The trouble with painting Romney as a conservative is that the word “conservative” and vague statements of conservative rhetoric poll reasonably well, but actual conservative policies don’t. So Obama would be better off tying Romney to specific issues than by labeling him as a conservative.
Republican primary voters have done it again: they’ve elected a moderate at best that they hope the media will like.
This happened in 2008 with McCain, it happened in 2000 with W, it happened in 1996 with Dole, it happened in 1992 with Bush. With only 1 exception this horseshit doesn’t work at all. And whether it actually worked in 2000 will be debated for all eternity!!!
Obama is the most beatable President since Jimmy Carter, yet primary voters put up the weakest candidate since Walter Mondale in '84.
To me this is more evidence that the primary election crap needs to be dumped in favor of going back to the old Smoke Filled Room method of picking a candidate.
Emphasis mine.
Are you of the opinion that the Republicans should have unseated a sitting President in the 1992 nomination process? How do you think that would have gone for them?
It seems to me that, by definition, the most beatable President since Jimmy Carter was George H.W. Bush, in 1992. Because, you know, he lost.
Yes!!! And at the time I took a very active part to try to cause that!
How could it have gone any worse for them than it did? He got the nom and he lost the general election. The end.
The worst Buchanan could have done was the same.
You actually would have preferred Pat Buchanan?
Jesus.
Over Bush 1?
Yes.
I campaigned for, and spent money to try to make that happen.
And call me an anti-Semite, but I also would have voted for Pat over Jesus.
Mmm. If it’s any consolation, they’ll never get into power. Neither would Jesus. He had a long history of working for immigrants rights, advocating free healthcare, giving to those in need according to his ability. He has a terrible record on matters of justice (a campaign staff member ass0aulted an officer of the law and he commuted the sentence of a known criminal), plus he’s been seen cavorting with tax collectors and prostitutes. Most crushingly of all, he’s soft on matters of national defence. He says “do not resist evil”: clearly he’s a sleeper agent for the Commies or Mujahideen.
Actually, Republican primary voters chose the candidate that’s been polling the strongest against Obama.
Wait a minute, are you saying Jesus worked for the Secret Service??!?
What is really sad as a moderate Republican is that I think you are 100% correct.
I wouldn’t call you an anti-Semite, but your judgment might be a bit suspect. Are we talking about the same Pat Buchanan who ran on a “buy American” platform while driving a Mercedes S-Class?
McCain lost because he decided he didn’t want to be a moderate any more, and W was never a moderate. Romney doesn’t have moderate principles because he doesn’t have any principles, though I suppose I’ll grant that that does make him more moderate than the likes of Santorum.
I’m not going to goad you into an argument, I just have never met a PB supporter. Can you list what issues he supports that you agree with?
Liar. 
The first thing you read you don’t like or agree with you’ll start pointing shit out. Pat is not a candidate today and we’re now talking 20 years ago.
First of all, I opposed GHWB. His weak leadership and economic blunders caused, in my observation, the recession of the early 90’s.
It wouldn’t have taken much for any primary candidate to sway me away from him.
But some things I really liked about Pat:
Supported Balanced Budget Amendment & tax cuts
100% pro-life
Support for death penalty
His stances on civil rights
His position on immigration
His belief in drilling for oil
His fervor to shut down the NEA
His isolationism stance as opposed to meddling in other countries affairs.
His position on free trade
His opposition to any form of gun control
And so on.
Yes Bush held some of these values. But Bush 1 was a weak and ineffectual leader with no testicular fortitude. I think Pat would have gotten more done in 1 term than bush could have in 2.
I don’t think the Tea Party is going to stay home. Said move would imply a patient and strategic thinking that they don’t seem to be real well acquainted with so far.
I think the far better approach than framing Romney as a Moderate is framing him as an out of touch corporatist. Play up his bankrupted companies, his lower tax rate and huge income. Revealing a tax plan that would likely have lower Corporate Tax Rates and Capital Gains rates would play right into your hand. Highlight everything that comes out of his mouth that could be construed as him being out of touch with average Americans.
Did your fingers cramp up at the extreme cognitive dissonance here?
I dunno, maybe we can get a NASCAR race scheduled for November 6th. Or something involving Mt. Dew & Funyuns. I don’t know, I’m just brainstorming here…
May your taxes always pay for gay porn, Amen.
President Obama’s campaign team seem to be taking the appropriate strategy regarding Romney.
See, the thing everybody who isn’t fully in the tank for Mitt already knows is that he’s infinitely flexible when it comes to significant political questions. Pushing the ‘flip flop’ meme on Mitt is work that just doesn’t need to be done. Already common knowledge, ask anyone.
I don’t think there’s anyone who seriously believes Romney is “severely conservative” in earnest fact, except perhaps in the fiscal sense that he’ll preserve and expand every advantage currently available to the monied interests bankrolling his campaign. I’d bet that very few voters think he’d actively push the extreme socially conservative positions he’s espoused during the primary season. But that’s not the point to Obama’s strategy.
The Obama campaign will take every opportunity to make Romney own his most radical pronouncements not to show who he is or what he stands for; he’s a businessman who’s all about business and the President will acknowledge that every time. What Obama will try and show persuadable voters is that Romney’s in the business of “severe conservativism” because regardless of whatever he actually wants to do, he’s owned and operated by the Republican Party. And the GOP happens to be at the most historically radical point in its existence, having purged moderation from the party platform through the Clinton and G. W. Bush years and codified the resulting extremism with the Tea Party wave of 2010.
So the question Obama wants voters asking themselves isn’t “Is Mittens a rightwing radical extremist?”, it’s “Will President Romney go along with everything his party wants him to do?” And since there’s very little evidence that Romney possesses a firm commitment to any political principle except the pursuit of executive authority, it’s hard to envision him saying no to his political base (who, Obama will remind us, nearly succeeded in pushing the country into default last year and now want to renege on their budget compromise “win” that resulted from the farce).
Given the reactionary activism aimed at rolling back 20th Century progressive achievements that’s been pursued in every state that went majority red in their executive and legislative branches in 2010, the prospect of a national regressive stormfront isn’t as easily dismissed as it might’ve been even two years ago. The 27% or so who fervently desire that aren’t going to vote for Obama in any case, but that leaves a pretty large field of voters who are not only capable of seeing the trend within the GOP but also aren’t quite happy with the thought of a POTUS cheering it along.
My $.02 is that Mitt Romney is Obama’s best spokesman, and every time he agrees with a Republican bottom line position, Obama’s coat tails get longer.
Good. Somebody mentioned on NPR the other day about the 2008 Youth vote being disillusioned by what’s perceived as inadequate accomplishments in his first term (compared to the expectations). The solution to that is to re-elect him and provide him with a Democratic legislature, not elect someone who’ll try to roll back what he HAS accomplished.