I hope no one minds that I studiously avoided the State of the Union speech and the GOP response. I’m bipartisan this year. I could not stomach either. My skin hath crawled quite enough in 2012 already.
I did catch glimpses upon passing various TV sets. Obama looked like…well…Obama. Good optics on a man who is always a little annoyed with us small people he must lead. In the GOP response Mitch Daniels looked like hell. He may have sounded great. But he looked like hell. Perhaps a trip east to one of John Boehner’s Ohio tanning beds is in order.
My avoidance of the whole evening was a tactical conservation of energy. Obama is campaigning, not leading. What matters here is not what he said but how people respond to what he said. We’ll know this later in the week. I presume Fox questioned the speech, while MSNBC licked the monitors to get as close to their lover Obama as possible. CNN’s fetish is to insist it’s unbiased while being biased – so I presume they did just that. The resident Vanderbilt on staff at CNN is silky smooth when it comes to the biased lack of bias game. Anderson Cooper is now leaking into day time TeeVee, which is where he makes the most sense.
What interests me most is who wins, who loses, why they win or lose, and why people believe what they believe about the winner or loser. It’s been a hell of an interesting 3 years on those counts. I’ve no doubt Obama’s rebranding will work with the same people who bought his initial brand. They will believe he’s a man of the people, because his a man of those people. The branded people. What Obama does doesn’t matter to them. What he says barely matters. What matters is how they feel. These feeling people, plus a large swath of independents won it for Barry O. in 2008. The gooey creative class will be back in Obamaland in 2012. It’s that large swath on independents that keeps Axelrod up at night. They might not be coming back and the Axe man knows it.
Then again with Romney as the other choice, they might. His tax returns – smartly dumped on SOTU day – are far less interesting than one had hoped. He’s very rich. He lives off his investments. He gives a lot of money to charity. His taxes are surprisingly low. A smart candidate could make all that work for him, not against him. Being rich rarely hurts candidates…both Roosevelts, Kennedy, the Bushes…Most states in the union have a rich family in politics.
So far Mitt Romney is not a smart candidate. He’s not even a good candidate. He’s a barely passable candidate. He hasn’t given anyone a reason to love him or even like him. His Mormonism is working against him after all. His membership in the LDS church is harming him. We’re not afraid of it. But he is.
Romney’s campaign has provided no Romney backgrounding. His life seems to have begun at some point in the 1990s. There is no first act. The reason we become emotionally invested in any story is the first act. We care about Martin Brody confronting the shark at the end of Jaws because we found out in the first act that he was afraid of deep water. Forgive the Jaws stretch – but it does seem Romney will be eaten by Chicago sharks in act 3 (November) – and no one will care.
My guess is that Romney’s story hasn’t been told because he and his handlers fear Mormonism will turn voters away. They may be right. Nevertheless Romney needs a narrative to win. Narratives have 3 acts. Period. Lose the first act and you lose the audience. Romney is running on the hope that he can skip the first act and people will stay tuned in. They won’t. We do not do watch or participate in anything without an enticing first act. Football games, movies, marriages. Take your pick. If Romney doesn’t write his own first act, Obama will. Wait. He already is.
Unless Romney finds an intriguing first act his campaign is dependent on economic turmoil. It’s a strategy. It could work. An oil price spike, food inflation taking off, more bad employment numbers. All very possible. Probable even. But unless economic chaos sinks Obama, Romney needs to show up to win. All 3 acts of him.
A very insightful piece, John. Three acts, indeed. Romney does seem unusually scared of his own shadow; Newt is too in love with his. I’ve finally accepted that O is likely to win (the lucky b*gger, to draw such opponents…)– that makes me despair.
Was there anything Obama could have said tonight that would have been worth listening to?
I don’t think so.
“I have decided not to run for re-election and, instead, endorse my capable, well-respected, and infinitely more experienced colleague, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”?
What? One can always wish.
Yes, there was. Two simple words: Simpson Bowles
Why is it that no one is questioning one family’s 10 million dollar donation to Newt’s campaign which is infusing life into his dubious chances of winning?
Both Mr. and Mrs. Adelson have donated 5 million each to keep this idiot in the race and the question is why?
One reason may be that they are part of the radical Right Wing proponents in Israel who would like nothing better than to bomb the hell out of Iran thus dragging us into a war not of our own making.
Yet no one seems to be too perplexed by this “behind the scenes” infusion of money that basically suggests they are “buying” the next president since it is evident that strings and indebtedness are involved should he win.
Ten million dollars so far that should be under scrutiny but has yet to become a campaign issue.
Though most of these candidates are awash in dubious sources that should raise concerns, this one family alone has an agenda that should be explained in asking just what it is they “expect to collect” when the race is finished.
I’ve wondered about the Adelsons’ 10 million contribution too, Pat. It’s stunning that it hasn’t raised an eyebrow, on either side of the aisle.
Excellent point Pat, but I’m afraid we’re way past any kind of rational questioning of Gingrich on anything. Tea is a powerful drug and Newt is a Brew Meister.
They must be insane to waste their moolah like that. A fool and his money…
Right now, a lot of voters are ‘feeling’ hungry, scared, and broke, not to mention depressed.. Even those with a full pantry and a paid up house ‘feel’ lousy, or know people in their circle who are out of work.That doesn’t translate to Obama votes, imo.
The really interesting number in the polls is O’s job approval, usually hovering in the 40′s, one wonders if those folks vote..or if they will vote R on a wing and a prayer, narrative be damned.
All I’ve read about last night’s speech is that it was about ‘fairness’. Who gets to decide what’s ‘fair’? If it’s Congress, hold on to your wallet.
I am troubled by Obama’s making a joke out of a dairy spill. Why are dairies being exempted from having to clean up if they spill? They were originally included in the regulation for a reason — due to past damage from spills. Why are they now being exempted — just so the president could make a joke or because someone in a dairy state paid some money (lobbied) to be excluded from environmental laws? Is it really wrong for those who live near dairies to want to be protected from flooding, whether by water or any other substance?
Are you really comparing the environmental damage from a dairy spill to that caused by the BP oil blowout in the Gulf of Mexico? Puhleeze.
(no use crying over) spilled milk = no big deal.
Thinly veiled in that statement is barry’s claim that he’s ‘continuing’ to do something about the BP spill.
Excellent points, John. I think Romney may believe that his Act One has already been played out and that people are familiar with his story. He shouldn’t take that approach if he wants to win.
I agree that his wealth should be a plus, not a minus. After all, hasn’t he achieved the American dream? He no longer has to work. He lives off of his investments. He is “free” to spend his money and time as he wishes. He pays the tax rate that he is supposed to (capital gains tax) and doesn’t mind if it’s raised (he is the only GOP candidate who supports raising, instead of cutting, that tax). He donates to charity. He runs for public office even though he doesn’t need to. With our media being shallow, complacent and staunch defenders of the status quo, they would no doubt bite on a narrative like that.
What is Obama’s narrative? Defender of the People bravely soldiering on against an obstructionist GOP. That worked in 2008, but since he has been President for 3 years, it’s weak at best.
Unfortunately, so is the GOP.
Aw, c’mon John – Romney’s First Act is positively Lincolnesque. Born in rustic suburbia to a humble auto company CEO (later Governor, Presidential candidate, and cabinet secretary), Romney overcame the twin disadvantages of a multimillion dollar inheritance and poor education at both the Harvard Law School and Business School to rise to the pinnacle of American society. It’s not as though he had any connections to help him, being descended from the Pratt-Romney family (influential in Utah politics for generations) and named for his father’s best friend, a struggling rural innkeeper by the name of J. Willard Marriott.
Such a tale would make Horatio Alger proud! I’m sure millions of Americans can identify with his struggles.
I think I just shed a tear.
What a great story! I’m voting for Romney.
Oh the privations. If only everyone in America knew Willard’s back story
I’m so torn up I’m not sure I can make it through the day.
Heartwrenching. Forget “Rudy” and “The Blind Side,” this has to be the most inspirational underdog story I’ve heard!
Propertius — I don’t think millions of Americans identified with privileged lives of JFK or FDR either. The notion that a rich and privileged person is somehow disqualified from office is arrant nonsense.
Indeed, on snowy winter days, young “Ragged Mitt” was often forced to travel three feet of groundskeeper-shoveled walkway from his family’s Bloomfield Hills’ mansion to the chauffeur-driven car that would take him to Cranbrook School. At home, his only fun came from watching his father fire these servants when they did not perform their tasks sufficiently. At lowly Cranbrook, together with the sons of other multi-millionaires, “Ragged Mitt” barely learned to calculate a tax rate of “around 15%” or read a 5-star restaurant menu. But these hardships did build character; the kind of character that forges unshakeable principles, like, uh, well, whatever.
Having said that, Propertius, I did laugh at your clever satire. Humor always deserves a nod in my opinion.
Sorry, NES, envy has caused some of us to engage in blatant class warfare.
“Ragged Mitt” is no FDR, JFK, or RFK. Destroying the poor’s safety net was never on their agendas. Quite the contrary.
They also didn’t have their hands out permanently, begging for funds linked to the agendii of influence-peddlers (the way BO and other relatively less well-heeled presidents do and did).
FDR, JFK, and RFK didn’t make millions putting the middle-class out of work either, like “Ragged Mitt” has.
Sorry Beata, you just bought a lot of hooey on Mitt making his millions by putting the middle class out of work.
FDR, JFK AND RFK never really made any money at all — not because they were virtuous, but because their trust funds ensured they never had to work. Good for them — lucky them. I don’t begrudge them that.
Yep, I’m as dumb as a bag of rocks, NES. Didn’t go to Harvard and don’t know nuttin’ ’bout ‘nuttin.
Do you think “Ragged Mitt” has never put his hand out?
Here’s an interesting piece: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-25/peek-into-romney-taxes-puts-him-in-ranks-of-richest-presidential-bidders.html
On more thing Beata, with all due respect, until the pushback from me, neither you nor Propertius mentioned Romney’s policies. All the comments — good satire tho’ they were — were about Romney’s wealth and privileges. The implication was that those attributes would make him a bad president (which, obviously, wasn’t true in the case of FDR, JFK, Madison or George Washington). So, yes, there is a healthy dose of envy in comments of that ilk. But, carry on, Obama’s riding those kind of sentiments right into a second term.
NES, John’s post was about Romney’s “first act” narrative, not his policies, and the satire from Propertius and me reflected that.
“On more thing Beata, with all due respect, until the pushback from me, neither you nor Propertius mentioned Romney’s policies.”
I hear ya and you’re right, so, how about this? I don’t dislike Mitt at all, but any candidate who runs for POTUS and supports the Paul Ryan Plan, which basically decimates the social compacts, basically ending medicare, while holding $250,000,000.00 dollars in specially crafted accounts, many offshore and beyond real scrutiny and taxation, is a fool to claim it is envy that stokes his opponents criticism. Mitt should not have characterized those who ask questions concerning his wealth and how he came by it as, “envious”. That was a huge mistake, especially since most of the pressure came from his own party. American’s in general see his vast wealth and attempt to square his wealth, with his support for drastic cuts that would affect the middle class and poor. That’s not envy, that is astonishment, disbelief and probably, disgust.
Holding vast personal wealth, while running on a platform that supports lowering taxation rates on the wealthiest, and stripping away the social safety nets, is not in the tradition of FDR or JFK. As for Madison and Washington, of course they were from an era when there were no social compacts and no great American Middle Class to screw over, so they get a pass, unless we want to discuss their ownership of slaves and the accounts of Washington’s use of female slaves for sex.
“Obama’s riding those kind of sentiments right into a second term.”
You know I love ya gril, but these are not the sentiments that will give Obama a 2nd term, it is the turmoil within the GOP/TP and their inablity to find an alternative who isn’t riding the hypocrisy pony and who isn’t willing to sacrifice the middle class and poor on the altar of austerity. Obama is very beatable and vulnerable to any reasonable alternative, but their’s is a losing message, from losing messengers and Obama will use every word they’ve used to appease the TP against them in the GE. .
You know I love you, too, NES, even if we don’t agree on Mittens!
Ya know I love you too, Bandita and Beata. Listen, I don’t take disagreements personally. And, I always enjoy a good debate and a laugh.
I agree Mitt isn’t ideal — not by a (very) long shot. However, I’m consumed by a desire to see Obama beaten and (pretty much) any port in a storm (save and except for Newt or Santorum).
I’m with you, NES!
“I agree Mitt isn’t ideal — not by a (very) long shot. However, I’m consumed by a desire to see Obama beaten and (pretty much) any port in a storm (save and except for Newt or Santorum).”
I basically agree with you my friend. Newt & Santorum are an unthinkable alternative. I don’t dislike Mitt and If he was elected I don’t think he would govern as he’s campaigning. I think he would likely be more moderate or at least attempt to get back to the middle. Still, until the GOP finds a way to reign in the TP element, particularly those that hate the gay, hate reproductive freedom and who have a death wish for Medicare/Medicaid & SS, I’m not totally comfortable with Mitt as POTUS. If this were pre-tea party 2008, I might be able to hold my nose and vote for Mitt, but the Tea Party has redirected the GOP in a way that it is no longer an alternative as a protest vote, so I will refrain. Regardless, whatever happens we’ll find a way to live through it. My coping mechanism of choice, Michelob & Popcorn, because I’m just a common old heathen.
Good points, Mouse.
Mouse — Save a Michelob and some popcorn for me and PJ.
I agree that Mittens is unlikely to govern as he’s campaigning — I think his stint as guv of Mass. was more representative of his metier and style. But, that’s only a guess.
Here’re two happy thoughts:
1. If Mittens beats Newtie for the nomination, the TP element’s power and influence in the GOP may well wane. It’ll be a case of the (GOP Establishment) Empire Strikes Back.
2. The GOP Congresscritters must be sh*tting bricks at the prospect of being down-ticket from Newtie if he wins the nomination, and, presumably, they’re going to be collecting dirt on him and channeling it to Mittens’ campaign. If Newt heads up the ticket, the House and the Senate will probably fall to Dem control (and not by a whisker).
NES, PJ & Beata….Thought you girls might like to know, since you share my loathing of Newt; Today, Nancy Pelosi stated during an interview that Newt would never be POTUS, explaining that she “knows something” that will keep him from the office. As much criticism as I’ve heaped on Pelosi over the years for lackluster and lackadasical performance, if she has a disqualifier on Newt, she will become my Shero.
For a primary I expected to be a boring ho-hummer, this primary is turning out to be a real humdinger, isn’t it?
So, as others have noted it was strictly a response to John’s lamenting the absence of a “First Act” in Romney’s political story. Just for the record:
1) I don’t think wealth (inherited or earned) “disqualifies” anyone from office. Stolen wealth, yes.
2) Of the remaining Republican candidates, Romney is almost tolerable. I don’t really think he’s much (if any) to the right of Obama, and at least he’s honest about it.
3) I don’t have anything against rich people. I think there should be more of them. Many more of them, in fact.
4) I actually admire Mitt’s dad. I’m old enough to remember him coming out against the Vietnam War in 1968 – which was a pretty gutsy thing for a Republican Presidential candidate to do. He was pretty much to the left of anyone in US national politics today (except mayby Kucinich and Sanders). He’s be tarred and feathered at a Republican caucus now.
Mouse, good stuff on Pelosi — let’s hope she releases the anti-Newt dirt soon and not after he (maybe) lands the nomination. I suspect tho’ that she’ll hold it for maximum effect if she thinks he might beat Romney, which would of course be a ‘Christmas come early’ event for O and the Dems.
Beata, that was hilarious.
When you have 2 of the richest men in the world saying that the rich are not paying their fair share, it’s obvious that the position of the GOP/TP in the Congress and in the Presidential race is untenable.
“In an interview with the BBC Wednesday morning, the founder of Microsoft expressed his desire to see “a sense of shared sacrifice” from his fellow high earners. “Well, the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up,” he said. “And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That’s just justice.” Gates added: “Right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should.”
Bill Gates has to be joshing though. If he wants to help so badly why doesn’t he share the jobs instead of manufacturing everything in China? There have atually been suicides in some of those plants he and Apple contract out to. And he might want to consider not fighting so hard to try to increase the number of work visa software Engineers from India he wants to bring here to work for less because he ‘can’t find’ the technical skill he needs. I know software engineers who got layed off and worked at Home Depot. Obama history is proving that throwing more money at government isn’t going to get Americans jobs. It’s just going to help the government to squander more money and take care of their friends. We have all seen how well Obama’s “jobs” program has worked. We have little to show for it except more hungry, degraded unemployed people who are “shovel ready”. The only time jobs increased in any very slightly meaningful way was during the temporary holiday hiring.
Don’t get me started on the “Hoarding-Outsourcing Class”. I have the feeling that they’re becoming a little uneasy with the possiblity of a rebellion. Maybe a little cozy up is good PR.
Since we have never had a budget under Obama, how do we determine the amount of money needed to run the gov’t?..I’m all for higher taxes on our homegrown King Midas’s but I’m also for a good hard look at spending, 14 trillion in debt and growing,is untenable. Then what ? Out of work folks can’t pay taxes, G.E. pays No taxes, O gives millions to bundlers, and insiders on both sides of the aisle grow richer, We’ve been had, people..
Damn, this was a very satisfying analysis to read, John. I especially think you’ve nailed the Romney shortcoming of no first act. He would do well to explain in his first act that Mormons today are not of the John Smith lot, not anything like the LDSers of history, and that he and his dad represent that modernizing strain in the faith. And then emphasize what LDS has in common with other Christian faiths. Use his beautiful family. Whatever. Do SOMETHING! Say anything!*
*None of the above should be taken as an endorsement of Romney.