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

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3642c1ca-4cf3-11e1-8741-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1l9ZkfdNV

[You kip if you want to...]

[Jacobtm]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would love to strip Mitt Romney of his assets and have him to live on the saftey net.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

One can't really claim that Obama has lived a life any more "typical" than the Mittster...

Of course. After all, Obama's father was a powerful Governor, presidential hopeful and millionaire too.

He was the last two... in Kenya.

A mid level cabinet official. Not a millionaire, not a presidential candidate.

In countries like Kenya, all the mid-level cabinet officials are presidential hopefuls, as well as millionaires.

Ah yes, and Obama greatly benefited from his father's career in Kenya, haven't he?

[You kip if you want to...]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqyEnJ3b4Mo

I didn't realse it was in an interview! The reaction on his face when he's challenged on it! ahahaha!

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3642c1ca-4cf3-11e1-8741-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1l9ZkfdNV

We all know Mitt Romney is not concerned about the very poor... how is this a gaffe? 

[King]

So, if we can make the middle class "very poor" or "very rich," then they will no longer be a concern?

Sounds about right.

[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...

[President von Cat]

This is another one of those fun sound bites that is damaging because it re-affirms everyone's worst fears about Mitt Romney.

And frankly, it affirms my worst fears about Mitt Romney supporters, especially in the northeast. You guys look down on poor people, as if you're better than them somehow. You think they're nothing and don't really care about working to improve their lot.

Rich people cry just as much as poor people when things don't work out. Your frozen tears on election night will be most delicious.. most delicious indeed..

[Alcon]

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.

[Torie]

The problem with Mitt's comment is that it implies that he thinks they are rather permanent denizens of the social safety net nation, and is not worried about that, when he should be, and I know is, worried about it. You know schools (they are failing, and need to be revamped from top to bottom), more robust opportunities for the down and out, with a more flexible and robust economy, and all of that sort to thing. I know what he meant is that he thinks that given the social safety net, their standard of living has not fallen off that much in this downturn, unlike that of his hypothesized lower to middle, middle class. That really isn't all that accurate either, since some of that lower middle class has fallen down into the social safety net nation.

Mittens, you need to think these things through a bit better, and be a bit more precise and nuanced in your language. Leave the bomb throwing to Newt. He is so much better at it than you anyway.

[Torie]

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.

Yes, you said what Mitt meant to say better than I.  But Mitt's comment is just a verbal mess really. He needs to do much better than this.

[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.

[President von Cat]

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...

Sorry pal, but six strikes and you're out. Romney has repeatedly "misspoke" about his wealth, his joy for firing people, and his attitude toward the poor.

The problem here is that a lot people suspect Romney is an elitist scumbag who only cares about his rich hedge fund friends and knows nothing about what its like to be an average Joe. And when he says stuff like this, it is like he grabs the charcoal and starts finishing that caricature on his own.

I know that you are a strong Mitt Romney supporter, but even you must admit that the man is such a gaffe machine that he makes Joe Biden look disciplined.

[Alcon]

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.

He said he cares about all Americans, but he said doesn't see much policy concern with the very poor.  That is probably honest, and it may also be reasonable.  However, it is an immensely stupid thing to say, and an immensely stupid way to think really, as a Presidential candidate.  This gaffe was offered on a silver platter -- he wasn't under any pressure here -- and it's all over even the barely-news news sites (like the MSN login screen.)  I agree with Torie.  He needs to do better than this.

[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."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The comment is comically tin eared. It's the kind of thing that can actually lose votes. Accept this and move on.

[Alcon]

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

No.  (It's annoying when I took the time to rebut that and you pretend like you didn't even see my post.)

[President von Cat]

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?

[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.

[Torie]

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.

I appreciate per your putting up the whole comment, that Mitt later says the poor have it tough too, but the entire message is rather delicate, and needs to be structured so that bits of it cannot be cut off and used, particularly when they are so poorly phrased.

Much clearer, and politically safer to say, would be to say, yes, the poor need help. They need better schools, better opportunities, and so forth, but the middle class needs help too, and they are not getting it. See how much better that sounds?  It is not hard really. It really isn't. 

[President von Cat]

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.

Yeah, but there's a thing called the television now..

[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.

[Yank2133]

It is hilarious watching Mark Halperin on MSNBC trying to spin this.......

[Democratic Hawk]

I'd have more respect for Romney if he went the whole hog and admitted that he wasn't concerned about the middle class. Right-wing neoliberalism serves the wealthiest first and foremost. The irony is that a prosperous middle class serves the socio-economic interests of the wealthiest best but "conservatives" slave to dogma for its own sake are blind of that

The middle class has long been in decline, since 1973, in fact - and the Golden Age of Capitalism (aka the post-war economic boom) for ordinary people trumped anything that either came before or since

The cancer at the heart of Anglo-American capitalism is the fact that wealth has been permitted to increasingly accumulate in the hands of the richest few

It was greed that drove capitalism to the brink not yet 4 years past

Romney's economics meanwhile seem to be rooted on extending the Bush tax cuts in their entirety and if the best they could accomplish was the worst record when it comes to jobs of any full-term president this side of Herbert Hoover you can appreciate why supply-side is, for me, at least, a very hard sell

It was the Democratic Party and its new liberalism that founded the mass middle class in the wake of the Depression and I've somewhat more confidence in them to advocate their interests