The line from Romney headquarters last month was “every day we’re not talking about the economy is a day we lose.” This line, which came from the highest reaches of the campaign, was proffered to explain the unwillingness to provide substantive details on a host of policies besides the economy. Well, Romney HQ isn’t talking about the economy these days. It’s talking about the ad that all but accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer. It’s talking about its vice-presidential pick. It’s talking about whether its ad accusing the president of gutting welfare-to-work laws is accurate. Guess what? It turns out you can’t just talk about the economy when people—and the media—want to talk about something else.
The polls suggesting he’s seven or nine points behind are surely wrong, but given that there is only one national poll that shows him ahead, we have to presume Romney is behind. He should presume he’s behind. And given that there’s no good reason whatever for Obama to be leading, one can only presume that Romney’s strategy in July and now in August is not working.
Which is why the “we only talk about the economy” line, while superficially clever, was and is so foolish—stupid, even. Of course Romney wants to focus on that one issue. It’s the one that hurts Obama the most, and the one on which he seems to score the best. He and his team have an idea about the campaign. They need to win independents to win. Independents are less ideological. So don’t press the ideological buttons. Keep it simple. Keep it plain. Obama has hurt you. I’ll help you. Fine.
But that’s not the only reason they’re doing it this way.
Romney and his people prefer this strategy because it’s what is most comfortable to them. He is not, at root, an ideological person. Neither, at root, are they. And the data suggest this is not a time for a sharply ideological campaign. The data suggest Romney needs to run as Mr. Fix-It. That is how Romney prefers to view himself. So the two match perfectly.
Alas for him, that’s not how it works. If conservative ideology is a problem with some independents, it also has the virtue of providing those who use it to discuss the nation’s problems with a pulse. Romney has just learned over the past few weeks that he cannot limit the discussion to the topics he wishes to talk about, especially when his rival is spending $100 million trying to destroy him in the swing states and when the media are largely serving his purposes by acting as though an increase in the unemployment rate and utterly unimpressive jobs-creation numbers are somehow good news.
So here’s why he should be talking about other things, releasing plans, giving speeches on big topics—because it’s the only way he can control the discussion. If he says the same thing about the economy every single day, he bores. He provides nothing new for anyone to fix on. He has to feed the beast. And it can’t just be that he puts his toe gingerly in the welfare-reform pool one day and then defend himself for three days after. It all has to keep moving.
In any case, if he doesn’t start putting things down on paper and develop the themes in speeches and get specific so that there is some meat on the bones of his policies, what on earth is he going to talk about for the next 88 days? Whether or not he killed a woman? This is a race he should be able to win, so if he loses, it won’t be because Obama won it. It will be because he lost it—and we’re seeing exactly how that might happen right now.
This article nails it. When you have ideologically squishy pundits like Dick Morris even telling you need to start hammering Obamacare and other pressing issues on the campaign trail you know your in trouble.
Romney also needs to hammer medical marijuana – which 70+% of the people favor. He needs to keep his conservative and Mormon cred.
It's weird, because this contest so far has pretty much just been Obama beating on Romney with anything at hand, even if what he's beating him with is imaginary or just a lie. And we were told the big advantage that Romney had compared to the rest of the Republican field was that his money had bought him an A campaign team; and it set to demolish his Republican opponents. But, like McCain before him, they seem to be having real problems with pivoting from taking apart their fellow Republicans to actually finding constructive ways to engage the president, or at least defend Romney. n nIf your opponent's strategy is to knock you out by throwing everything possible negative at you, you have to find a way to change that conversation to one that benefits you. At this point, the strategy seems to let Obama beat Romney like a drum and hope surrogates will help blunt the attacks. It's not working. n n(and btw, just as an aside, when ppl like me here said Gingrich would be a much more effective campaigner against Obama, it wasn't just the debates we were talking about, it was effectively responding and turning around these attacks back on the left; I mean, can you imagine Gingrich putting up with a month where the main topic was whether he paid his taxes on the basis on no evidence whatsoever?).
So, how many of the loser campaign workers from McBoob Sr's campaign are on Romney's? Sorry, I forgot, it was all that Palin lady's fault. I forgot the establishment Republican line.
so perhaps the problem is that there *is* a basis….
Right. n nRomney has to take the offensive. n n1. nTake the offensive on Obamacare. Talk about how medical costs have soared because govt removed competition from the medical industry and how, by making it possible to shop for medical care, that cost skyrocket can be reversed. Then, with costs not just contained but lowered, nation wide coverage for the uninsured will become affordable and doable. n n2. nShow where there are jobs, shovel ready jobs that don't need a major stimulus program, and can employ people massively and quickly. Our cities, unlike Europe's are still full of utility poles which cause electrical crises with every storm, winter and summer. The utility companies must be mandated to shovel open our streets and put those electrical and telephone lines underground. Municipal govts and property owners must be required to bring the quality of our pavements, sidewalks and streets, up to the best European standards. n n3. nHold the Administration responsible for the disaster in Afghanistan where a foolish surge has blown the embers of Bush's side show into an unnecessary war where we have no vital national interests. At the same time Obama's unconscionable retreat from Iraq has put that strategically critical victory in jeopardy. There is nothing conservative or patriotic about letting the Administration get away with these catastrophic national security blunders.
Oh, I am sure that mandating that utility companies raise their rates or reduce their dividends to shareholders and for businesses to spend billions for such a plan will go a long way to increasing enthusiasm for Romney's presidency among his base.
You are all right, but probably none of it matters. In 2006 the country voted to defeat its own military in Iraq; then in 2008 it voted for a disloyal community organizer over a moderate "maverick" Republican war hero. And since 2008 it continues to show it generally approves of the worst policies and results in memory–and even seems to support a person who says clearly unAmerican things like "you didn't build that." Face it, we as a people are just different. We really aren't Americans anymore. Romney could do everything right, and, alas, he will probably still lose. Of course, we will lose more, but we deserve it.
excellent: "We as a people are just different". Well said, great point. We've changed as a country and our DNA has and is changing. We want to get rather than earn. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." (Ben Franklin)
Amen brother! n nOur hearts – left and right – are hard. And you know what the Maker does to a hard hearted people.
Conservatives I trust are optimistic, but I just can't seem to get a good feeling. If I were to bet, I would say Obama is reelected. The 1980 comparison falls apart when you look at the actual numbers. n nIf anyone can cheer me up, it would be greatly appreciated.
During Carter/Reagan election, all of the media stated that Clinton was a shoe in. All the polls had him winning by double digits. Reagan won 49 states. Rasmussen has Romney up by 4. Wisconsin was supposed to be lost to the union insurrection. We are in an Orwellian dream. n nLies are truth, private sector doing fine, there are no warnings about the banks, Obama will win.
Well Dovid, it sure feels like 2004 and Bush won!!! Oh wait, this time out of the gate the incumbent is Obama. n nNever mind.
HELLO!! Where is Romney?? Anyone seen him? The man has been accused of being a felon, hiding money, and now causing the death of someone. Where is the outrage? Has he no fight in him?!! He needs to speak up more. I haven't heard much of anything. No wonder the polls show him losing. Doesn't he care??!! We are going to lose this country and our freedoms if he doesn't fight. This is the most important election of our country EVER and he needs to speak up!!
The leftstream media is pulling another trick, they are not putting any of his speeches on TV. I think they are going to be doing this tactic a lot. They will have a small snippet from him and then 41 minutes of analysis by Democrat operatives, sorry, journalists.
No he doesn't care. He only cares about the rich. If you think we have troubles now, let Romney get in the White house. What is his defense? He won't show his taxes; he doesn't want to talk about Bain or his record as Governor; he won't tell us his plan to create jobs. All he can do is take sound bites from Obama's speeches and twist his words. Then when he is called out for the liar he is he has no defense. He has nothing because he has no principle or real position. n
I've been involved in a number of campaigns, and those experiences leads me to conclude that it is the candidate himself that ultimately sets the course: deciding the themes, how to convey them and who will help him run and operate the campaign. This campaign is a reflection of a very flawed candidate. Not only, as Jon says, that he has no deep-seated conservative convictions, but he has the absolute worse background as we come out of a period in which Wall Street types have been villified. And, perhaps related to the aforementioned, the man has a very stiff speaking and body style that just cannot connect with voters in this age of visuals and sound-bites.
Romney can win this; it’s not over. Not by a long-shot. But he does have to risk alienating one part of the coalition he’s trying to amass. That can be the base or the Indy but he’s going to have to defend his term as Governor. He can’t run from that, and IMO, he shouldn’t. n nRomneycare was bound to surface. Saul’s was an involuntary response to the very real problem that health care cost is for so many people. A reflexive, and warranted, slap at the administration took second place because of the weight of the issue. Romney understands that. n nI want to vote for him but he has to defend his legislative record. And he has to be his own man, damn the consequences. n nHe’s a capable man. If he risks telling Americans the truth, even unpleasant aspects of it; if he risks admitting liberalism has reigned, barely interrupted, for close to a Century and evolved the present, unquestionable rhizome; if he acknowledges how that which once succored threatens to unravel us spiritually, morally and materially, he’ll win and he’ll win by a healthy margin.
You are buying into the idea that the polls that show him behind are even remotely correct. The reality is, if you correct for the absurd +D tilt of almost all of those polls, and the loose screens, they probably all match the poll showing him ahead. And we're not even to the convention yet. n nYou panic without cause. Which is precisely what those skewed polls were intended to make you do.
Hey, Big Ed said the Dems were going to win Wisconsin. I really pay attention to his analysis. +19 pffft. Who are you going to believe, them or your own lying eyes?
Panicking, yes, especially when you consider that the conventions haven't been held yet.
"…and when the media are largely serving his purposes by acting as though an increase in the unemployment rate and utterly unimpressive jobs-creation numbers are somehow good news." n nThe key factor against Mitt Romney is the blatant dishonesty of the MSM. It might as well be the paid right hand of the Obama campaign. These scoundrels are even taking terrible news and turning it into a positive for the president. Most American voters are lazy and refuse to spend even a few hours a week to learn the truth. They will only look at the headlines. We must guilt trip them.
Oh please do your research. It has been said that Obama gets more negative press then Romney. Romney is just a loser. He can't make himself into something he is not. He isn't a could candidate. He doesn't have a plan and he doesn't care about the poor and middle class. He is boring and acts entitled. He is lying and hiding things like his taxes, his money in other countries and his real position at Bain. He doesn't care enough about America to invest in it and he is responsible for sending jobs overseas. The republicans are giving this election away with this sorry useless liar.
I think the far left has figured out the interaction between facts, emotions and behavior, and the right has not. n nClaims against a person be they true or false, and of greater or lesser detail, are perceived by the human brain, and evoke an emotion. n nIf the emotion is strong enough, it is forever associated with the individual about whom the claims were leveled. n nThe facts may be forgotten entirely or countered effectively, but some shred of the negative emotions will remain. If you hear enough negative claims about the individual often enough, you'll act on the emotions when it comes time to vote, even if you can't recall the factual basis of those emotions. n nThe point: Facts and logic can't defeat an established emotion. n nThe left (including the MSM) know this full well and exploit it to the hilt.
When behind in a fight, you don't get to pick the rules of engagement. The enemy has revealed their strategy. So get personal. Has there ever been a more incompetent President? In any area is Obama qualified to be a executive? Based on what? His academic record. His months as a pot-head? His past 3.5 years performance? His repeated lies? His abuse of Executive Privilege? This should get personal now! This contest should be framed as having an unprincipled, lazy, aloof, unqualified mad-man at the helm, who will not only ruin your life, but your country and destroy opportunities for wealth, liberty, and individual freedoms for generations. I'm really frightened for our country. So few people care to learn anything about the miracle of America…
"His months as a pot head?" That will really help Romney when 70+% favor med pot and 50+% favor pot legalization. Yeah. Hit that one hard. In fact take two hits.
John, n nIt may be illuminating for you to read John Steele Gordon's post to this blog from yesterday and then, while you have time, go over to the Wall Street Journal and read Karl Rove's latest column. n nRomney is doing all right and while he'll need to do more, there is time for that, too. n nEnjoy the weekend! n
Funny – the last thing I read, minutes before reading Podhoretz's comments, were the negative responses to Lincoln's First Inaugural from a couple of noteworthy (and "friendly") critics – Fred. Douglass and Edward Everett. The former concluded that Lincoln was just another Pierce or Buchanan (!), a weak-willed dough face, the latter that Lincoln's intention to hold federal forts in the South would lead to Civil War. nOn the hand, Lincoln was too vacillating, on the other too firm. Seems like a guy in a nation of 30 million or so couldn't please everyone. How in the heck is Romney to do so in a nation of 310 million? nMr. Podhoretz, I would never have guessed this post was yours – its tone is too negative and harsh. ("Stupid"?) nI'm amazed at how quickly Republicans are willing to warn of a falling sky. I think Romney has focused on issues other than the economy, unless his trip to Jerusalem was all about promoting exports or something. At any rate, all of the current angst stems from what? Polls. Which, to borrow a word from Mr. Podhoretz, is "stupid". We have become so immersed in what numbers tell us, that we see a series of polls and even while criticizing their reliability decide they are wrong! Mr. Podhoretz does it here: n"The polls suggesting he’s seven or nine points behind are surely wrong, but given that there is only one national poll that shows him ahead, we have to presume Romney is behind." WHAT? If the polls suggesting he is behind are "surely wrong", they tell us NOTHING! So why the negativity? nThose who are so down on Romney's chances need to step away from polls and do the following 19th century exercise. What has happened since Nov. 2008 that warrants the conclusion that there is significant support for Obama (and the Democrats) and his (and their) agenda ? You can fill in the answers – NJ and VA, 2009, etc. Is there any evidence that people WANT Obamacare? Has AGW increased or decreased as a concern since all the Climategate emails? Are unions gaining or losing strength? Has support for limiting gun rights increased as a result of two mass shootings in the past few weeks? Etc., etc. There seems to be plenty of evidence that Americans are slowly pivoting to the right themselves. nSo, many Republicans seem to be freaking out because polls they don't trust show Romney is losing. These panic-mongers are now suggesting myriad ways for the candidate to change course, apparently oblivious to the fact that if he took advice from each of them, his vessel would be all over the place. nRemember, as the Douglass and Everett quotes demonstrate, Lincoln was not Lincoln in 1860. For that matter, Reagan was not Reagan in 1980. nIt's going to be OK, as long we all don't end up running out of the movie theater screaming "fire" after someone merely lights a match in the alleyway.
The Obama campaign has successfully tagged Romney as an insensitive rich white guy who came from pedigree, went to Ivy League schools, and jets around in excess. Talking about the economy subsequently not only fails to relate and resonate, but it turns Romney's talk into "more ranting by that rich guy who's complaining the bad economy has hurt his investment portfolio."
Romney is campaigning every day. The problem is that he's not getting his soundbite on the evening news. He might be shown speaking, but the sound is off and newscaster tends to explain in Obama speak what the "challenger" said. I think he'll get heard slowly and surely, but it sure is frustrating and, maybe it won't be until after the Obama message is set in cement. I do think this article made an important point that the Romney message needs to be bigger than just about the economy — because it isn't the economy issue that will win over the country, but a vision for America where we-the-people can have faith that the country can be turned around, or get back on the right path, so that solutions can be believed in. I know he can't steal "It's morning in America," but those few words are such a complete contrast to Obama's dark vision of America's future.
JPod, n nUnless conservatives can convey that they love America as she is right now: A drunk, -mascara smeared, a bit of an all-things-to-all people whore- who is down but cognizant and ripe for turning away from dissolution; rationally and emotionally trying to rise against defeat, they will not win. n nBest,
May I point out one major flaw in Podhoretz's analysis? He says that Romney should speak about matters that interest the press…..DUH? That is exactly the point- Romney is trying to avoid that trap, because, at the end, people will vote their pocketbook- the dependents will vote for Obama, the middle class for Romney…..and very little that the actual candidates say will matter. The economic factors will prevail. And,btw- a word about polls- the ones showing Obama ahead are all about "reigstered" voters and, considering that in 2008, only 63% of people voted, those polls are worthless. Rasmussen consistently polls only "likely' voters and guess who is ahead in his polls? (a hint- the candidate that most of you are bashing…by 47 over 43 for the community organizer)
I don't understand this near panic by some conservatives. Romney is in good position, roughly even in most polls and with a clear advantage in fund-raising. The incumbent consistently polls under 50% and it's impossible to see what will change between now and the election that could help him. n For most posters on this forum the campaign has been waged for a year, but for most of non-reading America, i.e. for most of America, it hasn't even begun.The conventions are coming and traditionally presidential campaigns begin on Labor Day, still almost a month away. n Of course Romney faces the unending dishonesty of the MM, most of whom, not just Chris Matthews, get thrills up their legs from Obama, but that was true for Reagan and both Bushes and they overcame that bias not with suddenly changing their messages but by continuing to pound away at the incumbents. That's what Romney is doing and I believe it will bear fruit down the road. n
The Republican National Convention begins in 17 days. Is it too late to stop Mitt Romney? Probably. But for the sake of the Party and the well-being of the Country, the covention delegates must not – indeed, cannot – nominate Romney for the presidency. n nTo nominate Romney would be a travesty. To do so would make the GOP nothing more than an irrelevant collection of "moderates" (aka "conservative Democrats"). To do so would result in a years-long process of building a true conservative political alternative, during which time the Democrats would achieve and consolidate their hold on all important aspects of American life. Health care is just the beginning. n nA decision to nominate Mitt Romney would be to repudiate Ronald Reagan's legacy. To nominate Mitt Romney would tell the world that the United States of America – our country – is no longer the bright and shining city on the hill. Rather, the USofA, like Great Britain, is a has-been that clings to its illusions of significance. n nDo the right thing, convention delegates. Nominate a winning Republican ticket.
Reagan would not have won without bringing conservative Democrats on board. And Romney can't win without bringing right-of-center Indys on board. n nThis electorate is not the electorate of 2008 or 2010. n nThe Tea Party does not represent the whole Country. n nConservative populism, by definition, concedes that the consent of the governed can't be gainsaid.
Well this right of center indie (Libertarian Republican) is not on board. And I'm giving my leftie friends ammunition. Not that they couldn't get it themselves but I like to save them time. n nWhen is the Republican Party going to stop being the "Moral" component of the Progressive movement. You know. "Government should…" No it shouldn't.
It is Obama campaign and the meida vs. Romney. Romney will unleash his campaign broadside once the funds are free after convention. If this tax distaction is the best Obama has he is quite desperate.
Romney knows what he is doing. I have never seen so many people panic in August about an election in November. It's unfortunate that Romney has to deal with a delusional base who can't see the demographics of this country is changing. It seems that hardline conservatives don't mind being a permanent minority. People like Rush, Laura Ingraham and that dope Erickson from Redstate, could never win a national election. n nWhen did conservatives becomes so weak?
Um, you lost me. n nIt seems the chief premise of your article is that Romney's strategy is not working based upon polling which you yourself admit is terribly flawed. n nIf you look at the polls which DON'T use INSANE Democrat oversampling you see that Romney is doing just fine and Obama can't get above 46%. n nAnyway, this battle hasn't even started. Come November the things we are obsessing about today will be long forgotten. We have a pick and 4 debates to talk about between now and then. Also, Romney hasn't even begun to spend his money yet and most folks aren't even paying attention. n nNo, Romney is just fine. Just playing a little rope-a-dope and letting Obama wear himself out.
I think people are on the right track that the MSM isn't giving Romney much screen time, and certainly NOT talking him up. Assuming most people make up their minds by what they see on TV, he has to use TV ads to the max to get ANY TV time. So I also assume he knows what he's doing, and that he's saving his money for big TV buys after the convention. I think that's smart. Especially the way the other side is imploding.
The American electorate: n n30% "liberals", progressives, socialists, statists, fascists, communists n30% classic liberals, Clinton Democrats, libertarians, independents n40% conservatives n nAs long as the public debate is played out along conservative versus "liberal" lines, the statists/fascists win. n nMitt Romney could win if he credibly ran as defender of liberty and free enterprise against statism and central planning. n nBut Romney is a big government technocrat at heart and will be forced to pander to "conservatism", so the fence-sitters will end up on the "liberal" side.
As much as I agree that the MSM is liberally biased, I don't think that explains their poll results – after all, Fox News has O up 9. But here's the deal – good polling is hard to do. It requires expertise and, presumably, money – neither of which news organizations have for this sort of thing. I suspect they do polls so they can generate a news story, but they could actually care less about accuracy. Look, imagine a Romney victory by, say, 4 in November. Who the heck is going to go back to Fox and say "What were you guys thinking? You had O up 9 in early August?" All any of these folks have to say is "Prove we were wrong at that point in time." Which is, of course, impossible to do. nAnd people who know about this stuff claim that the more a pollster can recreate what the electorate looks like on election day – the better they are at isolating likely voters – the better Republicans do. If that is true, then that would further explain these crazy polls. n n
The Romney people knew and know that O will do anything and everything to prevent a discussion on economy. They will also steal any idea that Romney will come up with and destroy it in the public arena then later exploit it and claim it is their idea.Deception is a weapon of the Muslims and the left.
Romney is a check-the-box kind of guy. He probably does the same thing every day. Explain to me again why he is the only who could beat Obama?
Looks like Mr. Romney is waiting for the nomination, but time is running fast.
Oh come on now. Romney isn't even officially the candidate. The 20% of the electorate who still might vote or not vote for either candidate hasn't even paid attention to the race yet. n nThere is the business of politics, and then there is the business of talking and writing about politics. The first group are professionals, the latter professional bs'ers, a fairly high percentage of whom are failed pros. n n
So explain to me why "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" and "It's the economy, stupid" would work for Reagan and Clinton but not Mitt. Because Obama has a nice smile? Get real. If the Republicans can't prevail under these dire economic conditions with a smart, attractive, non-scary-on-social-issues guy like Romney, when will they EVER win?
Conservatives have already made up their minds and can't wait for November, so they're antsy. There is nothing to consider other than the VP slot. Romney is compiling a hefty war-chest. I expect an ad blitz after school starts and people aren't on vacations and when they traditionally start to pay attention. It seems to me like a rope-a-dope strategy. Obama is blowing through his stash just to keep the meter where it is. With each new round of mud being thrown, Romney gets more donations from angry conservatives and the Prez looks smaller. You have Maureen Dowd, Spike Lee, and other leftists making apologies for Obama already. Romney is organized and probably has some really good ground data and a good voter turnout plan. It isn't sexy, but it gives Romney a truer picture of the "battlefield". n nAll that counts are the electoral votes. n nThere is no way Obama does as well as he did in '08. Simply not possible when looking at demographic polling numbers. Despite all the uneasiness by Repubs, states that should be solidly blue are toss-ups already. Republicans should be motivated to turn out more so than when McCain ran in the middle of an economic panic in a war-weary country. n nObama leads in electoral polling 201-191 with 146 toss ups. The trend in the toss-ups is away from Obama, not towards him. Conservatives only need to worry about turning out the vote. The rest will take care of itself.
The article fails to mention an essential: Romney's refusal to release his tax returns. n nThere is an inarguable folk wisdom about 'smoke and fire'. A plurality of those who do not (yet) support Romney are taking a wait-and-see posture. n nTheir reasoning is almost unassailable: if Romney has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear. n nOtherwise, why would he refuse to present his tax returns for the last decade? His father did it. Both Bushes did it. Obama and Clinton did it. Mitt refuses to do it. There must be a reason. n nIt may prove to be the colossal blunder that undermined his entire campaign.
Romney’s problem is the same as McCain’s, the refrain in his head “ you don’t have to be afraid of a president Obama”. He can not attack someone of his own political persuasion but you noticed the attacks on conservatives.
Good Grief! n nThe Candidates aren't even officially nominated yet so the campaigns haven't really begun. Obama and the media have hammered Romney with everything they can misconstrue or dream up. n nRomney hasn't done much of anything yet, and if you believe the polls, (I don't, but …), he's running at least even with Obama. n nWTF do you people expect?
Just shows how difficult it is to run a campaign when most of the press is on the other side. The revolutionaries have it right – first thing is to seize the TV and radio stations. Sad to say the TV and radio stations have be seized by the other side.
The electorate chose to elect the first AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT and now most people are afraid to really fight for fear of being labeled a racist. n nThe American electorate is now locked in fear and stupidity. For G-d's sake, our country hangs in the balance. The monarch in the White House is at least a socialist. We ought understand that Europe is going down the drain because of socialism, among other things, why would we want to repeat that fiasco? n nOne more Carter term and you literally destroy the greatness of America that has made the USA so special to us and billions of people who looked to us as a shining light. DO NOT DIM THE LIGHT ANY FURTHER!
No matter how bad the economy nobody wants to hear about spending cuts or lower wage rates or any other form of "belt-tightening". In the EU this sort of thing has led to the election of socialist governments as in France. This is of course a fundamental flaw in the democratic system. People are like little kids when mummy says that they have to do with less candy and eat more veggies. If Romneys message sounds anything like less candy and more veggies then the election is lost.
The article fails to mention an essential: Romney's refusal to release his tax returns. n nThere is an inarguable folk wisdom about 'smoke and fire'. A plurality of those who do not (yet) support Romney are taking a wait-and-see posture. n nTheir reasoning is almost unassailable: if Romney has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear. n nOtherwise, why would he refuse to present his tax returns for the last decade? His father did it. Both Bushes did it. Obama and Clinton did it. Mitt refuses to do it. There must be a reason. n nIt may prove to be the colossal blunder that undermined his entire campaign. n nThank you for printing this letter; by doing so, you demonstrate the fearlessness of your integrity.
Well, hey, I and others were telling you all that Gingrich was a better choice, because he would do, in fact, he DI, the opposite of what Romney is doing…but, no, y'all at Commentary were in the bag for Romney, and now, like Coulter, you are getting exactly what you asked for…
The reason its not working is because Americans are not looking 10 years ahead but one quarter ahead. To fix America Romney must pledge toil sweat blood and tears. All Obama has to do is to promise more of the Manna he has been showering his followers with – apres moi le deluge nWhat Romney really needs are Israeli jets over Isphahan, because when oil prices quadruple Obama is the only president who will catch the flack
Speaking of God. What is moral about destroying people because you don't like their personal habits? Ever hear of Jesus and the adulteress? And yes. The Drug War again.
Well, he did tell her to go and sin no more. That wasn't just a suggestion. n nI know you're not trying to ask Jesus to do your bidding, but your post invites the opportunity to add that Jesus Christ, as anyone's status quo, is never convincing.
An old saying among economists is: “Forecasting is easy. Accurate forecasting is hard — especially about the future.”
My own judgment is that Podhoretz’s criticisms of Romney are valid, but his forecast may be wrong.
And likewise for the forecasts in the comments preceding mine.
I do wish, however, that Romney would pay some attention to the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages: editorials, and op-eds. For example, Peggy Noonan’s piece in today’s (Saturday 11 August) would be worthwhile reading for Romney and his campaign.
The WSJ’s opinion pages criticisms of Romney’s campaign don’t match Podhoretz’s criticisms, but their general tenor is similar.
Economists have a saying: "Forecasting is Easy. Accurate forecasting is hard — especially about the future." n nMy judgment is that Mr. Podhoretz's criticisms of the Obama campaign are generally valid, but his forecasts may be wrong. At least, I hope so. n nI do wish that Romney himself and his advisors were reading the Wall Street Journal's opinion pages: editorials, and op-eds. Mr. Podhoretz's criticisms and the WSJ's criticisms of the Romney campaign do not match, but they have similar tenors. For example, today's (Saturday 11 August) WSJ piece by Peggy Noonan would be worth the Romney campaign's attention (as would her pieces on several previous weekends). n
You're so right. When I hear Newt, I want to cry in frustration that he's not running. Warts and all, I've been a big fan of his since the early eighties.
I hope he does waste time with this old tired issues that only idiots and haters think is true. He will lose for sure. Obama has been vetted. This is all old news and people who believe it will believe it. People who don't won't. These old attacks won't work but I would love him to waste time on them. No president has had to show college grades. The passport is really stupid since the president travels all over the world. The birth certificate has been shown. If there was something the tea baggers would have done something by now. There is nothing because he was born in America. There is a birth certificate in Hawaii and a birth announcement in an old newspaper. You either believe it or you don't. So going back over these issues is a waste of time. Romney needs to tell us what he will do and what he has done and stop trying to attack Obama because it won't work. Newt will never be president. Not now not ever. Nuff said.
I think they have a strategy, but are waiting for the right time to unleash it. They know that Obama will do and say anything, but they'll wait until closer to election day to turn him into a babbling fool