Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LordofHats wrote:The impression is that even while running for president Romney can't control his own people, which doesn't endear him to the idea of him doing the same while running the country.

We've also already seen Obama trounce one opponent who couldn't maintain a consistent campaign message, or control his people.

Jihadin wrote:Except you don't do it a another country war memorial to their fallen.

Sure you do, that's why you're there. Its not like Romney didn't know he was going to be followed by the travelling press corps, they fly on the same plane and work off an itinerary published by the Romney campaign. If he wanted to pay his respects without the media circus, he could have arranged it. Of course, he didn't want that, he wanted a media event, either of the sort described by Ahtman or one which a top aide handled terribly. In this industry going off message to this degree is gets you fired.

That said, this trip has largely been characterized by Romney's unwillingness to engage with the travelling press, which leaves me suspect as to the competence of his staff. Its not that hard to draw up prepared answers. Though like Ahtman I wouldn't be surprised if this were a ploy to drum up support among ardent conservatives.

Lynata wrote:
The only exception I would allow to this "rule" is when said politician has already expressed some sort of honest interest in something before he became influential, so there's at least a chance that he or she might genuinely feel something on the topic.

Its a bit more than that. People in Mr. Romney's position have large men wearing black suits with underarm holsters to ensure that, if they want privacy, they get it. Moreover, so does the mayor of Warsaw. He could have publicly asked for privacy, or at least no questions, and then let come what may. If the press fails to comply, they just look like donkey-caves.

Lynata wrote: Most of them are excellent actors, but I think at times you can actually see whose face behind the mask is uglier by how patronising or arrogant (etc) they appear, or how they react to "unscheduled" events.
Anyhow, in this day and age, nobody should be fooled by baby-kissing anymore. Unfortunately, reality looks somewhat different.

Actually the subtle use of patronizing arrogance is an excellent way to make someone else look like a fool. Make them think you're insulting them, without doing so explicitly, and you'll come out even at worst; and likely come out on top if they crack.

Ahtman wrote:No one ever lost points with the right by attacking the press. If one were truly cynical, they might think they dragged the press there after avoiding question for a long time just to yell at them and ingratiate themselves to certain groups by creating the appearance of a) caring about Poland's soldiers and b) telling off the press. But only if one were truly cynical would they consider such things.

Delightful. I had not considered that possibility. As evinced by some of the comments here, it's certainly not hurting him with his base.

Has Obama answer questions near the Tomb of the Unknown? He doesn't because A. The Tomb Guard is authorized to enforce the respect and honor accorded for the Tomb regardless of the individual status. B. Its very bad form to use the Tomb as a backdrop amongst the veterans who are still alive to today

Jihadin wrote:Has Obama answer questions near the Tomb of the Unknown? He doesn't because A. The Tomb Guard is authorized to enforce the respect and honor accorded for the Tomb regardless of the individual status. B. Its very bad form to use the Tomb as a backdrop amongst the veterans who are still alive to today

So, what you're saying here is Obama shows more taste and class then Romney by making sure he situates his photo-ops in appropriate places?

Let me go further. What President and/or Candidate have staged public question and answer session with reporters at the Tomb of the Unknown or another Memorial of the same caliber. None. There's a time and a place either can do it. Since Romeny hasn't gone to great length to to do a press conference with the media why is it then a sin for him for not having one near the Polish War Memorial.

I'm going to post a link and lets all stay in the shallow end and not go into the deep in for this. As in example

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/rachel-bjorklund/obama%E2%80%99s-memorial-day-photo-op-blocks-families-vets-from-d-c-vietnam-memorial-wall-for-7-hours/

Are you saying that Obama set up a public Q&A at the Tomb of the Unknowns?

Source?

That article was bleeding so much right wing agenda and Obama hate that I couldn't even finish reading it...

Lets stay with this for a second. I want to see this Q&A session that was held at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

You're sure you don't mean laying a wreath, and then maybe giving a speech elsewhere?

Why I say to stay shallow on it. Why would anyone open themselves up for an attack on that for either side Ouze no one has done a Q&A at the Tomb of the Unknown or another country war memorial because. Who would be a first is anyone guess. That neither side is doing it is a great thing


Um I'm been pretty much sticking with Q&A with the press at a memorial the entire thread. Where did I lose you?

I think he's just grasping pathetically at straws because he knows how weak his argument is.

Jihadin wrote:

And saying kiss my ass at a soldier's grave?

Romney didn't say that. His Press Secretary did

For the record, I agree. I have no real dog in this fight, I just think his PS was astoundingly unprofessional. Tearing this guy a new one doesn't even begin to describe what I'd do to this chump if I was Romney.

I mean, god****. You're running for POTUS with something like 14 or 15 weeks left before the election, and your PS goes and curses at your own press corps at a staged event, with reporters from conservative-leaning media outlets in the bunch? Again, it's like he doesn't even want Romney to win. Maybe he's a Dem plant or something.

The whole purpose of junkets like this is to show the candidate in a presidential light, interacting with foreign leaders, etc. It's especially important for a guy like Romney who isn't perceived to be strong on foreign affairs. And I think it's safe to say that it's been a bad trip so far. His words (word?) in the UK really weren't that bad...the problem was that they were said at a time when patriotism and pride were running very high there.

So Romney's a little tone-deaf. Fine, that doesn't have to be a fatal flaw and doesn't mean he'd be a bad president. You can work with that if you have good handlers and advisors around him. It's just becoming clearer that probably isn't the case. Why in the blazes would you be keeping even the Fox reporters at arm's length to the point where they're complaining about it? Do you actually want to win? I can't imagine the GOP is happy about stuff like this.

Ouze wrote:

Ahtman wrote:No one ever lost points with the right by attacking the press. If one were truly cynical, they might think they dragged the press there after avoiding question for a long time just to yell at them and ingratiate themselves to certain groups by creating the appearance of a) caring about Poland's soldiers and b) telling off the press. But only if one were truly cynical would they consider such things.

Delightful. I had not considered that possibility. As evinced by some of the comments here, it's certainly not hurting him with his base.

Always a possibility, although I tend to think if it was staged, you wouldn't privately call them later to apologize. If you apologized at all, you probably do it publicly and half-heartedly, making a little show of it that still points the finger at the press being the bad guys.

Sounds like the guy was having a bad day or something. Not that I blame him. I'm not a big fan of reporters as it is.

His words in Israel were even worse. I'm surprised someone didn't bust a cap in his ass.

Melissia wrote:His words in Israel were even worse. I'm surprised someone didn't bust a cap in his ass.

Because he was in Israel and supporting the Israeli's
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/30/why_do_mormons_love_israel
This is a nice tidbit talking on some further motives behind his visit to Israel

wowsmash wrote:Sounds like the guy was having a bad day or something.

I agree, but you aren't allowed to have those in that job at this point in a campaign. Your person in that role needs to be a friggin' iceman.

friggin' iceman

No one can be the "Iceman" except Iceman himself

Jihadin wrote:Um I'm been pretty much sticking with Q&A with the press at a memorial the entire thread. Where did I lose you?

After re-reading what you wrote, you didn't. I misunderstood what you said earlier; my mistake.

Jihadin wrote:

friggin' iceman

No one can be the "Iceman" except Iceman himself

Fiery the angels fell...

Ugh...20 years different

Frazzled wrote:

Wasn't he convicted of something he did while in office?

Nah. Roemer was squeeky clean.

Edwin Edwards... not so much. Google him. The man is a fething legend!

Thats nothing. I'm related to Earl Long. Now there's a proper Louisiana governor.

*tips cap*

Well played, sir.