"I really don’t get why everybody is running for the fainting couch over Romney’s $10,000 bet. "

This is a fine question as far as it goes. The real perversity is that the political class and the commentariat is under the impression that they should be taken so seriously that each and every utterance of their camp should be taken to heart, analyzed microscopically, weighed in every available dimension.

That, folks, is an attitude that cannot be adequately conveyed by the term "hubris". Have we simply lost our moorings, or is the truth darker, that we have as a nation made a god of government?

CAPTCHA: "shakers and movers"

I'm my corporation and my corporation is me. I pay my taxes through my corporation, and when my corporation says or does something, it is representing me. According to the Census Bureau, 60%+ of incorporated firms employ 4 or fewer employees. This is a favorite joke of the Left, but a smart candidate understands this this is still an entrepreneurial nation, and the primary method people use to represent themselves (individuals, people) is the corporation in its many forms.

Romney can't poll over 25% because he is not a conservative and us not running as one. If the GOP disliked rich blue-bloods, they would not have nominated the Bushes. The Bushes won by convincing Conservatives they were conservative enough. And in W's case because if his strong Christian faith. (which explains the sudden Romney/family image work...a real strength which Romney has heretofore taken for granted, or he fell into that "moderate" trap that religious faith is a political loser)

I don't know anything about "fainting couches" but making jokes about 10K bets when part of your campaign's theme is to emphasize what a lousy economy we're in and how you'd lower unemployment is a gaffe. It's not a huge one, but a gaffe it is.

Hyperbole about scepters and Dodo feathers don't help Daniel make his case, they only add weight to the conclusion that it's Mitt's supporters who are overreacting in this case. I think this stings a bit more for Romney than it would for others, precisely because his campaign strategy has a "playing not to lose" feel about it.

If Romney wanted to make it go away, he might have said something along the lines of "I made a mistake ...I should have bet him a hundred grand" or better yet "a million." If he and his supporters would let this roll off his back it would show a looser side of him, and a la the Harrison Ford Patriot Games presidential advice, not give reporters anywhere to go. In other words, show he's comfortable being rich while emphasizing that it was a rhetorical kind of bet.

Just arguing the case though doesn't work for Mitt. It makes him look defensive.

Amen to that.

It seems everything political steategists do in recent elections is designed around appealing to people who define themselves as Independents, many of whom swerve this way and that with any announced sway of the wind. This too often leaves people who actually have convictions left alone with them as the political strategists, their candidates, and the lines forming behind them race to get ahead of the herd.

Romney is wealthy and elite and that "class" is who the Democrats have been attacking as unnamed phantom since Obama's election. Certainly the Romney campaign is aware of that and one would think that the candidate would take it into account in his own self-discipline. He should know his political weaknesses and avoid enhancing them for his opponents.

The bet was stupid. Proferring his hand to seal the deal made it look like betting $10,000 - for real - comes easily to him. It was foolish.

Perry was wise to respond that he wasn't a betting man, especially in view of the fact that he'd just witnessed another foolishly gamble his own candidacy away in a single unguarded moment.

Newt didn't catch it right away because he'd have done the same.

I agree that the bet was more of a dare. But do we need a multi-million dollar teenager in the Oval Office? If all he wanted was to make a point "I'll withdraw my nomination bid if it is in there, will you withdraw yours if it is not?" would have been a more adult bet. But then that would require a sense of humor and a quick wit.

Um...what?

Romney screwed up, Foster - deal with it. It was an awkward moment on every level and Perry chose rightly not to take the bait.

Even by the point you make - that every school yard argument is settled by, 'Betcha ten-thou' it certainly didn't look very presidential of Romney.

It brought focus to how far Romney's life experience of wealth is from the average Iowaian (or American) who could not make such a rich bet.

I immediately thought of the charity bets that Bill O'Reilly is known to make with guests - some of them turn him down saying it is too rich for them. $10,000 is just not an amount the average American can afford to make. And then there is this current economic climate.

For some us in faith circles, we don't even believe in betting or gambling. Myself, I believe gambling is a perversion of generosity. It is a personal ethic that I don't press on others, nonetheless it gives me pause when I hear someone who wants to be my president proposing a $10,000 bet on a national debate stage.

'O’Reilly Says Trump Debate Would Draw Big'

External Link 

"The other scenario is that the person offering the bet is absolutely sure he’s correct and wants to make a point of it to the idiot doubting him. "

Of course that's it. But a liberal friend (well, he would insist that he's a "moderate") just brought up Romney's "gaffe." When I defended Romney, I also asked why was it that the Obama family's tax-payer funded vacation at the estate on Martha's Vineyard that cost -- What was it, $40,000 a week? $45,000 a week? -- never seemed to bother him or the Sunday talk show hosts, he shrugged and claimed that that example "isn't relevant." My, that Kool-Aid is potent!