This alleged snippet is amateur hour just like Romney's campaign. Also you really can't take Romney's comments out of context. What could he have said in this alleged gap that would have cured his prior comments? Of course Romney himself does not contest what he said.

blah blah blah. I mean it's not like he said poor people cling to god and their guns and have antipathy towards people that don't look like them while in a closed door fundraiser with a weathly donors.

Blah, blah, blah--Romney loses in a landslide...

freeman2 wrote:Blah, blah, blah--Romney loses in a landslide...

Define landslide.

I do find it amusing that liberals don't care the President doesn't know much about the national debt (see Letterman last night), don't care that embassies are burning, don't care that the key to getting out of Afghanistan (training Afghans) just took a body blow, and don't care about future generations. But, they get all lathered up about an edited answer at a fundraiser.

Priorities.

Well, maybe not a landslide. I think it will be similar to Bush-Kerry in 2004--Romney gets down significantly after weak convention and gaffes (like Kerry), has a good first debate (like Kerry), loses something like 52-48 in the popular vote, maybe even 51-49. There is just a tendency for recent presidential elections to revert to the mean, because of polarization.

DF, don't defend him. Just don't. Stewart was not fair and balanced, but he nailed it nonetheless:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-18-2012/the-millionaire-gaffemaker

geojanes wrote:DF, don't defend him. Just don't. Stewart was not fair and balanced, but he nailed it nonetheless:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-18-2012/the-millionaire-gaffemaker

If saying the recording was edited is defending him, I'm guilty.

As to freeman2's keen insight:

Also you really can't take Romney's comments out of context. What could he have said in this alleged gap that would have cured his prior comments? Of course Romney himself does not contest what he said.

So, there is nothing that could have been edited out that would have softened this in the slightest?

Now, as to why Romney didn't defend it, there are two reasons: 1) it was an answer, not a speech. I'm pretty confident he doesn't remember, word for word, what he said; 2) the gist of it is not wrong--there are a group of Americans who have become addicted to the welfare State and will vote for whomever gives them more "stuff."

I've seen liberals say this means Romney hates retirees or will let disabled veterans go without help. That's about as dishonest as saying Obama is a Stalinist.

(He's more of a Trotskyite)

In a sense, I would argue that Stewart actually helps Romney. How so? The absurdity that his own father would not support him points to one thing: not every person, not "even" those on the dole, votes selfishly. In other words, there are a number of Americans who hold to the adage JFK once spoke," Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

That is precisely the opposite philosophy of President Obama.

So, Stewart would make one salient point: Romney was wrong in what he said.

He's right about there being a constituency that would not vote for him if Obama could be demonstrated to be a genuine Marxist, American-hating person (which he's not). He's right that some people are beyond reaching. He's not right about the numbers or that government assistance automatically makes one a mindless Democrat. Obviously, that takes years to learn.

So, Stewart would make one salient point: Romney was wrong in what he said.

OK, at least that part of your response is fair. He was wrong, and everyone is wrong some of the time.

Let me try to put the best spin on this I can, as I do like Romney more than I should. (It's a kind of affinity that's rooted in us both originally from the same place, there's a good Italian word for that, what is it . . . ?.)

I believe Romney is a smart guy. I think he's a great manager and not a typical politician. I believe the malleability of his beliefs is actually the sign that he is a great manager. A manager wants to get a particular outcome and it's not that important how you get there, whereas with political orthodoxy the means are just as important as the ends, unfortunately.

He's smart enough to know that he needs to sound like a real Republican, with belief in Republican orthodoxy, but in his heart he's about as reform as they come, as any great manager would need to be. So here he is with his monied base, and he's got to cater to them, he's got to tell them what they want to hear. Anybody who's ever sold anything has done this; he was telling people what they wanted to hear so they would give him their money. But the tape recorder was on. Oooops.

What does he actually think? We don't really know, but I think it's probably pretty benign. As president, he wants America, all of America, to prosper. He certainly doesn't want more people living in poverty.

But ultimately it does come down to specifics and part of why Romney is messing up so badly is that he doesn't really believe strongly in anything political; he has no conviction, no faith, so he can sound so tone-deaf. He's really messing up his moment.

geo

He's smart enough to know that he needs to sound like a real Republican, with belief in Republican orthodoxy

,

Orthodoxy that has most of the House members, most of the senators and Mitt himself sign Grover Norquists plan to never raise taxes.
Orthodoxy that has them all support the Bush tax cuts, and support keeping the Bush tax cuts.
Then complain that so many now don't pay federal taxes,. For a large part of that 47% who don't pay federal taxes its ONLY because of the Bush tax cuts...
Orthodoxy that says that not paying taxes is good, but when you don't you're a bum.
Its confusing isn't it?

Mitt could clear all this up if he present a comprehensive tax plan that included proposed tax rates and proposed deductible items.... Then we could see what he and Ryan mean by "lowering rates for everyone by broadening the base, but eliminating deductions" . What it sounds like, which is reinforced by both hsi original taped comments and by his explanation of them is that he wants the middle class, working class and working poor to pay more taxes.....but the well off to enjoy a lower tax burden. (Unless he's really eliminating all the tax advantages for the very wealthy such as the 15% rate on capital gains and "carried interest".

geojanes wrote:He's smart enough to know that he needs to sound like a real Republican, with belief in Republican orthodoxy, but in his heart he's about as reform as they come, as any great manager would need to be. So here he is with his monied base, and he's got to cater to them, he's got to tell them what they want to hear. Anybody who's ever sold anything has done this; he was telling people what they wanted to hear so they would give him their money. But the tape recorder was on. Oooops.

Yeah, well, just like Obama, Romney should always think he's being recorded. That's something I learned . . . after the Rodney King incident. Everyone, everywhere is a potential recorder, so act like you're always being recorded and you will have no problems.

Again, I don't think it's quite fair to be so brutal as to say he caters entirely to his audience, but then again, no politician fronts off his base.

What does he actually think? We don't really know, but I think it's probably pretty benign. As president, he wants America, all of America, to prosper. He certainly doesn't want more people living in poverty.

Key point, and what the election SHOULD be about. Which approach will lead to more people gaining more wealth--the Obama approach or the Romney approach? That ought to be the decision we're making.

I fear we are in a "cult of personality" moment. I think there are many people who nearly worship the man (have you seen the Obama pledge some actresses are taking?). I find it borderline frightening.

While I loathe his policies, I am becoming concerned that there's something worse going on: too many people have stopped thinking and have become Obama-fans. He's just a man; he's not infallible. Yet, I would not be surprised to see scenes from the Life of Brian acted out in real life surrounding the President.

Conservatives criticized Bush. Liberals criticize Obama for not being liberal enough, but then hope he'll move to the left after the election. When Bush ran for reelection, he was actually more conservative (relatively speaking) than he was in his second term. I think there is a large swath of the Democratic party that is unhealthily infatuated with him.

But ultimately it does come down to specifics and part of why Romney is messing up so badly is that he doesn't really believe strongly in anything political; he has no conviction, no faith, so he can sound so tone-deaf. He's really messing up his moment.

I think this is right. If he's going to win, he has to start sounding like a winner. There need to be some specific themes. He needs to lay out what cuts he might make, what deductions he'll reduce, and give us a much more clear vision of how he would govern.

DF, you forgot about soldiers in a combat zone not paying federal taxes...

To me, sarcasm typically shows anger and not "insight" so I am not sure how effective it is...

This article sums up Romney and the current Republican Party pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/opini ... .html?_r=0

freeman2 wrote:DF, you forgot about soldiers in a combat zone not paying federal taxes...

Right, who he obviously was not speaking about--even your man, Kristoff gets that.

To me, sarcasm typically shows anger and not "insight" so I am not sure how effective it is...

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. I suppose you never watch Stewart? Good for you.

This article sums up Romney and the current Republican Party pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/opini ... .html?_r=0

Actually, it's a hit-piece.

For example:

Another illustration of radicalizing self-delusion comes when the son of a governor and corporate chief executive says that “everything that Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way, and that’s by hard work.”

What evidence does he offer for that?

Doctor Fate wrote:

This article sums up Romney and the current Republican Party pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/opini ... .html?_r=0

Actually, it's a hit-piece.

For example:

Another illustration of radicalizing self-delusion comes when the son of a governor and corporate chief executive says that “everything that Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way, and that’s by hard work.”

What evidence does he offer for that?

What do you mean DF? Those are the words Romney said. In context, he was talking about giving away his inheritance, but I think Kristof's point still makes sense. The education his father paid for, the access of being the son of a governor and corporate chief executive is surely a big part of how he got where he is today. Or are you saying that stuff doesn't make any difference?