A great deal has been written about Mitt Romney over the last few years. Some good, some bad, some fair, some not.
My take on him is that he was a pretty successful moderate Republican Governor of a liberal state in Massachusetts. He was successful because was moderate. Once the presidential campaigns came in 2008 and 2012, Mr. Romney was forced, during the Republican primaries, to abandon his centrist stances and move hard to his right. So far to his right, in fact, that during the 2012 GOP primaries Mr. Romney chose to describe himself as "severely conservative," which most people just laughed about. Romney dropped out of the 2008 campaign and was soundly defeated by President Obama in 2012.
A small scene from the new documentary "Mitt" recently released by Netflix has made a bit of a splash.
"That's what I start with: 'Dad,'" [Mitt] Romney explained. "I always think about dad and about I am standing on his shoulders. I would not be there, there's no way I would be able to be running for president if dad hadn't done what dad did. He's the real deal..."
"You're the real deal," said one of Romney's sons.
Romney didn't pause. "The guy was born in Mexico. He didn't have a college degree. He became head of a car company and became a governor. It would have never entered my mind to be in politics, how can you go from his beginning to think, I can be head of a car company, I can run for governor, I can run for president?"
Romney wasn't finished. "The gap --- for me, I started where he ended up. I started off with money and education, Harvard Business School, Harvard Law School. For me it's moving that far" --- Romney held two fingers close together --- "For him, it's like that," Romney said, holding his arms wide apart.
I interpret these remarks as Mitt paying respect to his father for his accomplishments and enabling the younger Romney to have a life of privilege and a head start in life. I truly don't think he's a bad guy. I think he's severely out of touch. I think that he chosen to expound on this theme, while acknowledging that most people don't start with the advantages he did, he would've come across in a different, less detached, light. This could have served to temper somewhat his "47% comments." In a totally different reality, he would've used the story above, with some modified policies toward the poor and minorities, etc. never saying the 47% thing at all and who knows? Maybe a closer race, maybe a different outcome.
Two weeks ago I wrote that Florida Senator Marco Rubio was taking some heat from many on his right over his immigration stance. His involvement in the "Gang of 8", a bi-partisan group of elected officials who have come up with a pretty reasonable plan for immigration reform, has brought out a dangerous and counter-productive element of today's Conservative movement. Right wing pundits have been especially critical of the Gang of 8's proposal, including popular RW talkers Mark Levin, who said, "“It amazes me how few Republicans in elected office actually talk about the Constitution. They have no more respect for it, no more concern about its boundaries and limits than the left. That’s why I say they’re neo-statist.” Later, name-checked Rubio during the same tirade: “You got that, Marco? You got that Paul and Karl Rove, as you lie through your teeth, you got it, pal?” Laura Ingraham said,“To all the Republicans who supported this, well know that you’re writing your own political obituary. I hope you know that you just participated in the political equivalent of a one-night stand. Once the Democrat leadership has had their way with you, they’re not going to love you in the morning,”And, "In all my years of warning about the GOP moderates, I’m certain that this Senate immigration deal is the worst thing they’ve ever done,” Michelle Malkin offered, "Marco Rubio has made some extremely bad choices . . . Unfortunately Marco Rubio has been completely self-diluted . .. I think he’s trying to save face.” Ann Coulter said, The patriotic House member’s position has got to be until the Senate is in Republican hands, preferably Rubio-free, sorry, we’re not even going to pass a bill that mentions immigration. A week earlier she dubbed him, “the Jack Kevorkian of the Republican Party.” Even Glen Beck is upset: “Let me tell you something Marco Rubio, I haven’t trusted you for quite some time. Rubio’s a dirtbag. He is not on our side. Don’t trust Marco Rubio.”
Good grief. Glen Beck calling Marco Rubio a dirtbag? Really?
Mr. Rubio hasn't been afraid to take on his critics directly as he's made stops at most of the popular conservative media outlets like Fox news and various right wing radio talk shows. Generally speaking, Rubio is well liked and thought of as having great potential to lead the party back to the White House someday. Maybe that day will be in 2016. Maybe not.
A recent poll by the conservative leaning Rasmussen Reports shows Rubio taking a hard hit in his favorability ratings within the Republican Party. In February, Rubio was considered favorable by 73% of Republicans. That number fell to 68% in May and earlier this week had dropped even further to 58%. Overall, a severe drop in his favorability ratings of 21% in less than six months.
Senator Rubio took to the floor of the Senate Wednesday to defend the Gang of 8 immigration plan as well as his support of it. Its twelve minutes long, but Rubio does a nice job directly responding to his critics and making a strong case why it should be supported.
I do not agree with Marco Rubio on most issues. Should he be the GOP's nominee I would have a hard time voting for him. That said, it strikes me that here we have an attractive, young, dynamic and capable legislator showing a willingness to reach across the aisle and work toward a common good with Democrats. Which, generally speaking, is something that most independent voters find highly attractive. Rather than learn the lesson from the Mitt Romney disaster, the hard liners mentioned above and others like fellow Senator Ted Cruz-(R TX) are trashing Rubio's efforts. Cruz has, in fact, compared the proposed Bill to "human trafficking."
For those of you who have forgotten, Mitt Romney was a mostly moderate Republican Governor of a liberal state in Massachusetts, who's biggest success, "Romneycare" was rendered utterly useless by the Republican primary process. Romney was forced/chose to abandon his moderate strength and pronounce himself not just a conservative but a severe conservative, which was, of course, laughable. Its my opinion, the primary process forced Romney to move so far to his right to win the hearts and minds of the primary voters, that when it came time to move back towards the middle to attract the independent and undecided voters, he could'nt step to his left fast or far enough and he wound up getting clocked badly by an unpopular incumbent who's middle name is Hussein and is thought by many to be a Muslim, Socialist/Marxist, Kenyan who hates Christians and Christmas equally.
Again I'll caution those on the right against making the same mistake twice. Rubio is probably less moderate than Romney was, but if he's so easily attacked it makes me wonder if any lessons have been learned from the 2012 Presidential Election. To many in the middle, voices like those of Cruz and fellow Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) strike many of us as too extreme, too strident. Rubio doesn't have the extreme or nutty label yet and I applaud his efforts to stand his ground...so far.
Glen beck called Marco Rubio a dirtbag. That's precious...
The discussions between the two camps commenced in early February, just after Gingrich got trounced in Florida. Brabender called members of the Gingrich brain trust, hoping they could persuade Gingrich to drop out and endorse Santorum, who was rising in the polls. “I’ll tell you this,” says Brabender, “If Gingrich had dropped out at the right time, Santorum would have been the nominee.” Brabender wasn’t short on moxie: He wanted Gingrich to declare in the middle of a nationally televised debate that he was dropping out and endorsing Santorum. “I couldn’t write an ad to match the political theater that would have created,” he says.
There's always a chance that a Gingrich/Santorum team might've caught fire and won the hearts, minds and votes of the electorate, but I don't see how it would've achieved the ultimate goal of defeating the incumbent President Obama. Mitt Romney ran to the left of both Gingrich and Santorum, and despite that relative moderate centrism that had hopefully connected with the independents last Fall but didn't really, and failed. How a more conservative ticket would've somehow won over the centrist votes Romney failed to, defies logic. They wouldn't have.
A Gingrich/Santorum ticket would've been sweet, sweet music to the Obama campaign, trust me. A splintered opposition would've siphoned off considerable votes from Romney and almost none from Obama. As decisive as the Obama victory was last November, had the above scenario every become reality, Obama would've won in an absolute landslide.
Ultimately this idea failed, in part at least, due to the inability of either Gingrich or Santorum to agree to be the other guys running mate. The degree with which either man was so out of touch as to not realize the certain doom that awaited such an ego-driven move. Hard to imagine, eh?
Wayne Allyn Root is a successful business man who's worn several hats in his career. His website site, "rootforamerica.com" describes as a "Capitalist Evangelist, Entrepreneur, Former Vice Presidential Nominee, Media Personality, Business Speaker and Best Selling Author." Quite the resume. He also attended Columbia University the same time President Barack Obama did, although Root says he has no recollection of meeting or seeing him.
He's also a sport handicapper, which I suppose gave him the idea that he could make a keen prediction on the 2012 Presidential Election between incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney.
His first public prediction on the race came back in December 2011, when he predicted Mitt Romney would win the GOP Primary and go on to win the Presidency. Root turned out correct that Romney would win the Republican nomination, so we tip our hat to him on that one. Some might argue that Romney was the most attractive passenger on the GOP clown car and winning that race shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Nonetheless, after the primaries were over in the Spring of 2012, Root again announced his prediction that Romney would beat Barack Obama come November. As recently as October 9th, 2012, Root doubled down on his belief that Romney would defeat President Obama in a "landslide."
Root cited several reasons why he felt this way. He felt the polls were utterly wrong and skewed toward Democrats. He felt that the media wasn't reporting a "mass revulsion" towards Obama across the country, even in some hard core Democratic areas like Massachusetts and Illinois. He claimed that since there were more Republican Governors in power today than there were in 2008, that this would also boost Romney. He cited the changes in electoral vote distribution would benefit states that generally lean Republican.
Mr. Root also felt Romney held a decisive advantage financially over President Obama saying, "What matters is that in 2008 Obama overwhelmed McCain by out-spending him 10 to 1 down the stretch. That won’t happen in 2012. Romney is even, or can out-spend Obama, in the last 2 weeks of the election. That makes a huge difference in the outcome."
Another advantage for Mr. Romney would be the Christian vote, citing the long lines at Chic-fil-A's earlier this year and the perception that Obama has offended Christians one too many times. He also explains that since voter's in 2012 have been purged of felons and illegals, Democratic turnout will be down as a result. Root asks, "...What kind of political party relies on felons and people illegally in the country to win elections?" Finally, he feels that the undecided voters traditionally break for the challenger, in this case, Mr. Romney. In closing, Wayne Allyn Root writes, "This is Carter/Reagan all over again. The same horrible economy. The same economically ignorant fool in the White House bringing misery to Americans. The same economic collapse under the weight of socialist, pro union, soak the rich, demonize the business owners, policies. I predict the same result on election day. Mitt Romney in a landslide."
I first heard of Wayne Allyn Root several weeks ago while engaged in a political discussion on facebook. My counterpart suggested my faith in polls and especially Nate Silver's forecasting was unwise. Foolish. Stupid.
You get the idea...
After our conversation ended, I wrote down Mr. Root's name. I wanted to remember to follow up after the election. Just how close would he come with his prediction of a Romney landslide?
Mr. Root is an interesting and enterprising man. He is ambitious and diverse in his ventures. He was NOT very good at predicting this year's presidential election. He blew it and wasn't remotely close to an accurate prediction.
I also have to smile when I think back to that conversation where I was ridiculed for choosing Silver's math over Root's gut. I haven't heard from my conversation partner since the election ended. Nor do I expect to.
As I write this, its several hours since the major news organisations and networks called today's election for incumbent Barack Obama. I'm still shocked at the way the evening went, with one State after another falling as Nate Silver predicted they would, for the President. The long drawn out drama that was predicted never really came.
I'm being told that Obama crushed challenger Mitt Romney with minorities, single women and young people. It makes sense. Tonight almost seemed easy for the President.
What was a surprise was the number of other races that went in the Democrats favor. Elizabeth Warren defeating Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Claire McKaskill defeating Todd Akin in Missouri. Allan West losing in Florida. Tim Kaine winning in Virginia. Joe Donnelly winning in Indiana. Joe the Plumber losing in Ohio. Sherrod Brown winning in Ohio. Allan Grayson winning in Florida. Same sex marriage passing in two states. Etc...Even Michelle Bachmann had to fight for her life to save her House seat.
As bad as the 2010 mid-terms were for Democrats, 2012 seems to be almost as bad for the Republicans. Many of my conservative friends predicted a major landslide given President Obama's record. They were, of course, wrong. Completely wrong.
While I congratulate Mr. Obama on winning a second term, I see storm clouds ahead. A split Congress and not enough seats in the Senate to stop a filibuster. The fiscal cliff is looming and expected to be pushed into next year. I don't sense that any of the GOP leaders want to cooperate, regardless of tonight's outcome.
Speaking of the GOP, they'd better start re-branding their image fast. You can't alienate those groups I mentioned above. Well, you can, but you do so at your own peril. In four more years, hundreds of thousands of older voting Americans will have passed away. Voters who usually voted Conservative. Replaced by a like number of, based on demographic information we know, younger voters who are mostly minorities. Minorities voted for Obama in dramatic numbers...again. The GOP has to pick at least one specific group, and start a serious courtship. Soon. I'd suggest Hispanics and Latinos. Build the next 20 years of your party around that group and Marco Rubio.
If you don't, its not hypebole to suggest that the Republican Party as we know it today, will be little more than footnote going forward.
I am very pleased that Mr. Obama won re-election. Mostly due to the now secure implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It somehow seems as if justice has been served. Four more years of adult, responsible leadership for America.
To those who are upset that Mitt Romney lost, you have some thinking to do. A subject which I'll have more to say about later.
I think it will be a close margin of victory in the popular vote, I expect a margin of less than 1.75%
I think Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College by a larger margin, I suspect in the (+) 50-70 range over Mitt Romney's total electoral count.
I base this on the approach many forecasters such as Nate Silver of the 538 Blog and Sam Wong of the Princeton Election Consortium. We don't elect our President ever four years by a straight national vote. We essentially have fifty separate State elections, which then (usually) yields enough electoral votes, 270 being required, to determine the winner.
While the national polls look very close, too close to call in fact, the State polls are far more revealing. No one will be surprised if Obama wins California or if Romney wins Texas. So we don't spend a lot of time studying those states. Our time is better served and a clearer picture of what may happen on Tuesday comes from looking at the battleground state polls. In short, I'll defer to Mr. Silver in Friday's 538 column:
Friday’s polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida. Unless all the State polls are biased and under-estimating Mr. Romney's chances, it doesn't look good for seeing a Republican in the White House anytime soon. I will acknowledge a warped sense of respect for much of the far right who has been using white hot rhetoric, often in lieu of factual information, in their case against President Obama. Its been tempting for me to lower my expectations for this election, especially given my location here in Southwest Ohio. In the end though, what I see daily in this part of the country is being addressed in the state polls and ultimately, I don't think, will make a difference.
(Editor's note: Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has released the following statement...)
Good evening...
With less than 90 hours to go until the polls open on election day, I've take some time after my speech earlier today to reflect on where my campaign is. There's been some things troubling me and I can't remain silent any longer. I have to speak. I have to speak now.
For most of my political career, I've been a moderate. That approach served me well up until the GOP primaries. It was pointed out to me in very clear terms that if I wanted to get support and donations from conservatives, I'd have to convince them that I actually was one of them. I agreed to move to the right on virtually everything. I wasn't wild about it, but there seemed no other way. Hence my "severe conservative" remarks...
I've had to abandon many of the moderate positions I'd taken earlier on my career on everything from climate change, same sex marriage, women's rights and healthcare. It's been difficult arguing the other side of these cases for the last few months. I've also been too quiet on some of the offensive remarks and attacks aimed at my opponent, President Obama. President Obama is a good, decent American Christian who has shown all of us the value of tolerance. His first term has been at worst, a modest success.
I say here and now, I was wrong to change my stance to appeal to the hard core conservatives. I apologize to my wife, my children, my friends, supporters and contributors. When considering someone for the highest office in the land, you not only have every right to explore their character, you have a duty. I changed my stance on these issues and others in order to try and become President. I justified it by telling myself that once I was in office, I could soften my stances and lead from a more moderate position. With the odds of me winning next Tuesday looking worse by the day, I've decided to come clean. Put it all out there, warts and all for the American people to decide if Mitt Romney, the real Mitt Romney, is worth another look.
There will be some changes made, effective immediately that effect my campaign...
First, I've asked Paul Ryan to step down as my Vice President candidate. He has agreed and will now focus on his House race in Wisconsin. Paul is a bright shining star that we will hear great things from someday, but I want to replace him with the man who was my first choice, Jon Huntsman. Jon is an expert at foreign affairs and has a high knowledge level. Our relationship with China will be integral over the next several years and I want Jon's expertise close at hand. Plus, he has a great record of business development that we'll also need to tap into as we rebuild our economy.
Second, I realize the importance of Bi-Partisanship in Congress. We, as a team must work to do the work of the People we represent. As a gesture of my determination of leading a different kind of Congress, I've decided that there are certain Republicans running for office currently that really have no interest in reaching across the aisle. Two come to mind. Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia and Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota. Both have voiced an intention of staying inflexible with their ideas and party agenda. While I think holding fast to your values is important, compromise is essential to good productive governance. As proof that I'm serious about Congress working together, this evening I've donated one million dollars to each of their opponents. It may cost me some votes, but if I wind up as President, I want people working with me who are open to some semblance of give and take.
Thirdly, a few words about the hard shift to the right that my party has taken in recent years. We've gone too far. Our principles of small government, prudent fiscal policy and a strong military aren't wrong. They're absolutely right. However, when we demonize those who have different ideas, we're wrong. Reasonable people can disagree. They ought not be ridiculed or characterized as un-american, dangerous or anything else. I also ask the media, on all sides and yes that means Fox News and MSNBC, to cool it with the over-heated rhetoric. It doesn't help anything.
A Romney/Huntsman team has years of successful experience in growing jobs, plus we offer proven management skills and foreign policy credentials. We'll work with Congress to reduce the size of Government, while maintaining our important social safety net. The Affordable Care Act will continue to be the law of the land, but we'll have serious tort reform legislation introduced at the next session of Congress. While its already in the law, tonight Jon and I pledge that we will get our health insurance from the same pool of coverage options that all federal workers have available to them. We will look for opportunities to make the ACA as business-friendly as possible. We'll work on reforming our tax codes, both personal income and corporate level taxes. We'll propose serious immigration reform by our 3rd year in office. We'll also target a balanced approach toward deficit reduction.
As crazy as it sounds, I still ask for your vote. I've been a problem solver all my adult life. There are problems...big ones we all face together over the next several years. I feel confident that I can lead the United States in a better direction. If you agree with me and want a different direction and leadership team in the White House, please consider voting for me.
Thank You,
God Bless America
Mitt Romney
11/03/12
(Ok, so Mitt Romney didn't really issue this statement, but one has to wonder if he had a few months ago, what would the race look like now?)
Nate Silver, author of the widely respected "538 blog," is one of the premier mathematical minds looking at political polling data and telling us what it all means. He doesn't conduct actual polls, but rather forecasts, based on a collection of polls.
With nine days to go until election day, we're clearly in the final stages of this cycle. The contest between President Obama and Mitt Romney is almost certainly going to be a pretty close one, although it appears the odds favor a second term for Mr. Obama. While several national polls seem favorable to Romney, a look at the more important state polls, especially a state like Ohio, paint a different picture.
538 shows Obama with a 2.4% lead over Romney in Ohio as of Friday's polls. Given the large number (about 12) of polls in that state over the past ten days, its a quite significant development for the race.
Let's get this out of the way. I think President Obama won this debate by a pretty clear margin. He played offense most of the night, made no major gaffs and seemed, well, presidential. His opponent, Mitt Romney seemed awfully timid this evening and I suspect right wing talk show types will have their way with him on tomorrow's shows. Romney took a total pass on criticizing the President on Benghazi, which surprised me. The strategy must have been for team Romney to not attack the President on this issue for fear of looking opportunistic. Most of the rest of the evening was spent with Mr. Obama reminding Mr. Romney of his various positions he's had on a variety of foreign policy issues during the campaign. Mr. Romney spent much of the night agreeing with Mr. Obama on much of his foreign policy decisions.
Mostly, Romney would hear the President say something, Romney would say we need to do it differently, and then reword Obama's original answer into something of his own. It was odd, it was weird and I don't think Team Romney will benefit very much from this performance tonight.
The real question will be was tonight's debate a game changer. I don't think so. There were no fiery exchanges, no off the chain claims made by either man and nothing really new came out. It was sort of dull. So, while team Obama may feel great this evening, I'm not sure he ever landed the sort of punch he wanted to on Mr. Romney. This debate was, I think, the least-watched of the three presidential debates. There was Monday Night Football and game 7 of the NL Championship series. Lots of other options for people to consider.
The national polls are mostly tied, the state polls seem to still be pretty volatile. Two weeks to go until election day and I'm having a hard time someone undecided will walk into the voting stall and make up their mind based on anything either man said tonight.
Nice win for Team Obama, but I'm not sure what it does for them. I think Romney supporters feel like their guy didn't fight hard enough. Time will tell if that was a mistake or not.
There are sixteen short, precious days left until the world ends...
By about 10:45pm or so on Tuesday, November 6th, we'll know who our next President is going to be. Once the voting results begin to come in from the Eastern and Midwest states, we'll know if Barack Obama gets a second term or if Mitt Romney is going to be our new President.
Too many supporters of the President feel that if Mr. Romney defeats Mr. Obama, that our seniors will be stripped of their health care, corporations will run amok more than already do and the middle class will get slammed with a huge tax increase while the wealthy laugh all the way to the bank.
Too many supporters of Mitt Romney feel that if President Obama gets re-elected, that the United States of America will become the United Socialist States of America, that Christianity will be outlawed and China will call in our debt and all will be lost.
The good news is none of those things are likely to become true.
Despite what many Obama supporters think, Mr. Romney will not take away health care from our nation's seniors, although the next generation of seniors may see a very different form of Medicare. Corporations may see fewer regulations, but they're likely to see fewer regulations under either man. Same for middle class tax cuts. The Social Security Tax Cut is set to expire on December 31st and won't likely be renewed.
Despite what many Romney supporters think, President Obama will not turn this into a Socialist country, nor will he wage let alone win a war on religion. China will not call in its debt to us and last but not least all will certainly NOT be lost.
The hand-wringing, sky-is-falling, psychotic ranting from both sides has been pretty bad for a while, but these next sixteen days should see the "crazy" level shoot through the roof. Social media websites like Facebook and Twitter have clearly seen an uptick in intense, over-heated rhetoric from both sides. The Nazi references are up, which is never a good sign.
In many cases, its like people have in a way, begun to lose their minds. The silly stuff from the far right that the very essence of our Country is at risk if Obama is re-elected is powerful crazy. There are plenty of people...good, decent, hard-working types, who are ABSOLUTELY convinced Obama is out to destroy our way of life. Likewise, the notion that Romney is out to only help the rich folks at the cost of every thing else, is also wrong minded. Guess what? Both men are moderates. Neither man is a severe "anything."
The challenger is a man, like him or not, who was able to work with a mostly Democratic State Congress in Massachusetts and pass Universal Health care in what was, at the time a landmark piece of legislation. While the nature of his work at Bain Capital seems unseemly, there's virtually no one making the case that Mitt Romney wasn't good at it. Nor is anyone making the case that he wasn't an effective leader with the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. He seems willing and able to morph himself into whatever he needs to given a particular set of circumstances. The demands of the Presidency, if he wins it, will be a huge step up from his previous stations, but shouldn't be entirely foreign. Tough decisions, conflicting factions of interest and impossible expectations. He is no ideologue, despite his primary season claim of being a "severe conservative." Other than Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney was the Republican candidate that if a Obama supporter had to see his guy go down, they'd most likely want to see take the job. Would you rather see Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann in the Oval Office? Jesus Christ, no...
You know what else Mitt Romney seems to be? Mitt Romney seems to be the kind of guy President Obama could've used in his first few years in office. I have to believe that the Governor would've provided a sense of direction during this administrations first 24 months. At times the messaging coming from the White House lacked a clarity and an order that a long time manager would naturally provide. My formal education is in Marketing and I'm hard pressed to recall a worse communication plan to the American people than the Obama team did with the Affordable Care Act. It was an inept, impotent, incompetent disaster that will likely be studied as "how NOT to" in Marketing programs for years to come.
I highly doubt Mr. Romney will take us down the path that George Bush did. His background isn't oil or defense contractors, its big business. I won't like many of the policies of a Romney White House, but if he reverts back to the administrator he was in Massachusetts, I'll be hopeful of some moderate governance. Romney may learn very quickly the sort of headaches Speaker Boehner has been afflicted with from the far right of the GOP, especially in the House of Representatives.
Should Mr. Obama win re-election, I suspect we will continue to see the daily doses of ignorant, racist slop that we've seen for much of the last three years. This man has been accused of everything from going on an apology tour, (which he didn't) ramming a Government takeover of health care, (mostly a massive giveaway to insurance and pharmaceutical companies) and sending the Muslim Brotherhood billion of dollars (the President doesn't send any money to anyone, Congress allocates those funds.) He is accused daily of being un-American, a Communist, a Socialist, a Marxist, a Muslim, a Kenyan, a radical, a liar, a drug user, a homosexual. etc. This level of vitriol is unprecedented in the history of the Presidency and in no way reflects very well on we as a people.
There is a faction of the far right-wing that has distinguished themselves during the last three years or so. The "anyone but Obama" crowd. People have a right to disagree with the President whenever they wish. What they don't have a right to is to mis-represent this President's policies, actions or intentions, especially in the mindless, intellectually dishonest way too many have. The vitriol aimed at the First Lady, Michelle Obama, has also been uncalled for. "Moochella" as some refer to her, has received insults and verbal attacks that I don't recall any other First Lady having to put up with. Again, we embarrass ourselves. After watching this disgusting display I'm left to some pretty unpleasant realities. While some take issues with the President actual policies, which is perfectly acceptable, others have taken a "everything this man and woman do is BAD for the Country and anti-American." Which is an asinine way to look at things. When presented with verifiable facts on various accomplishments by Mr. Obama, this small but noisy group ignores that information and slides over to the next talking point and begins to hammer on that one. Any group that refuses to consider the facts isn't one to be taken seriously. While difficult to prove outright, I believe that the Obama's race is a part of this irrational, paranoid behavior. Some are simply unable to accept that an African American has ascended to the highest office in the land.
A second term for President Obama likely features job bills, tax reform and immigration reform. He may get some cooperation from Congress on the first two items but probably not on the third. The demographics of the Country are changing and the Republican Party has no desire to speed up that process. Not...at...all. A second term goes along way toward ensuring the Affordable Care Act continues to be implemented, a likely Supreme Court date for DOMA, and the ending of active combat troops in Afghanistan.
Regardless of the outcome, the United States will continue to be the United States. The sun will come up and go down. Husbands will kiss their wives, mothers will hug their kids, kids will go to school, people will worship in much the same exact way they did the previous four year, businesses will conduct business, babies will be born and older folks will die. The seasons will change. More than three hundred and eleven million Americans will go about their business regardless of who wins or who loses.
Every Presidential election is billed as "THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL TIME" and that is probably true. If you despise either man-you're probably being unfair to them. I strongly prefer Mr. Obama but should Mr. Romney win the election, then I'll move on, as we all will.
After every Presidential debate, various fact-checkers get to work immediately to separate fact from fiction from both participants. Reasonable Conversation has compiled a list of ten different factchecks from around the internet to provide a convenient "one-stop" place for your perusal.
The good folks at Politfact.com were hot on the trail of truth after last night's second presidential debate between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney. They've posted updated evaluations of claims made by both men on several different topics: Jobs, Energy, Taxes/Spending, Healthcare, Immigration, Foreign Policy and Education. Its a mixed bag of results showing that both men took liberties with the truth as they saw fit.
Not to be outdone, Factcheck.org has also posted their version of fact checking last evening's debate, covering many of the same issues. Here's the overview from their piece posted earlier this morning:
The second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn’t match the facts.
Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from using such terms for weeks.
Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.
Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”
Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit.
Romney said “a recent study has shown” that taxes “will” rise on the middle class by $4,000 as a result of federal debt increases since Obama took office. Not true. That’s just one possible way debt service could be financed.
Romney claimed 580,000 women have lost jobs under Obama. The true figure is closer to 93,000.
Romney claimed the automakers’ bankruptcy that Obama implemented was “precisely what I recommend.” Romney did favor a bankruptcy followed by federal loan guarantees, but not the direct federal aid that Obama insists was essential.
Romney said he would keep Pell Grants for low-income college students “growing.” That’s a change. Both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have previously said they’d limit eligibility.
Both candidates repeated false or misleading claims they have made, and we have rebutted, many times before. Obama repeated his claim that he wouldn’t put tax rates for affluent families higher than they were under Bill Clinton. Actually, he’s already signed two new taxes that will also fall on those same high-income persons. And Romney accused Obama of saying “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline. Actually, no final decision has been made, and the company says it expects to win approval and start construction early next year.
This evening President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney traded punches for ninety minutes at Hofstra University in the second Presidential debate. The passivity that the president displayed during the first debate was replaced with a willingness to engage and push back against the man who wants his job. While Mr. Obama was clearly a different man this evening, I don't think it equated to anything resembling a clear-cut victory.
Supporters of the President are likely to try and transform this evening's renewed vigor for the process into a victory and probable improvement in the polls, but I caution them to do so carefully. Mr. Romney had for the most part, another solid evening. There were a few times where he seemed to get a bit flustered but only mildly so. Romney was able to continually hit the President on the economy, to which Mr. Obama usually pivoted to some different angle or topic he preferred.
There will be some interesting fact checking on the President's remarks about his statements in the Rose Garden following the attacks in Libya and his charge that Romney stood in front of a coal plant and called it a killer. Likewise, Romney's comments on immigration, gun control and workplace inequalities. Look for write-ups on Factcheck.org and Politifact.com.
Good News/Bad News for President Obama:
The good news is that President Obama woke up and performed much, much better than he did in the first debate earlier this month. It would be hard to say that he hurt his chances in any way this evening. This should give him some momentum heading into the final debate next Monday evening and throughout the last three weeks of the campaign.
The bad news for Obama is that it wasn't that clear of a victory tonight. A CBS snap poll showed Obama as the winner by about 7% over Romney. CNN gave it slightly to Obama, but within the margin of error. This will not produce any dramatic effect on the polls, which means the national polls may be mostly a dead-heat heading into the next debate.
Good News/Bad News for Governor Romney:
The good news for Mr. Romney is that he had another good showing. Its hard for me to see President doing much better than he did tonight, so you could say he's taken Obama's best shot and for the most part, stayed on his feet. Any pre-debate notion that Romney was out of his league in terms of debating Mr. Obama have been proven baseless.
The bad news for Romney is that Obama is back. Given the fairly small path that exists for him to reach 270 electoral votes. He still needs to swing a group of battleground states into his column and that's still a heavy lift, especially in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, etc.
Bottom line?
A big sigh from the Obama campaign on his renewed intensity, but in the end, tonight's debate was a slight win for Obama or, perhaps a draw. Given that, who won?
It depends, I guess...
The debate was a slight win for the President, the polls are very close nationally and the path for victory is far easier for Mr. Obama than it is for Mr. Romney. The next debate will be on foreign policy which, a few weeks ago would've been considered a slam dunk for the President. Given Libya's ongoing situation, Mr. Obama will need to be on his game next Monday night.
Prior to last week's first Presidential Debate between incumbent Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, it seemed that this race was drawing to a close. President Obama had enjoyed success in portraying Romney as an out of touch money-man who would drag the country back to the same failed policies that in large part, were responsible for where we find ourselves today. Despite a mediocre, weak economic recovery and unemployment numbers still above 8%, Mr. Obama had a fairly substantial lead that for many of his supporters, seemed almost too good to be true. Turns out it was exactly too good to be true.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, had experienced a few rough months. A clumsy looking visit to England during the Olympics caused many to wonder aloud about Romney's ability to represent America across the pond. While a small thing overall, there was bad press. Then came a pleasant Republican Convention, which failed to produce the vaunted "bump" in the polls the Party so badly wanted. All of which was nothing compared to the firestorm that erupted after the release of the infamous secret video of Romney commenting on the "47%." That took Romney off message for the better part of two weeks, during which time President Obama built his most commanding lead yet. Worse yet, Romney seemed to be losing ground in many of the battleground states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, which are key to any chance he has to win the White House in November. Everything was looking bad. But things were about to get better.
The first Presidential debate was widely predicted to see Romney, with nothing to lose, swinging for the fences, while Obama would likely play defense at least some of the night. There was belief that Romney was vulnerable on the details of his tax plan and that Obama would almost certainly explore that, while also forcing the challenger to explain his 47% comment and perhaps also explain his role at Bain Capital. Both men had a "hit list" of things to go after, which should have made for riveting television.
By now, we all know how the debate went for both men. For President Obama, it was a head-scratcher, to say the least. He never showed any willingness to attack the 47% comments, Bain Capital was never even mentioned. Nor did he seem very interested in attacking Romney's sudden but predictable, move to the center. For candidate Romney, it was the performance of a lifetime. While seemingly re-inventing himself in front of the American people, Romney looked prepared, composed and one step ahead of the President most of the evening. Polls in the days after the debate have rewarded the challenger handsomely for his performance. For many Americans that night, Mitt Romney may have closed the sale.
Any talk of the race being over have been dismissed. Polls are tightening across the country and most importantly in the battleground states, where this election will be decided. Its still probably better to be in Obama's shoes than Romney's, but the notion that Romney was fading away has been proven to be wrong. Romney's execution in the debate is paying huge dividends to his campaign. We hear talk of a different strategy from the Obama campaign for the next meet-ups, but I'm not sure anything can unwind the effect of the first one. A repeat of the fiasco last week would do major harm to his re-election chances.
The unemployment numbers falling below 8.0% last Friday were a good thing for the President. Plus, he seemed to rebound very quickly and seemed his old self in campaign appearances last Friday and through the weekend. President Obama must do better in the next two debates. I think if he succeeds and nothing unknown crashes down upon him, he will likely win re-election by a close margin. If the headlines after the next debate and/or the final one favor Romney, then it seems we'll be in for a too close to call election night.
Too many on the left were declaring success a few weeks ago and belittling Mr. Romney's ability to take down the President. What they in many cases under-estimated was Romney's salesmanship. As Romney recreates himself, even if in image or perception only, it seems to be working. Certainly working better than any prior approach. Its almost as if the far right of the party finally said, "it's ok, Mitt...go move to the center and win us the election."
There is no question who had the better night in Denver this evening in the first Presidential debate between incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney.
The former Governor of Massachusetts won with a surprisingly adept, competent performance.
Romney came out of the gate strong and was able to challenge President Obama's polices, many of which he considers failed, without appearing nasty or mean. Romney succeeded in presenting himself as a "credible alternative" to viewers, while President Obama seemed rusty, to say the least. The Republican nominee maintained strong eye contact with his opponent while looking confident. His answers were, on the surface at least, concise, orderly and straight-forward. Mr. Romney committed no discernable gaffes and all in all thrilled his supporters by exceeding expectations.
President Obama on the other hand, did not seem to have a very good night. The President's answers were long-winded, rambling, meandering and lacked emotion. Perhaps "professorial" almost. Rarely did the President look at his opponent during his responses. Whereas Romney seemed to be the aggressor from the get-go, the President was on the defensive most of the night. There was no full-throated defense of the stimulus, his jobs created, he failed to make the case for bail-out of the auto-industry, never brought up Bain Capital, Romney's "47%" comments. etc. Obama was not on his game tonight and it showed.
Substance wise however, there may be some fall-out for the Romney team as the candidate seemed to still be unwilling to provide much in the way of details. I suspect the media will press him even harder to explain his sudden move to the middle we witnessed tonight. Romney's claims on his tax plans, education and health care all seem to be changing before our eyes and will have to be defended.
What the night didn't produce was a very memorable response or smack-down. Some little digs here and there, but nothing major that I think will actually sway an undecided voter.
One thing of note was each man's faithfull-ness to their established narratives about the other. President Obama has been making the case that Mitt Romney is an out of touch, secretive elitist who will take this Country backwards. For whatever reason, Mr. Obama did not utilize these themes, whereas Mr. Romney who has maintained Barack Obama's policies have failed and he needs to be replaced, DID stay on those themes.
Mitt Romney earned the win this evening. He bloodied the President's nose. But make no mistake, he did not knock the President out, nor did he even knock him down. There are two more rounds to go in this debate season. History tells us these debates rarely effect the outcome of the election. If Mitt Romney has two more nights like tonight, he will likely be rewarded in the polls. Donations, which had been reported to be declining for Mr. Romney, will probably reverse course and improve in the short run. Its too early to tell if this will effect the election. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But make no mistake-tonight belongs to Mitt Romney.
Forty-three days remain until America decides who will be forty-fifth President of the United States. Various polls see the incumbent, Barack Obama, enjoying a slight lead in most national polls but perhaps more importantly, slightly larger leads in most of the vaunted "swing states."
What happens if once again, the Republican Party can not defeat Barack Hussein Obama? What happens if once again, the electorate decides the more conservative choice is NOT who they want in the highest office in the land? What will the future hold for the Republican Party if they can't beat the man who many believe to be one of the most controversial figures in American politics in the last one hundred years? This President, who 17% believe to be a Muslim in a recent Pew research poll, this President of the chronically above 8% unemployment rate, this President of no Federal budgets and this President of various wars on religion, Christmas, Christmas trees, freedom, liberty, America, etc...
I know it was never supposed to be this close, but clearly something happened on the way to election day 2012 for the Republican Party in America. What was supposed to be one of the greatest ass-kickings this Country has ever witnessed, isn't just too close for comfort, its very possible the most evil, liberty hating, freedom hating, America hating, probably a Muslim guy/sleeper agent might just win. How the HELL could this be happening?
Don't worry, it might actually be good for Republicans.
In the mid-term elections of 2010, Conservative candidates won many offices across the land and especially gained seats in the House of Representatives. Following Grover Norquist's mantra of "no new taxes ever" and willing to affix their signatures to his anti-tax "pledge," it was quite clear that the traditional Republican Party was being dragged to the right. The thinking was in 2010, they got back the house and in 2012, they'd at least get the White House back and possibly even the Senate. There was absolute joy for conservatives and Fox News-at least the evening division. "Start packing Obama" was the mind-set as most on the Right predicted certain doom for this man from somewhere/probably not America.
Fast forward to today. Conservatives disagreeing and clearly stressing over the current condition of the Romney campaign. Romney calling a press conference to reset his campaign's tone, promising to do better providing details at a very soon to be announced later date. Romney calling a late night press conference to clean up his pirated video comments from a May fundraiser where he potentially insulted 47% of Americans. Things are not going well in Romneyville and the Conservatives are getting restless and just a tad pissy about it. Should Willard Mitt Romney lose to this Obamination, some careers will end, other careers will benefit and political tacticians will immediately begin to figure out 2016's can't miss strategy.
If Mitt Romney wins, the far right will feel empowered to hold President Romney to his severe conservative self labeling during the primaries. Women, Latinos, the young and the poor will probably not be too pleased and as growing sectors of the electorate, it means bad news for the long term growth of the Republican Party.
It goes without saying before much can be decided, a conversation has to be had to decide who was to blame should Obama win. Was it the Tea Party segment of the Party, who rode the no-compromise train into power in 2010? Or, was it the establishment Republicans, who cling to an old-fashioned sense of governance, deal making and compromise? Who's fault is it?
It's an incredibly important time for the Republican Party. Should Obama get re-elected, the GOP has to select a direction to go. A tone to rally behind. They all want smaller Government, fewer regulations, etc. but its really a question of how extreme do they want to be? In recent elections, moderate Republicans have been shown the door in favor of more severe conservative candidates. Clearly, the trend has been toward hard stances and if it means we have to stop the wheels of Government, then so be it. If the Tea Party faction of the GOP wins this discussion, look for more entrenchment, more obstruction for President Obama's second term and an even higher level of rhetoric as they look forward to 2016.
The trouble with this approach is the public has consistently rated the Congress very poorly. Most Americans expect people from different points of view to be able to find a middle ground, a position Obama has consistently endorsed. Should the Tea Party element of the GOP grow, they run the significant risk of losing even more of the undecided voters. Chances are very good the next Democratic presidential nominee will not have a funny name like Barack Obama does. Chances are very good there won't be a flap about his birth certificate. Chances are very good there won't be whispers about the person's faith or patriotism. Chances are very good that a Tea Party led GOP will get its ass kicked once again in 2016.
In other words, if you couldn't beat the sleeper-agent in charge, how on earth do you expect to beat the next, less controversial-guy? Doubling down on rigid ideology will likely cost the GOP more voters than it earns them, which is a losing proposition. Combine that with the demographic trends of more Hispanic voters, and more voters from the LGBT and women voting blocks and it doesn't take Kreskin to see storm clouds brewing for the Republican Party.
I think it would be madness for the Party to go further/harder to the Right if Obama wins re-election. It could cost them dearly. I fully expect and hope that the establishment republicans will hold the Tea Party faction responsible and tell them to cool it.
Far better for the GOP would be to embrace a more moderate, traditional stance and shun openly the harshness of the far right. Reasonable goes a long way with voters and if the loyal opposition announced on day 1 of the President's second term that for the good of the nation, the Republicans would accept several Obama ideas, heads would turn. Let Obama have his victories, but then judge him openly on the performance of his programs. Chances are good there will still be plenty things to attack the Democrats in in the next general election, but being able to point towards a "new leaf" if you will in terms of cooperation will pay dividends down the road.
Obstructionism hasn't paid off and I don't think it will. Bi-partisanship plays much better and is the smarter path forward for the Republicans. By showing in words and deeds a willingness to compromise...to govern...they will find receptive Latinos, women, lower-income voters, etc, very willing to reconsider the GOP. Which would reverse a dangerous trend for Conservatives. A Obama victory is perhaps the only thing that can balance the Republican party enough to make it more, not less appealing to many voters.
If Mitt Romney becomes our next President, can he really do what he says he will in terms of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act?
In short, probably not.
As Timothy Jost writes in yesterday's online Health Affairs.com:
Summing Up The Situation If Romney Wins
All of this is to say that the election of a president opposed to implementation of the ACA would create a quite messy situation. Some provisions of the law—in particular many of the provisions governing insurers—would remain in place and could not easily be repealed. Other provisions could be repealed through reconciliation, but not immediately and not without a battle in Congress. If the Democrats hold the Senate, even this would not be possible.
The 2014 deadline for implementation of the next round of reforms, including the issuance of premium tax credits, the exchanges, and the Medicaid expansions, would continue to loom as mandatory until Congress took action. The administration could rescind or amend existing rules, but it would take time and there would be limits on what could be accomplished. The administration could try to ignore provisions of the law or delay their implementation, but would almost certainly face litigation, which would once again embroil the courts in ACA implementation. The prospect of lawsuits brought by states is quite conceivable.
In the end, any dramatic change in health policy will probably have to be bipartisan. Bipartisanship has not been much in evidence lately, but it is unlikely that we will soon again face the situation that got the ACA enacted—the total domination of both houses of Congress and the presidency by one party. Until and unless that happens again, the opportunities for change in the ACA are real, but limited.
With the likelihood of a clean sweep by the Republican Party this November almost nil, Jost's point that it will be a slow, difficult process rings true. For those of us who strongly support health care reform and even those who generally support the highly imperfect Affordable Care Act, the reform should mostly stay intact. The longer it does so, the harder it will be to remove. Advocates will look at it as a root system of a large tree growing and taking firm hold, while opponents will view it as a virus continuing to spread with no cure-all available.
Mitt Romney is probably going to lose this election. If he does lose, he will receive the lion's share of the blame, which he richly deserves.
After surviving the GOP's Primary gauntlet, Romney emerged as the most electable candidate to represent the Republican Party. He wasn't close to being the conservative standard bearer that many on the right had hoped would win, but the conventional wisdom was, "which guy gives us the best chance to beat President Obama?" There were Right Wing ideologues in Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, polished politicians like Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Ron Paul and "off the beaten path" candidates in Herman Cain and Jon Huntsman. In the end, the Romney campaign - which had a major head start on all the other's campaigns, prevailed. No one else could match the organisation and financial resources of the Romney team. Santorum was the last one standing, but in the end he could'nt level the playing field, let alone overtake Mr. Romney.
The Romney team prevailed for two main reasons:
1) A certain deftness during the debates in which no one really landed a direct hit. There where a few glancing blows but Romney stayed on his feet, and looked more Presidential than any of the others...
2) Money matters. Newt Gingrich complained publicly about the Romney machine (and friends) were just too powerful to stop. The sheer amount of ads that were directed at Gingrich in the primary states revealed rather quickly what a mismatch it was in the battle of resources. (Make no mistake, Mr. Gingrich ran a terrible campaign and didn't deserve to win.)
In other words, that portion of the campaign was effectively managed. Romney avoided trouble for the most part and kept his unforced errors to a minimum. Which is what you expect from someone who's experience is essentially as a manager. His career has featured several accomplishments based on his management abilities including his work (love it or hate it) at Bain Capital, his work as Massachusetts's Governor during which time he implemented "Romneycare" and his involvement with the Salt Lake City Olympics. Romney succeeded in all of these endeavors, to one degree or another. You can not like what he did at Bain, you can not like Romneycare, etc. but you can't say he hasn't been able to get things done. On the other hand, the skill set it takes to be an effective business manager and the results achieved don't necessarily match up exactly for the skill set to be an effective President of the United States.
Or, even elected President in the first place.
As we entered the post primary part of this cycle's presidential campaign, current President Obama was sitting on a lingering and seemingly immovable unemployment rate, a gridlocked Congress frustrating him more often than not, and a pretty unhealthy opinion from the citizenry regarding his effectiveness in office and the direction his administration is taking the Country. We heard talk of President Obama being the worst POTUS of all time and surely a one term proposition. There's no way he wouldn't be defeated in the next election. Social media was awash in predictions from many who guaranteed an Obama loss in November. To quote one Obama hater, "Looks like a losing proposition for OBAMA come November.....he shouldn't have a prayer based solely on the sad state of our Economy, let alone everything else that is wrong in this country due to his lack of leadership....the grand ship is sinking and you all best jump off now or go down with it..."
So, basically, Mitt Romney just had to run a safe campaign and stroll into the White House next January, right? Wrong.
Mr. Romney was sitting in a virtual tie with President Obama just prior to the Republican National Convention. Technically behind, but right with his opponent. The RNC, thought to be a celebration of sorts for Conservatives as they gathered in Tampa, FL to hail Romney as the soon to be POTUS and a time to gaze upon admiringly the next class of GOP leaders. Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, etc. Everything was going according to plan until Gov. Christie spoke on the second night. His speech was more about re-introducing himself to the Country rather than any sort of a supportive statement for Mitt Romney. People were a bit surprised but moved on to the final night when the candidate would address the delegates in person.
The last night of the RNC was one of those weird quirky plot lines you usually only see in the movies. As we moved into the final few speakers of the convention, the campaign brought out actor Clint Eastwood as a secret weapon to speak to the audience. With no script and nothing but wits and an empty chair, Mr. Eastwood proceeded to talk to an empty chair for ten minutes. Some loved it, some hated it, most didn't really know what to think. Oh, by the way, Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney both spoke after Mr. Eastwood did, but nobody really remembers much of what they had to say. Which is a shame because Mr. Rubio did a very nice job, while Mr. Romney did an acceptable job. One big flaw in Romney's speech that bears mentioning. He failed to mention our nation's military in any meaningful way whatsoever. His claim that he covered the military base the day prior with a speech for the VFW fell mostly flat. While there were a few notable speeches including those from Rubio, VP candidate Paul Ryan and Ann Romney, the affair didn't do much to inspire or convert people. The much anticipated post-convention "bounce" never really materialized.
Immediately following the RNC, the Democrats had their own convention in Charlotte, NC. The event had a little more spunk to it than did the Republican's meeting. First Lady Michelle Obama, Former President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama did the heavy lifting and all scored high marks-President Clinton especially.
The Romney campaign made a decision to pull most of its television ads during the RNC. This move basically ceded national media over to the Democrats with no offsetting message for Americans to digest. Obama was handed an early Christmas present. Pollsters are still trying to figure out how big of a bounce the DNC got and most have pegged it between 3-5% in the polls.
As the days passed after the RNC, reports surfaced that all was not well within the Romney camp. As reported in Politico, many insiders were displeased with head strategist Stuart Stevens. There were questions about the Eastwood thing. Who approved no script? Romney's end of convention speech was rewritten more than once and has been assessed as having too many chefs and not enough cooks involved.
Then came a flare-up in the Middle East with four dead Americans in Libya and anti-American protests all around the Islamic world. Traditionally, all parties unite under the age-old adage that "politics ends at the water's edge." Not this campaign it didn't. With events still unfolding halfway around the world, team Romney released early a previously embargoed statement criticizing the President for apologizing to radical Islamic terrorists and failing to stand up for American values. The Romney camp didn't bother to get the facts straight before releasing the political attack and when the dust settled, looked amateurish, unorganized and borderline offensive to many for launching the unfounded attack on President Obama. A classic example of over-playing one's hand. Instead of helping, it hurt the Romney campaign with several Conservatives publicly finding fault.
Yesterday, the main goal was for the Romney campaign to "reboot" if you will. Start a fresh set of downs if you will. A morning press conference promised to clarify the message, provide more specifics, etc. But by day's end, the Mother Jones publication released a videotape that sent an already shaken campaign into disaster mode...
Whoops, time for the second press conference of the day. Cue video...
While these remarks make for good talk radio and social media bluster, I don't see it as anything close to fatal error. While Romney's getting spanked pretty hard by voices all across the political spectrum, he really didn't say anything that outrageous. Clumsy, inarticulate, perhaps even stupid? Sure, but not outrageous.
CNN was the first media outlet to poll voters on the effect of this video on their preferences, and found that among independents, 15% said they were more likely to vote for Romney while almost double that, 29% said they were less likely to vote for the former Massachusetts Governor. Couple that with a poll in Michigan, Romney's home State and where his father served as Governor, that shows President Obama leading Romney by 8 points.
As the political world shakes its collective head at the Romney campaign, I have one question:
Is Mitt Romney the manager who can't manage?
There is plenty...PLENTY...of time to turn his campaign around and win this thing. All Romney needs is a videotape of Barack Obama with either A) a dead girl or B) a live boy in it and that will be that. Since that's probably not going to happen, the Romney fans have a good reason to be concerned. Right now, Mr. Business/Manager doesn't seem to be able to get out of his own way, while President Obama mostly just keeps having pretty good days.
The debates will be Romney's last/best chance to gain the upper hand on his opponent before election day. The good news is that Romney has been drilling on the debates since July and given that he performed fairly well in the Primary debates, one can hope that he regains his composure and can effectively present himself during the three one on one's with President Obama. The bad news, the history of presidential debates suggests strongly that they don't usually alter the outcome.
Mitt Romney is not managing himself very well these days and quite possibly nor is his campaign. Romney has pissed away most of the last two weeks by making unforced errors. The mistakes need to stop. Today, reports of cash issues appeared in the press, which is bad news as the Obama team throws (seems to throw) up new ads every day. If Romney is going to turn this around, we need to see a very different candidate and campaign over the next 48 days.
