Skip to main content

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me

By


In peddling a new campaign trail book it is important to get some juicy nuggets out there.  Halperin and Heilemann are doing just that, offering up such tasty morsels as Obama "reportedly" questioning himself after his first debate against Romney with his chief adviser, David  Plouffe, in a panic.  The other morsel is that there was serious consideration of placing Hillary on the ticket over Biden.  Both are pure speculation based on second and third hand sources, but that doesn't seem to bother these intrepid journalists.

I don't think Obama ever doubted himself.  If anything, he didn't take Romney seriously in the first debate and suffered what turned out to be a relatively minor setback.  It's also worth noting that the media was desperate to make this into a horse race when it looked like Obama was leaving Romney far behind in the polls, so it played up Romney's faux victory.

While Obama's overall numbers fell, he continued to lead in key states, so I doubt his campaign staff panicked, but rather sought ways to strengthen the message, while Obama prepped himself better for the subsequent debates.  Not that they mattered much, as debates rarely do.  Bush arguably lost all three debates to John Kerry but still won his re-election by 2-1/2 percentage points, and hotly contested Ohio by 5 percentage points.

The second talking point defies all credulity as Biden was one of the best things Obama had going for him.  Biden is good-humored, a tireless campaigner, and generally well liked.  It would have been pure folly to drop him from the ticket, if for no other reason than it would have indicated he really was worried about his re-election.  However, I have to think in surveying his potential opponents, Obama must have felt pretty good about himself, and I don't think dropping Joe ever entered his mind.

We also learned about Romney's misgivings about "Pufferfish," aka Chris Christie.  Halperin and Hellemann suggest that Christie smelled a little too fishy for Romney's taste, who preferred the much leaner Paul Ryan.  Fact of the matter, Christie wasn't very well liked by the base of the party, which Romney found himself having to cater to time and again, but the base of the party loved Paul "P90X" Ryan.


By contrast, Dan Balz's Collision 2012 seems to take a less sensational approach, and look more at the underlying factors, namely Obama's "computer-driven voter-mobilization machine," which he feels has set a new technical model in political campaigning that will become the standard in 2016.  Balz finds it odd that a former venture capitalist like Romney with obviously a good head for numbers could allow himself to be outsmarted by Obama.  But, it seemed to be the case at every turn.

Balz describes the first debate not so much as a turning point for Romney, but rather the ultimate delusion in the former Massachusetts governor believing he had reached the people.  What we got after Denver was the new "emotional" Romney as opposed to the technocrat we had previously been subjected to.  Balz also covers the Christie angle, noting that Romney actually wanted "Pufferfish" to resign as governor to be his running mate.  Paul Ryan wasn't forced to resign.  Fortunately for him, he ran a concurrent House campaign so that he would still be in office come November.

For my money it seems Collision is the better of the two books, relying less on apocryphal quotes and speculation, and more on attributed quotes and statistics.  "Specific without being tedious," as Howell Rains noted in his review.

Comments

  1. avrdsNovember 5, 2013 at 5:24 AM

    Christie resigning had something to do with New Jersey law about fund raising. I can't remember the exact details, but if he were still governor, then Romney couldn't fund raise in NJ which he assumed would be a good source of campaign dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James FergusonNovember 5, 2013 at 7:24 AM

    Interesting law. Gave Christie a convenient out.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

By
  Welcome to this month's reading group selection.  David Von Drehle mentions The Melting Pot , a play by Israel Zangwill, that premiered on Broadway in 1908.  At that time theater was accessible to a broad section of the public, not the exclusive domain it has become over the decades.  Zangwill carried a hopeful message that America was a place where old hatreds and prejudices were pointless, and that in this new country immigrants would find a more open society.  I suppose the reference was more an ironic one for Von Drehle, as he notes the racial and ethnic hatreds were on display everywhere, and at best Zangwill's play helped persons forget for a moment how deep these divides ran.  Nevertheless, "the melting pot" made its way into the American lexicon, even if New York could best be describing as a boiling cauldron in the early twentieth century. Triangle: The Fire That Changed America takes a broad view of events that led up the notorious fire, not...
228 comments
Read more

Dylan in America

By
Whoever it was in 1969 who named the very first Bob Dylan bootleg album “Great White Wonder” may have had a mischievous streak. There are any number of ways you can interpret the title — most boringly, the cover was blank, like the Beatles’ “White Album” — but I like to see a sly allusion to “Moby-Dick.” In the seven years since the release of his first commercial record, Dylan had become the white whale of 20th-century popular song, a wild, unconquerable and often baffling force of musical nature who drove fans and critics Ahab-mad in their efforts to spear him, lash him to the hull and render him merely comprehensible. --- Bruce Handy, NYTimes ____________________________________________ I figured we can start fresh with Bob Dylan.  Couldn't resist this photo of him striking a Woody Guthrie pose.  Looks like only yesterday.  Here is a link to the comments building up to this reading group.
182 comments
Read more

The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order

By
A quarter of a century, however, is time enough to dispel some of the myths that have accumulated around the crisis of the early Thirties and the emergence of the New Deal. There is, for example, the myth that world conditions rather than domestic errors and extravagances were entirely responsible for the depression. There is the myth that the depression was already over, as a consequence of the ministrations of the Hoover Administration, and that it was the loss of confidence resulting from the election of Roosevelt that gave it new life. There is the myth that the roots of what was good in the New Deal were in the Hoover Administration - that Hoover had actually inaugurated the era of government responsibility for the health of the economy and the society. There is the contrasting myth (for myths do not require inner consistency) that the New Deal was alien in origins and in philosophy; that - as Mr. Hoover put it - its philosophy was "the same philosophy of government which...
170 comments
Read more