Well, That Didn’t Take Long
Mitt Romney, this morning (HT Taranto at Best of the Web), in a statement which fits the “he’s trying to lose” theory:
“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor–we have a safety net there,” he said Wednesday. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich–they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
O’Brien jumped in, asking him to clarify his statement that he’s not concerned with the very poor. “I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd,’” she said.
“Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad,” Romney replied. “I said, I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it.”
“But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans,” he added. “My campaign–you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus.”
Taranto nails the substance:
When Romney says “the very poor,” we take him to mean what sociologists call the “underclass,” defined by Gunnar Myrdal as “an unprivileged class of unemployed, unemployables, and underemployed who are more and more hopelessly set apart from the nation at large and do not share in its life, its ambitions and its achievements.”
We disagree with Romney’s assertion that “we have a safety net” for that segment of the population. Instead, we have a system of perverse incentives that encourage self-destructive behavior and dependence on government. It’s also worth noting that since Myrdal’s day, “underclass” problems have increasingly bubbled up to the “working class” …
The current administration likes it that the “underclass” problems have increasingly bubbled up. It’s why they really don’t seem terribly bothered that the recovery has been weak, arguably by design. If you don’t think that the “by design” argument is plausible, you don’t believe that Larry Summers was sincere when he directly told Obama in late 2008-early 2009 in essence that the stimulus wouldn’t work, but it would be great for rewarding cronies and supporters.
ObamaCare is all about sucking the entire working class into virtually permanent government dependency. If you don’t believe it, look at the unspeakably perverse disincentives to self-improvement and intact families embedded in its subsidy structure.
Jonah Goldberg nails the politics:
… great politicians on the morning after a big win, don’t force their supporters to go around defending the candidate from the charge that he doesn’t care about the poor. They just don’t.
Of course they don’t. Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney isn’t even a mediocre politician.
Boy, are we in trouble.
With a veto-proof Senate and the House remaining static …
… we can have Mickey Mouse as POTUS and it will not matter.
And we certainly can’t do any worse than what we have now.
I don’t buy the ‘down ballot’ argument, either.
Just get control of Congress …
… that is all that matters!
Comment by Steel Turman — February 1, 2012 @ 8:37 pm
Even when I agree with Romney I can’t defend him. Truth is a president should NOT be concerned with the very poor or any other sub set or demographic. It is the difference between macro or micro. When I’m working on charitable causes or serving a meal at a homeless shelter it is appropriate to care about the very poor. When I’m president of the United States I should be concerned with national defense, cutting spending, effectively governing a minimalist government and ensuring a vibrant economy that will help people escape poverty. As a candidate for office you have to know how to respond to that question. When we nominate moderates we get candidates who don’t believe in conservative principles. How can we expect someone who doesn’t believe in conservative principles to effectively defend them and explain them to the electorate?
Comment by Largebill — February 2, 2012 @ 12:27 am
#1, I had to get your comment out of my spam filter. Sorry it took a while.
I’m afraid that control of Congress is not enough with this President, who is determined to do all he can without Congress (“we can’t wait”) and can do any number of things within the White House and bureaucracy behind the scenes without being detected.
Also, those controlling the Congress and Senate need to have spine. Those prospects are questionable, even with veto-proof majorities in both Chambers.
Comment by TBlumer — February 2, 2012 @ 7:58 am
#1) Any thoughts on potential SCOTUS turnover if Obama stays President and there is a GOP-majority Senate?
Justice Sotomayor is actually showing some very good opinions for limited govt. Her opinion for the recent GPS tracking decision is worth being aware of. She’s also show from questions at oral argument a low tolerance for anything looking like a general warrant, and for loss of Qualified Immunity when law enforcement searches overstep. The results are to protect innocent citizens in their property (the home and car) and not use tactics that may cause fear of observation to cause self-limits to liberty: to not self-limit engaging in legal behavior and associations.
Comment by Cornfed — February 2, 2012 @ 7:58 pm
CF, anything she’s done in those regards is undone by her vote against Heller and the real meaning of the Second Amendment. I may get moved a bit if she goes against ObamaCare, but I don’t see her doing that.
Comment by TBlumer — February 2, 2012 @ 9:23 pm