Fox News is desperate to come up with something positive to say about W. Mitt Romney. So far, the best they can come up with is that his 6 state “heartland” bus tour reminds them “hints of Ronald Reagan”, the “great communicator”, even as Romney cuts and runs from protesters.
Watch the June 18 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom here courtesy of Media Matters:
Fox’s lower third read, “Hints of Reagan as Gov Romney Brings His Bus Tour Through Battle Ground States.” Even the verb attributes Romney as the great leader of the bus tour, he is “bringing” his bus tour through battles! Sounds like a warrior. But do warriors cut and run from conflict?
Did Reagan run and hide from protesters too? Because W. Mitt Romney hightailed it out of a Pennsylvania stop this weekend after he heard there would be protesters there:
(t)he campaign kept the new plans a secret until the last minute in order to trick the protesters into thinking Romney would still visit the original event site on Saturday afternoon.
A mere 100-200 protesters caused the Big Bad Great Communicator to cut and run? Really?
(Note: the above link incorrectly identifies Obama’s move on immigration policy as an Executive Order, and buys into the Republican narrative that Obama “bypassed” congress, which he also did not do, as no laws were changed.)
Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod tweeted, “I strongly condemn heckling along Mitt’s route. Let voters hear BOTH candidates and decide.”
Ah, so here we have high-powered Democrats condemning the heckling of W. Mitt Romney, while conservatives crow about heckling Obama during a speech to the nation. What agendas are being served by these differing policies? The Obama campaign wants you to hear W. Mitt Romney speak, but the conservative blogosphere that met with Romney re strategy is suddenly trying to disrupt the President’s message. Hmmm…..
It’s more than a little ironic that as Romney avoids any push back, conservatives are glorifying him as Reaganesque while justifying Neil Munro’s interruption of the President’s speech as good journalism.
So, which is it? Is Neil Munro going to interrupt W. Mitt Romney (who is not even the President, I might add, a rather important distinction when it comes to protocol) in the middle of a speech? Is any conservative journalist going to even question W. Mitt Romney on his infamous flip flops? Have even one of them asked hard questions about his stance on Obama’s immigration policy? Or are rudeness, hard questions and failure to be “deferential” saved for people with whom they have an ideological disagreement?
The Daily Caller gang is crowing about how important it is to not be deferential to the President, but the same movement refused to let the press ask Sarah Palin any questions “until they showed deference” to her. The word “deference” plays an important role in the conservative mindset – they use it constantly; they are entitled to deference, but no one else is. Of course, that’s not how democracy works.
When the conservative candidate runs from the press and can’t/won’t ever take questions, it puts them on tenuous ground to insist that they’re doing their job by shouting down the President of the United States in the middle of a speech.
This same movement would not allow the press to even question the notion of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and called the Dixie Chicks unpatriotic for questioning President Bush while on tour with their music industry band. So, on the one hand, when conservatives are in power, no one, not even the music industry, can express their lack of deference to the President. But when a Democrat is in office, even the White House Press Corp is expected to violate protocol and show disrespect to the office.
Why didn’t Fox mention W. Mitt Romney’s cowardly run from protesters in his Reaganesque bus tour across the heartland?
Fox’s failure to hold W. Mitt Romney to the same standards as they champion being used against his opponent, sitting President Barack Obama, brings to light yet again the hypocrisy of the modern day Republican Party. Their “values” are not consistent and do not apply to their side. They run cowards for office who refuse to even answer the friendliest of press questions asked at the proper time and in the appropriate venue, and who run away from protesters because they can’t handle dissension. And yet, at the same time, they pat themselves on the back as warriors for behaving like the “thug” “anarchists” they despise.
The modern day conservative press and many elected officials behave like anarchists when they are not in power. They are the unruly, uncouth, rude, shouting masses that refuse to show even a moment of proper respect for the office of the President, and yet they praise W Mitt Romney for avoiding all conflict. Armchair warriors at best.
W. Mitt Romney reminds no one but the most desperate conservative of Ronald Reagan. Reagan was no saint and his actual record on taxes would shock the modern day conservative, but he was an excellent speaker. A good speaker can handle protesters and hecklers (see Obama). They can use those moments to engage the voters at large and the people in the process, thereby demonstrating that they are open to hearing from the people, and receptive to their message. A good leader would manage to use uncomfortable moments like the protests of Romney as a way to answer questions about their policies. But W. Mitt Romney can’t do that, and won’t do that, because he can’t answer the questions.
And that is really the point here. Conservatives want everyone to believe that rudely interrupting the President during a televised live speech is their job, while they shield their own candidates from both the press and the people.
Also, Ronald Reagan was famous for his manners. He was a gentleman. He would not approve of Neil Munro, the Daily Caller, or the modern day conservative movement’s anarchy.
W. Mitt Romney isn’t anything remotely like Ronald Reagan, except in his flip flops.