I know. I’ve hated the pander-panda pun since Sen. Paul Tsongas called Bill Clinton a “pander bear” in 1992. But the newborn baby panda at the National Zoo died yesterday, there’s no way to write about it on an ethics blog, so this was the best I could do to register my condolences. Forgive me.
What would be the response of an objective and balanced news media—that is, one determined to treat both candidates equally unfairly—to an Obama equivalent of the infamous Romney dismissal of “47%” of the electorate? We really can’t tell from the closest comparison, candidate Obama’s infamous and also surreptitiously taped 2008 comments in ultra-liberal San Francisco, condescendingly describing blue-collar Pennsylvanians who, he said, “get bitter, [and] cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” That was while he was running against another media darling, Hillary Clinton, so it presumably got more play than it would have if he were facing a hated Republican.
Better intelligence comes from Jennifer Rubin’s criticism today of Obama’s answer to an interviewer on the Spanish language cable station Univision, who asked him what his greatest failure was. Why, failing to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, of course! (“This is a Hispanic channel, right?”)
Really?, wonders the conservative Rubin. How about…
●Not getting unemployment below 8 percent;
●Failing to reach a grand bargain;
●Presiding over record poverty rates;
●Watching his promise of a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal crumble;
●Failing to stop Iran’s nuclear program; and
●Finishing his term with the mullahs still in power in Iran and the mass murderer in control in Damascus.
There are a lot more failures I would add to the list, but Rubin’s point is that Obama’s answer is either dishonest or frightening. Ah, but come on! What would you expect a candidate to say on Univision when he is trying to pander to Hispanic-American voters? Most of the media shrugged off the disturbing implications of Obama’s answer as subordinate to normal candidate pandering to special interest audiences, and I think that approach is realistic, reasonable and fair. Mitt Romany’s pander to a fat cat audience, however—essentially “I care more about you hard-working rich guys than the freeloaders who don’t pay taxes…”—was treated as smoking gun proof of the blackness of his soul.
Rubin’s critique of Obama was unfair, but it was also in the minority, and relegated to a small box on the Washington Post’s Op-Ed page. The equally unfair, far more furious and nearly universal attacks on Romney’s pander have been on front pages and editorial pages across the country for a week.
_____________________________
Spark: Jennifer Rubin
Graphic: Wonkette
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
First, Obama’s comment was actually true. An uncomfortable truth that was stupid to say, but still true. Romney’s was just hogwash.
Second, Obama’s elevation of a priority (When everything is high prioirty) is nowhere near the same as Romney claiming that all Obama voters are lousy moochers who will only vote for Obama and will do so only because Obama’s giving them money. Now, had Obama claimed that all white people are going to vote for Romney because Romney’s going to deport everyone, we’d be in the same ballpark.
The media go this one right. You failed for the “both sides” meme.
For your rebuttal to have any validity, you have to be honest about what Romney actually said, and you’re not. And what Obama said is not “true.” but an obnoxious, classiest, arrogant and condescending characterization that you happen to agree with—an opinion, and one that he did not want getting out to the general electorate. (McCain refused to use it against him in the general campaign. Which was right, for the reasons I stated.) Except for the math, I generally agree with Romney’s statement. They are excellent comps, because, among other things, conservatives and liberals see each completely differently.
Um. That’s exactly what Romney said. He said the 47% get handouts from the government and they will vote for Obama because they want to keep their handouts. Is that a direct quote? No. But that is the plain meaning of his words.
Obama’s statement was true. It’s been true throughout history, when the masses get scared, there are increases in religious zeal, xenophobia, and militancy. It is called obnoxious, classist, and condescending, but its also 100% true. It’s the kind of unspoken truth that’s just too dangerous to say.
If, other than the math, you agree with Romney’s statement, you just said all Obama voters are slackers who want to keep their handouts. You agree with your twisted interpretation of what Romney said, not what Romney said. This is just like your attempt to parse truth into Paul’s convention speech, when putting the statements together makes for lies.
You agree with individual statements. You know what? I agree with some of them, too. Doesn’t matter, as when the statements are put together, you get a total meaning, and that total meaning was, well, feudal.
Again, Obama’s insulting and condescending statement comports with your world view, which doesn’t make it true.
And as you know, if you care to be fair, when I say I disagree with Romney’s math, that means I obviously don’t believe ALL Obama likely voters are on the dole, or that ALL Obama supporters are beyond logic and persuasion. The number was way off. The sentiment was exaggerated. But it was far from outrageous.
Obama’s insulting and condescending statement comports with your world view, which doesn’t make it true.
Do you deny that people generally become more religious and xenophobic in times of upheaval (In bad economies, during social change, etc…)? Are you saying the economy isn’t bad? That white middle america doesn’t see the country changing? Doesn’t see the world changing?
What piece of the argument are you denying? So far, you’ve just accused me of bad faith. Nothing more.
And as you know, if you care to be fair, when I say I disagree with Romney’s math, that means I obviously don’t believe ALL Obama likely voters are on the dole, or that ALL Obama supporters are beyond logic and persuasion. The number was way off. The sentiment was exaggerated. But it was far from outrageous.
Yes, there is a miniscule number of people on the dole that vote for Obama because of that. Is there any evidence that number is larger than the number of people who are on the dole and will vote for Romney because of it? No. Is there any evidence that the number of people who will vote accordingly isn’t miniscule? No.
This was an attempt to demonize ALL of Obama’s support, not point out that some people are greedy. It was outrageous, and your attempts to change what Romney said so that it agrees with reality is, well, ridiculous.