The Romney Tapes - thoughts as to how they'll affect the election?

And then there’s this…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/25/poor-white-voters-reject-democrats

Damn poor people. <Cartman>Why don’t they just starve and decrease the surplus population?</Cartman>

Well, I have a pretty good mid-6 figure income. And I must be a socialist. Because I think that people should be entitled to a minimum level of food, health care and shelter. And I don’t mind paying taxes for them to get it, even if they are too piss-poor to pay taxes themselves.

It’s the price we pay for living in civilization, rather than Mad Max. WTF is wrong with people?

I’ll just point out this isn’t exactly a rebuttal of my post (least because it’s true) :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m pretty sure Team Romney’s theory is that both candidates will automatically get 47% (cite):

Yes, I remember an article that was a rebuttal to “What’s the Matter with Kansas” that was titled something like “What’s the matter with Fifth Avenue?” Why don’t those rich people vote Republican?

Even OMG a Black Conservative chose a name that shows resentment for patronizing assumptions.

The OP missed this one:

It is a very inspiring riches to riches story if you think about it.

He risked everything! If he had failed, he would have been homeless and had to go back to live in one of his parents’ vacation homes.

Or that everyone who votes Democratic is poor?

I read the quoted comments carefully, and as a Democrat, I couldn’t care less. For example, the 47% thing. Yes, there’s probably a good percentage of people who will vote for Obama no matter what. I would say that’s closer to 43% or so, but whatever. Then he makes the shocking allegation that poor people are clinging to entitlements like… like… bitter Americans cling to guns or religion. No, I’m not saying “both sides do it so it is okay,” I’m saying that every politician in the history of the world paints his intractable opposition as being behind the times. Not just politicians, either: just look around the board and virtually everyone who participates in a political thread here has great misconceptions about their political opponents. Yep, those seeking higher office have a duty to carry out their job with fairness. Doesn’t mean they can’t think unkind thoughts about political opponents in guarded moments.

I think we have totally unrealistic views of what our politicians should be. We pounce on every unscripted comment for the evil that is hidden in them and fool people into thinking that oversights in extemporaneous remarks constitute evidence of malice, detracting from thoughtful discussion of important issues. We eat up stupid issues like they are candy: ooh, Obama lived in Indonesia! Oooh, Mitt has a car elevator! Oooh, someone had a mistress!

I think we would do better if we treated politicians like they were people, and also expect them to behave like people rather than robots who blather out scripted pablum. There is something more refreshing about people like Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean who seem to say what they think and stand behind it, even as pundits microanalyze their statements for exactly who they offended and why.

To put it another way, I think we take politics too seriously and policy not seriously enough. We can’t only blame the inside the beltway crowd for that.

Funny, but technically he would have had no choice but to live in the home his parents bought him. And little to rebuild his shattered self but the prep school, college and graduate school education his parents paid for. But besides that he’s self made. Oh and all the influence he was able to leverage from being his father’s son. But besides THAT he was self made.

Would his father have been a CEO of a major corporation, governor of Michigan, and Presidential contender if he was Mexican? How many Mexican-Americans do you suppose were in Romney’s class at Cranbrook?

Excellent points, except the “we” is a small subset of the electorate. Most people aren’t news hounds like “we” are.

This reminds me of the Obama “clinging to guns and religion” comment that was also made in a ‘safe zone’. The only people that cared were never going to vote for Obama anyway. I think this is the same thing.

Something I don’t get about this:

The tea party is made up heavily of people on medicare and social security. I guess expecting logical consistency from these people is absurd at this point. But a lot of the ‘welfare queens’ that don’t pay federal taxes and that live off of government subsidies are elderly people who are on SS and medicare, who go to tea party rallies. In fact the elderly are Romney’s strongest demographic.

The whole thing is stupid. But I will give Romney credit for this. Normally conservatives say ‘50% of americans don’t pay any taxes’. Romney was actually honest and said they didn’t pay federal income taxes. But they still generally pay FICA taxes and various state and local taxes.

It may not have much effect, if it gets eclipsed by a bigger gaffe in a few days.

Yup. I guess Romney wanted to make it sound like he’s under attack from that 47% so those donors will help him out.

I don’t get it. He says a $200,000 annual income is “middle class” and he also says half the population are leaches? Wow.

The scaffolding effect.

Well half the Obama voters anyway.

Amazing how Romney can simultaneously want to kick Mexicans out of the country, but wishes he was of Mexican descent so he can win the election… ?

I’m so confused…