At this point in the presidential campaign we know Mitt Romney is not necessarily at his best when interacting with audiences or reporters in unscripted appearances. Though the wonkish candidate can be an effective when he has the time to apply his formidable powers of analysis and management skills to a problem, speaking off the cuff can lead to trouble. It did this afternoon when a woman asking a question at a campaign rally said President Obama was guilty of treason and Romney failed to disassociate himself from the accusation.
“We have a president right now who is operating outside the construction of our Constitution,” the woman asked Romney during a town hall in Euclid, Ohio. “And I do agree he should be tried for treason. But I wanna know what you are going to be able to do to help restore balance between the three branches of government and what you’re going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country?”
While Romney later told reporters at the event that he did not agree Obama should be tried for treason, he did not say that when answering the woman with a response that centered on his reverence for the Constitution. This will allow the Obama campaign to hit Romney for refusing to put any distance between himself and those on the right with over-the-top views of the president. Rather than swiftly reprove the woman and tell her that disagreements on the issues should not be criminalized, Romney provided Democrats with some fodder for their effort to portray the GOP as a band of extremists. While this moment is hardly a major gaffe and was quickly corrected by the candidate himself, it does show once again that Romney is vulnerable when forced to think on his feet in public.
The comparison with a similar moment in 2008 when a questioner told John McCain that Obama was an Arab is instructive. The feisty McCain reproved that questioner and then moved on. While some on the right will claim that such gentlemanly behavior didn’t help McCain win, Romney cannot afford to allow himself to play into the Obama campaign’s hands and help them paint him as too weak to stand up to marginal elements in his party.
Republicans will complain with some justice that President Obama has led the way with efforts to demonize the Republicans and the Tea Party movement. They will also note that the president’s misstatements never generate the same heat caused by Romney’s gaffes. But if Republicans haven’t figured out by now that they are playing on a field that tilts left, it’s about time they woke up. Yet even with these factors acknowledged, it must be admitted that Obama has rarely found himself in this sort of a tangle, largely because even when he was just a candidate four years ago, he did not engage in such exchanges with the public except with hand-picked audience members and with his trusty teleprompter in front of him. Until Romney learns to think faster, his campaign is going to have to learn to limit his exposure to moments such as these.
As soon as Obama starts correcting his surrogates on (P)MSNBC and elsewhere on Romney's Mormon faith; I suppose Romney can get around to correcting all the crazies in the GOP, until then Obama can spit in one hand and want in the other.
One's got zip to do with the other. Substantively and tactically Romney's failure to disown blasphemies that Obama is a traitor is exactly that– a failure.
So what is your position on Obama's commitment to America? Do you defend him as a patriot? On what grounds?
Sorry. n nThis question is too absurd to deserve an answer.
On the grounds that he kills our enemies.
You have a very short memory. n nObama killed bin Ladin, something Bush was unable to do in eight years, and something Romney thought was not worth bothering to do. n nObama killed the wicked Saudi behind 9/11. What have you done? n nObama can be criticized for much, and should be. Questioning his patriotism is nuts. Comments about 'treason' are from the looney bin, first to last. I remember the John Birch Society libeling Ike on the same basis, and with similar results. n nSuch ludicrous accusations debase the whole currency of legitimate debate about Obama's record. His strategists must be delighted. No wonder.
Rommey's unscripted reply was just fine. Way too much politically correct overanalysis by Tobin and the MSM . Rommey does not need to distance himself from conservatives, quite the contrary.
Why would Romney need to "reprove" the woman? it's not like she was planted there by Romney's staff; like all the questioners at Obuma's events planted by HIS staff. Romney said he disagreed with her; case closed; nothing to hurt him here, except a perception that he is unwilling to take the creepy occupant of the White House on, for fear of negative MSM reporting.
Yes, I think this is worrying about nothing. n nAny political thing you go to you see some crazy people. It is pointless to argue with them. n nAs long as Romney didn't agree with her, I don't see a big problem.
Who is this strange ignorant woman? The camera was hiding her face…probably to protect the stupid lady in the crowd…She could have been a republican plant or an ignorant OREO COOKIE….Stupid…… as one can be…..Maybe she can't find her drivers license and cannot vote…Perhaps the secret service should take a close look at her because she incites hate… Joan Bowen.
What is wrong with so many people? Since when are candidates/public figures/anyone else responsible for what goofballs say? n nThe only people who will take umbrage at this incident are fools and knaves. And Obama already has that block sewn up.
Romney should have ignored this whole thing — because he's going to get super headlines about apologizing to Obama who, the article will manage to point out, is the greatest American ever and above reproach as even Romney has to acknowledge. The reason Obama never takes one of his sides idiots (Pelosi, for instance) to task is because whatever he says will be news and interfere with the MSMs job of kowtowing to him and finding fault with Republicans. n nIf he's asked, he can say he said he disagreed with her. And get back to the issues, maybe even go over his answer to the woman or explain her question without the treason reference, and point out how a lot of people want to know that!
Mitt Romney responded to this lady in a very appropriate manner. We need to cease with this knee jerk fear of providing the lefties with ammunition to use against us. It sometimes paralyze into doing nothing.
I'm with Tobin. Romney erred a missed an opportunity to stand tall by discrediting any notion that Obama is a traitor and that it's contemplatable that he could be tried for that. n nThat notion is rank and extreme stupidity that can only serve to turn off independents.
We are discussing someone who has severely damaged the national economy, weakened our military, utterly mismanaged our only active war, and adjectively apologized for America to almost every tin-pot dictator who breathes. I grant you that behavior may represent a combination of stupidity, incompetence and blind adherence to Bill Ayers rather than treason, but isn't it somewhat absurd to suggest that the "notion" of treason is "rank and extreme stupidity"?
Exactly. Republicans need to keep their eyes on the prize. That means making Independent voters in swing states comfortable voting R. Forget the treason and birther stuff.
This is a legitimate and relevant subject for discussion.
My understanding is this woman, in stating she agreed that Obama should be tried for treason, was replying to an individual in close proximity to HER. That is whom she saw fit to agree with. It was kind of like she was broadcasting one half of a conversation she was having with someone else,who may have been quite headstrong and overbearing which apparently made quite an impression upon her. So the two agreed on this so what. She was not advocating criminal activity of any kind. she is entitled to her opinion. Her question to Romney was regarding The Constitution and separation of powers of the three branches of gov’t and Romney focused on her question and ignored the comment. Romney answered the question and ignored the gibberish. Why should Romney take her on, for what? He was trying to reach out to people who need to be convinced he is listening to them. In order to be fair, if he were interested in opening that can of worms, he may have had to request some clarifications on precisely what she was referring to. Why even go there. It’s water under the bridge.
Still, Mr. Tobin’s point is instructive. Governor Romney does need to tread with EXTREME CAUTION, from here on out. The advisors and coaches must establish fences within fences. This was a lesson to be learned.
Ultimately, this thread discusses a matter that will have, at best, tangential effects on the election. In other words, we're talking about something that will mean the difference between a 7-point Romney victory and a 6.8% Romney victory.