New Romney ad on bipartisanship: “We need to have leadership in Washington that will bring people together”

posted at 6:41 pm on October 19, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

If there are any common issues upon which the low-information, swing-able, independent-to-moderate voters can likely agree, I’d reckon that “too much partisanship and gridlock” is one of them. Congress is pretty deeply unpopular, and after their recent low-output performance, it makes sense that a message about bipartisanship, working together, and getting things done would resonate with a lot of people. In that light, I think this is probably a pretty smart ad:

It’s positive, it’s encouraging, and it points out one of President Obama’s most glaring failures: As much as Obama likes to hem and haw about how Republicans are blocking his agenda items just to be spiteful, he’s the president of the United States, for goodness’ sake. People want to see some leadership, and that excuse only gets you so far for so long. You can accuse the GOP of being unyielding as much as you want, but in our democracy it takes two to tango, and everybody knows it.

In the past couple of presidential debates, I thought Mitt Romney skillfully navigated a few tricky areas by reverting to a “I worked with the other side and we passed legislation on a bipartisan basis during my Massachusetts governorship” line. As Dick Morris pointed out, people seemed to respond positively to the idea — and it highlights yet another of President “If you’re looking for just a bunch of partisan rhetoric, I’m probably not your guy” Obama’s promises gone awry.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I should say that ‘compromise’ should be with anyone willing to abandon Leftism and move to the right.

It’s been the other way around for the last century and that has led to no good at all.

ajacksonian on October 19, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Does anybody know what bracelet Mitt is wearing in this picture?

Mitt pic

gophergirl on October 19, 2012 at 8:17 PM

I think it is the Semper Fi bracelet that Rick Perry wore in the twitter pic ’16 Trillion’ – the writing on the hands meme.

Mitsouko on October 19, 2012 at 8:25 PM

gophergirl on October 19, 2012 at 8:17 PM

It looks like a memorial bracelet.

Cody1991 on October 19, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I don’t have the link but I believe it is the memorial bracelet for that gentleman that was killed in Afghanistan who’s wife was thrilled that Mitt was using their story on the stump. Was here a week or so ago.

donkichi on October 19, 2012 at 9:51 PM

I don’t want bipartisanship. That’s code for “keep on spending” just like when we gave Bush all three houses. Here we go again.

Wino on October 19, 2012 at 9:56 PM

I don’t want bipartisanship. That’s code for “keep on spending” just like when we gave Bush all three houses. Here we go again.

Wino on October 19, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Mitt’s win will change almost nothing.

rjl1999 on October 19, 2012 at 9:59 PM

….WE WON!

KOOLAID2 on October 19, 2012 at 10:02 PM

I think bipartisanship is a word that means different things to different people.

What it should mean: Willing to vote for sensible laws no matter which side proposes them. Willing to treat political opponents with dignity even in disagreement.

What it has meant in recent years: Willing to vote for laws that advance the agenda of liberals. Willing to take the blame and shame and ridicule liberals dish out to bully political opponents into supporting their agenda.

What it means to low-information voters: Washington, D.C., should be run like a kindergarten class.

Frankly, the word makes me cringe, and I think it’s dangerous to announce to your opponents from the get-go that you are willing to compromise. But I understand that it has to be said–and even promoted as a virtue–for those who foolishly believe it’s been the Republicans preventing the passage of a budget for the past few years. (Sigh.)

butterflies and puppies on October 19, 2012 at 10:07 PM

This is the message that women (who aren’t worried about getting some) what to hear.

J_Crater on October 19, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Congress is pretty deeply unpopular, and after their recent low-output performance

First of all not so Low Output. Plenty of unpopular legislation was passed. Like the skyrocketing debt with no real cuts.

That is why Congress is hated. Congress has all the money in the world for their pet projects. Spending goes up and up and up. Our spending power down and down and down. All the time we are lied to that inflation is low.

Mitt represents this same spend, spend, spend mentality. His real record in Mass was tons of new spending. All liberal Republicans spend like drunken sailors.

Mitt will make it worse if he gets more of his spending crap legislation passed. A budget that supposedly would balance in 2040 is 100% unadulterated Bull manure.

Steveangell on October 19, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Here’s a video of Dennis Miller in Virgina opening up a rally for Mitt. This segues perfectly with this thread.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T1RgOOyOHFc

diogenes on October 19, 2012 at 11:54 PM

So what, exactly, does “compromise” mean?

* When the Democrats propose to abort our children, do we “compromise” by agreeing to abort only the girls (like the Chinese do)?

* When the Democrats propose to over-spend our budget by another $1 Trillion, do we “compromise” by agreeing to over-spend by another $0.5 Trillion?

* When the Democrats propose to shut down all of our corporations, do we “compromise” by agreeing to shut down half of our corporations?

* When the Democrats propose to bankrupt our healthcare system and let political appointees decide who will get to see a doctor, do we agree to let them just bankrupt healthcare for those over 50…and install Death Panels to decide which seniors will live?

We need to purge the RINOs who have been making these fools’ bargains for decades!!! It’s time to TOTALLY REVERSE the foolish and self-destructive liberalism which has infected our country and return to sanity.

Let’s ask EVERY “Republican” candidate: ‘What is the “compromise” position when the Democrats want to destroy our country???

landlines on October 20, 2012 at 1:57 AM

No, the bipartisanship comes in sitting down with the other side. On tax reform, Romney will put everything on the table. Democrats will get a chance to save a pet deduction or two. He doesn’t have much room to give on the budget because of the deficit, but he can give on some things that aren’t hugely expensive and have larger symbolic meaning for Democrats.

Those who insist on no compromising at all doom us to the status quo because we don’t have a majority of the country willing to fully back our agenda. Even if Romney wins and we take the Senate narrowly, we will get far more done by throwing the Democrats some meat than by trying to cram our unaltered dream plans down their throats. How did they benefit from cramming ObamaCare down ours? It was a major factor in the Tea Party movement.

Adjoran on October 20, 2012 at 4:48 AM

The best metaphor for bipartisanship withe the people who intend to take away your freedom to have an opinion or any rights with their UnGodly permission, is the one about the intended rapist–you can co-operate and still be raped, or you can fight like hell.

Don L on October 20, 2012 at 5:45 AM

I’m all for bi-partisan solutions. Let’s start by shutting down EPA, Dept. of Ed, Dept. of Energy, and by revoking the executive order that authorizes public employee unions.

petefrt on October 20, 2012 at 6:23 AM

I think barry’s eyes tell it all….he is pleading to the moderator to please move to a different question, cuz Mitt is killin’ me here.

DiabloAzure on October 20, 2012 at 6:53 AM

Romney says that he could work with the Democrats in Maine, and G W Bush said he could work with the Democrats in Texas. What they don’t understand is nobody can work with the Democrats in Washington DC. Listen to them, they are certifiably crazy.

savage24 on October 20, 2012 at 9:29 AM

This is awesome. Mitt has stolen Ogabe’s lunch money, beaten him silly and left him in the alley, and now he’s reading Ogabe’s speech in front of the Student Council and calling for a more inclusive politics.

Heh.

Jaibones on October 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Genuine bipartisanship is going to be nearly impossible. The only way for Romney to achieve it will be to bludgeon the Democrats into submission. As Ronald Reagan demonstrated, this is possible, even if difficult.

The way to achieve it is to go directly to the American people with key proposals. This technique cannot be used often, so it must be reserved for the very most important issues where at least a little Democrat support is needed. If a majority of the people are convinced of a proposal’s merit, most of the Congress critters will follow because they understand that their political futures will hang in the balance.

JayDick on October 20, 2012 at 11:15 AM

“We need to have leadership in Washington that will bring people together”

Sounds to me like he plans on working with Democrats in growing government.

antifederalist on October 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Sounds to me like he plans on working with Democrats in growing government.

antifederalist on October 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Agreed, and I also believe his bench warming supporters like the idea of Willard going all ‘Sketchy’ on us if elected, thus again we see a real need to get TEA Party senatorial candidates elected.

DannoJyd on October 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Even if Romney wins and we take the Senate narrowly, we will get far more done by throwing the Democrats some meat than by trying to cram our unaltered dream plans down their throats.

Adjoran on October 20, 2012 at 4:48 AM

I’ll never understand why some like the idea of taking surrender from the jaws of victory.

Like it or not, the ONLY reason Romney is ahead is his running on conservative ideals, and most Americans recognize that only conservative idealism will defeat the actions to date of the liberal democrats.

BTW, just how large of a middle class tax increase would YOU agree to? 20%?

DannoJyd on October 20, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Of course the disgusting RINO Romney has plans on moving the US even further to the left.

He didn’t even attempt to disguise his intentions in the debate.

nottakingsides on October 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Don’t miss the excellent geared for moderates but appealing to everyone video of Dennis Miller endorsing Mitt Romney posted by Diogenes above…

Reposting link… let’s get this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T1RgOOyOHFc

DaMav on October 20, 2012 at 3:29 PM

DaMav on October 20, 2012 at 3:29 PM
-
DaMav, that’s what I thought. :-)

diogenes on October 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2