feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

How to lose votes and influence people: The Romney gaffe thread

(53 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago by Andy_brown
  • Latest reply from LurkingGrendel

  1. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,100

    “I’m also unemployed” June 16, 2011

    “Corporations are people, my friend” August 11, 2011

    “I’m running for office for Pete’s sake, we can’t have illegals”

    “I’ll tell you what, ten-thousand bucks? $10,000 bet?” December 10, 2011

    “I like being able to fire people” January 9, 2012

    “There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip”

    “It’s for the great middle class - the 80 to 90 percent of us in this country” September 21, 2011

    “I’ve always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will.” April 5, 2007

    “Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.” October 17, 2011

    "I'm not concerned about the very poor" (well that one will get him F&B's allegiance) February 1, 2012

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/mitt-isms.php

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 01:24 PM #
  2. Of course context doesn't matter and what is actually meant doesn't matter.

    He said he's not "concerned" about the very poor OR the very rich. The latter for obvious reasons, the former because of the safety nets in place.

    But if political hay can be made by intentionally distorting the message, which is no different than lying, that's politics I suppose.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 01:32 PM #
  3. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,346

    Why lie?

    Romney sucks, and he's not quite the dick Newt is.

    See? Easy. Have fun later this year!

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 01:36 PM #
  4. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,100

    These "safety nets" are in the crosshairs of GOP policy. It makes his statement not only rude but hypocritical.
    It's as if he's saying "I'm not worried about that drain on the money because if I win, we'll get rid of the safety nets."

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 01:37 PM #
  5. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,101

    Andy cited his source. Cite yours please.

    And the context IS in the words. Polish that turd all you want, it's still a turd.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 01:38 PM #
  6. Fair and Balanced just gave you a preview of the GOP attempting to explain the failure of Mittens to capture the imagination of anyone, particularly among the base of his own party, and ultimately narrowing losing to Obama in November.

    I.e. The liberal media are in the tank for Obama and are taking Mitten’s words out of context to paint him as a caricature of a remorseless, out of touch, multi-millionaire vulture capitalist.

    Oh well. That’s life in the big city.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 02:08 PM #
  7. A list of out-of-context quotes is not a credible "source."

    "I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.

    When O'Brien followed on Romney's I'm-not-concerned-about-the-very-poor comment, the presidential candidate responded:

    The challenge right now – we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and – and there’s no question, it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor.

    But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign – you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/01/10289765-romney-im-not-concerned-about-the-very-poor "

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 02:14 PM #
  8. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,100

    "out of context"

    A typical boilerplate answer when in fact there is not a single quote taken out of context.

    Nice try, ace, but as the campaign heats up you are going to find your usual drivel often ignored by most of the posters on this board is going to be challenged. Good luck keeping track of your lies and racist remarks, Mr. "Slanty Eyes."

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 02:19 PM #
  9. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,390

    Your answer right there, Andy is why you get no intellegent discussion from anyone other than the circle jerk of neo-comm progressives on this board.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 02:24 PM #
  10. context does matter and at least for that one quote it was taken out of context, I dont know about the others...and I see his point...the very poor do have safety nets.

    It was obviously a poor choice of words..

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 02:24 PM #
  11. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,100

    "Your answer right there, Andy is why you get no intellegent discussion from anyone"

    "intellegent" discussion is indeed a scarcity around here. Of course, you're prone to criticize those posts that you don't like, but what have you contributed? So far this morning, almost every one of your posts is a complaint about what somebody else has said. Have you nothing "intellegent" to offer?

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 02:33 PM #
  12. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,563

    "Your answer right there, Andy is why you get no intellegent discussion from anyone"

    The main reason there is little intelligent discussion is because many, not all but many, of the posters immediately turn the threads into personal attacks.

    They attack the poster not the issues that they present.

    BTW, "intellegent" is actually spelled "intelligent"!!!

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 02:46 PM #
  13. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,346

    Of course it was a poor choice of words. Romney is totally known for that, doing it as much as Quayle did his silly gaffes. At least Dan Quayle was funny. Mitt tends to devalue people significantly with his.

    It sure isn't a tendency that reinforces the idea that Mitt actually identifies with and would do well to promote my best interests as an ordinary American. Can't see how it would.

    Now, he did say he would "fix them", and honestly I don't know what that means. It sounds good, but one does wonder about the brutal fixation his party has for basically undoing the safety nets. "fix it" as typically rendered by the GOP equates to "cut them" or more generally, "screw people" who can take care of themselves if forced to do so kind of thing.

    This isn't indicative of any real potential for a policy in alignment with my best interests, nor that of the vast majority of my peers.

    So then, "poor choice of words" is kind of Orwellian without some greater explanation, is it not? On the surface, one could think, "yeah, he means well, but just sucks at communicating it, which is OK." Plausible, right?

    Not really. This kind of marginalization runs rampant in all things surrounding Romney. We really don't know what he would want to do, but we DO KNOW what his party is planning on doing. The Republicans have been rather consistent over the last 30 years, leaving NO QUESTION.

    Under W, we got to see this play out nicely, and it screwed us! The core policy platform that motivates Republicans is a failed one. It has failed REPEATEDLY too. It's not like they didn't get to take multiple bites at the apple here and some how botched it. Not like that at all.

    Not only have they advanced their policy ideals, they have done so with the cooperation of Democrats, of similar economic mind only serving to temper the implementation some, otherwise compliant.

    We know that policy sucks. This is common knowledge, only denied by a smallish fraction of us who are often invested for social reasons, not economic ones, though they regularly deny or contort away from having to account for that.

    Does anyone actually believe Romney wouldn't go with the program as played out to date? Seriously?

    With all his position changes, Romney appears more willing to do what is expedient than not, defaulting to positions that solidify his power, while at the same time promoting the means and methods by which he's made his own fortune, validating it as perfectly reasonable, and even good for us.

    Anybody who thinks Romney might be some economic moderate who can bend the rabid GOP toward meaningful policy aimed at better alignment with the needs of most ordinary Americans really hasn't given the matter consideration beyond the "messaging for dullards" regularly seen day in and day out.

    So yeah, those are out of context, KIND OF. On technical merits, the immediate context was culled to highlight the ugly. Fair call on that. But, the implication that somehow impacts the overall policy direction and statement of national identity isn't supportable at all.

    That burden is much higher. Meeting it would require one to demonstrate that Romney could lead the Republican party, and it's two core factions: tea-baggers and oligarchs, down a road that neither wants to follow.

    To support that, one would think a minimum would be:

    1. has sufficient charisma to build popular support, (with all the gaffes and angry encounters with the people he serves, seriously?)

    2. has sufficient base of support to weather the party storm typically associated with "going off the farm" like that, (Nobody really wants him! Seriously?)

    3. has a plan that a majority of Americans could get behind after some period of debate and vetting. (I've seen no plan, have you?)

    It's entirely possible, practical, reasonable to disagree with me on one or more core elements I've linked together here. Got that. No worries. I might even disagree with me, depending on what we learn in the near future.

    However, the core idea of "out of context", extended to THE CONTEXT, not just a greater context, or even appropriate, just THE CONTEXT as in what we've seen Mitt do and say, doesn't support the idea that he's misunderstood or being marginalized / demonized to a degree that would warrant extra consideration --like, "we might be missing out, if..." kind of consideration, as is often implied.

    I am not convinced the majority of people actually do see the point Romney attempts to make on so many of these. Why? Because neither does Mitt! He's interested in power, means to an end, not actually aligning with the people in the way we see Obama and many Democrats in general doing.

    That is the core discussion in play. This next election, and I would submit the next few elections to form a sustained civic effort, are all about basic values, or put another way, our national identity:

    will we affirm the regressive economics, sharply diminishing the power of Government and increase corporate power

    , or

    will we return to a more regulated state favoring the "general welfare" with government serving to check business and promote civil liberties?

    On multiple axis, similar questions are being posed and answered by our political process. Tons of money --so much money it's embarrassing to think about, given the hunger and lack of basic health care, education and such in play right now, is being spent as speech, put up against ordinary people speaking in ordinary ways, to determine that answer.

    I find it difficult to even characterize that as "just", let alone "fair" or even "appropriate."

    Romney is a product of those dollars too. Does anyone really deny that after Florida? Worse, given all those dollars, Newt who should be laughed off the stage on mere principle alone, actually gave him a run for the money! Was competitive!

    To me, that's all I need to know! There isn't anything I could characterize as "progress" or "improvement" associated with that mess, and by extension it's product; Romney.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 02:57 PM #
  14. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,861

    Finally Romney speaks truth. He doesn't care about the poor. Thanks for providing some great video sure to be replayed in a few months.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 03:20 PM #
  15. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,346

    Over and over and over.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 03:50 PM #
  16. Going back to the original post outlining the talking points, I see it as more of an attempt to make something out of nothing, of trying to twist the meaning of harmless ad-libs.

    Guys who run sites like that need fodder, just as the cable channels need an endless stream of fodder to keep going.

    To say that Romney doesn't care about the poor is not based on anything but his choice of words.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 03:56 PM #
  17. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,346

    I really don't think he does Deane. Honestly.

    I don't even think he understands what poor is. He doesn't understand the choices that people get denied to them, let alone the ones they have to make...

    He has basic trouble even talking to ordinary people.

    Those of us that understand "the poor" can see this crap in Romney easily! Like, "there it is!" no question!

    Maybe we've been poor, or had to really help some people too poor to do for themselves. Or maybe know from our travels, etc...

    Mitt isn't one of those people. Not at all. He really doesn't know, and where he doesn't know, it's hard to care. Why? Lack of enough information to identify with the people having trouble. Meaningful empathy isn't possible without some material experience that can help one person to see it as another does, or is forced to. Mitt hasn't gone down those roads at all, lacks what it takes, and hasn't demonstrated any desire or need to remedy that, generally being hostile instead.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 04:11 PM #
  18. I think I've asked this question previously. Are we to only elect poor people to the Presidency?

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 04:14 PM #
  19. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,346

    No.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 04:14 PM #
  20. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,101

    "To say that Romney doesn't care about the poor is not based on anything but his choice of words."

    That may well be true, Deane, but you have to admit that it was still a pretty foolish thing to say, and something that can and will be used against him hard core.

    It's never a good idea to give the opponent bulletin board material.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 04:18 PM #
  21. Agreed, there are some things he could have avoided saying.

    The question I would ask you, and others, have you ever had to do as much verbalizing day in and day out over weeks and weeks, and never said anything you shouldn't have?

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 04:24 PM #
  22. He should have the opportunity to explain what he meant and that should be the end of it. If he doesn't care about the poor and thinks expressing that is the way to victory, he'll take it further.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 04:28 PM #
  23. "The question I would ask you, and others, have you ever had to do as much verbalizing day in and day out over weeks and weeks, and never said anything you shouldn't have?"

    Sure, but we are not Running for President, see the difference.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 04:28 PM #
  24. "He should have the opportunity to explain what he meant and that should be the end of it."

    He has now until election day. He better have a good answer ready because somebody will ask him to explain it.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 04:31 PM #
  25. And of course we've got a complicit liberal media, so any juicy gaffe of Romney's will be repeated ad nauseum.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 04:33 PM #
  26. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,100

    The media is owned by CONS, not liberals.

    Any gaffe by any candidate will get repeated.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 05:51 PM #
  27. Andy, if you think the media is Conservative biased, I've got some ocean front property in Kansas I want to sell you.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 06:31 PM #
  28. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,861

    He doesn't need to explain it. He said it once, then doubled down and said it again to make things clear. He doesn't care about the poor. He's never been poor in his life. He was born with a silver spoon, stuck it up a lot of asses, and turned it to gold. He has no clue of the life of an average American. How many people here think $375K in speaking fees is "no that much, really"??

    I can't wait for the advertising! The Dem Super Pacs are compiling video of him saying stupid things daily, that validate his own narrative: That he's a rich pecker who has no clue of average day to day life of average Americans.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 06:34 PM #
  29. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,100

    "Andy, if you think the media is Conservative biased"

    The media is owned by Conservatives is what I said, Deane, not by liberals.
    I've detailed the big 8 several times on this forum, so no need to do it again.

    As far as bias, the other part of my statement should ring true to an old radio dog such as yourself.

    They (all media) will repeat "ad nauseum" any gaffe by any elected official. They have to compete against each other so they are not about to omit a juicy news story because they might be covering their endorsee or potential endorsee.

    The notion that the media is liberal is a dated phrase that lost its relevancy when Cap Cities sold ABC to Disney and said phrase further fell into irrelevancy when Congress passed a law to let Murdoch own so many licenses and newspapers. I mean who do you guys mean when you say liberal media?

    AP Uh, uh.
    NBC C'mon, this is General Electric we're talking about.
    CBS Viacom? You're kidding.

    Are there some newspapers that lean one way or the other? Sure. But they cover the same stories
    and had Romney not been himself this morning, there would be no stories.

    Now I couldn't give a rip about F&B, Notalent, Motozak or others that hate that I contribute around here because sometimes the real facts are not what we want to hear. But just between you and me, who do you mean when you say "the liberal media?"

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 06:52 PM #
  30. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,346

    There is NO left leaning ECONOMIC media in the US. You get bits here and there, but I challenge any of you to present economic news written from the labor point of view.

    Very difficult to find, if you find it.

    Perform the same search over seas, say UK, Germany, etc... no problem. They DO have left economic media there. We don't.

    On social issues, we have plenty of left or liberal media. There is no real debate on this.

    Where the President is concerned, it's all about the money, meaning we don't have liberal media, because IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Social issues will be toyed with, but given no serious consideration in the media.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 07:11 PM #
  31. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,563

    "Going back to the original post outlining the talking points, I see it as more of an attempt to make something out of nothing,..."

    It's only a big deal if a Republican says it. If a Democrat says it then they obviously misspoke.

    Hey, at least he can talk without a teleprompter!

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 07:26 PM #
  32. paulwalker

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,054

    This is a gaffe with or without the context. Even with the added, "they have a safety net", it was a bone-headed thing to say. However, probably will be forgotten by June. A slight setback for Mitt, but I really think this is the story de juor, nothing more.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 07:48 PM #
  33. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,346

    I'm not so sure. That one might be forgotten, though I think we will hear 10 more.

    The problem is basic. Romney doesn't see things the way most people do.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 08:56 PM #
  34. How many times was the "guns and bible" comment repeated by the so called liberal media in 2008?

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:03 PM #
  35. Or Kerry's "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it?"

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:06 PM #
  36. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,442

    Andy, if you think the media is Conservative biased, I've got some ocean front property in Kansas I want to sell you.

    Who OWNS the media??? Large corporations run by old rich white males. Those wouldn't be Conservatives would they???

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:08 PM #
  37. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,442

    I for one would like to see Romney explain himself. I would like to hear his side of the story.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:09 PM #
  38. You'll hear a lot of his side of the story in the coming months. I predict it will prove a difficult general election sell. I further suspect F&B knows that very well.

    Yup, life can be unfair.

    I mean that would be like a Republican candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination taking an Obama quote out of context and using it as a political ad. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-said-if-we-keep-talking-abo/

    Hmmm, "Pants on fire" you say regarding Mittens use of the out of context statement by the President?

    Shocking I heard so little about this on Rush or Fox. That must be why some people missed being as "outraged" at this as the issue under discussion.

    And by the way, F&B. That doesn't matter, either. In politics narrative is important. IMO, Obama has a far better one. Particularly as it's more fact based.

    Mittens is going to have a difficult time selling himself as anything other than what he is. And whether you consider that fair or not, that's the fact, Jack.

    I certainly don't hear alot of excitment from the GOP side about thier impending options.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:24 PM #
  39. I don't want to see any candidate's words presented in a way in which they were not intended.

    And I'm sure I'll be excited at the proper time, especially after the electifying VP choice.

    Is there still time for Jeb...

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:42 PM #
  40. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,442

    WHO???

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:44 PM #
  41. Surely you wouldn't judge a man by his brother?

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:46 PM #
  42. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,442

    Nope!

    I like Jeb but I like him best at what he does now.....

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:47 PM #
  43. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,346

    He's a Bush. Don't need 'em.

    There. Family good enough?

    I think so.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:47 PM #
  44. No, there's not time for Jeb, F&B. And no, not in my opinion, in fact. Look it up. (Hint: filing deadlines)

    As I predicted more than a year ago: It’s Mittens. Enjoy.

    Newt Gingrinch: “In the long run the Republican Party is not going to nominate the founder of Romney care, a liberal Republican who is pro-abortion, pro-gun control and pro-tax increases.”

    “Ain’t gonna happen,” he added

    No worries, Newt. Fair and Balanced will excitedly vote for Mittens because he *says* he's pro-life. He clearly means it. I mean, he said it. So there you go.

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 07:29 AM #
  45. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,442

    Who's Mittens going to choose for a VP?

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 09:27 AM #
  46. Here is another stupid comment made by the heartless businessman in October: “don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course, and hit the bottom, allow investors to buy up homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up, and let it turn around and come back up.”

    edit: whoops I see it mentioned earlier. Oh well this is the long version.

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 09:33 AM #
  47. You can probably find my dissertation on the dynamics of a then probable Romney campaign somewhere in the cavernous digital archive of PDXradio.com. I outlined how I felt it would all come together and shake out more than a year ago; including the Vice Presidential question.

    As I’m too lazy to bother finding my own previous work on the subject I’ll respond in shorter form.

    Romney, and more to the point the RNC and the party establishment, will end up nominating a social conservative more in-line with the expectations and desires of the GOP base for the VP slot to help off-set Romney’s electoral deficiencies.

    I don’t believe it will be any of the wing nuts currently on-parade during this idiotic though highly entertaining primary process. Nor will it be someone as gleefully moronic as a Sarah Palin type of figure. There’s now widespread acknowledgment amongst the reputable conservative world that Sarah was an unmitigated disaster.

    Her absurd lack of qualification and preparation for the office aside, her ineptitude helped change the entire conversation of the election in 2008 from, “Whom would you vote for: The celebrated war hero of conservative though moderate background, or the eloquent though inexperienced Senator from Illinois” to “Oh my God, what happens if McCain dies while in office? Can you imagine that woman in the White House”?

    That narrative change helped doom the McCain campaign. That’s an over simplification but it’s basically correct.

    The VP this time around will share Sarah’s social issue predilections but will not be a flagrant simpleton. If the conversation in 2012 goes from, “Whom do you trust more with the continuing economic recovery” to “I don’t know if I like or trust Mitt Romney and I have concerns about the ticket in general due to the selection of someone possessing extreme viewpoints unrelated to the central issue of the economy”, the Romney campaign will have no chance of success.

    To unseat the incumbent they (Romney and the VP to be named later) have to keep the conversation about Obama and their framing of the economy rather than a referendum on the Republican ticket.

    That's a longer way of saying I can't say with any certainty whom the VP will be. I have a longer list of who it won't be and feel entirely comfortable with those predictions. I know both Mark Rubio and Paul Ryan would like to be considered though I'm not sure either would help Romney in the way some conservatives may be thinking they would. I have my doubts.

    I maintain this is 2008 all over again. The margin of victory will be far narrower due to economic headwinds but I still believe Obama will end up winning a second term.

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 10:26 AM #
  48. "Here is another stupid comment made by the heartless businessman in October: “don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course, and hit the bottom, allow investors to buy up homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up, and let it turn around and come back up.”"

    There's nothing stupid or heartless about letting market corrections happen.

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 10:32 AM #
  49. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,505

    "There's nothing stupid or heartless about letting market corrections happen."

    Even if the market was artificially inflated in the first place, oh Economics Guru?

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 10:33 AM #
  50. Regardless of the reason for the boom, propping it up artificially creates more long term pain. It's better to let the foreclosures happen and the displaced homeowners can eventually get back in and at lower prices.

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 10:36 AM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.