Edited by Kathleen Weinberger
Could This Be Mitt Romney's Lehman Moment?
Published in Público
(Portugal) on 13 September 2012
by Rita Siza (link to original)
(Portugal) on 13 September 2012
by Rita Siza (link to original)
Translated from
by Nuno Rosalino.
Edited by .
There was a key, decisive moment — a game changer — during John McCain’s 2008 campaign, other than his choice of the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, to be his vice presidential nominee. It happened in September, when the unexpected and surprising collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers was announced, throwing the global financial sector into turmoil and causing it to register historic losses. The veteran Arizona senator commented: “The fundamentals of our economy are strong.” At the same time, his opponent, Barack Obama, denounced Wall Street’s culture of irresponsibility and deregulatory policies. It was at that moment that the American electorate decided which of the two candidates was the more presidential of the two. McCain’s campaign never fully recovered from that initial rash reaction.
Yesterday, a number of Republicans classified Mitt Romney’s statements regarding the administration’s reaction to the unexpected attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi (and also on the American Embassy in Cairo) as his “Lehman moment.”
The words of the former Massachusetts governor, who accused the president of apologizing on behalf of America and suggested that the administration was subservient to Islamist regimes, were instantly criticized (see here) from both sides of the political spectrum (see here) and by diplomatic corps, pundits and public opinion. There were several problems with his statement and with several of the positions adopted through statements made by his campaign — some to do with form, some with content: The Republican candidate disrespected the agreement to not “inject” the electoral campaign into the 9/11 memorial day and ignored the tradition of not using national tragedies as a means to score political points. Even worse for him (and his campaign) was that he decided to speak out before all the facts were known and made an abusive — and erroneous — reading of the events in Libya and Egypt, as well as Washington’s reaction.
Under pressure, and caught off-balance, Romney committed yet another capital sin that might have serious repercussions for his campaign: Instead of correcting his statements, he doubled down on his initial criticism, leaving himself open to further counterattacks and flak. President Obama didn’t waste time (See here), commenting that “Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.” When questioned about the irresponsibility of the Republican candidate, the president said he would “let the American people judge that.”
The Republican campaign (See here), which intended to tackle Obama based solely on the (poor) performance of the American economy, had already struggled with setbacks when the topics of the so-called “culture war” — contraception, abortion, gay marriage — attracted voters’ attention and remained in the media’s spotlight. Now that foreign policy threatens to become the main issue of electoral debate, the potential damage to Romney’s aspirations is unimaginable.
Yesterday, a number of Republicans classified Mitt Romney’s statements regarding the administration’s reaction to the unexpected attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi (and also on the American Embassy in Cairo) as his “Lehman moment.”
The words of the former Massachusetts governor, who accused the president of apologizing on behalf of America and suggested that the administration was subservient to Islamist regimes, were instantly criticized (see here) from both sides of the political spectrum (see here) and by diplomatic corps, pundits and public opinion. There were several problems with his statement and with several of the positions adopted through statements made by his campaign — some to do with form, some with content: The Republican candidate disrespected the agreement to not “inject” the electoral campaign into the 9/11 memorial day and ignored the tradition of not using national tragedies as a means to score political points. Even worse for him (and his campaign) was that he decided to speak out before all the facts were known and made an abusive — and erroneous — reading of the events in Libya and Egypt, as well as Washington’s reaction.
Under pressure, and caught off-balance, Romney committed yet another capital sin that might have serious repercussions for his campaign: Instead of correcting his statements, he doubled down on his initial criticism, leaving himself open to further counterattacks and flak. President Obama didn’t waste time (See here), commenting that “Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.” When questioned about the irresponsibility of the Republican candidate, the president said he would “let the American people judge that.”
The Republican campaign (See here), which intended to tackle Obama based solely on the (poor) performance of the American economy, had already struggled with setbacks when the topics of the so-called “culture war” — contraception, abortion, gay marriage — attracted voters’ attention and remained in the media’s spotlight. Now that foreign policy threatens to become the main issue of electoral debate, the potential damage to Romney’s aspirations is unimaginable.