First the gaffe. As Jonah Goldberg writes, “What is Wrong With This Guy?”
A case in point, here he is this morning talking about how he’s “not very concerned about the very poor” (video here). I get the point he’s making. It’s a point that Bill Clinton won the presidency with — but with language that attracted voters. Romney’s language won’t do anything of the sort. And the concern is, after nearly a decade of running for president, if he can’t get this stuff down now he never will.
After winning the Florida primary, GOP presidential nominee hopeful Mitt Romney explains to CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien that he is focused on a particular portion of the American population in his campaign.
Romney says, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich…. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
O’Brien asked him to clarify his remarks saying, “There are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd.’”
Romney continues, “We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor…. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus…. The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”AdvertisementAgain, I’d happily vote for Romney over Obama. And I’d be fine with Romney crushing Obama with negative ads, if that was remotely possible. And there are plenty of things one could say to defend Romney on the merits of what he says here. But great politicians on the morning after a big win, don’t force their supporters to go around defending the candidate from the charge that he doesn’t care about the poor. They just don’t.
Then the grace under pressure. As By Brian Bolduc writes at the Corner, “Mitt Gets Glitter-Bombed — And, surprisingly, handles it well:”
As Tim Graham of Newsbusters tweets, “Question: When will Obama get ‘glitter bombed’ by someone? And how long will they serve in jail?”
Mark Steyn got it. Rush “explained” it to millions of folks this afternoon.
Frankly, you all might be surprised at how many of us are sick of having to pretend we “care about the poor.”
Saying we need a big govt safety net for “only the very needy”? That’s how all this crap started. The definition of “very needy” grew and grew.
That’s a good point. The “poor” just like “society” or the “rich” (and many others too numerous to name but one can recognize them when they hear them) are not a reference to an actual class of people but more accurately political-speak to evoke an image and manipulate an audience. Just like the now-waaaaay-overused word “raaaaacism.” Maybe one of these days the majority will grasp how such words are being used to control and influence them and call BS on it. It won’t be easy because it has been happening most of our lives. And the lousy stinking media will be of no help whatsoever in this regard, because they are the ones who have perpetuated the scam.
Mitt seems to be the political equivalent of the New York Football Giants, in that when they are favored to win or should be on cruise control in a situation, they tend to be their own worst enemy. It’s only when they’re in actual fear of losing that they perform up to their capabilities.
Team Romney seems to have an unshakable desire to basically put the campaign on cruise control when they’re winning, not bothering to think about either how certain statements will play our or how certain actions (like Mitt mulling over releasing his tax returns) will be interpreted by the public. Hopefully they’ll improve their focus the closer we get to the general election, but I’m really starting to believe the candidate and his top handlers are going to go into the general with the mindset “How can the swing voters possibly vote to re-elect Obama?” and set themselves up to play nothing but defense for five months, due to a perpetual series of both self-created and media-created gaffes.
I don’t find anything wrong with what Romney said. Au Contraire. It’s not so much about whether anyone “doesn’t care for the poor”, as someone saying they don’t care for the poor. So points to Romney for engaging in politically incorrect blasphemy.
It’s built on the false premise that only the state can care for the poor, which is patently false on it’s face. the united States is the most generous country before the government takes it’s generous helping of extortion to our incomes, and conservatives in so-called “blue states” far more generous than our liberal cousins period, end of story.
If you don’t believe me, consult the book- Who Really Cares by Arthur Brooks
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328247884&sr=1-1