Former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, a senior Romney surrogate, tells National Review Online that Mitt Romney’s comment to CNN — “I’m not concerned about the very poor” — was unhelpful to the campaign. But he cautions critics to consider the context.
“It was not the best choice of words, but the idea behind it is being misrepresented by others,” says Sununu, a former White House chief of staff.
“There was a context to that, saying, in essence, that we have a safety net for them,” Sununu says. “He was saying that we do not need to change policies for them. Same goes for the super-rich, who are fine. It’s the middle class; they’re the ones we need to be aggressive in helping. They’re the ones who’ve taken the brunt of the bad Obama policies of the past three years.”
Sununu acknowledges, however, that Romney “knows that he needs to be more careful,” especially after his Florida win.
“It’s not what you want to have happened, but you at least hope that your friends out there will frame the proper context for you, so that people will understand what you’ve said,” Sununu says. “And anybody who wants to oppose him will try to feed it into their narrative.”
It is amazing, as the NR has followed the same pattern again, as indicated by Lowry's and Costa's takes on the Florida Primary, stuck on seeing the worst for Mr. Romney.
Many followed the Democratic Partisans at ABC, by obsessing on the class warfare focus on the 10G bet, where Perry was confronted with his repeated distortion.
Here we go again...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He was saying that we do not need to change policies for them. Same goes for the super-rich, who are fine. It’s the middle class; they’re the ones we need to be aggressive in helping."
If that's the real message Romney was trying to convey, then no, it isn't fine.
The poor aren't fine. After decades of massive government programs at huge expense to taxpayers, the poor are suffering from broken families and high crime rates, as a direct result of a heavy dependency on government that keeps them from improving their lives. No, we definitely need policy changes for the poor - not just for the relief of taxpayers, but for the benefit of the poor.
And the rich aren't fine either - they are cautious about investing in the economy and creating jobs. The middle class is also in trouble, yes. But the problems are across the breadth of American society, and if Romney does not realize that, it's a serious problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow will Gingrich react to this? It's not totally clear, but I have a feeling that Obama hopes Newt gets out of the race soon before he uses up all of Obama's talking points.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut he doesn't 'use up' the talking points.... he makes them bipartisan. The President is gleeful at the prospect of a long bitter primary, let there be no doubt. Newt is only previewing these attacks, allowing the President to refine them when it comes time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney can't keep putting his friends in positions where they need to apologize for or explain what he says.
John Sununu is an accomplished politician and a very sharp mind. He would do the Romney campaign a world of good if he coached Mitt on the finer points of politicking,
Words matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, well that sums it up then. Poor folks have a safety-net, superrich have direct access to government and can get subsidies and the like, and the middle-class, well, as soon as we find more money we'll address them!
CAPCHA is "good for nothing". Well that's wrong: Romney has been good for writing Obama's campaign ads.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe was saying that we do not need to change policies for them.
Great. Someone who doesn't see and/or care about the problems all these safety nets are causing is someone I can't trust to properly address this country's financial mess. There are a number of ways you can talk about the poor without coming across as a heartless jerk - like making the case that leftists degrade human beings by saying you can't possibly get by in life without them. I will gladly eat my brand new Texas Rangers hat, and they hats of anyone else's favorite teams, if Romney can ever make the slam dunk moral argument in favor of freedom, liberty, responsibility, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's comment was stupid and I'm not saying otherwise.
But the safety nets for the poor are not causing our financial mess. It's the middle class entitlements that have us on the path to Greece.
We have plenty of money to keep our poor from becoming destitute. We don't have enough money for all of these middle class entitlements.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is the problem: you cannot credibly separate the "saftey net for the poor" from the "middle class entitlements. Here is why: government programs spawn bureaucracies, and bureaucracies, like all newborn things, seek to grow. They take on the behavioral attributes of a living organism, and their growth proceeds up the economic ladder -- in part because the citizen at the margin of the "safety net" never understands why he fends for himself while his very slightly poorer neighbor gets public assistance. That is why it makes sense when Newt Gingrich points out that in the 99 weeks of unemployment, a recipient could earn an Associate's Degree that might greaty enhance employment prospects.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney should do a full mea culpa for this. He should acknowledge how absurd his formulation was, and point to his own substantial charitable contributions as evidence that he did not mean what his words clearly suggested. Then, he should announce his withdrawal from the race and endorse Newt. (Both are equally likely.)
Yes, the very poor need more. They always need more. The need more food stamps. They need more Medicaid. They need more months of unemployment checks. They need more public housing. They need more dependency. They always need more. Dang you Mitt Romney! Don't you know that you are going to have to out pander Obama in order to win?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne can still express concern for the poor without advocating more of anything. That doesn't mean you aren't concerned about the middle class too, or that you believe helping the middle class isn't the most pressing priority.
Romney's statement reinforces the image painted by liberals, that Republicans are just scrooges, ("What of the poor and destitute? Are there not prisons or Union Workhouses to care for them?") We should never be unconcerned about poverty. What we do about poverty- freeing the market to innovate and solve problems for everyone- is what makes us conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuserut row Mitt just lost the entitlement segment of the Obama base. Next thing you know right to work small business owners will be putting Obama/Biden signs in their yards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it."
Context and $2.50 will get you on the subway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe context in those anti-Kerry ads was that he portrayed himself as the war hero / foreign policy Senator while on matters of foreign policy he was indecisive and full of contradictions. Meanwhile Bush was portraying himself as the "decider."
It reinforced several narratives that the Bush campaign was pushing. Seems fair to me.
Those were great ads.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYep.
You could add 'global test' for Kerry and 'spread the wealth around' for Obama. They are little windows into the inner being of a candidate.
And they are deadly...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems to me that Romney cannot make certain people happy. When he's speaking too moderately, they condemn him for being a moderate. When he actually comes right out and asserts a conservative notion -- that the poor are not the problem, it's the grinding erosion of the middle class that's the problem -- people freak out and climb the walls. Look. It's a foregone conclusion that Obama will be telling the universe that Mitt Romney is a vampire who eats little children for lunch and dinner, then shoves old ladies in wheelchairs off cliffs for his evening entertainment. Nasty old villain is he. Why are so-called conservatives flipping out over Romney speaking the truth? The media distort things endlessly. Romney speaks the truth and the media distorts it. This was inevitable and it will be ongoing. No conservative politician can escape it. So why worry? Go, Mitt, go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease.
Mitt did not "assert a conservative notion". He said that we don't have to be concerned about the poor since they already have safety nets. THAT IS NOT CONSERVATIVE.
Conservatives are concerned about the poor for all sorts of reasons, including the fact that people on foodstamps are suffering as well as draining resources that could go to other places. As others have rightly pointed out, Mitt could have easily said "my policies will help everyone, including the poor" or "my policies will relieve their suffering, but that requires we help the middle class through x".
His statement was boneheaded.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe chronic mittpickers like Limbaugh , Levin and Ingraham will flay Romney no matter what he says or does. If he'd said he was very concerned about the poor, their hair would be on fire. If he'd said he's concerned about all citizens, they would have found a way to pick him apart , perhaps because he included the poor . Romney will never make this segment happy .They routinely set upon President GW Bush and John McCain . Limbaugh , Levin and Ingraham represent the unappeasable and perpetually miserable segment of the far right that is always enraged about something . They all despise Romney and their primary goal is to beat him , not Obama. Their fury is no doubt propelled by their inability to sell Gingrich to the majority of primary voters. Once the dust settles from this minor contretemps , they'll be flying off the handle about something else involving Romney. And something else after that and on and on . Romney doesn't just have to fight off the media distortion , he has to fight off the daily far right distortion. I'm confident that he's up to the task.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope Jonah, Robert, and others tune in for Hardball this afternoon. I am sure Chris Matthews will not only encourage their take this morning but he will actually regurgitate some of the same rhetoric.
Good company you guys are keeping these days...you champions of conservatism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSununu and Romney have it all wrong. The goal is to get as many people out of the safety net as possible. You don't have a safety net because you expect and are comfortable with people being there. You have a safety net as a last line of protection.
Obviously, as Christ said, the poor will always be with us in this world. Conservatives though believe in economic mobility and in people changing their station. Romney took what could have been a softball opportunity to talk about reducing poverty through entrepreneurship and free market values and whiffed, big time. I'm no baseball fan, but Romney was so focused on the middle class fastball that he got pwned by the very poor change up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse