Tit for tat is a fine tactic for Romney, because it enables him to be a bit nasty, about a whole succession of things, but without seeming too nasty. When the American mainstream media say hey you're being nasty, Romney can say: only a bit nasty, in response to all this diversionary nastiness from Team Obama. Which the mainstream media ignored when Team Obama said or did whatever nastiness it was that Romney is tit for tatting against, which means that the mainstream media come across as biased and dishonest, that being no surprise because that is what they are. Romney comes across as strong, moderate, as nasty as he has to be, as nice as he can be, a good man in a bad world. Just what you want in a President.I'm a bit less sanguine that Romney will take a big stance on the new discoveries of hydrocarbon fuel. My gut tells me that there are too many unknowns that could be sprung - junk environmental "threats" gladly played up by the miserable MSM - and that Romney is too cautious for swing for the fence when he thinks that he's wearing down the other guy's pitching.
But the idea that Team Obama is trapped in his kill zone sounds about right. The combine viciousness, arrogance, and stupidity is roughly equal amounts, and so the idea that Romney is forcing them to keep coming back to talk about the economy is pretty interesting.
Mind you, I still don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. He'll do what's good for Mitt Romney, and do it competently. Right now, he has Team Obama swinging at change-ups way out of the strike zone. It's fun to watch that, in a Mighty Casey struck out sort of way, but I haven't changed my opinion that we'd be better off taking the up front hit of giving Barry another four.
So the question is, since Mittens is looking to win (not that this is unexpected; Mussolini could beat Barry this election): how do you keep Mittens thinking that a smaller, less intrusive government is good for Mittens' re-election prospects? Because Mitt is predictable: if he thinks it is good for Mitt, he will do it efficiently.
9 comments:
You linked to the permalink gif.
Thanks. Updated.
"Right now, he has Team Obama swinging at change-ups way out of the strike zone. "
So did McCain, for a while in the summer of 08. Don't forget, he was running fairly close - within striking range, at least - until the wheels fell off the economy in September.
Eh, Mittens at least can keep a secret.
"Because Mitt is predictable"
I did a post on True Believers vs Politicians a while back, and you make my point exactly as to why we SHOULD put Mittens in the office.
He will do what is politically expedient.
Getting Mittens in the oval office puts the fate of this nation back into the hands of the people, as long as we will do the work required to ensure Mittens knows what will keep him in office and what will get him booted.
The Big O has shown quite clearly that the will of the people carries no weight with him, and that would get even worse in a second term...
//rant off//
Somehow we've gotta convince him that it's in his best interest to downsize government and make it a more efficient entity.
And I'm glad that, even if we think Mittens is doom and gloom, you're still having fun watching the Obama campaign and the MSM (but I repeat myself) keep f***ing that chicken.
Somehow we've gotta convince him that it's in his best interest to downsize government and make it a more efficient entity.
Romney's perceived ability to implement the second part of this statement ("make [government] a more efficient entity") strikes me as being part of what appeal Romney has. His record indicates an ability to make organized entities function more efficiently. Unfortunately, if that only means making the redistributionist state more efficient at redistribution, Nanny state more efficient at nannying us, and the oppressive state more efficient at oppression, it bodes ill for the future of the Republic.
I suspect that part of convincing Romney to support smaller government is to use business buzzwords. While neither he nor "swing" voters are likely to respond well to "we need to limit the Federal government to its explicit Constitutional powers," saying "we should focus the Federal government on its core competencies" will likely resonate both with Romney and with "swing" voters.
So did McCain [have "Team Obama swinging at change-ups way out of the strike zone"], for a while in the summer of 08. Don't forget, he was running fairly close - within striking range, at least - until the wheels fell off the economy in September.
I never got that feeling about the McCain campaign. Senator McCain pitched pretty well until the seventh inning, then lost his control (especially since the MSM umpires had a mysteriously-changing strike zone). Continuing with the baseball analogy, McCain never threw a brush-back pitch, even after seeing one of his players (Governor Palin) repeatedly intentionally hit by pitches.
Meanwhile, Romney has given notice that his campaign will throw brush-back pitches as a fine art, but only as a response to brush-back pitches from the lefties (e.g., Bain versus Solyndra; dog-on-roof-of-car versus dog-on-roof-of-mouth).
Somehow we've gotta convince him that it's in his best interest to downsize government and make it a more efficient entity.
Romney's perceived ability to implement the second part of this statement ("make [government] a more efficient entity") strikes me as being part of what appeal Romney has. His record indicates an ability to make organized entities function more efficiently. Unfortunately, if that only means making the redistributionist state more efficient at redistribution, Nanny state more efficient at nannying us, and the oppressive state more efficient at oppression, it bodes ill for the future of the Republic.
I suspect that part of convincing Romney to support smaller government is to use business buzzwords. While neither he nor "swing" voters are likely to respond well to "we need to limit the Federal government to its explicit Constitutional powers," saying "we should focus the Federal government on its core competencies" will likely resonate both with Romney and with "swing" voters.
So did McCain [have "Team Obama swinging at change-ups way out of the strike zone"], for a while in the summer of 08. Don't forget, he was running fairly close - within striking range, at least - until the wheels fell off the economy in September.
I never got that feeling about the McCain campaign. Senator McCain pitched pretty well until the seventh inning, then lost his control (especially since the MSM umpires had a mysteriously-changing strike zone). Continuing with the baseball analogy, McCain never threw a brush-back pitch, even after seeing one of his players (Governor Palin) repeatedly intentionally hit by pitches.
Meanwhile, Romney has given notice that his campaign will throw brush-back pitches as a fine art, but only as a response to brush-back pitches from the lefties (e.g., Bain versus Solyndra; dog-on-roof-of-car versus dog-on-roof-of-mouth).
That guy AuricTech sounds like a gentleman and a scholar.
Post a Comment