There is a beautiful little Russian poem that goes like this, in a version using the Latin alphabet:
Luna,
Balkon,
Ona
ee on;
Vdrug
Cuprug--
"Podlyetz!"
Konyetz.
Translation: The moon/the balcony; she/ and he/ suddenly/ the spouse/ "Scoundrel!"/ the end.
I hadn't thought about that poem for, well, to be precise, forty-seven years. While listening to Romney's press conference about the tragic death of four diplomats in Libya and the attack of the U.S.consulate in Cairo, the words came back to me. I said to his image on the screen, feeling both pity and anger, "Podletz!" Konyetz. I always try to give the benefit of the doubt to those with whom I disagree; maybe it's me, I tell myself, and sometimes it indeed is. I'm certain that this time my instincts are correct. From now on it's konyetz between us, Mr. Romney, as it should be between you and the rest of us who will choose the next president in November.
You know the story. On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, the embassy in Egypt and consulate Libya were attacked. The radical Islamist group, Ansar al Sharia, which Secretary Clinton appropriately designated as being a small, savage group, used rocket-launched grenades to attack the consulate in Benghazi, Libya; the U.S. ambassador and three staff members were killed. This was not the Libyan government, mind you, which fought to protect the consulate staff. The cause of the outrage was a brief, amateur American film which presents a wild and poorly made caricature of the Prophet Mohammad. (The director is now reported to be in hiding.) The embassy staff in Cairo, in response to an ominous and dangerous crowd of people gathering in front of the building, announced that "Respect for religious belief is a cornerstone of American democracy," and that Americans oppose the denigration of any religion. Some mobsters breached the walls, desecrated the American flag and replaced it with an Islamic one. The police were able to protect the staff; no one was hurt.
During the first part of his little speech, Romney expressed outrage at the attacks. He made several grammatical errors; he came across as stiff and aloof, But he picked up steam during the second part, a duplicitous, unwarranted attack on President Obama. You got the impression that the first part of the speech was merely a bridge of platitudes that was necessary only as a means to get to the other side, where he gave his dark side free reign.
He said, among other things, "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Look, the staff was trying to save innocent lives, realizing that an attack was imminent. Did Romney expect them to lecture an angry mob about the beauty--and it is beautiful--of the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech? In order to avoid violence, is an announcement that Americans don't like to denigrate anyone's religion in any way equivalent to sympathy for a mob about to attack?
If Romney didn't know that this was said before the attack in order to prevent it, he should have done his homework before opening his mouth. As President Obama said later, Romney tends to shoot first and aim later. He went on to say that, he, Obama, learned that you can't do that as president. His self-inflicted wound made Romney look very unpresidential.
One gets the impression that Romney is so desperate for votes that he will use any means to justify his ends. Trouble is, his judgement is often so poor that he winds up shooting himself in the foot. Doesn't he know at a time of national tragedy it's imperative--at least for a day--to put petty politics aside? At least for appearance' sake! That this was a political blunder on Romney's part is evident by the fact that both Boehner and Mitchell didn't criticize the president in their comments about the events.
Remember the time, not too long ago, when he shot himself in the other foot? If not, I'll remind you: he enraged the British by doubting that their preparations for the Olympics were adequate. Yes, he even enrages allies.
I think I know what he was trying to do before wounding each foot. In the London case, he wanted to present himself more as the Great Expert Manager rather than criticize the British. The fact that he couldn't foresee their reaction indicates a severe lack of diplomatic skills. The Libyan case confirmed this suspicion. He used the tragedy in a disgraceful attempt to promulgate the myth that Obama is a weak leader. It was very unpresidential behavior; such inability to anticipate the results of one's words could get a president into a lot of trouble.
Obama said, quite rightly I think, that although he did not agree with the statement by the Cairo staff, he likes to cut some slack to people in a dangerous situation. I've been cutting Romney a lot of slack--until now. The London gaffe. The birther joke--maybe it was just a stiff attempt at humor, I thought. The racist ad about "gutting" the work requirement for those on welfare--an outright lie. Oh, that might be the work of a PAC and not reflect Romney's views. His statement to seniors that Obama is taking money from Medicare to give health care to people 'who are not you.' Oh, maybe he didn't mean that to come across as racist as it did...
I've been too kind. After your disgraceful, base and clumsy attempt to score points from a tragedy, I have two words for you, Mr. Romney:
"Podlyetz!" Konyetz.
Luna,
Balkon,
Ona
ee on;
Vdrug
Cuprug--
"Podlyetz!"
Konyetz.
Translation: The moon/the balcony; she/ and he/ suddenly/ the spouse/ "Scoundrel!"/ the end.
I hadn't thought about that poem for, well, to be precise, forty-seven years. While listening to Romney's press conference about the tragic death of four diplomats in Libya and the attack of the U.S.consulate in Cairo, the words came back to me. I said to his image on the screen, feeling both pity and anger, "Podletz!" Konyetz. I always try to give the benefit of the doubt to those with whom I disagree; maybe it's me, I tell myself, and sometimes it indeed is. I'm certain that this time my instincts are correct. From now on it's konyetz between us, Mr. Romney, as it should be between you and the rest of us who will choose the next president in November.
You know the story. On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, the embassy in Egypt and consulate Libya were attacked. The radical Islamist group, Ansar al Sharia, which Secretary Clinton appropriately designated as being a small, savage group, used rocket-launched grenades to attack the consulate in Benghazi, Libya; the U.S. ambassador and three staff members were killed. This was not the Libyan government, mind you, which fought to protect the consulate staff. The cause of the outrage was a brief, amateur American film which presents a wild and poorly made caricature of the Prophet Mohammad. (The director is now reported to be in hiding.) The embassy staff in Cairo, in response to an ominous and dangerous crowd of people gathering in front of the building, announced that "Respect for religious belief is a cornerstone of American democracy," and that Americans oppose the denigration of any religion. Some mobsters breached the walls, desecrated the American flag and replaced it with an Islamic one. The police were able to protect the staff; no one was hurt.
During the first part of his little speech, Romney expressed outrage at the attacks. He made several grammatical errors; he came across as stiff and aloof, But he picked up steam during the second part, a duplicitous, unwarranted attack on President Obama. You got the impression that the first part of the speech was merely a bridge of platitudes that was necessary only as a means to get to the other side, where he gave his dark side free reign.
He said, among other things, "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Look, the staff was trying to save innocent lives, realizing that an attack was imminent. Did Romney expect them to lecture an angry mob about the beauty--and it is beautiful--of the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech? In order to avoid violence, is an announcement that Americans don't like to denigrate anyone's religion in any way equivalent to sympathy for a mob about to attack?
If Romney didn't know that this was said before the attack in order to prevent it, he should have done his homework before opening his mouth. As President Obama said later, Romney tends to shoot first and aim later. He went on to say that, he, Obama, learned that you can't do that as president. His self-inflicted wound made Romney look very unpresidential.
One gets the impression that Romney is so desperate for votes that he will use any means to justify his ends. Trouble is, his judgement is often so poor that he winds up shooting himself in the foot. Doesn't he know at a time of national tragedy it's imperative--at least for a day--to put petty politics aside? At least for appearance' sake! That this was a political blunder on Romney's part is evident by the fact that both Boehner and Mitchell didn't criticize the president in their comments about the events.
Remember the time, not too long ago, when he shot himself in the other foot? If not, I'll remind you: he enraged the British by doubting that their preparations for the Olympics were adequate. Yes, he even enrages allies.
I think I know what he was trying to do before wounding each foot. In the London case, he wanted to present himself more as the Great Expert Manager rather than criticize the British. The fact that he couldn't foresee their reaction indicates a severe lack of diplomatic skills. The Libyan case confirmed this suspicion. He used the tragedy in a disgraceful attempt to promulgate the myth that Obama is a weak leader. It was very unpresidential behavior; such inability to anticipate the results of one's words could get a president into a lot of trouble.
Obama said, quite rightly I think, that although he did not agree with the statement by the Cairo staff, he likes to cut some slack to people in a dangerous situation. I've been cutting Romney a lot of slack--until now. The London gaffe. The birther joke--maybe it was just a stiff attempt at humor, I thought. The racist ad about "gutting" the work requirement for those on welfare--an outright lie. Oh, that might be the work of a PAC and not reflect Romney's views. His statement to seniors that Obama is taking money from Medicare to give health care to people 'who are not you.' Oh, maybe he didn't mean that to come across as racist as it did...
I've been too kind. After your disgraceful, base and clumsy attempt to score points from a tragedy, I have two words for you, Mr. Romney:
"Podlyetz!" Konyetz.
No comments:
Post a Comment