My colleague Tricia McKinney highlighted this new Mitt Romney ad yesterday, but given its larger significance, let's take another look at the commercial and note how it ties into the Republican campaign's larger problems.
For those who can't watch clips online, here's the full script of the minute-long spot:
"Too many Americans are struggling to find work in today's economy. Too many of those who are working are living paycheck to paycheck, trying to make falling incomes meet rising prices for food and gas. More Americans are living in poverty than when President Obama took office and 15 million more are on food stamps. President Obama and I both care about poor and middle-class families. The difference is my policies will make things better for them.
"We shouldn't measure compassion by how many people are on welfare. We should measure compassion by how many people are able to get off welfare and get a good paying job. My plan will create 12 million new jobs over the next four years -- helping lift families out of poverty and strengthening the middle class. I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message because we can't afford another four years like the last four years."
The Democratic National Committee unveiled their own version of the same ad late yesterday, interspersing old Romney quotes with new ones.
Now, before we dig into the specifics of the message, it's worth appreciating why this ad was made. After all, with 40 days until Election Day, and with early voting already getting started, chances are Mitt Romney does not want to take time and money to release ads that say, in effect, "No, really, despite what you've heard, I actually care about people. Believe me. Please."
But the Republican doesn't have much of a choice -- the "47 percent" scandal was the worst possible story for Romney at the worst possible time, and if there were any doubts about the damage done by the controversy, this ad should make the truth clear.
Indeed, as Greg Sargent reported yesterday, this ad "will begin airing at full throttle in all of Romney's media markets in nine swing states, and it will be the only Romney ad running in them." This is, in other words, one major clean-up effort.
And then there's the message of the ad itself, and the importance of one word in particular.
If you missed it, Garance Franke-Ruta raised an excellent observation.
It's not the most polished video in the world. But you can see the thinking behind it. The candidate will directly address the voters, making a spare, authentic, heart-to-heart appeal that he cares about how "too many Americans" are suffering.
And then he says it. "President Obama and I both care about poor and middle-class families. The difference is my policies will make things better for them."
Them.
Mitt Romney keeps talking about the people whose votes he needs as "them."
In the 47 percent video, it was "those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," Romney said.
But presidential elections are always about the grand national us. They are about we, the people. And when it come to a candidate, they are about me and you.
Quite right. Even in a video in which Romney is speaking directly to the camera, trying to make an emotional connection with the middle class, he doesn't say "you" when talking about working families; he says "them."
It would have been easy -- indeed, it would have been obvious -- for Romney to say in the ad, "The difference is my policies will make things better for you." But that would require Mr. Car Elevator to see himself as a man of the people. He doesn't, and even in scripted ads, he doesn't know how to pretend, either.
Mitt Romney is still very much stuck in the same mindset we saw in the video of the exclusive Boca fundraiser -- "us" and "we" are reserved for country-club members who can pay $50,000 a plate; "they" and "them" are used to describe retirees, students, veterans, and those struggling to get by.
As much as anything any factor, this helps explain why Romney's losing.
Leave a Comment:
Sorry, don't know where esle to post this, but have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Glzma7r-BOI&feature=player_embedded
Thank you for the link - what happened to Free Speech? Can not believe people who are his constituents who speak out of turn asking about jobs - and instead of answering them has them arrested.
I was struck by a different word:
Plan.
As in "my plan will create 12 million jobs."
Lay it out for us- and several Nobel economists- so we can examine the merits of this "plan".
The plan is to roll back Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, EPA regs and open up drilling. Make current rates permanent, and give business a level playing field. Business doesn't need a plan, they already have plans... to make money, hire and pay taxes... if allowed.
There are a lot of jobs involved in engineering, manufacturing , installing,operating and maintaining the equipment that provide us clean air and water. How many less good paying jobs will we have if we roll back EPA regulations?
Mr. "Shooter",
It has not worked, is not working (as you say we have those "rates" now) and won't work in the future even assuming your boy were to win.
Here's the part you may or may not know: Romney knows it won't work for "them" and really does not care. What I can't figure out is why you, and people like you, can't see reality staring them in the face.
Shooter,please take some time off trolling and be serious for a minute.
Why isn't anybody pointing out to him that this pledge amounts to an average of 250,000 jobs a month, a far cry from the 500,000 jobs a month that Romney claimed would be created in a "normal recovery."
CBO projects that 9.6 million jobs will be created in the next four years.But Moody's Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president and if i may, this is due the steps taken by the Obama administration early on to tackle the crisis. ( page 51.) And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.
So You see Romney is a FRAUD.He talks about 12million jobs but fails miserably to show us how.And if you'd consider the video,in it he says if he wins,They won't need to do anything,The markets and jobs would just be Rosy because the CONFIDENCE FAIRY will come.
It has been pointed out here and elsewhere that even if Romney does nothing, 12 million jobs will be created within the next 4 years as the economy recovers. So, there is no plan. The Republicans are just gonna stick it to us and tell us how wonderful they are.
The words "plan" and "them" struck me too for the same reasons, but did he really have to insult the veiwers of the ad with the ridiculous closure comment and officially "approving the message" ? What was that all about? Wasn't he the ONLY person speaking in that ad after all?
Was this just some lame attempt to try and put further emphasis on the concept of him actually " believing the words coming out of his own mouth" ?
Welcome to Florida . Ask Mr. "I will create 700,000 jobs " Rick Scott .
He has a Super majority In the Florida Legislature and has created maybe 40,000.
They have spent a lot of time worrying about Obamacare , trying to privatize prisons , rejecting 2.4 billion in rail money and the associated jobs, restricting voting ...jobs , not so much
Willard would be no different , he is cut from the same cloth as Rick Scott
"Measure compassion" caught my eye. We're not interested in measuring compassion, we want to see some! So when Mystery Mitt says he's just as compassionate as Obama, but isn't on board with unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other programs that help the poor, how exactly does he plan to help people survive until the day they can "get off welfare and get a good paying job?" (And BTW, those 12M jobs would probably be added over the next 4 years even without his "help.")
As far as "plan" goes, well, that's all part of "Mystery Mitt" - everything he's laid out as a "plan" is a goal. A plan contains actual details of how he proposes to achieve the goals he espouses. Whether or not you agree with his goals, he doesn't say how he'd achieve them, leaving himself wide open to the allegation that he'll implement his plans to the detriment of the poor and working poor, even while he's now trying to pander himself to the middle class.
This is where desperate trolling becomes virtually indistinguishable from juvenile stupidity. How much more money do corporations need to make in order to feel like they have enough to be able to "hire"? By all estimates, they are "sitting on" record amounts of cash right now. About $1.73 TRILLION of cash, by the estimates of the Federal Reserve, an increase of about 50% just since 2007. So, where were all the jobs that should have created?
How many disabled Americans do we need to throw into the streets by cutting off their Social Security benefits, in order to provide more "tax cuts" in order to provide how much more cash to these greedy pigs before they "feel" like they have enough to "hire"?
Or have I by now made the point clearly enough that the notion that they need more tax cuts to stimulate employment is 100% PURE GRADE-A BEEF BYPRODUCT (aka bull@!$%# if I wasn't being clear enough).
And pay taxes? If allowed? Crikey, that's actually funny - it's like you're not even trying any more. These latest polls must have you really depressed, huh?
That's it. I've already "scratched the hemorrhoid" more than I should have.
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
ElisaFromLI- As stupid as it is, candidates are required by campaign law to "approve" any message paid for by the campaign, with their name and "approve this message." In this case, you've got to give Mittens a break.
"We have to vote for it before we can find out what is in it"
VeryVerySad- I was aware of that law, but I didn't think there could be any "confusion" or it even applied here, as he clearly "identified himself by name" as the one and only source of the ad, as well as who paid for it at the end. Thanks for the correction though.. I guess I do have to give Mittens a break on that one. Now I wish he hadn't said that... darn it!
Romney actually spelled out his plan in the "secret video"
Also known as the Jiminy Cricket Plan
Robert and Khayyam, Economics isn't rocket science, it's more like psychology. It's the study of what human beings will do with a dollar in a given situation. I want you to consider the human beings that an economy is comprised of. Not the Fed, not Obama, not Govt., just the human beings. In fact, consider yourselves here.
Are you feeling good about the future? Do you think America will prosper any time soon? Or, do you feel a bit anxious? Are you saving and paying down debt, or blowing the paycheck on a big vacation? It doesn't really matter why you feel one way or the other, just that you have an opinion on the future.
Whichever opinion is dominant in the country, determines the future of the economy. It's just that simple. If you are confident in your ability to make enough money in the future to pay for a vacation... you'll take it. Or buy a car, or a fridge, or a house. If you don't, you won't. And that's where most people are these days. Anxious.
So is business. The future brings tax hikes, Obamacare, yet to be developed Federal Agencies, and yet to be written Federal regulations. Obama and his administration have demonstrated an animus toward business time and again. It is scary enough that trillions are sitting idle. Why? because it's safer to hoard. Business is human beings, no different from you. If you aren't splurging, why would they? It's just that simple.
Haven't you heard the expression "going Galt"? That's what it looks like in our era.
None actually. If Democrats voted to freeze everything right where it's been for the last decade, Republicans would agree. Business would be happy. And no actual disabled people will suffer.
Apparently you still don't get the connection between profit and taxes. No profit, no taxes. Which part of that is giving you trouble?
LOL blanks!!!
You just got your ass handed to you and still you post absolute nonsense!
LOL!
"But presidential elections are always about the grand national us. They are about we, the people."
Mittens "divine Kingship" means that he (& his 1% people) are above US! Both he and his wife have no problem using "you people, those people, you" - see there really are two Americas: a) the 1% and b) everyone else! Americans need to recognize that being "white" isn't a tie that binds them to Mittens, it's how much money is in your bank account and what Swiss accounts you have!
As Terry Pratchett wrote about Mr Teatime, Romney sees "things differently from other people, and one of the ways that he [sees] things differently from other people [is] in seeing other people as things."
Or even just "My plan will make things better." Full stop. No pronoun needed.
And apparently no specifics on the plan needed, either. But that's another thing altogether.
"Them" jumped right out at me, too. Things are just going to get worse and worse for Romney, because he has no clue. And he's going to drag his party down with him.
We the people need to hand them their ass. Take care Mitt and do not write.
It just tugs at the heart, don't it, to see the way Mitt the Father sees the struggling unwashed, peering through crusted eyes and disconsolately picking at accumulated scabs as they ponder their opportunities for entrepreneurship.
He knows we're here. He recognizes our difficulties. He hopes it will get better, he really does, he really, really does. And Mitt the Father's hopes are our hopes as we cast about for a bootstrap to hold onto, like a rabbit's foot talisman, like a stained, but hopeful, pair of magic underwear.
Thank you for caring, Mitt the Father. It means so much.
Romney's problem is that he doesn't lie as convincingly as Obama does. Business people have to cultivate a history of doing what one says he will do. Obama on the other hand lies for a living. The coverup of the Libya killings is just the latest example. Romney will have to either become true to himself or lie better.
As for "them", do you each want to be addressed as hapless, helpless, children, incapable of surviving on your own? Maybe so. Hard to tell most of the time.
ROFL. Oh my, haaahhahahahahahahahaha. That's just prime Shooter nonsense. More baseless claims, poor thing. I suppose his post should say "Shooter's problem is that he doesn't lie convincingly *at all*."
shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am
I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.
For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.
Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.
Please don't feed the trolls people. They're like starving animals that will never go away once they get a free meal.
It may be your opinion that addressing trolls is a bad idea. I find it a bad idea to allow them to spew their nonsense on any forum without being countered and called the vermin they are. It allows them a pulpit from which to speak from and appear to have the tacit agreement from the "crowd".
Romney isn't lying as good as Obama? I needed a good chuckle this morning, and that gave it to me. All politicians lie, but Romney has made his entire campaign on a bed of lies.
velkyn, you don't want to ignore a troll but you also don't want to expend precious energy ranting against their nonsense. Because ultimately all they want is for you to get angry. It's how they get off. By all means, acknowledge that they're idiots, but don't waste your time attacking their arguments with facts and links they don't care about and will continue to ignore the next time they post. The very fact that we're talking about him rather than Romney is making his nipples all pokey, but he won't stop if you ignore him either. Just point and laugh. As is deserved.
Only 40 more days of pay for trolls!!
then slappy, he fails at that too. Get angry? No, but maybe fall off my chair laughting at trolls. There is plenty of reason to attack their arguments, no matter how many times it's needed. let me quote my own blog post about this issue: "
To allow someone a chance to speak whatever they want is part and parcel of the ideal of free speech. However, there are responsibilities that come along with that ideal, namely that one cannot stand idly by and allow lies and nonsense to remain uncontested. For if those are uncontested, then they can spread and they can harm others. The internet is full of conspiracy theories and misinformation that start and remain alive because of the insular nature of some forums. Staying silent on open ones only compounds the problem, allowing a “herd” to create its own immunity to reality. Humans are not perfect and when they see someone promoting an idea that they agree with or an idea that gives them an excuse, they will glom onto it with little thought that it may not be true.
Treat the troll as a patient zero and you may have a chance to quell another epidemic of willful or malicious ignorance. And, who knows, you might even cure your original case."
when i first saw this entry, I wondered, was he talking to an interviewer which would excuse the "them"? It's amazing that nope, he really said "them" in a advert that was him talking "to" an audience. Who the hell is running this rolling catastrophe?
Right. He's pleading with his donors not to abandon him, and for some bizarre reason, he's broadcasting that plea for all of us thems to see. I really wonder if he'll end up with 27%.
Romney still is not talking to the 47%, only about them. He still believes he can never get their vote, but he wants desperately to have some potential voters like him as an empathetic fellow.
I heard it while he was saying it on the commercial, the word them was even pronounced using a higher syllable. The ad looks forced and insincere. He never once made the effort to talk or even acknowledge the Middle Class during his campaign, the opportunity for him was missed a long time ago. To try and say something nice about the American people is so phoney and apprehensive, coming from him, why does he even bother? He thought, like all of the Republicans do, that all you need now is money to win, not so fast, the people are taking back their government, and we will fight tooth and nail to keep it from being sold to the highest bidder. That's how the 47% will take care of themselves.
Mr. Romney's plan is as it's always been: Tax cuts for the super-wealthy (sorry, the 'job creators') and then the trickle-down fairies will cast their blessings on the little people (aka 'them').
Mr. Romney just doesn't get it, does he. You can't be a leader if you only care about half the country.
I can't find any news site that's discussing this yet, but Media Matters has apparently petitioned DOJ to open an official investigation of Stench Romney:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/107107934/New-Legal-Analysis-Finds-Strong-Possibility-of-Romney-Criminal-Liability-for-Misrepresentation-He-Made-in-Federal-Financial-Disclosure-Filings-in-2011
Thanks for that @Matt. It's some interesting reading. Perhaps Romney's "retroactive" wand finally has a dead battery!
Let's just hope that the DOJ actually investigates this punk. It's time for his lawyerly semantic games to catch up to him.
Apart from the "them" aspect, the entire ad is just a litany of Romney/Ryan lies and disingenuousness. "My policies" - would be disastrous - tax hikes on middle-class families, the destruction of Medicaid and Medicare, etc., etc., If Romney's "heart aches" for those who are struggling - why didn't he pony up out of his own pocket and replace the day's pay the miners at Murray lost when they were ordered to show up to make Romney look good at a campaign stop? And 12 million jobs are already projected to be created in the next four years regardless of who's in office. Also, why did Romney pick as his VP not only a guy who voted for policies that created the economic meltdown, (Ryan) but who has also done everything in his power to stall economic recovery under Pres. Obama?
"Con man," thy name is Romney.
Dear Steve,
Love your work, but this is reaching. Sure, he's out of touch. Sure, he's got this problem with classism. But honing in on the word "them" in this ad is stretch. It's fair game, all things considered, IF you were part of the Obama re-election campaign. But you're not. So it's a stretch.
really? if I'm speaking to an audience I want to agree with me, I do not call the audience "them". That's just basic human interaction.
"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."
or "Ask not what their country could do for them -- ask what they can do for their country"
I agree this is a reach. Maybe he shouldn't have used the word "them" but only because of the hypersensitivity to "us vs. them."
He is not lower or middle class. So he really shouldn't say "us." Except of course for the fact that making things better for the middle class and the poor will make things better for all of America. --but that's getting close enough to Obama's message that if he said it that way he'd be accused of plagiarism.
Yes, he could have picked a better word. He needs better writers. But I don't see this as in the same category as the fundraiser video or Ann's "you people" and "those people" comments.
The issue is context. In many of the context in which "them" or "you" or "you people" has been used, it has been used to signal a distinction. That's not the case here. It's being used to reference the antecedent poor and middle class he referred to. For Benen to conflate it to anything beyond that rises to the level of what the GOP has done with "you didn't build that".
That's my view. Others are free to disagree. Could he have phrased it differently to avoid this? Certainly. But we need to put on our grown-up britches and stop being (or pretending to be) overly sensitive and let innocuous matters be innocuous.
If you're one of "them", it's not reaching
I am one of "them" (in proper characterization). But as I said, YMMV.
You don't step on Superman's cape , and you don't distance yourself from your point when more or less apologizing for missing the point . Oh , and you don't mess around with Jim ...
Actually, the first "them" is in the second sentence... as "those who are working"—as opposed to "those [of us rich people] who are not." He could at least have said "Too many people are living paycheck to paycheck." But no. "Those" people.
"Make things better", "Make things better for all of us", "Make things better for you" - any of those would have been an obvious improvement to anyone who is not completely divorced from "them".
The Republican plan seems to be "Hey, if your grandparents were too damn lazy and short-sighted to set up multi-hundred-million-dollar, tax-avoiding, generation-skipping trust funds, don't blame us."
The first one would have been better. I think the other two would be criticized in the same way as them.
It make's me sick to listen to Romney when he say's he will create good paying job's.This coming from a man that fired people and made them reapply at lower wage's and lower or no benefit's.In other word's stick with me and you'll be wearing baseball's as big as diamond's.
Even Romney's one big example of job creation--Staples--just announced 30 store closings.
Contrast and compare President Obama's ad recent ad with the ad offered by Romney. While speaking to voters, Obama repeatedly uses words like you, your, we, us and our.
That's because he truly is our president. And we all know whose president Romney will be.
The Main Stream Media seems to have finally discovered that the Republican candidate for president is actually incompetent. It's not the verbal gaffes, or even the flip flopping...his claim to fame is his management ability as a businessman, and we are watching his mismanagement of the campaign just cause it to fall apart, not a good thing to happen in public, he's probably gonna drop even lower in the polls
That is interesting but...anyway...why does being a "business" person lend any credibility to any candidate for any office? They tout the phrase "job-creator", because they started some small business, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY CREATED AN INDUSTRY THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE GDP! America has an economy , it is not a "business"! And that economy is an entirely different animal than some guy's pay role budget. Not to mention weeding through special interests, lobbyist, republican blockers who have had the Presidents Job's bill , that would create almost instantly close to 5 million jobs! that's million! for month's now!! But because the President would actually accomplish something they never could , they continue to allow Americans to suffer! Are you telling me that their are unemployed republicans who would rather not work, lose their homes and actually suffer needlessly rather than allow a Black-American Democrat to succeed in keeping his promises to the American People? Why aren't people who need jobs and the mainstream media shouting this FACT from the roof top? just when you think it can't get any more stupid....
Well played race card there, The government does NOT produce anything. It certainly doesn't make a profit. Where the hell do you think the money comes from for those 5 million jobs dear ruler wants to magically create? Also, EVERY SMALL BUSINESS ADDS TO THE GDP. And, what about the promise not to run again in four years if he failed miserably? Why is this Ruler not held to his word?
Did anyone else think that Rush L's belch during his rant on one armed gay men in New York on Wednesday made him sound just like Barney from the Simpsons
"Too many Americans are struggling to find work in today's economy. Too many
of those who are workingworking Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, trying to make falling incomes meet rising prices for food and gas. More Americans are living in poverty than when President Obama took office and 15 million more are on food stamps. President Obama and I both care about poor and middle-class families. The difference is my policies will make things better forthemeveryone.The point is Romney doesn't even understand what's wrong with "those people" "you people" "them" or we don't "use" Ann too much.
Anyone who lived during the 50's and earlier knows exactly where this "entitlement" comes from - he's a man; a rich man and he let's "you little people" work for him, but remember "he likes to fire people" too. Yes, I worked for "those people" who talked and thought like that. It's very familiar to me and I don't like it one damn bit. Not going BACK THERE!
All those jobs he says he'll create - how many of them will be minimum wage -- oh wait - part of the GOP plan is to do away with that too, which means he will let you clean his toilet and you'll like what he pays you, or you can find something better someplace else.
This is the GOP Plan to take us back!
There's another reason why the use of the word "them" is significant here. I would assert that this is part of the larger GOP mission to ignite infighting among groups who are technically of the same flock. No one wants to think of him/herself as the mooch--as the drain on society. So, as long as you can keep referring to "those freeloaders" or "them," then it gives you someone else to blame.
I envision folks thinking along these lines: "Heavens me, I'm not the one cheating the system. I'm collecting unemployment because I need it. Not like those people who are lazy and don't really want to find work."
You can spin this for just about any social safety net out there. And I would further argue that we should stop tagging programs to help people sustain themselves and their families as a "social" safety net. Since when is putting food on the table "social?" Since when is making sure people don't get shoved out on the streets when they get sick "social?" These are economic issues. A family's livelihood and financial health directly roll into their ability to spend money--to put it back into the economy--and to not be drains on society.
I'd love to see someone take a page from the George Bailey playbook and remind the Mr. Potters of the world that this riff raff they speak of--well, they do most of the living and dying in society. Well, is it too much to ask that they do that living and dying with a roof over their heads and a bath?
That is all.
Respectfully submitted,
MG
Exactly. I hate it when people using, or who have used, services talk down about the "others" who also use services.
I have relatives who proudly proclaim that they are on unemployment. But they deserve the unemployment check; they worked hard to earn that right to get assistance. They apply for job after job and get nowhere 'cause companies aren't hiring or they are hiring at vastly lower wages or they are hiring people who already have a job. And then they talk down about the moochers on unemployment. People who don't deserve the help, don't deserve the check because they are lazy bums who can't even get a job.
Those same relatives used the reduced lunch aid at school because of reduced income. Now they complain about all those "poor" kids who use our tax money to get lunch! And sometimes even breakfast! Their parents should get off their butts and get a second or third job so we don't have to pay for their kids to eat. It's the parents' responsibility to feed their kids not the tax payers.
Well, it also further ASSumes that those on welfare aren't working. That's why at the end he talks about people getting off of welfare and working.
He still believes "they" are just mooching the system.
My husband is, right this minute, at work. We are in the 47%. We benefit from Medicaid.
I'll be sure to tell my husband that he just needs to trade in his job for a better paying one.
The other issue with this ad, is that it admits that Barack Obama cares about the Middle Class. He is basically saying, "Hey, look, we both care about the Middle Class, but I won't tell you how I want to help the middle class and he has already proposed ideas to do so." It falls SO flat, to me. Who is Mitt Romney? He sure seemed much more comfortable insulting the Middle Class than he does trying to prove that he wants to help them. That is his problem. He may actually want to help the Middle Class, but there is no evidence, and in fact, there seems to be evidence to the contrary. I just think he is a terrible politician- he may have been a good business man, but as a politician he really sucks it up.