creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
30 Oct 2014
Obama and the Virtues of Inaction

In responding to the Ebola crisis, President Barack Obama is being his usual self: passive, detached, unable … Read More.

26 Oct 2014
Illinois and the Dangers of Democratic Rule

With Halloween approaching, the way to scare small children is to conjure up specters of witches and ghosts. … Read More.

23 Oct 2014
Should We Strip Terrorists of Citizenship?

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz doesn't trust Barack Obama to protect Americans against Ebola, defeat the … Read More.

The Flaws of Mitt and Newt

Comment

Newt Gingrich has an exquisitely sensitive moral antenna, and Mitt Romney's remark suggesting indifference to the poor sent it quivering. "I am fed up with politicians in either party dividing Americans against each other," he said. Yes, he did. Then he fell on the floor and laughed till he cried.

For Gingrich to disavow divisiveness is the equivalent of Mark Zuckerberg renouncing modern technology: Without it, we never would have heard of him. Newt has spent his career ceaselessly inventing ways to foment and exploit hatred of one group by another.

He's the guy who warned of "a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us." He likened those supporting a mosque near Ground Zero to Nazis.

He said Democrats are "the party of total hedonism, total exhibitionism, total bizarreness, total weirdness, and the total right to cripple innocent people in the name of letting hooligans loose." Oh, and the poor? He said poor teens don't work "unless it's illegal." Nobody but us unifiers here!

Romney's comment has been described as a classic political gaffe, which consists not of telling a lie but telling the truth. In fact, it was classic political nonsense, in which inartful wording is twisted to pretend the speaker meant something he clearly didn't.

It was done to John Kerry in 2004, when a line intended as a jibe at President George W. Bush — saying those who don't "study hard" end up "stuck in Iraq" — was alleged to be a slander on the intelligence of American troops.

It happened to Romney when, referring to the right of consumers to "fire" unsatisfactory health insurers, he said, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." Cut off the last five words, ignore the context, and gotcha!

What Romney meant in his latest episode is that, while he favors providing an adequate safety net for the poor, his primary focus is on generating jobs and economic growth for the mass of people. If he had been caught saying, "Who gives a damn about poor people?" he would be guilty of rank callousness.

But he didn't, and his policies on poverty are not readily distinguishable from any other Republican's.

Still, few Republicans will be moved to vote against Romney out of tearful solicitude for the bottom 5 percent. If the economy is floundering next November, swing voters will have no trouble forgetting this incident.

His obstacles lie more with his wooden insincerity and his history of flip-flopping. But those stem from a bigger problem that has largely escaped notice: the mystery of why he's running.

Romney takes pride in not being a career politician, a boast that evoked one of Gingrich's few illuminating retorts: "Let's be candid, the only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994." If going into politics to create jobs is justified, why isn't it commendable to spend a career in politics to create jobs?

He extols his record of building businesses and creating jobs in the private sector. If he's so good at that, though, why not stay there?

We know why most candidates undertake the race — Al Gore to avert environmental catastrophe, George W. Bush to carry on the family business, John McCain to serve his country and Obama to heal racial and ideological divisions.

Romney just seems like a rich guy who needs a new challenge. "I have a good life with my family, my wife," he says. "I don't have to win. I just want to win because I care about the country."

Ronald Reagan could have said the same thing, but with him it was believable. Reagan was driven by a distinct vision of what America should be. Romney, by contrast, is willing to serve whatever cause will get him elected.

His attitude is: Tell me what you want me to be and I'll be it. But one thing voters want is someone who doesn't do that.

About Gingrich's motive, there has never been any doubt: to feed an insatiable ego that makes him imagine he has a historic, God-given mission to transform the country. He's a mad scientist, mixing volatile potions that may cure cancer or may blow up the lab. Either way, he'll have fun.

Romney doesn't have an obvious reason to run for president. That's his trouble. Gingrich does. That's his.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
"We know why most candidates undertake the race ó Al Gore to avert environmental catastrophe, George W. Bush to carry on the family business, John McCain to serve his country and Obama to heal racial and ideological divisions."
Utter nonsense. The race is for power and nothing else. That's okay, it has been so since George Washington retired, and sometimes that power is desired and used for good purpose. Al Gore is a poser interested in personal power and glory, good thing he invented the internet. George W. ran to gain power and then fell into uncertainty about its uses. McCain is all about the desire for power, he cares very little about the country, has no desire to serve it and in fact believes the country should serve him. A terrible man. Obama ran to heal the country of its racial and ideological divide? GOOD GOD, I'M HEALED, THANK THE LORD, THE LORD, THE LORD! The last sentence is only 50% as idiotic as the one preceding it. Liberal Presidents are always touted as smarter than nearly everybody outside of Stephen Hawkings, and rarely do they actually rise to the level of Secretariat. The fact that liberals are natural born liars - what death panels - makes it easy to convince each other their guy is smart. I doubt Obama could find his way out of the maze on a children's menu at the local Coney Island, and to hear him give a speech or even a short talk has become an exercise in controlling numbness of the mind. Chapman better come up with a better reason to write than this claptrap of choir preaching offers.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Tom
Sun Feb 5, 2012 12:57 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 30 Oct 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 30 Oct 2014
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 30 Oct 2014

10 Jul 2008 Obama, McCain and Fiscal Disaster

20 Oct 2013 The Point of Negotiating with Iran

1 Feb 2009 When Term-Limits Advocates Won't Leave