Skip to comments.Mitt Romney’s ‘very poor’ way of speaking [this is the "electable" one]
Posted on 02/01/2012 2:25:45 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
With his Florida victory in hand, Mitt Romney (R-1 percent) did a series of round-robin interviews with the television morning shows. But he skittered way off course during his interview on CNN. I kid you not, the man who looks like he fired your spouse, foreclosed on your house and shipped your kids job overseas told anchor Soledad OBrien, Im not concerned about the very poor.
Poor Mitt. Perhaps Im being overly charitable, but I see what he was trying to get at. The super rich are coddled by the tax code and the very poor have the safety net, which Republicans have been trying to shrink or outright eliminate for quite some time. Romney wants to focus on the middle class, which is way too poor for the advantages of the super rich and not poor enough to qualify for the safety net. That makes sense.
Im not concerned about the very poor comes a week after Romney said, while standing in front of a foreclosed Florida home, Now, the banks arent bad people. And that came 15 days after he said, I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You can read his other Doh!-worthy comments if you click here.
Yesterday, a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll showed that 49 percent of those surveyed believe Romney doesnt understand the problems of average Americans. And every day, he says something to prove them right. Yes, I know I said it was oddly endearing that he has such a difficult time talking about his own wealth. But for someone who says he cares about Americans, his unwitting and regular display of his tin ear is now just plain odd.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The Left is just warming up.
Romney is the LEAST electable of the four remaining candidates
Another Awful Dull/Juan Mc Cain.
Is Mr Mitt even a NBC? Isn't his daddy Mexican?
I think they’re right. Romney does not speak very well and does not seem to consider the impact of what he is saying and how he is saying it; he’s not quite as bad as Joe Biden, but I bet we’re going to see a lot of “misspeaking” in the weeks going forward.
Picking him as the nominee would be fatal, not only because most of us wouldn’t vote for him, but because he practically hands the embarrassing lines to the evening news.
Rush's advice to "focus on Obama" today, is one thing, but if America is to be brought back from the brink of disaster, then "We, the People" must have a standard by which to measure both him and the opponent we allow to represent us in November.
That standard is the Constitution of the United States.
By the Founders' formula, "the People's" written Constitution was the anchor of our liberties, binding government to the "People's" limitations on its power.
Obama's philosophy, in effect, undoes all the monumental work accomplished by the Founders on behalf of liberty and leaves the law afloat and without anchor, relying, as of old, on mere men and women.
From Page xv of "Our Ageless Constitution," allow me to include here excerpted words from President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation of December 10, 1832:
"We have received it [the Constitution] as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution . . .? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault. . . . No, we did not err! . . . The sages . . . have given us a practical and, as they hoped, a permanent* Constitutional compact. . . . The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace: it shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity. . . ."
*Underlining added for emphasis
And, it was Thomas Jefferson who used another metaphor with reference to the Constitution when he indicated that "the People" must "bind them (government) by the chains of the Constitution." In another instance, he declared: "It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers. . . ."
The Fall opponent must understand and be able to contrast and explain the foundations of the competing ideas of 2012, pointing out how Obama's ideas depart from those that made America a place of freedom and opportunity. If that opportunity is missed, then liberty, as Americans have known it for over 200 years, may be lost to another and counterfeit set of ideas.
In our focus on "Obama," we must be careful not to choose another carefully-selected candidate who meets the "good ole' boy" Washington Establishment criteria of either Party.
Rather, through the process, we must select a "People's" Constitutional advocate who has immersed himself in a study of the history of civilization and of America's unique ideas. Such a candidate was Reagan. He had studied the Founders ideas of liberty enough to be able to examine issues by the light of the Constitutional principle involved.
"Focusing on Obama," to be useful and worthwhile, must put him under the light of the Constitution's protections for liberty.
So, too, must the candidate who will face him in Fall 2012 be measured by his understanding of, his proven track record of working to conserve, and ability to articulate the underlying ideas of the Constitution. Simply being a beneficiary of "the Blessings of Liberty" is not enough!
Any rational person would come to the conclusion that the GOP-e doesn’t want to win.
And he knew how to advance his ideas.
The GE Years: What Made Reagan Reagan [Newt said when he read this book in 2008, he understood Ronald Reagan's leadership]. It looks like Newt is putting what he learned into practice.
Yeah Mitt "saving the soul of America" by sending mormon missionaries out over the country to attempt to convert Christians to mormonism.
And he will probably find a way to put them on the Gov’t dole, kinda like czars or something.
If Romney is the nominee I doubt he hets a VP like Palin. He’ll lose badly. Landslide numbers.
When did conservatives decide it was government’s job to pander to the poor with big-welfare government solutions?
I don’t mind mocking ROmney for saying things stupidly, but I hope we can stop pushing left-wing talking points at some point.
Or maybe conservatives now do believe the most important thing now is government care for poor people. Maybe they’ll vote for us if we are compassionate enough.
I wish we had a compassionate conservative running, who could empathize with poor people and make them feel like they are well-cared for. /sarc
It's a little soon to be passing judgement on Romney already, isn't it? After all, for all we know, he might turn out to be just as successful a candidate as John McCain was.
“If Romney is the nominee I doubt he hets a VP like Palin. Hell lose badly. Landslide numbers.”
Really? Did you read all of what actually said?
The scandal here is a major network’s willingness to so distort what someone is saying in such a serious situation.
He made a completely rational serious comment about what he intends to work on.
To completely change the meaining of what he said the way Soledad O’Brien did deserves its own story about how the media once again is abusing the public’s trust when they misuse the airwaves to broadcast deliberate falsehoods.
That “poor” remark is the way this guy views problems and the main reason the GOP’s Wall Street Poster Boy is going to drag US down and with it any hope of detouring from the road to socialism that the Demo-coms will continue to build
The man can’t even admit Obama is a socialist and that exchange with Gingrich during a debate should have been repeated by his PAC .
Those who follow politics know what he said and meant but those who only get their news in sound bites will only hear that Romney does not care about poor people. He’s a rich 1%er etc.. Just something else to inspire democrats and democrat voters to, get out the vote. I don’t see republicans, especially conservatives, getting out the vote for Romney.
“I dont see republicans, especially conservatives, getting out the vote for Romney”
This may be the last chance for the grownups to prevail versus the segment of the population that is on the dole in one way or the other, however the alternative is pretty stark so I expect elevated enthusiasm for whoever is the alternative to Obama.
anymore = any more :-)
I read the “grammar” thread and have to improve.
Tell the RNC there is no way in HELL you will vote for Romney. Lets tie up their phone lines.
Office of the Chairman
“but I see what he was trying to get at” - Read it here:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.