The big news is below, but first, I love stories like these.
Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie argued Monday that voters are “eager to hear more details” about Romney’s plans, a demand which they will attempt to meet. But this shift toward greater explanation glaringly coincides with escalating, open worries from conservatives that President Barack Obama has opened up an advantage over Romney with just seven weeks to go before Election Day.
“We do think the timing is right at this moment to reinforce the specifics – more specifics – about the Romney plan for a stronger middle class,” Gillespie said on a conference call with reporters.
The Romney campaign has faced mounting criticism of its strategy – which has focused almost solely on emphasizing the incumbent president’s economic management – after Obama emerged from the summer’s dueling political conventions with an edge both nationally and in several key swing states. Discord within the Republican’s camp was detailed in a Sunday evening report in POLITICO, an airing of dirty laundry not typically associated with the efforts of a winning campaign.
I’m sure voters are, in fact, eager to hear more details about Romney’s plans. That doesn’t mean people are going to like them – assuming Romney is semi-honest about what he plans to do. Assuming he’s not, then, he’s going to get hammered some more for his numbers not adding up.
Still, my favorite phrase in the article is this: “an airing of dirty laundry not typically associated with the efforts of a winning campaign.”
But Romney’s biggest problem today is his version, from earlier this year, of Barack Obama’s 2008 “cling to guns or religion” speech to fundraisers. Mother Jones got its hands on the Romney speech, and it ain’t pretty. (Note to Romney team: Mother Jones may not be invested in your political fortunes.)
But I digress:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax….my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Well, this should end well.
Much as Obama’s speech hurt him – and it did – his larger argument was that lots of people had lost faith in the political system’s ability to help them, and as such placed their gun rights and religious views at the top of their list when looking at candidates. It was a dumb thing to say out loud, but it was actually somewhat sympathetic to those people he was allegedly insulting.
But Mitt…wow. There’s not a shred of empathy in that paragraph. It’s saying that every single Obama partisan is a moocher. It’s the angry entitlement of a well-off douchebag who knows – just KNOWS – that if only we could go back to the good old days when only property owners could vote, he’d be coasting in this election.
And it’s just wrong.
I refer you back to this.
Listen up, Mitt: You’re running for President of the United States, which means that, if elected, it’s your job to worry about every damned one of the people in this country, whether they voted for you or not. It’s why Presidents don’t base disaster aid declarations on the last election, for one thing. It’s why parties usually tone down their partisanship when a new President takes office, unless, of course he’s black. Or a Democrat.
And, by the way, if it weren’t for your speech income in the one years of tax returns you’ve shared with us, you wouldn’t be paying much in the way of income tax, either.
Josh Marshall thinks this is devastating, and while I imagine there will be mainstream media attempts to explain it away, I think he’s right.
Gaffes stick to people when they are revelatory. Obama’s “you didn’t build that”, while a gross mischaracterization of what he, you know, actually said, worked – but only for people who believed he was a socialist already.
This one reinforces the very character of Mitt Romney he’s been trying to suppress, and that all those speeches at the GOP convention were supposed to put behind him.
So much for that.