Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

As I'm sure you all know, Mitt Romney has been in the news over and over again lately concerning a comment he made.

Asked about his economic proposals, Romney said, “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 right now who are struggling.”

When I first heard that comment I had no doubt what he meant.

I thought he meant that were doing as much as we could reasonably do for the poor. And I thought he meant that the rich were doing quite well without help. What he was saying, I thought, was that the working class was struggling because of the downturn in the economy, and that was where he was going to focus his main efforts.

But the media could not get past the words, “I'm not concerned about the very poor.” They stayed on that comment day, after day, after day.

So the governor has come out with this statement:

“I've said something that is similar to that, but quite acceptable, for a long time. And, you know…when you do I-don't-know-how-many thousands of interviews, now and then you may get it wrong. And I misspoke. Plain and simple.”

How much mileage do you think the media will now get out of that?

Would you have said anything different?

Haapala (Dan Haapala) says…

More than his comment concerns me. His suggestion that government be a net to catch the poor is anti American. The 'Poor' have always and will always be with us. Growing the number of people who are poor is what the Federal Government has given us since President Wilson.
Some have taken the words from the Statue of Liberty and made them a part of the Federal mantra. They believe that the Governments job is to provide for the poor. They are wrong. The Governments job is to provide for the common defense and general welfare, but that doesn't mean keeping people from being poor. I'll go further and say that it doesn't include food stamps, assuring a minimum wage, providing an education, providing roads and other infrastructure.

Of all the Government in the land of the Free…….the federal government was intended to be the smallest. People were to determine their own rules and what they were willing to submit to for the good of others. It would come from the States in which they lived. And further the original concept of two, appointed by the states legislature, Senators who would go to the Capital and convey the wishes of their state, make the Federal government provide for the wishes of the States and the people residing with that state.
Opinion: The 17th ammendment was the beginning of the demise of the USA. It resulted in the numbing of the power of the 10th ammendment, which gives the power, not delegated by the Constitution, to the states. The states of course had the rule as long as they didn't violate the U.S. Constitution.
There is no majority rule. There should be no citizen iniative, there is freedom and nothing else.
If there is part of this rant that you don't understand, then please either ask or go and find out for yourself the rules under which this nation was founded and discover what is expected of us….not
the government.

Haapala (Dan Haapala) says…

I'm going to continue on this string but for another reason.
For the last several months, and I go back to the beginning of Summer, I've had the feeling that I was being herded into a fenced corral. I admit that I am a conservative and that I would like to see President Obama defeated in 2012. My enlightenment; However, is that I have felt that the messages coming down from on high, are trying to direct me to an alternative candidate to Obama, based upon what 'they' want and not what I want.
Step out of the picture of candidates and ask yourself this. Are the people in power trying to get you to believe that the only way they can stay in power is if you elect their chosen one? Do they want a 'Leader' or do they want someone to control and give them the power of the money?
A couple of poignant questions because that's how I feel.
Here's what I want. A house of Representatives that truly represent their constituants, not the establishment make money and get re-elected. A Senate that votes on issues the states want. And a President that is not under the influence of any political party or group of elected officials or outside lobbyists, but rather one who decides what is best for America's citizens. Give me that.
Give me back an America that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and no more
Hype.

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

“They stayed on that comment day, after day, after day.” If Romney survives the primaries, that comment will stick with him, and cost a lot of votes.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Right, Fred. And I sincerely believe that is the reason they have stayed on that comment. It seems impossible to mistake his meaning, doesn't it? You can sum it up in one sentence, “I intend to focus on working Americans, the 90 to 95 who are the ones who have been hurt.” But we see this kind of media tripe all the time, and to be honest both parties are guilty of it too, although the media are the worst because they have the power to keep on repeating things over and over again. Taking a phrase out of context and hammering away at it is not airing the news; it's getting into the political fight and becoming part of it.

“For the last several months, and I go back to the beginning of Summer, I've had the feeling that I was being herded into a fenced corral.”

Dan, as a student of party politics, I've been watching this kind of thing going on ever since I was old enough to understand politics. I was really too young to get into the 1948 campaign—Truman's first run for the presidency itself—but by the time 1952 rolled around I understood things a lot better.

All the way back then I was appalled at what was going on as the core of the GOP tried to undercut Eisenhower, who with his immense popularity could guarantee them the presidency. The core conservatives, led by Senator Taft, did everything they could to swing the nomination to Taft despite the fact that the party majority felt that Ike was the better man for the job. Had they managed it, we would have seen another Democratic president. Taft was out of touch with the new America which emerged from WWII. By his own statements he wanted a return to the failed policy of isolationism, to a “fortress America” which could not exist in the modern world, to the withdrawal of troops in Europe and the far East which were essential to balance the growing threat of Communism. That his ideas were wrong has been amply demonstrated, yet the core of the party worked behind the scenes, doing everything they could to put Taft up as the GOP candidate.

That “behind the scenes” arm-twisting has been a part of party politics for far too long. It is local power politics at the national level. It is precisely the reason that our founding fathers were very leery of political parties.

I don't have a solution for the problem, though—not a clue.

When you say, “Here's what I want. A house of Representatives that truly represent their constituants, not the establishment make money and get re-elected. A Senate that votes on issues the states want. And a President that is not under the influence of any political party or group of elected officials or outside lobbyists, but rather one who decides what is best for America's citizens…” you echo the feelings of a lot of Americans.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

I just had an interesting thought. You may have noticed that I prefer to say “working people” instead of “the middle class.” That's because I hate the term middle class. Why? Read on.

How about this?

Suppose we wait a few minutes—that's all it will take—for some talking head to use the term “middle class,” and then we ask him this:

Us: “Hey! Did you just say middle class?”

TH: Huh? Uh, well…of course.”

Us: “There's a middle class?”

TH: “Wh-Why, of course. Of course there's a middle class.”

Us: “Aha! So you're an elitist!”

TH: “I'm what? How can you say that?”

Us: “Didn't you just say there's a middle class?”

TH: “Well, of course I did.”

Us: “Well, tell me this, you %$#@! elitist! The only way there can be a middle class is if there's an upper class and a lower class. You can't have a middle without an upper and a lower, can you? So how come you think that some Americans are lower class? Tell me that! C'mon tell me that.”

Oh my! Would that be fun. :-)

DonEvans (don evans) says…

Just a question, what is the proper term for the 52% of our population that are on the government dole and pay no income taxes?

patrandall (Pat Randall) says…

lazy, irresponsible, trying to live beyond thier means.
Except for the elderly and disabled.
What about the ones in prison?

Haapala (Dan Haapala) says…

Why has it come down to who I don't want to lead this nation?
When did it become the lesser of two evils instead of the best of the best?
Who really is in charge, and how long have we been fooling ourselves that
our vote and our choice really matters?
Every day for the last several years, The media has been more concerned with
whether or not Lindsay Lohan will go to jail, did the doctor (pill pusher) kill a
drugged out unhappy rock star, Michael Jackson, Where is the child of…..pick
one of many…and did they kill them.
MIllions of Americans are out of work. Some have given up looking. The number
of homeless is increasing as the housing market crumbles. Bankruptcy's are on the rise
and in this political season….we are arguing about who is righteous, who is moral, who is
conservative, who is believable and no where in the media can I find where someone is
asking Why is our leader not being held accountable for the chaos that has come from
his administration.
There are four upstanding men pursuing the highest office in the land. Any one of them
would be better than what we currently have occupying the Whitehouse. What do we hear
about them?
One is too rich.
One is unstable.
One is too Christian.
One is too Isolationist.
Why are there only two choices in a Presidential Election?
Why have the “Democrats:” and the “Republicans” taken from
us the control of the Government.
The Democrats don't want any Republican to take the Whitehouse because
they won't be able to control them.
The Republicans don't want a Candidate in the White House that they
can't control.
There is no way that we the people can win unless we ignore the media and
the pundits and vote across party lines, against the main stream media, against
the reigning power in Washington and vote for the person that will not be controlled.
I, for one, will not be persuaded by the media or by the internet or by the pundits, who
would bring up points about a candidate in an attempt to turn me away. I will vote my
heart.
And my heart tells me that I will vote for a man that will stand against the powers that would
try and maintain their positions. I will vote for a man that will veto a bill, even if it's from his own
party because the bill is the wrong thing for America. I want a President who is not about being
in Charge, but rather is about doing what's right for us all.
There have been far to few of them in our history. George Washington was one. Abraham Lincoln was one. Harry Truman was one. John Kennedy was one. Ronald Reagan was one, and we are waiting for another. Each of the references here made had one thing in common. They pledged their lives for the greater good of man in his strife to excel and be all that he could be. The made choices that were not based on politics but on the pricinples of American exceptionalism and they
were not disuaded by popular opinion when tough decisions were called for.

Haapala (Dan Haapala) says…

I'll briefly follow by asking this.
Who among the challengers and encumbent do you believe will follow in the steps of those I have illuminated.
This is not reality television. This is not American Idol. This is the most important election America will face. In the last 200 plus years, we have had challenges and trials, we have faced adversity and wars and our spirit brought us through. Who will be the keeper of the flame in hand of the Lady in the Harbor, Who speaks our truth more clearly, Who would say no to those with their hand out instead of their hand up asking for help to acheive? Listen to the message of self reliance and personal responsibility. Listen to the message of hope and dreams for a future beyond our limits, that is positive and challenging and easily within the grasp of those who would believe.

“To go where you plot, is folly. There is nothing but disasater awaiting you. The World is what it is
and nothing more.” Had Columbus listened to these words there would be no America.
Lets go beyond these tepid shores to a future yet dreamed of. Lets choose leaders who will take us there and beyond.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Don,

Easy question.

“Just a question, what is the proper term for the 52% of our population that are on the government dole and pay no income taxes?”

Pain in the adze.

“When did it become the lesser of two evils instead of the best of the best?'

When we didn't outlaw political parties in the original Constitution. I am not for banning any attempt by people to come together as a group and foster their shared interests, but the parties are just plain out of control, and have been for about a hundred years. What do we do about it? Beats me.

Here's a question for you, folks.

Touching on what Dan says, look at what Newt has done in Nevada. Please understand that I am not picking on Newt in particular, just using him as an example.

I just read a CBS News article where they were in seventh heaven over the chance that Newt gave them to use Romney's words (not his meaning) again. First, let me quote:

Quote: Hoping to make up ground on the last day of campaigning, Gingrich referred to Romney as “Obama-lite,” and once again seized on Romney's recent gaffe that he is “not concerned about the very poor.”

“My goal,” said Gingrich, “is the exact opposite of Governor Romney — my goal is not to ignore or forget the poor. My goal is to turn the safety net into a trampoline to allow the poor to rise and be like the rest of us and have a job and buy a house,” he said to applause.

Okay, you can forget what Newt said. I'm not trying to focus you on it, just on the basic idea I am about to offer you.

Did he hurt Romney? Yes. Did he hurt the GOP in general? Yes. Did he hurt his own chances? Yes.

What would have happened if Newt had said what you or I would have said. Something like this:

“I'd like to set something straight. I have listened to the media taking the words of my opponent out of context and making them sound like something he did not mean. We all know what he meant. He meant that he wants to focus his efforts on those who have been hurt the worst by the downturn in the economy. And since we all know what he meant we need to stop making it sound like something it isn't. The honest way to choose someone to represent the people of this nation is to play by the rules of fairness. We all know what those rules are. I don't have to tell you. Let's stick to them and let the best man win.”

I ask you, what effect would that comment have had on the way people view Newt? On his chances of being nominated? On the campaign as a whole? And what would the media have had to say about it? Could they have criticized him for saying it? If not, what would they have had to do? What would happen if we actually ran elections that way?

SantaBerry (Bernice Winandy) says…

Tom, Newt would never say anything like you suggest. That type of comment is out of character for someone without __________________________________________.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

You're probably right, Bernice.

But I sure would like to know how people would react if one person came along who didn't do a Nixon routine during an election. In other words, what would happen if just one politician didn't do what Nixon was so infamous for doing—letting the end (getting elected) justify the means (Tricks by Dick).