Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEzra Klein : When being vague backfires
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/when-being-vague-backfires/When being vague backfires
Posted by Ezra Klein on September 10, 2012 at 11:51 am
Mitt Romney had a kind of a strange weekend. He went on NBCs Meet the Press and articulated pretty much the same position hes always had on Obamacare. He got off Meet the Press and found himself in the middle of a firestorm over why hed changed his position on Obamacare.
The problem for Romney is that hes been trying to articulate a position on this issue thats too clever by much more than half.
snip//
So Romney has been playing a little trick. Heres what he told David Gregory:
There are a number of things that I like in health-care reform that Im going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with preexisting conditions can get coverage.
To most of the world, that sounded like Romney was saying he was going to keep Obamacares protections for people with preexisting conditions. And enough reporters know Obamacare well enough to know that you cant keep those protections without keeping quite a bit of the law. Thats why people thought Romneys position had changed.
But to folks whove been following Romneys game of three-card monte on this issue, it was clear he was just being strategically vague in describing his position: Romney has long said he would protect people with continuous coverage from being discriminated against due to preexisting conditions. But this is something that the law mostly does now, and that would leave 89 million Americans out in the cold.
Romneys play here was obvious enough: By being a little fuzzy about what, exactly, he was proposing, he could sound like he had a way to protect people with preexisting conditions while still saying he wants to repeal Obamacare. Hed get the best of both worlds. But the problem with trying to strategically confuse people is that you actually confuse them, and thats what happened here. Rather than coming away thinking Romney had a secret plan to protect people with preexisting conditions, they went away thinking Romney had a secret plan to protect Obamacare.
Thats happening to Romney a lot lately. On taxes, for instance, hes said that his plan wont cost any money, that it wont cut the tax burden on the rich, but that it will nevertheless be a huge cut in tax rates. When asked how hed do all that, hes said hell explain later.
The theory, again, was clear: Romney wanted credit for deficit reduction and for tax cuts, and he didnt want to be seen helping out the rich. But as people got more and more confused as to how the numbers would add up, and then as independent analyses made clear they didnt add up, Romney ended up taking fire for cutting taxes on the rich, blowing up the deficit, and refusing to release details. Rather than cleverly allowing him to reap the rewards on all sides of the tax issue, his vagueness has left him taking fire on all sides of it
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1580 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (9)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ezra Klein : When being vague backfires (Original Post)
babylonsister
Sep 2012
OP
His WP job depends on getting Andrea Saul et al to return his calls.
ProgressiveEconomist
Sep 2012
#6
ejbr
(5,856 posts)1. k & r n/t
TroyD
(4,551 posts)2. It'd call it Being Dishonest n/t
babylonsister
(171,036 posts)3. Ezra has a problem with that; I'm hoping he comes around. nt
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)4. He pulls his punches on some shows on MSNBC. On others, he is more "liberal."
I'm sure you can guess which ones I am talking about...
babylonsister
(171,036 posts)5. I just don't think he wants to jeopardize anything by saying something
he doesn't feel he has to; he knows, though.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)6. His WP job depends on getting Andrea Saul et al to return his calls.
That would not happen if he called Romney a liar--before the Boston campaign office shuts down.