SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Mitt Romney’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad...

PLANK SEPTEMBER 14, 2012

Mitt Romney’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Campaign

BY WILLIAM GALSTON

During the past two weeks, the dynamic of the 2012 presidential election has shifted, and President Obama has moved out to a modest but significant lead against Mitt Romney. No developments in the economy or the world can explain this shift. That leaves the campaigns themselves. And during the past two weeks, Romney’s campaign has revealed itself to be stunningly incompetent.

Let’s start with a key structural feature of the 2012 campaign: Romney’s challenge has always been to keep his distance from the party he is leading—the Republican Party, after all, is farther ideologically from the median voter than is the Democratic Party. And as recently as a few months ago, Romney was in good position to do just that: While the public has seen Barack Obama and his party as more or less indistinguishable, they have viewed Romney as a moderate conservative within a highly conservative party.

But, astoundingly, his convention managed to achieve precisely the opposite of what it needed to. The Republican convention was a three-day display of what the Republican Party has become, and by the end of it, Americans viewed Romney, not just as an individual, but as the standard-bearer of his party. Only 36 percent of those who listened to or watched the Republican convention said that it made them more likely to vote for Romney, versus 46 percent less likely. As far back as 1984, there is no precedent for a convention that repels more voters than it attracts. Indeed, during the past three decades, national conventions have generated—on average—a positive response (more likely minus less likely) of 18 percentage points. So while the impact of the Democratic convention (plus 10) was below average, the Republicans managed to stage the least effective convention in modern political history.

And that disastrous convention was soon reflected in the polls. On September 5, the average of national polls showed the candidates in a dead heat at 46.8 percent of the popular vote; by the 13th, Obama’s support had risen to an average of 48.6 percent, while Romney’s fell to 45.3 percent, and Obama had moved out to a lead of 3.3 points. (Recent reports suggest that the Democrats backed up their convention with a pedal-to-the-metal advertising barrage in battleground states.)

Meanwhile, since the end of the convention, the president has run an effective and efficient campaign. He has a theory of the case and a strategy to match it. By contrast, Romney has been campaigning at a pace that can charitably be described as languid, lurching from one tactical statement to the next without a consistent theme or strategy.

The dust-up over events in Cairo and Libya is a good example of what has gone wrong with Romney’s campaign. Setting aside the dubious merits of his attack on the president, this is not an election that will hinge on foreign policy. And besides: If it were, Romney would lose badly, because Obama is getting high marks for his conduct of international affairs, and the Republicans have zero chance of reversing that public judgment between now and election day. Barring a genuine crisis—such as an Israeli attack on Iran—every day Romney spends on foreign policy is a day wasted.

But his problems go deeper than tactical misjudgments. For months, it appeared that he would run a campaign focused on Obama’s management of the economy. Romney’s argument would be simple: He hasn’t produced a real recovery, and I can. If you’re satisfied four more years of tepid growth and high unemployment, vote for Obama. If you think America can do better than that, vote for me. Selecting the unexciting but highly competent Rob Portman as his running-mate would have underscored that case.

But then came his surprise selection of Paul Ryan, which seemed designed to broaden the focus of the campaign to include the deficit and to shift the conversation from a pure referendum on the past four years to an agenda for the future. Yes, Ryan’s proposals were controversial, but Romney seemed to signal that moving from bland to bold, from management to vision, from incremental change to radical reform, was more than enough to compensate for the baggage he was taking on.

And then—Romney reverted to type, with an acceptance speech better suited to a Portman pick. When conflicts emerged between Ryan’s budget and positions the Romney campaign considered more politically convenient, the young vice-presidential nominee reversed course. And if Romney has been campaigning since the convention on a theme of bold reform, it has escaped the attention of the press corps and the American people.

Not for the first time, Romney is trying to have it both ways, using Ryan to excite his base while running as a non-threatening moderate conservative. But two strategies are one too many. To the extent that the Ryan selection tied Romney to the least popular part of an unpopular party, it strengthened the fear that Romney’s election would unleash a harder-edged agenda than a majority would accept.  

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that the race is effectively over and that Obama can just run out the clock. At precisely this point of the 2004 election, George W. Bush led John Kerry by 5.7 points—49.0 to 43.3—but ended up winning by only 2.4 points, 50.7 to 48.3. Between September 13 and election day, support for Bush increased by only 1.7 points while Kerry’s support jumped by 5 points.

What happened? Several things, but mainly the first presidential debate. On the eve of that debate, Bush led Kerry by 6 points. Six days later, his lead was down to 1.8 points. Bush’s support fell by 1.7 points, while Kerry’s rose by 2.5. The Massachusetts senator’s strong performance had encouraged a number of voters to give him another look.

History could repeat itself. To judge from the amount of time Romney is spending preparing for the debate rather than campaigning, he understands that it represents his best, and maybe last, chance to reverse the impression that his ill-judged convention and lackluster campaign have created. If he were to repeat the gains that Kerry made, he would turn a significant deficit back into a dead heat.

Still, the current state of the campaign is surprising, at least to me. The people say, as they have for a long time, that the economy is their principal concern. But job growth has languished since late winter. Unemployment remains above 8 percent, where it is likely to stand on Election Day. Household income remains well below where it was when the recession officially ended more than three years ago. Manufacturing is weakening, as are exports. Gas prices are very high. Most people continue to say that the country is off on the wrong track. Political science suggests that elections involving incumbent presidents are closer to referenda on past performance that a choice between two futures.

And yet, Obama leads. If he ends up winning, the skeptics—of whom I have been one—will have to acknowledge that the Obama team understands something important about twenty-first century politics that we don’t.  An Obama victory would suggest a more personalized, identity-based brand of politics can trump traditional economic metrics, even when times are tough. For their part, Republicans would have to acknowledge that the current stance and demography of their party don’t provide the basis for a lasting national majority. But then, that’s a lesson they should have learned some time ago.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 79 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

79 comments

"And yet, Obama leads. If he ends up winning, the skeptics—of whom I have been one—will have to acknowledge that the Obama team understands something important about twenty-first century politics that we don’t. An Obama victory would suggest a more personalized, identity-based brand of politics can trump traditional economic metrics, even when times are tough. " Or it could suggest that the radicalism of the Republican Party is becoming increasinglyi apparent to an increasing majority of Americans, rendering the party unable to win even under very favorable conditions.

- mowencarp

September 14, 2012 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

William Galston finds the current state of the campaign surprising? That is totally unsurprising. Everything about electoral politics is a surprise to Galston, because he understands nothing about it. I wanna hear again the bedtime story about what a mistake the Bain ads were. Woudja tell it to us again please, Bill? Please, please, please? Pretty please? Sheesh. Isn't there anyone at TNR to give this guy the hook?

- roidubouloi

September 14, 2012 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The first half of your article was masterful. The second half was pitiful. But hey, you praised Obama there, good for you. On the economy -- the thing you miss is that most Presidents start out with a pretty good economy. When they then trash it to the point of 8% unemployment, that's a very bad thing and a repudiation of their policies, so they lose. Obama started with a disasterous economy. Very few presidents have started out with 12% unemployment. To move that DOWN to 8% is a heroic move. And Bill Clinton made that case at the DNC. Plus Romney really is proposing to double-down on the disasterous Bush policies that got us that 12% -- namely yet more tax-cutting and military over-spending. This does not inspire confidence. So you're going to have to revise your metric there. It's not "What's the unemployment at the election?" Instead it's "What was the change of unemployment at the election". You do make a very good point though -- it would be a mistake to conclude the election is over. For one thing, Romney can easily lie through his teeth at the debate and look very presidential. For another, Israel may attack Iran, the unemployment rate could notch back up. And Obama's "lead" is only a few percentage points, and barely 50%. This is definitely not over yet.

- AllanL5

September 14, 2012 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi & Allan, maybe we should cut Galston a little slack now that it appears the anti-depressants are finally starting to kick in.

- appleton

September 14, 2012 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought I had.

- AllanL5

September 14, 2012 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If he ends up winning, the skeptics—of whom I have been one—will have to acknowledge that the Obama team understands something important about twenty-first century politics that we don’t." And the rest of us will cheer.

- maxhencke

September 14, 2012 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"When conflicts emerged between Ryan’s budget and positions the Romney campaign considered more politically convenient, the young vice-presidential nominee reversed course. " This is the long and short of it. All pols try to tell us what they think we want to hear and are willing to change positions to follow the opinion polls, but Romney does it so often and shamelessly that it shows and people notice. Pundits argue as much about whether Mitt really means what he just said as they do about whether it is a good idea. We all believe that Mitt will be more conservative that Obama, but that is hardly enough to make anyone on the right enthusiastic. As Gertrude Stein once said of California: "There isn't any 'there' there."

- Vekert

September 14, 2012 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"An Obama victory would suggest a more personalized, identity-based brand of politics can trump traditional economic metrics, even when times are tough." Or maybe it suggests that political scientists who look to baseline unemployment as the only economic metric worth following without any consideration of the dynamics of how we got to where we are today, which party was at the helm at various stages of the game or what the candidates say about the kinds of fiscal & economic policies they would pursue if elected are dumber than the voters whose behavior they, the political scientists, purport to model.

- AaronW

September 14, 2012 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Almost I year ago I predicted on these boards that Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee, that Obama would beat him in a close election, that the Democrats would gain ground in the House but not enough to regain control and that because of the disproportionate number of Senate Democrats up for reelection and because of Obama's relatively weak coattails that the Dems ran a serious risk of losing the Senate too. The only thing I'd revise about that prediction now is the strength of my pessimism about the Senate. I agree that Romney's campaign is a rolling disaster. (Yay!) He has proved far more incompetent than I imagined he'd be, so incompetent, in fact, that I'm starting to think there'll be an election day enthusiasm gap favoring the Democrats that just might help some Senate incumbents squeak back in. This is a real advantage of the Obama campaign's financial emphasis on GOTV over ad buys: getting the Democratic vote out helps not just the president but the down-ticket candidates as well.

- AaronW

September 14, 2012 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The GOP should ask itself why for two national elections in a row it has fielded candidates whose campaigns were so comically bad that they made the candidates repeatedly look ridiculous. Could it be because the party itself is ridiculous?

- AaronW

September 14, 2012 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, appleton, and here I thought I WAS cutting Galston some slack too.

- roidubouloi

September 14, 2012 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The GOP has nothing to offer the nation other than an absurd plutocratic agenda that it does its best to obscure with a haze of rhetoric. Given how totally hollow it is, the success it has achieved for more than 30 years through a combination of brazen, indeed preposterous, lies and creepy appeals to fears of moral, sexual and racial pollution, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-intellectualism, jingoism -- you know, the whole gamut of fascist tropes -- is pretty astonishing. That should give us great pause. But, as a very wise man once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."

- roidubouloi

September 14, 2012 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think what the Obama team has understood is that if you try to win a presidential election by (a) alienating increasingly important constituencies of voters and (b) shimmying along to stay close to the dogmatic and fringe elements of your party unpopular with most Americans, your chances of losing increase. That gives the Obama team the opportunity to win those constituencies and also to showcase the president as a pragmatic reformer-type who wants to work with others if they'll work with him.

- ironyroad

September 14, 2012 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

none of this explains why almost half of eligible voters just stay home. unless you start seeing how both parties now cater to "the dogmatic and fringe elements". Neither Obama nor Romney have coattails. I still predict that total votes for president will be lower than total votes for Senate, in those states with real Senate contests; but I now add that Great Neck, NY is the new swing state :)

- K2K

September 14, 2012 at 8:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oh, save electrons. not coming back. no attack needed. as if I don't already know what some of you will say :) I did not watch any of the two conventions live. Could not even watch more than ten minutes of Bill Clinton's speech. But, I thoroughly enjoyed Eastwood all three times I watched that bit. Might just write in his name, because so far, the only person on my ballot that deserves my vote is my NY State Assemblyman, AD81, Jeffrey Dinowitz.

- K2K

September 14, 2012 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh give it a rest K2K. If you could name even one "dogmatic and fringe" element of the Democratic Party that Obama panders to, it would help. But as you can't, save the electrons, as you say.

- ironyroad

September 14, 2012 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The GOP has nothing to offer the nation other than an absurd plutocratic agenda that it does its best to obscure with a haze of rhetoric. Given how totally hollow it is, the success it has achieved for more than 30 years through a combination of brazen, indeed preposterous, lies and creepy appeals to fears of moral, sexual and racial pollution, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-intellectualism, jingoism -- you know, the whole gamut of fascist tropes -- is pretty astonishing." roid, It's not that astonishing, when you consider that there are tens of millions of voters in America who eat that crap up. They welcome lies from the GOP, so they can pass them on to someone else. They just aren't creative enough to make up their own lies. That's the only possible explanation for the power of the GOP in the last 30 years.

- magboy47.

September 15, 2012 at 12:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, yes, K2K, irony is right. The Dems appeal much more to the finer instincts of the voters than the Republicans do, simply because they are inclusive, while Republicans are exclusive. The Dems want to bring people in, while the GOP wants to keep them out. But, you say, look how Obama is trashing the rich. Well, the only thing he's doing is asking them to pay "a little" more in taxes. He's not trying to exclude them from his party or America. There are too many rich people who contribute money to his cause. And many rich Democrats are happy to pay more in taxes to help America, not just a political party.

- magboy47.

September 15, 2012 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm with K2K. Anyone who saw the first night of the Dem convention and didn't get a little queasy about the abortion festival atmosphere is probably themselves a member of "dogmatic and fringe elements". Christ, 30% of DEMOCRATS are pro-life, and a substantial majority overall don't favor using taxpayer money to fund them. With the issues stated honestly, millions more think protecting religious convictions from government diktats is more important than averting the horror of a 30 year old law student having to pay for her own contraception. Bill Clinton saved the day in terms of conventions, and probably the election, and he remains both beloved and still the most effective Democrat since FDR exactly because he understands that most Americans not only don't belong to "dogmatic and fringe elements", but find them profoundly disturbing.

- Robert Powell

September 15, 2012 at 4:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Curious logic, Mr. Powell. Per a recent Gallup poll, more than half of Americans believe abortion should be available in some circumstances. 25% believe it should be legal in all circumstances, compared to 20% who believe it should be illegal in all circumstances. Yet it is those who believe in abortion rights who are "dogmatic and fringe elements." This seems, albeit unconsciously, typical of the attitude of religious fundamentalists of various stripes who consider their moral convictions to be specially privileged and cannot even imagine that someone who does not share their views is just as conscientious. What also seems never to occur to abortion rights opponents is that, in a democratic country where there is very far from a consensus amongst morally conscientious people, such matters, whatever they are, should be left for the individual to decide.

- roidubouloi

September 15, 2012 at 8:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Which is to say, that the religious, while whining endlessly about the threat to religion, although nowhere in this country is religious belief or practice restricted, are all too happy to impose their religious beliefs on others and consider themselves discriminated against if they are not permitted to do so.

- roidubouloi

September 15, 2012 at 8:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I promise never to force anyone to have an abortion or to vote for anyone who would.

- roidubouloi

September 15, 2012 at 8:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"An Obama victory would suggest a more personalized, identity-based brand of politics can trump traditional economic metrics, even when times are tough" I'm hoping we learn from this election that if a political party tries to manipulate the voters by sabotaging the economy, it can backfire. Judging a president's performance when cooperation of both parties exists is not the same metric that exists when such cooperation does not exist. If the coach of a team sets the play and it fails, it is the coach's fault. But if the players decide to thwart the coach, failure does not have the same cause. And don't respond by saying that maybe in the first quarter the coach had control.

- Nusholtz

September 15, 2012 at 9:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regarding the state of the economy, I don't dismiss Galston's view of election fundamentals so quickly. Joe Klein observed this week (I think on Hardball) that for many Americans in today's world of 401k's, the stock market is as important an economic indicator as employment and median income. Look where the stock market is today, and you have a base economic indicator that, for many, offsets some of the other measures.

- Tarquin10

September 15, 2012 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Galston, as always, a good, solid, mile behind conventional wisdom. I think most of you here - Roid, Allan, Irony - have voiced what I feel. Being the paranoid pessimist that I am, here are a few things to watch out for, IMO: 1. Romney IS GOING TO lie in the debates and is preemptively trying to innoculate himself against anything Obama might say by saying that Obama lies in debates. I've worked in the corporate world all my career, and while double-speak and obfuscation are common, this level of blatant dishonesty leaves me breathless. Romney is reminding me more and more of the worst executives I've worked with and around. I am shocked that Stephanopolous let him get away with it in the interview yesterday, and look for this theme to be repeated. I am also shocked that O's people haven't furiously batted this back already. 2. The video - I don't know if the makers knew how effective the Arabic translation would be, but I am certain that the timing of this was no coincidence. At the very least, the right wing has ensured that the last debate, on foreign policy, will have some mud that Romney can sling Obama's way - didn't anticipate, security weak, Arab spring wasn't managed, etc. etc. I think Obama needs a little more here than a noun, a verb, and Bin Laden. He needs a forceful defense of how he's conducted foreign policy. The one thing Galston said that I do agree with is that this is, by no means, over. The Giants played Dallas in the season opener this week, and what should have been a relatively easy win for the Giants turned into a convincing victory - for the Cowboys. The debates are going to be very important. Here's hoping that both men stick to their natural types in them: Romney - condescending, aggressive, and as any deaf person can tell through his body language, an utter phony, and Obama, cool, collected, a bit passive, but hopefully not so passive that people think he's not being presidential.

- austinous

September 15, 2012 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That should have been "season opener last week". It's not often that my Cowboys have such sweet wins, I continue to savor it :-)

- austinous

September 15, 2012 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As Gertrude Stein once said of California: "There isn't any 'there' there." Here Here!

- skahn

September 15, 2012 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama, cool, collected, a bit passive, but hopefully not so passive that people think he's not being presidential. Here's my suggestion. At some point during the the debate, Obama gets up, walks over to Romney, says, "You lying SOB! I am sick of hearing this crap!" And then punches Romney in the jaw. What would the secret service agents do if one candidate punches out the other?

- skahn

September 15, 2012 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"An Obama victory would suggest a more personalized, identity-based brand of politics can trump traditional economic metrics, even when times are tough" I have mentioned before that, while people believe the economy and employment rates are important, I don't really think we all truly believe that the economy is THE most important thing. It seems like it is something we say because everyone else is saying it. My heart bleeds for all the people out of work, make no mistake. I. Feel. Their. Pain. But... I think that the reasone everyone is saying that the economy is so important is becaue it is one of the only things that both political parties, and the media, agree on. The democrats and republicans do not agree on ANYTHING ELSE. Nothing! But they agree on this because they think they can blame it on the opposing party- which is exactly what they've both done. So, I think that a lot of americans know there are a lot of challenges, the economy is just one of them. And they remember that the last batch of republicans put the economy in the worst shape its been in for 50 years. AND they see that between the two parties, the deomocrats actually care about some other issues of importance (you know, the ones we don't talk about because we're all too busy agreeing that the economy is The most important issue). In that light, the choice is clear. The republicans really seem to believe that the economy trumps all and their solution is to do the things that got it so bad to begin with-- wrong, and wrong!

- Tobbar

September 15, 2012 at 10:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It finally surfaced into my consciousness that this piece by Galston is both humblebragging and preemptive spin to cover the reality that, as to electoral politics, he is a idiot who has written things, a great deal of it here at TNR, that ought to make him slink away in embarrassment. He writes as if his prior beliefs -- for example that Obama ought to be making a detailed policy case on what Galston thinks are the critical policy issues of the day -- have stunningly been repudiated only by unforeseeable changes in political reality and that has has some reason to be surprised. That's crap. They only reason he is surprised is because he is so stunningly ignorant, often of the obvious. When the outcome shows everything he has written to have been crap, he wants to be able to shake his head knowingly and talk about the "new political reality" that he never saw coming, but only because, while exceedingly bright and knowledgeable in his own mind, it took people of real genius, to which he humbly does not profess, to see it coming. What a piece of work is Galston. But he's surely in the right line of work. One of the great things about pundits is that they say all these stupid things and the next time they are talking, and as likely as not saying the opposite, no one ever says, "But hold on, Bill. Just three months ago you were saying x that turned out to be totally ridiculous. Is there any reason for us to take you seriously today when you are saying y?" That's why it is so much fun to remind him, and us, constantly of the stupid things he has said so far in the course of this campaign. The just desserts of punditry, so rarely served up.

- roidubouloi

September 15, 2012 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

skahn - The Gertrude Stein quote is correct, but she said it about Oakland. If you believe with the Greeks that "character is destiny", Obama will smoke Romney in the debates. No amount of preparation can make him into a different person.

- JackR

September 15, 2012 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm with Galston on the miserable economy and that it ain't over. He left out housing, which is a huge debt drag as well. I'm also with austinous on the debates. Mitt is a calculator and he knows the debates are his ticket. I'm sure he and his people are crafting some slick poison.

- Vogelfam

September 15, 2012 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Galston: Writing "Political science suggests that elections involving incumbent presidents are closer to referenda on past performance that (sic) a choice between two futures" is presumptuous at best. Retrospective voting theory is only one of many theories political scientists have offered to describe voter behavior. While there are a number of issues about the premise of your article that have already received comment, it is this wild over-generalization that is emblematic of a hastily arranged opinion.

- joquilavab

September 15, 2012 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"With the issues stated honestly, millions more think protecting religious convictions from government diktats is more important than averting the horror of a 30 year old law student having to pay for her own contraception." Robert Powell, The Catholic Church doesn't pay taxes, and yet it gets over half a billion dollars from the government every year in free money. It is religion in America that is dictating to government, not the reverse. If you don't want the government to interfere in your life in the slightest, don't take over half a billion dollars a year from it. And pay taxes, like every other decent citizen does. Remember, Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Organized religion, at its core, is nothing more than a money-making machine. The Catholic Church wants it all, including the right to tell somebody what it can and can't do, while taking an obscene amount of money from that somebody. Very Christlike, I'd say.

- magboy47.

September 15, 2012 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The premise of this article seems to be that if the economy is recovering sluggishly, voters will automatically elect the challenger, without considering any other factors. But the challenger hasn't laid out any program to speed up the recovery, except to lower taxes on the rich, and he has aligned himself with a number of questionable positions on the far right. And despite all the challenger's efforts to erase historical memory, maybe the voters actually do remember how the economy got so bad. Maybe that's why the polls tilt, however slightly, towards the incumbent, not because of an "identity-based, more personalized brand of politics."

- BillW

September 15, 2012 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Tobbar. There are other important issues in people's lives besides the economy. And Tarquin10 is right, too. Many middle-class people who are unemployed or underemployed have money in the booming stock market. A job isn't the only indicator of financial well-being. Romney's main problem, besides appearing to be a used car salesman, is that he has revealed almost nothing of what he intends to do as president about anything. So far he's indicated that he'll be G.W. Bush II, with even more of a tendency to astonish us with his ineptitude. Who would have thought that was possible?

- magboy47.

September 15, 2012 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Powell's comment "abortion fest," by which he characterizes the Democratic Convention, is offensive as well as false. Women standing up for the right to have health care and make decisions over our own bodies is NOT an "abortion fest." I sincerely wish you guys would buy a clue here. We're not less than you and we don't need you or anybody else forcing us to bear children. Period. You sound like the guys who claim birth control = slutty behavior and that women who've been raped shouldn't have access to morning after pills or, if necessary, abortion. Why don't guys get that basic human rights apply to women and also that religious freedom doesn't extend to forcing us to accept religious dogma.

- Sophia

September 15, 2012 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In fact, I thought the Democratic Convention was a joyous celebration of inclusion. It was beautiful. There were faces of all shapes, colors, ages, there were people of all classes, intellectuals, students, union guys, aristocrats - in other words it was a reflection of America. It was happy, moving; people wept and they danced. Anybody who didn't watch that and feel exhilarated doesn't get America AT ALL because this is us, it's who we are. And it's high time we celebrated the values that made America a wonderful place and which are threatened by top-down class warfare, religious extremism and intrusion into public life and into our private lives, corporate takeover of government and voter suppression. And I'm sad that K2K has become such a prune. Bill Clinton is a treasure. He's hilarious, brilliant and incisive - quite a rare combination. As for Mr. Galston, several of us have had a sense for some time that you don't get it. Well it's never to late to learn. That said, the points above about the Republican capacity for mischief are well-taken. This isn't a time to be complacent. I've never seen such lying and that film makes me highly suspicious. The timing is just too perfect, dovetailing with Republican attempts to call Obama Jimmy Carter. Also, blaming Israel and the Jews for it? Talk about a transparent effort to cause maximum trouble. Well it worked and now people have been killed and injured and Ryan and other demagogues are out there using Israel as a political football - again - along with fear of Muslims in general and Obama, The Other, in particular. Fortunately this bulls*** about "apologizing" isn't flying this time. I just wish Huntsman and other principled Republicans would stop endorsing Romney because he's obviously dangerous. Having this person anywhere near our military is asking for big trouble. Finally, there's Romney saying in advance that Obama is going to lie during the debates? That man doesn't know when to quit. He's shameless and so is Ryan, but we knew about Ryan already. Romney is a shock.

- Sophia

September 15, 2012 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not a whole lot to add to the above. Just this. Considering that poll after poll over the past year has demonstrated that something like 55% of the American electorate actually remembers when the recession happened, and somewhere around 50% know what the Republicans were up to the last two years, it is nothing short of astonishing that anyone could be surprised that somewhere between 50-55% of the electorate does not blame Obama for the economy. And that's just the starting point. We are not even talking about the concerted effort of the Republican Party, and its nominee, to talk about anything but the economy over the past year, but rather the simple dynamics of this cycle. Then there is the Republican Party and Romney. And the campaign has been awful from the get-go; it is nothing short of bewildering that Galston is just seeing it right now. Or have I been watching some other primary contest? Fine - talk about how incompetent and socialistic and anti-colonial (?) and communist and Kenyan Obama is. Repeatedly say "he does not get it" - as if the US economy runs on whether a single man "gets it". Distort and lie, and lie and distort, and when caught, double down and attack the media. Hint, and when it hinting alone is not enough, get your surrogate to say outright that he is a foreigner and does not understand America. Make gay marriage into an issue, and then when it blows up in your face, allege that Obama is playing politics. Make contraception - for Heaven's sake, contraception - an issue and then allege war on religion. AND THEN wonder why people are not paying attention to the economic news? (Assuming they are not - I think they are - see 401(k) above.) Seriously - all you need to know about why Romney is not likely to get more than the 47% that McCain got is 1) read Galston, to see how "pundits" are getting it wrong; and read K2K, to see how Obama opponents are getting him and the American population wrong.

- icarus-r

September 15, 2012 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The 25 million unemployed and the 10 million homes under foreclosure, are not represented by this two parties. Interesting situation. One third of the USA population is under poverty. No one in power doing anything to help. People like Tavis Smiley and Cornell West are touring America with their poverty tour, I wish they would run as a third party. This past week Bernanke announced the federal reserve move to buy monthly 40 billion in bonds backing mortgage securities to help improve the economy. The effect will be to keep mortgage interests low. However the problem is that the principal remains too high. This is one of the same moves that have done nothing to help the foreclosure problem. thus Bernanke is as inept as always. And wonder of wonders the new iPhone isales are going to do more for GDP than Bernane's move.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 15, 2012 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I agree with Tobbar"- Magboy That makes it all worthwhile!

- Tobbar

September 15, 2012 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW Bernanke's move was highly celebrated by wall street. One more move of the continuing bail out of wall street, and ignoring main street. But never fear. We will get more TNR articles of endless explanations about the income divide in America. With graphs and all.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 15, 2012 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just touching on a comment by a couple of people here that echoes a very unpleasant thought I've had. The timing of the "sudden" appearance of this Muslims film is indeed suspicious, and if -- I repeat, if -- it was a deliberate right-wing fringe play of some kind, then the unavoidable conclusion is that someone who wants Romney to win at any price now has the blood of four American foreign service officers on their hands.

- ironyroad

September 15, 2012 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is not the economy stupid? I don't come in contact with unemployed people. But know about foreclosures. The one house that has not been foreclosed in four years. The bank sued a couple of time but retracted, I guess did not have the proper documents. The bank continues paying the taxes and insurance, but do nothing for upkeep. The town does the upkeep and charges the lien, eventually will get their money. The house has been abandoned all this time, four years. And that is the story all over, reports are of 10 million homes ander foreclosure, with banks using false documents, hence the trouble. The unemployed and foreclosures are seldom discussed in the media. And my fellow left wing bloggers want to ignore them altogether. With one saying " maybe those unemployed are well invested in the stock market". It reminded me of the austriches and elms burying their heads in the sand. But granted we TNR bloggers don't come across the unemployed, why should we care about them. We just want to discuss the important issues. Forget about it is the economy stupid. Just charge on. Now I understand why psycho-king-baloney frequently uses the idiot remark in his psycho-counterpoints.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 15, 2012 at 8:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or is it psychotic counterpoints

- JAIMECHUCH

September 15, 2012 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Never underestimate what the new high price of gasoline, and home heating oil, just as us northerners are seeing fall deliveries, will have on anyone still interested in voting. One of the "dogmatic and fringe elements" that I think of these days are the determined environmentalists who managed to block the Keystone Pipeline in a futile attempt to stop Canada from the contentious process of extracting oil from tar sands. And, if the American people knew that the state of Colorado is sitting on enough shale oil to 100% supply America's needs (at current annual consumption levels) for at least 100 years, I bet there would be intense protests nationwide demanding that Colorado be sacrificed for the common good. I repeat here that climate change was my #2 priority in voting until now. It is too late, and we should stop focussing on CO2 emissions if it is going to crash what remains of our economy. There is more methane from cows and melting permafrost than anything coming out of the tailpipes of motor vehicles. The Democrats cynically use women's reproductive rights to drive turnout when and where they need it. The GOP is just not as good at controlling their feverish faction that refuses to comprehend that they are imposing a religious belief on everyone else. (I would like both extremes on this issue to get out of politics before we go bankrupt.) A pleasure, as always, to read Robert Powell. irony just can not imagine that Salafists throughout the Sunni world might have been the "right-wing fringe play of some kind" behind the attack in Benghazi. And, judging from the really bad production quality of the video, which has been in online obscurity for a year, well, looks more like a plot to indict Egypt's Coptic Christians than this rather astonishing display of anti-American protests that started on 9/11/2012. Is it beyond anyone's imagination that the assasination of Osama bin Laden and the other high value targets would NOT invite retaliation from the Salafists? I thought "Al-Qaeda" is Arabic for "the Base". Until gas and fuel oil prices start dropping back below $4/gallon, and until the new QE3 actually helps homeowners NOT YET in distress, no rebound in jobs. Bernanke is taking a good risk, imo. He at least offered certainty by promising interets rates will stay low for three years. Until now, only auto sales have benefited from the low interest rates - different market segment. Obama and Geithner should have listened to Sheila Bair about the need to focus on the housing meltdown in 2009.

- K2K

September 15, 2012 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, I thought you said you were not coming back... And yeah, the global warming is one of those "other things" that many Americans think ranks right up there with the economy as The most important thing.

- Tobbar

September 15, 2012 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tobbar: killing time is an art form, especially when you are a climate change refugee :)

- K2K

September 15, 2012 at 9:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"irony just can not imagine that Salafists throughout the Sunni world might have been the "right-wing fringe play of some kind" behind the attack in Benghazi. And, judging from the really bad production quality of the video, which has been in online obscurity for a year, well, looks more like a plot to indict Egypt's Coptic Christians than this rather astonishing display of anti-American protests that started on 9/11/2012." Of course I can imagine that, K2K -- I'm capable of entertaining two or more ideas in my mind simultaneously. I don't disagree with your reading of the thing either (although I'm curious about what you mean by "indict." But there is something ominous about the timing. In any case I would reiterate that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi bears the signs of a planned AQ operation so we may be dealing with different paths converging here.

- ironyroad

September 15, 2012 at 10:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re: roi, magboy and sophia: My comments should not be construed as support for restricting women's "right to choose", as I would have thought obvious. It's about the role of government, which IMHO should not be in the bedroom, delivery room, or other intimate councils of family with whatever medical or religious consultants they choose. But they rather than the general public should be responsible for their choice. Taxing the church should be on the table with home mortgage deductions (I'd suggest above $500k), farm subsidies, defense, and above all "Homeland Security", to include the appalling War on Drugs. The recently released Institute of Medicine study concluding that we waste $750 billion in our healthcare "system" indicates to me that we have bigger fish to fry than insuring that relatively wealthy young people get contraceptives charged to the taxpayer, particularly if making a big issue out of it before a still likely to be close election disses the Catholic church and by extension some key northern ethnic voters who are not decided Republicans. Eyes on the prize--first, win a second term (and hold the Senate).

- Robert Powell

September 16, 2012 at 7:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There should be no serious question that the attacks on US diplomatic installations was carefully planned and executed. The Egyptian television personality who orchestrated the "international outrage" is a virtual Al Qaeda functionary. The infiltration of the Benghazi demonstration by a platoon-sized commando unit was professionally done, and probably based on prior knowledge of the Ambassador's location. We still need more Marines if we're going to have a foreign policy.

- Robert Powell

September 16, 2012 at 7:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Robert, As to political tactics, I am willing to consider anything for its effectiveness or ineffectiveness. As to the religious beliefs of one group or another, I don't believe we ought to accord them any special privilege. They don't really talk to god, they don't have any special knowledge, and they don't know or have access to anything that everyone else doesn't know and have access to. Their opinions are their opinions, just like the rest of us, and should be treated as such. Within the precincts of their communities and houses of worship, they can consider themselves sitting at the right-hand of the Almighty. If they bring their opinions to the public square, they are owed no special deference. And that includes keeping their religion out of everyone elses equally conscientious decisions about private matters and according them no special privilege as regards public policy. That's the American way.

- roidubouloi

September 16, 2012 at 9:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amen, roid. Unfortunately for America, a lot of religious people don't agree with you.

- magboy47.

September 16, 2012 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid and mag: I don't think RP disagrees with the essence of the point. Rather, if I understand him correctly, he is saying that religious people who are otherwise - for economic reasons, for example - potential Democratic voters, are turned off more strongly by specific issues (for example, the contraception coverage issue) than actual Democratic voters are if you drop the issue. So there is a net political loss in pressing the contraception question. And so the point is not so much that the Democratic Party should be solicitous of all religious belief to the detriment of its own policies and ideals, but that it should take more care in terms of timing of the issues it raises and the pitch it makes. If my reading is correct, there is something to the argument and while both of you raise valid points of principle, you are not addressing the political calculation behind what I understand to be RP's point. In two respects, I am not entirely sure I agree with RP's analysis. First, given the sequence of events, it strikes me that the contraception rule was thought to be uncontroversial by HHS. After all, 26 or 27 states already have it, and Catholic institutions have been abiding by them without difficulty. What HHS did not realise - and this was a technical rule - was the active insertion of Dolan into the politics of the issue in an election year. Now, you could question whether this was politically sound, but when you have a rule that already applies without a peep from the Church, surely you can reasonably expect that the senior Catholic prelate of the country will not attract charges of hyposcrisy and politicking by attacking you for the extension. Miscalculation on the part of HHS? In retrospect, yes. Bad timing; certainly. But no more. Of course, the White House moved quickly and gave more or less the concession that the situation (not the Church) demanded. That should have been the end of that. But, it was not, and this brings me to the second point. The Republicans, in cahoots with Dolan, badly miscalculated the politics. (Not for the first time.) Having got a swift reaction and concession from Obama directly, they thought they had him on the ropes. And so they persisted with the attack: to the point, if you recall, of the Church demanding a religious exemption not just for religious institutions, but on the grounds of religious belief. This, I believe, is the point at which principle and politics coalesced in favour of the Democratic Party. Even Scalia had not been prepared to go down that road. To expect the Administration to concede was foolish. More to the point, with Santorum as the spokesperson, you had the perfect douchebag pressing the perfectly stupid political position: contraception bad. The more the Republicans pressed the social issue, the less the economy was the issue, the more the election became a choice. And, I think, events have proven that Obama's approach was the right one. It did not help that Dolan was exposed as a pedophile enabler and, before he generously condescended to give benediction at the DNC, a political hack to boot. Have you heard Romney mention contraception or gay marriage once in the last two months? Obama won that set; the issue is dead.

- icarus-r

September 16, 2012 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peter King, that bombastic buffoon of a congressman from NY, just made Romney's very bad campaign badder. On Meet the Press this morning the first words out of his mouth were about Obama's "Apology Tour" in the Middle East soon after he became president. The last words out of his mouth were in agreement with Romney that Obama did, indeed, "throw Israel under the bus." Netanyahu was on the program, too, and he disagreed. It's obvious that he doesn't trust Obama, but he can't afford to badmouth him, like King did. There is no solution, short-term or long-term, to the anarchy in the Middle East, because the core problem is not Israel's existence. That's just an excuse for people with diseased brains to kill other people. If Israel didn't exist, the murderers would find other "reasons" for their acts. Muslims are killing Muslims in Iraq and Syria. And there's nothing Obama or the U.S. government can do about this. When religious nuts want to kill somebody, they will. And several people on the Meet the Press panel made it clear that no U.S. president, including Romney, can do anything to stop the violence that a video or a book "precipitates" among religious nuts. Peter King notably abstained from agreeing with the rest of the panel. With his angry delivery and his fringe opinions, he's a bit of nut himself. A diplomat he's not.

- magboy47.

September 16, 2012 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Have you heard Romney mention contraception or gay marriage once in the last two months? Obama won that set; the issue is dead." Good point, icarus. And it appears that Romney has won the tax-return issue. It appears to be dead, much to my chagrin. Well, you win some; you lose some.

- magboy47.

September 16, 2012 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

William, Thank you for your insights on how the Romney campaign seems to be biting off its own nose to smite its face. Yes we are concerned about the economy, unemployment, real wages, imports and exports. I am very tired of platforms that seek to tear down their opponent versus make a strong foundation for why Romney is a better candidate than Obama. On a personal note, I believe that historically the US economy generally fares better when we have a two term president than when a president is in office for one term. It seems plausible that given the Republican's record of being unwilling to put partisanship aside when it comes to helping our President run our country coupled with the fact that we know what we will continue to have with Obama Americans will go with the incumbent when the opposing candidate does not offer a net advantage in this process. That being said, what I would suspect is that four more years with Obama will be a better hedge than four new years with Romney. His inability to keep his right foot out of his mouth only makes Obama look all the more rational in what has become an irrational process in America.

- michael67

September 16, 2012 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy: "And it appears that Romney has won the tax-return issue." I'm not so sure I agree. He will not release the tax returns, and so on that issue he has "won". But that was part of a pattern of narrative about him. That is to say, there is the specific issue of tax returns and the political hay that could be made out of them; and then there is the whole issue of who Romney is - plutocratic, unsteady, shifty, flip-flopping and so on. The tax return issue has been factored into Romney's unfavourability ratings, and so long as that rating is kept low - and Romney does not appear to be able to break out of it - Obama has a good chance of defeating him. As well, don't expect the matter not to be raised in the debates. The last time it came up, Romney blew up. It would not surprise me if the Democrats are gaming him: lay low, and then hit him when does not expect it. Finally, Romney has been damaging himself so much on every other front, that it would be pointless at this stage to bring up the tax issue. As soon as he manages to reover his footing, that is when to hit him again.

- icarus-r

September 16, 2012 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Comments by readers in this week's Time: "We should have an extra debate where Romney soundbites debate themselves." "Anyone claiming to understand the 'real' Romney is fibbing. His only core conviction is that he should be president."

- magboy47.

September 16, 2012 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're right, icarus. The tax-return game is not over. There are a lot of voters who resent Romney not being honest about his taxes--and many of them will express their disgust at the polls, I'm sure.

- magboy47.

September 16, 2012 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Peter King, that bombastic buffoon of a congressman from NY, just made Romney's very bad campaign badder." King is a passionate opponent of all types of terrorism and its political helpers and supporters. Except when it's Irish terrorists. Then he's more understanding.

- ironyroad

September 16, 2012 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With respect Mr. Powell, access to health care including reproductive health care should not be determined by religious dogma. Women shouldn't be restricted in our choices, there shouldn't be economic discrimination. We didn't choose to be born women and we shouldn't be penalized for our reproductive organs. The case Sandra Fluke was trying to argue involved a classmate who needed oral contraceptives for a medical condition. They should be covered because this is a medical issue. Period. It isn't for church, state or politicians to argue what our health care needs entail. But, as a matter of fact, pregnancy is a medical as well as an economic issue and it's up to no body politic, including either church or state, to deprive women of equal access. That's unconstitutional on its face. Alas, sir, your argument holds no water unless you propose that a) possession of a uterus makes women per se inferior and undeserving of equal access or b) pregnancy and other issues regarding women's reproductive organs aren't medical issues and c) economics don't matter and poor women should suck eggs. So to speak.

- Sophia

September 16, 2012 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said, Sophia. And to all of unserer here, shana tova, and to everyone else, a happy and healthy Jewish new year.

- roidubouloi

September 16, 2012 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do agree though the "war on drugs" is a catastrophe. I read a statistic, we have 5% of the world's population and 20% of its prisoners - can't vouch that it's accurate because I haven't researched it. However, we do have an awful lot of people in prison. How many are for relatively minor drug related offenses? And this disproportionately affects poor people and minorities, which has a deleterious affect on their communities (understatement.) Also, the rise of private prisons makes me extremely nervous. There's something wrong with prison-for-profit. The opportunity for abuse is absolutely huge.

- Sophia

September 16, 2012 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shana tova everybody! May the coming year bring you health and sweetness. Prosperity I have given up on:) But, it couldn't hurt:)

- Sophia

September 16, 2012 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Next year in Jerusalem. "Have mercy, Lord, our G-d...on Jerusalem, Your city; and on Zion, the resting place of Your glory; upon Your altar, and upon Your Temple. Rebuild Jerusalem, the city of holiness, speedily in our days. Bring us up into it and gladden us in its rebuilding and let us eat from its fruit and be satisfied with its goodness and bless You upon it in holiness and purity.”

- K2K

September 16, 2012 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amen K2K. And maybe we can move the embasssy one of these days... On the "birthcontrol" issue, icarus reads me exactly--it's really all about politics. What he misses is that until the recent Sebelius diktat, Federal waivers for the state regs were granted to Catholic institutions. Also, since most of these institutions are self-insured, the attempt to finesse the issue by Obama's declaration that the insurance companies would pick up the tab doesn't work, hence the lawsuit--which lawsuit is a real campaign problem depending on the timing of the decision. Also, birthcontrol pills as treatment for medical conditions other than pregnancy has generally been given a pass by the Church. Look, this has nothing whatever to do with access to contraception, which would continue to be unimpaired even if the Church wins in court, which is as it should be. The problem is that the heavy-handed and dictatorial way the issue was handled by Sebelius (and presumably Obama) tends to reinforce perhaps the most damaging Republican meme on healthcare reform--that Obamacare means the takeover of a vast and particularly sensitive sector of the economy by an arrogant and insensitive government agency. It's damaging, and totally unnecessary. Let's all be clear

- Robert Powell

September 17, 2012 at 6:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"diktat", "dictatorial"? RP: methinks you do protest too much. I've lived in a dictatorship - not just "a" but at least two. This is neither a diktat nor dictatorial. Executive rule-making is part and parcel of democratic governance. Where a government department issues a rule, under the authority of law and subject to challenge by through the courts and change through normal political channels, it is neither a diktat nor dictatorial. Not by a long shot. Might not have been politically astute - the first one probably not, but as I mentioned, the Church overreached, predictably - but there is a wide chasm between being politically challenged, on a minor issue, and issuing diktats in a dictatorial way. You are normally very sedate, and so I don't really understand your characterisation of this issue in this way and, I should confess, the "abortion fest" comment, which I find deeply offensive on many levels. The Republican obverse of "abortion fest" would be to characterise the RNC as a "bloody coat-hanger convention", which I am sure you would not find terribly edifying either.

- icarus-r

September 17, 2012 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks icarus. With respect, I'm trying to represent the thinking of a fairly large group of voters who have been systematically panicked by propaganda that, in their rather less cosmopolitan experience than yours, strongly suggests that we are on the verge of a Government Takeover and a replication of their experiences with public schools, Motor Vehicles, and the IRS in their healthcare (to the extent that this hasn't already happened under our "free market" system). Obama's kind of ham-handed appeal to base voters who will absolutely vote for him no matter what in this matter, at the cost of playing into one of the Repubs most potent memes, is an own-goal. Of the people still "persuadable", there are a number in key states who are generally well-disposed to the promised, mostly future, benefits of Obamacare, but are still disturbed by Republican scare tactics enough to be influenced in their final voting decision. On abortion, "safe, legal, and rare" worked great for folks like me who see every one as a tragedy, but maybe a feature of a larger tragedy of the mother's health and as such a very personal decision. We are sensitive to having state policies that affect hundreds of millions of people being enacted without due concern for unintended consequences in terms of creating incentives for ultimately damaging social trends. Bob

- Robert Powell

September 17, 2012 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Question about The Church: is this august institution EVER going to wake up about contraception? This planet is struggling. We have 7 billion people and the planet is dying. Nobody is demanding that YOU take birth control or use condoms, so forth. Nobody is forcing YOU to have an abortion. However, various Christian religious institutions are damaging women and environment in unconscionable ways. Read Kristof about the restrictions on helping women abroad with reproductive care. People die from our lack of help, relatively inexpensive help. If this is love and mercy, spare me.

- Sophia

September 17, 2012 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Speaking of diktats. Just sayin'.

- Sophia

September 17, 2012 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RP: fair enough, but 34% of Republicans still think that Obama is a Muslim, and I am not at all certain that that should have any impact on how Obama conducts policy. So yes - a chunk of the US population thinks that the contraception order was a "diktat" and "dictatorial"; but then, more or less the same chunk believes the same of anything Obama does. So what? I don't disagree that the Administration should be more politically attuned to trends and perceptions, but you don't shut down policy-making, especially what might have appeared to be fairly routine policy-making, because 40% of the US population does not understand the difference between Executive legislation and dictatorial diktats. In all likelihood, it is the same 40% also does not believe in evolution and think Roswell, the TV series, a documentary. Obama and the Democrats have no way of capturing that vote, in this generation at any rate.

- icarus-r

September 17, 2012 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus--It's easy to slip into cynicism about the average voter, but it's a tendency Democrats in particular should avoid at all cost. I think your idea to lump people concerned with abortion as an issue, or the larger role of the state in setting conditions for large-scale social norms, with people who think O is a Muslim (or would be less likely to vote for him even if he was) is, shall we say, unscientific. I'm sure Dems don't have a chance of capturing the votes of the self-identified Republicans who think he's Muslim (or Kenyan, or Manchurian, or whatever), but they should still conduct their policy-making with sensitivity to sensible voters who may have a different world view than say, NARAL, but may be persuaded to vote for the President. Trust me, they're out there.

- Robert Powell

September 17, 2012 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RP - I was not being cynical about the average voter. I agree about your broader point of political sensitivity - I said as much. All I am saying is that we are operating within a context in which no matter what Obama does, the Republican establishment will criticise him, it in true Orwellian fashion, for having done it: "The Republican Party and the Heritage Foundation have always been at war with the individual mandate"; or Gingrich's aboutface on Libya, or the whole $4 trillion grand bargain - too many examples now to list. True, there is a sliver of voters in the middle who are not as crazy as all this, but who might be swayed by such crazy talk to think that the White House is some sort of DPRK-inspired hell-hole. But ... policy-making will be paralysed and politicking impossible if the Democrats pay undue attention to either the crazies or the sliver. Sensitive, by all means; but when in doubt, or when there is no escape from controversy, do what is right, and manage the politics later. I should add that, I think Obama's people understand the politics. In the contraception war, they were banking on the Republicans and the Catholic Church to go batshit crazy and overreach, and they did. Dolan is a diminished figure; and the fact that Romney has not raised "Obama's War on Religion" as one of the reasons the anti-colonial Kenyan should be thrown out is perhaps the biggest proof of the soundness of the approach.

- icarus-r

September 17, 2012 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're probably right. I just don't want to leave any stone unturned in quest of the goal of denying Republicans access to the White House in the foreseeable future without a tour ticket. The goal is not to avoid Republican criticism, which as you say is inevitable and shameless-- I wouldn't be so quick to rule out a Romney appeal to Obama's War on Religion--but in fact to do the right thing. As far as I can tell policy-making hasn't been compromised, and wouldn't be by a little more empathy for the salt of the earth. Skepticism about The State is a characteristic and in my view justified attitude of the American electorate.

- Robert Powell

September 17, 2012 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy - that tax issue? Romney - who has the political acumen of a gnat in heat - just release a commercial attacking the 47% who don't pay federal income tax. He actually put the tax issue into the public domain again. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mitt-romney-just-another-crude-reverse-class-warrior/

- icarus-r

September 17, 2012 at 8:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry - not a commercial, but a speech. And it was leaked ...

- icarus-r

September 17, 2012 at 8:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, a real screw-up by the Mittbot. Ezra Klein has an excellent look in the WaPo.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romneys-theory-of-the-taker-class-and-why-it-matters/

- Robert Powell

September 18, 2012 at 4:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe now? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romneys-theory-of-the-taker-class-and-why-it-matters/ Oh well.......

- Robert Powell

September 18, 2012 at 4:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close