Yet Another Romney Gaffe

[mtutiger]

I haven't lived all that long, but I honestly cannot remember such an incompetent campaign. I know y'all are stuck with him, but he's now got Red State and Rushbo on his tail for this.

Romney team moves to take credit for Romneycare - The Washington Post

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul, responding to a harsh new super PAC ad featuring a man who blames Bain Capital for his uninsured wife’s death, broke new ground for the campaign by praising Romney’s health insurance mandate.

“To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Gov. Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” Saul said on Fox News. “There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President Obama’s economy.” (These comments are around the 2-minute mark in the video above.)

Plays into the entire meme of Romney waffling on the issues. Furthermore, is the Republican Health Care Plan really, "should'a lived in Massachusetts"?

[TheCouga]

They're basically admitting that Romney has to hide from the one compassionate thing he's done in his life because conservatives would be disgusted by it.

Hilarious.

[Gehringer_2]

I haven't lived all that long, but I honestly cannot remember such an incompetent campaign. I know y'all are stuck with him, but he's now got Red State and Rushbo on his tail for this.

Romney team moves to take credit for Romneycare - The Washington Post



Plays into the entire meme of Romney waffling on the issues. Furthermore, is the Republican Health Care Plan really, "should'a lived in Massachusetts"?

When he decided for the primaries to cave to the right and run against Obamacare and away from his signature achievement in MA as an elected official, the die was cast that this would inevitably happen. Mitt is too proud of himself over MA (and rightfully so in any rational world) to stay with the conservatives one minute longer than he has to now that the nomination is sewn up. But it's going to get ugly on the right as he tries to triangulate his way on this one.

[TheCouga]

It's hard to believe Romney is even trying at this point. His campaign has been able to create a distraction basically every single day now for the past 4 weeks.

[hueytaxi]

I find the wife died bit and the coffin position two of the most disgusting displays of misleading campaigning I have witnessed.

[mtutiger]

I find the wife died bit and the coffin position two of the most disgusting displays of misleading campaigning I have witnessed.

And yet the Romney campaign dignifies the entire thing by saying, "well, if they lived in Massachusetts, they would have had healthcare." What a bunch of incompetents.

[pfife]

Incredible statement.

[pfife]

I agree with the Romney campaign, Obamacare is going to do a lot of good things for a lot of people in need.

[shauntacular]

ham sandwich and ham sandwich's campaign can say whatever it wants. Doesn't matter - hes going to win. People hate Obama that much.

[monkeynuts]

ham sandwich and ham sandwich's campaign can say whatever it wants. Doesn't matter - hes going to win. People hate Obama that much.

Yet 60% of people like Obama - and only 30% of people like Romney...I guess if people hate Obama, they must really, really hate Romney.

Obama's Character Edge Offsets Romney's Economic Advantage

[chasfh]

I thought this thread was in response to the California gaffe. Man, I just can't keep them straight anymore.

[chasfh]

ham sandwich and ham sandwich's campaign can say whatever it wants. Doesn't matter - hes going to win. People hate Obama that much.

You must be completely surrounded by right-wingers if you really think that.

Oh ... wait ...

[mtutiger]

I thought this thread was in response to the California gaffe. Man, I just can't keep them straight anymore.

He said this too? Good Lord.

[Gehringer_2]

And yet the Romney campaign dignifies the entire thing by saying, "well, if they lived in Massachusetts, they would have had healthcare." What a bunch of incompetents.

Well one fantasy scenario would be Mitt re-embracing MA care as his 'Sister Souljah" moment when he declares his independence from the right and decides to run as a centrist.....Nah......

Beside even it it worked (and I think it could) he'd arrive in DC with no support from either side of the congressional aisles.

[monkeynuts]

Limbaugh, Coulter, and Erickson have let loose on that spokesman today/tonight. Very ugly day for Romney.

[hueytaxi]

And yet the Romney campaign dignifies the entire thing by saying, "well, if they lived in Massachusetts, they would have had healthcare." What a bunch of incompetents.

No arguement there.

[RatkoVarda]

Romney confuses ‘Sikh’ with ‘sheik’ - The Washington Post

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa — Mitt Romney mistakenly confused the words “Sikh” and “sheik” at a fundraiser here Tuesday night when he offered his condolences to the victims of last weekend’s shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee correctly spoke of the Sikh religion earlier in the day when he observed a moment of silence at a campaign event in Illinois. But at the Iowa fundraiser, he instead talked about the “sheik temple” and the “sheik people.” Sheik is an Arabic honorific, whereas Sikh is a religion with roots in South Asia.

Referencing his earlier event in the Chicago area, Romney said: “We had a moment of silence in honor of the people who lost their lives at that sheik temple. I noted that it was a tragedy for many, many reasons. Among them are the fact that people, the sheik people, are among the most peaceable and loving individuals you can imagine, as is their faith. And of course, the person who carried out this heinous act was a person motivated by racial hatred and religious intolerance.”

No Democrat believed in 2004 that Bush could win; he did;
no Republican believes that Obama could win in 2012; will he?

[chasfh]

Romney confuses ‘Sikh’ with ‘sheik’ - The Washington Post

No Democrat believed in 2004 that Bush could win; he did;
no Republican believes that Obama could win in 2012; will he?

****, man, that guy is a gaffe machine.

I cannot wait for the debates. That is going to be as entertaining as anything else you will see is fall.

[Melody]

He was right about California.

[Gehringer_2]

****, man, that guy is a gaffe machine.

I cannot wait for the debates. That is going to be as entertaining as anything else you will see is fall.

It's going to be interesting to see the push and pull on the format. I'm sure O is going to push for the most open, freewheeling setup possible and Mitt is going to want nice fixed time answer blocks and a minimum back and forth.

[TheCouga]

He was right about California.

No, he wasn't, as has already been clearly and thoroughly evidenced in this thread.

[TheCouga]

It's going to be interesting to see the push and pull on the format. I'm sure O is going to push for the most open, freewheeling setup possible and Mitt is going to want nice fixed time answer blocks and a minimum back and forth.

The real problem with Republicans and debates lately is that -- while their platform sounds great and emotionally-appealing from within the echo chamber of Fox News/AM radio -- it doesn't really hold up all that well to intellectual scrutiny and investigation of the facts. Thus, no matter who they put forward to advance their platform, they will have a disadvantage in the debate format. Romney can't really complain about Obamacare in the debate because Obama can just say "we modeled it after your plan." He can't complain about the deficit, because Romney's proposed budget increases the deficit. He can't complain about taxes, because Romney's plan raises taxes on a lot of the middle-class.

And Romney can't really talk about abortion, because he was for it before he was against it before he was for it before he was against it.

Even regarding the economy, Obama's obvious response is that it takes a while to clean up from the kind of policies we had under Bush -- which happen to be the exact kind of policies Romney is proposing.

[Gehringer_2]

The real problem with Republicans and debates lately is that -- while their platform sounds great and emotionally-appealing from within the echo chamber of Fox News/AM radio -- it doesn't really hold up all that well to intellectual scrutiny and investigation of the facts. Thus, no matter who they put forward to advance their platform, they will have a disadvantage in the debate format. Romney can't really complain about Obamacare in the debate because Obama can just say "we modeled it after your plan." He can't complain about the deficit, because Romney's proposed budget increases the deficit. He can't complain about taxes, because Romney's plan raises taxes on a lot of the middle-class.

And Romney can't really talk about abortion, because he was for it before he was against it before he was for it before he was against it.

Even regarding the economy, Obama's obvious response is that it takes a while to clean up from the kind of policies we had under Bush -- which happen to be the exact kind of policies Romney is proposing.

another point on the debates: With so many people on both sides today getting whatever news they do listen to from either liberal or conservative echo chambers, the debates are a place where people not used to seeing either of these guy unfiltered can get their eyes opened. That's going to create a lot of cognitive dissonance on both sides when those (possibly few!) relatively open minded folks see that neither one of these guys is the spawn of Satan they were depicted to be. On that score, the conservatives side may also suffer more, as in my view, the demonization of Obama has been worse than that of Mitt. The left tends to be either sympathetic that Mitt is a trapped but spineless moderate or just a goof. The treatment of the President by the right needs no comment.

[TheCouga]

I know this is going to be not well-received on here, but the bottom line is that one side really is a bit more grounded in objective reality. 95% of climate scientists and 99.9% of chemists (better not say 100% lest Deleterious force me to record the position of every chemist on the planet) know that burning tons of fossil fuels ruins the ozone and creates global warming. 99.9% of economists think the bank bailout was a good thing, and 99.9% think the stimulus created jobs -- and the majority of which think it was worth the cost. And it's pretty much historical fact that the derivatives market -- and not the Fed -- is what caused the economic collapse. As for healthcare stats, it's quite clear that on a per-patient basis, those covered by government healthcare in this country and around the world are far cheaper to treat than those in private insurance programs. And as I said before, Romney can't even bring this up due to the craziness of his own side that hates Obama so much that they'll demonize their own healthcare plan if it scores them political points.

As for the non-science based stuff, the Muslim conspiracies don't work outside the anonymous realm of the internet.

And for the rest of the political issues, they're mostly social opinion-based, such as gay marriage and abortion, and due to demographic changes, Republicans are starting to be on the losing end of those, and Social Security and Medicare are third rails. Either that, or both candidates have the same position anyways, such as foreign policy.

[pfife]

It's incredible to me that the right considers it an eggregious gaffe to admit that his plan in Massachusetts saves lives. What a sad state of affairs.

[mtutiger]

He was right about California.

He wasn't in the slightest bit right about California. California has problems, but they aren't related at all to the problems being experienced by European countries right now.

[chasfh]

I'm starting to wonder whether the California comment really was a gaffe.

Romney might have been proceeding from the idea that Americans in the middle part of the country (or "pro-American Americans", as Republicans refer to them as) hate the idea of California and is merely tapping into that to solidify his conservative support. After all, Romney is not going to win California anyway, so who cares whether they object?

The politics of dividing people -- getting people in Texas to hate people in California, for instance -- is what the Republicans trade in, and even though in the long run its a losing strategy, in the long run we are all dead, so short term gain is the only thng that matters now. The Tea Party is trying to win in 2012, not 2052.

[Melody]

Lol. Pot meet kettle re divisiveness. Good grief, just peruse some of the thread titles here.

I'll respond to mutiger later. Too hard to type on this danged iPhone.

[mtutiger]

I'm starting to wonder whether the California comment really was a gaffe.

Romney might have been proceeding from the idea that Americans in the middle part of the country (or "pro-American Americans", as Republicans refer to them as) hate the idea of California and is merely tapping into that to solidify his conservative support. After all, Romney is not going to win California anyway, so who cares whether they object?

The politics of dividing people -- getting people in Texas to hate people in California, for instance -- is what the Republicans trade in, and even though in the long run its a losing strategy, in the long run we are all dead, so short term gain is the only thng that matters now. The Tea Party is trying to win in 2012, not 2052.

I'm surprised that more people don't have a problem with a presidential candidate openly bad-mouthing individual states. Especially considering a lot of these people are from the "states rights" crowd.

[Gehringer_2]

I'm surprised that more people don't have a problem with a presidential candidate openly bad-mouthing individual states. Especially considering a lot of these people are from the "states rights" crowd.

I mentioned Romney's temperament in the past and some didn't see the point. I think this is another example. The terms that he thinks in don't seem to be conducive to building unity/consensus, whatever you want to call it - it really helps if a pol has it. Obama's is not very good at it either - for him it seems its mostly in his aversion to personal 'shmoozing' with legislators . I think he is a person that has a hard time spending time around people he really doesn't like very much and in Washington you're not going to be able to avoid working with people you don't like. In Romney case, he doesn't seem to have any feel for speaking in terms that pull people in instead of pushing them out. A case of micro vs macro failings I guess.

[Sparks4Ever]

Romney's campaign team has been pretty underwhelming. He needs to find an Axelrod or Rove -- real political powerhouses that understand how to win elections.

Romney missteps aside, the Obama super-pac is overplaying their hand with this "Romney killed my wife" ad. They need to tone it down a bit. You can only have some many Willie Horton ads before they start working against you.

[chasfh]

Lol. Pot meet kettle re divisiveness. Good grief, just peruse some of the thread titles here.

I'll respond to mutiger later. Too hard to type on this danged iPhone.

Can you clarify this -- are you accusing me, specifically, of perpetrating divisiveness? Or are you accusing the writer of the op-ed at Christian Science Monitor?

[pyrotigers]

I like how this is a gaffe but an Obama super-pac releasing an outrageous lie filled commercial essentially accusing Romney of murder followed by Obama lying about knowing anything about it (he had the same guy from the commercial tell the same bs story at a campaign event months ago) is no biggy.

It's amazing how all of the liberals on this board seem to think that it's only Romney who's a terrible campaigner and compulsive gaffe machine/liar. I don't know if you have your heads in the sand or you only read the huffington post and politico, but I'm afraid Obama is really no better.

Don't worry though, he can always run on the successful policies of the last four years....

Oh, and Romney disliking individual states...oh no, how would a president ever get elected if he upset all of the bitter clingers out there in California...

California should be insulted, it's the perfect example of the nightmarish economic world that awaits the rest of the country if things don't change. How is it a gaffe to tell the truth? California IS just like a debt burdened country. By itself it has one of the largest GDPs on earth and one of the worst debt ratios. It's a completely accurate statement. I can see why 'telling the truth about serious issues' would be a bizarre thing for Obama supporters though.

edit: Also, why is this a Romney gaffe when he didn't even say it? Are we going to start calling everything a staffer says a gaffe for the candidate? If so President Obama has had about 50000 gaffes from Robert Gibbs and now Jay Carney over the last four years. That has to suck for him.

[chasfh]

I like how this is a gaffe but an Obama super-pac releasing an outrageous lie filled commercial essentially accusing Romney of murder followed by Obama lying about knowing anything about it (he had the same guy from the commercial tell the same bs story at a campaign event months ago) is no biggy.

It's amazing how all of the liberals on this board seem to think that it's only Romney who's a terrible campaigner and compulsive gaffe machine/liar. I don't know if you have your heads in the sand or you only read the huffington post and politico, but I'm afraid Obama is really no better.

Obama is not gaffe-free, but a few isolated gaffes <> seemingly non-stop gaffes.

Don't worry though, he can always run on the successful policies of the last four years....

Absolutely. And he will.

[mtutiger]

California should be insulted, it's the perfect example of the nightmarish economic world that awaits the rest of the country if things don't change. How is it a gaffe to tell the truth? California IS just like a debt burdened country. By itself it has one of the largest GDPs on earth and one of the worst debt ratios. It's a completely accurate statement. I can see why 'telling the truth about serious issues' would be a bizarre thing for Obama supporters though.

Since you're an expert on California politics, why don't you explain to us how Greece and California are alike. Or should I take your word for it?

Have you lived in California? I have... and I'm here to tell you that California is where it is because of Proposition 13. Basically, Prop 13 capped property taxes within the state. Furthermore, California is the ONLY state in the country where voters can vote on taxation/spending issues through the use of direct balloting (ie. Propositions). What does this mean? This means that voters can vote themselves lower taxes, yet can also turn around and vote for more spending on schools and other programs. So this all happens, plus California is REQUIRED to pass a balanced budget every single year.

So, in other words, when Sacramento approaches a budget, they have literally hundreds/thousands of different tax/spending constraints that they have to take under consideration in order to not only pass a budget, but pass a balanced budget. This was caused not just by pantywaist California liberals, like I'm sure you'd like to believe, this was caused by ALL Californians... they want government services, but they don't want to pay taxes. What's going on there would be happening regardless of the political party of the current Governor.

Don't get me wrong, the folks in Sacramento don't necessarily get a pass. But the political problems facing California, in a strict sense, do not in any way, shape or form resemble those of European nations. California is more of an example of why you don't involve a direct government approach as it pertains to taxation and spending.

[JayVee]

In today's politics, mistakes are worse than lies. Unbelievable, how that works...

[Gehringer_2]

Since you're an expert on California politics, why don't you explain to us how Greece and California are alike. Or should I take your word for it?

Have you lived in California? I have... and I'm here to tell you that California is where it is because of Proposition 13. Basically, Prop 13 capped property taxes within the state. Furthermore, California is the ONLY state in the country where voters can vote on taxation/spending issues through the use of direct balloting (ie. Propositions). What does this mean? This means that voters can vote themselves lower taxes, yet can also turn around and vote for more spending on schools and other programs. So this all happens, plus California is REQUIRED to pass a balanced budget every single year.

So, in other words, when Sacramento approaches a budget, they have literally hundreds/thousands of different tax/spending constraints that they have to take under consideration in order to not only pass a budget, but pass a balanced budget. This was caused not just by pantywaist California liberals, like I'm sure you'd like to believe, this was caused by ALL Californians... they want government services, but they don't want to pay taxes. What's going on there would be happening regardless of the political party of the current Governor.

Don't get me wrong, the folks in Sacramento don't necessarily get a pass. But the political problems facing California, in a strict sense, do not in any way, shape or form resemble those of European nations. California is more of an example of why you don't involve a direct government approach as it pertains to taxation and spending.

IIRC, CA is also operating under an insane set of 'props' whereby a majority can spend money but only a super majority can raise taxes. They really need to fix the CA constitution - the current one is a death pact.

[mtutiger]

IIRC, CA is also operating under an insane set of 'props' whereby a majority can spend money but only a super majority can raise taxes. They really need to fix the CA constitution - the current one is a death pact.

This is correct. People on all sides of the political spectrum share blame in California. "Socialism" has nothing to do with it.

[Melody]

Can you clarify this -- are you accusing me, specifically, of perpetrating divisiveness? Or are you accusing the writer of the op-ed at Christian Science Monitor?

I was referring to the two major political parties, and their partisans who uncritically parrot the latest talking points memo.

If you don't do this, then I wasn't talking about you.

[sinister porpoise]

I like how this is a gaffe but an Obama super-pac releasing an outrageous lie filled commercial essentially accusing Romney of murder followed by Obama lying about knowing anything about it (he had the same guy from the commercial tell the same bs story at a campaign event months ago) is no biggy.[...]

edit: Also, why is this a Romney gaffe when he didn't even say it? Are we going to start calling everything a staffer says a gaffe for the candidate? If so President Obama has had about 50000 gaffes from Robert Gibbs and now Jay Carney over the last four years. That has to suck for him.

Obama lied? What did he say?