Jan 24 2012

Romney NOT A Working Class American (Heck, He’s Not Even Working)

Published by at 10:46 am under 2012 Elections,All General Discussions

Update: Even the WSJ is beginning to see the light:

That’s the real lesson of South Carolina’s Saturday primary, where Newt Gingrich, the Che Guevara of the right, always interested in leading a rebellion, smashed Mr. Romney, the Harvard M.B.A. interested in carefully calibrated, data-driven change. The South Carolina story—and the story going forward from here—isn’t so much Newt vs. Mitt as it is the insurgents vs. the establishment.

In fact, that has been the story of the Republican Party since the tea-party uprising began in 2009. The drama now will play out anew in the remaining Republican primary calendar.

Sort of obvious, but I am glad others are beginning to wake up and smell the frustration. BTW, the WSJ also garners the best summary of this primary election cycle:

As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

Sadly, I can’t laugh off this mess.A great opportunity ws offered up by the serial failures of Obama, Reid and Pelosi – only to squander it with The Damnable 4. – end update

No wonder Mitt Romney hesitated to disclose his income tax returns. Technically he does not work since nearly all his income is through investment profits:

Mitt Romney offered a partial snapshot of his vast personal fortune late Monday, disclosing income of $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million last year — virtually all of it profits, dividends or interest from investments.

Emphasis mine. Clearly, this is not someone who represents Main Street. He is currently unemployed, but not in  way that connects with Main Street. They guy is set for life and for generations to come. Must be nice. How do I get  Big “FILL IN THE BLANK” out of my way so I too can reach my personal end of the rainbow?

Romney is not like Herman Cain, who worked his way from the lower middle class to the upper class. Cain is someone I can relate to and assume he understands how hard it is to break free of the legislative chains that hold entrepreneurs downs. Romney is a corporate raider who made millions the easy way – the Haarvaaard way. He bought out struggling companies, leveraged their assets with massive debt, took his profits and left ruin and destruction in his wake. I want no connection with him. I am a small business owner, not a corporate raider.

Romney is a vulture, not a creator. Vultures have their purpose in nature and economics, but they are not what someone wants in a national leader.Will he dismantle big government, or twist it to help Wall Street? Does he even understand what the average person has to deal with? Not likley.

Sacrifice? Others sacrificed for Romney to gain his riches.

Innovation? Others provided the core product and services for those rare instances when Bain turned a company around instead of using it as a vehicle to collect millions and then run (what a great ironic coincidence to have Mitt’s Bain actually be his political ‘bane’)

Olympic Savior? I guess if it were not for him none of those dedicated athletes would have been able to compete?

I hear echos of Al Gore and his infamous Internet every time Romney lays claim to Olympic success.

In this instance, Romney is the epitome of Bullying Big Business who likes to implement Big Government solutions when in office. So how is this model going to beat Big Government Obama and his Bullying Big Business connections???? This is just not computing. It definitely is not uplifting and energizing.

Romney is about as far from the Tea Party ideal candidate as you can get without being a liberal Democrat. The Tea Party is a Main Street USA (small business, not big business) phenomena. It is opposes Big Government and is barely tolerant of Big Business (and their hooks now embedded in our political process). The Tea Party movement also distrusts Big Labor. Big is bad – individual is good. Helping others is good, destruction and suffering is to be avoided at all costs.

The Tea Party is all about enabling the individual, protecting the small business from Big Labor, Big Government and Big Wall Street conglomerates. It is Libertarian movement.

It is not Romney. And that is why he is failing. The disconnect between the establishment candidate (Romney) and the 2010 electorate is wide and glaring. And that is why Newt is gaining. Because as far as he is from the Tea Party ideal, he is miles closer to the 2010 backlash voter than Romney ever will be.

 

105 responses so far

105 Responses to “Romney NOT A Working Class American (Heck, He’s Not Even Working)”

  1. Layman1 says:

    Wow! Where to begin? Looks like severe RDS on display.

    1. “No wonder Mitt Romney hesitated to disclose his income tax returns. Technically he does not work since nearly all his income is through investment profits:”

    Response: Great! He already paid taxes on the money he earned and if we want him and other “rich people” to invest then the lower the rate the better. A lot of Tea Party folks would like to see a tax rate of zero on long term capital gains. Great again! Then maybe people like Romney would invest even more of their money in the economy.

    2. “Must be nice. How do I get Big “FILL IN THE BLANK” out of my way so I too can reach my personal end of the rainbow?”

    Answer: Choose a career that affords you the opportunity to make a lot of money then work your ass off at it. I could have joined my father-in-law in real estate development and made a ton of money but my heart was to launch rockets into space. I knew when I chose my career that I could be comfortable but I also knew I’d never get “rich”. AJ: You and I chose S&T because of our love for it. To hear you criticizing someone for “getting rich” and complaining about their “easy street” is unnerving to me. Have you been drinking the “Occupy” koolaid?

    3. ” Romney is a corporate raider who made millions the easy way – the Haarvaaard way.”

    Sounds like reverse elitism going on. I don’t begrude anyone their Ivy League Education. What bothers me is when they tell me my University of Arizona/Stanford degrees aren’t as meaningful as theirs and that they are smarter and know better than me. Haven’t heard a word of that from Romney so I recommend staying away from the snotty “Haarvaaard” comments. Save it for the self-proclaimed elites who deserve it.

  2. kathie says:

    I don’t begrudge Mitt living off his savings. He earned, he saved, he pays 15% tax on his savings every year, that’s after he payed whatever on the original income. People are we going to have the government tell us what is good money to make and what is bad. Mitt is spending his 15% taxed savings, employing people and living his life by his choice, good for him. It can be that way or the government can take it through taxation and Obama can give it to his friends.

    People we are getting scary coveting our neighbors wealth.

  3. crosspatch says:

    So being successful and making a lot of money is now a bad thing for Republicans? It is something to be ashamed of? It means you are less qualified to be President?

  4. AJStrata says:

    Layman,

    What does paying taxes have to do with working for a salary????

    Romney supporters need to holster their glass jaws and hyper sensitivity to criticism.

    If this is bad now, wait until the Dems start hitting.

  5. crosspatch says:

    With every passing week this campaign reminds more and more of the conservative piling on against Reagan in the 1976 and the 1980 primaries. He’s too liberal, he’s a Hollywood actor, he doesn’t know anything about government. Conservatives howled when Reagan compromised with Tip O’Neil. They bashed Reagan till right up to the third year of his first term when the economy began to turn the corner. Suddenly in his second term, Reagan was the darling of the conservatives … until Reagan’s amnesty. Then they hated him again for a few months.

    Romney has actually studied a thing or two about economics in addition to having a law degree. But he isn’t an academic/politician like Gingrich.

    Remember that a President can’t make a law. Having Romney in the White House is more important to me than having Newt run but lose.

    I believe Romney would be a far better President than Newt is. Yes, Newt is probably a better public speaker. He is now throwing a tantrum because the audience at the debates was asked to remain quiet (as has been the policy at all debates until this cycle). Newt is like Obama. He needs to be worshiped. He’s a narcissist. Romney would be more organized, get things done, surround himself with a better team. He already has Bolton as his senior foreign policy adviser, I like that. Newt is currently running a circus.

    Romney is more liberal than I am. Newt will come off as liberal when it suits him with the audience he is aiming at (with Pelosi on the couch talking climate change) or conservative when he thinks that advances his agenda at the moment. You can’t tell what he is going to actually do because what Newt says is all just hot air. Just like Obama, he will likely promise one thing and do exactly the opposite.

    Newt has a great history of rousing words, but no history of any real action. He flits from idea to idea. Whatever resonates with the public at the moment is his “big thing” until he tires of that and moves to the next thing. Romney impresses me as someone who can lay out a strategic plan and stick to the plan for years and see it through. He is good for turning around this country, he has experience in turning things around. His most famous turn around was the Salt Lake Winter Olympics and he did an awesome job.

    Yes, Romney’s personal values are a bit more liberal than mine but that isn’t the issue for me. If I am hiring someone for office of President, considering the shape we are in now, I want someone with some experience and schooling in the problems at hand, not some ideologue. We already have an ideologue as President and I don’t want another one.

  6. crosspatch says:

    I’m not hypersensitive to criticism of Romney so much as I am dead set against Newt Gingrich being President. The man is a snake and not to be trusted.

  7. AJStrata says:

    LOL! CP, et al.

    Why can’t you recognize Mitt’s method of making money stinks without going all drama queen about making money in general?

    I mean really, stop over reacting. Of course being a success through hard work is the core of America. Bain is just not an example of that.

    Walmart? Yes!
    Apple? Yes!
    Boeing? Yes!

    Bain?? Hell no. Vultures, like I said.

    Hate to say it guys, but the drama queen stuff is just pathetic.

    I can’t stand the lot of them. My analysis was why Romney was losing tea partiers to Newt, not why I prefer Newt. My observations are objective – if not coldly objective.

    And your hate of Newt equals mine for Romney. Welcome to Democracy – see if you really can support it by showing respect for differing views. I don’t like Romney – his supporters are not him.

  8. MerlinOS2 says:

    About the Olympics Mitt stepped in when the management of the games was in such lousy shape it was likely to be a financial disaster for those holding the games.

    It had nothing to do with the athletes taking part in the games.

    He cut the bloat and everyone wanting to take a piece of the pie and put it back on a sound financial keel. Not unsimilar to CEOs who specialize in tough love turn arounds of poorly managed companies.

  9. AJStrata says:

    CP- are you claiming Romney is the next Reagan????

  10. kathie says:

    All our guys are horrible, really horrible!

  11. lurker9876 says:

    How does this compare to W. Buckley of NRO fame? Buckley grew up in a very wealthy family..very spoiled kid enjoying the materials of wealth but became very conservative on his own.

    Then we have George Soros and Warren Buffet guys.

    All of which lived on old family money.

    Some are conservative. Some are liberals. They either made money on their own or they simply lived on interest. Mitt is a business man that knew how to manage successful businesses. That’s probably what we need. Tough love and tough luck.

    Will I do it if I had that kind of money? Yes, you bet. But hell, I wouldn’t use Mitt’s money as a reason to hit him on. In my mind, that’s BS.

    I’m not concerned about his “income”. I’m more concerned about his principles and position.

    But hell, any of them will do far better than Obama. I am not happy with any of them but I will vote just to kick Obama to retirement. Hopefully, he will not become a lobbyist but dang it, he will probably joining the CAP. UGH.

  12. WWS says:

    If Romney can’t make the sale to republican primary voters, then he certainly won’t be able to make it to voters in a general election. Gingrich is just deploying all the attacks that Obama would have used, and if they work, we have to face that fact. Not to mention that he’s a cold fish. Telling people they should like someone never works if they just don’t like him.

    As to a different story I saw this morning, it’s sad that Rep. Giffords has had to face reality and resign from Congress. We like to think that full recovery from that kind of head wound is possible, but it isn’t. (remember Jim Brady) Tragically, she’s going to be an invalid for the rest of her life.

    I have to credit Mark Kelley for standing by his wife through all of this; if Newt had been married to her, he would have already divorced her, and he would have blamed her for wrecking the relationship, too.

  13. lurker9876 says:

    Newt is a snake but he knows history and understands the founding principles. Has he changed? Maybe, maybe not. But do I trust him? No. But is he better than Obama? Yes. Will I be happy with him as our President? No.

    Mitt doesn’t seem to be consistent with his principles and position. He’s aligned himself with too many liberal positions in the past that he hasn’t been able to explain his rationale. He’s good at managing businesses. So he might be good at reducing the beaucracy of our government.

    Santorum is a big government Republican but at least he’s consistent and honest.

    Ron Paul is consistent and honest with his domestic policy but he’s deplorable with his foreign policy. I don’t see Ron having a chance at getting a nomination.

    I don’t think drafting anyone will work and I don’t think we will have a brokered convention. I just cannot think of anyone that will emerge and accept the job. Palin? Rubio? West? Daniels? Jeb Bush? Don’t think so.

    Assuming Ron will never get it, any of the top three…I will vote. I’m not going to get in the middle of these fights. They don’t serve a purpose because my purpose is to kick Obama the hell out of the White House.

  14. Mark says:

    It seems that we are conducting the circular firing squad again. Perspective is in order. We are not running a candidate against perfection, only against Obama. By any measure, all of the potential Republican candidates are far superior. Remove the mainstream media operating as his Super PAC, and the Democrats willingness to break any rule necessary to win this upcoming election; Obama stands no chance.
    I prefer Newt by a wide margin for several reasons, but am certain that Mitt would be so much better for the future of the United States, for my children and grand children than the alternative of Obama that it makes the rhetoric of the current campaigns disappointing.
    Newt has a checkered past in his personal life, but was very successful as Speaker of the House (none of the ethics charges stuck). In effect, he forced Clinton to act as a fiscal conservative, no mean feat. He reminds me of Churchill in many ways; flawed, brilliant, steeped in history, and exactly what his country needs for a moment.
    Mitt was extraordinarily successful in his business career with Bain. To my knowledge, all income was taxed and invested in legal ways. Since I am not an envious individual, I will not begrudge his ability to live quite well on capital gains. There was nothing illegal, unethical, or immoral about how Bain Capital operated in their investments. Some of their money was lost, some of the strategies did not prove to be successful, but many worked out very well. Win or loose, it was Bain Capital money that was invested. He is an extremely capable and intelligent manager and one would hope is much more conservative than he is given credit for. To his detriment, he is not standing up boldly and making his case.
    The positive side of the inter party bloodletting is that the negatives will be old news for either man as a candidate by the time of the elections. Any questions by that time should have excellent answers crafted in current crucible. Either way we win, so long as we do not make the mistake of withholding our votes if the chosen Republican candidate is not our personal candidate of choice.

  15. lurker9876 says:

    I am also reading that if Newt wins the nomination, people will stay at home to skip the election. Wrong reason. This will allow Obama another four years. Can these guys afford to give Obama another four years because of a seriously flawed candidate?

    It’s time to stop being a values-based voter at this point and go with pragmatism and common sense.

    Mitt’s inability to stand up and defend himself to the mainstream media like Newt did last week gives me hesitation of how he will stand up to the Democrats and the mainstream media. Newt has demonstrated that.

  16. Layman1 says:

    AJ: You’re the one turning up your nose talking about “the Haavaaard way” and we’re the drama queens? Puleeeeeeeez!

    There! now you can criticize my drama.

  17. Mike M. says:

    Romney can dodge the Bain Capital accusation IF he words it properly. Basically, he was buying dilapidated houses, fixing them, and selling them at a profit. Except with businesses, not homes. Having to fire people he can pass off as an unfortunate part of the repair process – then point out that it makes him willing to fire Federal employees.

    I think what will hurt him in the long run is the 15% tax rate. I made $110K last year, paid just under $20K in Federal income tax – almost exactly an 18% rate. It’s very hard for me to justify voting for a multi-millionaire paying a lower tax rate than I do. And I think a lot of people will think the same way.

  18. Layman1 says:

    Hey, just listening to FNC and if I heard right the poorest guy in the race will be the Democrat, President Obama, who’s worth over $5M. Wow! None of the Republicans is a “man of the people”. And I don’t care. I want successful people who know what they’re doing to run the show.

    But if you want to criticize wealth AJ, start looking into how Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum all got rich working in Congress – or cashing in on their contacts post-Congress. If Romney was a “vulture” at least it was in the private sector. Newt didn’t move back home to Gerogia after leaving in ’99. He moved to Virginia and opened an office on K Street. Maybe you could comment on his success as a historian/consultant /lobbiest/influence peddler/whatever.

  19. Redteam says:

    Mark, good comments. I agree with most of them
    looks as if Layman is still suffering from his ABRDS.
    and CP is still on his crying and whining jag. and i surely hope he’s not claiming Mitt as a Reagan, especially since he’s not even a conservative. Look, most agree that any of these four candidates will beat obama. They have as an advantage that neither of them are socialist muslims as the person presently in the oval office is.

    I don’t think most people that care about the country are gonna sit at home. I think we might well have a record turnout for the Republican, especially if it’s Newt (because the tea party will be backing him and we saw what that meant for Repubs in 2010)

    Mike M., I think you misunderstand how much Romney paid in taxes. it’s not 15%, it’s 35% + 15%..
    When he originally made the money he paid 35 then he put it in the bank and is now paying 15% on the interest. It could be invested in other ways than a bank but the result is the same. I personally think that rate is too high and may actually reduce incentive for investment.
    In your case, say you put the balance of your 120K(after your 18% taxes) in the bank at 5% interest so you would draw about 5 K in interest and then have to pay 15% on that 5K. big difference of course is that Mitt is getting millions in interest instead of 5K.

    CP, “Newt has a great history of rousing words, but no history of any real action.” you have to know that is a gross distortion of the truth (something you belittle Newt for doing) Everyone knows that Newt led the Contract with America, forced Clinton to balance the budget and led welfare reform. All this under a Dimocrat president. So get the tears out of your eyes so you can quit writing outright lies about Newt.

  20. Redteam says:

    Layman “But if you want to criticize wealth AJ, start looking into how Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum all got rich working in Congress – or cashing in on their contacts post-Congress.”

    maybe you’d like to tell us how obama went for a net worth of less than 500K when he got elected to a value of 5 Million now. The presidency is sure paying well, that’s 4.5 mill in only 3 years.

    also saw where Clinton has earned 75 million since leaving office making speeches. You think he’s not peddling influence?