Osler's Razor

It was dumb of him to go political in the hours after a tragedy, and he wasn't even right about what he said.

IPLawguy for President, Waco Farmer for speechwriter.
 

It is September 13. That is the good news. The bad news is that we are deep in the third quarter, behind but still in it--but--and here's the big BUT--everybody in the arena just felt the momentum shift.

We have been working at this for a long time. Thousands of hours of hard work in weathers. Years of preparation. And now it is all on the line. This is a game we can / ought to win. But it looks like it is slipping away.

What to do? Swallow hard. Keep your mouth shut. Keep your eyes on the prize.

You look over and LeBron is already starting to celebrate. The experts are all starting to cluck. Damn it!!!

What to do? Suck it up. Keep playing hard. Stick to the game plan. Make adjustments. Stay in the zone.

Believe in yourself. Believe in your preparation. Remember that "success is peace of mind, which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to do your best to become the best that you are capable of becoming" (John Wooden).

Give it all you got from now until the final whistle and hope for the best.
 

Seems to me that most polls show that Obama's post-convention bump has all but disappeared. Some polls now show Romney in the lead again less than a week after Obama's speech. The general reaction to the DNC was that Obama was outdone by Clinton, his wife, and even several down the program speakers. The economy is still crap. And the Middle East, which I've been talking about on this blog for the past year Obama has completely screwed up, looks like it is set to go into full meltdown mode.

Gotta be honest, I don't feel like there is much going the President's way right now. I'm not sure Romney can screw this up.

Then again, if anybody can find a way, I think Romney is that guy!

Whatever, I'm voting for Ric Flair! WOOOOOOOOOOO!
 

Is it just me who thinks for a hundred thousand word comment Anon 11:39 AM should at least add one more?
 

I agree with Marta that I would like to know who penned the Anonymous comment from 11:39. Marta may or may not share my opinion that the comment was jarringly articulate and provocative.
 

I think it's wise to judge the anon. crowd like we should anyone else...on the merits.

To add to Anon. 1139, I think the media has very much overreached in its criticisms of Romney...especially if the movie at issue has been out for months and the attacks were coordinated for 9/11.

Regarding the Book of Mormon show and my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it's useful to note that the church has purchased ad space in the playbill for L.A. showings. And this after CA protestors vandalized our buildings and members of the church were black-listed for supporting Prop. 8.

Love that freedom of speech.
 

WF, in fact I do agree with you in that the article was jarringly articulate and provocative. Plus it reminded me of a word I thought forgotten "abortifacients"...in my old country (a former Communist dictatorship) the culmination of government interference came in the form of a super aggressive anti- abortion policy. Abortion was not just punishable with jail time, but all females had to provide a monthly pregnancy test, if the pregnancy test was inconclusive we had to go to a clinic and subject to a gynecological exam. Needless to say abortifacients were like heroin is here, moreover needless to express my opinion on government and human reproductive rights.
 

Anon is PISSED!
 

I agree with Anon 409 that Richard A. Grenell asks a question that deserves consideration.
 

My favorite Anonymous is 9:06 a.m.
He (or she) is right: it was dumb to go political when the bodies of American diplomats killed in the service of their country were barely cold.
And I would totally vote for IPLawguy for President! And trust he would have the good sense to hire Waco Farmer as speechwriter.
 

If you have sincere political beliefs, you shouldn't be afraid to put your name behind them. To remain anonymous is cowardly.
 

Anonymous11:39 is wise indeed as he didn't put his name to his thoughts.
Dad
 

Just so we have someone to argue against, let me go ahead and associate myself with many of the assertions contained in Anon 11:39:

1. We have the right to denigrate religion; you do not have the right to kill me or anyone else because someone denigrated your religion. You do not even have the right to kill the actual person who denigrated your religion.

2. It is illogical, irrational, and immoral to kill someone (or commit any act of violence) in reaction to a YouTube video that almost nobody knows or cares about.

3. It is immoral to possess a police power to stop people from committing an immoral act that endangers others and NOT stop them (see MLK in Letter From a Birmingham Jail).

4. It is wrong to offer any statement that is not perfectly clear on the points above.

5. The statement issued by the Cairo embassy was misguided. Secretary of State Clinton was right to try to stop it and subsequently repudiate it. Mitt Romney was right to object vehemently to it. And, after all that, when the WH finally repudiated the statement, they were also right (albeit not necessarily in a timely manner).

6. It is not unreasonable to connect this incident with an argument that has been out there for many years, which asserts that President Obama fundamentally misunderstands the culture of the Middle East. Reasonable people can disagree about that assertion--but it is not an unreasonable view to hold.
 

Farmer--

Which leads us back to IPLawGuy's original point-- what is it that Romney is FOR? We realize that he is critical of President Obama, but what is it he would do in this situation?

He seems to offer too little of that. As I've said before, Republicans need to find a way to be something beyond the party of "Get off my lawn!" or they will be swallowed up by generational change.
 

Mark, You offer several items worthy of Thursday threads: the future of the GOP is one. You will recall from our conversations in 2009 that I am generally less pessimistic about the future of the Republican Party than you are. My sense is that the Party of Lincoln is a resilient organization with a lot of good things to offer America. Only time will tell who is right.

In re what Romney is for, in this case, he is clearly FOR a different tone in American foreign policy.

An Aside: partisan differences in American foreign policy generally / often boil down to little more than tone.

Romney is advocating a full-throated condemnation of an indefensible act. And, as I say, it is an opening volley to a conversation that has bigger overtones--a conversation that is not unreasonable to pursue.
 

Actually, I think the Republican Party WILL make the necessary corrections to focus on what matters in the longer run (rather than gay marriage)-- I'm optimistic that way. I also meant to say generational and demographic changes.

As for tone, the President did condemn the attacks in the strongest possible terms, as did the Sec. of State, and it appears there is military action afoot. I don't see a lot of real difference between the parties on this.

That's in part why it seems like such a mistake, politically and morally, for Romney to so quickly and shallowly use a national crisis and tragedy for such slim political gain-- or, it seems, a political loss.
 

@Mark. Not surprising that we disagree on much of this. It is the season. But it is indisputable that the President and the State Department and the Cairo Embassy were not on the same page. In the end, the President merely embraced Mitt Romney's position and Hillary Clinton's position. It is not unreasonable to see the confusion as a metaphor for the overall confusion in our current foreign policy. Not unreasonable. Not immoral. Not shallow. Was it good politics? Hard to say. We'll see soon enough.

In re gay marriage: why is it dumb for Republicans to have a position on gay marriage but smart and moral for Democrats to have a position? Or does it just depend on what position a party occupies?
 

WF--

What I'm saying is not that gay marriage is right or wrong, but that it is a generational issue-- young people in this country don't see what the problem is with gay marriage, for the most part. Similarly, immigration is an issue that will, for politicians, have to account for demographic changes over time if they want to stay in power.

As for Romney criticizing the Cairo missive-- it wasn't Obama's, and it was the wrong time to go on the attack, while a crisis is being dealt with. Romney is presently paying a political price for that miscalculation, and he should.
 

Mark--

At the risk of beating a dead horse and/or being just plain obstinate:

it is not clear (outside of the Huff Post, MSNBC, the mainstream press corps, and your assertions) that Romney is paying a political price for his comments.
 

Well, only time will tell on that-- I'm basing my thoughts on what I have heard and read, and the media is the best source I've got. I admit that a lot of these things, even the conventions, end up being a blip. It is very hard to tell what matters in an election at a macro scale while you are still in the middle of it, and I'm a pretty bad prognosticator on such things.

I will say, from my own viewpoint, that it is probably in the best interests of the nation for political attacks to cease temporarily during a time of crisis, and I think and hope that I would say the same thing if the sides were flipped. The president, for his part, should stop campaigning for a minute and focus on these developments.


 

In re the "politics stops at the ocean's edge" argument: I have been running this back and forth in my mind. I think it is a close call. And I think you know generally my first reaction is to back / defend / protect the president (no matter the current occupant of the office). I am an institutionalist at least as much as I am a partisan. On the other hand, taking into consideration that it is post-Labor Day in an election year, objectivity goes out the window for almost all of us.

But here goes:

What exactly is the crisis? We have four dead Americans. That makes it a tragedy--but not necessarily a crisis. Military action is in the offing? Really? I am not sure what the appropriate military action would be. But I cannot imagine that anything Candidate Romney has said has limited the President's options.

Is it just bad form? Perhaps. Although this horrible campaign has really reoriented the normal boundaries of gentlemanly political combat.

So, it seems to me, in this specific case, it really is a matter of what you can get away with. Romney saw this as an opportunity to put an exclamation point on one of his basic foreign policy critiques of the President. The President responded in a very political way. The media came down on the side of the President. Conservatives may be buoyed by the fight. The President's partisans rallied around him. So far nothing new in any of that. In the meantime, it seems to me, no damage done to America by the politics.

How it plays in Peoria is not yet clear.
 

Citizen Mitt Romney has, at the moment, a big microphone. He again has chosen to bludgeon himself over his head with it. At a time sensitive moment he reenforced the idea that he is Mitt, what's in this for me, Romney.
President Obama too often offers a conventional response. He has missed an opportunity to forcefully present the fact that America has free speech even when it is so ugly and that the vast majority of Americans do discern when it is ugly, hate filled speech. The statements and actions of all the radical fringe promote violence and violence is not the answer. He should forcefully call for legal police action not state military intervention. A major speech that points to America's constructive strengths would move us to better understanding and would be preferable to Mitt's call for more military might. In both eastern and western cultures, only a few percent of the people agree that violence is the answer. Media around the world shows the fringe in both cultures and doesn't reflect our common ground. It is what we are basing our discussion on. This is a problem. Dad
 

Save for the loose character assassination directed at Mitt Romney and the assertion that Romney advocates more military might in this situation, I pretty much agree with Mr. Osler's sentiments.

Very wise, indeed.

Although I do have one caveat in re the efficacy of a major speech. President Obama gave a great speech in Cairo in 2009--and we are where we are.