A theory on the nattering nincompoops

I'm beginning to think that all these nattering nincompoops of right-wing negativism about Mitt Romney's inadequacy are executing an elaborate hoax.

In the last few days we've suffered the moral superiority of the politically sociopathic--Rupert Murdoch, Laura Ingraham, the Wall Street Journal editorial board and Bill Kristol--instructing their Man on the blunter points of running a presidential campaign. They have urged Mitt to dig in, to get tough, to lay everything on the table--to array for the public all the splendid things he'd do, and not merely assail the wicked things President Obama has done.

Yesterday, on the blasphemously named 'Fox News Sunday,' Kristol served up more: 

I think what a lot of people would like to see ... is [for Romney to] stand up and say I have a plan and I am going to aggressively address these problems and fix the economy.

The glaring defect in this collective directive from Right-Wing Central is that Romney has stood up and said he has a plan to aggressively address these [diminishing] problems and fix the [improving] economy. And, for once, Romney is not dissembling; he does have a plan, and you can read its gibberish in long form or hear it daily from the Man himself in short form: he wants to again cut taxes and spend more militarily and shred America's safety net.

The consequences of this madness I need not explain. Indeed, as the Post's Jonathan Bernstein observed last week, explanations tendered thus far have been met by the public with a snarling incredulity:

The liberal blogs are talking today about a focus group discussed in a New York Times article. It seems that Mitt Romney’s program is so nutty that ordinary citizens just won’t believe it when it’s described to them.

That may be, and their disbelief is certainly a fascinating topic for another discussion. The point to be made here, though, is that Romney has in fact put his cards on the table and he has done so repeatedly and dogmatically and clearly (or at least as clearly as muddied dogma can be peddled).

Murdoch and Ingraham and the WSJ editorial board and Kristol must know that. Yet in suggesting the absurd fiction that Mitt Romney in reality possesses some stunningly ingenious economic plan which he resists articulating for some unfathomable reason, Murdoch et al can appear to be in heroic political disagreement with the Romney camp while actually selling the absurd fiction of a stunningly ingenious, Romney-economic plan--which of course puts them right back in political agreement with Mitt Romney. 

Just a theory.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

Eight years ago, there was an ongoing argument about W having gone off the deep end against GOP principles. This was when I concluded that while he had aabandoned conservative principles, he was the GOP political platform incarnate.

I believe PM is making a similar case about Mitt. Where I tend to differ with PM and probably most others is my sympathy for the sociopathic little bugger. He is the saleman/spokes-model for the GOP. This is the only product line he has to sell. As with all marketing departments, salesmen out in field are given a good deal of lattitude in making their sales pitches, but the product line, pricing structure and contract terms and conditions are fixed.

I am sure Romney would much prefer to be selling some form of Romneycare as a much better alternative to Obamacare "that actually does what needs to be done - better, cheaper, quicker." I am sure Romney would love to propose a budget balancing strtategyb that is based on $2 in cost cuts for every $1 in increased taxes. And so on.

But those products are simply not in the company product line. Poor little sociopathic bugger.

[Peter G]

And Romney's plan is an excellent thing from a political point of view. It exists and he can therefore claim that it exists when necessary and yet it is so turgidly unreadable that there is little risk of anyone reading it. Certainly not the low information voters for whom its existence is sufficient. And certainly not by anyone else who might actually know anything.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Was it Descarte who said, "I stink. Therefore, I am."?