When holding his stump speech (in New Hampshire), Governor Mitt Romney criticized Barack Obama and explained how he would take Obama on if he’s the Republican, and Obama the Democratic, nominee: “Let’s say it’s Barack Obama. He’s up there. And we’re debating against each other. We’ll both be talking about change in Washington. He’ll be talking about … big brother, big government and big taxes and that won’t sell. I’ll be talking about following in the footsteps that Ronald Reagan built, which is make America stronger, which is strengthen our family, strength our miliary, strengthen our economy.”
But he’ll have one question for Obama. “Barack, name something you’ve changed. Name a business you’ve changed. Name an Olympics or a volunteer organization you’ve changed. You speak about change, but you’ve never done it.”
Of course that’s basically Hillary’s theme as well, but Romney might exploit this theme more effectively (also because his kind of change is completely different from Obama’s, whereas Hillary’s change is quite similar). Romney has been a Governor. He has saved the Olympics of Salt Lake City. And he’s an accomplished businessman / entrepreneur. He has a long record of being successful. Obama doesn’t. He worded with homeless people in Chicago you say? Well, that’s fine. But that’s not exactly comparable to all the things Romney has done. He’s the professional, Obama’s more of an amateur.
At least, that’s how Romney – if, if, if, etc. – should present his case.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Romney can try to leverage his experience against Obama’s, maybe he can manage to do that better than Clinton. What he should even begin to try is to take the "change" title away. He can run on competence, but he better not run on "I’m not politics as usual" because no one is going to believe him.
Here’s an open question; is it time for the GOP to accept that they may have lost the evangelical vote for this election and move on? Huckabee has won Iowa yes, but he’s less likely to win from now on. The Religious Right does not trust McCain because he is a moderate. They also don’t trust Romney, and not all of it is anti-Mormon sentiment, part of it is that for many years he governed as a moderate as well. Under these circumstances, it’s quite possible that either nomination would anger the Religious Right and they would abstain from voting, though putting Huckabee in the VP slot might save some votes.
"He’ll be talking about … big brother, big government and big taxes and that won’t sell. I’ll be talking about following in the footsteps that Ronald Reagan built, which is make America stronger, which is strengthen our family, strength our miliary, strengthen our economy.”"
Speaking of narratives… I find his no less impressive and credulous than the yarns of the MSM
The liberal Americans for Democratic Action rates Obama’s voting record in the Senate at 97.5 percent, near perfection for liberal Democrats. The American Conservative Union, the ADA’s ideological opposite, rates Obama’s voting record at a rock-bottom 8 percent. Both ratings leave no doubt that Obama’s actual votes mark him as a traditionally liberal Democrat, not a moderate.
Mr. Obama promises to be the agent of change. I would have to ask the same question. Name one darn thing you’ve actually changed. Made better. His track record in 3 years in congress is very non bipartisan. He has no interest in being bipartisan. Uniting. He only has interest in a strategy which will propel him to the White House and then allow him to play to his base. Which is far left.
My first post here I stated I would vote for Hillary. That is because I think she is the only person who can beat Obama. If Obama wins the nomination then one can only hope that the most moderate on the GOP side, Mitt Romney gets the nod because I would certainly vote for him over Obama. However if McCain wins the nomination and runs against Obama then I will most likely for the first time in my life vote for a third party candidate.
Obama is hazy mirrors, misdirection and the epitome of nothingness. Nothing he says can be supported by his actions.
On domestic, economic, foreign policy and national security issues, Obama’s actual record is consistently liberal and consistently orthodox in Democratic Party terms. Obama typically talks like a centrist but votes like a liberal.
This is why Obama is becoming the left and the democrats darling. He is the epitome of polarized politics. He is the definition of Liberal vs. Conservative, Democrat vs. Republican politics in America. He is the poster child for the left.
Yet he is running on a Candidacy of change. Promising to be a Uniter and not a divider. Yet no where in his actions ever has he shown to be the moderate that it would take to do so once in office and the power of the pen in hand.
I am a moderate. I want the far right to drop off the earth. I want the far left to jump off with them. What is left then is moderate people who just want to get along.
I want people to have health care and I want gays to have their say and I want women to have abortions if that is what they want. But I also want a strong national defense. I want immigration controls with teeth and I want a balanced budget. I want to raise taxes, create a national sales tax to pay for health care and a balanced budget. I want Corporations to get tax breaks to provide jobs for Americans. I want more welfare and I want more jobs.
I want to end our use…..not dependence but use of oil and natural gas. I want a foreign policy that waves a big stick but doesnt use it.
I want all these things. But I have never in my life done anything to prove that I can give these things to anyone. That is Obama. He might say the right things but his voting record says he is lying. He is deceiving those who share this moderate stance.
Wheres the Beef Obama? I’m afraid he has slipped us a burger with only bun and mayonaise.
abrisaham,
You might want to get it through your skull that Obama is a *Democratic* candidate. His promise is that he will try to bring together people on both sides of the aisle to bring about *progressive* change.
As for Romney: He’s supported George W. Bush’s policies and he’s a second generation politician. I’m not sure how he is going to be able to spin that into a message of change versus Obama.
Wheres the Beef Obama? I’m afraid he has slipped us a burger with only bun and mayonaise.
I think there might be a pickle in there too.
I’ll admit this is a rarity. I’ve seen quite a bit of crazed fearful hatred of Clinton, and loads of it of Huckabee and Romney, but this is only my second encounter with an Obama-hater. It would seem that you are rather isolated in your view that he is "the epitome of polarized politics" judging by the votes he’s getting from Independent and even Republican voters. Your blind rage against him falls rather short once you look at his record of co-sponsoring legislation with Republican senators. His record also makes the argument that he’s "done nothing" rather hollow.
Even if I don’t count being the presidents wife as having experience, I’ll admit that Clinton STILL has more experience than Obama. However I find Obama to be much, much more trustworthy and above all, willing and able to bring very competent people to his team.
No your wrong. I do not hate Mr. Obama at all.
I hate that he is running for the presidency with no experience. I hate that he is a far lefty who has groomed himself for the presidency. I lived through Jimmy Carter. I have endured Mr. Bush. I know what the lack of experience and someone who is far left or far right can do when in office.
Mr. Obama is far left and his record shows that and he is inexperienced. The record shows that when these two things are joined the results have pretty serious long term implications.
That is my hate. Not for Obama. I hate what he is trying to do. Would you ask a doctor to perform delicate brain surgery on you when he had never done brain surgery before? Would you hire an 18 year old plumber to replumb the Capitol building? Would you want to fly across the Atlantic on a 747 where the pilot and copilot just graduated from Cessna fight school?
This is exactly what Obama is asking you to do. Trust him. Its OJt.
I do not hate him or his family. I hate what he is trying to accomplish at the expense of 6 billion people.
Chris: Last time I checked, the changes which are defined by ‘progressives’ are generally opposed by conservatives. You can use the term ‘progressive’ which sounds like something that no one could possibly oppose, but when you actually describe what you mean by ‘progressive’ change, there are definitely points on which approximately half of the country would disagree with your defining those things as ‘progress’.
So how, exactly, is this different than GWB telling everyone that he was a uniter, but what he really meant was that he’d unite everyone who wanted certain conservative policies and alienate the rest of the country?
C Stanley,
In my opinion, Obama’s message is that we have problems X, Y and Z that everyone agrees are actual problems. Due to his ideological biases, he is of course, going to approach them from the left. It’s unfair for you to expect otherwise.
Bush, on the other hand, promised to unite us to solve what? I don’t remember. He doesn’t even think healthcare is a problem. That our addiction to foreign oil is a problem. That the way we take care of veterans is a problem. That our debt is a problem. Bush is not even trying to make the conservative case for solving these problems. For whatever reason, he ignores them almost entirely.