And other Romney "wealth gaffes," as the Washington Post calls them.
By the way, the official right-wing response is: It's good to get rich! The Democrats act like there's something wrong with being rich.
And I would add: Would you prefer someone who's been unsuccessful handling his own financial affairs?
२८ फेब्रुवारी, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२९ टिप्पण्या:
I wonder if WaPo will give us a collection of gaffes from the president, things like clinging to guns and religion -- that play into the Republican argument that he is out of touch with America.
Or, do only Republicans get examined using their opponent's rhetoric as a measuring stick in WaPo?
The Democrats act like there's something wrong with being rich.
The Democrats act like there's something wrong with being rich and Republican.
Being Herb Kohl, John, Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or Nancy Pelosi, etc., and rich is no problem at all for the Dems.
It's okay to be rich, as long as you *wink wink* hate the rich. And babies.
"Would you prefer someone who's been unsuccessful handling his own financial affairs?"
To have the funds to run for President, you almost have to be successful with money. While the song says:
"Only in America,
Can a kid without a cent,
Get a break and maybe grow up to be President,"
The reality is, kids need many cents to even become mayor, let alone president.
Would you prefer someone who's been unsuccessful handling his own financial affairs?
Well, the Democrats have no problem with that.
For example, Barney Frank wrecked the American housing market yet was re-elected.
I used to wonder why all real estate agents (for example) would drive expensive cars and then it dawned on me -- would you rather they drive a beat up car and prove that they are not good at what they do?
It would help Romney if he stays away from such verbal gaffes though. Why is this country taking Santorum seriously? It is scary. Democrats are voting in MI for Santorum -- that says it all.
Romney would be a lot better off if he would just accept that there is nothing wrong with being Mitt Romney, and most of us understand that.
I would prefer someone who can manage the government's financial affairs. That person may be Romney. It certainly is not Obama (or Ron Paul for that matter.)
I would also prefer a press that looks at serious issues. Seriously.
You never know...Romney might have been trying to connect with the NASCAR crowd in the only way he can.
Obama friends Buffett, Oprah and all those Hollywood types must be fuming!
He could say "I have a very great friend in Rome who owns a NASCAR team."
Former Washington Redskins coach Joe Gibbs is a NASCAR team owner. If Romney had just said, "I know Joe Gibbs," he'd be the salt of the Earth.
There's a point where I just don't give a damn about perception. I wonder how many people really do, besides those that like getting worked up about things? Who are these people?
Romney is connecting with the NASCAR demographic very directly and he knows that.
He connects the same way George Romney connected to his auto workers: Me boss, you workers!
It is like Officers and enlisted men in the military.
The Car Owners are usually men who also own businesses that employ a blue collar workers.
They use the NASCAR connection to reward their employees with parties at Sky Box Condos at the track during race week.
So Romney is signaling that he is their job source. That only offends the college educated.
Life isn't fair. Some people are teflon coated and others are sticky icky. Mitt has this air not so much of wealth but of privilege. When he talks about being friends with NASCAR owners it is funny. Funny sticks. It adds up to an image of a rich dude who isn't one of us. Compare to W who had a certain way of seeming like one of the guys.
@Bob Ellison
I know him too! Biggus Dickus.
Imus gives Romney high marks for not pretending to follow NASCAR.
Heck, let's go ahead and compare how Romney and progressive icons got rich.
Romney ran a venture capitalist firm.
Pelosi got sweetheart IPO deals to help with legislation. Kerry married widows. Kennedy got his money from his dad who was a criminal.
Yeah, let's have this discussion. Please.
I only read this thread to see why I got tagged on it. I'm gonna guess that tag was meant for the other post that was updated with my comment.
Not faulting ya at all! After all, you're one of the few people who manage to spell my name correctly the first time...and yes, that is a test. Congrats on passing. ;)
Imus is right. Romney is being himself, just like Santorum is being himself.
But will Americans, having been brought to their knees by highly intelligent Capitalists sending their industrial plant investments to China and India, now reward this cardboard personality and intelligent capitalist on the theory that it takes a thief to know a thief? That is the question.
Santorumn is the last viable No Answer for that question. The first 4 No Answers were shot down in flames by very intelligent media buys put together by Romney's Team.
Romney's Team has proved that they can fool all of the Conservatives some of the time and, using Ron Paul, fool some of the Conservatives all of the time.
But there is that last question to be answered . I am very interested to see how this turns out.
damikesc - "Kennedy got his money from his dad who was a criminal."
===============
Joe Kennedy was mainly legit and did national service as first head of the SEC, then as Ambassador, with 3 children serving in the War Effort. In each enterprise he was involved in, again mostly all legit, he was a financial genius and successful.
All in all, a commendable figure.
When you peel away the veneer of the families of nobility and new wealth you find tawdry, less than pure ethics, even criminal things(Diane Feinstein, the Gores, Rothschilds, the thuggesh Stuarts and Tudors of bygone England, the new Russian oligarchs, Bill Gates)
Compared to what some of the others have done..start wars to profit from financing them, betrayal of the masses, stealing the resources of post-communist Russia .... Joe Kennedy and bootlegging seems pretty banal.
"And I would add: Would you prefer someone who's been unsuccessful handling his own financial affairs?"
Like that horrible President Abraham Lincoln?
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-19/living/mf.successful.people.survived.bankruptcy_1_bankruptcy-henry-ford-debts?_s=PM:LIVING
And GodZero is, of course, down with all his homies.
Cedarford said...
damikesc - "Kennedy got his money from his dad who was a criminal."
===============
Joe Kennedy was mainly legit and did national service as first head of the SEC, then as Ambassador, with 3 children serving in the War Effort. In each enterprise he was involved in, again mostly all legit, he was a financial genius and successful.
Old Joe's claim to being legit lies mostly in the fact he stopped doing stock manipulation because it became illegal. He spent most of his time as Ambassador to Britain wetting his pants about how Hitler would win and, thus, incurring the wrath of FDR.
Jack, who was originally placed in a cushy job on Embassy Row thanks to Dad, ended up in the Solomons because J Edgar found he was letting too much classified info slip across too many pillows and, in the words of many who were there, should have been court-martialed for losing his boat.
Bobby spent a couple of months in the Navy before V-J Day and Teddy was posted to a cushy assignment in Paris during the Korean War
Despite being a two-income couple -- two Harvard Law grads, both admitted to practice law in Illinois -- each with a six-figure income, Barack & Michelle Obama needed financial help to buy their home. They got it from Tony Rezko, the slumlord/politician-buying felon who's now doing time.
This was obvious in 2008 too.
Would you prefer someone who's been unsuccessful handling his own financial affairs?
Romney's done a great job on his campaign finances, burning through hundreds of millions of dollars, all to essentially be at the same 20-30 percent support level that he has been stuck at since the beginning.
His negatives are going up. If I was one of his advisors I'd get him better prep stat. He hasn't figured out how to sell himself as a national politician.
He needs the sort of the basic training a kid would get in debate class. And he needs to figure out how to sell himself nationally, not just to the people who are immediately inclined to support him.
The reality is, kids need many cents to even become mayor, let alone president.
The reality is that kids aren't allowed to be President at all. There's an age requirement.
Isn't it only recently that rich folks became NASCAR owners? Didn't it start off as a jobs program for out-of-work moonshiners at the end of prohibition?
Ann stated the official right-wing response is: It's good to get rich! The Democrats act like there's something wrong with being rich.
I thought the Democrats were more concerned with the issue of fairness.
Speaking of having a president who knows how to manage his own financial affairs, I remember reading that Barack Obama couldn't even rent a car when he attended the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles--all his credit cards were maxed out. But eight years later, miraculously, he'd learned so much the voters put the entire economy in his hands.
Fast learner I guess.
@ Bender: Of course, the other way to look at it is that Romney has managed to raise and spend sufficient amounts of money, directly and through the (non-coordinated) efforts of his Super-PACs, to keep any of the non-Romneys from succeeding in their continuing efforts to knock him out of front-runner status.
You fault him for not gaining ground, when it's the front-runner's job to hold ground and the also-rans to make up ground. Romney's holding ground, and the clock is ticking, and as it ticks he's picking up delegates steadily while his opponents are running out of time, money, and opportunities.
I'd say that's a pretty successful investment strategy. You certainly haven't made a compelling case to the contrary by your observation, because your observation considers Romney in a vacuum, and he's not.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा