Skip to comments.Mitt at a Minimum: A Sign of Romney's Moral Defensiveness [Wall St J Editorial Hammers Romney]
Posted on 02/02/2012 11:25:56 PM PST by Steelfish
FEBRUARY 3, 2012 Mitt at a Minimum A Sign of Romney's Moral Defensiveness.
Serves us right. Yesterday we tried to defend, or at least explain, Mitt Romney's remark that he didn't worry about the poor because they had the government to help them. Then Mr. Romney tells the world he favors a rising minimum wage indexed for inflation that really would hurt the poor.
Mr. Romney reaffirmed his minimum-wage views to reporters as he tried to extricate himself from the controversy over his "poor" remarks. (See "What Mitt Really Meant," Feb. 2.) It was a classic political gotcha moment, and Mr. Romney's response was more troubling than his earlier marks.
Few policies are as destructive as the minimum wage at keeping the young and least skilled out of the job market. By setting an arbitrary wage floor, politicians make it impossible for businesses to hire people for many entry-level positions. The jobs simply disappear.
In 2007 the Pelosi Congress passed a minimum-wage increase in three stages that coincided with the recession. The jobless rate for teenagers has since exploded to 23.1% from under 15%, and for minorities to 15.8% from close to 9%. For black teenagers, the jobless rate is still an incredible 39.6%.
But even the Pelosi Democrats didn't index the minimum wage automatically for inflation. That would only increase the incentive not to hire those in society who have the hardest time finding work.
A higher minimum wage always polls well, though it is rarely a major issue for voters. It's worrying that Mr. Romney, who has based his candidacy on his ability to create jobs, would endorse a policy that would make it more expensive to hire people.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
How many times do idiots need to be told?—Romney is not a conservative. He said it, Soros said it, and the record speaks for itself. Everything this phony twaddles on the campaign trail is just blah, blah, blah LIES!
And Donald Trump told us today how smart Mittsy is. I haven’t been noticing much intellect there, and I’ve been looking. Seems like now the Wall Street Journal is starting to notice this as well and admit their part in advancing his cause perhaps?
WSJ, read my tagline.
One thing I have learned, you don’t stutter and sputter when speaking from the heart.
Although in the general, appealing to the ignorant squishy middle and the disaffected democrats might get him votes, despite the fact that it enrages his own base who would be stuck with him, he is not there yet. It is he, not Newt, who may implode. He only has 60 delegates.
After all, Newt, despite his big-mouth reputation, is a canny old politician, a clever strategist who has won many many elections not only for himself but for a lot of other republicans. When Newt, the master politician, veers to the left it has a purpose, it isn't because he has no core values — remember all those democrat congress critters he brought into the GOP fold back in the day?
He may appear a bit disorganized from time to time, indulge in flights of fancy from time to time and talk about such things as moon colonies (which it seems IS happening after all) he never EVER loses sight of the goal which he just about always eventually achieves. He knows what republicans think and believe and wish to accomplish, and there is always a part of his brain that never loses that focus. Because he really is not a RINO; but came from the Young Turks and was the one to whom Reagan passed the torch by name — he, not romney, really is one of us. He is Mr. Republican.
So let us not give up, this is not over yet, Romney is not a done deal despite the fact that the establishment is trying to demoralize us and shut us out.
By the way, I understand that the reason Newt has not asked for or been given SS protection is only because he does not need it. As a former speaker, he already has federal protection — so don't let that apparent sign of Romney's front-runner status get you down.
Their comments usually run strongly pro-Romney.
Mitt not only lacks core beliefs, but he doesn't listen to his advisors. Interestingly, this is happening, two days in a row, right after Florida.
Is this over-confidence?
It seems he’s already tracking left as if he has the nomination already! Big mistake...
Very good observations! Thank you!
Yesterday somebody commented that Romney’s appearance with Trump needed only the faux Grecian columns and faux Presidential seal to make it his Obama coronation moment.
He’s taking a lot for granted and so are his supporters. However, we have to remember that this actually did work for Obama. Pretending that he had already won and that he, not Bush, was president of the US even before the election actually seems to have wowed a lot of people (other than Freepers, of course), and I think Romney is actually trying the same thing.
He uses the same scorched earth tactics that Newt talked about when he "attacked Capitalism". Romney will do anything and destroy anything to get the prize. Soros is correct - not much difference between Romney and Obama.
Yesterday the WSJ had an editorial about how “decoding Romney’s words” promised to be a long-running series, with the editorialist assuring us that Romney was really much better than what he said. Then the editorialist announced that Romney’s “mispeaks” are because he was a hard-headed businessman and didn’t know how to express himself like a politician. Just like Biden, I guess.
I didn’t know what to laugh at more. The idea that the WSJ was prepared to spend the next few months reinterpreting everything Romney says to make it fit their pattern, or the idea that Romney was not a politician. They seem to have forgotten - and he himself seems to neglect to mention - that he was Governor of Massachusetts, which the last time I looked, was a political position. During this time, he had a solidly liberal, big-spending record, and no amount of talking can alter that.
I guess that’s why they’re planning to spend the next few months (a) not talking about his record at all and (b) morphing everything he says into what they want to hear.
The only thing I don’t understand is his magic. Why are they so devoted to him?
It just gets worse. His number one strength is his “business acumen”. If he gets minimum wage wrong at the outset what other economic policies will he get wrong?
Reagan undid Carter’s destruction of the economy by following sound economics. We don’t need Obama-lite.
Recent history teaches that the people and the process can be manipulated to place a "pre-selected" candidate. Scare quotes, because the candidates pick themselves, but one of them is more attractive by dint of being an insider who is willing to tailor policy for interests that he favors.
WSJ is a big/crony business interest, and if WSJ thinks Romney is in the running, it will shill for him on the front end, to gain favor in case he wins.
Mitt-Witt will prove himself a chip off the old blockhead, his Daddy George Romney was forced out of the ‘68 campaign after making his foolish “I was brainwashed” comment (regarding Vietnam), and little Lord Romney has already proven that he is an oaf and a buffoon, with a political tin ear. I think that part of his motivation in running for President is purely personal, to symbolically vindicate his Daddy, who is now running his own planet somewhere (if you believe Mormon orthodoxy).
You have been warning your neighbors that Wilbur is a flasher. Others who have been flashed confirm your story. Finally, Wilbur flashes himself on the local newschannel and everyone sees him flashing himself. Your neighbors who were reluctant to believe it say ‘you know what I think Wilbur might be a flasher’
Otherwise I wonder if Coulter’s Three Cheers for Zombie Care! woke up some Rombots out of their sleep,too?
On the surfaces this seem incongruous and a misstep for a Republican; however, I wonder if this isn't a strategy employed specifically for the Nevada Primary. Obviously, raising the minimum wage is usually a tactic to gain union support as their contracts are usually tied directly to it. It seems that specifically in Nevada this may be directed towards the large number of union employees in the casino and related tourist industries.
But, there is another reason to do this in Nevada. Newt's major financier is a multi-billionaire casino mogul; automatically raising the minimum wage is a direct threat to this man's "bottom line."
I think the wsj is getting a bad rap here today.
I’m not convinced they are pro romney as much as they are strongly anti obama.
I read their collumns on the republican primary and I read the words of people genuinely afraid of what obama could do to us in four more years.
Like most people who are afraid they may have run to the “safest” bet.
Let’s not forget that this is one of the very very few truly mainstream media outlets that hammers obama every damn day. Cut them a bit of stack. Also, try posting on their relies if you’re a subscriber. They do listen.
Mark for later
That’s true...but in reality, he has no chance of winning and even the WSJ must see this. So I assume that means what they really want is 4 more years of Obama. But since Wall Street was a massive contributor to Obama’s campaign, I guess that’s not a surprise.
Imagine how far left he’ll move should he win the nomination, and then the Presidency.
I sure he has no more lack of concern for the 'very poor' as he has for the 'regular' poor and the middle class...
They being the WSJ.
IMO, the WSJ editorial board has few, if any, core conservative principles. They are pro-business and free enterprise. Therefore, for example, they have minimal concern about illegal immigration, because it is good for business and clamping down is onerous on employers both because of higher wage costs and administrative problems. The welfare of the populace and adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution is secondary to business interests. I also think back to their support for Mike Milken in the late '80s: he broke a thousand "little" securities laws, but they were willing to overlook that in the name of free enterprise. So, the WSJ editorial board and Romney are two peas in a pod.
The problem is that, come elections, when everyone gets to decide, they and Romney must twist themselves into verbal contortions trying to put a principled face on what is essentially libertarianism for business only.
Think also of all that Bain fodder for the Fall. Romney's lack of core principles opens him to scurrilous attacks, since he cannot articulate conservative principles. The Dem ads will say: "Romney says it's OK to close factories and good to fire people because because we have a minimum wage and a safety net for those people." This is unfair and inaccurate, but the Dems will get away with it because Mitt is philosophically bereft.
Romney would be torn apart. It is essential that we do that job now, rather than leave it to the Dems for their nefarious purposes.
Would suggest that readers of this WSJ thread by Steelfish also read his contribution of Jonah Goldberg's observations on Romney's "not speaking the language naturally," meaning he doesn't speak the language of conservatism.
My post there points out that the problem is much deeper than "language," as this matter of his full embrace of the idea of the minimum wage illustrates.
In the same manner, his revealing comment about "the poor" was not just a gaffe. Such a comment, in its full context as revised by him, did not distinguish the conservative solution to "helping the poor" from the redistributionist idea of "helping the poor" in any manner whatsoever.
Rather, his natural philosophy, as evidenced by these and other debate answers, are just indications that his well of thought on America's core constitutional philosophy is not very deep--and certainly does not include a grounding in the Founders' ideas sufficient to rebut, rebuke, and reveal Obama's firmly-held ideology.
As a result, his "private sector" experience, while impressive and to be commended, has not prepared him for preserving the ideas which made possible his personal success in the Founders' system.
And, to win the battle for the minds and hearts of citizens, the nominee needs to be someone whose quickness of mind and readiness of familiarity with founding principles can refuse to "class" people by "rich," "middle class," "poor," etc. That is Obama's playground. It is how the collectivists/redistributionists classify and divide us, and it is how they avoid accountability for providing real solutions in economic matters.
Romney, as Krauthammer has pointed out, seems "incapable" of responding with and explaining conservative ideas.
To restore America's greatness will require leaders who, like America's Founders, have thought through the ideas which made America great, for it is the restoration of those ideas to the American mind which can give freedom back to the citizens and wrest power from the hands of "rulers" who use "poverty" as their vote-getting mechanism.