Did anyone ever interview a member(s) of Romney’s audience and ask them what the thought of Romney’s comment? Did member(s) buy into his assertion that the 47% are a bunch of moochers pledging fealty to the Democratic Party? Or, that member(s) saw it as rhetoric designed to win campaign contributions. Or somewhere in between?
Yes, not everyone will vote for you, but no, you do still have to worry about the ones who don’t. You are running to be president of the entire country, and you will be making decisions that affect everyone’s lives. You must have the nation’s best interest at heart, not just the interests of your base and some of the undecideds.
Not when you’re running or planning campaign strategy. This was a fundraising dinner. And he probably was an idiot in thinking his comments weren’t going to get out, but he thought his comments weren’t going to get out. If he knew he was being taped, he wouldn’t have said that stuff.
Irrelevant, at least it would be to me. If a candidate for president promised something to me that I felt was detrimental, or even dismissive, to a large part of the population, that wouldn’t get my vote. I recognize that the presidency should not serve narrow interests, even my own. I want a candidate who recognizes it too, and is willing to admit it.
And to get back to the theme of this thread, that touches on a tenet of Republicanism. They seem to really believe that what’s good for their rich donors is, in all cases and by definition, good for the country.
OTOH, there’s no good reason why the president-of-us-all cannot or should not also be a “class warrior.”
Well, if the presidential candidate is fighting for the rights of the very rich minority, he may find himself lacking in votes…
Well, that’s better than making their arguments without believing it.
I’m not sure it matters to me if a politician is cynical and greedy or sincere and wrong.
Well, in theory, if someone is wrong, they can be convinced by facts and history and…
Yeah, you’re right.
OTOH, a presidential class warrior fighting for the rest of us as against those would not.
That depends on the level of disconnect some people have from their actual class and what it means regarding policies.
See: millionaires complaining about not being able to have enough spare cash to fill up their fifth Lexus, and low-income uninsured fighting against getting government assistance.
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck
I think it’s more a case of the wealthy using social hot button issues (abortion, gun control) to keep the low income idiots distracted while they are systematically robbed. Has worked very well for them too. And the thing is, it’s becoming bipartisan. The Republicans have middle and lower class conservatives fascinated with abortion, gay marriage and guns, and the Dems have middle and lower class liberals fascinated with gay marriage and marijuana legalization, while they rob the pockets of both.
At last! A bipartisan agenda!
I’ve forced myself to read Charles Krauthammer for years looking for nuggets of conservative insight and wisdom in a vast leach field of reactionary polemics.
But today’s column stunned me. It seemed…seemed so rational.
He’s aiming his missive at the Tea Party’s refusal to compromise:
Even if a calamity results, however, until those Congressional districts who elected the Tea Party members are directly affected long-term by the fallout, expect things to remain the same. 
Surprising. Krauthammer’s been stewing in his own bile for so long I thought there was nothing left but a pot of slime there.
Kiddies, if *Krauthammer *thinks you’re nuts …
Then he’s a RINO! :mad:
Another piece of evidence that the answer to the OP is “No” is in the Washington Post’s book review of Dan Balz’s book on the 2012 presidential campaign http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/collision-2012-obama-vs-romney-and-the-future-of-elections-in-america-by-dan-balz/2013/08/02/df66f74a-efe4-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html
The salient points to this discussion are that Romney and his team had no clue as to why they lost, and still have no clue. It’s bad enough if the candidate is making the rookie mistake of believing his gut rather than outside polls, but for his top campaign staff to fall for that trap is inexcusable. Romney should have known better - he’s lost campaigns before. I’m sure there were big crowds for his senate bid, but he lost anyway. I’m sure the rallies for his 2008 GOP nomination run had lots of enthusiasm, but he lost anyway. Romney is in deep denial about the 47% quote, for crying out loud! If the GOP wants to win the presidency, they will have to do a lot better than the Romney campaign.
Yah well at least gay marriage and marijuana legalization are forward steps. Look. The rich are going to rob the poor no matter what (it is why I quit being poor and became [actually] middle class). If you know you’re hosed, might as well go for ethical points.
[QUOTE=Paul Krauthammer]
As for manliness, the real question here is sanity.
[/QUOTE]
No, they’re always going to try. There are ways to stop them.