He must be slipping. Usually he lets a week or two pass before he states the diametrically opposing view to what he said before. By election day he’ll be contradicting himself by the end of the same sentence.
Since Romney was fact and specific free at the RNC 3 weeks ago, he was very specific in the candid tape, it seems he believes Democrats and Independents aren’t the only ones that vote based on emotion over truth.
His campaign approach makes more sense to me now.
This story has legs that Betty Grable would die for. It has resonated like nothing I’ve never seen. The 47% comments are going to not only kill the Romney campaign, it’s going to keep Reid in the Majority Leader’s office and give the gavel back to Pelosi. As Trump would say, it’s HUGE! Now Pawlenty has stepped down as co-chair, recognizing a sinking ship when he sees one. Senate candidates are distancing themselves from Romney. Just seven weeks till Romney can donate his campaign mommy jeans to Goodwill and get a donation receipt for his taxes.
The Democrats were likely going to keep control of the Senate regardless.
I think you’re probably dreaming here.
Well, if it happens, can I get the SDMB Crystal Ball Award?
You could probably get a job making political predictions on TV (or at least CNN, which is kind of like TV without the audience).
While it is true that overturning the House majority in one swell foop is unlikely, we can reasonably expect that House Republicans will rediscover the value and beauty of bi-partisan comity.
And Pawlenty left some time ago, it wasn’t until just recently that anyone noticed.
Will Fox News start trumpeting the New Truth? How will this play with the Conservative voters, especially those who vociferously defended Romney over the past three days? Think any Independents are impressed and swayed back into the Romney camp?
Sounds like the team has made a real conscious choice about turning back towards the middle. I doubt it will help poor Mitt much, becasue I predict he’ll just get tagged with the “Etch-A-Sketch” stuff again, now.
Plus, how will the noisiest right-wing voices explain and support his moderate views to their audience? These are the people who loathe conciliators and moderates. This does nothing for keeping the base interested in this guy.
Saying one thing privately, to fundraisers, “I don’t care about 47%…”, and another publicly, “I’m all about the 100%”, is not going to mix well with his, ‘non specifics’, strategy concerning immigration, job growth, etc.
What’s that boy thinking?
We have always been at war with [del]the 47%[/del] Eastasia.
Well, with less than 2 months ago, I fear they are still grasping for a strategy they hope will show some positive traction. They look like a beater on slick ice, with 4 bald tires…
It depends on how quickly and effectively the downticket candidates are able to break out the plastic sheets, duct tape, and Febreze[tm] to keep the stench of Romney Fail from clinging to them.
Gee, it’s almost like without food stamps nobody would be buying any cereal! :rolleyes:
If they weren’t cashing the checks they’d be depositing the cash. People gots ta eat, ya know, and it’s not like food stamps are people’s only access to packaged food.
I’m not even sure what the above post is trying to say… 
luci is trying to insinuate hypocrisy on the part of the presumably Republican shareholders of the aforementioned companies because while they presumably rail against the evils of socialism, they happily reap the profits derived from people using their socialistic food stamps to buy the products they sell. My point is that people have to eat and they will be buying these products anyway, so there is no extra special benefit for the evil, greedy Republican shareholders of these companies to gain as a result of people using food stamps to buy their products.
Poor people will magically be afford food without foodstamps, because cash?
It looks like he’s trying to say that food stamps spend the same as cash, so if we weren’t helping those lazy welfare queens out they’d be forced instead to use all that money Starving thinks they’re sitting on but don’t have to use because we’re giving them handouts.
Starving, do you even think about what your name means? Or did you think it was just some witty irony when you picked it?
Nope. You’re quite wrong about that. You are ascribing to me motives and thinking that are not mine. The point is simply that people will buy cereal whether they have food stamps or not. Their “sitting” on other money never crossed my mind, as it’s my general belief that most people on food stamps generally don’t have a lot of money in surplus.
I was young and innocent when I joined this board and had no idea of the political lunacy I was about to find myself subjected to. Also, I had developed an interest in painting and had put a couple of paintings out for sale in a local shop, but they did not sell. Thus a very dear relative of mine suggested “Starving Artist” as a moniker for the board, and as it seemed appropriate at the time that is what I did.
I’ve considered changing it from time to time - something along the line of REAGANNUGENTEASTWOODCOMMONSENSEANDREALITY 
- but I rather like the fact that my user name was selected for me by the person who suggested it, plus I think the name is so strongly connected with me by now that most people no longer experience the cognitive dissonance that they once did in the beginning.