It's the Rhetoric, Stupid
by tristero
Two things strike me about this NY Times editorial. First is this:
Mr. Romney’s entire campaign rests on a foundation of short, utterly false sound bites. The stimulus failed. (Three million employed people beg to differ.) The auto bailout was a mistake. (Another million jobs.) Spending is out of control. (Spending growth is actually lower than under all modern Republican presidents.) He says these kinds of things so often that millions of Americans believe them to be the truth.
It is hard to challenge these lies...
As all of us Grey Lady readers know, it is very rare for the Times to use language like "utterly false" and "lies" when talking about politicians. Apparently, someone Up There thinks there's nothing to be gained by mincing words. Good.
What also struck me is the basic issue the editorial addresses: rhetoric. Agreed: Obama needs to find much more compelling language to articulate his differences with Romney. Whatever his failings, Obama is no Romney, either in terms of policies and ideas or character. Obama has by far the stronger ideas and is a more principled human being (Note: I did not say he was perfect).
It's the rhetoric, stupid - a point I've been making for years (e.g. here in an email discussion of rightwing rhetorical tactic I had with two professors ). True, we've come a long way from the days when rational people with a national platform couldn't and wouldn't articulate how mad the Bush/Iraq misadventure was. But we've still got quite a way to go if someone as articulate as Barack Obama struggles to find crisp, moving language in order to confront the right's cunning, misleading, and lying nonsense.
The president has less than five months to find a way to make a vital message sink in.
Indeed.