The fear now, of the conservative base, is that Romney will listen to his stifling "advisors" who don't want him to scare away independents - as if this would. If you don't know, Republican campaign advisors tend to be old school GOP - the Establishment Republicans. The kind who like big government, that don't fight to reign in spending and deficit, those that fear tackling the Democrats head on. They play to lose, on average.
How much will this matter in the end? Since it's not even October, probably not much. The media will make hay of this for about a week and then they'll move on to new attacks. They change frequently - about weekly, with all the big networks saying the same exact things (except Fox). It will matter in the long run only if Romney uses this to his advantage. I sure hope he does.
Rush Limbaugh put it well:
Screw the independents. We have 47% we're talking about here. Forty-seven percent is a much bigger universe than whatever the independents are. Go for this bunch. Head for 'em right now. Tell them how great they can be. Tell them how crucial they are to making this country work. Tell them. Tell them. Give them some high expectations. Tell them what's possible. Barack Obama's not. Barack Obama's not touching that. Barack Obama doesn't want to go anywhere near how great people can be. He doesn't want to go anywhere near how great this country can be because he doesn't believe in this country's greatness. He thinks it's unjust, it was unfairly acquired or achieved. He's trying to roll it back.Now, other times Rush Limbaugh has talked about how preaching conservatism is what attracts independents anyway, not being moderate. I agree. I don't know why he didn't bring it up today. Other conservative sites have mentioned it though.
Folks, I'm telling you, it is such an opening. But you have to be able to see it. If you don't see it, you have to be convinced of it. You have to believe it. From the Republican convention, I know Romney believes it.
And if you've missed earlier lessons on the Democrat idea of compassion and that sentencing people to a life of handouts is not real compassion, then here you go. Rush Limbaugh again.
We want you independent of government. We don't want people depending on government. That's never gonna get anybody anything. That's not prosperity. That's existence, at best, subsistence, the norm. Nancy Pelosi's a millionaire. How did she become a millionaire, aside from marrying it? Do you think she did it on food stamps? John Kerry's a millionaire. How did he do it? He married it. Do you think John Kerry's a millionaire 'cause of food stamps or welfare or any of the other programs they want you to be on?UPDATE: Romney has responded in many places, but here is his article printed in USAToday. Score for Romney!
Who really has the best intentions for the poor? I would submit to you it's Mitt Romney. Any Republican, any conservative looks at people in poverty and says, "It's not necessary, not in this country." There are ways out of it. Not ways of sustaining it and calling that compassion. We don't define compassion by adding up the number of people who get food stamps. We define compassion by how many people no longer need any of that stuff. Not Barack Obama. Not Joe Biden. Not Harry Reid. Not Nancy Pelosi. And not the media. The more dependent you are, the more ignorant you must be, and that's how they want you.