I haven't heard anyone in the media make the point why Romney's poor response to the Bain capital issue is so damning: In effect, Romney is saying that he should get a pass for what Bain did in his "absence" because he wasn't running the company at the time (even though he was technically still its CEO), and/or that he should get a pass for telling the SEC that he was CEO of the company for three years while he had passed off those duties to others because he didn't actually exercise control.Arguably, the most important job of the presidency is staffing the upper echelons of the executive branch, and managing it. To take only a very recent example, the presidency of George W. Bush was so catastrophic in large part because he hired terrible people to do very important jobs, and took very little responsibility for the results. (Obama shouldn't get a pass on this sort of thing either...the fact that Eric Holder remains Attorney General is mind-boggling to me.)
The Obama campaign mistakenly focused on whether that makes him a liar or a criminal. In my opinion, the more damning conclusion comes from accepting Romney's story at face value. If he can't deal with two big issues at the same time, and [won't] take responsibility for what is done on his behalf (by those he chose to act on his behalf--because he was the sole owner of the company), how can he possibly be competent to be President of the United States?
I don't think that we've seen any evidence of criminal intent on Mr. Romney's part. (I leave it to the lawyers to judge whether there was criminal action, though I suspect that Romney and Bain are rather adroit at remaining within the letter of the law, even as they test its boundaries.) I think it is entirely possible--probable, even--that Romney honestly did intend for his leave from Bain to be temporary, and that the demands of running the Olympics changed those plans.
I think what we're seeing here is the result of a tactical decision made by the campaign to distance Romney from whatever it is Bain did during the years in question (outsourcing, or whatever). That was clearly a short-sighted call, and they've been handling it abysmally ever since. Ta-Nahisi Coates adds:
But for most people in this country, if your name is on something, you are responsible for it. I may well consent to let my son open a credit card in my name. But I will be ultimately responsible for what happens to that bill. I may well sublet an apartment I own to someone else who pays the bills, and manages the place. But my name is still on the paper, and I will be responsible if something goes wrong.
This has shades of the Ron Paul newsletter controversy, in that summons up this separate bizarro universe where people are not responsible to the document to which they attach their names. In the world of most people $100,000 a year is a lot of money. If you collect that kind of paycheck and your name is on the company as an executive, by what standard are you then not, in any way, responsible for that company's actions?The Romney Standard, holding that you are not responsible for signature, is contrary to the basic standard to which we hold young school children. If you can't adhere to that, how will you adhere to the standard of Leader of The Free World?
I recently queried one of my conservative friends at Mr. D's place as to how he would interpret Mr. Obama's reelection (an event that he is at this point confident is highly unlikely). I found several of his answers thoughtful and fair, even though I would not subscribe to them myself. But I would like to suggest another that merits serious consideration, should Mr. Obama find himself deferring retirement until 2017:
That Mitt Romney is simply a terrible candidate, nominated by a party that is cynical to the point of nihilism.
7 comments:
That Mitt Romney is simply a terrible candidate,
Maybe; we're gonna find out.
nominated by a party that is cynical to the point of nihilism.
Nihilism is quite a charge, doncha think? The usual definition of nihilism is that life has no intrinsic value. Do you really believe the Republican Party believes this? On what basis?
I reserve the right to use a little hyperbole here. But only a little.
Obviously, Republicans (and here l mean the party not necessarily the people that vote for it) are not philosophical nihilists. But I do not believe that they stand for anything except winning elections.
Democrats sincerely attempt to govern, and often end up doing it poorly. Republicans govern poorly by design and call it "smaller government"...with the notable and notably expensive exception of the military, where no expenditure is too lavish, no mission beyond our grasp, and no criticism acceptable within the bounds of loyalty.
Nihilistic? Maybe not quite. But deeply cynical and dangerously destructive? You bet.
And I'm tired of being polite about it.
"But I do not believe that they stand for anything except winning elections. "
as somebody who has worked in GOP circles, you couldnt be further from the truth on this. i knew, personally, (been to their family bbqs, played with their kids...) many GOP office holders.
democrats, in my experience, dont try to govern. they try to appease voter groups. that is why CA is still spending money it doesnt have on questionable projects... on the road to bankruptcy with a budget that does not add up.
as somebody who has worked in GOP circles, you couldnt be further from the truth on this. i knew, personally, (been to their family bbqs, played with their kids...) many GOP office holders.
This. At least two of the candidates that I recommend on the blog are people I know personally, both of whom I consider friends. They couldn't be more sincere about trying to make government work better.
Republicans govern poorly by design and call it "smaller government"...with the notable and notably expensive exception of the military, where no expenditure is too lavish, no mission beyond our grasp, and no criticism acceptable within the bounds of loyalty.
We'll get a chance to find out if these assertions are true here in the Midwest, and soon. Wisconsin has given its approval to a nihilistic Scott Walker, while I live in Minnesota under the deeply altruistic and heavily sedated Mark Dayton. We'll have a good chance to gauge which party governs more poorly in 2014.
What you describe about wanting only to win elections is true of many in the political class. It is a weakness of man whereby he seeks to protect his comfort and privilege. Come to think of it, that's just a weakness of human beings in general. I don't believe that Republicans are any more guilty of it than Democrats, perhaps less because they receive less approbation for their trouble.
As for governing poorly, that's true too often. From a conservative's point of view, they govern poorly when they don't actively try to make the government more modest in its stance towards all of us. That isn't an entirely libertarian point as "us" includes those who have shaped this nation before us and those who are to come. So modesty as I view it includes a certain deference to tradition.
You're probably right about much military spending being wasteful and criticism thereof being frowned upon (though there was hyperbole at work there.) But it wouldn't be hard to substitute "Social Security" and see that a similar attitude is at work. A GOP pol suggests it needs reform and they make commercials portraying him pushing grandma off a cliff. (And it should also be noted that there has been some questioning of patriotism emanating from the Left in the past few years.
We judge ourselves by our intentions and our opponents by a strict interpretation of their actions. That's always going to produce distortions.
Incidentally, what would help is a press that was interested in reporting the news fairly. If they esteemed their calling and played it straight they could build up a lot of credibility and prevent egregious distortions of interpretation from partisans and politicians. Instead, their willingness to pose as unbiased while pursuing the gain of one side has distorted our public life still more.
Honesty and modesty would be best for us all, but in the present climate I don't see how that's going to happen. There are too many incentives to the contrary.
Good comments, all around. I'm sure that there are "good ones" (there always are) but I stand by my assertion that as an organization, it is cynical to the core. (And yeah the Dems are at most marginally better.)
My liberal friends complain about media bias just as loudly. I would argue that the real (and really dangerous) bias there is against challenging the establishment in favor of maintaining access. And that is a huge problem that transcends any specific example of partisan bias.
Post a Comment