The predicate for a Romney gaffe is almost always straining too hard to connect. JPod has a good piece today about the phenomenon. There’s also this from the AP piece Brian noted:
And asked if remarks highlighting his wealth — like when he said Sunday he doesn’t follow NASCAR as closely as some but has “great friends who are NASCAR team owners” — were hurting his campaign, Romney said: “Yes. Next question.”
This nitwit makes George H.W. Bush seem positively personable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's a kinder, gentler Montgomery Burns, although Mr. Burns treated his hounds better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know you're attempting to make a "joke" here, but the best humor is grounded in at least some semblance of truth. The ONLY way in which Romney is like Mr. Burns is that they are both wealthy. Full stop.
By the logic of your "joke," every rich person is just like Mr. Burns, except for being [better-looking, younger, less animated, etc.].
Sorry, just had to nip this absurd "meme" before it had any chance to metastasize. Not that it would, except among brainless liberals who found comparing W. to a chimp to be the very pinnacle of wit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank the good Lord that NRO decided to back the only candidate that we would never have to waste any time, explaining what he meant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs opposed to, say, Rick Santorum? Who has never ever had to explain what he meant?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe were told that the reason we HAD to support Romney, was because he never made gaffes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo points:
1. I find it a bit depressing that even hard-right conservatives have internalized the left's assumptions about the evils of the 1% to such a degree that they compete with each other in who can criticize Romney more harshly when he lets slip the notion that he's a wealthy guy. It's not like Romney's income status is a big secret.
Granted, Romney shouldn't wear a silk top hat and tails on the campaign trail, and he ought not to light cigars with hundred-dollar bills in public. But I think rather than whole-heartedly leaping on the lefty anti-wealth bandwagon, the right could expend a little more effort defending the right to get rich. After all, athletes don't hide the fact they can run faster or hit harder than the rest of us, yet we love them all the same. And we wouldn't want anyone with less talent on our home team.
2. The reverse of the above is that Romney has also internalized the left's assumptions so that he feels the need to "connect" with the voters in a clumsy way. I think the voters are more interested in how his policies will improve their lot than in whether Romney is a fan of their favorite sport. From what I can tell, Romney still speaks in vague generalities about policies. He should spend more time explaining them and less on irrelevant trivilialities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not so much that we criticize Romney for being rich, it has more to do with an anticipation of how the media will treat Romney for being rich.
I should note, that such a fear is in reality no different than how many moderates say we shouldn't support Santorum for fear of how the media will treat his positions on religion and culture.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney has an "R" behind his name - the media will criticize him ceaselessly for *something*.
Santorum has an "R" behind his name - the media will criticize him ceaselessly for *something*.
So why should Republicans wade into the class warfare cesspool? It's the property of Democrats.
Besides, does anyone really think Rick Santorum would be sitting on row 32 of turn 3 at Daytona or Vegas? Or Gingrich? Or Perry? Or Bachmann? Or [pick any politician]?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI submit that it is different.
In skilled hands at least, attempts to paint Rich Businessman Guy with the shopworn leftist crap will be opportunities for skillful pivots to turn the public's entire economic frame of reference upside down and show them where prosperity for everyone comes from.
Whereas, with Gingrich or Santorum, attempts to respond to stereotypes will just pull us into the weeds and away from the subjects we want to be talking about in an "it's the economy, stupid!" year..
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“ he ought not to light cigars with hundred-dollar bills in public.”
It would be awesome if he did though ...., but seriously, great post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about lighting a joint with a hundred dollar bill? That would throw them for a loop. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't see this as a gaffe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is extremely troubling to see the left's classism bleed into conservative discourse and become increasingly pervasive among conservative opinion leaders.
The OWS mentality, anathema to the conservative movement, has infected our philosophy and is metastasizing at an alarming rate.
Even our candidates' messaging this election cycle has been contaminated (cf. Gingrich's earlier attacks on Romney's Swiss accounts and Santorum's blue-collar vs. businessman strategy).
Some conservatives have lost sight of the fact that Romney's substantial economic success is one of his greatest assets. I, for one, welcome a Romney that continues to embrace his success in bold and unapologetic terms. We should all be heralding his achievements in unison.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're confused. The problem even Conservatives have with Mitt Romney's wealth is not that he's "one of the 1%" or some such idiocy. It's that being rich is who he is. It's what matters most to him about himself.
He says his knowledge of business makes him extra-specially qualified to be president, yet he seems at every turn like someone for whom "work" is a completely foreign concept.
It's not the money or the social class that's the problem. It's the attitude. We already have a self-admiring empty suit for president. We don't need another one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRich Lowry is a Rick Santorum supporter so he promotes every Romney slip or mis-step or mis-statement as a BFD.
Lowery has to deflect because otherwise he'd have to carry Santorum's water for all the ugly statements and sentiments Santorum's is uttering on the trail; 'contraception is dangerous for women','throw up', etc.......
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, by all means, let's eschew Romney in favor of someone's whose verbal gaffes have to do with things like 'throwing up' over JFK's celebrated speech about separation of church and state. That's a sure winner. Let's make sure we ignore those gaffes and be sure to focus and highlight these meaningless ones by Romney.
It's almost as if NRO is part of a suicide pact with the likes of American Spectator and RedState. How else to explain this inane drivel?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Yes. Next Question." Is the best possible answer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney is simply the GOP's version of John Kerry, never able to connect with everyday people. Kerry was pilloried for his "where can I get me a hunting licence comment" and this Mitt remark shows the same tone-deafness. It looks like he's just a rotten campaigner, and that's something that's inherent and won't change. Romney is very smart, successful and wealthy, but does not resonate with voters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe I'm biased because I like Romney (Santorum is good, it's a hard choice but I'll take Romney), but that seems like a great answer. Unlike Santorum, Romney doesn't get bogged down in needless fights, he just moves the conversation where he wants it to be. That answer was honest, so no one can accuse him of putting on any "spin", then he just moves on to what he wants to talk about. I don't know how he could have done much better. If he had tried to give some kind of explanation, Rich and others would probably have just criticized it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse