Obama’s strategy: Tie Romney to Paul Ryan
For Mr. Obama, painting the conservative lawmaker as a sort of wild-eyed wingman to Mr. Romney carries clear benefits, according to his advisers: it yokes Mr. Romney to the unpopular elements of the Ryan budget — from deep cuts in cherished social programs to a Medicare overhaul that could drive up costs for future retirees and fundamentally change the popular health plan — and it makes it tougher for Mr. Romney to tack to the center once he gets past the primaries.
“He’s very much lashed to Ryan and the House Republicans,” said David Axelrod, a top strategist for Mr. Obama. “They share an economic view and a view on the budget. By essentially embracing the framework of Ryan, Romney is also embracing the steps that would be necessary to implement it.”…
Advisers to Mr. Romney said they did not expect him to resist comparisons between his budget plan and Mr. Ryan’s. After all, they said, not only does Mr. Romney largely support the plan, but any discussion between Mr. Romney and the White House over the budget will play to Mr. Romney’s strength on the economy, they said…
Strategists inside and outside the campaign predicted that Mr. Obama would try to focus on line items in the Ryan budget, to argue that it would hurt women, children and the elderly. Mr. Romney’s challenge, they said, would be to keep the focus on the parts of the plan intended to spur economic growth.









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: « Previous 1 2
Romney’s strategy: Tie Obama to Obama.
profitsbeard on April 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM
I might have, once or twice, yes.
alwaysfiredup on April 5, 2012 at 11:09 PM
Romney’s strategy: Destroy the Conservatives
FIFY.
DannoJyd on April 5, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Nope! That is not what I meant at all. I was discussing what is being shared on TEA Party sites.
DannoJyd on April 5, 2012 at 11:11 PM
How many professional economists predicted the housing bubble years in advance? Bueller?
I’ve studied enough free market economists to be able to make up my own mind, I suggest you do the same. And you don’t need a degree in econ, just basic numerical literacy.
rndmusrnm on April 5, 2012 at 11:19 PM
I was rather trying to indicate that I share the Romney aversion; those were links to my arguments from yesterday. IDK what you mean by “tea party sites” but the ones I visit have been debating whether Obama Lite is worth a vote.
alwaysfiredup on April 5, 2012 at 11:24 PM
One of my economics professors did, oddly enough.
alwaysfiredup on April 5, 2012 at 11:26 PM
And I third that motiom! Um, wait a minute … .
davidk on April 5, 2012 at 11:28 PM
I have degrees in Economics and Law. And you haven’t addressed how the government would have prevented a run on banks once confidence in the banking system failed and panic set in. The FDIC wouldn’t have prevented a run on banks. It can protect individual depositors but is not capable of preventing a collapse if confidence in the system fails.
And no, it wasn’t just a few large banks.
Basilsbest on April 5, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Fancy that. So do I. Where did you go to school?
There was no problem with American investors’ confidence in their bank accounts, much less the whole banking system. All the concern was in Wall Street, money-market funds and the like. Traders get over insecurity pretty quickly.
alwaysfiredup on April 5, 2012 at 11:42 PM
100 banks is a drop in the bucket. The US has over 8000 banks.
alwaysfiredup on April 5, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2