Mitt Romney seems to be indulging in the “I hit him first but it wuz self defence because I could see he was gunna hit me” justification I expect of a six year old.
After reportedly outspending Gingrich five-to-one with ads that were overwhelmingly negative, and explaining his philosophy as “when you’re attacked you’ve got to respond” the Massachusetts Mormon multi-millionaire is already predicting things will get HOT — and characterizing President Obama’s re-election campaign as well-funded (ahem) and negative …
Asked about the negativity of the Republican race following a new report that showed that 92 percent of all of the campaign ads that ran in the Sunshine State in the week leading up to the Florida primary were attack spots, Romney said on “Good Morning America” that the fight was preparing him for what’s to come in the general election.
“What you’re seeing from speaker Gingrich is just a precursor of what you’ll see from President Obama, and in some respects, perhaps what we’re getting inoculates us, or at least prepares us, for what will come down the road,” he said. “There’s no question that Barack Obama’s billion-dollar machine will organize the most vitriolic, spiteful campaign in American history, and we’re going to have to be ready for that.”
Even allowing for Romney’s on-going fund-raising efforts, justifying dodgy tactics on the basis that you anticipate dodgy tactics from your opponents is the kind of paranoia fearful thinking that I was referring to here in Be careful what you believe:
It seems to me from what Cameron [Slater] and I discussed, that Right Wing spin doctors and bloggers/activists/schemers like him (and only a handful of others – in NZ anyway) have convinced themselves that their Left Wing ‘opponents’ are waging a dirty, unprincipled propaganda war and will stoop to virtually any sleazy strategy to gain influence or advantage. So strongly do they, as a group, hold this belief that they (the Right-wing cabal) feel they are therefore completely justified in waging a dirty, unprincipled propaganda war and to stoop to virtually any sleazy strategy to gain influence or advantage. I bet some on ‘the Left’ think exactly the same way. (Trevor Mallard, I’m looking at you. And you Martyn Bradbury.)
It’s very George W Bush ‘Bush doctrine‘ (justifying US first strikes as ‘preventive war’) … attacking ‘the enemy’ to beat them to the punch. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Macho bullshit.
Romney is justifying his campaign’s carpet-bombing of Gingrinch by referring to a possible future Obama campaign as “the most vitriolic, spiteful campaign in American history” — before it’s even happened. Trying to paint Romney as the ‘virtuous’ one, despite drowning Florida in attack ads. That’s hyperbole. To put it mildly.
– P
Unfortunately hes the as guilty as the rest and just as honest (including Obama) Any criticism of any of the current candidates is simple hypocrisy.
Except Ron Paul who has been silenced by the comprised US Media.
Hypocrisy? Really? I don’t think so. I think it’s OK to scrutinize them all — and President Obama too.
My main point is that Romney is trying to take the high ground with claims that his nasty personal attack ads against Gingrich are somehow not so bad because he’s expecting Barack Obama’s campaign to be ‘the most spiteful and vitriolic in history’ … which is a vacuous claim, at best, this side of campaign, surely?
Ron Paul was always a long shot.
– P
Not sure if you understood what I meant, Any criticism by any of the campaigns is Hypocrisy because they are all doing it. Obama Included.
Thanks Craig. I meant this, from Romney …
… seems a self-serving and dishonest justification for his own vitriolic and spiteful campaign. Before Obama has even got out of the gate.
Your ‘They’re all as bad as each other’ tack doesn’t mean we shouldn’t criticize, does it?
– P
Holy cow!
Of Romney, meanwhile, Gingrich said: “I had never before seen a person who I thought was a serious candidate for president be that fundamentally dishonest.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/newt-gingrich-nevada-caucus-results-2012_n_1254061.html
Ron Paul wasn’t a long shot.
He never had a chance of actually winning – he is too old (76) and too extreme (a libertarian) to ever get elected President by mainstream America. I suspect that his campaign has been a success, because he raised libertarian values and received solid support. Who knows – perhaps some of his policies (watered down) may be adopted by Obama and / or Romney in the coming Presidential campaign? We will see…
The election campaign, to decide the most powerful person in the world, should be intense, detailed and robust, in my view. If this spills over into becoming fractiuous, aggressive and cynical, poormastery has no problem with this level of scrutiny either. Indeed, I expect it. Presidential politics and campaigning should be a cauldron. Nobody was forced to run.
Nonetheless, I do not expect the outcome of the election to be determined by negative campaigning. Chance will make someone King. If the economy noticeably improves, Mr Obama will win; if it substantially worsens, expect Mr Ronmney to win. A flat economy could see a cliffhanger election?
Personally, I don’t think much of either candidate, but it could be worse. Hillary Clinton, for example!
Rgds,
*p*
I do not expect the outcome of the election to be determined by negative campaigning
Remember the ‘Swiftboat Veterans for Truth’?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth
I think those largely disproved claims (after the election) arguably had an impact, don’t you?
(source Wikipedia entry cited above)
Nevertheless, I think we agree that ‘the economy, stupid’ will be the larger determinant. Oppositions don’t win, governments lose.
—
Re Ron Paul. Agreed.
– P
SBVT arguably had an impact on the election (negative campaigning is engaged in for a reason). How people choose who to vote for is a complicated business. I think Mr Kerry was not particularly electable, for a variety of reasons.
Nonetheless, my sense is that Mr Kerry did not lose the election predominantly because of SBVT, although obviously I cannot prove this.
Rgds,
*p*
Yes, my sense of the Kerry result is similar to yours, nevertheless, it’s received wisdom that the attack ads have an effect.
Look at this article which I read at Politico since we last exchanged replies…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72481.html
Makes sense to me. Also, look at Romney’s spending (and its nature) in Florida.