Michael Tomasky on Mitt Romney’s ability to lie without shame or even apparent self-awareness.
We’re used to a politician who says, “You know, I once thought…” or something like that. Then our minds can kind of buy the idea that he’s flip-flopping. Most pols do this. It used to be thought by political consultants that pols had to do that part of it. But not Romney and his team. No acknowledgement, not an inch. A complete lie. And a real f-you, by the way, to voters who’d like to know why he changed his mind, except why bother, really, since there’s no substance there. He changed his mind to win, period.
The Romney campaign is a massive f-you to anyone who actually pays even partial attention to American politics. I honestly don’t know how politically-engaged conservatives can take Romney’s flip-flops without growing disgusted and voting for Gary Johnson or something. As much as they dislike President Obama, at least he isn’t the leader of their party. To have Romney take over the Republican Party for four or eight years ought to terrify anyone in the party who actually has a principle they are not willing to sacrifice. It’s not that Romney would govern as some moderate. It’s that he’s never made a promise he isn’t willing to break the moment it might confer him some advantage. He literally never means what he says. His word is worth absolutely nothing. And those are not attributes you want in the leader of any organization, whether it be the federal government or a political party.
To put it another way, one silver lining of Bush v. Gore was that it denied Joe Lieberman the advantages of incumbency in 2008. It’s quite possible that Lieberman could have used his clout and fame after eight years as vice-president to win the nomination of the party in 2008, and he could be running for reelection right now. That would have done strange and unpleasant things to the progressive movement in this country, and I am glad that I didn’t live in that alternate reality even if the reality I did live through in the Bush years was a living hell.
But Joe Lieberman isn’t a perfect corollary to Mitt Romney. It’s not that Mitt Romney would buck his party and endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016. He’s not some kind of secret moderate. He’s nothing. He’s whatever he thinks you want him to be at any moment. He’s not the most interesting man in the world; he’s the world’s least reliable man.
You can find various lists of Romney’s flip-flops on the Google Machine. Here’s one. They are never exhaustive because Romney creates one or two or three new flip-flops every day. No human can keep up, although people try.
Here’s what I’m saying. I’ve been watching this campaign for three years now, everyday, all day long. I know Mitt Romney really well at this point. And anyone who is thinking of voting for him should know that they are going to get to know him very well, too, if he is the president of the United States. And, you know what I can tell you with 100% confidence after watching Romney so closely all this time? You are going to hate a President Romney worse than anything you have ever hated in your life. Americans will begin counting the days until they can replace Romney within 90 days of his inauguration. No one likes Mitt Romney. There are three kinds of people. People who hate Mitt Romney. People who hate Mitt Romney but hate the president more. And people who have not spent enough time with Mitt Romney.
And most of the people in the second category are also in the third category.
Succinct
And yet he is at 50% in the polls. And just might win.
Which says quite a bit about Obama, BTW.
nalbar
Says more about the imbecility of the American voter.
Absolutely, correct, and without a doubt. I go back and forth between being disappointed in Obama and despair about Americans intelligence.
Any person who has one of the below should be disqualified from being POTUS;
Yet Romney has ALL FIVE! Imagine if a Democrat was running for POTUS and had even one.
It makes me sick that this is close. Even an Obama win will not remove the feeling I have that America is sick at heart. I’ll feel even worse when Obama sells me to the Republicans next year.
nalbar
the only thing it says about Barack Obama is that he’s not White.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
This is the discussion that is not happening in either the MSM or the white progressive blogosphere. In the latter there is an acknowledgement of the problem, briefly, but no follow-through.
Does anyone doubt that if Obama were white and all his actions and words (and results) remained the same that this would make the 1984 election look close? If so, then we need to work our asses off to win this election and then afterwards do some real, hardcore examination of race in this country, with the white people (me included) speaking LAST on the subject, after we’ve heard and UNDERSTOOD everyone else. And then we deal with our own shit first so we can form a real left/left of center coalition.
Yes, I think you’re right. But if we have learned that a lot of whites in this country are racists, I think we have also learned that a lot of whites in this country are not racists. In other words, we can have a clearer idea of what we’re dealing with. I don’t know what you mean by white people speaking LAST on the subject. They just have to listen and engage in a dialogue. But so does everybody else.
I’m glad you ask what I meant by suggesting that whites speak last!
I think that for a white person operating in a diverse group, refraining from speaking first and waiting for other people to go ahead of them communicates a lot to the others involved. In particular, that the social space being created isn’t defined by white privilege but by people trying to solve a problem together.
I also don’t think in practical terms that the white people need always to speak last. But next time in a new, diverse situation–I don’t know if you’re white or not–make sure that at first everyone who’s not white gets a go at speaking before white people chime in. The vibe will be improved.
Also, this applies to men in groups with women. Hang back and listen first.
Another issue is that white people have a lot as a group to learn about what it’s like being something other than white. In my experience, the white people who are most in tune with people of color’s experience tend to listen MORE the more they understand, rather than less. The constant learning is a great, constructive experience. Again, this principle can be applied to men, too.
When I’ve been smart enough to apply these principles in progressive groups, I have found that the entire group was more effective, and that my own ability to work in and influence our group has increased.
Don’t hold back Booman, tell us what you REALLY think of Romney.
He didn’t actually. He said that Romney becomes filled with whatever he thinks you want to hear at that moment. That’s true, but what does it actually mean for the presidency? I have a hard time even conceptualizing it.
Well, it means–and Romney consistently shows–that he has extremely poor impulse control and will tack any direction he senses will give him an immediate tactical gain. His thinking is incredibly short-term, an ideal trait in a corporate raider, completely dangerous in a commander-in-chief.
I am deeply concerned that while GWB’s personal neuroses led to entirely predictable, if tragic results–both becoming the good son and slaying the father by doing what GHWB did not (kill Saddam Hussein)–in Iraq, Romney’s sociopathy, which is not only impulsive but clearly brutal–cutting hair–could lead far too easily to military conflagrations that are less controlled than GWB’s. I think this is a real possibility. At minimum, he could produce military conflict that destroys the country fiscally.
Mitt learned from his father’s political career that principles and integrity are for suckers, and the way to get ahead in politics is to play the voters for suckers instead.
Gawd I hope he’s not right.
Just recalled Romney talked about Obama’s live mic comment to Medvedev, except Rbot said it was to Putin and he distorted Obama’s actual comment
Sociopathic bullies have no friends. Allies, suck-ups, yes, but no friends.
I can hear it in his voice, and could back when he was governor here. He’s fundamentally false.
If he loses, it’s going to be a lonely life.
Zelig. Or shapeshifter, as the Navajo would say.
Except Zelig was way more entertaining.
you are so on point
Booman, unfortunately most Americans have not spent enough time with Mitt:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 (UPI) — President Obama holds a 1 percentage point lead over Republican rival Mitt Romney, but Romney’s likability numbers are rising, a Politico poll indicated.
…A slight majority, 51 percent, said Romney is favorably viewed as a person while 44 percent said they view him unfavorably. In mid-September 49 percent of respondents viewed him unfavorably, Politico said.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/10/15/Politico-Poll-Romney-more-likable/UPI-31621350311892/#ixzz
2AAtTAoDN
Good thing it ain’t happening. Mitt will have plenty of time to hoist Rafalca on the car elevator after we defeat him on Nov. 6.
Romney’s just a better politician than Obama…
Politician’s build coalitions…Romney’s won over radical right-wingers like me, and he’s winning over moderates, independents, and women…
Us right-wingers know that, deep down, our view about liberty being directly inversely proportional to the size of Government is true…we also know that to “get shit done”, he’s going to have to work with the Left…
Obama failed this “dual mandate” due his extreme left agenda…
If you have to ram through “health care reform” with not ONE SINGLE VOTE from the opposition party, you lose credibility to lead one hundred percent of the people…
I like Obama, but his time is done…
Your shtick of silly talking points are getting tired and tedious, Sam/Nick. Have another donut.
Your pretense of contributing to an honest discussion is simply disingenuous.
Donuts? Am I about to be terminated?
We’ll see.
You’ve been around here for a while in multiple incarnations. You should have figured out how it works by now.
I’m stupid…I still don’t understand how my comments inexplicably disappear…but then, I still don’t understand green quote technology…
If I did, I could reference a great article entitled “Nate Silver’s flawed model” in the National Review!
You can save yourself the trouble. The National Review is nothing but crap.
ask, my friend, when are you going to stop rising to the bait and just ignore this randian asshole?
l long ago decided he wasn’t worth it.
ignore him…or nuke him…your call. but you’ll be bettah off… as ag is wont to say.
That is certainly sound advice, dada.
But sometimes it is strangely satisfying to engage in some mockery, I never engage on substance.
Does Drew/Sam etc have all those names b/c he’ s been banned under the previous name?
Yes, he has had at least three previous incarnations.
but does he just choose these new names or is he banned and reregisters? he was also Liberty for All for quite a while
You cannot simply change a handle, each one requires a registration. I guess Booman could block an IP address from reregistration.
I guess what I’m wondering is does he do this b/c he feels like it, or is Booman banning him, then he reregisters. He sure messed up the couplet thread. I think he also has a sockpuppet, something -hearn
“Obama failed this “dual mandate” due his extreme left agenda…”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Not even, Drew. The Republicans Congressional leadership decided that absolute and complete obstruction of the first black President and his Party would be their course of action, before one policy negotiation had taken place. The Republican leaders met with Gingrich, Luntz and others on Inauguration Night and decided this.
A little OT — I’ve brought this up before, but I am still puzzled:
Romney’s precipitous rise in the polls began about September 21. At that time Obama was about 4 points ahead. This was approximately TWO WEEKS BEFORE the first debate. By the eve of that debate Romney was already close to Obama in the polls. And after that, though Romney’s rise continued, it did so at a greatly diminished rate, with Obama always keeping pace with that rise up to today. But it was only from that point that this thing has really “looked” like a horse race.
My question is — what precipitated that sharp rise, from 4-point spread to less than 1 point over a period of two weeks? Whatever it was, it had NOTHING to do with the debates because it occurred before them. Given that it takes at least a few days for events to be reflected in polls, I would point out that it began in the aftermath of Romney’s disastrous press conference on Benghazi. To me this makes little sense. What am I missing?
So, granted the race was going to tighten, why did it begin to tighten just then? And why so close? Romney had nearly caught up to Obama by the first debate, and in fact despite all the statistical noise he has gotten no closer since that debate. Obama got no bounce from the second, or Ryan/Biden, and if he gets one from the third I don’t see how it could amount to much.
This closing is very different from 2008, where Obama opened a wider and wider lead starting from the moment McCain chose Palin as his running mate.
Whatever the answer, it suggests to me that the debates, including the first one, have had little real effect on the race. But something did, what was it?
Some have suggested that the first debate cemented the perceptions, but that doesn’t make much sense either, unless it marks the beginning of the deciding of the last contingent of undecided voters, who have continued kicking in since then with about an even split, and this is what we’ve been seeing since the first debate.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama
It’s a good question, although I’d quibble with some of the factual details you presented. But that’s not too important.
One thing that happened is that Obama got a nice little boost out of the Democratic Convention and then that wore off. So, if you’re saying that Romney started to move on the 21st, that would be about exactly two weeks after the convention ended. It was 10 days after the Benghazi attack.
I think one thing that happened is that Republican voters, particularly evangelicals, finally began telling pollsters that they would vote for Romney.
And I don’t really know why that would have started in mid-September, but the first debate got them fired up.
Thanks, your comments are very helpful. Maybe it’s just that by mid-September, things were looking so bad for Romney, what with the humdrum R convention, the highly successful D convention, and Romney’s disastrous press conference a day after the Benghazi attack, that his sympathizers started to rally.
In this context, the effects of the first debate really were not as important as is generally thought. One can speculate what would have happened had Obama put in a great performance, but I don’t think it would have made that much difference in the polls.
Basically, Romney’s support has very little to do with Romney himself, what he does, or what he doesn’t do.
I thought this was on topic — from Maha.
http://www.mahablog.com/2012/10/24/the-narrative-the-bandwagon-and-the-wave/
PJ, you make great comments (including this one), but the formatting makes them hard to read. Can you use paragraph breaks?
Thank you. OK, I’ll try to remember.
Forget HuffPost…RCP average went from O plus four to O plus three until just before the debate, then “bounced” to ranging between Tie and R plus one since the debate…
It’s clearly the first debate that moved the needle…
Look at Romney’s favorables since then…he leads Obama in the RCP average, R plus 6.5, O plus 4.5!!!
Negative ads can backfire!
Well if he pulls it off, he won’t give a good gesundheit what ANYBODY thinks about him.
I have worked in public service my entire career, over 25 years, in a technical field (mosquito control) that requires some understanding of the public what services are rendered by my taxpayer funded trade. The taxpayer should know what they are paying for, yes?
Often we are asked why we can’t simply just spray, even after decades of environmental awareness in our society and efforts by our industry to educate about better alternatives to spraying. It is because the public hears and sees on a daily basis, pest control companies advertising that spraying chemicals will solve all their problems. It’s analogous to pushing back against tobacco advertising by anti-smoking campaigns: you wonder how much good it is doing. It requires a proactive attack to make an impression, as the anti-smoking campaigns have apparently succeeded in doing.
I can tell you most people are operating on the premise of “low information” for the majority of the time. The fact that the electorate applies this premise to the very important task of voting should not surprise anyone when it’s been shown that consumers have trouble choosing brands of toothpaste.
There is going to be no easy answer to turning around the lack of brain power that is taking over. Are we regressing? It certainly seems so. There are countless bits of knowledge that even the moderately sentient assume are common knowledge.
You DO know what they say about ASS-U-ME?
Not me. Even accepting the extreme sequence of events where Gore wins in 2000, then wins reelection in 2004, then his V.P. (still Lieberman) wins in 2008 and is running again and likely to win in 2012. That’s a series of conditional probabilities that are a lot better than the last decade in my book.
I’ll take an alternate where the president bothered to read the CIA daily briefings. Where 9-11 never happened. We hadn’t spent the last 10 years bogged down in 2 wars. We hadn’t reinstituted torture or begun tapping the phones of every person in the country. Where the victims of Katrina hadn’t been left stranded for days while the world watched. Where we hadn’t turned a budget surplus into trillions of dollars in added debt. Where Sam Alito was an unknown U.S. Attorney in New Jersey and Roberts was plugging away in private practice. And of course, an alternative in which we hadn’t ignored the problem of global climate change.
I’d take that in a second.