August 09, 2012
What Should Romney Do?
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 This
Romney should have his "there you go again" moment about the petty little issues Thugbama is focusing on while the country and her economy are in tatters.
He 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.
2. Saul should be fired?
What about her boss who told us he planned etch a sketch changes?
"Don't blame me, I vote on a voting machine"
Nor me, I sent my ballot in a week ago.
Regarding 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.
4. he still also messed up the diplomacy in England. When the conservative leaders of England blast him,
Oh yes... by saying EXACTLY what the British press said in editorials the week before.
Good grief, does Obamacare cover stuck eyeroll?
Clark: what he said about "Etch a Sketch" was perfectly reasonable. Yes, many people misinterpreted it, so he shouldn't have said it that way. But the meaning of what he said was spot-on and right. Of course you change your messaging around after the primary: you're talking to a different group of potential voters. There was no implication of any kind, despite claims to the contrary, that they were talking about changing policy: just messaging.
But 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 ...).
To put some context on Romney's "Culture" statement, here
is FactChecks write-up. I would start by stating that I don't believe for one second that Romney was trying to be racist in his comment, nor that the comment itself is necessarily racist. It is however, not a wise diplomatic statement. Romney is running to be commander in chief and the top spokesman for the country. Also, I do equate someone rising to the top of the managerial ranks with someone also requiring good communications skills in speaking to the public. It goes with the job and is the credential Romney is promoting as to why he is better than Obama. A CEO's job includes speaking to public and speaking in political climates where you do need to watch what you say. The CEO does not "do" the work, he communicates the vision and plan to those delegated to actually perform the work (in most cases, a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates would be an exception).
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.
@6 I don't see the culture statement as a gaffe like the comments Andrea Saul made about the despicable Obama ad. The media may not buy that, so do you suggest Romney roll over and retract what he said ? More importantly, what do you suggest Mr. Romney do to combat the slanderous lies in the Obama ads ?
I 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.
Stand up to the MF! The American people like strong, yet calm and confident leaders. If Romney stood up and called out Obama and all of his sycophants and their lies, and did it with confidence and a wink and some wit, he'd be guaranteed the election.
Put 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.
If the Mitt Romney does not employ something similar to the suggestion in a political ad by them or their surrogates that was made and communicated to his campaign, there would be one conclusion to draw from this; He does not want to be President bad enough and is a liability as a candidate in this election.
If 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.
I don't want Romney to use the tactic of linking Obama to deaths he wasn't responsible for. The ad by the PAC was pathetic and desperate on its own, and it has been exposed as such. It has completely backfired on Obama, why would Romney want to invite the same backlash? By staying above the fray and focusing on issues that actually matter, he can beat Obama.
That 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.
Obama has been linked to Fast and Furious, therefore is in part responsible for the American deaths. I don't see a problem with it. Romney will be setting a trap for him, because they will protest such an ad, but then Romney can point the finger at him for the items I mentioned in @6. It's about fighting fire with fire - anything less will be perceived as the wimp factor (a big turnoff to our culture). Staying above the fray is what Bushes did and it hurt them in the end. HW lost in 1992 and GW Bush will go down as a mediocre president because they did not answer their critics - there's too much riding on this election to be complacent about these negative and personal ads. Yes, Romney should continue to talk about his contrast in policies, but also get specific about what he will do.
Go 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.
12. J O B S
D E B T
F R E E D O M
14. There's so much material in Obama's record for the Romney campaign to attack, they don't need to use false narratives. Every time Obama points to some non-issue about Romney, they should run an ad on one of Obama's numerous policy failures. Romney will have a lot of money to spend after the convention and it will be a full assault on Obama's record, which is what it should be.
Peripherally, Romney appears to be a humble man.
Obama does not and is not.
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.
I agree with you that Romney is probably the wrong candidate. He is who GOP is now stuck with. His problem, to me, is he is trying to walk the tightrope of not ticking off the right and still trying to capture the middle of the electorate. He has a "Kerry" problem. My guess he would be very comfortable speaking to the center right of the electorate, but this would tick off the Limbaughs of the world and Romney hasn't been man enough to stand up to the Limbaughs of the world.
Romney'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).
17. @hopingmypostwillstay, please go to http://www.mittromney.com/issues for Mitt's actual plans. It's all laid out there, and you should give it a read, just so you won't ever have to again post such a long, rambling post about "no specifics". Do some work and get the facts.
@16: "Romney'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)."
Hmm... 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
@14 - Perception is reality. @16 is a typical independent and he is reluctant to support Romney. Maybe their mind will change once they check out Romney's website.
However, 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.
The problem isn't that Romney hasn't stated anything, as his web site outlines his plan, the problem is they are all generalities and not specifics. When independent economist try to "score" his proposal they have to guess at what he means. For example, He makes a statement about tax cuts and say they will be offset by getting rid of deductions, but never outlines which deductions he would propose eliminating. Therefore, economists trying to score the proposal are left to guess which deductions and end up choosing those deductions that may be closest to offsetting the loss in revenue. This may or may not be what Romney intends, but Romney won't say what he intends.
Romney 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).
"And maybe for good measure, add in, "This isn't France."'
I'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.
#21 - libtard... you are a sick individual.
Romney 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.
Hoping @ 20:
So 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?
24. If we had an informed voting populace and a media that wasn't biased, this would be a non-issue. Obama's abysmal record is crystal clear, and while Romney was not even close to my first choice, he's a HUGE improvement over President Downgrade. The choice is obvious, and Romney wouldn't have to actually DO anything.
tc: I do equate someone rising to the top of the managerial ranks with someone also requiring good communications skills in speaking to the public.
It goes with the job
No, it doesn't.
A CEO's job includes speaking to public
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?
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.
red: I'd love to be the person to tell you that if your wife got cancer and you had no insurance.
That makes no sense. It doesn't have anything to do with any point I made.
I warned you several times to not be stupid.
tc @ 20~ The problem isn't that Romney hasn't stated anything...the problem is they are all generalities and not specifics.
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!
28. @27 - I agree - fire Saul. In fact, I sent an email to Romney's campaign and said if they didn't get her off the campaign - no more donations.
Romney is not going to fire Saul.
Romney is not going to fire anybody on his team who speaks well of RomneyCare.
Might as well get over it.
Romney is going to do nothing different.
Romney is what Romney always was.
We can always hope. Romney looks like a better candidate than McCain was, but his campaign does not appear to be hardly any better than McCain's inept campaign was.
That is unfortunate and the only saving grace is that he is running against a incompetent, extremist and corrupt incumbent.
KDS @ 30
How is Romney a better candidate than McCain. McCain at least was a Conservative.
32. Laughable. McCain was more fiscally liberal even though he was a war hawk and ran a worse campaign from the start.
33. What does Romney do ? Select a vice president that generates interest; Rubio, Christie or Jindal.
clarkofkent: Romney is not going to fire anybody on his team who speaks well of RomneyCare.
That 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.
Hutz: Romney is about as conservative as McCain. They both have their un-conservative views, but are clearly conservative on balance.
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.
36. Jindal and Rubio simply are too green and unprepared for the job
Unprepared 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.
@35 - All of the three VP candidates would generate interest and I could add Ryan. Ryan could debate anyone about his budget, but that would not be the most strategic move. Portman, Pawlenty and McDonnall would be dull and not generate as much interest in this election. Many conservatives would yawn and the enthusiasm gap would probably narrow. The tea party would prefer Rubio or Jindal, but probably not Christie as much.
Who 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.
Palouse: 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.
I 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.
39. It doesn't matter who the VP pick is if you don't win. Rubio can help win Florida, which is critical for Romney. Ryan could put Wisconsin in play, which would also be significant, but Florida is more important. I like Ryan in Congress more anyway, no one is better on speaking of budget issues.
Palouse: It doesn't matter who the VP pick is if you don't win.
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.
41. 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.
tc: I do equate someone rising to the top of the managerial ranks with someone also requiring good communications skills in speaking to the public.
tc: 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
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.
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 see plenty of evidence that Rubio will be thought of as far too green to handle the job of President.
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.
Well that's just dandy.
While Romney is tanking in all the polls he will not fire his inept and ineffective leading spokes woman, not because she spoke highly of his achievement of RomneyCare, but because Romney is not capable of understanding a leading member of his campaign is a massively incompetent twit.
Despite 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?
tc: most medium to large organizations need someone with specific skills, and one of the top skills is communications
Please 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.
46. I see plenty of evidence that Rubio will be thought of as far too green to handle the job of President.
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.
Palouse: he is certainly not
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.
Rubio is certainly not viewed as incompetent (Quayle) or unqualified (Palin) to be President. His experience stacks up with Obama's, and for a lower office. That matters in public opinion.
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.
49. #44 -- Romney is tanking in all of the polls? You mean the ones that have him down by 11 points but over sample Democrats by 19%?
Palouse: Rubio is certainly not viewed as incompetent (Quayle) or unqualified (Palin) to be President.
Right. 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!
51. I am saying he is green, not incompetent.
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.
So it comes down to "hope" with Romney?
Maybe Romney, the man who can't bring himself to fire that massively incompetent twit Saul will some how deliver Hope and Change?
Is it really too late to stop this train wreck and draft Christie?
53. @52 Go away. No one believes your schtick.
RE: WaPo ownership
I checked News Corps site and Pudge you are correct. Where is it that I saw News Corp was involved? Maybe they were trying to buy at one time. My mistake.
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.
And for MOST large corporations, the CEO rarely, if ever, communicates with the public.
That 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."
56. But if we zoom out, it really doesn't matter what Romney does. We could run a Golden Retriever against Obama and the sane amongst us will see that this election is still a clear choice between freedom and statism. As long as people don't vote Obama, that's all that matters.
clark: So it comes down to "hope" with Romney?
Since Romney is not God, yes, I have to merely hope that he will do a good job.
tc: 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.
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).
I am fine with your response. My opinion on the housing foreclosure issue, is let it pass. It may take time to clear out the system, but government intervention to stimulate the economy in this area should be avoided. It may mean that both candidates are stuck with this drag on the economy. Well, then so be it. Sometimes no action is a lot better course.
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.
After the "cancergate" despicable lie of an ad by Obama's campaign, today's Gallup poll shows that Obama's favorable rating went down 4 points and Romney's went up 1 point and their poll shows the race (earlier in the week Obama was up) tied again.
Negative 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.
@60 I think Romney's campaign has been very nimble in responding to false attacks from Obama and his surrogates. They haven't always had the best strategy (e.g. asking for an apology he wasn't going to get for the felon thing), but they have been very quick to get a response ad out to most of the attacks before they can gain traction.
That will only get better once he has access to the full amount of funds available to him.
I guess we don't have to wonder anymore, this snip it is from Politico.
"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.
63. @62 Really? You're taking the OPINION of a Politico writer as proof of a failing campaign? You need to get out more.
64. It's not the opinion from Politico which bugs me, its Romney being seen as begging for mercy. He's running from the field with his tail between his legs.
65. @64 Yeah, except he did no such thing. All he said was the campaign would be better off without personal attacks. You and that hack writer read that as running away, which it absolutely isn't.
@64: It's not the opinion from Politico which bugs me, its Romney being seen as begging for mercy.
You 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.
If Romney fought back the same way he would be a dirty politician. If he tries to get the campaign away from such tactics he is running away.
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.
68. @62 - you need to grow a pair and stop reading Politico. Most of the time they are full of dog squeeze. Ben Smith, formerly of Politico is the biggest media slimeball (now on Buzzfeed) out there.
69. In the end, I'd say that Romney did the right thing with his VP pick.
He needs to prepare for the onslaught of screed and excrement from the Obama campaign - coming in 10-9-8-7-6-5-4...
Romney just said this today - A good place to start...
"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."