Plan B Forum

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... afety-net/

February 1, 2012 12:39 PM

Romney says he's "not concerned about the very poor" because of safety net

By Stephanie Condon


Republican presidential frontrunnner Mitt Romney, fresh off his victory in the Florida primary, drew fire from conservatives on Wednesday after remarking that he's "not concerned about the very poor" -- the kind of remark that Democrats are sure to seize on as Romney inches closer to the Republican presidential nomination.


Romney appeared on CNN this morning and reiterated a point he's often made on the campaign trail -- that he's more concerned with the middle class than the very rich or very poor.


"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it," he said. "I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 to 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."


CNN anchor Soledad 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 responded, "We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor and there's no question it's not good being poor... but my campaign is focused on middle income Americans... people who can't find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready for college."

<snip>


Indeed, the middle class has struggled in the past few years. But a large portion of those middle class Americans have, in fact, fallen into poverty. U.S. Census data revealed last month that nearly half of Americans qualify either as poor or low-income. Many low-income Americans don't qualify for programs like food stamps. Meanwhile, as Congress negotiates an extension of the payroll tax cut, Republicans want to reduce the maximum number of weeks a person can claim unemployment insurance from 99 weeks to 59 weeks.

<snip>

But as Romney starts accumulating delegates for the Republican nomination, his remarks will have more ramifications, conservatives worry.

Republican presidential frontrunnner Mitt Romney, fresh off his victory in the Florida primary, drew fire from conservatives on Wednesday ...

***

But as Romney starts accumulating delegates for the Republican nomination, his remarks will have more ramifications, conservatives worry.

So let's get this straight: The conservatives who criticized Romney weren't complaining that he actually needed to be concerned about the poor, but only that having the bad manners to say that he wasn't -- where people could hear him -- makes conservatives look bad. Got it.

Didn't Jeebuz say something about looking after the poor? Or do Mor(m)ons not believe that bit?

Yup, that's our dog-loving Mittens.

In other news, Bill Bennett agrees with me that Mittens has no vision (and the commenters agree his only visions is the US with him as President).
I don't know whether to laugh or cry . . .

Ahhhh Bill Bennett. He was an addicted smoker while being "drug czar", a secretary of education who is mathematically illiterate, he then wrote "the book of values" a scolding tome about what lying weasels poor people are while lying about losing more than $10 million himself betting on slot machines.

And THAT's the kind of "family values" Newtie can get behind!

yrs,
rubato

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it," he said. "I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 to 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

There were probably at least 50 better ways to convey what he meant to convey, (and I can just hear the ring tone that's sure to come out that strings his "I like to fire people" paired up with "I'm not concerned with the very poor") but a fair reading of his comment, in full context makes obvious that what he meant to say was that his major concern was for the blows the middle class have taken, because they have neither the resources of the rich nor the government help available to the very poor. (A perfectly defensible position) And he further said, in the very next breath, that if there wasn't sufficient help to protect the poor, he would "fix it".

Of course, any day when your spokes people and your surrogates are running around saying, "what the candidate meant to say...." isn't a good one...

Especially on a day he should have been basking in the glow of his huge victory in Florida, and setting the table for what is likely to be a string of wins....

As his top hat and monocle statements go, this wasn't nearly the worst, taken in context; but Romney's got two things going against him on this:

The first of course, is the fact that the vast majority of the mainstream media want him to lose, and will seize on anything he says that can put him in a bad light....That's certainly not his fault; any Republican would face that.

The second is entirely his fault; making the sorts of comments that make it easy for the press to construct the negative narrative they can hang around his neck; in Romney's case the idea that he is a callous and out of touch rich guy who doesn't care about ordinary people.

Richard Nixon said it best in one of his interviews with David Frost:

"I gave them a sword...and they stuck it in and twisted it with relish..."

They can't stick it in and twist it, if you don't give them the sword....

Mitt Romney needs to stop handing out cutlasses to the press corps....

Classic case of "gotcha" journalism. A thoroughly harmless side remark, pounced upon by the MSM and Democrats to "prove" something.

Also a great illustration of the hands-off treatment that Barry gets every day. Our Beloved President often says things like this that could be taken out of context to embarrass him, but it rarely happens, and generally only in a humorous context (e.g., having visited "57 states, with one more to go" when campaigning).

Classic case of "gotcha" journalism. A thoroughly harmless side remark, pounced upon by the MSM

Yeah, but here's the problem Dave...

He knows this is going to happen. And he knows that in particular, the MSM have got their antenna up for any comment that can be construed as portraying him as insensitive to the plight of ordinary Americans...

And yet he keeps doing it over and over and over...

Sure, they're out to create this narrative...

But he keeps writing the script for them to do it with....

This to me shows a fundamental lack of discipline in the candidate, when he can't seem to stop stepping in the same pile of dog crap that he knows is sitting there...

It's very disheartening; I had really hoped that we see more of the Romney who emerged in last week's debate; but no sooner does he win the Florida primary then he goes back to the same boneheaded stuff he was doing before...

As I said before, Rick Santorum is absolutely right about one thing; for the GOP to win the Presidency back, the election has to be about Obama and his record; not the GOP candidate and his miscues....

Clearly if Gingrich is the nominee, the election will be all about Newt, and disaster will ensue. But every time Romney pulls this move, he makes it that much easier for Team Obama to make the election about him, rather than their sorry record....

If he doesn't fix this fast, and get on track , I may go back into the camp that prefers a brokered convention, even now that Gingrich has been essentially eliminated.

dales wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... afety-net/

February 1, 2012 12:39 PM

Romney says he's "not concerned about the very poor" because of safety net

By Stephanie Condon


Republican presidential frontrunnner Mitt Romney, fresh off his victory in the Florida primary, drew fire from conservatives on Wednesday after remarking that he's "not concerned about the very poor" -- the kind of remark that Democrats are sure to seize on as Romney inches closer to the Republican presidential nomination.


Romney appeared on CNN this morning and reiterated a point he's often made on the campaign trail -- that he's more concerned with the middle class than the very rich or very poor.


"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it," he said. "I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 to 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."


CNN anchor Soledad 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 responded, "We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor and there's no question it's not good being poor... but my campaign is focused on middle income Americans... people who can't find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready for college."
...

Just a different example of the 'dog on the car roof' story.

Romney can not empathize with other humans (or with dogs). What is that called again in the DSM-IV?

yrs,
rubato

dgs49 wrote:Classic case of "gotcha" journalism. A thoroughly harmless side remark, pounced upon by the MSM and Democrats to "prove" something.

It is hardly "gotcha journalism," Ms. Palin. Romney's remarks are highly indicative of his fundamental lack of understanding. We don't have to worry about the very poor because there is a governmental safety net? Seriously? The whole reason that people -- more and more of them -- are being "caught" by the (laughable) "safety net" is that there is something very very wrong with the operation of the economy that is throwing the formerly middle class and "working poor" into such desperate circumstances that they must seek assistance. Being unconcerned with what's going on at the bottom of the economic heap is not just callous, it reflects a view that fails to grasp the basics of the problem.

Seems like he's saying without a middle class the Po gonna be in trouble.

Maybe the news agencies ought to ask for a clarification...

keld feldspar wrote:Seems like he's saying without a middle class the Po gonna be in trouble.

Maybe the news agencies ought to ask for a clarification...

Ahem ....

CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked him to clarify his remarks

You can make up any post hoc rationalization you want, but as Jim pointed out, it's never a good sign when your flaks are reduced to leading with, "What the candidate meant to say ...."

The fact is that the middle class is in trouble because they are rapidly becoming the poor, and the poor are fucked. Yet the Republicans in Congress are busy trying to cut back unemployment insurance and food aid which are supposed to help those who lost jobs (i.e., the middle class and the "working poor") get through the current economic catastrophe. But for Mitt Romney, being "unemployed" means collecting $21 million a year in capital gains, interest and dividend income.

But he's NOT "...unconcerned with what's going on at the bottom of the economic heap..."

The discussion is about tax and economic policies that will have a chance of improving the overall economy. The major discussion is not about fine-tuning welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, it's about maximizing opportunities for the working/middle class.

It is emphatically "gotcha journalism," because it is highlighted in order to reinforce a pre-conceived but false notion of this candidate.

If he is unconcerned about the poor, why the fuck did he give a couple million dollars to charity last year?

This is bullshit.

Really how can you call it Gotcha Journalism or the Medias narritive when it's the candidate himself penning it? At this point he has made so many of these slips that it's plain to see that the reality of life for the masses is at best an abstraction to him.

Is it malicious? Probably not, though, he seems to lack the desire to find out the reality of the situation as well.

Ignorance is a vice in and of itself.

dgs49 wrote:If he is unconcerned about the poor, why the fuck did he give a couple million dollars to charity last year?

This is bullshit.

Hahahaha, "bullshit." So, exactly what charitable contributions did Romney make to organizations working to alleviate poverty? More than half of his tax-deductible contributions went to the Mormon Church. Who else got money? The Friends of the George W. Bush Library (really? yes, really. $100,000.). The U.S. Equestrian Team Foundation (polo ponies need charity, too!). The Heritage Foundation, the Becket Fund (for "religious rights" legal aid), and the Federalist Society. Citizens for Limited Taxation (what a guy!). Oh, MS Cure and the Center for Treatment of Pediatric MS. (Incidentally -- or not -- Romney's wife has MS.) The Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Friends of the Belmont Council (apparently Romney's neigborhood association). The Belmont Hill School (where the Romney children attend). Harvard Business School. Home for Our Troops. I'm not suggesting that these are not necessarily worthy or charitable organizations, but they're hardly anti-poverty programs.

The closest I have seen is his contributions to the Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston and Catholic Schools Foundation Inner City Scholarship Fund, which both got a whopping $10k. But "concern for the poor"? Really?

Lord Jim wrote: <snip>
The second is entirely his fault; making the sorts of comments that make it easy for the press to construct the negative narrative they can hang around his neck; in Romney's case the idea that he is a callous and out of touch rich guy who doesn't care about ordinary people.

The idea? Hardly, that's precisely what he *is.* Why do you think he's such a difficult candidate to manage? It's not because he isn't bright. It's not because he isn't hard working. It's because he is a totally out of touch rich guy, who recognizes no authority but his own (and perhaps that of his Church), and who has not had to bother with anyone else's authority for decades.

How precisely is someone like that going to even begin to lead this country?

Sue I was being facetious...

Zoooom, right over my head.

Sue U wrote:Zoooom, right over my head.

Stop being so blonde today

Oh, right, that's your job. Union rules and all ...