Romney's quantum politics

Greg Sargent says "There’s a great deal to chew on in Mitt Romney’s interview with Bob Schieffer." For the exceptionally hopeful few, that may be.

Yet Romney has planted his flag in the undiscovered country of limitless unknowing; he has braved fifth and sixth and possibly greater dimensions of bizarre unreality and, from time to time, he reemerges from the quantum fog to reassure us that it all makes sense, not for us to worry, we needn't bother our recession-addled brains, he has everything under control.

He really can snap his fingers and be in two places at once, while giving three answers simultaneously to four disparate audiences.

In short, Mitt Romney has the uncertainty principle down pat, mixed with a bit of Eastern mysticism: Those who know as Mitt knows don't say, and those who say as Mitt doesn't say don't know. He comes by this sort of golden-tablet con artistry naturally.

In response, the exceptionally hopeful, such as Sargent, whip out their elegant microscopes and set to analysis--the efforts of which yield sentences of vast disappointment, such as this: "Romney seemed to confirm that he will not be detailing how he would pay for his proposed tax cuts."

He seemed to confirm he won't confirm what he seems to be saying while not saying it.

My regrets, Mr. Sargent, but I don't find this to be "a great deal to chew on." It is intellectually undigestible. It is a fraud, a hustle, a phantom, a changeable unobservability which, unlike "real" quantum mechanics, can and should be dismissed as the insult to human inquiry and civic endeavor it is.

I realize that such a journalistic dismissal would make for exceedingly short columns and thus maroon cybercolumnists to the idle black hole of Romney's immeasurable vapidness. But journalists should give it a try; they should just note that some slick buffoon who calls himself the Republican presidential candidate gave another interview or another speech yesterday, which made no more sense than his preceding interviews and speeches, and no more sense than the next ones will, either.

Then they could chew on something else--something real, something fathomable, something less tedious than the hither-and-yon Romney Shuffle.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

I continue to feel sorry for Romney, and I know that is a lonely position here. He seems less like a con artist than a hostage negotiator dealing with the Insane Clown Posse demanding Star Trek teleporters to get them to the airport - "Or everybody gets it!".

When I disagree with PM, I assume I am wrong - even when I remain unchanged. I suspect the reason I cannot buy the con artist analogy is the fact that Romney - if he indeed is a con artist - is a really, really bad one.

I bought my daughter a really cool set of magic tricks for her 9th birthday. Some were professional level trick that required her to have more than perfunctionary skills. We both soon learned that a critical element of the hidden red ball trick was to well, keep the ball hidden. my daughter did a pretty good job for a nine year old, and I really, really love my daughter, but have never considered her to be a magician.

In my heart though, I know PM must be right.

[japa21]

Doing actual journalism in reporting a Romney speech or interview is actually quite simple. Just write, "Romney spoke, said little, and what he did say was a lie."

There is no need to go beyond that at all.

[majii]

I don't feel sorry for Romney or what he'll have to face as his campaign moves forward. He could have avoided all of the problems he's facing if he'd had the courage to tell the nuts in the GOP that they have to grow up, but he couldn't and didn't because he has no enduring principles. All he knows is that he wants to be president, and he's equipped to do/say anything to accomplish this goal. It does us no good when journalists shy away from the truth and pretend to look for something "good" when there is nothing there. Romney's interview on MTP on yesterday was a repetition of what we've been seeing all along--duck, dodge, lie, and lie again. Slick was the right word to use in referring to Romney in this post, PM. Although Sargent was willing to cut Romney some slack, this "American Prospect" journalist wasn't.

http://prospect.org/article/romney-tries-etch-sketch-obamas-dream-act-record

[Peter G]

Loved the uncertainty principle reference! But you are not entirely correct. Romney has a meta-plan. His plan is to tell you he has a plan.

[AnneJ]

The more I see of Romney the less I like him and I never thought much of him from the outset. He has no core principles whatsoever only the belief in his own personal gain. If you look back on the stories from his life this pattern shows itself time and time again. PM is right there is no mystery here. He is not a stupid man, but he sure is counting on 50.1% of the electorate to be. And even though I can only speak for my own experience in my surroundings, he'll have plenty of help here. People really are that stupid and they will either vote for him or not vote at all.

[Jason]

My understanding of Romney is that he views government and society exclusively through the eyes of corporate upper management. His singular goal is proftability for its top investors, and it is solely on that basis that he discerns merit and value. People's lives are but numbers, statistics, and arithmetic manipulated to make the final balance sheet look good. Truth, facts, reality, goodness, morality--these are simply irrelevant to the thoroughly corporatized mind. As for him, becoming President is simply the next rung on the ladder, the one postion of corporate power that he's never held. He's not in some unfortunate position of having to "negotiate" or "pander" to the deranged Tea Party base, as if he's somehow holding his nose at the prospect of it all. Who constitutes his base does not matter anymore to him than it matters to Mark Zuckerberg who signs up for facebook--just as long as lots of people do it. For Romney, it's just a matter of marketing strategy. The only values are profitability for investors and career advancement for himself.

[AnneJ]

Excellent summation, Jason.

[SoAndSo]

"In short, Mitt Romney has the uncertainty principle down pat, mixed with a bit of Eastern mysticism: Those who know as Mitt knows don't say, and those who say as Mitt doesn't say don't know. He comes by this sort of golden-tablet con artistry naturally."

Hilarious.

[nk007]

Jason, I think you pretty much nailed it!