Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Jul 14, 2011 at 4:14am
So Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod has been taunting Mitt Romney on Twitter:
Anyone heard from Mitt Romney lately? Where is he on McConnell plan? On the debt talks? On the impact of a default? Why so quiet?
To which the Romney team replied:
I have a question for @davidaxelrod: Where are the jobs? We're not just on wrong track; it feels like we're tied to the tracks
That's not good enough. If you don't have a position on this that you can state clearly, you're not really prepared to lead the Republican party, are you? Or prepared to lead anything?
As for my position, I don't know. But I'm not running for President.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Heya! We can only hope he stays quiet. Right on through to January 2013.
Oct '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
As much as I distrust Romney for his membership in America's Ruling Class (Angelo Codevilla's formulation), I'd have to vote for him over BHO. <sigh>
Watching Romney's second run for the White House, however, I do have to admire his current tactic of laying low. In contrast to Obama's increasingly frequent and vacuous appearances on various stages (usually accompanied by TOTUS), Romney appears to be taking a page from Reagan's playbook, viz. limiting his exposure.
Meantime, I hold out some hope that a strong alternative to Romney will emerge from the cauldron. (Am I like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football?)
May '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Maybe. I'm probably going back on my own advice, but I keep warming to the thought of a Perry/Pawlenty ticket. I don't know why. I do know, though, that Perry wouldn't be so timid responding to Axelrod; then again, Axelrod probably wouldn't want to taunt Perry with those questions anyway.
May '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Romney's position is "vote for me, I'm not Obama."
A similar strategem worked for Mark Kirk in Illinois ("vote for me, I'm not Alexi Giannoulis")
May '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Mitt and the other candidates are not involved in, or privy to, the details of the negotiations. Other than voicing strong support for the broad goals of Republicans (cutting gov't, not raising taxes), it's foolish for them to get in the weeds and then be forced to share in the blame for others' potential mishandling of events or miscalculations.
There's nothing wrong with being cautious. It's a conservative virtue, in fact.
May '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Rush said something yesterday that rang true with me. He said Republicans should concentrate on fixing the problem, not on fixing the blame.
What is desperately wanted in this convergence of crises is bold leadership going out to meet the danger, not prudent politics swerving to avoid responsibility.
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Well, there's cautious and there's comatose. Taken to its natural end, this would suggest that the most conservative candidate wouldn't voice an opinion about anything. Having an opinion on this isn't really "in the weeds," is it? Seems to me he's the only politician in America who doesn't.
Jul '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Why should Romney interrupt the enemy when he's making a mistake?
Anyway, this taunt, coming from the camp of a President who hasn't presented anything approaching a specific plan on the budget, is beyond silly. If there's a Twitter equivalent of a dismissive hand-wave, it would be appropriate here.
Sep '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Wylee Coyote: Why should Romney interrupt the enemy when he's making a mistake?
Anyway, this taunt, coming from the camp of a President who hasn't presented anything approaching a specific plan on the budget, is beyond silly. If there's a Twitter equivalent of a dismissive hand-wave, it would be appropriate here. · Jul 14 at 9:07am
Well, Axelrod and The One aren't foolish enough -- yet -- to go after Iowahawk (David Burge for VP -- yeah!) so I suppose the Romster is an easier target.
May '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Romney signed Norquists's tax pledge, but not DeMint's pledge. The guy isn't currently Congressman or Senator. He's against tax increases. What a while; I'm sure he will say something.
Feb '11
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
The last I heard from Romney he was waffling about whether or not he said Obama made the recession worse. Before that, he was telling us Obama's choice for Fed chairman was doing a good job and attacking people who wanted to know more about Obama's background.
Now - with the country facing a potentially catastrophic budget showdown - Romney suddenly has nothing to say. This ain't leadership. He could at least come out with a boilerplate political statement voicing support for GOP principles, etc. It's not like he to be up early to go greet people at Walmart - running for president is the only "job" he has. So there is no reason he couldn't find the time to put a few thoughts down on paper and share them with us. After all, it would be nice to know what the potential GOP nominee thought about a financial catastrophe, especially since finance is supposedly his area of expertise.
Instead - crickets. No, I'm still not a fan of Romney.
Jan '11
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Like Obama, Romney is waiting to see which direction the parade is headed so he can get out in front of it (I realize I'm ripping off the parade analogy-can't remember from where I'd heard it).
He's not 'The Candidate' folks.
May '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
“The answer for the country is for the president to agree to cut federal spending and cap federal spending and put into place a balanced budget amendment,” said Romney. “That for me is the line in the sand.”
“It is within the president’s power to say to the leadership in the house and the senate that ‘I’ll cut spending, I’ll cap the amount of spending, and I’ll pursue a balanced budget amendment, and if the president were to do that this whole debt limit problem goes away,” he said."
http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/07/14/mitt-romneys-debt-ceiling-prescription/
May '10
Re: Yes, Mitt, Why So Quiet?
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Well, there's cautious and there's comatose. Taken to its natural end, this would suggest that the most conservative candidate wouldn't voice an opinion about anything.
Why take my advice "to its natural end"? They should pick their spots. Of course. To take your advice to its natural end (which I would never do) would be to suggest that our best candidate is the one who spouts off about everything.
It's possible both parties in these negotiations will come off looking badly -- "a pox on both their houses", etc. It would be politically unwise for our candidates to also emerge implicated in any potential political disaster -- especially one over which they have zero control.