GAME CHANGE IS AFOOT. Everything is going to be totally different after the presidential candidates debate this evening, and here in the PostScript bunker we can hardly sit still. Many of the things we know right now will be wrong, in just a few short hours! There will be all 43 undecided Ohio voters held in a hot room with Wolf Blitzer until they confess their real double-secret no-give-backs plans to vote! If the Libertarian candidate dodges security and streaks across the stage, he automatically gets to be secretary of transportation! It’s almost unendurable to live in this same ol’ game, knowing it will so soon be changed.
Which is why, in the hours leading up to incipient game change, the opinionated like to guess what it will be and how the various parts of the the game will be changed. That is what Matt Miller does in his column today, wondering what would happen if Mitt Romney said, tonight, to microphones, that he might actually raise tax rates on rich people who make their income from capital gains.
<sound of thousands of Twitter accounts going to Caps Lock>
RIGHT?? Wouldn’t that be AMAZING?! It would be, Miller writes, Romney’s Sister Souljah moment, making him a bulletproof moderate.
Commenters throw a little cold water:
Matt, The electorate is set right now, nothing will change people’s votes, its more a matter of which machine can get more people out to vote on election day.
And FORWARNED thinks we would all know Romney’s October surprise already:
Funny--this is exactly what we know Romney is going to do once he’s President. He’s too pragmatic not to recognize what we all know; the Clinton/Gingrich tax rates enhanced economic growth by balancing the budget.
But mostly they want to join in. OMG what will make us OMG?
Pathfinder12 has a plan:
Obama should go to the debate prepared like this: Moderator asks Romney a question. He responds. Doesn’t matter what he says, even if it’s a shot at the President.
Moderator asks the President to respond. Obama holds up an iPad and hits the play button. Video of Romney saying the exact opposite of how he just answered is viewed by everyone. The President says, “Mr. Romney, are you sure about that answer? You seem to disagree with yourself.” Obama could do this on every question and then provide his own well planned response. It will take the wind out of any answer Romney gives.
jfv123 has another surprise up Romney’s sleeve:
Romney can truthfully say that he used tax savings to make large charitable contributions. That’s a good choice. So, Romney can truthfully say he is Pro-Choice.
jimb games Miller’s situation out even further:
Yes, if Romney said what Miller writes, the Governor would win the presidency. And the GOP might well also win the Senate while, as expected, retaining the House. So if Romney maintained this position, he would be proposing it while the GOP Congress went ahead with legislation that those of wealth and power paid to get-- i.e., big tax cuts for the wealthy. And, alas, Romney, lacking back bone, would acquiesce.
tony_in_Durham_NC wants moderation to be a double-edged sword:
I’d like to see President Obama point out that House Republicans won’t be able to work with a moderate like Romney any more than they did with a moderate like himself.
I’d like to see the President call Romney an honest man and remind America that Romney called himself a severe conservative.
<Sound of Twitter exploding>