Wednesday, September 19, 2012

MESSENGER? OR MESSAGE?

Serious conservative Republicans like Peggy Noonan, here, are rapidly catching on that the Romney campaign is faltering.  Like Noonan, they are blaming the messenger; they seem not to consider the possibility that, for their message, he is the perfect messenger.  It's the message that is vapid, empty, callous, even cruel.  It's the message that doesn't square with the predicament in which we find ourselves, still less come up with plausible solutions.  It's the message that plays fast and loos with the facts.  Romney is simply the spokesman, the front man for the message.

What needs to be changed is not the candidate, no matter how often, now, they accuse him of weakness and vacillation.  What needs to be changed is the message.  The President counters with a message that does take into account the facts of our predicament, and its history.  He counters with a message that proposes real solutions to real problems.  He spoke about it last night on Letterman with an ease that contrasted poignantly with the uneasy image Romney presents, and with an astonishing command not only of the factual detail but also the language to clarify complicated issues without condescension or distortion.


1 comment:

Paul said...

I'm wondering (hopefully) that something bigger than Romney isn't afoot. The election of GWB was supposed to usher in the Republican Century or something like that. There can be no argument that it wasn't more than a dismal failure.

Still, the Republicans arrogantly cling to the same ideals and policies that doomed them in the first place. In doing so, they as a party have demonstrated contempt for 47% of us. Already they have declared more of the same if Obama is reelected.

So I wonder if people aren't beginning to see that the party itself is beginning to rot.

This could be a meme that will have a tremendous impact at the state level—which may be even more important than who wins the presidency.