Romney’s ‘Poor’ Comment Is Plenty Defensible
by Jason BradleyJust hours after winning the Florida primary, Mitt Romney let loose a potential gaffe that turned what should have been a rallying moment for Republican supporters into an uncomfortable position of having to defend the man that is likely to face Obama in the general election.
If taken out of context, which the media is very adept to doing, Romney’s comment, “I’m not concerned about the very poor” sounds heartless and indefensible. In fact, that is exactly how many conservative commentators reacted.
From a purely political position, the criticism is reasonable. Romney effectively handed Democrats a shiny set of brass-knuckles to use against, not only him, but the Republican Party in general as being out of touch with every day Americans. As NRO’s David Kahane put it, “In the Fight of the Century between the Apologetic Oligarch and the Tribune of the Folks, who do you think the fans will be rooting for?” In other words, Romney unwillingly played into the class-warfare meme that Obama has wrapped himself in.
Jonah Goldberg says there are risks with Romney because he has yet to show he has mastered the art of the “stump” even after close to a decade of practice.
These are examples of criticism on the face of the issue. Other conservative commentators chose to hammer Romney on his acceptance of the welfare state, and no doubt relished at the opportunity to attack him before having to reluctantly support him in the general election. To this group, not only did Rommey make the mistake of choosing his words poorly, he also spoke of the welfare state as status-quo. Erick Erickson at Red State, and Mark Levin, are charging Romney of the same class-warfare tactics Obama and the Democrats use. Furthermore, from his choice of words Romney effectively endorsed poverty as a thing to be accepted instead of engineering ways for them to lift themselves up out of poverty. Alas, a New England, Rockefeller, Republican.
… Mitt Romney said he wasn’t concerned about the poor. The poor, after all, have food stamps and Medicaid. But don’t worry. If the safety net is broken, Patrician Mitt Romney will fix it so the poor can stay comfortably poor (E. Erickson).
In an environment such as politics, perception is key. After all, there is a saying that is usually applied to politicians “Once you learn to fake sincerity, the rest is easy.” So maybe Romney does have a sincerity problem. But if sincerity is faked, which it usually is, why bother to do it? After all we have a president totally comfortable faking sincerity, and one who took Rousseau’s thought “the more obscure and uncertain the cause, the greater the effect: the greater the number of idlers one could count in a family, the more illustrious it was held to be” and won the presidency with it.
Romney’s full comment was a little deeper than some of the reactions suggested.
I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich. They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.
It isn’t my job or even my concern to defend Romney by putting a positive spin on his comments. However, his remark did not cause this conservative to react negatively. I heard what he was saying loud and clear. It isn’t the duty of a president, Congress, or state governments to pull people up out of poverty. In fact, one could argue convincingly when those things are tried, poverty increases and wealth declines. So what we do have in place is a safety net for those who are down. It isn’t a permanent residence, it’s an interim position. The focus should always be growth and capital. When the economy is well, so is America’s labor force.
The economy is the engine that drives mobility because as long as our economic system rewards success and punishes failure (such as life) no station in life is monolithic. There is nothing destined in America.
Mobility is not limited to the top-earning households. A study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that nearly half of the families in the lowest fifth of income earners in 2001 had moved up within six years. Over the same period, more than a third of those in the highest fifth of income-earners had moved down. Certainly, there are people such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who are ensconced in the top tier, but far more common are people who are rich for short periods.
Very well then, Romney’s concern shouldn’t be with the poor. His concern should be with those who help drive the economy. Those who buy and produce, start businesses, buy homes and cars and hire employees. With a growing economy comes a rising tide of activity. And it’s from this activity that allows the poor opportunities to pull themselves up out of poverty. For lack of better words, the horse really does come before the cart. Or better, a physician is only concerned with a patient insofar as he can help cure the aliment. That is Romney’s position. Conservatives would do well if they thought more and reacted less.
We can belly-ache and lash our faces from grief and despair over the plight of the poor, or we can actually do something about the conditions for which there are so many poor among us.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
61 Comments
2010 donations to charity:
ROMNEY 16 PERCENT.
NEWT 2.9 PERCENT.
OBAMA 1.0 PERCENT.
BIDEN 369 DOLLARS.
It seems the liberal mantra is to use my Money, that than give of their own. Go figure.
If you're going to get your panties in a knot every time a candidate says something that could be taken out of context, it's going to be a long year.
This is more proof of Republican timidity in the face of the Hypocrite in Chief's straw men. The class-warfare meme is far too rich coming as it does from a "president" who 1) earns 10 times the cost of admission to "the one percent" and 2) has done more than any president this side of Hoover to make millions of formerly middle-class people poor – and keep them that way. The proof is in Mr. Mitchell's graphs below.
Isn't it long past time for the GOP to haul out a few brass knuckles of its own, instead of silently hanging its head in guilt and shame in quiet assent… again?
To "misunderstand" his comment is to be a DOLT.
It was quite clear and understandable what he meant. The "very poor" do, in fact, have a safety net… it's called welfare and food stamps. The very rich are, well… very rich, so they don't need to be worried about.
Those who can't (or won't) understand that perhaps shouldn't vote.
I think Romney will purposelyl pull a Joe Biden and keep putting his foot into his mouth – again ON PURPOSE.
One Marxist helps another Marxist.
Yessir: Compassion is real easy to fake when the funding comes from the other guy's wallet…
No doubt you are correct. But the soundbite was a gift to the Obama folks that they couldn't buy at any price. And these gifts seem to come along every week.
Ditto, Gone.
"……..Romney’s ‘Poor’ Comment Is Plenty Defensible….."
The mere fact that a Republican is compelled to DEFEND a sincere comment,…….
is indefensible.
of course it is.
In soundbite heaven any portion of a man's speech can be turned against him. Face it, the 'ultra poor' (if there is such a thing in this country) ain't gonna vote for him anyway, nor will the more vapid of the bleeding heart liberals.
This election will be ALL about the pontificator-in-chief.
His internals are so resolutely awful- unelectable awful- that he is 'cruisin' for a' bruisin', as they used to say. His approval rating is only above 50% in 12 states, and it is by hair thin margins. His peformance on the economy has a 37% approval. This is Jimmy Carter territory, and even a huge war chest won't help him.
The big business dollars will line up behind WHOMEVER wins the GOP nod. So, Willard can utter his various faux pas; they will not be of much use to his foes. They need a miracle…
Conservatism is a foreign language to Mittens…one he's having a hard time mastering…
Taking a conservative out of context comes naturally to MSM hacks…….
Considering that the vultures in the Democratic Party and in the leftist media would jump on this and do their normal distortion and distraction dance… Romney should have probably used a different expression.
Sadly for you this election is not a referendum, it's a choice. And since the best potential Republican candidates are sitting this one out, you are left with a Mitt or a Newt. Neither of whom will ever be the president of the United States.
If the Republican party and Mittens himself would get some of Newt's cajones and come roaring back saying, "Look, you dumbasses, the War on Poverty, that's been going on for more decades than anyone could imagine, has left us with nothing but more poverty. Poverty will always be with us. That will never change. There are some that are really poverty stricken for various reasons. Those people are easily identified and there is a system in place to help them. The problem these days is a fake poverty. A number ginned up by liberals to get more dependents on the Dim rolls. Here's an idea, why not let the cashiers at Food Lion or Walmart tell us who the real impoverished are and who aren't? Get rid of the fakes and we would have no trouble helping those that really need it while saving a ton of money!"
Alas, they won't say anything like this. They too, like those easy votes that you can pay for with other people's money.
Oh well, at least Mittens has his own record of giving to charity. Zero, not so much. Biden's not even worth mentioning.
I had already forgotten what you wrote about and crying about in this article.
All politicians have hoof in mouth disease, they catch from each other and it is not terminal.
Bo has created a mountain of dead bodies and you are worried about a little tongue action?
Biden probbaly meant to give $3.69 but had a "Biden Moment" that influenced placement of his comma.
Romney's "Poor Comment"?
Poor Mitt!
Mandates are a real problem for both parties.
Being busy bodies is a real problem for both parties.
Plundering the tax payer is a real problem for both parties
A feral government is s real problem created by both parties.
I wonder how clean paul the vet hands are on all of this mess?
You just don't get it, and this isn't about the lifelong welfare scroungers, this is about those poor who were the working poor and middle classes, who worked their jobs, didn't get welfare benefits, but who supported themselves, lived responsibly until their jobs were taken from them by outsourcing, illegal aliens and imported visa workers. Romney's contempt is real, he's as contemptuous of any of you as any democrat. Do you think his being rich means he's on your side? Are you as dim as the foolish democrats who vote party line without thinking? Romney represents the establishment, who in our present day seek to destroy the US Constitution, sell us all out for profit. Are you such sad, sad, fools?
coulter, trump, AMNESTY-JOHN mccain, scott brown, lisa murCOWski, AMNESTY-JOHN mini-me jeff flake, christy, most of the BIG GOVERNMENT Ruling-Class Establishment Repub hacks in congress….all that manure surrounding romney(care) does help hide his RINO stink.
…but then he speaks and everyone hears what a loser-to-be he certainly is.
The majority of "the poor" never vote for Republicans anyway. So Mitt really hasn't messed up too much.
All politicos should learn to engage brain before engaging mouth. Sadly many don't.
You got that right. Mitt handed them a soundbite that we will be hearing over and over again. WE understand what he meant but anything can and will be used against you in the political realm.
It's comical to see how people have to contort themselves to support Mitt. This site is even called Big Government and we have people posting defenses for a welfare state Republican making progressivist comments. No, this comment is not defensible from the left or the right. It is not government's job to concern itself with the state of the middle class it is governments job to get it's grubby hands out of your paycheck. But here we are pretending Gov. Romneycare is a small government conservative. Please stop fooling yourselves.
When you get right down to it, do the poor or "ultra poor" really vote at all?
Are they a real political block?
From what I have seen the poor really have much different things to do than follow any political discourse and are not to be bothered to actually go to the polls and vote. I am sure some do, but I would wager that the vast majority do not even bother.
You need to get use to making excuses for the stupid comments that Romney makes. The boy just can't help himself.
Mitten's numbers don't jive. If 49% of people don't pay any taxes, how are 90-95% struggling so much?
"Certainly, there are people such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who are ensconced in the top tier, but far more common are people who are rich for short periods."
One-third of the top 20% dropped a level, and that supports the idea its far more common that rich people are rich for short periods? The author must be a product of public union education, eh?
You can add to the Buffett and Gates list, those enconsed in the top tier: banking executives, members of corporate boards of directors, private equity executives. Duh. Our system is the system they bought and constructed to keep themselves at the top and others from even having a chance to play the game. That is, those who don't try to play the game without already being in the top tier. You know, the people tea party republican conservatives get on their knees for.
Conservatism is not a language, it's a secret racist code. Wasn't always that way. It took an ugly turn in the 80s and now has exploded with the election of the first black president. Perhaps it can recover in a few years from now when there is another middle aged white man in the office.
It was a poorly thought out statement. I believe it shows learned convictions rather than held conviction.
Poor Willard. He is being skewered by the left and right for this one.
I know,right?Have seen the average size of "poor" people now?
Can someone please get this rino a damn teleprompter before he throws the election and creates so much republican apathy and demoncrap anger that the down ticket races suffer as well?
Duct tape or a gag would be cheaper but I doubt Romney could be convinced to accept that either was for his own good..
Use of the mouth generally wears on the clutch ,use of the ear gear causes much less abuse to the clutch.
So let's reelect an intellectually lazy, unqualified, economically illiterate, empty-suited, dangerous Marxist ideologue whose every move the last 3 years has been to redistribute the wealth among his already well-heeled supporters, while aiding our enemies and alienating our allies and systematically dismantling and defunding the USA. Because we would all need our heads examined if that happened. Although he appears to be able to sing on key.
Thank you for posting the detail. I can't stand Romney but his remarks don't require defense. They were dead on accurate. I expect apologies from the spin!
Superb. Kudos.
What about automatically raising the minimum wage with inflation?
Defend that.
He's got three years of OJT in the only job in the world that qualifies you to be president. The presidency.
That's why it is so difficult to take out an incumbent. Reagan and Clinton did it, but no one will ever accuse the current Republican clown show of being in the same category as those two. Four more years.
Romney is going to put his foot in mouth on occasion, with regularity. It would be best to just accept it as one of his quirks.
He's led a privileged life regardless of his own accomplishments. He does NOT know what normal average citizen life consists of, much less one stage down from that- very low income with virtually no sense of security, 'bunking' with others to share rent, or putting off that new car battery till payday. He shouldn't be expected to be 'in touch' with lower financial classes and welfare riders, but he needs to refine his words. hell he's molded himself in every other way. He might as well watch the mouth or it plays right into the enemy's plans.
Obviously he doesn't care about the very poor. That is why he is willing to continue to import poor people from across the border.
ROTFFLMAO!!!
I work for a guy that would make Mitt look like Captain Kangaroo. The Obama administration will have a field day with Romney's gaffes but I'd rather work for a boss who fired me for not doing my job than listen to Obama blow sunshine up my ass while he killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
I also have a hard time believing he could be that stupid. Marxist is a little strong though. I'm starting to think the establishment GOP doesn't want to win the white house.
It doesn't matter how a person becomes poor. It is still not the job of the government to support anyone. Allowing the government to accumulate power by pretending to care about the poor is what got us into this mess.
Only the most ignorant 2% of society will believe that Romney simply doesn't care about the poor, or for that matter that he forced holocaust survivors to eat non kosher food, etc. No matter how careful you are your words can still be twisted.
Ron Paul was asked to comment on what Mittens said. Paul responded that he doesn't agree with Mittens much on the economy, but he rejects that Mitt doesn't care about poor people.
I don't really care about the poor either. Six decades of increasing government aid has only turned poverty into a growing business.
I believe that there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that Communist goal 15 has been accomplished nicely.
I wish we had a two party system, what we have is the Marxist Party and the "We wanna be Marxist too plzzzzzzzzz" party.
Just curious are Mittens and Biden related?
Conservatism is not a language, it's a secret racist code.
*snipped after the first lie*
The comment as a whole in context is what is damning for conservatives because it is a flatly liberal ideology. That to go along with the minimum wage hike support speaks volumes to anyone who cares to listen. Let's leave the whole callous I don't care about the poor thingy and set it aside. He said I am going concentrate on helping the middle class. How you say? Well let's fast forward a few hours to his desire to have the minimum wage raised automatically. This will give the working poor a better wage. Right? It also forces their employers to raise prices to pay for the new wage, leaving the poor right where they started. The middle class on the other hand do not get a raise but still have to pay the higher prices.
So let's review. In two quotes from the heart of Slick Mittons he said I am not concerned about the poor, and oh by the way middle class screw you too.
Win!
Unfortunately even though I'm a Romney Supporter this position is indefensible. Luckily its not the executive branch that decides such things.
Unfortunately none of the candidates agree much with Dr. Paul on the economy. It's to bad he's extremely naive to why Iran wants a nuke.
Actually it's just using the too simple logic that raising wage= more money to poor= more poor becoming middle class. It isn't a liberal, progressive, or conservative views (most conservatives also vote for minimum wage hikes). It's an overly simplified view of how monetary policy works and the majority of people worldwide let alone in the US fail to recognize how destructive raising the min wage is to all the different "classes". Just because you are more educated on the subject doesn't mean Romney, Santorum or Gingrich are. Out of the Group Ron Paul is the only one who understands this. This is not a sign of liberal thought its a sign of the over-simplistic view most Americans have of our monetary system and our economy which are directly linked. Romeny's "conservative credentials" if you will far outweigh his moderate rhetoric. He has done nothing but consistently move right on the issues and did inded with few exceptions govern from the right. There is a good chance that whoever he picks to advise him on financial policy can show him how wrong he is on this issue. Your also taking his poor comment out of context, if he doesn't truly care about the poor why did he give more then what is required by his faith to charity?
I think all of this is to the good. Romney was always going to be attacked as being insensitive to the poor. This remark just raised the issue a bit earlier than otherwise. That gives us more time for the electorate to consider it and deal with it.
For some ideological liberals – like my good friend Ross – this statement snippet will confirm their darkest suspicions. But most people will wonder if it's true and investigate. They will soon discover that that charge is preposterous.
The news last night said that since the Great Society we as Americans had spent $16 Trillion dollars trying to eliminate poverty. America in the twenty first century is not America in the thirties. We have tried long and hard to help the poor. Like Kansas City we'ved "Gone about as far as we can go." There simply are no more new directions, no more untried policies or un-implimented new programs. America has tried to help the poor and we have been very generous with our purse.
The liberal Democrats are in an ideological quandry. Everything they have ever suggested to help the poor has already been tried with gazillions of civil servants, new agencies, and optimistic promises. This is the end of the line. What poverty we still have is permanent.
What Romney meant – as opposed to what he literally said – was that we have all these programs already to benefit the poor, that's not the problem. The problem is that we have configured such an expensive social agenda that we have now begun to damage the middle class. So Basta!. Enough already with this obsessive focus on the permanent poor. Let's not destroy the engine of prosperity – the middle class – by just recycling New Deal and socialist cant.
Win!? Didn't Nixon use that as a slogan: Whip Inflation Now? <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style=”BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px”></DIV>
I don't know I'm only 31. That said your comment wins.
Thanks, I neededaWIN going into Superbowl Weekend! <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style=”BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px”></DIV>
I'd say stop creating inflation with that stupid monkeying between the Fed and the Treasury.
Defend that.
Unfortunately we must overcome the willful ignorance of the masses and the agenda of those who benefit from their ignorance (i.e. Democrats). When I went to school I was taught that the stock market crash of 1929 caused the Great Depression, FDR helped the economy recover, and that it was WWII that finally got us out of it. What a load of rubbish! In the summer of 1930, when the government starting getting involved, the unemployment rate had already dropped from 9% to 7%. The Great Depression was wholly caused by bad government (as is the Great Recession). The notion that WWII got us out of it is even more ludicrous. Forcing 18 year olds to take well below market rate to go off and get shot fixed the unemployment situation for sure, but then there was never an unemployment problem in the black community until we abolished slavery.
I eventually educated myself, but the mentally lazy masses have no desire to, and they are dooming our country in their ignorance. They believe that LBJ's great society helped end poverty. They believed that giving Barack Obama a blank check would fix the economy. They even blame George W. Bush for that economy, though when pressed all they can come up with is that he got us into wars and ran up the debt. Yet Obama spent more on just the stimulus than we spent on the entire Iraq war, and his deficits are triple the worst years under Bush. They believe the economy is getting better because the unemployment rate is going down, when the only reason it's going down is because of the ever shrinking workforce participation rate. They don't know and they don't care that they don't know. And when Obama loses the election and the economy turns around they'll make him out to be a victim of the bad economy.
Fortunately, as history shows, there will be a handful of people who will figure it all out and tip the scales ever so slightly toward fiscal conservatism. We'll chip away at the damage for 20 or maybe even 30 years and then the next generation will have to learn all over again the hard way. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.