Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« The Democrats Have a Prayer Room, T… | Bumbershoot 2012: The Promise Ring,… »

Monday, September 3, 2012

2012 Rmoney's Speech Failed to Move

Posted by Charles Mudede on Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech received the lowest marks since Bob Dole’s in 1996: 38 percent of respondents said that Romney’s speech was “excellent” or “good.”
That figure is lower than McCain’s in 2008 (47 percent), Obama’s in that same year (58 percent), Bush’s in 2004 (49 percent) and Kerry’s that same year (52 percent).

38 percent! This election is not about Rmoney, who, as Paul Constant has pointed out repeatedly, no one likes.

Al Jazeera almost nails it:

I've been asked to tell you why I think this week's Democratic National Convention matters. I can sum it up in just a few words: Barack Obama is not really running against Mitt Romney.

Alright, literally, he is: both names will be on the ballot. But there's more than that happening in this election.

On paper, this race shouldn't be as close as it is. Romney is not what most political consultants would call a great candidate. He had a tremendous problem getting the conservative base on board during the Republican primaries.

He's a Wall Street guy and right now Americans are still really angry at Wall Street. I've heard most of the "experts" on US television describe his convention speech as "workmanlike", rather than "inspiring".

Beyond the showmanship shortfall, that seems to matter so much in US elections, is the issue of his policy positions. Most people probably can't tell you what he would do in office.

He says he'll cut the deficit and taxes while somehow growing the military. He says that he would cut regulations, but has not specified which ones. His lack of clarity on what, precisely, he would do once in office has begun to get voters concerned.

So, with all of that in mind, why is Obama, who is generally well-liked, still in a dead heat with Romney?

It might just be because Obama isn't just running against Romney, he's running against himself. Specifically, himself from four years ago - the candidate the US met in 2008.

There is also the race issue. Now that the economy is not as terrifying as it was 4 years ago, those who irrationally hate Obama have the breathing room to become louder. This election, they feel, is their last chance to stop America from fully departing to a future that fills their imaginations with fear. Also, and I really think we should never lose sight of this fact: close races sell newspapers. The election is big business. Money wants to make more money. So, I will not be surprised if, on election day, we found out that Obama's critics were massively/deliberately over-represented. Trust me, Murdoch doesn't want Rmoney trashing Obama at this point. He sells newspapers; he wants things as nail-bitingly close as possible. Trust me, the institutional unconscious can function as if it is not doing precisely what it is doing: distorting reality.

FacebookShare

Comments (26) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Don't forget Lindsey Grahams statement about their shortage of angry white men... https://gawker.com/5939404/sen-lindsey-g…

Posted by Large Hardon Colluder on September 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM

But if Republicans can't find more effective ways to bridge the priorities of their conservative core and the diversifying Next America, that weight will grow more daunting every year.

They could always try addressing the concerns of lower- and middle-class people instead of billionaires. The Democrats could use the competition.

Posted by rob!

on September 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM

The same thing happened in the last "close" election. As soon as the West coast was called Obama was pretty much an automatic winner. I doubt Romney will make it that far, and anyone telling you otherwise doesn't pay attention to politics or is willingly lying to make more money. Fucking bullshit

Posted by watchout5

on September 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I agree with you Charles. And if Israel attacks Iran before November, it seems unlikely to me the people will change leadership during a war.

Posted by Pope Peabrain on September 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM

@2 FTW!

There's nothing preventing me from ever voting Republican. It's just a name, a label. Once they decided to be a party that represents the interests of the majority of Americans instead of the proverbial 1%, I could be onboard.

Posted by Westlake, son! on September 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM

@4, but Your Holeyness, Netanyahu is extremely likely to initiate an attack before Election Day because Obama would be forced to throw him all kinds of assistance including direct military aid (we've already sold them bunker-buster bombs).

If he doesn't, Obama will incur not only the already-guaranteed ire of the pro-Israel-no-matter-what contingent, but the wrath of large numbers of Christian liberals as well. Netanyahu knows that if he does nothing before November 6th and Obama wins, he will get even less of what he wants than he did the last four years. If Romney wins in spite of another major U.S. war effort underway on Israel's behalf, well, that's icing on the cake for Netanyahu.

An October "Surprise" is already in the hopper.

Posted by rob!

on September 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

@6 Obama will be handed an excuse to assist Israel when the Iranians either threaten shipping or try to do so. There won't be significant resistance from the public.

Posted by Pope Peabrain on September 3, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Yes— Israel initiates, Iran blockades the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. B2's launch with the 30,000 lb bunker-busters (that we supposedly haven't sold Israel yet; they have the 5,000 lb ones). But Money & Munster will be jumping up and down in front of the cameras the whole time, claiming that we haven't done nearly enough.

Posted by rob!

on September 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

"[Obama] is running against the candidate he was 4 years ago" now that is the most insightful thing I've heard about politics this whole year.

Posted by Swearengen on September 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Umm, you spelled Romney wrong in the headline. You should fix that.

Posted by Dave0 on September 3, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You spelled Romney wrong in the headline, you should fix that.

Posted by Dave0 on September 3, 2012 at 1:35 PM

@ 10 and 11: no he didn't. Rmoney by name, Rmoney by nature.

Posted by originalcinner on September 3, 2012 at 1:39 PM

@10, 11 Umm, howboutno?

Posted by Norbeck on September 3, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Shouldn't he be called "Mymoney"?

Posted by madcap on September 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM

#14 ... rich white guys are the “R” in Rmoney

Posted by olive oyl on September 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

People should drop the Rmoney thing in favor of something more appropriate. Like 'fuckbag', or 'shitass', or 'floppycock'.

Posted by levide on September 3, 2012 at 2:35 PM

interesting how much Romney owes to government. His dad was head of AMC which had huge govt. contracts in ww2! Also, from Wiki, his dad in michigan "worked to overhaul the state's financial and revenue structure, culminating in Michigan's first state income tax, and greatly expanded the size of state government. " earlier when the family was in mexico, then fled, "his family subsisted with other Mormon refugees on government relief in El Paso, Texas, for a few months before moving to Los Angeles, California, " Lyater Mitt's dad moved to DC when his wifey's daddy "accepted an appointment by President Calvin Coolidge to serve on the Federal Radio Commission." So then he "worked for Massachusetts Democratic U.S. Senator David I. Walsh during 1929 and 1930, first as a stenographer using speedwriting, then, when his abilities at that proved limited, as a staff aide working on tariffs and other legislative matters. Romney researched aspects of the proposed Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation and sat in on committee meetings; the job was a turning point in his career and gave him lifelong confidence in dealing with Congress." Later, before being in politics in michigan, mitt's dad was a lobbyist for Alcoa corporation.

Pretty hard for Mitt's dad to say "I built it" with no help fro gummint.

Posted by built it for mitt on September 3, 2012 at 2:51 PM

@16

The Stranger is too conservative of a publication to start doing that. But it really would be wonderful to only refer to M.R. as FLOPPYCOCK from now until November.

Posted by dnt trust me on September 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I had a dream I was married to Mittens. Our marriage consisted of him waiting until the door was shut and transforming into a whiny bitch. "why can't they just elect me already?! Jeez, these people are so demanding!".

Wish I hasn't slept in, holiday or not.

Posted by wxPDX on September 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM

@6

Why would Israel wait until October? If they attack today, or a month ago, don't they get the same election-year leverage?

Posted by robotslave on September 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Floppycock? I prefer something more accurate... like Corporate Raider, which is how he made his money. He's a fucking economic parasite, with no governmental skills, and only rhetoric to go on.

Either (a) the Reps are floating Rmoney as a shill, like W. was; where the real decisions were being made elsewhere and the "president" was a cardboard cutout. or..
(b) the Reps know they probably won't win, and they are trying to push the emotional-political rhetoric further into the "insane" category, so that they can twist voters into a tizzy ever more easily in the future.

Also, racism.

*sigh*

Posted by treacle on September 3, 2012 at 4:53 PM

@20, sure. It's just an old U.S. political touchstone. (If I remember correctly, you live elsewhere, no? But like many people around the world, you have far better knowledge of, and insight into, U.S. politics and history.)

It could happen any time now. I'd put money on it if I had it to spare.

Posted by rob!

on September 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

(Far better insights than many people in the U.S., I meant.)

Posted by rob!

on September 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

@22

Uh, I live in Seattle.

What I'm asking is why Israel hasn't already attacked Iran, if the US election is forcing their hand in the manner you suggest. Wouldn't they want to give themselves enough time to handle the months of post-attack international political fallout, with the Americans still in their pocket due to the approaching election?

Posted by robotslave on September 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Sorry, mixing you up with somebody else.

You're asking me to channel Netanyahu? :) But while many Israelis care about international perception, I don't think the Prime Minister and his supporters do. Google around on this subject and you'll find far more nuanced scenarios than anything I might offer.

Posted by rob!

on September 3, 2012 at 7:31 PM