From his position as a Washington Post opinion writer, Dana Milbank puts forward a number of reliably lefty opinions. Usually couched in disaffected snark, Milbank is one of the poseurs of our modern media who like to think that they skewer all sides equally. Every now and then, Milbank will criticize a Democrat, but his bile is usually reserved for Republicans. Nowhere has that bile been more on display than in his coverage of Mitt Romney over the past two years. Here's a link to a Google search of two words --"milbank" and "Romney". Scan through the headlines and acquaint yourself with his uniformly negative view of Governor Romney. And then, read this. That's right. After two years of almost consistently negative coverage of Mitt Romney, Presidential Candidate, Dana Milbank decides to take pot-shots at him for having the temerity to return to private life rather than wade into the current fiscal crisis debate. Here's Milbank: " But his failure to engage now, at a time when he could have the most clout, reinforces the impression that his candidacy was less about principle and patriotism than about him." I'm sorry Mr. Milbank, but for two solid years at the highest level possible, Mitt Romney attempted to define a vision in which the fiscal crisis we currently face would be minimized through his policies. HE was the guy in Iowa and New Hampshire in the cold, HE was the guy who got in the ring, HE was the guy who poured his heart and soul into his quest to help solve these problems as President. And you know what? We picked the other guy. Not only did we pick the other guy, but we picked a guy who uniformly criticized virtually every single aspect of Romney's approach to economic stewardship. Put another way, Romney and Obama represented one of the clearest choices offered American voters in since Reagan/Carter, and we chose Obama. And all along the way, you aided and abetted that choice.
Now all of a sudden, Milbank would have Romney's service? All of a sudden, Milbank has respect for Romney's capability and ideas? All of a sudden, Milbank believes that a Democratic Party that savaged Romney's candidacy and ideology is going to embrace him as a visionary?
This is an execrable hit-piece. And it is logically stupid.
Posts
2 comments:
I just can't understand the left's continued attacks on Romney. The guy lost, he was defeated by the liberal establishment, so why persist in the slander and vilification. They're obviously threatened in some way but why? Why even talk about the guy? Are they trying to make him the next GWB? Are four years of crying "it's Bush's fault" finally wearing thin and they need a new boogieman?
I just find it very hard to understand insanity.
This is one of those columns that gets you madder and madder the more you read it. Really nice of Milbank to remark that 'he's a private citizen and free to do as he chooses' before telling him what Milbank feels he should be choosing. (How exactly does he think Romney even go about this?)
Can you imagine the Milbank columns savaging Romney if he DID attempt to wade into the debate? Sample titles: "Pathetic Romney desperate to remain relevant," "Delusional Mitt thinks he won," "Rich Guy thinks anyone cares what he has to say."
26 days to the fiscal cliff...one might think there'd be something else to write about.
Post a Comment