As awful as Mitt Romney's trip to the UK has been -- and it really has been cover-your-eyes terrible -- arguably the comments with the most domestic salience came last night, when the Republican candidate talked to NBC News' Brian Williams.
The interview covered quite a bit of ground, but towards the end, the anchor wrapped up by asking how Romney's economic agenda "would be different from what George W. Bush tried to push through." Igor Volsky published the entire response, but the candidate simply ignored the question and talked about his economic priorities: drilling, trade, deficit reduction, education, and low taxes. He concluded, "My policies are very different than anything you've seen in the past."
In other words, Romney's vision now is the same as his vision in 2008, which was the same as George W. Bush's vision during his two terms in office. How would Romney "be different"? He wouldn't. By dodging Williams' question, the candidate simply reinforced the underlying point.
Jon Chait noticed that Romney didn't even dodge the question the way he's supposed to dodge the question.
[T]he usual Republican answer here, on how their approach will succeed where Bush's failed, is to shout, spending! Romney promises to cut it. Bush also promised to cut it, but didn't. I don't think this really answers the main objection -- lower spending may help the long-term budget picture, but the policies Republicans most directly associate with economic growth are taxes, regulation, and energy. And here Romney really is proposing the exact same policies as Bush.
But the surprising thing is that Romney didn't even have that, or any other handy answer to the question. This is a pretty bad political messaging slip-up, but it also indicates a larger problem: Republicans haven't really internalized the degree to which Bush's policies truly failed to produce strong economic growth. They blame him for letting spending grow too high, and they recognize that the crash was a bad thing, but conservative rhetoric almost uniformly fails to acknowledge that even pre-crash growth under Bush was absolutely miserable.
I don't seriously expect Romney to come up with a radically different vision that abandons GOP orthodoxy altogether, but I do expect him to at least appreciate the basic pillars of reality.
And in this case, he intends to do what Bush did, only make those policies more extreme. Even the RNC conceded a Romney presidency would be the same as Bush's presidency "just updated."
Romney can try to defend this obvious truth, or he can try to argue that repeating failure might lead to a different result this time, but he shouldn't characterize warmed over Bush/Cheney policies "as very different than anything you've seen in the past."
Expect to hear more about this on tonight's show.
Leave a Comment:
I don't seriously expect Romney to come up with a radically different vision that abandons GOP orthodoxy altogether, but I do expect him to at least appreciate the basic pillars of reality.
Steve, you aren't talking about the same Romney now running for President of the United States, are you? If so, what in this campaign would lead you to believe that he appreciates the basic pillars of reality?
It's not that Obama blames Bush too much; it's that he remembers what went on during the Dubya Years. The fact that the GOP has selectively forgotten those policies, their results, and indeed the president responsible for them, marks them as too superficial and forgetful to actually handle the business of leading a country. This is underlined by the GOP in Congress and state houses across the nation, focused on personal gain and increased control of the populace and completely ignoring both their campaign promises and the constituents' interests (unless you count millionaires and multinationals as constituents).
If Brian Williams won't properly pursue his questions, then what hope do we have that any journalist or news reporter would pursue the question? Is this what we are going to get when the presidential debates are televised? It is an understatement to say I am disappointed in how Romney and any other politician is going to be allowed to fill an interview with talking points. Angry is the word.
Exactly, I am also frustrated that talking points are accepted universally as answers. I do often admire Chris Wallace, who will break into the talking points to remind talking heads that they have not answered the question.
It is nice to see that the British Press has yet to drink the Romney Kool Aid!
Steve's point is that Romney's responses aren't even talking points.
Brian Williams has a generic problem- He has limited time for the interview, and the goal of the candidate evading the question is to run out the clock.
Which is basically what Romney's campaign strategy is: Declare the economy sucks and toss a word salad every other question until November.
Maybe the Daily Show will get one of their correspondents a training session on how to construct word salads/ handle tough questions from journalists. There must be coaches for this who train new politicians.
Polls indicate that the coming election is a toss-up. Democrats are not going to be able to vanquish Romney with oversimplification or half truths.
When Mr. Romney dodges the questions, show how it is that Romney has dodged with another recitation of the talking points. Does this guy really have a plan?
When Mr. Romney answers a question, take a hard look at the answer. Show the consequences of Romney's anwer as if it were adopted as policy.
Independents, who plan to vote in the election, are looking for answers. If Romney is not the answer, Independents need to know why not. If Obama is to be around four more years, how is the USA to get the economy rolling?
I cannot bring myself to seriously consider Mr. Romney as a possible President of this country. However, I'm not getting excited about President Obama either. I hope that those of us, who find ourselves in the middle of this thing, will hear an honest discussion of the issues in the future.
Brian Williams interviewed Romney at the Tower of London ??? (see pic) There has to be something humorous about that, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything.
Republicans do not realize at all that they policies for the economy are failures.
Success, failure have no meaning in wingnut world in the usual sense of whether it makes life better for a significant number of people. Success for Republicans means that the handed down ideology has been adhered to and achieved.
In Other News, Mitt was overheard to tell Anne that, "They sure do talk funny over here! Why can't they learn to speak English?"
I wonder if he thinks the trees are an OK height.
Oh, that's silly, Steve. Yes, Romney's policies will be exactly like Bush's (except for things like the Ryan budget plan, which are even worse), but the difference is that they will work this time! Why is that so hard to understand?
@Redshift Re: #8
Well - you know what they say - "Third time's the charm."
Reaganomics - first attempt at
Supply Side, trickle down, Voodoo,(heck - whatever) economics.Mitt Romney would be W's 3rd term with one important difference: this time there would be no pretense about caring whether or not a rapacious society gives a damn about its least fortunate or the world's natural gifts. Erasure of the 20th century would begin and the unfettered freedom of markets and our private sector economic masters would let us know in no uncertain terms what class you are in and what class you are going to stay in.
Mitt Romney would be, I think, damn close to sealing the end of a pretense of a civilized society and certainly the end of predominance on the international stage except for being the most obnoxious "advanced" country the world has ever known.
What a rude thing for Rmoney to do. I don't know what he thinks he's doing by insulting the Brits. His book was also demeaning, so he is so uncouth. He goes over there to get money and tell the Libor bankers he'll have their backs. Rmoney has no self control and feels entitled to do these things. It just pours out naturally, the pride of the host nation being mocked.
What a jerk! Sorry London and everyone else across the pond. I'm doing my best to keep him from being president.
p.s. most of my ancestors were English, so I feel strangely extra offended.
The stated goal of GOP is no new ideas and promote the past as perfect. Seems at odds with the framer's intention to form a more perfect union.
I watched your show for the first time tonight.....honestly, its laughable and unprofessional. I also watched the "Ed show". I now understand why msnbc has the lowest ratings of all news channels. I can't believe you have this guy substituting for you. Coming from a broadcast background, I've seen high school reporters do a better job; is he actually in high school. Extremely poor delivery. Besides the poor arguments and grammar, Im still wondering where you get your writers. I think I might get a better answer smacking my head against the wall.
You have our permission.
I'd like to see Romney go to Haiti. And,,,,,
I'd like him to steer away from the Russia, North Korea, China,,, go to Mexico,, strait'n that mess up...
Or, as that old Republican saying goes…
"Out with the old and In with the old". lol
It would be nice if today's Republicans who care so deeply about the federal budget deficits under President Obama had the same level of concern during the 2000-2008 presidential term of Mr. Bush /"43".
Unregulated capitalism is the answer for the precious few who swim in the river of wealth. And why wouldn't it be? But is it the answer?
Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/07/swimming-in-river-of-wealth-part-two.html