SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Liberal Media, in Love With Our Narrative

PLANK OCTOBER 23, 2012

The Liberal Media, in Love With Our Narrative

BY ALEC MACGILLIS

We are the liberal media—hear us roar. We like Aaron Sorkin and gay marriage and invitations to the New Yorker’s bash on the roof of the W Hotel on the eve of the White House Correspondents Dinner. We have Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer’s cell phone on speed dial. If you water-boarded us, we’d admit to voting for pretty much every Democratic presidential candidate for the past two decades, with the possible exception of Al Gore in 2000 (he didn’t give us a clever nickname; the other guy did.)

But we are not driven by politics or ideology, really. Above all, we love a good story. Which, after all, is a very deeply ingrained yearning of the human race, isn’t it? Anthropologists will tell you it is what sets us apart from the beasts—after all, when’s the last time you saw a cat or a dog telling an anecdote at a cocktail party or reading a bedtime story to their offspring? Yeah, didn’t think so. We crave narrative. And let’s face it, the narrative of the 2012 campaign was a real dud. Incumbent president faces tough reelection environment but manages to hold onto slim, steady lead thanks to a just-enough recovery and a singularly uninspiring challenger. I remember being in a Dayton hotel the morning after Mitt Romney’s 47 percent remarks broke and watching the head-shaking reaction of Morning Joe and his crew: it left them with nothing to say. Which is a problem, because, well, they had many more weeks of needing something to say.

But then: our mile-high salvation! Denver, O Denver. As the dynamic of the first debate began to register just a few minutes in—the crisp and hopped-up Romney against the wordy and listless president—we sang our relief across the Twitterverse. The true partisans among us, the Maddows and Sullivans, rent their garments, but most of us were barely able to suppress our glee: we had ourselves a story. Never mind that the debate had produced no great knockdowns, or that, as some noted in the days following, Obama had actually made a decent substantive case in some areas, if not others. No, we had our story. It went up at Buzzfeed before the debate was even half over, before the snap polls even provided the nominal metric to back up the conclusion of a Romney rout. Politico followed soon afterward with an “Obama stumbles” headline that led the site for most of the rest of the night and following morning. Meanwhile, of course, Chris Matthews et al at MSNBC were in full meltdown. If one put one’s ear to the ground, one could all but hear the herd thundering back across the eastern Colorado plains to deliver its new narrative.

And lo, in the days that followed, the power of our story bore out across the land. Romney surged in the polls, in a post-debate bounce unlike any ever recorded. Never mind that closer inspection suggested that his rise had begun just before the debate, as Obama’s prior bounce abated. As we like to say in private company, this story was too good to check. We had a comeback on our hands, and as the San Francisco Giants can tell you today, there’s no better story than a comeback.

Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.

There was just one problem: Obama proceeded to outperform Romney in the next two debates. Following the third and final one, where Romney seemed lost for long stretches and even sprouted Nixonian sweat through his makeup, Obama even won one snap poll by a margin nearly as large as Romney’s edge in Denver. What to do with this? Easy. Acknowledge the victory, but protect our new narrative. Thus Politico, for instance, led with nothing like the post-Denver “stumbles” headline, just its standard debate “takeaways,” which included this one, highlighted in the “Morning Score”:

There was far from a consensus view on who won the debate in the hours after it ended…It’s not a surprise that Obama was aggressive—he clearly believed, based on what he has seen in polls, that he needed to be. And he did win on points, scoring some cleaner arguments against Romney on pure policy grounds and getting out his pre-canned lines about the Republican as an archaic figure (1980 calling for its foreign policy to be returned, the era of horses and bayonets in the military being over). But many Republicans—and some neutral commentators—believe Romney held his own in a difficult format. His aides think he passed the acceptability test and that Obama didn’t disqualify him (and Republicans desperate for a win were sighing deeply that Romney didn’t have any gaffes)…It is not going to be clear until later in the week how the debate plays out with voters. Given that both sides think they won, it could be a wash that won’t change the trajectory of the race.

The “trajectory,”  for those who don’t know, is our word for “story.” Mike Allen further congealed the “won’t change” conclusion with his lead paragraph in this morning’s Playbook: 

MORNING MINDMELD: President Obama won last night’s foreign-policy debate on substance, in snap polls and with the pundits, but Mitt Romney did well enough that for the first time in six years, Romney folks emailed, “We’re going to win.” His moderate, me-too rhetoric drew derision from the smart set: “Romney’s Final Debate Message: I’ll Be A Better Obama,” snarked Talking Points Memo. Obama took a risk with his snide derision—“very, very overtly patronizing terms,” as Rachel Maddow approvingly described his sarcastic riff defining submarines and aircraft carriers for Romney. What we don’t yet know is how all this played with  independent, switchable women voters. Remember: You weren’t the target audience.

Politico was not alone, of course. Over at the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza tweeted after the debate: “Romney win in first debate still more meaningful for arc of race than Obama win in third debate.” And yes, if we declare it less meaningful for the “arc”—another word for story!—then of course it will be so. We liberal reporters do love our tautologies, even if we’re not always aware of them. Over at ABC’s “The Note,” Rick Klein had this to say this morning:

The president accomplished what he needed to, particularly by taking the role of the aggressor that his base has wanted so desperately this debate season. But Romney also had a strong debate, in pursuing different goals than the president. He sought to come across as reasonable rather than confrontational—a candidate comfortable with the campaign’s trajectory.

There it is again: the trajectory! We will not let it go. It doesn’t matter if we have failed in achieving many of the basics of campaign coverage, like getting a candidate to cough up a critical mass of tax returns, release his bundler list, and account for his proposals and position shifts with a minimum of detail and coherence. No, we have our trajectory. And dammit, we’re sticking to it.

Note: for more on this, see the excellent posts by Michael Tomasky and Jonathan Chait.

Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 44 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

44 comments

so why is the Obama campaign suddenly showing their twenty page, ink on paper, 2nd term proposals? Could it not fit in one tweet? Obama's personal disdain for Romney as expressed in that condescending explanation of aircraft carriers and submarines made a bad impression on far more than 'still persuadable female voters'. Who wants a snarky 13-year old in the White House? Sasha and Malia would not talk down to anyone in that manner, but their father does?

- K2K

October 23, 2012 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Who wants a snarky 13-year old in the White House?" I do, if the alternative is his idiot 8-year old brother.

- Fishpeddler

October 23, 2012 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama talked down to Romney, because he needed talking down to. Romney is absolutely clueless on foreign policy, and now I not only dread what he's going to do to our economy (deregulate and crash it), but to our national security. In all respects he is just another Bozo Bush--with better hair. The GOP voters had a chance to nominate Jon Huntsman, a decent, educated man who genuinely cares about all Americans, but instead they chose a clueless sociopath. But if Romney get elected, Republican voters won't learn. At least half our population is on a suicidal slide, and they're enjoying the ride into Hell. However, the rest of us aren't. But ain't that life? Ofttimes the devil gets his due.

- magboy47.

October 23, 2012 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, if someone opens up the conversation with a clueless proposition on the lines of "the Navy has less ships than in 1916" then it's difficult for even a fairly unflappable character like Obama to avoid a touch of snark. Even a polite 13-year-old would think for a minute and say, but wait, aren't all our ships much more powerful today, so the numbers themselves aren't that important? As I posted elsewhere, it's equivalent to saying that the absence of wooden legs these days means that we're not caring for our injured veterans.

- ironyroad

October 23, 2012 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, Odd that you should focus on the aircraft carrier - submarine thing. Romney was making a patently ridiculous argument by comparing anything about the United State's military today with 100 years ago. Why should his opponent not ridicule it by taking the comparison to its logical conclusion? Personally, I would have done it differently. I might have asked "Governor Romney, do you know how many of the 21 aircraft carriers in the entire world are American [11 of 21, and of the 10 that are not American, nearly all are less than 1/3 the size of the smallest of the US carriers, only 1 is nuclear powered, and only 2 can handle non-STOL aircraft)? How about the 94 nuclear attack submarines, how many of them belong to the US or NATO allies compared to potential adversaries (It's 68 to 26)? So, where, Governor Romney, are we behind in our ability to project force through our navy?"

- IowaBeauty

October 23, 2012 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama's personal disdain for Romney as expressed in that condescending explanation of aircraft carriers and submarines made a bad impression on far more than 'still persuadable female voters'." I guess you're talking about yourself, K2K. Which is nice and all, but haven't you been opposed to Obama pretty much all along (with perhaps a brief honeymoon period between his acceptance speech and his inaugural)? So if his put-down of Romney's dumb line about how we have fewer ships than in 1916 was not to your liking, so what?

- wildboy

October 23, 2012 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As stated above the comment about ships and also, the Air Force ca. 1947 was patronizing and stupid. If aimed at women, forgetaboutit. Women fly, study armaments and the history of war. We also know the difference between mounted cavalry and a B-2 bomber. And, any women who doesn't know the difference between Obama on women's and other human issues and Romney has, well, Romnesia. Or something more serious, which she should investigate in the privacy of her own conscience: why would you sell out your country to a couple of flim flam men, one of who quite openly believes in gutting the Constitution and drowning the US government? Why would you do that?

- Sophia

October 23, 2012 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The New York Times reports that the two candidates mostly agree in 3 news analyses (not editorials), pushing style and perspective differences. David Firestone's opinion that Romney's goal was to get dubbed moderate after the debate, so he can survive the debate to get back to "deceptive advertising and speechmaking" was taken off the homepage within a few hours. Thomas B. Edsall's list yesterday, of Romney's greatest hits ignored by a toothless press, is weighted, unless you know date/headline, to disappear in a site search. The lack of basic campaign coverage is just as dangerous as the fake plans that returns-and-bundlers-hiding plans Romney offers. Not an honest campaign nor reporting.

- JCAtwood

October 23, 2012 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for the so-called liberal media: in pursuit of a trajectory the people and environment of the US and beyond may well have been doomed. This is no exaggeration. The 4th Estate has completely blown it. That first "debate," aka The Great Romney Filibuster, should have been skinned alive and its ugly bones revealed for all to see. But no. Instead of calling out the GOP for its platform, Romney's shapeshifting away from earlier incarnations, you guys attacked the President for lack of aggression - as if simple truth and consequences weren't enough of a story for you. The rest of us will live with the consequences. And for many of us the consequences will be catastrophic.

- Sophia

October 23, 2012 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Edsall's piece is good and many of the comments reflect the same anger as my post above. The fix is in I think. The corporations and the billionaires have won. Bald-faced lying will have won too. I suppose there's a slim chance the vote may yet prevail. I hope so.

- Sophia

October 23, 2012 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...several "spot on" comments...here already! i can expect more? dunno...meanwhile, especially true: that if romney be elected, the GOP (et al.) will learn nothing, etc....

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(after all, Jefferson's reliance on the Fourth Estate is truly at issue of late, isn't it?)

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MacGillis is correct that the liberal media has been in love with its own narrative, but he is referring to the wrong narrative. The liberal media's narrative pre-debate, pre-convention, by Chait especially but others as well, was that Romney is a terrible candidate who, with his mega-millions and condescension toward the 99 percent, couldn't possibly defeat Obama. Turnabout is fair play, so now the new narrative is Romney as comeback kid and front runner with "trajectory". But, contrary to MacGillis, this isn't the liberal media's narrative, it's the media's narrative, and it has replaced the liberal media's narrative (that Romney is a terrible candidate). And what happened to the stories about Romney's tax returns, offshore bank accounts, and 14% tax rate? A mere distraction as long as the liberal media's narrative, that Romney is a terrible candidate who couldn't possibly win, was the prevailing narrative. Narratives change, whether created by the liberal media, the conservative media, or the media. What happened is that the liberal media was so in love with its own narrative that it let the Romney campaign slip right past them. Now the liberal media has two weeks to make up for its negligence, but it won't if it engages in a circular firing squad.

- rayward

October 23, 2012 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ray, that is a really bad misrepresentation of Chait's 'narrative'.

- Fishpeddler

October 23, 2012 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: some of us will not live through the consequences.

- cspencef

October 23, 2012 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...romney said he might be amusing in his opening remarks. is whether to laugh or cry reasonable angst? is it comfortable to be the (irresponsible?) loyal opposition? at least i do know this: schedenfreude is not my choice, and the GOP has a record of unreasonable/painful results for many to take into account....

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bill Keller at New York Times: Credible + economy > tweetworthy, so MittMakeover wins. http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/completing-mitts-makeover/ Enten at the Guardian: Obama may have won the debate, but winning depends on media REACTION to the debate (ABC immediately said Romney won credibility) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/barack-obama-won-foreign-policy-debate

- JCAtwood

October 23, 2012 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes spencef, you're right. Threats to repeal ACA alone will kill many Americans. Then add to that, "block grant" ie deeply chop Medicaid. This will affect disabled people, kids, seniors And by "affect" I don't mean positively. That's for starters.

- Sophia

October 23, 2012 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...that's right, JC: never mind my opinions; many have reported (that's a fact) that romney did what he had to do. on the latter, in my opinion, he succeeded. do i like the facts, and feel good that he succeeded? no. does it matter that the NYT pubished a short (unsigned) editorial saying that romney was incoherent [yet "convincing"]? i guess...that might be moot soon....

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama can not win a debate, and can not lead a country. In the debates, he could not earn my vote. Let us be objective, he is not presidential material.

- sf4200

October 23, 2012 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama opponents are mad at the President for last night's navy comments, then they (and everybody else) should check out the President's remarks at today's rally in Delray, FL. The President was brilliant again in attacking Romney, this time with extended riffs on "romneyesia." Wish I were clever enough to embed the video here. Still it was one of the best performances by the President I've ever seen. Afterwards, I sent in another contribution to the campaign and will do so again and again until this thing is won.

- ballston

October 23, 2012 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sf4200 Objectively, he is the president, so by definition he is "presidential material".

- Nari224

October 23, 2012 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(some still say rush is the prez.)

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(some say rush is the leader of the free world.)

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MacGillis got this completely right. If Romney ultimately wins (God forbid), I wonder if history books will lay any blame on "horse races" and media narratives.

- maxhencke

October 23, 2012 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The liberal media most loves the narrative of a close election, and this election certainly fits the bill regardless of whether someone ignored this data point or that one or if people focused too much on some things but not on others. The liberal media will also fit the avalable facts to whatever narrative keeps their readership interested right up to November 6, which means that it is not in their interest to propound stories about how either candidate is falling behind or getting ahead by any significant amount. That means that the "Romney is surging" stories are likely going to get replaced by "Obama has halted Romney's momentum" or "Obama is clinging to a small lead" or "Romney has reduced Obama's lead and has a credible path to 270". With two weeks left, the media won't perpetuate the narrative that Romney is the "favorite" any more than they would perpetuate the narrative that Obama is the "favorite", because that just means people will tune out and go watch the World Series or something. What this flap does tell me, at least, is that liberals are much more sensitive to the nuances of campaign coverage and are always on edge about whether their guy is truly winning. For proof, just look at the reaction to the first debate and the ongoing angst about Romney's spinning of his current chances -- it's as if there is some deep, dark army of ignorant, low-information voters who are just waiting to be plugged into Karl Rove's lies and will deliver the White House to Republicans due to ignorance and fear. Since this sort of view goes back at least to Nixon (and probably back to McCarthy), it's really hard for liberals to accept that their guy is not necessarily embraced by much more than 50% of the population and that this was going to be a close race based on fundamentals, unless Romney did something to disqualify himself -- which he almost did with the 47% video, but ultimately did not do. It's interesting to contrast this with conservatives, who generally live in and soak up their own side's spin as an alternative ecosystem to the non-partisan (a/k/a "liberal") media. They aren't totally in denial, as Romney's shitty performance over July, August and September clearly had a lot of Republicans depressed and disengaged. But they generally project confidence in their candidate and his chances of winning the election, and believe that they have a natural majority of American voters on their side. This attitude also goes back at least to Nixon, and was probably permanently buttressed by Reagan and the two mid-term landslides of 1994 and 2010. It might be delusional in large part, but it's nothing if not confident -- and confidence is generally more admirable than hand-wringing. I really do wish that more Democrats stepped back and saw this election for what it is -- a reprise of 2004, right down to the challenger's home state and Ohio's centrality in the contest. After the incumbent won, everyone, left and right, remembered the challenger as an epic failure of a candidate who allowed himself to get defined by his opponent and blew a golden opportunity to recapture the White House that his party lost in a freak-accident of an election four years before. And of course, everyone has forgotten how the challenger shellacked the incumbent in the first debate and basically brought the race to a dead heat almost up to the end. I guess everyone here really does want to prove Santayana's maxim was correct.

- wildboy

October 23, 2012 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

cdmcl - not sure what the brackets are for, but if they're attempt to whisper, I don't think it's working.

- Nari224

October 23, 2012 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It looks like the trolls have arrived.

- Nusholtz

October 23, 2012 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nice try, nari! but then, if your're really undecided, that might be ok.....

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i think...an earlier post about "circular firing squads" nearly had me trying to say too much on several matters--such as why there is a point of diminishing returns on many boards, such as for comments respecting much online from the washington post. yes--i comment there, but sometimes, the futility is obvious (when some don't bother, etc.). on the other hand, is this context too different--in some other ways--also? not too sure--i'm "undecided."

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The concept behind Lyndon Johnson's creation of public media in the form of NPR, I thought, was the commercial free network that did not rely on the support of sponsors. Romney and Rubio, who miss that advantage, have spoken of it in terms of the pointlessness of public financing of a successful business. They'd rather have journalists beholden to moneyed interests. This may explain why commercial media is unable to ask Romney how 5 nebulous goals can be called "a tax plan" or how creating $8 trillion of debt is called "balancing the budget."

- Nusholtz

October 23, 2012 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(N., i'm prompted to say that many support the buffet rule, saying, "tax us."....)

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rosan rosanna dana is well-remembered for taking on NPR...........................

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most posters here have ignored McGillis's main point which is that through its biased coverage of the election--biased not in favor of one candidate or the other, biased, rather, in favor of a compelling narrative--the media has actually influenced the drift of the election and has failed to serve the truth.

- AaronW

October 23, 2012 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No honest campaign, with no honest press: if your numbers don't add up or hike debt, you can't write an article on vision or plans, without pointing this out; if you don't disclose your bundlers or your tax returns, you don't write an article on what that candidate's administration might look like, without pointing this out. Why should only campaigns have to inform voters? Romnesia isn't a joke, it's an attempt to get voters to look at Republican plans - WHAT am I voting for. Reporting's impossible on policies/plans, if constantly noting they aren't yet. When legislators're willing to legislate & campaigns willing to campaign, we avert fiscal cliffs & inform voters.

- JCAtwood

October 23, 2012 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

scientists are familiar with the idea that "ultimately," making (extremely precise) measurements actually involves a process that alters what is being measured. yet we do make measurements anyway--or think we have, etc. yet the pantheon has charmed generations of people who marvel at the nature of the measures the greeks used, and their enduring results.

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 7:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

cdmc13 -- Please pontificate on the virtues of Romney's lying. Thanks.

- Nusholtz

October 23, 2012 at 8:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A recent analysis by the bipartisan Joint Committee of Taxation of individual tax rate reduction from closing tax expenditures, credits or deductions would only generate enough savings to reduce marginal tax rates by 4 percent, compared to Romney's 20% cuts.

- Nusholtz

October 23, 2012 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

we are, as anthropologists and neuroscientitists have noted, able to make intelligent comparisons. if romney is able to co-opt obama's agenda--reassuring all that an impression of him as a tool of reactionary rich folks and wannabes united to pursue a mirage is false, and anathema to him--then he can sail into the rose garden. later, when he's likely to prove that he is answerable to the GOP base--mostly as built and maintained as a result of nixon's "southern strategy--the obvious lessons will be learned by a lot of suffering that could be thwarted if the scenerio be explained to enuff voters before they elect romney--something that the GOP fully appreciates. romney might win the WH by reducing the comparisons voters make as the final sprint is undertaken between now and nov 6th, permitting some unconsciously to think of him as another reagan. obama cannot win if he cannot overcome such. nor can obama "shirk" his oath of office; he cannot let himself become another nixon. wannabes notoriously can be conditions to vote against their own interests. both romney and obama know this.

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

again, sorry for the typos, etc.

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 9:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" if romney is able to co-opt obama's agenda" You don't find this dishonest after taking his contrary positions in recent history? In fact, don't Romney's distortions destroy his integrity or any perception of his integrity to the point where, at minimum, he has no mandate, and at maximum, he has deceived voters?

- Nusholtz

October 23, 2012 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

actually, i'm thinking that neither will really have a powerful mandate. the contest is to complex for that--including that i might have said "if time and again" co-option is to prevent mandated persons in office. yet to say that there will really be NO mandate might be premature; predictions of a close result mean that a "huge mandate" might be read into the meager results. that's modern political science at werk. and ANY huge mandate would be attacked right away, etc.--particularly if congress balks, etc.

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 10:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

maybe i should say, tho, that while there has been some bluffing, generally, obama has hewed to a straightforward course that appeals to more than abject "pragmatism," and here, his time in office has established a great deal. romney seems willing to prove that his appeal is emotional, but just as "realistic," and then--one might hope, as with any republican--he might turn out to be an Ike, not any worse. yet of course, obama is also vulnerable to simplistic thinking about what he faced upon taking office, etc., as well as emotional factors, etc. avalanches of disinformation (etc.) can turn out to be piling up on him, etc.

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 10:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PS--now i have to say, too, that i don't want to blame Ike for the messes...by the Dulles Brothers, even tho Ike "had to" sign off on Vietnam (for example). (that item is worth at least a good and careful dissertation all its own! can't expect one soon, tho....)

- cdmcl3

October 23, 2012 at 10:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close