Good morning, and welcome to another edition of Prix Fixe Politics! If Mitt Romney wins this election, it will be because of the way he turned the tide last night in Denver. It was Mitt’s Mile High Moment — a combination of a stinging critique of a suddenly meek President and a strong case for business-executive leadership. This debate won’t be remembered for any zingers or select lines. Simply put, it was Romney at his best and Obama at his worst for 90 minutes. We can now officially bear down for a dog fight until November 6th, but in the meantime here is today’s menu…
Appetizer: I watched the debate with 24 undecided swing voters in Lakewood, Colorado, thirteen having voted for Obama in 2008. Where did the group stand after the debate? 20 thought Romney won, and 10 said the debate made them more likely to vote for the challenger. Boston (Romney Headquarters) loves these numbers for several reasons. First, it’s serious earned media for the next week. With the next debate not until October 11 (and that’s between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan), last night’s contest will remain front and center for more than the typicl 48-hour news cycle. Second, it puts the President’s advisers on the defensive. They’ll be on CNN and MSNBC every day, trying to return the focus back to Romney’s rich, out-of-touch ways. Yet after their candidate got walloped like he did, any effort to pivot will come across as an admission of defeat. And third, it takes some of the pressure off Romney. He still has a lot to do in the next 32 days if he wants to be elected. But for a few days, he’ll get to spend more time talking about his success in Denver, which means less time talking about “The 47%” or tax returns.
Main Course: There were a few moments in particular that stood out and are worth discussing. Romney’s opening statement where he set forth his five-point plan won high marks. You may have noticed in that clip, and many other times throughout the debate, Romney enumerated his points. Not only does that keep the communicator focused, but it causes the listener to think he’s hearing an organized, well-crafted answer. This style is one of the most important ways for Romney to appear to be giving the American people what they want to hear: SPECIFICS. While the President meandered through wordy answers and tired excuses, Romney enumerated his way to convincing voters that he does in fact have a plan. President Obama’s best moments came while discussing health care. Whether you hate or love Obamacare in sum, it’s hard to viscerally hate some of its component parts — 26 year olds, pre-existing conditions, etc. Romney and the Republicans still don’t have a good answer for the important question of what they’d do if they repeal Obamacare. Because Obama has set a new baseline with these well-liked components of the legislation, Romney must calibrate his plan accordingly. Finally, our Colorado swing voters were nearly off the charts with their real-time dials when Romney spoke about his bipartisanship in MA. In 2008, Obama promised to transcend partisanship. Four years later, the acrimony has gotten even worse and the public has grown increasingly impatient with the President and Congress. Romney has a record of working across the aisle, and the undecided voters notice it. With this debate answer, he gave his best introduction yet of himself as a Washington outsider with political skills desperately needed along Pennsylvania Avenue. That Obama let a Republican cast himself as the one best suited to working across the aisle is confounding.
Dessert: Here are three pieces of advice for President Obama as he prepares for the next debate. First, figure out what you’re going to do with your head while Romney’s speaking. Looking down and disinterested like you did last night is the 2012 version of the smug, nose-up Obama we got in 2008. Unless you are writing something down, focus on Romney. And every time you give an answer, you should be looking directly into the camera. There’s no debate audience you need to pander to in the auditorium — the only important people are the ones watching at home! Your verbal shiftiness reflected a lack of self-confidence and your body language communicated defeat. Second, what happened to General Motors? You couldn’t swing a dead cat at the DNC without hitting an Obama surrogate talking about the success of GM. Heck, Biden’s best line from his DNC speech was: “Osama Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive!” When you speak about “saving” GM, you are communicating directly with the voters of Ohio, Michigan, and Western Pennsylvania. Your ads in those states have been too good to start ceding ground there now. Third, where did Bain Capital, outsourcing pioneers, and the 47% disappear to? They’ve been your most effective attacks against Romney and you didn’t mention them once on the biggest stage you’ll have before election night. You only had to mention these red herrings once or twice — any more would appear unpresidential. But psychology tells us the importance of the availability heuristic — if you don’t keep these attacks salient while actually on the stage with the culprit, voters will be less likely to recall them in the voting booth.
Read the rest of… Zac Byer: Prix Fixe Politics — the Denver Debate
In his latest column for The Huffington Post, The RP discusses the work of a new grassroots movement that, like No Labels, brings Democrats and Republicans together to address our nation’s critical problems. It is called “Fix the Debt,” and it already involves more than 100,000 Americans in urging fiscal sanity on our national leaders.
Please join the great work of “Fix the Debt” by clicking here.
Here’s an excerpt of the RP’s column:
Already, the fear of the fiscal cliff has caused businesses to slow hiring and investments, and Moody’s, the credit-rating agency, has stated that it will consider downgrading our credit rating if responsible actions to begin bringing down the debt are not taken as part of an effort to avoid the cliff.
Our political leadership needs to take action before the debt becomes so burdensome that it severely hampers our country’s ability to compete, maintain our social safety net or create jobs.
However, there is hope.
Already, a group of former lawmakers, experts, business leaders, and concerned citizens from across the political spectrum have come together, putting their ideological differences aside, in pursuit of a common-sense plan.
This new bipartisan group, called the Campaign to Fix The Debt — chaired nationally by former Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles — has already received support from over 180,000 Americans in a petition drive to hold elected officials accountable, demanding that our nation’s fiscal path remains front and center in the public discourse.
Of course, generating a solid plan to reduce our national debt — without knee-jerk reactions or extreme measures — is an uphill climb, to say the least.
But initiatives like the Campaign to Fix the Debt prove that we do have leaders willing to look at both sides of the ledger — spending and revenue — in order to find a deal.
The colorful, pivotal Missouri Senate race has had something for everyone — especially political junkies and poker fans. And there’s still time for at least one more twist.
First there was Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill’s unusual participation in the Republican Senate primary. Armed with poll numbers indicating Representative Todd Akin would be her weakest opponent in November, she ran anti-GOP ads that were actually designed to stroke right-wing erogenous zones by dubbing Akin a “pro-family … true conservative.” Her strategy, akin to keeping a poker opponent with a weak hand from folding, worked beautifully. Akin won the primary.
Then, after Akin’s infamous “legitimate rape” comments prompted calls from the GOP Establishment that he step down, he called the bluff of the National Republican Senatorial Committee by staying in the race. That tactic worked as well — Republican endorsements and funding came flooding back after the deadline for Akin’s withdrawal passed.
Now, with 35 days left until the election, it may be time for McCaskill to deploy one final gambit: ads that subtly promote the Libertarian candidate, a heavily tattooed personal trainer named Jonathan Dine.
Dine, who sports “Legalize Marijuana” ink across his chest, has more than a little electoral baggage, especially two felony convictions for marijuana possession and identity theft. He is actually ineligible to hold state office in Missouri, but could still play spoiler in the Senate race. At a three-candidate debate last week, he got in the last word: “I promise to keep Republicans out of your bedroom and the Democrats out of your wallet.”
Read the rest of… Jeff Smith: Why Claire McCaskill Should Promote a Tattooed Felon to Defeat Todd Akin
Rick Perlstein, a elegant and perceptive left leaning writer, wrote a breathtaking account of sixties era polarization called “Nixonland”, which he marred only at the end by weirdly inquiring whether American ideological opposites secretly wish to kill each other. The answer is emphatically no, but based on the two most infamous “gaffes” of this cycle—Mitt Romney on the untaxed lower and working class and Barack Obama on the parentage of successful businesses—the truth might be that they would just happily tax the hell out of the other side.
In fairness, which inadvertent coining of a catch phrase, “the 47 percent”, or “You didn’t build that” lives on as a classic terminal wound, and which ends up being peripheral noise, is entirely unclear at week’s end: Gallup’s tracking poll still shows the race deadlocked; on the other hand, a flurry of other state by state polls this week showed more good news than not for Barack Obama, who leads in every large swing state even as a battery of smaller state polls remain in a statistical tie. And there is a lot of fog in this race, more than usual even by the standard of instant, all-day news and Twitter.
But it is striking that this year’s verbal blunders are different in kind and nature from their ancestors in prior races: John McCain’s “the economy is fundamentally sound” during the week Lehman Brothers capsized; John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it”, George W. Bush’s “do they think Social Security is some kind of federal program?” ranged from the inarticulate to the clumsy, to the horribly timed, but not one of them seemed to reflect any footprints around a larger ideological perspective. Rather than being hints of a future program, they were backfires from notably uneloquent politicians trying to riff their way through a lull in their prepared texts.
Negative ads. Robo calls. Finger pointing. Divisive politics… How did it come to this?
With Ohio once again in the spotlight of an important presidential race, the Ohio Historical Society partnered with No Labels, a Washington-based movement seeking bipartisan political reforms, to host a panel discussion, moderated by Ann Fisher, host and executive producer of WOSU’s “All Sides with Ann Fisher.”
The panelists included:
Bob Taft, former Governor of Ohio and research associate at the University of Dayton
Senator Charleta B. Tavares, (D) District 15 – Columbus
Tom Suddes, editorial board member of the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Gene Pierce, Columbus-based political consultant
Jonathan Miller, No Labels co-founder and former treasurer for the State of Kentucky
Columbus, Ohio’s community newspapers — ThisWeek Community News — ran a feature on tonight’s panel at the Ohio Historical Society, that features The RP’s introduction of No Labels, discussed here earlier today. Here’s an excerpt:
After nearly two decades in public service, about half in elective office, Jonathan Miller had had enough.
Elected twice as a Kentucky state treasurer and later appointed secretary of finance, he watched the partisan nastiness grow out of control.
“I call myself and consider myself a recovering politician,” he said. “The system is a mess. Hyperpartisanship is the cornerstone of the problem. That’s where we’ve really deteriorated.”
Miller, a Democrat, might have gotten out of politics, but he’s still trying to fix the system.
The 45-year-old is co-founder of No Labels, a Washington, D.C.,-based movement seeking bipartisan political reform.
The Ohio Historical Society and No Labels will host a panel discussion on “Bridging the Divide” at 7 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 27, addressing Ohio’s role as a battleground state for the 2012 presidential election. The event, to be held at the historical society, 800 E. 17th Ave., is free and open to the public, although a donation to the historical society is recommended.
Panelists include former Republican Gov. Bob Taft; Democratic state Sen. Charleta Tavares; Tom Suddes, an editorial writer for the Plain Dealer; and political consultant Gene Pierce. Ann Fisher, host of All Sides with Ann Fisher on WOSU Public Media (89.7 FM), will be moderating.
Last night, The RP was a featured panelist for the semiannual Worldview Forum at Malone University in Canton, Ohio. The Forum is an academic program that brings in expert proponents to argue for different perspectives on topics that are important for the community.
Last night’s topic was Persuasion or Propaganda? The Effects of Public Relations on Elections, featuring The RP and Ben Porritt, a former senior aide to the McCain/Palin campaign and an official in the Bush White House. The RP focused a great deal of his remarks on the solution to our political mess — No Labels, the grassroots movement he co-founded, and now involves more than 500,000 Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who believe that we need to set aside our labels on occasion and do what’s right for the country.
Additionally, it is very clear from his answers that The RP’s ultimate career goal is standup comedy.
Tune in below to the conversation. And if you are ever in Canton, Ohio, be sure to look up the Hambleton House Bed & Breakfast — wonderful accommodations and hospitality, and the best pumpkin pancakes you will ever eat.
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET
More secretly taped video from the controversial Mitt Romney fundraiser.
These surreptitiously obtained videos are really dirty pool late in the campaign season. They aren’t fair and can easily get misinterpreted or taken out of context.
But I’m afraid this latest clip will only do more damage to Mr Romney as he is caught again in a candid moment talking tough (singing, in this instance) to his supporters earlier that same day. A prelude to the milder 47 percent reference.
====
Mitt’s Father Jeremiah moment?
Yes.
That’s what I think the secretly taped “47%” comment amounts to for candidate Mitt Romney. Which is to say, it’s a political and electoral non-event event.
What do I mean by that?
Remember the public outcry last election cycle when Barack Obama’s pastor, Father Jeremiah Wright, had videotapes of him released online saying absurd things about America?
It was supposed to be the political scandal that would sink candidate Barack Obama’s campaign. But didn’t.
Was it a politically significant event for Barack Obama? Yes, in my view. But not because it caused his supporters to bolt. It didn’t.
What it did do is give a concrete event on which those who already had a vague unease about voting for Barack Obama —and weren’t going to vote for him anyway —something to point to and hang their hat on as the reason for not voting for him.
Yes, they were uncertain about Barack Obama—his politics, his origins, his qualifications for president and even his name. But those things weren’t as tangible or easy to talk about as the Father Jeremiah video which was disturbing and could explain why someone would not want to vote for Barack Obama.
Read the rest of… John Y. Brown, III: Mitt’s “Father Jeremiah” Moment
By Jonathan Miller, on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET
Check out this fascinating article on “the league of dangerous gerrymanderers”: How a few determined partisans rigged Congress through the redistricting process: [The Atlantic]
Main Course: There were a few moments in particular that stood out and are worth discussing. Romney’s opening statement where he set forth his five-point plan won high marks. You may have noticed in that clip, and many other times throughout the debate, Romney enumerated his points. Not only does that keep the communicator focused, but it causes the listener to think he’s hearing an organized, well-crafted answer. This style is one of the most important ways for Romney to appear to be giving the American people what they want to hear: SPECIFICS. While the President meandered through wordy answers and tired excuses, Romney enumerated his way to convincing voters that he does in fact have a plan. President Obama’s best moments came while discussing health care. Whether you hate or love Obamacare in sum, it’s hard to viscerally hate some of its component parts — 26 year olds, pre-existing conditions, etc. Romney and the Republicans still don’t have a good answer for the important question of what they’d do if they repeal Obamacare. Because Obama has set a new baseline with these well-liked components of the legislation, Romney must calibrate his plan accordingly. Finally, our Colorado swing voters were nearly off the charts with their real-time dials when Romney spoke about his bipartisanship in MA. In 2008, Obama promised to transcend partisanship. Four years later, the acrimony has gotten even worse and the public has grown increasingly impatient with the President and Congress. Romney has a record of working across the aisle, and the undecided voters notice it. With this debate answer, he gave his best introduction yet of himself as a Washington outsider with political skills desperately needed along Pennsylvania Avenue. That Obama let a Republican cast himself as the one best suited to working across the aisle is confounding.
