OK, So Romney Isn't Concerned About The Very Poor-- Is That A Surprise To Someone?

Mitt Romney is the candidate of, by and for the rich. That simple. His statement yesterday that he's not really concerned about the very poor shouldn't come as a surprise, except in terms of how inept he is as a politician. Even a clod like Bush didn't blunder into saying stuff that dumb. And who are "the very poor" in Willard's mind? People who make less than $100,000 a year? Who knows... remember, this freak referred to the $360,000 he took in from speaking engagements in the same way normal people think about the money they find behind their sofa cushions. And look at who's funding his campaign-- aside from the Mormons who want to fulfilled Joseph Smith's dream of capturing the White House, greedy millionaires and billionaires who think now, thanks to the worst Supreme Court in American history, is the time for their big move to take over the country entirely.

A quarter of the money amassed by Romney’s campaign and an allied super PAC has come from just 41 people, each of whom has given more than $100,000, according to a Washington Post analysis of disclosure data. Nearly a dozen of the donors have contributed $1 million or more.

Four of the $1 million donors are hedge fund managers, and Dems will surely point to this as evidence that the very rich are fueling Romney’s campaign because his tax policies protect their financial interests. The loophole that Obama’s Buffett Rule would close keeps their tax rates lower than those paid by many middle class taxpayers.

Exacerbating this picture, of course, is the fact that Romney himself is a member of this class that benefits so handsomely from the unfairness of this tax structure. The Dem strategy is to paint Romney as the walking embodiment of everything that’s unfair about our economy and tax system, and all the ways it’s rigged for the wealthy and against the middle class. The fact that a tiny handful of extremely wealthy individuals who are reaping so much from the current structure-- as is Romney himself-- are investing so heavily in his candidacy will only strengthen the case.

Even a Romney-supporting creep like Jonah Goldberg sensed something was wrong. "The problem, for others at least, is that because he isn’t a natural politician he breaks the language where it needs to bend. He uses language-- 'I like to fire people!' 'It’s nothing to get angry about' etc-- that doesn’t make him seem like an unconventional politician. Rather his language makes him seem like a caricature of a conventionally stiff country club Republican... A case in point, here he is this morning talking about how he’s 'not very concerned about the very poor'. I get the point he’s making. It’s a point that Bill Clinton won the presidency with-- but with language that attracted voters. Romney’s language won’t do anything of the sort. And the concern is, after nearly a decade of running for president, if he can’t get this stuff down now he never will."

Tuesday night, of course, his best precincts in Florida, were precincts with lots of rich people and he did worst, even among Republicans, where ordinary families are struggling to make ends meet. These are the folks Mitt Romney doesn't care about:

• In 2010, more than 4 million more women than men lived in poverty.

• Families headed by a single adult are more likely to be headed by women, and these female-headed families are at greater risk of poverty and deep poverty. 34.2% of families with a female householder where no husband is present were poor and 17% were living in deep poverty. 17.3% of families with a male householder where no wife was present were poor and 7.9% were living in deep poverty. 7.6% of married couple families with children were living in poverty and 2.4% were in deep poverty.

• Children living in single female-headed families were more than four times as likely to be living in poverty, and seven times as likely to be living in deep poverty, than children living in married couple families

Romney's class has gotten away without paying their fair share for far too long. They should be taxed the way they were taxed when Eisenhower was president and the country's economic growth was explosive and all boats were being lifted and the country was growing by leaps and bounds. Obama's middle-course, of 30% isn't even halfway there.



And here's Lawrence O'Donnell from last night discussing Romney's bungled win in Florida. I'm including it here because of the Rush Limbaugh comments at the 3 minute mark. He's worried about Romney coming across as "the prototypical rich Republican." You think?