Video: Romney “not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net”

posted at 9:50 am on February 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier today, I said that only Mitt Romney could derail Mitt Romney this month.  Did my prediction come true already?  The media and Romney detractors have jumped all over this statement to CNN in which Romney says that he is “not concerned about the very poor,” but that slice of Romney’s statement is entirely misleading — although it’s certainly not adept for a front-runner:

The Washington Post, to its credit, quotes the entire statement rather than just parsing out the controversial fragment:

In an interview with CNN Wednesday morning that should have been a Florida victory lap, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney made a fumble that could give rivals an attack ad sound bite.

Asked about his economic plan, Romney said repeatedly that he was not concerned with very poor Americans, but was focused instead on helping the middle class.

Romney explained that he was confident that food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid and other assistance would keep the poor afloat — he pledged to fix holes in that safety net “if it needs repair.” He repeated past statements that his main focus is the middle class because those people, in his opinion, have been hardest hit by the recession (President Obama also has focused many of his efforts on the middle class).

But Romney’s awkward phrasing could give fuel to critics who argue that he does not empathize with the poorest Americans.

Well, only if the statement gets taken out of context, where Romney clearly commits to keeping safety-net programs in place for the very poor.  Unfortunately for Romney, there won’t be any easier prediction this year than that the truncated quote will end up in attack ads all year long, taken out of context.  The only question will be whether those attacks are limited to Democrats, or if other Republicans will join in on the fun.

In that sense, this is still a gaffe and a worrisome misstep for someone who has been on the campaign trail as long as Romney.  Candidates are supposed to express concern for everyone, not just one particular class, which gets to the more substantial error Romney makes.  As author Brad Thor pointed out on Twitter, the focus should be on fixing the economy so that everyone benefits rather than playing one class against another, as Barack Obama has done.  Romney fell into a class-warfare trap, one he should have seen coming.  It’s not fatal by any means, but Romney had better sharpen himself more for a general election campaign.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6

Archivarix: I agree with the Reagan comment in your post, but I don’t see how it applies to this. With this statement, Romney will have a much harder time reducing the government safety net, as he is now on record as relying on it to deal with the poor.

So… how does this help?

Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Romney supporters jumped all over Newt when he suggested poor children do some menial labor for a few months or years to learn good work habits.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I saw Fox News’s Juan whatshisname go ballistic and maybe some other Fox types like Geraldo, and okay Blow at WaPo, and also the alphabet overloads of the Americans; but, honestly, I didn’t notice any Mitt supporters jumping.

Don’t count Chudi. Chudi is a DNC guy, tasked with engendering hostility to Mitt. Chudi is not a Mitt supporter.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

It’s not that I don’t feel bad about the poor. It’s that I don’t care that I feel bad about the poor.

H/T to Ed Asner

LtGenRob on February 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

“I think reelecting Obama is a disaster and I’ll certainly endorse the Republican nominee.” – Newt Gingrich 1/30/2012

Too bad the same cannot be said for many of his supporters who would rather sit home in a snit.

jazzmo on February 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Asid from the stupid statement, I take issue with the safety net.
This is one of the reasons our country is broke.
Cardle to grave dependency is not the answer. Especially when you see 4 generations sucking us dry.
Try reforming the system and creating jobs.
Wlfare reform can be done. Some guy got it done during the 90′s. Give me a minute and I’ll think of his name.

katy the mean old lady on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

What concerns me is the use of “safety net” versus welfare. It reveals that he plans on doing nothing about getting people off of welfare.

lea on February 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The president can’t really do anything about it anyway except be a cheerleader for reform and sign any reform bills coming from the House and Senate.

I hope no one forgets that taking the Senate and keeping the House are just as important as winning the presidency.

darwin on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

He hates the poor..

too rich..too out of touch…

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 9:58 AM

You know..I’ve never heard that from you before!

KOOLAID2 on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

The big difference in America though, is one can move from the poor “class” to the rich class, and if they make some bad moves go back to the poor class.

Of course the left would like to see people stay in their respective classes permanently.

darwin on February 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I can’t believe you even admitted that class exists. That’s such a huge departure for a conservative. Will you then now admit that there’s such a thing as class interest?

libfreeordie on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Weight of Glory on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

What you said. Mitt doesn’t have the ‘vision thing’.

Lightswitch on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

He hates the poor..

too rich..too out of touch…

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Well, this is true. Conservatives hate the poor, so we try our best to make them realize a path out of being poor. However, liberals hate the rich, so they try their best to provide a path to keep the poor, poor.

Just remember, if there weren’t food debit cards, those food lines would be extremely long with 40 million people in them.

LoganSix on February 1, 2012 at 10:21 AM

It doesn’t matter, what Romney said before or after “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” that’s all anyone is going to remember… it’s the only memorable line in the whole interview.

Even taken in context it’s cringe inducing… His reasoning plays right into the left’s ‘See, Republican don’t care about about all American’s, him and rich buddies have got theirs and the very poor are hopeless, so screw ‘em.’ narrative.

jasetaro on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 AM

It reveals that he plans on doing nothing about getting people off of welfare.

lea on February 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM

No it doesn’t. He specifically said “very poor”, which certainly doesn’t include every person on welfare. He is campaigning for the general election, and “welfare reform” is not the issue on people’s minds for 2012.

Hot Gas on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Ugh, why couldn’t he have just said he wanted to push the very poor into menial, janitorial labor like Gingrich?

ak90049 on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Didn’t Bush Sr. have a moment like this in a debate with Clinton? After being asked if he knew the pain she going through. And Sr. stood there like a deer in the headlights. Then Clinton stepped in and told the audience member that he felt her pain?

multiuseless on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Sugar Land on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I’m with you. I am really sick of the poo flinging from our own side. If we don’t get it together, we are screwed. At least I know what side a liberal is on, I wonder about ours as we love to eat our own.

gator70 on February 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Good luck with your concern .
The problem is Romney does not understand what middle class is or what being poor is. He has never been one. His father was a multimillionaire. He has been privileged his whole life.

Too rich, too out of touch

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM

That’s going to be the main line of attack in the election. David Plouffe could cut and paste that drivel into Obamas teleprompter and it could run as is. So that eye-roll that liberal4life just caused in everyone with a triple digit IQ is going to be repeated over and over.
Too bad we can’t harness the eye roll energy.

V7_Sport on February 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Romneyteurism of the Day.

Shay on February 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM

He’s right, of course, but it’s bad politics. Now we may get the worst of both worlds: a RINO candidate/president, while conservatism is being tarnished.

Alexis on February 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Ugh. This is the guy we are running against Obama?

Hate to say it, but those lefties nailed Romney with that you tube vid. He is totally the annoying boss from The Office.

bitsy on February 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Look at Mitt leaving FL and going into NV. Does he really need the poor vote?

Nope. Come the general election, he’ll pander to them. We already got him on tape!

ElenaKagan on February 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

The big difference in America though, is one can move from the poor “class” to the rich class, and if they make some bad moves go back to the poor class.

Of course the left would like to see people stay in their respective classes permanently.

darwin on February 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I take it you haven’t seen the charts which demonstrate that rates of upward mobility between classes shrunk quite a bit in the last 30 years? Seems like 30 years of supply side economics hasn’t increased upward mobility. Weirdly, upward mobility was highest in the era between world War II and the 1970s when we had a 90% marginal tax rate at the highest bracket, how odd…..

libfreeordie on February 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Then Clinton stepped in and told the audience member that he felt her pain?

Bingo: that is what Hot Gas true-conservatives™ are demanding of Mitt.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

he is now on record as relying on it to deal with the poor.

So… how does this help?

Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Why do people keep saying “poor”. He clearly said “very poor”. If we don’t stop Obama, we are all going to be poor, and that’s where his concern is.

Hot Gas on February 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM

I am shocked a multimillionaire would make such a statement…

Man, the Romney supporters have no idea how well they are doing the bidding for Obama in the possible “Obama v Romney”

Clearly the past 100+ years of progressive liberals lying, stealing, cheating and election wins have taught the GOP anything.

If people cannot envision the optics come July/Aug/Sept – exactly the same as 2008… the rich white guy is too out of touch to help – like McCain’s “I dont know how many houses we own”.

That also coincided with the reversal in polls, whereas McCain fell below Obama – never recovered and we know the rest.

I can write the Dem’s strategy with one hand while driving and texting at the same time.

Odie1941 on February 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Any government safety net is class warfare. The beneficiaries do not pay taxes, and even if/when they do, the money they receive is worth more than their taxes. If it is not, the safety net doesn’t actually do anything. (This is one argument against safety nets, since the federal government, particularly, is so inefficient.) Therefore, some of the money that the beneficiaries receive from any government safety net must come from non-beneficiaries.

Hence, this is class warfare. This should also be able to be articulated at the drop of a hat by any conservative.

Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Most of America is not concerned for the indigent that steal resources.

rubberneck on February 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Clearly, what he should have said was “I want you soccer moms working hard to pay more, so the poor can do less.”

Guys, if Newt had said this you would be cheering.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM

He’s right, but in politics the truth takes a back seat to political correctness

Bevan on February 1, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Maybe this “gaffe” will hurt him in Nevada, but this isn’t that bad at all. I thought that the concern these days was all over keeping up a Middle Class! All of the sudden, somebody states that the poor is not thee most important issue since mankind had to fight off the Mastodons and he’s supposedly tarred and feathered over it?!? Please.

I think the bigger controversy should be the way Romney talked to Soledad O’Brien. If anybody ever talked that way to me, I’d punch him in the kisser.

The Nerve on February 1, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I haven’t been so depressed about a “front runner” since oh….2008

golfmann on February 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

He won’t change a thing..Not one stinking thing in DC…..

Thank you GOP ELITE for pushing your ken doll nominee who is such a CLEAR, STARK CONTRAST to the man destroying the US…/

katy on February 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Second look at Santorum?

cd98 on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I’m amazed he’s not getting more support.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

golfmann on February 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Okay, that was funny.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I can’t believe you even admitted that class exists. That’s such a huge departure for a conservative. Will you then now admit that there’s such a thing as class interest?

libfreeordie on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

What? Don’t we all talk about the middle class?

Of course there are different classes, but as I said they’re fluid. Lower classes move up all the time and sometimes those in the richer class find themselves moving down. The entire thing is fluid.

That is free enterprise working with a free market. When you restrict that, as the left wants to do, you inhibit that fluidity and people start to stagnate in whatever class they’re in.

darwin on February 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Guys, if Newt had said this you would be cheering.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Exactly.

jazzmo on February 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Pfffftttt…. So what. I ain’t scared of this class warfare rhetoric and those professing to be “true” conservatives should welcome it.

rhombus on February 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Second look at Santorum?

cd98 on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I’m amazed he’s not getting more support.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

You Santy guys need to get Quitter to put a sock in it.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I think the bigger controversy should be the way Romney talked to Soledad O’Brien. If anybody ever talked that way to me, I’d punch him in the kisser.

The Nerve on February 1, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Yeah, but you’re not a leftist tool.

Hot Gas on February 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I’m certain that attempting to secure the nomination and then running for president is beyond comprehension exhausting. Still – how difficult is it to avoid a “gem-for-the-opposition” statement like this one? Is it that difficult for a candidate to have in the back of his brain certain phrases that are absolutely verboten?

Nothing wrong at all with having the middle class the focus for a candidate. But to ever utter the phrase “not concerned with very poor Americans” is truly awful.

Frankly, if I ever were (nuts enough) to be running, I would always maintain that I was concerned about all Americans. Any president should be. That should be the underlying principle – though, as stated, focusing on the needs of some subset is not wrong.

Not being concerned about some Americans is wrong.

pbundy on February 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Ugh, why couldn’t he have just said he wanted to push OFFER the very poor into menial, janitorial laborJOBS(They get a paycheck for) like Gingrich?

ak90049 on February 1, 2012 at 10:22 AM

FIFY.

MontanaMmmm on February 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM

This is great stuff. Now we can get this OWS stuff out and let Gingrich try to make hay on it for the next couple of weeks. Romney is inoculated against it for the general.

Now, did Romney do this on purpose, or did he stick his foot in his mouth? In the end it wont matter. All that matters is that Obama is denied the issue of the 1% verses the 99%.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM

HotGas: I say ‘poor’ because my ‘poor’ may be someone else’s ‘very poor’ may be someone else’s ‘middle-class’.

The term is meaningless except in comparative terms.

What is not meaningless is the historical truth that any state-sponsored safety net, no matter how small or innocuous, grows to strangle the sponsored state.

So it doesn’t matter if Romney said ‘poor’, ‘very poor’, ‘starving’, or ‘dead’ (k, slight exaggeration there). What he said now is going to make getting rid of entitlements under him quite a bit more difficult.

Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Yes, it is quite odd. Odd that you didn’t mention the myriad tax breaks, shelters, and assorted legal gimmicks available to tax payers to offset those 90% income tax rates.

Odder still is the trillions spent by the demorats in “The War On Poverty” yet the poverty rate has risen. Why, it’s almost as if the war on poverty was all just a giant scheme to appropriate more money to waste on stupid boondoggles hatched in fevered leftist minds.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I grew up on welfare and food stamps. My dad was a gamer of the system. Then, in 1980 I met Ronald Reagan.

Nobody needs to be on welfare. There are several who WANT to remain on welfare; it’s all they know.

Health Care!

/Note: Glozelle Green is a conservative black woman. Parody at its finest!

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I can’t believe that this is the kind of stuff we bother worrying about. Seriously. All I can say is… so what?

If Obama wants to take that comment and run it out of context, the obvious thing to do is run your own ad pointing out the blatant DISHONESTY of his, and run ‘em 5 to 1. Nothing hurts a politician more than getting caught in an outright lie, particularly a lie designed to make fools of the electorate. See: Newt Gingrich and Kosher Meals.

Murf76 on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

And speaking of quitters, you know who would be getting a second look right now, and who still had money… if he hadn’t quit? Perry.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

As some have noted.. the “gaffe” or really “truth” in his comments is how he reveals once again to be a big government Bush republican that will change NOTHING if he’s elected. As Newt said last night, do you want fast decay w/ Obama or slow decay w/ Romney. Hopefully, Newt and Santorum won’t have to spend any $$ the next month destroying Mitt, he’ll do it to himself…

Second look at ANYONE?????

davek70 on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Dont worry Mitt fans know one will know about this but us. not on drudge not on the news its no were. looks like they will cover for him again and wait to bring it out for the GE.

boogaleesnots on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

The greatest and #1 threat to Mitt Romney’s campaign is: Mitt Romney.

Newt Gingrich is also his own threat to himself in this regards.

Obama sees his job as pushing the Middle Class into poverty, the working poor into the very poor and the very poor onto the streets. Once that happens everyone moves down a notch, again.

That is the reductio ad absurdum of class warfare: you have the rulers and the poor, the serfs, the peons, the slaves to government. The Middle Class is the bulwark of this economy and the work ethic of the Nation and it has been under relentless attack for a century. The Middle Class were willing to help the very poor before government decided to ‘help’ and create a ‘safety net’. Once you get the majority of the country into the ‘safety net’ it is no longer a Nation you can recognize and the ‘safety net’ then collapses under its own weight.

The insanity of trying to pass of the very poor to the caring tentacles of government is horrific beyond any description because that is only where it starts, not where it stops.

ajacksonian on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Classes certainly exist.

Upper class: Park Avenue
Middle class: Heartland America
Lower class: South Central L.A.

No class: libfreeordie

viking01 on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I take it you haven’t seen the charts which demonstrate that rates of upward mobility between classes shrunk quite a bit in the last 30 years? Seems like 30 years of supply side economics hasn’t increased upward mobility. Weirdly, upward mobility was highest in the era between world War II and the 1970s when we had a 90% marginal tax rate at the highest bracket, how odd…..

libfreeordie on February 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

You’re referring to the implementation of Johnson’s “Great Society” which began the shackling of people to the lower classes. Once dependent, many people stay and never move up. Increasing entitlements give many no reason to work, innovate, excel. Dependency can very very addictive, and spiritually and morally crippling.

darwin on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

This is great stuff. Now we can get this OWS stuff out and let Gingrich try to make hay on it for the next couple of weeks. Romney is inoculated against it for the general.

Now, did Romney do this on purpose, or did he stick his foot in his mouth? In the end it wont matter. All that matters is that Obama is denied the issue of the 1% verses the 99%.csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM

“I’m a DAYDREAM believer……”

MontanaMmmm on February 1, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Then Clinton stepped in and told the audience member that he felt her pain?

Bingo: that is what Hot Gas true-conservatives™ are demanding of Mitt.

I’m not sure Mitt can master the lower-lip bite in time. He does appear to have the ‘whip out the checkbook’ down pat, though.

Dexter_Alarius on February 1, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Brutha in the WH

Conservative Black Woman, Glozelle Green

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Oooooh, I felt that one. The statement, even taken as a whole, falls a bit flat. He’ll have time to explain himself, certainly, but still this one just did not land as well as it could’ve. ‘I’m worried about the state of the poor in our country, that’s why I’m for keeping some of these safety net programs’ would’ve been better, and could’ve segued into talking about which safety net programs might need trimming or a solid cut.

Not lethal by any stretch, but man, not the smartest thing to say at all.

WealthofNations on February 1, 2012 at 10:33 AM

At some point, these “mistakes” become overwhelming
Doughboy on February 1, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I agree. Like sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi. Like ripping Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. Like declaring your idol to be Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson! Like getting angry every time something doesn’t go your way. Like telling Jewish voters (through a robo-call) that Romney wants to deny Holocaust survivors kosher meals.

You’re right. These things do add up.

rogaineguy on February 1, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Sure.

I we want to have an ad war where we parse statements out of context, my guess is that a more plentiful abundance of material on Mr. Obama exists.

Furthermore, if any of the other GOP contenders try quoting him out of context, Romney will respond in a very big way. Ask Gingrich how that worked out.

Marcus Traianus on February 1, 2012 at 10:33 AM

And speaking of quitters, you know who would be getting a second look right now, and who still had money… if he hadn’t quit? Perry.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Perry was my first choice after Cain left. Then Newt used Jedi mind tricks to make him go OWS and explode.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:33 AM

If Obama wants to take that comment and run it out of context, the obvious thing to do is run your own ad pointing out the blatant DISHONESTY of his, and run ‘em 5 to 1.

Murf76 on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Gingrich will do it first, Romney will effectively defend it, and Obama is denied the point in the general.

The progressive began the OWS narrative in 2011 to be prepared for the election. The GOP knows how to play that game also.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 10:34 AM

yeah that mitt is so smart and well spoken!! the most electable of the bunch!!

chasdal on February 1, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Sorry — his explanation makes him sound even stupider than the “out of context sound snippet.”

He has no intention of increasing social programs? Believe me, he has no intention of reducing them, either. How can Mitt hope to control our burgeoning debt — and not bleed what’s left of the middle class — if he’s not going to touch social programs like food stamps etc. etc. for our exponentially growing new leisure class a/k/a the poor? The millions on perpetual unemploymnent, a/k/a white guy’s welfare?

And wait till Obamacare kicks in. And if anyone here really thinks that Mitt and his Merry Men are going to repeal Obamacare, well, just Paypal me $100, and I will sell you a very nice bridge over the East River in NYC. (Mitt’s close advisors and GOP congressional leaders like Boehner have quietly admitted they like socialized medicine, and except for some wee tinkering around the edges have absolutely no intentions of repealing it. )

I guess you Mitt fans all have the very best private health insurance money can buy, and will have no sweat about paying $6,000 to $10,000 a month in premiums? What? You say impossible? You only pay $800 – $1,000 a month? Or $125 a month because you work for the government? Even so, I bet you never dreamed you’d be paying that much ten years ago.

Scriptor on February 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Guys, if Newt had said this you would be cheering.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM

No, we wouldn’t. Newt would be getting ripped to pieces for making “yet another gaffe.” No one, even his supporters, would try to defend this. There would be an avalanche of contempt and mockery in the comments and more screaming about “class warfare” and “Newt loves OWS!” and one of the bloggers would have excoriated him in a column.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You Santy guys need to get Quitter to put a sock in it.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I’m not a Santy guy, but for the anti-Romney’s it ought to be clear Gingrich isn’t going to cut it. But your point is well-taken…it’s odd Palin went the Newt route.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

What he said now is going to make getting rid of entitlements under him quite a bit more difficult.

Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I’m with you, Scott… like, I understand what you mean. But if Romney is elected in November, no one, but NO ONE is going to remember what he said on January 31st. We can push a Romney toward what conservatives want a lot easier than a Bambi.

Geez, it’s going to be hard enough getting anything through the libs in Congress (R and D alike). We just need to get the idiot out of the White House and stop the downhill spiral… and Romney being seen by the electorate as “safe and moderate” is a huge bonus in a year like this. That said, my #1 choice was Allen West. But he didn’t run.

Hot Gas on February 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM

This is great stuff. Now we can get this OWS stuff out and let Gingrich try to make hay on it for the next couple of weeks. Romney is inoculated against it for the general.

Now, did Romney do this on purpose, or did he stick his foot in his mouth? In the end it wont matter. All that matters is that Obama is denied the issue of the 1% verses the 99%.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Actually, I considered the inoculation concept, but I’m not buying. It’s like saying Obama’s “bitter clinger” moment helped him. Sound bites like “I like being able to fire people.” andd “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” are forever.

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM

You’re referring to the implementation of Johnson’s “Great Society” which began the shackling of people to the lower classes.

No, I’m not. Good gravy, you people do. not. know. American history. Honestly, can you name one book you’ve read on the Great Society? Just one? Or how about a history of Post World War II America. Can you name even one?

libfreeordie on February 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I can’t believe you even admitted that class exists. That’s such a huge departure for a conservative. Will you then now admit that there’s such a thing as class interest?

libfreeordie on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Do you read many conservatives?

I can’t think of any that don’t acknowledge the existence of broad classes (poor, middle-class, wealthy).

I also can’t think of any that would deny that there are policies that one group could vote in favor of that would benefit their group. For instance, if the wealthy push for additional tax loopholes, they benefit. If the poor push for additional welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, etc they would benefit.

That you find an acknowledgement of this surprising is indicative to me that you either do not read/listen to conservatives much or that you are playing semantic games where you are going to use one definition of ‘class’ to get someone to agree they exist then switch to another definition of ‘class’ to make an argument that would only hold if the people involved agreed on the second definition, not the first.

I could be wrong though, so, please, go on.

JadeNYU on February 1, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Interesting factoid:

Look up George Romney’s “brainwashing” gaffe:

Romney was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968. While initially a front-runner, he proved an ineffective campaigner, and fell behind Richard Nixon in polls. Following a mid-1967 remark that his earlier support for the Vietnam War had been due to a “brainwashing” by U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Vietnam, his campaign faltered even more, and he withdrew from the contest in early 1968.

Fallon on February 1, 2012 at 10:40 AM

But.. but… the Establishment told us that Newt was the one that would make fatal gaffes like this.

faraway on February 1, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Get ready for four more years of Obama (hope the country survives it). Romney can’t win. Thanks you squishy RINOs who think “electability” trumps principle. Thanks a lot.

Doomsday on February 1, 2012 at 10:40 AM

LOBOTOMY4LIFE will be here in 5.4.3.2…

KOOLAID2 on February 1, 2012 at 9:54 AM

hr can’t it is not in his DNA. He cannot relate to the poor. Too rich, too out of touch

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I do not blame him. Rich people hate the poor. During my time in college the rich folks didn’t want to hang with us because we were from poor backgrounds. They despise the working poor and look down upon us for not being wealthy

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

lobotomy4life! You went to college! It must have been, before the operation! Were you a classmate of JugEars? Is transcript the same thing as a prescription?

KOOLAID2 on February 1, 2012 at 10:40 AM

It is already on the drawing board, taken out of context. An Romcare is not worth getting angry over either.

democratsarefools on February 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

No, we wouldn’t. Newt would be getting ripped to pieces for making “yet another gaffe.” No one, even his supporters, would try to defend this. There would be an avalanche of contempt and mockery in the comments and more screaming about “class warfare” and “Newt loves OWS!” and one of the bloggers would have excoriated him in a column.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Nope, you would be right on right awwwwn. Conservatism like this wins elections! That would be the reply. See, finally someone is standing up for the middle class!

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Scott,

The troubling thing here for conservatives is that Romney is tacitly (said implicitly in Headline, my mistake) approving of the government safety net.

This is not a conservative response at all.

Safety net NOT dependency, Scott.

We can change how many people require the safety net, if we elect a republican and Mitt says he is flexible on how you want to fix the safety net. I know you think that is a terrible thing. If you send more Tea Partiers to the House and Senate, they will work on ways to get the government out of it.

Are you working on a campaign yet Scott? I hope so, otherwise you are just blubbering. Don’t sit and wait for someone else to do it.

If you sit this one out and we lose seats in the Senate, it will be YOUR fault we can’t get rid of Obamacare. Not even Crazy adulterous Newt and Callista can change those rules without the Senate.

Fleuries on February 1, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Hot Gas: No, I fundamentally disagree with you, because of the psychological wiring in politicians these days.

If Romney is elected, he will take that as a sign that conservatives approve of him wholeheartedly, and he should pursue the agenda he ran on. Apparently, part of the agenda he ran on is NOT decreasing the size of entitlements.

This also applies to any other GOP politician. I submit as evidence the 2010 elections, where the Tea Party elected many GOP politicians, and the GOP ‘Establishment’ took it as a sign that we wanted GOP Socialistic policies rather than Democrat Socialistic policies.

I do not believe that Romney will be any more controllable than Obama.

Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I finally realized who Mitt Romney reminds me of:

http://foodandwinehedonist.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/bert-gyegreeneblogspotcom.jpg?w=176&h=300

tkyang99 on February 1, 2012 at 10:43 AM

No question this quote will hurt Romney. Gingrich has been painting Obama as the “food stamp President”, and says that he (Gingrich) will help the poor find work so they won’t need food stamps, while Romney essentially says that the poor can stay on food stamps.

Romney should have used Reagan’s line–that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Steve Z on February 1, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Serious question: Does Willard have some form of Autism or ADD or Turets something like that where a person can’t control what they’re saying? There’s no explanation as to someone can say such idiotic things like I LIKE TO FIRE PEOPLE and this bit about not caring about the poor.

angryed on February 1, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Wow… I’m liberal and I think this story is pure BS. Why is this being pushed at HA?

RanchTooth on February 1, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Or how about a history of Post World War II America. Can you name even one?

libfreeordie on February 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM

For those of us that lived post WWII? It’s been downhill since your dear LBJ.

katy the mean old lady on February 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Romney = Unelectable.

LOL!

shannon76 on February 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Hot Gas on February 1, 2012 at 10:29 AM

No way, Jose`. I’m a Hot Air righty who wants Obama vanquished. Back to filling balloons with you, HotGas.

The Nerve on February 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Romney = Biden

Nuf said…

timberline on February 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Do the very poor vote?

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 9:58 AM

From the CNN exit poll

Vote by Income

Under $30K (15%) – Gingrich, 32% Romney, 42%

$30-50K (19%) – Gingrich, 29% Romney, 45%

$50-100K (35%) – Gingrich, 33% Romney, 45%

$100-200K (22%) – Gingrich, 33% Romney, 48%

$200K or More (9%) – Gingrich, 23% Romney, 60%

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I do not blame him. Rich people hate the poor. During my time in college the rich folks didn’t want to hang with us because we were from poor backgrounds. They despise the working poor and look down upon us for not being wealthy

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

You’re confusing your life with an ABC After School Special where the rich kids learn a valuable lesson at the end of the show.

angryed on February 1, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Mitt Romney is starting to sound like Joe Biden.

timberline on February 1, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Sound bites like “I like being able to fire people.” andd “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” are forever.

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM

If we think people are dumb enough to not try and figure out what either of those statements are saying, then we are screwed anyway.

You think a Republican candidate is going to get through a year plus without saying seven words in a row that can be taken out of context and used against him or her?

“Bitter clingers” was a paragraph full of what was really in Bambi’s heart when he thought nobody but his favoreds were listening. Your examples, on the other hand, are seven words each, and both lacking context (the first was about how he wanted choice in healthcare, for crying out loud).

Hot Gas on February 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Does it bother you at all that people think you’re a ridiculous troll? You’re like the kid making farting noises in the back of a school assembly. I have to believe you have it in you to do better than that.

Paul-Cincy on February 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM

not one bit. People call me a troll because they refuse to accept the truth or they are used to people agreeing with them.

liberal4life on February 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Translation: Farting noises are sublime.

Paul-Cincy on February 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Idiot4Life….thanks for your concern.

The problem actually…is Obama does not understand what it takes to improve the economy. He has never run a business. He’s never held a private sector job. He’s never met a payroll. He doesn’t know what a P&L statement is. He doesn’t understand cause and effect. And by the way…His father was a commie and his grandparents were millionaires. He has been privileged his whole life. He’s been handed everything to him because of the color of his skin…the majority of Americans can’t relate to that. Obama is a multimillionaire who earned his wealth by having a friend write a book for him and through his connections to the Chicago political machine. The majority of Americans can’t relate to that.

Obama has spent close to 1/2 a MILLION $ on vacations in the past 3 years…while the number on food stamps increased and while record amounts of people are unemployed. Middle class Americans won’t be able to spend that amount in their lifetimes. Obama is not only tone deaf to the suffering of everyday Americans…he is heartless…look at his charitable donations. He is out of touch with middle class Americans.

Obama is too privleged, too out of touch, clueless about running a country, hostile to what is important to the business community and above his paygrade on improving the economy.

I’ll take the guy with a proven track record rather than giving OweBama another 4 years of OJT. Thanks.

So take your class envy crap and spew it at HuffPo…I’m sure they will give you a badge.

HumpBot Salvation on February 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I don’t care about the poor either. The United States has some of the most wealthy ‘poor’ in the world. If you’re on welfare and can afford a car, are provided with a home, food, a cell phone and basic cable? I’m sorry, you aren’t ‘poor’. Still, I appreciate the fact that you’d like to have more, then what is stopping you? No one and no thing is keeping anyone in America poor. Concentrate on the middle class and those poor will become middle class…if THEY want to. This is America! The LAND OF OPPORTUNITY! Not the land of hand outs.

PorchDawg on February 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Mitt Romney is starting to sound like Joe Biden.

timberline on February 1, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I’m waiting for the “Stand Up Joe” moment.

angryed on February 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

You’re confusing your life with an ABC After School Special where the rich kids learn a valuable lesson at the end of the show.

angryed on February 1, 2012 at 10:46 AM

“Trading Places” comes to mind.

timberline on February 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Fleuries: Any government safety net breeds dependency. This is a historical fact.

Also, thank you for telling me that the Senate will be my fault. People like you have been telling me that my single vote doesn’t matter for months. And now that single vote will determine if the Senate flips?

And the House by itself can eliminate ObamaCare by refusing to fund it. The fact that the GOP does not want to spend the political capital to do so is one of the primary reasons I do not support them anymore.

Scott H on February 1, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Well, I guess we know now where that TOTUS that went missing a few months back ended up cuz Romney sounded like he was reading from it this morning.

stukinIL4now on February 1, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Second look at Santorum?

cd98 on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM
I’m amazed he’s not getting more support.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

If the media wanted to…he would have it.

KOOLAID2 on February 1, 2012 at 10:48 AM

No, I’m not. Good gravy, you people do. not. know. American history. Honestly, can you name one book you’ve read on the Great Society? Just one? Or how about a history of Post World War II America. Can you name even one?

libfreeordie on February 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM

You didn’t refute my point. Movement began to stagnate with the beginnings of the welfare state.

People simply stay where they are.

darwin on February 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I thought we banned Ed Morrissey from EVER BLOGGING ABOUT MITT ROMNEY AGAIN! His objectivity rating is about one notch above Debbie-Wasserman Schultz moderating the GOP debates. (and his rhetoric against Romney sounds strikingly similar to hers … huh, odd.)

TINA! Where are you?!

Crefonso on February 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I haven’t been so depressed about a “front runner” since oh….2008

golfmann on February 1, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Could be worse…we could have a guy losing by 15 in all the swing states.

rubberneck on February 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

No, I’m not. Good gravy, you people do. not. know. American history. Honestly, can you name one book you’ve read on the Great Society? Just one? Or how about a history of Post World War II America. Can you name even one?

libfreeordie on February 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Can you name one book you’ve read on CDOs? No? OK you can’t ever comment about mortgages again.

angryed on February 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

If we think people are dumb enough to not try and figure out what either of those statements are saying, then we are screwed anyway.

You think a Republican candidate is going to get through a year plus without saying seven words in a row that can be taken out of context and used against him or her?

Hot Gas on February 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

a) We know people are dumb enough to not try and figure out what either of those statements are saying.

b) I don’t expect Romney to get through a year without being taken out of context, but why did he have to provide such perfect ammunition to feed the worst stereotypes about him?

Come on, a little honesty please.

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6