Free Markets, Free People

Gasp! Mr. “Hope and Change” more negative than Romney?

It must be true. None other than Politico has noticed:

A crabby, negative campaign that has been more about misleading and marginal controversies than the major challenges facing the country? Barack Obama and Mitt Romney can both claim parenthood of this ugly child.

But there is a particular category of the 2012 race to the low road in which the two sides are not competing on equal terms: Obama and his top campaign aides have engaged far more frequently in character attacks and personal insults than the Romney campaign.

Nice to see Obama has “changed politics as we know it”.

Another promise abandoned.

~McQ

Twitter: McQandO

Facebook: QandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

31 Responses to Gasp! Mr. “Hope and Change” more negative than Romney?

  • This one paragraph tells me everything you need to know about the state of “bipartisanship” in DC …

    The book points out that the administration seemed unprepared for the road ahead, as demonstrated on election night in 2010. “Protocol dictated that the president make a congratulatory call to Boehner,” Woodward writes. “The trouble was, nobody in the White House had thought to get a phone number.”

    Simply, there is none. Two years into Obama’s term as President and the White House didn’t have the phone number of the House Minority Leader.   OMG.
    “Back-channels .. we don’t need no stinking back-channels”

    • Supposedly, Obama doesn’t like to call anyone.
      Remember during the Gulf Spill the revelation that Obama hadn’t ever called the CEO of BP?
      I think we have not seen the worst revelations yet.
      I suspect they are so bad that the Dem staffers blanch at revealing them.

  • “Obama and his top campaign aides have engaged far more frequently in character attacks and personal insults than the Romney campaign.”

    Yup, and it will go on this way. Part of it is because Romney is not very well liked, so there is no downside to going after him, and part of it is that Obama is so well liked (personally) that Romney’s team will suffer blowback if they go after him personally.

    There is no doubt that Obama was not prepared for the Presidency.

    • Heh, from what I’ve seen, I’m not sure he was ever prepared for adult hood.

    • That’s ok. I think (hope) that the nation is watching and sees who the adult is and who the thin-skinned unqualified little b*tch is, and will choose appropriately.

    • The downside is that Obama’s personal likability is going down. Mitt’s has gone up. But Obama has no choice, he has no record worth running on (but worth running from), and he has no viable plan.

  • The Collective has nothing positive to run on.  They live on lies, and never hesitate to tell more of them.
    Obama’s natural proclivity is to use the lowest-down possible means to try to win, and he hates opposition.
    Not only MUST he run away from his record, he MUST not reveal his plans for a second term.

    • “Planz!, to god-damned hell with planz! We have no planz!. In fact, we don’t need planz!. I don’t have to show you any stinking planz!, you god-damned… :)

    • “Not only MUST he run away from his record, he MUST not reveal his plans for a second term.”

      Have you even watched teh conventions?

      I was struck but the head-on policy wonkishness of the DNC, especially Clinton, but across the board, the Dems have been getting incredibly specific about policies.

      Conversely, the RNC convention was very light on policy details.

      What is interesting is that with economic polling as it is, this election should not be close, but I think the GOP is simple afraid to lay out details in front of swing voters.

      The problem with that not discussing details is that they now allowed the opposition to define the details.

      There is a serious problem with Romney’s revenue neutral tax proposal, no one can seem to find the loopholes that can be closed to make the tax cut revenue neutral, and Romney has refused to name ANY. Independent analysts don’t see how to get there without going after the mortgage tax deduction, so Dems have capitalized on that.

      Romney may be capable of being a good President, but it’s hard to argue he is running a good campaign.

      • Yeah, that God thing won’t hurt them, and neither will the whole Jerusalem thing with the normally Democratic voting Jews – surrrreee it won’t.
         
        Cap, they’ve done nothing but stumble the last month or so – and that’s not the sign of a campaign with a plan, they’re flailing.   Their 2008 cutesy reliance on him being the black man who didn’t look like all the other candidates is played out.  Hope and Change is played out.   And then of course, no George Bush this time.
         
        I was wondering what Romney would do to catch up, but from what I’m seeing Obama keeps tripping, even though Romney doesn’t inspire, at all, Obama’s campaign for the last 4 weeks has looked like something that poured out of the clown car.  If he keeps this up, Romney won’t have to catch up, he just has to keep from falling over.

      • “Conversely, the RNC convention was very light on policy details.”
         
        And I realize this is this time, not last time, but the irony – the man who was going to cool the planet, stop the oceans from rising, pay your rent and gas money, and be hope and change personified, all things to all people….and we’re talking about the Republicans being light on details?
         
        The last election proved, you don’t need details, you don’t even need to be on the plain of reality, to win.

      • So, after 4 years, 3 years of which there is no budget, and the last two proposed Obama budgets get voted down 98-0, they suddenly spell out their budget…doubtful.
         
        Or the policy of enacting 2,000 pages of legislation without reading it, saying its not a tax, but now it is a tax for legal purposes….
         
         
        Do you mean they added a bunch of spending they want to do?  WTF policy can they advocate now that they didn’t put into actual place 2 years ago?
         
        TOO LITTLE TOO LATE.
         

      • If anyone is about the details, it is Ryan.

        Clinton? He was just lying about his record. He isn’t part of the policy apparatus of the Obama administration, although the administration really doesn’t seem to have a policy apparatus.

        The problem the Democrats have is that they have no answers to our problems. They don’t have a budget because any budet will either include huge deficits or else cut into programs that will piss off the base. They have no answer.

  • I’m not optimistic on this front. Every time I’ve asked a member of the Obama team to lay out a second-term agenda, from Robert Gibbs to Melody Barnes, I’ve gotten campaign bumper stickers and bromides.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/obama-needs-a-second-term-agenda-in-his-democratic-convention-speech.html

    Someone here is hearing things that don’t exist.
    And he’s not hearing clear policy statements on the record.

    • From Woodward’s book, it looks like he never had an agenda for the first term.  Remember, it was all outsourced to Congress.

  • Dunno about anybody else, but I find this DNC cluster-fluck of a convention to be highly consistent with the reign of The Won.

  • Please see http://www.politifact.com/ for a complete wrap-up of Obama’s promises kept.

    • That was a very SELECTIVE list of statements in his SPEECH, you moron.

    • Heh – so, you need others to keep track of which promises he kept do you?
       
      37% by their count.  Presuming their count is accurate – even they claim he’s delivered on little more than 1/3 of what he promised.
      Wow, impressive.