Fat Cat Romney on Preferential Option for the Poor: "Let Them Eat Cake" [UPDATED]

Actually, what he said is MUCH WORSE: "I'm not concerned about the very poor":

In an interview with CNN Wednesday morning that should have been a Florida victory lap, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney made a fumble that could give rivals an attack ad sound bite.

Asked about his economic plan, Romney said repeatedly that he was not concerned with very poor Americans, [ED.: Just in case you didn't catch it the first time that this Fat Cat doesn't give a rat's ass about "those people", he made sure to emphasize the point by repeating it over and over again.] but was focused instead on helping the middle class.

Romney explained that he was confident that food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid and other assistance would keep the poor afloat [ED.: Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then? ... I was afraid that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course.] — he pledged to fix holes in that safety net “if it needs repair.” He repeated past statements that his main focus is the middle class because those people, in his opinion, have been hardest hit by the recession (President Obama also has focused many of his efforts on the middle class).

But Romney’s awkward phrasing could give fuel to critics who argue that he does not empathize with the poorest Americans. [ED.: Ya think?]

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” [ED.: Good God! Really?] Romney told CNN.

[...]

“The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party [about] the plight of the poor,” Romney responded [ED.: Oh, yes, "the poor" - that's a Democrat issue. We Republicans don't talk much about that rapidly expanding group of people. We'll leave it to the Democrats to talk about those people.], after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor [ED.: Let me be very clear that I am against being poor.] and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor [ED.: I'm not worried about helping the very poor overcome their poverty via economic means. That's what government programs - and Democrats - are for.] . . . My focus is on middle income Americans ... we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.” [ED.: Let them eat cake - they can pay for it with their food stamps.]

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
Just. Wow. Has there ever been a more out of touch and tone deaf politician as this character? And he's the likely GOP nominee?

The bad news for Romney: He could say it wearing a top hat and a monicle, and it couldn't be any more effective as a campaign commercial for Obama than it already is.

The good news for Romney: Showing indifference for the poor is a sure-fire way of getting Ann Coulter's impoverished-bashing juices flowing, motivating her to pen some more pro-Romney love letters and anti-Catholic screeds against his remaining GOP primary opponents.


UPDATE
A couple of additional points regarding Romney's boneheaded remarks.

First, the irony here is that these comments reveal BOTH Romney's penchant for big government liberalism AND his elitist illiberalism. His big-government liberalism is evident in that he believes in expanding federal welfare dependency for the poor; his elitist illiberalism is evident in that he believes that's good enough for them.

Romney's alleged policy principles are that free economies lead to economic growth, and that economic growth leads to more opportunity for the greatest number of people. But Romney has just stated that his economic program excludes the very poor from sharing in that opportunity, and that he is reconiled to their being permanent fixtures on the public dole. But that's "good enough" for them.

The seond point about this is that David Axelrod is no doubt on the horn right now with his ObamaCath allies talking about ways to use Romney's indifference to the "preferential option for the poor" to soften the fallout over the HHS mandate among Catholics who supported Obama in 2008. They'd be fools not to. Every ObamaCath who has infiltrated the chanceries and the USCCB staff must be licking their chops over the prospect of watering down any strong anti-HHS statement coming from the Bishops with a bunch of verbiage regarding the preferential option for the poor, just as concern over allegedly rampant racism was used to water down the anti-abortion provisions of "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" 4 years ago.


UPDATE #2
Mark Steyn addresses the topic I commented on in the first point of my previous Update regarding Romney's comments revealing both his big-government liberalism and elitist illiberalism:

Romney’s is a benevolent patrician’s view of society: The poor are incorrigible, but let’s add a couple more groats to their food stamps and housing vouchers, and they’ll stay quiet. Aside from the fact that that kind of thinking has led the western world to near terminal insolvency, for a candidate whose platitudinous balderdash of a stump speech purports to believe in the most Americanly American America that any American has ever Americanized over, it’s as dismal a vision of permanent trans-generational poverty as any Marxist community organizer with a cozy sinecure on the Acorn board would come up with.

After half-a-century of evidence, what sort of “conservative” offers the poor the Even Greater Society?

Yep.

Why is Jon Huntsman Considered a "Moderate"?

Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah, and current U.S. Ambassador to China, is leaving his current post in the Obama Administration at the end of next month to consider a run for the Republican presidential nomination. His solidly pro-life record has attracted the interest of Sam Brownback's former chief of staff and 2008 presidential campaign manager:

... Rob Wasinger, who headed the campaign of the former U.S. senator from Kansas who is now the state’s governor, told LifeNews.com he joins other Hunstman supporters in encouraging the man who has served as President Barack Obama’s ambassador to China to seek the Republican nomination. Wasinger says Huntsman’s pro-life position and record attract him to the oft-mentioned potential candidate.

“There are some candidates out there who claim to be pro-life, but as Governor, Jon Huntsman did the hard work of advocating for the cause of life when others would run and hide,” Wasinger said. ” I have found that in my years of public service, it is the people that actually have a record on an issue that are the most reliable. Anyone can rollout talking points; but only a true leader can actually put together a record of service.”

Huntsman signed a trio of pro-life bills in February 2009 that the Utah legislature approved — including legislation to make second-trimester abortions illegal, a measure to allow women to know about the pain their unborn children will feel during an abortion, and a bill that would create a legal defense fund to pay for litigation related to lawsuit abortions advocates file against state legislation. Huntsman has also lived out his pro-life views in that he has seven children, two of whom were from international adoptions. ...

Huntsman is also supportive of 2nd amendment rights, and as Governor of Utah supported school vouchers, market-based approaches to health care reform, and across-the-board tax cuts. So, my question is why do so many on the right, in the middle, on the left, and in the media consider Huntsman to be a "moderate"? Writing at The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru wondered the same thing a few days ago:

I’ve now read a few articles and blog posts either lauding the Utah governor as a moderate or denouncing him as same. Huntsman has signed pro-life bills, voucher bills, and tax cuts. Yes, he is open to some kind of civil union for gay couples and wants Republicans to make more of an effort on environmental issues. But if that’s all it takes for a Republican politician to get an image both inside and outside the party as a “moderate” these days, that’s a pretty good thing, isn’t it?

Tell-All Book: Bush Brags He "Redefined" Republican Party to Exclude "Conservative Movement"

I'm not big on "kiss and tell" books from insiders, but this is somewhat interesting. Ed Morrissey reports:

During the 2008 CPAC convention, George Bush only mentioned the word “conservative” once, in the closing — and apparently that was no accident. A new book by the man who wrote the speech for Bush, staffer Matt Latimer, retells the story in Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor, and Byron York relates it in today’s Washington Examiner. When Latimer tried to include supportive language about the conservative movement, Bush attempted to set his speechwriter straight:

“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”

Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.

Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”

I don’t think there’s any doubt about that last statement. Before Bush’s election, the Republican majorities in Congress had worked themselves into a role of fiscal responsibility and a check on Bill Clinton’s more expansive notions of government. After Bush took office, however, the two branches of government went on a spending spree, and not coincidentally a lobbyist lovefest, that threw out the GOP’s credibility on fiscal responsibility in six short years. Bush and his big-spending policies (and K Street strategy) set the stage for the Democrats to seize control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and a Democratic takeover of the White House last year.

Many of us admired Bush for his stalwart policies on national security and the war. But starting in 2002, we began to figure out that Bush was no conservative on domestic policy, but instead at best a centrist, and probably more of a Rockefeller Republican, with one big exception: abortion...

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
“I redefined the Republican Party.”

Yeah, how's that working out for ya there, Dubya? Better yet, how's that working out for your party. YOU are responsible for the largest Democrat majorities in Congress in decades, as well as for the current occupant of the Oval Office being one of the most liberal, and certainly the most pro-abortion, Presidents ever. That ALL comes back on you.

But you did do the "conservative movement" a huge favor. You showed, once and for all, that conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing. I will always admire your stalwart stands on life issues such as abortion and ESCR. And while you deserve credit for giving us a hopefully lasting legacy in Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, we will never forget that you're also the master practitioner of cronyism who tried to pawn off Harriet Miers on us with your patented "Trust me."

If what this tell-all reveals is anywhere close to the truth, you have reaffirmed our refusal to just trust you on the Miers pick. Good riddance to you, Mr. President. Enjoy your retirement, and please never bother us again.


UPDATE
The Cranky Conservative offers his take: "This should go over well".

"By What Moral Authority?": Newt Gingrich on Detroit

(Hat tip: Eric Scheske at The Daily Eudemon)



As I once told Sarah's uncle (who grew up in the Cleveland suburbs), "Detroit exists to make Cleveland feel better about itself."

A Rare Kudos to Obama Moment [UPDATE - Kudos Withdrawn]

If this is true (and, more importantly, if he follows through on it if elected), then kudos to Sen. Obama:

An AP article reports that Senator Obama will expand President Bush’s faith-based program initiative, and allow religious organizations receiving federal monies to consider religion when hiring and firing ...

[More]

UPDATE
Kudos withdrawn. Well, that didn't take long. Stephen Braunlich provides the details in comments:

It's amazing that the AP articles haven't been corrected yet. The actual text of the speech says the following:

"First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion."

(emphasis added)

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/politics/01obama-text.html

Seems to me that if a Catholic organization refuses to hire a practicing homosexual Anglican they are liable to have their grant money pulled on the grounds that the refusal to hire is motivated by a conflict of religious beliefs.

So, it appears that Obama may be doing just the opposite of what the AP article is claiming. Kudos withdrawn until there is some additional clarification of Obama's position on faith-based initiatives.


UPDATE #2
The Catholic League's Bill Donohue offers his take on Obama's faith-based approach:

OBAMA’S FAITH-BASED GAMBIT IS A FRAUD

July 2, 2008


Catholic League president Bill Donohue urged Catholics to reject Sen. Barack Obama’s faith-based initiative:

“If a customer walked into a New York deli and said, ‘Let me have a hot dog on a roll—hold the frankfurter’—he’d likely be thrown out. That’s what the public should do to Obama’s faith-based initiative: since he wants to gut the faith from his faith-based programs, he should be told to junk it.

“Any church or religious agency that agrees to take federal money on the condition that it must operate in a secular fashion—in hiring and in disseminating its values—is selling out. If Orthodox Jews running a day care center are not allowed to exclusively hire Orthodox Jews, there is nothing kosher about it. If a Catholic foster care program cannot place Catholic children with Catholic parents, it is doing a disservice to the children. If an evangelical drug rehab program can’t deliver a Christian message to its clients, it may as well close up shop. But that’s what Obama wants—he wants to secularize the religious workplace.

“No wonder Obama said yesterday that ‘I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, and I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up.’ Indeed, if he really believes this then he might as well withdraw his initiative.

“The whole purpose behind funding faith-based programs is that they are, in fact, superior to secular programs. And the reason they are has everything to do with the inculcation of religious values disseminated by people of faith. No matter, Obama wants to gut the religious values and bar religious agencies from hiring people who share their religion. Hence, his initiative is a fraud.”

(emphasis added)

Kudos permanently withdrawn.


UPDATE #3
And here's Gerard Bradley:

Barack Obama's speech in Zanesville, Ohio, yesterday will probably do for him what he designed it to do: attract some more "values" voters his way without his giving an inch on the most important "values" issues: abortion, marriage, and judges. Left-leaning evangelical Jim Wallis sang his praises on cue. Far-gone secularist Barry Lynn recited his lines just right, denouncing the looming gap in the wall of separation. The whole production went off as planned.

Except for its Achilles Heel: faith-based hiring. Obama will have none of it. Unless they hire for mission, the identity of these charities precisely as Catholic or Mormon or Pentacostal (or as whatever) will soon disappear. It is this identity, too, which is key to why they work so well, often better than any secular counterpart charity. But if they hire for mission, these charities will (as an Obama supporter bluntly put it) just have to leave the public money to others. And note well: there is no question in any of this about serving clients without regard for their religion (or lack of it).

John McCain has an opening here, and he ought to seize it now. He should begin right now making the case that this is a bellwether issue of religious freedom. He should also begin making the case right now that Obama, despite his siren song about faith and charity, is (here, at least) a secularizing wolf in lamb's clothing.

I should've known better than to think Obama would seriously entertain a TRUE faith-based initiative program. The guy's got secularization written all over him.

How long before Prof. Kmiec tries to spin this in Obama's favor?


UPDATE #4
Looks like Kmiec's on the ball. Before I even asked the question, he was already out there spinning like mad trying to turn this sow's ear into a silk purse.


UPDATE # 5
At least I wasn't alone in being hoodwinked. It looks like Deacon Fournier fell for this phony initiative as well.

Sen. Brownback: "Serving God, Saving Humanity"

Sen. Sam Brownback writes at InsideCatholic:

A few years ago, I met a woman I will never forget. Sally Savery was a waitress in Wamego, Kansas, who had recently gone through a divorce and bankruptcy. Through a twist a fate, she had met a missionary from Brazil and was inspired by the woman's story to travel back with her. After saving up the money to travel to Brazil, Sally worked at the mission, serving local poor children.

When Sally returned home, her life had changed forever. She resolved to raise money for those poor children and returned to Brazil a year later to continue serving them. Through Sally, those children received medical care, better food, love, and encouragement. But through those children, Sally saw her own life in a new light.

I can speak to something similar. In 2003, I visited the refugee camps in Darfur, Sudan. The refugees I met were victims of the brutal war of extermination the Sudanese government continues to wage on its citizens. The children I met -- seemingly at peace and full of joy, despite the devastation -- amazed me. They sang and danced and were joyful and smiling, teaching me a great lesson: Joy is possible even in the face of unthinkable evil.

Those images and those faces have stayed with me. You can't come back from a trip like that without realizing how much you have compared with those who are suffering. Your heart grows larger, with a greater capacity to love.

Once you see it, you realize you've got to do something. This is why I encourage people to take "impact trips" to parts of our country or the world where there is hardship. While foreign aid is vital and necessary, Americans taking impact trips can make a great difference, for others and for themselves.

[More]

National Catholic Register on "AIDS, Abortion and Africa"

From the March 16-22 issue of National Catholic Register:

WASHINGTON — In early February, a discussion draft of a House bill to reauthorize funds for the global HIV/AIDS fight ignited a political firestorm.

Pro-family leaders charged the bill contained so many family planning and “reproductive health” agendas it would “permit abortion at taxpayers’ expense” and “help eliminate Africa’s next generation.”

The bill died in committee.

A compromise measure forged in late February by House leaders and the White House has won cautious bipartisan support, but pro-family activists say serious concerns remain.

The reauthorization bill for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar), approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 27, would more than triple funding from $15 billion to $50 billion over five years.

“This bill really reflects the mainstream consensus of what this program should look like,” said Bill O’Keefe, senior director for advocacy at Catholic Relief Services. O’Keefe applauded “the strong leadership and vision that has put the interests of millions of people affected by HIV above partisan battles.”

“It’s a bill that many of the groups that would have opposed it only a few days ago will now support,” said Shepherd Smith, president and founder of the D.C.-based Institute for Youth Development.

***
Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said, “It is vital to preserve and expand proven life-saving programs — especially abstinence and fidelity education — while refusing to dilute and distort a successful AIDS relief program with family planning and ‘reproductive health’ activities.”

[More]

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Bob Geldof "Pissed" at Lack of Press Coverage of Bush's Africa Trip

George W. Bush Beloved in Africa for AIDS Aid

Bob Geldof "Pissed" at Lack of Press Coverage of Bush's Africa Trip

(Hat tip: James H. at Opinionated Catholic)

From The Washington Times:

... Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement.

Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far."

"This is the triumph of American policy really," he said. "It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion."

"What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing," Mr. Geldof said.

Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed "to articulate this to Americans" but said he is also "pissed off" at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.

"You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers...

(emphasis added)

Geldof continued:

... Mr. Geldof said that he and Bono, U2's lead singer, have "gotten a lot of flak" for saying that Mr. Bush has done more for Africa than any other U.S. president.

Mr. Geldof said that "the main thing now is asking the candidates, 'What are you going to do?'"

Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, has "put in place a whole foundation" in the form of aid for disease prevention, government institution building with accountability measures, and investing capital in African countries to build up their economies.

"The next guy really must take it on," Mr. Geldof said, referring to the next president...

(emphasis added)

Opinionated Catholic notes:

I also can't help but note that many Catholics blogs and publications have been pretty silent ...

Yes, where is St. Blogs' "consistent ethic of life" crowd to offer President Bush his due on this issue?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
George W. Bush Beloved in Africa for AIDS Aid

George W. Bush Beloved in Africa for AIDS Aid

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

From The Guardian (U.K.):

... The $15bn (£7.6bn) President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) is in its fifth year and has been hailed as a "revolution" that is transforming healthcare in Africa and has been praised as the most significant aid programme since the end of colonialism.

Bill Clinton's legacy in Africa was the debacle of Somalia and the abandonment of Rwanda's Tutsis to the 1994 genocide. But with Pepfar, Bush's primary contribution will be greatly extending millions of lives even though the programme has been criticised for emphasising abstinence in Aids education and using religious organisations to deliver care.

"This is the best thing that ever happened to the poor people I work with," said Edward Phillips, a Catholic priest overseeing the distribution of life-saving antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) in Nairobi, Kenya. "It's one of the few times I've seen US government money really reach down to the poorest of the poor. It's kept a hell of a lot of people alive."

***
Bush confronted the pandemic under pressure from his then secretary of state, Colin Powell, who warned that Aids threatened to wipe out a large part of the working-age population of some African countries. He saw that as a national security issue. So did the CIA. Bush was also lobbied by American Christian evangelicals with strong and expanding ties to Africa, and conservative Republican senators usually instinctively hostile to foreign aid...

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
The Guardian article is shockingly titled: "George Bush: a good man in Africa".

Not shockingly, however, the Democrats in Congress (as well as those running for President) want to water down Bush's program by emphasizing Planned Parenthood's agenda rather than that of the faith-based organizations currently aiding in providing HIV relief. How's Moloch Obama working out for you now, Professor Kmiec?

Deal Hudson: "Are Conservatives Turning People Off?"

Deal Hudson asks at InsideCatholic: "Are Conservatives Turning People Off?"

... I fear that people are being turned off by the word "conservative" because it's being used as a cudgel not just to point out differences of principle but also to settle old scores. There are a lot of "inside the beltway" stories behind the antipathy for John McCain that are not being told, stories that are being transposed into matters of "principle."

Thus, do many conservative leaders seek to inflict their personal grudges on the nation as a whole in the name of "conservatism."

***
It may be that the McCain candidacy is the best thing that could happen to the GOP at the present moment -- it will allow some fresh air to blow through the party, and the conservatives in it, so that we will be forced to take notice of how we sound to the world at large.

I'm not so sure that we, conservatives, I mean, have been sounding very congenial, or, more important, convincing.

As we enter the season of the general election we are facing a man who sounds the note of hope, a man who does not use anger as a rhetorical weapon -- Sen. Barak Obama.

If we make conservatism synonymous with angry denunciation, rather than reasoned and optimistic encouragement, we will lose the White House, and lose the battle for the protection of unborn life.

[Read the whole thing]

Deal Hudson: "Huckabee Forgets Compassionate Conservatisim"

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic:

In the heat of the South Carolina primary battle, Mike Huckabee has forgotten he is the candidate of "compassionate conservatism" by signing a pledge to send all illegal aliens home. This is the kind of thing that proves that Huckabee is not the "most Catholic" of the candidates, as some people have claimed. I don't have any other nominees for the "most Catholic" crown, but Huckabee, by signing this pledge, has lost the compassionate patina that first made him so attractive. He has moved away from the Catholic principles that inform of the issue of immigration and refugees.

Romney made this move weeks ago.

I do not agree with much of the the USCCB's rationale for their immigration policy, but I agree with much of the policy itself and many of the core principles behind it. (I do not agree that the economic need of immgrants trumps the right of country to keep secure borders!)

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
This is yet another in a series of Hudson pieces at InsideCatholic criticizing Huckabee's candidacy. Unlike a couple of the other ones, this criticism may actually hold water.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Deal Hudson: "Huckabee Can't Win a National Election"

Huckabee Fails to Attract Catholic Voters

Deal Hudson on "Mike Huckabee's Anti-Catholic Problem"

Deal Hudson Rips Evangelical Pastor (a Former Catholic) for Disparaging Sen. Brownback's Catholicism

Tertium Quid on Michael Gerson's New Book Heroic Conservatism

Tertium Quid writes at From Burke to Kirk and Beyond regarding former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson's new book:

"Heroic Conservatism ... is neither heroic nor conservative."