Mitt Romney is spewing nonsense from atop his little perch again. Call out the media because Mitt’s got something to say…oh, it’s another condemnation of something or other…okay media, you can go back home now, because Mitt’s not actually going to say what he would do instead…that’s all confidential you know, another to-be-decided-later type of thing.
In Reno, Nevada on Tuesday, Romney briefly spoke of how we live in a time “of turbulence and disruption”; then in usual Mitt fashion he said:
“…I would normally speak to a gathering like this about the differences between my and my opponent’s plans for our military and for our national security. There is a time and a place for that, but this day is not that…”
He was right, that was not the appropriate time, but he did his politicking anyway. On any other day it is simply the arrogance of Mitt Romney that defies even his own party’s calls for him to cite specifics of something…his employment “plan”, his tax “plan”, hell- anything specific about anything.
From a Wall Street Journal editorial:
“Mr. Romney’s pre-existing political calculation seems to be that he can win the election without having to explain the economic moment or even his own policies.”
The conservative National Review laments:
“Mitt Romney really is not a man with a deeply ideological worldview… Romney’s campaign seems to resemble more a job application rather than a political campaign. The result is a themeless mush of a campaign that boils down to little more than “Vote for me because I’m not Barack Obama.”
A losing strategy because people actually like the President.
The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis declared:
“The Romney campaign continues looking schizophrenic. This is problematic. …”
Boy, that’s nuanced. From Outside The Beltway (emphasis mine):
On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Romney dodged multiple questions about which deductions or credits he’d target, saying only that he’ll get rid of “some of the loopholes and deductions at the high end” while seeking to “lower the burden on middle income people.”
Pressed for one specific example, Romney replied, “Well, the specifics are these which is those principles I described are the heart of my policy.”
HUH?
On ABC’s “This Week,” Ryan also fended off multiple questions about whether the Romney-Ryan tax plan should be taken seriously given its lack of details on which loopholes they would close.
“Mitt Romney and I, based on our experience, think the best way to do this is to show the framework, show the outlines of these plans, and then to work with Congress to do this. That’s how you get things done,” he said.
What a load of unadulterated crap. As American Prospect points out:
“It’s one thing to be vague because you think getting bogged down in a discussion of details will distract from your broader message, but it’s another thing to be vague because a discussion of details will reveal that you’re promising things you can’t possibly deliver.”
Conservatives’ calls for detail stem as much from an underlying uncertainty about their own candidate as his lack of message. They’ve got to be concerned about which loopholes if any they could lose, because they’ve nominated a guy who has no real allegiance to anyone.
Non-Conservatives want details because they know he can’t do the things he claims he can do, such as a jobs plan (for lack of a better name) that will take years to produce any benefit, if it produces one at all, a tax plan that economists have labeled “mathematically impossible“, and an energy independence goal that “doesn’t add up“.
For its part, according to CBS News, the Romney camp believes:
“…it has a better vision and a better record than the president, in addition to a cash advantage and enthusiasm among conservative voters.”
So I’m guessing he hasn’t told them anything either.
View All
™ 2006-2013 ©