Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Romney adviser: It is politically unwise to discuss specifics during the campaign   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, Waukesha, ACA, level of detail, R-WI, vice presidential candidate, Republican Primaries, presidential nominee  
•       •       •

2390 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Aug 2012 at 4:18 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-17 04:00:43 PM  
4 votes:
It is politically unwise during the campaign to admit it is politically unwise to discuss specifics during the campaign. It indicates your candidate's more specific position is less popular than the worst position you can succeed in painting your opponent as holding, reflecting a relatively weak candidacy.
2012-08-17 04:19:33 PM  
3 votes:
It has got to suck to have to vote for this guy.
2012-08-17 03:59:37 PM  
3 votes:
Still white, though, right?
2012-08-17 06:09:27 PM  
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Thats' it. No mentionof campaign promises at all


You have a very limited grasp of what words mean, don't you. In this context, what else could you have meant by "he learned it by watching Obama"?

That's all notwithstanding the fact that Obama's 2008 campaign website, literature, and stump speech were rife with specifics.
2012-08-17 05:51:39 PM  
2 votes:

MyRandomName: So the 2008 Obama campaign blueprint. Got it.


Yeah, I remember how Obama made sure not to explain that he was in favor of maintaining the tax rates George W. Bush put into place on the lower four brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, and 28%) while increasing the top two brackets' rates (33% and 35%) to the rates under Clinton for the top 2 brackets (36% and 39.6%). And he never advocated raising the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20% on the campaign trail. Even if he ultimately did not get either passed, it didn't come as a surprise to anyone when he tried to get those changes made because he discussed those numbers on the campaign trail.

Look, taxes are usually a Republican strong suit. They get to advocate for them to be lower, which is far more popular. So why no details? Ryan's budget called for a 20% cut to each bracket's tax rate so the lowest would be 8% and the highest would be 28%: does Romney think that would be the best starting point to restructure the tax code? Ryan's budget also eliminated capital gains taxes: Romney has said that the rate should be lowered to spur investment, but we don't know what point between the current 15% or Ryan's 0% would be the rate he would push for.
2012-08-17 05:29:40 PM  
2 votes:

Polly Ester: Citrate1007: Guess what? When you are running against an incumbent with quite a lot to brag about......you need farking specifics.

In case you haven't noticed, Obama isn't polishing the turd of his term in office--he's making his opponent out to be the next incarnation of Hitler. That's what you do when you don't have "quite a lot to brag about".


Osama's dead, GM's alive, our farked up health insurance system has taken a step (albeit a small one) towards catching up with the rest of the developed world, we're not kicking people out of our military for their sexual orientation, we're not in the second Great Depression, and the economy is, in fact, improving. It would be improving faster if not for Republican obstructionism and devotion to the repeatedly-debunked 'supply-side economics' idea.

If you don't think Obama has a lot to brag about, you haven't been paying attention.
2012-08-17 04:57:46 PM  
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: BojanglesPaladin: FlashHarry: again, which is it: did obama break a ton of campaign promises, or did he not make any campaign promises?

I don't know. Both? Is there a prize? Did I get it right?

Maybe you should ask someone else. Like whoever was making the argument you are responding to?

Are you not the one who postulated that Obama didn't campaign on specifics in 2008?


He did, and he always has. And next week he will have always been arguing about how we are at war with eastasia Obama broke all his campaign promises and never used specifics ever.

i75.photobucket.com
2012-08-17 04:44:35 PM  
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Romney learned it from watching Obama.
He is copying Obama's 2008 campaign... poorly.


again, which is it: did obama break a ton of campaign promises, or did he not make any campaign promises?
2012-08-17 04:37:09 PM  
2 votes:
Which is weird, because Romney actually should not be all that hard a sell to the right, center-right, and even center-left if they ran on his, y'know, actual job history and positions. Focusing the campaign on trying to grab hold of the extreme far right fringe sort of denies you the use of all the things that potentially make the guy a good candidate for president.

Governorship of Massachusetts: Romney was fairly party-loyal, but also willing to work across the aisle in order to get things done, and he has implemented the laws to the best of his ability whether they fit his political views or not, kept himself out of dirty deals and scandals, and generally been an effective small-c conservative guy considered acceptable by everyone in the state whether he was their first choice or not.

Running Bain Capital: Sure, this will lose you the lefty die-hards, but it's hard to argue that Romney didn't execute his position competently and that the company wasn't successful. While what the company does is kind of distasteful, the position does sort of show that Romney is capable of a firm grasp on the practical bottom line and has some real management skills and knowledge of the economy.

If the campaign simply took its hits and kept going on the "business-savvy Washington outsider" line, I think a good chunk of the electorate would buy it. But if you fold up like a heavyweight boxer just hit you in the gut with some brass knuckles every time someone even vaguely suggests your candidate trends centrist, has similarities to Obama, may have lost some people their jobs, then you're going to have nothing left to work with and your campaign is just completely hopeless.

I mean, I'm not really broken up about Romney sabotaging his own campaign via being a pussy, given that I'm kinda pulling for Obama this round, but it's kind of sad just how abjectly he's failing given what should be a decently strong campaign.
2012-08-17 04:31:00 PM  
2 votes:

mrshowrules: Weaver95: mrshowrules: I can't believe they actually said they wouldn't talk about tax plans until after the election.

Holy fark they are going to get hammered in the debates.

i'm really starting to think Romney is just phoning in this election.

Maybe Romney has bet his fortune on Intrade that he is going to lose.


I think you're close, this campaign has always been about money. Not that Romney laid an actual wager, but that he bought in to the idea that outspending your opponent was all you needed to do in order to win. Post CU, and with his own deep pockets, he was counting on massive negative ad buys to just sour everyone on Obama.

Unfortunately, Romney hasn't put forth of substance that people want to hear, so he remains behind in the polls. It's like those physics problems in high school, where the problem exists in a vacuum with no outside factors, things will behave a certain way. In a vacuum, the campaign that spends more, wins.

In the real world things like candidate quality matter.
2012-08-17 04:08:25 PM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: mrshowrules: I can't believe they actually said they wouldn't talk about tax plans until after the election.

Holy fark they are going to get hammered in the debates.

i'm really starting to think Romney is just phoning in this election.


Unless he's counting on voter fraud to carry the day.
2012-08-17 04:02:57 PM  
2 votes:
I can't believe they actually said they wouldn't talk about tax plans until after the election.

Holy fark they are going to get hammered in the debates.
2012-08-18 12:20:28 AM  
1 vote:

ussyorktown: lmaobama.com


This one is an unintentional condemnation of the Republican voting base, which I find amusing. Pointing out the similarities that Romney has with Bush isn't meant to energize Obama's base, it's meant to demoralize conservatives. If Biden is leaning over to Obama and laughing about how he "can't believe blaming Bush still works," he's doing it because the libertarian-slanted GOP voter has decided to stay home rather than vote for Romney.
2012-08-17 11:11:02 PM  
1 vote:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-08-17 07:24:48 PM  
1 vote:

mrshowrules: BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: For farksakes! Obama was not light on specifics. He was very farking heavy on specifics

I'm curious. Aside from simple things like "I'll close Guantanimo", what complex solutions did he provide specifics on prior to election day? Again, I'm not saying he had none, but I'm curious which specific big agenda items did he provide a specific gam plan for that you are thinking of?

Link

Feel free to look at them. Things like energy and health have a tremendous amount detail. Some have less detail but clear specifics nonetheless. . Closing Gitmo doesn't have much detail and was a failed promise as you know.


It's interesting that the things you think are "failures' and "broken promises" are the things that Obama COULD NOT get done without bipartisan support in Congress and which the Republicans have been loudly and publicly dragging their feet on at every turn. Why, it's almost as if the President can't get anything done by himself and needs the will and consent of the people who elected him and the support of the duly elected Congress to accomplish anything.

Here I thought you were above believing in McDonald's cheeseburgers in the cafeteria on Fridays. I expected more of you.
2012-08-17 07:13:59 PM  
1 vote:

mrshowrules: He could have threatened to release them without trial if Congress didn't allow civil trials.


Yeah, and he could also start his own country. With hookers. And blackjack. In fact, forget the country and the blackjack.

Seriously, that would have been the emptiest threat that ever got ignored.
2012-08-17 07:13:29 PM  
1 vote:

mrshowrules: He could have threatened to release them without trial if Congress didn't allow civil trials.


That would have been the emptiest threat that anyone ever ignored.
2012-08-17 07:06:13 PM  
1 vote:
Don't ask us what we did, don't ask us what we're doing, don't ask us what we're going to do. Just vote for us, you morons.
2012-08-17 06:59:49 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: For farksakes! Obama was not light on specifics. He was very farking heavy on specifics

I'm curious. Aside from simple things like "I'll close Guantanimo", what complex solutions did he provide specifics on prior to election day? Again, I'm not saying he had none, but I'm curious which specific big agenda items did he provide a specific gam plan for that you are thinking of?


Link

Feel free to look at them. Things like energy and health have a tremendous amount detail. Some have less detail but clear specifics nonetheless. . Closing Gitmo doesn't have much detail and was a failed promise as you know.
2012-08-17 06:30:38 PM  
1 vote:

dywed88: 2008 Stuff.


Obama was practically an unknown on the national stage prior to the 2008 Iowa caucus (merely getting press doesn't equal being a known entity); his New Hampshire primary concession speech kicked the base and the primary race straight into fifth gear, and put him on the map in a huge way. The primary race between Obama and Clinton just served to fire up the democratic base even more and keep excitement high.

A Clinton nomination was also the X-factor on which the GOP was banking to keep their base active and coming out to pools. Remember Operation Chaos, after all? Obama's nomination was a serious hit to the GOP's chances of winning 2008, not only for Obama's charisma and ability to excite voters but also for the undiluted hatred the right had carefully fostered and maintained for anyone named Clinton.

You're right about McCain and the Palin nomination, but the 2008 economic crisis was the final nail, not the Palin nomination. McCain and Obama were polling much more evenly prior to the crisis, even with Palin's baggage and disillusionment for McCain among moderates; Obama was still the likely winner (though, one could argue any Democrat save Clinton would have scored an easy victory after Bush), but the race was much more competitive with a closer margin than after the crisis.
2012-08-17 06:22:11 PM  
1 vote:
It's politically unwise to be advising Mitt Romney during the campaign.

Hell it's politically unwise to BE Mitt Romney during the campaign.
2012-08-17 06:20:00 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: You can't say he didn't have specifics and he didn't do the specific things he said he was going to do.

I said Obama was light on specifics (note I did not say he had NONE). Where in this thread did I say Obama broke campaign promises? Sure, that's another topic for discussion, but I'm not going to be a strawman stand-in for a position other people want to fight with.

From the top. I said:
"Romney learned it from watching Obama.
He is copying Obama's 2008 campaign... poorly."

Thats' it. No mentionof campaign promises at all. All of that was fabricated by the slap-fight brigade in order to have somethign to fight about. And I'm just not interested in that kind of slap-fighting.

To Clarify:
Romney appears to be following the Obama playbook of stating goals that his base can get behind without providing specific proposals for scrutiny. But Romney is not doing it as well. He is being too vague even about the goals.

Frequent Farkers will recall that I have long been biatching about the fact that Romney has yest to produce an actual PLAN to do.. well anything really.

 

For farksakes! Obama was not light on specifics. He was very farking heavy on specifics. Romney is following the Romney 2012 plan
2012-08-17 05:49:10 PM  
1 vote:
Specifics? Yes, that's unwise, it's best to leave campaign talk to generalities lest a candiate get caught in the "went back on campaign promises/didn't deliver as promised" trap unless said candidate is running on a platform comprised mainly of a single policy issue. Unfortunately, we don't even get generalities out of Romney.

And his platform is comprised mainly of "I'm not the Blah Man".
2012-08-17 05:34:30 PM  
1 vote:

MyRandomName: And since liberals are too dumb to understand that last comment. 2008 campaign Obama ran on what results he wanted, not the specific plans he would implement to reach those results. Every politician does their campaign this way.


And yet you specifically singled out Obama and implied it was a negative thing, despite every politician doing their campaign that way. Why is that?
2012-08-17 05:26:08 PM  
1 vote:

Polly Ester: Citrate1007: Guess what? When you are running against an incumbent with quite a lot to brag about......you need farking specifics.

In case you haven't noticed, Obama isn't polishing the turd of his term in office--he's making his opponent out to be the next incarnation of Hitler. That's what you do when you don't have "quite a lot to brag about".


I'm pretty sure he's doing both:

www.skotrat.com

www.whitehousedossier.com
2012-08-17 05:01:27 PM  
1 vote:
Dear Universe: For my birthday, I want Mitt Romney to have a complete nervous breakdown. On live national TV. Thank you!
2012-08-17 04:52:56 PM  
1 vote:
Please, America. Don't pull a 2004. I remember reading this site during the campaign and thinking that you'd finally gone completely insane, rather than just amusing relative kind of insane.

Since then it's been Palin, that witch bint, Perry, Cain, Santorum, I mean - shiat, seriously? Do you know how this makes you guys look from the outside?

It deeply worries me that, at some point in the near-ish future, it seems inevitable the hyperpower is going to be governed by a bunch of farking crazy eschatologophile sociopath retards, and all that hardware will be at their disposal.

Sane people of America, you need to tell that other half of your there's a star goat coming or something.....
2012-08-17 04:52:49 PM  
1 vote:

Bag of Hammers: are you traveling?


It amused the hell out of me that this fark meme is still alive. Long after the original poster outted himself with it.
2012-08-17 04:51:13 PM  
1 vote:

BojanglesPaladin: FlashHarry: again, which is it: did obama break a ton of campaign promises, or did he not make any campaign promises?

I don't know. Both? Is there a prize? Did I get it right?

Maybe you should ask someone else. Like whoever was making the argument you are responding to?


That would have been you asshat, or are you traveling?

BojanglesPaladin: Romney learned it from watching Obama.
He is copying Obama's 2008 campaign... poorly.

2012-08-17 04:51:00 PM  
1 vote:

Fuggin Bizzy: propasaurus: Still white, though, right?

Oh you're always playing the race card like that.



Show us how it's done.

Is it like this ?

www.houseofzot.com
2012-08-17 04:47:54 PM  
1 vote:
Obama made a lot of specific promises and has acted on almost all of them :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obamas-promises /
2012-08-17 04:40:17 PM  
1 vote:

sprawl15: Also, what the fark:Ryan said earlier this week that he plans to discuss tax plans, but not until after the election.

"That is something that we think we should do in the light of day, through Congress,"Does Ryan not know that the President doesn't just sit in front of Congress and brainstorm ideas?


Is not Ryan currently a sitting Congressman?
Are we not still trying to get the budget passed?
Are we not men?

If Ryan has a decent tax plan, and he won't present it to Congress, he's not doing his job.
2012-08-17 04:35:44 PM  
1 vote:

ghare: I don't know why Democrats wouldn't want to vote for Romney. His past actions indicate he's for gun control, supportive of abortion rights, and for universal health care.


Yes, but on the other hand, his past actions indicate he's for less restrictions on gun ownership, against abortion, and against universal health care
2012-08-17 04:29:59 PM  
1 vote:
So basically, Romney is riding on the theory that he doesn't need specific policies because people don't actually care about policy when they vote.

That...actually isn't stupid. It's a cynical but probably fairly accurate summary of how people vote.
2012-08-17 04:26:51 PM  
1 vote:
That's because his plan is to embezzle as much money as he can into untraceable offshore accounts for both himself and his aquitances
2012-08-17 04:23:39 PM  
1 vote:
You know, I hope the new servers for Fark will be given a full diagnostic before Election Day. The amount of derp coming from the usual suspects when Romney loses could overwhelm them.
2012-08-17 04:14:30 PM  
1 vote:

Nadie_AZ: Weaver95: mrshowrules: I can't believe they actually said they wouldn't talk about tax plans until after the election.

Holy fark they are going to get hammered in the debates.

i'm really starting to think Romney is just phoning in this election.

Unless he's counting on voter fraud to carry the day.


or he's simply so arrogant as to believe that he cannot possibly lose. I honestly don't know. Romney is difficult to get a read on...he's flat, almost no emotional cues to go on. so either he's a REALLY good liar or he's a complete sociopath. or both. hell, your guess is as good as mine on that score.
2012-08-17 04:12:50 PM  
1 vote:

mrshowrules: I can't believe they actually said they wouldn't talk about tax plans until after the election.

Holy fark they are going to get hammered in the debates.


We saw how well that worked for John "I know how to catch bin Laden and I'll only tell you if I'm elected" McCain.
2012-08-17 04:05:59 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: mrshowrules: I can't believe they actually said they wouldn't talk about tax plans until after the election.

Holy fark they are going to get hammered in the debates.

i'm really starting to think Romney is just phoning in this election.


Maybe Romney has bet his fortune on Intrade that he is going to lose.
2012-08-17 03:54:25 PM  
1 vote:
"I don't know what I'm gettin', but I know I'm voting for it!"

Is this what they really think?
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report