Mitt Romney is en route to Great Britain, Israel and Poland to buffer his foreign policy credentials, which are sparse, and fatten his coffers, which are not. Romney’s advisers arrived in London, ahead of Mitt, to bad-mouth the President of the United States of America and reassure Britons that Mitt thinks like they do…Like a white guy.
From the London Telegraph:
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.
The two advisers said Mr Romney would seek to reinstate the Churchill bust displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush but returned to British diplomats by Mr Obama when he took office in 2009. One said Mr Romney viewed the move as “symbolically important” while the other said it was “just for starters”, adding: “He is naturally more Atlanticist”.
Besides the ridiculous premise that our president is “comfortable with American decline,” there are a couple more smirking, under-the-table references to the notion the that Obama might not be sympatico with the chaps in the Exeter ties and monocles. “Atlanticist” is one; Land of Hope and Glory is another, I wasn’t immediately familiar with this little ditty. I had to look it up. And I’m certain Obama wouldn’t like singing it…I’m certain that most of our presidents wouldn’t have cared for it either, particularly those that fought wars against its theme. It’s a patriotic hymn, in which God grants a king the right to rule.
But there’s that wink, again, that secret smirk that’s meant to convey the sub-text to the like-minded; how could a black Muslim understand something like that, eh?
Mitt Romney is going to attend what are described as “two lucrative fundraisers” while in London. Afterwards the ‘Pander Express’ will touch down in predominantly white and anti-Muslim Israel, where he will expound on the bizarre notion that somehow Obama is pro-Iran. In both instances he’s selling not-so-subtle brands of fear. Reading the words of Romney’s anonymous advisers, it’s easy to observe the unspoken Romney narrative; elitism, power and privilege as birthright, and the notion that leadership is the role of the ‘select few.’
Without coming right and saying so, the reporter from the Telegraph seems to regard the Romney advisers as vulgar and ham-fisted, with their ‘unspoken’ message. That’s always seemed to be one of the differences between Americans and Brits, their reticence to come right out and show they’re offended.
I have no such reticence. The Romney advisers are vulgar and ham-fisted and obvious. They clearly mean to offer racial sub-text to their anonymous dealings with the foreign press. And if you need further proof or the Romney campaigns idea of what scruples are? I leave you with this ‘explanation’ as to why they’re speaking anonymously:
The advisers spoke on the condition of anonymity because Mr Romney’s campaign requested that they not criticise the President to foreign media.
That’s right. They (Romney campaign advisers) were speaking for the Romney campaign anonymously, because the Romney campaign (themselves) didn’t want to look like they were trashing the POTUS in the foreign press. Which they were.