Slap My Momma! Romney Unintended Consequences?

[AquaMan]

I was thinking this morning...early this morning...how tired I am of Romney critics in the South calling him a "Moderate Massachusetts Republican". Like that is some kind of vile skin disease. We all know how different philosophies have been demonized...Liberals are now evil do gooders, Evangelicals are now fundie radicals, OCW, TP'rs and on and on. However, my personal philosophy has always been "moderation in all things". It works pretty well. Now I watch in confusion as moderation is now presented as something to be avoided rather than encouraged. The conservatives have resorted to "internecine" warfare (thanks H) and divided themselves up into fiscal conservatives and social conservatives while the mainstream of the party has to be partitioned off as not even conservative, but Moderate. There may even be a Liberal wing of the party that never even gets mentioned.

Not my party, I shouldn't care right?? But then it hit me. This guy Romney is pretty clever. After the Gingrich PAC assault on his record, he pretty much lays low and reads the pitch or like a good quarterback, he reads the defense instead of just reacting. And that's smart. Cause the more money that PAC spends on showing how really moderate the guy is, the more he benefits. Why? Because most American's consistently describe themselves as moderates. I did before I started posting here. Their views are not nearly homogeneous, and unpalatable as the "base" of the Republican party's are. In fact, that "base" was once described as the fringe of the party that had to be placated but was certainly not suitable for general elections. They are better described as the activist part of the party.

The Bain stuff is like frosting on the cake. He worked with accumulating large pools of money to actually buy, repair and operate companies in distress which is way different than investing in mortgage securities, indexing, and all the exotic manipulations of Wall Street. Sometimes he won, sometimes he was brutal, sometimes they lost. All stuff moderate investors and small business owners can relate to. He is in fact a real capitalist instead of a predator or a social moralist.

So, you have this huge population of moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans who are now being educated as to just how much they are similar in outlook to Mitt Romney and he gets that advertising for FREE! He is the candidate and he is the one Obama should most fear.

[we vs us]

He's always been the one Obama had to fear the most, the question has always been whether the now-fractious GOP base could see that. 

In the general election -- IMO -- the central problem is going to be differentiating between the two.  Aside from the rhetoric, their policy prescriptions are strikingly similar.  Turns out a Republican from Massachusetts and a Democrat from Chicago have a whole lot in common.  So in part the question will be, what else do you get when you vote in Romney, or Obama?  Who are their people, what does their party want, what's the apparatus you are empowering.  This has been my problem with Romney from the get-go.  Not that he personally is problematic.  He's about as moderate a Republican as you could want if you're a D of my stripe.  But the baggage that will come with him is very much not ok. 

[AquaMan]

It doesn't matter really if the fractious base supports him or not in the general. They are balanced off by the fractious left who have become suspicious that Obama isn't the change they anticipated. I figure both of those wings end up with little to see in the other's candidate and fall in line. Not a straight orderly line, but a line.

The beauty of this election to me is that both candidates have some baggage and both represent rather moderate views on many subjects. Both candidates are family guys with good education, sophistication and government experience. Obama is more relaxed with the masses and comfortable with debating. Mitt is more of a politician/legacy/businessman. Regardless of what local pundits say, Obama has a decisive advantage in having dealt with serious tests (piracy, Bin Laden, Congress, banking, health care) that showed his skills or lack thereof. Mitt has never even dealt with Senate or House leadership, much less any other countries than France.

The tipping points are going to be VP selections, the optimism of the electorate and the passion they display, Ron Paul's actions or some unforeseen gaffe. I see a very close race.

[Teatownclown]

I think there's still way too much to be revealed other than his set of magic underwear....

I still think he picks Kay Bailey Hutchison. Jeb Bush knows better...

[we vs us]

Good read, Aqua.

[AquaMan]

Thanks. I have my moments. Fleeting though they may be...

[Teatownclown]

Here you go Teabagger/GOPeers! The real issues? Vilify the black people.

I really don't wish to be associated with this GOP clown show....

It's Sundown time!

[Conan71]

He's always been the one Obama had to fear the most, the question has always been whether the now-fractious GOP base could see that. 

In the general election -- IMO -- the central problem is going to be differentiating between the two.  Aside from the rhetoric, their policy prescriptions are strikingly similar.  Turns out a Republican from Massachusetts and a Democrat from Chicago have a whole lot in common.  So in part the question will be, what else do you get when you vote in Romney, or Obama?  Who are their people, what does their party want, what's the apparatus you are empowering.  This has been my problem with Romney from the get-go.  Not that he personally is problematic.  He's about as moderate a Republican as you could want if you're a D of my stripe.  But the baggage that will come with him is very much not ok. 

What baggage?  His policy prescriptions aren't as similar as you think unless you are stuck on Romneycare. Otherwise I'm not sure which ones you think will be similar.  His approach to business and the economy will be quite a bit different, i would suspect.  Romney has "saved and created" jobs in the private sector, something President Obama hasn't had experience with.  If unemployment is still over 8% next November, that's going to be the issue that retires President Obama four years early.

[Teatownclown]

What baggage?  His policy prescriptions aren't as similar as you think unless you are stuck on Romneycare. Otherwise I'm not sure which ones you think will be similar.  His approach to business and the economy will be quite a bit different, i would suspect.  Romney has "saved and created" jobs in the private sector, something President Obama hasn't had experience with.  If unemployment is still over 8% next November, that's going to be the issue that retires President Obama four years early.

Here it comes..... "anybody except Obama...."

[Conan71]

Here it comes..... "anybody except Obama...."

That and of course the racist tea baggers won't vote for the black feller.

[Teatownclown]

That and of course the racist tea baggers won't vote for the black feller.

It's strange. I ask the opposition what has POTUS OBAMA done wrong in foreign policy? No reply. What has POTUS OBAMA done wrong by the economy...some bs, but mostly nada. I remind them of his saving the economy from worse outcomes.

It does boil down to racism. I know you refuse to believe that.

Here we go again!

[nathanm]

What baggage?  His policy prescriptions aren't as similar as you think unless you are stuck on Romneycare. Otherwise I'm not sure which ones you think will be similar.  His approach to business and the economy will be quite a bit different, i would suspect.  Romney has "saved and created" jobs in the private sector, something President Obama hasn't had experience with.  If unemployment is still over 8% next November, that's going to be the issue that retires President Obama four years early.

Unfortunately, the Republicans' approach to the economy is almost precisely what has proven so poor in most of Europe. The austerity bug has created crisis after crisis over there. Even if you are of the belief (I am not) that we need to see the destruction to get back on track, there's no reason other than class warfare and petty moralistic hand-wringing to force it to happen so quickly and in such a big way as to create yet another crisis, which is precisely what the Republican plans I've seen call for. Well, they don't call for crisis, but they call for the same measures that have precipitated crises in several European countries already.

Government is not a business, so why on Earth do so many people think that businessmen should run it? Why is it that so many seem to think that only a businessperson can be competent? There is more to life than amassing wealth, after all.

Government needs generalists, not MBAs.

[Teatownclown]

Unfortunately, the Republicans' approach to the economy is almost precisely what has proven so poor in most of Europe. The austerity bug has created crisis after crisis over there. Even if you are of the belief (I am not) that we need to see the destruction to get back on track, there's no reason other than class warfare and petty moralistic hand-wringing to force it to happen so quickly and in such a big way as to create yet another crisis, which is precisely what the Republican plans I've seen call for. Well, they don't call for crisis, but they call for the same measures that have precipitated crises in several European countries already.

Government is not a business, so why on Earth do so many people think that businessmen should run it? Why is it that so many seem to think that only a businessperson can be competent? There is more to life than amassing wealth, after all.

Government needs generalists, not MBAs.

Right as usual, Nate!

Besides, big companies make big mistakes....

[nathanm]

Besides, big companies make big mistakes....

So does big government, but at least government (nominally, subject to campaign finance laws) answers to the people.

[Conan71]

Unfortunately, the Republicans' approach to the economy is almost precisely what has proven so poor in most of Europe. The austerity bug has created crisis after crisis over there. Even if you are of the belief (I am not) that we need to see the destruction to get back on track, there's no reason other than class warfare and petty moralistic hand-wringing to force it to happen so quickly and in such a big way as to create yet another crisis, which is precisely what the Republican plans I've seen call for. Well, they don't call for crisis, but they call for the same measures that have precipitated crises in several European countries already.

Government is not a business, so why on Earth do so many people think that businessmen should run it? Why is it that so many seem to think that only a businessperson can be competent? There is more to life than amassing wealth, after all.

Government needs generalists, not MBAs.

In the society we live in, we are led to believe that politicians actions either create or destroy jobs.  Based on that, I think it's pretty important in times when unemployment is exceedingly high that someone with real-world business experience steps in with policies which businesses say are favorable to creating jobs.

No, I'm not on the "cut taxes!" as a magic jobs panacea band wagon.  There are far many other issues to address which will build the sort of optimism and confidence which will get all that cash off the sidelines.