I suppose I'll go with the GDP numbers as my contribution for something that matters, although it came in at expectations and therefore doesn't change anything (either economically or politically). Still, sure, it matters.
The obvious one for doesn't matter would be Mitt's fumbled trip to London. Highly amusing, but very unlikely to survive even a full week.
What do you have? What do you think mattered this week?
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The ongoing drought in the South and Midwest.
ReplyDeleteHow about #NBCfail?
ReplyDeleteI'd take a stab at arguing that the London thing matters a little. Romney is a candidate who is having trouble coming up with a plausible rationale for his candidacy. Everyone says that his candidacy flows from two tributaries, his tenure as governor and his tenure at Bain. Both of those subjects are troublesome for him. So his work for the Salt Lake Olympics and conceivably, foreign policy might have been areas where he could reassure conservative constituencies sorely looking for a way to fall in love with this guy -- but now it's more difficult for him to argue that he would be a "steady hand" in foreign policy, and even the Olympics thing is slightly tainted. I don't think any votes will deterministically move anywhere because of London, but it keeps him off balance an extra week, may influence his decision making on future attacks on Obama, and so forth. These things may matter later on.
ReplyDeleteI realize I sound like someone trying to convince Bill James that clutch ability exists, and I don't like being in that position. But insofar as Romney wanted to achieve something during this visit, and clearly is having trouble doing so -- it doesn't seem rash to argue that there's some meaning there.
What we don't know is how sui generis this election is. The electorate is split down the middle, and the moderate Democrat in the White House is presented by a massive propaganda machine as a fire-breathing Maoist. FOX is the entity that makes this London stuff "not matter," and there hasn't been a good analogue to FOX in recent eras.
The purpose for Romney's trip was to show someone without any foreign-policy experience at least hobnobbing with some foreign leaders. (To much of the public, that constitutes foreign-policy experience.) And the Olympics, of course, is one topic related to the outside world that he's supposed to know about, and so he probably wanted to say something that sounded profound. So to have that go badly isn't a good thing for him, even if it isn't going to tip the scales. There's still more to come, of course, and we'll just have to see how that goes. The most curious thing about his Olympic comments, however, is that now, of all times, Romney finds himself uncontrollably blurting out things just because they're true.
ReplyDeleteAt least one "dog" is no longer "not barking."
ReplyDeletehttp://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure
Fair enough, although we'll have to see whether it comes anywhere close to passing -- I'm guessing ~35 votes, but we'll see.
DeleteNext time I do it, though, I'll word it a bit more carefully.
It probably has little chance -- although, after the NDAA passed, I wouldn't say any of our liberties are totally safe. We need an NRA for the rest of the Constitution.
DeleteIt's called the ACLU.
DeleteThe ACLU is great, but it doesn't have anything like the NRA's political clout. I don't think there's anyone in Congress who worries about losing their seat because of the ACLU.
DeleteSad but true. The NRA has money and mobilizable members, the two great currencies of politics.
DeleteThe WSJ/NBC poll made it impossible for pundits to continue talking about a struggling Obama campaign or a smart Romney campaign. Given the problems with the Romney campaign, unless he gets on the ball soon, the GOP will have to do something to make sure their core voters come to the polls. John McCain was in this same position four years ago. Remember what he did? (hint: the VP pick)
ReplyDeleteThe conventional wisdom is that foreign affairs won't be an issue this year. I doubt that's completely true, and of course events could change that big time. So Romney's spectacular fumbling in the UK could turn out to matter. That he lost all respect from our easiest ally, and they weren't shy about their disdain--that has to be significant.
ReplyDeleteBut on what is really going to matter, I'm seconding the drought, which got measurably worse this week and at the very least is likely to mean higher prices in the fall.
One more thing: the suit to stop voter suppression in Pennsylvania began on Wednesday. I think it will be successful, because of the PA constitution. So maybe it doesn't matter until the courts finish with it, but it did start in earnest last week.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree that the GDP numbers are the biggest thing, along with voter suppression. Both have the potential to shift the election to Romney, depending how the rest of the campaigns play out. GDP also has some long term implications regardless of who is elected.
ReplyDeleteI think the Romney London fiasco matters in the context of the Right Wing Media response. You've all no doubt seen this bit from Charles Krauthammer and some random Fox eye candy where the panel sighs, shakes their heads and wonders what in the world was Romney thinking?
ReplyDeleteNot sure about the others on the panel, but its fairly obvious that Krauthammer knew exactly what Romney was attempting. We all do. Romney is overseas kicking off his "Ass-kicking GWB II" tour, with his 'unprepared' jibe an unmistakable reference to the Brits having to call home soldiers from Afghanistan cause they weren't ready to enable a GWB-esque security state for the Olympics. That, obviously, is what Romney meant - which by the way, was no "gaffe" from Romney, at least not in the "you didn't build that/cling to guns and religion" sense. Romney's comments had a prefab feel to them - surely part of his new tough guy framing.
All of which, no doubt, Fox News surely knows. How in the world do the Krauthammers not spin this as "Sorry wussy Brits, we love all you've done for us, but if you're gonna hang with cowboys like GWB and WMR, you gotta be better at the security state thing"? Something is up over at Fox News wrt Romney. Worth watching over the upcoming weeks and months.
I don't follow that, CSH. If this was an intentional jab at the Brits in order to placate the right at home--and Fox was in on it--then why did Krauthammer and all the rest spin it as a failure?
DeleteScott, that question is apt; indeed I have no insight other than to say such behavior is outside the norm for Fox News - and thus, perhaps, reflective of something important in the Presidential race.
Delete"...an unmistakable reference to the Brits having to call home soldiers from Afghanistan cause they weren't ready to enable a GWB-esque security state for the Olympics."
ReplyDeleteDo you mean they pulled out of Afghanistan so they could afford security for the Olympics?
Not so much "afford" (I don't need to tell a libertarian that no politician, these days, speaks of the security state in an "affordability" context). A better verb might be "facilitate" - in which case, yes, that's pretty much what I mean. We all know that, don't we? Certainly Krauthammer and friends knew that, didn't they?
DeleteOk, now I understand. I hadn't read about it until now:
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/world/europe/british-military-to-further-bolster-olympics-security.html?pagewanted=all