He donated $millions of his own money to charity, too. I just don't see the "he doesn't care about poor people" claim being anything but a caricature of a Mitt Romney that exists only in the fevered minds of those who want to see him defeated.
Ever hear of a tax write-off. When billionaires give a little to charity it doesn't make me click my heels with joy.
LOL The tax write off at 15% tax rate meant he the $7M he donated really cost him $6M. But he still paid the $6M from his pocket.
I get that you think he does care about poor people even if he thinks they are self claimed entitled victims, and I even concede you could be right. But I can't believe you think the only people who question if he will give a rat's ass about the lower middle class and below are all those with fevered minds to want to see him defeated . . . you sound like . . . well like Romney (broadly characterizing a voting group) A HUGE issue in this election is the perception that Romney is big business good old boys club that looks down at lower income people. It is a real perception out there by many independents and not because they are fevered minded to see him defeated. It's because they don't follow politics much (like me) and that is the image that the democratic party and Romney put out there and is being bought by independents. If you don't see "he doesn't care about poor people" being an issue, I don't think you have any kind of pulse on this election.
I wrote about a caricature. How was it created? With nearly a $billion spent on advertisements and a parade of left-wing talking heads on TV and writing in the newspapers. As near as I can tell, Romney hasn't been a businessman for 12 years. As I said, he was a public servant, able to win the governors office in a most liberal state (since then) and has basically been a presidential candidate ever since. Here's something to consider: In Obama's own words, "If you work hard, if you're responsible, then your work should be rewarded." And, the top 1% don't pay their fair share, so they're gaining advantage at everyone else's expense." And the whole Occupy movement (why would you care how much someone else makes, unless you feel you're a victim or someone else is?). They're told they can't fend for themselves and that they need 99 weeks of unemployment or other govt. assistance. Would someone who works hard, but makes minimum wage (or 2x that or 3x that) feel rewarded? If not, then are they not, in fact, victims in the eyes of our current left-leaning leaders? They're being barraged with the talk they're victims by the president's speeches, his minions, the media, etc. So if Romney says he can't easily fight that perception, and the strategy to win the presidency against all that is to focus on the other 53%, I'm not seeing the real issue. Of course Romney bears the bulk of the blame for the predicament he's in. He's had an enormous amount of money to spend, himself, and barely made the sale with his own party faithful, let alone the electorate. Yet. Yet, but time is running out. On the other hand, Obama started out his presidency with 53% of the voters on his side, and even higher popularity ratings. At 47%, Romney may have taken him down a bit from his pedestal.
I'd like to ask another question along the same lines. What is it, exactly, that Romney's going to do that will hurt the middle class (47% means a lot of middle class people)? http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...v0Whbw?docId=48328c71af0241c39aef95fda77612f7 Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class. The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises. The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect. That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000. And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four. Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016. (more at the link)
It's not the caricature I was referring to, I don't agree that the only people who believe the caricature are fever minded people out to defeat Romney. But I can't sit here and debate you on his record or policies or stuff like that because I really don't know it well. I will say that if the democrats are so successful at creating this caricature I can't believe the Republicans are having such a tough time getting the truth out there. It would seem like easy picking to show who Romney really is that he can relate with the common man and cares about lower middle class. I hope his true "caricature" comes out before the election . . .
If both campaigns raise $1B (which is about right) and spend it all on advertising, there's just so much air time to go around. PR is about getting the press to write about your product or company so you don't have to pay for advertising. PR applies to campaigns, too. And the Democrats have the big media in their pockets - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, etc. There is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the like on the Republican side. Guess who's got the bigger megaphone? MSNBC is a 24/7 campaign commercial for Obama. Obama can't run on his miserable economic record so his strategy is to attack. So MSNBC is 24/7 attack Romney. Get it? Fox News is pretty much the same, though they have actual news programming where they aren't talking politics for an hour at a time, here and there. Fox has a big news organization - it's impressive, actually But NBC, CBS, the newspapers, etc., combined have much bigger ones (and Rush Limbaugh is a small operation). To boot, the election looks to be decided by just a small number of states (maybe 14 of the 50). So all the campaigns' and PACs' spending is going on there. California is solidly for Obama, and I haven't seen a single Romney or Obama campaign ad this year. Four years ago, I lived in Vegas and Nevada was a swing state and all you could see on TV were campaign commercials. So exactly how are republicans to get the truth out there? Reagan had a tough time of it, but blew people away with his persona during the debates. Romney had his convention and has the upcoming debates to speak directly to the people, unfiltered by the caricature makers. He's no Reagan.
What could Romney have said in the missing 2 minutes? "What I just said about 47%--I was joking!" He could clear up what he said by simply releasing his speech. Instead, he confirmed that the tape portrayed him accurately when he defended it and said that his words "resonate with America." So PapaG started yet another BS thread about nothing.
It's not a 100 percent write off. Real Money is given. And Romney is not a billionaire. How brainwashed are you by the left media onslaught?
Because it clearly was not a gaffe. It was Romney being as honest as he can in front of a friendly crowd of rich snobs like himself.
I agree Romney has what I'd call "low political IQ". We talk about low basketball IQ, like Travis Outlaw - great athlete, NBA skills, no really awful habits (didn't get overweight or snort coke) but could never seem to keep it together, could always be counted on to make dumb mistakes at critical times. But the tapes were devastating precisely because the underscored his biggest weaknesses. Every pol gaffes. But the concern many had with Romney is that he's an out of touch arrogant rich dude who has no idea how the rest of us live and how we think. And coming right after his ghastly response to the attacks on the Embassies. Where he shot off his mouth without having facts, attacked the people who were under siege, called the President a disgrace and flat out accused him of treason, "siding with those who attacked us". Then when it was clear he had his facts wrong he did not gracefully apologize, he made up more shit and finally boasted that if he was president no one would attack US embassies because of his "resolve". Which I guess Reagan lacked since the Embassy in Lebanon was bombed during the Reagan presidency. No doubt Mother Jones was holding the vid for an October Surprise and releasing it was kicking a guy when he was down. But already reeling from accusations that his lack of foreign policy experience was on display, now he comes of as, guess what, an arrogant out of touch rich dude who has no idea how the rest of us live and how we think. The video underlined in huge bold lines exactly what people thought was wrong with him as a potential president and showed those worries correct. Clinton could escape sex scandals and Reagan indictment of aids because, first, unlike Romney, they both had/have very high political IQs, but also because the problems were seen as side issues. Out of touch arrogant rich dude is not a side issue with Romney.
