Steve Benen makes a good point: The logical implication of
this piece of spin from Mitt Romney is that Romney himself believes his policies won't benefit nearly half the nation.
CAVUTO: Now, you have said that your wording might have been inelegant, but others have said that you just kissed half the electorate goodbye this election year, that you all but called them moochers. Did you?
ROMNEY: No, I'm talking about a perspective of individuals who I'm not likely to get to support me. I recognize that those people who are not paying income tax are going to say, "Gosh, this, this provision of, that Mitt keeps talking about lowering income taxes," that's not going to be real attractive to them.
Obviously, Romney is trying to avoid grappling with the more insulting portions of his attack on the 47 percent, specifically his characterization of half the country as lazy do-nothing moochers. But in trying to dodge a discussion of that part of his remarks, he's managed to step in it again, arguing that his tax policies won't help them—so therefore he won't try to win their votes.
If Romney were a bit smarter—or perhaps if he were less beholden to the Republican Party—he'd take a look at the situation and conclude that the problem was with his policies, not the public. But that's not even a slim possibility.
And so we're left with a situation that turns the history of the tax issue upside down: The Republican Party's nominee proudly and publicly complains that nearly half of all Americans don't pay enough taxes. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party's nominee calls for a modest increase on taxes on income over $250,000—but for cutting taxes on everyone else.
When Republicans were the party of lower taxes for everyone, they had an issue that resonated with everyone. But they have become the party of lower taxes for the rich—and higher taxes for the 47 percent. And in a way, Mitt Romney is their perfect ambassador.
