Is It Only Me…

Or does it seem that every time Mitt Romney manages to (a) move into a statistically meaningless “lead” over President Obama in head to head surveys and/or (b) manages to persuade the Villagers that he’s actually a reasonable human being, he blurts out stuff like this (via TPM):

When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent, you have opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.

I’ll leave aside the incoherent “wave of approach” — lapses like this are best taken as the inevitable byproduct of the exhaustion and sheer addling tedium of the campaign trail.  (I assume Romney meant “wave of reproach” or simply “approach.”)

But for the love of pasta, in Romneyland pointing out the competing interests of plutocrats vs. the rest of us cats is a religious sin! There are sins aplenty in the religion of money…

…but I don’t think we can locate them in the tack taken by President Obama.

There’s something so tone-deaf about this, the claim that one can’t argue over, say, trickle-down vs. broad based tax policy, because that would violate God’s plan for a unitary (theocratic?) state. Even folks inside the Village can’t be comfortable with what amounts to the statement that it is impossible in politics to argue about, you know, politics!

In fact, so egregious was Romney’s obtuseness that even Romney’s interviewer committed an actual act of journalism, following up this first statement with a (relatively mild, all things considered) follow up:

QUESTIONER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?

You’d think someone running for President for the second time, someone who knows his major vulnerability is his wealth and the way he acquired it, would have figured out by now some soft answer to turneth away our wrath.  You know, something like “the issue isn’t any individual’s wealth — it’s the jobs we need to create…” or some such.

But no.  Not the RomneyBot.  Here’s what he actually said:

ROMNEY: I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like.

Quiet rooms? Don’ trouble your pretty little heads, Americans.  Me and the boys will straighten all this out in private.  We’ll have “discussions about tax policy” that will lead to tax hikes on the bottom (based on current tax policy), and yet more cash delivered to my Malibu mansion by the bucket load.

Which, of course, is why Romney went on to complain that

…the president has made it part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street.

Well, yeah.  Back room deals haven’t worked out so well, and the President is willing to say so…which is why the last thought out of W. Mitt’s mouth is better read as a pious hope than as reasoned expectation:

It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail.

Snark aside.  Does anyone outside the Romneyverse think that suggesting that Wall St.’s wise men figure out what to do with the money is not exactly a winning message?  All I can say is that I hope this is the candidate we get for the next ten months.  It’s going to be a brutal campaign, and I, for one, will take every own goal I can get.

(PS:  I note that as I was writing this, Steve Benen got in there first with much the same thought, only more so — not to mention video of the exchange.)

Image:  Hans Holbein the Younger, Danse Macabre. XXVIII. The Miser, before 1543.

 

 

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

104 replies
  1. 1
    Cat Lady says:

    Shorter Mitt: Look upon me and despair because I’m filthy rich, riCH, RICH bitchez!

  2. 2
    rlrr says:

    Al Franken had an excellent response to those screaming class warfare

  3. 3
    Mark S. says:

    I like how attacking the 1% violates the sacred One Nation Under God standard, but attacking blacks, Hispanics, gays, people on welfare, Muslims, people to the left of Mitt Romney, etc. is all dandy.

  4. 4
    Mike in NC says:

    I assume Romney meant “wave of reproach” or simply “approach.”

    Never “assume” anything when it comes to Willard, including if he’s actually a carbon-based life form.

  5. 5
    rlrr says:

    @Mark S.:

    Because, SHUT UP!, that’s why.

  6. 6
    kwAwk says:

    Honestly, I think that this really is all there is to Mitt.

    He is straight forward the plutocrat candidate, which is why all of the people on the right don’t care for him either.

    He seems to be running for President for the exact same reasons that George W Bush did. Because that is what his daddy did, and he wants to prove he can do it.

  7. 7
    Hunter Gathers says:

    I want to know who in the hell installed the shitty software that the RomneyBot seems to be running on? When he parks himself into his regeneration port each night, who is the dumbass checking for hard drive errors? Have his handlers never thought of running the occasional disk de-fragmentation? Installing a patch every now and then? Re-boot him on occasion? This guy would seem out of place at an android convention. For fuck’s sake, there are Japanese robot dogs that operate on a more human level than this poorly programmed human emulation device. Daleks come off as more human. A Cyberman could handle questioning better than the MittBot can.

    And with that, I’ve reached my nerd quotient for the day.

  8. 8
    wrb says:

    It actually seems to be working for him within the party. Newt etc. are being savaged for not holding this line & going over to the Socylists

  9. 9

    Incredibly bone-headed. I’m sorry, but whining about how mean the 99% are to the poor, downtrodden 1%, given that inequality is greater now than even during the guilded age is probably the stupidest thing a national candidate can do.

    Sure, Willard, go ahead and side with the 1%. I know which side has more votes.

  10. 10
    MattF says:

    Now, if Noot keeps bringing up the business of the ‘food stamp President’, we’ll have a nicely symmetric portrait of how class warfare is conducted by the Republican party.

  11. 11
    Cat Lady says:

    @wrb:

    This is how the Republican party dies – clutching their new figurehead anchor in a populist sea.

  12. 12
    General Stuck says:

    Romney is both pissy and prissy. These are qualities that won’t take him far with American voters, on the whole. Though hatred of liberals and Obama will guarantee him 45 percent of the vote in a general. He will have to talk way different if he wants to win, in a country with anxieties about financial survival. If this were a Matrix movie, he could just plug in his head to the mainframe and download the right program for bullshitting his way to show a clue he “feels” the average American pain. His whole life has been centered on personal comfort, and ministering to the French for gawds sake. Give the man some credit.

    Meanwhile, Obama will have a good supply of Romney dolls in the Oval Office with plenty stick pins for a daily presidential tuneup with voodoo dolling the paper thin Mitt. He is Kenyan after all.

  13. 13
    Litlebritdifrnt says:

    While waiting to continue some cases in court this morning I had a conversation with two of my favorite wingnuts, an attorney and his paralegal (the attorney has a framed photo of GWB in his waiting room for FSM’s sake). I said to them “so ya’ll fired up to vote for Romney then?” the paralegal said “no, I’d rather not vote at all than vote for him” and the attorney said “well if I HAVE to but I sure would like another choice.” I know this is all anecdotal but so far that is 3 of 3 of my wingnut friends and the result is 1) is probably going to vote Obama 2) not going to vote at all and 3) will hold his nose and vote Romney. I am liking what I am hearing.

  14. 14
    geg6 says:

    @wrb:

    Depends on what you mean by “party.”

    By the looks of it, NH GOPers didn’t buy it because the record turnout they were expecting for a supposedly high excitement year didn’t show up. Hell, half the people who voted in the Republican primary last night weren’t even Republicans. And this in a state where the man owns a home and is next door to the state he actually governed.

    Now, if you mean the high muckety mucks of the party, you have a point. But they are only screaming about it because they are the same plutocrats that Romney is.

    Meanwhile, Newt is saying fuck you and going full populist. I never thought I’d type these words, but go Newt! Keep that GOPer enthusiasm low, low, low.

  15. 15
    wrb says:

    And it’s Newt that retreats. You do not attack the nice vultures

    Newt Gingrich signaled Wednesday that he believes his criticism of Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital is a mistake — and that he’s created an impression that he was echoing Democratic rhetoric.

  16. 16
    Palli says:

    @Afferent Input:

    we may have more votes- put will voters be allowed to cast ballots and will those votes be tabulated as cast?

    There was a reason Republicans made a big calamity out of chads…even before they didn’t count them.

    Election Fraud, the republican wild card.

  17. 17
    geg6 says:

    @Litlebritdifrnt:

    Go read Fallows. He also has a correspondent who he says is a long-time Republican who intends not to vote at all.

    This is what I pray to the FSM for every day. Low GOP enthusiasm. And it looks like Mittens is delivering!

  18. 18
    JGabriel says:

    Dog On Car:

    Everywhere [the President] goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street.

    Oh My!

    The lions and tigers and bears are feeling extremely jealous and put out.

    .

  19. 19
    Mino says:

    @rlrr: Yes, you’d think his familiarity with France would cause Mittens to be more circumspect.

  20. 20
    gaz says:

    Every time somebody, somewhere thinks Romney just might beat Obama, Romney goes and opens his mouth in front of a camera.

    The man should campaign as “the strong, (completely) silent type”.

    =) lol. what a jackass.

  21. 21
    gaz says:

    @efgoldman:

    awfully white

    That pretty much sums up Gingrich doesn’t it?

    With emphasis on AWFULLY.

  22. 22
    Mark S. says:

    @wrb:

    God, when did Newt become such a wuss? He really falls into line whenever Rush disapproves. He did the same exact thing over Ryan’s Medicare plan.

    If you’re not going to attack Willard you might as well drop out. Maybe Mitt will let you come over and wash his Rolls Royce.

  23. 23
    rlrr says:

    @Mino:

    Does Mitt Romney speak French? Typically, Mormon missionaries learn the language of the country they work in. Speaking French can’t possibly help Mitt win over the Republican base…

  24. 24
    Sly says:

    Appeals to national unity, couched in religious terms or otherwise, are a pretty tried and true demagogic mechanism for ensuring loyalty of subordinate classes to the social parasites in the dominate class. That’s what Romneytron is pontificating about in this instance, and the suggestion that vulture capitalism not be discussed in polite conversation is a dead giveaway.

    Though the invocation of religion provides an added benefit of sucking in those for whom religion, as Marx accurately described, represents the “sigh” of their own oppression (i.e. Evangelicals in the low-wage, anti-union, race-to-the-bottom South).

    It is, however, slightly less laughable than the dire warnings of a financial services brain drain should firms in said industry come under closer scrutiny. I mean, what are they gonna do? Go to another country and fuck up their private credit system? Can we buy them all one-way tickets?

  25. 25
    TooManyJens says:

    and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent

    Are we ever going to see widespread pushback in this country against the idea that money is the one and only measure of success?

  26. 26
    The Moar You Know says:

    President 1%.

    Keep fucking that chicken, Mitt.

  27. 27
    rlrr says:

    and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent

    Most successful at choosing the right parents, for the most part.

  28. 28
    geg6 says:

    Totally OT, but this made my day:

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....hp?ref=fpa

    Heh.

  29. 29
    ericblair says:

    I guess the Rom-o-Tronic is trying the age-old gooper tactic of covering the straight-up money worship with a big helping of Jeezus to get the Bible-bashers on board. Because we know Jesus was all about the Benjamins, baby. However, he’s such an elitist prick that he can’t do the pivot properly.

    Getting the rubes to sign on to moneybags policies usually means two things: convincing some random shlub working stiff that he’s going to be rich one day and won’t like them millionaire income taxes when it happens, and that getting rid of social benefits and unions will keep the darkies and other undesirables down. Romney just goes straight in with telling you that it’s not your place to question your betters. I don’t think any software upgrade is going to fix this bug.

  30. 30
    Origuy says:

    Before you get your hopes up for a low Republican turnout, remember that in November there will be Congressional, some Senate, and local elections, plus an unknown number of resolutions, propositions, and initiatives. Right now the only race anyone is talking about is the Presidential one, but if a local issue is hot, it could draw people out, particularly if they are used to voting.

  31. 31
    geg6 says:

    @Mark S.:

    Actually, I’m not so sure that he really is backing off.

    “Newt isn’t backing off holding Romney accountable,” Hammond said. “He may have been sympathetic to the questioner but that doesn’t mean Romney won’t have to answer questions.”
    __
    Hammond argued the super PAC film was not actually about Bain specifically.
    __
    “It’s the decisions that Romney was making as CEO that are under review of public opinion,” Hammond said. “We’re not bringing Bain up, we’re responding to questions” prompted by the video.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....via=blog_1

  32. 32
    Zifnab says:

    No matter what he says or does, he’ll still get a good 40-45% of the vote. People just can’t comprehend that “wealthy” doesn’t mean a two story house and a college education. Mitt Romney can roll up his sleeves and play “Average Joe”, and people might not mistake him for a factory worker, but they just won’t be able to grasp what it means to be worth a quarter of a billion dollars.

    People think Romney is looking out for them, when he’s looking out for the rich. They think “I drive a car with leather seats! And those grubby bums at OWS want to take that away from me!” And what they don’t see is Bain Capital buying up the parent company of the firm that runs their office so everyone can be laid off and outsourced.

  33. 33
    The Moar You Know says:

    Are we ever going to see widespread pushback against the idea that money is the one and only measure of success?

    @TooManyJens: Not in America. I’m serious. It will never happen, the idea is woven into our national DNA. We occasionally pay lip service to other measures of success, but you can’t point me to anytime in this nation’s history where the primary yardstick by which we measured a person’s awesomeness was in how much cold, hard cash they had at hand.

    It’s one of the few things that truly sucks about America, it has bothered me ever since I was a child, and it will never change.

  34. 34
    Brachiator says:

    When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent…

    Did Mittbot just call the majority of Americans losers?

    @TooManyJens:

    Are we ever going to see widespread pushback in this country against the idea that money is the one and only measure of success?

    Unlikely.

    Well, money or being a famewhore. And then you use famewhore status to become rich or richer, like the Kardashians. American Dream, babies! American Dream.

  35. 35
    JGabriel says:

    @rlrr:

    Does Mitt Romney speak French?

    Yes, near-fluently, and there’s YouTube video.

    .

  36. 36
    wrb says:

    @geg6:

    You could read the original article as suggesting that the superpac will go full speed ahead with the attacks while Newt tutt-tutts, distancing himself.

  37. 37
    gaz says:

    @geg6: Isn’t he already on probation? LOL. This is rich. O’Keefe is soo fucked.

  38. 38
    Mino says:

    @rlrr: Uh, did you read Frankins story? Oise Valley? French history?

  39. 39
    Suffern ACE says:

    @TooManyJens: Nope. Since the protestant preachers live like the Prince Bishops they used to rail against and the famous press opinionators leaders make enough to dine with the folks they are supposed to be covering, where is this cricism supposed to come from?

  40. 40
    Elliecat says:

    @TooManyJens:

    Are we ever going to see widespread pushback against the idea that money is the one and only measure of success?

    I don’t expect to. That’s why there’s the “Prosperity Gospel.” Even most people who claim to put their religion/spirituality first tend to see the “success” of their devotion as being delivered in material form.

    And all this “envy” stuff reminds me of arguments about feminism and politics and such I had in my youth with people whose main argument was “You’re just jealous” (of people who are richer/ smarter/ prettier/ have more boyfriends/ you name it).

  41. 41
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Origuy:

    I’m not sure what new initiatives can be put forward to bring the fundamentalists out this time. They already used the gay marriage ploy in 2004 — what are they going to do, propose ballot initiatives to, like, really ban it this time? A few states have the “personhood” amendment, but if Mississippi was unwilling to buy it, I doubt any purple states will.

    2010 happened in part because of an under-the-radar campaign by Rove’s organization to convince old people that Obama was cutting Medicare by passing the ACA. It’s going to have to be something like that, but it’ll be much harder since presidential elections are generally high-turnout, but you can only do an under-the-radar thing like that when you’re expecting low turnout, as in a midterm election.

  42. 42
    dogwood says:

    To me the real kicker is the “quiet room” thing. If Democrats ignore that line, then they deserve to lose.

  43. 43
    ericblair says:

    @JGabriel:

    Yes, near-fluently, and there’s YouTube video.

    Well, he can read his teleprompter fine, but his godawful American accent gives me a headache. Something to do with being a stiff, priggy bastard.

    I’m waiting for someone to ask him a question in French. The smart thing for him to do would be to ask the questioner to repeat it in English so everybody could understand. This is Romney, so he’ll just pretend he doesn’t speak French, never knew French, and won’t even eat French toast.

  44. 44
    JGabriel says:

    @TooManyJens:

    Are we ever going to see widespread pushback in this country against the idea that money is the one and only measure of success?

    Probably not. It would contradict the gospel of Baby Reagan and Gun Totin’ Jesus.

    .

  45. 45
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Afferent Input:
    I guess it’s only natural for Mitt to side with the one percent. He is of that ilk, after all, and it’s quite understandable that he should defend his own people.

    But the way he’s criticizing Obama — if he’s even going after something Obama actually said — is weird. He’s, like, siding with the one percent, which like you said is not the way to get the majority on your side. Aside from his general tone-deafness, it speaks poorly of his ability to work out negotiation strategy, something President Romneybot will have to do a lot of.

  46. 46
    nastybrutishntall says:

    Blessed are the meek rich, because well, duh, obviously.

  47. 47
    Starfish says:

    @Hunter Gathers: A robot would probably be better at math. In what mathematical universe does siding with the 1% against the 99% get you the majority of the votes?

  48. 48
    rlrr says:

    @JGabriel:

    If there was a Youtube video of a Democratic Presidential candidate speaking Frech, I guarantee it would be all over Fox “News” and presented a evidence of some sort of character flaw…

  49. 49
    Triassic Sands says:

    What Mitt meant to say was:

    One nation under the 1%.

  50. 50
    Mnemosyne says:

    BTW, the enthusiasm of Republican voters this year seems to be a tad exaggerated:

    The GOP’s turnout problem

    Republicans may be fired up about getting rid of Obama, but they sure aren’t enthused about the candidates they have to try and do that with.

    ETA: I suppose the actual measure would be look at Dem primary turnout in 2004 and Republican primary turnout in 2012, but I’m too lazy to do that.

  51. 51
    rlrr says:

    @Starfish:

    In a universe were a large number of the 99% are delusional enough to believe they are the 1%…

  52. 52
    Lit3Bolt says:

    There’s no class in America, but we all have class envy.

  53. 53
    Calouste says:

    @Hunter Gathers:

    I decided to name my newly arrived robotic vacuum cleaner ‘Mitt’. The name is slightly unfair however, it interacts far better with people than the Romneytronic.

  54. 54
    Svensker says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    It’s one of the few things that truly sucks about America, it has bothered me ever since I was a child, and it will never change.

    I’m not sure I agree. Don’t remember it really being an issue when I was a kid growing up in the 50s; and going to school in the 60s/70s how much money one would make in a particular job wasn’t a big issue either as far as career choices went. It was NICE to have lots of money but it wasn’t important. What was important was having either a) a solid job with a solid company (those existed in those days) or b) an interesting job (artistic, scientific, humanitarian).

    That changed in the 80s, when status and money started to drive everything.

  55. 55
    DFH no.6 says:

    @Zifnab:

    No matter what he says or does, he’ll still get a good 40-45% of the vote. People just can’t comprehend that “wealthy” doesn’t mean a two story house and a college education.

    What Zifnab said.

    Unfortunately, roughly half of the “99%” will buy what Romney said here hook, line, and sinker. Same reasons that the “death tax” rhetoric resonates with these people, even though essentially none of them have even a ghost of a chance to ever have enough of an estate to pay estate taxes.

    It is, sad to say, a “winning” message.

    I just hope that “rough half” is enough below 50% come next November. We’ll see

  56. 56
    Calouste says:

    @ericblair:

    Must have been mighty hard to convert the French to Mormonism without speaking French. In my experience in France in the 70s and 80s, foreign language speakers were few and far between, and it can’t have been better in 1968. Of course, maybe Romney doesn’t speak French, which makes you wonder what he was doing there except draft dodging.

  57. 57
    dmsilev says:

    Earlier today, I proposed that we now have enough data to write down the Three Laws of Romneybotics:

    Law 1: A Romneybot must not harm, or through inaction allow harm to come to, the free acquisition of capital by any means necessary.
    Law 2: A Romneybot must obey all orders from the socially conservative GOP base, unless such orders conflict with the First Law.
    Law 3: A Romneybot must ensure its own political survival, unless such survival conflicts with Law 1. Law 2 can suck it.

    The additional data presented in this post are consistent with the predictions of these Three Laws. If anyone can show me evidence of the Romneybot acting contrary to these design principles, I’d love to see it.

  58. 58
    DCLaw1 says:

    The “quiet rooms” remark was definitely weird. Even Tweety picked up on it tonight.

    Shhhhh! Ok, ok, you can complain all you want about America’s stifling, worsening economic inequality, but keep it down, peasants! I mean, just look at this uppity Obama running around talking about this stuff out loud!

  59. 59
    EconWatcher says:

    @Calouste:

    I can’t understand how you could ever convert a European to Mormonism anyway, because the religion rewrites Christianity to put America at the center of it. Tough sell.

  60. 60
    kdaug says:

    Dude, this Mitt “Ozymandias” Romney is sooo asking for Eisenhower tax rates

  61. 61
    EconWatcher says:

    Making inequality a campaign issue is tricky for Obama. He should definitely do it. But if he overdoes it, it will backfire–at least from what I’ve seen in about 30 years of being politically aware in this country.

    It always seems like such a no-brainer. But in the end, this just ain’t France. So many people who you would think should be on board for some redistribution just aren’t.

    I was born in this country, I’ve lived here most of my life, but often I just don’t get the place.

  62. 62

    I wonder how much longer the meat-and-potatoes/blue collar Republicans can continue to pretend the GOP represents their interests? I just learned that the RNC has filed a brief with the Fourth Circuit Court asking that corporations be allowed to make direct contributions to political candidates.

    Links at my post here, but I saw it on ThinkProgress.

  63. 63
    patrick the pedantic literalist says:

    I remember once reading about another leader of men who complained about money lenders (bankers) at the temple (Wall Street). That would be that “under God” guy that Mitt is referring to.

  64. 64
    Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    Nah, this blithering idiocy is often floating around the wingnutosphere. Consider this example from one particularly moronic and deceitful specimen…

    http://truthbeforedishonor.wor.....ymnastics/

  65. 65
    Special Patrol Group says:

    The more Teh Peoples see Mittens, the less they like him. Keep on talking, old sport.

  66. 66
    lamh35 says:

    @wrb: Which is exactly what Romney did in Iowa.

  67. 67
    dogwood says:

    @Brachiator:

    Did Mittbot just call the majority of Americans losers?

    Yes he did, but why shouldn’t he. That’s the message of the whole job creator thing. Democrats need a populist message that stokes anger but strokes egos a bit too. Let the voters know in plain English that we actually think teachers, cops, mechanics etc are successful, and we want to see their success fairly rewarded. I was a highly successful teacher for 35 years. Democrats have rightly called me overworked and underpaid, but they have never called me successful.

  68. 68
    DFH no.6 says:

    @Starfish:

    In what mathematical universe does siding with the 1% against the 99% get you the majority of the votes?

    I really don’t mean this to sound as dickish as I suppose it does, but have you not noticed we’ve had several Republican presidents lately, only one of whom (W/2000) did not get the majority of the votes?

    The essence of Republican rule for a very long time has been “siding” with the 1% against the 99%. It’s just that Republicans are very good at getting around half of the 99% to vote very much against their own economic interests. Volumes and volumes have been written (and will be written) on why that is.

    My two favorite distillations of that are Davis X. Machina’s (quite paraphrased, now) “half the people would be happy to live in a box under a bridge cooking sparrows over a fire, as long as the others didn’t have any sparrows” and the quintessential 1-percenter Jay Gould stating “I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half”.

    That’s the universe (country, anyway) we have. And have had for, well, essentially ever.

  69. 69
    Mino says:

    Totally off topic, but good news. You know Scott Brown raised 3.2 mil from Wall Street. Well, Warren’s numbers were just released–5.7 mil small-doner-dollars.

  70. 70
    Cacti says:

    Blessed are the plutocrats, yea, for all good things trickle down from their job-creating magnificence.

    Amen.

  71. 71
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Mitt wants a tumbrel ride so bad he can taste it.

    We’ll toss in his chickenhawk sons, too.

  72. 72
    Brachiator says:

    @dogwood:

    That’s the message of the whole job creator thing. Democrats need a populist message that stokes anger but strokes egos a bit too. Let the voters know in plain English that we actually think teachers, cops, mechanics etc are successful, and we want to see their success fairly rewarded.

    It’s funny how the stock market and profits rise when corporations lay people off. Not a who lot of job creation gets done. And the GOP loves to praise corporations. The Democrats have been handed a gift. Let’s see what they do with it.

    I was a highly successful teacher for 35 years.

    Did you retire, change professions … ?

  73. 73

    @JGabriel:

    Mitt says:

    Everywhere [the President] goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street.

    Hey, any publicity is good publicity, amirite?

  74. 74
    ruemara says:

    @dogwood: To me the real kicker is the “quiet room” thing. If Democratsvoters ignore that line, then they deserve to losethe craven corporatists that will ruin them and theirs for a generation, that they vote for.

    FTFY.

    Hint, it isn’t up to a party to educate voters. That’s called propaganda.

  75. 75
    Nutella says:

    @EconWatcher:

    Mormon missionaries have been successful in converting Japanese and South Americans so apparently they tone down the geographic part of the doctrine when they’re proselytizing in other countries.

  76. 76
    Cacti says:

    @efgoldman:

    Which God?

    That would be the Mormon God who teaches that all non-Mormon faiths are false, an abomination in his sight, and the servants of satan.

  77. 77
    wrb says:

    @EconWatcher:

    Making inequality a campaign issue is tricky for Obama. He should definitely do it. But if he overdoes it, it will backfire

    Yep. A large portion of the electorate will assume he’s talking about redistribution from their tribe to his- the blacks.

  78. 78
    Froley says:

    What, in all his missions to the crumbling mansions of Paris, he never heard the word “ressentiment”?

  79. 79
    quannlace says:

    Want some vintage nuttiness? Read Mitt’s dropping-out-of-the-race speech back in 2008. The bitterness is astounding.

  80. 80
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Mitt isn’t doing a good job of saying what Republicans always say, to wit, Democrats want to take successful people’s stuff and give it to freeloaders, but we Republicans know that that’s not how to help hurting people get a hand up instead of a handout. Your reaction isn’t supposed to be, “yeah, 1% forever, bitches!”. It’s supposed to be, “I don’t begrudge anyone his success, I just want everyone to rise or fall based on the level of their own hard work.” Republicans like the idea of taking rich people’s stuff even less than they like rich people. That’s the audience for the lines about jealousy and divisiveness.

  81. 81
    dogwood says:

    @Brachiator:

    I retired at age 57. Yeah, I started young. I wanted to stay 4 or 5 more years, but budget cuts and a poorly thought-out state mandated Senior Project made me decide to leave. And it wasn’t so much the salary cuts that got to me. It was the class size and the Project. Those are the roadblocks that make you feel unsuccessful, and by the time I figured out how to manage those roadblocks, I would be 62. So I left.

  82. 82
    trollhattan says:

    @ericblair:

    Mittens doesn’s speak French, he speaks Freedom(tm).

  83. 83
    ericblair says:

    @Calouste:

    Of course, maybe Romney doesn’t speak French, which makes you wonder what he was doing there except draft dodging.

    From the youtube video, I’m pretty sure he does speak French, since French has got a lot of pronunciation weirdnesses that require you to have a good understanding of the language to read anything out loud. I’m not a native speaker, but to my ears he’s got an almost comically heavy American accent that would drive French people nuts. It’s like Inspector Clouseau in reverse.

    I’ve got the opposite problem with languages: my accent is a lot better than my actual skills, so I won’t understand something and native speakers will figure I’m either deaf, stupid, or rude.

  84. 84
    feebog says:

    An issue that has only received minimal scrutiny at this point is Mitt’s tax returns. I see this as being the Democratic version of the Birther movement. I like the idea of a couple million liberals posting on Facebook and Twitter “Where’s the Tax Returns Mittens?”

  85. 85
    chrome agnomen says:

    @rlrr:

    mitt doesn’t speak french, he speaks ‘freedom”.

  86. 86
    Brachiator says:

    @dogwood:

    So I left.

    Ah. Too bad you left. Hope you’re finding rewards in retirement.

    I heard a piece of a news story or commercial on the radio the other day. A guy mentioned talking to a group of students about something, and one of the students saying “wow. this was a better talk than what we get from our instructors.” The guy decided to go back to school and became a teacher. I have no idea what the context of the story was, what the talk was about, or what the guy did before he became a teacher.

    But even the snippet was inspiring.

  87. 87
    chrome agnomen says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    the reason for this is that every other yardstick for success has been successfully labeled either liberal or soshulist, i e teaching, science, community service, work with the poor. on and on. nobody on the right wants to be painted with that brush.

  88. 88
    Mnemosyne says:

    @wrb:

    A large portion of the electorate will assume he’s talking about redistribution from their tribe to his- the blacks.

    That’s why Republicans are still pushing the “reparations” claims under the radar. And when they talk about Obama making the US into Zimbabwe, they’re not talking about inflation. They’re talking about Mugabe taking farms from white people and giving them to black people.

  89. 89
    chrome agnomen says:

    @rlrr:

    i read one poll that said 13% of all people regard themselves as among the 1%, and 28% of hispanics. i need to track this last bit down, as it seems impossible to credit as true.

  90. 90
    donr says:

    Normally I love Tom Levenson’s choice of art to accompany his blog entries, but I must confess I’m a bit uncomfortable with the miser’s hawk nose. The history associated with an image like this is complicated and painful. It distracts from Levenson’s message….

  91. 91
    Brachiator says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    That’s why Republicans are still pushing the “reparations” claims under the radar. And when they talk about Obama making the US into Zimbabwe, they’re not talking about inflation. They’re talking about Mugabe taking farms from white people and giving them to black people.

    I guess this would have legs if Obama were taking farms from white people and giving them to Native Americans.

    But yeah, I agree with you about the unstated message that the GOP is trying to exploit here.

  92. 92
    Beth in VA says:

    @rlrr:Excellent link!

  93. 93
    dogwood says:

    @Brachiator:

    I loved my job. Sometimes when I read discussions where people talk about asshole bosses and horrible co-workers, I realize how lucky I was. As a classroom teacher I had little contact with my boss. For me, teaching high school kids for 35 years gave me the opportunity to see first hand how much the culture was changing in ways that my other friends could not. Early in
    ’93 when Clinton proposed allowing gays in the military, my students in this very conservative community were outraged. Mention it in the classroom and all hell would break loose. Last December I asked my government classes how they felt about the repeal of DADT and they overwhelming approved. In early 08 after the Iowa caucuses we got into a discussion about the results and one of my Paul girls got insulted when someone disparaged Paul’s looks and said he didn’t look like a president. So I asked them, who among these candidates looks most like a president? Their consensus was Barack Obama. Thirty years earlier that answer would have been unthinkable.

    So sorry for rambling on; it was a great ride. But retirement ain’t bad either.

  94. 94
    Brachiator says:

    @dogwood:

    So sorry for rambling on

    No problem. Liked the bit about seeing how the culture changes through the reactions of students to current events.

  95. 95
    Darnell From LA says:

    BREAKING: Mitt Romney now TRYING to lose to President Obama….developing.

  96. 96
    AA+ Bonds says:

    It will be interesting to see what those numbers look like when Obama starts actually running against Mitt Romney instead of just doing normal President things

  97. 97
    Sad_Dem says:

    Is the Divine Order of Things back in fashion, then? I’ve been watching The Tudors on BBC, and Henry VIII was not shy about hanging and torturing those who questioned his authority, which, as everyone knows, came straight from God.

  98. 98
    Brachiator says:

    @Sad_Dem:

    Is the Divine Order of Things back in fashion, then? I’ve been watching The Tudors on BBC, and Henry VIII was not shy about hanging and torturing those who questioned his authority, which, as everyone knows, came straight from God.

    Of course this was a bit radical in that Hank was cutting out the pope from a piece of the divine action.

  99. 99
    priscianusjr says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    you can’t point me to anytime in this nation’s history where the primary yardstick by which we measured a person’s awesomeness was in how much cold, hard cash they had at hand.

    I think you meant, “was NOT in how much”, etc.

  100. 100
    priscianusjr says:

    @Svensker:

    That changed in the 80s, when status and money started to drive everything.

    That’s my observation also, but maybe he was a child in the 80s?

  101. 101
    priscianusjr says:

    @EconWatcher:

    I can’t understand how you could ever convert a European to Mormonism anyway, because the religion rewrites Christianity to put America at the center of it. Tough sell.

    You will no doubt find this interesting:
    http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/rigal.htm

  102. 102
    Thatgaljill says:

    @dogwood:

    When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent…

    Did Mittbot just call the majority of Americans losers?

    This was the moment I wanted to rip the radio out of my dashboard:

    “We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success.”

  103. 103

    […] of talk out there about Mitt Romney’s appearance on The Today Show yesterday morning; clip of the key exchange […]

  104. 104

    […] enjoyed prosperity far beyond their ability to enjoy. Romney rejects this notion, preferring to arrogantly dismiss the problem and try to get people to view part of one aspect of his story in isolation. But, really, this is a […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] enjoyed prosperity far beyond their ability to enjoy. Romney rejects this notion, preferring to arrogantly dismiss the problem and try to get people to view part of one aspect of his story in isolation. But, really, this is a […]

  2. […] of talk out there about Mitt Romney’s appearance on The Today Show yesterday morning; clip of the key exchange […]

Comments are closed.