The Irrelevance of the "Real" Romney

Sam Boyd makes an important point -- just because he was a moderate technocrat before he became a true-blue rightwinger doesn't mean the moderate Mitt is the "real" Mitt. Part of the appeal of his candidacy to conservatives is the plausible notion that he was faking it as a moderate in order to succeed in Massachusetts.

Even more important, it's crucial to recognize that the question of his "real" views has a pretty limited relevance. I'd still prefer him as president to crazy Rudy, and the Moderate Technocrat Era at least gives us reason to think New Model Romney might retain the technocratic competence, but it's not as if once in office Romney is going to blossom into a kind of politician totally different from the one he's currently campaigning as. We're learning about his willingness to adopt whichever views are most politically expedient. And doing something like going back on the reckless "no taxes" pledge he's made on the campaign trail would probably be pretty costly. Obviously, flipping back around on abortion or gay rights would look absurd and there'd be no reason to do it. The Mitt we're gonna get if he wins is substantially the one we're looking at during this campaign season.

Comments

"The Mitt we're gonna get if he wins is substantially the one we're looking at during this campaign season."

Please. You know the Mitt we'd get is the same common sense, brilliant manager who ran Bain, straightened out the f'd up SLC Olympics, and worked with Dems to come up with a way to get everyone in MA health insurance. You also know that he has to pander to Social Conservatives to have a hope of winning the GOP nomination. Even though you are young, surely you must know that this pandering means little: Reagan was a favorite of Social Conservatives for empathizing with their Pro-Life views (even though he had signed a law legalizing abortion as governor of CA), and after 8 years in office, he did virtually nothing substantive to act on any of their issues.

Posted by Juan | October 23, 2007 1:55 AM

When Romney's gonna win the nomination, he's going to immediately flip-flop on at least Iraq-- you can tell it already from his rhetoric -- and he probably will on other issues too.

Posted by Algernon | October 23, 2007 2:05 AM

If you're trying to minimize the damage your incredibly famous Romney-for-nominee endorsement does to Romney's primary campaign, I hope it works.

jenny

Posted by jenny | October 23, 2007 2:14 AM

worked with Dems to come up with a way...

I remember nearly identical language being bandied about regarding Bush during the 2000 campaign. Remember, the whole "uniter not divider" schtick? All I can say now is spare me. The GOP is a criminal collection of rightwing maniacs. No one who comes from it will be anything less than a disaster.

I do think Romney will be the nominee, if only by default, but I have much less than no interest in trying to minimize how bad a president he would be. The only good news is I don't think he can possibly beat Hillary.

Posted by jimBOB | October 23, 2007 2:41 AM

Part of the appeal of his candidacy to conservatives is the plausible notion that he was faking it as a moderate in order to succeed in Massachusetts.

I may not be typical of all Republicans, but the only reason that I don't expect to vote for him in the primaries is that he's not running as a business-savvy, successful, economically-intelligent technocrat (the existence of which often represents what is best about the party). Even if there are aspects of his record as Massachusetts Governor that I don't necessarily go crazy about, he was, by most accounts, a supremely competent, efficient, non-polarizing executive (and just as importantly, a pragmatist instead of an ideologue).

However, he has flipped on so much, so often that I don't know what to think of him. Changing his mind to become pro-life is plausible and defensible. Starting to harshly judge gays in his sixties without any record of doing so in the past? Impossible. Not only impossible, but insulting to the intelligence of every Republican, including the social-cons who share that position.

And doubling Guantanimo (sp?)? With who? If he wants to leave it open and keep the "enemy combatant" designation, that's one thing, but Guantanimo (sp? again) isn't at capacity. Is he suggesting that we need to round up more Arabs and Afghanis and send them there--so many that the size of the complex needs to be doubled? If so, what criteria will be used and from where will we get them? Iraq? Kuwait? Dubai? In the initial invasion of Afghanistan, the present administration (at one point) pretty much detained everyone the Northern Alliance pointed at (letting most go after a year or two). In that time, I never once read that our Cuban prison was at capacity. Whether those "Grab 'em all, sort 'em out later" policies were too harsh or completely necessary is debatable. But that they were too lax? We vetted the guys we released for years! How long does Romney want to hold people our intelligence apparatus says we should probably let go? Or is he simply trying to sell to a caricature of the "Rove" demographic by saying the dumbest, most primordial thing he can think of? Either way, no one buys it.

I think this is the biggest reason he trails Rudy. Republicans may not like Rudy's track record on guns or abortion, but at least he acknowledges it exists instead of pretending it's nothing but an elaborate ruse he concocted to fool the liberals in NYC. Romney's present behavior is so transparently deceitful it becomes an insult. Unless, of course, it's not deceitful, in which case his ruse is the most pointless and pointlessly elaborate one in the history of America--which isn't insulting but does make me question his sanity.

For me, either way makes him unpredictable and unsupportable.

But, then again, Rudy's nuts, I find Huckabee even more unacceptible on economics than Edwards, Hunter won't shut up about the Chinese, Tancredo won't shut up about the Mexicans, Paul won't shut up about the Federal Reserve, and Thompson and McCain both seem half-dead, so don't hold me to it.

Please. You know the Mitt we'd get is the same common sense

There's a danger to ignoring campaign promises. A lot of Republicans thought that "Compassionate Conservatism" (i.e. big government conservatism) was a fraud cooked up to win soccer moms and pulled the lever for Bush in 2000 (I voted for Nader, a cynical vote that had nothing to do with any positive feelings for Naderian ideas). The voters who did vote Bush were fairly surprised when he not only failed to dismantle the Dept. of Education, but actually expanded it and gave it a new, utterly useless function in addition to the old, utterly useless function.

Posted by Shinyk | October 23, 2007 4:00 AM

I'd still prefer him as president to crazy Rudy, and the Moderate Technocrat Era at least gives us reason to think New Model Romney might retain the technocratic competence, but it's not as if once in office Romney is going to blossom into a kind of politician totally different from the one he's currently campaigning as.

I can live with Mitt the competent technocrat that will give a little red meat to the Fundies, but overall, be a moderate with the skill to help put America in the right direction and do what it takes to get America competitive as a nation and as a system, again.

Matt - We're learning about his willingness to adopt whichever views are most politically expedient.

As we saw with the Democrats that pledged to "save the poor, helpless children wearing Marine uniforms and save all the innocent Iraqis" - they went enmass from one expedient view to the next. Only the fringe-dwellers can maintain ideological purity and authenticity. Then you see them and they are all fruitballs unfit to be President. Alan Keyes, Dennis Kuchinich, Nader, Robertson, Paul...

Matt - Something like going back on the reckless "no taxes" pledge he's made on the campaign trail would probably be pretty costly.

This is one area I strongly agree with Matt on. The Club For Growth and Grover Norquist are cancers. Worse than the Israel Lobby. Right now they blackmail like the Zionists do. Oppose them on any demand, and they will not only not donate to you, they will single you out for a nation-wide campaign to discredit you and pay huge sums put your opponent in office as a lesson to others.

Pity Romney did it. But he had no choice but to plant a big wet kiss on Norquist's fat, wealthy butt. Not if he wanted to be President.

No good executive with any brains would ever be locked into a pledge of never cutting back on wages and stock options or changing prices no matter how the business goes in the next 4 years, but that's the insanity the Club For Growth cancer inflicts on Republicans

They, the well-connected Exporters of American industry and technology to China, and the Open Borders crowd seem to be in competition to see who can destroy America more.

No new taxes ever pledges trap Republicans into mortgaging our future to the Chinese when new spending not in the control of a President emerges - post 9/11 security, Katrina, more people acquiring Mandated entitlements..emerges. Not financing those costs ourselves.
Worse, when a fool is in office, unchecked from free spending wishes by the specter of Club For Growth through ability to borrow as long as the dollar remains solvent...The idiot then starts a trillion dollar war and promises more tax cuts for the wealthy.
And even then, you get a President reluctant to do major US improvements and investments like cut the 95,000 people killed by medical errors to a small fraction of that, put broadband in all over America, convert all health records and insurers to a single electronic system---because they might threaten Club For Growths tax cuts for the rich.
A President confronted with an energy crisis, health care crisis, the massive entitlements crisis coming, and a crisis of a collapsing middle class as we watch more and more goes to the few at the top. Unable to act...because it might involve changing the "deal" with Norquist's people...

While they crucified Papa Bush over his ill-considered "read my lips" pledge - perhaps people have changed enough to know that Club For Growth coerces that pledge like politicans in heavily Jewish areas are expected to support educrats, trial lawyers, oppose military, and salute the Israeli flag if they want the big bucks and to be elected. A smarter person than Bush II - like Romney or Giuliani - can foist off having to raise taxes on Democrats that refuse to cut the spending that Bush II and Porkmeisters of both parties sucked up to buy incumbency in office. And reluctantly tell Norquist and his pals whose net worth varies from 8 figures up to 10...gee sorry, we did our best to honor our pledge to screw the country to make you fatcats richer...but those darn democrats wouldn't let us.

I think Romney can finesse it. Rudy is so nuts that he will rename himself Il Duce and flip off everyone.
Both beat Hillary in terms of experience and integrity, though...

Posted by Chris Ford | October 23, 2007 6:05 AM

"Reagan was a favorite of Social Conservatives for empathizing with their Pro-Life views (even though he had signed a law legalizing abortion as governor of CA), and after 8 years in office, he did virtually nothing substantive to act on any of their issues."

Of course, the Reagan administration refused to fund research or devote resources to AIDS even as it became clear in the early 80s that it was a serious problem. At the time, everyone knew that Reagan administration wasn't going to do anything to help the homosexuals. It is quite likely that 10,000s of more people contracted the disease than would have if the government had tackled the problem head on. If the government had acted earlier, the news that condoms could limit the spread of AIDS would have been known and then widespread much earlier.

The big problem with social conservatism is rarely that they actually prohibit socially liberal conduct. The big problem is usually that their discomfort with socially liberal conduct makes it difficult for them to address real public health crises - like unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, etc.

Romney could be a repeat of Reagan in that regard.

Posted by MDtoMN | October 23, 2007 6:34 AM

Also, Romney's campaign really does raise issues about his character. I personally don't care too much for "character" analysis, because it usually boils down to the stylistic or sexual habits of the candidate. But, Romney has shown himself willing to change completely his position on tons of issues to secure the nomination. Why should I ever trust him? He doesn't appear to have principles, and he also doesn't appear to have trouble with lying. I understand that politicians need to compromise and gild the lily, but I have reservations about anyone who seems so utterly unbounded in his willingness to say anything to win.

Posted by MDtoMN | October 23, 2007 6:40 AM

Even if there are aspects of his record as Massachusetts Governor that I don't necessarily go crazy about, he was, by most accounts, a supremely competent, efficient, non-polarizing executive (and just as importantly, a pragmatist instead of an ideologue).

He was a technocrat, but I don't think those of us who have lived in Massachusetts during the Romney years would agree that he was an "efficient, non-polarizing executive" or that he was not an ideologue. That's certainly the role he played to become governor, but it's not what happened in office. Romney never found a way to work with the state legislature (and in fact the legislature was used to treating him as irrelevant - they regularly overrode his vetoes). After the 2004 election (when his grand push to elect more Republicans to the legislature failed) he stopped focusing on being governor in favor of running for President (that might have been efficient for his campaign, but for the state not so much). The joke around here is that there's no point in electing Romney President - he'll just start campaigning to become Secretary-General of the UN. And his flip-flops on social issues (while a sitting governor) that his lieutenant governor had to make a special effort to distance herself from them.

Posted by Ravi | October 23, 2007 7:39 AM

Reading between the lines, I have the sense that Romney has not totally drunk the Kool-aid on Iraq. He did not totally buy the Petraeus-surge bullshit. He probably would be the most acceptable Republican as president.

Posted by bob h | October 23, 2007 8:21 AM

Reading the pious High Broderism contained in the comments of our most extreme right wingnut trolls above, you can see the plan for the campaign of Romney-the-nominee: faux moderation for the general electorate; red meat for the base, just like Bush/Cheney '00.

The truth, of course, is that Romney, like Bush, doesn't have any deeply held beliefs, other than authoritarianism and solipsism

Posted by rea | October 23, 2007 8:49 AM

Re Chris "white trash" Ford

Mr. Ford is Pat Buchanan in drag.

Posted by SLC | October 23, 2007 9:18 AM

"The big problem with social conservatism is rarely that they actually prohibit socially liberal conduct. The big problem is usually that their discomfort with socially liberal conduct makes it difficult for them to address real public health crises - like unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, etc."

Unwanted pregnancy isn't a "public health crises". It may be a moral crises or an irresponsibility crises, but it's not a public health crises.

Posted by Juan | October 23, 2007 10:18 AM

What people will get from Romney is a consummate bullshitter. I'd like to think that people don't vote for bullshit merchants, but I can't feel reassured.

So all the High Broderism about the 'real' Romney is stupid. The real, abiding aspect of his character is the bullshit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 23, 2007 12:20 PM

MDtoMN - Of course, the Reagan administration refused to fund research or devote resources to AIDS even as it became clear in the early 80s that it was a serious problem. At the time, everyone knew that Reagan administration wasn't going to do anything to help the homosexuals.

They simply didn't treat it as a "special disease" more worthy of attention and resources than diseases that killed hundreds of times more people.

It is quite likely that 10,000s of more people contracted the disease than would have if the government had tackled the problem head on.

I doubt it, as America's homosexual rate was comparable to Canada's and Europes, and much less than Africa's - where gay promiscuity was even more of a problem.

If the government had acted earlier, the news that condoms could limit the spread of AIDS would have been known and then widespread much earlier.

The Gay Community already knew they had astronomical infection rates of anal gonorrhea, anal syphilis, clymidia, anal amoebic parastites - pre-AIDs - in the 70s.. All from unprotected sex with astronomical numbers of butt fuckers that assured that the disease du jour is rapidly spread. All a major topic of conversation in the Gay Community in "safety with a condom" vs. "freedom of barebacking" discussions before Reagan was in office. All the VDs that began tempering the "no consequences" Sexual Revolution Era were a major problem of the promiscuous gay community as they were with prostitutes, IV drug users..

And it is not like Hollywood, the media, various educational systems ignored AIDs - By 1984 the mantra of "Safe Sex" was going full-tilt.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 23, 2007 12:47 PM

The truly scary thing I think is that there is no real Mitt Romney.

He would do whatever he thinks he has to do in order to be popular.

If sending all Arabs to concentration camps was popular he'd do that.

If ensuring that all cars ran on hemp, he'd do that do.

Extreme right, extreme left, it doesn't matter with Mitt.

The guy has absolutely no moral core. And that's scary.

Posted by Noah | October 23, 2007 2:03 PM

What made him a technocrat, anyways? Just how does that word apply to contemporary U.S. politics?

Posted by Quietus | October 23, 2007 2:14 PM

the pious High Broderism

You got me. I pretend dissatisfaction with George Romney's son in a complex plot to give Washington Royalty its due.

I guess I'll go meet with the Kennedys and the monarchists at PNaC to work on a better, more secret scheme to ensure the hegemony of other Sacred Cows and, presumably, the Bilderbergers.

Posted by Shinyk | October 23, 2007 3:02 PM

That last one from Ford was especially rich!

"They simply didn't treat it as a "special disease" more worthy of attention and resources than diseases that killed hundreds of times more people."

Don't feed us the same fucking rationalization they fed everyone back in the 1980's as "truth" today. Everyone knew about the catastrophe that was happening, including Nancy who tried to get Ronnie to get up off his fucking ass to do something about it.

"I doubt it, as America's homosexual rate was comparable to Canada's and Europes, and much less than Africa's - where gay promiscuity was even more of a problem."

Source, please. And sources for the other "facts" in your last paragraph. Some of us were old enough to remember what happened and some of us either knew or have friends that knew what was happening in the gay community. Though I wouldn't be foolish enough to say exactly what year safer sex promotion "saturated" the gay community, I think you're off by about 5-10 years. And not through any help from Hollywood or the media who were scared shitless of AIDS until someone "legitimate" like Magic Johnson was diagnosed in 1991. Hell, I think the 1st time the NY Times printed the word "gay" with respect to homosexuality was 1987.

Stick to the Malthus shit, Chris, and leave the revisionist history to Bush...

Posted by Rihilism | October 23, 2007 3:07 PM

If the government had acted earlier, the news that condoms could limit the spread of AIDS would have been known and then widespread much earlier.

That's an argument for dereliction in the News Media (and possibly the population at large for failing to acquaint itself with information readily available to the curious), not for dereliction in Reagan or the SocialCons.

Reagan's job (and the job of all Presidents) was to steer the ship of state, not to tell people the how-to's of condoms or proper handwashing.

Besides, does anyone take the silly announcements of the CDC or ONDCP seriously? Anyone wearing their SARS masks? Anyone stocking up on BirdFlu antivirals? "Brain on drugs" commercial make anyone do anything other than cook more eggs?

Posted by Shinyk | October 23, 2007 4:51 PM

"...proper handwashing...Anyone wearing their SARS masks?"

Anyone care if Shinyk has a clue? Hand washing? Hand Washing? HAND WASHING????!!!! BTW, any idea, Shinyk, how many lives per year would be saved if people actually did wash their hands? I didn't think so, and yet you mock the governmental organizations that have given more value, more bang for the buck than any sorry-assed "thousand points of light" that some presidents have used their bully-pulpit to promote.

Oh, and there was no dereliction, shithead, it was shear willful neglect due to "moral character" of those affected. It was mean, it was vicious, and it was calculated.

By the way, dumbass, Public Health (and I'm talking prevention of communicable disease, not socialized medicine, slowpoke) IS one of the few functions of government that ALL citizens should agree on since ALL citizens are susceptible, you twit.

Posted by Rihilism | October 23, 2007 5:59 PM

I can't possibly describe the entire AIDS epidemic in a blog comment, but both Shinyk and Chris Ford should consider reading And The Band Played On. Or some book discussing the course of events in the AIDS epidemic. Quite honestly, you guys don't seem to know much about what happened.

First, the Reagan Administration was desperate to cut government spending, so they cut CDC spending. Second, the CDC devoted substantially more resources to researching specific incidents of potentially poisoned pills, etc than they devoted to AIDS research in the early years (this isn't about special spending, it was about any resources at all).

Third, the CDC & NIH are expected to do a lot of primary research in epidemic disease. When they don't, private industry usually fails to do that research. So, for several years, no one knew that condoms could prevent the spread of AIDS (years before 1984). In the early years, researchers weren't sure whether it was poppers or sex acts or what. Earlier research might have identified condoms as effective years before 1984.

So, it's no surprise that Europe and Canada had the same rates of infection - what I was pointing out was the failure to identify what the vector for infection was. That was a failure across the international community, but the U.S. had the best opportunity to avert that kind of problem (because we have such an incredible wealth of biomedical talent and resources).

I strongly recommend educating yourselves about the AIDS epidemic. It really highlights many of the general problems with both small government ideology and with social conservative government. But, if you'd prefer not to learn about it and retain your beliefs, I suppose there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Finally, to address something else - I don't think the use of the term "butt fuckers" really raises the level of debate. Also, I'm not as knowledgeable about STDs other than AIDS, but many of them were (and remain) less widespread in the gay community, and they almost all are substantially less harmful than AIDS. Obviously, people should have been using condoms to prevent the spread of syphilis, but since it can be treated effectively, it was less of a concern. That shouldn't surprise anyone. I take it you think that the American people and our government should not care about the deaths of all of those promiscuous people. Fortunately, the vast majority of us disagree with you on that.

Posted by MDtoMN | October 23, 2007 6:14 PM

MDtoMN -

Much more eloquent than my profanity-lased invective and certainly more educational. Sometimes the absurdity of others' comments gets the best of me. Well said, and thank you.

Posted by Rihilism | October 23, 2007 8:59 PM

Boy, spellcheck is worth shit. Though I do like the form it took. M-W.com gives me "to emit coherent light". C'mon people, lased, or "to lase", in this context, etymology akin to "to blave"...

Posted by Rihilism | October 23, 2007 9:12 PM

Let's talk about Romney a little more.

Remember when he made that "gaffe" at the GOP debate, which was that he'd "consult the lawyers" as to his rights as Commander-in-Chief vis-a-vis the Congress?

That is rather telling as to what kind of President he'd be. The man's instinct is toward prudent, competent, conservative governance. You can tell because when he makes a "gaffe", departing from inciting the bloodthirsty GOP base on accident, he reveals himself as a lot more prudent and competent than "double Gitmo" would allow.

Posted by P | October 23, 2007 9:16 PM

yet you mock the governmental organizations that have given more value, more bang for the buck...shithead...dumbass...slowpoke...twit (etc., etc.)

1. Name someone whose life has been saved by the ONDCP.

2. It might surprise you to learn that hand-washing has saved more lives than condoms (or just about anything else) ever will. No, not even soap warrants a State of the Union address.

3. As for the rest of your strange post: maybe with national health care you'll be able to get the Lithium you so clearly need, son. Get back to me then and we'll talk.

Third, the CDC & NIH are expected to do a lot of primary research in epidemic disease. When they don't, private industry usually fails to do that research

I don't know anywhere near what you seem to about this, so I'll take your word for it that the CDC shouldn't be destroyed (though that really didn't require any arm twisting). Also, if it was unknown by Doctors that condoms prevented the spread of AIDS, then I obviously wouldn't expect a citizen to know that.

However you bring up an important point that reinforces my view of the CDC (which, contrary to popular belief, is not to abolish it or even cut funding, necessarily): even when faced with a potential epidemic in AIDS, they prefer to publicly prattle on about irrelevancies such as SARS, Monkeypox, West Nile, Ebola, Flesh-eating bacteria, poison pills, LSD in Halloween candy, Birdflu, Carnivorous Fish that walk on land, etc. (okay, that last one probably wasn't the CDC). This behavior has been relatively consistant as far back as I can recall, though it seems to be getting worse.

I don't expect any President (or run of the mill citizen) to know enough about micro-organisms to be able to tell the difference between irrelevancies and epidemics. Presidents tend to be politicians--not researchers. That's why the President has a CDC. They are supposed to tell him--not the other way around.

In other words, I also find it impossible to blame Clinton for the Ebola hysteria of the early nineties.

If the CDC was telling Reagan that AIDS was an epidemic and he told them to get back to the "poison pills" (which may or may not have happened, but has not yet been alleged here), then it's time to lay the blame at his doorstep, but not before.

But if the CDC is telling the President that "poison pills" are the greatest affliction facing our country, I tend to think it's the New York Times's job (or the job of some other largely-reputable investigative journalism agency) to find out and call BS. They showed their "dereliction" with AIDS. It continues with every article they print on things like Monkeypox.

Eventually there will be another real disease and no one will listen.

I don't think the use of the term "butt fuckers" really raises the level of debate.

Agreed.

Posted by Shinyk | October 24, 2007 4:18 AM

"1. Name someone whose life has been saved by the ONDCP."

Yes, because we all know that treatment and recovery programs never helped ANYONE and of course, education is such a pointless exercise. Drug abuse is such a piffle of an issue, better to just ignore it and do nothing.

"2. It might surprise you to learn that hand-washing has saved more lives than condoms (or just about anything else) ever will. No, not even soap warrants a State of the Union address."

Quite the contrary, mon ami, I know perfectly well what good hygiene can do for society since I work in a College of Public Health at a state university. But you're intransigence regarding the President's (or any leader for that matter) role in disseminating such information to the Public is startlingly, well, intransigent. What logical reason is there for the President (or any leader for that matter) to not "waste" time on something as "trivial" as Public Health?

"3. As for the rest of your strange post: maybe with national health care you'll be able to get the Lithium you so clearly need, son. Get back to me then and we'll talk."

My med levels are just fine, thank you very much for asking, but I recommend you look into ECT since your meds don't seem to be having the desired effect.

"However you bring up an important point that reinforces my view of the CDC (which, contrary to popular belief, is not to abolish it or even cut funding, necessarily): even when faced with a potential epidemic in AIDS, they prefer to publicly prattle on about irrelevancies such as SARS, Monkeypox, West Nile, Ebola, Flesh-eating bacteria, poison pills, LSD in Halloween candy, Birdflu, Carnivorous Fish that walk on land, etc. (okay, that last one probably wasn't the CDC). This behavior has been relatively consistant as far back as I can recall, though it seems to be getting worse."

Really, couldn't be more ass-backwards if you tried. It's the CDC's JOB to disseminate information on Public Health. Just because the press picks up on it and blows it completely out of proportion based on the available information, does not mean the CDC is doing so or that your reading of this phenomenon is correct. Your conflation of urban myths with REAL disease is due to your own bizarre sense of what the CDC and other governmental bodies and the MSM do, not the reverse. Don't blame others for the fact that you are ill-informed.

"I don't expect any President (or run of the mill citizen) to know enough about micro-organisms to be able to tell the difference between irrelevancies and epidemics."

Nor should anyone expect you to know, either. And in case you missed the point, the CDC TOLD Reagan that AIDS was a "problem". Reagan chose not to devote any resources. The disconnect was with the politician refusing to disseminate and act on the knowledge (regardless of his personal level of expertise) that was presented to him which led to even more pointless death. The Religious Right continues to spread the lie that condoms are not effective, so, yes, numb nuts, people still need to be provided with the correct information.

Posted by Rihilism | October 24, 2007 9:38 AM

Yes, because we all know that treatment and recovery programs never helped ANYONE and of course, education is such a pointless exercise

Since you seem to have never heard of ONDCP:

ONDCP is a propaganda agency that doubles as grant-giver to non-state anti-drug programs like Just Say No and DARE (though ONDCP's track record is so terrible that the second function may very well be stripped from them and given to another agency, such as the DEA). It is currently under investigation by the FCC for illegally bribing networks and movie studios to censor content and include ONDCP material in their respective products. I once saw (ONCP director) John Walters tell an interviewer that hundreds of thousands of people died of Marijuana overdoses last year. Odd since the number cited by Coroners was "zero."

It is not in any way, shape or form a "treatment and recovery" agency and only an insincere (or ignorant) person could describe bribery and disinformation as "education."

What logical reason is there for the President (or any leader for that matter) to not "waste" time on something as "trivial" as Public Health?

If any President in the next thirty years tells Americans they need to start wiping their asses and washing their hands in a State of the Union Address, I'll give you my house. Maybe you can ask them when they don't.

Really, couldn't be more ass-backwards if you tried. It's the CDC's JOB to disseminate information on Public Health. Just because the press picks up on it and blows it completely out of proportion based on the available information, does not mean the CDC is doing so or that your reading of this phenomenon is correct...Don't blame others for the fact that you are ill-informed.

Is it still ass-backward if you just made my point? It's the CDC's job to disseminate information on public health crises--not to manufacture Ebola or Monkeypox crises. When they do engage in the latter, it's the job of the press (not me, not you, not the President) to call them on it, instead of helping with the hysteria.

own bizarre sense of what the CDC and other governmental bodies and the MSM do

Yes, conceiving of the media as a watchdog agency is even more bizarre than considering "gay curers" and "9/11 inside job-ers" as "crazy," which is the last thing I said that sent someone with a suspiciously identical name to yours into a tizzy.

And in case you missed the point, the CDC TOLD Reagan that AIDS was a "problem".

As I said, that would, indeed, be a good reason to start blaming Reagan, but in case you missed the point, that allegation has not been made by anyone in this thread until just now. In fact, others have contradicted you.

Quote: the CDC devoted substantially more resources to researching specific incidents of potentially poisoned pills, etc than they devoted to AIDS research in the early years.

Translation: Reagan cut spending. Faced with spending cuts, the CDC decided to spend what was left on what they wrongly considered to be the most important Health Issue of the day: "poison pills." Who is to say that without spending cuts, the CDC would not simply have spent that extra money on something equally irrelevant to "poison pills" and continued to ignore AIDS? How is Reagan, a politician and actor, to know that the health professionals at the CDC were tilting at windmills? How is any President or non-biologist?

He or she shouldn't. But the NYT should have.

Posted by Shinyk | October 24, 2007 4:00 PM

"Since you seem to have never heard of ONDCP:"

The ONDCP is under investigation by the FCC means this http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/treat/treatment.html
is propaganda and not useful information for the curious?

You assume that I assume that there isn't anything worth changing about our existing governmental agencies or that they are immune from scandal and misuse? But unlike you, I don’t negate the entire positive due to some of the negative.

"If any President in the next thirty years tells Americans they need to start wiping their asses and washing their hands in a State of the Union Address, I'll give you my house."

You began by conflating AIDS with hand washing ("Reagan's job (and the job of all Presidents) was to steer the ship of state, not to tell people the how-to's of condoms or proper handwashing."). I suggested that not only is AIDS a worthwhile topic for the President to discuss and that repeatedly reinforcing the utility of hand washing (because continual re-education on the topic has proven to be the best method for minimizing disease resulting from hand to hand contact, and since the POTUS has the pulpit, why not use it to everyone’s benefit) might also be useful.

Now apparently the only way the POTUS can discuss AIDS is to whip out his dick and roll in a Trojan. And apparently discussing bathroom issues (normal human physiology) is so breathtaking mundane that it is not at all useful to someone who appears to have serious bathroom "issues". Now, if you want to argue that the current WH occupant is inept, had his ass wiped for the first 18 yrs of his life (probably still does for all I know), and has managed to politicize and scandalize every government agency, I'd be hard pressed to disagree with other than to point out that this is a temporary situation. The next POTUS SHOULD discuss public health issues in the SOTU in a reasonable and educated manner. That's what POTUS's have been doing and, for me, ties nicely into that whole "promote the general Welfare" stuff.

Now, yes, MDtoMN did mention poison pills. I have to admit I didn't pay much attention to that part of the comment because I wasn't positive what MDtoMN was referring to. Now, the CDC may have done epidemiological work on the Tynenol cyanide scare in 1982 and subsequent scares (assuming this is what MDtoMN was talking about). But the investigative agency should have been the FDA. I simply do not recall a representative of the CDC jumping up and down in front of a TV camera screaming "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, WE'RE ALL FUCKED, CRAZY POISONED PILLS, MAN, THEY'LL KILL EVERYBODY". Please, please, if you have access to a YouTube of such an event, pass it along, would you?

Which brings me to the Monkypox, EBOLA, SARS, etc. Please share a link where the CDC is wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth in an attempt to scare the shit out of everyone. I recall numerous occasions when someone from the CDC commented on emerging illnesses, transmission vectors, vulnerable populations, fatality rates associated with specific diseases, rates of infection, etc. Which is, of course, what they are paid to do.

As I tried to indicate to you earlier, it's THEN, that the MSM gets a hold of it and tries to scare the shit out of everybody by blowing it way out of proportion. I believe you are confusing CNN with CDC, my friend. Which is why I suggest you become a bit more curious. But, again, if you have access to some irrational diatribe by a CDC spokesperson along the line of "manufacturing a crisis" rather than studying disease and passing their findings on the media and public, do share, will you?

"that allegation has not been made by anyone in this thread until just now"

I never blamed Reagan for AIDS (only it's unnecessary spread) and am eternally grateful for the CDC's early work in studying the spread of the disease in an effort to understand and prevent more people from being exposed to it. I only pointed out the imbecility of ignoring useful information and blaming the wrong people, and, of course, Reagan burning in hell for doing both.

Posted by Rihilism | October 24, 2007 9:00 PM

Look, I'm not about to take time off of work to call every newspaper editor and television producer who has ever run a story on SARS or monkeypox and ask them for the original source of the story (though I find it hard to believe that columnists come up with information on actual, obscure and irrelevant diseases to scare people with on their own).

I'm not going to play the itemization game anymore, either. It's too big a waste of time and goes off topic too quickly. This CDC and ONDCP stuff (which I in no way concede) is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make that set you off, anyway. As specifically as possible so nothing is misconstrued or extrapolated:

News organizations are the instruments chiefly responsible for the popular dissemination of information. If information that affects the population at large exists and is known by that newspaper/program, but is not printed (or, conversely, if a false threat is exaggerated or a false assertion goes printed unchallenged), then those organizations are the agents most responsible when the population is ignorant of or mistaken about that information--not Presidents, not agencies, not the population itself.

It's a point you seem to share, making the rest of this bickering moot.

Posted by Shinyk | October 25, 2007 3:52 AM