E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 10:58a.m. ET: Mitt Romney's remark that he's not worried about the very poor, the latest gaffe in a campaign rich with blunders, joins a long list of wait-let-me-explain episodes in presidential election history.
It's been a banner year for campaign misfires: Rick Perry had his "oops" moment when he forgot one of the three government departments he wanted to eliminate. Herman Cain only made things worse after he fumbled a question about Libya by explaining he had "all this stuff twirling around in my head." Michele Bachmann launched her campaign with a cringe-worthy misfire, declaring that both she and actor John Wayne had lived in Waterloo, Iowa, when it was actually serial killer John Wayne Gacy Jr. who'd lived there.
Will any of those sour notes still be ringing in the ears beyond November's ballots and confetti?
There's stiff competition in the pantheon of campaign misfires: Think of Howard Dean's primal scream in Iowa during the 2004 primary. Vice President Al Gore's overwrought sighs when debating George W. Bush in 2000. Vice President Dan Quayle's botched spelling of potato in 1992. And, way back at the dawn of televised presidential debates, Richard Nixon's profuse sweating on stage with cool-as-a-cucumber rival John Kennedy in 1960.
Some others with proven staying power:
THE OTHER ROMNEY. Mitt Romney knows only too well how devastating a single gaffe can be. Forty-five years ago, his father, George Romney, ended his presidential campaign after negative fallout from his answer to a question about why he he'd once supported the Vietnam War. In a 1967 TV interview, Romney referred back to his 1965 visit to the country and stated, "When I came back from Viet Nam, I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." He said he'd since done a lot more study of the matter and no longer believed the war was necessary.
Romney's poll numbers sank amid a swirl of ridicule and questions about whether he was naive. "Can't you just see him coming back from a conference with (Soviet official Alexei) Kosygin yelling that he had been brainwashed by a Russian?" Democratic Party Chairman John Bailey asked. Romney's wife, Lenore, allowed that her husband's words were "extremely unfortunate" and insisted that he was too strong a man to be brainwashed. But the damage had been done.
DEBATE DOMINATION. President Gerald Ford didn't dominate when he falsely declared in a 1976 debate that "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," including Poland. Time magazine called it "the blooper heard round the world." Democrat Jimmy Carter, Ford's rival, said the president had "disgraced our country." Ford only made things worse by refusing for days to retract the statement and offering clarifications that didn't really clarify things.
At one bizarre campaign appearance, the president spoke to reporters on a press bus via walkie-talkie and referred to himself in the third person, saying: "President Ford does not believe that the Polish people over the long run — whether they are in Poland or whether they are Polish-Americans here — will ever condone domination by a foreign force." The incident is recounted in Alan Schroeder's book about presidential debates, "Forty Years of High-Risk TV." Ford eventually apologized and said he recognized that the Soviets did dominate Poland and had military divisions stationed there.
CARTER CONSULTS. In the 1980 campaign, it was Carter who fumbled a Cold War question during a presidential debate when he cited his 13-year-old daughter, Amy, on the subject of nuclear war. "I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was," Carter said. "She said she thought nuclear weaponry — and the control of nuclear arms. This is a formidable force." The debate audience snickered. Carter's rival, Republican Ronald Reagan, served up a perfect rejoinder at a campaign rally, telling the crowd: "I remember when Patty and Ron were little kids, we used to talk about nuclear power," Schroeder recounted. Carter allowed in his memoir that "It was obvious that I had not expressed myself well."
DUKAKIS' TWO-FER: Michael Dukakis' run against President George H.W. Bush in 1988 yielded two lulus. His emotionally detached answer to a debate question about whether he would favor the death penalty if his wife, Kitty, were raped and murdered was a classic case of being too cool under pressure. "I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life," he calmly replied. "I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime." Kitty Dukakis later wrote in her memoir, "That chilling incident at the second debate was the nail in the coffin. ... Michael made a mistake; he answered a question he should have hurled right back into the face of his questioner."
And then there was that unfortunate photo of a helmeted Dukakis taking a spin in a tank — the ultimate in What Not To Wear for candidates.
TIME OUT: The most telling moment in a three-way debate between Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992, wasn't conveyed in words. It was Bush's glance at his watch. The president already was battling perceptions that he was out of touch and out of ideas in a time of economic distress. When the TV cameras caught him stealing a glance at his watch, it reinforced the impression that Bush wasn't up for the job. It didn't help, either, that when a young woman asked Bush how the national debt had affected him personally, he said he didn't really get the question.
MR. MISUNDERESTIMATED. George W. Bush served up enough malapropisms as candidate and president that it's hard to single out just one. But voters elected him twice, validating his theory that people "misunderestimated" him. That gave people eight years of mangled language and puzzling Bushisms to ponder. Among them: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" and "We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job."
THE LITTLE PEOPLE: Condescension is one of the worst traps for a presidential candidate and Barack Obama stepped squarely into it in April 2008. Speaking to well-heeled donors at a private fundraiser in the liberal bastion of San Francisco, no less, Obama said voters in struggling small towns of Pennsylvania and the Midwest "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
When news of his comment leaked out, Obama got a boatload of grief from Hillary Rodham Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination, as well as presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. "Elitist and out of touch," snapped Clinton, whose supporters handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers. Much like Romney now, Obama defended the thought he was trying to convey before conceding he had chosen his words poorly.
It wasn't the first time the political sin of talking down to people had created problems for Obama's campaign. Earlier, he'd told Clinton during a debate, "You're likable enough, Hillary." And Michelle Obama set off her own tempest by declaring that the public's hunger for change powering her husband's presidential bid made her proud of her country "for the first time."
Leave a Comment:
One thing for certain, the campaign is aging Romney quickly. He looks like hes added 10 years in the last 10 months. Probably the stress of trying to remember what script hes supposed to use with crowd du jour.
Well... I hope Romney with his stress-induced aging will eventually "more better" articulate himself.
at least he doesn't have to use a teleprompter every time he opens his mouth.
the debates will be fun... the socialist will have to think for himself... and that will be funny
Alex, Mitt Romney uses a teleprompter for all his speeches, as have all his predecessors.
it doesn't matter.
let's wait for the debates... tick tock
Everyone agrees that President Obama is an amazing debater and extemporaneous speaker. Hence Gingrich and Romney arguing about who is better able to take on the President at the debates. Remember in 2004 when Dubya was caught using a hidden microphone under his jacket?
Perhaps he is like "The picture of Dorian Grey" and will very quickly turn into Springfield's most famous 1%er Montgomery Burns.
Don't confuse alex in pa with facts...it will make his rushthedruggie pablum look foolish...every single candidate and politician uses a teleprompter...the ones who don't give us john wayne gacy and I lived in waterloo...
Wait and watch the Republican convention, you'll see the teleprompter used widely. Using a teleprompter has nothing to do with being President.
Romney will continue to gaffe about the poor and middle class. His negative campaigning has already turned independents off.
Expect the economy to improve, and expect Romney to have a harder time.
Clotho,
I agree Obama is a great speech giver, but his debating results seem highly dependent on the debate rules. If the debates are fairly scripted and the candidates are given the questions ahead of time, he does great - because effectively he isn't debating, he's just giving a series of short, prepared speeches. However, I do not think he does well when responding to difficult adhoc questions. Luckily for him, most presidential debates use the scripted approach.
Ron--Those who don't think President Obama does well in an unscripted setting should watch his performance at the Republican congressional retreat. To see the video, go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html.
Those statements are not really "gaffes"; they're more like Freudian slips.
Personally, I don't see why Romney doesn't come right out and say he doesn't give a rat's whisker about the poor. It would help him shore up support in 'the base'.
Didn't he just basically say, "Are there no poorhouses? Are there no jails?"
Even Scrooge became what the right would term a "socialist" in the end, though.
I'll never forget watching Tea person Marco Rubio (of the "my parents ran from Castro, oh wait, no they didn't" fame) tell teleprompter jokes about the President... by reading them off of a teleprompter. The GOTea think you're stupid.
Romney IS the bubble boy. He's lived in a series of 1% bubbles all his life. He's never had to face the realities of the 99%. So imagine how hard it is for him to understand abject poverty. How difficult it is to break that cycle and how badly the "safety net" fails each and every day.
He can't. He has no reference. No experience that would help him understand. He is functionally illiterate with regards to how the vast majority of Americans and the rest of the world live their lives.
And you want this guy to be President? He will be every bit as destructive as GBII and will never understand why.
Obama/Biden 2012
This is the way it works Alex in pa. When you have NO ideas, NO solutions, and NO answers, NOTHING positive to offer – you talk about such import things like, birth certificates, Teleprompters, college transcripts, worthless garbage like that. Then you throw in even more garbage with words and phrases like “socialist” and “Marxist” and “he’s not one of us” – all that kind of crap. But the bottom line is more and more Americans are realizing that the right has NOTHING to offer and that’s why President Obama will be reelected in November.
alexinPA
Perhaps you can explain the conservative fixation with Obama's use of a teleprompter. The teleprompter is merely a modern replacement for words on a sheet of paper or index cards, and President Obama often does without any of those things, for example during his Facebook Q&A sessions.
This silliness seems to have been started with the insults and criticisms from Sarah Palin who, you may recall, made her big splash on the national scene at the Republican convention reading a speech that she did not write FROM A TELEPROMPTER. President Obama has always written his own major speeches, with or without assistance of a speechwriter.
President Obama's introduction to the national audience was at the Democratic National Convention when he delivered one of the great speeches in recent memory, a speech he crafted entirely by himself. He used a teleprompter, but would you like him any better if he had used note cards?
Your criticism stems entirely from bias against Mr. Obama and only demonstrates that you lack anything substantial on which to base a rational discussion and that you are very petty.
The first president to use the teleprompter was JFK.
It has been used by all president's since.
alexinPA's issue is that Obama is the first black president to use a teleprompter. It's supposed to be just a white guy thing.
Nevada
I just think that alex dislikes President Obama and lacks imagination. When you take your cues from Sarah Palin you don't have much to say.
alexinPA
it doesn't matter.
===========
.....Really....then if so, why did you say it?
alexinPA
It looks as if you attended the school of Palin & Bachmann and majored in history and speech in Romney Hall.
Starving the Beast ensures only the wealthy and elite can afford to run and then live on those wages while they control the works of their own agendas and benefactors. When they talk about Starving that Beast, you seem to forget that it’s “We the People” who is that “Beast” that they want to starve!
Romney's remark about the poor was really poorly chosen. He seems to have trouble thinking on his feet, which is not going to be fun in debates with Obama.
I wonder how many times Obama will have to stifle his laughter during the debate?
The sad part is how out of context his comments were taken. If you read the full comment, he said he would ensure the safety net was there and if it wasn't working he would fix it - but that his major focus is the middle class. Of course, all the news media only reported the "I'm not concerned about the very poor" portion of the sentence...
I wish the media outlets today would focus more on objectively reporting what happened so people could form their own opinions, and less and trying to steer people towards the opinions they want them to have.
i don't think it was poorly chosen.
most think he was right on the money.
the debates... i can't wait... get ready for a lot of...uhhh... uhhhh.... where's my teleprompter?
They ran the full quote over and over, it still is a poor choice
I agree that, while the words were poorly chosen, there is far too much focus on silly details rather than the major issues. On the other hand, Romney's excuse was that he was tired from giving thousands of speeches and he made a mistake. When then-candidate Obama was equally exhausted and said he had visited 57 states instead of 47 states, the Republicans talked about that for years. So maybe turnabout is fair play.
I just wish we could focus on issues and not a few poorly chosen words in 1 sentence. (for both parties)
Republicans don't want to fix "safety nets" they want to take them down. After all, the poor need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Those safety nets just keep them soft. All they need is a work ethic.......... (was that enough republican talking points which really translates to "they need to work for us wealthy people to keep us wealthy).
Really Mitt, thousands of interviews? If that were true, then you should have mastered your “correct” script in a clear and articulate manner. We all know what you meant - and it wasn’t pretty . . .
Hypocrite!!!
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
Eric,
I think the Republicans have a point about the safety net being an issue and I do think they can make people soft. I don't want anyone hungry or homeless, but if someone is getting assistance I want them pushed to get back on their own feet again. Free money destroys a persons pride and self confidence. We need to be pushing people to start working again, and if they can't find a job, we need to find something for them to do instead of sit at home and collect government checks.
I don't care if it's cleaning ditches or painting over graffiti- they need to do something to earn their assistance and get them off the couch. Ultimately, the welfare recipient is the one that will benefit the most by being pushed to become productive members of society again (or possibly, for the first time in their lives).
"Free money destroys a persons pride and self confidence."
Not as fast as being hounded by collection agents for the next 10 years because you're trying to pay off the medical bills from your premature kid's birth.
RealAmericansFirst,
Saying "this scenario is worse" just sounds like an attempt at deflection because you don't want to deal with the issue I raised.
If you don't agree with my position on welfare, that's fine. But let's discuss that issue and not go off on tangents that have nothing to do with welfare reform.
Ron - it has everything to do with welfare reform. There are lots of situations where hard-working, deserving people find themselves in hard times and need help. Sometimes they can use the help to start fully supporting themselves again in a short time, and sometimes their situations are such that they need help longer-term.
Your version of "free money makes people lazy" operates like Scrooge's theory of life - "the poor are not my problem".
Homeless dad's message of hope: 'Never give up'
"The sad part is how out of context his comments were taken. If you read the full comment, he said he would ensure the safety net was there and if it wasn't working he would fix it"
It's NOT just one comment about poor people. It's a long series of stupid statements such as "corporations are people", "I like to fire people" $10,000 -- on and on and on.
Ron
Part of the criticism of Romney's statement is based on his support of the Ryan budget, which would decimate the "safety net" and his own tax plan, which would raise taxes significantly on the smallest incomes and give even more tax breaks to those in his own (the highest) tax bracket. He clearly has no understanding of the safety net or the plight of the poorest Americans. His statement merely reflects his lack of understanding.
alexinPA
What is your infatuation with a teleprompter? Is that the word of the day you pulled out of your hat this morning? Will we be seeing you on the show Taboo?
alexinPA... or should I say, Jimmy Boy,
Why did you make a new account? Your other one got banned?
Latest ABC poll. Obama 51%, Romney 45%. Obama is pulling away without even campaigning.
How about a summary of lots of polls --- not looking good for teapublicans.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
66% polled think Romney has to pay higher taxes than the 13.9% that he has paid.
Charlie,
Nice link!
BTW, while I am mostly for Obama, I'm rooting more for Ron Paul to win over the two other Republicans. But too bad people prefer warmongering tactics over humanitarian tactics when it comes to running for President.
ABC... LOL
that's a great source.
alexinpa=hater.
alexinPA: Look at Charlie's link in post #3.1.
alexinPA: Look at Charlie's link in post #3.1.
Realclearpolitics has been polling for decades. They do an average of polls which is good information to look at.
Remember that Rassmussen doesn't look at data from those 18-21, hence they'll slant more to the right.
For a great write-up of the validity of various pollsters, see Nate Silver's blog FiveThirtyEight.com (now part of the New York Times syndicate):
Before Citing a Poll, Read the Fine Print
Some exclude cellphones, some only use registered voters, and some are internet polls (which rank on the low end of the accuracy spectrum).
I just find it sad that 45% of the population want to put a guy in charge who will literally take money from the POOR and Middle Class and give it to the rich. Just look at his tax plan, republicans seem to suffer from amnesia. It was the same tax plan that got us into this mess.
A vote for Romney is a return to TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS.
If you vote Republican and are NOT a millionaire, you are literally voting against your own interests.
Mitt Romney --- so do you righties want to talk about someone who can't speak without a teleprompter?
he's going to slaughter Obama in the debates.
wishful thinking Alex.... wishful thinking.
"he's going to slaughter Obama in the debates."
Who -- Romney?? Man -- what kind of drugs are you on?
I want some of what alexinPA is smoking.
Just think about that flip flop foot in his mouth on a foreign policy issue. Yipe's!
The economy went into recession... because of Republicans.
The recovery has been slow... because of Republicans.
Job growth is weak... because of Republicans.
So President Obama has to go?
That is some seriously Republican logic!
lol
all BS
I agree with Alexinpa...the Republicans are all BS.
Democrats were just as much at fault with the mortgage crisis and the general economic over-leveraging during the 2000-2010 period, but republicans most certainly have fought against policies designed to hasten the recovery.
alexin look at all the votes you don't have.
lol
i didn't know this was a popularity contest?
this is them most liberal news source on the planet... i'm not expecting a lot of common sense
alex, go over to Fox then, with all your buddies.
Harbinger, you're funny! How's the Kool Aid tasting?
Romney claims that Obama should not get credit for the good things happening in the country; well using Romney’s logic, then Obama is not responsible for the bad things!
What a hateful, negative bore!
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
Shay,
And your comments are not hateful and negative towards Romney?
I think we all need to take a step back and focus on issues, not demonizing the "opposition".
Ron, it's not hateful and negative to point out that Romney is a cynical, hateful person so poisoned by his politics that he cant realize the hypocrisy of his own words. If Obama isn't responsible for helping the economy recover, then he MOST certainly isn't responsible for its condition.
MarkThomas -
Hey, guess what, we STILL HAVE THE SAME MORTGAGES that Democrats fought for, that you are referring to as having caused the crisis. What we had was a Republican deregulating of the divide between Commercial Banks and Investment Banks, which IS ACTUALLY THE REASON OUR ECONOMY STILL ISN'T RECOVERING QUICKLY. Every Recession in the past, when the Fed lowered interest rates, it spurred ONLY lending. Now, it just makes money cheap for Banks to lend back to the Government on their Investment Accounts and earn a risk-free arbitrage, which before the Republicans COULDN'T HAPPEN. But I doubt you comprehend a word I just wrote.
"didn't know this was a popularity contest?"
Earth to Alex --- popularity contest is exactly what an election is and President Obama will win in November.
wealthyeconomist is exactly right!!! The removal of the wall between commercial and investment banking is what caused the economic woes we all have been suffering through. If that divide had been kept then the losses of the investment banks would not have affected the entire world economy.
I heard on the radio that Mitt Romney will probably not be giving any more interviews so he can "stay on script" and not answer any real questions. I cannot believe that the American people would vote for someone for President that cannot be asked real questions. If a candidate cannot give viable answers to questions, how can they possibly run this country. We need to know how they really think, not a caricature of who they are as presented by a campaign staff.
I am really disheartened by the republican candidates. It is a really pitiful choice. I wish we had some real candidates that spoke the truth, not what they think the far right wants to hear. They continue to flip flop on so many issues they can't even speak without a teleprompter. Sad what politics have come to for both parties.
Umm...Obama did the same thing in 2008. Let's face it, today's media isn't interested in reporting facts, they are interested in creating "news" to sell advertising. Romney's quote is a perfect example...they took part of one sentence and published it completely out of context.
I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I don't like it when anyone's words are twisted like his statement is being right now. (be they Reps or Dems)
Ron,
I'm not sure the context remedies Romney's problem. It is certainly not presidential to say you "don't care" about a specific group of Americans.
Moreover, Rmoney undermines his own argument by making the case for Obama with that quote. Romney basically says we have a safety net, and that it needs improvement.
Romney also wants to do away with or cut back those safety nets that the gop/tp deplores. He want s to "fix" and at the same time cut. The only "safety net" the gop/tpers want kept in place is corporate welfare.
How someone interprets the word "fix" is likely to depend on what you believe the appropriate solution is. For me, I think people on long-term government benefits need to be pushed to better themselves. I don't want anyone hungry or homeless, but I also don't want them to live comfortably on someone else's money - I think that's very unhealthy for society as a whole and also for the aid recipient. So, I'm ok with certain types of cuts.
As to corporate welfare, I do want to remove 90% of the existing tax breaks, but keep in mind that most of this "welfare" was created by the government to encourage businesses and society to do things they wanted. For example, GE takes advantage of tons of tax breaks for things such as helping individuals and communities be more energy efficient - which also reduces the strain on the power grid and reduces the need for more power plants. There are obviously exceptions, but even these are not clear cut. I personally think ethanol subsidies do far more harm than good, but I know people that disagree with me on this tax break.
Ron,
It's good you believe that solution. Unfortunately, most right conservatives don't. Their way of "pushing people" is to do away with "welfare" completely. Do you really know anyone on welfare? Your description about living "comfortably on welfare" tends to make me believe you don't. Lastly, you make it seem as they are just living off someones else money. That could apply to individuals that are very wealthy and able to "purchase" (through contributions politically) tax benefits that only help those within their wealthy class.
Now, the reason for my opening statement. My state elected a Republican Governor and State legislature during the last go around. Even thought it was a three way race and he just received 39% of the vote. The other candidates received 37% and 24%. His first act, even though his campaign was for jobs, was a tax break for the wealthier people. Too a tune of 160-200 million dollars.
Next, was his push for voter regristration complaining about voter fraud. He rammed it thru with his Republican majority. Luckily, the Democrats organized and got it repealed. Now he wants photo ID pushed. Fat chance for that one.
Since his tax breaks for the top earners in our state, we face what he claims is now $220 million dollar(s) deficit. His solution. Cut welfare! Close down the funding for 65,000 people. Some who are in nursing homes because of age, mental disorders, etc. Real caring person, since he himself was once a recipient of welfare. If the Legislature doesn't do that he is threatening to shut down our education system!
Still no job creation! Imagine! Now, before you say Liberal, let me just say I am a registered Independent. But, do you see a pattern here. Wherever Republicans have won during the 2010 landslide that put them in power, they all are trying to push the same agenda and not the jobs they claimed to want to create during their campaigns.
Everything could use some fixing but not to the extreme whether it is "welfare" or corporate "welfare". But your extreme right conservatives don't think that way. Neither do their candidates running for POTUS today.I won't even get into the fraud aspect of his administration.
So before you blame welfare as "people living comfortably", try to remember who put them there first. We have far more waste in our military (Contractors) then our welfare.
nothing can be as pitiful as the Socialist in Chief.
by the way... tick tock.... tick tock... Novembers coming.
can't wait
Alex, the people most likely to use "socialism" in their discussion of politics are the people least likely to know what it means and the people least likely to know anything more than what they hear from Rush.
Which is really unfortunate for the country.
l always find this response comical.
what is hard about?
after reading the definition... what is appealing about it?
additionally... what part of the definition do you find daunting?
finally... what part of the definition does Obama not represent?
A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
Policy or practice based on this theory (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism
Every successful government has been a combination of socialism and capitalism. Pure free market capitalism always results in failure, because the entire sysem is based on selfish greed and not the public good.
Socialism is not at all like communism. In socialism, just like capitalism, people are paid according to the effort they put in and the value they contribute, just like capitalism. The only difference is that the workers control the means of production. As opposed to communism, in which everyone is paid according to their needs, which simply doesn't work because nobody feels inclined to put forth any effort.
Having said all that, three years of the Obama administration has shown zero interest in government taking over private corporations. They could have taken over General Motors, but they were clearly wanting to hand control back to the shareholders as soon as it could.
can you give me an example where Socialism is thriving or has thrived in the past?
Alex, what do you call public schools...right, socialism.
Public highways...socialism.
Public fire and police departments.....socialism.
Social Security and Medicare......socialism.
I could go on, but you get the point, I hope.
alexin, you are right wait till Nov. tick-tock put your ear closer, closer, closer.
With so much spin being produced, fact checking is a good skill. With so much money involved in campaigns and politcal news channels, knowing what is fact and what is spin fights attempts to buy elections.
We govern by democracy, the ability to change our representives etc...
You see captialism and socialism applied to our economic system, we have swings in methods.
We will never be pure capitalists or pure socialists because we elect our government.
Capitalism requires regulations to protect from unfair or safe actions
Socialism is basically insurance, it still requires funding from citizens.
yep.
the usual responses when Socialism becomes the topic.
no real substance or retort... because there aren't any.
Alex I'm getting really tired of reading your moronic comments - teleprompter, the "socialist", lol, LOL, tick-tock..your stunted mental development is too puerile to be taken seriously.
Teleprompters reduce note card consumption.
Alex--Here's a link to a common definition of socialism: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism. Read it or have someone read it to you and explain it to you. Now, how do you think Obama's administration fits that definition?
Alex--In response to your earlier post, 8.2, nothing in Obama's administration matches that definition. If you think something does, please explain.
Heres an example of Obama turning our country into a welfare ridden society... I especially enjoy the food stamp consumption chart by president.
http://www.dailyjobsupdate.com/public/food-stamps-charts
Romney is a real Mittwit.
I don't know. All you need to do is to look at the actions of mr grover, the gop, & the rushbo. Romney meant what he said. Exactly. I don't care about the poor. Mr grover, the gop, & the rushbo don't care about the poor. Their actions show they only care about the upper 1%.
someone has to pay for the 'poor'
Thats' right Alex, someone does have to pay for the poor. What's your point?
Anyone want to check how much has been borrowed from Social Security/ Medicare? currently 2.7 trillion.
I don't believe any of these candidates has the United States best interest at heart. Newt is simply egotistical and only wants to be in charge. Santorum is simply nuts and believes some cult god wants him to be president. Romney only wants to improve his cults standing and legitimize it.
The Republicans are merely marionettes of the wealthy.
They serve the 1%.
Who doesn't know this?
The real question is why 45% of America can't see they are being duped by their own party.
If you are not a millionaire and you vote Republican, you are literally voting against your own interests.
No. No. What romney said was what mr grover, the gop, & the rushbo did. You know soooo many of our poor who live below the poverty level are on social security. But mr grover spent all their cash to invade iran & won't raise taxes to pay them back so they get cola.
I don't think Romney cares much about the poor. Not because he's cold-hearted or mean guy but because he doesn't understand poverty.
The real issue is that Romney made an ad against Obama taking his comments completely out of context then defended the ad saying it's fair because actually said those words. Romney set himself up for this criticism by not being above board from the start.
Is this the "best" our country can come up with? They're all a bunch of idiots and liars controlled by corporations. I will not be voting for any of them, including all incumbents!
When George Romney was running for prez and said he was for for it before he was against and was brainwashed. Mitt listened carefully and has been flip-flopping ever since.
Obama needs a teleprompter?
Of all the clueless myths about this president, the one about needing a teleprompter takes the cake. Did any of you who ship out this blather see the event in January 2010 when Obama was invited to speak to the House Republican retreat in Baltimore. President Obama walked into a lion's den of hundreds of hostile Republicans and mopped the floor with them. Where was the teleprompter? Do you think the Republicans provided him with one and preloaded it with his answers to their questions?
You see, the teleprompter Obama, the stupid Obama, the Obama who can't have an intelligent conversation unless he's fed the lines -- that is the imaginary Obama that the Republicans have invented to campaign against because they wouldn't dare to engage the real Obama in a real debate. He'd mop the floor with them. Again.
Google "Obama Baltimore Republicans 2010" and watch the entire video, or read the transcript at the same place.
Romney's problem is he's a puppet reciting a script. He can't think for himself. When questions are asked that are not on his script, he doesn't know how to answer or what to say and that's when he says stupid stuff. That combined with the fact he's lived a privileged life with very little, if any, exposure to working class America, it leaves him so out of touch with common people it renders him incompetent to serve those people as President of the United States.
Mitt hes an over educated robot.He has no human emotion.Hes been programed to believe money trumps people.Hes never had to do the dirty work.Thats what flunky's are for.Thats why he can't communicate with people now.He's been programed and that's all he knows.
THIS IS ALL THAT MATTERS
Obama vs. Republican Candidates
RCP Average
Obama Romney
49………….44
Obama Santorum
51……………40
Obama Gingrich
52……………40
Obama Ron Paul
47.6……………41.6
----------------------------------
Source: real clear politics.c o m
Updated: 2/5/12
Because the majority of minorities, especially b l a c k people and young people aren’t included in these polls, add 15 points to Obama’s percentage for election day.
Mitt Romney - Poster Child for Corporate American profiteers
Newt Gingrich - Poster Child for the corrupt Washington Esatblishment, the status qou
Obama - silent partner in poster printing company
Romney can't explain what he truly believes. No one would vote for him if he did. He'll wait for the polls and regurgitate whatever they tell him to say.
Romney's biggest problem with the quote as far as I am concerned is because it re-enforces my perception of this batch of republicans candidates already. The president is supposed to be concerned equally about all citizens. I doubt he even knows what the "safety net" offers and how it compares to other modern countries. I sure as hell don't but then I am not running for president. Romney is still better than the others in the republican primary.
These are examples of the "real" Mitt Romney breaking through. He is clearly a ticking time bomb when not reading from his TelePrompTer. And yet he cannot stand for the public to perceive that he needs to be "handled" in order to keep from being the Real--and embarrassing Romney. Witness: two days after his only successful TeaPub Debate performance , he fired his new Speech/Debate Coach (straight out of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University). What are they gonna do from now on....let Ann keep a finger around his string and give a sharp tug when Mitt wanders into truthful waters???
Someone should ask Mittens if he thinks that the safety net is broken? If so where/how? How would he fix it.? Fair questions since he is the one who brought it up! Not caring about the poor was no surprise to most of us. We considered that common knowledge.
I'll be more interested to hear his explanation as to why he lost with such a landslide margin in November. Now THAT will be entertaining.