Type in " Anti Obama" into Google and you will get "About 209,000,000 results" - That number almost looks too small based on the people who have issues with the President. No big surprise that people have issues with POTUS
Go to Google and type in the words " Anti Romney " - you will get "About 11,500,000 results" - I wonder why that many hits register about ROMNEY?
Here's the main issues as I see it. He has been trying to get to the Presidency since he first was elected Governor of Massachusetts. He used Masschusetts as a "stepping stone" as he was an absentee Governor for the last two years of his term, spending the majority of that time away from Massachusetts trying to raise cash and national credentials which got him nowhere when he ran for the Presidency in 2008. People saw through his flip-flopping and pandering ways. He would say anything and seemed terribly DESPERATE....He still does as he has this, " C'Mon, it's my turn" attitude about running for the GOP nomination....ugh. The fact that he has more money than anyone else reeks of an attitude that he can buy his way into the Presidency.
Now, we are in 2012, and " Slick MITT " is back at it again. I fail to understand why he didn't get the message last time. The GOP cannot keep running on being the " Old Rich Guys Party". The younger voters were the ones who propelled Obama into office along with the independent voters who swing the key middle.
Go to Google and type in the words " Anti Romney " - you will get "About 11,500,000 results" - I wonder why that many hits register about ROMNEY?
Here's the main issues as I see it. He has been trying to get to the Presidency since he first was elected Governor of Massachusetts. He used Masschusetts as a "stepping stone" as he was an absentee Governor for the last two years of his term, spending the majority of that time away from Massachusetts trying to raise cash and national credentials which got him nowhere when he ran for the Presidency in 2008. People saw through his flip-flopping and pandering ways. He would say anything and seemed terribly DESPERATE....He still does as he has this, " C'Mon, it's my turn" attitude about running for the GOP nomination....ugh. The fact that he has more money than anyone else reeks of an attitude that he can buy his way into the Presidency.
Now, we are in 2012, and " Slick MITT " is back at it again. I fail to understand why he didn't get the message last time. The GOP cannot keep running on being the " Old Rich Guys Party". The younger voters were the ones who propelled Obama into office along with the independent voters who swing the key middle.
The GOP will need someone who can energize these key voting blocks, something new that allows them to get people's attention. Pawlenty, Hunstman, Rick Perry, etc. all reek of the same bland politician model that has been the hallmark of the GOP.
So we go back to the central issue, who will be out there for the GOP against Obama ?
The choices have not been stirring up much interest until recently. For reasons that defy political reason, Rep. Michelle Bachman has been gaining some serious traction.
She's the Tea Party's Belladonna and that has ensured that the press painted her as a lightweight until now when polling has shown here breaking out and going neck & neck with Slick Mitt in Iowa. She did well in the NH debate and was the other candidate who got a significant reaction from potential NH voters.
Is she to be taken serious??? She has been a gaffe prone as Romney but when you think about it, the GOP would shake up the electoral game by throwing a female candidate at our first minority President running for re-election.
Politics has a funny way of defying the "knowns" and heading off in unexpected directions. In the search for the Anti-Romney, it may be that Ms. Bachmann is the very thing the GOP needs. She's not Palin either as Ms. Palin has high negatives.
Would Ms. Bachmann make a good President ?? That will be the question that will drive the campaign to nomination or runner-up status for the nomination. All I Know is that right now, SLICK MITT seems like " more of the same" from the GOP. That is a recipe for disaster and a sure lock for re-election of the "Empty Suit" from Chicago....something no one needs.
Bachmann on 'Face the Nation': Two Signs She is Serious
By James Fallows Jun 26 2011 - The Atlantic
The two takeaways from this morning's show (via notes written 12+ hours ago -- have been in transit in the interim):
1) She looks so much better than she used to. Compare her appearance from a famous Hardball spot during the 2008 campaign with her presentation today. (The Hardball episode was famous because it was when she called Obama "very anti-American.")
Is this a retrograde sexist judgment? Overall presentation matters in politics, especially at the TV-based national level. It mattered that JFK looked better than Nixon in 1960, Reagan than Carter in 1980, Obama than McCain in 2008. It mattered that Dukakis looked the way he did in a tank in 1988. The change in Bachmann's presentation -- hair, makeup, styling in general -- tells me that she has thought about "raising her game," and in a much more sophisticated way than what we see in the evolution of Sarah Palin's appearance through that same period.
2) She showed that she is an absolute genius at the established political technique of "giving the answer you want to give, no matter what the question was." Schieffer reeled off a list of whopper-scale false claims she had made -- for instance, that Obama had approved "only one" offshore drilling permit, when in fact he'd approved hundreds. Her response, every time, was some variant on "the real question is why President Obama has misled us." Or, on policy: what specifically would she do to create jobs? "The real question is why President Obama has failed to create jobs." See for yourself from CBS's site.
I am not endorsing this as the ideal way to lead a public discourse, and you can't get away with it forever. (Schieffer closed the show with a manful for-the-record note that he had tried time and again to get answers to his questions about her falsehoods, and hadn't.) If you have only this one trick in your array of responses, eventually this will be what the press constantly harps on. But it is a part of a big-time politician's arsenal, and she showed that she knows how to use it.
When I say these are signs that she is serious, I don't mean that by my lights she suddenly has practical, plausible answers to the nation's problems. It means that her run could be more disciplined and professional than some other ill-starred long-shot campaigns we've seen recently.
So we go back to the central issue, who will be out there for the GOP against Obama ?
The choices have not been stirring up much interest until recently. For reasons that defy political reason, Rep. Michelle Bachman has been gaining some serious traction.
She's the Tea Party's Belladonna and that has ensured that the press painted her as a lightweight until now when polling has shown here breaking out and going neck & neck with Slick Mitt in Iowa. She did well in the NH debate and was the other candidate who got a significant reaction from potential NH voters.
Is she to be taken serious??? She has been a gaffe prone as Romney but when you think about it, the GOP would shake up the electoral game by throwing a female candidate at our first minority President running for re-election.
Politics has a funny way of defying the "knowns" and heading off in unexpected directions. In the search for the Anti-Romney, it may be that Ms. Bachmann is the very thing the GOP needs. She's not Palin either as Ms. Palin has high negatives.
Would Ms. Bachmann make a good President ?? That will be the question that will drive the campaign to nomination or runner-up status for the nomination. All I Know is that right now, SLICK MITT seems like " more of the same" from the GOP. That is a recipe for disaster and a sure lock for re-election of the "Empty Suit" from Chicago....something no one needs.
Bachmann on 'Face the Nation': Two Signs She is Serious
By James Fallows Jun 26 2011 - The Atlantic
The two takeaways from this morning's show (via notes written 12+ hours ago -- have been in transit in the interim):
1) She looks so much better than she used to. Compare her appearance from a famous Hardball spot during the 2008 campaign with her presentation today. (The Hardball episode was famous because it was when she called Obama "very anti-American.")
Is this a retrograde sexist judgment? Overall presentation matters in politics, especially at the TV-based national level. It mattered that JFK looked better than Nixon in 1960, Reagan than Carter in 1980, Obama than McCain in 2008. It mattered that Dukakis looked the way he did in a tank in 1988. The change in Bachmann's presentation -- hair, makeup, styling in general -- tells me that she has thought about "raising her game," and in a much more sophisticated way than what we see in the evolution of Sarah Palin's appearance through that same period.
2) She showed that she is an absolute genius at the established political technique of "giving the answer you want to give, no matter what the question was." Schieffer reeled off a list of whopper-scale false claims she had made -- for instance, that Obama had approved "only one" offshore drilling permit, when in fact he'd approved hundreds. Her response, every time, was some variant on "the real question is why President Obama has misled us." Or, on policy: what specifically would she do to create jobs? "The real question is why President Obama has failed to create jobs." See for yourself from CBS's site.
I am not endorsing this as the ideal way to lead a public discourse, and you can't get away with it forever. (Schieffer closed the show with a manful for-the-record note that he had tried time and again to get answers to his questions about her falsehoods, and hadn't.) If you have only this one trick in your array of responses, eventually this will be what the press constantly harps on. But it is a part of a big-time politician's arsenal, and she showed that she knows how to use it.
When I say these are signs that she is serious, I don't mean that by my lights she suddenly has practical, plausible answers to the nation's problems. It means that her run could be more disciplined and professional than some other ill-starred long-shot campaigns we've seen recently.
No comments:
Post a Comment