Charlie Rose asked Mitt Romney this morning about the likelihood of a negative campaign through the fall. The presumptive Republican nominee offered an interesting response.
For those who can't watch clips online, Romney said:
"I think what you've seen so far with the president and I won't rehearse all of the attacks, but you began with Romney wouldn't have gone after Osama bin Laden. These silly kinds of attacks, it's like, what has that got to do with getting our economy going?
"Of course, I would have taken out Osama bin Laden, but what's the right course for the economy? What should we do with taxes? What should we do with regulation? What should we do with trade overseas? What should we do with our energy policy? How about our labor policy? These are important issues people care about."
I haven't seen a full transcript of the interview, so in fairness to Rose, I don't know what follow-up questions were asked, if any. But I have a few of my own for Romney:
* When you say you're focused on "important issues people care about," why do you exclude counter-terrorism? Do you believe targeting the al Qaeda leader behind 9/11 is an unimportant issue people don't care about?
* When you said four years ago that an Obama victory would be "a surrender to terror," do you still think that was a sensible argument?
* When you say "of course" you would have launched the raid on bin Laden, do you realize that completely contradicts your campaign promises from four years ago? And do you understand the complexities and enormous risks of the decision itself?
* When you decided to visit New York firefighters today with Rudy Giuliani, are we to think this wasn't a political move associated with the one-year anniversary of killing bin Laden?
* Republicans politicized the fear of terrorism in several recent election cycles. Why didn't you complain then? And do you recognize a qualitative difference between politicizing fear and politicizing a victory?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Leave a Comment:
Excellent questions, Benen. Too bad Romney will probably never actually be asked them. If he was, I can imagine that a deer-in-the-headlights look would be about as far as he could get with a response.
Open mouth and insert foot?
You guys really should give these right winged loons a break! After all they do seem to be an endangered species. Besides they have their own paranoia to keep them nervous without having to hide from reality at the same time.
Just how would Condi Rice burnish Romeny's image. She was the gate keeper who denied Richard A Clarke (of counter terrorism fame) access to Bush as he didn't have 'actionable intel' like the name and address fo the target one month prior to 9/11. Republicans have no script for dealing with a real commander in chief and are just at sea over it.
but... but... I have nothing NOTHING to do with the superpacks currently blaming Obama for high gas prices.
Me I'm just a humble multimillionaire trying to run a sweet a pie campaign.
Sounds as tasty, as a delicacy, really. . .And you look quite tasty as well, just got to use a lot of slow cooking, maybe. Roasted sheep dog was a real treat back when we justed clubbed each over the heads and asked questions later.
Oh, and by the way, Mitt. Since those other issues are so important (and I agree they are), why don't you discuss them in detail. For example which agencies do you intend to eliminate in order to justify the tax cuts? Which regulations do you want to keep, and how do you intend to protect people from Bernie Madoffs and gimmicky insurance substitutes? Labor policy? Do tell. You couldn't seem to commit to supporting or rejecting Ohio's labor referendum. Where exactly are you on these issues?
And your answers are? Still waiting over here! Never hear an actual plan out of him do we? Well, unless it's small government, yadda yadda, lower taxes, yadda yadda, personal responsibility except for women's health, yadda yadda . . . . but in all fairness even if he's saying it, I CAN'T HEAR IT! Not one more time!
A few ELO tunes for a Tuesday.
For our poor Republicans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB41AxAV9fM&feature=related
For Rachel, Mr. Obama and the wonderful 99er’s :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=lB8HqNykXuw
sorry. . first is Easy Moeny. I think our GOPer's are easy suckers for shiny suff. The second is much harder to do, make Hope, no seem like a wippy thing to do.
Could be moeny , could be Money , we don’t know
Good questions!...As an aside, (a little off topic) and something that really bugs me; Why attack Obama for pointing out the accomplishment of killing the main terrorist target? A decision made in opposition to many of his advisers. One that would most assuredly have sunk his presidency had it failed. You didn't hear boo from the right when W politicized, ( in the grandest way imaginable) his "Mission Accomplished" charade!...And isn't it interesting that they begrudge Obama the credit for Osama's killing, (because all the credit should be to the SEALS) but they had NO problem blaming J.Carter for the failed Iran rescue attempt of the hostages, back in '79?..Shouldn't the Military have taken the blame?..Afterall, Carter was flying the Helicopters!..Frauds!
excellent questions, steve, but here are a few more you should have asked governor romney:
what is your plan for fixing the economy?
what do you plan to do with taxes?
what do you plan to do about regulations?
what about trade overseas, energy policy, labor policy?
you haven't told us jack about that either mitt. inquiring minds want to know.
I'd like a reporter to ask Mitt Romney how he'd answer those questions he says people care about. Other than taxes - we know he wants to cut taxes further for rich people like himself - he hasn't, to my knowledge, spelled out any policies on any of these issues.
He hasn't talked about energy policy, and his labor policy seems to be let the auto companies go bankrupt, which is more of an anti-labor policy. On regulations (e.g. the fair pay act) he likes them one day and doesn't the next, then does again the following. He hasn't talked about trade at all.
Oh please, Mitt give it up. You were about as wishy washy as my last load of dirty laundry regarding what you would, or would have not done regarding bin Laden. Obama articulated clearly and precisely what he would do to get bin Laden given the circumstances AND DID IT - PERIOD, END OF STORY. Time to move on Mitt about how you would have gotten rid of Gaddafi without any of our ground troops firing a shot, let alone suffering any casualities.
Rachel, it would be so great if you actually got to ask him those questions. I would love to see him wiggle his way through them.
His comment towards Obama was in poor character. Romney wants to be President for no other reason then becoming commander and chief, the highest form of power and glory. It's sad really, why can the republican's find a candidate you could have confidence in, not just a say anything flip-flopper! I hope voters can see past the snake oil...