To: Mitt Romney
With friends and political strategists like Eric Fehrnstrom on your payroll do you really need Beaurat Obama as a political enemy? Fehrnstrom is the mouthpiece credited with saying: “You hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”
There’s nothing like having a high-level aide-de-camp telling the voting public in effect: “we’ll say anything, do anything to appear just like our opponent whether we believe it or not”. That’s what some of us take away from Fehmstrom’s commentary. Now, Fehrnstrom has said: “the governor disagreed with the ruling of the court. He agreed with the dissent written by Justice Scalia, which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax”.
Uh, Mitt? Were you two in the same meeting at the same time when all of this was discussed? Do you both speak, you know, like to each other so as to develop a cohesive and articulate statement of standards, beliefs and a direction of purpose? It sure doesn’t look like it. In fact it makes you look like a mackerel flip-flopping and wiggling on the hook set by your own fisherman. You do have a history of skidding on your tongue occasionally.
In fact it might be suggested you shouldn’t let Fehmstrom near a camera or left-wing media maven. He’s been compromised as a spokesman and is now the “go-to guy” to get a damaging statement whenever it suits their needs. It makes you look stupid (and that’s a word I use advisedly).
Years ago a veteran politician told me a simple truth: “it’s difficult to beat an incumbent”. The politician went on to describe his opponent in profane and less than flattering adjectives easily applicable to your opponent but I’ll maintain the civility so many lefties scream for while body-slamming you and your candidacy.
Now, where it is a truth spoken it can also be a rule drawing exception to that rule by not feeding ammo into the armament already aimed at you. You can beat an incumbent. Ask Jimmy Carter. But you can also be beaten, and thus draw comparisons to your predecessor (John McCain) who spent more time knocking down the objections of his base on national television, when they said nasty things about Obama. McCain looked sick to his stomach as he apologized for his advocate’s distaste for Obama. He should have said “I disagree” and moved on to the next subject.
Mitt, are you listening? The danger lies in not only saying ignorant things, it also lies in saying too much. That same politician once told me: “nothing ever got a duck in trouble more than his quack”. That means if the duck hadn’t shot his mouth off the hunter never would have capitalized on the mistake. The left-wing media are the hunters and Fehrnstrom’s the stupid duck getting that bird-shot slammed into your tail feathers.
Get the point, Mitt?
It’s time to recognize this is a candidacy and as such is a battle. Obama is using the same tactics he used in his first campaign: say nothing of substance, say it loudly and with conviction, say it often. Like “Hope and Change”, the bright colors and majesty of the oratory can lull the enthralled masses into doing great mischief where it applies to their well-being. They’ll do things they’d never do based on their moral structure unless a charlatan misdirected that moral structure to condemn what they know is correct and proper. Obama creates the appearance of a common enemy (those in opposition to him and his Imperial Presidency) to combat the fact the American Dream requires commitment to a work ethic and not the race to gain government “giveaways” at the expense of faceless workers. He confuses listeners’ understanding of their “wants” with what is truly their “needs”: mere sustenance versus the full and nourishing meal at the table of personal success from personal labor.
Keep Fehrnstrom away from the cameras and don’t say anything doesn’t appear as solid, intelligent policy.
Thanks for listening.