"What Romney has revealed from this summer to now makes me wonder--even if he were elected, how in the world will he govern? He's thoroughly alienated the UK, Russia and China. His Middle East views are incoherent (as the Florida fundraiser video shows.) Despite his braying about increasing the military budget, the Pentagon must be wary of his ignorance and bluster. He's definitely alienated the entire foreign service. Now he's insulted half the electorate. The internals of the polls show that he's not trusted, believed or liked. As a candidate he's a disaster. But as President he's catastrophe."
About a week ago there was a story quoting British PM David Cameron to the effect that all of England was against Romney's election. Cameron is in the Brit sense a conservative. Now today there's an even more forcefully expressed and on the record story in the Guardian quoting the Treasurer of another US ally and one of the few countries not to have felt a recession, Australia: Wayne Swan, who was named by banking magazine Euromoney as its finance minister of the year in 2011. Here's what he said:
"Let's be blunt and acknowledge the biggest threat to the world's biggest economy are the cranks and crazies that have taken over the Republican party," Swan said in a speech to a conference in Sydney.
To be fair, he seemed to be talking mostly about the GOPer Congress, but he did not exclude the GOPer candidate for president. For a leader of an ally nation--even a member of a left-center party-- to call out an entire US political party for being dominated by "cranks and crazies" is one thing. But to say that this party posing "the biggest threat to the world's biggest economy" is very powerful stuff.
It more than suggests what's at the heart of the Romney conundrum at the moment: he's losing credibility as a possible president as well as a candidate. The polls continue to go bad for him, other Republican candidates are running away from him, and the strongest language criticizing him is coming from his own party. This has all happened in the space of two weeks, and so logic would suggest that in two more weeks it could turn around. But can it?
What the last few days suggest is that Romney has lost what basic credibility he had. Today he and his campaign have made attempts to fashion new messages, and to make new charges against President Obama. After a long fallow period, Romney is starting to campaign again furiously. He looks like a man who knows everything is at stake. But so far, what's notable about the media reaction is that nobody is buying any of it. He's lost credibility with reporters. Polls show that he has little credibility with voters, certainly less than does President Obama.
Normally, when the story is "the fall," the next story is inevitably "the redemption" or "fighting back"--something in the other direction. Particularly with political campaigns, if for no other reason than the need for campaign news media to hold onto their audience. There's a little of that already, especially at Politico. But the one thing that can prevent that story from turning (besides poll numbers that continue to show more than 4 point spreads) is the fatal loss of basic credibility.
The question that will probably be answered in the next week or two is: will anything that Romney says or does matter? Or have voters basically stopped caring what he says or does.
Even now, the question is: does anybody actually believe Romney should be President of the United States? There is still of course a Rabid Right that hates the idea of Obama being President. But that's not the same thing. And yet, that's the question when you're about to mark your ballot.
Thursday's polls: the news ones by non-Republican pollsters (and even some by GOPers) confirm President Obama's leads in the swing states as mentioned yesterday, with the addition of Iowa (in the NBC/Marist poll), where he leads by 8, 50-42. It was very close in Iowa last month. The other swing state added in one poll is New Hampshire where President Obama leads 47-40. The last New Hampshire poll I saw showed Romney ahead, but it probably was Rasmussen, which tends to lean heavily GOPer.
Also on Thursday, Senate candidates Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown debated in MA. From the few minutes I saw, Brown appeared petulant, aggressive and desperate. Warren was composed, direct, smart. The pundits will discuss this debate endlessly on Friday but I don't see how it did Brown any good, and it feels like it boosts Warren. He lost the women's vote with this debate.
The Pennsylvania story: The court hearing on the GOP voter suppression ID law is set for Tuesday. This article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette outlines the issues (and suggests the local confusion), and it ends with that inflammatory quote I posted Wednesday.
Libya attack was terrorism: The LA Times reports that the White House (through press sec Jay Carney) is now referring to the murder of the US. ambassador to Libya in Benghazi as an act of terrorism. "Carney said investigators have “indications of possible involvement” of Al Qaeda in the Magreb, but he said there is no evidence “at this point to suggest that this is a significantly pre-planned attack.”
No comments:
Post a Comment