The Corner consensus seems to be that Romney’s remark—you know the one I’m talking about—was a foolish message badly expressed. I concur. My guess is that the impulse that led him to make this remark (and make similar ones before it, too) could have been better expressed this way: “It’s the middle class I’m most concerned about right now because it’s the backbone of this country. Of course I’m committed to doing whatever I can to preserve the safety net for the poor and even more importantly to expand poor people’s opportunities to stop being poor. But an even larger group of people in the middle of the income spectrum is under a lot of stress right now thanks to poor economic policies and my top priority is to change them.” Is that so hard?
Does it matter what Romney meant? Everything possible to twist statements to give them the meme of the rich businessman who only cares for the 'elites' is what is supposed to form in the least informed voters' mind(s). It really doesn't matter if the point was that the middle class is being squeezed, but the very poor have a safety net, it only matters that Romney is portrayed as burning 100 dollar bills to light his cigar (though he doesn't smoke).
Parsing statements was an art the media learned from the Clintonistas. Who can forget the classic, "it depends on what the meaning of is is." Now, the media won't twist to decipher, they will twist to distort and to destroy.
Can't wait until the twist is to make Romney want to have widows and orphans starve on the streets.
Have to love the politics of personal deconstruction!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney seems incapable of such prose..or any kind of tact whatsoever. The media will have plenty of material to spin when Obama needs a pick-me-up in the upcoming months.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA tin ear and foot in mouth disease. Oy.
But then, I never would have thought that Americans would vote for someone who admitted that he wants to "spread the wealth" and talked about "typical white people."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat depresses me more than the tin ear -- and that is a concern -- is Romney's s gut. A conservative's reaction should be to address poverty with OPPORTUNITY, not welfare. There is much to be concerned about with America's growing dependent class. But it doesn't seem to be in Romney's nature to think like this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's just not true. Romney talks about opportunity for EVERYONE all the time. I do think the remark is unfortunate and damaging, but I don't believe for a minute that Romney wants to do anything less than expand opportunities for ALL Americans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe certainly wasn't for expanding opportunities for citizens of Romneycare, given that it took away over 18,000 jobs, led to doctors fleeing the state, and increased wait times to European levels.
He thought it would increase his political opportunities, which is all that man cares about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGimme a break. Romney should be defended.
Democrats protect. We eat our young or worse kill and leave along the river.
Welcome Obama to four more years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRed Team, Blue Team, rah rah rah!
Red Team, Blue Team, rah rah rah!
(principles matter)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd there we have Ponnuru's job interview for Romney speechwriter/strategist. Since he couldn't even manage a simple, clear answer and had to use 82 words meaning absolutely nothing, I think the Romney Administration will pass.
How about: "Soledad, in this economy, I'm concerned about ALL Americans---Barack Obama's policies have made all but a few of his cronies poorer and have imperiled our national security and future prosperity to boot."
32 words.
Or "Soledad, ALL Americans are struggling thanks to this administration's inept handling of our economy and its bank-breaking, job-killing policies, Obamacare foremost among them."
25 words.
Or "Soledad, the only Americans doing well in the Obama economy are bureaucrats, media apparatchiks, and the people who make "The End Is Near" sandwich boards."
25 words.
Or "Soledad, if I'm elected President I will serve the interests of the American people, regardless of whatever construct you liberals employ to divide us into easily-manageable grievance-pushers."
29 words.
Or "Soledad, we're all going to be poor if Barack Obama keeps blowing the Treasury on his cronies and on his lavish lifestyle."
22 words.
Or "Soledad, there will be no safety net for the poor if we keep punishing Americans who have climbed out of poverty through their industry,."
24 words.
I'm sure others can make the point without my verbosity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTeflon93 -Excellent! Hope you tweet these!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is dumb to say a nice clip for the opposition (who will lie) but it was taken out of context. Mitt needs to be careful in the future. And use this as an opportunity to show how the other side lies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was not taken out of context. Romney said that because there are safety nets for poor their troubles don't concern him. It's not only a dumb political statement but it isn't a good conservative position to take, either. There is no reason for a conservative to be unconcerned that a large number of adults are living in poverty- regardless of whether or not they happen to get foodstamps. Indeed a small government conservative should be even more concerned about getting the poor to a point where they help themselves and can get off the dole.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour comments are thuddingly wrong. The party of business needs to promote business concerns. The poor are peripheral to those concerns because *they haven't got any money*. Get government regulation out of the way of enterpreneurs, which will help the poor more than any idiotic federal poverty program. As for a social safety net, the federal government is incompetent to administer such. Stop taxing money out of municipalities and they will take care of their own poor better than any federal program can.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, to make up for this stupid comment, he added the automatic increase in the minimum wage later in the day. How are little Richie and Ramie going to spin that one. Serving up ad talking points in the morning and driving away conservatives at night. Great victory for the Moron, I mean Mormon, Hope
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRamesh, I laughed at your final question because it obviously is hard for this guy. A better question: why is it so difficult for Romney to convey the basic tenants of conservatism? Wish you guys at NR would seriously delve into that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is hard for Mitt because he tries not to lie.
What will be really hard is a tuesday night in November when the folks in the Corner will have to come up with a reason why Mitt "The Electable" lost. Probably blame it on Newt...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey will blame Marco Rubio or whichever Veep he picks---just like last time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe good Colonel Travis beat me to it.
Ramesh, he's YOUR candidate, not ours. You can spend the next year plus defending him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell I hope he becomes your candidate sooner rather than later, because he's all we've got.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's not "all we've got". Santorum is a solid conservative with an exemplary family life who doesn't say such breathtakingly stupid things.
He also somehow resists choking Mittens when he's smirking at him in debates, which shows he's got more discipline than most of us could ever muster.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse