George Stephanopoulos pointed to a recent column by Charles Krauthammer, which advised Romney to 'go large.' In it, he wrote:
For six months, he's been matching Obama small ball for small ball. A hit-and-run critique here, a slogan-of-the-week there. His only momentum came when he chose Paul Ryan and seemed ready to engage on the big stuff: Medicare, entitlements, tax reform, national solvency, a restructured welfare state. Yet he has since retreated to the small and safe.
When you're behind, however, safe is fatal. Even his counterpunching has gone miniature. Obama has successfully painted Romney as an out-of-touch, unfeeling plutocrat whose only interest is to cut taxes for the rich. Romney has complained in interviews that it's not true.
'Do we need a bigger, bolder campaign from Mitt Romney?' Stephanopoulos asked.
'I think what he need is a big and bold performance on Wednesday night,' Christie replied. 'And that's what he's gonna give us. I have absolute confidence in that.'
The ideas have been there, he said, but there's 'been a lot of filtering' going on. 'I'm not going to sit here and complain about coverage of the campaign because, as a candidate, if you do that you're losing. But what I will tell you that this is the first moment when the American people are going to see these two guys side by side laying out their vision unfiltered. I think that's going to be a powerful moment for Mitt Romney. And I think folks like Charles Krauthammer will be happy on Thursday morning, certainly happier than they are now.
Asked whether he believes the polls have been skewed against Romney, Christie replied, 'I don't buy that.' Polls are inherently imperfect, he said, but there's no 'concerted effort to skew the polls against Mitt Romney.'
Take a look, via ABC:
-
Good man.
-
Only idiot baggers believe the polls are skewed and Christie ain't no bagger.
He also threw Akin under the bus and then said 'If you're complaining about the media coverage, you're losing'.
Yup. He is the opposite of a bagger alright.
-
Who is this RINO?
Them ain't the talking points. -
Christie wants willard to lose so he can run in 2016
-
Excommunicate the Heretic NOW!!
-
Christie spews talking points through the whole interview then gives one reasonable answer about the polls and the media says 'isn't he great because he speaks his mind?''What a bunch of nonsense from Bully Boy Christie..
-
A reminder that as keynote speaker at the RNC Chris Christie talked almost exclusively about himself, before finally mentioning Mitt Romney after about twenty minutes into it.
Kristie Kreme, 2016.
-
wrong thread
-
I'll sign a petition for Obama to go on Wallce, when Romney goes on Maddow.
-
Here's the problem with that scenario: after Romney loses, the far right
wing of the GOP is going to push even harder for a teavangelical purist
(like a Ryan) in 2016. So-called moderates like Christie ' a guy who
thought a Mooslim could serve as a judge! ' won't get out of the Iowa
caucuses alive. -
He's the perfect spokesman for Romney. Our unemployment rate here in New Jersey is now at 9.8%. And since he's not wingnutty enough, he's not going to get the nomination in 2016. Oh, and my sympathies go to the chair he's sitting his fat ass on!
-
Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com has dealt with this 'skewing' nonsense by making the simple point that party ID is in fact a fluid commodity, properly determined as such by the voter being polled and not the pollster. There's a particularly large percentage of self-ID'd 'Independents' this go-round, but pollsters have learned over time that there's no practical distinction between self-ID'd partisans and leaners, so when the voter being polled self-IDs as 'leaning D' or 'leaning R', they get recorded for the only IMPORTANT component, being how they intend to vote.
Whether this means that Obama has succeeded in 'winning' over some Indies or that Romney has lost them is irrelevant: what matters is 1. if they are likely to vote and 2. who they intend to cast their vote for.
-
Nah, he's probably their best chance for 2016. He's just getting warmed up.
-
It certainly will help him to solve his dilemma about whether to stand for re-election, because if he does that and LOSES, which is a distinct possibility with how crappy and vulnerable his stewardship has been (Turning down the new tunnel was completely nutso, particularly from a job creation perspective.), his 'brand' is going to take a bad beating.
-
That will guarantee defeat. Assuming that the country is out of this mess by 2016, then trying to make an argument that neoconservatives would be a good thing for the country would be impossible.
Moderation is all the Republicans have left, if they intend to govern again. I believe the party will split, and it will happen soon after election day.
-
Christie is correct in that the debates will be a powerful moment for Romney. Romney is going to win the debate. Romney supporters will get pumped. Indy's and Undecideds will get to see the human side of Mitt, for the perhaps the first time. They will see Obama's blustering attempts to explain away his failures with the economy. They will learn Mitt's vision of how to get America back on track.Obama's fanbots, including the many here on Mediaite, will blame Obama's loss on that he didn't have time to prepare. Yeah, right. He's been too busy campaigning. For the past 4 years.Go, Mitt Go!
-
And you still believe in the Easter bunny' what a load of poop you spew.
-
I agree, but don't expect that moderation to come about any time soon. I still think that while the split would be a great thing for the party ' and the country ' there's a lot more vicious infighting yet to be had.
-
You obviously don't really understand what Mittens needs to accomplish in a debate. The 'I'll have to tell you after the election crap' will kill him in and of itself. People tune in to debates for answers. The only thing that could even come close to helping him would be to provide very specific solutions, and even at that, the President can pretty much just ask him what took him so long.
Then there's the tax returns which people still care about.
Also the 47% remark will have to be explained on live TV.
I think you are overly optimistic on what miracles Mittens can pull off.
-
Better post than mine. Less long winded. +1
-
Christie will put on a show for 2016, but people will never go for his bullying tactics or his fatness'He is screwing the people over in New Jersey with housing money, and will be lucky to be reelected'.Didn't he also screw up some education money in the beginning of his term'He is all talk, when his reel of gaffes are shown later, he will be laughed out of a job'
-
I can only hope so. The longer they fight, the more time we have to actually get work done.
-
He's still better than Ryan. Ryan has already been pegged as a liar. Can't overcome that.
-
'No 'Concerted Effort' To Skew Polls Against Romney!' Chris Christie
'Finally a dose of reality from someone who can at least admit freely that Romney's Campaign is doing very poorly indeed!
-
Running for office for 6 years and without a plan isn't going to magically show up on Wednesday. Mitt the Twitt and Lyin' Paul Ryan are dumb and dumber, Bush 3.0
-
They're all pushing pretty hard now!
If that is the case and scenario then the current GOP could really relegate themselves to insignificance for decades!
-
Christie needs to shed 100 pounds by 2016 to get the nomination
-
You see invisible men in empty chairs.
-
'Polls are inherently imperfect, ''
Exactly, given how relatively close and 'imperfect' polls have been the only one that counts is the one on a coming Tuesday in November
See ya then'
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar