We all probably know by now about some of the extremely slimy tactics Obama is using against Romney, the latest of which is that a PAC with close ties to his campaign puts out a shameful lie about Romney being a murderer, and his campaign lies and says they know nothing about the details of the lie, even though they are the ones who first pushed the lie several months ago.
One of Romney's spokespeople, Andrea Saul, said something along the lines of, "well, she would have been fine if she had lived in Massachusetts, because she had gotten free health care." That's obviously idiotic and Saul should be fired. Not a single word toward the fact that the woman who died had health care separately when her husband was laid off, or that she was diagnosed with cancer much later, or that Romney apparently had little to do with the decision.
Heck, I'd like to see the campaign come out and say, "Even if Romney personally made the decision to fire him, and she were on his insurance, and the very day after their insurance ran out she was diagnosed with cancer ... it still wouldn't be Romney's fault. Employers make decisions about who should and shouldn't be employed at a given time, not what happens to them afterward. That isn't their job, and it's irrational and stupid to blame them for it."
And maybe for good measure, add in, "This isn't France."
(By the way, no story yet from me on this week's Stage One of the 2012 general election here in WA. There's still at least 1/4th the total ballots left to tally, according to the Secretary of State. There's a few important races decided, like WA-1, but I'll wait until we have more results before I bother. Don't blame me, I vote on a voting machine.)
Posted by pudge at August 09, 2012 06:54 AM | Email ThisHe should focus on the contrasts:
calm and classy vs sweaty and loud,
JOBS vs the million little marbles of nonsense Thugbama is throwing,
the international allies offended vs the dictators prostrated before,
the direct link between the pipeline and rising unemployment,
the link between the pipeline and angering our closest continental allies,
the link between Thugbama debt and his entitlements,
the losses of all the "green" wienies Thugbama wasted tax dollars on vs the successes of companies with private investment,
the respect for religious freedom,
the respect for the Constitution
Hells bells there are so many issues he could have a new one every 3 days to pound the thug with -- and never have to resort to onerous lies.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 9, 2012 08:12 AMRegarding Saul: I liked the one conservative's comment about Saul having an "Etch-A-Sketch" moment.
You are right that she isn't on campaign story line with her comment. You don't give the competition ammunition.
This reminds me of another Romney issue, being foreign policy. For someone who is supposedly a better manager and knows how to run things, he sure stepped in it during his trip. Why does he keep repeating the "Culture" line all these years? He should have known better to use his standard stump line and book quote in that setting. While he did manage the Olympics and has some authority to speak on those grounds, he still also messed up the diplomacy in England. When the conservative leaders of England blast him, you know he has some "learning" to do regarding foreign policy.
Posted by: hopingmypostwillstay on August 9, 2012 08:26 AMOh yes... by saying EXACTLY what the British press said in editorials the week before.
Good grief, does Obamacare cover stuck eyeroll?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 9, 2012 08:30 AMBut what Saul said made no sense at all. Not only was it bad politics, it was incorrect and wrong and completely missed the point.
What tc says about Romney is another good example: everything he said on his trip that he is being attacked for was either right, or pretty close to right; he just shouldn't have said it, or should have said it differently. Where it gets bizarre is that tc thinks this is about being a manager and knowing how to run things. Communicating and doing are obviously two different things.
In some cases they are closely related, such as in foreign politics, but England was just looking to draw attention away from the fact that Romney was right. Meh. Who cares what they think about this? It's ENGLAND, for crying out loud. They'd rip their own mothers to shreds in the press just because they were bored (though not The Queen Mother ...).
My question to Pudge and others though, relates to the fact that Romney keeps using the "Wealth of Nations" culture reference for years, so does he really believe there are haves and have nots? Does Pudge and others here also believe in the haves and have nots that the culture reference brings forth? I would think in trying to win an election where one can't just rely on the base, the argument to the middle that well because of your culture you are a have-not and well that is just the way the ball bounces will not fly. America prides itself on the fact that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. I feel we also believe this about the world. It doesn't matter where you are born, everyone should have the opportunity despite their "culture." The Ayn Rand philosophy that relates to the "culture" reference by Romney will not win over the U.S. middle electorate.
Posted by: hopingmypostwillstay on August 9, 2012 09:13 AMI heard one suggestion; Link Obama to the deaths in Fast and Furious, abortions, in Iran for not supporting the people in their protest against the leadership - which he could have easily done and the list can go on. Fight fire with fire, as Donald Trump. That is the best way to put these jackals in their place for the time being. There is a large amount of ammo that can be used against Obama - mostly from his own mouth. My suggestion is for the Romney campaign to stop burning daylight and get moving and take the fight to the Chicago pols.
Posted by: KDS on August 9, 2012 10:05 AMPut Obama on the ropes. He is a weakling. If Obama gets cornered he just crumbles like the wimp he is, and he almost always gets pouty and whiny when he gets called out. But Romney needs to go more on the offensive.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 9, 2012 10:12 AMIf that is the case, the Republicans have once again came up with the wrong candidate - as they did in 1996 and 2008. This would be a tragic move in an election with the importance such as this. Right now, I'd say that the RNC might even run such an ad linking the deaths of the aforementioned to Obama. At the least, it would bring up these troubling issues that Obama has been trying run away from.
Posted by: KDS on August 9, 2012 10:18 AMThat said, he should fire back hard on the gutting of welfare reform. Romney is right about it, and should keep hammering at that issue in addition to Obamacare, unemployment, debt, etc.
Posted by: Palouse on August 9, 2012 10:30 AMGo back and see the tactics that Obama's campaign has used to win - by disqualifying the opposition. If a strong retaliation is not made, then they are on the road to succeeding in disqualifying Romney. It is dangerous to say, don't worry it can't happen to Mitt Romney. Then you have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy and it becomes a perception & perception is reality.
Posted by: KDS on August 9, 2012 10:50 AMJ O B S
D E B T
F R E E D O M
I believe Obama wanted to be president for his own aggrandizement, not for the betterment of the country.
I believe JFK ran for the betterment of his country.
I believe Nixon ran for his own aggrandizement.
As much as I absolutely despise him for his clear anti-Americanism now, I believe Jimmy Carter ran and believed he ran for the betterment of his country then.
I believe Ronald Reagan ran for the betterment of his country.
I believe George H. W. Bush ran for the betterment of his country.
I believe Bill Clinton ran for his own aggrandizement (although who would have thought Obama would be so bad I almost look fondly on the Clinton years.
I believe George W. Bush ran for the betterment of his country.
I've purposely left off Gerald Ford (who was clearly humble) and LBJ (who was most definitely not). I don't believe either would have run had they not been thrust into the office by tragedy.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on August 9, 2012 11:32 AMRomney's other problem is trying to get away with non-specifics and think he can skate by. He may be right to not release his taxes, but it reinforces the whole secrecy, non-specific nature of him as a candidate and why people don't feel comfortable with him (i.e., high negatives). He should be more specific on his economic plan. Put out specifics that are scorable, instead of letting people guess at what he plans to do and try to score his economic approach. He says he wants to raise the military budget, but doesn't explain why it is necessary and in what specific areas he plans to increase. Instead we are left with a blank check that is the military industrial complex's wet dream. It doesn't matter what long range military strategic plan he is trying to address. Romney just throws the statement out there with no specifics and no regards to how this increase in government spending will not balloon the deficit. Again, it reinforces to the middle of the electorate to not trust Romney. They may not agree with Obama, nor want to vote for him, but given the negative image that Romney reinforces everyday by his secrecy and lack of transparency, they will be left voting for Obama (or none-of-the-above, if that could be the choice).
Posted by: hopingmypostwillstay on August 9, 2012 11:44 AMHmm... I seem to remember some candidate in a recent election who tried to get away with non-specifics ("Hope and Change", voting "Present") and wouldn't release certain information about himself (birth certificate, college transcripts and financial records, state senator records, etc), making him reinforce the whole secrecy, non-specific nature of himself as a candidate. When some people don't feel comfortable with him (i.e., high negatives), we were told it was because those people are racists.
Now if I could only remember the name of that candidate and which party he represented... Wait, I'm sure it will come to me. /sarc
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on August 9, 2012 12:21 PMHowever, If Mitt Romney wants to win, he will have to go for the jugular at least once and get specific and not just on his website. John Kerry tried the "see my website" and that got very little traction. If Romney said that, it would turn off voters in general. He needs to tell us at least some of his remedies before the convention.
He also needs to shoot back and put Obama on the defensive and make him defend the indefensible (Fast and Furious, crony capitalism, lawlessness, his unaccountability for virtually everything) and hold his feet to the fire. He is also battling the corrupt mainstream media, which wields a lot of power and hold their feet to the fire merely by stating the facts and ignore the desperate racist cries from the left. Racist is code for the left is being hurt, is worried and has run out of arguments.
Posted by: KDS on August 9, 2012 12:21 PMRomney also likes to quote economists and studies, yet when reporters follows up with those economists and their studies, they find that Romney's staff is off-base in their use. (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/08/economists-to-romney-campaign-thats-not-what-our-research-says/).
Katomar, since you are an Romney expert, explain to me Romney's military proposal. How is he paying for it (without increasing the deficit)? What need is it satisfying? How does it meet the long term planning identified by DoD? I will take the military's take any day on their long range planning and needs over someone who pulls a number from the sky (i.e., X% of GDP), or worse, depend on the industrial complex that will benefit from the additional spending, and says this is what the DoD budget should be. The DoD budget should not be fixed to GDP, but to the overall strategic defense plan (fighting like two major global outbreaks plus a couple minor skirmishes approach which it was in the mid-90's after the Cold War ended). Romney seems to think we are still in the Cold War (at least given his DoD budget proposals).
Posted by: hopingmypostwillstay on August 9, 2012 01:40 PMI'd love to be the person to tell you that if your wife got cancer and you had no insurance.
Tough beans, bro. This isn't France.
Posted by: red hiney monkey on August 9, 2012 02:42 PMRomney needs to de-Bush himself. He can do this in non-offensive way; spending habits and proclivity to go to war. Actually, he has not convinced me that he is not a neo-con or chicken hawk. I do believe that he will reduce spending and cut onerous regulations that shackle private business.
Posted by: KDS on August 9, 2012 03:07 PMSo your problem is that Romney's plan is too vague. How about President Obama and the Democrats? We haven't had an economic plan - you know, what most people call a budget - in over 3 years because of their ineptitude and inaction.
Unless not having a plan IS the plan?
Romney at least has something down on paper - what has President Obama and the Democrats actually done?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 9, 2012 04:08 PMThat's baseless.
It goes with the job
No, it doesn't.
A CEO's job includes speaking to public
False.
The CEO does not "do" the work, he communicates the vision and plan to those delegated to actually perform the work
That's true, but communicating to his employees and board and shareholders and so on is not the same as communicating to the public.
Does Pudge and others here also believe in the haves and have nots that the culture reference brings forth?
I think it is blatantly obvious that the main difference between success and failure of some nations over others is cultural. Sometimes it is about philosophical differences (strong work ethic), sometimes about how politic structures have developed (which is largely why Africa lags behind), and so on.
the argument to the middle that well because of your culture you are a have-not and well that is just the way the ball bounces will not fly
He never made any such argument. First, he was talking about nations, not subcultures within a nation. Second, the argument is not that "that is just the way the ball bounces." Far from it: the argument is that cultures should learn from other cultures.
America prides itself on the fact that everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
... which is precisely Romney's belief, and mine.
The Ayn Rand philosophy that relates to the "culture" reference by Romney will not win over the U.S. middle electorate.
A reference and argument that Romney doesn't make, will not win over voters?
Mmmmmmmkay.
Romney's other problem is trying to get away with non-specifics and think he can skate by.
Worked for Obama.
Romney also likes to quote economists and studies, yet when reporters ...
Oh please, don't be so daft. First, Klein is a diehard Obama supporter and Republican hater; second, the WaPo is too, almost as much. But most importantly, the story doesn't say what the headline says, or what you say. You completely misrepresent the actual story, which is "economists disagree." It's not merely "Romney's staff," it's well-respected economists who are on Romney's team.
Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2012 05:49 PMThat makes no sense. It doesn't have anything to do with any point I made.
I warned you several times to not be stupid.
Hilarious!! This from the guy that voted for the empty suit Obama based soley on his skin color and a childlike belief in empty headed slogans like "hope and change" and "yes,we can".
Wow, the disconnect with reality some of these Obamabots have is simultaneously alarming and amusing.
WRT the Romney response to the false attack ad by a cowardly assclown like Joe Soptic and the Obama campaign/PAC (one and the same), I say fire Saul yesterday. She's an amature that shouldn't be anywhere near a microphone on a stage like this.
Fire the twit, Mitt!
Posted by: Rick D. on August 9, 2012 08:10 PM Might as well get over it.
Romney is going to do nothing different.
Romney is what Romney always was.
That is unfortunate and the only saving grace is that he is running against a incompetent, extremist and corrupt incumbent.
Posted by: KDS on August 9, 2012 09:36 PMHow is Romney a better candidate than McCain. McCain at least was a Conservative.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on August 9, 2012 11:23 PMThat she "spoke well of RomneyCare" is beside the point. That makes the statement worse than otherwise, but the worst part of it was that instead of defending the claim -- and there's so much wrong with the claim -- she essentially said that Obama's plan solves the problem. Regardless of the specifics of what she said, or what the smear was she should have been defending, she said "well, this thing they say happened wouldn't have happened if Obama's plan were implemented," when she should have said, "as usual, the Obama camp is lying, and here's the very clear evidence, and EVEN IF they were right on the facts, they would STILL be anti-business and anti-liberty to assign blame to Romney for it."
She's massively incompetent.
KDS: McCain has long been a big deficit hawk. I am not sure what you mean by "fiscal liberal." And none of those three VPs would be good. Jindal and Rubio simply are too green and unprepared for the job (about where Obama was four years ago), and Christie would alienate many conservatives.
Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2012 07:19 AMUnprepared for which job? If the answer is the job of VP, and someone who can speak well of the conservative cause on the campaign trail, either of them is very well prepared. If the answer is the job of stepping in as President, I think Jindal, who has run a state is more prepared than Rubio and could certainly do the job. Rubio may have some questions there, but like you say, no more than Obama did.
Posted by: Palouse on August 10, 2012 08:32 AMWho would attract independents ? Someone perceived as closer to the middle with charisma. It's complex, but right now, Romney needs help in getting his message out and the 3 or 4 VP picks I mentioned are good at doing that. Also, if he doesn't fire Andrea Saul, he will disappoint and even disgust many supporters. He is not as clueless as McCain, but he does have some blind spots.
Posted by: KDS on August 10, 2012 08:33 AMI think running the country is a lot different from running a state, and that while he is currently gaining experience, I don't think he yet has the skills to be President. That goes double for Rubio.
I like Ryan a lot better, and I disagree with those that think he would have high negatives. Certainly liberals hate him, but most people don't know him and once he started talking, the moderates wouldn't by this leftwing crap about him pushing granny off a cliff, and realize that he's a responsible intellectual who has good ideas for helping to fix our fiscal problems.
So? It DOES matter if you DO win.
Much more important than what state might be "in play" is picking someone who can do the job well, and be respected by the electorate.
I see no evidence that Rubio cannot do the job well and be well respected.
Posted by: Palouse on August 10, 2012 09:15 AMtc: I do equate someone rising to the top of the managerial ranks with someone also requiring good communications skills in speaking to the public.
PUDGE: That's baseless.
It goes with the job
PUDGE: No, it doesn't.
A CEO's job includes speaking to public
PUDGE: False.
Let me ask you Pudge, have you ever worked for large organizations? I would agree startups can get by with a technical CEO, but most medium to large organizations need someone with specific skills, and one of the top skills is communications (see: http://managementhelp.org/chiefexecutives/job-description.htm for a good outline of roles and responsibilities).
Pudge:Oh please, don't be so daft. First, Klein is a diehard Obama supporter and Republican hater; second, the WaPo is too, almost as much. But most importantly, the story doesn't say what the headline says, or what you say. You completely misrepresent the actual story, which is "economists disagree." It's not merely "Romney's staff," it's well-respected economists who are on Romney's team.
Since when is WaPo, a Rupert Murdoch publication, anti-GOP? Further, Klein went to the authors cited in the campaign's brief as being the source of the information. They refuted the campaign's economists interpretation of their work. One report cited was from a campaign associated economist, but the other sources were not. The campaign economists interpreted outside reports and "bent" the conclusions to fit the campaign narrative. The campaign economists didn't author the original works (outside the one work cited). Further, as noted, the campaign economist work that was cited was the exclusion, rather than norm when it comes to interpreting the success or failure of the stimulus.
Rick D.
I have stated numerous times, my number one issue last election was the Iraq War. That is done with and over, and we have got Bin Laden. I do have concerns about unnecessary war thumping by the neocons on Iran, but hopefully Romney and Obama won't listen to this crowd. It is funny how Romney complains about Obama's Iran stand, yet when asked what he would do, Romney lists the same actions that Obama is currently taking. Let's hope Romney sticks to sound reasoning and doesn't pull a Bush and listen to the neocon crowd.
I share that sentiment.
That's not to say he would be terrible; he'd still be better than Obama, and he's a bright guy and can learn quickly. But I want someone who is ready now.
Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2012 09:37 AMDespite getting universal good advice to fire Saul, what has Romney done about it?
Some standard bearer and manager this guy has shown himself to be. Is it too late to draft Christie?
Posted by: clarkofkent on August 10, 2012 09:45 AMPlease stop being dishonest. You are shifting the goalposts. This is not about communication skills, but skills at communicating with the PUBLIC, specifically.
And for MOST large corporations, the CEO rarely, if ever, communicates with the public.
Since when is WaPo, a Rupert Murdoch publication, anti-GOP?
For as long as I've been alive. Dude, not even WaPo denies they are firmly on the left, as much as WSJ is on the right. It's not as leftist as it used to be, in the 70s. And it's not as bad as the NY Times. But it's pretty clearly leftist.
That you think Murdoch makes a big difference is sad. First, whatever his political leanings, he has proved for years that he is about giving an audience what it wants, not about pushing his ideology. All you have to do is look at the early years of FOX TV to realize this, and the many other holdings of News Corp.
Second ... Murdoch does not own WaPo. Where did you get this? It's owned by The Washington Post Company, not News Corp.
Further, Klein went to the authors cited in the campaign's brief as being the source of the information. They refuted the campaign's economists interpretation of their work.
Yes. Like I said: economists disagreeing with economists. THAT is the story, not "economists disagree with Romney."
The campaign economists interpreted outside reports and "bent" the conclusions to fit the campaign narrative.
False. You're lying. You're completely making things up. Stop it, or you will be further banned. There is no evidence to support that conclusion. You have offered only disagreement among different economists, which is not evidence that one side is right and the other wrong, nor that any particular motive existed.
He may be thought of that way by some, but he is certainly not. He has more leadership experience (Speaker of the House in FL) than Obama did as candidate for President. More important to me as a VP candidate is how well he can be as a campaigner (excellent, and helps in a key swing state) and a voice for conservatives, which is what he is ideal for and an excellent complement to Romney. Being Hispanic doesn't hurt either, so Obama can't use the "bunch of white guys ticket" attacks.
Posted by: Palouse on August 10, 2012 10:13 AMI disagree.
He has more leadership experience (Speaker of the House in FL) than Obama did as candidate for President.
First, saying he has more experience than Obama wins you no points.
Second, being Speaker of a state legislature is not, to me, serious experience that contributes to being the Chief Executive.
More important to me as a VP candidate is how well he can be as a campaigner
Not to me, and not to most Americans.
I'd rather Romney went with a young candidate who will bring excitement to the ticket and get people out to vote. No one is going to be motivated to go out and vote for someone like Portman and Pawlenty on the ticket. Ryan makes the election less about the economy and more about his budget and Medicare, which I think is a mistake.
Posted by: Palouse on August 10, 2012 10:32 AMRight. But that is not what I am saying. I am saying he is green, not incompetent.
His experience stacks up with Obama's
Again, not a real positive.
and for a lower office.
To me, and many voters, no, it's not. We are hiring two people to be the President. We hope the second will not (in the next four years) be President, but that is what he is mostly hired to do.
I'd rather Romney went with a young candidate who will bring excitement to the ticket and get people out to vote.
I do not care how young someone is. But yes, he should be exciting, but also be experienced enough to be President on Day One. That will help bring in independent voters more than anything else a VP candidate can do.
Ryan makes the election less about the economy and more about his budget and Medicare, which I think is a mistake.
Not if it is handled right. For example: say Ryan's budget was just a starting point; he was and is trying to start the conversation, but with the Democrats in control of the Senate, the conversation was one-sided; this election IS about the principles Ryan put into that budget, not the specifics, and those principles are about reducing the cost of government, without hurting the most vulnerable, and -- most importantly -- to free the market to bring prosperity to the most Americans possible.
Not that I trust Romney to present such a potentially winning case ... but I can hope!
And I am saying that distinction matters. People don't care all that much about green (see Obama), but competence is important (see Palin).
That will help bring in independent voters more than anything else a VP candidate can do.
I don't see independent voters motivated to vote for Romney because Ryan/Portman/Pawlenty are more experienced than Rubio. Most important thing is beating Obama, first and foremost. Rubio gives Republicans a better chance at doing that IMO.
It's also about time for Republicans to stop writing off the minority vote, and a Rubio pick would be a huge step in that direction.
Not that I trust Romney to present such a potentially winning case
Obama's got too many surrogates in the MSM. They will make the election about Medicare, which although Ryan is 100% right about it, it's not a winning issue in public opinion right now and not something that Romney should focus the campaign on.
Posted by: Palouse on August 10, 2012 11:16 AM
Is it really too late to stop this train wreck and draft Christie?
Posted by: clarkofkent on August 10, 2012 11:18 AMRe: "Bent"
I would agree that that is not a correct word to use. I can not infer judgement. I can only point to the fact that the authors of the studies contacted by Klein stated that the conditions their reports addressed were not what was relayed to them by Klein as what Romney's staff paper stated. For example, the one the Romney's staff paper cited economic growth and referenced an economist's paper that Klein contacted. The problem is, per the economist who wrote the original paper, his conclusion is based on the condition that one implemented a consumption tax instead of the current tax system. Romney hasn't proposed changing the tax system over to a consumption tax. Therefore, the use of that paper's conclusion on growth is invalid.
I think it should be pointed out that one of the fundamentals outlined in the discussion with the economists who wrote the original papers cited by Romney's staff is the cause for the 2008 recession relates to housing. Neither Obama, nor Romney, has addressed the root cause. Therefore, the "fix" that either candidate is proposing really doesn't address the issue. This is where Romney should be focusing his economic message -- i.e., on fixing the housing issue.
Posted by: hopingmypostwillstay on August 10, 2012 11:22 AMThat has not been my experience in the companies and organizations I have worked for which range from size of a few thousand, hundreds of thousands, and millions (DoD - both at the top level, and at the command level, the Capt/Admiral regularly deals with public along with PAO). My current organization, the CEO is regularly in the press, has given statements to congress, and been involved with summits at the White House. So, your "rarely" tag doesn't fly. I am sure there are companies where the CEO doesn't deal much with the public, but there are also plenty that do. For example, in the Seattle area in the news within the last month was Jeff Bezos and Steve Ballmer on public policy issues. Howard Schultz has often been called upon for public statements. The Boeing CEO or even heads of its major business groups also are often called upon to provide statements to the press and public. To me, that doesn't describe "rarely."
Posted by: hopingmypostwillstay on August 10, 2012 11:31 AMSince Romney is not God, yes, I have to merely hope that he will do a good job.
And I can only point to the fact that the other economists disagree. Shrug. Well, I could do more, but I have no need or desire to.
per the economist who wrote the original paper, his conclusion is based on the condition that one implemented a consumption tax instead of the current tax system. Romney hasn't proposed changing the tax system over to a consumption tax. Therefore, the use of that paper's conclusion on growth is invalid.
It's never that simple. Maybe these higly decorated economists for Romney took the studies and drew conclusions for good reasons. I haven't read them so I cannot prejudge, but it is all in the details of what was actually written and studied on both sides, so I *can* say that your conclusions, and Klein's, are unwarranted based on the facts presented.
I think it should be pointed out that one of the fundamentals outlined in the discussion with the economists who wrote the original papers cited by Romney's staff is the cause for the 2008 recession relates to housing. Neither Obama, nor Romney, has addressed the root cause.
The cause is passed; if you are looking for some solution to undo what has been done, there's no such thing. We can only make sure it doesn't happen again, which has already been happening (though Obama still thinks the solution is free money, which is the part of the housing problem in the first place).
While the post was what should Romney do, I can tell you one thing Obama shouldn't do is run an ad like the one out regarding Son of Boss scandal and trying to tie Romney to it. This should be beneath them and is directly by the campaign and not some third party Super-Pac.
Posted by: hopingmypostwillstay on August 10, 2012 01:26 PMNegative ads only work if they are not debunked adequately. They don't work and can hurt a campaign if they are debunked within 48 hours and even better if done within 24 hours.
Posted by: KDS on August 10, 2012 01:45 PMThat will only get better once he has access to the full amount of funds available to him.
Posted by: Palouse on August 10, 2012 01:59 PM
"What is surprising is hearing a candidate say, essentially, "stop hitting me." As the folks at First Read note, this would seem to be something of a concession that the negatives are bothering the candidate"
Romney is having his "I'm suspending my campaign to go back to Washington " moment.
Posted by: Real Conservative on August 10, 2012 02:36 PMYou cannot control how leftists say they see Romney.
He's running from the field with his tail between his legs.
Um ... no, he's not.
You know the routine: the Republican should just concede the election now and the Democrat, in this case, Obama, should just be sworn in for the next term.
Posted by: RadioMattM on August 10, 2012 03:16 PM"Over the last four years, this President has pushed Republicans and Democrats as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces.
If an American president wins that way, we all lose.
But he won't win that way. America is one Nation under God. American history has been a story of the many becoming one - uniting to preserve liberty, uniting to build the greatest economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable darkness. Everywhere I go in America there are monuments that list those who have given their lives. There is no mention of their race, their party affiliation or what they did for a living. They lived and died under a single flag fighting for a single purpose. They pledged allegiance to the United States of America. So, Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America."
Posted by: KDS on August 14, 2012 10:28 PM