On the embassy attacks, Romney to me did the equivalent of saying 2+2 = 143 (then 139 then 42). When someone reaches a completely wrong answer from a few basic facts, the only two logic choices are "That person is a liar" and/or "That person is an idiot". I think that Romney is a smart man who lies all the time, but has outsmarted himself so the MSM is now calling him an idiot.
I wasn't surprised by Romney's statement on the embassy attacks because I perceived it as just another one of his lies. As many people have noted, Romney's whole campaign is based upon a set of lies. His critique of Obama's foreign policy is based upon a non-existent "apology tour". His tax plan doesn't come close to adding up and he hasn't even tried to defend it. The Medicare attacks were pure lies and Romney shrugged it off when all the media outlets told him so. The RNCC was based upon a quote that was taken out context. Etc, etc, etc.
So Romney has lied and lied and lied. However, he is a smart man and he knows that the MSM will never call a person a liar. They might occasionally reach for a euphuism for lying, but they will always fall back into "both sides do it" or "he said, she said" because then they are "impartial". And because Romney is such a smart man, the MSM is now calling him an idiot.
A small digression - for the MSM to attack a conservative, they need quotes from other conservatives to back them up. Otherwise, they set themselves up to get raked over the coals by conservatives for their "liberal bias". Conservatives aren't going to call Romney a liar because for the most part, they have embraced the exact same lies. As long as conservatives all embrace the exact same lies, the MSM can't criticize them.
However, conservatives are facing a problem - how to explain why Romney is losing while the economy is terrible. To me, the reason is obvious - voters know that the Obama economy has been disappointing, but they know that the Bush economy was worse and that Romney wants to bring back Bush's economic policies on steroids. But conservatives can't say that Romney's economic policies are why he is losing because they all want Bush's economic policies on steroids. So they need to find another reason for why Romney is losing. The best one for them is that conservatism isn't failing but that Romney is failing conservatism.
From my reading of the latest MSM articles on the race, the MSM has decided to call Romney an idiot instead of a liar. The huge advantage of doing so is that there are lots of quotes out there from conservatives to support doing that. And if they quote conservatives, they can't be accused of being biased.
Let me give some examples. First up is Brian Montopoli's piece on cbsnews.com, "How badly did Romney botch response to Libya attack?" People quoted in the piece are a 2008 McCain advisor, someone from the Brookings Institution, an anonymous 2008 McCain top advisor and a third top 2008 McCain campaign adviser. No liberal bias there because there are no liberals! Montopoli establishes definitively that Romney's initial statement on the attacks was a lie and then Romney then doubled down on the lie. But rather than call Romney a liar, Montopoli uses a quote from an anonymous 2008 McCain top advisor to conclude:
"If the American public perceives him as not ready for prime time, that's a serious risk," he said.
Romney isn't a liar, just someone who isn't smart enough for prime time.
My second example is John Cassidy's "Libya Blunder Reflects Larger Failings" on newyorker.com:
...Still, going on the offensive in this manner before all the facts were known was inviting trouble. And if that was foolhardy, Romney’s decision on Wednesday morning to double down—this after the news emerged that Stevens and three other consulate officials had been killed—was virtually inexplicable. “It almost feels like Sarah Palin is his foreign policy adviser,” Matthew Dowd, a former political adviser to President George W. Bush, told the Washington Post. “It’s just a huge mistake on the Romney campaign’s part—huge mistake.”
Obama’s subsequent jibe that Romney “shoots first and aims later” hit home. But perhaps the most disturbing thing about this whole incident is that it wasn’t simply a spontaneous gaffe on the part of the G.O.P. candidate. It was debated and thought through. According to the same report in today’s Washington Post, Romney acted on the “unanimous recommendation of his foreign policy and political advisers.”
:
Why? Well, it is widely thought that Romney’s political advisers aren’t the brightest bulbs—his entire campaign has been a litany of errors.
The most disturbing thing to me was that the attack was a huge, vicious lie. But Romney and his advisers aren't liars, just dim bulbs.
Cassidy continues on:
What has been less remarked upon is the makeup of Romney’s foreign-policy team. For a former businessman who claims to willing to hire the best and smartest regardless of background, it is a remarkably unimpressive and ideologically driven group, consisting largely of washed up neocons and Cold Warriors, many of whom served in the Administration of George W. Bush.
:
What are we to make of all this? One interpretation is that Romney is one of nature’s neocons—a soul mate of Wolfowitz and Kristol. I don’t think that’s right. From all that we know about his history, he is a fairly cautious and practical fellow, hardly the type to embark on ideological crusades. My theory is that in this area, as in others, Romney has demonstrated that he’s a poor politician, allowing himself to be co-opted and hoodwinked by the right.
Romney isn't a poor politician because he lies all the time and supports terrible policies. He is a poor politician because he is an idiot that is easily co-opted and hoodwinked.
My third example is Joe Scarborough's "The Problem with Mitt" on politico.com. After laying out how awful Obama has done with the economy, Joe asks:
How can it be that this man who turned around countless businesses, saved the 2002 Olympics and ran Democratic Massachusetts like a pro be the head of such a disastrous campaign?
Who was responsible for burying his moving convention video behind the bumbling bluster of Clint Eastwood?
Who told Mr. Romney to issue a political broadside against the commander in chief the day after a U.S. ambassador was murdered?
And who decided that Romney would use his general election campaign to stand for absolutely nothing? The Wall Street Journal described this ideological listlessness as a "pre-existing decision." The question conservatives should be asking is whether that strategy was hatched by a misguided consultant or the candidate himself.
Whoever is responsible needs to know that replacing real conservative ideas with a flood of negative 30-second ads is a pathway to defeat.
See, if Romney hadn't been an idiot and had discussed real conservative ideas in detail, then he would be way ahead.
Another thing that comes to me when reading these is that the MSM and conservatives have decided to pretend that Romney doesn't talk about the economy constantly. The RNCC was all about how the economy isn't doing well and why Obama's policies are responsible for it. Mitt's stump speeches are all about the economy. Yet, you get stuff like this from an anonymous top 2008 McCain campaign adviser in the Montopoli article:
"Not sure why a campaign that's only advantage is on the economy wants to talk so much about foreign policy/national security. If Romney wants to pick a fight why isn't it about jobs. Every day Obama gets to talk about anything other than the economy is a good day for his campaign. Amazing."
The Romney campaign has avoided foreign policy/national security like the plague. Romney was catching heat for NOT discussing foreign policy/national security in his convention speech before the embassy attacks, but now he is an idiot for talking too much about it.
So you see, Romney is a very smart guy who read the MSM correctly. That is why you are going to read over and over that he is an idiot.
