You give him too much credit.

Post #353,901 by Another Scott 2/1/12 11:18:47 PM Reply	You give him too much credit. It was a dog-whistle (which is a misnomer since just about everyone can hear it). http://www.boomantri...2/2/1/113316/4508 Mitt Romney committed another gaffe this morning while he was talking to Soledad O'Brien of CNN. Now, some people are going to say that he's being taken out of context, but I want to focus on the first one and a half sentences. Here's how he started: "By the way, I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor..." -Mitt Romney, February 1st, 2012 What's the logical implication of that juxtaposition? What does that tell you about how Mitt Romney's mind works? He cares about Americans, not the very poor. To me, that was the most damning part of the whole thing. I think he realized that what he had said didn't sound right, so he continued on to say he was not concerned about the very rich, either. But the logic of his argument didn't improve. [...] Boo is right - the juxtaposition is revealing. Unless he was running on fumes from lack of sleep (and he didn't seem to be), it seems to be exactly what he wanted to say. Especially since he basically repeated the same thing when he was asked about it again in the same interview. He's trying to divide the middle from the poor, to distract them from (among other things) his wealth, over-seas tax shelters, and low tax rates. It's a calculated strategy. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,904 by hnick 2/2/12 7:02:37 AM 2/2/12 7:36:03 AM Reply	Um... Ok. Certainly possible. I've been trying to work on my general outlook and this is probably not the place to start... :-/ Edit: Gail Collins of the NYT seems to share your view. Ok, screw the Pollyanna bit. Let there be unbridled cynicism! Edited by hnick Feb. 2, 2012, 07:36:03 AM EST Expand All History
Post #353,905 by Another Scott 2/2/12 7:56:46 AM Reply	GMTA. I was just about to post Gail's piece. In fact, here it is: http://www.nytimes.c...speaks-oh-no.html :-) Of course, she's paid to write a column that often feeds controversies, so she might not be an unbiased observer. That said, I think she nails it. Cheers, Scott.
Post #353,906 by crazy 2/2/12 7:58:55 AM Reply	I read it as an attempt to "be" the 95% The "poor" aren't voting for him. The top X% (who the fuck knows the exact numbers, but you understand) will vote for him even when he says he does not care about them. They KNOW better. So, he needs to get everyone in the middle who does not think they are poor to think he will give them more (or let them keep more, depending on your point of view), not taking their stuff away and giving it to the leaches on the bottom. He's gunning for Box. Actually, no, Box doesn't mind the "true" poor getting his money, just that Box has the ability to live on shit that will make a billy goat puke (Box == Rambo, yes), so he expects everyone else to as well, at least if he is paying for it. But that 5-30% "underclass"? F'em. Let'em suffer a bit and work harder to avoid the suffering. Incentives. That seems to be the direction. So anyway, Romney wants that middle ground since they MIGHT vote for him, and they are antagonistic to the next level down.

Welcome to IWETHEY!