Of course it was a poor choice of words. Romney is totally known for that, doing it as much as Quayle did his silly gaffes. At least Dan Quayle was funny. Mitt tends to devalue people significantly with his.
It sure isn't a tendency that reinforces the idea that Mitt actually identifies with and would do well to promote my best interests as an ordinary American. Can't see how it would.
Now, he did say he would "fix them", and honestly I don't know what that means. It sounds good, but one does wonder about the brutal fixation his party has for basically undoing the safety nets. "fix it" as typically rendered by the GOP equates to "cut them" or more generally, "screw people" who can take care of themselves if forced to do so kind of thing.
This isn't indicative of any real potential for a policy in alignment with my best interests, nor that of the vast majority of my peers.
So then, "poor choice of words" is kind of Orwellian without some greater explanation, is it not? On the surface, one could think, "yeah, he means well, but just sucks at communicating it, which is OK." Plausible, right?
Not really. This kind of marginalization runs rampant in all things surrounding Romney. We really don't know what he would want to do, but we DO KNOW what his party is planning on doing. The Republicans have been rather consistent over the last 30 years, leaving NO QUESTION.
Under W, we got to see this play out nicely, and it screwed us! The core policy platform that motivates Republicans is a failed one. It has failed REPEATEDLY too. It's not like they didn't get to take multiple bites at the apple here and some how botched it. Not like that at all.
Not only have they advanced their policy ideals, they have done so with the cooperation of Democrats, of similar economic mind only serving to temper the implementation some, otherwise compliant.
We know that policy sucks. This is common knowledge, only denied by a smallish fraction of us who are often invested for social reasons, not economic ones, though they regularly deny or contort away from having to account for that.
Does anyone actually believe Romney wouldn't go with the program as played out to date? Seriously?
With all his position changes, Romney appears more willing to do what is expedient than not, defaulting to positions that solidify his power, while at the same time promoting the means and methods by which he's made his own fortune, validating it as perfectly reasonable, and even good for us.
Anybody who thinks Romney might be some economic moderate who can bend the rabid GOP toward meaningful policy aimed at better alignment with the needs of most ordinary Americans really hasn't given the matter consideration beyond the "messaging for dullards" regularly seen day in and day out.
So yeah, those are out of context, KIND OF. On technical merits, the immediate context was culled to highlight the ugly. Fair call on that. But, the implication that somehow impacts the overall policy direction and statement of national identity isn't supportable at all.
That burden is much higher. Meeting it would require one to demonstrate that Romney could lead the Republican party, and it's two core factions: tea-baggers and oligarchs, down a road that neither wants to follow.
To support that, one would think a minimum would be:
1. has sufficient charisma to build popular support, (with all the gaffes and angry encounters with the people he serves, seriously?)
2. has sufficient base of support to weather the party storm typically associated with "going off the farm" like that, (Nobody really wants him! Seriously?)
3. has a plan that a majority of Americans could get behind after some period of debate and vetting. (I've seen no plan, have you?)
It's entirely possible, practical, reasonable to disagree with me on one or more core elements I've linked together here. Got that. No worries. I might even disagree with me, depending on what we learn in the near future.
However, the core idea of "out of context", extended to THE CONTEXT, not just a greater context, or even appropriate, just THE CONTEXT as in what we've seen Mitt do and say, doesn't support the idea that he's misunderstood or being marginalized / demonized to a degree that would warrant extra consideration --like, "we might be missing out, if..." kind of consideration, as is often implied.
I am not convinced the majority of people actually do see the point Romney attempts to make on so many of these. Why? Because neither does Mitt! He's interested in power, means to an end, not actually aligning with the people in the way we see Obama and many Democrats in general doing.
That is the core discussion in play. This next election, and I would submit the next few elections to form a sustained civic effort, are all about basic values, or put another way, our national identity:
will we affirm the regressive economics, sharply diminishing the power of Government and increase corporate power
will we return to a more regulated state favoring the "general welfare" with government serving to check business and promote civil liberties?
On multiple axis, similar questions are being posed and answered by our political process. Tons of money --so much money it's embarrassing to think about, given the hunger and lack of basic health care, education and such in play right now, is being spent as speech, put up against ordinary people speaking in ordinary ways, to determine that answer.
I find it difficult to even characterize that as "just", let alone "fair" or even "appropriate."
Romney is a product of those dollars too. Does anyone really deny that after Florida? Worse, given all those dollars, Newt who should be laughed off the stage on mere principle alone, actually gave him a run for the money! Was competitive!
To me, that's all I need to know! There isn't anything I could characterize as "progress" or "improvement" associated with that mess, and by extension it's product; Romney.
Posted on February 1, 2012 - 02:57 PM