As I mentioned elsewhere, in his case it’s “preemptive capitulation”; i.e., “I’m going to lose and this is why.”
Because Romney said so, and Romney doesn’t lie. C’mon, it’s not that hard!
Romney is terrible, and terribly out of touch, but this might have just been bad wording on his part. According to The Stranger (as well as other places):
So it might be that Romney might or might not know what the median income actually is in the US. But it might mean that he was referring to what is classified as middle income under his tax plan, just like Obama’s tax plan.
Romney’s biggest challenge will be to keep that stupid smirk off his face after every single answer he gives.
For Romney and his friends, $100K is poverty level.
I actually think Romney’s biggest debate hurdle is being challenged on the details of his plans which he has refused to disclose - such as which loopholes he is going to close, or what is in his tax returns. I suspect we haven’t heard much about that lately because Obama has something planned. (And because Romney is screwing up lots of other ways.)
My question: where are they going to find a Republican as smart as Obama for him to practice against?
They pickedRob Portman
He’s the guy they trotted out to defend Romney’s recent politicizing of the Libyan incident.
[QUOTE=Rob Portman]
No, I was not aware that it was issued before there were any attacks
[/QUOTE]
This was a day after information on the sequence of events was known.
I don’t understand how he’s a good stand in for Obama, but I guess it’s the best they got.
I think you’re right, but it still doesn’t help the “WTF” effect one feels upon hearing/reading the quote, and we all know what they say about first impressions…
We’re definitely learning Romney is, in no way, a diplomat, and comes across as imperious, too quick to say “you’re wrong” w/o caring about the consequences.
He’s like me when I was 10: I couldn’t wait to let everybody know that the other guy was wrong. And we don’t need my 10yo self for President.
Portman was the stand-in for McCain’s practice, too. According to Game Change, McCain was afraid of practicing with Michael Steele (I think it was) lest he look like he chose him entirely because of race.
In any case, Portman has had some practice in the role, so I don’t see him as a terrible choice.
Romney’s challenge will to not be an emotionless robot. Especially if one or more of the questions deviates from something he has prepared.
Well, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, “up to $250,000” and “$200,000 to $250,000” aren’t the same thing. Obama hardly made a secret of the fact that $250,000 was where his tax cuts would be cut off.
Actually, I think a bigger challenge will be to avoid the “heh heh heh” he gives every time he is posed with a question that he is unable to give a straight answer to (pretty much all of them, these days).
I’m not worried about Romney in the debates. I watched Al Gore clean Bush’s clock in 2000 and then have the media call it a Bush win because he actually pronounced some words correctly. Expectations are so low for Romney that he’ll almost certainly improve his standing in the debates. Obama is way overrated in debating. I thought Clinton handed his head to him in nearly every debate they had in 2008.
I don’t think anyone thinks Obama is a particularly good debater. Maybe some people confuse his (excellent) speaking with extemporised speech.
Probably come down to whether information is more important than imagination, will Obama’s knowledge of the facts trump Romney’s ability to make them up?
More accurately, will the media actually report truth, or will they lie for Obama under the guise of fact-checking?
What the fuck are you talking about? Politifact and Factcheck have been more than willing to call out Obama. He just hasn’t said as many things that aren’t true.
Right. There is that confusion in public perception. And analogously to W, what many people will be looking for is that Romney not look mechanical, not use odd turns of phrase like that thing about tree height; or that Obama fails to move you to tears. Which is disappointing because either candidate may actually make a good point and people will not be looking for it.
In reality you seldom see a viable candidate just “throw up on himsef” in the debate in the style of Rick Perry in his first appearances, that was what made those newsworthy.
So that time Obama schooled the Republicans in Congress, face-to-face, with no notes, was a fluke?
I’m wondering what makes the difference between Obama as deft verbal swordsman, and Obama as king of the pointless pause - “errm, aah, well the thing is is … ah.” Just chance?
Obama is okay in debates. Romney is pretty good. So Romney is more likely to really benefit himself.
Except Romney is flusterable and Obama doesn’t really seem to get flustered, so when it comes to disastrous performances, Romney is more likely, too.