|
|
May 20, 2013
|
|
Two-for-Two and Game OnPosted on Jan 12, 2012MANCHESTER, N.H.—It’s going to be mean and dispiriting, this campaign. We’ll be assailed with talk of “European socialism” and “vulture capitalism”—not “hope” and “change”—and the months between now and November will seem an eternity. There’s no use trying to gainsay or belittle Mitt Romney’s victory here Tuesday. Yes, he might have hoped for a bigger turnout. Yes, he would have been happier to win with at least 40 percent of the vote, rather than 39-point-whatever. And yes, given that he’s a part-time resident of New Hampshire, he was always expected to dominate the contest. None of this is likely to matter. Romney is the first non-incumbent Republican to open two-for-two, winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. Exit polls show him with decent support among all the GOP’s diverse constituencies—and no glaring weaknesses. It’s true that most Republicans would prefer someone else, but there’s no agreement on who that someone else might be. By the time the anti-Romney forces get organized, he’ll be giving his acceptance speech. Rick Santorum, whom Romney beat in the Iowa caucuses by just eight votes, was a non-factor here. He ended up battling Newt Gingrich in a neck-and-neck, down-to-the-wire, photo-finish contest for … fourth place. Romney got twice as many votes as Santorum and Gingrich combined. Guys, that’s no way to take down a front-runner. Jon Huntsman staked everything on New Hampshire, and by the end of the evening he was able to claim, well, certainly not victory but perhaps survival. He ended up with all of 17 percent. “I’d say third place is a ticket to ride, ladies and gentlemen,” he told his supporters. They shouldn’t pack for a long journey. Advertisement Nobody dropped out of the race, not even poor Rick Perry, who didn’t really compete and ended up with less than 1 percent. All the candidates vowed to press on to South Carolina, where they seem determined to split the anti-Romney vote once again, giving the front-runner another easy win. If the pattern continues, Romney can’t lose—no matter how hard he tries. With his record at the private equity firm Bain Capital already under intense scrutiny, Romney’s declaration that “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me” could only have arisen from some kind of political death wish. Yes, he was talking about firing insurance companies, not individual workers. But how could any sentence containing the phrases “I like” and “fire people” escape his lips? This will surely be a major line of attack against him if he wins the nomination. Thanks partly to Gingrich, the “vulture” variety of capitalism that Bain practiced—often involving cost-cutting, downsizing and layoffs—is now an issue for President Obama to exploit. Romney’s initial reaction to the criticism has been all wrong. He claims that to question Bain’s way of doing business is to question free-market capitalism itself. But nothing in free-market theory outlaws compassion or mandates that firings be considered a source of joy. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee compared himself to Romney by saying that “I want to be a president who reminds you of the guy you work with, not the guy who laid you off.” At times, Romney still comes off as the bad-news guy from human resources. But he’s a much better candidate this time around. And now, as he showed Tuesday night, he has a speech. Romney’s victory address did not soar, but it was hard-hitting and potentially effective. It consisted of one attack after another on Obama and his record, and the basic theme was that the president wants to make our society more European in the way it provides social welfare. Romney boldly—and, to be sure, unfairly—frames the campaign as a battle for the nation’s soul. Administration officials always believed Romney would be Obama’s toughest opponent. They’re right. Listening to Romney’s skillfully chosen words, I thought: Game on.
Previous item: What Kind of Capitalist Was Romney? Next item: Guantanamo at 10: The Prisoner and the Prosecutor New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Ted Whitney, January 12, 2012 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Romney is Obama’s toughest opponent for one reason only: it is almost impossible
Report thisto distinguish the differences between these two candidates. Maybe the only
difference is that Obama believes he is actually doing the right things for the people
he is screwing over (those of us who work for a living) while Romney simply doesn’t
give a s*** about anyone with less than a couple million in the bank. In the end, the
result is the same: the rest of us get screwed. I think maybe its time for us to build
movements based on our power to refuse. I refuse to participate in this farce. I
refuse to give them any money. I refuse to buy their products. I refuse to listen to
anything they have to say. F*** fixing the economy - it isn’t our economy, its
“their” economy so I just simply refuse.
By MollyJ, January 12, 2012 at 10:58 am Link to this comment
Quite simply, I think of Obama and Romney as Thing 1 and Thing 2, a la the _Cat and the Hat_. And as any pre-schooler knows, Thing 1 and Thing 2 were there to make mischief as directed by the Cat in the Hat. Not much seperated them in what they did and how they did it. And so this posturing about Romney and Obama is just silly to me. The Cat’s in charge. And the cat is the big money interests.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, January 12, 2012 at 10:42 am Link to this comment
Oddsox—that article is about the progressives-like-Ron-Paul fandango, which is not about much of anything either, and it’s definitely not about the selection of Romney as the alternate ruling-class zombie robot. You probably wanted to recommend something else.
The election of 2012 will be about something only if some of the numerous dissident groups in the U.S. manage to field visible contenders, and it’s pretty late in the day for that. I think we can count the proggies out for sure.
Report thisBy oddsox, January 12, 2012 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
Anarcissie, if you believe that, then read this:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_president/singleton/#comments
Report thisBy kazy, January 12, 2012 at 10:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
When I listen to Romney, he seems to attack the very thing that we need more of in this country: social safety nets. So when he attacks Europe for its social programs and puts a negative spin on those phantoms (since there is no one who does) who would want to make our society more European, those are parts of government I wish there was more of here in America. I know I am not the only one who looks over at Canada and Europe and is envious of all their safety nets - all the social program they have and we don’t - and will never have as long as our politicians take money from corporations who are ensuring that we don’t. I wish we had those social programs here that politicians continuously oppose and those politicians who demonize those social program, I can never support because their views and what they believe in are part of the problem, it’s what has got us into this mess. And BTW, it is us, America and our vulture capitalism that is now destroying Europe’s safety nets - so much for America’s and Obama’s and Romney’s support of a rigged “free” market.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, January 12, 2012 at 9:10 am Link to this comment
An election between Obama and Romney will not be about anything.
Report thisBy BobV, January 12, 2012 at 7:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
So where’s the part about how both parties will give us virtually the same quest? Hyper corrupted and criminal capitalism unapologetically or hyper corrupt and criminal capitalism apologetically? Both disingenuous, duplicitous to the point of flooding the corporate airways with denial and fear-based propaganda about policy that enriches the 1% and criminalizes, impoverishes, stops counting or otherwise ignores the rest of us?
Or is this, as it has been in the two last elections that brought us to this point, the place where Truthdig becomes the usual, weak-knee Obama/Democrat apologist, deriding anyone who decides the lesser of two evils simply isn’t a viable option or a sustainable policy-position if they want their primary objectives taken seriously? the place where I stop listening….
Report thisBy oddsox, January 12, 2012 at 6:59 am Link to this comment
Give Robinson credit for putting Romney’s “like being able to fire people” quote in correct context.
Most columnists and posters haven’t done this and won’t.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=nBfWB64iHAs
Romney knows he’s goofed, though.
If you watch carefully, you can almost see him trying to reel it back in at :56.
“if..if.. ah, y’know..somebody doesn’t give you the good service I need…”
*sigh*
But let’s not get distracted.
Report thisThis election will be about Jobs, not healthcare.
And if on November 6 the People believe there will be more jobs under a Romney Presidency than with an Obama 2nd term, he’ll win.