We’ve been seeing a lot of this sort of thing lately–this time from Elizabeth Wurtzel on TheAtlantic.com (1/9/12):
All the reasons Romney is disliked are all the reasons he would be an excellent president. Let’s start by recognizing that principled politicians are highly overrated–consider Jimmy Carter as Exhibit A. Despite our pretensions to pretension, we are not a country that loves ideology–we’re not, heaven forbid, France–so much as we are a can-do people that, after all, last elected a yes-we-can president. We like what works, not what it says in The Communist Manifesto, which reads like a guidebook for a republic of dreams, and of course ends in a Stalinist bloodbath. Romney’s, shall we say, flexibility (I refuse to use the word that refers to summer footwear) with his positions on abortion and just about everything else that makes the weasel go pop just shows that he is responsive to his constituents’ desires. When they were a pro-choice crowd, that’s where he stood, and when he fell in with the right-wing lunatics, he learned to speak in tongues. I think giving the people what they want is what we want.
This echoes Ann Gerhart in the Washington Post (12/11/11):
And in service of these goals, Romney’s flip-floppery could be interpreted as a flexibility of thinking that might help him bust through warring ideologies in Washington–an asset, not a deficit–and fix his biggest set of problems yet.
And Frank Bruni in the New York Times (1/2/12):
But what if his doubters, his nemeses and many of us pondering the protean wonder of him have it all wrong? What if changeability is his strength? Someone not fixed in a single place can pivot to more advantageous ones. A vessel partly empty has room for the beverage du jour. And Romney is ready to be filled with whatever’s most nutritive….
In the primaries, that’s a liability, and Santorum, with his ideological rigidity, could haunt Romney for a while. But if Romney nabs the nomination, his malleability may be an asset, allowing Obama-soured voters to talk themselves into him. After all, a creature without passionate conviction doesn’t cling to extremes.
Later in the Times, Helene Cooper and Mark Landler (1/5/12) warned the Obama campaign to avoid attacking Romney as a political shapeshifter, again depicting that as one of the Republican’s hidden strengths:
Independent voters might view Mr. Romney’s shifting positions as pragmatic. And by highlighting his evolving views, political analysts say, the Obama campaign risks unintentionally promoting the image of Mr. Romney as a moderate.
The very things that have made Mr. Romney less palatable to the conservatives who populate the Republican primaries and caucuses–his past moderate positions–are what make him more palatable to the independent voters who will turn up next November.
Note that this is not the way that media pundits talk about Democratic primary candidates when they attempt to make ideological appeals to their party’s base. (See Extra!, 7-8/06, for some good examples of this.) In media mythology, Democrats win when they attack their base–trying to appeal to them makes them seem “craven, weak and untrustworthy,” in Joe Klein‘s words (Time, 9/25/05).
Why are Democrats and Republicans seen so differently? Well, the Democratic base likes it when you make populist economic appeals–that is, when you point out that the sort of people who own the media have too much wealth and power. From the corporate media perspective, that’s not clever, that’s dangerous.
Appealing to the Republican right, on the other hand, generally involves a little harmless racebaiting and god-bothering. Media pundits are confident (probably overly confident) that when the election is over, Romney will go back to the technocratic champion of moderate austerity and defender of corporate profits who they believe him to be at heart. And that’s the kind of candidate who appeals to the media’s base.
UPDATE: See Peter Hart’s post “Pundits and the Romney Pass” (1/10/12) for more on this phenomenon.
What have these schmenges been drinking?
And should it be allowed on the market?
(Given the evisceration of the FDA, that’s likely a moot question.)
As for drawing a direct line from socialist principles to Stalin’s, Mao’s and Kim’s horrors, isn’t that akin to blaming Jesus (or his ghostwriter) for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and all the other obscene sins of historical and current “Christianity”?
But I did learn that Carter was a “principled politician”.
I’ll pass that along to the people of Haiti, among others:
https://fair.org/index.php?page=2263
All political watchers realize that many political policies & decisions in a democracy are a compromise of some degree, especially in politically contentious times. Also, politicians opinions may become more informed/mature over the years. But you want to have a good idea of where a candidate/future office holder seriously stands BEFORE he has to start negotiating with his opponents. Yeah, the negotiating outcome may be half of what he asked for, but you hopefully know what he’s going to be seriously asking-for. It’s inane to try to stick-up for a candidate who just says whatever the audience he’s in front of wants to hear. Does that mean that as president when he’d give up nuclear/military secrets if he was speaking in front of a Chinese military gathering? Sure, THAT sounds ridiculous (and of course it is), but how is that significantly different from these cringingly embarrassing rationalizations that these aforementioned toady ‘journalists’ make?
“…You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die! Ah shut-up silly woman, said that reptile with a grin, you KNEW damned well I was a snake before you took me in!” (a couple of apropos lines from “The Snake” by Al Wilson)
Doug, if you’re using Yiddish in the first sentence of your posting, you’re a bit off since I think you meant shmegeges instead of shmenges. Or maybe you meant schlamazel or shmendrick.
That first selection–wow! Very, very bad journalism. All of it is of course how the chattering beltway class talks to itself. Romney’s very obvious craveness and duplicity are strengths? Perhaps Romney would be the perfect president for our democracy’s death spiral, after all. The above stenographers and courtiers will struggle mightily to figure out, in the end, just what went so wrong so quickly.
Magic Mitt can say what he wants to who ever he wants but he has harmed many people in his business past. Will the GOP infotainers be able to convince the voting age children to vote for a man who devisted their families and cost their parents and grandparents their jobs, homes, healthcare and pensions? Victims of vulture capitalism and crony capitalism have long memories. It most cases it took a lifetime to gain what Magic Mitt and his friends on Wall Street took away in the blink of a pink slip. The bright side is the democrats can use this candidate to teach the American people what capitalism is not and just because someone calls you a socialist for getting swindled out of your dreams does not make it so.
I think how he treated his dog tells me all I need to know. (Some may find this trivial but I don’t).
Willard has refused to release his tax returns. Has any other president refused to do this? So how much did he pay in taxes? Nothing? Something?
Amazing! John Kerry was the flip-flopper but Willard, who does the same thing, well…that’s “flexibility of thinking.” “..changeability is his strength.” His shifting positions are “pragmatic.” It highlights his “evolving views.” What great ways to say he talks out of both sides of his mouth! Don’t you just love it?
Testing … testing …
Jay it’s pseudo-Yiddish, and for my purposes is synonymous with “schmuck”.
Although it has nothing to do with that usage, its etymology has its roots in an old SCTV bit:
sctv.org/characters/shmenges/index.html
As someone seemingly well sussed on such matters, I’d like your opinion on whether to deep six the “c”.
Can’t seem to post my comment here. Either nothing shows, or I get a “Duplicate message detected” error message.
Please advise.
Wasn’t Carter the non-ideological can-do person who was going to put practical solutions above dogma. We must have gone pretty far down the toilet for him now to be ideological. It also sounds like Ms. Wurtzel needs to reread The Communist Manifesto. I recall no “Socialism in One Country,” “democratic centralism,” “vanguardism,” rabid Russian nationalism, or Machiavellianism in it, unlike in Stalin. As far as Mitt Romeny’s heralded “flexibility” goes, “If you believe in nothing, you will fall for anything.”
Ah, I remember all this from the 2000 campaign. Al Gore was the Serial Liar, and G. W. Bush was the Compassionate Conservative, not so bad, hardly distinguishable from a Democrat after all, why not give him a try…
…even at the NY Times, which like so many others bent over backwards so far to avoid the impression of being part of the Liberal Press that it fell over itself practically gushing over Bush and damning Gore with faint praise and snide commentary. That worked out really well, didn’t it?
I do not expect much better this time. For my money Romney is a needy sociopath with no feeling one way or the other about anything except self-aggrandizement and enrichment. He changes his views like I change my socks, and cares nothing for the truth. There is a reason the GOP has been searching for anyone-but-Romney throughout the runup to the primaries.
Hilarious, they have spun summer shoes into a good thing! A million haha’s.
Whatever version of Yiddish you’re using for “idiots” is right on, Doug! We should not get caught off guard however to Romney’s core which will not shape shift, he came to destroy companies and jobs in private America and that is his goal in public America too. He is the right candidate for the right-wing who wants government destroyed. Romney-care will change into caring for Romney and his 1%ers, of that I have no doubt.
Read the history of Gernmany in the nineteen twenties and thirties. They, too, got a lock on the media and controlled the message. Is America headed down this path?
Romney, show us your tax returns! Would Mr. 1% want to be defined as a tax dodger, too? I mean, what are we to think when he refuses to disclose them?
Elaine he will have to show them at a certain point according to regulations.Just not yet.Obama waited until the last moment also.Though I am still asking for Obamas school records(If you can get his thesis God bless you).I have read his wifes and consider it bordering on racist.Obama has sealed almost everything pertaining to his past life.Medical records….tons of things.Far more than any other president.His land deals are sealed until after he leaves office.And he has set precedent on hiding some financial disclosures.We hope he has not started a trend Mitt will follow.So go easy on Mitt as you will sound hypocritical.
As a conservative I too hope Mitt openly trails right.If he has learned anything he should of learned you can’t really parlay with the left.And certainly in the past he has tried.I could care less how he sits down and plays with the left over meaningless social issues.But economically I hope his compass is clear.
All you guys and gals out there–Can you cite the law that says a presidential contender must release his tax returns? I know there is a standard form for disclosing assets but not tax returns. This sort of privacy covers presidents, too, but most release these records, particularly in this economic climate.
Willard, come clean!
When people like Romney, Gingrich and Obama are rightly called ‘flip-floppers’ it’s not a mild charge of wishy-washiness or pragmatism or even â┚¬Ã…“you-were-once-one-of-THEM.â┚¬Ã‚ It typically reveals that they support whatever position their current donors want them to. They are bought.
Good question Elaine.I have spent some time on delving into this.The regulations that would require him to do so are tied into election funding rules, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.it is easier to clear the slate and dump everything so your financial status(and conflicts) can be ascertained.But there is no constitutional or direct law that requires you to transparency as long as you have met the standards within the statutes.In other words you are under no legal directive to satisfy peoples general curiosity.That said……I am glad this stuff is hitting the fan so early (relatively speaking).It will give Mitt time to clear the decks of these distractions.In the end he will stand on principles of privacy and then give it up to show he is an amiable guy.Politics 101.There will be no smoking gun here.He is a rich dude.Just like the others and Obama as well.Yawn
Where does one even start to respond to nonsense from Ms. Wurtzel (isn’t the Atlantic considered a center-left magazine?). It does not even have a toe-hold on reality!
It is the United States that is the most hide-bound “ideological” of nations. Its adherence to an extreme economic ideology of “free markets” that excludes even the most sensible, practical solutions, concentrates wealth and power in few hands, and results in deeply undemocratic outcomes. All sorts of eminently practical “can-do” measures that are completely uncontroversial in France or the rest of Europe are ideologically forbidden in the United States. This includes all sorts of transportation infrastructure, environmental protection, universal-access medical care, living wage and social-wage measures to name just a few. These measures have produced the highest and broadest living standards in the world, while the US is on a trajectory to join the third-world in the coming decades.
Paul, don’t include all of us in this assessment. Especially don’t include most of the people on this site.
That’s right, Paul. Even as the good old USA trails behind every other nation in all the categories that mark a culture as worth living in, many of our ignorant fellow citizens (including almost everyone in both Houses of Congress) insist that we’re still Number One. On top of it, we ridicule the Europeans (and most everyone else) for being such pushovers and socialista freaks that they actually respond with concessions when their citizens make demands. The Occupy movement has gained traction and widespread support because the Money Power in this country has become so very obviously criminal, so clearly sociopathic, that even ignorant folks (and I don’t use the word “ignorant” here as a pejorative) are finally noticing, and finally understanding, who their friends and their enemies really are. We have a way to go, and it may be too late, but if the good people of Wisconsin can throw out their criminal Governor, the wave will start up agian in the Spring. Remember something here–many (very many) of those ordinary working folks marching on the Capitol in Wisconsin actuially voted for that chump Walker. They came out of their slumbers, and realized the Governor conned them with tough talk about reigning in the Usual Suspects. The workers finally realized that the Usual Suspects included them.
P.S.: Romney will eventually hand out his Tax Returns–on a Friday (the “end” of the news cycle for the week, when No One Who Matters is paying any attention). He makes a lot of money, and possesses a lot of it too–he’s said to be worth about $250 million. I already know all about Willard, but the vast majority of people don’t, and his millions will come to matter little, I’m afraid. I don’t care how much he has–I know how he came to get it, and that does matter. However, to paraphrase George H.W. Bush, how Romney got his money, and who he screwed to get it, will be “ancient fuckin’ history” by July of this year. As we have seen in reports in FAIR, the Major Media (the Corpress) don’t give a damn about these things, and that means you shouldn’t either. If a Democrat flip-flops, he’s a flip-flopper, a wishy-washy dissembler. If a Republicon flip-flops, he’s a deep thinker, a man who reserves the right to change his mind about the Great Events of the day, a fellow who thinks long and hard about the welfare of the common man (and cares not for himself or has any ambitions), and definitely is of Presidential timber.
Paul D….Having spent a lot of life in France I am always suspect of libs who laud that country in relation to America.You simply don’t know hat the hell you are talking about.France and much of Europe have been able to float their little socialist experiments BECAUSE of America.Now as they pull back in horror from the cliff realizing the failing inherent ,they are amazed to see people like Obama heading for the same cliff while waving with a slack jawed smile on his face.Then you have the temerity to say WE are heading for third world status.There was a pole on Friday that stated 2% of people are angry at the so called 1%.Im gonna start calling FAIR bloggers “that 2%”.So no matter how you try my little socialists the idea that success is evil is not playing to most of the country.I think the idiot move to attack the only real freedom(free markets)will go down in flames once Obama and his class warfare game of re-election are sent packing.As far as Europe…..Transportation infrastructure,environmental protection.universal healthcare,and all the rest (to name just a few)come with a price tag in your world(as opposed to being on a paying basis).That means somebody has to pay for it.The governments have spent the universe, so short of growing it….The people can’t afford it.So short of designing anything to be on a paying basis there is only one card in the liberal mindset.Tax the 1% into extinction.And there goes your “sensible,practical”solution.Second verse,same as the first to every liberal tune.
Tim.When Clinton left the white house he was 3 million in debt due to legal costs.Within 8 years he was worth 150 million.Gore due to his investments ,support,and scams in green technology was on his way to being a billionaire.Obama..anywhere between 50-100 million and his best years are a commin up.Remember John “i was in Nam Kerry”.Billions!!!!Kennedy’s forgetaboutit!……Show me a member of the house and senate on the left who is not rich(and yes the lefts members ARE wealthier that the right according to tax return info- surprise surprise)Bush is rich though not in the same class as some.Only thing left for the left is to attack Romni’s success.Because every success steps on people and crushes them right?Obama takes over GM and thats cool.Romni took over failing companies and tried to keep some part of them rolling and that is bad.Only difference….personal profit.That dirty word capitalism keeps raising its head in this country.Go figure
Oh and let me make a prediction.After this tax thing has been put to bed(as Tim says on some friday); next up will be a constant drumbeat that he is a silver spoon ,country club ,out of the loop, uncaring blue blood.Throw in that he is the Michael Vick(remember the dog on the roof story)of the race ,and away we go.Im hoping all this will be clear by the time Willard and B Hussain square off.
Who would be the brown-skinned socialist who would care that 45,000 people die every year from lack of health care or that 50,000 Americans have none or that tens of thousands haven’t been able to afford a dentist in years? That would be Jesus.
@phiclub: for our edification, would you kindly name an American politician who has not been bought? This Friday, Jan. 20, activists in more than 100 U.S. cities will Occupy the Courts to declare that Corporations Are Not People and Money Is Not Speech. More at http://www.MoveToAmend.org.
Excellent post we and also thanks for the tips.
Training is surely a sweaty topic. Nonetheless, continues to be among the leading subject areas of
all time. We enjoy this post and appearance toward much a lot far additional.