Skip to main content

Yes, no doubt Obama pwnd Romney in the Commander-in-Chief role.

But what worries me is that when Romney laid out a series of negative economic stats (economic growth, unemployment, debt, poverty, and the dog-whistle food stamps), and he says Obama promised X but delivered Y, and he grants that Obama is "trying" but that these negative numbers prove Obama just doesn't have what it takes when it comes to improving a struggling economy - I don't think Obama really deflected this.

Why the heck not?

Polls show folks think Obama cares more about them, but that Romney would be better for the economy, right?  That perception about Romney is really his one chance of winning this thing, isn't it?

Why allow that perception to go unchallenged?

Why not counter Romney with negative economic stats about Romney's tenure as Governor?  The stats are listed right on Obama's website.  But they aren't much good on a website, compared to in a debate with zillions of people watching.

The website states:  

Mitt Romney promised to bring his experience from the corporate boardroom to Massachusetts—the same promise he’s making now as a presidential candidate. But Romney economics didn't produce then—and it won’t now.

    Stagnant job growth: During Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts fell from 36th to 47th out of 50 states in job creation, while the overall U.S. economy grew.

    Declining manufacturing: By the end of Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts had lost more than 40,000 manufacturing jobs—a rate twice the national average.

    Higher taxes: Gov. Romney raised taxes on the middle class, but pushed through a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited 278 of the wealthiest individuals in MA.

    Highest debt in the nation: Under Mitt Romney, Massachusetts’ debt burden grew to the highest per person in the nation.

    Increased government spending: State spending increased every year while Romney was in office, and he left behind a $1 billion deficit for the next governor.

    Jobs outsourced overseas: Governor Romney failed to protect good jobs in Massachusetts, and actually outsourced state jobs to India.

Zing.

I suppose if done poorly the argument could come across as "I suck but so do you".   But I'm sure Obama can avoid that, while demolishing his opponent's supposed greatest strength.

Debate #3 is of course billed as a foreign policy debate, so less opportunity there.  But there's always the opening and closing statements....  

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I recommend Obama say.. (5+ / 0-)

    "That takes some real brass, Governor Romney. YOUR party ignited the atom bomb, and now you blame me for the fallout."

    •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ardyess, gustynpip

      the real fault with Romney's argument is that he is essentially blaming Obama for not cleaning up Bush's mess fast enough so we should let him have a chance to implement those same policies that created the mess in the first place. It's a really really terrible argument.

      imagine if that argument worked against FDR in 1936? "unemployment is still high! replace FDR with a Herbert Hoover clone!"

      I just think those #s Romney lists off only have an effect out of context ... in context I think people understand that we were in a deep hole when Obama took over and blaming him for that is absurd.

  •  Reading The Transcript From Romney's Leaked (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reflectionsv37, ardyess, auapplemac

    meeting at the Florida mansion. He said that one of the best ways to lead internationally is to have a vibrant economy at home. If he takes that route during the debate to get the discussion to be the economy rather than foreign policy, Obama just has to follow him there.

  •  I totally agree and.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ardyess, gustynpip, Rob in Vermont

    I'd also like to add the President's great reluctance to call out the GOP (and thru them Romney and Ryan) for their great obstructionism, in preventing him from achieving his agenda. I saw Jon Stewart throw him that softball just last night in his interview observing that many of his problems stemmed from that Repub plan to deny him any victories (like the American Job Act which would have created over a million jobs) and instead of going with it, Obama returned to just talking about Romney and his desire to cut taxes for the very rich.
     I can't understand why obstructionism which is often mentioned by so many others as a conscious GOP strategy from day 1 is something he consciously seems to avoid bringing up. It is a natural defense...along with more crisply summarizing in bullet form the many proposals he has brought up...as in Romney's supposed 5 point plan...made more convincing, even though it is empty, by merely listing it as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5....
       Also I wonder why Obama doesn't also in summary form mention more about what he has already done for the economy...like doubling the stock market which affects many folk's retirement accounts, reducing unemployment to under 8%; and debunking that supposed 5.6% unemployment rate promise by explaining that economists never knew just how bad our economy was shrinking until much after he took office (a 9% GPA loss)
      Finally, I agree he should have questioned Romney's accompanying bogus claim about his own bipartisanship as Mass gov (I have heard as gov he vetoed a huge number of bills and was difficult to work with) and as you mention not balancing the budget but leaving a huge billion dollar plus deficit his last year.
       While President Obama did brilliantly at repainting Romney in a negative light again last week; I do fear that he really didn't counter all those repeated Romney economic "failure" attacks, which unfortunately as the first debate proved, when unchallenged immediately can take on the aura of actual fact! I often wonder aloud with friends why he doesn't particularly run against that Do Nothing House...with so much obvious ammunition and would love to also get opinions here why he won't do that...something that could totally take the wind out of Romney's main election critique.

  •  L'esprit de l'escalier n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Obama should have a concise (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cheerio2, ardyess, auapplemac

    retort on the economy to counter Romney's litany about unemployment, rate of poverty, people on food stamps... The still recovering economy remains Obama's weakness, no matter how well he does in the debates. I agree that he has not sufficiently defended and promoted his economic record - and there is plenty of ammunition to do it, with vigor and passion.  

    •  Also how about mentioning Romney's failures (0+ / 0-)

      in MA. As well, as the fact that the people who know him best - MA citizens are going for Obama in vast numbers over Romney.

      Also that he did not work that closely with Dems when he was Gov. according to what I've read and heard.

      The healthcare programs may have been the only major legislation that was bipartisan.

      It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 02:53:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not Really..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ardyess

    The President will & should keep refocusing Mitt on foreign policy during the next debate.  Mitt knows nothing, has done nothing & doesn't even read the briefings his staff tries to make him read on foreign affairs.  They've admitted he's not interested.

    Foreign affairs are only one of Mitt's achilles heels.  He was a disaster in Europe during his recent visit.  He even managed to alienate our greatest ally.  

    Mitt had his chance on the economy.  

    •  I still see Libyan attack as a major problem (0+ / 0-)

      for Obama next Mon.

      News reporter was able to meet with one of the major terrorists involved in the attack in a public restaurant for an interview yet neither the Libyan government or ours have touched him.

      Saw the interview with the reporter on CNN.

      It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 02:57:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No easy solution to that- (0+ / 0-)

        obviously we can't arrest him in Libya.  And the Libyan government is currently at the mercy of militias who are the only source of any kind of policing activity.

        It's a complicated scenario, but I'm willing to bet that a lot is happening behind the scenes.  This guy might be laughing now, but I doubt that will last long.  

        By the way- one thing that's being overlooked in the media is that this "major terrorist involved in the attack" says that it was prompted by the video.

  •  off of huffpost (0+ / 0-)

    here

     and it states that James Carville and Stanley Greenberg say that the Obama economic messaging is working.  I do believe that these two know their shit here.....

    A bit of feel-good for a while?

  •  Does Romney Know That Issa & Ryan Voted.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ItsSimpleSimon

    to gut embassy security?  House Republicans voted to cut the embassy safety fund by over $400 MILLION dollars.....$128 MILLION in fiscal year 2011 & $331 MILLION in 2012.

    They thereby voted to cut funds for more than 300 additional diplomatic security positions.   When questioned why....they said "we had to prioritize".

    They should talk.  Romney couldn't find Libya on a grade school map w/ large block printing & big red arrows pointing to it.  

  •  The economy is actually a bogus issue. (0+ / 0-)

    Obama does not do bogus well.
    It is a bogus issue three ways.

    1). Republicans state the exclusion of government from business as an ideal. They are lying because they actually count on government to be their helpmate, providing preferential legislation and access to free resources. So, to even address the issue is to enter a mine-field.

    2). The federal government does control the currency. However, it is the Congress that is tasked with this function. The executive's hands are tied, if the Congress chooses to defer to Wall Street and pretend to impotence. It is not advantageous to the President to admit to impotence, especially in the face of the Congress false claim.

    3) . The great recession has been engineered by a conspiracy between Wall Street and the Congress for the purpose of demonstrating to the electorate who's the boss -- the petty potentates in the Capitol Hill Gang and their billionaire henchmen. Yes, the standard line is that Congress has been co-opted by the private corporations. But, that makes no sense. Private corporations are chartered by public corporations and thus legally subordinate, as Dodd/Franks recently proved. That legislative bodies are impotent is a hoax. The hoax is perpetrated to disguise that people elected to serve the populace are mostly serving themselves and whoever can round up the votes to keep them in office. The Capitol Hill Gang is into extortion, just like the Mafia used to be until they got much of their enterprise legalized.

    The cons know that power lies in the legislative chambers. That's why the focus in 2010 was in that arena. That's why in 2012 the agenda was to turn the presidential election into a three-ring circus in hopes of sneaking in more legislative successes under the radar. But, one hopes Democrats got their number and while Obama is orchestrating the kerfuffle at the top, the grass roots are busy setting the House and Senate in order.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 03:38:34 AM PDT

  •  Dont forget the 800 vetos in Mass (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rob in Vermont

    Every time Romney touts his ability to work across the aisle, and the ability to run the state with 87% of the legislature in the hand of the opposition, mention this fact:

    Romney Vetoed 800 bills as the Governor of Mass, and bragged about it in the primaries.

  •  This raises the question of how U would have coped (0+ / 0-)

    ... if your 2008 run for President had succeeded...and the answers are clear:

    (and they show why this election is a choice rather than a referendum)

    1.    GM & its suppliers would have moved to China.

    2.    The budget and trade deficits would be bigger, Republicans would have cheered, and the public would never have heard of the “debt ceiling”.

    3.    There would be even more home foreclosures, even fewer surviving local banks, and even bigger “too big to fail” banks.

    4.    The earnings of millionaire hedge fund managers would be taxed at even less than the 15% rate they enjoy under George W. Bush’s tax cuts.

    5.    Your 2011 income tax rate owed would have been reduced even lower than the 12.2% your reported (and your would not have artificially added 1.9% to get to the 14.1% rate that you have promised – for now—to pay).

    6.    You would have supported a nationwide mandate to buy health insurance, but not insurance company profit limits and rebates to customers. Many Republicans would support this, and the rest would not "replace" it with anything besides leaving more sick Americans bankrupt, untreated, and dying in the streets.

    7.    Your two Supreme Court appointees would have forced American women to travel as far as Mexico or Canada to get an abortion, and low-cost birth control pills.

    8.    Bin Laden now would be enjoying videos of US troops getting killed by IEDs not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Iran and Syria

  •  47th in job creation (0+ / 0-)

    I couldn't believe that Obama never brought that up in front of 60 million people, especially when Romney kept saying over and over again that he knows how to create jobs.

    "You had your chance when you were Gov. of Mass., Gov. Romney. And you were 47th out of 50 states."

    It seemed so easy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site