Did you feel a shift in the force earlier in the day? No, it wasn’t just Paul Ryan wailing, “Hey, where the heck did he go?” as Tim Pawlenty baled out from the Romney campaign to spend more time with money, followed by the whimper: “... Can I come too?”
Mittens has a new gamechanger, and BY GOLLY HE’S GOING TO STUMP IT. And the borg rejoice. From CNN’s politicalticker:
The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again. He said he can’t change Washington from inside, he can only change it from outside,” Romney thundered to an audience of several thousand in Sarasota. “Well, we’re going to give him that chance in November. He’s going outside!”
Romney said he “couldn’t believe it” when he heard reports the “president of change” had said Washington needed to be changed from the outside.
“Isn’t that amazing? No wonder he’s had such a hard time over the last four years,” Romney said. “His first two years he had a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, he got to do whatever the heck he wanted to, but he says he can’t change it from the inside. Well, I will.”
I’ve had to take to donning protective eyewear and a pith helmet before checking into Huffington Post over the last couple of days, for fear that the lurid red all-caps 180pt headlines screaming “HELL WEEK” and other smack about Mitt’s revealingly unzipped quiet-room lapdance for his donors will have my eye out.
Not content with this wall-to-wall coverage across the entire media and the outpourings of despair and condemnation the whole affair has provoked from what passes for the conservative intelligentsia, some of the RW borg have decided they need to keep this thing going for a bit longer by playing “Aha!” with Mother Jones’s David Corn over a couple of minutes’ break in the full video that was released in two parts yesterday, in response to Mitt’s own request.
Col. Mustard led the charge into the Valley of Daft yesterday:
David Corn of Mother Jones released the “complete” audio and video of the secretly recorded Mitt Romney speech at a private fundraiser.
Yet the complete audio and video is not complete. There is a gap in the recording immediately after Romney’s now famous discussion of the 47% of voters who don’t pay taxes. The cut in the audio and video comes while Romney is in mid-sentence, so we actually do not have the full audio of what Romney said on the subject.
The next audio/video (Part 2) picks up with Romney talking about China.
Having finally established with David Corn via email that the recording device inadvertently clipped a brief passage of the speech, he continues in this vein today:
When originally presented by David Corn of Mother Jones, there was no disclosure that part of Mitt Romney’s controversial answer about 47% of voters was missing from the tape.
Since only an edited version originally was presented, there was no way to know if something was missing. After all, it was edited, so of course something was missing by definition.
Romney has admitted that the answer on the video, which he didn’t remember except for the video, was “inelegant.” That’s why Romney asked for the full audio/video to be released.
One is inevitably driven to wonder where Col. Mustard thinks this line of attack is going. Other than bleats from Ann Romney that Mitt’s words were “taken out of context” (the irony of this from a campaign that has prided itself on its badassity and has been largely based on partial and distorted quotes of President Obama’s words probably won’t be lost on you) and he loves the poors really even if the feckless bastards will never vote for him, Mitt himself has chosen to double down on what he said and has been wildly cheered by the borg for finally coming up with a line of attack that’s stupid, shortsighted, and vicious enough for them to wholeheartedly agree with. So which is it?—Mitt the Great Truthteller sticking it to the sponging 47%, or Mitt the ... What?
In any case, no matter how controversial the 47% remarks were, plenty of the other passages—including Mitt’s avowed intention to make hay out of any foreign policy crisis that fell in his lap and to hell with the consequences—are pretty damn telling in themselves, and we do have the full versions of those.
So what on earth could be encapsulated in those mysterious two minutes that would transform this ongoing debacle into clusterfuckus interruptus?
I had my own attempt at joining the dots in an earlier thread. However, “But enough about me. Let the bunga bunga begin!” doesn’t seem to fit the bill since the second part of the video shows little or no evidence of the sorts of sexxxytime goings-on that host Marc Leder’s Boca Raton mansion has seen in the past.
Still, there’s no shortage of suggestions on Twitter, where the hashtag #missing2min is hopping right now. You may have your own ideas.
Or use this thread to talk about anything else that’s been overshadowed by this kerfuffle.
The Right Wing-o-Sphere is losing altitude at an alarming rate and heads are starting to explode. Dreams of Obama-geddon are fading and heightened levels of conservo-lunacy are threatening to swamp our national discourse, once again. For compelling evidence of the scope of the current problem, one need only look to the daily ramblings of Rush Limbaugh, the most reliable barometer of insanity among fringe elites.
Limbaugh’s conspiracy du jour is that old conservative chestnut “The Liberal Media Conspiracy.” The evidence for dredging up this all-purpose blanket excuse for negative reportage of Republican bungling is, apparently, the fact that reporters talked to each other before Mitt Romney’s presser, yesterday (a bad idea piling on another bad idea).
Here’s the damning evidence that so incensed Limbaugh, from a blog that calls itself TheRightScoop:
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….
CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*
CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?
CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*
CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..
CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?
So. TheRightScoop’s big “scoop” is the mundane pre-presser strategizing of pool reporters attempting to get the most information from a limited (increasingly more limited) number of questions allowed.
Yeah, I know, and the Sun rose in the east this morning.
John F. Harris and Alexander Burns choose to join the RW squid cloud that’s desperately trying to obscure addressing Bill Clinton’s masterly takedown of the entire Republican agenda last night with a four-page whinefest:
If you bother to click through, like me you’ll end up mystified about whose verdict this revelation is supposed to portray, other than the authors’, and you’ll find absolutely no evidence at all—not even in obscure links—to bear out its thesis:
Obama and his top campaign aides have engaged far more frequently in character attacks and personal insults than the Romney campaign.
No survey, no comprehensive account of the paid ads and media utterences from either side’s surrogates—it’s just an inconclusive grab-bag of anecdotes and soundbites from a few of the players. It’s as if Harris and Burns came up with what they thought was a clickworthy headline and had to fill in the wordcount to measure.
When there’s a resounding breaking of wind on this scale, the pall wafts far and wide through the Borg ranks, where the guff latches onto the synapses of the loyal footsoldiers that make up Mittens’ online batallions, whereupon they gleefully flap the sheets as if there’s no tomorrow to share the joy with their avid readers. So it is at Hot Air, where Ed Morrissey graces this potboiler with a status it in no way warrants:
For anyone paying attention to the avalanche of character-assassination attacks from Team Obama and its surrogates, today’s Politico analysis hardly comes as a shock.
So now it’s an analysis. Morrissey cites Townhall:
No, the fact that Barack Obama likes to sling mud doesn’t come as a surprise. The fact that the media has begun to notice it? That’s a different story, as Carol Platt Liebau writes at Townhall:
I had to take a break from writing this post to deal with the coughing fit my paroxysms of laughter provoked at the persistent claim that Politico “leans left” (omitting the qualifier “of Pol Pot”), and indeed is considered part of the “media” rather than a wannabe yawnfest of a conservative scandalsheet. It sometimes doesn’t just parrot everything Drudge headlines on a given day, so that’s how low the bar’s set in these circles.
The lull between the truly spectacular GOP Convention in Tampa and the DNC in Charlotte begs to be filled with something other than boggling at how many outright lies you can fit into a half-hour speech and the parlous state of elder performance art, so led by the noses by Drudge, the Borg are yukking it up right now.
The story doing the rounds began as “ZOMG THE NARCISSIST-IN-CHIEF’S GOT SERFS POUNDING SAND BULDING MOUNT RUSHMORE IN MINIATURE OUTSIDE THE CONVENTION!!!!”
This rare outburst of artistic taste, punctuated with words like “tacky” and many others you can probably imagine, was barely muted when it emerged that the sand sculpture being crafted wasn’t the work—or even the idea—of the Democrats or Obama himself. Who built that?—The canny (if slightly meteorologically challenged) Myrtle Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau:
Myrtle Beach, S.C., has brought the beach to Charlotte this week for Democratic National Convention events and activities in the form of a 15.5-ton sand sculpture of President Barack Obama. The sculpture, made completely of South Carolina sand, took five sculptors of Sarasota, Fla.-based ‘Team Sandtastic’ three days to complete.
Charlotte is located just 175 miles from Myrtle Beach, S.C., which is widely considered to be the Carolinas’ favorite and most popular beach destination. In 2011 alone, more than 1.3 million visitors from North Carolina’s ‘Queen City’ flocked to the Myrtle Beach area, and officials say the sculpture is a great way to put the destination on display while thousands more are in town for the DNC.
“The Charlotte market is very important to us in Myrtle Beach. We know that if we can get to Charlotte this easily, folks from Charlotte can get to our shores in just as little time. It’s only a short drive across state lines,” said Brad Dean, President of the Myrtle Beach Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. “We’re excited to maintain a Myrtle Beach presence in the beautiful city of Charlotte in the coming week and hope everyone in town gets a chance to come see this fantastic sand sculpture
Why do Republicans hate free enterprise and the drive to put food on families so?
Anyway, now it’s all morphed into Ozymandias-style auguries of DOOM!!!! led by the Washington Times:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A torrential downpour that struck Charlotte Saturday afternoon damaged the Mount Rushmore-style sand sculpture bust of President Obama — an ominous beginning to what many fear is a plagued convention.
Workers were trying Saturday afternoon to reform the base of the sculpture, built from sand brought in from Myrtle Beach, S.C., pounding and smoothing out the sand that had washed off the facade of the waist-up rendering of the chief executive.
Similar sculptures have been erected without furor at numerous previous Republican and Democrat conventions and gatherings, of course, but it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that the shellshocked Borg, faced with an autumn of fluffing Mittens’ underwear and fapping furiously to the dulcet tones of Hottie McStudMunster, have got nothing else at the moment.
I can quite understand their eagerness to jabber about anything other than the Tampa Travesty. Everybody’s been desperately scanning the few polls that have come out since, trying to sight the traditional post-convention bump, and if it’s coming at all, it looks like it’s going to be pretty minuscule.
Of course, this carries some pitfalls for the Democrats. Primed by the newfound zeal for factchecking, the merest slip or misspeak from the stage or environs in the coming week will no doubt be seized on by the heroically transformed media and trumpeted as ample evidence that both sides do it. And given the catalog of disasters over the past week, it’s quite likely that any mishaps or organizing glitches will be seized on and amplified in tit for tat.
Anything else catching your eye on this holiday weekend?
Depending on who you read and listen to, Mrs. Mitt either WOWED with a Republican Convention speech jam-packed full of LURV last night, or woodenly channeled Leona Helmsley with a hint of Sarah Palin to insist that LOOK INTO MY EYES DEEP INTO MY EYES YOU MUST LOVE THE MITTENS YOU MUST TRUST THE MITTENS THE MITTENS HAS BEEN GOOD FOR ME AND I’M A WOMAN SO THE MITTENS WILL BE GOOD FOR YOU MITTENS VOTE FOR MY WORSE HALF DAMN YOUR EYES.
The hint of Palin may just be down to residual trauma from ‘08, or the fact that the speech was penned by Lindsay Hayes,* who wrote Palin’s infamous hockey mom/pitbull debut, and is currently performing the same service for Mitt himself and Paul Ryan. In case the message failed to move the assembly, the organizers had thoughtfully prepared a stack of artfully scrawled posters those folks who managed to stay awake could waggle at appropriate moments.
Mrs. Mitt’s message of DEEP LURV—especially for that sector of you people known as teh wimmin—was somewhat undercut by Chris Christie’s insistence immediately after that, SCREW THAT HIPPIE LURV CRAP GIVE US SOME RESPECT DAMMIT HARD TRUTHS TIGHTEN BELTS WARRGARBLE ME 2016!!!!!
Leaving aside the outbreak of civil war with the Paulmas and various other factions in the GOP (which we’ll no doubt return to in the fulness of time), other messages that were undercut included inclusivity. Memeorandum is a-drip with crotchety bewailing at the moment, the chorus led by The Daily Caller:
One of the left’s favorite attacks on the Republican Party is that it is the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist.
If you were watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday night, you might believe those assertions, since missing from the coverage was nearly every ethnic minority that spoke during Tuesday’s festivities.
You’re probably familiar with this latest fabrication from the Romney campaign, which already has its own Snopes entry since the RW email mill hurriedly grabbed it and ran with it. It appears to originate in an article by outsourced Romney Campaign intern Mike Flynn at Big Government on August 2nd:
As it happened, the commenters at Flynn’s original news- and reality-breaking piece didn’t react uniformly to order. A few lib blow-ins started posting rebuttals and links, and showed dogged determination in continuing to do so in the face of each new wave of Breitzombies staggering in to post WARRGARBL and abuse the disloyal and constitutionally illiterate swarthy Kenyan:
Do you have ANY ethical/journalistic standards?
If so, I urge you to tell the truth and correct/retract this article.
Many people here are loyal readers and followers of this site, but you are feeding them outright lies in this article!
We are all due the truth and an apology from you.
Fox News has reported that Obama is trying to restrict military voting in Ohio? Their source, of course, is this article.
Funny that the original complaint has been linked to more than a dozen times and people here just choose NOT to read it. It’s only 21 pages long, but they must think there’s some invisible tricky text in it that only liberals can see.
Just for kicks, I asked my 15 year old nephew to read the Obama complaint/lawsuit and tell me he what understood to be the issue. (I bribed him with my homemade from scratch apple pie with vanilla ice cream…yes, conservatives, we liberals like apple pie also). He had NO problems whatsoever comprehending the nature of the complaint.
Wow, I realize this post is two days old now, but it sure has gotten quiet in here since people started posting facts to refute Flynn’s deceitful, twisted nonsense. Nothing but crickets…guess they all moved on to the next bogus right-wing hit-piece based on nothing that actually ever really happened.
It will have come to your attention that not all of us in the British Isles are particularly taken with the way you’ve conducted yourself during your visit to our shores for the 2012 London Olympics. Whatever the right or wrongs of it, you’ve managed to rub some of us up the wrong way.
You arrived with the promise that you would rekindle some relationship you imagine once existed between our two countries based on a regime which held uneasy sway over only part of our territory before the Norman Conquest in 1066 transformed our society irrevocably. This mystified most of us, because we don’t identify ourselves with an era so long past, and indeed a lot of us carry only a fraction of Anglo-Saxon blood, if any. We are a mongrel nation, for sure, and none the worse for it.
“I’m looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again,” Romney told a crowd of about 250 people at a Thursday evening fundraiser at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel following a day of meetings with current and former British leaders.
This takes up a refrain that has been current on many rightwing blogs and comments sections throughout the World Wide Web over the past few years, here repeated by CBS News:
The bronze torso of Churchill had been loaned to President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and although it was due to be returned when Obama took office, British officials offered to extend the loan for another four years. Obama declined, and replaced the Churchill bust with one of President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican figure in history Obama admires.
The same article helpfully explains:
Romney’s idea of putting the bust back in the White House first surfaced in an article in The Telegraph, a British newspaper. In the story, two unnamed advisers said Romney would like to pay homage to Churchill if he is elected, with one saying the move would be “symbolically important.”
When Mitt Romney “won” the title of presumptive least worst GOP presidential nominee of 2012, many of us were downhearted that the candidate who on the face of it was the least snarkworthy among the unsavory but risible mob on offer had finally bought the prize, leaving us with the prospect of long summer months of processing his tiresome bilge and trying to wring some humor out of a painfully tiresome personality even those who’ve rubbed shoulders with in his own party hold in disdain.
As it happens, so far he’s given us quite a few easy pickings, as some of the flurries of posts below bear out. What he lacks in natural humor, he and his ridiculous campaign staff have more than made up for through sheer effort.
It was evident from past form, and especially during the GOP primaries, that here is a pitiful bully of a man who has proven himself quite happy to dish copious dirt on anyone who stands in his way—preferably at arm’s length, organized and financed by his inconceivably rich backers, abetted by some useful idiots who’ll parrot it abroad so that he can virtuously disclaim responsibility for it—who has a glass jaw when it comes to criticism or what he perceives as lack of respect for his self-importance.
Faced with the no doubt infuriatingly calmer temperament of President Obama, the prospect of an uberpatrician blow-up in the later stages of the campaign was something to look forward to with anticipation.
In the end, all it’s taken is a simple demand to share financial details that every other candidate for the office of President of the United States has made public—a demand echoed by many within his own party who’re tiring of his constant shifty evasiveness—which, coupled with the dropping of the word “felon,” has so wounded this shallow blowhard’s pride that his campaign now declares that “the gloves are off.”
I haven’t until now bought into the deliciously cheap line that John McCain took one look at Mitt Romney’s 20-odd years of tax returns and immediately felt driven into the arms of Sarah Palin (which I think I first saw James Carville gleefully come out with on Up With Chris Hayes, though he probably borrowed it), but when it spurs a headline and lede like this from Politico, I’m glad it gained currency:
Mitt Romney’s tax returns had nothing to do with Sen. John McCain’s decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, according to the Arizona Republican, saying he chose the former Alaska governor because she was a “better candidate.”
Woah! Be still my snark gland, such headlines and scare-quoted hitlines often don’t pan out in the story they herald. But no, read on:
McCain received more than two decades worth of Romney’s tax returns as the former Massachusetts governor was undergoing the vetting process four years ago, far more than Romney has released publicly in the 2012 campaign. Democrats have questioned whether McCain saw something untoward in those tax returns and decided to choose Palin instead.
But on Tuesday, McCain flatly rejected that assertion and grew angry at questions over his decision to choose Palin over Romney.
“Of course not,” McCain told POLITICO when asked if the contents of Romney’s tax returns disqualified him from the selection process. “I don’t know what depths these people won’t reach. Obviously, it’s just outrageous. That’s just outrageous. It shows the – it’s so disgraceful for them to allege something that they have absolutely no knowledge of.”
Asked why he chose not to go with Romney, McCain said: “Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. ... Come on, why? That’s a stupid question.”
McCain makes an awkward surrogate and defender of Romney at the best of times. According to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin in Game Change, as scotterb over at World in Motion reminds me, during the 2008 Republican primaries:
The candidates lined up at the urinals, Guiliani next to McCain next to Huckabee, the rest all in a row. The debate was soon to start, so they were taking care of business — and laughing merrily at the one guy who wasn’t there. Poking fun at him, mocking him, agreeing how much they disliked him. Then Willard Mitt Romney walked into the bathroom and overheard them, bringing on a crashing silence.
Unlike Guiliani, Romney had no reticence about slashing at his rivals. But the perception of him as a man without convictions made him a less than effective delivery system for policy contrasts. The combination of the vitriol of his attacks and his apparent corelessness explained the antipathy the other candidates had towards him. McCain routinely called Romney an ‘asshole’ and a ‘fucking phoney.’ Guiliani opined, ‘that guy will say anything.’ Huckabee complained, ‘I don’t think Romney has a soul.’
Any predictions about the next Romney adversary-turned-defender who’ll, er, “inadvertently” put his or her foot in it?
WASHINGTON—In the span of one morning, top Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu referred to President Obama as dumb and stupid, called the Chicago political culture from which he came “corrupt,” brought up Obama’s admitted use of marijuana as a kid in Hawaii, resurfaced the name of Tony Rezko—the jailed financier with ties to Obama—and then questioned the president’s Americanness.
“This guy doesn’t understand how to create jobs. So there is no surprise—there should be because of that statement no surprise on why he failed so miserably over the last four years, in terms of job creation,” Sununu said on Fox.
“He has no idea how the American system functions, and we shouldn’t be surprised about that, because he spent his early years in Hawaii smoking something, spent the next set of years in Indonesia, another set of years in Indonesia,” he said. “And, frankly, when he came to the U.S. he worked as a community organizer, which is a socialized structure, and then got into politics in Chicago.”
Then it seems the effects of the bottle of Jack Daniels he’d imbibed before breakfast began to wear off:
It was a tour-de-force performance for the former New Hampshire governor, whose demonstrated willingness to throw punches has made him the wartime consigliere for the Romney campaign. But moments after Sununu said on a conference call Tuesday morning that he wished Obama “would learn how to be an American,” he tried to clarify and downplay the remark.
“What I thought I said but I guess I didn’t say is that the president has to learn the American formula for creating business,” Sununu said. “The American formula for creating business is not to have the government create business.”
This no doubt dovetails with the comprehension conundrum Tim F. is posing over at Balloon Juice at the moment regarding wingnuts’ desperate attempts to wilfully mis-parse President Obama’s recent Roanoke speech:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Exam time. What was Obama saying that the individual business owner did not build? Discuss.
My honest response would be that Obama would have left himself less open to misrepresentation if he’d said “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build those. Somebody else made those happen.”
My realistic one would be that those shrieking about it all over the show just make shit up on an hourly basis anyway, so nevermind.
Yesterday, during his bus tour, President Obama breakfasted at Ann’s Place in Akron, OH, where he met the owner, Josephine “Ann” Harris. An hour or so after the visit, Ann Harris—who had been suffering from ill health for some time and had a medical history of recent heart attacks and a stroke—was taken ill, and died not long after in hospital.
Such a sad coincidence is no doubt newsworthy, judging by the coverage in media from the exalted HuffPo to the lowly wingnut blogs. Drudge carried a link to the original report in the Akron Beacon Journal, and from there the newswires and numerous bloggers picked up the news.
Gawker carried a straight report, “Owner of Ohio Restaurant Passed Away Shortly After Serving POTUS Breakfast,” which sparked the commenters there to vie in wry speculation about how Fox News might cover Ann Harris’s passing, the suggestions including “Fox news: ‘Obama kills elderly woman,’” “Obama bad for small business owners,” “Obama Begins Enforcement of Death Panels,” and “Obama’s lead in Ohio narrows.”
You see, there’s one small detail that makes a big, big difference when you dangle a story like this in front of some: Ann Harris was an avid supporter of President Obama, and had been thrilled by the visit:
You know it’s great,” Harris, 70, said Friday morning, shortly after Obama left her family-owned restaurant on South Hawkins Avenue.
Harris, who didn’t know Obama planned to visit until earlier that morning, sat at a booth with a wet towel around her neck.
“He treated us like one of the brothers,” she said. “He hugged all of us and ... got his picture taken with all of us.”
Over at Big Journalism, Larry O’Connor has a rare scoop. Mitt’s minions have been fluffing the wingnuts over there again:
“Drudge is the single most powerful force in the media today,” said Zac Moffat, Digital Director of the Romney Campaign. Lenny Alcivar, campaign spokesman, agreed: “The Governor’s simple message yesterday was, ‘If we want to repeal Obamacare, we have to replace the president.’ When Drudge highlighted that quote as a headline linked to the Weekly Standard, it began the unified message across the board on the center-right.”
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Moffat and Alcivar discussed how websites like Breitbart and Drudge influence the way their campaign receives and delivers the news.
Moffat revealed, “I have two windows constantly up on my screen all day long, Twitter and the Drudge Report.”
OK, I can see the first wee problem here: Romney’s Digital Director is Zac Moffatt, not Moffat. Nevermind. Carry on, Larry.
Alcivar, who took a leave from the groundbreaking and influential Hynes Communications to work for the Romney campaign, sees a major shift in how the media works:
When this election is over, one of the lessons that will be learned by the mainstream media is that they no longer have a toe-hold on how Americans receive their news. Never before – in a way that has taken Democrats off stride – have we seen the confluence of an aggressive online community, led by Breitbart, and an aggressive campaign team not willing to cede an inch of ground to Democrats. This combination has created a new political reality. We no longer allow the mainstream media to define the political realities in America. The rise of Breitbart, Drudge and others, combined with an aggressive Romney campaign is a powerful tool in the arsenal of the conservative movement.
If I talk to Breitbart about an issue, thousands more will hear our message than if we give a quote to one of the hill rags.
If you have a quick scan of Drudge or Breitbart’s recent frontpage offerings you may be driven to wonder what the heck Alcivar’s been saying to them. John Roberts is too gaga from epilepsy medication to do his job? “Sarah Palin: ‘Nancy Pelosi Is A Dingbat’”? “Romney Ad Shows Hillary Clinton Attacking Obama”?
The major excitement of the current news cycle among the righty blogs is that MSNBC aired an edited verson of Mitt Romney’s remarks at a Pennsylvania rally during his current bustourpalooza about the “amazing” ultra-high-tech procedure for ordering hoagies he’d personally discovered at a Wawa fast food outlet, but omitted Mitt’s Big Point: Private sector good, public bad. Politico is on the case:
Discussing how the public sector suffers from a lack of competition, Romney told the audience about an optometrist who wanted to change his address and subsequently received 33 pages of paperwork from the federal government, which begat a months-long bureaucratic nightmare during which the optometrist in question wasn’t receiving his checks. “That’s how government works,” Romney said.
Then, to illustrate the advantages of competition in the private sector, Romney shared an anecdote from his visit to the local WaWa chain store. “I was at WaWas, I went in to order a sandwich. You press a little touchtone keypad—you touch this, touch this, go pay the cashier—there’s your sandwich. It’s amazing. People in the private sector have learned how to compete. It’s time to bring some competition to the federal government.”
The “story” was broken by new kid on the wingnut block, the somewhat excitable SOOPERMEXICAN:
Another example of how ridiculous the media is in their uncompromising struggle to distort the truth in order to make sure Obama wins and Conservatives lose.
Today it’s being widely reported that Romney had a moment were he was amazed at the existence of WAWAs, a convenience/gas store, and the electronic touchtone ordering of sandwiches. They have spun this to make it seem like he’s out of touch – BUT THE VIDEO IS EDITED DECEPTIVELY.
I’m not entirely certain of the campaign wisdom of highlighting this clip, which—as you’ll see if you watch the version above—in its entirety is a painfully awkward reminder that he’s a chip off the old block. Wikipedia observes about his father George:
Life magazine wrote that Romney “manages to turn self-expression into a positive ordeal” and that he was no different in private: “nobody can sound more like the public George Romney than the real George Romney let loose to ramble, inevitably away from the point and toward some distant moral precept.”
Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio more memorably said, “Watching George Romney run for the presidency was like watching a duck try to make love to a football.”
Still, I’m sure the rightisphere knows what it’s doing, and this will apparently be the downfall of MSNBC and herald the Dawn of a New Age of Enrightenment. Oh well. Once Mitt discovers the wonders of ATMs, that’ll be the end of the US’s budget problems and he’ll coast to victory in November.
* Second-string title: Libby Spencer at The Impolitic had already nabbed “Get Yer WaWa’s Out.”
On the front page of its Sunday edition, the New York Times gave a big spread to Ann Romney spending lots of time and tons of money on an exotic genre of horse-riding. The clear implication: The Romneys are silly rich, move in rarefied and exotic circles, and are perhaps a tad shady.
Only days earlier, news surfaced that author David Maraniss had unearthed new details about Barack Obama’s prolific, college-age dope-smoking for his new book, “Barack Obama: The Story” — and the Times made it a brief on A15.
No wonder Republicans are livid with the early coverage of the 2012 general election campaign. To them, reporters are scaring up stories to undermine the introduction of Mitt Romney to the general election audience – and once again downplaying ones that could hurt the president.
You’ve only been at this politicking lark for the best part of twenty years, and still the American public seems to regard you as some sort of mysterious cipher—if VandeHei and Allen are to be believed, all too vulnerable to having the vacuum in your public image contaminated by details of how you and your family pass the time off the campaign trail:
Swing voters are just getting to know him. And coverage suggesting he is mean or extravagant can soak in, even though voters who took the time to weigh the details might dismiss the storyline.
Oh dear oh dear. I think the Romney campaign should be more concerned about Politico than anything the NYT publishes. Now “he is mean or extravagant”? The hits keep coming!