Skip to comments.Romney makes hay of the Chen case, distracts voters from Obama's abyssmal jobs record. /s
Posted on 05/04/2012 2:55:43 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
While I am waxing sarcastic I will explain why.
Romney and/or his surrogates have repeatedly let us know either implicitly or explicitly that when Obama makes hay of an issue (like killing Bin Laden or campaigning on college campuses on the issue of college loan interest rates, etc, etc) they will call him out for distracting voters from his abyssmal jobs record. This allows Romney to operate in and on a range of issues, while isolating Obama to one issue.
Romney's political mindset is easy to follow as it flows from his business mindset: Romney sits and the end the conference table, calls the meeting, tells his upper-level management to talk about what they are doing and will do, cuts them off when is done listening to them, moves on to the next person and so on until he hears all that the thinks he needs for the time being. Romney calls the meeting, decides what issues will and won't be raised, and then ends the meeting. The upper-level management then direct mid-level management to enact his decisions. Romney decides for himself and the Obama campaign what issues will be talked about. If Santorum gives a full-throated endorsement it will be after Romney directs him to stick to Romney's talking points.
Romney's political consultants are his upper-level management, with Bachmann being a mid-level management person who speaks for him to try and rally Tea Partiers to his side. Ayotte was his mid-level management person who spoke for him recently in New Hampshire, while another female Republican goes recently on Meet the Press to speak for him, eventually duking things out with Rachel Maddow over the issue of "fair pay."
In other cases we hear Romney saying that his wife has come back to him several times telling him what women are concerned about. Yet another person that goes out in his place. When it is time to appear in person, he goes on Fox News by himself, but if he is to be interviewed on one of the alphabet networks or on CNN, he appears with his wife. Romney has yet to appear on Meet The Press, yet Gingrich and other GOP candidates didn't show any reluctance to go on MTP by themself.
If Obama makes hay, call him on it. If Romney does the same, call him on it. If Bush spiked the football when landing on an aircraft carrier with the sign Mission Accomplished behind him, then call him on it. If Obama spikes the football, then call him on it.
But Romney hedged his bets and did not really emphasize back in 2007 that Obama didn't need to make his comments about Pakistan, Musharraf and Al Qaeda public, yet emphasizes that now. Instead, Romney pin-pointed then that making the comments public was "ill-conceived" (stupid) and "ill-timed" (not the right time), not that Obama shouldn't have said anything at all, ever, about this.
As I said before, Obama's comments made public in 2007 did not in the end help Bin Laden to escape death (i.e., he didn't flee Pakistan after Obama's comments were made public). The comments from Obama could have caused Osama to flee Pakistan, but didn't, thankfully. Thank God Osama Bin Laden is dead. But why didn't Romney repeatedly emphasize this point (Obama shouldn't say anything in 2007) like he is now?
Again and again we see Romney hedging his bets on various issues and later on saying that what he really meant was... be it on illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. Caveats after caveats. Romney says read between the lines, or pivots or modifies his positions, which is why we have seen version 1.0 when he ran for the U.S. Senate, version 2.0 when he ran for Governor, version 3.0 when he governed, version 4.0 in 2007-2008, and version 5.0 now. Version 6.0 will come if he is elected president.
Both Obama and Romney are both in their own ways crony capitalists who favor corporate welfare. A plethora of news sources from the American Spectator to the LA Times to dirtdiggersdigest have called Romney out on his corporate welfare ways. Call both sides on this, or call neither side on this.
If The Five on Fox News are going to take Obama to task on his abyssmal Green Jobs record, then they must also do the same with Romney on his abyssmal Green Energy Fund record when he was Governor of Massachusetts. No hypocrisy.
In the end, for me personally, it is Virgil Goode with all R's down ballot. We don't need four years of Tea partiers being undermined by RINO Romney, Boehner and McConnell like we have seen. The MSM will side with the RINOs, not the Tea Partiers, as they would rather have RINO policies enacted than Tea Party policies enacted. Please, no Ad Baculum arguments about the universe imploding if Obama is re-elected. Control of the House and Senate will stymie Obama. Filibusters will force him to nominate a moderate to replace any far-lefty on SCOTUS. Why takes a chance of another Souter being nominated to the court from a RINO?
Reagan was right - why support moderates who will undermine the cause and govern in such as way as being similar to our opponents in the Democrat Party?
What say you?
Please, no Ad Hominem (personal attacks) or Ad Baculum arguments, slippery slope arguemnts, etc.
Correction: slippery slope arguments.
However liberal Mr. Romney is; he's not Obama.
Oh, geez, another Constitution Party hack. Enough, already.
So it's anybody who's not a communist like Obama for me.
While both sides of this argumemt make good points, I’m nominally with you, Mr. Lucky. A sufficiently conservative Congress could stop obastard. The same Congress could push Mr. Etch-a-Sketch to do some actual good.
So barring a miracle (ie, brokered convention), I’ll be pulling the lever for MittCare Romney. Sigh.
To be blunt, though, I’m not sure it matters. When the “conservative” side of the political spectrum in this country nominates a RINO like MittCare, we’re screwed regardless...
Just a question: Will the Constitution Party be on the ballot in NC in the fall?