gotta keep it simple
Okay, it's time for me to provide some unsolicited advice to the Romney camp.
Please note, I do not offer this advice because I am disheartened by his performance to date. In truth, I'm pretty happy with where things stand. He survived the summer negative ad onslaught and is in position to take advantage of "facts on the ground." Or at least I think that is the status of the race. Who knows if I'm right?
But he needs to seal the deal, and I'd prefer for him to do that soon.
And I know that Presidential campaign messages are complicated things. There are so many things at play that trying to keep it soundbite-simple while still offering something more substantial than "Hope and Change"is challenging.
But not a challenge that I will run away from. (Don't worry, you can offer your thanks by voting for Mitt!)
Let's make it three prongs for the victory, shall we? How about:
a) The economy. There are fewer workers today than there were 4 years ago. Median household income is lower now than at any time since 1997--and the trend for the entirety of the Obama Presidency is in the wrong direction. And of course we can't forget about the national debt--$16T and counting, with US debt-to-GDP ratio approaching a point from which economic contraction is a near-certainty. And need we even mention the "taxmageddon" at the start of 2013? Well yes, we do, because there's no reason to assume that everybody knows about it--higher taxes from the implementation of Obamacare taxes and the expiration of tax cuts (to include the "Bush" tax cuts among others) will lead to higher taxes on EVERYONE that has a job. If Taxmageddon happens as it is currently scheduled--which is to say if the White House doesn't get something done before Jan 1st--the impact will drive our economy to conditions in 2013 that will "probably be considered a recession."
Is there enough in there to cover the economic front?
2) Let's take a good look at the political environment today. Do you feel it is more or less hostile than it was in 2008? Only one candidate has had 4 years to deliver on his promises to overcome the poison of partisanship in our politics; oddly, that same candidate told his political opponents "I won" in a meeting designed to promote bipartisan cooperation during the first days of the new administration. To date, that same candidate's party is the only party that aired ludicrous ads that blame their opponent for the deaths of former employees; that party also allowed a leader of a Congressional caucus to take the floor of a chamber of Congress and accuse their political opponent of felonious activity. Is this the "new kind" of politics that we were promised?
And there's a foreign-policy aspect to this line of attack, too. Weren't we supposed to be beloved by the world? Didn't Obama say something like his worldliness prior to inauguration--combined with his oh-so-brief time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (seriously??!!!)--will lead to the world viewing the US in a new light? SO here we are, almost four years later: the Middle East is a mess--and was such even before an American Ambassador was assassinated on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11; Egypt may or may not be an ally but one thing that is for sure is that their new government--which came into power as the entirely foreseeable consequence of Obama's action to oust Mubarak--is trying to bully the US into new gestures of, umm. . . "understanding" to the Arab world; Obama gets caught offering "flexibility" to a senior member of a government that continually pokes America in the eye at the UN Security Council-- wasn't all this supposed to be a thing of the past by now??? Where's the adoration we were promised?
and finally 3) Obamacare needs to be front and center. Not just as part of the economic argument posited in paragraph #1 above, but as a stand-alone for the reckless and headstrong manner in which this administration did EVERYTHING they did when they had total control in DC for two years. (It will help remind folks, such as the viewers of the Univision interview who may have been left to believe something contrary, that Obama really wasn't powerless for the entire time he has been President) In 2008 Obamacare (or something like it) was only a warning on the lips of the "wacky right"; then barely 14 months after inauguration it was rammed down an unhappy public's throat. . .and we had the backlash of the 2010 midterms. But here's the thing: even with the success of 2010, Obamacare will still get fully implemented if Obama wins re-election. I still feel like the public doesn't like O'care--in fact, I feel that as the pricetag has increased (as it had to thanks to the budgeting gimmicks built into the thing; the current 10-year estimate on new spending under PPACA is about double the original estimate that accompanied the vote in early '10) public dislike of the thing has grown even greater. I don't hear everything Romney says, but it's been a while since I heard O'care mentioned--and it's been an even longer while since I have heard him speak passionately about it. I want this to be referendum election, and this is the topic that most people "connect" with--so it needs to be front and center moving forward. Make it as clear as possible to those on the fence/in the middle/however you want to call the people that will swing this election: Obama = Obamacare. We can't be rid of Obamacare unless we oust the bill's namesake IN THIS ELECTION.
Is that simple enough?
Please note, I do not offer this advice because I am disheartened by his performance to date. In truth, I'm pretty happy with where things stand. He survived the summer negative ad onslaught and is in position to take advantage of "facts on the ground." Or at least I think that is the status of the race. Who knows if I'm right?
But he needs to seal the deal, and I'd prefer for him to do that soon.
And I know that Presidential campaign messages are complicated things. There are so many things at play that trying to keep it soundbite-simple while still offering something more substantial than "Hope and Change"is challenging.
But not a challenge that I will run away from. (Don't worry, you can offer your thanks by voting for Mitt!)
Let's make it three prongs for the victory, shall we? How about:
a) The economy. There are fewer workers today than there were 4 years ago. Median household income is lower now than at any time since 1997--and the trend for the entirety of the Obama Presidency is in the wrong direction. And of course we can't forget about the national debt--$16T and counting, with US debt-to-GDP ratio approaching a point from which economic contraction is a near-certainty. And need we even mention the "taxmageddon" at the start of 2013? Well yes, we do, because there's no reason to assume that everybody knows about it--higher taxes from the implementation of Obamacare taxes and the expiration of tax cuts (to include the "Bush" tax cuts among others) will lead to higher taxes on EVERYONE that has a job. If Taxmageddon happens as it is currently scheduled--which is to say if the White House doesn't get something done before Jan 1st--the impact will drive our economy to conditions in 2013 that will "probably be considered a recession."
Is there enough in there to cover the economic front?
2) Let's take a good look at the political environment today. Do you feel it is more or less hostile than it was in 2008? Only one candidate has had 4 years to deliver on his promises to overcome the poison of partisanship in our politics; oddly, that same candidate told his political opponents "I won" in a meeting designed to promote bipartisan cooperation during the first days of the new administration. To date, that same candidate's party is the only party that aired ludicrous ads that blame their opponent for the deaths of former employees; that party also allowed a leader of a Congressional caucus to take the floor of a chamber of Congress and accuse their political opponent of felonious activity. Is this the "new kind" of politics that we were promised?
And there's a foreign-policy aspect to this line of attack, too. Weren't we supposed to be beloved by the world? Didn't Obama say something like his worldliness prior to inauguration--combined with his oh-so-brief time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (seriously??!!!)--will lead to the world viewing the US in a new light? SO here we are, almost four years later: the Middle East is a mess--and was such even before an American Ambassador was assassinated on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11; Egypt may or may not be an ally but one thing that is for sure is that their new government--which came into power as the entirely foreseeable consequence of Obama's action to oust Mubarak--is trying to bully the US into new gestures of, umm. . . "understanding" to the Arab world; Obama gets caught offering "flexibility" to a senior member of a government that continually pokes America in the eye at the UN Security Council-- wasn't all this supposed to be a thing of the past by now??? Where's the adoration we were promised?
and finally 3) Obamacare needs to be front and center. Not just as part of the economic argument posited in paragraph #1 above, but as a stand-alone for the reckless and headstrong manner in which this administration did EVERYTHING they did when they had total control in DC for two years. (It will help remind folks, such as the viewers of the Univision interview who may have been left to believe something contrary, that Obama really wasn't powerless for the entire time he has been President) In 2008 Obamacare (or something like it) was only a warning on the lips of the "wacky right"; then barely 14 months after inauguration it was rammed down an unhappy public's throat. . .and we had the backlash of the 2010 midterms. But here's the thing: even with the success of 2010, Obamacare will still get fully implemented if Obama wins re-election. I still feel like the public doesn't like O'care--in fact, I feel that as the pricetag has increased (as it had to thanks to the budgeting gimmicks built into the thing; the current 10-year estimate on new spending under PPACA is about double the original estimate that accompanied the vote in early '10) public dislike of the thing has grown even greater. I don't hear everything Romney says, but it's been a while since I heard O'care mentioned--and it's been an even longer while since I have heard him speak passionately about it. I want this to be referendum election, and this is the topic that most people "connect" with--so it needs to be front and center moving forward. Make it as clear as possible to those on the fence/in the middle/however you want to call the people that will swing this election: Obama = Obamacare. We can't be rid of Obamacare unless we oust the bill's namesake IN THIS ELECTION.
Is that simple enough?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home