Double Rainbow! What does it mean?

Yesterday, I posted about the Romney videos that have landed the Republican candidate in a whole bunch of hot water.  If this blog is really supposed to be about what the media contributes to an election, than I think I need to take a step back and talk about this from a thematic point of view.

What does Mr. Romney say at a time like this?  What is his message to get this back in his favor?  Today, most of the news outlets that said anything about the videos were talking about it in terms of damage control.  In terms of damage control, what are the common themes that tickle out of this conversation?  One thing that I noticed is that Camp Romney is trying to spin this to be about who could help the poor more.  Sprinting back to the familiar territory of economic know-how, Mr. Romney said that it is President Obama's tenure that has left so many Americans on welfare.  All of these themes are back on message.  "Obama created this ditch. I was only pointing at it."

Interestingly enough, Camp Romney has also taken this opportunity to remind us that President Obama is a socialist, or at least how they define socialism.

Let's take a closer look at what the talking heads are saying Mr. Romney said.  What I mean to look at is how are the media are paraphrasing the video.  I liked "parasitic freeloaders," but that's just me.  Mind your meme!  What are they really saying here, again?  The media is once again repeating the idea that Mr. Romney is out of touch.  Here is a spoiled billionaire talking to other (probably) spoiled billionaires and none of them really understand what middle-class means.  While it isn't a new theme, "Mitt doesn't get it" isn't dying anytime soon.  We were all asked to learn the word "plutocracy."  Am I the only one who had to look it up?

The real problem for Mr. Romney is that it isn't just the so-called liberal media that is aghast at the comments from these videos.  Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan jumped on a  "Mitt isn't president material" bandwagons with her column today.  Without a hint of apology, Ms. Noonan says, "This is not how big leaders talk, it’s how shallow campaign operatives talk: They slice and dice the electorate like that, they see everything as determined by this interest or that. They’re usually young enough and dumb enough that nobody holds it against them, but they don’t know anything." 

I have to confess this is all very unnerving to me.  I can't help but feel that in a election that was supposed to be a Republican landslide, the victory doesn't seem so slam-dunk.  I have read more than a few "this isn't working" comments, and more than a handful of Republicans have started to back away from Mr. Romney out of fear for their own elections.  I wonder what will happen next!  There are 48 days left until we pick our next president.  Who would have pegged ol' money-bags himself to be the underdog.

--------

plutocracy |plo͞oˈtäkrəsē|noun ( pl. plutocracies )government by the wealthy.• a country or society governed in this way.• an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.DERIVATIVESplutocratic |ˌplo͞otəˈkratik|adjective,plutocratically |ˌplo͞otəˈkratiklē|adverbORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos ‘wealth’ +kratos ‘strength, authority.’