"... i mean black people"

in a thursday special saturday night live took a chainsaw to romney's "quiet room" comments about the so-called "47%":

romney (jason sudeikis): "... so you have this 47% that don't pay taxes, and these people are never going to vote for me. and when i talk about these people who don't pay taxes, i don't mean senior citizens. alright? and i don't mean members of our armed services. and i don't mean southern whites. okay, what i mean is ... and real quick — no one is recording this, correct? no? okay, it's very important that no one records this. okay, good, 'cause i'm about to say who "these people" [finger quotes] are. now i would prefer not to have that on tape.

[turns to camera] ah, sorry sir, is that a camera on the table pointing right at me?

[brief camera pans right and left, as if signaling "no"] okay, great.

[turning back to guests] alright, now when i say "these people", i mean black people."

snl got it exactly right: this is the elusive "whitey tape". the real one. glad somebody finally aired it.

since the surfacing of romney's "47%" comments, a narrative has settled in that romney has carelessly damaged himself with huge swathes of his own voters. while there is definitely anecdotal evidence of some defections, and while i can certainly see this hurting him badly among any remaining undecideds, anyone who's been following conservatives, especially hardcore conservatives, knows that this tape only validates what wingnuts rich, middle and poor already believe. to them, romney's statements come simply as an extension of his already established coded attacks on welfare.

the american spectator: "when i hear romney's words at this event, my reaction is "say more of this stuff in public, mitt." it's a strong and correct message (other than the use of a number as high as 47 percent) and it will resonate with many americans, including quite a few who don't pay income tax."

"i entirely agree, and this should be the campaign focus. if the truth doesn't get him elected, then the country is gone at this point in history anyway." (pieceofthepuzzle)

as i recently commented on daily kos:

... romney's saying that the OTHER half of the country are freeloaders (colored people).

HIS half of the country, his white base, regardless of class or income level, will always exempt themselves from that description. they rightfully deserve their govt largess (tax cuts, loans, subsidies), which don't count as loathsome handouts (welfare, food stamps, unemployment).

cnn's john king carried the conventional narrative by poignantly making the case for the 47% via his own experience:

"... so, a lot of these voters could be republicans. and ah, i understand your back-and-forth, but alice, i, i make a personal note here: a lot of americans, of all income stripes, have struggled for the last few years and the risk for gov. romney is that it is insulting to them. as a kid, my family was on food stamps for a couple of years when my dad got sick. ah, we didn't feel entitled, and we weren't victms, and my father was pretty embarrassed about the whole thing. ah, but in the end my mother was grateful she was able to feed her kids."

meanwhile, hardcore conservatives not only exempt themselves from admissions or accusations of government assistance, they deny their government assistance is a form of government assistance! craig t. nelson on glenn beck's show:

"i've been on food stamps. anybody help me out? no."

just another episode in the GOP's long-running but more and more often flaccid southern strategy:

interviewer: but the fact is, isn't it, that reagan does get to the wallace voter and to the racist side of the wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

lee atwater: you start out in 1954 by saying, "nigger, nigger, nigger." by 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. backfires. so you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. you're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. and subconsciously maybe that is part of it. i'm not saying that. but i'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. you follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "we want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "nigger, nigger."

from ridiculous to sublime

digby @ hullaballoo:

... saying that it "covers everyone," as if there's a big new benefit is a big stretch. nothing will have changed on that count except changing the law to force people to buy private insurance if they don't get it from their employer. ... nobody's "getting covered" here. after all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to aetna or blue cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good.

david waldman @ daily kos:

this is, of course, quite true. to sell a bill that imposes a federal mandate on you, individually, to buy insurance from a private provider doesn't "expand coverage," it expands tax penalties. ... what do we think people hear when they hear that this bill, would "provide 29 million americans health care"? why not a bill that would "provide 29 million american families with a home of their own" ... provided they buy themselves one? that, or course, would be ridiculous. but let's add just a little more ridiculousness. what if we "provided" millions of american families with homes of their own... provided they buy themselves one... or else face a penalty under federal law? see? from ridiculous to sublime!

that certain ... je ne sais quoi

results from today's cbs news/new york times poll for the period august 17-21. the poll was open-ended, in which the respondents were allowed to provide answers in their own words rather than choose from a provided list:

what do you like best about the bush presidency?
	don't know	34%
	nothing	19%
	handling of war on terror	11%
	decisive	5%
	handling of war in iraq	4%
	taxes	3%
	morality/religion	3%

running on empty

looks like the party of stunts photo ops staged events cheap political manuevers ideas has just run out of them:

washington post: the response so far has been profiles in panic. some conservatives dropped their philosophical opposition to tax hikes and business regulations and began complaining loudly about oil companies and the auto industry. president bush last week announced that he wanted the authority to raise fuel economy standards on automobiles. one aide acknowledged the idea was devised on the fly, with almost no planning or discussion among relevant agencies. this became obvious within hours when white house officials cautioned that bush had no immediate plan to use the authority even if he had it. a few days earlier, bush backed diverting crude oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, an idea he dismissed less than two years earlier as a political stunt. republican lawmakers likewise have responded with a mishmash of solutions — some barely vetted, others with little chance of becoming law.

the problem? it seems that the citizens of emerald city, even the once-fawning dittoheads, are now paying very close attention to the man behind the curtain ...

new york times: the senate republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help. aides for several republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in november. "the conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery," said don stewart, a spokesman for senator john cornyn, republican of texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum. angry constituents have asked, "do you think we are prostitutes? do you think you can buy us?" said another republican senator's aide, who was granted anonymity to openly discuss the feedback because the senator had supported the plan. conservative talk radio hosts have been particularly vocal. "what kind of insult is this?" rush limbaugh asked on his radio program on friday. "instead of buying us off and treating us like we're a bunch of whores, just solve the problem." in commentary on fox news sunday, brit hume called the idea "silly."