Romney’s ‘Romnesia’

November 1, 2012
The day after the second presidential debate last October 16, President Barack Obama told a cheering crowd of supporters that his rival, Mitt Romney, was suffering from a very rare condition. No, it’s not the avian “Big Bird” syndrome nor the Simian immunodeficiency virus. Nobody knows where it originated. And, to date, only one other person is afflicted with this condition, Romney’s vice presidential running mate, Paul Ryan. But because it has not been manifested before in other human beings, it is understandable that Obama called this condition, “Romnesia.”
As reported in the news, Obama told a cheering crowd of around 10,000 supporters in Fairfax, Virginia: “Now that we’re 18 days out from the election, ‘Mr. Severely Conservative’ wants you to think he was severely kidding about everything he said over the last year.” “He’s forgetting what his own positions are, and he’s betting that you will, too. I mean, he’s changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping. We’ve got to — we’ve got to — we’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through. I think — I think it’s called ‘Romnesia.’?” The crowd roared in approval!
The third debate between Obama and Romney last October 22 was no different from the second debate – Romney continued to manifest Romnesia. He basically retreated from his positions on foreign policy and parroted Obama’s positions on just about every aspect of foreign policy. It makes one wonder: Was it a case of “Romnesia” or an endorsement of Obama’s foreign policy?
Clinch and hug
Romney knew that debating Obama in an area where he has zero exposure and no experience would be politically suicidal. So, like in a boxing bout, he clinched and hugged Obama each time Obama attacked him.
However, Obama made it a point to remind Romney of his past positions on foreign policy issues such as the Afghanistan withdrawal timetable, Syria, Egypt, and other flashpoints in the Middle East and Central Asia. Romney responded by just staring back idiotically at Obama.
But it is interesting to note that Romney did not bring up the Benghazi “act of terrorism” again, which caused him monumental embarrassment during their second debate when he wrongly claimed that it took Obama two weeks to admit that the Benghazi attack was an “act of terrorism.” In fact, Obama declared that it was indeed an “act of terrorism” during a press briefing at the Rose Garden the day after the incident.
Horses and bayonets
But nothing is more awkwardly embarrassing during their third debate than when Romney put on a show that Obama was weakening the country’s military capability. He zeroed in on the U.S. Navy saying that it is smaller today than it was in 1917 when there were 313 ships and today there are only 285. Obama responded, “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets… because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” Touché.
If there is anything that Romney achieved, it’s that he did not lose by knockout; the pollsters gave Obama a “unanimous decision” victory. It was probably a relief to Team Romney that their man was able to avoid a political knockout. Yes, they’d rather see their man foolishly embarrassed than floored.
Indeed, the third debate proved without a shadow of a doubt that Obama’s foreign policy has maintained the United States’ leadership in world affairs. And because of Romney’s tacit endorsement of Obama’s foreign policy, the final two weeks of the presidential campaign would be confined to domestic issues, most importantly the state of the economy. But where does Romney stand?
Lies and hoaxes
With no clear definition of what he stood for and no specifics on how he is going to improve the economy, Romney has to resort to playing games to mislead the voters. Indeed, by feigning “Romnesia” and flooding the airwaves and networks with untruthful infomercials and attack ads against Obama, he just might be able to hoodwink the voters into buying the snake oil he’s peddling.
And there is the underground campaign that’s hitting the Internet and bombarding millions of emails with lies and hoaxes about Obama. This reminds me of Adolf Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, whose mantra was: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people eventually come to believe it.”
Recently, I received an email with a link to an anti-Obama video. I checked with Snopes.com to verify the credibility of information on the video. It turned out to be a hoax. I responded to the sender, “It’s very sad that a lot of people fall for these hoaxes and lies. Gullibility is worse than stupidity.” The sender replied, “Who are the ‘gullible that are worse than stupid’ that you mentioned?” I answered, “A stupid person has a low mental intelligence. A gullible person is an intelligent individual but he or she is easily taken for a fool.” The sender did not respond.
Then there was one person who called me an “ultra liberal Democrat.” I couldn’t help but respond. I told him that I’m a long-time fiscal conservative and social moderate Republican who still believes in the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln. I told him that I supported the presidential bids of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George W. Bush. I told him that I supported Obama in 2008 because of the disastrous policies of George W. Bush, which led to the financial meltdown that year. I told him that I’m supporting Obama again this year because Romney’s policies would be detrimental to the country’s economy. I told him that Romney’s tax plan to give $8 trillion over 10 years in tax breaks to the rich would put the tax burden on the back of the middle class and working poor, which I find to unconscionable. It is no longer about conservatism; it’s about greed.
With 14 days to Election Day, the campaign is down to the wire in seven battleground states – Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida. Romney and Ryan would continue to manifest their affliction with “Romnesia” to hide their right-wing agenda and Obama and Biden would continue to expose their real positions.
At the end of the day, the American voters would decide intelligently. They would vote their conscience and elect the president whom they believe would serve all Americans.