Tuesday, May 29, 2012

You Tell The Candidate

Mitt Romney will shortly attain the magic number of delegates to secure the Republican nomination for President of the United States. The campaign has already begun without waiting. Romney is talking about his plans for the US, and Obama is attacking him as a heartless capitalist. Two things will play a major part in determining the ultimate result in November. The Republican candidate must present a clear and compelling reason to choose him, and he must choose a vice presidential candidate to help the ticket.

I will be away for a medical procedure that takes me to Bakersfield today and into the hospital at the ungodly hour of 5 AM Wednesday morning. All things considered, I should be home by Wednesday evening. So while I’m away, I would very much like to get the opinion of our Commentarama readers.

First, what should Mitt Romney say and do to prove to the American people that he should replace the most disastrous president in modern memory?

Second, who would you most like to see as his running-mate? Feel free to choose among dark horses, reluctant debutantes, past candidates for the top spot, and even those who have said they won’t accept the nomination under any circumstances. Remember, the trick is to choose a candidate who will help the ticket rather than one we might like a lot but who would have a dampening effect on the ticket. Think of someone who would improve the ticket but not end up at odds with the presidential candidate.

For what it’s worth, my opinion on question 1 is “Present a clear and coherent economic recovery plan that emphasizes private enterprise, tax cuts and spending cuts. Don’t get bogged down in defending Bain and some lost jobs when you’ve created far more jobs in the private sector than Obama ever dreamed of. Don’t spend a lot of time on social conservative issues—that’s what SuperPacs are for. They can target certain local and regional issues while Romney must concentrate on the one unifying national issue—our failing economy. Be prepared to answer foreign policy questions with a firm stance on American exceptionalism and the need for American resolve to stand up to terrorism and Islamic tyranny.” My answer to question 2 is “Marco Rubio.” My first choice would have been Bobby Jindal, but I think his determination not to run is unshakable. Either would make mincemeat of Gaffelicious Joe Biden.

I also caution Romney not to try to be simon-pure about Barack Obama’s lifelong connections to communists, homosexual activists, Islamists, leftist professors, black liberation theology religious mentors, and domestic terrorists. John McCain’s “high road” led to defeat, and left the American people largely uninformed about Obama’s un-American connections. This should not be part of his platform, nor should he go into attack mode. But he needs to be prepared for Obama’s claque to paint Obama as a “peoples’ saint.” The Democrats are going to conduct a very dirty campaign, and it’s no time for a Republican to come off as weak or unwilling to join the fray.

I’ll try to check in from time to time, but I’ll be at the mercy of other people’s internet access, so I’m counting on you to make it interesting and educational. Considering the three years of great comments we’ve had from all of you, that shouldn’t be a problem.

41 comments:

rlaWTX said...

prayers for you this afternoon and tomorrow!
(for both patience & health!)

rlaWTX said...

I think that at the convention Romney needs to address the RW issues over his "lack of conservatism". That's where he needs to make serious promises (that he plans to keep) and explain how his past stands have created his present.

As for the campaign in general, I think you are right on the money. And he needs to keep hitting TOTUS - use the vetting being done by the Bigs, use the stupidity and illegality coming out of the WH, hit Holder HARD!, use the eagles issue, USE the executive branch's government by fiat history, use the regulations, use the green energy debacle.
He's shown he can say hard-hitting stuff without sounding strident or mean and he needs to use it.

On Andrew's article, I tossed my support in for Rubio. Jindal is amazing, but he's got a lot to do in Louisiana while he's riding on his reelection success. I like Allan West too - he could be the sane version of Biden: say things that white-bread Romney can't safely say. 4 years of "uncle Tom" accusations from the MSM might wake some blacks up... West doesn't have a lot of electoral experience though.

TOTUS has to go down in the election. The US can't take 4 more years of TOTUS...

BevfromNYC said...

I double what rlaWTX says! We will miss you!

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: Thanks for your prayer and thoughts. I'm having an angiogram, and there's the likelihood of a couple of stents. But as of this morning, the doctor still says I should be home by Wednesday afternoon (followed by the usual disclaimers that their lawyers force on them).

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: Romney is not as good as I would like on his feet, but he's better than Obama without his TelePrompter. I hope he hits him, hard during the debates.

I truly think that Jindal wants to finish the job he has so successfully started in Louisiana and won't yield. I like West, a lot, but I think he may be a bit too stern to balance Romney's "stiffness." Rubio has that youthful, happy warrior look that I think would help a great deal. And of course, there's the Hispanic thing.

I agree on the vital necessity of kicking Obama's ample butt out of the White House.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Thanks a million. I intend to milk this for all it's worth. I'm supposedly getting a big special feast at my daughter's house tonight. LOL

T-Rav said...

Good luck LawHawk!

The good news is (so far as I can tell, anyway), Romney doesn't seem likely to repeat the mistakes of Team McCain. He's been more forceful in pointing out the flaws of Obama and his leftist ideology than I expected, and while it's not a perfect campaign, there's more to praise than criticize so far.

As for a running mate, I suppose Rubio makes the most sense, but given how often candidates go with low-odds picks or even total dark horses, I wouldn't bet money on him just yet.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Thanks. I do think that Romney's team is far less likely to make the mistake of playing Casper Milquetoast the way McCain did. I do hope that his veep choice is not one of those unknowns who suddenly "evolve" in the middle of the game--like Supreme Court appointees. The most important characteristics are youthfulness, guts, a track record of some sort, and good debating skills (just winning over Biden isn't an accomplishment, it has to be decisive). For all those reasons, I lean toward Rubio.

LawHawkRFD said...

Time to abandon my mountain greenery home and head for the big city. I'll try to get online with all of you later in the day, but I can't make any guarantees (my grandkids are computer-hogs).

obiwan2009 said...

rlaTX, even more important is just to campaign to provoke the other side. For a long time, it's been pretty clear to me that the media lies through their teeth when they say that Obama has the temperance. Temperance, my ^&*.

In addition to what you mentioned, he just simply needs to grab his own niche, in the debates, i.e. systematically give in his orations plenty of clues that he mentions which the other side doesn't, show that he knows way more than Obama does on the economy, and also show that he knows the relationship between the topic to the audience addressed. Aside from sheer dogma, it's very hard to deny the kind of person that Romney is from what talk radio tries to make him out to be versus how he actually has been so far. Again, I am not a devout fan, but so far he has succeeded in exceeding my own expectations in both his knowledge, and showing his knowledge of how that relates to his audience in question, such as the article before this, where he does talk to Latinos, about how reforming the education system is important for all Americans, including them.

Tennessee Jed said...

Best of luck with the procedure, Hawk. As far as question one is concerned, he had me at "i'll repeal Obamacare day 1." That said, on a larger scale, it would be hard to improve on how you, yourself have phrased it. Economic recovery is job 1, and conduct a foreign policy approach that doesn't coddle our enemies.

Rubio has been my choice all along. I don't want a young, energetic, charismatic Republican just for the hell of it. I believe this is a guy who can carry the conservative banner for years to come, and will help put us over the top in November.

LL said...

As a heartless capitalist yourself, I wonder if they're simply removing your heart... Mine vanished some time ago.

I think that Romney simply needs to remind the American people that we need a rampant capitalist in office to fix what the socialists have done. Of course that won't play well with the socialists, but they won't vote for him anyway.

As a VP, I'd be happiest with Ryan or Rubio - but he has a good range to pick from.

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

Question 1: Obama's record is such that you could chose a candidate with the economic clarity of Jimmy Carter, the devotion to tolerance of Adolph Hitler, the compassion of Pol Pot, the business ethics of Al Capone, the support for personal freedom of Joseph Stalin and still not surpass the One in political corruption. IF Romney has to say or do anything to convice a voter he is a better choice for the economy then that voter is a lost cause. But luckily I don't have very strong opinions on the subject.

As to a VP candidate I think we need a strong economic conservative or libertarian who is outspoken but who the MSM has already tried to destroy and been unsuccessful in doing so.

I would say Herman Cain but he is still damaged by the allegations.

I would include Rubio, Alan West, but these individuals are still new to the national stage. The MSM dirt digging would be new. Same with Ryan or Rand Paul.

I am thinking maybe Jindal or Jan Brewer of Arizona or Nicky Haley of SC might be a good choice. As governors I am assuming they have been vetted by the press. The campaigns would be aware of the attacks that would be leveled and they would already have answers that have been tested on an electorate.

BevfromNYC said...

Are you okay, Lawhawk? I will check every hour like a nurse in the hospital who will wake you up to see if you are asleep.

As for VP - I like Rubio, but I think he is young. What I am most concerned about is that I really think that Obama is going to dump Biden and nominate Hillary Clinton. Others may not see that as a problem, but I do.

With the Clintons actively campaigning for Obama now and Biden being "irrational" as he was describe today on HuffPo, I think they are setting up for a "Biden is not well and wants to spend more time with his family" defense. I am not sure that we can beat "The first Black President with the first Woman Vice President" marketing.

obiwan2009 said...

Bev, I can understand what you mean by Hillary Clinton, but at the same time, she has a similar tact as that of Obama, my best observation of her is that like Obama, she does develop a scorched-earth policy against the candidate, which she demonstrated quite well against Obama, as for appeal, she's just another Clinton in the White House. She's far less focused on talking about the future, or showing a coherent plan as opposed to attacking the candidates in a personal manner. We've got more than an election at Stake here so much as to bring out the true utilitarian, and desperate side of Democrats that while the media makes some interesting cover-ups, you still have a conflict between the details that Romney and Rubio, which if he does accept, he will most definitely take him on condition of proving how much of a running mate he is to Romney out of the bunch of options.

I will admit that I am worried too, but at the same time, most of what I observed both campaign and as Secretary of State, is an individual with pretty much little more than personal attack as opposed to stating the issues on the political arena. Personal attacks are to be expected as normal by the left, as if they weren't already because either they don't know about the economy, or do know and refuse to admit things as they are.

LawHawkRFD said...

Obiwan: Romney is far from what the left would like to paint him as. I've mentioned before that he wasn't my first choice, or even my second or third. But I think he will be a good candidate and he understands economics which is the whole ball of wax this time.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: Thanks. Romney can bring the game home if he doesn't allow himself to get distracted with personal attacks on him or side issues like gay marriage.

You're absolutely right about the veep choice. This won't be a one-time deal, and we need someone who will mature and stick to his conservative principles. So far, I think that fits Rubio. I know it fits Jindal---but . . . .

LawHawkRFD said...

LL: I've been accused more than once of having neither a brain nor a heart. But maybe the Wizard will take care of that tomorrow. LOL

Romney needs to take the steam out of the anticapitalism that three generations have been taught. The left has managed to convince the younger generations that profit is a dirty word and capitalsm = robber barons. They need some instruction and correction. He also must make it clear that government actually does serve a role to keep capitalism honest. But he also needs to make it clear that it is not government's job to pick winners and losers. That's what the market is for.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: I have no problem with picking someone who doesn't yet have full national recognition. "New" and "fresh" are attractive to younger voters (see: 2008). But by the same token, we don't want a complete unknown or a mystery candidate who will go in all the wrong directions. Another reason why I favor Rubio.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I'm at my daughter's house right now, where I'll be staying until the procedure tomorrow morning. But I did manage to sneak in a quick seesion on the computer before the grandkids realized they had been tricked into watching a bad TV show.

There's always Jan Brewer to counter Hillary. But I just don't think that Hillary would take second place at this late point in her life, and I don't think she'd be an effective backstop for Obama. The Republicans could counter the Democratic hokum in any event with "the first black president, the first female vice-president and the first national bankruptcy."

LawHawkRFD said...

obiwan: Better for the Democrats to have a court jester like Biden as the number two than to have a willful and headstrong woman who still resents her defeat in 2008. Obama can fire a Secretary of State, but he can't fire a Vice President, and he knows it.

tryanmax said...

From my perspective, Romney needs to keep his message concise and pointed. The economy and the debt are the cornerstones of this, but it needs to stay pithy. I say hit close to home by playing off of "Hope" and "Change." What kind of change have you experienced in the last four years? How many of you are just hoping to make it to November? Alternatively, Jimmy Kimmel pretty much summed it up.

K said...

Will hold a good thought for you Andrew. Get well soon.

VP?
1. Gingrich = Spiro Agnew but better vetted.

2. everybody else.

Paul Ryan = MSM says he'll kill grandma.

Rand Paul = the Paulites would work like crazy to elect the ticket and Paul will blow it by saying he wouldn't attack Hitler or something.

Rubio = just started his own version of "Dream Act". Inexperienced.

West = Very inexperienced and also a loose canon.

Face it, the Republicans don't have many stars at the moment. This will be an interesting pick.

Jen said...

LawHawk, My thoughts and prayers are with you as well. As far as your questions though, it's getting a little late for me to comment (just now got to reading this article), therefore, I'll have to think about it.

As far as VP choice, I don't have a problem with Rubio, or West, and would have to think about if there are any others. I usually don't get real in-depth with these kinds of things, and try to go with my gut feeling.

Sorry, my brain is getting a little fuzzy; stress from something that happened to a vital piece of equipment, and it still isn't fixed from Friday when I found out it quit--that means lots of dumping down the drain. :(

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Sounds like a good plan. Ridiculing that hope and change mantra will leave wounds.

LawHawkRFD said...

K: Thanks for the well wishes. We do have to do something about immigration. Rubio himself says that his plan is just an outline, and he wants to work with others to hone it. I've seen it, and it's too loose, but not outrageous. Somewhere along the line we're going to have to do something about those who got here because of their parents, have done everything right (except get legal, of course) and figure out a way to keep the best and brightest. It's general amnesty that we have to avoid, but we can't keep what we have either. Enforcement first, then some kind of coherent plan that helps America by incidentally helping some "innocent" illegal immigrants. It will also require breaking up chain-migration.

LawHawkRFD said...

Jen: Thanks. Get back to us when things calm down and get resolved.

LawHawkRFD said...

Well, I have to toddle off to bed. It's going to be a very early morning for me. Good night all, and please feel free to keep making suggestions tomorrow. I should be back by late afternoon (the Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise).

K said...

Hawk: Glad you corrected me. Good to have the correct person in your prayers, although I expect it gets sorted out all right by the all knowing.

Anthony said...

Romney showed he wasn't afraid to go negative during his fight for the nomination, so I'm not worried on that score.

I think Romney will have to stumble very badly in order to lose the election. Obama's big achievement is Obamacare, an achievement so unpopular more Democrats run away from it than on it. Just run the old 'Are you better off today?' ad and Romney will be a shoe-in.

As for who Romney's VP should be, my vote goes to Rubio. I'm not sure that Brazilians, Mexicans and Colombians will be impressed by the presence of a Cuban on the ticket, but it can't hurt and on his own merits he's a great politician who as has been mentioned before, fires up and base and could shred Biden in a debate.

StanH said...

Get well buddy.

Agreed on your choices on VP, and direction.

Patti said...

prayers for your health.

i'm in with rubio. love him.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: Thanks for your good wishes (and your agreement).

LawHawkRFD said...

K: Thanks again. I knew who you meant and we all tend to write in a hurry in the comments section. The Big Boss always knows what we mean, even if we say it wrong.

LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: Romney has demonstrated that he's not above full-scale piquant criticism during the primaries. All he has to do is keep that up. I think you're right. He isn't going to let advisers and weak-sisters like McCain form his responses to Obama's mud-slinging. The nice part, telling the truth about a scumbag like Obama is so much easier than having to make s--t up about Romney. So far, each time the Democrats have tried it, it has backfired.

Romney owns the economy/business/management issues, and on those vital issues, Obama has two Achilles' heels.

I wish that "ethnic" identification played no part in politics, but it does. Blacks voted in huge percentages for Obama because he's black--but that's only half-true. A similar phenomenon will probably happen if Rubio is the veep candidate. Outside of areas of direct conflict between Cuban-Americans and other Hispanic ethnics, a Latino voter who has no strong allegiances to either party or a particular political agenda may very well tend to vote for Romney/Rubio solely because of his name. It's not right, but I'll take what I can get.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: Thanks for your prayers. I'll update everyone on Thursday afternoon. It's not what I wanted to hear, but it's what I needed to hear, so we'll go forward from there.

I know you favor Rep. West, and I love the guy. But for multiple reasons I think Rubio is the right man for the veep spot. So we've done what we both need to do (as do millions of others), and come down on the side of the most viable candidate even if he is not necessarily the very best politician/statesman. Once again, as we've mentioned so many times before, "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

Anthony said...

LawHawkRFD:

Its worth bearing in mind the 94% of the black vote Obama won was only 2% higher than the percentage of the black vote Gore won (and 6% higher than Kerry).

For most Americans, including black Americans, idealogy is more important than race and most blacks are liberal on most issues. Conservatives of any color don't get the black vote.

A post-Reconstruction record number of black Republicans ran for office in 2010, those that won did so in not in black districts, but in districts where black/liberal opposition was meaningless.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
Glad to see you are back from the your interface with the other profession that charges you to practice.

"There are only two ways of living, one is as if nothing is a miracle. The second is that everything is a miracle, I believe in the latter."
Albert Einstein

LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: I think many blacks are not so much liberal as they are simply more government-friendly. The ideology involved is "whatever the reason, the government will take care of me." As the fact that government is failing becomes more apparent, the ideology will be replaced (I hope) by enlightened self-interest. Also, those blacks who are increasingly involved in community affairs and national issues are beginning to discover that Obama promises big and delivers little. For those blacks who are liberal, he has promised things he can't or won't deliver, which creates a sense of betrayal. For moderate and conservative blacks who voted for Obama largely because of his race, the dew is off the rose, and race alone won't be quite as big a factor as the last time, either in percentages or voter turnout.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: Excellent quote. Einstein was certainly not the confirmed atheist he has often been portrayed as.

Anthony said...

LawHawkRFD,

As I pointed out, blacks are the Democrats' most reliable voting base no matter the color of the candidate. The notion that merely having black faces in the Republican party would change anything is one that isn't supported by the evidence (how much love do say, Allen West and Clarence Thomas get?).

I can't imagine why any conservative black would have voted for America's most liberal senator and I haven't heard of any doing so. Colin Powell supported Obama but he's always struck me as a liberal Republican who would have been run out of the party by conservatives a long time ago if he wasn't in the military and (for many years) the highest profile black in the party.

Due to history, 'State's Rights' and 'originalism' are probably never going to have the same resonance in the black community that they do in other communities.

I don't buy into the notion that black poverty/social dysfunction (not the same thing) is the result not of poor choices but the malicious conspiracies of liberals. Which isn't to say the system can't be improved, but we can't blame it for for our failures.

With the CRA we achieved equality of opportunity. What each person does with that equality is up to them. In a free society government can't guarantee you a happy, prosperous life no matter what choices you make in your personal life.

All that being said, I can see the number of black voters falling even if the percentage of those who vote Democratic doesn't.

Post a Comment