Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Monty22002
It's not really about "caring" in the warm and fuzzy sense.

Voters want to feel that office-holders are conscientious about fulfilling their responsibilities to all citizens.

A candidate who appears to be drawing distinctions between classes of citizens based on some criterion of worth is going to lose votes.

Of course this, was a fake controversy. I don't believe Romney was any less conscientious or dutiful than other candidates or office-holders with respect to poorer or humbler citizens, but it's a matter of appearances, and Romney lost that battle.

30 posted on 11/23/2012 2:57:43 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: x
Voters want to feel that office-holders are conscientious about fulfilling their responsibilities to all citizens.

When is the last time that happened?

37 posted on 11/23/2012 3:06:59 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: x
Of course this, was a fake controversy. I don't believe Romney was any less conscientious or dutiful than other candidates or office-holders with respect to poorer or humbler citizens, but it's a matter of appearances, and Romney lost that battle.

I actually think the voters have a way of sniffing out a sense of who a candidate is as a person, even when they don't understand policy. Romney saying he "wasn't concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net" may have been a gaffe, but it was more in the vein of a Freudian slip. Romney was out-of-touch with the average American and it showed in so many things that he said and did.

This is exactly why he was such a heavy promoter of the welfare state in Taxachusetts. He doesn't relate to poorer people, thinks they're inherently disadvantaged as compared to him, and therefore thinks they need handouts. He consistently gave the impression he didn't believe in the class mobility inherent in the American dream. He was Democrat lite and a poor standard-bearer for the Republican party from day one.

Now, it's true that Obama believes the same things, even more passionately. But Obama didn't try to hide it, he ran on it. Romney was insincere and uneasy as he tried to balance his own liberal record on economics with what he thought the conservative base wanted to hear (such as that he was "severely conservative"). People trusted Obama more because Obama was actually being more honest than Romney about who he was. Swing voters don't understand the issues but they can sniff out the candidates' personal qualities, so they vote on those.

Again, Romney was an obviously bad candidate from the get-go. No intelligent, informed, conservative Republican had any excuse for nominating him.

74 posted on 11/23/2012 4:06:17 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson