At BuzzFeed, McKay Coppins reports that Mitt Romney is finally ready to drop the “nice guy” claimer about Obama, and punch back hard against recent attacks:
“[Romney] has said Obama’s a nice fellow, he’s just in over his head,” the adviser said. “But I think the governor himself believes this latest round of attacks that have impugned his integrity and accused him of being a felon go so far beyond that pale that he’s really disappointed. He believes it’s time to vet the president. He really hasn’t been vetted; McCain didn’t do it.”
Indeed, facing what the candidate and his aides believe to be a series of surprisingly ruthless, unfounded, and unfair attacks from the Obama campaign on Romney’s finances and business record, the Republican’s campaign is now prepared to go eye for an eye in an intense, no-holds-barred act of political reprisal, said two Romney advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the next chapter of Boston’s pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a “liar” — very little will be off-limits, from the president’s youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.
Conservatives are anxious to see more fight from Romney, but will digging up Obama’s past be effective after he’s already served almost a full term in office? At New York magazine, Jonathan Chait writes:
The apparent plan is to mutter darkly about Chicago and drug use and sundry other biographical details that conservatives believe they wrongly shied away from four years ago.
As Coppins notes, this would amount to a full reversal of the old Romney strategy. The old plan, you may recall, was premised on targeting the sliver of swing voters in the middle who like Obama, want him to succeed, but believe he has failed to turn the economy around. Thus Romney devised a message targeted right at the gap between Obama’s good favorable ratings and less impressive job approval ratings. It was a good plan.
Does it make sense to abandon that plan to circulate dark mutterings about Obama’s past?
No, it does not. The point of disparaging Obama’s character is to paint him as a cultural alien unfit for the presidency. More of this theme may or may not have helped in 2008. But you can’t do that effectively against somebody who is already president of the United States.
But the point here wouldn’t be to paint Obama as “alien,” unless political cronyism and college drug use are suddenly considered foreign to American culture. It sounds like Romney’s plan is to portray Obama as a typical unseemly politician, which the president has been pretty successful at doing on his own by running a cynical, ultra-negative campaign.
This doesn’t mean the Romney campaign should exclusively dig up old Obama stories. But what’s wrong with finding the best and most effective angles to exploit, even if they’re from before he entered the White House? As BuzzFeed notes, Romney is also planning to hit Obama on Fast and Furious and more recent controversies.
Obama’s biography may not be as effective as an attack strategy at this stage in the game, but it shouldn’t be off-limits simply because he’s served almost a full term. Of course, some angles are more viable than others. Mention “unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers” or “Saul Alinsky tactics” and independent voters’ eyes will glaze over. But the Blagojevich scandal and the college drug use have gotten far less wear-and-tear from the paranoid fringe, and are probably less likely to backfire on the Romney campaign, assuming they’re used sparingly.
I agree. The idea that you cant define Barack Obama because he has been president for 3 1/2 years is conventional wisdom and is false and unfortunately bought into by too many conservative pundits. Also the idea that he is so likable and that is an impenetrable cocoon is also false.
Looks like Obama has managed to rattle the GOP:-) Here is John Sununu's classic outburst — n n"He has no idea how the American system functions, and we shouldn't be surprised about that, because he spent his early years in Hawaii smoking something, spent the next set of years in Indonesia, another set of years in Indonesia, and, frankly, when he came to the U.S., he worked as a community organizer, which is a socialized structure, and then got into politics in Chicago." [...] "I wish this president would learn how to be an American." n n
My first choice was Palin and Gingrich was my second choice … then I resigned myself to Romney and saw some things I could like — especially his embracing the Republican platform, such as repealing Obamacare, energy independence, reining in the EPA and anti-business regulations to put America back to work. It gave me some incentive to vote for Romney, not just against Obama. One thing I didn't care for was how Romney's campaign went after Gingrich — but I did note Romney seemed to distance himself from it and only defend himself in debates. I think they really do need to hit hard on Obama's failures as President (like you just can't let Obama get away with "betting on America"). And the campaign needs to call lies lies. I hope, though, that he can maintain that distance he had against Gingrich … and thus maintain a Presidential dignity.
I am not sure attacking college drug use (even cocaine) will be effective winning votes. It isn't that people approve, but that if you went to college it was around and, I believe, most people at least knew someone using drugs and didn't call the police, but went about their own business. I just don't know that it will shock anyone. No one cared about Clinton and marijuana — except to joke about him not inhaling. Cocaine is different, yes — but I believe there's a danger of Romney coming off as judgmental and out-of-touch … to some potential voters in the middle left and right.
The association with cocaine and other drug use will be made by surrogates but not Romney himself. John Sununu did that very effectively recently by saying that while the President was busy smoking joints and enjoying himself in college (by his own admission) Romney was busy rehabilitating companies and saving thousands of jobs! Just contrast the path of the two men in life…
Personally, I think his biography – ties to Frank Marshall Davis, Ayers, involvement with socialists – explains a lot of his actions and policies and what "more flexibility" in a second term might bring. So it is relevant.
college drug use is pointless to bring up these days. really, who cares? but some of the other items in Obama's background? you betcha someone should bring it up (although possibly not Mitt himself but a surrogate). n nhow about let's have a look at Obama's college transcript. we can't see it? why not? why can Obama whine about Romney's taxes when basically his whole life is on lockdown? please. n nand let's have a look at the Rashid Khalidi dinner video that the LA Times has had since before the last election. I want all the Jewish voters to hear how Barack "I know the most about Israel" Obama REALLY feels about the Palestinians. n nand let's examine Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko, and all those Chicago crooks and traitors. n neven tho he's been president for 3 years, people still don't know who Obama is because nobody was allowed to bring anything up in 2008 lest they be called a racist. n nso yeah: let's talk about Obama's sketchy past. the comparison to squeaky-clean Romney will be all the more powerful.
If all Obama is going to do is try to impugn Romney’s past and character, it is way past time we have transparency with respect to Obama’s past and character.
Re: "how about let's have a look at Obama's college transcript. we can't see it? why not?" n nFor the same reason that you cannot have a look at Romney's college transcript, because neither of them have released it. Bush did not release his transcript either (It was leaked by Yale, but Bush certainly did not release it). Nor have the transcripts of other presidents or presidential candidates been released.
Absolutely right, Ms. Goodman. n nAn effective eye-for-an-eye response can get the Obama Campaign gridlocked over each and every attack they make against Romney. "How will Romney's people respond if we attack Romney's wealthy background? They may start publicizing all the expensive and exotic trips that Obama and his family have made, all on the taxpayer dime and in a grueling recession. Or they may lambast Obama about his record-setting golfing habit. We can't risk it." n nThere is literally nothing that Obama can attack Romney over that Obama can't be roasted for to the same or even greater degree. Except the Mormonism. And even there, if Obama really wants to open that can of worms then it is fair game on Obama's muslim background and communist affiliations— Social Democrats anyone?
There are two good reasons for vetting Obama now: n n1) It wasn't done before and should have been. n nBut that is far less important than: n n2) Roberta Goodman is right. He wants to be president again, when, in a real sense that is not entirely possible now, he may put cautions arising from concerns about reelection to one side and, as it were, swing for the fences. n nHis candid remarks to Medvedev, when the Dissembler-in-Chief thought he was safe from eavesdroppers, have never really had the impact on the American people they by rights should have. That momentary glimpse into the possibility that there is a different — how did the mendacious bas**rd put it? — a "more flexible" B. H. Obama waiting Iago-like in the wings should scare the hell out of anyone contemplating voting for him. n nIn short, have we not the right and even the obligation to vet him until his ears bleed, the probability that the Republicans will regain control of Congress notwithstanding. The country is in too dire straights to arm wrestle for four more years with an Obama unbound from even paying lip service to normal political decency.
I want Mitt Romney to punch back twice as hard. I don't care if he uses an uppercut, a jab, a roundhouse, whatever. I'll leave that up to him. n nPUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD. n nThey send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue. n nIT'S THE CHICAGO WAY. n nObama has set the rules, now Romney must defeat him within those oh so very wide parameters. n nObama may retain some personal popularity, but he's done little besides sneer at hard working Americans for the past 3 1/2 years. I don't thing ANYBODY is going to feel sorry for him now, no matter what Romney throws at him. n nObama has worn out his race card, his pity card, his not-my-fault card. n nRing the damn bell and the games begin.
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted: A natural born citizen is one born in the country nof parents who were citizens. n nThat is the official U.S. Supreme Court interpretation from the unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett (1875). Never been overruled. n nIf Romney is silent on this issue, it means Romney is a corrupt, evil man, as was McCain, who knew this and kept silent. n nIt is up to us, citizens, and not our leaders, to fight saying Obama cannot be President.
A space egg fell from a star system many many light years away into the veldt outside a small Kenyan village. It fell in a shower of sparks and dug into the rich Kenyan loam. The next morning the children of the village accompanied by the wisest of elders went to look for where the space egg had fallen and found it in a circle of lions, resting on their haunches, and purring softly, their tails slowly twitching, their eyes focused on the space egg, now open. And the children and the elders ran up to it and the elder lifted from the diamond bright shards of shattered space egg shell, a beautiful perfect space child, Barack Obama. n nThere, satisfied? n nWhat? Citizens are not satisfied. People it's that whole circle of life thing!!!
I have to wonder if attacking Obama on his past is going to do any good. Those who support him, and those who are going to vote for him, have their minds welded shut (except for a few, like Adelson). n nFor any of them to consider that Obama is any less than The World's Best Hope, would mean that they might have been wrong at the start – cognitive dissonance – something that would make their psyche implode – something that they cannot let happen. n nWe could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that not only was he not born in Hawaii, but that he is an extraterrestrial alien sent here to sabotage us, or perhaps a Manchurian Candidate; they would still vote for him. They voted for Clinton after Monica; what hope is there? n nOf course Obama & Co have to attack Romney on his finances. They have nothing in the way of Obama's accomplishments to use.
I personally am no longer suprised at the depths of republican cowardice to get right back in the liberal/progressives face and call them on their constant hypocrisy, double-standards, lies, historical distortions of the achievements of the free market system, and refusal to abide by the constitution. You can depend on the republicans to consistently flub their opportunities. n nTo me, there is a huge difference in being "genteel" about disagreements and being a doormat upon which your opponents wipe their feet. n nControlled, righteous indignation while defending American values, free market principles, and conservative positions is a campaign fuse begging to be ignited by the vast majority of likely Romney voters. n nIf lit, and cogently proposed as an alternative to Obama's socialist-shared-misery-crony- capitalism reality, such rhetoric could propel Romney to a landslide election win with a mandate to restore limited government. n nI would love to see it, but I will not hold my breath waiting for Mitt to roll out such a response…