Mitt Romney and his staff need to grow up

Mitt Romney has run perhaps the most negative presidential campaign of my lifetime, and we're not even to New Hampshire yet. He has attacked his Republican foes, from Mike Huckabee. to John McCain. Those are just a few of many ads--he also trashes his opponents every chance he gets. He even went after Barack Obama here, here and here--taunting of candidates in other parties is usually served for the general election, unless they are an incumbent for which the primary is nearly meaningless.

This is all fine. I don't approve of it because I think negative advertising brings down the country's political debate, but to each his own. But if you insist on defaming your opponents, you can't cry and claim the victim when they throw it back to you.

Apparently, there was a confrontation between John McCain and Mitt Romney's staffs after yesterday's debate.

...members of the Romney and McCain camps said the things their bosses might have been thinking but did not dare utter onstage.

McCain delivered “cheap shots,” said one Romney adviser. Another called McCain’s criticisms of Romney “snide remarks” and “name calling.” Yet another said they were “unbecoming.”

Again: this from the staff of the guy running the most negative campaign of the year. The hypocrisy is through the roof. This isn't terrible scientific, but look at Romney's YouTube page: he prominently features his latest attack ad, and the others permeate the rest of his videos. Anyway, at least someone called him out on his double standard:

All of which caused Mark Salter, McCain’s closest aide, to go off.

“Come on, Mitt, tighten up your chin strap,” Salter, standing just a few feet away from the Romney team, told reporters. “Of all the ludicrous suggestions – Mitt Romney whining about being attacked, when he has predicated an entire campaign plan on whoever serially looks like the biggest challenger gets, whatever, $20 million dropped on his head and gets his positions distorted. Give me a break. It’s nothing more than a guy who dishes it out from 30,000 feet altitude and then gets down in the arena and somebody says, O.K. Mitt, gives him a little pop back, and he starts whining. That’s unbecoming.”

And what, you might ask, was the reason for the staffs' confrontation? Negative campaigning...by Mitt Romney!

What had McCain aides particularly heated was Romney’s exchange with McCain on the issue of McCain’s immigration proposals and the question of amnesty. “The fact is, it’s not amnesty,” McCain said during the debate. “And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won’t be true.”

“I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad,” Romney answered. “I don’t call it amnesty.”

With that, the issue became not whether McCain’s plan was or was not amnesty but whether Romney had or had not called it amnesty. And jaws dropped at McCain headquarters.

“What got us all going was when Governor Romney said, ‘We never called what you did amnesty,’“ said McCain confidante Sen. Lindsey Graham said. “Look on TV. Look in your mailbox in New Hampshire. John’s been pounded by Governor Romney with that charge. I was just dumbstruck.”

Indeed, after the debate, McCain aides produced a Romney mailing which said “John McCain: Supports Amnesty.” An e-mail from the Romney campaign earlier in the day referred to McCain’s “amnesty plan.” And a new Romney TV ad featured Romney supporters saying McCain “supported amnesty for illegal immigrants” and “wrote the amnesty bill.” In light of that, it is hard to see how Romney was being straight when he said he didn’t “describe [McCain’s] plan as amnesty.” After the debate, Romney’s spokesman, Kevin Madden, choosing his words carefully, said McCain favored “an amnesty-like approach.”

Add "liar" to "hypocrite." There's a reason you're dropping in the polls, Mitt.

--Wyndam

Thoughts on the ABC New Hampshire debate

Just some random points from the Democratic debate tonight. For some reason, my bullet-points aren't working, so here they are in paragraph form:

John Edwards is becoming a single issue candidate--lobbyists are bad, lobbyists are bad! He also can't go five minutes without an anecdote about the middle class. Most come back to his father. It makes me sick. He may be from a middle class family, but he's worth millions now. Doesn't mean he can't be the champion of the average American, but stop acting like you're some impoverished kid working 18 hours at a mill.

Hillary Clinton is trying to become a candidate of change because of the Iowa results, but her entire campaign is based on her being the experience candidate. Now that it's known that people want change over experience, she's trying to alter her image. She's actually been very articulate tonight, but I don't think anyone is blinded by this new persona she's taken on.

Bill Richardson looks very tired. The campaign is taking its toll. And while he's making fine points, he's not as inspiring as he has been in the past. I like that he's staying on message, but he's described as an emotional and charismatic guy--and in most cases, he is--but on the biggest stage yet, I'm afraid that he's squandering his chance to make a real change in the voters' minds. He's subdued and while his points are substantive, he is, frankly, quite boring right now.

Barack Obama doesn't seem as slick as he was a few days ago. He's avoiding questions left and right. The questions, for once, are tough, and he's not responding well.

I liked the final question ("You've done a number of debates. What do you wish you could take back?"). But I'm surprised that anyone answered it--why bring a dead issue back to the forefront? Richardson talked about Byron White being his favorite justice, and Edwards said how sorry he was that he mentioned Clinton's attire. Obama and Clinton avoided the question.

There are two ways to judge the debate: substance and style. In terms of what was actually said, I think Richardson won. He stayed on point and raised a number of issues (energy dependence, budget balancing, education) that will take center stage over the next four years and beyond. No one else said...anything. Obama side-stepped every question to talk about change, hope and bipartisanship. Clinton spend the entire debate remodeling herself as the candidate of change, and Edwards spoke more about his father than he did American politics.

However, Richardson seemed close to sleep for most of the debate. Obama, who seemed to be playing defense for much of the contest, was good, but nowhere near the inspiring figure he was Thursday night, when he gave one of the most impassioned political speeches of the decade. Clinton and Edwards were what they were: politicians who speak well and look good. They were fine.

All the candidates disappointed me, though. This was their biggest debate yet, and some of the questions were pretty good. But they either avoided them or answered them with responses that put you to sleep.

Let's hope for more positive showings in the future.

--Wyndam

Thankfully, the media has already cast your vote for you

The supporters of second-tier candidates (God, do I hate that phrase. Can we get the ball moving on a new way to say "non-front runner"? Thanks) have long claimed that they are ignored by the mainstream media, and as a result, their campaigns suffer--we did so just a few days ago. Whether we like it or not (we don't), the media plays an enormous role in getting candidates' messages, platforms and ideas out to the public. Without coverage for all, there is no level playing field--all the people hear are the names of a few front runners. And the media goes a long way toward making your decision for you, as the only names you recognize on the ballot are the ones they have circulated.

Proving this point with substantial evidence, though, would take months of research into all coverage of the election--right now, we go with what we know to be true. But the media has now gone and proved our point for us: in the debates immediately preceding the New Hampshire caucus, only candidates who are polling at 5% or higher in the Granite State, or placed fourth or higher in the Iowa caucus will be allowed to participate.

Bill Richardson will be allowed to debate: not only is he polling at above 5% in New Hampshire, but he is widely expected to place fourth (or, hopefully, higher) in Iowa. He will join Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. However, the rest of the Democratic field is left on the outside looking in. Joe Biden, despite his recent small surge in the poll, has no guarantee that he'll be invited. Neither do Chris Dodd or Dennis Kucinich. Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have all be invited to the Republican debate, but Ron Paul (whose supporters are making a big stink out of this, and rightfully so, especially because Paul leads Thompson in many polls) and Duncan Hunter will likely be left out.

To their credit, Clinton and Obama have spoken out against this policy, saying that the people of New Hampshire/U.S.A. should be allowed to hear all views, and not just those of a select group. Edwards has decided to effectively not comment on the matter, which has drawn the ire of some.

This directive is of course troublesome. By constricting the number of people allowed to debate, ABC and Fox News (the debates' sponsors) are ostensibly censoring the lesser known candidates and, in the process, infringing upon and limiting the national debate. This is especially troublesome when these media companies, which are "unbiased," may be making these decisions for their own political reasons.

Fortunately, some are fighting back, and for once, the ferocity of Paul's supporters is an asset to all: supporters are engineering a sell-off of NewsCorp's (Fox News's parent company) stock.

Good for them--hopefully, this is resolved so that all can speak in this forum. All candidates should be allowed to participate. It shouldn't be a debate.

--Wyndam

The Governor is funny, candid. Does that hurt him?

An interesting article came out today in the Nashua Telegraph titled "Richardson a little rough underneath." Among other things, it discusses Governor Richardson's sincerity and frankness. He doesn't cater to what he thinks people want to hear--instead, he stands firmly on his beliefs and stances on issues; he never flip-flops (the same cannot be said for other candidates); and he does not sidestep questions--Governor Richardson is remarkably blunt, and not above cracking a joke or two. His humor shows in his 2008 and 2006 campaign commercials.

"The American people . . . don't want blow-dried candidates with perfection," Richardson said during the first Democratic presidential debate.

This isn't just an image he puts on in public, though: his demeanor extends behind closed doors. He cuts through bureaucratic nonsense to get to the hearts of matters, and as a result has been remarkably successful. While he's determined, he is also able to relate to others on a personal level: when he had to negotiate with Fidel Castro, he began by talking about baseball; when he learned the Japanese Foreign Minister liked cigars, he made sure to bring some to a meeting, only to take them out at the most appropriate time. Of course, none of this stops him from his ultimate goals--if anything, these characteristics help him reach them sooner.

And while his personality endears him to many of his constituents, the article asks the ever-present question: Is he presidential enough? He insists on being candid (a.k.a human), staying on point and solving problems instead of putting up the perfect public face. Does that hurt him?

The Telegraph doesn't take a stance, though it does mention some of the problems he faces because of this (such as naming Byron White as a favorite Supreme Court justice, which Michael talked about here).

I, too, am undecided. Does his persona hurt him? If anything, once I discuss the governor's personality with my peers, they seem to like him more. But of course, not all voters are 18-25 year olds--in fact, few are. His personality shouldn't hurt him, but it might if people are a) more focused on the image a candidate projects rather than the positive results he has on record and/or b) scared at the thought of a president speaking freely and acting like a person, not just a political tool.

"I'm not changing," he said in a recent interview. "Do I have faults? Yeah. Do I sometimes act a little quirky? Yeah."

As for whether all of that may be entirely "too real?"

Richardson flashed a dimpled smile. "We'll see."

God forbid we have a "real" president.

--Wyndam

Notes on the final Democratic debate before the Iowa caucus

I've read too much about "who won" each debate. Allow me to express my impressions of each candidate after what I watched the other night. Richardson was there, this time.

Biden: The guy has guts. He is pushing for a partition of Iraq, which may be our best policy option but is a tough sell. He's the only candidate who spoke honestly about how lost Iraq really is. He gets riled up when he sees injustice, and he speaks his mind when he disagrees with anyone. The man will not back down even from his friends. I worry that his passion may undermine his ability to work with a legislature.

Clinton: The line the press is making a big deal about really did hit me hard. She's all about the details – all about banging out policy after meeting with a bunch of people. But with her I still can't shake the feeling that she doesn't have a stronger conviction than simply wanting to do a good job at whichever job she does. That said, her push for healthcare back in the day showed plenty. In Clinton, I see a hard worker who's very willing to adapt to any political climate in order to be successful.

Dodd: His speech on his commitment to public service impressed me. His crisp explanations of the limitations on the President made good retorts to both Edwards' promises and Richardson's bragging. Also, Dodd is the only candidate who supports a carbon tax, which I find bold and admirable.

Edwards: All the Democrats were anti-trade, but Edwards took it to another level. He promised voters to fight all the bad guys, and this apparently has won him some support. I think his trade policies would undermine our economy's strength – for some reason, Edwards does not accept that we must lose some jobs in order to create new ones. But I do not doubt his conviction or his morals.

Obama: My favorite moment was the specificity with which he laid out his top priorities for the first year of his presidency. Right at the top of his list was reviewing, with his attorney general, every single executive order that W. Bush has made. The top is where that belongs. On foreign policy, he takes more flack than he deserves. Yet I was disappointed by his willingness to pander in regards to trade. Standing for change should mean more than standing with the Democratic Party's base on every issue.

Richardson: I usually laugh and hurt at how hard he has to try to smile, but this night was different. He's the only candidate, he finally showed, that's capable of not always taking himself seriously (and I'm not just talking about the weight joke). To me, his ability to subtly make fun of himself shows his confidence. His policy on Iraq is bold, clear, and unique among the candidates'. Energy (independence) and education (teacher pay) are his next highest priorities.

I wish with all my heart that Richardson hadn't pandered to all the anti-China guys, but no Democrat didn't. Richardson dwelled on human rights record longest, so of all things, I'll take that. I sure would have preferred he left out the currency "issue," but I can't have everything. We have real choices in front of us.

I think Joe Biden said it best: "This debate isn't about change or experience. It's about action."

You look at these guys and you tell me who's the most capable of taking meaningful positive action. I've made my choice, and I'm sticking with it. Bill Richardson for President.

--Alex

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salon.com had this to say about Governor Richardson's peformance:

Former Democratic Rep. Dave Nagle, who is neutral in the presidential race, offered an intriguing theater review of the debate. "The second tier beat the first tier," Nagle said, boosting Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd...Richardson did deserve plaudits for what may have been his best debate performance of the long theatrical season...

Richardson sits out best (formatted) debate yet

I listened to the candidates try to outdo each other with shrillness in regards to China. I read in the transcript more of the same old same old on Iran despite the candidates' opportunities to say so much more.

And I asked myself, why why why would Bill Richardson miss this of all debates?

It turns out that my candidate was attending a funeral. Sometimes that's just how life is.

--Alex