I've enjoyed watching politics as a sport for many years (Hey, I grew up in Chicago, so what can you expect?) The team the Republicans have put out there this year is the lamest I've ever seen. Near the top of my list of criticisms is the Republican's attempt to frame issues in this election. Now every pol is going to do that, it's just that the GOP does it so badly, so baldly, so moronically.
As a kid, I recall the surprise I felt watching Hubert Humphrey on TV field an interviewer's question so deftly that what could have been an embarrassment for HHH, he turned into a splendid explanation of his position. At the time I thought, wow, that was a wonderful verbal put-down, unfair and sneaky, maybe, but awesome. And I've watched the Sunday a.m. talk shows over the years and seen some pretty amusing jujitsu come out of the mouths of politicians.
Below, we look at how Republicans and their spokespeeps are handling things now.
Yesterday morning, Romney's spokesperson for women (and, incidentally, his wife) Ann, was interviewed on KWQC-TV (Quad Cities)
Anchor David Nelson: "Here in Iowa, as you know, same-sex marriage is legal. Do you believe a lesbian mother should be allowed to marry her partner?"
Ann Romney: "You know, I'm not going to talk about the specific issues. I'm going to let my husband speak on issues. I'm here to really just talk about my husband and what kind of husband and father he is and, you know, those are hot-button issues that distract from what the real voting issue is going to be at this election. That, it's going to be about the economy and jobs.
The Anchor tries further:
Anchor David Nelson: "Do you believe that employer-provided health insurance should be required to cover birth control?"
Ann Romney: "Again, you're asking me questions that are not about what this election is going to be about. This election is going to be about the economy and jobs."
Anchor David Nelson: "Well, a Pew Research poll shows those issues are very important to women, ranking them either "important" or "very important."
Ann awkwardly tries to steer things back to what she is programmed to say:
Listen, I've been across this country, I've been for a year-and-a-half on the campaign trail. I've spoken with thousands of women and they are telling me, they're telling me a couple of things, one they say they're praying for me which is really wonderful, and then they're saying, ‘please help, please help. We are so worried about our jobs.'
So really if you want to try to pull me off of the other messages it's not going to work because I know because I've been out there."
Alright, Ann is not the only one who says, "THIS (what I say) is what the election is about." Every one of the Republican primary candidates said the same thing. My question is, how is that an answer that makes any sense?
Who gets to decide what the election is about? The candidate? I don't think so. They can choose to run or not, they can choose which issues to emphasize, but, they can't choose what the election is about. And no matter how petulantly stated, "that's not what the election is about," is such a childish answer it doesn't deserve air time.
How about this for an answer: The ELECTORATE decides what the election is about.
OK, and events that may transpire during an election campaign: major tragedy (God forbid), Mother Nature, market fluctuations, etc. also influence the election narrative. But just saying, "Nya nya nya nya, I call it, what the election is about," is dreaming.
I wonder if the day after election day the Republicans wake up to defeat and say, "OMG, so THAT is what the election was about."