There's been a lot said in the last two weeks about why Obama won and Romney lost. Here are my two cents (or more) that add to the analysis of who is at fault for the result:
- Throughout the republican primaries, the only thing the news media talked about was how each candidate other than Romney was trying to paint himself as "not Romney" -- because Romney wasn't conservative enough. Conservatives were looking for a card-carrying member of the Tea Party with a "clean" record, which doesn't describe Romney, and he became the "imperfect" candidate of the republican party. (Later, his more-moderate record was what he showcased in his fight against Obama). Back in 2008, the fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was bloodier than the 2012 republican fight. The difference was that democrats overall felt less animosity toward the opponent of their preferred candidate than the republicans did in 2012. Romney continually talked about "reaching across the aisle" and compromising, which has been a sin for republicans. Fault: Republicans. Obama, and many democrats, have failed to compromise with the other side, which made Romney imperfect, according to republicans. Republicans were, to a fault, idealists, which resulted in disappointment within their own party and an appearance of discontent to the much-needed "independents". I'm not saying that republicans should give up their beliefs, but it's time to start accepting that compromise is better than gridlock.
- The Obama campaign knew Romney would be their opponent from the day he announced his candidacy and their main weapon against him became his wealth and personality. John Kerry's wealth (or at least his wife's) was a small issue in the 2004 campaign, but nothing compared to what Romney faced in 2012. Ever since the democrats took over in 2008 a social fight began between those who have and those who have-not. The Occupy Wall Street movement shows that some people are convinced that if you earn more money than they do, it must be at their expense. The Obama administration took advantage of the populist ideal that the wealthy need to pay their "fair share", and successfully painted Romney as one taking advantage of the system. They pushed and pushed for him to release his tax records as if the IRS was on strike or his income wasn't earned legally. Of course that wasn't their reason: they knew that Romney's income primarily comes from investments related to his wealth, the gains of which are taxed at a lower rate than a traditional wage or salary. In our envious society, Romney's 14% effective tax rate, combined with his yearly income and total net worth, made him appear as if he can't connect with average Americans. For some reason, Obama's wealth, estimated at between $6 and $9 Million, was never a topic of conversation. It looks like in our society, some success (up to, say, $10 Million) is acceptable, but too much (say, $250 Million) and you can't be trusted anymore because you clearly can't "connect" with us. Fault: Romney, though there wasn't much he could do except be less successful and come across as a "regular guy" by delivering donuts and beer to firefighters.
- Romney had a good chance of winning because of his experience in government and business. His natural campaign focus was the economy, but too much so. Romney constantly talked about how he "wants to get America working again" and that he "knows how to turn this economy around". But the more time he spent hammering those talking points, the less he could spend presenting specific ideas. Note that never did Obama talk about cutting any program, but only presented his "wealthy pay their fair share" plan, while Romney had the courage to talk about making tough decisions like cutting funding and raising taxes for some. Although, Obama didn't present many ideas, he presented many issues, and simply painted the republicans as the people you don't want solving those problems. Fault: Romney, for overusing simple phrases without expounding on specific ideas, even if the other side wasn't doing so either. Additional fault: the media: there was certainly a contradiction in the way Romney was treated for providing specific ideas: he was criticized when he discussed cutting funding for specific programs (PBS, for example), but then criticized for not having enough specifics in his plan. It can be hard stuck in that Catch 22. Obama's cowardly approach of only taxing the wealthy to pay for everything without thought for reducing spending works politically, because he doesn't need votes from the wealthy. The recent protests in Greece against the government's austerity measures (reduced spending on government programs) shows that doing what's necessary is often not popular.
- I used to think "women's health" meant things like breast cancer, but after this election season, I know better: it is a euphemism for abortion rights. As usual each election season, there was discussion of Planned Parenthood. What I watched of the democratic national convention seemed to be one big advertisement for Planned Parenthood and providing free contraception through health-care mandates. Some democrats argue that Planned Parenthood performs important services related to women's health (that is, regular health, not abortion health). I suggest you spend a moment on their website and then try to convince me that their main function is to do anything other than provide abortions. Using that deceitful euphemism, the Obama campaign and the media made it sound as if any woman who cares about her "health" will vote for Obama. Fault: the media, for misconstruing republicans' views on abortion and contraception as a "war on women". Yes, there were a few times when some republicans made serious misstatements about rape. But let's be honest -- the majority of women visiting Planned Parenthood or in search of free contraception aren't doing so because of rape. Note: compared to 2008, Obama's support from women was actually down 2 percent (from 57% to 55%). From the media's portrayal of the republicans' "war on women", you might never have thought that.
- Shortly before Election Day, a report was published that analyzed the number of jokes told during nighttime comedy shows that were told at the expense of the candidates. Surprise, surprise, they found Romney to be the butt of the jokes twice as often as Obama. News of this study was presented by CNN, Fox News, and others, and it was interesting to see how various outlets presented the story. Fox News did the “Ummm, ya think?” reaction, CNN did the “Wow, who’da thought?” take, and the other partisans followed likewise. Considering the overall favoritism for Obama in the mainstream media, I would be interested in a report comparing the number of positive vs. negative news stories about Romney and Obama. Here are specific examples of favoritism toward Obama or negativity toward Romney in the media:
- Fox News showed the double standard that applies to the Romneys' and Obamas' wealth through a headline inappropriately targeting Ann Romney for wearing an expensive dress to a debate (Michelle Obama’s outfit cost twice as much).
- Apart from the incorrect fact-checking during the 2nd debate, which she later acknowledged, Candy Crowley interrupted Romney 3 times as often as Obama during the debate (how dare she interrupt the President!) and pushed a liberal agenda through selecting specific questions from the “undecided” voters.
- Remember Romney’s trip to London around the time of the Olympics, and his “gaffe” that he's concerned they might not be prepared for a security threat? I have no clue how he could be criticized here considering a large numbers of security workers went on strike a week before the games. I would be concerned too, and I was never a CEO of an Olympic Games.
- Libya. We’re still not sure what happened, and the media was silent on this topic before the election. Before the election, Orson Scott Card wrote an interesting article about the lies of the administration toward which the media has turned a blind eye.
- Romney has been relentlessly criticized for his statements about how Obama won because he provides gifts to minorities. Let me be clear: in saying this, Romney does sound like a sore loser, and the word choice and timing were very poor. But in this election, so much talk has been about demographics -- who gets the women vote, the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the evangelical vote, etc. Romney's comments about the minorities receiving gifts is just a conclusion that can be drawn from the demographics. Minorities are over-represented in the lower income levels, and those are the people who benefit most from America's progressive tax system and voted for Obama. The plan to tax the wealthy in order to pay for social services is, in a rude and not politically-correct sense, a way of giving gifts to the lower class (which contains a lot of minorities). Rush Limbaugh summed it up this way: "People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus." Fault: America, for still believing in Santa Claus.
As much as I supported Romney, I admit there were mistakes throughout his campaign. You can bet Romney has been evaluating what he did wrong, but his mistakes were not the blunders that the media portrayed them to be. I know I'm not the only one speaking out for how unfairly Romney was treated by the unbalanced media; I'm just disappointed that this is considered acceptable in our society.
