Mitt Romney says President Barack Obama "spent too much time at Harvard, perhaps."
Barack Obama spent three years (1988 to 1991) at Harvard Law School. Mitt Romney spent four years at Harvard Law and Harvard Business. Romney also spent the 1965-1966 academic year at Stanford, in alarmingly close proximity to hippies.
Romney thinks Harvard is good enough to send three of his sons there. When he's not plying the votes of anti-intellectual Republican primary agitators, he says Harvard "has a terrific program."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WelVEpgWM-s
And here I was disappointed that we weren't going to have Rick Santorum keeping us awake with the sound of constant gunfire aimed at his own foot.
Full disclosure: I spent just four months at Harvard. By Romney's accounting, I'd be a better President than either he or Barack Obama. Write me in, Americans Elect!
Perhaps not renewing his Harvard Alumni membership was an economic decision. NRA lifetime membership dues are pretty high, aren't they?
I visited Harvard once. I'd consider you for my ticket, sir.
After etch-a-sketching his Harvard ties, I suppose Mitt will be searching for all 16 of the original Dogs Playing Poker oil paintings to decorate his common man California house. He still needs something to help him with dog voters and the house no longer has elevators for his cars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/28/1078676/-Mitt-Romney-campaign-nixes-his-car-elevator-for-now
There will be a long series of these types of things. They are intentional and strategic, the brainchild of Karl Rove. For each of Romney's perceived weaknesses, they will manufacture (sometimes out of whole cloth) an equivalent Obama weakness. (Recent Romney attempts to portray Obama as an atheist to counter his own Mormon vote deficit is a case in point.)
Likewise, for each of Obama's strengths, they will find a way to turn it into a negative and posture Romney as the real one with that attribute. (Right now, the most obvious one of those is Romney's claim to be better at being president because of his experience. As if Obama hasn't been president already whereas he [Romney] has not.
So far, Mitt's been pretty much a one-trick-pony in this regard. It appears to be the only gambit he knows. Watch for him to now try to pretend that Obama is somehow richer than he is ...and meaner to his dog. LOL.
I still can't figure out why the party that had such intellectual luminaries as leaders like Buckley, Kristol the elder, Hayek, Strauss and Friedman.
This latest from Romney and the earlier thread on Kristi's speech in ND reminded me of a couple of stories from the last Presidential campaign. One from John Cole and another from David Brooks.
From Cole: "Look- the intellectual wing of the Republican party is dead. What is left are brain-dead acolytes spreading meaningless and simplistic anecdotes, trite stories, and distilled nonsense passed on that has a more fitting home in AM radio. The McCain campaign, once again, is just a symptom of the real problem- an intellectually incurious and lazy movement in the final ugly spasms of death. The McCain campaign is now, in their interviews with the press, spreading what we can all recognize as wingnut email chains."
No wonder there is a push against education and making higher ed more unattainable for the middle class.
From Brooks, headlined: Anti-intellectual populism killed the Republican party
"The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?hp
I may not agree with Troy, but I have a great deal of respect for his intellect and his usually well thought out defense of his ideas. Unfortunately, Troy seems to be outnumbered by his conservative counterparts at DWC...and of course Sibby.
Of course, I didn't exhibit the intellect to finish the first sentence:
I still can’t figure out why the party that had such intellectual luminaries as leaders like Buckley, Kristol the elder, Hayek, Strauss and Friedman would now embrace such a negative view of intelligence and the hard work that goes into developing a thoughtful mind.
Nice post, Jana. I agree about Troy. He's the kind of conservative the nation needs. I'll go out on a limb here and blame some of what's happened to the GOP on their assimilation of the Dixiecrats. It's a kind of insidious political cancer that has all but consumed them. Forget the rhetoric about "taking our country back" the union would be a lot better off if the real Republicans would just take their own party back.
I'll add my voice to the chorus about admiring Troy's intellect and well-written responses.
I'll also add this Conor Friedersdorf post makes a great point: the far right's new paradigm seems to be to package books in way that sells them to the faithful not engage broader ideas.
Thanks Bill.
It does scare me that the extreme right will demonize Troy for his thoughtful discussions as being a RINO. And I can only imagine that it frustrates Troy as well.
It scares me more that there are too many of our elected Republican leaders who place borrowed ideology ahead of everything else in catering to the lowest common denominator lest they be seen as unworthy.
I hope that the 'silent reasonables' will recognize what's happening on both sides of the equation and swing the pendulum back to the middle where good governance and policy will prevail and the scorched earth mindset fades into a dark history.
Just more cheap pandering. Another example of Romney saying whatever he thinks will endear him to the audience he's standing in front of.
Because Romney says so many things he doesn't believe, it has become almost impossible for people to believe anything he says.
I appreciate the kind words. Thank you. Unfortunately the anti-intellectualism has taken over all political discussion.
For every conservative bogeyman, there is a liberal one. It takes work to not fall into the easy bromide. You got your economic and environmental nonsense and we got our immigration and social nonsense that distract from discussing real solutions.
Rather than it being assimilation of the the Dixiecrats, our challenge is the same as yours, a drifting away from defending other's civil liberties and toward statism (a willingness to reform our neighbors into our image by governmental force).
Balance. We're out of balance.
"our challenge is the same as yours, a drifting away from defending other’s civil liberties and toward statism"
I agree. I don't want to venture into Sibby territory, but I also believe that the revolving door between government and corporate America is a large threat that both sides are complicit in.
Lk, the problem is not the revolving door. It is a warped sense of public service.
Pray tell, Mr. Jones, tell us of public service and the proper attention to those duties. Does it include turning a blind eye, for political purposes, to the misconduct of those in office? How about the maligning of those who do have the courage to report such? :-D
Stace,
Do you ever think that perhaps what you are so upset about was just a misunderstanding between you and the leaders with no intent to do anything wrong?
I don't know all of them very well but I have been around them enough to know that a click does not equal corruption.
@Mike There was no mistake in what myself and my constituent was told on July 13th by the LRC staff member of the tampering/obstruction of legislators bills. Nor the two other legislators that were told the same thing. There was no mistakes in the conversation I had with Val Rausch when he removed me from the Ag Committee which was opposite the lies he told the news. There was no mistake in the obstruction of my own bills research. There was no mistake in the lies Rausch, Lust, & Gosch told the press & caucus that I "threatened to kill" Nick Moser. there was no mistake that Rausch illegally refused to call on me during floor debate & bragged about it to the press. There's more, but you get the idea.
Troy, we do have some common ground, but you seem to draw a false equivalency between the bogeymen of the Right and the issues raised by the Left. Please show me an example of the Left-wing equivalent of Romney's anti-intellectual hypocrisy in branding as negative an education at one of the best universities in the world, an institution that he and his sons themselves attended.
There is so much decietful crap in political campaigns now days that you better be ready to do a lot of shit sorting if you even try to listen at all. But we do have to be responsible voters so put the boots on.
The Swift Boat Campaign is alive and well. I'm with Bill. Now that they have the taste for this, Mitt's going to be the living martyr in all of Obama's accomplishments.
Cory,
Two examples:. Obama's recent SCOTUS comments and your Keystone silliness. Both either intentionally misleading or blatantly ignorant. But certainly anti-intellectual.
But hey, I can't be too proud. One of our dunces keeps playing his broken scratched records which nobody evenlistens to anymore.
Coming from the fella with the tall cone hat on sitting in the corner muttering bitterly about the size of someone's male equipment and threatening to kick other men in the groin in ranting fits on internet blogs.
Naaaah! Be proud of such dunce type anti-intellectual conduct. :-D
Anti-intellectual? I think not. The President and I may be misinformed, perhaps even ignorant, but our arguments on this disparate issues are not based on denigrating intelligence and study themselves. I can only vow that I am not intentionally misleading anyone; my arguments against Keystone XL are based on what I take to be facts and sincere arguments, with no conscious effort at deception. I am intrinsically (lying is wrong) and extrinsically (I'll get caught lying and lose all reputation, political capital, and blog traffic) motivated not to lie, even to you, Troy.
Taunia; "Mitt's going to be the living Martyr in all of Obama's accomplishments."
I beg you to please give America Hope and Change in confirmation of any accomplishments which President Barrack Hussien Obama has delivered to the American people and The World? Please inform us how we have been bettered by his three and a quarter years in the Oval Office!!
Yes Osama Bin Laden is dead; than you Obama for that!!!!
For those mired in the slough of petulant denial, this might be the place to exercise the power to deny: Professor lists Obama accomplishments: Over 244 and growing http://www.peoplesworld.org/professor-lists-obama-accomplishments-over-244-and-growing/
Maybe that will spare us their comments on this blog for a time, or maybe they might join their colleagues in the intellectual excellence of the War College.
So Troy, in keeping with the thoughtful discussion idea, exactly how is our host's Keystone XL posts intellectually dishonest.
As for the POTUS v SCOTUS comment, are you saying that there is no room for comment between any of the branches of government? Is there any precedent for that?
I would love to hear why you think these are "intentionally misleading or blatantly ignorant."
Keystone: Cory grasps any argument that he can spin to support his desired outcome, even the goofy and ludicrous, without a nary internal question, "does this make sense?"
POTUS/SCOTUS: BO's comments have been panned by even liberal Constitution experts. When the President claims to be a former Constitution professor and his remarks do not distinguish the clearly defined role of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress and making law by the courts is at best anti-intellectual and at worst deceiving.
Jana, and this goes to my point. Both sides "justify" spin from their side in some rationalization of either "ends justify the means" or "its how the game is played" with little consideration of how it contributes to the debate or the truth. In the end it causes one side to dismiss EVERYTHING from the other side, no effort to find common ground,and actually solve problems. Both conservatives and liberals too ofetn live in their cocoons thinking they are always right and the other side is always wrong. What is considered as "intellectual" debate is just each side trying to justify their views to themselves and not a real search for the truth.
Intellectualism has two components:
1). Considering information and facts which question one's prior ideas.
2). Trying to understand why the other side believes as they do.
As much as people here like to criticize Sibby, he at least admits his world view drives his opinions, including "anti-critical thinking." He at least is honest.
BTW, Anne, some people consider those accomplishments as evidence of incompetence failure. Which again goes to my point, giving me a list formed from one's biases isn't an intellectual argument. It is a list from which one would have an intellectual conversation.
Troy, you're really stretching. You're trying to spin our honest disagreement into some larger accusation of dishonesty. We have different opinions about Keystone XL and its economic impact. One of us is wrong. But I'm not lying to you. And I'm not manufacturing some bogeyman argument the way Romney and the right do in their spin tactics. My argument against Keystone XL is not an appeal to anti-intellectualism. I cite a lot of sources, including TransCanada itself. Romney's comment about Harvard appeals directly to anti-intellectualism. That's the distinction here. You're arguing something very different from what I'm arguing about the nature of Romney's rhetoric.
LOL. Some comments just don't want to be heard. Pursuing intellectual conclusions requires looking for information that challenges a pre-conception. Anti-intellectualism is only looking for information that reinforces that preconception.
Don't feel bad Cory. This is a challenge for all or us. Just don't delude yourself to think you are being intellectual. You are way too ideological.
"Incompetence failure?" Failing at incompetence is a merit. But this matter of dismissing all that a person does signals some cognitive problems that are consistent with grammatical incompetence. I said the list was something to use in discussion, but that did not register either.
Left out the "and.". Sorry. Saw it after I hit send but thought it would be figured out.
Regarding your new claim that your list was "something to use in discussion," just another example of thinking you can spin anything without regard to the truth at the same time deluding yourself to think you have a monopoly on intelligence.
Anne and Troy, I'd be interested to know which of the Obama "accomplishments" Troy doesn't think were accomplishments, and more to the point, if there are any there that he does.
(...not sure, but I'm gessing that's the attitude TJ's looking for. In any case, I'd be interested regardless, and so far, the wiley rascal has not been forthcoming ;^)
Don't have the entire list of 244 in the article: Of the ones I do:
1) Overhauled the food safety system (not familiear with the specifics so don't know if this was an accomplishment)
2) Approved the Lily Ledbetter "Equal Pay" for women rule (I'm hesitant to extend statute of limitations of most anything as it makes it harder for one charged to defend themselves but don't know the specifics);
3) Ended "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" discrimination in the military (at best, I thought this needed a gradual reform with greater consult of the military);
4) Passed the Hate Crimes bill in Congress (I have a problem understanding the rationale for anything being a "special" hate crime. Isn't any crime against a person an element of hate. And why is a white on black (or vice versa) worse than a crime within a race?)
5) Appointed two progressive women to the U.S. Supreme Court including the first Latina; (I'm race/gender blind. Bigotry is bad and praising an appointment based on race/gender is bigotry).
6) Pushed through the Affordable Health Care Act, (not an accomplisment)
7) Expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) health care for children (not paid for. just added to deficit. not an accomplisment);
8) Pushed through a $789 economic stimulus bill (did more harm than good, wasn't paid for, and not an accomplisment);
9) Overhauled the credit card industry (did more harm than good and not an accomplisment);
10) Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (did more harm than good and not an accomplishment);
11) Named two members of the National Labor Relations Board blocked by the Republicans in their attempt to shut down the NLRB (not an accomplishment as the NLRB is an unelected bureacracy out of control);
12) Won two extensions of the debt ceiling and extensions of unemployment compensation in the face of Republican threats to shut down the U.S. government (thwarted opportunity for fiscal sanity. not an accomplishment.)
13) Pulled troops out of Iraq and began draw down of troops in Afghanistan (finally an accomplishment).
I recall Abdnor's process of discerning staff recommendations:
Question 1: What is this intended to accomplish? If he didn't like the goal, he killed it.
Question #2: He made us justify the rationale why it would accomplish the goal. If he didn't think it would accomplish the goal, he killed it.
Question #3: He asked for the unintended consequences and if they outweighed the goal, he killed it. He also asked us for ideas to mitigate/eliminate the unintended consequences.
The point is this is a process that seems to be missing in Obama's agenda. If he likes the goal, he goes forward without regard to its true efficacy to accomplish the goal or its unintended consequences.
Let me touch on the big ones above:
Stimulus, Dodd-Frank/credit card reform, Obamacare:
All have devestating effects on the economy, job creation, and our economic health as a nation. All of which are critical for us to afford any good the government might be able to do in the future. In short, he sacrificed our future to pursue a goal which is actually harmed by his policies. In short, these "accomplishments" demonstrate his incompetance and failure as a President.
He ran as a centrist and is executing the duties of his office from the center. It's why you earth haters and our left wing don't like him, Troy.