Campaign 2012 is underway. Mitt Romney has won the right to challenge President Barack Obama for the Oval Office. The next four years of American politics hangs in the balance. One might think that, by now, we would be able to have some concrete idea of what either man would do for those four years. But sadly, this has not yet happened to any great extent.
Where are the grand messages of the campaigns? Being held in reserve for the post-convention season, perhaps? That's at least an understandable answer, but ultimately not a very satisfying one. Neither Obama nor Romney has yet clearly articulated what their big ideas are for the next four years, and both of them are missing the chance to pound their message into the American psyche for the next two or three months.
Romney supporters -- what, exactly, is Mitt going to do if he gets into the White House? Kill Obamacare? Kill everything Obama's ever done? Okay, after he's accomplished that, what is Mitt Romney going to do next? What grand plans does he have for health care once Obamacare is gone? Back to the pre-Obamacare status quo?
Beyond reactionary moves, what would Romney push for in Congress? He talks a lot about freeing up big business from onerous government regulations, but what else will he do for the economy than hand out tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans? What is Romney going to consider his top three objectives in Congress (that aren't merely a repeal of Obama legislation)? Can anyone answer these questions for me?
Obama supporters -- is the president any better? We knew what he wanted to tackle when he was running in 2008, but do we have any clue what he'd do in a second term? Other than "let's just continue our current policies"? Health care reform was Obama's signature legislation in his first term, but what will he push hardest for in his second? The only thing I've even heard him mention in the way of bold change is to promise he'll push immigration reform during the first year of his second term. This is exactly what he promised in 2008, but at least it is something concrete that Obama is expressing support for. What, other than immigration reform, will be on Barack's "to do" list come 2013?
The campaigns of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have already proven that they're up to speed on negative advertisements. Pointing out your opponents' weaknesses is a big part of campaigning in general, and it's going to be an even larger part of this campaign. But it simply can't be all there is. There's got to be some substance -- some positive and very concrete things the candidates stand for -- in order for voters to truly make an informed choice.
Both sides could argue that they have, indeed, laid out very complex plans for the future. Romney wrote a book with something like six or seven dozen policy ideas. I'm sure the Obama campaign has lots of white papers up on their campaign site as well. But these are about as effective (and about as meaningful) as the official party platform documents which will emerge from the national nominating conventions -- interesting reading for the hard-core party faithful, but not all that relevant to the voters at large.
Most voters simply will never read 70 different "planks" in either candidates' platform. They want to hear -- directly from the candidate -- a short laundry list of their top priorities. At the most, four or five "Big Ideas" (to put it another way). The completion of the following candidate statement: "If elected, I will spend all my political energy, from Day One, to achieve the following things which will offer real solutions for America's problems..." is what the voters are looking for, and what has yet to be clearly articulated by either campaign or candidate.
Just as quick examples, imagine how the campaigns would look today if Barack Obama started every speech off with: "If the American people elect me to a second term in office, I will spend every waking moment working to pass a constitutional amendment which will overturn the Citizens United decision and end the courts' treatment of corporations as people. The Bill of Rights was written for we the people and most decidedly not for 'we the corporations,' and I will dedicate my second term to righting this legalistic wrong. Who's with me?!?"
Contrariwise, imagine Mitt Romney beginning his speeches with: "If the American people elect me to the highest office in the land, I will repay the favor by using my political capital from my first day in office onwards to force Congress to fix our tax problems and our entitlement problems. I will lay down a simple outline, and I will demand that Congress act on it, or I will veto every single bill they lay on my desk until they do so. The only legislation which will be acceptable has to balance our budget in 10 years' time, reform all entitlement programs so they don't run out of money, and simplify our tax code so that it takes the average American taxpayer two hours or less to fill out their income taxes. I will not sign any budget that does not accomplish these goals, and I will not sign any other legislation in the meantime. We can fix this problem, if Congress would only do their job. Who's with me?!?"
Don't get me wrong, here, I'm not suggesting actual campaign themes, just proving how easy it is to come up with them (on either side). Either of these would be seen as bold plans. They both fall into the category of Big Ideas. Which is precisely what both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama seem to so far be lacking. Both candidates, and both campaigns, seem to be running awfully timid operations. "We certainly don't want to offend anybody" seems to be the rule of thumb. This is depressing, because it bodes for a long season of nothing but sharper and harder-hitting attacks against each other. When you don't have a Big Idea to run on, the only way to win is to tear down your opponent -- which is all that seems to be happening currently.
America deserves better. America, in my humble estimation, is searching for something better than this. Voters don't want to know just how badly the other guy will screw things up, they also would appreciate hearing what each candidate is putting on the top of their priorities list for the next four years. To both candidates, and to both campaigns, I offer some very simple advice.
Think big.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Derrick Kitts: "Oregon, Oregon, Oregon"
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Between the appointment of GW Bush as president....the "crash" of '08
& (particularly)...the "Citizen's United" decision.....
Most of our speculative discussions with regard to "agendas" "mandates" & even (without offense to my old and trusted friend Chris)...."Thinking Big"....are now moot.
Having undergone the sea-change from "one man one vote" ...to "one DOLLAR one vote".....
One can easily reduce all of our nattering to what an attorney calls a "threshold question"....
Expressed in pop culture (the only culture there is anymore) by Cuba Gooding in Jrry. Maguire
"Shoo me 'da MONEY!!!"
Don't get me wrong.....I support (& even expect) the President's re-election...but don't expect anything big-ticket in a 2nd term.
O doesn't have it in him...... and there's a little thing called the House of Representatives to remind him of that at every turn.
And for back-up?
Why, there's nine old "guys 'n dolls" esconsed-for-life in one of the most beautiful buildings in D.C....laboring mightily to "discover" that the document(s) written by Mason/Madison/Jefferson et al. have ALWAYS meant...well, ...
Whatever Exxon/Mobil & the Archer Daniels Midland Corp. say that they do.
Something I used to say cynically...and mostly in jest...has come to be literally true:
The President's re-election slogan should be:
"Vote for ME...not NEAR as bad as those other guys would be"
TM
For Team Obama, part of the answer may be found in the incessant grumbling and misguided attacks over the course of the last three and half years by progressives, the far left - and, yes, especially the "professional left" (defined precisely how the man who coined the term intended, by the way - about the big and unkept campaign messages Obama ran on the last time around, despite the substantial obstacles this administration has had to deal with on a daily basis.
As for the challenger Romney, he hasn't demonstrated that he has any big ideas and certainly no ideas, whatsoever, about what will further improve the economy or prevent another global financial crisis in the future.
So, complain, if you wish - and, I agree, it is certainly warranted - about the lack of a clearly defined campaign message and roadmap for making progress during a second term on the part of the Obama/Biden re-election team, but please let's not imply that Romney has a record to stand on to demonstrate that he understands the first thing about what needs to be done to move the country forward, domestically or internationally.
>Where are the grand messages of the campaigns?
Don't you think suggestions like this should have some basis in reality, firmly rooted? There is no evidence that I know of that this is in the Romney DNA, let alone a possibility for his campaign game plan ... or, am I missing something?
>Contrariwise, imagine Mitt Romney beginning his speeches with: "If the American people elect me to the highest office in the land, I will repay the favor by using my political capital from my first day in office onwards to force Congress to fix our tax problems and our entitlement problems.
- Better Education: We need to invest in good teachers and help more students go to college and get job training -- not pack kids into classrooms and slash scholarships.
- More, Cleaner Energy: We need to invest in promising new sources of energy to create a market for innovation and good jobs of the future -- not go back to relying on foreign oil.
- Leading Through Innovation: We need to invest in our best scientists, researchers, and entrepreneurs so they innovate here -- not cede new ideas to countries like China and India.
- Job-Creating Infrastructure: We need roads, bridges, ports, and broadband technology that attract businesses that will create jobs here -- not more pet projects and bridges to nowhere.
- Fair, Simple Tax Reform: We need to reward businesses that create jobs here instead of rewarding outsourcing, and must ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share again -- not sacrifice investments critical to the middle class.
Now my two cents worth--I see nothing but negatives fron miff rongey--cut and dried.
The VP says "Barack has a big stick"-- I wish he'd use it. Immigration reforn would truely be another signature accomplishment and would fix a big division in the country ( in the same vein some equality for the LGBT community) The undeclared but highly visible war on women is one more issue of partisanship gone awry. More strength to Lilly Ledbetter and a halt to cutting women's pay. I could go on and on with what needs to be addressed but we know that The Pres.'s plate is not only full but over flowing.
Foreign policy is strong but the sabre rattling from the right (Iran and Syria and now Russia with The Sec of State who I fully support ).
Finally my strongest issue and support for Obama is the age of SCOTUS. The chance to evenly balance, or better yet to swing the court to a favorable liberal stance is why I will vote for him.
The Republican Party is all in on laissez-faire austerity, which doesn't leave a lot of room for big ideas. Substitute big emotions, backed up by big money, for big ideas and put them on bumper stickers and in 30 second spots.
Romney has actually had big ideas in the past, which he and his minders would like everybody to forget, since the resemble Obama's last big idea from 2008. Awkward, but MItt is an awkward man.
Obama and the Democrats have also bought into austerity, out of expediency if not genuine conviction. Austerity is losing its luster (maybe patina is a better word) in Europe, and if this trend ripples across the Atlantic, it may give Obama an opening to go biggish. Timing is everything with big ideas. Too soon, the public gets bored and forgets, while the opposition has a chance to craft a response. The latter being the fresher of the two tends to be remembered longer.
If Obama floats an idea, I predict he'll do it late, it will be limited, and it will be constructed primarily so Republicans are forced to commit reflexively against something reasonable, cheap and inherently populist. Something to focus attention on GOP obstructionism that will briefly nudge the Democratic Core and persuadable, uncommitted voters out of 40 plus years of learned helplessness.
I will be voting for Jill Stein. At least she has not yet proved herself to be a liar.
Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
--Robert Burns
I am happy to fan "Land of Unlikeness" for literacy, if that helps.
Hoping you are well
TM
If we weren't all so quasi-literate....we'd recognize the substitution of "liberty" for "freedom" for what it is.
The very same sleight-of-hand with the language that was used first to defend the institution of slavery....and then to perpetuate a version of it..de facto....for some 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Who doesn't love "Freedom"?
When I hear "liberty" ...I hear code for the "right" kind of people being able to expliot the "wrong" kind......with you and I almost invariably included in the latter.
Regards
TM
Is this so much to ask? Everyone who doesn't live in Washington whether they are liberal or conservative can get behind most of this even though their methods might diverge--so why aren't the candidates listening? If they only stay in the echo chambers which are the living rooms of the well-to-do or the must-haves which are the swing states they will never interact with a real American voter.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-5-2012/gary-johnson