Romney: 'I'm not concerned about the very poor'

[Politico]

Romney is guilty of leaving out the word "just" in front of "concerned":

"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."

Romney's done more for the poor via volunteering and charitable donations than the vast, vast majority of Americans. But we definitely want Obama's rhetoric to descend into John Edwards' "Two Americas," so hopefully this will play up that rhetoric...

[Politico]

Romney is guilty of leaving out the word "just" in front of "concerned"

No, that's not what he said.  He said that he thinks the current safety nets for the very poor are sufficient, although he will reform them if needed.  He goes on to juxtapose this, and his similar lesser concern about the rich, with his policy focus on the middle class.  I don't think what he meant is intrinsically offensive, although it's certainly debatable, but he clearly implied that he's less concerned policy-wise about the folks at the extremes.  Saying "I'm not just concerned about the very poor" doesn't communicate his main point.

He said he cares about all Americans. He was trying to get across that he's not just concerned with very poor or very rich Americans. He is largely concerned with middle-class Americans who are feeling the pinch more than anybody right now. The poor are just as poor as they were ten years ago, but middle-class Americans are much worse off and not feeling good about the future.

[Politico]

Again, he left out "just" in front of "concerned." That is the gaffe.

We all know there are poor people who have no desire, or at least no motivation, to be anything but poor. That's always going to be the case. Then there are other poor people who have fallen down and want to get back up. Obviously those who have fallen into the ranks of the poor want to get out. Then there are other middle income earners who look around and fear falling into the same hole. These are the types of people Romney is most concerned about.

Restoring economic growth and American confidence will go a long way towards improving the conditions of those who want to do better.

The rest of Romney's quote:

"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. 

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."

[Politico]

Again, he left out "just" in front of "concerned." That is the gaffe.

We all know there are poor people who have no desire, or at least no motivation, to be anything but poor. That's always going to be the case. Then there are other poor people who have fallen down and want to get back up. Obviously those who have fallen into the ranks of the poor want to get out, and those are the type of people Romney is most concerned about.

But see it takes me 2 seconds to show that Romney gaffe clip. And it takes you way longer to backtrack, explain what it mean, and then cast it in a better light. You're wasting time and resources on damage control for the umpteenth time, and its going to be a deal breaker in the general.

Romney's favorability ratings are suffering for a reason! Why add fuel to the fire on your own? What is this guy thinking when he says this stuff?

Somebody is going to be conceived today and born before the general election happens. Nine months is an eternity in politics.

The candidate is tired, and will get better rest once the primaries are wrapped-up. Obama will also make gaffes once he is campaigning tirelessly in the fall.

[Politico]

Again, he left out "just" in front of "concerned." That is the gaffe.

We all know there are poor people who have no desire to be anything but poor. That's always going to be the case. Then there are people who have fallen down and want to get back up. Obviously those who have fallen into the ranks of the poor want to get out, and those are the type of people Romney is most concerned about.

I doubt it was just a "just" deletion. The entire comment would have been restructured if what he was saying is the range of his concern is more pandemic, and thus, he feels the need to have policies that focus on the middle class to go along with those that will lift all boats. It makes no sense to say I am just not only concerned for the poor, but my focus is going to be on the middle class because the poor are getting plenty of food stamps and such.

The comment has this connotation, that hey, the poor are getting plenty of help from the food stamp president, and the president is screwing the middle class, and so that is where I am really needed - as a champion of the hard pressed middle class. Somehow I suspect that is Mitt's instinctual reaction.

Yeah, it is definitely in our interest for Obama to run around talking about "Two Americas" like John Edwards did. You see among his supporters a lot of this populist rhetoric that just completely turns off most middle income Americans, who are not feeling better off today than four years ago. I

 am not saying Romney was intentionally clumsy here, but let's face it: This gaffe is not going to hurt him among the GOP base, whom he needs to seal the deal with over the next five weeks, and who knows what Romney and Co. are going to have to say and do to suck Team Obama into the "populist trap." Obama has definitely signaled the temptation to go populist. Smart political operatives in the Democratic Party know how much of a loser that message is, though, hence his restraint. That is my hypothesis, anyway.

[Politico]

Note to GOP Establishment:  Romney sucks as a candidate.

I thought the jmfcsts loved bashing the poor?

[Politico]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

[Politico]

You really do have an amusing level of self regard for someone who's never shown any sign of intellectual depth or even basic critical faculties. You're what Gramsci would have called an organic intellectual. That's not really a complement, by the way.

Interesting, coming from someone who has made a small cottage industry out of exactly what I'm complaining about.  I seriously do not remember a single time you've posted anything of substance on this forum.

Yeah, but he is the obligatory British socialist of the forum. The young ones look up to his rhetoric about how grand all things socialist are, and how rotten all things free enterprise are.

[Politico]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

I don't even care if they're bleeding hearts - I expect it, it comes with the territory, talking about politics.  The least some of these folks could do, however, is show some intellectual integrity and argue the issues on the merits, rather than devolving into this showy, cloying, left-wing demogoguery.

True, but you were kind of asking for it with your powerful language. It probably would have been better to simply say something such as "there are poor people who are poor because they have no desire, let alone motivation, to not be poor. You either know what I am talking about, or you are sheltered. Unless these kind of poor people are part of your family, they are not your problem."

[Politico]

And FTR before anyone gets too pissy I think TheGlobalizer is being a bit Randroidish here.  By far the biggest scumbags are at the top, not the bottom.

I strongly disagree. The biggest scumbags are child molesters followed by murderers and then rapists. You can find these people among all levels of the economic spectrum.

[Politico]

I cannot disagree. Well said, Fred. The only thing I would add is personal support for charitable organizations that help the truly needy in an efficient, pro-responsibility manner. There are definitely people who are down on their luck that need assistance. However, it is not the government's job to take from one group of people to give to another in the name of "helping" them, especially if what the government initative is really going to do is make them indefinitely dependent upon said initiative. It ought to be up to the people to decide whether or not to help people, and in what form via choosing which organizations to support (or not support) via charity. The helpful charities would thrive, and the worthless ones would die.

[Politico]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

Who is this wise man?

I've heard it attributed to both Churchill and Buckley, but I have never investigated.

[Politico]

Anyone who would vote for Mitt "Austerity" Romney "has no brain."

Anybody who thinks Obama can draw a simple supply and demand graph, let alone understand anything related to macroeconomics, "has no brain." Obama knows nothing about economics and business. He basically has the neanderthal attitude, "GOVERNMENT GOOD. MORE GOVERNMENT BETTER."

[Politico]

Anybody who thinks Obama can draw a simple supply and demand graph, let alone understand anything related to macroeconomics, "has no brain." Obama knows nothing about economics and business. He basically has the neanderthal attitude, "GOVERNMENT GOOD. MORE GOVERNMENT BETTER."

[Politico]

And FTR before anyone gets too pissy I think TheGlobalizer is being a bit Randroidish here.  By far the biggest scumbags are at the top, not the bottom.

I strongly disagree. The biggest scumbags are child molesters followed by murderers and then rapists. You can find these people among all levels of the economic spectrum.

I once read an article by a sociologist whom stated the best place to find sociopaths for study was in prison, and, after that, corporate board rooms. He used the example of Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap whom would take over corporations and systematically fire people. His alleged basic inability to empathize with the disruption in the lives of the people whom he fired allowed him to act in a completely ruthless fashion to make a buck.

You see the same dynamic at work at Bain capital. The same indifference that permitted Romney to strap his dog to the roof of his car for twelve-hour highway drive served him well at Bain Capital.

The question is whether, or not, it is a good attribute for a President?

Are you supporting Gingrich or Obama?

If Gingrich crosses the line like you have above, you better believe it that the dirty secret Nancy Pelosi spoke of is going to make Gingrich the next Thomas Eagleton because the above rhetoric is going too far. There are also Republicans who know the secret, it's not just Pelosi, and they will preemptively drop that nuke on Newt if Newt talks like you in the above post. He will be disgraced like no politician before if he crosses this line, and it will happen even though he is not really a threat to the nomination. But talking like that will just be asking for it.

You are going too far, buddy.

[Politico]

Ah, of course. Those destructive Obama tax increases...

Yes, that's about all anybody is going to get from a second term. Read my lips: Lots and lots of more taxes, and forget about the economy returning to normal.

[Politico]

Ah, of course. Those destructive Obama tax increases...

Yes, that's about all anybody is going to get from a second term. Read my lips: Lots and lots of more taxes, and forget about the economy returning to normal.

I fail to see the connection between your prediction and the cartoon, in which the second panel is clearly labelled, "now."

I fail to see how you cannot see the simple choice facing America: Tax hikes under Obama, to fund all of this worthless crap he has burdened America with, or Romney giving the government a haircut (a buzz-cut, to be more precise).

You don't really think $1+ trillion deficits can be run for four more years, do you?

[Politico]

At this point I've given up any hope in the economy of any kind. Romney clearly does not actually care. Obama probably doesn't particularly care at this point either. Neither can magically fix things. The modern Presidency is too much work for any one person.

This is a defeatist attitude. America's destiny is not decline and stagnation. It may be if Obama gets re-elected, but that does not have to happen. It should not happen, anyway.

Nothing is more important than real economic growth. America needs a leader who is going to take care of Washington's BS, and show the government what it means to trim the fat and set markets free. Get Romney in the White House, and we can achieve 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020.

Or re-elect Obama and get more of the same. You may lose your job, but Obama will still have his, I guess. And good luck finding a job...

[Politico]

Second, how stupid do you think I am. If unnamed "Republicans,"  Pelosi and you all know
"something" then it isn't a "secret," is it? While whatever "it" is is certainly not a "secret," it might very well be a hoax. Why don't you go ahead an enlighten us? That is, if you are not bluffing, which I strongly suspect that you are.

Nancy Pelosi was doing Gingrich a favor by tipping her hat about it like she did. I hate to say it, but she's probably got a heart somewhere down there for doing such a thing for Gingrich. Whether or not Gingrich can come to grips with the fact he is never going to be president is another question, but that does not mean he should sabotage America's last hope by trying to drag down Romney with his own failing campaign. Even Ted Kennedy had more dignity going down than Gingrich...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true. I merely suggested that somebody with bipolar disorder does not belong in the White House. Anybody who has ever associated with somebody with bipolar disorder can attest to this fact. Obviously people should seek treatment and try to live a fulfilling life. There is no shame in being debilitated by mental illness.

[Politico]

Nothing is more important than real economic growth. America needs a leader who is going to take care of Washington's BS, and show the government what it means to trim the fat and set markets free. Get Romney in the White House, and we can achieve 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020.

I can think of any number of things that are vastly, vastly more important than 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020, even assuming that President Romney would lead to this happening, which he would not.

I'm in a field where the process of finding work is relatively insulated from the vicissitudes of amoral  markets but is very sensitive to people needlessly cutting funding for social programs to redistribute wealth further upwards.

Where do think resources for social programs come from? Santa Clause?

We need consistent economic growth, or the whole house of cards comes crashing down eventually. There is only stagnation and ultimately decline without consistent growth. You can certainly forget about your social programs.

[Politico]

Politico, Gingrich maybe inflicting damage to.Romney, but Romney's "cut-them-off-at-the-knees" approach is going to make it difficult for him to bring conservatives.on board his campaign.

There would be no problem if Gingrich behaved like Santorum. It's not like Romney didn't give him a chance to properly behave. Romney's team took the foot off Gingrich's throat after New Hampshire, and look at how Gingrich paid Romney back. Instead of settling for a respectable showing in South Carolina, Gingrich needed to stick his hands in the cookie jar one too many times.

Personally, I am in favor of continuing to nuke Newt right through Super Tuesday. He deserves it, and nobody can trust him to do the right thing if you run the prevent defense against him instead of running up the score.

[Politico]

Politico, Gingrich maybe inflicting damage to.Romney, but Romney's "cut-them-off-at-the-knees" approach is going to make it difficult for him to bring conservatives.on board his campaign.

There would be no problem if Gingrich behaved like Santorum. It's not like Romney didn't give him a chance to properly behave. Romney's team took the foot off Gingrich's throat after New Hampshire, and look at how Gingrich paid Romney back. Instead of settling for a respectable showing in South Carolina, Gingrich needed to stick his hands in the cookie jar one too many times.

It doesn't matter.if Romney took off.his boot.from Newt's neck. The fact is that Mitt placed it on Newt's neck in the first place when Newt tried to run a civil campaign.

These kind of tactics have inspired hatred among his rivals in both 2008 and 2012.

Allowing Newt to run a civil campaign would have been a disaster if he won Iowa, then New Hampshire, then South Carolina, and basically wrapped up the nomination by now. October would have been an October-surprise-a-day. 2008 would have looked close compared to a Gingrich/Obama match. I am talking a 1932-level loss, not even a 1964-level loss. The type of mandate that Democrats and Obama could only dream of being handed.

Gingrich is nuts. He's going on about turning the moon into the 51st state, launching mirrors into outer space to light highways, and making kids janitors. He looks at himself in the mirror and sees Brad Pitt. He's talking like Ted Kennedy now with his class warfare rhetoric. He's like a ten year old kid that was told he cannot be president, he cannot have his moon base, and now he's hellbent on helping Obama rather than gracefully letting the clock run out.

[Politico]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Bravo!

[Politico]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Thing is, they owe society precisely for their success, big time.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

- Margaret Thatcher