Jennifer Rubin (naturally) thinks the reason Mitt Romney is losing is that he can't get his message through the "media filter" put up by the evil liberal press (of which she is so not a member); however, she has a brilliant idea for how Romney can deal with this:
He can start with something he did earlier in the year and then inexplicably dropped: a major speech, once a week, on a single topic.... Give these speeches outside the Beltway, in the swing states.Genius! For instance, he could be completely candid and forthcoming about his economic plans:
He and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) often talk about two visions, but there is a need to explain what voters' lives would be like in each of them. What does the economy look like under Obama's tax-hike scenario and what does it look like under Romney's tax-reform scenario? What does an energy worker get under Obama's scheme (complete with Environmental Protection Agency legislation, denial of the Keystone XL pipeline, etc.), and what does he get under Romney's push for North American energy independence? Simply saying that you have a different view and that the other guy's for more government really doesn't do it.So Romney should spell out in detail exactly how life will be different for ordinary voters if he's president. Tell them the whole truth!
Well, not the whole truth:
That doesn't necessarily mean drowning the audience in minutiae. The press insists that Romney must tell us all the base broadeners in his tax plan. He's got good reason not to, according to aides. They believe they have offered as much detail as the Simpson-Bowles report and that providing more detail would unnecessarily constrict him from reaching a deal with Congress.Oh. So Romney should "explain what voters' lives would be like" if he becomes president -- but, y'know, leave a little mystery. Voters should know about all the wonderful freedom-y, reform-y things they'll get, but if voters want to know about "base broadening" -- i.e., the collecting of more taxes from more ordinary Americans after the elimination or reduction of tax breaks for the middle class and less well off -- well, Mitt shouldn't spoil the surprise, right?
Brilliant, Jennifer.
