Oh, Mitt, Mitt, Mitt . . . what are we going to do with you?
The entire exchange, lest anyone claim this comment is being taken out of context:
ROMNEY: You know, just let people get to know you better. The nice thing about what happened here in Florida is I got a chance to go across the state, meet with people. They heard what I am concerned about. They understand how I will be able to make things better. I think people want someone who not just throws an incendiary bomb from time to time but someone who actually knows how it takes to improve their life, get home values rising again, to get jobs again in this country, and to make sure when soldiers come home they have a job waiting for them. And make sure people who are retired don’t have to worry about what’s going to happen at the end of the week. This is a time people are worried. They’re frightened. They want someone who they have confidence in. And I believe I will be able to instill that confidence in the American people. And, by the way, I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.
O’BRIEN: All right. So I know I said last question, but I’ve got to ask you. You just said I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that?
ROMNEY: Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.
O’BRIEN: Got it. OK.
ROMNEY: The – the challenge right now – we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and – and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign – you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who cannot find work, folks who have kids that are getting ready to go to college. That – these are the people who’ve been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor. But the middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now, and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.
O’BRIEN: All right. Mitt Romney, congratulations to you on your big victory last night. Thanks for talking with us. appreciate it.
In a race where the president will be running as an all-out populist and fanning the flames of resentment and jealousy against the richest and most successful, this comment seems . . . problematic.
Perhaps the most dispiriting point in all of this is that Romney alludes to a whole bunch of defensible points in this cavalcade of trouble. He could point out that decades of the welfare state have shown us the limits of government efforts to lift up the “very poor.” He could echo Rick Santorum’s points that the most effective way to end poverty is to ensure the poor work, graduate high school, and get married before they have children. He could point out that the Great Recession has impacted middle-income Americans most severely because they had the most to lose; life under the poverty line in 2006 is not terribly different from under the poverty line in 2012. (How many “very poor” face foreclosure? How many “very poor” have lost their retirement savings? How many “very poor” have seen their small businesses fail?) He could point out that Obama has particularly failed to create opportunities for upward mobility, and that endlessly extending unemployment benefits and expanding the eligibility for food stamps is a Band-Aid solution at best, and only increases dependency on government assistance. He could point out that the entire philosophy of the welfare state tends to focus government efforts and resources on the poorest, most troubled, and most needing of help, and often neglects the concerns and needs of those who work hard and play by the rules.
But is there any reason to think Romney will say any of this? I noted a few days ago:
Avik Roy defends the work of Bain ten times better than the candidate himself. Romney’s entire argument against Gingrich’s work at Freddie Mac was based on the work of Tim Carney. Every day, I see better, more compelling arguments for Romney from outside the campaign from within the campaign.
This doesn’t have to be a negative-perception-reinforcing, “I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it” gaffe. But who believes that the Romney campaign has what it takes to turn the narrative around?
"I’m not concerned about the very poor...I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine." - Mitt Romney on January 31,2012
Anything else Mitt said either before, after or in-between those two sentences will be ignored by the media. Any explanation that tries to put that statement in context will be ignored by the media. The average independent or moderate voter will not be provided the proper context by the media.
The news soundbite that will be played over and over and over again on most TV and cable networks will be:
"I’m not concerned about the very poor...I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine." - Mitt Romney on January 31,2012
The soundbite that will be played over and over and over again in President Obama's class warfare re-election campaign commercials will be:
"I’m not concerned about the very poor...I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine." - Mitt Romney on January 31,2012
This gaffe effectively ends any chance Mitt Romney might have had to become President. Put a fork in him, he's done.
Well, Romney did a good job of turning the narrative around from SC to FL, so that's one point. Second, the kind of defense you wish he would mount is a bit more than can fit in your average 2 minute interview. Romney definitely put his foot in his mouth here, but I imagine he'll be able to pull through.
I'm not concerned about the very poor. A lot of Americans aren't. They really are taken care of--and it's a lot more than the very poor. It's obvious that the guy thinks very tactically. And at this point in our Nation's dreadful situation, perhaps that's what we need rather than a tubby pedant who has a myriad of ideas, all of which will cost you and I a great deal of money when we need to spend half of a decade eliminating our spendthrift ways.
Maybe we all should be looking at everything Obama says and take his stuff out of context (and in context).
Um, it's Obama that has a mainstream media army as big as the Chicoms so not sure how taking taking his comments out of context will ever become remotely operable.
The media will attempt to smother any record of anything he says that doesn't advance the cause of progressive socialism. Again.
We're not going to be able to do anything with him, Mr G. The best we can do is work to stock both houses of Congress with enough conservative votes to restrain him and the like-thinking republican congressional leadership from their progressive impulses and go-along to get-along appeasement.
My kids ask me lots of questions, and one of the toughest was in 2004 when my then six year old son asked my "why would anyone vote for John Kerry." While I could understand why people would vote against W, and would support the policies of the Democratic Party, Kerry himself didn't seem to have anything special to offer beyond being a Democrat. He didn't speak particularly well, he wasn't likable, he didn't seem to have very good political instincts, he hadn't done anything particularly noteworthy in the Senate, and there didn't seem to be anything about him that made him a better candidate than a generic Democratic Senator. I still don't understand how powerful people in the Democratic Party looked at the many governors and senators in their party and decided that he would make a good Presidential candidate.
Romney strikes me the same way. He's not likeable, he doesn't speak particularly well, doesn't have an inspiring life story, and his main accomplishment as governor is a huge negative. He just raises lots of money and uses it to crush his opponents.
Actually Romney's talents are dealing with difficult problems, and leading people to execute difficult solutions that make use of a company's (or governments) strengths while minimizing the harm from weaknesses.
That's not a visionary savior for American politics. But it's better than what everyone else is offering.
Rich,
You are so transparent. Not that it really matters much, but your bias against Romney is clear by the fact that any negative immediately appears on your blog and positives rarely if ever show up and when they do they are couched with negatives to be "balanced".
Now, I'm not complaining, but just saddened by this. I don't know why it is, but you have to ask yourself if you're helping the party or the principles you stand for. Romney is 100x better than George Bush ever was in terms of speaking and in terms of leadership.
Still, he's not a rhetorical champion. The people seem to imagine the President should be out converting souls to conservatism through the shear force of their rhetoric. News flash people! The USA will not change if we elect an outspoken, well-spoken, witty advocate for conservatism. The only thing will change is conservatives will get warm fuzzy feelings inside.
What Romney is and can be is a good leader who can actually help turn around various failed aspects of our government. If we want to win the culture war, neither Romney, Newt, or Santorum can do it. That can only be done as society itself changes, and then the leader elected can reflect our society; We can not possibly expect our leader to drive the cultural change, other than at the marginal case. Bill Clinton may have made oral sex more popular, but he surely didn't invent it and he was the reflection of our cultures innate desires for all things sex -- he can't be blamed for what was already inside us.
We need to get behind Romney and recognize the culture "wars" will take multiple generations and won't be overturned in an election. The best we can hope for is marginal change at the cultural level and dramatic change at the organizational competence level.
Romney does talk the talk when it comes to believing in America, etc. but you can only deliver so many platitudes before you have to get to action. It's the action where Romney will excel, because he has done so in the past. He will not be our political savior, but he can help people to recognize and trust in the pragmatic solutions Republicans have to offer -- which is to have the Federal Govt. involved in less of our lives and less of the economy.
"He could echo Rick Santorum’s points that the most effective way to end poverty is to ensure the poor work, graduate high school, and get married before they have children."
But, Gov. Romney didn't. He thought of safety nets and fixing them. That's why he's so proud of Romneycare.
Another thing that Mitt could do in response is to go after the media for distorting what he said and taking it out of context. It would help him in the next primaries.
I'm not so sure about this. What Romney said is probably what a very large percentage of the American people really believes: that the poor have a safety net (which we should fix where we need to), but that by fixating on the poor the Progressive agenda lowers the productivity and well-being of the great middle of the country which in turn reduces our ability to deal with all of our difficulties including the plight of the poor. "Enough about the poor for now. Let's get the whole country moving again, and then we can worry about the poor." Especially when programs allegedly helping the poor turn out to really benefit public service unions and crony capitalists.
You may respond that the media will drown this realization in leftist sentimentality, but maybe the People are smarter than we all think.
I could add that Ann Coulter did a reasonably good job of defending Romney's record in Mass as conservative, while Kathryn Jean Lopez did a yoeman like work defending his pro-life record. But as you ask, why is it up to them and not Mitt himself? One of our complaints about the Obama led media is how they are so willing to carry the Pres' water, and yet we put up a candidate who relies on NRO et al to do the same thing? Ann Coulter will not be at the debate to parry with Obama, Romney will and I worry that he is not showing himself to be up to the task, Romney will be matched against a candidate who gets a pass on all this stuff while he will get no quarter. Not feeling good about this election, no siree.
Jim ably points out Mitt's utter unfamiliarity with what conservatives have sought to impart with regards to a sensible, effective approach to social welfare programs and societal mores. Appalling. And I'm sure Newt or Rick should be able to ably contrast what Mitt said with their own real world accomplishment of Welfare reform.
What really struck me though, was the blatant narcissism. I mean we've gotten a sense of this previously when Mitt talks of his track record as a manager, but sentences like "They understand how I will be able to make things better." just scream of a man who's opinion of himself overwhelms what the job of president entails. Of course, he's got incredibly stiff competition with the former speaker in the race for most inflated ego, and God help us if/when he's nominated we''ll be treated to the Battle of the Titans when it comes to politicians with a sense of self at complete odds with the real function of the presidency.
Wow! I didn't think Romney could do the rope-a-dope technique.
First, it is the conservative types making some kind of fashion statement about romney insensitivites.
Second, it is the liberals.
Then, whammo when we least expect it, Romney goes into battle mode and explains the welfare system, how good the poor really are and how if the middle class get boosted the rest will follow. Well played today, Mr., er President, Romney.
This is another stupid red herring and I'm disgusted with NRO, a supposedly conservative website, for feeding the frenzy. He also said he's not concerned about the "very rich". Should they hang Mitt out to dry, too? Good grief, can a candidate say anything without it being pronounced, utterly out of context, to be a gaffe? This is a non-issue, but even conservative journalists feed on it, rather than ignoring it, which is what Mitt should do. Why defend something that isn't? Election campaigns are becoming nothing more than "Did you hear what he/she said today?" Now, compare this "gaffe" with the reasoned and well constructed moon colony oration. Come on, guys, get on with real politics. Stop wasting voters' time on meaningless, class warfare nonsense. Mitt did defend himself in the same interview. He's focusing on the middle class who've been hurt most in this terrible recession.. Does he have to continue to explain it? I "got it", just like O'Brien. Don't you?
FYI - I checked around a little: FoxNews doesn't mention it. CNN, without fanfare, has two headlines: "Romney defends remark about poor" and "Romney: Very poor have safety net". USA Today says nothing about it. It isn't an issue to anyone, liberal or conservative, except to NRO. Is something wrong here? Lately, the anti-Romney forces at NRO have combined to lie about, besmirch, and otherwise denigrate Romney and his campaign. They really hate him so badly, they, like many of their readers, would rather commit political and economic suicide than give him their support.
Again, because they can't find anything substantive to throw against him, Romney's enemies attempt to make something of nothing.
"I’m not concerned about the very poor...I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine." - Mitt Romney on January 31,2012
Anything else Mitt said either before, after or in-between those two sentences will be ignored by the media. Any explanation that tries to put that statement in context will be ignored by the media. The average independent or moderate voter will not be provided the proper context by the media.
The news soundbite that will be played over and over and over again on most TV and cable networks will be:
"I’m not concerned about the very poor...I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine." - Mitt Romney on January 31,2012
The soundbite that will be played over and over and over again in President Obama's class warfare re-election campaign commercials will be:
"I’m not concerned about the very poor...I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine." - Mitt Romney on January 31,2012
This gaffe effectively ends any chance Mitt Romney might have had to become President. Put a fork in him, he's done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWIshful thinking, Bob. You really are a sideshow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, Romney did a good job of turning the narrative around from SC to FL, so that's one point. Second, the kind of defense you wish he would mount is a bit more than can fit in your average 2 minute interview. Romney definitely put his foot in his mouth here, but I imagine he'll be able to pull through.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not concerned about the very poor. A lot of Americans aren't. They really are taken care of--and it's a lot more than the very poor. It's obvious that the guy thinks very tactically. And at this point in our Nation's dreadful situation, perhaps that's what we need rather than a tubby pedant who has a myriad of ideas, all of which will cost you and I a great deal of money when we need to spend half of a decade eliminating our spendthrift ways.
Maybe we all should be looking at everything Obama says and take his stuff out of context (and in context).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, it's Obama that has a mainstream media army as big as the Chicoms so not sure how taking taking his comments out of context will ever become remotely operable.
The media will attempt to smother any record of anything he says that doesn't advance the cause of progressive socialism. Again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe're not going to be able to do anything with him, Mr G. The best we can do is work to stock both houses of Congress with enough conservative votes to restrain him and the like-thinking republican congressional leadership from their progressive impulses and go-along to get-along appeasement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy kids ask me lots of questions, and one of the toughest was in 2004 when my then six year old son asked my "why would anyone vote for John Kerry." While I could understand why people would vote against W, and would support the policies of the Democratic Party, Kerry himself didn't seem to have anything special to offer beyond being a Democrat. He didn't speak particularly well, he wasn't likable, he didn't seem to have very good political instincts, he hadn't done anything particularly noteworthy in the Senate, and there didn't seem to be anything about him that made him a better candidate than a generic Democratic Senator. I still don't understand how powerful people in the Democratic Party looked at the many governors and senators in their party and decided that he would make a good Presidential candidate.
Romney strikes me the same way. He's not likeable, he doesn't speak particularly well, doesn't have an inspiring life story, and his main accomplishment as governor is a huge negative. He just raises lots of money and uses it to crush his opponents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually Romney's talents are dealing with difficult problems, and leading people to execute difficult solutions that make use of a company's (or governments) strengths while minimizing the harm from weaknesses.
That's not a visionary savior for American politics. But it's better than what everyone else is offering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFake controversy. Only RINO wine sippers are concerned.
Obama Tells Woman: "Interesting" Unemployed Husband Can't Find Job
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRich,
You are so transparent. Not that it really matters much, but your bias against Romney is clear by the fact that any negative immediately appears on your blog and positives rarely if ever show up and when they do they are couched with negatives to be "balanced".
Now, I'm not complaining, but just saddened by this. I don't know why it is, but you have to ask yourself if you're helping the party or the principles you stand for. Romney is 100x better than George Bush ever was in terms of speaking and in terms of leadership.
Still, he's not a rhetorical champion. The people seem to imagine the President should be out converting souls to conservatism through the shear force of their rhetoric. News flash people! The USA will not change if we elect an outspoken, well-spoken, witty advocate for conservatism. The only thing will change is conservatives will get warm fuzzy feelings inside.
What Romney is and can be is a good leader who can actually help turn around various failed aspects of our government. If we want to win the culture war, neither Romney, Newt, or Santorum can do it. That can only be done as society itself changes, and then the leader elected can reflect our society; We can not possibly expect our leader to drive the cultural change, other than at the marginal case. Bill Clinton may have made oral sex more popular, but he surely didn't invent it and he was the reflection of our cultures innate desires for all things sex -- he can't be blamed for what was already inside us.
We need to get behind Romney and recognize the culture "wars" will take multiple generations and won't be overturned in an election. The best we can hope for is marginal change at the cultural level and dramatic change at the organizational competence level.
Romney does talk the talk when it comes to believing in America, etc. but you can only deliver so many platitudes before you have to get to action. It's the action where Romney will excel, because he has done so in the past. He will not be our political savior, but he can help people to recognize and trust in the pragmatic solutions Republicans have to offer -- which is to have the Federal Govt. involved in less of our lives and less of the economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He could echo Rick Santorum’s points that the most effective way to end poverty is to ensure the poor work, graduate high school, and get married before they have children."
But, Gov. Romney didn't. He thought of safety nets and fixing them. That's why he's so proud of Romneycare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother thing that Mitt could do in response is to go after the media for distorting what he said and taking it out of context. It would help him in the next primaries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not so sure about this. What Romney said is probably what a very large percentage of the American people really believes: that the poor have a safety net (which we should fix where we need to), but that by fixating on the poor the Progressive agenda lowers the productivity and well-being of the great middle of the country which in turn reduces our ability to deal with all of our difficulties including the plight of the poor. "Enough about the poor for now. Let's get the whole country moving again, and then we can worry about the poor." Especially when programs allegedly helping the poor turn out to really benefit public service unions and crony capitalists.
You may respond that the media will drown this realization in leftist sentimentality, but maybe the People are smarter than we all think.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI could add that Ann Coulter did a reasonably good job of defending Romney's record in Mass as conservative, while Kathryn Jean Lopez did a yoeman like work defending his pro-life record. But as you ask, why is it up to them and not Mitt himself? One of our complaints about the Obama led media is how they are so willing to carry the Pres' water, and yet we put up a candidate who relies on NRO et al to do the same thing? Ann Coulter will not be at the debate to parry with Obama, Romney will and I worry that he is not showing himself to be up to the task, Romney will be matched against a candidate who gets a pass on all this stuff while he will get no quarter. Not feeling good about this election, no siree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim ably points out Mitt's utter unfamiliarity with what conservatives have sought to impart with regards to a sensible, effective approach to social welfare programs and societal mores. Appalling. And I'm sure Newt or Rick should be able to ably contrast what Mitt said with their own real world accomplishment of Welfare reform.
What really struck me though, was the blatant narcissism. I mean we've gotten a sense of this previously when Mitt talks of his track record as a manager, but sentences like "They understand how I will be able to make things better." just scream of a man who's opinion of himself overwhelms what the job of president entails. Of course, he's got incredibly stiff competition with the former speaker in the race for most inflated ego, and God help us if/when he's nominated we''ll be treated to the Battle of the Titans when it comes to politicians with a sense of self at complete odds with the real function of the presidency.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow! I didn't think Romney could do the rope-a-dope technique.
First, it is the conservative types making some kind of fashion statement about romney insensitivites.
Second, it is the liberals.
Then, whammo when we least expect it, Romney goes into battle mode and explains the welfare system, how good the poor really are and how if the middle class get boosted the rest will follow. Well played today, Mr., er President, Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseComments that help sink the ship:
"There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe...!"
"He just told you he won't raise your taxes...I just did!"
"I am not very concerned about the very poor".
Comments that put wind in the sails:
"There you go again!"
"I will help them find a job, then help them get a better job, then help them OWN the job!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is another stupid red herring and I'm disgusted with NRO, a supposedly conservative website, for feeding the frenzy. He also said he's not concerned about the "very rich". Should they hang Mitt out to dry, too? Good grief, can a candidate say anything without it being pronounced, utterly out of context, to be a gaffe? This is a non-issue, but even conservative journalists feed on it, rather than ignoring it, which is what Mitt should do. Why defend something that isn't? Election campaigns are becoming nothing more than "Did you hear what he/she said today?" Now, compare this "gaffe" with the reasoned and well constructed moon colony oration. Come on, guys, get on with real politics. Stop wasting voters' time on meaningless, class warfare nonsense. Mitt did defend himself in the same interview. He's focusing on the middle class who've been hurt most in this terrible recession.. Does he have to continue to explain it? I "got it", just like O'Brien. Don't you?
FYI - I checked around a little: FoxNews doesn't mention it. CNN, without fanfare, has two headlines: "Romney defends remark about poor" and "Romney: Very poor have safety net". USA Today says nothing about it. It isn't an issue to anyone, liberal or conservative, except to NRO. Is something wrong here? Lately, the anti-Romney forces at NRO have combined to lie about, besmirch, and otherwise denigrate Romney and his campaign. They really hate him so badly, they, like many of their readers, would rather commit political and economic suicide than give him their support.
Again, because they can't find anything substantive to throw against him, Romney's enemies attempt to make something of nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Again, because they can't find anything substantive to throw against him"
Romneycare
"I'm not Reagan-Bush, I'm an independent".
"I will fight for a woman's right to choose".
"It's not worth getting angry over"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Oh, Mitt, Mitt, Mitt… what are we going to do with you?"
Lose the election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse