"He's a nice guy, but . . ." is exquisitely condescending. It's probably not true: Obama strikes us as a petulant narcissist. But calling someone a "nice guy" is rarely a genuine compliment, and it never is when conjoined by "but." As any man who has ever been rejected by a woman knows, describing someone as "a nice guy, but . . ." is another way of saying he's ineffectual. That is exactly the point Romney is making about Obama.First of all: Obama is not our boyfriend. He/we sometimes act like he is. I've had a blog tag "Obama the Boyfriend" for a long time. There's this longstanding notion that everyone likes Obama, that he's just soooo likable.
Remember back in January 2008, when Hillary Clinton was asked to deal with her shocking likability deficit next to The Most Likable Man in the World?
But anyway, Taranto's right about what Romney is saying, especially since Romney comes right out and says it: He's in over his head. But the "nice guy" part is, I think, really the ritual of acknowledging that we all [almost all!] like Obama. This ritual goes back to 2008. Remember how John McCain refrained from any sort of personal attack on Obama. Wasn't that the central aspect of Sarah Palin's "going rogue" — that she wanted to light into Obama?
This reminds me of something I heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show yesterday. He was reading from this article by National Review's Jim Geraghty — "Do Wavering Obama Voters Think the Man They Voted for Is Naïve?" Geraghty said (boldface added):
Not long ago, our great deputy managing editor Kevin Williamson noted: "The most acute division on the right -- the one that will give Mitt Romney the most trouble -- is not between moderates and hard-core right-wingers, between electability-minded pragmatists and ideologues, or between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment. It is between those Republicans who disagree with Barack Obama, believing his policies to be mistaken, and those who hate Barack Obama, believing him to be wicked. Mitt Romney is the candidate of the former, but is regarded with suspicion, or worse, by the latter the latter..."Rush adds "It's not about 'hate,' but I'll get to that in a minute.
"[T]he latter are after something more: a national repudiation of President Obama, of his governmental overreach, and of managerial progressivism mainly as practiced by Democrats but also as practiced by Republicans."Rush goes on, circling in on Romney:
We don't hate Obama; we despise what he's doing to the country! And, yeah, it does require a massive turnaround. And it does require a massive repudiation of his policies....By the way, I'm one of those people. I voted for Obama. Limbaugh is trying to understand people like me. Is the McCain/Romney he's-a-nice-guy pose better than a Palin/Santorum straightforward attack — when it comes to convincing people who feel whatever it is we feel toward Obama the Boyfriend?
And this is one of the problems that people on my side have with Romney. They don't think Romney or the Republican establishment cares that much about repudiating what Obama has done. They just want to beat him. They just want back in control....
Anyway, [Geraghty's] piece is all about how do you persuade these Obama voters to vote for the Republican next time. Because, "Generally speaking, people hate admitting they made a mistake -- particularly over a decision that is culturally regarded as important as one’s presidential choice." This was a presidential election, and it was the first black president, and a lot of people are gonna be emotionally attached to that as the right thing to have done regardless. Because that says I'm a big person. I'm an open-minded person. So persuading that group of people that they made a mistake, that's a toughie.
These emotional attachments are tough, tough things.Sayeth Rush:
So "a lot of Obama voters must be persuaded that they made the wrong choice in 2008, and that it isn't their fault... Those who voted for Obama won't call him stupid, and certainly don't accept that he's evil. But they have seen grandiose promises on the stimulus fail to materialize, Obamacare touted as the answer to all their health care needs and turn out to be nothing of the sort, pledges of amazing imminent advances in alternative energy, and so on," and none of it has happened.....So... Romney's the best choice?
Here's what we're up against. A lot of people thought Obama was smartest president ever 'cause that's what they were told. There had been nobody like him before! He was the Great Unifier. The rest of the world was gonna love us...
Where you had a lot of people who thought they were making history voting for the first black to run for the presidency, by the same token, these people don't want to admit that the first black president's a failure. They don't have the guts to say it. They don't want to think it. They don't want to believe it. Because of the racial component. So then intervention is called for, and these voters are going to need a trip back to Realville. It's going to be very tricky convincing them that they did all this but it wasn't their fault....
But I do know that persuasion often does not happen by getting in somebody's face and wagging a finger at 'em, telling them they're wrong....
"If we're seeking to persuade Obama voters that it's okay to vote for someone else this time, perhaps we need to reinforce that notion that he just doesn't quite understand how things work in the real world -- that he understands the theories of job creation, but not the practice. He talks about a future of algae-powered cars while rejecting pipelines." Basically, we have to kind of convince people we've got somebody here that just isn't up to the job. That may be why Romney's saying what he's saying. You know, Romney's making a big point of saying (paraphrased), "Look, he's a nice guy, just in over his head." This is practically the same thing. So there's probably some oppo research going around and some focus group research saying this is how you have to go about it."Funny. Limbaugh refrains from endorsing a candidate, but I had thought — from listening to many recent shows — that he would end by saying Geraghty is one of those establishment Republican types who just want to get back in power and don't understand the real passion of those who want to repudiate everything Obama stands for, and that we really do need more of an attack dog like Santorum. But he didn't end that way. So I think Limbaugh understands the importance of the "he's a nice guy" component of an criticism of the President.
I suspect that those in the know perceive this fling with Santorum as an opportunity to satisfy the Obama haters, and they all know that after all the excitement — jeez, Santorum as excitement! — we're all going to settle down and marry Romney.
Romney the Husband.
Posts
249 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 249 of 249Should the Republicans vilify Obama, or should they portray him as merely incompetent?
The latter accomplishes the former, doesn't it?
I think they should just accept that now is apparently not their time to have anything sensible or effective to say or have anything worthwhile to add to the political discussion.
But my faith in reason keeps compelling me, against all hope, that they will surprise me.
Shit, I'm going to have to submit a comment just to read anything beyond 200.
Truly touching, Roger, that you think linking your actual resume improves what you have to say in a public comments section on Blogger.
Is tee time listed on it?
Scott M, by vilify, I mean "portray as actually evil" -- maybe I used the wrong word.
He's either evil, or he's stupid.
Now, I don't know how anyone could look at something like Fast and Furious, and not see evil. But maybe giving him the out of "merely stupid" would be politically expedient, this cycle.
But I think at some point, we need to take off the kid gloves and rhetorically stomp this "I am the 99%" neo-socialist bullshit into the dust; or we'll just be back here 8 or 12 years from now, trying to remove an even more left-wing tick from the ass of the body politic.
Not to nitpick with a recreational golfer, but two lines referring to a few military jobs is actually not a resume.
Ritzy at 3:23: You think that the Republicans should just tip their kings over, then? That they shouldn't offer a candidate?
Really?
Congress Spinelessly Hands Over Power to the American Caligula: President sends money to Egyptian military that Congress denies. The only thing missing is the Horse Senator.
Is there really such a thing as a 23-word resume? And would that now the vogue method for vouching for one's identity?
Just find that a little odd, to say the least.
I mean, 9% mythical and 19% real unemployment, trillion-dollar deficits, billions of dollars down croney-infested rat-holes like Solyndra, 300 dead Mexicans courtesy of ATF, and $4 per gallon gas are tough to compete with. I can see your point.
They should just concede. "We got nothin'." Just let Obama run unopposed.
Ritzy at 3:23: You think that the Republicans should just tip their kings over, then? That they shouldn't offer a candidate?
Really?
They had one that was reasonable, one that was sensible, and they both got out early. The Republicans are simply not in the mood to seriously consider moderates, and they think this is a strength. That's a problem that I can't correct.
Ron Paul is the only one in this race right now who is successfully impacting the political dynamic. But as we can see, the Republicans are loathe to take advantage of that.
A religious fundamentalist is fatally flawed, and that leaves the Republicans splintered with no one but the incredibly phony, corporate elitist candidate.
I don't think this is their year. Blame it on the vicissitudes of politics. Decades of ascendancy has convinced Republicans that they're entitled to unending political success or at least very close races. But that is their elitism and entitlement talking. They don't know any better because of recent history, but not all historical reality is recent.
It's things like this that leave me feeling incredibly intrigued at being called "arrogant".
Ritzy, the mess Obama has made of things makes your workplace look like the Palace of Versailles.
If this isn't the Republicans' year, I don't know what is. If the Republicans lose in 2012, there are only two possible reasons: They've nominated someone unelectable, like antisemite crank Ron Paul; or we've finally reached the tipping point, where 51% of voters want what the other 49% have, and they'll do whatever it takes to take it.
If it's the second one, then congratulations, Ritzy. Maybe they'll make you a commissar in the new socialist utopia, and you'll have your pick of potatoes and turnips before they're distributed to the proletariat rabble.
"The Republicans are simply not in the mood to seriously consider moderates..."
...and so they're going to nominate that fire-breathing right-wing maniac, Mitt Romney.
Your windage and elevation are a little off today, Ritzy. About 7 clicks right and 5 clicks down.
"Shit, I'm going to have to submit a comment just to read anything beyond 200."
Yeah, I wish they'd fix that bug.
It's your elitism that makes you incapable of accepting that political history before 2008 played a stronger role in determining the economic reality of 2012 than anything that could have been done in the intervening 4 years.
The economy is not a wind-up toy that can be tweaked slightly to yield exponentially greater impact. Some long-term structural damage finally became evident in recent years, and that will take a long time to correct.
An electorate more mature than you will understand that, and that's what Obama - someone too mature to freak out at the whims of every news cycle - will appeal to. Not the kind of reflexive way of looking at things that you're used to, but much more legitimate. And much more conservative.
Your concluding paragraph is a doozy, but that's par for the course. It seems to conform to what Roger accused me of.
Pasta,
You and I both know that Ritmo's elevation is off by a full 90 degrees, but you can't say that because it's not right to correct your opponent when he's shooting himself in the foot.
"The Republicans are simply not in the mood to seriously consider moderates..."
...and so they're going to nominate that fire-breathing right-wing maniac, Mitt Romney.
Try moderating between the poles of wacky extremist and say-anything phony. There should be a very undiscovered country full of moderation just waiting to be either tapped, or ignored by a Republican party that doesn't believe such a thing should exist.
Yes, of course. All the damage was done between the years of 2001 and 2008.
And the trillions of dollars we've wasted on boondoggles since 2008; those won't cause any long-term structural damage. Those were stimulative.
That's just partisan hackery, you know. And it's off-topic. We're not discussing whether Obama is likable, or a shit-heel; or whether he's actually evil, or merely stupid, or, as you think, the bee's knees.
We're discussing whether the Republicans should portray him as evil, or merely incompetent. And on that score, you seem to have weighed in with: Neither, they should just acquiesce, and concede to Obama's awesomeness.
That's just silly. It's absurd.
OK, I'm out of here. Someone carry on with Ritzy, I think we're making real progress here. Just a few more hours of therapy and I think we might have a breakthrough.
I know for a fact that the racist card is played every time. I once said to a person, "I don't like Obama". The person replied - "So you don't like him because he's black". That ended the conversation fast.
The GOP just has to show that Obama has spent more in three years than Bush did in 8 and we are in Jo better shape as a result.
Will Mittens have the guts to go for the jugular or will he be Mr. Nice Mormon Guy?
"Shit, I'm going to have to submit a comment just to read anything beyond 200."
"Yeah, I wish they'd fix that bug."
Click on the post title (the orange text), then scroll down to the bottom and click "newest".
Althouse includes this tip in her remarks on comments, but it's easy to overlook (and you'd never see it if you don't comment).
So is Ritmo the alter ego of Robert Cook, Love, or I heart Willard?
I'm thinking the third. There are similarities of phrasing, poor logic, disconnection from reality, and willingness to turn to invective when losing an argument.
regretably I got rained out on my golf ounting.
I see Mr Ritmo did bother to look at my profile, and I think he is correct that I really didnt put a resume up--but there about 7 pages of google hits up on my publications, conferences etc.
So here is my question to Mr Ritmo--what have YOU done and why dont you put your google hits up on your life's accomplishments?
You are a fraud ritmo, and a coward to boot. Convince me other wise by letting me google your name like I do on this blog.
you hide behind anonymnity. the position of a coward. convince me otherwise.
"... I'm thinking the third. There are similarities of phrasing, poor logic, disconnection from reality, and willingness to turn to invective when losing an argument..."
Probably. Both like constructing strawmen arguments.
What does "likability" have to do with anything. He's not eligible.
Herb Titus-- a real "law prof" and Attorney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8
Roger: No one cares about you and your fallacious appeals to authority - (which have nothing to do with whether one is "qualified" to make a joke about psychiatric diagnoses, BTW). Go whip out your dick and measure your penis size in front of someone who cares.
Ritmo--you descend to the gutter right away--you are a sorry piece of shit unable to mount any coherent argument--you have shown your self to be a ninny--and this post is more evidence that you a sick mother fucker==get help
The fact that 'Fartian has to come to me to help him decide the proper course for Republican partisan strategy shows just how fucked he knows his party is.
So whats your name Ritmo? safe hiding in the interstices of the internet? I hate fucking cowards, and you are a coward.
Roger, I am sorry to see how fast you really are losing it. People don't debate fairly with me here (including you). In the past you acted more honorably about that sad fact, and came over to show that it wasn't personal. But now you show that you can't even understand whether credentials are necessary for making a joke.
That is sad indeed.
And BTW, someone who doesn't have the presence of mind to separate his work and professional career from a forum where he immaturely tries to score points with choice words like "sorry piece of shit", "sick mother fucker", and "ninny" isn't worth proving something to. Whatever kind of "gutter" you view this as, the fact is that you were the one who decided to turn it into a pointless pissing match, and I refuse to stand in the way as you wet yourself.
Now please grow up.
Ritmo said " People don't debate fairly with me here (including you)..."
Pure. Comedy. Gold.
It would be much better to argue that his liberal law professor mindset is so disconnected from the real world that he [insert everything that he does and how it has not worked]. No need to get personal about or smart or evil - just a liberal disconnected from reality. There are loads of examples that can be used.
It's less funny when you actually understand how logical reasoning and fallacious argumentation works, Sir.
KANSAS CITY;
Do you mean we can't get significantly better gas mileage if I keep my tires inflated? Heh.
When a failed joke is proffered, a common response is "Don't give up your day-job". I think the opposite advice should go to Ritmo: Give up your day job, (unintentional)comedy is clearly your métier.
Never before have so many uncredentialed, armchair psychiatrists and pop philosophers provided such an unprincipled, uninformed and emotional take on American politics, as they have on this very thread.
So, missed any thread on any Progressive board involving Bush or the Kochs, eh?
I love Rit's whining that "Bush was SO drunk" with no evidence --- but then cries when people notice that Obama is a petulant narcissist which is hard to avoid noticing.
...unless you're willfully ignorant.
. The Republicans are simply not in the mood to seriously consider moderates, and they think this is a strength.
As many have said, there is NOBODY who would run as a Republican who Progressives wouldn't label as an extremist. LITERALLY nobody.
If Huntsman somehow won the nomination, he'd be far right.
If Bloomberg ran and won, he'd ALSO be far right.
These same clowns tried to portray John McCain and George Bush as being extremists ... while Obama is a *chortle* moderate. Even a Republican-lite.
People don't debate fairly with me here (including you).
Dude, put on your big boy pants and stop crying. There is virtually nothing you post that isn't blatantly false on its face. People are, somehow, "mean" in noticing that.
It's less funny when you actually understand how logical reasoning and fallacious argumentation works, Sir.
We fully get it. We're capable of reading your posts.
Obama think's he's the smartest guy in the room.
And when you walk into a room thinking you're the smartest guy in the room, you're not.
So the view from inside the bubble is that Bush was NOT drunk at the Olympics? Despite all those photos where he couldn't stand up straight?
Was he also never a drunk?
I give up. This impervious, closed loop fantasy world will be in for a huge awakening someday.
I leave you to your revisionist fantasy world.
Flounce-off!
The "nice guy" part is, I think, really the ritual of acknowledging that we all [almost all!] like Obama. This ritual goes back to 2008.
This phenomena of political cultism goes back that far as well.
I hate Obama, because I see/saw him for what he is.
I see Romney for what he is, too.
I see their followers for what they are, too.
I see all.
Is everything in life an illusion, Mr Crack?
That sounds very Buddhist. Is that a cult, too?
I think a better line of argumetn is that Obama is a liberal law professor so disconnected from reality that he [fill in examples]. Avoid nice, smart, evil, socialist and just hang the disconnected liberal tag on him, probably sometimes saying wellmeaning but disconnected.
"... This impervious, closed loop fantasy world will be in for a huge awakening someday..."
LOL!!
Try the veal, he's here all week.
This is what women want. This was a post on facebook, with 16 replies all from women talking about "Love," and 200 likes, with one guy liking it:
A thought for your day... The very meaning of the sentence - I Love you ... is that in this moment you feel love... This love is not because of me... It is in you... for you... to feel... to touch... to enhance... The very idea that I can be the one generating that love is simply an illusion... When you realize this... whatever I do... or not do... the love in you will always be there... You love me because that is your choice... I love you because it is my choice... Love is the choice of the heart... loving unconditionally...
Whatever you do to me - or not doing to me - I will still Love you... The love is free... for you to feel and receive... Always... The most beautiful consequence of this choice is that in me Love will always prevail... Love will continue resonate within my precious being... Love is the choice... Love is the action... Love is what I am... With the out-most gratitude for you being you...
Yes, that is what we need Romney to do. He will get elected, even above Obama! We need the women vote. It's so rational, so clear.
" Christopher in MA said...
What's not for capitalists to love, what more could they want: that the government force us to buy their products and services under threat of law?"
Robert is confusing "crony capitalism" with REAL capitalism, which is a very different thing. There is a shorter name for when government leaves businesses nominally in private hands, but exercises control over them, but Godwin needs a day off.
Post a Comment