Mr. Romney Reinvents History (NYT Editorial)

[cali]

Published: August 30, 2012 350 Comments


Mitt Romney wrapped the most important speech of his life, for Thursday night’s session of his convention, around an extraordinary reinvention of history — that his party rallied behind President Obama when he won in 2008, hoping that he would succeed. “That president was not the choice of our party,” he said. “We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than divides us.”


The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage to a narrow partisan agenda.

Mr. Romney’s big speech, delivered in a treacly tone with a strange misty smile on his face suggesting he was always about to burst into tears, was of a piece with the rest of the convention. Republicans have offered precious little of substance but a lot of bromides (“A free world is a more peaceful world!”) meant to convey profundity and take passive-aggressive digs at President Obama. But no subjects have received less attention, or been treated with less honesty, than foreign affairs and national security — and Mr. Romney’s banal speech was no exception.

It’s easy to understand why the Republicans have steered clear of these areas. While President Obama is vulnerable on some domestic issues, the Republicans have no purchase on foreign and security policy. In a television interview on Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, could not name an area in which Mr. Obama had failed on foreign policy.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/the-hidden-subject-in-tampa.html?_r=0

OK, it's a given that the NYT will endorse the President (Have they ever endorsed a repub?) and it's a given that said endorsement won't change a thing, but I don't think I've ever seen the old grey hag as contemptuous and scathing about a candidate.

[hifiguy]

1. The Times editorial board seems to have had

more than enough of Mittwit. He's been called a liar in that space several times in the last few weeks.

[CrispyQ]

2. "...the Republicans have no purchase on foreign and security policy."

They don't give a shit about foreign policy because we are the USA & what we want is what will happen. "We create our own reality." I seriously think Romney/Ryan think that way. They will do what they want in the rest of the world, while re-shaping Amercia to their nightmare vision.

The rest of the world must be looking on in horror wondering if the crazies will "win" again. I put win in quotes, because they didn't win in '00 or '04. And they won't "win" this year either, but if the dems don't GOTV, they could steal another one. It would kind of gum up the works for Jeb, however. But they're creative, they'll find a way to get rid of Mitt if they want to.

[siligut]

3. "Mr. Romney’s big speech, delivered in a treacly tone with a strange misty smile on his face"

Watching him speak puts murder in my heart. *




*Not a threat, just the best description of the revulsion I have for this destroyer of lives and happiness.

[Surya Gayatri]

4. A lot of the comments under the editorial are excellent--worth reading...

[onenote]

5. In answer to the question: the last time the NYT endorsed a repub was Eisenhower in 1956