Tuesday, June 26, 2012


That's because anything Willard says in the court of public opinion can and will be used against him--and he knows it. Let's get specific right here :

Mitt Romney has a problem with specifics...His responses on questions from tax reform to immigration have been thin or nonexistent. When reporters tried to get an answer about the candidate’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law, his spokesperson was so evasive, my colleagues might want to plant a mulberry bush in the press section to make the next round of the game more lively. Usually you have to win the White House before you can be that skilled at ducking and weaving.

But wait. The Romney campaign told Politico’s Jonathan Martin, when he wrote about this topic, that they have offered an "unprecedented" level of specificity. How can these two things both be true?

Is Romney offering an “unprecedented” level of specificity? This is an exciting claim, but it is contradicted by history. Next to me is my worn copy of Renewing America's Purpose, the 450-page volume of George W. Bush's policy addresses and proposals from 1999-2000. By this time in the 2000 campaign, Bush had unveiled mountains of detailed policy, including a plan to offer workers the ability to invest some of their Social Security money in private accounts. "Mr. Bush is dominating the policy debate," the Economist wrote 12 years ago this month. "[He] has seized on the opportunities to appear both bipartisan and statesmanlike." 

It's also hard for the Romney campaign to boast about specificity when the candidate is doing the opposite. He's talked about why he won’t give details because they were used against him in his Senate race and how his programs can't be evaluated by any experts because he hasn’t provided details. [Emphasis added]

How then can the Romney campaign claim to be so specific? The same way politicians like to believe that a response is the same as an answer. In background material offered by the campaign to show where Romney has been specific, many of the items were not so much Romney proposals but criticisms of President Obama. (This is also true of Romney’s 160-page briefing book entitled Believe in America, which should have the subtitle Because Obama Doesn't.)

That's Willard's game plan in a nutshell:

1.  Avoid revealing his plans to govern America from the radical Right,  utterly beholden to the Teabaggers, Grover Norquist, and the Koch Brothers. In particular avoid talking about how he's going to adopt Paul Ryan's wildly destructive plan to smash Medicare to pieces so as to pour more money into tax breaks for the rich. 

2. Lie more incessantly and relentlessly than any other presidential candidate of the last 100 years.

3. Attack, lie about, and smear President Obama on every conceivable occasion.

4. Try to convince people that the Republicans had nothing to do with the utter catastrophe Barack Obama inherited in 2009

Yeah Willard is saying, "What will I do as president? You'll like it. TRUST ME."



  1. Romney isn't the entire problem. Sure he's the biggest liar even but the people who voted for him are bigger slimes that he is. They had better choices. Then again there was massive voter fraud.