David Gregory set the prism into which we have to focus right at the top of the program and that is the fact of two debates coming in the next eight days. We understand this perspective of course but it is there that lies the problem. It seems as though the entire election has come down to these debates which really doesn't make any sense.
Among his many digs at the President, Alex Castellanos said today that Barack Obama has so much run for reelection as much as just trying to fight to not have Mitt Romney elected. There is a little truth in that but as we said last week, the problem that the President is having in his reeclection bid is that his policies of the first term are predicated on achieving a second term. His plan for healthcare, for example, is to see the Affordable Care Act fully implemented. If we were advising the President, in the next debate Mr. Obama needs to articulate what he accomplished in the first term and how implementation in the second term is critical for the benefit of the economy. However, he also needs somehow to introduce new ideas into the conversation. This would have a two-pronged effect. One, it would set a vision for the second term, something that in fact the President has failed to articulate, and two it puts your debate opponent in a defensive posture as he may not be studied on the subject.
For Romney, he needs to be specific and the how. Though his presentation was better, the platitudes have to stop and he needs to be specific, while maintaining the likeability factor that he established in the first debate. The other question specifically in the case of Mr. Romney is how is which way is going to go - it seems that for debate purposes he is expressing more moderate views (which his senior campaign advisers will retract later). But it still comes down to how are you going to achieve the fiscal plan that he has been talking about.
In the Stephen Corbert interview today, Mr. Corbert posed the question as to whether or not Mr. Romney was going to be a candidate that waits until he's in office then open up the books to see where everything is. The example that he used was as if the CEO of Pepsi were coming in to run GM.
Despite our two-bit debate advise, our tips speak to the larger problems with each campaign and those transcend the debates. It seems odd to us that because of a poor debate performance, President Obama is now somehow not qualified to hold the office anymore. Conversely, because of a strong one, Mr. Romney deserves the office more. Two simple questions respectively for the candidates. Mr. Obama, what more are you planning to do? Mr. Romney, what are the specifics to your economic policies?
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) assessed it thusly: It's the vision of Mitt Romney and the record of President Obama. He later mentioned it again with a whiff of religiosity - an 'uplifting vision.' While you can dissect the President's record and decide for yourself whether he's done a good job and deserves a second term, but unless Mr. Romney gets specific, a 'vision,' even an uplifting one, just doesn't cut it. And if it seems like we're being overly harsh and harping on this one point it's because of its vital importance to assessing the candidate.
Mr. Castellanos said something unintentionally telling about Mr. Romney and that is that he has been doing town hall meetings for the last five years. Mitt Romney has been campaigning for the past five years and we're not totally sure what positions Mr. Romney will take during Tuesday night's debate. For at least four of those past five years, steered more and more to the right, but then we were all asked to forget that last week. Specifics clear up the issue of where the candidate truly stands.
In the panel's assessment of the Vice-Presidential Debate, everyone was a bit off base, even Tom Brokaw who said that on substance, it was a draw. One thing is for sure, in terms of substance Vice President Joe Biden had the advantage - he's been 'in the room' the last four years - and he used it. This was clearly the case on the issue of Afghanistan. To illustrate Mr. Ryan's naivete, the Congressman said that he agreed with the 2014 withdrawal but that we shouldn't announce our withdrawal. One, you can not just start withdrawing troops without telling the host country. And two by default, Mr. Ryan in fact announced our withdrawal in his statement. No matter who wins the Presidency, by 2015, we're out. And it seemed that the two parties are pretty close together on what to do in Afghanistan, it's just a political sin to point that out right now.
Medicare was clearly another issue where Mr. Biden more substantive command. Mr. Brokaw's seeing it as a draw is probably the product of talking policy at too many cocktail parties over the years (though we'll always start out giving him the benefit of the doubt) because certainly the debate was not a draw.
Atlanta Mayor, Kasim Reed (D-GA) said that the Mr. Biden dominated Mr. Ryan, which wasn't the case either. Mr. Ryan did ask all the correct questions that a committee chairman would ask in a hearing on what happened in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. We say that purposely because despite his asking good questions, it is too soon for a hearing which Republicans are conducting right now. Let's have the investigation first. However, for the purposes of the debate, Mr. Ryan effectively illustrated that the Administration has a lot to answer for - the conflicting messages and lack of action on security requests. We would agree overall that politicizing the tragedy in Libya is the absolute wrong thing to do, but then again, we completely understand why it would be exploited in that way. It's a measure of how much you're willing to tolerate.
A couple more points. Governor McDonnell said that from the debate it was clear that Mr. Ryan understands the budget better than anyone else in Congressman. Which debate was he watching that he could make that assessment? When the moderator of the debate, Martha Raddatz presses for specifics, and you have none to offer, and then verbally confirms with you that we're not getting detail on what they would not, that's not command. All the laughs, and interruptions aside, [Colloquial Note: that's how people in the northeast speak to one another. If you stop making a strong enough point in the other interlocutor's mind, he will start speaking over you until you cede the floor.] the Vice President had to defend the President's record and he did so strongly.
As for the President, it is his election to lose, especially since the unemployment rate is now at 7.8 percent. So now, everyone's watching to see if he can pull out a win on Tuesday night, he certainly needs it. But as we said, he shouldn't need it as sorely as the first debate performance would indicate - note the word shouldn't. What's in everyone's psyche, on both sides of the aisle, and a problem for the President is something that Stephen Corbert just tossed out there, which was promises that Mr. Obama has not fulfilled. The President did make a lot of promises, too many. We could go through some and explain the obstruction from here and there as reasons to why it was left unfulfilled, cutting the deficit for example because Mr. Obama did know that two wars were going to be put on the books, but he said that anyway. But at the proverbial end of the day, Americans want to know if you got it done or not, period.
Too many promises, and as we see it, if Mitt Romney gets elected, he'll leave unfulfilled promises behind as well. Then again, maybe not because he hasn't been specific on how he'll make good on them.
Round Table: Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA); Mayor Kasim Reed (D-Atlanta); Fmr. Gov
Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); GOP strategist Alex Castellanos; and NBC’s Tom
Brokaw
No comments:
Post a Comment