Mitt Romney’s adopting the rhetroic of Occupy Wall Street:
And by the way, I want to make sure you understand that, for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, those things will continue. But for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that, so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.
Wow, Mitt Romney, “Class Warrior against the 1%.” Can politics get any more bizarre?
February 25th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Maybe you could flesh this out a bit with some context. The one sentence clip there really doesn’t do it.
February 25th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
The 1%, that’s Occupy Wall Street Buzzwords.
February 25th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
This is why Romney’s not getting any traction. People agree with his proposed policies, but don’t agree with his reasons for his policies. Voters want politicians who rationalize like them.
February 25th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
I thought that’s what everyone in this country wanted when Gingrich, Perry or Santorum goes after Wall Street. Too funny. You now have a “Wall Street” guy saying the one percent should continue to pay their share. Oh how beautifully the circle of hypocrisy among conservatives turns.
February 25th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Adam, don’t leave out the 20% INCOME TAX RATE REDUCTION ACROSS THE BOARD, which INCLUDES THE RICH.
February 25th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
MassCon.5
That doesn’t fit Adam’s narrative.
February 25th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Wow Adam, thte Michigan and Arizona polling really got your Satorum-loving pantys in a wad, huh? Tuesdays gonna really sting for you…
February 25th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
5. I thought that immediately upon reading this.
February 25th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Is the title of this post a little dramatic?
February 25th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Romney sounds more and more like Reagan everyday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAgOOLs3ie0
February 25th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Romney’s campaign is about restoring the economy, eliminating the debt, strengthening the military, and bringing back the American dream to the Middle Class.
In order to achieve the first, he has to do a lot for the upper class, such as do away with the death tax and the repatriation tax…..and remember that lowering their tax brackets by 20% is quite a drop. Also, they should benefit more than most by the higher-growth economy.
He probably would have dropped the Capital gains tax for everyone, not just those above $200K, except that would have meant lowering his own taxes.
This will all factor, probably in a 2nd Term, into far more tax reform….the first order of business is cutting spending and eliminating deficits.
February 25th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Boomer,
Liked the Reagan clip!
February 25th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Geez guys, you have to admit Romney has adopted some of the 99 vs 1% rhetoric.
He talks about voters in classes – very poor, middle class or 95%, and the 1%.
Adam isn’t the first and won’t be the last to point this out. Santorum has added
it to his stump speech.
There are two problems. One, he is essentially agreeing to fight on Obama’s terms.
Two, the rhetoric does not match his policies (which they shouldn’t if he is running
as a conservative).
February 25th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
10 – this is key! He’s making across the board tax cuts (like Reagan), not favoring the wealthy (like Reagan), and keeping good deductions for middle income families (like Reagan).
What is wrong with the ABR’s lately?
Oh, I forgot. Romney is doing well, so they’re going to get their panties in a wad.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Adam takes his quotes straight from Santorum’s talking points. Kudos, Adam! Kudos! Way to not do any research and blindly regurgitate soundbytes. You’ve made modern journalism VERY proud.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
7,
At this point, I’ll be shocked if Romney doesn’t win both Michigan and Arizona.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
13
The 1% rhetoric isn’t exactly false. The 1% do mostly rely on capital gains through stock options in lieu of salary AND they get numerous tax deductions. Anyone who has filled out a 1040 and receives most of their income on salary can tell you the tax code favors the very rich and the very poor right now, and it’s the middle class that gets the shaft at the same time when costs of middle class amenities (education, private health care) skyrocket.
I’m tired of ideology on both sides trumping pragmatic solutions to real problems. It’s about time the middle class gets a break, you know those of us who take a salary, are responsible with our money, don’t have personal lobbyists to lobby for us and put into the system far more than we take out. For the record, I’m also sick of the Democrats who think the only people who work for a living (“working class”) are union workers and teachers and that by helping their union cronies, they are helping the rest of us.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
I think Roms is trying to go out of his way to deflect or preempt the cries of “He only wants tax cuts for the rich!” “He only pays 15% and doesn’t care about the 99%! People, the rhetoric existed long before OWS. DO they own it? Was he using it to attack anyone? NO. I do not think it the best choice of words, but the policy speaks voloumes more. The Reagan clip is particularly relevant. If it shuts a few class warfare mongerers up and gets the job done, good. BTW- Santorum and Gingrich have used similar rhetoric when actually attacking. I suppose it should be expected that grasping at any straw is in order for those who need them…
February 25th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Santorum walked out of that debate wearing his own @$$ as a hat. You’ll have to do better than this, Adam.
Romney’s a pragmatist, and his full program in context is great for what we need right now.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
I have a new theory about why Romney is using this rhetoric. It’s just a theory, but it does explain (at least to me), why he’s not campaigning as a “true conservative”.
In the “old days” the primary campaign was about firing up your base, the 40% of your party that make up the electorate. And nobody cared except those in attendance. You could say things to the base you can’t say to the general electorate. It didn’t used to matter what you said along the primary campaign trail. Except the party faithful, the hardcore, it didn’t matter.
In today’s everyone-has-a-video-camera-and-twitter-facebook happy world, you can’t say what you used to just say to the base without it being recorded and then replayed by the opposition. Witness what’s happened to Santorum and his Ave Maria speech. It’ll come back to bite you… not necessarily with the base, but with the percentage of the population upon which the election hangs. It’s the independents, stupid (or, as I prefer, the stupid independents).
Romney has been campaigning for the general throughout the primary. He uses language that makes me cringe (and I’m a Romney supporter). This kind of stuff drives me nuts… but he’s leaving very little ammunition for the Obama attack team to use. He uses the “1%” argument, it dilutes it’s meaning and force. I would prefer he use each opportunity as a teaching moment, but my personal experience of the last few days is that there’s no such thing. People are idiots and do not want to learn. They’re governed by emotion, not reason. Reason doesn’t persuade this crowd. Emotion does.
So, that’s my theory. I think Romney will govern more right than he’s campaigned, especially if he has both the House and Senate (which also means if they go along with “business as usual” it’ll set the GOP back another 40+ years).
That’s my theory…
February 25th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
The tone seems to be needling the Occupy “movement” more than pacifying them.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
17:
That’s nonsense. The tax code doesn’t favor the rich at all. The capital gain tax is a double tax. Romney payed his taxes on his original income. Now he’s paying it on his investments. His actual rate is closer to 50%.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Put up or shut up! That is the message for Santorum and all his supporters. Romney has put up every year by paying in excess of 10% of his income to charities while Santorum gives a measly 2%. Now Romney is upping his commitment to America by being willing to pay more in taxes by losing some charitable deduction on the millions he donates to charity. What is Santorum’s response? Whaaaaaaah!!!! Don’t take away my charitable deduction, that is the only reason I give any money to charities!
Romney is willing to give twice, Santorum is unwilling to pry open his wallet either time. Now which one of these men is the responsible patriot and Christian?
February 25th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
lol Romney is such a liar. This was exactly what Santorum was talking about at the debate. But as usual Romney just lied and said no… that he was going to cut taxes for everyone … now just a few days later he says this. Romney is a freaking lying liberal in disguise who reveals his true liberal self nearly everyday for those that are paying attention. The rest of the mittwits are either just blind or are so desperate to get rid of Obama they don’t care that Romney would be a trainwreck if elected.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
The Debate is being replayed again on CNN right now. I have been watching it trying to objectively see where many pundits had said that Santorum did OK. Trying to keep my mind open.
And I gotta tell ya it is painful to watch Ric.
I cannot understand how anyone could watch that and think Ric could be Pres…Sorry I just can’t see it.. I don’t like Newt but the intellectual rigor is there.. I don’t like Ron Paul, but you know what you are gonna get.no surprises
But Ric…Paaallleeeaaasssee..Not Smart, Not consistent, No Rigor,No experience..I actually find myself feeling bad for him.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
24.
What part of a 20% reduction in every tax rate is too difficult for you to understand?
February 25th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
25
I never felt bad for any of ‘em. Not even Perry when he forgot his 3 departments. I just don’t have any sympathy for people who shouldn’t even be there in the first place, and ought to know it.
What went wrong in Rick’s life when he woke up one morning and said, “You know what? I’m going to run for president, despite losing my own seat by a record margin, after being a failed Statist while in Washington.”
What kind of person to you have to be to go ahead with that?
Someone I don’t feel sorry for.
February 25th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Adam,
I won’t take up any time here discussing Mitt’s new economic package because I already ripped into this Bizzaro politics and Policy in real time….when Mitt first uttered this nonsense when he did this speech in AZ. Santorum and his team was not nimble enough to attack this crap during the debate….but I’m glad he is doing it now.
But what is even more Bizzaro, is Mitt today in MI, is commenting on Santorum having endorsed the only Presidential candidate in the GOP race in 96 (Spector) who was pro-choice. Mitt leaves out the fact that he himself was pro-choice in 1996….but yet he is ripping on a Pro-Life Senator in 1996.
Now that is Bizzaro.
HOLY SMOKE!
February 25th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Interestingly, the debate featured Romney rhetoric opposite of Occupy. I could
not bear to watch the whole thing, but the part of the debate that got a lot of
press was Romney saying Arizona was a model for national immigration policy.
When Jeb Bush the next day said the candidates were being divisive I think that
is in part what he meant.
I realize that candidates run right or left in the primary, but it is not always
possible to walk everything back.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
28
Santorum endorsing Specter was a violation of his own principles for the Washington Insider business as usual team.
Mitt isn’t questioning Santorum’s sincerity on life, he’s questioning his integrity.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
28 – Smack – your’e wrong. Mitt was NEVER pro-choice; always pro-life personally. Decided that he should legislate pro-choice since that’s how the people in Mass had voted. Once he got the first piece of legislation across his desk, he could NOT sign it as pro-choice, against his own personal pro-life views. Vetoed it, and has lesiglated pro-life ever since. WHEN are you people going to stop with the pro-choice crap???? Are you purposely dense or just trying to stir things up?
February 25th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
28
The difference of course is that Santorum is claiming that he wouldn’t support anything abortian related on pain of death and Lo and Behold we are finding loose strings in his suit of Armour.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
31, 32
Just stick with comment #30
February 25th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
#30:
So what you’re saying is that Romney is pretty clear that he has no integrity or principles which makes him supperior.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
This shows a Mitt that wants to be on both sides of the issue at the same time. He can point to the 20% reduction to one side and the fact that he is capping deductions for the 1%.
What amazes me is that when you quote Romney, it is amazing how many Romney people will tell you that he didn’t say that.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
The 1% should pay their fair share!
February 25th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
34
No, what I’m saying is that Romney had a conversion to the pro-life cause, but Specter did not.
Santorum was pro-life at the time, and he endorsed a pro-choicer for PRESIDENT.
I faulted Rick Perry for endorsing Rudy in 2008, and I fault Santorum for endorsing Specter in 1996.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
34
Santorum endorsed someone for PRESIDENT who was totally against his principles, for the benefit of his “team.”
Not exactly principled behavior, and certainly something I don’t want in the White House.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
22 Thomas Alan
Capital gains ain’t much of a double tax when you make a $1 salary and all your income comes from stock options. I get your point, but it’s not reality for non-retail investors.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
/the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more./
Well this is what Bush tax cuts did, the top 1% pays larger share of the total tax burden, the tax cuts made the tax code more progressive but less redistributive.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
28.
Not so bizarre, Smack.
Mitt is just pointing out Rick’s hypocrisy. Rick’s been going around saying Rick is the only consistent conservative; the only one who always stands by his principles.
Mitt shining a light on Rick’s support of Specter just smashes Rick’s illusion. I love it.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Romney voting for Tsongas and giving birth to Romneycare are far worse.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
42. TBT, I disagree. Romney’s vote for Tsongas was solely to benefit the Republican candidate. It was a vote for the weaker democrat to help the Republican win.
And, we’ve discussed MassCare, here, exhaustively. Bottom line is it was good for the state, better than what they would have gotten, and has nothing to do with what Mitt will do to Obamacare.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
This is encouraging. Romney will have to try to win working class whites as those minorities and college graduates supporting Obama are likely out of reach.
Romney will need to adopt populist rhetoric and a populist VP if he wants to win in this climate.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
“Adam takes his quotes straight from Santorum’s talking points” No, they come out of Mr. Romney’s own mouth.
“And, we’ve discussed MassCare, here, exhaustively.” It is still bad.
“and has nothing to do with what Mitt will do to Obamacare.” Really?
February 25th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
SANTORUM,, Going DOWN, Its time to end the insanity, Romney #45,,, GO MITT…
February 25th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
41 – a-freakin’-men
The ABR’s and the 3-5 actual Santorum supporters won’t recognize this, but Santorum’s WHOLE pitch was the “consistent, pure conservative.” Romney HAD to vet him because NOBODY else would. The MSM only wanted to point out his extreme social views. But the conservative media, which has tried to skewer Mitt repeatedly, wouldn’t do it. They GLOSSED OVER his record, his flip-flops, his G.W. BUSH “TEAM PLAYER” bull crap that spawned the Tea Party, and his ridiculous support of Title 10/planned parenthood/sotomayor…
what I’m getting at is, if he’s NOT the consistent conservative he says he is, WHAT is his pitch/angle? 0% manufacturing tax? STUPID idea (aside from government once again intervening and favoring a company/market, how do you determine “manfuacturing”? HUGE increase in tax code; but I digress). EXTREME anti-contraception. Suicide.
Mitt did the party a favor. It was starting to dream of Santorum as something he wasn’t. It will end up marrying Mitt and falling in love with him, especially after he slays the dragon.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
47
This whole idea of 0% tax for manufacturers is Santorum’s way of boltering the middle class and helping the formation of families. Very strange policies. Rather than just implementing pro-growth policies that will bolster the entire private sector, he favors an industry which interrupts the natural flow of supply and demand.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Newt’s reason for running was (1) He’d done a wonderful job in 1994 (2) Has brilliant “solutions” and (3) Is the best debater on the planet and the only one who could debate Obama and win. Paul and Mitt took those “reasons” apart. Mitt’s reason for running is he’s been successful in the business world. Newt tried to take out that “reason” with his stupid, lying Bain Capital video, which back fired and left Mitt with his “reason” in tact.
Santorum’s reason for running is he’s a true, blue movement conservative, full of integrity and courage to do the right thing. Mitt with some help from Paul took that “reason” away from Santorum.
Mitt is the only one with his reason for running left intact. In fact, the hew and cry from Republicans to get Mitt to release his tax records only went prove just how successful Romney has been. And how generous he’s been.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oPhlVm3HIo Ronald Reagan. Tody he couldn’t get elected because of purists/perfectionists/etc.
But what a great job he did…….not perfect, but who is everyone quoting/talking about?!?!
February 25th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Here is Reagan without Obama spliced in. What Romney’s plan has is no different then Reagan. He says “fair share” about millionaires several times in this. I honestly doubt todays ‘conservatives’ would ever elect Reagan after how I see them treat Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XUAk-PVJ0
February 25th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Deducting charitable contributions hasn’t been incentive enough for K-street milllionaire Santorum to up his giving. Makes his resentment and lack of gratitude for being offered a 20% tax cut harder to understand.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
$6,000 – the amount of tax on charitable contributions Rick can no longer deduct from his taxes.
$65K – the amount of tax cut from Rick’s yearly income tax on his K-street income with a 20% cut.
I’m trying, but the tears just won’t come.
(And closing loopholes doesn’t look like it will bridge the gap in lost revenue to the government either. Phooey on everybody.)
February 26th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Typical spin. Way to leave out the across the board 20% tax reduction, even for the top 1%. I doubt we’ll hear the top 1% complaining that they can’t make certain deductions while running to the bank with the 20% saved. Ridiculous argument.
February 26th, 2012 at 10:45 am
Pathetic post.
February 26th, 2012 at 11:13 am
We all need to remember the brouhaha Romney got in for saying he didn’t care about the poor. Now here Adam is attempting to say Romney really hates the rich.
So which is it?