• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Etch-a-Sketch

Unabogie said:
He was specifically asked if taking so many far right positions would hurt him in the general, so his response was that in the fall, he could just shake up the etch-a-sketch and take all new positions.

I don't know how much clearer his point could be.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I would say the sentence is banal, with no specifics. It just as easily means that things are shaken up between the primary and the campaign and things from the first half won't matter in the second.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I disagree. I would say the sentence is banal, with no specifics. It just as easily means that things are shaken up between the primary and the campaign and things from the first half won't matter in the second.
Click to expand...

You feel the context is subjective? Again, only if you ignore the clear meaning of the question asked. And beyond this, the context has already been defined for Romney. It's been done by his opponents when Santorum and Gingrich showed up at campaign rallies carrying Etch-a-Sketches. When ads are being whipped up with Romney's face and previous positions being shaken up.

Will Romney's extreme positions, taken during a heated primary battle, matter in 7 months? I think they will, because now, any attempt to back away from them will be met with howls - from the right! - of him being an Etch-a-Sketch candidate. And for a candidate who so easily lies as Romney, the narrative is being set. For a candidate who so famously changes his positions on important issues, how can he afford to let this image come from his own campaign?

Jon Huntsman called him a "well lubricated weathervane". I'm betting right now he's saying "why the hell didn't I think of Etch-a-Sketch"?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I disagree. I would say the sentence is banal, with no specifics. It just as easily means that things are shaken up between the primary and the campaign and things from the first half won't matter in the second.
Click to expand...

Given the question, the specific things from the primary that won't matter will be Romney's efforts to portray himself as a conservative.

That's pretty specific.

Also the Etch-a-Sketch metaphor wasn't just "shake up" but also "erase".

I think the Romney campaign's biggest defense against this statement is that the other GOP candidates (except maybe Santorum) have all done similar re-packaging and re-defining of their candidates.
 
Jarlaxle said:
Romney is a wishy-washy moderate with no core beliefs. The GOP shgould have learned from the last three times (1992, 1996, 2008) they nominated one of those...and got stomped! At this point, I think I'm writing in Mortimer Snerd. :(
Click to expand...

psst. The 'moderate with no core beliefs' that lost in 1992 was running for re-election as the incumbent. Maybe he lost because of something other than what you claim because he won as the same 'moderate with no core beliefs' just 4 years prior in 1988.
 
maxpower1227 said:
This is intriguing to me. Do you happen to have any specific quotes from these candidates? My Google Fu wasn't able to find them.
Click to expand...
As for Goldwater, try googling his name with "fundamentalist" or "Jerry Falwell" and you might pick up something. Goldwater was old-school conservative, reasonable and acting based upon evidence and logic as well as political necessity, and it appalled him that religious conservatives tended to be so unreasonable and inflexible.

As for Johnson, the quotes tend to be from people who knew Johnson, rather than directly from Johnson himself. Johnson, whose reputation as 36th President includes being the strongest enabler of civil rights, had to campaign in Texas and give the impression that the darker-skinned folks weren't as important as the lighter-skinned folks. Johnson was two-faced, and he knew it. But he also knew that most of his pandering remarks would be forgotten and besides, the first thing to do is get elected. If you can't convince the electorate to elect you--which may mean suggesting to them that you share their prejudices--then you can't do anything good.

Caro's books about Johnson, I believe, discuss this sort of thing, and Lawrence Luckinbill's one-man play has Johnson regretting some of his pandering.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I disagree. I would say the sentence is banal, with no specifics. It just as easily means that things are shaken up between the primary and the campaign and things from the first half won't matter in the second.
Click to expand...
I will grant you that is an arguable position. A rather week one. The problem is that you shake up an etch a sketch to erase it and not to simply alter the drawing. If that was what was meant it was a lousy metaphor and failed utterly.
 
Brown said:
As for Goldwater, try googling his name with "fundamentalist" or "Jerry Falwell" and you might pick up something. Goldwater was old-school conservative, reasonable and acting based upon evidence and logic as well as political necessity, and it appalled him that religious conservatives tended to be so unreasonable and inflexible.
Click to expand...

Also, he believed in government UFO conspiracies.


Don't mind me, just poisonin' your well.
 
romneyetchasketch.jpg
 
RandFan said:
I will grant you that is an arguable position. A rather week one. The problem is that you shake up an etch a sketch to erase it and not to simply alter the drawing. If that was what was meant it was a lousy metaphor and failed utterly.
Click to expand...
Someone in his campaign made an unfortunate statement. Romney says he will not his positions for the presidential campaign. So wait and see.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Someone in his campaign made an unfortunate statement. Romney says he will not his positions for the presidential campaign. So wait and see.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Santorum and Gingrich. Both are still making an issue of it. Hey, it's politics, it's topical. Let's have a discussion.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Someone in his campaign made an unfortunate statement. Romney says he will not change his positions for the presidential campaign. So wait and see.
Click to expand...

I have to go with eeyore on this one. Stupid gaffes are not a good way to decide who you vote for, but stupid gaffes by somebody else are an even worse reason for choosing who gets your vote.

Rick and Newt are just purely desperate if they're going to continue to harp on this. Lets talk about real issues, guys.

(Also, fixed your missing word, E'54.)
 
Tricky said:
I have to go with eeyore on this one. Stupid gaffes are not a good way to decide who you vote for, but stupid gaffes by somebody else are an even worse reason for choosing who gets your vote.

Rick and Newt are just purely desperate if they're going to continue to harp on this. Lets talk about real issues, guys.

(Also, fixed your missing word, E'54.)
Click to expand...
I think it is fair to discuss politics. Factor the gaffe with the fact that Romney is an exceptional prevaricator and I think it is particularly relevant. JMO though.
 
RandFan said:
I think it is fair to discuss politics. Factor the gaffe with the fact that Romney is an exceptional prevaricator and I think it is particularly relevant. JMO though.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, it's as fair as anything else in love and war, but it's not really relevant, since it is not anything Romney said.

But as for Romney changing positions, I think that when the primaries are finished, Obama will be sure to note any attempts by Romney to soften his pandering to the far right, and if that happens, the Republican base will abandon him. Mitt is hoist by his own petard.
 
Tricky said:
Oh sure, it's as fair as anything else in love and war, but it's not really relevant, since it is not anything Romney said.

But as for Romney changing positions, I think that when the primaries are finished, Obama will be sure to note any attempts by Romney to soften his pandering to the far right, and if that happens, the Republican base will abandon him. Mitt is hoist by his own petard.
Click to expand...
It's relevant but to the process only. Any conclusion about Romney's positions, perspective, lying, etc. would be an error and unfair. Politics is very much about the process. The process is something I care about. How does a person get elected? Sure, you can argue as to what is fair or not. Dukakis in the tank. Kerry in the bunny suit. Howard Dean's scream. Bush trying to open the wrong door. But it's the spice of politics and often says more about the electorate or the dynamics of the election than anything else.
 
RandFan said:
I will grant you that is an arguable position. A rather week one. The problem is that you shake up an etch a sketch to erase it and not to simply alter the drawing. If that was what was meant it was a lousy metaphor and failed utterly.
Click to expand...

Erase something....

I read it as the negative get erased. The general is a blank slate.

I admit, its based on how I generally view people. I see people present an extreme view to friends, and a moderate view to opponents, with neither position being hypocritical or contradictory.
 
Unabogie said:
Has there ever been a more brazen admission that a politician is just pandering and will say whatever he thinks will get him elected.
Click to expand...

I believe there have been, yes, but not during a primary like that. It's an interesting move and of course Maddow cannot ask the obvious question which is why did they decide to put that meme out there when it is so damaging to their chances?

The answer is that Romney isn't really trying to win the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom