Mitt Romney and the Bully Pulpit

This is Mitt Romney at the October 3rd debate, moderated by PBS Newshour executive-editor Jim Lehrer:

I’m sorry Jim. I’m, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I like Big Bird. I like you too. But I’m not going to keep spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilv3VLIGJzE

This was the moment that Romney affirmed every rich-schmuck idea about him. It was the debate’s one genuine he-shoulda'-stepped-around-that-poop gaff.

And, so far as I know, nobody has named it a blunder. But it is. In so many ways.

Let me explain.

1. Mitt the betting man.

America has an idea of Mitt Romney. It is of his own making, but Barack Obama’s campaign has pushed it. Mitt Romney is the guy who proposed a bet in a debate. He proposed to bet Governor Rick Perry about something that Perry claimed that Romney had said in his book. The amount of the bet was ten-thousand dollars.

Ten-thousand dollars is a rich man’s bet. An ordinary Joe wouldn’t make a bet like that. It is a sum that said, "America, I am not like you. I build a car-elevator in my beach house. I make ten-thousand dollar bets."

David Brooks is a conservative columnist for the New York Times. He pointed out that a ten-thousand dollar bet is large enough to remind Americans of Romney’s great wealth, but small enough so that it wasn’t obviously hyperbole, like, say, a million dollars.

And a ten-thousand dollar bet is a bully's bet. Romney could stake ten-thousand dollars on a bet, owing to his great wealth. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, could not. Romney used his wealth to push around a poorer man.

2. Mitt the rich job-killer.

Mitt Romney headed Bain Capital. Bain Capital bought up companies, loaded them with debt, took huge profits, and left people without jobs when the companies collapsed under their debt-load.

3. Mitt who likes to fire people.

People remember Bain Capital when they remember that Romney said, "I like to fire people." That statement fit well with people’s pre-existing ideas about Romney. Mike Huckabee was right: "Romney reminds you of the man who fired you, not the guy you worked next to."

Some things ought to be done soberly. Nobody should "like" to do some things. Glee in taking someone’s livelihood away doesn’t sit well with most Americans.

4. Mitt the guy who cuts the outsider’s hair.

Mitt Romney also famously held down a fellow-student at his prep school who was believed to be gay, and he cut his hair. This is bully behavior.

5. Mitt on October 3rd.

So this Mitt Romney tells Jim Lehrer to his face that he, Mitt Romney, is going to eliminate Lehrer’s livelihood.

Some observations about Mr. Romney’s debate comment.

It’s one thing to talk about a ending a program. It’s another thing to talk about it to a man who will lose his livelihood because of it. It’s still another thing to speak of it to him in front of an audience of millions. If you’re going to humiliate a man like that, there should be a good reason.

But it was unnecessary. The federal deficit for 2012 is about one-trillion dollars. The 2012 appropriation for PBS is half of one one-thousandth of that. So the PBS appropriation doesn’t stand out and it doesn’t stand alone among budget appropriations, such that Romney had to mention it, and no substitute would do.

And it wasn’t necessary to highlight that Jim Lehrer was employed by this program that Romney plans to demolish. Was Jim Lehrer less humiliated because of Mitt Romney’s assurances of personal affection? And for being put on the same footing, in that regard, as Big Bird – a comedic character in a children’s program? These questions answer themselves.

Maybe for some unknown reason, like it’s Romney’s only idea for cutting the budget, Romney could name only PBS as a specific program to be cut. But, if that were true, then it was still unnecessary to link Lehrer to that program, specifically pointing out to the millions of viewers that Lehrer’s livelihood would end.

And it was unnecessary for any reason having to do with Jim Lehrer’s character. Jim Lehrer is widely respected. He conducts himself with dignity and fairness. That’s why he’s chosen to moderate presidential debates. Jim Lehrer has done nothing to deserve humiliation.

Jim Lehrer no more deserved this than the probably-gay student that Mitt Romney, in his younger incarnation, held down to cut his hair.

6. A continuum.

There appears to be a continuum of Mitt Romeny’s character that runs from prep school to the debate on October 3^rd. It is a continuum of disregard for other people. It is the continuum of a man who is a bully at heart and in his deeds.

7. The bully pulpit for a bully?

And this bully-at-heart wants to be the most powerful man in the world.

If Romney heard that the presidency is a "bully pulpit", he misunderstood. Teddy Roosevelt meant bully to mean good; the presidency is a bully pulpit in the sense that it is a good forum from which to proclaim good ideas. It is not a bully pulpit in the alternative sense of a place of glory for a person who gratuitously afflicts others because he can.

A president must be smart. A president must know things. Mitt Romeny is qualified in both of these. But when the weight of the world in on his shoulders and a decision must be made, the indispensable quality of a president is his good character.