Mitt Romney is about as close to defeating President Barack Obama as any Republican could have hoped to be. The polls--if you believe them--show him slightly or significantly behind, but within striking distance. The challenge he faces is unique: he is acting, and is being treated as, the incumbent rather than the insurgent. In effect, "President" Romney has been in office since mid-August, with none of the power but all of the responsibility.Pollak's bill of particulars:
It was President Romney, not Obama, who set aside time to visit victims of Hurricane Isaac. It was President Romney, not Obama, who reacted swiftly to the attacks on our embassies by standing up for American freedom. It was President Romney, not Obama, who took on the entitlements crisis head-on by adopting many of Paul Ryan’s ideas. It was President Romney, not Obama, who laid out a practical plan for the housing crisis.
The media have also treated Romney as the incumbent, pouncing on every word and gesture, seizing on every mistake and inventing errors where none exist. Romney’s so-called “gaffes” have one thing in common: they are all statements of fact. He is being held to a presidential standard--for presidents should know better than to tell all--while Obama’s outright lies to the nation (on Libya, the debt, etc.) are ignored by the media.
Obama’s failures as the actual incumbent are also passed over--or spun into positives. We reached 2,000 dead in Afghanistan? Hey, Obama “ended the war.” Unemployment still above 8 percent? Oh, that jobs report was “better than expected.” We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11, and Obama lied about it? Don’t worry, “bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” Growth down to 1.3%? Say--“No one could have done it better.”
The question is why:
Romney is also the incumbent in a cultural sense--he is the old, rich, white guy that 45 years of higher education and Hollywood have inveighed against. He has a stake in the system and values that two successive generations of elites have been taught to hate. And so an election that ought to have been a referendum on Obama, and which Obama hoped to turn into a choice between him and Romney, is now a referendum on Romney alone.So it appears. Read the whole thing.
25 comments:
So...when Republicans do well at the polls, is it because the vast media conspiracy has taken a holiday? Even if one presupposes (as I suspect many here do) that "the media" tilt left and report accordingly, it's a pretty inconsequential conspiracy that is only effective about half of the time.
You're so eager to attribute Romney's "underperformance" to anything but the possibility that people are simply not going to vote for him.
Here's what I've been pondering over the weekend:
By rights, the economic situation should be absolute death on the incumbent; people are stressed and worried. Here's the thing, though - anyone with half-a-brain has to know that this economic situation the world is in is fatally flawed. It survives only as long as people are willing to accept on the surface the premise that if we just keep plugging along it will somehow get better, even when they know it's not possible.
To say it outloud - or say that you're not going to vote for Obama - however, is to usher in the awareness that brings the illusion to a crashing halt and it ain't going to be pretty. So people continue doing what they're doing, hoping to do thier part in maintaining the status quo. It's akin to a child pulling the covers over his head and staying motionless in the hopes the monsters under the bed won't notice him. If there really are monsters, the blankets aren't really going to help - yet no one wants to get out of bed and turn the lights on.
Brian, you sound as if you doubt the leftward tilt of the media. Is this true? I don't want to assume it.
So...when Republicans do well at the polls, is it because the vast media conspiracy has taken a holiday? Even if one presupposes (as I suspect many here do) that "the media" tilt left and report accordingly, it's a pretty inconsequential conspiracy that is only effective about half of the time.
First off, it's not a conspiracy. The media are quite open about their biases these days. And that's fine.
We're talking about multiple things right now -- the role the media play, the efficacy of modern polling in an era where perhaps 91% of the electorate won't respond to pollsters and the overall confluence of a lot of very bad things happening in the world.
NW is close to the truth, I suspect -- we don't want to contemplate the monsters under the bed, even though they are here. And it's frustrating, because we need to have that conversation and we're not having it.
Romney owns that to an extent, because he's not been able to raise the issue successfully, but it doesn't do to pretend he isn't facing unremitting hostility at every turn by the people who have FCC licenses and buy ink by the barrel. Their power may not be what it once was, but the concentration of effort in this cycle is different than anything I've seen before.
Does that make a conspiracy? No. It's just a bunch of people who value the status quo more than they value the future that is coming.
The next 2-4 years are going to make what we've been through in the last four seem like a time of reverie. And we've got people who'd rather talk about Mitt Romney's tax returns more than they want to talk about the $5 trillion that have gone on the books in the last four years.
I have no idea if Mitt Romney is equal to the challenges ahead. I am certain that Barack Obama is not.
...you sound as if you doubt the leftward tilt of the media. Is this true?
True, because there is no "the media" as any sort of monolithic entity. To believe "the media" tilts left is to bizarrely exclude Fox News, the WSJ, the Washington Times, pretty much all of AM talk radio, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, etc., etc. from the umbrella term. It's not as though these are marginal and largely ignored voices in the national conversation.
...but it doesn't do to pretend [Romney] isn't facing unremitting hostility at every turn by the people who have FCC licenses and buy ink by the barrel.
I'm going to refer you to my comment above, and add that an awful lot of the "unremitting hostility" consists of reporting things that the candidate has himself said.
I also find it endlessly amusing that Mr. Obama has in a mere four years gone from being a dangerous radical bent on fundamentally changing America to being the face of the status quo. That's a hell of a transformation.
To believe "the media" tilts left is to bizarrely exclude Fox News, the WSJ, the Washington Times, pretty much all of AM talk radio, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, etc., etc. from the umbrella term.
What are the audience numbers for these entities vis-a-vis other entities? If you were to ask 100 people on the street how often they read the Washington Times, you'd be lucky to find more than 2 or 3 anyplace outside the Beltway. Hell, I don't read the Washington Times.
I'm going to refer you to my comment above, and add that an awful lot of the "unremitting hostility" consists of reporting things that the candidate has himself said.
In some cases, yes. Not in all, of course.
No one is saying the media are monolithic, certainly not me. The very word media means multiple voices. It's been pretty astonishing to me to see Romney get attacked for his initial comments on the events of 9/11/12 and then watch Obama and his minions offering a shifting story for the rest of the month without much of a challenge or followup.
You're not old enough to remember Watergate, but the difference between then and now is that the MSM stayed focused on the issue of what Nixon's administration was doing every day, with continual follow-up. Even when there wasn't news to report, CBS News and NBC News would remind their viewers that the investigation was continuing. There was a constant drumbeat of coverage and in no case would the reporters take Ron Ziegler (Nixon's press secretary) at face value. Do you see that happening now with Obama?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of appetite for follow-up from anyone of Obama administration activities outside of maybe Jake Tapper of ABC (on Libya and a few other topics) and Sheryl Atkisson of CBS (on Fast and Furious).
Don't get me wrong -- Romney hasn't figured out to deal with the coverage he's getting, which is pretty surprising since he's had six years to figure it out. Having said that, it doesn't excuse the behavior of the MSM.
Obama's second term, should he have one, will be a very problematic time. And while there's reason to be skeptical of Mitt Romney's ability to deal with the task at hand, there's no doubt in my mind that Obama is not equal to the task. Not even close. And it's increasingly likely we'll find it out the hard way.
I also find it endlessly amusing that Mr. Obama has in a mere four years gone from being a dangerous radical bent on fundamentally changing America to being the face of the status quo. That's a hell of a transformation.
I'd be surprised if you found anything I've written here that makes the case that Obama is a dangerous radical. Others might make that argument, but I haven't. His goals are the same ones that the American Left has pursued since the 1930s. So at least here, I'd chalk that up as a strawman argument. YMMV.
How often do we hear of the soldiers we lose ever month in Afghanistan?
How often did we hear it 4+ years ago.
Game.
Set.
Match.
My, point, Mr. D, is that you shouldn't be complaining about the media. You should be complaining about your candidate, and more importantly, your party.
My, point, Mr. D, is that you shouldn't be complaining about the media. You should be complaining about your candidate, and more importantly, your party.
I'd prefer to multitask. And in this case, the topic isn't the candidate or the party. We'll have plenty of time for recriminations later on. We always do.
K-Rod, excellent example. Thank you.
Chris Christy had a great point yesterday: "I'm not going to sit here and complain about coverage in a campaign because as a candidate if you do that, you're losing."
Dead on.
Regards,
Dick
Chris Christy had a great point yesterday: "I'm not going to sit here and complain about coverage in a campaign because as a candidate if you do that, you're losing."
Dead on.
Right. I'm not the candidate.
Mark,
Am I imagining things, or did I hear Peggy Noonan of the WSJ offering some very pointed criticism of Romney over the last few weeks?
And wasn't George Will telling his party to focus on the down ticket races last week, because Romney seems unelectable?
Hasn't the Journal Editorial page been criticizing Romeny for being weak?
And hasn't "El Rushbo" repeatedly said Mitt is not being conservative enough?
Is this the Liberal Media you speak of? I think Brian is right: It's liberal media when someone disagrees with you.
Also, I love the part about Romney being "the old, rich, white guy that 45 years of higher education and Hollywood have inveighed against. He has a stake in the system and values that two successive generations of elites have been taught to hate." Yah, we all know how tough it is being a white guy and trying to get elected in America. That must be why women make up a majority of voters, yet in the U.S., women represent only 17 percent of members in Congress and 25 percent of state legislators, and we rank 71st, overall, in percentage of women in public office.
Mark, this article is laughable. I'll give you this: You did say Pollak had a theory...you just didn't point out that it has about as much credibility as phrenology.
Regards,
Dick
Am I imagining things, or did I hear Peggy Noonan of the WSJ offering some very pointed criticism of Romney over the last few weeks?
And wasn't George Will telling his party to focus on the down ticket races last week, because Romney seems unelectable?
Hasn't the Journal Editorial page been criticizing Romeny for being weak?
And hasn't "El Rushbo" repeatedly said Mitt is not being conservative enough?
Is this the Liberal Media you speak of? I think Brian is right: It's liberal media when someone disagrees with you.
That would be a very, very long strawman argument. I wasn't talking about any of those individuals. The penchant of Republicans to form circular firing squads is real, but it's a separate issue. As is your penchant for expecting me to address issues that are off-topic.
I'll give you this -- at least you offered your view of Pollak's article. Eventually.
Brian and Dick,
To say that the media is hopelessly biased is not to say that Romney doesn't bear responsibility for what he does and says. It also doesn't mean that he should be beyond criticism. But you, Brian, on the one hand are saying that the media as a whole is balanced, and you, Dick, on the other hand seem to be saying that there isn't actually bias at all. I'm not sure whether you're just down with it and so it's okay (cynical) or whether you are remarkably unobservant (oblivious.)
You can still make your points about Romney and the world while acknowledging that the press is deeply corrupt. Media corruption doesn't absolve Romney of saying or doing foolish things, though it mitigate our judgment when put into some kind of context.
Really, though, the bigger issue than critique of Romney is the almost total lack of critique for a sitting president. What's with that? Do you find that okay? It doesn't strike you as dangerous to the fabric of your own country?
And by the way, Brian and Dick, since we have your attention - how DO you think Barack Obama will solve this financial situation? What has he shown that gives you any confidence that he can resolve this?
I admit I have my doubts that Mitt Romney can do anything. As for whether or not Obama can do anything, I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever.
NW, just blame Dubya Bush for 4 more years!!!
All you need to now about MSM bias (bordering on corruption) is the woeful lack of coverage of such scandals as Solyndra, Fast & Furious, the Obama administration lying about the "demonstration" at our embassy in Libya, etc.
Anything that could potentially embarrass the White House's current occupant is a story the MSM will avoid like the bubonic plague.
if romney (or the GOP) cant find a way to tackle the media and secure power, what makes anybody think they can master the media well enough to excercise that power?
do what ya'll will, but i'll be under the blankets for a very long time.
Gino,
That's a valid point, but it comes awfully close to ceding to the press veto power over the political process. What I'm more interested in is exerting some kind of power over the press. Not legal power, obviously. But I want their credibility to be absolutely shot (we're getting there) and I'd love for them to go out of business for lack of income (we're getting there too.) They're corrupt hacks who are ruining the political process in this country. I disagree with Democrats. I despise journalists.
WB et al: If you want to make the argument that far too much of the mainstream media is far too deferential to those in power generally, declining to hold feet to the fire where doing so might cost them access, you will find me in complete agreement.
If you wish to argue that this is somehow unique to the Obama administration, or to Democrats or liberals more generally, I would say that you suffering from a severely selective memory.
how DO you think Barack Obama will solve this financial situation?
The short answer is that I don't think he will. I'm just certain that cutting taxes and INCREASING defense spending (two of Mr. Romney's rare concrete proposals) will actually make it worse.
I'm not going to make the argument that Romney is great. I recognize there can be difference of opinion, different priorities, and whatnot. But to argue that the media are just toadies of those in power with no particular ideological skin in the game? You're not just trying to play the devil's advocate? You're serious?! Don't get me wrong, I think that they are plenty corrupt enough to be influenced by power, but no liberal bias, no leftward tilt? I'm incredulous.
I'm completely serious about what I've said, WB, but I don't think you are correctly characterizing what I've said. I haven't asserted that there is *no* leftward tilt. I've said (way back up there in comment #1) that if "the media" leans left and reports accordingly, then they only seem to have an impact on the outcome of elections about half of the time. Which, in a balanced two party system, is just another way of saying that it doesn't matter.
"...about half the time."
Wow, Brian, how convenient.
The problem is the bias consistently helps the left in close races. I suppose only half the time the elections are really close so you might be right about your stat. Heh heh heh.
Brian, okay. So there is some bias, but it doesn't end up mattering much?
I disagree pretty strongly on that. For me it's less about the political races themselves (though I think that is real and important) and more about the fact that the media distort the conversation. I don't think we are able to talk about any of the things that matter in a straightforward way. A vigorous, intellectually diverse, and honest media would hold politicians accountable for muddying the waters and trying to escape tough decisions. But they don't. One side gets crucified whatever they do. The other side escapes the majority of criticism. I think this sets up terrible incentives and ruins public discourse.
Long story short, they should be shot. :-)
I'd commend this piece by Walter Russell Mead to Brian and Dick's attention. More in the next post.
Post a Comment