People paid $50,000 to have dinner with Mitt Romney, so he owed them more than a canned speech. He tried to level with them, but that was a bad idea. Instead of the private thoughts of a public person, they got an unwholesome hash of half-understood strategy and ignorant prejudice. Okay, it was a mistake. Clint Eastwood did worse at the convention. At least, Romney did it in private. Right? Not exactly. When his secretly recorded comments were made public, the Republican Presidential candidate had a lot of explaining to do.
First, he tried to quiet the uproar by confessing that his views were “Not elegantly stated.” That didn’t matter because the message was clear: poor people suck. He copped to the message, but, according to Jim Rutenberg and Ashley Parker’s front-page article in The New York Times (9/19/12) said it helped voters define the philosophical choice between him and President Obama. Except there’s nothing philosophical about calling forty-seven per cent of the country a bunch of weak, lazy, greedy sponges who live off entitlements and will vote for Obama just to keep the gravy train rolling.
Next, Romney tried to reframe his comments as an argument for limiting the role of government in American life. Really? Did Mr. Romney want to go there? The man who, as Governor of Massachusetts, created the model for national healthcare reform? Who, running for the Republican Presidential nomination, defended the government bailout of banks and, as candidate, defended both Medicare and Social Security? The only person in his campaign who might credibly argue for limited government is his running mate, Paul Ryan, who has limitations of his own. He thinks the literary novelty, Ayn Rand, is a great intellectual and not the reason that Alan Greenspan’s economic theories collapsed.
What about taxes? A Republican politician has to talk about taxes and Mitt Romney obliged his wealthy audience by criticizing people who don’t pay income tax. Not them, of course. He meant the forty-seven per cent that bloat the government with their lust for entitlements. This coming from a man who has hidden more money offshore than Captain Kidd – and in the same places. Without actually defending those comments (He couldn’t. The figure of forty-seven per cent includes retirees, working poor and soldiers in combat zones) Mr. Romney, again, tried to reframe them by suggesting, as the NY Times article states, “That it is time for a full debate about dependency, entitlements and what his campaign characterized as a long history of Mr. Obama’s support for ‘redistributionist’ policies.” First of all, Mitt Romney calling for any kind of debate is a small dog barking at a big one. Second, the greatest redistribution of money in American history was under President Reagan. It went from the middle class to the upper class. He shouldn’t bark
up that tree, either.
It’s not what Mitt Romney said or how he said it that concerns me. I know many people who are vastly more prejudiced and very few who speak in full sentences and express clear, complete thoughts. What bothers me is how Mr. Romney falls exactly in the middle. He is utterly average and wants to be President of the United States. Painfully ordinary yet thinks that he should be leader of the free world. Look at the clumsy way he tried to make up for this recent blunder. No artful dodging or crafty charm that might compel our grudging respect. Only the demi-cunning of someone, anyone trying to avoid embarrassment. We deserve better.
No comments:
Post a Comment