[besson3c]

I get that wealth is a proxy for many frustrations felt over the past several years with Wall St. and the big banks and such, but we all know that Romney is very wealthy. This is no secret to anybody that hasn't been living under a rock.

So, why is Romney criticized when he says stuff like he knows NASCAR team owners and stuff? This is very sincere and honest, it is not a gaffe, it is ridiculous for him to pretend that his lifestyle is anything like a middle class lifestyle, because this would be manipulative and would probably fool very few people. Perhaps as far as political strategery goes it would be better for him to not say anything at all when given the opportunity to say something like the NASCAR thing, but I don't mind the sincerity at all.

I'm tired of people expecting politicians to be just like us, this is just idiotic. I want the politicians I elect to be very well educated, smart, successful, and this often goes hand in hand with wealth (although it is a shame that wealth seems to be a prerequisite to even be considered as a serious political candidate, and I have to wonder about the smart thing with some of these candidates at times, but I digress.... *cue witty retort about Obama being dumb*)

But what I'm wondering is this... Is Romney perhaps being pressured or feeling pressure to both pander, and to be sincere at the same time? Since both can look bad or trying to sort of find the middle ground can look bad, perhaps he should just give up on one or the other? It seems like Santorum has given up or never attempted to pander to anybody beyond his Christian nutjob niche, which is probably what is helping him now a little. He seems pretty candid and genuine, it's just that his ideological positions on social issues in particular are seen as pretty backwards by many people.

Anyway, I'm not really following the race that closely nor am I really getting amped up for the general election, but I'm just wondering what sort of factors are working against my overly simplistic prescription here for Romney for him to just be himself and not try to be apologetic about it or somehow mask the fact that he is very wealthy?

[Big Mac]

I agree with your sentiments here, besson, but some will have difficulty relating to and supporting a candidate who is mega-wealthy. Santorum did a lot better in Michigan with those who made $50K or less per year, for example. Plus BHO will definitely attack Romney's tax cut plans as self-serving for the fellow elite who supposedly "aren't paying their fair share" (aka the ones paying a hugely disproportionate share of the income tax burden while nearly half the country pays no federal income tax).

Gingrich has run a lackluster campaign so if he can't pull off another come-back, I'll be okay supporting Romney. Not tremendously enthusiastic like I would be for Newt, but. . .

[lpkmckenna]

He was asked if he likes NASCAR, and he tells us he's friends with NASCAR team owners. I expect that kind of behaviour from Paris Hilton, not a presidential candidate. There are people in America who are struggling financially, and he advocates policies that will make is worse for them while simultaneously pushing his wealth in people's faces.

"Bet you $10,000 bucks."
"My wife drives a couple of cadillacs."
"I don't know how many homes I own."

You would think a man who would say anything to be elected, including lies about his previous positions, would at least avoid saying anything that demonstrated his indifference to how hard some people still have it. Nope, he'll lie and say he's always been pro-life, but he can't hide his desire to brag about his wealth. That's because his wealth is the only reason anyone pays any attention to him. Better candidates have had to drop out because they don't have his money to stay in the race.

The man is a member of the idle rich who pays less than half the Federal tax of the working rich, yet he thinks his own taxes should be even lower. He's completely tone-deaf to the realities of Americans, which is why he keeps sticking his foot in his mouth.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I agree with your sentiments here, besson, but some will have difficulty relating to and supporting a candidate who is mega-wealthy. Santorum did a lot better with those who made $50K or less per year. Plus BHO will definitely attack Romney's tax cut plans as self-serving for the fellow elite who supposedly "aren't paying their fair share" (aka the ones paying a hugely disproportionate share of the income tax burden while nearly half the country pays no federal income tax).

Gingrich has run a lackluster campaign so if he can't pull off another come-back, I'll be okay supporting Romney. Not tremendously enthusiastic like I would be for Newt, but. . .

Why do you so often include Obama's middle name when you refer to him? Just wondering, I just find it a little weird, is all...

[Big Mac]

I like referring to him that way. It's good to keep pointing out that he's our first Kenyan/non-citizen Crypto-Muslim president.

[lpkmckenna]

If by "good" you mean "remind everyone how childish I am," mission accomplished.

[besson3c]

Big Mac's version of BadKosh's creative spelling of 0bama and delightful variants, only with a slight tinge of racism, as if having a middle name of Hussein is supposed to somehow be a negative thing?

Please don't tell me you are a birther Big Mac.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

He was asked if he likes NASCAR, and he tells us he's friends with NASCAR team owners. I expect that kind of behaviour from Paris Hilton, not a presidential candidate. There are people in America who are struggling financially, and he advocates policies that will make is worse for them while simultaneously pushing his wealth in people's faces.

"Bet you $10,000 bucks."
"My wife drives a couple of cadillacs."
"I don't know how many homes I own."

You would think a man who would say anything to be elected, including lies about his previous positions, would at least avoid saying anything that demonstrated his indifference to how hard some people still have it. Nope, he'll lie and say he's always been pro-life, but he can't hide his desire to brag about his wealth. That's because his wealth is the only reason anyone pays any attention to him. Better candidates have had to drop out because they don't have his money to stay in the race.

The man is a member of the idle rich who pays less than half the Federal tax of the working rich, yet he thinks his own taxes should be even lower. He's completely tone-deaf to the realities of Americans, which is why he keeps sticking his foot in his mouth.

I'm not saying that these references to wealth serve him well somehow, but what I'm saying is that suggestions that he should somehow mask his wealth seem misguided too. I forgot that the question asked was about whether he likes NASCAR, so I can see how it was foolish to volunteer that he has friends that own NASCAR teams, but if he was making an offhanded remark about his personal connection to NASCAR saying that he has friends that own NASCAR teams is far more sincere and forthcoming than trying to do the Joe Sixpack shtick and going on about how he likes to watch NASCAR with his buddies while drinking Bud Lite and doing whatever else your archetype NASCAR loving redneck does.

Politicians love to depict themselves as mirror images of the sort of mentally lacking people that would be persuaded into voting for a politician by thinking that a politician is the kind of guy he/she would feel comfortable having a beer with, and that this is a good thing. I hate this sort of shit, and I want to put a stop to politician thinking that they have to be chameleons that can transform into whatever image serves them for that particular audience.

[stupendousman]

What's wrong with Obama's total given name, and why should it not be used? I can't remember anyone crying foul at the last president being referred to as "GWB".

Is he ashamed by his name and would prefer people not know it, or should he be ashamed of his Muslim background?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What's wrong with Obama's total given name, and why should it not be used? I can't remember anyone crying foul at the last president being referred to as "GWB".

Is he ashamed by his name and would prefer people not know it, or should he be ashamed of his Muslim background?

That was because it was needed to differentiate him from his father, JFK to differentiate from other Kennedys. Clinton was just Clinton, before Bush II Bush I was just Bush, Reagan was just Reagan, etc.

There is nothing "wrong" with including his middle name, it's just pretty weird and unnecessary, and leads one to wonder whether the person is going out of their way to address Obama in such an unconventional way because of the fact that the middle name happens to be Hussein, giving it that racial tinge.

Do people include your middle name in addressing you frequently, assuming you are a white male?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That was because it was needed to differentiate him from his father, JFK to differentiate from other Kennedys.

John Kennedy wasn't sufficient? Just how stupid are people?

Seriously, it's not uncommon to refer to a president with a long name by his his entire proper initials. While some may do it to highlight Obama's Muslim background in hopes that it discourages people towards him due to their fears regarding Islam's violent nature, it's really not uncommon.

Do people include your middle name in addressing you frequently, assuming you are a white male?

BO could well refer to body odor, and I don't have any inside knowledge that the president suffers from such. When discussing politics, what else would BHO refer to?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

John Kennedy wasn't sufficient? Just how stupid are people?

Seriously, it's not uncommon to refer to a president with a long name by his his entire proper initials. While some may do it to highlight Obama's Muslim background in hopes that it discourages people towards him due to their fears regarding Islam's violent nature, it's really not uncommon.



BO could well refer to body odor, and I don't have any inside knowledge that the president suffers from such. When discussing politics, what else would BHO refer to?

I see your point that BHO, JFK, etc. is handy and used frequently and stuff, I take back what I said about rationalizing why JFK was used, but actually writing out or saying "Barack Hussein Obama" in its entirety? WTF? Pretty weird. How many other Barack Obamas are there that we'd need the middle name for clarification?

[besson3c]

Occam's Razor says that people wouldn't write out or say Obama's name with his middle name in casual conversation if his middle name was just "George", "William", "Edward", or whatever other commonplace American middle name, hence it is probably logical to assume a little bit of intent to draw attention to the name as if there is supposed to be something wrong with it.

Is there something wrong with having a middle name of Hussein, or having a Kenyan father?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I see your point that BHO, JFK, etc. is handy and used frequently and stuff, I take back what I said about rationalizing why JFK was used, but actually writing out or saying "Barack Hussein Obama" in its entirety? WTF?

I will agree with you that when this is done, the most likely reason is to play on the fears of those who question what they believe to be Islam's violent nature, despite the fact that Obama claims to be a Christian (how is that for a concession?).

Personally, I don't think that this is necessary in order to discourage people in regards to Obama's actual religious choices, given that for years he chose to be associated with a hateful and bigoted religious sect in it's own right.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I will agree with you that when this is done, the most likely reason is to play on the fears of those who question what they believe to be Islam's violent nature, despite the fact that Obama claims to be a Christian (how is that for a concession?).

A little one, something unstupendousman-like, but....

Personally, I don't think that this is necessary in order to discourage people in regards to Obama's actual religious choices, given that for years he chose to be associated with a hateful and bigoted religious sect in it's own right.

I guess you couldn't find it in yourself to let go of that tiny little bit of ground you relinquished. Kind of overshadows your weak concession, not to mention changes the topic. Keep trying!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess you couldn't find it in yourself to let go of that tiny little bit of ground you relinquished. Kind of overshadows your weak concession, not to mention changes the topic. Keep trying!

I'm pretty sure you're the guy who veered the topic into the use of Obama's full name, when it was originally a discussion of Romney's wealth.

Maybe you could use this as a "teachable moment" as to why people aren't likely to concede points to your off-topic rebuttals?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm pretty sure you're the guy who veered the topic into the use of Obama's full name, when it was originally a discussion of Romney's wealth.

Maybe you could use this as a "teachable moment" as to why people aren't likely to concede points to your off-topic rebuttals?

Who created this thread?

I like your your witty "music theory" retort better.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who created this thread?

You did.

So, let me get this straight... when you start a thread you can go as far off topic as you want (from Romney's wealth to why someone would want to refer to Obama by his full name), but when other people rebut the stuff you go off topic with, you complain that it "changes the topic?"

Um, okay.

[ebuddy]

When someone offers this type of information or wages $10,000 bets with other Republican candidates, it simply makes him sound like an out-of-touch rich dude who would lack proper regard for the poor.

Of course, Obama will bring these factors to light at his own peril. After all, we're all enjoying $300 cupcakes, Wagyu beef, $2k per night in hotel expenses, thousands in pumps and dresses, etc... or maybe we're not enjoying them as much as helping pay for them.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When someone offers this type of information or wages $10,000 bets with other Republican candidates, it simply makes him sound like an out-of-touch rich dude who would lack proper regard for the poor.

We agree here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course, Obama will bring these factors to light at his own peril.

He won't. I don't think Obama will even directly address the fact that Romney doesn't pay his fair share of federal taxes. He'll have someone else do that.

Obama has done a pretty good job delegating responsibility for policy to other actors. For instance, he's been completely silent about the targeted killings, and the aggressive copyright enforcement policies his administration is pursuing. He knows that sh!t is unpopular with young people, so he let's his cabinet members carry the burden.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

We agree here.

He won't. I don't think Obama will even directly address the fact that Romney doesn't pay his fair share of federal taxes. He'll have someone else do that. .

Which he also does at his own peril, given the fact that polls show that most Americans likely think that Romney DOES pay his fair share of federal taxes and aren't buying the line that the "rich" don't pay enough to let the government spend outrageously. Playing the class warfare card will only be "preaching to the choir.' It will likely turn off a huge contingent of voters the same way it has for other tax and spend liberals who went that route.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

most Americans likely think that Romney DOES pay his fair share of federal taxes

Then most Americans are f'n stupid. The idle rich pay HALF the federal taxes that the working rich pay for the same income.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When someone offers this type of information or wages $10,000 bets with other Republican candidates, it simply makes him sound like an out-of-touch rich dude who would lack proper regard for the poor.

^^^ This pretty much sums it up.

I don't think people begrudge Romney for his wealth. It's more an issue of him coming off as being "out of touch" with average working and middle class Americans. Let alone the poor. So when the narrative that has developed about you ... fairly or not ... is that you are some type of Mormon "Gordon Gekko" type corporate raider who plundered companies for his own personal gain while tossing tens of thousands of people out of a job ... well then you probably ought to be careful with the casual and unnecessary references to just how deep your pockets are. I'm just saying ...

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^ This pretty much sums it up.

I don't think people begrudge Romney for his wealth. It's more an issue of him coming off as being "out of touch" with average working and middle class Americans. Let alone the poor. So when the narrative that has developed about you ... fairly or not ... is that you are some type of Mormon "Gordon Gekko" type corporate raider who plundered companies for his own personal gain while tossing tens of thousands of people out of a job ... well then you probably ought to be careful with the casual and unnecessary references to just how deep your pockets are. I'm just saying ...

OAW

I get the strategy bit of this, and I agree, but again, I don't get people saying that any politician should try to mask their wealth and success by coming down to the "beer with rednecks" sort of level. It always seems to go spectacularly wrong election after election whether we are talking Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Donald Trump, or anybody else.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You did.

So, let me get this straight... when you start a thread you can go as far off topic as you want (from Romney's wealth to why someone would want to refer to Obama by his full name), but when other people rebut the stuff you go off topic with, you complain that it "changes the topic?"

Um, okay.

No. There is nothing wrong with tangents, but it is annoying when people like yourself duck direct challenges to points that have been made by doing the "look over there, a birdie!" sort of thing. Nobody in this thread really addressed my original post at the time I went off on the tangent, I wasn't sure if it would even have a lot of traction, so the thread was sort of freeform at the time.

Plus, I was trying to indoctrinate you.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I get the strategy bit of this, and I agree, but again, I don't get people saying that any politician should try to mask their wealth and success by coming down to the "beer with rednecks" sort of level. It always seems to go spectacularly wrong election after election whether we are talking Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Donald Trump, or anybody else.

I don't think people expect Romney to "hide" his wealth. Just don't draw attention to it unnecessarily. And most definitely don't try to front like he is a "beer with rednecks" kind of guy. Because pretending to be something that he's not is even worse. Hence his consistent rejection by the right wing of the GOP ... his claims of being "severely conservative" notwithstanding.

OAW

[andi*pandi]

A lot of candidates try to downplay their wealth or sound folksy. GWB did it, his campaign ads were full of shots of him in jeans on his ranch, "just a workin' man" type thing, no shots of him striding across the Yale campus in a suit. John Kerry was vilified for having money, and worse, marrying into it. To a lesser extent, Scott Brown had his barn jacket and pickup truck. I don't think he's as rich as the others, but still, candidates want to appear down home, drinking Bud not Sam Adams, driving trucks not cadillacs.

Could be a macho thing, or a fear of appearing "elitist." It's kind of bullsh!t really.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I like referring to him that way. It's good to keep pointing out that he's our first Kenyan/non-citizen Crypto-Muslim president.

His mother was indisputably an American citizen, therefore he has been an American citizen since birth regardless of what country he was born in... (The law was changed to only require one parent to be a citizen a few years before he was born, as I recall.)