters who could then hand them back to Romney in front of the cameras. (Stunning, isn't it, that those Romney voters didn't think to donate their own emergency supplies?  But then, in order to be a Romney voter, one would have to be as clueless as he is.)

    In the meantime, President Obama is all over the place taking care of business, surveying the damage, assuring everybody that our government will do what it's supposed to do.  It will take care of what needs taking care of.  FEMA is working at its efficient best.  Mayors and governors in the affected states are effusive in their praise of FEMA and the actions of the president. (Note to Chris Christie:  Ever thought of joining the Democrats?  The Republicans won't even speak your name anymore. And they have long memories.)
     

    Christie and Obama with Hurricane Sandy survivors

    This is what true leadership looks like.  This is what big government does best.  This is who we're supposed to be.  This is what we need to fight to keep.  And yet as I write this, Mitt Romney--undeserving to the nth degree and then some--has a real chance at winning the presidency.

    So that's it.  I can barely breathe, not because of the pneumonia, but because of what I just wrote.  The very thought of my country going the way of Romney/Ryan after all they've done to try and hurt us makes me crazy. 

    All I can do is yell. 

    I can't stand it.

     

    (Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Breathe, Ramona!  Romney lost his mo' on Oct. 12th.  He's no longer ahead in national polls.  He's been getting creamed in the state polls.  And you're right to observe the potency of that image of Obama and Christie, who gave the keynote at the RNC:

    That's the same guy who, less than two weeks ago, said this was a President who was grasping in the dark for the light switch of leadership, but just couldn't find it.  Now he says the President is great.

    As I've been pointing out as often as possible, the Princeton Election Consortium called the EC in 2004 and was one vote off in 2008.  They do an average of state polls.  They're predicting an Obama win at 96%+ likelihood with 312 EVs today.  That's up from 303 yesterday.

    At any rate, Mitt Romney is not closing in on the home stretch.  Big Mo' has been on Obama's side since the 12th.  The chance that this trend will reverse in less than a week is increasingly small.

    Also, you're right to observe that the press has been complicit in fomenting a Romney candidacy.  That sucks, but that's them trying to invent reality, not reality itself.


    Also, I have to jump in and say something else about the Romney quote from the debate you highlighted.  It's all kinds of wrong.  Debt is an asset on one balance sheet, a liability on another.  Too many Democrats speak in the same terms of leaving debt to future generations, including Obama.  It's wrong.  The net change in wealth for future generations is zero.  It's just not even the right way to think or talk about the national debt.  Dems, including Obama, need to stop it.

    That said, when the chips are down would you rather have FDNY looking out for you or Xe?  Maybe Haliburton?


    Romney on FEMA as of yesterday:

    “I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Romney said in a statement from his campaign. “As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”

    Does Obama have an ad showing Romney's FEMA comments from the primary debates yet?  They should.


    Why is Romney close? Step back and consider the big picture for a moment. Obama has governed over a torpid economy for four years. Judging by history, he should be losing--regardless of whether he bears any responsibility for the economic state.

    So the question might well be, "Why is this man Obama even close?" And that's just what Republicans have been asking themselves for months.

    And the answer is that Romney is a terrible candidate, the least bad of an even more terrible primary slate (with the possible exception of Huntsman). Moderate Republicans have been banging their heads against the wall in frustration all year long.

    So take heart in the fact that the GOP may well have missed an opportunity to take the White House and the Senate.

    PS Fwiw, voters are not ignoring the candidates' responses to the disaster. Obama will probably see a post Sandy-post.


    You really cannot trust any of the polls theses days because their methodology is so completely fucked up.

    For one thing they leave out nearly everyone who only has a cell phone and those they do call usually do not answer numbers they do not have in their phone lists.

    For another thing the response rates are only about 9%.

    They do not poll non-english speaking people.

    Or those with VOIP phones.

    or the hearing impaired.

    In other words the results are generally from those who have land line phones. Mainly old people.

    Read all this in another blog. And I believe it is pretty much on the mark.


    I'm trying not to fret, Ramona, but when I sit and think about it, my head just wants to explode. I am absolutely sick to my stomach that so many people have bought this guy's BS. He is a spoiled, narcissistic, liar who cares only about winning this prize and is willing to say whatever he needs to say, and do whatever he needs to do to to make it happen.

    I can only hope that enough people will come to their senses and then get to the polls to keep him from winning.

    I'm seriously disgusted with my fellow Americans.


    Incredible, isn't it?  If we lived in the 19th century, when news didn't travel fast and we weren't able to watch these bozos in action every day, I might be able to understand this kind of ignorance.  But we live in the fast-track 21st century and we can see it and hear it all almost instantaneously.  That's what makes me crazy.  It's all out there and they're either not believing it or refusing to consider it.  And I can't figure out why.


    The Right has worked hard to construct and market its alternative reality and has had a fair amount of success at it, obviously.  We've had much discussion here at dag about reality bubbles--theirs and, we sometimes recognize, ours as well (not saying the two types of bubbles are comparably related to what humans can figure out about real reality, or that the consequences of the two broad types of bubbles are equally good, bad or benign--neither is the case).  And we've discussed how easy it is for individuals--easier given the degree of access to various sources of information or misinformation) to choose the news we prefer to believe and avoid exposure to information and views they find unpalatable, or think we would. 

    Plus, during frustrating times many seem to feel a need to find someone to blame exclusively, or at least a lot more than anyone else.  It's understandable that many choose for that purpose the person they perceive as the most powerful. 

    Plus, as a cultural observation, I believe the influence of people like Rand and other community-deniers, when combined with the ability of extremely powerful interests who have made it their business to promote contempt and disrespect for all things government, has had a long-term corrosive effect in weakening such bonds as can hold 300 million+ people in a country such as ours together for at least certain purposes.  For some people, government is always bad and always at fault (except when it benefits them narrowly and except when it otherwise is not), so whomever is the "anti-government" candidate draws their emotional sympathy and support. 

    One other factor I'll toss out that I've not seen discussed much is that as a society we are, relative to other cultures and societies, highly optimistic about the future.  Not now, relative to how we often have been historically.  But, consistently and for a long time, more so than the people of most other societies.  Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a book called Bright-Sided which basically makes the case that our (relatively speaking) extreme optimism is actually a liability to us in a number of important ways.  When I hear Clint Eastwood's "argument" (similar to that of sometimes dag denizen and possible lurker for all I know "kgb") that amounts to "We're not happy with how things are or who we have as our President; therefore, let's fire the President" I am left to wonder whether Ehrenreich has a point.  I guess if you're Clint Eastwood, who gets elected President isn't really going to make a major difference in your life circumstances.  Not so clearly the case for many citizens of modest, limited means who are far more vulnerable than he is. 

    I heard a similar argument in the context of discussion about the Iraq war's advisability.  For a fair number of people, their unthoughtful justification was: Saddam is an evil dictator so, therefore, let's get rid of him.  This argument assumes that things of course could not be worse if Saddam was removed.  Iraq was an artificially constructed powder keg consisting of 3 tribes nominally held together as a nation-state by terror and force.  Too few pressing the case for that war seemed to give much of any thought to whether and how it might be possible for the people who lived in Saddam's Iraq to make their way in a post-Saddam world. 

    No matter how bad things are, they can almost always be worse, hard as that can be to believe at times.  A heavily optimistic disposition does not change that reality.  So we have a fair number of our fellow citizens who, on account of that type of a basically optimistic  "things couldn't be worse if we make a change" outlook--and also, differently, the outlook borne of desperation that arrives at the same conclusion--will vote for a change on that basis.

    That's about the best I can do as an attempt at identifying some major factors contributing to Romney having a chance at this point.  So wish the situation were not this precarious.    Electing a lying scumbag plutocrat as our president is the kind of "cure" that would only make our particular diseases worse.       


    "Errant Gingrich email: 'Obama is Going to Win'", Sarah Parnass, ABC New online, yesterday:

    http://news.yahoo.com/errant-gingrich-email-obama-going-win-174518235.html

    Key is to watch out for that 3rd term...


    That's how I'm reading it.  An Obama win this year strongly suggests a third consecutive term for Democrats in the White House for several compelling reasons.


    Latest Comments