Throughout any given day I normally catch bits and pieces of three or four different talk radio shows during the day. From Rush to Boortz to Hannity to Michael Medved and an occasional Mark Levin peppered in. All are brilliant with their own styles, but sometimes they overlap. At some point last week most of them invited listeners to call in and explain why they support Barack Obama. Invariably the callers sounded like buffoons, and it had nothing to do with anything the host said. In fact, heard Neal Boortz give a number of callers a full uninterrupted 60 seconds to explain their position. It didn’t help.
Now, there are lots of reasons someone might not sound good on the radio. Sometimes callers get nervous knowing that millions of people are listening to them. Other times they miscalculate how long they have and stumble to get through their points. And the truth is, not everyone has the gift of gab and often simply don’t express themselves well. Despite those caveats, the reality is that most callers who say they support Barack Obama have a very difficult time explaining why. He killed Osama Bin Laden, he saved the auto industry, Obamacare will guarantee healthcare for everyone and he ended the war in Iraq are usually the four main points.
Interestingly, regardless of their veracity, all of those reasons are backward looking. They’re looking to reward the President for things already done. Rarely do you hear Obama supporters say things like “He’s going revive the economy” or “He’s going to jumpstart the American jobs engine” or even “He’s going to lower gas prices or taxes”. And you never ever hear them talk about their candidate reducing government regulations.
Romney supporters on the other hand, can be equally disingenuous: “He’s not Obama.” The difference is, however, typically those supporting Romney are not doing so to punish Obama – although there are certainly those – but rather because they see what Obama and the Democrats have wrought on the country and they want a change of direction.
And that is the key. An election is not about thanking someone for a job well done… or even the Alice in Wonderland perception of a job well done… but rather a Presidential election is about doing what’s best for the country over the next four years. If hiring a President was a reward for a service rendered, John McCain would be president. He served in the Senate for decades, he authored one of the most important (not to be confused with good…) pieces of legislation in decades and he proved his valor and mettle during five years in a North Vietnamese prison.
No, Americans elected Barack Obama because he told a story that inspired millions of followers and supporters. If nothing else, Barack Obama was a brilliant campaigner, albeit with a great deal of support from the media.
But there’s a difference between inspiring a political movement and actually doing a good job of governing. On that score, Barack Obama has been a complete and utter disaster. On virtually every facet of the job, he has failed, and done so miserably… with the exception of not screwing up the plan to find and kill Bin Laden. From the millions of lost jobs to an economy that’s stuck in park to billions lost in his green job boondoggles to $5 trillion in new debt, the Obama administration has been an abject failure. And that doesn’t begin to address the tyranny of the growth of government regulation he has fostered.
That discontinuity between candidate and executive is at the heart of the decision Americans are being asked to make in November: Barack Obama is a brilliant candidate, but a disastrous executive while Mitt Romney is barely adequate as a candidate but has a proven record of success as an executive. Do voters want someone who talks a good game but actually manages it poorly or would they rather have a guy who mumbles his words but actually manages the game very well?
The key to the White House comes down to this: Are those voters who were willing to overlook the holes in Barack Obama’s resume in 2008 in order to make a leap of faith in an historic election going to overlook the fact that those very holes are today filled in with failing marks? There’s an old saying “Trick me once shame on you… trick me twice shame on me.” Let’s hope they’ve learned Barack Obama’s tricks over the last four years…
See author page
As you listen to talk radio much more than I do, see if you catch the fallacious argument that Romney doesn’t have a plan while Obama does.
Yes, Central Planning always has a plan.
It is government doing MORE than ever before.
Controlling you, me and everyone a little more tightly.
Romney’s 53-point plan is more of a mosaic of de-centralized ways an economy, freed-up, can bounce back.
It is nearly impossible to sound-bite Romney’s ”plan.”
Well, Nan G, if Romney’s plan is “nearly impossible to sound-bite”, then he’s in trouble. Unless, of course, you want the independents, who hold the outcome in their power, to vote for the guy first, just to see what’s in it.
@MataHarley:
As an independent, leaning Republican I disagree, Mata.
I think most independents hate central planning from big, bigger, biggest government.
They understand that, when we have certainty based on a long term tax plan only then can businesses make their OWN plans.
Obama wants us all in the dark, even literally.
But he wants us to be ever so grateful IF he decides to not raise our taxes….for this year.
All of this causes uncertainty and leads businesses to hoard and wait.
How can they long-term plan?
So, Obama is pissed that so much cash is ”on the sidelines?”
Well, he put it there by keeping us all in the dark as to how he is going to rip us off next.
Nan G, you cannot substitute yourself for the average voter and their grasp. They aren’t going to pour over a “53 point plan”. They want to hear it articulated thru out the campaign by the candidate. A clear alternative path must be delineated.
This hasn’t got whit to do with Obama. The nation already knows his “plan”… increase taxes on “the wealthy”, and grow the social welfare net. Simple as that. Now, what’s Romney’s? And will it sound like the same ol’ mantra that the Dems have spent decades shutting down? (i.e. reduce taxes to grow revenue)
We’ve got job problems. We’ve got Fed Reserve problems. We’ve got entitlement problems. If it can’t be reduced to a convincing sound byte for the average voter, it will be no better than Pelosi, telling the nation O’healthcare has to be passed before we know what’s in it.
Well, he did let let the Seals leave without ordering them to destroy the crashed stealth helicopter. Other than that, when all you have to do is tell the military to ‘go ahead with their plan’, it’s hard to screw it up.
@Nan G:
I have to agree with Mata, here. The voters, those average independent voters, aren’t going to care what Obama’s plan is. Romney needs to connect with them or they are just going to stay home, handing the election to Obama. And so far, it seems that Romney is not doing that at all.
Vince, I liked the article.
@johngalt:
I concur. Team Romney has to show to the voters that they have workable plans to solve America’s woes. I don’t think the vague promise game of “hope & change” is going to work twice. It is better to come up with proposals for solutions. So far Team Romney is performing nearly as soft, milquetoast and unimpressive a campaign as McCain played. A mild mannered “gentlemanly” GOP candidate is not going to sound strong enough against an aggressive ruthless, negative campaign aided by MSM backing. He needs to take lessons from Regan and be assertive, firm and provide plans that will install confidence in his ability to turn America around.
Romney has to put the kid gloves away, pull out all the stops and convince the nation of the dire co0nsequences of another four years of this administration. The Obamanites are certainly not going to hold back or fight fair. Romney needs the fire in his belly that Herman Cain and Sarah Palin displayed. In fact, It would probably help immensely if he got Cain to be his personal trainer for this battle.
Imagne 50 years from now when the economy is hurting, and people will be saying- we should be doing what the”great” Obama was doing. LOL. Reagan, he is not. (Just a little historical anecdote.)
Mata & Nan are both right. There are those who need to see the whole thing laid out, and there are those who just don’t care, as long as they perceive that he’s out to win. Both can and should be there for the voters. Those who need the whole plan can access it, those who don’t don’t have to. Romney has got to fire all the voters up, not just one or the other.
Graphic illustrations of why Obama has been padding our welfare rolls.
But if Obama thinks that all people, or even nearly all people on the dole will vote themselves more largess from the public trough, he is absolutely wrong.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/6-charts-that-show-the-welfare-state-run-amok/
Shown on the charts:
The first thing you have to understand about radio talk show hosts is that they are not necessarily purveyors of political truth. For the most part, they are entertainers, and are rewarded for their efforts to keep a certain group of listeners listening. They’ve been doing this activity for many years and have each developed their own routine for making making people with contrary opinion sound like ‘buffoons’. Unfortunately, too many people—both left and right—get their information from these sources, and, most importantly, take is as the truth.
Great article Vince, but one tiny nit pick. Shouldn’t his uniform be bright Soviet red? Just wondering.
Every legal citizen here over 18 has the right to vote unless he/she loses it by being convicted of a felony.
But only 81,890,189 of us are federal taxpayers, a much smaller group.
If we think Obama deserves ”rewarding” for how he has run this country into the ground, how about the non-taxpaying voters take up their fair share of the new federal debt added since Obama was inaugurated?
Obama has added $5,258,977,706,438.39 to our nation’s debt.
If only taxpaying people have to pay for all of it, it comes to a total of $64,219.88 each as of today!
Maybe we need to spread the debt around in the spirit of fairness.
Or, maybe we just need to not ”reward” Obama for this.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
@NAN G – #11 – and the net result is that sooner or later you run out of ‘other people’s’ money….
Then what!?!??