Posted on 10/08/2012 7:48:05 AM PDT by Signalman
I was surprised when Frank Lunz’ focus group showed that the best line of the evening’s debate by either candidate was Governor Romney’s rendition of how he worked with Democrats in Massachusetts and will do so as president. But it makes a great deal of sense that this line would resonate.
While we professionals are trying to win the war of Dems vs. Reps and Blue vs. Red, the voters just want the war to end and the parties to come to an agreement — guided by the verdict they will deliver on Election Day. Ending this toxic division has been a key national goal of American voters ever since the Clinton impeachment, the government shutdown, and the debt limit fight. Indeed, the core of Clinton’s current popularity is that he did bridge the gap and pass bipartisan legislation to balance the budget and reform welfare.
Obama’s appeal was largely based on his promise to heal these divisions. But it is self evident that they have gotten worse during his term. Any promise now to heal the breech would be seen as fraudulent.
But Romney’s record in Massachusetts offers some hope that he might succeed where Obama has failed.
Stressing this theme in ads has the additional advantage of assuring moderate Democrats and Independents that Romney would not be manipulated by the ever-feared extreme Republican right. It would remind them that he did pass positive, constructive legislation on health care and education by working with the Democratic legislature. This will give great comfort to swing voters.
The Romney campaign should follow its candidate’s initiative and begin to stress this bipartisan theme in their advertising. By doing so, they will also make it harder for Obama to sustain his negative campaign. He will be seen as the divisive one and Romney as the healer.
The Romney campaign should also do ads which revert to the basic theme of more government vs. less V. All voters — Democrats or Republicans — agree that:
• Obama has raised spending and borrowing.
• If Obama is re-elected government will grow and so will spending and borrowing.
• That Romney would probably grow it less or maybe even spend less and shrink it.
Everybody agrees on these points. They disagree about the wisdom of each course of action. But the American voter agrees with the Republicans and Romney much more than he sides with the Democrats and Obama over these questions.
And these are the key questions over which our politics has been divided for the past four years. By impartially articulating these differences, Romney can make the election about big things like the size of government spending and borrowing.
These two initiatives should dominate the next few weeks of Romney advertising:
1) Bipartisanship
2) More government vs. less government
Once in office do the right thing.
Bipartisanship means doing what democrats want.
Look at the tantrum the democrats are throwing over big bird. There is zero chance of compromise with those people.
Nonsense. When Democrats control anything, they are *never* bipartisan, and in fact go to lengths to exclude anything the Republicans want, even if they want it too, just to snub the Republicans.
Harry Reid has been an utter ass about this as US senate majority leader for years now. He has blocked any effort to create a federal budget, he has threatened to strip the Republicans of any power at all, including senate traditions like the filibuster, and in countless other ways he has diminished the senate.
And now that the Democrats may lose the senate, they are demanding that the Republicans be “bipartisan?”
To Hell with that. The Republicans need to embrace payback, kick the Democrats around like the anti-American, whiny socialists they are, and get the republic working again. And if the Democrats try to block them, slap them until their noses bleed.
Its sheer stupidity to seek “bipartisanship” for the sake of itself. People who advocate it aren’t really thinking. And if we are pointing fingers for the lack of civility and bipartisanship, the Dems are the ones to blame. They have always been partisan but ever since the George W. Bush administration, they have constantly attacked and pushed to the Left, country be damned in the process.
If “Bipartisan” is the preferred state of being, can someone explain to the American people the need for two distinct political parties?
I’d LOVE to see this question fully debated.
Once a toe-sucker..always a toe-sucker..
On the other hand, we heard NO talk of bipartisanship in 2009.
That is how O thinks.
They all want them to “get something done”. Why does it always feel like it was done to us not for us?
Yes, O will do whatever it takes to win.
But O is a commie.
A big difference, no?
How is a compromise reached when one party wants a smaller less intrusive government while the other party wants a larger more controlling government.
Our nation’s founders weren’t interested in bipartisanship. If they had been they would have sought a single party system where everybody could hold hands and get things done quickly.
Si!
(sigh).....one more time.....
You CAN NOT COMPROMISE with Today’s DEMOCRAT PARTY because they are FAR LEFT-WING IDEOLOGUES who DO NOT WANT to compromise with you if you’re not a Socialist. They want what they want or they’re taking their ball and going home. A bunch of truly arrested adolescents from the 1960’s.
This is NOT the Democrat Party of Harry Truman. They have not been the sorts of people you could compromise with for a very long time. You can only compromise with a partner that is REASONABLE and RATIONAL, and today’s Democrat Party is neither.
Unlike you, I prefer the Mexican standoff which at least delays the growth of government.
I agree. Compromise sucks. Both sides lose...unless the Repubs start doing as the dims...ask for a lot more than you want to get what you want.
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.