Month: September 2012

"To seek to raise taxes on poor and middle-class people would be a terrible mistake. The idea is bound to be unpopular. And it would alter the character of conservatism for the worse. A desire to cut taxes for people at all income levels, and to oppose tax increases at all income levels, was key to associating conservatism with the diffusion of opportunity in the Reagan years and after. Changed circumstances may demand a different approach than that of three decades ago. They do not compel conservatism to become a creed openly focused on helping one group at the expense of another, a kind of mirror image of egalitarian liberalism. There are many things to worry about in this world. The number of people paying income tax isn’t one of them," – Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review, November 21, 2011.

David Corn has more videos. He comments on the one above, which is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

In public, Romney has not declared the peace process pointless or dismissed the two-state solution. In July, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz asked Romney if he supports a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state, he replied, "I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state." Yet Romney’s remarks to these funders—this was one of his longest answers at the fundraiser—suggest he might be hiding his true beliefs regarding Israel and the peace process and that on this subject he is out of sync with the predominant view in foreign policy circles that has existed for decades.

Dreher compares the leaked video with Obama's "bitter clingers" speech:

My initial sense was that this video wouldn’t hurt Romney any more than "bitter clingers" hurt Obama. But "bitter clingers" came in April 2008, which gave Obama a lot more time to recover before Election Day. 

Though he argues it's a "mistake" to declare the race over, Cilizza acknowledges the damage:

The video will fuel the growing sentiment within the Republican chattering class that Romney is in the process of losing a winnable race. That means the second-guessing that goes on privately in every campaign will go more public. And the more public it becomes, the longer it takes Romney and his team to move beyond unhelpful process stories focused on whether his own party thinks he’s blowing it.

David Brooks weighs in:

[A]s a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney. Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign.

Tod Kelly focuses on Romney's claim that if he wins "the markets will be happy" and we'll "see capital come back and we’ll see—without actually doing anything—we’ll actually get a boost in the economy":

Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that of all the things that haven’t grown in Obama’s economy, the market ain’t one of them.  Instead, let’s focus on Romney’s actual plan: He’ll win the election, and everything will just magically be fixed by the mere fact that he won…. If this is the plan, than Mitt Romney has no business being anywhere near the White House, and he should never, ever be allowed to be Commander-In-Chief.

Suderman ponders the root of Romney's remarks:

[W]hat does it tell us about Romney? That he thinks he can talk differently to different groups of people without consequence, and that he's happy to play to the GOP's sense of self-entitlement. At the fundraiser, he goes after those who believe that "government has a responsibility to take care of them," the folks who think they're "entitled" to health care. "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." But Romney doesn't plan to convince his own supporters of the same thing either. … Romney isn't against government handouts at all. It's just that he's only in favor of the ones that Republicans like.

Ta-Nehisi reviews the Romney presser:

I have never seen the candidate of a major party looking more shook than Romney does at this press conference. 

(Photo: US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks to the press in Costa Mesa, California, on September 17, 2012. By Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Blake Zeff outlines why candidates go off the script for big donors:

[D]onors are given outrageous — though, usually, completely superficial — promises, in return for their largesse. For example, a “high dollar” campaign fundraising event will be billed as a chance to hear the “real inside scoop” of what’s going on in the campaign. So, candidates are often admonished by their fundraising staff not to give their usual stump speech, because these donors expect more. It’s the same reason big money folks are invited to take part in “strategy” calls with campaign staff, who run them through the latest polling (most of it publicly available) and offer optimistic assessments and broad strokes about the strategy moving forward. Which means that when a candidate attends a fundraising event hosted by a top donor, he or she usually deviates from the stump speech, talks politics, speaks casually, and tries to give the attendees the feeling they’re in on some insider campaign scoops, as an enticement to get invested (literally and figuratively).

Today Democrats get their turn accusing Republicans of class warfare.

— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) September 18, 2012

Our entire coverage thus far – blogger analysis, tweeted commentary, reader perspectives, right-wing reaction, videos, charts and more – can be found here. The thread page will be updated in the coming hours and days.

A reader writes:

Based on my reading of Michael Lewis' recent profile of Obama, what might be even more rare in the Oval Office than Obama's introversion is his apparent inclination to be a night owl rather than a morning person (I'm putting Clinton and his reputed ability to sleep four hours a night to the side). According to the article, he has a window from 10 pm (after Michelle and the kids go to sleep) until about 1 am that is his "me time". Then he sleeps until 7 am. I'm speculating a bit here, but I'm guessing that most previous presidents were morning people, either because their jobs as businessmen or farmers demanded it, or because of the generally high level of correlation between being a morning person and being a high achiever.

Little doubt he is up late tonight.

(Photo of the West Wing by Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Today on the Dish, in the wake of Mother Jones’ video bombshell, Andrew reflected on Romney’s views on 47% of the voters and wondered whether he just lost the election. Blogger reax here, tweet reax here, and reader thoughts here. Romney’s desperate TV response here.

Andrew also marveled at the GOP’s tax-cut non-logic, questioned Romney’s staff-blaming, called out Netanyahu’s election-meddling, remarked upon Europe’s views on Romney, noted that the Catholic heirarchy is now indistinguishable from the GOP, and hoped for sanity on marijuana decriminalization. Meanwhile, John Heilemann reported on Romney’s “very bad place” and Alex Altman rounded up the reboot stories. And as Derek Thompson graphed Romney’s middle class, Galupo wished Romney’s tax proposals were less detailed. Ezra Klein analyzed sequestration, Sasha Issenberg proposed ideas on turnout-boosting and Nate Cohn anticipated a momentous week ahead. In ad war news, the avalanche snowballed and Obama may have gotten an ad bump.

As Goldberg and others anti-Semite-slimed MoDo, David Gregory slipped up on Netanyahu and Eric Lewis asked why Israel should get a pass. Ayaan Hirsi Ali discussed democracy’s long game in the Middle East. Judith Matloff considered the language journalists use when writing about military violence and David Carr thumped Michael Lewis for granting quote approval.

In assorted commentary, Emil Johnson plotted the hobbit longevity spike, Andrew Tuck checked in on efforts to curb sprawl density and Tom Stafford warned about eBay psychology. Girls threw like girls, John Hodgman advised those with scanty upper-lip hair and black holes resembled dams. A Fox News prankster thought he was funny, Frank Portnoy advocated mandatory lunch, Ian Ayres encouraged prudent road-crossing and readers pushed back on the hookup culture debate. FOTD here, MHB here and VFYW here.

– G.G.

A reader writes:

Here's what strikes me: For the first time in years, Romney sounds like he actually means what he is saying. The traits that we're used to seeing and hearing – the plastered-on smile, the patently insincere "gee whiz" persona, the illogical disconnects, that creepy nervous laugh – they're all gone. Instead he's clear, and tough, and emphatic, laying it out like the tough businessman he claims to be. Maybe for once we're seeing the real Romney. And it's a Romney who drips with contempt for the people he would serve.

Another:

Romney acts as if anyone who payed taxes is on his side. As an Obama supporter who happily pays taxes as part of my civic duty, I don't appreciate being portrayed as a societal leech. Of course this is all comes from a man who pays a lower tax rate than a large chunk of middle-class Americans.

Another:

Romney rails against the 47 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes while refusing to release his tax returns. Who's to say he's not talking about himself?

Another wonders, "What does the wait staff wandering through the shot when Romney is railing against poor think when he is saying this?" Another:

Leaving aside the sneering condescension Romney shows in that video towards people who would VOTE for Obama, there is an interesting line of questioning he has opened himself up for. He repeats the tired and largely debunked myth that "47% of the population don’t pay taxes", but makes sure to say INCOME taxes. Does he mean gross or net? It’s pretty easy to pay no net taxes if you have a middle-class income, have a mortgage and/or kids. Calling these people "victims" or implying that they are freeloaders is pretty crass. Is he planning on eliminating the mortgage and child credits in order to keep us lesser sorts from becoming vicitims? Is he planning on raising taxes on those who live below the poverty level?

When people really get a load of what he said, this is going to make the flap over Obama’s "clinging to guns and religion" gaffe look like nothing in comparison.

Another:

Here's why his comments are so damning: Every Independent in this country at least knows and cares about somebody who is going to vote for Obama, and they don't want to think of those people as leeches. I have family members who disagree with me politically, but they don't think I'm a bum. Far from it. I'm on the border where I hardly pay any net federal income tax, but I have a great job that pays pretty well, and I pay state income tax and payroll tax and gas tax and property tax and social security and medicare. Thus, the people in my life who are on the fence definitely don't want me put in the same category as the people they think of as 'leeches'. Everybody knows somebody in that 47%, and it's much harder to scapegoat somebody that you actually know. Independents will resent Romney for creating that awkwardness for them.

Another:

That Romney quote about people in the 47 percent not taking responsibility for their lives made me so angry I almost cried. I'm in that 47 percent. My household hasn't paid income taxes in ten years – not since my husband became seriously disabled and could no longer work. How dare Romney tell me I'm not taking responsibility. I've been nothing but responsible – responsible for raising three children and caring for my husband for five years until he died, through some very tough times. I worked part-time through much of this, but SSDI and private disability insurance made it possible for my family to survive financially. My two sons received federal loans for college. One is now a public school teacher, and a darn good one – a worthwhile investment, I'd say. The other is still in college. My third child is disabled and continues to receive SSDI, and I'm still responsible for her. I work full-time, pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes. But I work for a not-for-profit and don't receive the kind of salary people of my abilities earn in investment banking.

The stuff that happened to me – a spouse who died prematurely, a child with a genetically-based disability – these things can happen to anyone. Anyone.

Even the Romneys:

This amazing video [seen above] of Lenore Romney, Mitt's mother, talking of her husband's BRIEF dependance on Government assistance underlines the hypocrisy of their son's views at that fundraiser. Mitt's dissing of the 47% is a direct contradiction of his own mother's accounting of being part of the 47%.

By the way, I was on food stamps and other government assistance myself for a period just over a year. And I went from there to a six figure income. Government assistance is fluid for most people, who need it only for brief periods of time.

Another reader points to this video and writes:

At another fundraiser, Mitt casually mentions that his father's family was cared for by the government when they returned to the U.S. from Mexico. Mitt's moocher family?"

One more reader:

If Obama is really, really smart, tomorrow he's going to be almost speechless about what Romney has said. He's not going to pounce; he's not going to express campaign-grade indignation; he's not going to try to score points. Rather, he'll take a moment to explain what everybody else is explaining: that a lot of the people who don't pay income taxes are the sick, the poor and the elderly, who we should all be concerned about.

You'll know tomorrow just how meep-meep Obama is. If he plays this correctly he hangs this around Romney's neck in a way that he will never be able to resolve before the first debate. If he treats it like just another campaign moment, that's how voters will see it.

Yglesias flags the above chart from the Tax Policy Center:

As we can see, it is true that 47 percent of the population pays no net federal income tax. Many of those people do pay federal payroll taxes on their income, however. Of those who pay neither income nor payroll taxes, most are elderly. That's because elderly people generally don't have jobs. Make of this what you will, but in terms of partisan politics it seems very likely that a large share of these elderly freeloaders are actually Romney voters. 

Krugman further unpacks the income tax numbers:

[I]f you look at the facts, you learn that the great bulk of those who pay no income tax pay other taxes; also, many of the people in the no-income-tax category are (a) elderly (b) students or (c) having a bad year, having lost a job — that is, they’re people who have paid income taxes in the past and/or will pay income taxes in the future. The idea that half of Americans are just grifters is grotesque.

Ezra Klein points out that the GOP is largely responsible for so few households paying income taxes:

Part of the reason so many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes is that Republicans have passed a series of very large tax cuts that wiped out the income-tax liability for many Americans. That’s why, when you look at graphs of the percent of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, you see huge jumps after Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform and George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So whenever you hear that half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, remember: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush helped build that.

Ambinder eyes the independent vote:

Forget the 47 percent. Independents may not be as economically liberal as the folks allegedly portrayed by Romney, but they are absolutely scared to death of telling their neighbor that they voted for someone with such intolerant views. That is, the skin and packaging of a candidate does indeed matter to independents. Indies have very trigger-sensitive ears to hints of condescension. These are the types of people who decry divisive partisanship.

Josh Marshall thinks the "real Mitt Romney" has been revealed:

This is the caricature of Mitt Romney, who was born on 3rd base (in Ann Richards memorable phrase), thinks he hit a triple and thinks the broad middle class who’ve relied on government for student loans or social security or anything else are losers who can’t get their act together and take responsibility for themselves. Only this tape says that caricature Mitt Romney is the real Mitt Romney. Big problem.

Jamelle Bouie isn't so sure: 

To be fair, there’s no way to know if this is what Romney "really" thinks. Remarks to donors and fundraisers are just as crafted and audience-targeted as any speech to the public. This isn’t an excuse, but it’s context worth considering.

Chait was surprised by the comments:

The revelations in this video come to me as a genuine shock. I have never hated Romney. I presumed his ideological makeover since he set out to run for president was largely phony, even if he was now committed to carry through with it, and to whatever extent he’d come to believe his own lines, he was oblivious or naïve about the damage he would inflict upon the poor, sick and vulnerable.  It seems unavoidable now to conclude that Romney’s embrace of Paul Ryanism is born of actual contempt for the looters and moochers, a class war on behalf of his own class.

John Sides doubts the expose will fundamentally change the election:

The best case for saying that "gaffes matter" is that actual voters are persuaded to change their minds because of the gaffes.  If they don’t, then it’s tough to argue that "gaffes" are really "game-changers." And, in fact, usually voters don’t change their minds.  See, for example, Michael Tesler’s and my analyses of the impact of "the private sector is doing fine."

Joe Klein notes that Romney's comments are coming from "a man who pays 14% in taxes–a multi-million dollar handout that Romney receives because he makes his money via a financial scheme that enjoys a major tax break from the government." He continues:

As Michael Grunwald pointed out last week in his memorable Time cover story, we’re all getting goodies from the government in one way or another. And yes, it might be a good idea to review all these subsidies–sugar? cotton? oil?–but it is sheer…I guess you’d have to call it class warfare to say that only the 47% voting for Obama are on the dole. How embarrassing: Romney keeps on kicking himself in the face.

Over at National Review, John O'Sullivan wanted Romney to double down: 

What Romney should do is call a press conference, play the tape, and then announce that he stands by what he said. In the course of affirming his broad argument, he can correct the minor inaccuracies easily enough. ("My audience understood that, as I said, I was referring to income tax, but of course working Americans pay payroll taxes and all Americans pay indirect taxes on the goods they buy.") 

Larison remarks on Romney's condescension:

More than anything else, what makes this video damaging is that it confirms what most Americans already suspect about Romney: he holds at least half the country in contempt, including many of the people that normally vote Republican. It isn’t just that Romney expresses contempt and pity for "anyone who isn’t going to vote for him," as Barro says. What makes this stand out as exceptionally arrogant is the fact that he clearly has contempt for many of the people who were likely to vote for him. 

Scott Galupo's verdict:

Newsflash: Romney isn’t simply a stiff. He’s a jerk.

And Kleiman is amazed by Obama's luck:

I suppose it’s reasonable that O’Bama should have the Luck of the Irish. But his talent for finding self-destructing opponents – or perhaps for inducing otherwise sane opponents to self-destruct – is preternatural.

It’s looking more and more like it:

Video of Romney presser:”Well, you know, it’s not elegantly stated, let me put it that way. I’m speaking off the cuff.” youtu.be/UwptutZ4jPA

— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) September 18, 2012

Presidential candidates don’t hold sudden press avails at 10pm eastern time unless something seismic has happened.

— Matt Mackowiak (@MattMackowiak) September 18, 2012

I’m all for pols having the guts to face the press at tough time. But Romney looked anxious and uncertain and then fled.

— James Bennet (@JBennet) September 18, 2012

Unsolicited advice to Gov. Romney: Walking away from questions at a press conference always looks good.

— Roger Simon (@politicoroger) September 18, 2012

Mitt wants the full video huh? Well don’t worry, there’s more to come.

— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) September 18, 2012