Mitt and Ann Romney were the only guests on Fox News Sunday today. During a mostly lapdog interview, Wallace asked a few tough questions, including about those infamous “47%” remarks – which Romney said he regretted. And yet he did not apologize to anyone he may have offended. Even more telling, when asked about his remarks, shortly after the campaign, that President Obama won because he gave away “free stuff” to his “base coalition,” Romney replied, “ObamaCare was very attractive, particularly to those without health insurance.” Oh, and Romney also suggested he didn’t mean it when he said he’d turn down $10 in spending cuts if they included $1 in tax hikes
In Part One, Ann Romney said about losing the election:
It was a crushing disappointment. Not for us. Our lives are going to be fine. It’s for the country.
…The dream was to make a difference. The dream was to serve.
And yet there was a certain lack of “service mentality” in Mitt Romney's reflection on the “47%” comments.
Wallace played the video in which Romney was caught saying, “There are 47 percent who are with him (Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them.” Then came the following exchange, as per the Fox News transcript:
WALLACE: George Will said you’ve got a problem when voters don’t like you. You’ve got a real problem when voters think you don’t like them.
MITT ROMNEY: Yes, it was a very unfortunate statement that I made. It’s not what I meant. I didn’t express myself as I wished I would have.
You know, when you speak in private, you don’t spend as much time thinking about how something could be twisted and distorted and—and it could come out wrong and be used.
But, you know, I did. And it was very harmful. What I said is not what I believe. Obviously, my whole campaign—my whole life has been devoted to helping people, all of the people. I care about all the people of the country.
Here's what troubles me: Romney said it was “not what I meant,” it was “unfortunate” and “harmful” (I believe he meant “harmful” to his campaign). It was all about him. He never said he was sorry or anything to suggest he actually likes those voters he insulted. He “care(s) about all the people” and has been “devoted to helping” “all of the people” but it smacks of the same kind of imperiousness, merely cloaked in kinder, gentler words. Romney never said anything about how people less fortunate inspire him, move him or even matter other than as a group to “help.”
That impression was further validated during another exchange about Romney’s “free stuff” remarks after he lost the election.
MITT ROMNEY: It’s a proven political strategy which is, you have a bunch of money from the government to a group and, guess what, they’ll vote for you.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
WALLACE: To some people, it sounded like the remark you made in your campaign about 47 percent of Americans looking for handouts.
MITT ROMNEY: The president had the power of incumbency. ObamaCare was very attractive, particularly to those without health insurance. And they came out in large numbers to vote. So that was part of a successful campaign.
In another exchange, Romney discussed the lengthy Republican primary and some of the “silly” questions “that end up hurting you in the general.” He cited the question in which the panel was asked if they would accept a $1 tax increase for every $10 in spending cuts.
WALLACE: But now, that’s a good question. Why not be the one who stands up there, raises your hand and said, of course, if it was 10 for one, I’d do it?
MITT ROMNEY: Again, because if you’ve said that you’re not going to raise taxes, then they’d say Romney’s changed his position. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes, now he’s saying he will. He’s changed his position.
This is –
WALLACE: But you would have accepted $10 in spending cuts—
MITT ROMNEY: Well—
WALLACE: -- for $1 in revenue.
MITT ROMNEY: Yes, that’s—that’s a fairy tale, because no one is going to give you $10 in spending cuts for $1 in revenue increase. You’ve got to—if you’re going into a negotiation, you’ve got to stand for your position, know they’re going to stand for theirs and then recognize that there’s going to be some compromise.
In other words, yes he would have accepted that deal but didn't because he figured it would have been politically harmful to say so at the time.
Mitt Romney: same as he ever was.
If I were POTUS now I’d stand by my convictions, or whatever plays well for the moment as telegraphed to me by the good folks who:
a) financed my campaign
b) want to take America back
c) don’t complain about dog-on-the-car-roof
d) agreed with Ann that “It’s our turn now”
I’m a very convicted guy!
In our gold-plated toilet seat world you can bet we serve!
Hey — it was attractive enough to a former Massachusetts governor that he adopted a form of it that became the basis for “Obamacare.”
What was that guy’s name . . .
.
Apparently what he saw and heard on Faux Snoooze 24/7 that it was a done deal, he would win the election is what he believed. That goes double for the gullible viewers of Faux Snoooze who smelled, ate and swallowed their b.s.. It’s very apparent they haven’t recovered and continue to choke on their own vomit.
The charity sounds good, but all he’ll do is lend his name to the origination to draw money and positive attention for himself, while not doing a thing, as it sounds like your typical public relations bs con game. Eventually both the charity and Mitt will fade into oblivion in the same way that Michael Dukakis did after his defeat in 1988.
Having a company that contributes to its local community and pays people enough to live well and also contribute to the economy is a service to the country, but it is mainly a service to oneself. No company can run without employees. And it pays to treat them well.
The thing is I don’t think the Romneys’ even did this much ‘service’ after ’08.
Not much from that interview was very newsworthy. Most of it was easily predictable. The comment from Ann that she has no problems blaming the media for the defeat shows she completely ignores the fact that Fox, right wing talk radio and blogs spent the last four years doing everything they could do to demonize the President and convince the majority to vote Republican, failed.
Thank goodness a majority of American voters are not as gullible as MagicUndewear Mitt and Queen Ann think they are.
Pssst, Mittens, I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford healthcare insurance – yet I voted for Obama and am in favor of Obamacare and so did millions of others just like me who don’t see ourselves as “victims” and who are not getting “free stuff”. You lost because the folks didn’t like your policies, your lying and didn’t like you. Quit whining and deal with it.
I rather like what Charles Johnson at LGF said…
“OK, all sarcasm aside — can you believe these spoiled whiny multi-millionaires? They lost the election because the American people saw through the pandering to the true Mitt Romney: the rich elitist snob who held them in contempt, and would blatantly lie in his quest for power. With every ungracious word out of their mouths, the Romneys just confirm that this impression was dead on.”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41692_Mitt_Romney-_It_Kills_Me_Not_to_Be_in_the_White_House
He couldn’t care less about the plan; what looks so attractive to him is his cut of the pie post-presidency if he ever gets it.
See also: His idea of attractive foreign policy.
It was a crushing disappointment. Not for us. Our lives are going to be fine. It’s for the country.
…The dream was to make a difference. The dream was to serve."
Someone should point out to Queen Ann that there are MANY ways to “serve.” Former President Carter built houses for Habitat for Humanity. Former President Clinton started the Clinton Foundation to promote a variety of humanitarian causes. Former VP Gore promotes environmental causes and helps educate on climate change. Former Congressman Joe Kennedy helps get free heating oil to needy customers in more than a dozen states.
But the Romneys? What have they done “to serve” since Mittens left the Massachusetts’ governorship? Nothing. Mittens spent all that time running for the White House. When he didn’t get the GOP nomination in 2008, he went right back to prepping for 2012. And Ann, specifically? Well, “Your Majesty,” raising a horse for the Olympics don’t count as “service.” That, “Your Majesty,” is a vanity ploy.
