Connect with us

Will The Real Romney Campaign Please Step Forward?

Published

on

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Mitt Romney, who has been running for president since about five seconds after he was born, has been dreaming of this campaign for probably his entire life. He has spent the last decade filling his time with active campaigning of one sort or another, either in the form of actual baby kissing and speech giving, or by the strategic lack of those things, and so it’s forgivable for us to have assumed that he would actually be any good at it. Clearly, we were mistaken.

At first, during the primary, his apparent lack of punch on the campaign trail was due to the out-sized crazy-town behavior of his opponents. You may be a great ventriloquist, but if the other guy on stage just set himself on fire, it’s going to be hard to get the crowd’s attention. People were watching the Republican Primary Debates for the same reason many people watch car races: For the carnage. Romney just didn’t offer enough explosive potential to capture much of the imagination compared to genuine mental patient Michele Bachmann, or 1600’s Puritan reenactor Rick Santorum. And really, Herman Cain? That was unbelievable. And a Newt Gingrich comeback? Newt Gingrich campaign events are like conservative Iggy Pop concerts. This guy is capable of anything. He might just burn the whole place to the ground.

Once the ridiculous and unstable had left the national stage and it was time for the grown-ups to take over the conversation, I expected Romney to improve. Instead, I was treated to one bizarre gaffe after another, week after week, since before the Olympics. At one point, and I’m not even sure when it happened exactly, it became clear that somehow, despite years as a professional candidate for something, Romney just wasn’t that good at this.

 


Romney has tried to treat Obama like just another Herman Cain, and he is finding the President far more formidable. Romney’s other problem is that he hasn’t successfully answered the central question any candidate has to be able to answer: Why are you running for president?


 

How could he be this bad, without anyone noticing until it was too late? First, because of the prolonged and unusual primary season, the only thing Romney got really good at was destroying weak challengers. Barack Obama has the best team of campaign minds alive on the planet, some of whom are already hall-of-fame players of historically unlikely skill and talent. No one running anywhere, ever, has had a better campaign staff. After spending all his time beating down all the neighborhood kids at T-Ball, Romney had never managed to cultivate the skill of a Major Leaguer. Romney has tried to treat Obama like just another Herman Cain, and he is finding the President far more formidable. Romney’s other problem is that he hasn’t successfully answered the central question any candidate has to be able to answer: Why are you running for president?

Everything stems from that. It makes up the rationale around which your campaign will be built. Romney has supplied no hint of an answer to that question. He has demonstrated to the public no indication at all about what he would do, who he would be, or why he even wants to be here in the first place. Romney is almost pathologically short on details. About anything. Even stuff no one cares about. Back in August, he took one of those super contrived, “I’m a regular guy” photo ops where the candidate goes shopping. Here an excerpt of the pool report, via Wonkette:

Gov. Romney left Bradley’s Hardware at 8:54 a.m. with a beige bucket of goods. Asked what he bought, Romney told your pooler, “Hardware stuff.” Then, he said, “Going to the grocery store now,” and climbed into his Suburban.

He can’t even come up with specifics about something as trivial as his shopping list. It would be like if he went to Geno’s in Philadelphia on the obligatory “the candidate eats a cheese-steak” campaign stop, and then refused to tell anyone what he ordered. Hey Mitt: It doesn’t matter what’s in the Goddamned shopping bags. It matters that you don’t want to tell anyone. It makes you look sketchy.

You know when you go to a furniture store and they have the entertainment centers set up, and to make them seem more real they put these cardboard televisions and DVD players in them? That’s the Romney Candidacy so far. A Republican would go here.

This lack of specificity isn’t limited to the contents of his shopping list. Let’s not forget about this exchange with Matt Lauer, from back in January. Via the Chicago Tribune:

LAUER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?

ROMNEY: You know I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made this part of his campaign rally.

What have we learned? That Romney only wants to talk about income inequality and tax policy behind closed doors. Until last week we had no way of knowing what Romney’s real thoughts on the matter were, as none of us are allowed into any of the “Quiet Rooms” he’s talking about. This is why the recently revealed 47% tape is so important. Aside from any of his actual comments, it represents the first time any of us has been allowed to hear what goes on in these exclusive enclaves that serve, by the Romney’s own admission, as the only appropriate place to discuss class and the tax system. So, now that we are somewhere less noisy and more appropriate, please Mitt, share with us your thoughts. From Mother Jones:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

You may be asking yourself, “Why haven’t I heard any of this before now?” The answer is simple. You don’t have $50,000 to give to the Romney campaign. Only then can you afford to hear Mitt’s thoughts on the non-rich and what hopeless losers they are. He also found time to insult immigrants.

“[If] you have no skill or experience…you’re welcome to cross the border and stay here for the rest of your life.”

He also shares a few thoughts on the Israel/Palestine situation.

“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way. And so what you do is you say you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that it’s going to remain an unsolved problem.”

He just goes on and on like this. It’s really pretty amazing, and the whole thing is worth watching. If you’ve ever had a question about the Romney’s view on something and you are having a hard time getting a straight answer from him, look to the tape. He probably has a candid, though horrible, answer for you.

 


That the information is only available to those paying a high premium is alarming as well. I wonder how much it costs to find out what he bought at the hardware store? Everything starts to make more sense now. Romney isn’t short on details, he’s just not giving them away for free.


 

Is this how rich people talk about the poor when they think no one is listening? Apparently. I expected that Romney was no friend to the underclass, but the pure disgust and loathing with which he regards them is a little startling. That the information is only available to those paying a high premium is alarming as well. I wonder how much it costs to find out what he bought at the hardware store? Everything starts to make more sense now. Romney isn’t short on details, he’s just not giving them away for free.

One must wonder, and I’d really like an answer from the Romney Campaign about this, is this what all of his private fundraisers are like? He has them constantly. These are exclusive no-press-allowed campaign events for only the most affluent of Romney Supporters. Romney’s 47% speech comes from video recorded secretly at one of these fundraisers. It was, as far as I can tell, just a typical fundraising stop on the Romney Campaign Schedule. I’d wager this isn’t the first and only time he’s spoken like this to roomfuls of fellow wealthy people. If so, how many times has he made comments like this in the past?

Romney has been caught, red handed, talking behind the country’s back. At the very least, we now know that the Quiet-Rooms-Romney is a lot more callous and uncaring than than Happy-Public-Rally-Romney. Is this the real Romney Campaign, and all the baby kissing and public rallies are just for our benefit? Is he saying one thing in public, and another in private? It would appear so. Keep in mind, this video was shot back in May. It’s not like it came from decades ago. These are comments made in the context of this campaign, so the answers to these questions are of paramount importance. These are, as far as I can tell, the only clues we have to who the real Mitt Romney is. The American People deserve a clearer picture. Exactly how two-faced is this candidate? If the real Romney can only be seen beyond the 50,000 dollar barrier, does it even matter what he says the rest of the time?

Slowly, we begin to see a picture emerge. I immediately thought back to the now forgotten story of the time in High School when he and his gang chased down and harassed a gay classmate. When you start to put that together with the obvious contempt he has for those of lower economic classes than himself, not to mention all of the other tone deaf, hyper rich guy comments he’s made over time, (the $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, the “corporations are people” comment, all the dodgy tax stuff etc.) he starts to look more and more like just another spoiled trust fund baby with a too high opinion of himself, and a too low opinion of everyone else.

And don’t let the Romney Campaign fool you. What he said wasn’t “Inelegant.” I’ve heard loads of Mitt Romney speeches and interviews, and the comments in the video were almost uncharacteristically clear and unambiguous. This is a man that can talk for hours and never say anything, and in the space of about two minutes he outlined a pretty specific theory about the motivations of the American voter, and the lower classes generally. At last, after years of hearing him tell everyone what they wanted to hear, we get to learn of the man himself, and the nature of his values. For the longest time, the campaign has resisted showing us the real Romney, and now it appears that we know why.

Image, top, by mariopiperni

Benjamin PhillipsBenjamin Phillips is an Essayist, Web Developer, Civics Nerd, and all around crank that spends entirely too much time shouting with deep exasperation at the television, especially whenever cable news is on, and proudly serves as Director of Development for The New Civil Rights Movement. He lives in St. Louis, MO and spends most of his time staring at various LCD screens, occasionally taking walks in the park whenever his boyfriend becomes sufficiently convinced that Benjamin is becoming a reclusive hermit person. He is available for children’s parties, provided that those children are entertained by hearing a complete windbag talk for two hours about the importance of science education, or worse yet, poorly researched anecdotes PROVING that James Buchanan was totally gay. If civilization were to collapse due to zombie hoards or nuclear holocaust, Benjamin would be among the first to die as he has no useful skills of any kind. The post-apocalyptic hellscape has no real need for homosexual computer programmers who can name all the presidents in order, as well as the actors who have played all eleven incarnations of Doctor Who.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘You Don’t Care’: Gay Congressman Blasts Defense Secretary Over LGBTQ Troops

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Eric Sorensen, a Democrat and the first openly gay member of Congress from Illinois, delivered strong criticism of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, accusing the embattled Pentagon chief of not caring about LGBTQ service members, and fostering an environment where LGBTQ people do not want to join the military. He also brought up the planned renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk, which the Secretary reportedly ordered to intentionally coincide with LGBTQ Pride Month.

Congressman Sorensen told Secretary Hegseth that Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in California, who was assassinated in 1978, served “courageously,” but was forced to resign from the Navy because he was gay.

“You see,” Congressman Sorensen said, “as a kid, all I wanted to be was the weatherman on TV. You know, I learned that I could have gone into the Army or the Navy to learn meteorology. But someone like me was not allowed. They didn’t want someone like me, Mr. Secretary.”

READ MORE: ‘Coup’: What DHS Secretary’s ‘Liberate’ Comment Means, According to Experts

“There wasn’t anything that I could do to change myself, or the way that my nation thought of me. And so I want to keep this very simple. Do you believe that Harvey Milk is a veteran who deserves his country’s thanks?”

Hegseth attempted to dodge the question.

“Sir, the decision to rename the ship was—” Hegseth began.

“I’m just asking, do you believe that Harvey Milk is a veteran who deserves his country’s thanks? Yes or no,” Sorensen pressed.

“If his service was deemed honorable, yes,” the Secretary replied.

“I disagree with your leadership,” Sorensen said, “because I believe that every veteran deserves our thanks. We all walk in the footsteps of leaders before us, and you may not find the value in the fact that many of those people are women, with different skin colors, different backgrounds, different talents, immigrants, gay, straight, transgender, disabled.”

READ MORE: In Reversal, Trump Uses Term Tied to Ethnic Cleansing Amid Renewed Mass Deportation Demand

“You may want to change it, but you can’t. Because the America that you and I both serve is a place where everyone has the ability—or should have the ability—to grow up and be the hero their grandpa was. I wanted to do that when I was a kid.”

“We’re going back to that time,” the congressman warned. “Gay kids like me, they don’t want to go into the Army. They don’t want to go into the Navy, because you don’t care for them. It’s happening all over our country.”

“My grandpa taught me never to judge the value of a veteran’s service. And I hope, Mr. Secretary, you learn to do the same in your capacity, and you can find it in your heart, to make that part of your process.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Democrats Demand Noem Testify After Handcuffing of US Senator Padilla

Continue Reading

News

‘Coup’: What DHS Secretary’s ‘Liberate’ Comment Means, According to Experts

Published

on

Before her protective squad forcibly removed, detained, and handcuffed a sitting U.S. Senator asking a question at her Los Angeles press conference, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem delivered remarks that legal and political experts warn are explosive.

“We are not going away,” Secretary Noem vowed, regarding herself and her Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, other DHS operatives, and the U.S. Military, all of whom she promised would “continue to sustain and increase our operations in this city.”

“We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country here,” she declared, referring to Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

Experts are once again sounding the alarm.

READ MORE: In Reversal, Trump Uses Term Tied to Ethnic Cleansing Amid Renewed Mass Deportation Demand

“I think the governor and mayor of Los Angeles are right,” declared U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) on MSNBC on Thursday night. “I think they’re testing out their ability to essentially commandeer National Guards throughout the country, and use them for their own purposes.”

“One thing that got lost in the horrendous treatment of Alex Padilla today,” Schiff continued, “was what Kristi Noem said at that press conference in saying that it was necessary to have these troops there to ‘liberate’ the city from the socialists. That’s the kind of rhetoric the administration is using.”

He went on to say that “the fact that they would abuse the military that way and justify it that way is unconscionable.”

Other critics weighed in as well.

Quoting Secretary Noem’s remarks, Harvard University Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe, a top constitutional law scholar, wrote: “Using military force to displace a democratically elected state government is called a coup.”

Former prosecutor and former Hill staffer Stephen Rodio remarked, “Trump’s regime is going to liberate us from the people that we elected to represent us.”

“Be clear on what she’s saying here,” wrote podcaster Joe Walsh, a former GOP Tea Party Congressman and now a Democrat and political commentator. “She’s saying that Trump is going to use the U.S. military to overthrow both the duly elected Mayor of Los Angeles & the Governor of California. I understand she’s not very bright, but, in essence, she’s saying the federal government has declared war on California.”

READ MORE: Democrats Demand Noem Testify After Handcuffing of US Senator Padilla

“Quiet Part Out Loud?” asked U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). “Sounds a lot like she’s saying they’re there to liberate the city from its elected government.

Lincoln Project senior advisor Stuart Stevens also quoted Noem’s remarks, then wrote: “That’s a statement of intent of a coup, to ‘liberate’ a state from legally elected officials. Then armed men tackle and shackle one of those leaders. Nothing about we are here to arrest violent offenders and support law enforcement.”

“The declared purpose is to undo the choice of voters. Nothing like this has ever happened in modern America except the insurrection of Jan. 6th, which Noem supported, including her support for pardoning those who assaulted law enforcement.”

“Greeted as liberators, you say?” wrote Wall Street Journal reporter Alex Ward, appearing to echo former Bush 43 Vice President Dick Cheney’s fated 2003 Iraq War claim.

“Do the decent thing and resign, Noem,” urged former U.S, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). “The world is watching.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Not Today Hegseth’: Dem Slams Defense Secretary as ‘Unfit to Lead’ in Fiery Exchange

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

In Reversal, Trump Uses Term Tied to Ethnic Cleansing Amid Renewed Mass Deportation Demand

Published

on

Facing backlash from his base over an announced, possible exemption for undocumented immigrants working in agriculture and hospitality, President Donald Trump has entirely reversed course, now calling for the mass “remigration” of all undocumented individuals. The term “remigration” is closely associated with ethnic cleansing and far-right European movements, including the neo-fascist political party backed by both Trump and his vice president.

In a wild rant steeped in fascist and ethnonationalist rhetoric, Trump baselessly attacked the Biden administration and characterized all undocumented immigrants as takers costing the country billions—despite the fact that the undocumented population is a net economic positive for the United States.

“The Biden Administration and Governor Newscum,” Trump declared Tuesday evening—using his derogatory nickname for California Governor Gavin Newsom—“flooded America with 21 Million Illegal Aliens, destroying Schools, Hospitals and Communities, and consuming untold Billions of Dollars in Free Welfare.”

READ MORE: Democrats Demand Noem Testify After Handcuffing of US Senator Padilla

These claims are not supported by evidence.

“All of them have to go home, as do countless other Illegals and Criminals, who will turn us into a bankrupt Third World Nation. America was invaded and occupied. I am reversing the Invasion. It’s called Remigration. Our courageous ICE Officers, who are daily being subjected to doxxing and murder threats, are HEROES. We will always have their back as they carry out this noble mission. America will be for Americans again!”

Just one day earlier, Trump had declared that undocumented immigrants working on farms, in agriculture, the hotel and entertainment industries are “very good, long time workers,” who are “almost impossible to replace.”

READ MORE: ‘Not Today Hegseth’: Dem Slams Defense Secretary as ‘Unfit to Lead’ in Fiery Exchange

Changes are coming!” he vowed.

“Our farmers,” Trump also said Thursday at a press conference, according to The New York Times, “are being hurt badly by, you know, they have very good workers, they have worked for them for 20 years.”

“They’re not citizens, but they’ve turned out to be, you know, great. And we’re going to have to do something about that. We can’t take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don’t have maybe what they’re supposed to have, maybe not.”

“We can’t do that to our farmers and leisure, too, hotels,” he said, suggesting an executive order was in the works. “We’re going to have to use a lot of common sense on that.”

All that appears to have been a blip.

READ MORE: ‘Mouthpiece for the Kremlin’: Rubio Scorched for ‘Russia Day’ Congratulations

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.