Mitt Romney screwed up.
Please try to contain your surprise.
On Tuesday night, Mother Jones released footage from a Mitt Romney private $50,000-a-plate fundraising event in which the Republican candidate for president of the United States said enough controversial things to become a speechwriter for Michele Bachmann (if you haven't seen the videos, you can watch them here. Make sure there's a garbage can nearby, just in case.)
In response to the comments Romney made in the video, New York Times columnist David Brooks called the former Massachusetts governor's campaign "depressingly inept." Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone also weighed in, referring to the statements as "insane." Hell, even Rep. Allen 'If Joseph Goebbels Was Around, He'd Be Very Proud Of The Democrat Party' West felt that one of Mitt's comments was "a little clumsy."
But it seems that lost in all this justifiable disappointment and anger over the things Romney said is a key question that should probably be more widely discussed: Why the hell is Mitt Romney having a campaign fundraiser with select individuals who can afford to pay $50,000 a plate? And why was Barack Obama, on the same night that news of Romney's gaffe was making the rounds, holding a $40,000 a ticket fundraiser in New York City hosted by Jay-Z and Beyonce?
Many people are accusing Mitt Romney of being disconnected this election cycle, but perhaps that's because he's running for president in a country where it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to be elected, and the only way to raise that money is by cuddling up with the people who have it at their disposal rather than the other 47 percent.
The truth is that the nation's main gripe shouldn't be in relation to the comments Mitt Romney made (and yes, they were really bad) (really, really bad). Rather, we should be troubled by the fact that the first time Romney appeared to be truly open and honest about discussing his strategy on foreign and domestic affairs as president was at a private event only attended by a small group of people who can afford to pay $50,000 -- the amount that many families in America make in a year -- for a single dinner.
This is a precedent that's frankly troubling for our democracy, and you'd have to be extremely naive to assume it's unique to Mitt Romney (or Republican politicians for that matter).
From a judicial standpoint, the apparent fear behind limiting political donations is that it would be a direct attack on free speech... for you know, corporations. Now I don't happen to have a corporation at my disposal to donate unlimited funds to a candidate, but if I were a corporation -- and it seems like they're coming closer and closer to being full-fledged people every year -- and my diet consisted strictly of souls and profits, I probably wouldn't be giving money to candidates because I'm just so enthusiastic about the democratic process.
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has famously vowed to spend as much as $100 million to get Romney elected president. Is this an act of passion? Is it an act of patriotism? Of course not -- it's an investment. Adelson stands to get a $2 billion tax cut if Romney is elected and as any gambler can attest to, if you're offered a 20 to 1 payout on a 50/50 bet, those are odds that are just too good to pass up.
In 2008, Barack Obama raised about $740 million on his path to getting elected. While he did have a record amount of small donors, he ultimately raised 80 percent of his total campaign money from donors who gave $1,000 or more.
Although Obama has repeatedly mentioned his intention to implement campaign finance reform, these have ultimately proven to be empty words. Despite having a democratic majority in the House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency, Obama failed to change the way that money controls Washington, which was one of his fundamental talking points while seeking office. In fact, as Huffington Post reporter Paul Blumenthal noted:
The four years of Obama's presidency have featured some of the biggest rollbacks of the campaign finance regulatory regime created in the wake of the Watergate scandal. And Obama's own actions, or lack thereof, are partly to blame.
Now this may very well be an issue he would address in his second term if elected, but failure to bring about meaningful change in this area in his first term should be noted -- although it likely won't, given that Republicans are more likely to support government sponsored Morning-After pill vending machines at high schools before meaningful campaign finance reform.
So, it's fine to get angry at Mitt Romney for comments he makes at a private function, but the truth is that in doing so, you're merely attempting to treat a symptom, when the true problem is an election process that empowers the opinions and desires of the wealthy much more than the poor.
The reason for this is that in a defacto sense, our government has passed laws dictating that money is speech.
And going forward, there's going to be no way for the general public's voice to be heard unless a few people are forced to shut up.
Follow Dan Treadway on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dan_treadway
Billy Shore: Why the 47% Debate Could Define Both Candidates
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
That is the KEY observation in the article. It is OK for corporations or individuals to spend as much money as they like on the political process. The first amendment is specifically intended to protect political speech. The problem is that it cost thousands of $ to hear what the candidate believes not what they believe will get them elected. This can be changed by campaign finance reform basically eliminating it. The laws that limit what campaigns can do with does not address the underlying problem which is to prevent corruption. What we don't want is for public servants to be working against the interest of the public for the benefit of those that provide direct financial support.
Thus it seemed “natural’ for even some of the framers of the Constitution to purchase slaves, or to prevent women from voting. Even churches commonly sanctioned such arrangements.
Gradually we woke up and realized we had been ignoring great evils.
We would be outraged to hear of college or professional sport players doing substantive favors for a referee, and would seek discipline for the official for accepting them. Sports, after all, are supposed to be fair.
But we accept as “normal” multimillion dollar contributions from private parties to political officials. We grudgingly accept that candidates lie, and misuse the power of their elected office for political ends.
And yet the decisions those elected inevitably make matter so much more than a contest in sports.
It's time to wake up.
As long as men as "good" as BHO buy power before principle we'll continue to get the best democracy money can buy. I'll vote for somebody I don't know yet, my state isn't a battleground, it's a nobrainer. Freedom and Democracy until it hurts.
But yes, the problem is systemic.
He is just the victim of the larger systemic problem that requires a politician to lie. It is complete crap created by politicians to excuse their lying, to justify their lying. The fatal flaw in the Romney logic they have taken gross license with that logic.
He has repeatedly LIED. It wasn’t a political “gaffe” warranting an apology. The entire Romney campaign is rooted in a caricature of Obama and a caricature of Romney. The fake Romney is running against the fake Obama created by his party and the video is the closest to the real Romney on record. He isn’t a victim of systemic issues he is a victim of himself, Mitt Romney the LIER.
This man is so fake he makes Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum look presidential. He stole the Republican endorsement, bought it from a handful of crazy options only to squander it not on a scandal but on the fast this guy couldn’t buy a clue.
This is what happens when the Republican Party lay down with the bigoted dogs of the tea party, they woke up with the flea Mitt who had the coin to buy it all. As a result they are losing it all.
The people at that party think like Mitt. They're smarter, harder working, and know more than the other guy.
They're buying more of me. Mitt is them. We like the mirror.
A group of fat cats sitting around at a $50,000 a plate dinner fulminating at all the food stamps Obama is dispensing.
Doormen, shoe shine men, bus boys etc. all joined in in the largesse he dispensed.
If trickle down economics had worked perhaps so many wouldn't find themselves, unwittingly, dependent on government aid.The error on the part of the elitists is to assume those folks like nothing better than to be a burden on the economy. Have you or robme or any republican seen the unemployment lines since the Bush regime ran our country into the ground? How many able body and minded folks are out there working their butts off for $10 an hour- it doesn't cover even the barest of essentials. It's shameful.
Could he have achieved this without an act of Congress, without the blessing of the Supreme Court? Because, you know, they haven't exactly been showing up for work the last four years.
They can justify their greed and make themselves feel better if they can put someone else down.
This isn't a "new" idea .....I heard these following words decades ago.....that you don't spoil the help by paying them too much. Straight from the mouths of the rich folks who are the USERS of our society.