ridiculous, Romney said, it is the middle class that is in trouble, the rich have their own money, the very poor have a safety net, the middle class is being squeezed out of existence, what the hell is wrong with that statement.

@saxon: what's wrong with that is Romney wants to get rid of that "safety net" that he claims the very poor have.

Dave,

GOP/Koch congressionals and GOP/ALEC Governors have been busy dismantling our safety nets,

present & future,

for quite some time.

As usual, Romney's statement is taken out of context, as the media love to do to justify their existence in asking questions about a single comment.

What cracks me up is the hypocrisy of Gingrich in jumping on it. It's not like he's ever done anything to help the poor, except maybe tip a waitress he wanted to marry.

Mike,

Even in context, the remark wasn't well thought out. I would imagine Romney's handlers are working OT to walk this back.

I am just surprised it took most of the day for Newt (or at least the press covering Newt) to comment on it. If the former speaker smells blood, he will go after it like a shark.

Gee i wounder who's new secret service name is " Grumpy" Care to guess who "Big Bird " is

As usual, Romney's statement is taken out of context

This isn't the first gaffe made by Willard when he goes off script.

Willard likes to fire people, apparently thinks making $373K per year in pocket change is not really that much, corporations are people my friends etc.

There is a clear pattern of Willard being removed from any sense of reality of what ordinary Americans are going through...

Sadly, for you, people are paying attention & it does not bode well for an already flawed candidate!

When you start off your post to me with 'Backhoser',

It speaks to:

What and who you represent.

And how far you're willing to twist the simple facts on their behalf.

Will Newt's new compassion for the poor, cause him to stop calling Obama

"The Food Stamp President"?

Could someone explain to Newt that he looks just like a liberal (brother to the progressive anyhow - which Newt says he is "progressive") every time he behaves like this! It's not very conservative like you all know.

Where on Earth are you going to find a Rebublican who can tell you he cares about the poor without crossing his fingers behind his back?

Newt, who thinks that all poor 10 year olds should clean the bathrooms at their schools, and thinks that the NAACP in it's existence of over 100 years, has as it's sole purpose getting food stamps for blacks...that guy should be criticizing anyone?

What a porcine piece of pussilanimous pustulence! Newt is one of the most vile people to have ever trod the stage of American politics.

Bob, most of the time I have you on ignored status. Tonight I thought you might have something valuable to say. True to form, you proved me wrong.

I wish that Fart-Face (Newt) would simply STFU and go away. His sense of entitlement is only exceeded by that displayed by Hillarity four years ago, and the result will be the same. No amount of bleating will persuade the Republican equivalent of super-delegates to 'give him' the outcome that the rank and file Republican membership have deemed him grossly unworthy.

Facts on Food Stamps:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001 show that:

"under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that."

And the increase under Obama is 14.2 million.

Only right now, the nation is recovering from the worst recession since the 1930's.

"To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's."

Saxon, a goal of the right is to trim that safety net down to an absolute bare minimum in the name of deficit reduction. Romney's implied meanings about the Poor being looked after are hypocritical when looking at the path Congressional Republican's want to take.

Wayne - everyone understood what he meant.

I heard a piece by Juan Williams that asserts that Republicans use secret code words. Man, that is someone who either has a persecution complex, suffers from paranoia, or has been conditioned/trained/taught to have a very skewed view.

What Romney failing to think twice and speak once accurately. I put that in the Obama "if people just put more air in their tires tune-up more frequently" comment category.

These may well be intelligent well meaning people, but they lack some reality experience.

On Second thought the about the Obama comment. That was worse - at least Romney said his in context and realized he slipped. Obama clearly had no idea. Tune-ups in the 70's was as little as 5000 miles or as or once every quarter. Today a tune-up is at minimum 60,000 miles and for most cars 100,000 miles. That's 4 - 7 years and a tune-up means replacing the plugs, possibly the wires, Cleaning the air volume valve, and possibly a PCV valve. Doing this more frequently doesn't save any money or energy.

The comment was taken completely out of context, by the media and Gingrich. I saw the interview on CNN. Romney said "I am not concerned with the poor, as we have a safety net in this country. If it is broken, I will fix it, they are taken care of. I am not concerned with the rich. What concerns me is the heart of America, the middle class."

Fascinating to read about all of this quibbling about who is more attentive to the needs of the poor: Obama, Gingrich or Romney. The answer of course is none of the above. Republican or Democrat- none of our representatives represent us anymore.

Screw the poor, screw the middle class. We have transitioned from a Republic to a Corpocracy, and the change has been implemented perfectly and without error. The true mastery and art of this transition was the perfect silence with which it was accomplished.

Are you aware that Romney spent more to buy the Florida nomination than John McCain spent in all 50 states combined in the last primary election? Our democracy has been bludgeoned, and rendered ineffectual by the corporate money that has infected our system like a cancer. Who's bidding will the winner embrace? The people's? No- of course they will push the policy positions of the moneyed interests that bought them their victory.

And we continue to debate about the minutia of who said what, what this weeks gaffes were and who will defend the unborn fetus, the right to bear arms, the legal status of gays. Nonsense- all of it. Just a distraction to divert our gaze from the tumor that is our political system.

There has been a revolution in the United States, and we have lost. Tea Party, Occupy, the 99%, pitted against each other whilst the villains run off with your purse. It no longer matters who wins the Republican nomination, or the Presidency. We have already lost. It is time to either fight in earnest, or shut the hell up.

@Nv

Except a safety net isn't good enough; contrary to popular rhetoric poor people don't like relying on safety nets and would prefer to have good paying jobs. If Mittens isn't concerned about poor people then he obviously doesn't want to win the Presidency that badly considering how big of a demographic they make up.

Maybe he should be concerned about finding ways to help poor people join the ranks of the middle class.

Actually the entire problem is that as usual, Newt blabbed before engaging his brain. I guess Romney's LONG sentence with all those big words just flummoxed poor whiny Newt. Besides it defies Reagan's rule #1, "Thous shalt no speak ill of another Republican." There, now, I have done it also.

Newts just p!ssed because Romney said it out loud. Kind of like a magician telling people how do do a trick.

And sorry Bob but Romney has said the same thing at least 4 separate times in front of the cameras. Not even he can call it a gaffe.

@Jon Like your alliteration and agree. Funny/sad how the Republicans consider food stamps a handout to needy poor a travesty, but yet grab for money when it comes to corporations. Then the corporations sit on taxpayer bailouts, subsidies, and tax breaks and make more money in capital gains and interest. But heaven forbid working families with children to feed should get a dime in food stamps. Will the hypocrisy ever end?

Ya know bob, no one believes your dribble. A certain group campaigned on creating jobs. They made massive gains and as of yet have introduced no bills to create jobs. You can type all you want, it will not save that group in the next election. You would think if they had half a brain, they would have passed one bill to create a couple of jobs to improve the infrastructure. Unfortunately, they are not that smart and will suffer in the next election. Moving forward your problem is that Mitt said he is not worried about the poor. That cannot be taken out of context. He is not worried about them. He believes they are happy and content living on food stamps. Hopefully you will be joining them soon.

Campaign commercials alternating between "I kinda enjoy firing people" and "I am not worried about the poor". As much as it pains me to say it, I think I would rather be Newt at this point.

It's the pot calling the kettle black. And when has Newt ever done anything that hasn't benefited his bottom line.

Newt's out now looking for more toilets for the poor to clean.

Bob: The expansion of the food stamp eligibility happened under BUSH...(right, he who must not be named)...as did the start of the recession that necessitated so many Americans needing food stamps...NOW you want to blame the Americans Bush left behind for needing to keep their kids from starving?? Geez, the 'let em eat cake' party strikes again...

@Jon1321288

Classic! Your, "porcine piece of pusillanimous pustulence", is an absolute gem. LMFAO

Dear Newt,

Don't pander the American public by thinking intelligent people will think you know anything about the plight of poor people. Your voting record is proof of that, and so is your recent "paycheck." Your ridiculous run as a "normal" American is something worthy of an episode of the "Twilight Zone." You are a cad, a hypocrite, a conservative without morals or ethics. If elected, Americans will get what they deserve: a term of stupidity.

Typical of a sleezeball like Ging Grinch to take a sound bite out of a comment and try and turn it around. He was probably the kid on the playground who went around tattling on others and making up stories. His moonie mission makes him a true luna-tic.

Newt is taking a major step toward the moon with his big mouth, Gingrich should look in his mirror before he runs his big fat mouth. This lowlife is a Crook and a Womanizing.

Sometimes, I think DNC is paying Newt to sling mud at Romney. Whatever it is, I am happy with the results.

Now that the Florida primary is over, both of them can now change their rhetoric to anti-hispanic to pander to their base.

BHO loves the poor so much he is trying to make more.

For those who think Romney is "out of touch" with people or does not care about the poor, I can guarantee that he is not. Just because the man has made a lot of money "legally", does not mean he is out of touch with those in need. What many people do not know or fail to bring up is that Romney was once a bishop in his church and for those who are not Mormon I can testify first hand that bishops in this religion deal with more personal situations then you can possibly imagine and they spend a good 4 or 5 years in their position serving their congregation and never receive a cent for their time unlike other churches who pay there clergy for the same thing. Being that he was financially secure, I can also feel safe saying that he often used his own money to help those who could not help themselves. This man has more morals in his pinky then Gingrinch will ever have and for me, a man with great character, very high morals and a true concern for his country, should be the man you cast your vote for. Although this should not be about his money or religion, people and the press will keep pushing those buttons for months to come because they need something to talk about.

Thank you Gingrich for pointing out what we already know about Romney and yourself. We all know the Republican Party is more for the wealthy/rich than they are for the middle class and poor.

Obama 2012.

HA HA Fiesty Redhead would like nothing more than for Newt to win the primaries....she even stated that he got a raw deal in Florida - because she knows that Romney means a K.O. for her epic fail president.

ABO 2012

No Justone.. we all know that if GingRICH wins the nomination - Obama wins in a landslide. If Mittens wins the nomination Obama still WINS in November.

Obama 2012 - Defend America Vote Against the TeaParty Republicans.

Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of "I do this and you give me cash"... unless it's illegal.

Maybe you should shut up, Newt. At least Romney thinks they have a safety net. You just want to put children to work as school janitors.

Bla, Bla, Bla, they are mostly all the same Democrat or Republican.

Most people don't know it but the people who own and run the U.S. changed our economy in the mid to late 1970's. It was capitalism before and it was capitalism after but from 1933 to the mid 1970's it was "Demand" side, Keynesian capitalism (dominated by the economic ideology of John Maynard Keynes). The economic Ideology of the New Deal and the FDR administration.

Keyesian economists wouldn't like me saying this but basically it was a hybrid between Capitalism and Socialism.

Economic policies associated with this ideology: Social programs like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Pro-union, a large public sector, high taxes on the rich and corporations, low interest rates. etc.

Policies that put money in many peoples hands and stimulate "demand".

After the 1970's our economy was increasingly dominated by "Supply Side" "Free-market" capitalist ideology or as economists call it: "Neo-liberal" economics.

Don't be confused, this is not because it has anything to do with "liberals" (although "liberals" like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have now embraced it) or cultural liberalism but because it involves the liberalization of capital. Indeed the first political leaders to embrace "Free-market"/ Neo Liberal economics were conservatives like Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater etc. (Milton Friedman is the economist most associated with this economic ideology).

Economic polices associated with "Free-market"/ Neo-liberal ideology: Deregulation, privatization, anti-union,

low taxes on business and the wealthy, etc.

This policy is similar to Laissez Faire the economic ideology which dominated the 1920's. You know, right before the stock market crashed and we had the Great Depression.

Even though 30 years of Free-Market/Neo-liberal economics crashed the economy in 2008 and brought about another profound economic crises like it's ancestor did at the end of the 1920's (when it was called Laissez Faire) this ideology still rules in the minds of U.S. politicians, policy makers and for the most part in corporate media.

That's why both Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership and all Republicans push many of the same "free-market"/"Neo-liberal", ideas about "fixing the economy" and "creating jobs": Slashing government spending, lowering taxes on business and the wealthy, (Obama calls them "tax incentives" and his proposals for raise taxes in the rich by token amounts are election year gimmicks)

Here's some graphs and text that shows the difference in effects the two opposing ideologies have produced"

U.S. unemployment rate during the 1930s with New Deal programs. Notice in the graph below it is generally going down at a pretty rapid rate during: Federal jobs programs (WPA, etc), creation of Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, etc. etc).

By the way that jog upwards in the unemployment rate around 1937 was when the FDR administration briefly REVERSED it's New Deal policies and started CUTTING the federal deficit. They realized their mistake and resumed spending at the previous levels and unemployment started going down again.

Even so conservative critics who say that New Deal programs did not end the depression are right.

It ended after we entered WWII and spent EVEN more than we had been during the New Deal Period. After WWII we had the Cold War and space race which kept federal spending high and the unemployment rate low.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/depression(6).JPG

Wages adjusted for inflation (also includes inflation rate). Wages, adjusted for inflation were much higher on average than now.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2008/us-wages-june08.gif

It's popular for politicians of both parties to say we have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world but they are blowing smoke and they know it. They are talking about the NOMINAL tax rate, the tax rate that is on the books but which few corporations pay.

60% of U.S. corporations pay NO TAXES some years and the tax rate for corporations has generally been going down since the end of the 1940's. This gives the lie to claims that further lowering taxes for businesses will "stimulate the economy" and produce "jobs". If you look at the graphs above you will see that unemployment was lower and wages higher even when corporate taxes were much higher in the 1960s for example.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/business/images/corptaxrates_graph_2.jpg

http://cdn.investinganswers.net:81/images/09-02-11-taxes3.jpg

There is also a lot of BS about the share of taxes the richest americans pay. They pay a large percentage of federal taxes not because they have a high rate of taxation but because so much of the national wealth is going to them. In fact the rich are paying historically low rates of taxation.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/hildebrand/WG%201.png

Here's the history of the tax rate. Notice it was 90% during the 1950's which was mostly a Republican Administration (Eisenhower).

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4e1c5b08ccd1d50779000000/us-income-tax-top-bracket.jpg

The result of all of this? From roughly 1950's to the mid 1970's we had what economist Paul Krugman calls the "Great Compression". The period of time when wealth inequality was the lowest it's ever been since they have been taking records (and probably in U.S. history)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

As Krugman points out the period of the Great Compression is also when the large prosperous middle class that the U.S. used to be famous for was created and was at it's greatest.

Today, from both political parties and constantly in the corporate media we have calls for more of the same "Free-market"/Neo-liberal" policies that, for the last 30 years, have been eroding the middle class, assaulting the poor and that pushed us off a cliff in 2008: "austerity" (drastically cutting federal spending), lowering taxes on billionaires and reliance on "the free-market" to produce jobs instead of a huge federal jobs program like the WPA in the 1930's that would really work.

In spite of all the happy talk in the corporate media (TV and online) and from politicians things really won't get better (and could get a lot worse, again) if we don't make radical change in the economy and learn some lessons from history.

Even if it can't be done in exactly the same way it can still be done.

ItsAboutTime-3704531

No Justone.. we all know that if GingRICH wins the nomination -...blah blah blah

Occupy these pages by numbers on purpose any way you want....ALL the contenders are rich...ha ha

I think it is just amazing how everything that is said by either candidates, president included, can be taken out of context for one and "that's what he meant" for the other. It's kind of entertaining to me. For example:

When the first lady made the comment "For the first time in a long time she can say she is proud to be an American!" People jumped all over her that she never loved America and so forth and so on. Even when she clarified her statement it still was demonize and ridiculed. Same can be said for the president when he makes a statement that can be taken several ways.

The point is Romney has made this statement more than once in several of his campaign speeches, he just worded it differently and while this one was more pointed, I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean it the way he said it EVEN THOUGH he doubled down when he was trying to defend it. As for Gingich, he doesn’t care about the average citizen and I believe they both in my opinion will do and say anything to “appease” the republican base and then “pivot” as soon as one of them wins the primary to “appease” the general public. Same goes for Obama.

What IS disturbing to me regarding Romney, that in MY opinion, he is out of touch with the average American especially those that are struggling the most as he has NOT produced or brought forth any ideas to fix it. Now for those that will say that he did by submitting an economic plan, READ it and you will see exactly what I am talking about. It is nothing more than a “talking points” memo. I mean how can you in good conscience, promote the SAME set of principles regarding the economy that got us in this mess in the first place. Give cooperation’s ANOTHER tax break and reduce regulations, thinking that they will AGAIN pass on their profits to the American people by creating jobs (i.e. sending jobs overseas). It didn't work when Reagan tried it, that's why he raised taxes on the wealthy, It didn't work when "Bush 41" tried it which is why he eventually had to raise taxes and finally, it didn't work for "Bush 43" as it lead to the biggest economic down turn since the great depression.

Me personally, I would allow the Bush taxes to expire and go back to the Clinton era taxes AND ensure that the proper cuts and excess waste are made to ensure economic growth. Make Social Security, Medicare their OWN separate program as it was when they were originally created and make it a law that they are NOT to be touch or included in the budget since they generate their own income, AND strengthen out education system.

MSNBC and the other media need to play his whole statement. Not just "I'm not concerned about the very poor". He said it in relation to the support they get from the government programs. Shame on them. I hate the liberal media that basically allowed our country to be taken over by a communist, Obama, and will now make a man that is infinitely more qualified to pull our country out of the ditch Obama has driven it deeper into, look as bad as they possibly can.

Romney IS concerned overall about the very poor. He has stated that in numerous speeches.

@ Alan290 I am curious to know as I keep hearing the same rheotic over and over, How is Obama a communist? What policies has he presented and have been passed that would make him a communist? Again, just curious.

Oh and by the way You are right Romney DOES care about the poor. He wants them to pay their fair share in taxes. I DO remember him saying that in an interview in October or November.

Alan290

Yes, fill me in on your FACTS that prove your accusations. I must assume that you are a far right wing nut that is full of misinformation who only listens to Faux news and Rush. If Romney were to ever become POTUS he'll destroy the middle class and he will become the "food stamp" president. Foreclosures will bottom out and we'll have millions more living in their cars or Hoovervilles. All safety net programs will be obsolete and the only jobs available will be service jobs....serving the wealthy as domestic help.

Freudian slip... subconsciously Mitt Romney is spouting what he really thinks and then tries to excuse it after he says it. "Try my joker brand... they'll make you grin again and again..."

I would think that a candidate for POTUS, would see all Americans as being equal, and not to be placed into groups because of their economic status. Romney wants to help the middle class. He seems to forget that many of the poor in this country, right now, used to be middle class.

That "safety net" is out of control. I know a couple who has everything paid for them, they even have 5 free cell phones between the 2 of them. What does this give them? The ability to continue to abuse substances and zero incentive to get a job. The "safety net" was not meant to be cradle to grave, and now multi-generational.

I think too much has been made out out of the statement. We need to stay focused on the goal of getting Obama out of office. That is the only real goal and hope for our country to start to recover.

I used to hate poor people until I realized...I am one.

sounds like someone's jealous of 5 free cell phones :O

I know a couple who has nothing paid for them, they don't have any phone. the "safety net" is non-existent as far as they are concerned. This safety net was not meant to be gone in the time of most dire need.

I know a couple who has everything paid for them, they have 6 cell phones between them. What does this give them? The ability to continue to abuse employees and zero incentive to give raises. Oh wait, that is ok though.

[Did your Kochie Monster take $500 billion out of Medicare ....]

bOb, nothing like not giving the ENTIRE picture, but you're good for that, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-gop-debate-500-billion-in-cuts-to-medicare/2011/06/14/AGsnGAVH_blog.html

Oh, then there's more revenue by cutting down on Medicare fraud (notice I didn't say "eliminate" because you will NEVER eliminate all Medicare fraud) and eliminating that corporate welfare called Medicare part d (notice I did say "eliminate" because part d is nothing more than corporate welfare for Big Pharma and has got to go...no more free rides for the pharmaceuticals).

What concerns me is whether or not Rommney or any of the republican want o be's really care about anything. other than election and power ! Buying the election does not give us a person who is really capable of getting this country going in the right dirtection again. Protecting the wealthy and their profits wil not get this country going again. Fair taxes are a real start..but what is fair in loopholes that only effect a very few....and none of the majority ? What is fair about taking jobs from this country ...for profits only ? What happens when profits fall because the citizens of this country can no longer buy the products making these profits ? Does anyone in politics today care at all about this country and its people ? So far, I can not see where ex presidentr Bushg, who was republican, did anything great for this country except create a huge debt that Obama was silly enough to try to correct..which , by the way, is working to a small degree..that is better than what we got from republicans before. Questions should be asked of the front runners today in the republican party on some of the staements they have made...as to just how true they are....that however is not going to happen...the media has a chance to do that and it does not. This political race is going to be about money...nothing else....and so far I can see nothing good coming from it.

Dave sez:

what's wrong with that is Romney wants to get rid of that "safety net" that he claims the very poor have.

No he doesn't. There's plenty to criticize Romney about without making sh!t up.

Gee Byl....

I know a couple who has everything paid for them, they have 6 cell phones between them. What does this give them? The ability to continue to abuse employees and zero incentive to give raises. Oh wait, that is ok though.

You must be talking about the First Family.... I'm sure you think that is OK......

I nothing else, your comment proves mine. Being poor now is nothing like being poor even 40 years ago. It is hard to identify the poor, since they're wearing better clothes, and have cells, Ipods and blackberries. Wasn't like that 40 years ago. Yet, this is not enough according to the Democrats. The Democrats are largely responsible for the attacks on the Middle class, encouraging this sort of entitlement. We don't need entitlement, we need jobs.

Out of context? Listen to the whole interview if you want to. He said what he meant and meant what he said. He is not "concerned" and the moment he said he started dancing....uh they have a safety net.. uh if its broke.." Why doesn't he know whether it's broke or not.. he is running for freaking President!

He gets no passes. If he worried about being quoted maybe he should just shut up.

Romney is so cavalierly spending money on his campaign that he’s giving us thoughts as to how can we get him to pay us directly and cut out the middle man the media. He got 800,000. Votes and cost he’s contributories 13 million dollars to do so. He should let his hair go gray inside of being phony with coloring, does the man ego match his awkwardness in speech

DB Akron

I put that in the Obama "if people just put more air in their tires tune-up more frequently" comment category.

The really sad part, DB, is that Obama was right. If everyone paid more attention to tune ups and proper tire inflation our fuel consumption would drop in a very measurable way.

Having said that, however, I didn't have an absurdley huge problem with what Mitt said but I do think he hasn't got a f'n clue as to what the average poor or middle class deal with on a day to day bases. Not a clue!

I loved the Daily Show sketch on Romney's remarks. It illustrated so well how out-of-touch it is to treat the two extremes of the rich and the poor as equally unimportant. Obviously it sucks to be poor as opposed to rich, but the poor are a much larger percent of the population compared to 1%, while the rich like Romney are paying lower tax rates than most Americans. Romney's remarks...now that's rich.

Limbaugh was more concerned that Romney even thought a safety net (and whether it needed to be fixed) was wrong. For the right-wing Hate Mongers like Limbaugh, there should be no safety net at all!

I believe ideas matter. I believe people matter --Newt Gingrich

I like to fire people. I'm not concerned about the very poor. Corporations are people; (they're) my friends. Don't try to stop the foreclosure(s), allow investors to buy up homes. -- Mitt Romney

The all important 'context' is that these sentiments come out of Romney's mouth with a painfully revealing regularity. Sometimes a Freudian slip is exactly that. What's consistent is Romney's contempt for those not born into wealth.

Often, the only thing the poor have that resembles a "safety net" is whatever they are wearing.

Sure --- Newt gives a sh-t about the poor about like I won Powerball last week. Newt Gingrich is the best argument in the nation for why abortion should remain legal.

Right! The best part of Newt must have got wiped on the blanket. Legalise euthanasia and start with Newt.

And that is why Newt should not be president. He doesn't know when to quit.

"Part of the John Birch Society"? They started the John Birch Society! Or more correctly their father started the John Birch Society.

Da Noid,

I knew that someone (Newt) would pounce on Romney's remark. Just surprised it took this long!

oldworker: gee...wasnt the right wing nut drivel just a few weeks ago all about how Wall Street was POURING money into Obama's campaign?? You need to straighten out your talking points...(and figure out a whole lot better argument about why the wealthiest Republican candidate in history really is JUST like the average American. LOVES LOVES LOVES the richest Americans, hates the poor...gee what a great winning ticket ya got there. (Little did LBJ know that his "war on poverty" would become the Republicans rallying cry. Wow : a "war on the poor" ...how could you POSSIBLY lose an election with that one?

I don't think Obama "hates the rich" he has just asked they actually pay the same fair share as the rest of us.

I don't think Obama "loves" the poor he has been working to stop the recession and create jobs.

good thing we don't have a republican president, they love the rich and hate the poor.

you forgot to put (sarc) at the end of your post.

Another term for Obama will complete HIS destruction of this country. If you didn't like his healthcare bill, hold on .... if re-elected he will tear this country apart. Glad that I'm old and retired, because it's going to be ugly and I'm scared for my grandchildren.

Terrie: the destruction of America was nearly complete under the last guy...not all of us just woke up to deficits and wars and the politics of division when the great "decider" left office. Talk about ugly--NOW you worry about your grandchildren???? The mindless spending...the two needless wars...the war on science, on women, on reason itself with complete incompetence on everything from Wall Street to Katrina to weapons of mass destruction? Not all of us just decided what values were just because the black guy got elected. Another term for this president will finally put your kind of politics right where it belongs...and your party into further irrelevancy hopefully for a long, long time.

@Terrie-3512799

Don't worry. If Repugs win, your grandchildren will have jobs cleaning the school toilets.

@ Terrie, Again I'm curious. In your opinion, how will Obama tear the country apart? If memory serves me right, he took a balloning unemployment (mostly from jobs being sent overseas for profit from the greedy execs that supported Bush 43) from 10% to 8.5 nationally. Again NOT a good number but imagine what it would be if he didn't do anything to stop it. Also there has been a steady(slow but steady) growth of jobs in this country for the past 23 months. These are good things in my mind so I again, I'm curious how will he tear this country apart?

He's tearing the country apart by being the wrong color.

He's tearing the country apart by trying to get the rich to pay their fair share.

He's tearing the country apart by trying to promote energy other than oil.

He's playing class warfare by stating facts.

He's tearing the country apart by bringing troops home.

He's the worst president ever because he makes people like Terrie feel so very afraid.

So who gets to decide when figures like unemployment don't count. We have been using this figure for years. When it was at the highest the President took all sorts of blame. Now that it's getting lower, all of a sudden the number is somehow bogus. Hey I'm not placing blame or credit, just saying. If the number is worth spewing when it's bad don't try to discredit it when it gets better, just to prove your point.

How do you spell hypocrite?

@dadel

Ok as a Uninformed "drone" as you call it riddle me this: Granted there have been people that just "stop looking" for work because they are frustrated(that part I get) which in turn drives the "national" unemployment rate down. So tell me why doesn't job creation drive down the unemployment rate as well? And how is the percentage in unemployment "misinformed" when it has been published by the department of labor who keeps track of these figures?

Oh and by the way this "INDEPENDENT" would like to know what do you mean by destruction or is that the only "talking point" you can latch onto with no substance behind it? Just curious.......

obama raises many millions also for his campaign so you can add him to your list of politicians with insane amount of campaign funds oh by the way he also has wasted 5,000,000 on sylyndra

@plstop

obama raises many millions also for his campaign so you can add him to your list of politicians with insane amount of campaign funds

so it's ok if Repugli-cons do it, but it's a crime if Obama does it? You are just mad that small donations from middle class people can generate more money than the money donated to GOPtards by their corporate masters.

oh by the way he also has wasted 5,000,000 on sylyndra

Oh, by the way, Repugs wasted 7,000,000,000,000 on the unnecessary wars (not to mention lives of 5000 soldiers). I don't know if you can count that high, but that's six more zeros!

@plstop

Sylyndora was a republican(bush) funded program initially. It was approved by Bush before he left office(Lame duck session) and Obama continued the funding to them. Homework ppl, do your homework.

maybe we can take the money out of the system and give it to the corporation. Then they can use their first amendment right to tell us who they have selected to be our new leader. If we took the fleshy people's votes out, politicians wouldn't have to raise any money.

Darn, I'd love to blame Bush for Solyndra, but after checking a couple of sites, the approval for funding was given March 2009. Couldn't find anything about it being approved under Bush initially - doesn't mean it wasn't, just couldn't find any references to it. Of course, I'm looking under Solyndra, not Sylyndora or Sylyndra, so maybe everybody's talking different companies?

See, dadel, some of us on the left are willing to check the facts.

Pepper--The class war is over. The rich won.

Obama is playing class warfare? Both republican candidates want to give even more tax breaks to the very wealthy while passing that burden onto the middle class. Everyone is guilty of playing class warfare, only 2 of the candidates are dumb enough to be playing for the 1% team. 1% doesn't win elections.

Gilroy: NOW it's class warfare??? When the RICH guy is offended, HORRIFIED that anyone would think he doesn't care about the poor means he doesn't care about the poor??? Does the sun come up on your planet?? I got news for you genius. Romney is not the 99%.

@PepperHeader

my profile name says it all!

What are you talking about AP? I don't give a crap about Romney's foot in mouth moment. His tax plan is all about tax cuts for the wealthy and a shift of the tax burden to the middle class. It's always been about class warfare for Romney and Newt, no matter how horrified Romney pretends to act about his foible. Of course Romney is not the 99%. He's the 1%, and it seems his policies if elected will be all about catering to that 1%.

I agree with pepper Romney said what needs to be said "I don't care about the very poor"

Bob--And how did you hear about these gaffes? Perchance through the media?

Bob, you are right. Obama controls what comes out of Gingrich's big mouth. In fact, Gingrich is being paid millions of $ by DNC to sling mud at Romney.

I just hope Gingrich pays fair taxes on that under the table money.

Bob........,

A gaffe is when a person make a misstatement, once. Mitt has said the same thing many times, on camera, for all the world to see as many time as it takes to soak in to the thick heads of the right.

state run media lmao! The fear continues to radiate from the right, even when it just isn't scary anymore.

Bob----Repeating your wish list doesn t make it true. Gingrich doesn t work for nbc news/ he is going to be working for fox shortly.

Newt is also a draft dodger, hangin' around Tulane writing a long b.s. essay that his supervisor kindly passed off as a thesis. Of course, the thesis was simply - I'm far too yellow and too important to serve my country in a meaningful way - as in putting myself (and my dick) in harms way. Slick Willie pulled the same stunt at Oxford, and if you recall Reagan (Newt's idol) found some sleazy way out of serving in the armed forces overseas and in harms way. Reagan just fooled around in LA, thinking with his dick.

NW--Regarding workhouses, didn't Newt already come out in favor of them? He did want to put children to work because in poor neighborhoods there is no work ethic. Long time since that dude has lived or worked or seen a poor neighborhood.

Newt is hoping for the return of treadmills, work houses, debtor's prisons and the opportunity to ship poor folks to Australia in this Dickensian thread. Of course, he went to Tiffany's to say, "Please Sir, may I have some more?"

Newt is really a creation of Parker and Stone.

He is part of a sequel about when Cartman tries to be an adult.

A man of decent character would not go and strip companies of their money and then rip them apart like a butcher going for the choicest cuts of prime beef....

I'll pick door number three. The guy whose policies have helped end the recession, save the auto industry, is ending two needless, stupid wars, and who doesn't think the way forward is to declare war on women, minorities, the poor and science.

Romney may be a "family man"- but he is NOT working for MY family.

His comment about the very poor showed a complete ignorance of the plight of the very poor. He says that if the "safety nets" need fixing he will fix them. THE SAFETY NETS ARE ALREADY BROKEN AND HANGING BY A THREAD. This clueless man should volunteer working at a homeless shelter and take Medicaid applications for a day. Maybe, the Mormons help their own poor people, but thousands of Americans tonight are homeless.

Most of us are only ONE MAJOR ILLNESS OR ACCIDENT away from bankruptcy. (Please note: The Republicans are also against our bankruptcy laws and want to take away LEGAL aid from the poor.

The Republican philosophy is so against the teachings of Christ, it is pathetic.

WHAT...........you want the 1% job makers to act like Christians too............you want too much they are too busy making jobs............err maybe thinking about that at least on their yachts

My point is put a decent candidate up their to go against Obama not a turd like Gingrich.

Then we have the choice between Obama and what he represents and Romney who represents money, capitalism and putting those above everything else.

Romney represents the corporate world where there are no saints. The goal is to make money. If that creates jobs and some security, all the better. THAT IS CAPITALISM. I don't see why Romney should be blamed for this. BLAME capitalism...

I'm voting Obama. I just don't want some joke like Gingrich getting any closer to the White House...

NewtISaPIG

You got that right; Newt is a turd. It amazes me that the Republicans didn't insist that he stay flushed.

I guess the voters will have to make a decision: A choice between a Gingrich-accused Massachusetts moderate or a notorious Washington pariah who was reviled and denounced by both sides of the aisle while serving in congress.

One thing we ALL have to remember, no matter who wins the primary the WILL succumb to the "establishment". They won't have a say so on their own campaign, they will say and do exactly what the "establishment" wants or they will lose their funding. Can you say "talking points" campaign with no real substance or ideas that will help solve the major issues plaguing America. For once I would REALLY love to hear how and what policies in particular Obama has passed that is taking this country backwards instead of forwards instead of just "talking" Give us substance NOT rheotic.

I'd like to point out that Romney ran a very negative campaign in Florida and won it. We truly will keep getting what we deserve if we keep rewarding those who go negative. I agree with your sentiment NewtIsA, but we need to stop rewarding the bad behavior of all the candidates that go negative.

And don't you think that is being a little mean to pigs? O.o

don't know why but "turd' is such a funny word.. go ahead say it three time..lol

The term really fits New Grinch.

frank whatever-you-are, if you don't know what a "work ethic" is and how it provides lifelong benefits, please don't pretend that you do. it shows.

gingrich (ging-RICH) n. 1. a constructed fabric composed of dried sperm, cum, and pubic hair. 2. Former US Representative Newt Gingrich

as in http://spreadingsantorum.com/

I'm sure you make comments all the time about whatever you know nothing about.

But it's sad how much support they can get from right-wing voters regardless.

my thoughts exactly!

And the divisive trash who occupies the White House is the best the Democrats can do? Actually, he personifies the mooching, angry victims every time he goes somewhere in Air Force One at taxpayer expense so that he legally can bill the taxpayer for the next fundraiser that somehow magically is right along the flight path. Take Obama/Soetoro away from his teleprompter, have the "press" bait him like they bait any Republican, and he'll make remarks that make the police officer who "acted stupidly" seem like a compliment - of course, the "press" will never do that and he'll never get close to actual journalists.

As if Newtie gives a flying f**k about anybody with less than a $500k credit line at Tiffany's.

Dave in Western NY,

Obama is not the first president to fly on Air Force One at the taxpayers expense.