The 2012 Republican Primary thread, early edition

[CardiacCoug]

I'm not sure how much mileage the Obami will get out of that gaffe. If they over-use it the fact that it's really out of context will become clear and they'll look bad.

Agreed. Really what gets Mitt in trouble is this overly technocratic and analytical way of speaking about things.

As far as the content of the entire statement he's probably analyzing the situation correctly. But when you are running for office it obviously needs to be expressed entirely differently: that he wants to help all Americans by shrinking the government.

[All-American]

Agreed. Really what gets Mitt in trouble is this overly technocratic and analytical way of speaking about things.

As far as the content of the entire statement he's probably analyzing the situation correctly. But when you are running for office it obviously needs to be expressed entirely differently: that he wants to help all Americans by shrinking the government.

And really, who can object to that?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not sure how much mileage the Obami will get out of that gaffe. If they over-use it the fact that it's really out of context will become clear and they'll look bad.

I don't get this line of thinking at all. It doesn't sound any better in context.

[pellegrino]

I don't get this line of thinking at all. It doesn't sound any better in context.

No, it doesn't. Even if you understand that he really wants to focus on middle class, it still comes off badly. He might as well have said "Let them eat cake."

[LA Ute]

Agreed. Really what gets Mitt in trouble is this overly technocratic and analytical way of speaking about things.

As far as the content of the entire statement he's probably analyzing the situation correctly. But when you are running for office it obviously needs to be expressed entirely differently: that he wants to help all Americans by shrinking the government.

His biggest problem is that he's not a natural politician. No one can listen carefully to what he said and conclude that he was saying he doesn't care about poor people. But it's a bad gaffe line, especially for a very wealthy guy whose opponents want to make him look aloof and out of touch.

[pellegrino]

His biggest problem is that he's not a natural politician. No one can listen carefully to what he said and conclude that he was saying he doesn't care about poor people. But it's a bad gaffe line, especially for a very wealthy guy whose opponents want to make him look aloof and out of touch.

I'm not so sure he isn't.

[cowboy]

I don't get this line of thinking at all. It doesn't sound any better in context.

No, it doesn't. Even if you understand that he really wants to focus on middle class, it still comes off badly. He might as well have said "Let them eat cake."

I'm not a big Romney fan, and while I agree it sounds bad, it doesn't take a college professor to understand what he meant. Listening to the interview in context, it is clear that he was trying to communicate that he is concerned about helping people who need help but for whom help is not available. It was poorly framed, and he did an even worse job of clarifying it, but to infer from this clip that he doesn't care about poor people is overreaching, imo.

[LA Ute]

I'm not so sure he isn't.

I think people are missing the key point here: Presidential elections are decided by independent voters in certain key states (e.g., Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania). The question is whether a gaffe like that is going to hurt him with them. I don't know if it will or not. It will be used as part of a larger effort to define Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy, but there's a lot he can do between now and the election to make early gaffes like that fade away and to define himself differently. He is not, in fact, that guy, but his lack of natural political skills raises a question as to whether he can succeed in that self-definition effort. As for you, you commie, you're not going to vote or him anyway, so who cares whether you think he's out of touch and remote?

[LA Ute]

J. Rubin on "How the Right Can Get Its Reputation Back:"

But, I would suggest, the principled rightwing activists have a much bigger problem: Movement conservatives risk becoming the target of mockery, an irrelevant exercise that is more for laughs (at their own expense) than politically significant. Having tied themselves to Newt Gingrich they now can be painted, accurately enough, as cranks.

What can they do about it? After, all there are ideologically serious conservatives to the right of Romney. Think about Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and newcomers like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). Instead of them, the face of the rightwing is now Gingrich and the rest of the clown show.

Several measures can be taken. Most obviously, conservatives unpersuaded by Romney can flock to Rick Santorum. He’s a respectable, indeed impressive, face of staunch conservatism on social, economic and foreign policy issues. He embodies the family values the right holds dear.

In addition, conservative groups can and should make an ideological case against the worst aspects of the Newtonian show (e.g elaborate spending plans, unseriousness about debt reduction, incendiary rhetoric) and affirmatively reject the obnoxious, unfocused style of conservatism that elevates media bashing over substance. Groups like Club for Growth and Americans For Tax Reform have done some of this. Others should do some heavy lifting as well.

And finally, conservatives need to be prudent in selecting House and Senate candidates in 2012. No more picks like Christine O’Donnell and no more “we’d rather lose than build a right-center” coalition. Each flaky nominee will cement the image of the right as a cartoonish outfit.

The rightwing base has very serious people and ideas, but currently it isn’t a serious player, even in the GOP. Modern conservatism has been about ideas and temperament, and the right should return to those ideals (humility about government’s role, support for limited, but not wacky government) and habits (discipline, restraint, good cheer) that will restore its reputation.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Unemployment down to 8.3%, looks like the primary will be a moot point if the trend continues.

[Surfah]

Unemployment down to 8.3%, looks like the primary will be a moot point if the trend continues.

Another 150,000 discouraged workers gave up on looking for work though which isn't counted in the BLS report and that number climbed to 1.1 million Americans.

Also the number of underemployed remains high. But none of that will matter as people won't look into the numbers.

[Moliere]

Unemployment down to 8.3%, looks like the primary will be a moot point if the trend continues.

8.3% is better than 9% just like the Armed Forces Bowl is better than the New Mexico Bowl....

[Green Monstah]

Unemployment down to 8.3%, looks like the primary will be a moot point if the trend continues.

I don't trust unemployment numbers, regardless of the administration. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

[Surfah]

I don't trust unemployment numbers, regardless of the administration. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record...-rate-tumbles-

A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.

[Moliere]

Just by looking at the tweets from David Axelrod, it's quite clear the Obama administration is pretty certain Romney will be the candidate. Things are ramping up. Maybe it's time to start the 2012 Presidential Election thread....