Mitt Romney: Will Direct His Policies to the "Middle Class" -- Not the "Very Poor"

Mitt Romney has created a stir with comments he made during a CNN interview today. Romney stated that his policies will not focus on the "very rich" or the "very poor." Instead, he would direct his energy and policies toward middle-class Americans. When the interviewer asked Romney to explain his position, he elaborated that the country already has a safety net that protects the most impoverished Americans and that if it needed repairing, he would do so.

Liberal commentators have pounced upon these statements, claiming that they demonstrate Romney's indifference to poor folks. I have a few responses.

FIRST, Romney's critics are correct. His comments show a stunning disregard for poor folks, including the working poor who cannot qualify for many government benefits. Even though he also said that he was not concerned about very rich folks, the President of the United States should have a deep concern for the plight of poor folks.

SECOND, Although Democrats have not said anything as politically sloppy as Romney with respect to poor folks, their rhetoric often focuses on the middle-class as well. President Obama, for example, created a Middle-Class Task Force during the first month of his presidency.  He did not, however, create a similar task force for poor people. Also, when Obama tours important swing states, his speeches usually stress the plight of middle-class Americans above all others. Basically, both parties are chasing large chunks of middle-class voters who live in states such as Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and other "purple" jurisdictions. If the "very poor" were a larger voting bloc and antipoverty programs had more support among voters, then both parties would pay more attention to the needs of poor folks.

So, Romney has made a very troubling statement. But it is hard to say that Democrats are doing all that they can do for poor people. Democrats' policies, however, do more for poor people than the policies advocated by most Republican politicians.

Who Gets Second Chances in the US

Eliot Spitzer, once shamed into retiring from his position as Governor of New York due to a prostitution scandal, is valiantly returning to co-host a primetime CNN program with Kathleen Parker. I am a fan of giving people second (and third and fourth. . .) chances. Nonetheless, I am always struck by the way in which our society distributes second chances and how social privileges allow people to land well after a fall. I wonder where the "prostitute" is today.

Anti-Incumbent Fervor? A Big Contradiction

A CNN poll purports to capture a wave of anti-incumbent fervor. An analysis of the poll, however, shows a significant contradiction in voter opinion.

According to the poll, only 34% of voters believe that members of Congress should be re-elected. But, when asked about their own representative, the number increases to 51% favoring re-election. Although the latter figure is the lowest since CNN has polled the question (the date of the first poll is not listed), it shows a substantial contradiction in voter attitudes.

Voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress and do not want its members re-elected. Despite this deep anti-incumbent fervor, voters still want to re-elect the members of Congress who represent them.

Ruben Navarrette's Flip-Flop: Wrong to Criticize Obama on Warren, Fine to Criticize Obama on Clinton

I became familiar with Ruben Navarrette during the Democratic primaries. He was one of the few Latinos (among the few Latinos who are leading journalists at major papers) who clearly did not like Hillary Clinton.

Navarrette wrote several articles praising Obama and criticizing Clinton. During the general election coverage, however, he wrote about McCain with a somewhat sympathetic eye, even encouraging Latinos to consider voting for him in one article.

After the election ended and Obama began selecting members of his Cabinet, Navarrette wrote a scathing critique of Obama's decision to choose Clinton as Secretary of State. Navarrette believed that Bill Richardson should have received the position instead.

Navarrette challenged Obama's decision to appoint Clinton, arguing that she "doesn't have anywhere near Richardson's level of experience in foreign affairs . . . [and] she treated Obama reprehensibly during the primary. . . ." Navarrette also asserts that because Latino support for Obama was critical for his victory, "they deserve better" than the "parting gift" of Secretary of Commerce -- the position Richardson has accepted.

Although Navarrette passionately criticized Obama's decision to pick Clinton as Secretary of State, he has taken a noticeably different approach towards GLBT and pro-choice advocates who criticize the inclusion of Rick Warren in Obama's inauguration ceremony. Navarrette argues on CNN.Com that these groups should step back and accept Obama's wishes:

This is about a president-elect, who just came off a bruising 21-month campaign, exercising his prerogative to choose whoever he wants to deliver the blessing at his inauguration. It's about -- as President-elect Obama noted this week -- Americans learning to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

It's about those on the left knowing how to win and how to savor victory without giving into the impulse to attack each other. And, finally, it's about recognizing that -- for those who feel like protesting Warren's appearance -- there is an ocean's worth of bigger fish to fry.

It's interesting. Many of those raising a fuss are talking about respect, demanding respect, insisting they're not given respect, etc. Well, that works both ways. If they want respect, they have to give it. They can start by respecting the wishes of the president-elect to plan his inauguration as he sees fit.

Interesting. Navarrette's assertion that Warren's protestors should respect Obama's wishes could have even more force regarding whom he selects for his Cabinet. Because presidents works very closely with Cabinet members, they should have a high degree of discretion to choose candidates they prefer. Also, had Latinos protested Obama's "snub" of Bill Richardson as Navarrette argues they could have legitimately done, this would have constituted the very in-fighting among the Left that Navarrette now condemns. I do not see these situations as materially distinct. Am I missing something?