Romney: Afghanistan is Just a Word

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

At eleven years old, it's the longest war in United States history. It's taken the lives of over 2000 American troops. It's cost U.S taxpayers $500 billion. But to Mitt Romney, Afghanistan is astonishingly just a "word."

Speaking with host David Gregory of NBC's Meet the Press, Romney, when asked if his omission of the war during his convention speech was a mistake, reiterated that he’d spoken about it the night before the convention to veterans at the American Legion. The Republican presidential nominee laughed and said it’s "interesting that people are curious about mentioning words in a speech as opposed to policy. I've been to Afghanistan and the members of our troops know of my commitment to Afghanistan and to the effort that's going on there. I have some differences on policy with the president. I happen to think those are more important than what word I mention in each speech."

Clearly for Romney, the man who's trying to convince voters he's worthy of being Commander in Chief, the war is an afterthought. It has such little significance to him that he limits discussion of it to an important yet small interest group like veterans rather than make it central to all Americans under the broader context of his foreign policy. Reserving his thoughts on the war exclusively for an American Legion audience is like talking abortion to evangelicals; energy and pollution to environmentalists; immigration to border states. Romney's reduced the war to a mere talking point.

It's unconscionable, and quite frankly unfathomable, that a candidate running for president when his nation's at war would fail to mention that war, and worse, the brave men and women who've sacrificed everything, including their lives, to fight it. Perhaps if one of Romney’s five sons had worn the uniform the war would have greater meaning and urgency to him.

Obama's Speech...Yawn.....

They say that great things come in threes. So after Michelle Obama's eloquent, heartfelt speech and Bill Clinton's blistering, rock-star-like missive, Democrats expected a knockout performance by President Obama Thursday night. But what they got was the same old same old from a man who sure as heck knows how to deliver sweeping oratory, but without the requisite emotion and passion, especially at this critical juncture in the campaign, that makes it truly meaningful. If I were an independent voter watching his speech I'd have headed into the kitchen for a snack a minute into his delivery.

What Democrats saw from Clinton the night before was the kind of speech pundits on both sides of the aisle talk about for years. A brilliant, witty, awe-inspiring impassioned plea replete with vision and promise. Not because he's a better speaker but because he inhales politics, politicians and the process like I inhale air. His heart, not just his mind, is fully in it. Contrary to Obama, whose heart seems to already be on that plane back to Chicago.

Don't worry about Democrats. I suspect Obama's speech was good enough to keep them solidly in the family. But it's not the base, or the "enthusiasm gap," as former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell suggested Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," that the speech was written for. It was supposed to directly and forcefully appeal to Independents, for it's this highly coveted group who Obama should be panicking about, and a group which were likely disappointed with his message. What they didn't get from him was any sort of detailed plan or specifics on job growth and economic recovery that might've given them reason to believe four more years with him at the controls is the answer to America's problems. Instead they got the standard Obama routine, which at this point in the game seems uninspired, stilted and repetitive. At this crucial stage, do we really need to hear the same "Fair shot...fair share...same set of rules" line? Unlike Clinton, who masterfully ad-libbed his way through almost half of his 48-minute speech, Obama just seemed terribly scripted, like he's delivering a well-tuned performance. Unfortunately, now is not the time for the president to appear as if he's merely phoning it in.

Obama needed to hit it out of the park, as Clinton did, and bring home the winning run. Instead, he hit a ground-rule double, leaving the winning run on third. Whether the runner ever makes it to home plate remains to be seen.

The Biggest Difference Between Obama and Clinton

It was the kind of speech that sent Democrats into a giddy orbit of pure, unadulterated love. Their rock star, Bill Clinton, delivered the sort of sincere, rousing, rallying cry they wish Barack Obama could. The social media sites Twitter and Facebook were like a streaming Bubba fan page as the former president stood at the podium with the excitement of The Beatles, the cool of Elvis, the charisma of Sinatra, the passion of Bono and the moves of James Brown. Quite simply, he dazzled.

Clinton said what needed to be said. And he pulled no punches in punching the living daylights out of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, which he accused of bringing the country to the brink of financial ruin and who now wants a to be back in the driver's seat. "We left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in," Clinton mocked.

But it wasn't until the end of his speech, as Clinton was met onstage by Obama in a hug that Romney and Paul Ryan wish they were secure enough in their manhood to pull off, that the stark contrast between the two men became painfully clear. Clinton's magic, which is so woefully lacking in Obama, is his rapacious hunger for the spotlight and a genuine love of politics and politicians. Clinton absorbs it all like an addicted sponge, while Obama rejects it all like a saturated sponge. Sure, he's totally in love with himself, but that doesn't matter. Democrats love him even more.  

As the former and current president exited stage right, Clinton slowly sauntered towards backstage, beaming in all his uber-affable narcissistic glory, basking in the afterglow of his Messianic impact, shaking hands and chatting up supporters, Obama was the picture of disconnection, disinterest and disdain for the entire process as he impatiently waited for Bill to end the lovefest. Between his body language and the look on his face, it's as if he was saying, "C'mon Bill. Can we leave.? Enough already. I need to get the hell out of here. Jeez, he's still touching people...eeewwwww. I don't get why he loves this crap so much.  Bill...Bill....let's go! I'll just have to go grab him by the arm and lead him out."

And that's just what Obama did. It was an extremely telling moment. It was clear Clinton hated leaving, and it was equally clear Obama hated staying. It's precisely that obvious contempt for the game, coupled with an inability to truly connect, genuinely connect, with voters--especially white, blue-collar men--that is Obama's Achilles heal. A liability big enough to, as the Republicans wish, send him back to Chicago in January if he doesn't soon find his mojo.  

Republican Governors Messin' with Romney's Gloom and Doom Narrative

It's a comically contradictory message within the Republican Party that is justifiably confusing to independent voters. On the one hand there's the presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan attacking President Obama’s record as they insist Americans are not better off than they were four years ago. On the other, Republican governors across the country including John Kasich (OH), Chris Christie (NJ), Terry Branstad (IA), Rick Scott (FL) and Nikki Haley (SC) are downright giddy as the say the exact opposite, self-servingly touting their home states' economic turnarounds as they seek another term.

The impact is so potentially harmful to the GOP ticket that Team Romney has reportedly asked Kasich, Scott and others to tone down the positive statements. But Republican governors care about one thing: getting re-elected. As such, they’re forced to acknowledge what the Obama administration and Democrats have been saying about the national economy’s progress, even if their blatant self-promotion clashes with Romney’s gloom and doom narrative. So while his mutt may have been thrown onto the car roof, these governors are throwing Mitt under the bus. There can’t be such appreciable progress on the state level if the broader economy isn’t experiencing similar growth as well. And that’s good news for Obama, not their nominee.

At their convention this week, Democrats would be wise to hammer home two main talking points: that Americans are absolutely better off now than they were four years ago, and that the economic bragging by Republican governors across the nation is incontrovertible proof of that.

You're Damn Right We're Better Off...

Are we really having this debate four years after the nation's worst financial crisis in eighty years? After a near-catastrophic meltdown brought on by eight years of Bush Administration-led tax cuts, deregulation and Wall Street recklessness? Talk about the "fiscal cliff"; have we forgotten that America was on the brink of financial ruin in the Fall of 2008?  

During the past several days the ghost of Ronald Reagan has reared its partisan head to incessantly ask, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" It's as if a memo went out Friday morning to every conservative pundit, surrogate and politician requiring them to hammer home this talking point ad nauseam. The answer to the question, of course, is yes. But not surprisingly, Democrats seem to be tripping over their own feet trying to answer without seeming insensitive to or dismissive of the continuing struggles of the poor and middle-class.  

But it's a simple question to answer if, rather than spew partisan rhetoric, one compares the key economic indicators of today vs. before President Obama took office. These include unemployment and job creation, GDP, the credit market, consumer confidence, foreclosures, the stock market, housing, manufacturing, the auto industry and corporate profits, all of which have greatly improved since 2008 and 2009. 

It's critical that Obama and Democrats confidently head into their convention this week in Charlotte prepared to effectively remind voters just how far they've come and that yes, they're much better off than they were. The following message should be incorporated into every single speech: 

If you're poor, you're better off

If you're middle-class, you're better off

If you were unemployed, you're better off

If you have Medicare, you're better off

If you're sick, you're better off

If you were without affordable, accessible heath care, you're better off

If you're a female wage earner, you're better off

If you're a college student, you're better off

If you're gay, you're better off

If you're a homeowner, you're better off

If you're looking to buy a home, you're better off

If you're seeking credit, you're better off

If you're invested in the stock market, you're better off

If you're a corporate CEO, you're better off

If you work on Wall Street, you're better off

If you work in the auto industry, you're better off

If you work in banking, you're better off

If you work in retail, construction or manufacturing, you're better off

If you're a consumer, you're more confident and are better off

If you or your loved one was fighting in Iraq, you're better off

If you or your loved one is fighting in Afghanistan, you're better off

Osama bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi are not better off

But Republicans, who seem to loathe facts and fact checkers, claim that "many people" still don't believe the economy's improved or that it's headed in the right direction. But it really doesn't matter what "many people" think. Many people still believe blacks should be riding in the back of buses, Mexicans should be fenced in their country, Jews should be kept out of their neighborhoods and country clubs, women should be denied contraception and abortions, and that it's wrong for gays to marry. "Many" doesn't make "right." 

Republicans may not hold much regard for facts and the truth, but the truth is, the economy, and Americans as a whole, are far better off than they were four years ago.

Assessing the Republican Convention

Say goodbye to the GOP’s Smoke and Mirrors Show, otherwise known as the Republican National Convention. The well-intended but poorly executed strategy to humanize the automaton-like Mitt Romney and make him appealing to voters was overshadowed by the gargantuan egos of the party's two insatiable, self-aggrandizing rock stars, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, who took to the podium not to share warm and fuzzy Romenydotes or to faithfully lobby for their nominee but to selfishly devour the limelight in setting their own 2016 presidential tables.

As if that wasn't enough to derail Team Romney, there was the sad, geriatric unraveling of "mystery speaker" Clint Eastwood, whose bizarre, rambling conversation with an empty chair symbolizing "Invisible Obama" was a disastrous use of prime time network coverage. He was a mystery speaker alright, because it was an absolute mystery what the heck he was talking about. Enough with the Henry Fonda "On Golden Pond" old codger routine. The only thing missing was the goofy fishing hat. What was he thinking? Was this just a pathetic attempt by an aging Hollywood icon to stay relevant? And did you catch the cutaway of Ann Romney during Eastwood's unscripted, meandering, 3-times-as-long-as-planned meltdown? She looked as though dirty Uncle Harry had exposed himself at the July 4th BBQ. And rightly so: Eastwood seemed crazier than Charlton Heston in “Bowling for Columbine.”  

As for the Invisible Obama symbol, the irony isn't lost on us in the context of Ralph Ellison’s award-winning classic Invisible Man which, as Cliffsnotes.com describes, “tells the story of a young, college-educated black man struggling to survive and succeed in a racially divided society that refuses to see him as a human being.” Which makes Eastwood's reference a horrifically insensitive and inappropriate choice. Whichever unthinking campaign orangutan decided to give this precious airtime to Clint instead of using it to showcase the human qualities Romney’s handlers insist he has, should be fired and forced to watch an endless loop of "Every Which Way But Loose." Funny, isn't this the same Clint Eastwood who Republicans crucified last winter over his Super Bowl ad they accused of being blatantly pro-Obama? What a difference seven months makes, huh?
 
With friend likes Christie, Rubio, Eastwood and the lyin' Paul Ryan, Romney needs no enemies. But in truth, Romney is his own worst enemy. No amount of amped-up "humanizing" from others can make him appear any less stilted and wooden...or any more likable, sincere, accessible and trustworthy. Even when sharing an emotional story of his parents’ marriage and his father’s death his delivery was robotic and unemotional. Come November he's going to have to convince voters all on his own that he's "human" enough for the most important job in the world. 

Paul "Lyin" Ryan and the GOP Smoke and Mirrors Show

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Republican convention was a pathetic showcase of war-mongers, gun-toters, aging-Hollywood-icons-I-used-to-love-but-now-feel-sorry-for and religious fanatics rattling sabres and espousing all sorts of extremist rhetoric to their rapacious, Kool-aid drunken base. To be sure, they're certainly giving voters a clear choice for November.

Now add liars to the cast, as Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's running-mate and the GOP's Boy Wonder, took to the stage Wednesday night and shamelessly and smugly lied his way through an awkward, angry speech. The Washington Post reported that out of eleven subjects he discussed just two were truthful, six were false and three were misleading. But remember, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," as Romney pollster Neil Newhouse asserted this week, bringing to mind Tina Fey's brilliant Sarah Palin who opined, “I just hope the lamestream media won't twist my words by repeating them verbatim."

In regurgitating the standard Republican propaganda, Ryan hopped from one disingenuous, deceptive attack on President Obama to the next. The two biggest outright lies: (1) he blamed Obama for a December 2008 GM factory closing in his hometown of Janesville, WI which obviously shut down before he took office; and (2) he absurdly blamed Obama for the failure of the Simpson-Bowles bi-partisan debt-reduction commission when in fact it was Ryan, who as a member of the commission, was the lone Republican "no" vote....essentially killing it.  He failed to mention this little factoid when accusing Obama of "doing nothing" with the Commission's plan.

Ryan was also guilty of perpetuating the "You didn't build it" lie even as he had the hypocritical audacity to say a few minutes later that when businesses fail it's not the fault of the owners but rather the government for not doing enough. That's right, he said the government didn't do enough. Confusing, right?

Ryan championed college students and lamented their financial struggles, yet it is he and his soulless party that seeks to cut most college tuition assistance programs while also raising student loan interest rates.

Ryan implausibly portrayed himself and Romney as the great protectors of Medicare from the Great Raider Obama. This coming from a guy whose position on Medicare is to annihilate it. He also called Obamacare a "government takeover of health insurance" even though it puts 30-million new customers in the hands of private insurance companies. C'mon, what kind of cockamamie Socialism is that!?   

Ryan again beat his small government drum despite that fact that as a Congressman he voted for TARP, the auto bailout, Bush's prescription drug plan and two wars--all unfunded--as he voted for massive tax cuts for the wealthy...all of which added trillions to the national debt.

Ryan accused his opponents of being "silent about their record" yet it's his boss who's running like Usain Bolt away from his taxes, offshore investments, Mormonism, years at Bain Capital and record as Massachusetts governor.

Notwithstanding the above, the Ryan...er...Romney ticket is doomed to fail not because of Ryan's radical positions or pathological aversion to the truth but because the man at the top of the ticket, as his lackluster, uninspiring, 'unhumanizing' "speech Thursday night demonstrated, lacks character, principles and vision, and is still viewed by voters, despite the GOP's Tampa Smoke and Mirrors Show, as unlikable, untrustworthy and incapable.

Why All the Fuss Over Ann Romney?

Okay, let's get the obvious out of the way first: Ann Romney is a bright, charismatic, attractive,woman with a warm, inviting smile and an easy manner. It doesn't take much to understand her appeal and why Team Romney is hanging its hopes on her ability to "humanize" her husband Mitt in the eyes of voters. But Ann Romney is not running for president. And if having an awesome mate was the essential requirement for occupying the Oval Office, I'd be running the country.    

I also can appreciate the Romneys' personal story of hardship in facing breast cancer and multiple sclerosis, challenges which require an enormous amount of strength, courage and hope...all of which is rightfully inspiring. But look inside any American family and you'll find people coping with all illness, death and tragedy. My wife was brutally murdered six years ago, leaving me to raise a 2-year-old alone. But my story, however horrific, doesn't make me special, nor does it qualify me to be president. 

The Romney campaign is desperate, so it's pushing Ann out front and center in a major coattails campaign. Yet her prime time speech Tuesday night in Tampa at the Republican convention was predictable and I suspect it won't have any material impact where it counts: with women and independents. Groovy wife or not, Romney is still the same guy who, along with his running-mate Paul Ryan, have such "severely" conservative extremist views on gay marriage, reproduction, abortion and rape that they make women’s and indies' hair curl. When you get right down to it, all Ann’s speech did was demonstrate what everyone already knows: that she's immensely more likable than he is. In fact, that she gave a great speech and is so charming and accessible glaringly reminds voters that he is not. 

Having to working with the worst presidential candidate in modern history, Team Romney is doing whatever it can to define their guy through the rock-star qualities of those around him; qualities which he woefully lacks. But Ann’s charisma and Ryan’s conviction do nothing to mask the fact that Romney's a cypher-esque cad in an empty suit who’s failing miserably in connecting with voters. The estimable assets of others do not make him any more attractive or presidential.

Chris Matthews' Smackdown of Reince Priebus Should Be Taught in Journalism School

A week after blogging about how Soledad O'Brien's amazing interview with John Sununu deserves to be taught in journalism school I find myself  advocating yet again for the same thing, this time for MSNBC's Chris Matthews for his super-sweet smackdown of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. 

The action took place on Monday's edition of "Morning Joe." As the wussified hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough looked on embarrassingly and apologetically, Matthews ripped into Priebus over the GOP's reprehensible attacks on President Obama's citizenship and welfare stance, saying the Republican party was playing "that little ethnic card... the race card." The "Hardball" host was clearly emotional, frustrated and angry.

Matthews heatedly referred to the recent Mitt Romney ad about welfare work requirements and Romney's recent "birth certificate" joke he shamelessly cracked in Michigan last week which was meant to appeal to the party's lowest common denominator. "That cheap shot ... was awful...It is an embarrassment to your party to play that card ... you are playing that ethnic card there," he chided a smirking Priebus. "You can sit there and giggle about it, but the fact is your party is playing that card." 

"It was a moment of levity," Priebus disingenuously replied in defense of Romney. "What was the joke?" Matthews demanded. "What is the joke in the fact that he (Romney) has a birth certificate? I don't get it...It just seems funny that the first joke he ever told in his life was about Obama's birth certificate," he quipped to supportive laughter from the live audience. 

Bravo to Matthews. His cross-examination of an obnoxious, defiant Priebus was unrelenting. Like O'Brien last week, he had the balls to challenge the lies and rebuke the liar. Unfortunately though, he didn't get any support from Brzezinski or Scarborough who, rather than applaud their colleague for doing his job in seeking the truth, seemed horrified at his behavior...more worried that Priebus might never want to bring his lying, smarmy self back on the show again. They scoffed at Matthews' allegations and appeared annoyed and defensive of Priebus. When the segment was over they seemed utterly shocked, as if something strange and unacceptable had just happened.

When did television news people become so horribly neutered...so afraid to demand honesty and truth from their guests? Instead, they roll over like sheep, allowing these propagandists free, unchallenged airtime to spew their dishonest, divisive rhetoric. When someone finally steps up and holds them accountable it is they who are viewed as being out of line. With the exception of a couple of righteously indignant journos like Matthews and O'Brien, the American news media, given all that's at stake in this most critical election, appears utterly useless right now. 

I'm holding out hope that Aaron Sorkin's fictional anchorman Will McAvoy on HBO's "The Newsroom" will soon have some serious influence on his real-life colleagues...if he hasn't already.