In other words, I assumed Romney believed what I believe — many of those people are good people who fell on hard times and are not of the same class of people who will vote for Barack Obama for free stuff. I was absolutely wrong. Romney not only believes completely what he said as he said it, he reinforced it with his post election analysis of his defeat blaming gifts to various classes of people. If that was true, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, Romney had plenty to gift to plenty strapped to the back of marching elephants.
Excellent point, though the last sentence looks garbled.
What does this have to do with Ronald Reagan? As Dan McLaughlin pointed out, every Republican Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan opposed Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election except John McCain. Think about that for a minute. Every nominee of the party cast by the media as an insane fringe of conservatives actually opposed, from the left, Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Each of those candidates ran successfully as heirs to Reagan or, when they failed, as rich Republicans who believe in some sort of noblesse oblige. George H. W. Bush, embracing his own identity outside the shadow of Reagan in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012 all ran as patrician aristocrats who intended to make government more efficient to help the poor. There really was no theme of elevating the poor from poverty or the middle class to the rich. The theme was the care and comfort of men through the technocratic efficiencies of government and a conservative disposition. Romney did that this time too, going so far as to put his more conservative running mate in a witness protection program for candidates.
Not so much. It sounds like he's twisting things to fit his interpretation, fitting all the winning candidates in one pattern and all the losers in another.
It doesn't work. Dole was no "patrician aristocrat." George W. Bush did his share of promising social programs.
Romney may have been a "patrician" in some ways, but the attitude expressed in his 47% quotes is very different from the standard "patrician aristocrat" approach.
One possible counterargument to all this: not every candidate can do the Reagan thing, just as not every candidate can do the FDR or JFK thing. Imitations don't always produce the same results as the original.
Erick has some good ideas, but he ought to have somebody read his stuff over before publishing it.
Romney thought he knew what conservatives wanted to hear from him....that’s what happens when you have no core beliefs, you try to say things you think people want to hear, and as usual, with disastrous results.
Dude, he blows. He spent the lede making the countervailing argument and then says:
"Mitt Romney in 2012 all ran as patrician aristocrats who intended to make government more efficient to help the poor."
Ridiculous. He never said any such thing. IF anything, he said f the lazy, the government is already taking care of them -- which was always followed with his intent to revive the working class with jobs.