Thursday, September 27, 2012

Too Bad He's So Bad

Definitely a glass-half-empty kind of guy, I'm hardly convinced President Obama is gonna win this thing, current polls notwithstanding. But I am concerned that Mitt Romney (who could have seen it coming?) is turning out to be such a crappy candidate. Because I'd like this election to be about the issues at hand, about the real choice, the real direction in which voters want to see the country headed. The way it is now, teabaggers and teabaggRs can blame it on Mitt if he loses, and not on their message.

And, who knows, they might be right. Because, other than the fact that he was the only sane one in the bunch, and that the alternatives were even worse, he's the worst candidate up with whom they could have come. He's charismatic as an empty chair, as comfortable around regular people as a spider around shoes, as willing to lie as a guy facing a third strike law (well, in that he was among similars), as committed to his positions as someone who's not committed to his positions.

To watch The Rominee work his magic, with anything but Foxian blinders, is to cringe. Were he around, the Marquis de Sade might throw an arm around Mitt's shoulders and say, "I feel for ya, guy." He's becoming more pathetic by the hour. (Check out that link. Really.)

So it'll be too easy to blame his loss, assuming it happens, on his bearing Mittness. People didn't reject teabaggerism, they'll say, they rejected the man who changes positions like dirty underwear. (Do those things actually get dirty?) They rejected the guy caught on tape saying what we really believe; the guy who got caught hiding his money all over the world, like we wish we could.

I'd much rather the Rs had found, among the ruins of their party, a person able to carry their standard proudly and with conviction, and with something greater than the attractiveness of spoiled food. (Admittedly not an easy task, of late.) The country needs the debate, held honestly, among honest exemplars of each side, the issues laid out clearly, the choices for what they are.

Of course, to the extent that Mitt seems to be blowing it, I'm delighted, because I'm of the mind that, addressing the actual issues, the actual facts of what Obama has done and hasn't, and of what Romney claims he'd do (who the hell knows?), the choice is pretty obvious. Unless the goal is to pay as little in taxes as possible, damn the consequences. Or to discriminate against gays; or to degrade education to the point that, other than whatever value publicly-funded bible school might have, it's a white-flag-waving signal to the rest of the world to pass us by.

If Obama wins, I'd like to be able to think it's because a majority of voters see the danger in what today's Rs are proposing. But, sadly, the very fact of Mitt sort of negates the whole idea.


  1. Sid, I'm not normally a bettin man but I'll make an exception for a "Sure Thang"
    i.e. that you don't own a single album by Jack-O.
    I, OTOH(that means "OTOH")own "Off the Wall"(in Cassette!),"Bad","Dangerous","His-story","Invincible" and of course, the first one, "Ben" perhaps the only #1 love song to a Rat...
    and yes, I had "Smooth Criminal" as my ringtone for 2 years till the cellphone contract ran out(I still can't figure out those thangs)
    and if MJ hadn't cut corners, hiring a cardiologist(why?) to titrate his Deprivan, he'd still be giving little kids nightmares...

    Frank "Moonwalker" Drackman

  2. Wrong again, Frankie. Got 'em all. Okay, got 'em most.

    And whooda thunk you'd be off topic and got me to go along?

  3. I suspect that you're correct (insofar as it looks as though the president is leading, due in no small part to Romney's continuing series of serious gaffes).

    And I agree wholeheartedly with you about the way such a loss will be interpreted by the right. They'll intensify their positions, and move further to the right, failing to realize that the positions, not the candidate, put off the electorate.

    And as someone nearing fifty, I've never known a time when the GOP wasn't pretty extreme. From the time I've watched politics, the GOP has consistently been the party which undermines democracy and equity in its quest to provide a smoother road for the imperiled plutocracy. My first memories of GOP pols are Nixon, Agnew, and Ford. Reagan further disillusioned me with his attempts to gut school lunches, Iran/Contra, and the S&L debacle.

    I would like to have seen a day when bipartisanship actually existed. In my life, it's been polarization as long as I can remember.

    Thanks for a great blog, entry, as always.


  4. OK Sid,
    before you ridicule my T-Bagedness, they always say "There's no such thang as a Stupid Question"
    Who is this "Agnew" person mentioned in the same breath with Greats such as Nixon and Reagan and Mediocres such as Ford.
    I know I could just Google it, like you do, you know, when you forget your address, but I'm curious if you know this "Agnew" character too...


  5. Don't want to rain on your parade here, Sid, as far as your going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket opinion of the electorate, regardless of the outcome (insert Churchill quote here about spending 5 minutes with a voter to cure you of warm feelings about democracy. Think it was Churchill)...but I agree with Krugman ( I'm not sure you can pin this on Romney being such a piss-poor candidate. Might actually have to give voters some credit. "The right is already set up to blame poor Mitt, claiming that he lost because he wasn’t conservative enough. But that’s not what we’re seeing; it looks as if voters are rejecting the right’s whole package, not just the messenger."

  6. I'd like to think so; in fact, I've said as much before: that it's the message. But since then Romney has been making such a fool of himself that it gives those who'll do it and excuse to keep cleaving to their message.

    And of course my view of the electorate is skewed somewhat by the nature of the few contra-comments I get here. Repeating talking points, and running for cover when I ask for details...

    Nice column today, by the way, Chuck.

  7. Having deleted yet another of your comments, Frank, I have to ask: you didn't really think that one would be published, right? So what's the point? Do you think you're somehow impressing me, or annoying me, or what?

    It takes you, what, a couple of minutes to write that crap, but it only takes me one second to delete it. I just don't get it.

    I let a couple though, and it's like uncapping a septic tank. Should I stop altogether?


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts