Or gaffe, if you prefer…
Early today, Gov. Romney told ONN’s Jim Heath that he does not support the Blunt Amendment, which would provide a conscience exemption from Obamacare’s contraception mandate:
Later on, Romney clarified his answer in an interview with Howie Carr:
I am chalking this up to little rest after a late night on Governor Romney’s part.
February 29th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Fastest Romney flip flop in history?
February 29th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Exactly Kavon.
It had been a long night and we should not expect our politicians to be a walking computer and have ALL facts at their finger tips or whatever it is called these days.
Too bad we now live in the “gotcha” culture. That is “gotcha” for anyone except the socialists and their buddies.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Romney misunderstood the question. The interviewer INTENTIONALLY framed the question in the context of “banning female contraception” to get Mitt to say he opposes the Blunt Bill. Mitt was clearly saying he opposes banning contraception, not the substance of the Blunt Bill (which it is clear he was unaware of).
Romney always has, does, and will continue to oppose Obama’s Catholic contraceptive mandate. Anyone with a brain who watches this exchange is aware of this.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
2, If he wasn’t familiar with the bill, he shouldn’t have taken a position on it. Seems pretty simple to me. Oh, well.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Gotcha. Bad question, not understood.
Reminds me of the media harping on Romney not caring about the poor the day after Florida.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
It wasn’t a flip flop as he had previously come out in support of the blunt amendment.
Romney thought the ohio questioner was asking about banning contraception when he started off the question talking about banning.
The liberal media doesn’t care about facts. The liberal media doesn’t care that he had come out in support of the blunt amendment many times already.
The question started off talking about banning contraception.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
That question makes me want to vomit.
Nontroversy.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
@Right Wingnut
He is familiar with the bill. Roy Blunt is his liason in the senate. He has repeatedly come out in support of the blunt amendment.
He thought the questioner was talking about banning contraception a la george stephonapalis when the questioner started asking about banning contraception.
The media is an utter disgrace.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Or, you can chalk it up to the fact that Mitt has said he would repeal Obama care on day one – so this amendment would be moot.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
I’ll bet the cheater robo rick will have something interesting to say about his.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Fastest Flip-flop ever. I suppose you think that Santorum was right to join hands with Obama in Michigan as well when he decided to call Democrats to join his ranks in their primary against Mitt Romney. My problem is a quote “Conservative” contacting Democrats to defeat a fellow conservative (Yes, Conservative by definition) is justified. The media is saying had Santorum not had those crossover votes Mitt would have won Michigan with a very comfortable 7%.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
11
Why did you say this is a “flip-flop?” It isn’t. He misunderstood the question.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Ooh no! This is like as if there were 57 states or walking corpse mens.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Mitt didn’t misunderstand the question, the reporter asked about the Blunt-Rubio amendment and then summarized it as a ban on contraceptives. Mitt answered what was asked…novel concept.
Had the reporter simply said Blunt Amendment, then it would have Romney’s fault.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
The question was “blah blah blah blah contraception”
2 second issue. nice try
February 29th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
The real headline should be the despicable gotcha question. I am so tired of everything Mitt says being called a gaffe. The question was meant to mislead him and say something that can be used against him. That is disgusting, and should be what is highlighted here … not Mitt’s attempt to answer the biased question.
February 29th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
All the others go on and on and on and on flipping and flopping on every issue everyday… no one even mentions it… Mitt has to be word perfect every single time he opens his mouth.
The double, triple standard is apalling. And frankly bigoted.
February 29th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
I don’t mind the general insistence that a much higher standard be applied to Mitt Romney. We’re trying to move the country onto higher ground, and Mitt is proving he has what it takes to do it. He’s doing just fine. It’s not a double standard, it’s a graduated standard. Absolutely nothing is expected of Obama. No honesty, no competence, no morals. Santorum and Gingrich are at least expected to act pious and show up. Mitt? He’s got to know dates and places 4 centuries back and fry it up in a pan while wearing roller blades. And he’s doing it.
February 29th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Slow news day K?
February 29th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Santorum isn’t a dem. He’s a ………….. shapeshifter. SHAPE SHIFTERS for Obama or Santorum, either way!
February 29th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
If you play the clip backwards, Mitt seems to say “I hate babies.” Unbelievable that gaffe machine.
February 29th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
My opinion is that Romney avoided a videoclip of him saying he sides with “employers banning female contraception.” Imagine if he said he supported the bill after that loaded question. The Blunt amendment isn’t about banning contraception. There’s a big difference between having you pay for it on your own and BANNING it. Banning contraception means that if you’re my employee and I don’t agree with your use of contraceptives, I can fire you. This question was pure gotcha and Romney blew it off. Imagine if Santorum was given this question. Egads.
February 29th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
21. Funny!
February 29th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
21. Or… “I like to drag puppies behind my Cadillacs.”
February 29th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
“I like to drag poor puppies behind my Cadillacs for my friend’s Nascar team.”
February 29th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
25
While they are wearing ponchos. And he likes to fire puppies as well.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
The way he asked that question was confusing as hell.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Don’t you know that getting Romney to mess up in an interview has become the latest liberal media sport…Whoever asked the best gotcha question wins them a drink and the “Blue Plate Special” at their local watering hole.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Watch Mitt blows this. I’ll say it now: Romney could have used this to pull off a classic Newtonian “the media is a bunch of damn frauds inserting their phony liberal premises into questions. You’d have no idea, from the way that question was asked, that religious liberty was at stake. Well I’m not going to play their games”. And he’d have won. He’d have sent conservatives into a tizzy. A tizzy. The primary would be over. But no. Mitt’s about damage control. He wants to contain things. He never even considers turning negatives into positives. He seems to be unaware, despite Newt Gingrich doing it 8 zillion times before his very eyes this campaign season, that such things are possible. Newt Gingrich won South Carolina by trumpeting student janitors and turning his adulterous past into a virtue. But Romney continually lets stories like this just slide away, winning, at best, a draw.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
29
You nailed it. He’s not the best politician, that’s for sure. But he’s easily the best candidate and would make the best president, out of this field or anyone that was in it previously.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
29
I would also add, that for some reason, it comes off that Mitt feels like he’s constantly in a job interview. Can you see what I’m seeing?
He views the media as the people doing the hiring, so he’d better be respectful and nice to them or something. I don’t think he understands how much the press is like a bully who only respects you once you kick his ass.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Seriously, I can’t watch the Romney campaign for a week, these days, without wanting to tear my eyes out. Who the hell is running things over there? Forget the gaffes. Everyone has gaffes. And Romney supporters are right to think that the media is unduly interested in his, even when they’re perfectly inconsequential. But they do nothing about it. They have no imagination.
Here’s an analogy. You’re in New Orleans during a big Hurricane. For some reason, you haven’t abandoned your house and you’re stuck inside when the waters start to come inside. You call the authorities and alert them to your location. You take out a handy life vest, which you keep for just such emergencies. You review your swimming technique. You put on a survival backpack, with a first aid kit. All’s in order when your house starts to break apart. You dog peddle, dog peddle, keeping alert for floating debris. Ah there’s a piece, right there, not two feet from your face- a canoe. It’s a shame, you think, that someone’s lost their canoe. You dog peddle, dog peddle, keeping alert for floating debris.
It’s absolutely maddening. Infuriating. Impossible to understand.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
32
It’s as if they are afraid of what might come next if Mitt rocks the boat too much on the strategy. For instance, I bet the advisers sit in a room and game this stuff out, and whoever the boss is always says, “Well, if Mitt attacks the media, then (insert long list of remotely possible but highly unlikely perdicaments) will happen and then we will have lost control of the narrative.”
February 29th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
And it’s like, DUDE, you already HAVE lost control of the narrative.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Thank you Matthew (32.). I absolutely get what you’re saying because I’ve felt like that more than once. Sometimes I just want to scream, “But why aren’t you …”
February 29th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Mass Con,
Yes. I know exactly what you mean. When Romney’s on the debate stage, he’s an alpha male extraordinaire. No one, no one, has beaten him in an exchange- where the facts weren’t overwhelmingly on their side- since McCain’s attack on him for supporting a “timetable” in ’08. Most of them haven’t even come close. Newt Gingrich, the biggest bully on the block, is ground into dust. But with interviewers, he’s timid. He picks every word with the utmost care. He’s sycophantic and frequently cloying. In fact, he’s almost always cloying EXCEPT when he’s saying something he hasn’t mapped out beforehand. I keep thinking back to the ’08 campaign.
Do you recall that interview he gave Jan Mickelson? The interview where, unbeknownst to him, he was being taped during a “dust-up” between commercial breaks. His whole demeanor changed. His voice lost its perpetual sort of smile. He was incisive, razor-sharp, a little righteously indignant. It was a home run. A masterpiece. And every time he’s let his guard down, we’ve gotten similar masterpieces. Him going after occupiers. Him saying corporations are people. But it’s as if someone, or presumably everyone, around him has this notion that off the cuff, righteously indignant, sharp Romney doesn’t play well, and therefore we must always have cloying, smiley, apologizing, Mr. Americana. Does no one there have any idea about what his strengths are? Why it is, occasionally, that he seems a class above everyone around him?
February 29th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
The irony of Mitt’s campaign is that his handlers appear to be the most tepid, unoriginal, lame bunch of clueless strategic incrementalists, but Mitt’s entire life suggests that he himself is the exact opposite of this.
Mitt has always made bold decisions and creative ones too, in business, and as governor here in MA. But his campaign handlers are legendarily incompetent and weak. It’s not helping Mitt to look bold like the man really is.
And I’m guessing he hasn’t fired these folks because he has too little confidence in his own political acumen. I bet if he let them all go, and he trusted his instincts, he’d actually run a better operation somehow.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
36
Yes, that interview with Jan Mickelson was great. He really does have passion and fire, but he’s just too polite to the media folks.
Hint to Mitt: The media is not Human Resources at Bain & Co. Kick their ass!
February 29th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Mitt is an executive who treats people with respect and assumes other people initially are reasonable people with the benifit of a doubt. It is not in his nature to off the cuff attack someone
February 29th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Mass Con,
I’d fire the whole lot of them. Except for the folks who contract out the micro-targeting and polling and the folks in charge of fundraising. Everyone else needs to be replaced with, like, commenters from Race. Or just released mental patients. Anyone will do, really.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
But you know what?
Mitt really isn’t polite to the media, he’s just polite when he feels the folks are watching.
So it’s more like he thinks the voters are HR people inspecting him for a job offer. I think he thinks the American people take this process much more seriously than they really do. Perhaps he is a bit out of touch, if that’s the case.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Mitt does need to fire his incompetent advisors…on o Reilly… He was asked by OReilly why he didn’t tell others he gave his inheritance to charity. He doesn’t like to pat himself on the back. Hey news flash, no one else will. This is a Job interview, sell yourself is more effective than proving why the other candidates are incompetent.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Civil politics,
I think you’re wrong. I’ve read enough biographical pieces about Romney to think that the guy who garrotes his opponents at debates is closer to the real Romney than the smiley, deferential, automaton who frequently shows up in interviews. Which isn’t a bad thing. Really. The guy who shows up in some of these interviews, and in stump speeches, is just incongruous. He feels cobbled together. Insubstantial.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
He strikes me as a person who listens first to the question asked. In a debate he is prepped and goes into stump speech mode.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
MEM,
“Except for the folks who contract out the micro-targeting and polling and the folks in charge of fundraising. Everyone else needs to be replaced with, like, commenters from Race. Or just released mental patients. Anyone will do, really.”
Tell Mitt I’m ready, willing, and able to take over his campaign, not because I believe in him, but because I’m a crass opportunist.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
43
I think the Mitt that shows up in interviews is trying to be too nice and polite, and it puts him off his game because he’s trying too hard to come off a certain way. If he would just forget the cameras watching and pretend he’s talking to the interviewer in private, he’d be the nominee tomorrow.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
MEM,
By and by, have you surrendered the notion now that Team Mitt has run a nearly flawless campaign?
Do you agree with me now that Mitt should have been positive last Spring and Summer, building his own brand, and not attacking Obama like it’s October 2012?
February 29th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
MEM, MWS
I honestly believe if we took some of us beard scratchers and threw us in a room at Romney HQ, we’d take this thing to the White House, as long as the fundraising/polling/voter turnout operation was left to someone else and we were the strategists and consultants.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
47
The Rose Garden strategy was all about building an aura of inevitability that his tone-deaf advisers should have realized was unattainable from the beginning.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Mass Con,
Honestly, I think someone sat him down and said “Americans like sunny people and, let’s face it Mitt, you can get a little impatient. A touch angry. You’re sometimes a dick. A totally lovable and brilliant dick. But still. Can’t have that. So here’s what we need to do…” And then came the persistent smiles. Odd smiles. Unnecessary smiles. Iran must be deterred from their devastating nuclear ambitions. Smile. Then came the qualifications and clarifications. You see, what I really meant was…Next came the hokey Americana. Must be relateable and not dickish. Thing is, Romney’s the exact opposite of Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum is kind of a dick but he’s a grouchy dick. He’s a persistent frown dick. And he doesn’t care who knows it. Romney’s an incisive, take charge, hyper-competent, can’t be bothered to slow down for mere mortals dick. His dickishness projects strength and leaves you slightly in awe. It works. Instead, he’s putting on this dismal facade, which everyone sees through even when they don’t realize they’re seeing through it. Dollars to donuts this, not Mormonism or liberalism, is why the right keeps on resisting him.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
There is a disconnect with Romney. He seems intelligent. However, He let’s his attackers get away with way too many hits. He has let others define the Mass. Health care bill as his own and define it as a model for the health care affordability act. nothing could be further from the truth. Obamacare takes control of what is covered and who gets what. Control of private plans that will allow the government to define all healthcare for everyone and dictate for all what your options are, even in controversial areas where many diffenent guidelines exist. The mandate is a meaningless issue that has minimal impact.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
There is a disconnect with Romney. He seems intelligent.
However, He let’s his attackers get away with way too many hits. He has let others define the Mass. Health care bill as his own and define it as a model for the health care affordability act. nothing could be further from the truth. Obamacare takes control of what is covered and who gets what. Control of private plans that will allow the government to define all healthcare for everyone and dictate for all what your options are, even in controversial areas where many diffenent guidelines exist. The mandate is a meaningless issue that has minimal impact.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
50
Yes, you nailed it. That’s the thing: he’s coming off as a genuine phony, when the only real phony thing about him is his sunny demeanor in televised interviews.
God, I wish someone in the campaign was reading this thread.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
MWS,
“By and by, have you surrendered the notion now that Team Mitt has run a nearly flawless campaign?
Do you agree with me now that Mitt should have been positive last Spring and Summer, building his own brand, and not attacking Obama like it’s October 2012?”
Sort of and not really. I maintain that Romney had significant vulnerabilities that ought to have made it impossible for him to win the nomination against any decent competition. And, even absent decent competition, he was going to face significant resistance. But I do think he’s made real mistakes, though not the ones you think. I don’t think there’s much evidence that a positive campaign, unless it brought along with it the kind of Paul Ryan Revolutionary agenda Romney was never going to adopt, would have helped any. I think Romney’s mistakes have largely been missed opportunities. I think he has missed more opportunities then most candidates get. Back to my analogy, I think he’s been very well-prepared, technically, for the flood, but has continually let canoes pass him with nary a thought that they might be used for conveyance.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
MassCon,
On paper, the Rose Garden strategy made some sense, in that once all the heavyweights took a pass, and Mitt was left with a motley crew of has beens and never wases, it makes sense that he could merely rise above them by running a general election campaign. But there were two problems with this strategy. One I saw at the time, and said so. The other, I only recognize in retrospect, but should have been clearer to a full time, professional consultant.
I knew at the time that nobody can run a negative campaign for 18 months. People get sick of negativity. It eventually tarnishes the attacker, and the attacks ultimately become dulled.
The part I didn’t recognize at the time should have been clear to a close observer of the 2010 primaries and elections. The Tea Party was feeling its oats, and was yearning for The Real Deal. They weren’t going to rubber stamp the Next In Line, or genuflect at his coronation. In fact, with this surly bunch, being Next in Line is a synonym for Establishment Sell Out. And so, this group, feeling its oats, was not going to let anyone from Massachusetts with a history of much….. different….. campaigns there, simply take the nomination uncontested.
What we were left with is a venture capitalist, ironically, without a brand. And an embarrassing parade of misfits who each took their turn being the White Knight who rallied the Tea Party Peasantry to overthrow their dark lords.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Mass Con,
“Yes, you nailed it. That’s the thing: he’s coming off as a genuine phony, when the only real phony thing about him is his sunny demeanor in televised interviews.
God, I wish someone in the campaign was reading this thread.”
I sometimes wonder what goes on with these political professionals. I was a political science major. I’ve read election books. I’ve done research. I’ve looked at the maps. I understand the demographics. Wedge issues. All that. What book did I miss reading that turns you into an epic failure? Shouldn’t it be banned? These campaign guys need to A.) Interact with some people, maybe even some who vote in Republican primaries, from time to time and B.) Read some literature to get an idea how characters are created and made sympathetic.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Civil,
Taking MassCare as your example….. I think much of Mitt’s problem, and this contributes to the image of inauthenticity, is his changing story. He loved it. Was proud of it. Thinks mandates work. Thinks it’s a model for the nation. Then….. it was just a noble experiment with mixed results, that he would have done differently, for a specific set of problems, that was largely bastardized by others. not meant to leave the confines of a peculiar state, etc……
Granted, Talk Radio and the Conservative Establishment turned on MassCare for largely partisan reasons related to ObamaCare, but their suddenly changed tune also prompted a much different melody from Mitt too.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
55
Yep, that’s what I was always saying to myself last year. To me, it was like, “Mitt! MITT!!! Dude, the media is not buying your inevitability schtick. Time to retool.”
But it never happened, and still hasn’t. For example, Eric Fehrnstrom and Andrea Saul keep going on TV interviews and say “We believe Mitt needs to fight hard and he will ultimately become the nominee.”
And every time I see them say that, I shout, “You’re FIRED!” in frustration, but it’s like screaming in space. These people are so tone-deaf, it’s remarkable.
The problem with these people in Mitt’s campaign, is that they are experts on what American politics used to be, and their expertise has been rendered irrelevant since the Tea Party and New Media changed everything. It’s a bit like the guy who was excellent with a slide rule in college who can’t even use a computer now.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
MassCon,
Another good point. The media has a vested interest in a horse race, and much of the propping up of Not Romneys has nothing so much to do with animus towards him, as love of ratings.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
56
The problem with the political science major is that it’s been called a science.
It’s not a science.
Mitt’s campaign folks are political scientists, when the only political folks that are worth their salt are political artists.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
MEM,
I think Mitt could have done a much better and more effective job of working the “Turnaround angle.” Not some lame, “Obama sucks, but I know what I’m doing” mantra. Not some 59 point plan of moderatism and incrementalism. I mean a bold vision that is meant to restore a conservative America of hope, civility, and opportunity. Instead of 59 plans, he should have had 4-5 big plans. He should have shown a bit of how venture capitalism works (at its best). There is an audience for that, as America eats up everything from “The Apprentice” to “Cake Boss.” He should have incorporated SoCon issues, but not in a gratuitous, over-the-top, and ultimately unbelievable way like in 2008. Instead of too many platitudes (I know what I’m doing) and too much detail (how many of the 59 points can you name?), he should have struck out with a bold vision that offered hope to the Indies who vote results, conservative principles to the Tea Party looking for The Real Deal, and an open hand to SoCons, who are still leery, but want to beat Obama.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
MWS,
Basically. Look, there’s no good reason, after finishing 4th in Iowa and 5th in NH, that Newt Gingrich should have been given the time of day. People who have performed that abysmally have, in the past, been either ignored or hounded out of the race with cat calls and round derision. And yet, Newt Gingrich was saying some things about Bain Capital. This was a verrry serious attack. One which, coincidentally, happened to jive with the media’s ideological ax-granding. But hey, nothing to do with it. Really, just a verrry serious attack and clearly, not only must we cover it, but we must make Newt Gingrich- 4th and 5th place finisher thus far- into Romney’s CHIEF rival.
I mean, it’s preposterous. It’s malpractice. Romney has done a lot wrong but the media has behaved preposterously. Unthinkably.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Get out the vote is a science. Messaging, strategy, and branding are art.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
In politics, you need a feel, a sense of the drama of it all, the story line. It’s an art.
Take Criggs for example, a regular poster here as of a couple months ago. Criggs is always crunching the numbers on all the polls with a lot of fervor, but misses the mark big time in his predictions. It’s because he’s too caught up in the textbook of it, the numbers, the conventional wisdom.
In politics, you either have it, or you don’t. It’s a bit like golf, actually. And Mitt’s folks don’t have it. There are plenty of engineers in my field who studied hard in college, did well, but failed miserably in real jobs because they didn’t have that something you need. These insiders and consultants just don’t get it. They are the bookworms, not the naturals.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
62
Yes. Ethics in journalism is fossilizing as we speak. Dead and gone.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
So basically, the professionals at Team Mitt should have realized that there were powerful forces with either instinctive revulsion towards, or a vested interest against, against any Rose Garden strategy. This includes the Tea Party, leery SoCons, Talk Radio, and the MSM. About the only powerful group who really wanted a coronation was elected Republicans.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
MWS,
Yes. I’ll agree with that. Romney has never had a very good answer for what he means to do, why he means to do it, and why, exactly, he needs to be the one doing it. I’m reminded of Nixon’s secret plan to end the Vietnam War. Look, if you’re Mr. Cold Warrior, maybe you can get away with that. On one thing. But a defacto secret plan to fix everything? It’s no good saying he has plans. It’s no good saying that they’re really not so incremental. Romney needs to say this. You can listen to him, continually, in stump speech after stump speech, in interview after interview- hours of film- and never hear him talk about any of his ideas. Jindal compressed more into a 5 minute energy response than Romney manages to deliver in 5 hours of interviews and speeches. And it’s not as if he doesn’t know these issues. He does. He’s fine in settings that explicitly ask for details (editorial board meetings). But he struggles with even the broad outlines outside of those settings.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
66
Exactly. But these people are too busy saying, “well, almost every election for the past 200 years has been a coronation so this one will be too.”
I mean, it makes basic logical sense, but again, it’s not a science. History doesn’t matter when the facts staring you in the face point away from conventional wisdom.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
MEM,
Mitt’s folks have somehow made the determination that telling Mitt “hey, don’t get too heavy on policy; it makes you boring and has the potential to alienate some folks who disagree with one provision out of many in your plan” was a good idea. Somehow, the robots inside Mitt HQ never got the memo that when you try to appeal to everyone, you appeal to no one.
Just imagine a commercial for a Toyota Camry, where the ad team decides, “nah, take the music out, some folks won’t like it” and “yeah, let’s make sure we don’t include any human beings because they may not look like most of the audience seeing the commercial and might turn them off from our car.”
The concept is absurd. But it’s the way Mitt’s robot consultants see things. Truly remarkable how tone-deaf they are.
February 29th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Mass Con,
That said, they’re in a bit of a fix. On the one hand, Team Mitt has repeatedly said “this too shall pass”. And they’re usually right. They haven’t freaked out at the appearance of every new ABR. They don’t go to Def Con 5 when a butterfly flits by. Their basic instinct that they can do A, B, and C and candidate D will be diminished is usually right. But their planning is either extremely short range, “how do we deal with this immediate threat?” or extremely long range, “how do I beat Obama 8 zillion years from now?”. They seem to not understand that races are won and lost in the middle. That strategy isn’t simply a tactics piled on top of each other. They’ve memorized the opening book and they understand how to mate with a rook and a king. But the character of the game, as it develops, is totally lost on them.
February 29th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
70
It’s a bit like asking Edgar Allen Poe to write a novel. It would end up just being a series of disconnected, but independently interesting short pieces, none of which follows from the previous one.
February 29th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Never was a fan of Poe. Can’t imagine how ugly a Poe novel would be. But yeah, his short fiction is at least interesting. Much better than his awful poetry.
February 29th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
72
No one likes negative ads, either.
But they too, work.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
I think romney deserves a pass on this. He has obviously taken the position prior to the jumbled question…that the blunt ammendment is a good thing. He clarified that he didn’t understand the question. This is one thing…romney is good for. Give him a pass on it.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:19 am
“I am chalking this up to little rest after a late night on Governor Romney’s part.”
Of course you are….anything can be explained away if you just try hard enough (although this is a weak explanation….I guess if he gets that 2am phone call, our country will just have to “flip” the coin to see which Romney answers)
Remember, it’s not a lie…if YOU believe it…
March 1st, 2012 at 8:21 am
73. Nobody? Care to enlighten us as to how you came up with that?
I like negative ads….they expose what the media often will not as they chart the course of choosing which candidates will be available to us to vote on…
March 1st, 2012 at 9:45 am
21, 74 I will also give Mitt a pass on this.
However, when I play the clip backwards, it sounds like “I like to club baby seals and kick kittens”