Are we 100% sure Romney said he was “severely conservative” rather than “severely constipated”?
That could explain the testy and anxious nature of his campaign lately.
That could explain the testy and anxious nature of his campaign lately.
Poverty is the sustained inability to meet basic needs or participate meaningfully in mainstream society due to a lack of money, a lack of social power, or both.1 Poverty is a social disease. It afflicts communities. It afflicts families. It can afflict individuals.
Like cancer, it is near-impossible to trace all of poverty’s various causes. But, like cancer, we’ve got some pretty good ideas on what some of them are. And, like cancer, while you can’t just dump money on the problem to make it go away, we know a lot of things we can do to attack poverty locally and nationally. If we’re not willing to fund the cure or remove the causes, we’re stuck with the disease.
Let’s get concrete. Any area with a shortage of quality public education, of employment opportunities, of public safety, of public services, or of public institutions (whether that means safe parks, civic meeting places, libraries, churches, or so on) is likely to be a high poverty area. By building or expanding any of those things, we can combat poverty. We can also combat poverty by building and supporting local leadership in vulnerable communities. Finally, we can remove blight—and anything causing it. Keep in mind that the thing causing blight could be something like gang violence or could be something like a major national bank foreclosing on homes, uprooting pillars of the community, and leaving empty houses as an invitation to crime. Finally, we can push back against poverty by building community confidence and community wealth. In some cases, this means shutting down the predatory lenders trying to strip communities of wealth. Support home ownership, home equity, and successful, local businesses. In other cases, it means fighting racism or simply working to make a few blocks of a city more attractive. It means knocking down the barriers that prevent people from participating on society. Those barriers can be social, legal, medical, or sometimes simply financial.
When we talk about poverty and politics, I think we should acknowledge three things. First, eliminating—or at least dramatically reducing it—is possible. Second, it is important to do. Third, it isn’t easy.
That’s where Romney gets it wrong. It’s not enough to say, “Eh. I’ll fix the safety net if it’s broken.” A safety net is not a proactive solution to the problem. And if you’re not paying enough attention to what’s happening to notice where that safety net is wearing thin, I don’t trust that you care enough about the problem to address it competently.
I’ll call this a working definition. If somebody can take a better stab at it—go for it. I’ll amend my definition. ↩
I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor.
Mitt Romney The full quote, for context:
I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.
I’m pulling this quote out because I think it demonstrates two things. First, Romney neither understands nor cares about poverty. To him, a “safety net” is enough. He’s not concerned about why people might need a safety net or about taking any effort to reduce the systemic causes of poverty. Second, Romney seems to draw a distinction between “Americans” and “the very poor.” Clearly, if pressed, he would concede that “the very poor” are also Americans. But to Romney, when he thinks about Americans, it doesn’t occur to him to think about the most vulnerable.
Gingrich, despite his ridiculous and backwards statements on the issue, at least considers poverty something worth being concerned about. For Romney, the very poor aren’t worth considering until something is so broken he’s forced to address it.
While Gingrich had an early lead, Romney’s ad blitz seems to have taken a toll. Gingrich responds to negative ads about as well as vampires respond to sunlight. And Florida is pretty fertile ground both for displaced Northeastern Republicans and people who are old enough to remember why they dislike Gingrich.
But Newt still has one thing going for him. He has a (slim) national lead. And, frankly, it’s going to get a lot pricier for Romney to buy elections as we get closer to Super Tuesday.
I’m not going to ask Mitt Romney to “apologize for his success.” But … I might ask him to act a little sheepish about his remarkably low tax-rate.
Guys like Mitt Romney are the guys who leave dinner early, leave enough cash to cover their tab, but skimp on the tip. It’s legal. But it’s not something to be proud of.
Gingrich is sliding in Iowa. His moment of relevance is pretty much over. He’d need to win in Iowa—and that’s looking unlikely as recent polls put him behind Romney and Paul.
Romney has seen minor gains—but nothing that suggests an anointing. His supporters are reluctant—and reluctant support can kill you in a caucus.
Paul has a shot in Iowa—but an unexpected Paul win would rally the anybody-but-Paul crowd and play into the hands of whomever finishes second or third in Iowa. (Edit: On second thought, he doesn’t have a chance.)
Santorum has done well recently, which is a bit of a surprise. I predict he’ll challenge Gingrich in the next round of polling—and eclipse him shortly thereafter.
Perry has seen a bit of bump as well, though I think that new support is a result o people remembering why Gingrich shouldn’t be President. I Santorum does well, he could claim it. (“Santorum”).
Huntsman is in a tight spot. But he’s doing decently well in New Hampshire. If Iowa results have Paul first, Gingrich or Santorum second, and Romney third, I think a lot of Romney’s New Hampshire supporters will reconsider their support of Romney and take a hard look at Huntsman.
There are quite a few scenarios where we could see a prolonged, three-way race.
Let me get something out here: I believe that human life is both sacred and unique. Choose whatever bitterly divisive issue you like: capital punishment, abortion, health care, war. I’m pro-life.1 This means both that we should acknowledge and respect other humans and (as a general principle) avoid anything that devalues or dehumanizes others.
Mitt Romney crossed a line for me this morning when he lambasted Rick Willingham Perry’s past stance on “giving that in state tuition to illegals.” Romney, go home already. Nobody is illegal.
Maybe I shouldn’t pick on Romney. He’s not the only public figure to refer to people who lack a legal immigration status as “illegals.” I think it’s disgusting and dehumanizing to refer to anybody as if their very existence is a crime. It’s also misleading. Nearly half of those without legal status entered the country legally but overstayed a visa—which means a civil violation (like speeding or not mowing your lawn in violation of a civil ordinance) occurred rather than a crime. Even illegal entry is a misdemeanor—putting it on par with consuming alcohol as a minor. Undocumented immigrants are patriotic and passionate enough to actually want to be here despite jerks like Romney. Calling them “illegals” is simply a way to make ourselves feel like they are insufficiently human to be treated with a modicum of decency.
Yes, there are exceptions and nuances and conflicts and so forth that we could talk about for hours. No, I’m not going to adequately address capital punishment, abortion, health care, and war in this post. This is a post about language and immigration. ↩
I agree with Mitt Romney, who recently said he’s proud of what he accomplished on health care by giving states the power to determine their own health care solutions. He’s right.
Barack Obama, sinking the political equivalent of a half-court shot.
Whether or not you like Obama personally or politically, you should be able to admire this manuever. Romney would likely be the most electable of the Republican hopefuls in 2012 … if he makes it through the primaries. With a single statement, Obama has at once demonstrated his willingness to adopt good ideas from political opponents and severely damaged Romney’s chances of surviving the primary.