Why Are Some Conservatives Dumping on Mitt Romney?

You may have noticed that not only the Left was attacking Mitt Romney for his remarks in May that 47% of the population will support President Obama.  He stated that this is because they are dependent on the government.  Certain prominent conservatives attacked Romney as well for what he said. 

I was taken by surprise.  As discussed last Sunday, there are elements of Romney’s comments that are open to criticism.  And I recognize that the conservative credentials of the former Massachusetts governor are suspect.  But we’re in the midst of a hotly-contested campaign.  The top priority should be to defeat Obama, so Romney, for now, is our guy.  Conservatives should not be undercutting the Republican nominee in any way shape or form.  So how can the following conservatives justify these comments?

                   *** William Kristol, editor of the highly respected Weekly Standard magazine:  “Romney’s comments… are stupid and arrogant.  Indeed, has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country?”  [Huh?]  Is he referring to a man who promoted successful companies such a Staples and is generally credited for having saved the Salt Lake City Olympics?

                   *** Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal columnist and frequent guest on Meet the Press:  “This is not how big leaders talk.  It’s how shallow political operatives talk.”

                   *** David Brooks, New York Times columnist and former National Review and Wall Street Journal writer:  “The 47% comment suggests  “that he doesn’t really know much about the country he inhabits… and knows nothing about ambition and motivation.”  [Of course, if Mitt Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation, one has to wonder how he was able to join the notorious 1%.]

How does one explain these silly and overheated remarks?  Is it political immaturity and a dislike for Romney personally?  Or have they been watching too many of Obama’s negative ads? 

Do you remember such a cascade of criticism from the Left in 2008 when candidate Obama was secretly taped saying:  “You go into some small towns (where the economy is difficult)… they get bitter.  They cling to guns and religion.”?

No, you don’t.  Unlike some conservatives, the liberals rallied around their man and came to his defense.

Obviously there are some lessons to be learned from the Left.  (But, I’ll concede, not many).

 

Romney and the “47%”

A video of Mitt Romney, recorded surreptitiously in May, has him saying "there are 47% of the people who will vote for the President no matter what". Alas, this number is roughly correct, though polls would suggest that 45% is a more likely base figure.

Romney went on to say that this is so because the 47% are dependent upon government, believe it has a responsibility to care for them and consider themselves victims.

Given the response from the media (both liberal and conservative) you'd think that the GOP nominee had truly gone off the deep end.

Those on the left were appalled by the slander of the 47%, while those on the right were offended by the sloppy arithmetic and, as one prominent conservative pundit put it, Romney's "arrogant and stupid" remarks.

Indeed, Mitt Romney's reference to Obama's supporters as being dependent on government benefits was overstated.  But it is highly likely that the 48 million Americans on Medicaid, for instance, are mostly Obama backers.  [The Democratic Party has long had a lock on the poor population. Some cynics might suggest that the food stamp rolls have risen by 15 million during the Obama administration in part due to political calculations.]

But liberal activists and ideologues, or people who vote for Democrats because they always have, or the millionaires and billionaires in Hollywood and New York City who fund liberal causes are also part of the Obama core. Of course, they are not necessarily or usually on the government dole. So it is fair to say that Romney's analysis of opposition voters was indeed sloppy.

But the main point of his comments is valid, indeed.

A person receiving government benefits wants them to continue. Therefore, he's inclined to support candidates who will maintain and increase them. Of course, this is a generalization to which there are undoubted exceptions. But doesn't common sense and human nature tell you that it's basically true, whether the recipient is on Medicare or Medicaid?  And the more dependent a person is on government aid, the closer his allegiance and likely support is given to politicians who support increased spending.

And so it is dead on to say that such voters will be likely Obama supporters.  The fact that such voters are increasing in number – see dramatic rise in food stamp recipients noted above  -- spells big trouble.

Everyone agrees that the America's fiscal condition is horrible. Our national debt has risen from 10 to 16 trillion in four years. We spend money we don't have.

But where is the political will to halt this insanity? Of course, polls suggest that people do want government spending brought under control, just as long as their benefits aren't cut.

As more people receive governmental support, the less inclined the public will be to vote for people who will attack the problem. 

That is what Romney was talking about.

The Coarsening of America

It is hardly a revelation that standards of taste and civility in America have been in decline for decades.  Visual sex, oral vulgarity, and, of course, the written varieties have become commonplace and, in that sense, unremarkable.

But despite these depressing trends, as viewed by the morel socially conservative (some political liberals included) members of the community, standards of decency and probity have had strong defenders.

So it was not comforting to those battling for old fashioned values to learn that staid national public radio (NPR) was broadcasting lurid details of the recently concluded Sandusky pedophilia trial. 

Those who ask what can one expect from liberal NPR are overlooking the fact that it is also pretentiously highbrow.  Salacious National Enquirer-type stories used to be ignored (conservative viewpoints still are).

NPR did display a certain sensitivity about the subject found in few other outlets:  “Listeners may want to turn down the volume if they don’t want to hear the latest raw details from the Sandusky trial in Pennsylvania”.

Alas, that warning probably prompted many in the audience to turn it up.

How has it come to pass that so many of us now relish wallowing in – or at least viewing – the dark side of human behavior?  Where have all the inhibitions gone? 

A Contrast of Presidents: Bill Clinton v. Barack Obama

The recently concluded Democratic Party convention featured three Presidents as speakers – two former, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and one current, Barack Obama.

Carter’s non-prime time talk was nondescript.  But Clinton and Obama both gave well-crafted and well received speeches.  Give the devils their due.  But don’t credit either with an accurate portrayal of reality.

Clinton’s falsehoods were obvious no matter how palatably delivered.

***President Obama, his predecessor asserted, offered the country a debt reduction plan that would cut spending significantly more than taxes would be raised.  Not True.

 

***The Administration is responsible for the fact that health care costs have risen only four percent in each of the past two years.  Not True.

***The President has sponsored a jobs creation that, absent GOP opposition, would have meant one million new jobs.  Not True.

 

            [source:  WashingtonPost.com/factchecker]

 

President Obama’s time at the podium was more oriented toward expressions of hope and promises than in factual claims (it worked in 08, do it again).  But his speech was hardly a model for truth-telling. 

 

“Around the world we’ve strengthened old alliances and forged new coalitions to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.”  (Has anyone told the Iranians?)

 

The GOP ticket wants to “take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly.”  (Is the President referring to the era of Ronald Reagan who stared down the Soviets?)

 

Romney will “gut” education.  (By reining in teachers’ unions and promoting school choice?)

 

Or how about this beauty?  Republicans believe that “if a company releases toxic pollutants into the air our children breathe, that’s the price of progress.”  (Of course, Mitt Romney is a throwback to the Robber Barons of the 19^th century, isn’t he?)

 

One senses that Barack Obama really believes this nonsense.  He is plainly arrogant and self-righteous.  The President, no doubt, views himself as an upstanding, moral individual who is merely trying to do the best for America.  And he knows what that is.  Those who disagree (dastardly Republicans), therefore, must not have the country’s best interest at heart.  For, after all, he wouldn’t say negative things about them if they weren’t true. 

It’s as if Barack Obama lives in a world constructed not as it is, but as he’d like it to be.

Bill Clinton is of a different sort.  His long political – and personal – history makes clear that his association with truth is an occasional thing.  The charming knave is nothing if not calculating, so what he says, whether true or false, is done for effect.  But, to his credit, unlike the incumbent president, he seems to know the difference.

 

 

 

 

 

Why Are Liberals Dumping on Clint Eastwood?

 

A cynic might suggest it’s because he’s supporting a Republican for President.  Hollywood actors aren’t supposed to do that.

To be sure, the monologue was an unusual convention offering, and the two references to self-inflicted acts were tasteless.  But he was also funny.  Who would have thought that Dirty Harry had a comedic side?

However, there is a more substantive explanation.  Gov. Romney gave a forceful, impressive speech last Thursday night.  But Friday morning network shows (with the unsurprising exception of Fox News) chose to emphasize Eastwood’s twelve minute performance.  Unfavorably, of course. 

If lambasting the popular actor hadn’t been an option, the focus would have unavoidably been on the GOP nominee.  Given his performance, it would have been very difficult for media foes to avoid being complimentary.  Aside from MSNBC, the networks cling to the myth that there is no political bias in their coverage.  Failing to give credit where it was so plainly due would be too blatant.

So they were grateful indeed that Clint Eastwood gave them a palatable excuse to talk about something else.