Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan took a victory lap on the Hannity show tonight. Well into the interview, Hannity brought up Romney’s 47% video. “What would you have said if (President Obama) did bring it up?” Hannity asked. I’ve got to think Hannity knew that Romney wanted to address the matter. Otherwise, it’s way out of character for him to bring up something detrimental to his candidate at a time like this. Sure enough, it was time for some Romney Rehab - but in the form of a flip-flop. Suddenly, Romney is a man of the 100%.
Hannity raised the issue at about 7:19 into the video below, which is Part 2 of the interview. Romney responded:
Clearly in a campaign with hundreds, if not thousands, of speeches and question and answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right. In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong. And I absolutely believe however that my life has shown that I care about 100%. And that’s been demonstrated throughout my life. And this whole campaign is about the 100%. When I become president, it will be about helping the 100%.
As I pointed out last night in the debate, the rich in this country are actually doing better under President Obama. The gap between the rich and the poor has gotten larger. The rich will probably do fine, even if he’s re-elected. It’s the middle class that’s in real trouble if President Obama’s re-elected. And the poor. I want the poor to get into the middle class… So this for me is all about the 100%.
This is quite a departure from Romney’s previous stance on his 47% comments. Last month, in a hastily-called press conference, he was unapologetic:
Well, you know, it’s not elegantly stated, let me put it that way. I’m speaking off the cuff in response to a question and I’m sure I could state it more clearly in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that. And so I’m sure I’ll point that out as time goes on… But it’s a message which I’m going to carry and continue to carry which is look. The president’s approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes because, frankly, my discussion about lowering taxes isn’t as attractive to them and therefore I’m not likely to draw them into my campaign as effectively to those in the middle.
Hannity pretended he didn’t notice this latest flip-flop from Romney.
That’s why I find it so perplexing when Fox attacks the mainstream media for bias. CNN, for example, is pretty much on the same page as Fox, but other sources outside the USA (BBC, France24, RAI24, AlJazeera/English and even SkyItalia which is owned by NewsCorp) are often on entirely different pages with respect both to Fox and CNN. And those outside sources often concur.
On the subject of those jobs numbers: the data collection method does seem to be more “rule of thumb” than scientific, but it’s been accepted by all for such a long time that it’s silly to contest it now. Using the same method also makes it possible to define trends (I think that may be the main reason for not changing methods). I remember someone on this blog saying that the first numbers are subject to fine-tuning as more information comes in, hence their variability is actually part of the procedure. Everybody knows that so it shouldn’t be a problem.
What never changes, however, is the propensity of human beings to contest any findings perceived as “unacceptable”. Bearing in mind their skepticism about the polls when the latter showed President Obama in the lead, I eagerly await the foxy reaction to the post-debate polls. Never a dull moment on Fox.