Group items tagged

In this article, the question is raised of if Romney has two different sides, one that appeals to voters and one that appeals to donors. I found two parts of the article very interesting. One, that Romney answers a lot of questions from the donors but avoids them from the voters. And the second, that Romney actually goes in depth with his policies with the donors when tends to be vague with the voters.

While I would love to think that a candidate's statements remain solid no matter who the audience is, I know that isn't the truth. I think that it is somewhat inevitable that certain points are highlighted and others are downplayed in someone's platform when trying to win the support of a certain group.

A reason I can think of for this is that when you are trying to convince someone to vote for you, it's more about the big picture, "what direction do you want for our country" kind of campaigning. A vote for you means a vote in the right direction. When speaking to donors, it's about what their large donations are going to go towards specifically. It's much more of a commitment than just a vote, so it makes sense that there would be more information. I'm not saying this is the right way to handle it, and I agree that messages should stay consistent, but it might be a reason why.

This article is about Obama's campaign switching over and talking about how Romney changes his policies and can therefore not be trusted. It emphasizes Obama keeping his word and focuses on a rally in Florida. It also discusses Obama referring to "Romnesia" The quote that really stood out to me was, "On the auto industry bailout, the hiring of public school teachers and Medicare, Obama said Romney is aiming to disguise his real positions in order to win the election." Do you think that Romney's position changes are going to have a negative or positive effect on his campaign? And, do you think that these are genuine changes or are for the polls?

When researching energy for the issues project we just completed, I read an article about an environmentalist who was leaning towards Romney, despite his views on energy resources that harm the environment, because his past positions on green energy gave her hope. Also, on a previous article, we were discussing how people might take Romney's switches as a confirmation of his concern for the people. At the same time, a lack of commitment to his beliefs could prove a lack of commitment to the people and his job. I know I feel more connected to that second argument, but I am very curious to how the rest of the country will look at this.

I'm not sure how Romney disguising his real plans would benefit him in any sort of way-if helping the country is not his "real goal", what is his goal in becoming president? And why would he present something other than the best plan he's got if he wants to win votes?

This article discusses Romney's ad in Ohio saying that, under Obama's supervision, Chrysler and GM auto company is getting rid of jobs here in America and creating jobs in China. This seems to be a critical point to attack Obama's presidency, but the GM and Chrysler auto company took this offensively, saying that they are opening more businesses in China but are simultaneously increasing jobs here in America, not getting rid of them. Is Romney's seemingly desperate attempts at  criticizing Obama in the last few days before the election worth offending such large corporations? Will the short term message expressed in his commercial have a greater affect on the people than the long term controversy of Romney's use of false information? How do you think this type of manipulation will play out in the future?

Going off of what Abby said, some people may not look into the truth of the add. In that case, I think it could benefit Romney. But for people who have been following the campaign, they know that one of Obama's main platform is to bring jobs back the US...so I think they will be skeptical of the ad.

Romney's attempt to make Obama look bad backfires on him because he offends these car companies. I think it might affect him greatly, but it will make people think twice about Romney in the way that he offend an american company, that is important to america.

This article gives quote by Romney saying he is not going to change all of Obama's healthcare and he is not going to lower taxes for the wealthy. The article shows him trying to "meet the press" 

I find it really interesting that Romney does not want to get rid of Obama's health plan, rather he wants to change some parts of the reform like give coverage to kids for as long as they want as well as allowing people with pre-existing conditions. In my opinion just looking at what Romney's wants to do with healthcare is not as bad as it seems, but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem.

Yadria- I am slightly confused by what you mean with "but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem". Do you disagree with his plan? Just wondering. I agree with Ryan. Cutting spending, not taxes is the best way to get ourselves out of debt. The federal budget deficit is roughly a third of our federal spending, and is growing at an alarming rate. Our gross debt to GDP ratio is 104% because of our excessive spending. The per-capitia taxpayer debt (since only a third of americans pay taxes) is around 140,000. The fact of the matter is, no matter what way you want to look at it, we as a country are spending way too much. Yes, tax cuts for the middle class would be nice, but placing the debts on those making more than 250,000 a year is far from a solution because it is punishing those who work hard and stimulate the economy. Those small-buisness-owners, the job creators, are only going to get slammed with tax increases, and they are going to drag the economy down with them. Yes, our tax revenue is increasing, but drastically slower than the rate of our spending, which is a massive problem that can only be solved by cutting spending and reducing our budget deficit, unless Obama wants to try to increase taxes by 150%.