For Obama, Romney Is The Gift That Keeps On Giving While Gingrich Is Just Plain Old Racist
For the Obama re-election campaign, Mitt Romney is the gift that keeps on giving. At least so far.
Never mind that the former Massachusetts governor is supposed to be the un-Obama, a man who has the expertise to turn around the economy by creating jobs while reducing the federal budget deficit.
Today, three days before the South Carolina primary, which will validate Romney as the Republican presidential nominee, he is under withering attack from his presidential wannabe opponents, the effects of which accrue to a delighted Obama re-election campaign, because not only has he gotten filthy rich on the backs of middle-class Americans whose businesses he pillaged for obscenely high profits, but has now confirmed that he is a card-carrying member of the top tier of the 1 Percenters.
Let’s be clear about a couple three things before we motor on: Romney had every right to get filthy rich. That, after all, is a part of the American Dream. But Romney got filthy rich by destroying the lives of ordinary working stiffs who labored to produce quality American goods. As a result he is worth an estimated quarter of a billion dollars and because of a gaping private-equity loophole, he pays taxes at about a 15 percent rate, far lower than you and I and the workers whose lives he destroyed, and his sense of wealth seems distorted to the point that he claimed yesterday that the $360,000 he made last year giving speeches is “not very much.”
Romney’s responses to the twin crises of Bain Capital exposes and now his income taxes have further revealed him to be unfeeling and perhaps inept when not ensconced in a corporation chief executive’s office.
I cannot find a single occasion on which he has expressed regret for what he did — or might claim he had to do — at Bain, while his campaign’s attempts at damage control have been bumbling and reminiscent of Herman Cain laughable efforts to deal with sexual harassment allegations. For example, Romney’s campaign refuses to clarify whether the 15 percent he referred to represents his overall tax burden or simply his federal income taxes.
One reason that Romney has been reluctant to go public on his taxes is that much of his fortune is invested in dozens of funds linked to Bain and several Bain funds have offshore connections in order to take advantage of tax breaks used only by the U.S. financial elite. (President Obama reported paying an effective federal tax rate of 26 percent on his 2010 family income.)
Meanwhile, Romney has bobbed and weaved on whether he favors removing the private-equity loophole, most recently saying that he wants to eliminate the tax just for families earning less than $200,000 a year–presumably preserving the 15 percent tax on wealthy earners like himself. (By contrast, President Obama has long campaigned for closing the loophole entirely, something that is anathema to coddle-the-rich Republicans in Congress.)
Typical was Romney’s response last night at the presidential debate in South Carolina when asked by moderators as to whether he would release his tax returns:
“I hadn’t planned on releasing tax records, because the law requires us to release all of our assets, all the things we own. That I have already released. It’s a pretty full disclosure,” he said. “But, you know, if that’s been the tradition, and I’m not opposed to doing that, time will tell. But I anticipate that most likely I am going to get asked to do that around the April time period, and I’ll keep that open.”
The guy doesn’t exactly sound presidential, eh? And incidentally, it was Romney’s father who in 1968 set the precedent of releasing returns that every major presidential candidate has since followed.
Meanwhile, the cheapening of the Republican brand continues apace in South Carolina with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum playing dog whistle duets that not so subtly riff on Barack Obama’s blackness.
Gingrich’s comments linking the president to the increase in food stamp use are particularly execrable.
Yet again claiming that Obama is “the greatest food-stamp president in American history,” he bloviated during the presidential debate that “The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” (Wild cheering.) “I know among the politically correct, you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.” (More wild cheering.)
What Gingrich conveniently overlooks is that Obama didn’t put a single person on food stamps. People apply for food stamps and have been doing so in increasing numbers since the Bush Recession began in 2007. And for the record, non-Hispanic whites — surely some of them Gingrich’s own constituents or members of their extended families — far outnumber blacks receiving food stamps.
15 Responses to “For Obama, Romney Is The Gift That Keeps On Giving While Gingrich Is Just Plain Old Racist”
Given who this man is turning out to be, it’s quite amazing to me that he has any support at all in his bid to become POTUS. But then most of his republican rivals are as bad or worse. What happened to the GOP? Such a festering mess..
z
He has support from Todd Palin and sort of, kind of, somewhat from Sarah P.
Still amazed?
If “non-Hispanic whites … far outnumber blacks receiving food stamps”, then: is it fair to allege that Gingrich’ food stamp comments were a reference to African Americans? Does the evidenced strongly support that allegation? Isn’t it equally arguable (or more arguable) that conservatives believe that increased numbers of human beings (of all races) on food stamps equates to a bad thing?
If we do not understand both sides, are we moderates or extremists?
desert moderate: CBS and other outlets reported Thursday that Gingrich said that if were invited to speak to the NAACP, he would tell the civil rights group “why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.” ( quoted from another website. )
ETA: by the way, his response to the criticism of this statement was perhaps even worse. You could look it up, since you seem to have an internet connection functioning.
desert moderate:
Roro is correct. There is no ambiguity in Gingrich’s statements about food stamps. He knows exactly what he is doing in directing the statements squarely at whites.
roro80, are you saying the blogpost (if it wanted to argue that Gingrich made a racist statement) ought have referenced Gingrich’ statement of Jan 6 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57353438-503544/gingrich-singles-out-blacks-in-food-stamp-remark/), as opposed to referencing Gingrich’ statement of Jan 16? Are you conceding the Jan 16 Gingrich statement was primarily referencing an American economic problem(as opposed to an African American problem)?
Dave Weigel originally tweeted Gingrich’ Jan 6 statement. Weigel argues (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/01/06/newt_gingrich_and_the_naacp.html) that Gingrich Jan 6 statement was taken out of context, and was intended in this way: I have a good idea. It is such a universal idea that I will happily take it directly to African American voters.
I cannot read Gingrich’ mind. If you want to argue that Gingrich made a racist remark: have at it. I am not interested in that argument: I find it boring.
I am saying: the blogpost was illogical, and, if you are going to effectively argue that Gingrich made a racist remark, you ought first understand the argument as to why Gingrich’ statement was not racist. You can do so, as you seem to have an internet connection functioning.
If we do not understand both sides: are we moderates or extremists?
shaun mullen, There is no ambiguity, except for Slate’s Dave Weigel, who was on the scene on Jan 6, and who was the first to tweet Gingrich’ Jan 6 comments? So, except for THAT GUY, there is no ambiguity?
If we do not understand both sides: are we moderates or extremists?
“Roro is correct. There is no ambiguity in Gingrich’s statements about food stamps. He knows exactly what he is doing in directing the statements squarely at whites.”
Bingo. This ain’t rocket science. The need to “understand both sides” doesn’t also require us to abandon all common sense.
Shaun said: “because not only has he gotten filthy rich on the backs of middle-class Americans whose businesses he pillaged for obscenely high profits,”
Great, Shaun, if he doesn’t have enough money to afford a soapy back then he should get on more backs, some of which as was exposed got raises when Bain took over their business.
The Leni Reifenstal mockumentary has now been lambaste as much as your article headlines; even Obama can’t recycle that turkey.
SM also said: “he pays taxes at about a 15 percent rate, far lower than you and I”
Well, I just got a 1099-DIv on a conservative GNMA fund that I use to pay my bills, and lo and behold I am paying 15% on dividends. I agree that the “loop hole” should be tightened or eliminated for some money/venture/hedge, etc, type entities, but don’t lets throw the baby out with the bath water, without private capital we would be a third world country.
Other than the above counter points and a few other exaggerations and mis-characterizations, the article was great.
Only illogical if you haven’t paid attention to anything Gingrich has said in the last couple of weeks, desert. If this particular blogpost existed in some sort of bubble where the rest of the world didn’t exist, I could agree with you. However, Gingrich has mentioned food stamps in particular connection with the African American community so many times within this very young year that one would have to just be entirely uninformed on the subject to draw the conclusions that you did.
If you are, in fact, uninformed on the subject, that’s no crime (come! learn! grow the knowledge!), but maybe it’s not such a good idea to accuse those who have been paying attention of bad faith, eh?
“If we do not understand both sides: are we moderates or extremists?”
If we tie ourselves into knots to put mistruths on the same level as facts, we are liars.
If you find the subject of racism boring, that’s fine. Let the rest of us, many of whom find the subject important and even fascinating, hash it out.
@DM
The Newter is blowing the Lee Atwater dog whistle. To take up your side, why doesn’t he go into rural SC and address the “crackers” on welfare driving Condillac’s to pick up their welfare cheese and steaks…
D.M.: They don’t want to look at it, more than that they are blind or can’t “process” what they are seeing in any rational way.
[...] Will Republicans wait till April to see Romney's tax returns?Washington Post (blog)The Moderate Voice -Family Security Matters -Huffington Postall 3,873 news [...]
[...] League of Ordinary GentlemenNewt on FireTIME (blog)Tucson Citizen -The American Prospect -The Moderate Voiceall 484 news [...]