Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 16, 2014, 08:38:49 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  What would you tell the Mitt Romney campaign?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: What would you tell the Mitt Romney campaign?  (Read 580 times)
jmc247
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 81
View Profile
« on: May 04, 2012, 08:39:23 am »
Ignore

Team Romney keeps sending me emails asking for money so far I haven't given him one penny, their emails come over and over again so I sent one back to them... here is what I said.

I am not donating one cent to your campaign until your campaign figures out that George W Bush is not best kept in a dark room far away from anything related to the campaign and your team be willing to use the best known living Republican politician there is who is amazingly personally effective and charming and can convince the public about who is really to blame for the economic crisis.

Bush and his team did predict as early as 2003 that bad loans were being given out and that Freddie and Fannie were cooking their books. But, Bush even at the high point in his popularity couldn't get any kind of banking regulations passed through Congress. The lobbying of the banks to Congress were just too much that Congress shot him down. Bush did not know the extent of the problem with the banking system (that it was so large it could crash the global economy), but he knew there was a big problem and tried over several years to do something about it, but each time Congress shot him down.

From the NY Times from 2003.

Quote
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Would Bush's regulations and agencies he proposed have limited the size and scope of the problem? I think so. They wouldn't have solved the problem as it had expanded into a world wide game. But, these agencies might have highlighted that game and brought attention to it before the ponzi scheme got so great that without massive and quick action by the U.S. government and the EU the world economy would have gone back to the early 30s overnight or worse.

That is what pisses me off so much that the media, the democratic party and the current WH blaming the meltdown on Bush and Republicans for the past nearly 4 years. I could list those who have the most blame for the crisis and the banks would be on top, Congress would be next, Clinton who signed on to the deregulations that allowed this to happen would be next. The media would be next for knowing there was a problem and refusing to report on it to the level they should have because of ad dollars and influence from the banks, those that bought homes they knew they couldn't afford (hoping to sell them at a higher price then they bought them) would be next, Bush would be close to the bottom as he tried to do something but was blocked mainly by congressional dems.

Bush was emotionally spent by his last two years in office and while still active stopped trying to publicy defend himself and has done little to defend himself and his record in his post Presidency other then write a book for mega millions as he was emotionally spent after being at the center of the biggest economic and foreign policy issues a President had to face really since Hoover and FDR. Oh, and not to mention the most expensive and largest natural disaster the U.S. ever faced (a major U.S. city under water).

But, he is no longer spent emotionally and by not defending his record (I suspect based news reports in large part at your campaigns behest) it allows the media and the democrats in Congress who have alot to answer for to blame the entire economic crisis on the guy who is close to the bottom of the list of people/groups when it comes to who has something to answer for regarding the economic crisis. That continues to hurt the entire Republican Party. Bush's response is that historians will look back on it decades from now and have a very different view. But, in not defending his policies Bush knows and seemingly accepts at least for now that he and his party is the scapegoat for the crisis and the bad recession that it caused.

The problem is that it lets your opposition off the hook economically and allows Obama to continue to say I am just dealing with the Republicans mess. Bush (based on media reports is being advised by your campaign) is hurting his party and Romney by not going on the offensive like Cheney did when the anti-terror policies Cheney developed came under attack. If you didn't check the polls Cheney became more popular (by over 10% in a few months) and helped support for himself and the anti-terror policy with his campaign. McCain's biggest mistake in my view is not having Bush in his last year of office defend his policies as his policies are seen by the public as the GOP's policies as a whole. And, sorry, but 4 years later its the same for Romney's economic and foreign policies. Unless your team figures out McCain's mistake with Bush and what Obama is doing right using Clinton I am not donating to another lost cause.

Hell, you guys still haven't even decided to have the last Republican President with near 50% favorablity endorse your candidate. If you unleash Bush and use him his favorability will go over 60% nealy overnight and you will have someone who can deal with Bill Clinton as a surrogate.

I hope whoever gets this message at the Romney campaign passes it on to those that matter. I will admit in 2008 when I went to FL I campaigned for McCain instead of Romney. But, McCain failed in no small part because he told the most personable and effective Republican President since Reagan not to defend himself and his party. Now this year while I support Romney I won't invest my money or my time in his campaign unless he figures out that the mainstream view on Bush defending his policies is as wrong as it was about Cheney in 2009 defending his policies and unless you are willing to use Bush as Obama has Clinton help him I have little hope of Romney winning.

What would you say to the Romney campaign if you wanted to advise them.
Logged
mondale84
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1322
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2012, 10:26:36 am »
Ignore

What I would tell them:  Give up
Logged


"There are no men like me. There's only me."
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9032
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2012, 10:28:08 am »
Ignore

lol bush

e: Romney's an incompetent politician, but he's not an idiot. I don't think he's going to atttempt to defend one of the worst Presidents in the last hundred years by rehabilitating Bush's reputation.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 10:31:57 am by Oakvale »Logged

Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8402
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2012, 10:57:09 am »
Ignore

Have them transplant my brain into Mitt Romney's body. Tongue
Logged

jmc247
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 81
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2012, 11:47:25 am »
Ignore

Romney's an incompetent politician, but he's not an idiot. I don't think he's going to atttempt to defend one of the worst Presidents in the last hundred years by rehabilitating Bush's reputation.

He doesn't have to. Bush speaks all the time, hell he was on CNN last night. They just need to unleash Bush and let him defend his record and defend Republican values. I have watched Bush and Bill Clinton debate the issues in Canada at a forum and can say he is the only Republican with the statue and skill to get into a real debate with Clinton who is Obama's biggest surrogate and stand toe to toe with Clinton when arguing over a certain issue.

Bush has higher favorability ratings then Romney and I watched Bush's favorable ratings when he was going on a press tour for his book. They shot up nearly 10% in very little time.

The thing Republicans fail to realize and/or forgotten about is that George W Bush can be amazingly effective at winning over Latino voters and mainstream Americans because he is able to connect to them on an emotional level when he tries to.

George W Bush is a far better campaigner and better at connecting to average Americans then Romney will ever be. Not that Romney is a bad politician, or that Bush can't make mistakes. But, the George W Bush is simply much better at winning over the average American when he wants to be then his father was or Romney currently is. He is the only one the GOP has that is at Clinton's level when it comes to connecting to your average American at an emotional level.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 12:05:29 pm by jmc247 »Logged
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9032
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2012, 12:06:20 pm »
Ignore

Romney's an incompetent politician, but he's not an idiot. I don't think he's going to atttempt to defend one of the worst Presidents in the last hundred years by rehabilitating Bush's reputation.

He doesn't have to. Bush speaks all the time, hell he was on CNN last night. They just need to unleash Bush and let him defend his record and defend Republican values. I have watched Bush and Bill Clinton debate the issues in Canada at a forum and can say he is the only Republican with the statue and skill to get into a real debate with Clinton who is Obama's biggest surrogate and stand toe to toe with Clinton when arguing over a certain issue.

Bush has higher favorability ratings then Romney and I watched Bush's favorable ratings when he was going on a press tour for his book. They shot up nearly 10% in very little time.

The thing Republicans fail to realize and/or forgotten about is that George W Bush can be amazingly effective at winning over Latino voters and mainstream Americans because he is able to connect to them on an emotional level when he tries to.

George W Bush is a far better campaigner and better at connecting to average Americans then Romney will ever be. Not that Romney is a bad politician, or that Bush can't make mistakes. But, the George W Bush is simply much better at winning over the average American when he wants to be then his father was or Romney currently is.

I like that it apparently hasn't occurred to you that the reason one of the most direly unpopular (the most unpopular?) President since Dr. Gallup pioneered the art of polling has seen his favourablity ratings increase (not the same thing as thinking he was a good President, of course) is because he's stayed largely out of the public eye since leaving office so people aren't constantly remembering what an awful, awful mess he left the country in.

Romney's going to try to ignore Bush, and that's the right course of action for any half-way reasonable Republican campaign. At least the Nixon apologists had the decency to wait until he'd kicked the bucket.
Logged

jmc247
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 81
View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2012, 12:55:39 pm »
Ignore

Quote
I like that it apparently hasn't occurred to you that the reason one of the most direly unpopular (the most unpopular?) President since Dr. Gallup pioneered the art of polling has seen his favourablity ratings increase (not the same thing as thinking he was a good President, of course) is because he's stayed largely out of the public eye since leaving office so people aren't constantly remembering what an awful, awful mess he left the country in.

Romney's going to try to ignore Bush, and that's the right course of action for any half-way reasonable Republican campaign. At least the Nixon apologists had the decency to wait until he'd kicked the bucket.

I disagree totally. Bush has near 50% favorability and it would be higher if he talked more. Bush doesn't have the reputation of say Nixon mainly because people see him as an honest man and the Iraq War turned around and we left which was the biggest drag on his ratings over time. In recient years that drag has been replaced by the notion pushed by the media and Obama with little if any push back from Republicans that the economic crisis and recession was Bush and his economic policy.

But, Bush can tell voters that he was one of the first ones all the way back in 2003 to want to deal with the economic problems that led to the recession, but the democrats in Congress killed new regulations that would have prevented the crisis and the recession (of course both parties in Congress killed it), but that would be a very effective arguement that the dems would have no counter to and it would also do a hell of alot to take away Obama's main theme that the recession was a failure of Republican governence and GOP deregulation. Bush can remind voters that it was Bill Clinton who signed the deregulation that led to the housing crisis.

Bush can provide a very different narrative then the one the WH is giving about who caused the recession and that matters because Romney is the Republican candidate and his economic advisors are mainly Bush people. If people think the crisis and the recession it caused was more Congress' fault and even somewhat Clinton's fault Romney will have a much better chance to win.

Republicans don't get how much the narrative that Bush's economic policies caused the recession hurt the whole party big time and that includes Romney. The public knows the GOP hasn't changed its economic views all that much other then some who favor massive budget cuts so its no small deal to make the public think that it wasn't Bush's economic policies that crashed the economy.

I already supported one campaign that thought the best way to campaign was to have Bush hide from the public and not defend his positions and support McCain's campaign. Bush had he wanted to could have done alot to help McCain like release the SPR when gas prices were getting into the mid 3$ a gallon range preventing the super spike in gas prices over 4$ a gallon which would have very likely helped stocks and delayed the collapse of Lehman until after the election.

McCain also didn't even try to get advice from Bush on big issues like the selection of his VP. Bush after McCain picked Palin was aghast and incredulous. Just as importantly McCain telling Bush not to publicly support his policies and his party was moronic. Bush was in a sweet spot in 2008 pre-economic crisis where the publics view on Iraq turned around post Surge and Bush was in a perfect position to turn around public views on himself and the GOP in general, but McCain said stay away from the cameras and he did. McCain somehow thought he could disconnect himself from what the public felt about Bush and the rest of the party... it was never going to happen.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 12:58:44 pm by jmc247 »Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2012, 10:44:40 pm »
Ignore

Quote
The thing Republicans fail to realize and/or forgotten about is that George W Bush can be amazingly effective at winning over Latino voters and mainstream Americans because he is able to connect to them on an emotional level when he tries to.

He's one of us, essentially. Romney getting Bush to campaign for him will help him with the base.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22385
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.09

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2012, 10:45:46 pm »
Ignore

I'd tell him to appeal more to Independents or he's screwed.
Logged


i like girls but there is NOTHING better then a sexi hott dude
perdedor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2628
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2012, 11:42:24 pm »
Ignore

I would tell Romney that caving into the demands of the extreme fringes of his party makes him look weak to most voters.
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31601


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2012, 12:14:49 am »
Ignore

I'd tell them that John Kerry is available for pointers on how to be a straight-shooter.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14170


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2012, 01:25:53 am »
Ignore

I'm sure a Romney intern got a good chuckle the other day.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines