On the now-not-so-secret tape of Mitt Romney at a fundraiser, the Republican candidate pulled back the curtain on his media strategy and revealed he wants to rewrite one of the most important media rules for winning the presidency.... by not appearing on SNL.
He told his audience of wealthy donors he was asked to go on Saturday Night Live, but refused."You wanna show that you're fun and you're a good person," Romney explained. "Saturday Night Live has the potential of— of looking slapstick and not— and not presidential."
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell called this strategy a "losing" one and pointed out "every candidate who has won the presidency in this century has done Saturday Night Live."
Leave a Comment:
Why is the Obama campaign allowing Paul Ryan to say that it was "Obama policies" at fault for the growing number of dependent people and the debt?
I'd like Ryan to name those Obama policies at fault.
how about his moratorium on drilling off shore and on federal lands. That act alone reduce the production, that was already in place before President Obama took office, by 70 to 80%. State and private land has helped soften his blow because the federal government can't stop them. Oil drilling in Minnesota has increased and they are one of the few places doing better than the rest of the US.
BO 2012 the reason the Obama campaign aren't saying anything is because the don't want the American public to focus on the Presidents record. The only chance they have is to try and distract the public and try to make Romney, the person, look worse than Obama the person, because anybody can see as leaders and business men Mitt wins hands down.
ChemDMD, I assume that this is short for Chemical Dependant. You seem to forget about the BP Oil Spill that affected the Gulf Communities that cost thousands of people jobs who rely on shrimp fishing. Obama only asked the British Petroleum to put into place safety measures such as Blow-out Preventers and have prevention measures in place prior to drilling. The Department of Interior gave them the green light to drill if they were able to respond to safety measures then they could drill.
It is short sighted to allow oil drilling when no safety measures are put into place to effectively stop an out of control oil well. The damage to the environment, jobs and the gulf community will last for hundreds of years all for a little bit of oil.
The GOP has put their party first on almost every single occasion when it comes to jobs and the USA economy. The President has proposed job bill after job bill only to have every Republican except for 2 to 3 Senators with some common sense vote against it.
Nobody needs to make Romney look bad, Romney does that all by himself.
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney got a rare piece of good news today, as a new poll showed him faring well among voters who have never heard him speak…
Read more at newyorker.com.
Ave Caesar
Nos qui sumus moritura ridentem Salutant vos.
Or something like that - how exactly do you target that particular voter segment?
After Romney loses, there will be Republicans who blame it on the sharply rightward shift of the Party since 2009. The problem (for Republicans, anyway) is that they simply won't have enough traction within their own ranks to make a difference. The Party made a decision, post-Obama, to cast its electoral lot with the most regressive, atavistic, and ideologically rigid elements of its coalition. This decision worked well for them in the context of a low-turnout mid-term election, but it has proved poisonous in the general campaign. But the far right will never accept responsibility for this; their counter-narrative is already in place. We lost, they will say, because we nominated a moderate compromiser rather than a true conservative believer. We offered the American people an echo, not a choice; we offered them watered-down Obamaism. Given that choice, they decided to stick with the real thing, not some tepid substitute--- and who can blame them? Only when we embrace our convictions and send a real champion into the field will the people realize that their vote truly makes a difference.
Because the Party has purged itself of most of its moderates, there simply won't be enough volume in their appeals to drown out this conservative mantra. All the urgency and energy in the Party right now--- not to mention most of the cash--- belongs to its most zealous and extreme members. So we will be in for another four years of obstruction and distraction, of "death panels" and " legitimate rape," of doubts about evolution and climate change combined with absolute certainty about the perfectibility of free markets and the perfidy of those who apologize for America. In 2016, the Party will at last nominate its Favorite Son--- some rightwing stalwart named Ryan or Santorum or Huckabee or Rubio--- who will proceed to lead it over the same electoral cliff whose surly bonds were last slipped by Barry Goldwater. Then--- and only then--- will the remaining moderate Republicans have any hope at all of reclaiming their Party for modernity.
Today's Republicans are reaping a harvest 40 years in the making. There is a huge demographic wave headed right at them, and if they don't get a lot smarter in a hurry they will go the way of the Whigs. The sad thing is, it didn't have to be like this. It should be possible to combine conservative principles with a modern world view; to realize that we have to distinguish between means and ends, that new practices are sometimes required to fulfill old principles. Experience, not ideology, is the real school of politics. It's one thing to argue that the government is too large, tries to do too much, often makes things worse rather than better; it's quite another to argue that a world in which government never mediates between citizens and the market is the summum bonum. The first set of claims is often true; the second is pernicious nonsense. When Jefferson looked across America, he saw a land in which most people were subsistence farmers and where those who engaged in trade mainly did so on a local or regional basis. Life was mostly rural and agrarian, and people usually died pretty much where they were born. In such a world it may well have made sense to think of the coercive power of government as the main threat to personal liberty. Remove the government, or at least keep it at arm's length, and each person would be free to compete as best he could with his fellow citizens. But our world is not Jefferson's. Remove government from our world and each citizen is free to compete as best he can with Walmart, Bain Capital, and Exxon. The simple fact is that in modern society government is the only entity with enough scope to stand between individual citizens and a market dominated by multinational corporations of enormous size and power. That doesn't mean we let the government do anything it wants to do; it's still important to be vigilant about governmental excess, and conservatives have an important role to play here. But it does mean granting the basic premise of modern life--- that the growth of government has been a natural response to changes in our economy and society, changes that many of us, for the most part, approve and applaud. We like our dynamic, protean economy and the choices and opportunities it provides; we like the sense of permanent possibility that attends contemporary life. And we like--- or at least accept--- a government that enfolds this possibility and dynamism within some basic guarantees of security, decency, and stability. In other words, we like modernity. It's too bad that one of our major political parties does not.
the only modern view that the DNC has is tax and spend. You say 40 years in the making, I thought that all you dems believed that President Clinton saved us all and fixed all the problem created by Bush1? So is it an Eight year problem made by Bush2 or a 40 year problem?
To argue that the problem is 40 in the making is loony, Reagan took a situation with higher inflation, big recession, and in 2 years with his policies turned it around. Yes cutting taxes did help. You libs argue that the deficit increased when the tax cuts occur and leave out two other vital pieces of information. When the taxes were cut the revenues to the government INCREASED, the second piece of information that you leave out is that federal spending increased at a steeper rate, causing the deficit. Today the government has the same problem they spend more than they take in. The people of America are better off today than when Jefferson was alive because of companies like Bain, Walmart, and Exxon. They are good companies that worked with in the laws that were set for by the people ( our government).
The federal government should protect our borders, and ensure fair trade, and leave the rest to the local governments.
If I didn't know better, Chummed, I'd almost think you were writing satire....
Look at the deficits that arose under Reagan when he wouldn't cut defense spending and Congress wouldn't cut social programs (still no Star Wars, and there never will be; he was clearly in early Alzie's with that one). I learned a powerful lesson when my mentor pointed to them with Bush 41's election and said he would be a one-term president. And he was the last Republican with any sort of respect for the environment....
Bain Capital was good for Bain Capital, period, and Exxon and BP should be classified as eco-terrorists and their subsidies of global warming denials noted. I do think Walmart does some good with those "greeter sorts" I see who manage a few hours smiling at those of us who are forced by circumstance as much as choice to shop there. It has to be a healthier environment than a nursing home.
Some of us think there's a better way, however...
After Romney loses, there will be Republicans who blame it on the sharply rightward shift of the Party since 2009. The problem (for Republicans, anyway) is that they simply won't have enough traction within their own ranks to make a difference. The Party made a decision, post-Obama, to cast its electoral lot with the most regressive, atavistic, and ideologically rigid elements of its coalition. This decision worked well for them in the context of a low-turnout mid-term election, but it has proved poisonous in the general campaign. But the far right will never accept responsibility for this; their counter-narrative is already in place. We lost, they will say, because we nominated a moderate compromiser rather than a true conservative believer. We offered the American people an echo, not a choice; we offered them watered-down Obamaism. Given that choice, they decided to stick with the real thing, not some tepid substitute--- and who can blame them? Only when we embrace our convictions and send a real champion into the field will the people realize that their vote truly makes a difference.
Because the Party has purged itself of most of its moderates, there simply won't be enough volume in their appeals to drown out this conservative mantra. All the urgency and energy in the Party right now--- not to mention most of the cash--- belongs to its most zealous and extreme members. So we will be in for another four years of obstruction and distraction, of "death panels" and " legitimate rape," of doubts about evolution and climate change combined with absolute certainty about the perfectibility of free markets and the perfidy of those who apologize for America. In 2016, the Party will at last nominate its Favorite Son--- some rightwing stalwart named Ryan or Santorum or Huckabee or Rubio--- who will proceed to lead it over the same electoral cliff whose surly bonds were last slipped by Barry Goldwater. Then--- and only then--- will the remaining moderate Republicans have any hope at all of reclaiming their Party for modernity.
Today's Republicans are reaping a harvest 40 years in the making. There is a huge demographic wave headed right at them, and if they don't get a lot smarter in a hurry they will go the way of the Whigs. The sad thing is, it didn't have to be like this. It should be possible to combine conservative principles with a modern world view; to realize that we have to distinguish between means and ends, that new practices are sometimes required to fulfill old principles. Experience, not ideology, is the real school of politics. It's one thing to argue that the government is too large, tries to do too much, often makes things worse rather than better; it's quite another to argue that a world in which government never mediates between citizens and the market is the summum bonum. The first set of claims is often true; the second is pernicious nonsense. When Jefferson looked across America, he saw a land in which most people were subsistence farmers and where those who engaged in trade mainly did so on a local or regional basis. Life was mostly rural and agrarian, and people usually died pretty much where they were born. In such a world it may well have made sense to think of the coercive power of government as the main threat to personal liberty. Remove the government, or at least keep it at arm's length, and each person would be free to compete as best he could with his fellow citizens. But our world is not Jefferson's. Remove government from our world and each citizen is free to compete as best he can with Walmart, Bain Capital, and Exxon. The simple fact is that in modern society government is the only entity with enough scope to stand between individual citizens and a market dominated by multinational corporations of enormous size and power. That doesn't mean we let the government do anything it wants to do; it's still important to be vigilant about governmental excess, and conservatives have an important role to play here. But it does mean granting the basic premise of modern life--- that the growth of government has been a natural response to changes in our economy and society, changes that many of us, for the most part, approve and applaud. We like our dynamic, protean economy and the choices and opportunities it provides; we like the sense of permanent possibility that attends contemporary life. And we like--- or at least accept--- a government that enfolds this possibility and dynamism within some basic guarantees of security, decency, and stability. In other words, we like modernity. It's too bad that one of our major political parties does not.
John,
Here is some survey support for your statements on the "purge of the moderates" and the Republican shift to the right.
Scroll down to "Judge Posner and Political Polarization"
http://voteview.com/blog/
40 years in the making - well, the theocratic right has been involved in political organization for a generation - look up the work of George Grant at Dominion Press - "dominion" says it all.
Consider posting again - while the trolls here are plentiful - as you can see - they are really not that bright.
Adam_Selene
Sorry for the double post. Hopefully it won't make my argument only half as persuasive as it might have been!
It's OK. Two times is better than none or even once. Good article. Should be printed in all newspapers. "And we like--- or at least accept--- a government that enfolds this possibility and dynamism within some basic guarantees of security, decency, and stability. In other words, we like modernity. It's too bad that one of our major political parties does not."
love your show.
Romney doesn't need SNL, he's always in robo-twit mode...He's a gaffe gecko. He's making uber rich folks look goofy. His run may preclude the option of any uber rich person running for president for decades to come. . .
It seems as if a lot of folks want to vote for a candidate who offers the best opportunity for returning to life in the 18 or 1940's. They just want to get the government out of their way, cause' they think that the government paving highways is an impediment to their wanderings. Americans in large #'s tend toward goofiness.
I think the republicans tried to use the christian conservatives and the tea party and ended up being used themselves. Unfortunate.
How sad! Romney's campaign is in danger of becoming one long comedy skit and he won't do the one thing that might make him look more human.
Comedy show appearances and jokes have worked for presidents and candidates since Calvin Coolidge.
Being TOO serious is never a good thing for a president. Even Richard Nixon went on Laugh-In, if only for three seconds.
People absolutely LOVED Bill Clinton and his saxophone. (He was pretty good with it, too!)
After this, hopefully Mitt will retire. His show is not funny at all and would have been cancelled long ago if he had been on TV. A trip to SNL might have shown him this.
Mitt not appearing on Saturday Night Live is absolutely consistent with the teachings of his religion...
The LDS-owned NBC affiliate, KSL-TV, does not carry the program here in Salt Lake...
SNL, which I enjoy (especially the News with Seth Meyers parody and the new discovered musical guests portions of the show is mostly very camp low brow humor, and certainly not worth a Presidents time and effort, even though Richard Nixon did a walk on part before he imploded his Presidency, and walked out! LOL!
You're not missing that much, Cab Driver. Besides, aren't you otherwise occupied in ferrying your alcoholic and drug abjusing friends from the bars and strip clubs to the detox center in SLC when SNL is broadcast?
You must be under 30, Keith, because your posts show you don't know what the hell you're talking about, just sayin'! Nixon,if you even know who he was, wasn't on SNL, and they've been on since 1975. Not a new show, and well, Keith, I just had enough of your stupid shot for one night...............FO
Nixon - the Tonight Show, Merv Griffin and Laugh-in - close.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFEhmF-cSi8
Personally, though, I liked that routine he did with a young Dan Rather best...
And Grandpa, those sorts don't get to be my friend until after they've sobered up for a few years... Until then, I'm protecting people like you by keeping them from behind the wheel....