Mitt Romney caused some trouble for himself this week when he told a national television audience, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." He added there's already a "safety net" for those struggling most, so he'll focus his attention elsewhere.
Associated Press
Yesterday in Nevada, the Republican frontrunner walked it back, telling a reporter, "When you do I don't know how many thousands of interviews, now and then you may get it wrong, and I misspoke."
Expressions of regret are always welcome, but in this case, Romney had it right the first time -- he didn't misspeak on Wednesday morning; he engaged in accidental candor.
For one thing, Romney's original comments were not the first time he'd expressed this sentiment. For another, Paul Krugman explained today that Romney's agenda helps prove just how unconcerned about the very poor he really is.
[W]e do need to strengthen our safety net. Mr. Romney, however, wants to make the safety net weaker instead.
Specifically, the candidate has endorsed Representative Paul Ryan's plan for drastic cuts in federal spending -- with almost two-thirds of the proposed spending cuts coming at the expense of low-income Americans. To the extent that Mr. Romney has differentiated his position from the Ryan plan, it is in the direction of even harsher cuts for the poor; his Medicaid proposal appears to involve a 40 percent reduction in financing compared with current law.
So Mr. Romney's position seems to be that we need not worry about the poor thanks to programs that he insists, falsely, don't actually help the needy, and which he intends, in any case, to destroy.
As a political matter, it makes sense that Romney would walk back his remarks -- multi-millionaire candidates who got rich firing people generally don't win by running on a I-don't-care-about-the-poor platform.
But as a policy matter, it's too late. Romney accidentally told the truth, disgusting both the left and the right simultaneously. His claims about "misspeaking" aren't persuasive, and won't make this problem go away.
Leave a Comment:
Anyone who claims that Mitt Romney is not wanting to look out for the interests of the Middle Class just does not understand the Mitten Scale.
The Mitten Scale:
The Very Rich = Billionaires
The Middle Class = Quarter-Billionaires
The Lower Class = Millionaires
The Poor = Incomes between $250-$999K
The Very Poor = The parasites & peons making less
If you hear a republican politician talking about the government in DC being broken, just remember that they are not complaining; they are bragging about what they have accomplished.
"...-- he didn't misspeak on Wednesday morning; he engaged in accidental candor."
He just didn't realize that WE were paying attention - he meant every word he said!!
LBJ launched the "War On Poverty," Mitt Romney has declared "War On Those In Poverty" in his race to become the meanest SOB in the room.
Not to be outdone, Rick Santorum snarkily tells a mother of a very ill child "Tough luck, lady," when she asks what he would do to keep her son from dying because she can't afford cancer medicine. Newt Gingrich tells nine and 10 year old children to "scrub school toilets" to raise themselves out of poverty. Ron Paul tells poor people we're robbing them of their "freedom" by giving them a helping hand when we feed their kids.
Who are these people? What happened in their life to make them totally devoid of humanity, of compassion, of the sense that Americans are all in this together? For men who claim to be so devoutly Christian, they sure are lacking in any sense of Christian charity.
And what's happened to the media - television especially - that it stopped exposing stories of how one-sixth of this nation lives? Since "reality shows" are so popular, why aren't there reality shows like the long-abandoned CBS Reports covering topics like it once did such as "Harvest Of Shame" and "Hunger In America" and "Rats, Kids And Disease"?
Undermining notions about a liberal media bias, traditional media employees gave more than $350,000 to conservative super PACs in 2011.
Charley-James: I agree with you. What DID happen to all those expose reality shows?
If now were back then, we would have Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters out there with their mics pounding on doors exposing SOB's and truth.
Now we have the Kardashians and Donald Trump !
Yes there was Liberal media that was in the 60's and now media don't uncover the truth they hide it.
You're right. Those of us who cannot afford cable will not be exposed to such information, even on public broadcasting. Anyway, we are living it, and we need the exposure. I guess, this kind of programming is too much of a downer for the "he who dies with the most toys wins" ideology.
"accidental candor ???"
Oh my.... that's a curious thing to say. And here I thought he wasn't quite as creepy as Newt.
re.: The Christian angle-- LOL... I have yet to hear any R. candidate even come close to saying that they'd "lead the way" to comforting the poor and sick...
...and I'm not holding my breath, either
Gov. Jerry Brown, interviewed by Jennifer Granholm, said that Romney's remarks simply betray his Business School bias of looking for the big statistical 'mass'. An overly generous reading of Romney, of course, since Romney made this mass bigger by claiming tacitly that only 5% of the people in this country are poor enough to qualify for the 'safety net.'
I see Romney's obvious inability to think from any point of view other than his own smallish mindset, based on business ideas and on his church's doctrines, should disqualify him from office.
Maybe Romney misspoke about his agenda too.
I'm glad Krugman has stopped trying to walk around things with Willard. tell it like it is.
Romney really is a terrible candidate. He’d love to speak only at pre-planned events, but he can’t get away with that. He claims he misspoke about the poor. Yes he’s an inarticulate man, but he did not misspeak. Sometimes the truth just won’t be denied. Life must be very stressful for him right now. GO OBAMA!
This is just politics, nothing more. Here is a quote from CNN's website referencing a similar comment by Romney:
Everyone conveniently leaves out the sentence that precedes this comment on the poor which was:
Which when taken in context clearly shows Gov. Romney was saying that his focus now is not on the top few percent or the bottom few percent but on the middle 90-95%. Any other interpretation ignores the context and many previous comments.
Who would have thought RobDon and I concur?! Not that I love Romney, but I am more concerned about the middle class who are quickly becoming the POOR! What is going to happen when the middle class who supports social programs becomes too poor to pay for them?
Perhaps the we the poor can pool our money and get an off shore bank account. sarc.
I'm just tired of both sides nitpicking every little thing and clearly using everything for political gain.
I'm guilty of it myself. I guess even pointing out the nitpicking is in a way...well, nitpicking.
Perhaps when we get our off shore account we can vacation and visit it!
... is in danger of looking at his actual policy proposals, which shred the safety net for the bottom 50%, do at best nothing for the next 48%, and pile on the goodies for the top 0.1%
I wish both (all) sides would keep the discussion here, on what is proposed, passed, done, etc...instead of parsing every word out of everyone's mouth.
This has been a non-partisan announcement.
I thought that the Republican doctrine was that character matters?
Romney is attempting to redifine the 99%
Yes and no. I don't like it when the media takes things out of context for no apparent reason. For example the whole "I like to fire people" thing annoys me. But in the broader context of this post I think Mr. Benen is making a fair point.
Romney's economic policies aren't oriented towards helping the poor and are very damaging to even middle income families (I.E. the middle class). His policies give huge subsidies and tax breaks to people in upper income brackets. From his policy position it looks like he's concerned about upper and lower income more than he is middle income in that his policies will drastically cut taxes on upper income individuals, raise taxes on lower income individuals, and cut social safety net programs that everyone uses. To just take his quote out of context I agree is immature and pointless. But his policy positions do make it seem like he doesn't care about the average American...or perhaps he just has a skewed reality of what the average American actually is.
I often times wonder if you actually polled politicians, especially the ones who are millionaires, about what is "average" in terms of income in America what their response would be. From the way Romney talks I often get the feeling that his idea of "Americans" are people who are making more than 250,000$/yr. Which doesn't represent the vast majority of the country. In and of itself it's fine for Romney to campaign that he only wants to represent the upper 20% of income earners. Fine whatever. But that means that everyone else who is in the bottom 80% should be aware that his policies, beliefs, and concerns don't focus on them. I think it's fair for Benen to point this out.
DC, character does matter but that is based on what one has done and less on what words are chosen in a given communication. That's why I said, "proposed, passed, done..."
RD, have you ever heard of "admissions against interest?"
Yes, but I'm talking about verbal missteps or poor choice of words, not things substantive in nature. Both sides engage in this "gotcha" exercise.
Of course Mr. Romney cares about Americans. There is no way to know this for sure but I personally will give him the benefit of the doubt. That is not the issue. The issue has to do with addressing the fact that we have so many people that seem to have fallen into the safety net. He seems to be aware that the net needs to be maintained, that is good. What is not good is that he does not seem to understand the reasons why so many are falling into the safety net. Reducing taxes will not help. Aside from the fact that American business has one of the lowest effective tax rates in the modern world and the lowest effective taxes they have had in decades, there is some quantitative data that dispels the tax argument.
The Prime rate is almost zero and this has not spurred job growth. Business can get whatever money for almost free yet they are not yet on a massive hiring spree. If free money is not an incentive then how does reducing the tax burden help at all? It results in slightly cheaper money, but still more expensive than borrowing at zero. Business having money is not the problem. The problem is that the consumers are tapped out. If they had cash they would use it.
Romney may care about Americans but he does not have a clue what to do about it. That is the problem. Reduce taxes. Right, we already know that is not the problem. He has an ideological stand that prevents him from effectively analyzing the problem. He makes assumptions and "believes" what he "feels" is correct. He then looks for supporting evidence. One can find "supporting evidence" for any wacky idea that comes down the pike. This is bad logic. Until he begins questioning his "beliefs/feelings" instead of searching for evidence that he is correct, he will not be able to effectively analyze anything.
Romney may care deeply about Americans, he just does not know how to analyze the problem. I'm sticking with Obama. He knows how to think. Romney is a slave to his ideology, he "believes" it and will search relentlessly for the data to prove he is right. He is spinning in circles. Obama is searching for solutions.
Mittens,
You need a teleprompter!!
REALLY liked Eugene Robinson's column on Romney's 'poor' marks, Benen. Maybe you should take a look and highlight it.
I'd suggest that Mitt Romney stop by the nearest Nursing Home, where many elderly Americans spend their final years, and find out how
muchlittle the Nursing Aides who do a majority of the care for our mothers and fathers get paid. Many of them are catching the bus around 6-6:30 AM to be hard at work for the day shift, and yet earn a salary that still allows them to qualify forFood Stamps'SNAP' Cards and Subsidized Housing! The same goes for the hard-working Aides and Orderlies at America's Hospitals. It is Disgraceful, that in a Country as Great as ours, the people doing this difficult and important work are paid so little!Maybe Romney should Actually MEET some Real Poor and (Hard) Working Poor people, and/or even better, try living their lives, with their jobs, pay, housing conditions, and within their 'Safety Net' for a few weeks - He's see Reality, and realize that the 'Net' is Not a Hammock!
Does he even realize how
muchlittle our Brave Servicemen and Women earn, while putting their lives on the line for our Country?He is Clueless!
Romney said he misspeak but he keep saying it over and over again so again he is a lier.
Ah, Steve... Remember that blog item way back when in October at the Political Animal, when you noted how Romney ducks the Sunday shows? Maybe the Romney campaign should return to their previous policy of "restrict[ing] [Romney's] 'unguarded moments' with reporters". Maybe these "misspeaks" were why they had Mittbot on a short leash in the first place.
Ah, Steve... Remember that blog item way back when in October at the Political Animal, when you noted how Romney ducks the Sunday shows? Maybe the Romney campaign should return to their previous tactic of "restrict[ing] [Romney's] 'unguarded moments' with reporters".
"unguarded moments" = "accidental candor"
Sorry for the double post. Suffering from first-post dumb-butt syndrom :)
smiling i have that head in my 4th point of contact problem some time my self. got me a days suspension. LOL
Perhaps Romney is trying to make certain that he differentiates
himself from such liberals as Bill Clinton by emphasizing that Romney definitely
does not feel our pain; that he seriously does not care.
There is another twist to Romney's bourgeois outlook in his "back to the future" campaign that many of the MSM pundits are beginning to espouse. This theme that is beginning to emerge is best summed up in a quote from Steinbeck.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
I am not espousing socialism but if the mittens fit, Romney should wear them.
I cannot think of one time in my life when I felt like a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. Well...except maybe when I paid $1800.00 for an overdue $800.00 Associates credit card. But no, not even then. That was an outrage.
My point is that this is an antiquated theory. So we do not need a trampoline to propell us into the millionaire bracket we just need jobs to keep working. That is all the poor and middle class are demanding.....a living wage job.
I wonder when being "working class" became something to be ashamed of in the USA?
Since you mention Steinbeck, the name "Sessions" might as well be "Joad:" it's pretty much family history. Sharecroppers run off the land in the Dust Bowl, go to California and work as field labor. The War and GI Bill changed that for my father, not so much for the uncles and aunts.
Plenty of cousins and such still there, still come home sweaty and filthy at the end of the day. Ain't ashamed of it, either. The young man who may become a son-in-law spends a lot of time doing hard work outdoors, too. Which is just fine by me.
As long as there's a decent living to be made doing honest work, there are plenty of good people to do it. But we've been where there isn't enough to afford a good education for the kids or care when they're sick -- and that ain't right.
GOP morality play opening at a theatre near you. Starring Mitt Romney (He'll be singing his heart-wrenching version of "Oh Beautiful, salatious lies.") and the Pinketts (with Nancy Brinker, famous for her crafty choreography in "Thinkie Pinkie!") The plot is full of really right twists and turns and will leave you breathless with it's seemingly unscripted moments. Not to give anything away (don't read further if you want to be surprised!) but in Act 1, Mitt accidently shoots himself in the foot with a pink pistol!!
It opened to mixed reviews in Iowa cut they're hoping to find the Right audience as they continue on their bus tour.
An amazing script written by A.L.E.C., directed by I.M. Corporation and produced by the Koch brothers.
And don't forget, as a special incentive, they're offering a half-price special for all immigrants and The Poor. Just make sure you bring your photo ID!
(Sorry, it's been a slow day!)
are there no workhouses? are there no prisons?
why, yes Mr Scrooge
Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?
Why yes Mr Scrooge
There's also the memorable "Let Them Eat Cake!"
- Marie Antoinette (of course, they chopped her head off!)
As a long standing fan of Rachel Maddow's, I was disappointed in her handling of this issue. I was not necessary to pull a Fox type tactic and cut off Romney's statement. In context, it is clear he has no idea of what poor Americans have to cope with, nor does he care.
I just realized that maybe everybody missed something. Quoting Mitt Romney verbatim, for fairness (I checked 2 independent sources):
I boldfaced "I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine.", because, according to Romney, the "90-05 percent" (btw, what does that mean?) "are struggling" -
So, the very poor have no money, but they do have a 'safety net' (Ha!), the very rich are 'doing just fine', but the 'heart of America' (middle class) 'are struggling'.
So, who can or should help them, if not the 'Very Rich', who are 'Doing Just Fine'? It's almost as though Romney is implicitly Endorsing the 'Buffet Rule', just like Obama!