Could Someone Decode This Please?
As Rob notes below, watching the Obama campaign develop a particularly bad case of the yips over the past few weeks has been spectacularly entertaining. We're talking Chris Matthews on Jeopardy! entertaining; Beauty pageant contestant getting a question about Fermat's Last Theorem entertaining (OK, that one hasn't happened yet -- but don't think for a second that it won't be my life's work).
To a certain extent, this is an inevitable byproduct of the 2008 campaign. I wrote as far back as 2009 that the problem with running as a national Rorschach test was that Rorschach tests don't work if you tell the patient what the image is. And eventually, by actually being forced to govern, that was what Obama was going to have to do -- define himself out of being everything to everyone. So here we are four years later and we actually know who Barack Obama is: Dennis Kucinich with a kill list and a jump shot. That's tough to run on.
The enervated condition of the Obama campaign is a great help to Mitt Romney, but it still falls to the Republican candidate to convert Obama's turnovers into points. Over the past few weeks, Romney has generally been doing a fine job of this. But on Obama's immigration gambit, he seems to have been caught totally flat-footed. Here's how The Hill reports Romney's reaction to questions on the issue over the weekend:
Asked about whether he would repeal the new policy on CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Romney vowed to seek long-term immigration reform, but avoided a clear stance on Obama’s new deportation policies.
“Well, it would be overtaken by events if you will, by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals such that they know what their setting is going to be, not just for the term of a president but on a permanent basis,” said Romney.
Asked if he would leave Obama’s policy in place while he worked out a long-term policy, Romney replied, “we will look at that setting as we reach that.”
Can anyone tell me what this means (apart from the fact that Romney has been reading Sarah Palin's book on syntax -- "The Order in Which the Usage of Words is Ordered to Convey the Meaning of the Words Being Used")? Does Romney have a secret plan for immigration?
I'm not sure that the electoral real estate available to Romney on this issue justifies the gymnastics. Targeting individuals whose votes may swing based on a candidate's openness to giving legal status to illegal immigrants probably doesn't get him anywhere. If you're going to vote based on that factor, you're probably going to cast your ballot for the guy announcing a hammer and tongs executive order in the Rose Garden instead of the guy who's talking about the issue like Nostradamus on "Face the Nation." In truth, I suspect there's not a ton of daylight between Romney and Obama on this issue. But even if that was crystal clear to the public, I'd be surprised if it was a boon for Romney.
Because he doesn't want to come out swinging on the substance of immigration reform, Romney's main knock on Obama has been that the president had three and a half years to deal with immigration and waiting until now to address it demonstrates that the motivation is purely political. That's a weak argument. Those who care about the issue are unlikely to care what the motivation was. And the general rule of thumb is that if you're arguing that the other side is playing politics, you're losing the debate.
As we move into another week of the messaging wars, it's better, I think, for the Romney campaign to embrace the criticism made by Charles Krauthammer. Here's how the Daily Caller reports the comments he made on Friday's edition of Fox News' "Special Report":
Krauthammer told host Chris Wallace that this was a so-called “end-run” around the legislative branch of the federal government and explained how it defied the Constitution.
“Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process — is simple constitutional decency,” Krauthammer explained. “This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say months ago ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.’ Well, I have news for president — the laws remain on the books. They haven’t changed.”
This line of argument has two great virtues for Romney. First, it's correct. Second, it fits into a broader narrative. This comes from the same president who upended the conventional role of secured creditors in the auto bailouts, who eviscerated the traditional constitutional understanding of the recess appointment power, who continuously walks all over traditional protections of religious liberty, and who -- one hopes -- will soon be found to have trespassed across constitutional boundaries with Obamacare.
That's the line of attack: not that a professional politician is motivated by political considerations, but that a former law school lecturer who rose to prominence criticizing the legal excesses of the previous administration won't allow his authority to be cabined by something as quaint as the Constitution of the United States.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Great points, Troy. Ends don't justify the means in a society that abides by the rule of law. Even as someone largely sympathetic to making accommodations for youth who were brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents, I abhor the way Obama implemented his latest scheme. It makes a mockery out of the Constitution and undermines the legislative branch. Furthermore, knowing that we have a president who can decide on a whim whether or not to enforce the laws on the books makes Americans feel insecure and uncertain about the future.
Why isn't Romney making this case? It's a pretty obvious one.
May '12
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
I think you hit on the frustration among conservatives - or at least me.
At some point Gov. Romney has to step up and give us a reason to support him and vote him into office. It isn't enough to watch Team Obama self destruct, although that is entertaining.
The immigration stance is vintage establishment. Better to have at least a portion of the workforce uninformed on the cheap than to enforce the law. Ultimately this goes to the establishment/Tea Party divide. Gov. Romney and a lot of republicans may not like th Tea Party, but he can't win without them(us).
Jul '11
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
In the first Foundation novel there was a visiting politician to the planet that seemed an odd effete snob at first yet when they decoded all his words and phrases they realized he had firmly committed to nothing.
Brilliant! Lots of words and yet nothing of substance. On this issue, I'll give Mitt a pass since there's traps everywhere and media goons to enforce them. Mitt will do what the prevailing winds desire when it comes to immigration.
Nov '10
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
It does appear that Romney was caught flat-footed on this, but really, who wasn't? What Obama did was insanely wrong. Clearly, he did it to answer criticisms from his base.
Not just his base, but from the very base of his base -- hard core Progressives. He is hemorrhaging support from the kool-aid drinking crowd. He wants their approval, and their money. And he is desperate.
I don't think that Romney needed to point out the obvious, and if he is going to make an issue of this, he needs time to put it into his game plan. What, you want Romney to deviate from his very successful game plan the very first time that Obama & Co. do something insanely unpredictable? If you do, you've never played chess. You have to look at the long term and short term at the same time.
If your opponent becomes desperate and starts making bizarre, unpredictable moves, you don't just react off the cuff. You take it into consideration in your overall game plan. That's what Romney is doing.
Nov '11
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
I think that's the key. Romney's stalling for time now, reasonably enough. I don't expect to be incredibly excited about his final policy, but I don't blame him for not wanting to say much by the time the interview was taped (Saturday). Especially since it wasn't yet clear what Rubio was going to do.
Still, he needs to address the constitutionality. Say he was acting unilaterally where it is unconstitutional for him to do so.
Mar '11
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Romney is boring. If he's boring in June people will be bored with him come November. But if he tones down his boring now, then in October he can come out with a big splash of boring just in time for the election. And since people won't be bored of him yet they might vote for him.
All part of the plan...
May '10
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Obama's move was a stroke of political brilliance, albeit an unconstitutional one, since it pre-empted Rubio, who was intending to introduce bipartisan, Romney-supported immigration legislation soon. Now Rubio's efforts will go nowhere. Obama wins; Romney loses; all that's left is to stomp our feet over the unconstitutional ruthlessness of Obama, which unfortunately resonates only with those who were going to vote for our side anyway. Damn.
May '10
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Lookit - Mitt Romney the politician is like a guy playing tee ball who makes sure his helmet fits absolutely perfectly before every at-bat. He's just that cautious. We're just going to have to learn to live with it.
May '12
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
The unconstitutionality of the DREAM Edict may be like Sandra Fluke's testimony: designed to draw out anyone who cannot recognize a "When did you stop beating your wife?" question.
Who in their right mind would speak out against giving "hard-working young people who through no fault of their own happen to be illegal immigrants" a chance to "make it in America"?
Who cares if it is not constitutional? Who cares if it is an aggressive use of Presidential privilege? Did anyone care if the hearing where Fluke gave her testimony was a sham? Did anyone care if her testimony was misdirection at best, possibly misleading? Rush Limbaugh took the bait, and called her a slut, and as a Leading Light of the Republican Party no less.
Maybe Romney is right to be cautious. Other are being more open in their criticism, and the Hispanic voter (not that there is such a monolith) may well be more concerned about the very real Unemployment Rate than an Edict that can be overturned with better & proper legislative action.
And don't count Rubio out just yet.
May '10
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Hope you're right with that last sentence, Edward Smith.
May '10
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
His Imperial Majesty, King Barack I
Jan '11
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Dennis Kucinich with a kill list?
That one goes in the Hall of Fame.
Jul '10
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Troy Senik, Ed.:
Because he doesn't want to come out swinging on the substance of immigration reform, Romney's main knock on Obama has been that the president had three and a half years to deal with immigration and waiting until now to address it demonstrates that the motivation is purely political. That's a weak argument. Those who care about the issue are unlikely to care what the motivation was. And the general rule of thumb is that if you're arguing that the other side is playing politics, you're losing the debate.
It isn't a particularly stiff jab, but it is useful to remind folks that Obama is a politician. Few people like politicians.
I'm not so sure, Scott. It seems to me that the:"It's unconstitutional, dammit!" claim gains a somewhat broader appeal if SCOTUS dumps Barrycare. I'd bet that is what Mitt is waiting on to make the attack Troy proposes.
Edited on June 19, 2012 at 2:30amMay '10
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Update: fwiw, Troy and Palaeo, Krauthammer agrees with Romney's punt -- says arguing process would be to take Obama's bait and distract from Romney's winning issue, the economy. (Can't link with this Nook. Check it out at The Corner.)
Edited on June 19, 2012 at 3:22amOct '10
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
A lot people are talking about the guy who interrupted his statement in the Rose Garden and trying to make that the story. I may be wrong but I think the important takeaway of that incident was Obama's handling of it. I'd say his facial expression and tone and body language were a physical expression of that narrative Troy mentioned. This guy does what he wants and if you interrupt a statement he's giving and ruins the moment then you'll get scolded like a errant schoolboy.
Nov '11
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
The nifty Rorschach metaphor you start with applies more broadly, I think, with people assigning to their personal perceptions a bullying objectivity that they in no way earn. The old joke:
A psychiatrist is asked to evaluate a suspected sex offender and begins by running him through an "ink-blot" test.
"Tell me what this makes you think of," the psychiatrist instructs.
Each time, the offender answers, "sex".
"You really are a pervert," the doctor says.
"Me? What are you talking about? You're the one showing all the dirty pictures..."
People who read racism in the ink of every criticism come to mind. Even though you can't control what people perceive, you can nonetheless be held responsible for those perceptions, however much they might be propelled by things you had nothing to do with, and nothing will convince the person that their outlook flows from themselves and not from the iniquities they assign to you ...
Oct '11
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
I thought that Troy took a completely uncalled for, and lazy, swipe at Sarah Palin.
May '10
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
John O'Sullivan makes the Troy case enthusiastically and well (and angrily) at The Corner.
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Albert,
No insult intended. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a little fun with our own side as long as we're not turning into a circular firing squad. I have a soft spot for Palin, so this was not an attempt to tear her down, just a little good-natured ribbing.
Oct '11
Re: Could Someone Decode This Please?
Romney needs "time to put it into his game plan." He's "stalling for time." Right. We deserve a President who doesn't need a week to decide where he stands on a fundamental question. This one's not a policy fine point.
Let's face it - Romney's response indicates he's offended by neither the substance nor the unconstitutionality of Obama's action. We are so hosed.
And I seriously doubt Sarah Palin ever made such a weaselly statement.