Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever

[Andre]

With even a superficial look at history prior the 1990s does the idea that Reagan and Thatcher were the first seem even remotely valid? Does Hoover's "http://hoover.archives.gov/info/faq.html#chicken not count in 1928 as an appeal to people's desires?

How about Juvenals analysis of Ceasar? http://www.capitolium.org/eng/imperatori/circenses.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How about Juvenals analysis of Ceasar? http://www.capitolium.org/eng/imperatori/circenses.html

Noel.

 

[mheslep]

How about Juvenals analysis of Ceasar? http://www.capitolium.org/eng/imperatori/circenses.html

Bread and Circus! Should have been my go-to. Thanks Andre.

...Caesar organized these games by borrowing a lot of money that was in turn well invested into propoganda earning him important positions in office. Consequently, these postions enabled him to pay back every cent that he had borrowed. ... The people were grateful to him and showered him with honor and positions in large quantities. .

...10,000 men battled against 3,500 wild animals from Africa. Also, in 107 A.D., Trajan, on occasion of the victory against the Dacians, organized battles of over 10,000 gladiators that lasted 123 festival days and in which 11,000 wild animals were killed.

What have Madison Ave or political handlers ever had to surpass that show. If some candidate (or car/beer/smartphone company) starts talking about 123 festival days before an election ( or product release) then maybe we have something similar.

 

[Pythagorean]

I was referring to the combination of focus groups with psychoanalysis (as I explicitly said in my post). You bring up the former, though the modern version of focus groups were actually invented by Robert K. Merton. Of course some version of it existed in the past, but that's hair-splitting.

Bernays' uncle, Sigmund Freud, introduced the latter (psychoanalysis) and it was Bernays, using his uncle's insights before his uncle was ever talked about in academic circles, that implemented into the already existent field of crowd control theory. And yes, even Coolidge was a client of Bernays' long before Thatcher and Reagan (the "pancake breakfast"), but Curtis was referring to the magnitude to which the whole platform depended on what people wanted to hear for Thatcher and Reagan, not just advising into the presidents private image or help cleaning up a mess, but a whole party's new direction. Same with Clinton and Blair when they followed suit. FDR is said to have turned down Bernays' tactics in favor of the more objective Gallup polls (to which Bernays responded by turning to big business instead).

Bernays was referred to in his obituary as the father of public relations:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/08/16/specials/bernays-obit.html?_r=1

He's also the one that popularized Sigmund Freud (his uncle's book sales were hurting without the help of Bernay's public relations) and ignited the revolution of psycho analysis and focus groups in the US.

Anyway, regardless of the history, the point is that Reagan was telling people what they wanted to hear.

 

[Astronuc]

Romney's wife Ann's plane had to make an emergency landing Friday (Sept. 21) because of an electrical malfunction. Discussing the incident at a fundraiser the next day, he said: "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no — and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous."

http://news.yahoo.com/why-plane-windows-dont-roll-down-romney-221323006.html

 

[AlephZero]

"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no — and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous."

But if you opened the windows, you would let more oxygen into the plane and make the fire worse

 

[Galteeth]

That's taking the quote out of context -- and admittedly it was badly put: Romney was answering a question on tax policy, so all he really intended was to say that you can't win over a person on taxes if they already don't pay taxes (it is in the last couple of sentences in the quote). As I said previously, he's missing that people think they have a chance to move up, but otherwise, it isn't far from the mark.

This also assumes that just because people don't pay the federal income tax, they automatically support it. I don't pay any federal income tax, but I am opposed to it.

 

[Evo]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-plane-windows-dont-roll-down-romney-221323006.html

But if you opened the windows, you would let more oxygen into the plane and make the fire worse

That one was SOOOO bad, I had to check it to make sure it wasn't a hoax meant to make Romney look like a moron. Nope, no hoax.

Then his wife Ann, complaining about the hardships (from fellow Republicans, no less) she and her hubby are enduring in order to campaign.

Ann Romney to Republican critics of Mitt: ‘Stop it. This is hard.’

Ann Romney is firing back at Republican critics of her husband's campaign, snapping in a radio interview: "Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...itt-stop-hard-article-1.1164698#ixzz27YD98KjP

 

[mheslep]

Of course, I disagree. It was Reagan who said, "It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. ... We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, not reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?"

I really miss Pres. Reagan.

Yes from Reagan's 1st Inaugural. I contend the GOP should simply select that entire speech as its permanent platform, done, end of story.

Reagan also had his problems with appearing dismissive, as it was Reagan apparently that conjured up the http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-19/news/sns-201209181430--tms--poltodayctnyq-a20120919-20120919_1_mitt-romney-marc-leder-personal-responsibility. Romney would do well to follow those fund raiser comments with the tone of Reagan's inaugural.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I contend the GOP should simply select that entire speech as its permanent platform, done, end of story.
...
Romney would do well to follow those fund raiser comments with the tone of Reagan's inaugural.

Agreed!

 

[mheslep]

Agreed!

K, you run and I'll manage your campaign, at least until you fire me for an obsessive need to quote Reagan. M. Eng in 2016.

 

[SixNein]

Mr Romney is quite wrong, as it happens, about who those not paying income tax are, who those receiving “entitlements” are, and about how they all vote. Over half of those he condemned have jobs, and pay payroll taxes, but earn too little to be subject to income tax as well. Another 20% are retired. Only 8% of households pay no federal tax at all, usually because their members are students, disabled or unemployed. The biggest share of government benefits, meanwhile, goes to the elderly, in the form of Medicare and Social Security. (If you count tax breaks for mortgages and health insurance as government hand-outs, the rich are big spongers.) Only 13% of households receive food stamps, and only 5% benefit from public housing.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563343

 

[russ_watters]

The economist is misrepresenting Romney's statement and so what they say is factually wrong. As bad as Romney's statement was for the extension (these are the people who won't vote for me), I've seen lots and lots of media reports misrepresent it in the same way. Why do that if it is so bad on its own? To me, this is a benchmark issue for liberal media bias. They are inaccurately attacking the correct part of Romney's statement because of the political punch it has. I don't suppose they devoted the same space to attacking Obama's intentionally cherry-picked jobs claim, did they?

 

[BobG]

No, he shouldn't have.

1. These were Republican donors.
2. Donors pay big money for private dinners to hear candid answers, not fluffy drivel.

Romney's not the only politician that hasn't fully encompassed new technology (George Allen comes to mind), but is it actually possible today for a politician to talk solely to a small group of people? A candidate should assume that anything they say in any sort of public or semi-public environment is going to be presented to the entire public.

There is no such thing anymore as a private dinner for donors (and, to be honest, providing the "secret" scoop to donors while saying something completely different to the general populace probably decreases a candidate's credibility even among donors).

But that's a common problem for all politicians; not just Romney.

 

[SixNein]

The economist is misrepresenting Romney's statement and so what they say is factually wrong. As bad as Romney's statement was for the extension (these are the people who won't vote for me), I've seen lots and lots of media reports misrepresent it in the same way. Why do that if it is so bad on its own? To me, this is a benchmark issue for liberal media bias. They are inaccurately attacking the correct part of Romney's statement because of the political punch it has. I don't suppose they devoted the same space to attacking Obama's intentionally cherry-picked jobs claim, did they?

Care to source the facts?

 

[russ_watters]

Care to source the facts?

You misunderstand: the facts are contained in the quote. What The Economist did wrong is to say that Romney was wrong, then list a bunch of facts as if to imply he made wrong claims about them. It implies that Romney claimed that all of the 47% are on food stamps, for example. But he didn't do that.

 

[SixNein]

You misunderstand: the facts are contained in the quote. What The Economist did wrong is to say that Romney was wrong, then list a bunch of facts as if to imply he made wrong claims about them. It implies that Romney claimed that all of the 47% are on food stamps, for example. But he didn't do that.

All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement.

You don't think the above quote was a generalization of the 47 percent?

 

[russ_watters]

You don't think the above quote was a generalization of the 47 percent?

It is a generalization about what they "believe they are entitled to". He didn't say that 47% are on food stamps, he said that 47% believe the government has a responsibility to provide them.

The only thing in that quote from The Economist that they got right is the part about who the 47% vote for. The rest is all [incorrect] claims attributed to Romney that he didn't say.

 

[Evo]

It is a generalization about what they "believe they are entitled to". He didn't say that 47% are on food stamps, he said that 47% believe the government has a responsibility to provide them.

And Romney is making wild assumptions, gross exagerations, basically, he has no clue what these people think as a whole. I seriously doubt that people working part time and not making enough to pay Federal Income Tax feel entitled to anything, much less even think about it, just as one example of millions of workers in that 47%.

 

[russ_watters]

Romney's not the only politician that hasn't fully encompassed new technology (George Allen comes to mind), but is it actually possible today for a politician to talk solely to a small group of people?

Yes, of course it is. The defining feature of "a small group of people" is security, and that's where Romney (his staff) failed here. But this is one of hundreds of similar appearances Romney (and Obama) made that was supposed to be behind closed doors, in front of a friendly crowd. All the rest apparently were, but this one wasn't.

Certainly, they must always weigh the risk that there might be an infiltrator in the meeting, but I don't think the risk is really all that high, given the high pricetag for attending.

A candidate should assume that anything they say in any sort of public or semi-public environment is going to be presented to the entire public. There is no such thing anymore as a private dinner for donors...

That's certainly safe, but I don't think it is reasonable or realistic. It applies even more to open-mic gaffes, but there have been a lot more failures on that front: if there is a mic in front of you, assume it is on. Most politicians, including Obama, have violated that thumb rule.

(and, to be honest, providing the "secret" scoop to donors while saying something completely different to the general populace probably decreases a candidate's credibility even among donors).

Giving a different tone/spin/message to different audiences is a critical social skill and reality of life for everyone, not just politicians. Do you not talk and act differently in front of your family and friends than you do at work? Obama's Russia gaffe was a similar issue: if he hadn't had an open mic in front of him, the statement would have been fine, but it was a statement made for a specific audience that wasn't appropriate for broader audiences.

And of course donors want "the secret scoop"! Why else are they there? This question/answer in particular was exactly the kind of thing I would expect: frank discussion of the strategy behind the public face of the campaign, not just the mindless talking points the public gets. Politicians are in a position when running for office that all but forces them to talk out of both sides of their face. They all do it. But a high rolling donor is going to want the clear truth.

Consider how Obama might have had to deal with a question on gay marriage in 2008, in a high roller donor meeting. In a room full of liberals, he can't say he's against gay marriage, particularly if he really isn't. He'd have to tell them the truth if he wants their money, which, as I understand it, was that he was against it because he felt he had to compromise his principles on that issue to get elected. Romney would probably say something similar regarding his healthcare stance from his governorship. High roller donors aren't idiots: they know how political campaigns work -- they're neck deep in them!

 

[Pythagorean]

And of course donors want "the secret scoop"! Why else are they there?

Err.. what about just getting behind a candidate they believe in their mission and appreciating that their values aren't audience dependent?

 

[russ_watters]

And Romney is making wild assumptions, gross exagerations, basically, he has no clue what these people think as a whole.

That is partly true, but it isn't [all] what The Economist said. The part that isn't true is that he has "no clue". Skip to the bottom of the post for why.

I seriously doubt that people working part time and not making enough to pay Federal Income Tax feel entitled to anything, much less even think about it, just as one example of millions of workers in that 47%.

Well that's a pretty broad generalization too, Evo and one that doesn't make a lot of sense. It stands to reason that people who are more in need are going to feel stronger in favor of receiving the kinds of subsidies Romney was talking about. That is, of course, the entire point of the class warfare issue here: If people didn't care about getting government handouts, they wouldn't be anti-Romney based on the perception that he would take them away!

Obamacare is a case in point. Support for Obamacare was highly correlated to income/status: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126959/majority-poor-young-uninsured-back-healthcare-bill.aspx

Romney's error was simple: he took a statistical correlation that is real/true but not absolute and made it absolute.

 

[russ_watters]

Err.. what about just getting behind a candidate they believe in their mission and appreciating that their values aren't audience dependent?

A donor who is not naive -- and I suspect most aren't -- is going to know that the message is audience dependent. And if they really want to maximize the impact of their money, they wouldn't go to the dinner, they'd just send the check and save the candidate the effort/expense of the dinner!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Here are a few statistics.

People who will vote for the president no matter what. - 47%
People who are dependent upon government. - 47%
People who believe that they are victims. - 47%
People who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them - 47%
People who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. -47%
People who pay no income tax -47%

Romney never said that the same 47% are in each group. He was merely pointing out an amazing coincidence. Well, actually, he implied that the same 47% are in each group, so just keep in mind he never actually said it.

I was especially taken by the People who are dependent upon government gag. This is how I understand it. During your life you pay income taxes and social security taxes. Only the social security taxes aren't taxes. They're accounted as if you were paying into a private pension fund. So you only pay income taxes. Then you retire and start collecting your pension. Now you are dependent on government, not accounted as if you were collecting from a private pension. But you are not paying income taxes any more. That's why Romney and I both want to know, what have you done for us lately?

 

[russ_watters]

I was especially taken by the People who are dependent upon government gag. This is how I understand it. During your life you pay income taxes and social security taxes. Only the social security taxes aren't taxes. They're accounted as if you were paying into a private pension fund. So you only pay income taxes. Then you retire and start collecting your pension. Now you are dependent on government, not accounted as if you were collecting from a private pension. But you are not paying income taxes any more. That's why Romney and I both want to know, what have you done for us lately?

A couple of things:

1. The wanting it both ways goes both ways, and you gave it both ways in your post. The statement that those who are retired don't pay federal income tax is what it is. The "what have you done for us lately" is your spin that it is an insult and your way of saying you do want the taxes counted as a contribution, but don't want the benefits counted as a benefit. Don't worry though -- that's not the first time I've heard that in here on this exact issue.

2. If many Republicans had it their way, Social Security would be neither a tax nor a benefit: it would not exist. But since it does exist and is supposed to be like paying into a pension fund, neither the tax nor the benefit should really be counted when talking about "contributions" and "benefits".

3. But either way, you're right that consistency is desirable. The best measure imo would be one of lifetime contributions and benefits, with or without counting Social Security. At least that way, those who are retired wouldn't feel insulted by the statistic and we wouldn't have to worry about people on both sides playing games with the SS component. Unfortunately though, such stats are hard to come by.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

1. The wanting it both ways goes both ways, and you gave it both ways in your post. The statement that those who are retired don't pay federal income tax is what it is. The "what have you done for us lately" is your spin that it is an insult and your way of saying you do want the taxes counted as a contribution, but don't want the benefits counted as a benefit.

You totally misread it. It had nothing to do with the SS tax. I meant that you paid income taxes your whole life right up until your retirement last week. This week you pay no income taxes and forget you.

 

[Evo]

Well that's a pretty broad generalization too, Evo and one that doesn't make a lot of sense.

It makes absolute sense in that it shows the type of flawed thinking Romney is guilty of.

It stands to reason that people who are more in need are going to feel stronger in favor of receiving the kinds of subsidies Romney was talking about. That is, of course, the entire point of the class warfare issue here: If people didn't care about getting government handouts, they wouldn't be anti-Romney based on the perception that he would take them away!

What? The OP is about Romney making the following derogatory comments, in case you've forgotten what he said.

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rdinary-contempt-for-47-percent-of-americans/

Who is saying they are anti-Romney? Do you have statistics to back that up? Or is this just part of Romney's dellusions/misinformation, what ever you prefer to call it.

Romney goes on to say

“My job is not to worry about those people. (cmphasis added) I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Wow, just wow.

So much for the notion of the President of the United States being the president of all the people.

 

[russ_watters]

You totally misread it. It had nothing to do with the SS tax. I meant that you paid income taxes your whole life right up until your retirement last week. This week you pay no income taxes and forget you.

That's really neither here nor there: your "what have you done for me lately" crack applies whether you count SS or not. In both cases, the retired are not paying either tax.

Though I said I want consistency and I don't care much which way it goes, inclusion of SS could be problematic for people want to include it. It was recently posted around here somewhere that retirees from 1980 (IIRC) will get 7x what they paid in while someone who retired last week will get 1x. The class warfare is therefore largely misdirected: it's generation warfare that's the bigger issue.

[edit] It was 1960, not 1980: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ocial-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic/

 

[Evo]

That's really neither here nor there: your "what have you done for me lately" crack applies whether you count SS or not. In both cases, the retired are not paying either tax.

People on Social Security, whether retired or on disability do pay taxes if they have enough income. Why do you think they don't pay tax?

Also, this is straying way off topic. Let's get back to Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

your "what have you done for me lately" crack applies whether you count SS or not.

Not my crack, Romney's

 

[russ_watters]

...

Evo, please calm down and reread my recent posts. Your response contains virtually nothing that addresses anything in them, but attributes things to me that I didn't say.

 

[Evo]

Evo, please calm down and reread my recent posts. Your response contains virtually nothing that addresses anything in them, but attributes things to me that I didn't say.

Please point them out. It seems the only person that isn't calm here is you russ.

Are you claiming you didn't say this?

In both cases, the retired are not paying either tax.

My response

People on Social Security, whether retired or on disability do pay taxes if they have enough income. Why do you think they don't pay tax?

I guess I could ask "why did you say they don't pay tax"?

So please russ, post where I am putting words into your mouth, oh sorry, "where I am attributing things to you that you didn't say". I know that you were addressing jimmy's remark, perhaps you were being very specific to 'not paying taxes this week"? If so, I apologize. I think we can both agree that retired people can and do pay income taxes.

 

[mathwonk]

I don't know if this sheds any light on the topic, but I am retired while my wife is not. Last year we paid 19% of our income in income taxes, a higher rate than Mr. Romney who is dependent on the government (i.e. ordinary taxpayers) for a favorable tax rate. I.e. his tax rate of 14$ compared to my 19%, means he received roughly a $600,000 rebate from the government in 2011.

Moreover, in a sense I am paying income tax twice on my retirement income, since for many years at the beginning of my career the retirement takeout was already taxed. As an adjustment I am allowed to take a credit for taxes already paid on retirement income, but only gradually, a little per year, and at a rate that would require me to live roughly another 30 years to get it all back (until I am 100).

Moreover since my wife's income counts towards mine for medicare computation, I now pay a double premium for my own medicare while continuing to pay a full premium for her non medicare health insurance. Thus I pay twice as much health care insurance premium as I did in 2010, for roughly the same coverage we had before, except that now I have to submit most claims to two separate payers.

Still, we are better off than many people, and have no right to complain. I do wish Mr. Romney would see things in the same light, and support legislation requiring people like him to pay at the same rate most citizens pay. I also suggest the IRS close loop holes that allow people like the officials at Bain Capital to claim as investment income, salary they receive for advising investors, while they themselves actually hold no stock in the companies they claim to be receiving investment income from.

When I think of real patriots, I do not think of Mr. Romney, but of a woman CEO I read about years ago who overpaid her IRS taxes because she felt she could afford to contribute more than required. She ran a factory canning tomatoes and when the power went offline for powering her steam canning operation she brought in a steam powered locomotive and used the steam from the engine to substitute. She always paid her workers more than the going wage, and when their union went out on strike for an additional $.25 an hour over scale, they asked for permission not to strike because they were already making more than that. That to me is a real American patriot business person, not a multimillionaire who games the tax laws to minimize his own taxes below the average workers rate, and brags about never paying more than the law let's him get away with.

By the way, as to whether this was a "dumb" statement by Mr. Romney, I don't know how to quantify that. But before he said it, I thought he was a favorite to win. Since then I do not, and the polls seem to support that. Whether it holds up for another month is another matter, but apparently the statement didn't help his standings in the polls in Ohio and Florida. So if his intention is to enhance his reputation with voters, it seems indisputable that his statement harmed that outcome, which suggests a vote more for "stupid" than "brilliant".

 

[mheslep]

Recall that the total tax bill for partners or officers of an LLC like Romney's Bain Capital or Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway includes more than their personal income tax. Before payouts are made to owners or shareholders, the corporate tax must first be paid. I don't know the Bain-Romney accounting, but http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/112560/what-top-companies-pay-taxes-forbes. Buffet apparently owns 23% of the company, controls 32%.

 

[BobG]

By the way, as to whether this was a "dumb" statement by Mr. Romney, I don't know how to quantify that. But before he said it, I thought he was a favorite to win. Since then I do not, and the polls seem to support that. Whether it holds up for another month is another matter, but apparently the statement didn't help his standings in the polls in Ohio and Florida. So if his intention is to enhance his reputation with voters, it seems indisputable that his statement harmed that outcome, which suggests a vote more for "stupid" than "brilliant".

Well, I wouldn't call it a gamechanging statement, but it probably was a tipping point statement. One gaffe doesn't blow an entire campaign. It provided the opportunity for people to accept the image Romney's projected most of his campaign.

Polls go up and down, but when Obama and Romney are polling even on economic issues, then Romney's lost the issue that was his best selling point for replacing Obama.
http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm

And, in spite of being even on most economic issues, there's this:

Whom do you think has laid out a better vision for a successful economic future for the U.S.: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

Obama - 48%
Romney - 39%

The post convention bounce seemed to evaporate shortly after the convention, but I think a few of the images from the convention have stuck around a little longer. The Democratic convention was very, very well done.