The naked cynicism of Mitt Romney's campaign (and personal character) has been on view for months now. From flip-flop to Etch-a-Sketch to bald-faced lying, the press has tolerated his cynical approach to politics. With the outcome now becoming clear, and the end-game to the money for eyeballs circus in sight, some pundits are finally recognizing what the polls are showing—that skepticism is the reward for their own, and Mitt's behavior.
Frum, Shrum, and Sullivan and Brooks. There's a poem in there somewhere.
The real poetry is the sweet revenge those of us who've assailed Mitt's character are now experiencing as the election grinds to an almost-certain win for Obama and a repudiation of the cynical, lie and retract strategy of the Republican right. Even the WAPO, a bastion of bullshit throughout the campaign, has decided to call Romney on his lies, obfuscation, and disregard for any kind of personal or political integrity.
What's most troubling, however, is that even 'smart' guys like Frum and Brooks, who obviously know better, argue for a Romney presidency in-spite of his character issues because they believe he has none and it won't matter. They actually are contending that supporting a lying, flip-flopping deceiver will work out fine if you just 'trust' that he'll not govern as he has said he will.
Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast (I'm not a great fan of his, but here, he's right) wrote:
But my real objections to David's endorsement are the following. The premise of his argument is that Romney is a liar of massive proportions whose campaign David accurately describes as "one long appeasement of the most selfish and stupid elements of the Republican coalition," but who actually, in private, doesn't believe a word of it. So not to worry. The "real" Romney will emerge - compassionate, moderate, practical and data-driven, as in Massachusetts - the day after he is elected.
He means Frum in this case, but could also mean Brooks, both of whom are supporting Romney in-spite of his character issues. When one does that, it is a reflection on one's own character. The fact that these guys would argue so disingenuously for such a disingenuous candidate is further proof that A: money will get you to say anything; B:you have no integrity of your own.
In the end, what I take away from all this is utter distrust for media types who make a living covering politics. They themselves embody the same cynicism that powers the Romney campaign and, to a certain extent, politics in general. Perhaps a healthy skepticism will be the final 'best result' from this election.
PS: I missed this by Krugman, which speaks precisely to the same issue.
If you want an example of what I’m talking about, consider the remarkable — in a bad way — editorial in which The Des Moines Register endorsed Mr. Romney. The paper acknowledged that Mr. Obama’s signature economic policy, the 2009 stimulus, was the right thing to do. It also acknowledged that Mr. Obama tried hard to reach out across the partisan divide, but was rebuffed.
Yet it endorsed his opponent anyway, offering some half-hearted support for Romneynomics, but mainly asserting that Mr. Romney would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims — as many of those making this argument do — that, in office, Mr. Romney would be far more centrist than anything he has said in the campaign would indicate. (And the notion that he has been lying all along is supposed to be a point in his favor?) But mostly it just takes it for granted that Democrats would be more reasonable.