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.
Romney says, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich…. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
O’Brien asked him to clarify his remarks saying, “There are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd.'”
Romney continues, “We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor…. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus…. The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”
You can watch the whole thing here. He talks about wanting to look out for retirees on a fixed income and people who can’t find a job and parents who are trying to save for college expenses. He says these are “middle income Americans” and that they are the ones who have been “really struggling” as a result of Obama’s policies. His campaign is going to be all about helping these middle income folks, and not the poor.
I could attack Romney’s comments in any number of ways. CabinGirl’s reaction was priceless. She said he wasn’t focused on the poor because they couldn’t afford the photo ID they now need to register to vote. But it’s the logical error that is most confounding. How do you remain “middle income” if you don’t have a job? How does living off your Social Security check provide a “middle income”? How are “middle income” people struggling more than “low income” people?
His entire argument is confusing.
What he seems to be saying is that there are a lot of people out there who want to work and are accustomed to a middle class way of life, and then there is a giant underclass of permanently unemployed poor people that he doesn’t give a shit about.
I guess that’s not an uncommon way of looking at the world if you travel in conservative circles, but it’s not very attractive and it isn’t usually expressed so clearly by presidential candidates.
