Nailing the coffin: Mitt Romney must fight smarter if he is to emerge victorious

We’re not saying you heard it here first with regards to Mitt’s loss – but he is in an increasingly untenable position, and the situation isn’t getting any better for him

They're coming at you both ways, Mitt
The Commentator
On 25 January 2012 13:44

Last night President Obama addressed the American people in his State of the Union speech. His tone at times was more Arthur Scargill than President of the United States as he hit out at tax avoidance and ‘American values’ – which just so happened to be his idea of American values.

Obama consistently, and increasingly limply calls for his ‘fairness’ agenda to bridge the partisan divide in Congress, but when the two camps have legitimately differing ideas of what American values are, he can’t expect to command any authority in this regard. The President ostensibly attempts to ‘rise above the debate’ and to ‘unite Americans’ but his snide, partisan attacks undermine this tactic time and again.

Last night was no different. His insistence over taxation issues – specifically singling out millionaires, juxtaposing their tax payments to those of their secretary’s  – was a thinly veiled, if veiled at all, attack on Mitt Romney and the revelations about his astoundingly low tax contributions.

While Mitch Daniels, who offered the Republican response to the State of the Union, was employing hyperbole when he called Obama’s speech ‘pro-poverty’, he would have struck a chord with the electorate in stating: “No feature of the Obama presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favour with some Americans by castigating others."

On Israel and Iran, Mr. Obama would have curried favour with those who fear a Republican response to Tea Party calls for defence spending and American retreating to within her borders – calls most notably made by Presidential candidate, Ron Paul. His ‘iron clad’ commitment to Israel’s security will linger in the air as the AIPAC policy conference looms large.

Obama will want to avoid another 2011 incident whereby he was castigated by the pro-Israel lobby for his fast and loose use of the 1967 lines terminology. Benjamin Netanyahu went to the US Congress last year and slapped Obama around something chronic.

But it’s fair to say that while some of Obama’s foreign outings have led to embarrassment – like the early trip to China, the heel-dragging over Libya and the contretemps over ‘extra-judicial’ killings, i.e. Anwar al-Awlaki – his Presidency has thus far not been a complete failure in this area. He got Bin Laden, drew down from Iraq and is now starring an increasingly belligerent Iran in the face. The Republicans will have a hard time attacking him in this area and the public don’t have much of an appetite for foreign affairs at this critical economic juncture for America.

It seems Newt and Obama have a common enemy: Mitt Romney. With Newt’s attacks on Romney’s ‘vulture capitalism’ and Obama swinging the ‘fairer taxation’ hammer, Mitt has plenty of work to do in avoiding attacks from the left within his own party and from the President. The only way he can seriously do this is to change the debate. But how can a Republican candidate running on a ‘let’s fix the economy’ ticket avoid the debate about fairness and his record as a businessman and job-creator? Well… he can’t.

We’re not saying you heard it here first with regards to Mitt’s loss – but he is in an increasingly untenable position, and the situation isn’t getting any better for him.

Follow The Commentator on Twitter and 'Like' us on Facebook

blog comments powered by Disqus