I am serius. The more POOR peole there are, the more Obama-type Democrats (and GOP estalbishment politicians) assert that we need LEFTST policies to "help' the POOR peole. Thus, a RECORD number of peole get food stams under Obama, and "hunger advocates" assert that the number SHOULD be DOUBLE the 49 million or os already on food stamps. More people are in "poverty". Icnome continues to drop.
The left's answer to the FAILURE of Big Government is ALWAYS MORE BIG GOVERNMENT. And the left is not realy worried abut more and more peoople BECOMNG POOR, because that just increases the number of peole who feel dependent on THEM. Can this vicius cycle be broke? Sure. But NOT by candidates like Mitt Romney, who aggressively aTTACK the "magic wand theory of government": that all we need to do to "solve" any "problem' is have the Federal Government wave a magic wand and teh problem is "solved". No. This theory did not work with Sandy, either.
Can people on food stamps be convinced that they should not vote for a candidate like Obama, even tough he seems more interested in makng sure they KEEP their food stamps than those nasty, cold-hearted GOP peole? Yes, you can. But you can. But ;you can do it ONLY if yu AGGRESSIVELY go out and CONVINCE peole getting food stamps that the policies making them dependent on Big Government are COSTING them more than they could ever afford--even if they are paying no taxes at all. It can be done. Reagan did it. Romney did not even try.
Look at illegal imigratinn. Do Hispanics WANT to be associated with ILLEGAL imigrants? No. But Obama told Hsipanics--pooorer, on average, than "white people" like Romney, or even those not like Romney--Hisp;anics he would TAKE CARE OF THEM. Romney, instead of shwong Hisanics what Obama is COSTING them, merely tried to DUCK and WEAVE ("shuck and jive"), with the idea of minimizing the damage. See article on Friday. Women. Left handes. ANYBODY. Did Romney SHOW those peole that leftist policies were MAKING THEM POOR, an dwould continue to do so if they let themselves be BRIBED into cotninuing to sypport tkheir own destruction?
Again, I am serous. Why shouyld GPOP candidates not SAY that leftists like Obama are trying to CREATE THEIR OWN VOTERS, by increasing those dependnet on the Fedderal Gopvernnment forever, and then tring to SCARE those peole into voting for their own destruction. Obama said he woud be held accountable. Why could Romney not tell Hispanics, women, and everygocy else--not as GROUPS but as peole with an intelligent mind--that it makes no sense to keep voting for peole wh tell you that you NEED them--trying to CREATE their own voters--BECAUSE their policies have yhou in so much trouble? Nope. Notice that this is NOT like Roney's 47% comment. If the media sserts otherwise, all a BELIEVING GOP candidate has to d is say--correcly--that it is Obama and the media who hold them in CONTEMPT, because they think peole can be BRIBED in this way, against their own interests. Sure, there is a paroblem that peole can get addicted to government benefits, but you have to convince them the addictin is BAD for them, not that you have 'written them off"/
I agree with Frank Luntz (sp.? The Fox "focus group" person), by the way, that Romney's economic campaign based on TAXES was the WRONG approach. No, I am not talking abut Rmney endorseing INCREASED taxes--a disaster, as it will be if the GOP "caves" in these latest sham "bipartisan" talks. But Romney's "centeriece" of a 20% "tax cut" was ABSURD. Combine that with the adovcacy of a 2 trilliion dollar increas in defense spending, and peole correctly got the idea that Romney did not CARE about the deficit, and government spenidng more money than it has. In addition, Romney AREGUED the "tax cut" as NOT a "tax cut", but an INCRFEASE of taxes on the "wealthy", while a "tax cut" for the middle class. How is that different from Obama's class warfare rhetoric? It was not. No wonder Ropmney lost. He SHOULD have campainged on EXTENDING ALL OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS, and how much Obama had HURT the eocnomy simply by extending the uncertainty year after year: the oney WORSE thing being to INCREASE TAXES on people providing jobs. Romney had NO "message", and it kilkled him.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). "But, Skip, Romney is RICH, and could only "connect" to the "middle class" by trying to show he "cares". Uh-huh. Worked for him didn't it--NOT. That is merely an argumetn for nominating someone BESIDES Romney--somone not so DEFENSIVE about being "rich". Romney needed to be on the ATTACK, and he was only (sort of) in that mode for ONE DEBATE (one 90 minute period in teh entire electin, because Obama LET him be, for some reason). No. I do NOT agree that Obama is some sort of campaigning "genius. BUSH won his second term by essetnialkly the same popular vote margin. Obama is a BAD canddiate. Romney was jsut worse, as Kerry was worse than Bush.