Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

What's the view like from up there on your cross of tears?

It's always interesting how you abandon reason and resort to name calling the instant you realize how wrong you are. It's like clockwork. Do you admit that Romney did *not* say that he didn't care about the very poor? Yes or no.

Assuming the answer is yes, and we simply discount anyone who claims he did say that as a liar or repeater of a lie, then what's left? Nothing. But you'll make hay out of it anyway.


Hell. If we're lucky some CNN reporter will open up a debate with a question asking him to defend his position that he doesn't care about the poor. That would be wonderful!

Well, I laugh at you when I see you going on and on and on about how poor and mistreated the GOP is. If you want to feel better about it by saying I'm just doing it because I'm "wrong", feel free.


You never answered if Romney was moral in misrepresenting (i.e. lying) Obama's remarks in Romney's ad. Answer that (yes or no, without qualification) and I'll answer your question without qualification.

Crying about the scary media and trying to equivocate doesn't count.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2012 6:41pm by Jophiel

I completely disagree. Worried is a synonym for concerned. Care is not. Care is a synonym for "concern", but that's not the word he used (and that's a different use of the word "concern" in any case). You can't even make the argument that he was saying that he didn't feel the need to "provide care for" the poor (which is related to the "give attention to" definition of concerned, except that he said the reason he wasn't concerned is because we're already providing that care.

You know damn well the meaning being used when people claim Romney said he "doesn't care about the very poor". And it's not a meaning that matches the actual words he used.



Yup. Very similar. In that case he was also misquoted to make it appear like he liked to fire ordinary folks, when in fact he was talking about insurance companies.



But it doesn't hurt to have a media looking for words or phrases that can be misquoted so they can jump up and down and tell everyone how insensitive it was. I'll ask yet again: If what he actually said was so bad, why change the words?

And that ought to speak far more about the medias lack of truthfulness than about Romney himself.

That a thesaurus agrees with me and not you?

It doesn't matter, its what they will say and what people will remember.

Nothing. People will remember nothing. IT'S FEBRUARY. None of this matters to the general election, kids. Now that the primaries are over, it's just time to raise money until September or so.

The GOP should be less concerned with stupid things Romney says, and more concerned with working to get unemployment numbers up. That's the really interesting thing that's happening now, possibly locking into a "CEO President" candidate because your issue is the faltering economy and the getting stuck with a recovering economy in November. It'll be a bloodbath. Voters have very, very, very, short memories. All of the stuff that plays when people are worried about things getting worse look limp and useless when things are getting better.

Oh and opposition research, I guess. It's so ******* easy with Romney, though, I doubt there's much of that going on. That won't really be interesting until we see which dancing clown they trot out as VP to rally "the base".

You don't think a sound byte with " I don't care about the Poor" attached to it isn't going to hurt in November?

Is this your first election or something? Of course it won't matter in November. Here are a few reasons why:

A miniscule percentage of poor people vote.

Poor people who do vote think of themselves as middle class.

IT'S ******* FEBRUARY. STILL. Do you know why there's no political phrase along the lines of "February Surprise"? I'll tell you why, because no one gives a **** what happens in February.

Voters don't worry about the poor, they worry about themselves. "I think we should take money and power from everyone else and give it to people like you" is the only political message that matters to voters. This is no way interferes with Romney attempting to deliver that message.

It's still *at least* 6 months away from anything any candidate says or does mattering...at all.

Also, it's February.

I've been thinking about this. Who can balance Romney's wooden affect and patrician vibe?

I'm tempted to say most of the obvious choices have been spoiled already, but I'm sure they can do another focus group and find Palin v.2. Someone Southern or Southwestern, probably, fundy or with fundy appeal. A woman and/or Latino would be good.

Rubio? He's kind of like a woman.

Well, they could always go with Alejandra Cabrero, I guess. Then we could have our own "whar birf certificate? whar?!" crisis.

It's going to be interesting when the first national candidate whose primary language is not English takes the podium.

You mean his boy Pinochet?

LESS charismatic than Romney? That's really a consideration? Ye gods.

You missed one: There isn't actually a sound bite of him saying that. You'd have to rely on either the actual sound bite (which doesn't have as much weight), or reporters talking about it in a "remember when Romney said ...?" way. Which also isn't going to reach or affect most voters. Most voters do not follow politics. They don't watch cable news. They don't listen to talk radio. Most voters know only what they see in the blurbs of news they get while watching their favorite TV shows, or see on paid advertising while watching the same.



I'd argue that liberals appeal to that side of people, while conservatives appeal to the opposite, but that's more of a philosophical difference. The conservative who believes in lowering taxes even for people richer than himself isn't doing it just out of altruism. He also believes that he benefits from this as well (in a variety of ways). You are correct though that the liberal argument is purely about telling people to vote directly for their own personal self interest. It's why the argument about raising taxes on "the rich" works so well. Most voters aren't rich.



While I agree in this specific case, I think that's more wishful thinking on your part. Same with your "GOP needs to hope for higher unemployment" bit earlier. It's about what you hope the GOP does, not about what would actually be the better choice for them to do. The reality is that the left uses a constant repetitive message to affect people's opinions. The specifics don't matter, of course, but the general feel of what is said and how that affects perceptions of candidates in a race absolutely does.


They wont parrot the line Romney said, but they will play on the perception that is created by those things. And you can bet that over the next 6 months, the liberal media will not stop finding every way they can to remind the public over and over that Romney is wealthy and doesn't like poor people. And he eats puppies!