The Embarassed Republican: Mitt Romney Does Andy Kaufman
It took me a while to recover from the big one-two punch Romney delivered last week. It’s was one of those things I just couldn’t believe, until I researched it, thought about it and then had a time-out for a long period of sighing. I always knew 2012 was a goner, but now it looks like 2016 is in jeopardy as well.
It think it’s pretty clear when a Times columnist like Maureen Dowd calls for giving Romney a break (mostly because she didn’t want to go through the “Obama ate dog!” thing again) that we might as well put the fork in, he’s done. When people who definitely don’t like you start feeling sorry for you, the party’s over. After some thought it reminded me of the kind of thing the late Andy Kaufman would arrange. Kaufman was clear that his performances were not just limited to making people laugh, making people seethe with anger was just as good. In fact, sometimes that was even better. So when the President “evolves” his position on gay marriage and it comes out that our old pal Mitt was a gay basher, it was almost perfect Kaufman. Of course, no less like Andy than Romney’s “laugh it off as a prank” apology. That laid a big thick layer of “Who cares?” as icing on the cake. Now I’m thinking Mitt might just be channeling Andy.
It also made me wonder exactly what was going through Mitt’s and his campaign's collective mind during that time. I think we all began to realize that the Romney candidacy is not about electing another politician, another political insider. It’s much worse, it’s about electing a corporate insider. That’s because looking at it from a corporate viewpoint, it does kind of make sense.
After all, high up in a corporation you don’t have to deal with the public everyday and the people you do work with, either work for you (just wave because you forget their name), or you work for them (nod sagely at their every word). You don’t even have to deal with the stockholders more than once a year and even that’s in a very strict just look at the balance sheet format. In a corporation you tow the line, follow the corporate dogma, make money for the company or you get out. If someone challenges you on something you did in high school, or even last year, you apologize, make as light of it as you can, and move on to make more money.
The trouble with translating that attitude to political life, especially in this case, starts with the timing and lighting of the events. Just when there is a nationwide will to get serious about bullying in schools, our candidate turns out to be one. That’s really bad timing. We could all say “Oh well that’s just old high school stuff,” but in the public mind high school has importance. That’s where everyone began to really grow up and become the people they are today. Just about everyone has significant memories of that time. Good ones like first loves, first cars, finding something we really liked, or bad ones like fights, loosing games, or being knocked down by a gang of rich thugs for a "corrective" restyling. High school is hard, sometimes glorious and it does have a resonant meaning for most Americans.
Romney has worked very hard to get the support he has from a reluctant conservative base. In also reaffirming his stance on gay marriage last week, he’s following the dogma and towing the line of his base’s principles, but do they believe him? It’s quite possible, after this little beauty, he’s stuck between being a “Gay bashing bully” and “closet softy moderate” in their eyes. But there’s more to come and it will be very interesting to see how the “etch-a-sketch” candidate maneuvers though this in the coming months.
Late last week, amid the turmoil of the President’s “evolution,” a memo came out from the respected Republican pollster and strategist, Jan van Lohuizen. It recommend’s that the party’s elite orchestrate a considerable softening of the their stance on same sex marriage, or risk even further losses among voters. To top it off the staunchly conservative British prime minister, David Cameron, introduced legislation to legalize and formalize same sex marriage in Britain. He announced that it was time to recognize that the commitment of marriage was a core conservative belief and conservatives in the UK should be firmly behind the rights of all people to marry. He came off as very brave and insightful. Evolution is catching it seems.
Of course he’s yet to get that law passed, and now he’s under fire from members of his own party for presenting it. Still, US conservatives recognize the import and significance of same sex marriage to their ability to be elected in a nation where 2/3rds of the voters support it. Especially, when the population under 44 is overwhelmingly for it. The future matters in politics, it’s a long game.
If you’re a current voter, which bothers you more about the current Republican platform: The recent erosion of women’s health and reproductive options, or the stance against same sex marriage?
Observer
5:51 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
All of the above!
Prentiss Gray
10:21 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Cheater! For me it's close but it's women's health and reproductive options. It doesn't make any sense and it's such a strange thing to go after. What are we, the party of MCPs (Male Chauvinist Pigs)? Someone has to explain to me why small-government conservatives would encourage interfering in people's lives to that deeply personal level and go as far as forced ultrasounds on citizens.
Nancy
7:24 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
It's still about the economy. And we're not stupid. Nice try though.
J
11:11 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Yes, it's about the economy Bush (remember him, Republicans?) damned near destroyed, and Obama has been putting back together. So why would we want to give the keys to the White House to someone like Romney who thinks the W years were the good old days?
Nancy
3:41 pm on Saturday, May 19, 2012
Bush isn't running.
J
6:33 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
Thanks for confirming my point. Instead of addressing the merits (why anyone in his right mind would vote for someone like Romney who wants to go back to Bush's failed economic policies), Republicans counter with the non sequitur, "Bush isn't running." We all know that; it's called term limits. Now explain why we should believe the same old GOP snake oil would work this time.
Nancy
10:57 am on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
@J: I don't believe you want a debate - an exchange of ideas with an open mind; rather, you want to rant. So I'll end it with this: In the arena of failed ideas, our current $pender-in-Chief is the ring leader. The problems President
Romney will face pale in comparison to what Mr. Obama faced, but Mr. Romney will come in with a *bit* more experience than the community organizer brought to the table. And, I doubt he will spend his tenure in office blaming Obama. As to a Bush Presidency redux, just check out his web site. The unique issues he will face are addressed, including how they will be handled. His web site spells it out in detail; a tad more detail than one could decipher from "Hope and Change." Or "Foward." Foward?
Selene
1:20 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Nancy, we know you loved Bush, sad woman that you are. So sad to see such stupidity.
Robert Simpson
9:59 am on Sunday, May 20, 2012
The Democrats controlled Congress for the last two years of the Bush Presidency. mmmmmm Does this have anything to do with the ecomony?
Mikey
12:01 pm on Sunday, May 20, 2012
No, because now the minority stops the majority cold, thanks to the fillibuster.
Bush isn't running, but another amoral opportunist is, and his strings are firmly in the hands of the far right.
Nancy
5:48 pm on Sunday, May 20, 2012
You mean, like the Community Reinvestment Act? Think that could have had something to do with it?
Freedomlovin' Merican
10:40 am on Sunday, May 20, 2012
In the words of the great Mitt Romney:
"I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was."
Well said Mitt. Stay the course. Whatever it is.
Nancy
5:51 pm on Sunday, May 20, 2012
Hmmm ... so he didn't remember his exact wording; I have no problem with that. But he was sure that his position hadn't changed. Or, should we say, "evolved."
Dan Grant
2:22 pm on Sunday, May 20, 2012
shades of Nixon " I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I am not sure that you understand what you thought I said I didn't mean."
Observer
1:03 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Hi Dan, we owe you a debt of graditued. You must have hit a very tender nerve! Congratulations and thanks!
Prentiss Gray
11:45 am on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
I've read Romeny's site thoroughly and I'm not very impressed. It's a lot of ballyhoo and tough rhetoric and not much substance. The foreign policy areas are particularly worrisome, especially in the areas of Iran, where we are finally making progress, and Russia who no longer is our enemy. I really don't understand Romney's position there, but perhaps he's trying to fulfill some support obligations? Maybe I should read his book.
Working Mom
12:27 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Nancy is making a lot of very good points. Obama is trying to make the conversation about anything other than his economic policy failures. So its about gay marriage, or reproduction rights, or high school bullying. What's next the threat of alien invasion? In the meantime, Iran wants to elimiate Isreal, and the Euro zone is about to fall into chaos dragging the US off its own debt cliff. Thanks to the stupid and wastful stimulus, shameful green-energy -aka- politcal-slush fund, Cash for Clunkers, subsidized and defaulting student loans, endless unemployment benifits, vote-getting-disguised as-housing-bailouts, and of course Obama Care we are so in debt we can NEVER pay it off! While Obama has plenty of people he can blame, at this point its not Bush. Its Geitner, Summers, Bernake and the rest of the clowns he surrounds himself with, many of whom have come and gone leaving us with a trashed economy, no budget, and no plan for the structural reform we desperetely need! Obama has wasted our precious time. The man simply doesn't deserve another term. Look at the facts. You may not love Mitt, but voting for a known is doubling down on a bad bet. He had his chance now we have to move on. And Nancy also points out if people would actually READ the Romney website for themselves, his are NOT the "same old failed polcies" that BHO would like people to believe...thats just not correct.
Brent
1:07 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
specificity it is. Obviously he purposely wants to leave out details as he admits when people hear more about his policies the less inclined they are to support him, as has been the case in the past for him. So wanting to hide unpopular policy positions forces the candidates hands to not release specifics. see here: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/03/27/romney_wont_detail_cuts_until_after_the_election.html
If you want to read a candidate's website that actually has specifics down to a very granular level I would direct you to my candidate's site (and the only candidate who can save this once great nation): http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
Have you ever seen a more honest candidate than The Good Doctor Ron Paul? Check out this link: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
Pretty clear what his policy proposals are considering he gives us budgetary numbers through his first term. Contrast that to Mitt and then tell me reading his website lays out specifics and makes it clear what his goals are. I know it's not fair comparing an honest person to a lying flip flopping politician like Mitt but sometimes the truth hurts
Brent
1:07 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
re Obama's policies being the cause of: "so much debt we can NEVER pay it off!"... if you actually look objectively at the facts of our yearly deficits during Obama's term and calculate what portion is from his policies and therefore due to Obama, it's 33% Obama, 33% economic collapse (happened under Bush but due to policies from Clinton AND Bush) and 34% Bush (Iraq/Afghanistan wars, unaffordable tax cuts x2, Medicare prescription plan without paying for it, etc). So it is dishonest for you to claim that it is due to Obama's policies that we are so much in debt that we can never pay it off. Also, as someone with financial/economic background and nearly 15 years on The Street I would also take issue with your description of the stimulus as wasteful as the consensus from economists is that it saved us from Depression 2.0 (3.0 if you want to include the 1870s - 1890s version). Politically you may not agree with it as a policy, however it's assistance in propping up our crumbling economy cannot be argued. The degree it was able to affect it had can, however, be debated. But it is simply and flatly a lie to claim that pumping 800B of mixed spending and tax cuts into the economy that was collapsing was a waste and had no affect.
As for Mitt I can certainly see someone claiming his policies would be a return to Bush's more so than you can claim they would not be Bush-based. And reading Mitt's website to determine that is pretty useless considering how lacking in it's
FourScore
1:12 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Remember that the biggest criticism of Eisenhower (who was in charge of the nation during the zenith of the cold war with Russia) is that he ignored the emerging civil rights movement for blacks. Today’s battle for rights for gay rights is very similar to what blacks faced in the 50’s and 60’s. Just because there are other pressing issues that our country faces does not mean that civil rights should be ignored.
Brent
1:19 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
to me gay marriage is an illusionary topic used by both wings (D&R) of the one party (the Power Party) in DC as a wedge to help fool the masses into believing their false dichotomy exists and that there are any real, meaningful differences between the Ds and the Rs. The reality is they use these fake issues to keep your minds off of everything they are doing to screw us all over while helping their friends and families get richer right under our noses.
That being said, I agree the government has no business in the bedroom or which 2 consenting legal age adults can get married, etc
Nancy
1:39 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Alien invasion? WHERE?? ;-)
Thanks Working Mom. Good detail; on point.
Brent, It won't be Ron Paul. That said, I'm a fan, and wish Romney would be specific about where he will ask Dr. Paul to serve. My fantasy? He starts by appointing Dr. Paul to head the Fed ... at which point Dr. Paul abolishes the Fed. Then goes on to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.
Freedomlovin' Merican
2:15 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Wow, it's the Fox News Playbook, line by line, except you forgot Acorn and Bill Ayers. Shame on you. No Bill O'Reilly T shirt for you!
Biff
12:37 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Working Mom, your quote "You may not love Mitt, but voting for a known is doubling down on a bad bet." as it pertains to Mitt being an "unknown" is the one fact stated in this blog that I defy anyone to dispute. Given that Mitt is eager to please whoever he is trying to woo, and has changed his view on virtually every major issue, you have really hit the nail on the head. Putting aside all the toy analogies, like Etch-a-Sketch, and Twister (one foot on red, one foot on blue and both hands on green), your acknowledgement of him being the great unknown is perrfect! Bravo Working Mom!!
Selene
1:17 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Working Mom at a donut factory, sorry you never got a real education...Mitt...really? Go back to school, hopefully college and get a real education in politics. (If you actualy finished HS).
FourScore
1:34 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
I have no idea how you can consider this issue to be either illusionary or fake. But as far as the two parties go, remember that it is the R’s who want to create a constitutional amendment to force states to deny same-sex marriage regardless of the will of that state’s constituents. Since marriage licenses are issued by the state, I’m fine with keeping the federal government out of it, and leaving it to the state. Obama may have come out in support for same-sex marriage, he has not proposed any federal legislation concerning the matter. Not so concerning our republican candidates.
TCG
1:37 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Sheesh...slow day in the center hall colonials?
As the old saying goes...brilliant minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and simple minds discuss people. Just like the politicians you all detest, not a single post contains even the hint of an IDEA. Lots of bromides and blather and bumper stickers, but nothing resembling anything positive or constructive. Hell, I have yet to see a post with even one Obama or Romney idea mentioned. Nothing but petty and personal insults. Look in the mirror. You get the politicians you deserve.
FourScore
1:51 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Hold on a sec, I'm trying to find a positive, constructive idea in your post..... nope, not a one!
TCG
2:21 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Good try, though that was not the purpose of my post. Even a drunk kid at a Chatham high basketball game can discern the difference between observation and participation. Nevermind. If it's a positive idea you're looking for, see if you can get your head around any of these: 1) Do away with term limits and force these the corrupt politicians to return to their districts and live with the laws they either pass or don't pass. Either that or allow the president to run as many times as he/she would like. Why do we have a "designated hitter rule" in politics? 2) Pass legislation to overturn Citizens United. 3) re-instate the military draft. 4) limit elections to 6 months start to finish. 5) eliminate the filibuster. 6) Recommend voters be able to pass the same basic test those applying for citizenship must pass before they can vote. 7) eleminate the drinking age. 8) legalize all drugs. 9) Force anyone over 50 years of age to re-take their driving test every 5 years. 10) Allow those students who graduate high school under the poverty line to attend 2 years of college free in exchange for 2 years of service in the field of their choice when they graduate. Those are just a few. I don't claim they are great, but just ideas. Your turn.
been there done that
7:28 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
TCG-you've apparently left this audience stunned...I count 11 posts in a few hours and now silence...your mistake is assuming that comment posting on local blogs is equivalent to the college debate club. I don't like all of your ideas, but I would gladly vote the whole package in IF you also gave me a balanced budget amendment and abolished public union monopolies....we also need to break the military-industrial complex...strong military does not require insane quantities of spending...cheers!
TCG
10:51 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
It was not a mistake, but indeed my desire to silence the noise! So many words and so little said.
Agree on balanced budget amendment though it must come with triggers that cannot be modified regardless of a majority in either the House or Senate. Public unions are a little tricky though I am with you in spirit. Agree completely on the military. Thanks for the breath of fresh air...
Selene
1:06 am on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
No one in Washington or NJ has done a damn thing about unemployment or stimulating the economy...however...if you a-holes realize the only way to change this country is to vote out the corporate whores, Frelinghysen is in our district, do it!!!! Romney is a disgrace.....hands down,,,Obama has my vote.