Getty Images
Mitt Romney stopped by a Manhattan fire station on Tuesday with Rudy Giuliani -- by pure coincidence, it coincided with the anniversary of the mission that killed Osama bin Laden -- and reflected on one of the conversations he had with a firefighter.
Speaking at a Ritz Carlton fundraiser in a wealthy D.C. suburb, the presumptive GOP nominee said, "I spoke with a fireman yesterday, and he has a one-bedroom apartment, and his wife is pregnant, and he can't afford a second bedroom. I asked the firefighters I was meeting with, about 15 or them, how many had had to take another job to make ends meet, and almost every one of them had."
Jon Chait picked up on the problem with Romney's rhetoric.
Well, maybe we should pay them more! Oh, wait -- Romney's position is that these fine public servants are luxuriating in excessive pay, a fact that, unlike swelling income inequality, constitutes a major source of unfairness in American life. ("We will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve," he said last week.)
This is actually a policy flashpoint between the two parties. Public employment has cratered in recent years, with public sector jobs continuing to decline even as private sector jobs rebound, exerting a continued drag on the sluggish recovery. Obama's position is that the federal government ought to provide aid to state governments to rehire some of the laid-off teachers, cops, and firefighters. Republicans oppose this. Romney seems to have forgotten that the firefighters he came face-to-face with are one category of Americans whose economic pain he's supposed to be in favor of.
Exactly. Obama even devoted a huge chunk of his American Jobs Act to hiring and saving jobs for first responders, like the firefighter Romney talked to on Tuesday. Republicans killed the proposal and Romney opposed the president's plan.
The disconnect is a real problem for the former governor (who, incidentally, has a record of laying off firefighters): he wants more public-sector layoffs, as well as pay cuts for public-sector workers, but he also wants to appear sympathetic to struggling first responders who won't benefit at all from his policy agenda.
In the bigger picture, this raises an often-overlooked problem for Romney's larger pitch: his entire platform is a failure of transactional politics.
Campaign politics, especially at the national level, tends to have a definite transactional quality. A candidate will identify a group of voters and offer to make what is, in effect, a trade -- in exchange for your support in the election, the candidate will deliver a policy that will make a material difference in your life.
Indeed, this tends to shape most of a campaign's messaging. The candidate is talking to a voter whose family doesn't have health insurance? He/she gets to hear about the candidate's plan to bring that family coverage. Another voter can't afford college tuition? Or is worried about foreclosure? Or is struggling to pay for groceries? The candidate will have some kind of plan that will address the voter's needs.
"I care about your problem," the candidate is expected to say, "and I have a solution that I think will help."
But Romney's in a tough spot, because he doesn't have much of anything to trade in exchange for votes. He meets a struggling firefighter, but Romney can't promise to boost salaries for first responders, because the his platform calls for the opposite. He meets struggling college students worried about tuition costs, but Romney can't promise more Pell Grants or expanded access to student loans, because he fully intends to end the federal government's role in helping young people afford higher education.
Team Romney organized a conference call this week to address veterans' issues, but the campaign spokespersons didn't mention any specifics about programs that might make a positive difference in veterans' lives because there were no specifics to offer.
Romney makes frequent references to the "issues that matter," but what he tends to overlook is the fact much of the American mainstream is looking for measures that will help their families -- with education, with health care, with the threat of foreclosure, etc. -- and the GOP candidate has nothing compelling to tell them.
His is an agenda of austerity, a sharp reduction in public investments, and hostility towards government activism in general. In a transactional sense, Romney has to hope most voters aren't looking to make a traditional electoral trade, because he doesn't intend to give them anything.
Leave a Comment:
Romney has no core
Truth is, there is no quantifiable reason to vote for a conservative platform. Hold on a minute, you say, what if you are fortunate enough to be very wealthy, wouldn't you then want all those tax cuts? funny thing is , the wealthy do better under policies that increase the security of the middle class for the simple reason that more people end up with more purchasing power.
If there is someone out there honestly thinking of voting for Mr Romney, please tell us what the reason is for that and how you plan to benefit from that reason?
I have many friends who identify with the republican party.
One group will vote for Mittens because they always vote for repubicans.
A second group will vote for Mittens because they 'know' that Mittens will help them get richer.
A third group will vote for Mittens because they believe what Rushbo and Sean Insanity and Fox Noise tell them.
A fourth group will vote for Mittens because he ain't black.
Whether they will 'actually' benefit from the election of Mittens is not an active consideration. We have had 30+ years of voters convinced to vote for republicans against their own real self-interests. On what basis would you now conclude that the low information base and the theological base of the republican party are going to stop being delusional?
The good news, vet, is that all of the groups you cite are growing older- and even if taxes are not a surety for them, death still is!
Why would I vote for Mitt? Mostly because he isn't Obama.
Exactly how would I benefit? Hard to tell, but he can't be any worse than Obama.
@Shooter242: It's that kind of insightful policy analysis that leads to electing really awful leaders. Pick a subject, and I'm sure people here will be happy to tell you how you could do a lot worse with Mitt.
That same logic gaves America 2 wars, bankrupted a nation, stagnate our workforce, Teaparty/manics in both houses of congress, Wall Street going amok (which is fighting with every dollar to keep it that way), out sourcing jobs anywhere but here, Insurance cos. making decision for doctors & charging whatever they want (this I know personally)...
And should know because you lived through for 8 yrs (2000-2008).. Unless you were living in a hole....
Really? I know what Obama thinks about immigration, business, war, assassination, and the environment, and none of those are good for business.
I have no idea what Romney will do, but I'm guessing it will improve employment. As for electing awful leaders, one can only vote for those that run. Sadly that group has to have unassailable egos, and lie better than most.
.....you know what Obama thinks about, say, war, and that's bad for business? Who do you work for, Lockheed Martin? You know what Obama thinks about business, and that's bad for business? Have you seen the DOW lately?
I think the problem here, shooter, is you don't actually know what Obama thinks, but are too (busy? lazy?) to trouble your beautiful mind by actually finding out.
Why should be bother learning anything when he so clearly believes that he knows it all already? That would be a clear waste of time.
Consistency is the hobgoblen of small minds, therefore Mitt Romney has a big mind.
WTF! Should we expect Mittens to run on his actual policy positions?
"I care about your problem," the c
andidateMittens is expected to say, "and I have a solution that I think will help (me & mine get richer)(and just don't look because I am lying)."Specifically "Foolish consistency". Little minds like Romney's thrive on it.
I recall Obama having lots of policy positions which didn't survive the realities of office. At least I know Romney isn't anti-business.
I didn't realize asking businesses to not swindle people out of their money and to not destroy the environment was anti-business. You'd think businesses would want people to still be monetarily viable and healthy. Guess not.
The idea for a very powerful campaign exists in this post. Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton could function as a very powerful influence. So could Obama and Biden. I would love to see Michelle on the stump as well connecting with the parent pain. But there is another aspect to this that absolutely must be emphasized. And that is the congress is dysfunctional and the Rethugs are hell-bent on opposing EVERYTHING Obama tries to accomplish. People need to be begged to help him help them by voting in their best interest and rejecting the Tea Bagger Rethugs and their mega-wealthy handlers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the republican's real problem is not obama or socialism or communism or even liberalism. their big problem is the calendar. somebody keeps printing a new edition every fall!
Very few NYC firefighters live in NYC. They work 24 hours on and 48 hours off which makes commutation from the suburbs less brutal than it is for those who do it 5 days per week. They tend to live at the furthest end of commutation by car as they are entitled to street parking. It appears that he didn't ask when and where are you buying.
Most NYC firefighters cannot afford to "live in the city"! Contrary to what many think and are led to believe by the GOP and the tea-potty most "civil servants" (except the current Congress) aren't rolling in cash, living off the public! Truth be told whether it's state or federal workers the GOP is fulfilling Grover Norquist's marching orders -decimate government enough that it can be drowned in a bathtub!
Personally I think that makes them traitors to working Americans! For over 30+ years American workers have been under attack by spectacularly failed policies, people with no vision, and an ideology of "I've got mine"! And whether the "black man" will be in the White House come January 2013, WE need to get every single GOP'er out of Congress - they are bad for America and for working Americans!
I was thinking along the same lines. Many firefighters and cops in Chicago live at the far ends of the city since they are the nicest middle class neighborhoods. These civil servants could not afford to live in the upscale areas along the lake front. I suspect that this is true in many cities because of residency rules and pay.
I can vouch for that being true, but in a similarly affluent area in CA instead of NYC or Chicago. The middle class workers would car pool to get to work and hope everyone got finished to return home. Much time spent waiting, because we worked at homes and businesses that often took longer than estimated to complete the job, for the variables were many. But there were hardly any residents of the area served, except a few studio renters and I knew some guys from the projects, which was the exception to the rule. Opposite the bay side of Sausalito on the other side of Hwy 101 are the projects. Middle Class (union) jobs got them on their feet.
FF benefits and salary
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml
Handy information. This puts NYC firefighters solidly in the middle class (with NYC's median income being around $63K), where they should be. At the very least.
Unless your point was they're overpaid, in which case I'll guess you don't live in NYC and have no idea what the cost of living is here.
Maybe his point is that they're paid at all. If they're public servants, why aren't they in chains?
I think Shooter needs to don a set of turnouts and strap an SCBA to his back and drag an unconscious 300 lb person down three flights of stairs in a burning building before he spouts off about the pay and benefits the FDNY provides its firefighters.
Now, how much clearer can it be that is the desire to go against what the constituents want and cut public safety budget (or is it unions?)?
There is obviously a campaign against unions by corporate shills. People (probably paid trolls on message boards-just went to Ed's and saw a large number there) are throwing stones at unions as if they will curry favor from the corporations for bringing about more profit for the Board members, but this results in further deterioration of the middle class and access to it. The goal is to equate union members with communism. People keep reverting back to the Cold War rhetoric.
This corporate mentality is wrong for America. Corporations hold no allegiance, except for profit, the consumers are not even valued, let alone loyal, hard working employees that serve up the profit for them while they take less and less wages, just to keep their job. The threat of job loss is always in the forefront now. If we tax them, they will cut jobs, as if they have kept people at their jobs because of low taxes we have had.
When will it stop? Never, if we do not regulate commerce. They covet the days of having slaves and let them eat rice and beans… while we dance on the graves of the union and sip champagne.
Must be weird for the Romney campaign. To come this far in the mother-of-all-GOP-primaries and suddenly realize "Oh, crap! We need an actual policy agenda?!?"...
Yep, campaigning was alot easier when all Mitt had to do was sit quietly in a corner while the his GOP rivals put on a clown show.
It surprises me that the firefighters themselves or anyone working in the public sector would approve of such a campaign stop from a candidate that has no real record supporting them (in more than mere words). Why would they stand by and allow that? This must be the strange and creepy aspect of politics we have heard about recently....
The Republican Party not only has become the "party of no." It has become the political home for anti-Americanism, for defeatist rhetoric, for visceral hate, and for those evil individuals that believe the best days of America are long gone and we should simply clamp down with full-on austerity and cut off all but the rich from existence. Working Americans are enemies of the state in the mind of the GOP. The Republican Party offers no positive vision for this country's future and instead happily watches as their corporate benefactors ship every last American job to China for greater profit. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The problem is the permanent voters: 45% who will vote republican, literally no matter who they put on the ballot. that means the campaign is for about 10% "swing voters", who would be Democratic voters if they weren't disgusted with politicians in general. So the GOP strategy is a mixture of voter suppression and an FUD campaign: fear, uncertainty and doubt. It works quite well most election cycles. Obama had a fantastic PR team (and a whole lot of campaign funds) in 2008, and likely will again this year, and he seems to be recovering his political skills that were *not* on display for the 2010 midterm elections. He will almost certainly be re-elected. The question is, can the Dems recapture the House and avoid losing the Senate? That's hugely significant, because filibuster rules can be changed, but a minority cannot become a majority. If the GOP has either house of congress, it will be 2 years (or 4) of the second term playing defence on healthcare and everything else.
What do you mean Romney has a problem with transactional politics? Didn't he leave a few hundred dollar bills on the firehouse nightstand after he was through using them much in the same way a john would a pricy escort? The firefighters appear with Romney in public to make him look good, and behind the scenes, he f__ks them. Just don't ask me what the firefighters are getting out of this. The privilege of appearing in public with Mr. 1%, I suppose...
And this is why "social issues" are so important to Republicans. Since they really have nothing of economic substance to offer middle class voters - in fact, middle class voters voting Republican are often voting against their own economic self interest - ginning up fervor to vote Republican depends almost exclusively on appeals to ban gay marriage, restrict or ban abortion, re-institute Christian prayer in public schools, stop "voter fraud," and make it possible to pack heat in crowded, public places. What's amazing is that this bait & switch has been going for so long - and still seems to work!
I've never seen a more awkward and inept politician in action...
Putting aside all partisan issues and democratic side vs republican side arguments of policy, what concerns me the most about Mitt Romney is his effortless predisposition to not telling the truth.
It is horrifying to think of a president who has no problem with consistent lies and what that would mean for the country. It is not as if he cannot find valid policy differences by which he can make his argument against the current administration, valid as in TRUE.
Rachel has consistently pointed this out and I am very grateful for this. I hope that the rest of the beltway can catch up to her reporting on this issue. It would be a mistake to become complacent with something so blatantly obvious, purely because it is so commonplace with Mitt Romney that it becomes the norm.
Mitt on firefighters and other public employees: "Let 'em go bankrupt. If there's a need for them, the private sector will fix it." And in the meantime, houses and businesses will burn, criminals will operate at will with no fear of incarceration, and roads and bridges will crumble. Of course, the 1% don't need to worry about that; they can afford private fire protection and personal security, and private jets and helicopters don't need roads or bridges.
This is all such a hypocritical ruse. What's interesting is that Romney said in his previous presidential campaign that his policy would be not to go into Pakistan after al Qaeda targets without first consulting Pakistani leaders. Then given the actionable intel (that Obama received), Romney would have then consulted Pakistani leaders before conducting a raid to get bin Laden. And if you believe that the Pakistani leaders had no clue as to who was living in the compound then you are an idiot. The result would have been that either a) they would have refused Romney plans, or b) would have warned bin Landen allowing him to seek cover that would have resulted in a botched raid with probable causalities.
Be careful who you vote for this November, be very careful.
Just imagine what Mitts would be getting away with if we didn't have instant media.
Just imagine what we'd be catching Romney doing if we had a media that was willing to call a liar a liar. Or at least ask follow-up questions.
What I want to know is WHY the media thinks Romney is such an economic GENIUS and keep pushing the meme? Because he's rich? Honest to Pete, that is the lamest reason of all. WHY isn't the story pushed of how he GOT into Bain? Why can we see what his son is doing and just show that he patterned after his father? If I get on FACEBOOK and come up with a good story and RICH people become my investors and I get wealthy am I an economic GENIUS?
I will repost what I just posted on Ed's:
Which is exactly why I want to incentivize employers that outsourced jobs to bring the plants and factories back to U.S. soil, not those places that Tom Delay was praising the U.S. territory of the Marianas as captiaist petri dishes.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/print/capitolcrimes_transcript_print.html
(about a third of the way down)- but this article is all shining a light on lobbying, the desires to buck labor unions, and fight against laws to bring the factories that are placed in places on U.S. territory that would need to follow our laws. The foreign business tycoon trying to woo Tom DeLay and it apparently worked. This was clearly to enable the garment industry (among others) to claim "made in U.S.", butnot really, because we can't allow the minimum wage laws and working conditions, etc. These are the people that encourage outsourcing jobs. If we cannot exploit the laws of other countries, might as well bring the jobs back to the U.S.
I want Congress to do something that will make it less desirable to off shore jobs and persuade businesses to hire people at better wages. It will be good for economy, raise revenues to pay for budgets without having to raise as much actual taxes… win, win. Free market without regulation leads to businesses getting tax breaks without providing the employment, for which they are given those breaks.
Romney seems to want the tax breaks, but just the merger news causes stock to go up because of layoffs! How does that help America? Cutting jobs/budgets does not help any hiring occur. It helps private companies to get access to tax dollars and costs more.
Republican presidential candidates generally have not gotten working-class people to vote for them by promising them specific things, but by promising to deny benefits to others. They also appeal to tribal allegiances, through jingoism and glorification of the national economic ideology. Romney is not basically different from previous national candidates. State and local candidates are usually more specific in promising things which will benefit their districts.
"A candidate will identify a group of voters and offer to make what is, in effect, a trade -- in exchange for your support in the election, the candidate will deliver a policy that will make a material difference in your life"
A trade is taking place. It can best be described as the one a German Jew made in voting for Hitler. They thought their Germaness, service to the Kaiser in the trenches of WWI e.g., would allow them to survive what is now being excused as "politics". We know how this worked out
Perhaps we should ask Romney if he'll propose a bill to Congress that will reduce their wages, the wages of their staff, and the President and Vice President wages, down to the minimum wage. After all, according to Romney, it won't do to have public workers get paid more than any taxpayers, and if they can't lead by example, why should we trust them?
If the Republican "public servants" aren't willing to cut their own Government wages, what right do they have to cut the wages of other public workers?
As Romney is a Mormon, and Mormons claim to be Christians (although, really, they claim to be the only Christians, but never mind), there is a question asked in James 2:15-16 that Romney needs to answer: "If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,' and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?"
So, Mitt, what good are you?