Romney On Embassy Attacks: Diagnosing An Ill Campaign Showing Symptons of Metastatic Balderdash
administration, which we believe has conducted
its foreign policy in a feckless manner.”
September 12, 2012. New York Times, Lanhee Chen, Romney’s chief campaign policy adviser, reacting to criticism of Romney’s statements asserting a “disgraceful” performance by the Obama Administration
regarding the Libyan and Egyptian embassy attacks.
Lanhee Chen, Romney/Ryan’s top campaign adviser normally spouts off about tax policy, although as Romney’s top spokesman in those matters we know from long experience that routinely he has nothing useful – or informative – to say. Standard operating procedure, Romney/Ryan 2012, particularly on their secret and magical tax proposals, and, frankly, on everything else as well.
W
ithin the psychotically constituted mosh pit we presently call the Republican party, the 35 year old Chen is widely viewed as brilliant. In his case, Republicans cite a long association with Harvard to verify his cred, rather than to disparage it, as would be necessary were he a Democrat or Ron Paul acolyte. Chen has multiple Harvard degrees, B.A., M.A., PhD., and a J.D. Imagine his student loan balance!
Romney campaign press secretary Andrea Saul has similarly been Chen charmed :
“We as a campaign look to Lanhee for not only policy advice — he’s brilliant — but also look to him for messaging to make sure we’re accurately and effectively communicating the governor’s position,”
Well, given Chen’s inaccurate and ineffective words featured at the top of this page, it appears, Ms. Saul, that a bounty of Harvard degrees when in close proximity to Mitt, Paul, and the neocon dregs of the Bush 2 crowd is unsatisfactory preparation for that effective and accurate messaging you credit Chen with. Apparently too, an addiction to Ivy League degrees is adequate preparation for neither truth telling nor for understanding the elementary school concept of chronology. What’s happened to Harvard?
Of course, realistically, Mr. – er, Dr. – Chen does understand chronology, and therefore understands that Romney’s framing of his criticisms of the Obama administration were, well, utterly dishonest and/or astoundingly stupid. What the Romney folks seem uncouple of grasping even this late in the cycle is that we understand what they likely understand as well: Romney and his campaign advisers flubbed this one in a galactically injurious way, injurious to both himself and to a sitting President’s efforts to manage the terrible and escalating series of catastrophes begun on September 12, 2012. Not good press. When Donald Rumsfeld is among your supporters in this, you know the phrase, “worst endorsement ever
A medical degree is the certification missing from Mr. Chen’s resume. I was unable to get into medical myself for two reasons, (1) I did not apply, and (2) I was effectively threatened by med school admissions committees to avoid applying, particularly in light of the fact that I treated Organic Chemistry like a literature course. Enough about me. Given my erstwhile pre-med status, I feel prepared to, shall we say, dissect the body of Chen’s statement set out at the top. I find three significant pathologies:
(1) Terminal Metastatic Opportunism.
The telltale symptom: “We’ve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obama’s foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique . . .”
Diagnosis: “[W]e felt this was a situation that met our critique” . . . their critique being the incredulous “Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy.”
Alright, yes, honest politically healthy people can disagree on the Obama Administration’s conduct of foreign policy. “Honest,” though, is the operative criterion. As we know, President Obama has pursued a foreign policy that angers the 
right wing because it is far less militaristic, bellicose, and reactionary than what they recall as the halcyon years of George W. Bush. Alas, most of us understand that their critique of Obama is truly the only critique the GOP, Romney/Ryan, and the John Bolton’s and David Senor’s of that group have to offer.
Anatomy & Physiology: The nature of metastatic opportunism is to disconnect the analytical portions of the brain from the ability to speak or write. It’s most obvious sufferer who, inexplicably, still retains a bully pulpit is Dick Cheney. Also, the entire Romney/Ryan campaign.
Here’s an example of the kind of event that triggers the metastic opportunism, which is accompanied by high fever, red face, and appeals to disproven and deadly psychotic theories. During the Libyan uprising, the Obama administration managed to put together a NATO coalition which successfully assisted the rebels in bringing down Qaddafi. No huge contingents of American “boots on the ground,” no carpet bombing, no making a bad situation worse, no lingering occupation of the country. Nonetheless, there was no failure in the administration’s commitment to Libyan rebel’s success. In the end, a clinic on thoughtful and realistic and, in many ways, humanitarian foreign policy.
Metastically opportunist neocons and wing nuts counseled two approaches, whichever momentarily triggered their underlying illness:
(1) The U.S. should not under any circumstances intervene in Libya, and
(2) The U.S. should under any circumstances intervene in Libya, and furthermore, ought take the lead.
The inimitable and deeply ill Newt Gingrich took both positions simultaneously. (Newt Gingrich, by the way, represents a unique category of political illness called Malingrich, to be explained in my upcoming book. Stay tuned, I opportunistically suggest.)
In any event, the basic GOP stance during th present Middle East crisis still developing is nothing less than the Cheney and Rumsfeld policy of militarism. And many of the Bush II era neocons are embedded like fleas and ticks (forgive the image) on the Romney/Ryan foreign policy dog. We were forced to accept militarism then, and we’re now asked to repeat those mistakes.
(1) Calcified Heart Disorder.
When we examine Chen’s initial words, another notable and systemic pathology within the Romney/Ryan campaign emerges: I.e., “we felt this was a situation that met our critique . . .”
Indeed, politically, it “met their critique,” and
* regardless of the fact that the events that met that critique were among the more dangerous occurrences in the Middle East in quite some time;
* regardless of the fact that events were still unfolding and facts were still unclear; and
* regardless of the fact that the Obama administration was attempting to quell further violence and thereby protect American citizens living and working within Egypt and Libya . . .
regardless of all that, well, Mr. Chen says “we felt this was a situation that met our critique.” Nice for them, eh?
The campaign had been lying in wait, and leaped to take advantage of this crisis, with no basis, no vetting, no substance, no principles, all knee-jerk. And that, Mr. Chen, is the very definition of feckless: incompetent, ineffective, and irresponsible.
(2) I think the reality is that while there may be a difference of opinion regarding issues of timing, I think everyone stands behind the critique of the administration, which we believe has conducted its foreign policy in a feckless manner.”
This part of Chen’s statement is simply analyzed: it’s his attempt to reframe the issue while confusing the listener, and to replace the truth with an outright lie.
“I think the reality is that while there may be a difference of opinion regarding issues of timing. . .” No, Mr. Chen, there is no honest disagreement about Mitt’s timing, although there are some who support him who are misinformed beyond belief (Rob Portman) or who are proven liars and lack credibility (Robert McNamara). You, for example, are among this group.
As you surely know (if you don’t, God help us), Romney made his statement at exactly the most inappropriate time. An opinion about an international incident during a presidential contest must be squared with the facts and vetted carefully, especially when, as here, individuals in far flung places have been killed and injured. Early on, the Romney camp had no more information available to it than did anyone else but the Obama administration, and they too were struggling. Nonetheless, your campaign, at light speed, made a sly political decision to launch a verbal ICBM at President Obama during the administration’s information gathering phase. Nope, Mr. Chen, there is no forthright “difference of opinion” about your campaign’s timing; it wasn’t merely craven opportunism, it was a shocking intimation of how irresponsibly and impulsively Mr. Romney and his neocon cadre might govern from the Oval Office. We’ve seen that before.
This has been a serial offense by the Romney/Ryan campaign, this disrespect for our ability to ferret out the truth about their misleading information and downright lies. They, like the second Bush national security apparatus, believe they can create any reality they desire or need. The most important – and chilling – statement of this approach to politics was uncovered by Ron Suskind. In a 2004 New York Times Magazine article, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, he quoted a Bush senior staffer (believed to be none other than Karl Rove):
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors. . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Well, that’s pleasant.
But heads up Karl, we’ve lived eleven years with manufactured “reality,” have we not? And thousands of combatants and civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere died in the wake of it. As you predicted, for a time, we were “left to just study what” you did. Many proved good students. We’re much wiser now, and guys like Chen cannot get away with shape shifting as easily as you, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did. And now, Lanhee Chen.
“But Mr. Chen, forgive me, you’re just not answering my question,” Jarrett said. “So let me put it again: which loopholes and deductions and credits and exemptions the President’s going to get rid of would affect all Americans. Before they cast their ballot, don’t they deserve to know which ones are going, which ones are not, and by how much?”
Chen said that Romney would try to “curb deductions for high-income taxpayers,” and that there are “different deductions and exemptions” that could be eliminated to achieve the goals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/gregg-jarrett-mitt-romney-tax-plan_n_1865333.html
When FOX gets frustrated with a GOP operative, that’s news. And regarding yourself, rising Republican star, those kind of opaque replies illustrate feckless in the extreme.
