Political Animal
Blog
The debate for Republican presidential candidates in Iowa last night lasted two hours, but it was a 35-second exchange that’s likely to be remembered.
The subject was Mitt Romney’s support for an individual health care mandate, and the nuances of his shifting positions. It led to this proposed wager, via TPM:
Rick Perry levied the initial charge, telling Romney, “I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts which should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of the reprint of the book. But, you know, I’m just sayin’, you were for individual mandates, my friend.”
Romney responded, “You know what? You’ve raised that before, Rick. And— you’re simply wrong.” When Perry insisted the allegation is true, Romney replied, “Rick, I’ll tell you what. 10,000 bucks? $10,000 bet?”
Perry demurred, saying he’s not in “the bettin’ business,” but offered to show Romney a copy of his book.
On the substance, who’s right? Romney did make significant revisions to the second edition of his book, including language on health care policy, all of which appear to have been politically motivated. But while Romney supported a national health care mandate, it wasn’t explicitly part of his book. Perry was right on the larger point about the policy, but wrong about the source.
The larger problem, however, was the politics of a multi-millionaire vulture capitalist trying to intimidate a rival with his wealth. The vast majority of Americans don’t have $10,000 lying around to be used as a wager — it’s three months pay for most U.S. workers — and Romney’s off-the-cuff offer only reinforced the perception that he’s the out-of-touch elitist in the race.
The problem is compounded by the fact that it’s part of a pattern. Romney’s the guy who owns several mansions, one of which he’s quadrupling in size; he thinks it’s funny to joke about being unemployed; and in one striking instance, he didn’t have anything smaller than a $100 bill in his wallet while on the campaign trail.
Adding insult to injury, in the same debate in which Romney offered to make a $10,000 bet, he also dismissed a middle-class payroll tax break as an insignificant “band aid.”
The next time Romney presents himself as being in the middle class, despite his $250 million, voters might be inclined to just laugh in his face.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior Romney adviser, seemed to think this wasn’t a damaging moment at all for the former governor. I doubt even he believes this line. The other Republican candidates are already pouncing on this; Democrats can hardly believe their good fortune; and the media appears to have latched onto this as the key development of the night. If this was the night Romney planned to stop Newt Gingrich’s momentum and get back on track, it was a failure.
One more thought on this: watching the clip, it looked to me like this was Romney just saying what was on his mind. In other words, for all of Romney’s overly-slick, robotic presentation, I doubt this was a scripted talking point or a prepared response. It was just the candidate being the candidate.
It’s why “just be yourself” probably isn’t good advice for Mitt Romney.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on December 11, 2011 8:19 AM:
I didn't watch it, but I did read a transcript this morning. And in it, they noted that the debates had a break - for advertising, I'm sure.
So I think I finally found a reason to watch these Fascist imbeciles debate – to see who it is that advertizes.
For the crowd that finds these candidates at all appealing instead of appalling, my guess would be either the “V” or “C” quicker-pecker-upper pills (I mean, who doesn’t want to see horny naked old people on the edge of a cliff in bathtubs?), Depends, denture cream, and a variety of other pills, including those for “Restless Leg Syndrome” – that killer of millions of once happily snoozing seniors.
And if advertising them on TV were allowed, this would have been a great time for gun and ammo ads.
I can see it now, the farmhouse from “In Cold Blood,” with a white family sleeping there, when all of a sudden, there’s a noise, and there’s a home invasion. The camera pans outside and it looks like all of the state’s Crip’s and Blood’s, with a few Hispanic gangs thrown in, have decided on invading this one home.
The hubby wakes up, looks out the window, and says “I’ve got this – thanks to Glock!” and proceeds to start shooting out the window, where the gangs are seen running away. And the father turns towards the camera and says, “And don’t forget to ask for the extra-large clip, and Glock’s ‘Gang-banger-busting’ bullets. When you aim at something, hitting it’s a lock, with a Glock! And they stay hit.”
And now, back to the debate, where the candidates will try to figure out who has the most Conservative way of killing women, children, seniors, the poor, the sick, and brown people.
You know, never mind – the only way I’d watch one of these debates is if Mitt bet me $10,000 that I wouldn’t.
I’m still unemployed, so I couldn’t afford to lose that one.
truthbetold on December 11, 2011 8:40 AM:
I have read other accounts and while most are highlighting this gaffe by Romney there is a basic fact here. There is not one of the candidates in the Republican race who could not take that bet. The other fact is Romney's carefully crafted veneer has been cracking under the pressure.
Hedda Peraz on December 11, 2011 8:52 AM:
What some call "Romney's gaffe" is just another example of the class warfare being waged against the Ruling Class.
$10,000 is spare change for many of us- why, even with the high prices of copper today, I still toss my pennies to the street urchins!
Noblesse oblige.
c u n d gulag on December 11, 2011 9:14 AM:
Hedda Peraz - SO MUCH BETTER than Al!!!
What's that CRAPTCHA?
not hornati
Tmi, CRAPTCHA, tmi...
Severian on December 11, 2011 9:20 AM:
For me, the real story isn't about the amount of money, but about Romney's increasingly obvious testiness whenever anyone brings up something he doesn't want to talk about. You can see him struggling to contain his temper - his grin gets hugely wide (and frankly, kind of predatory), and he starts speaking in those brittle, chipped little phrases ("Rick, I'll tell ya what..."). Seems to me like signs of a guy who's really straining to hold it together. I imagine Obama could exploit this pretty easily, if it comes to that.
schtick on December 11, 2011 9:26 AM:
Ah, good ol Mittins. He's unemployed, too, yanno. He can relate. Why, if he was working he would have bet a million.
The other line of the nite, and this shows Mittins doesn't know what he's doing there, when Noot said the only reason Mittins wasn't a career politician is because he lost, what an oportunity to nail Noot! All he had to say was the only reason Noot wasn't a career politician is that he was kicked out by his own party.
I so love it when the tealiban eat their own. Thankfully, the dimwit dems don't have to do a thing.
crapcha....that leaderg....bwa haw haw
chi res on December 11, 2011 9:39 AM:
The fact that he can afford to bet 10 grand is a PLUS to all those wannabe-rich-working-class-stiffs who love their guns and god and see romney as their financial hero--"Someday, I'M gonna be rich 'nuff to make bets like that! He's a REAL man!!"
Also too, shows why he's going to win the nomination: Plenty of moolah will buy him plenty of voters.
Mark on December 11, 2011 9:42 AM:
What Romney did is a perfect illustration of what "capitalism" has become in America. You can't make your point on merit, your facts are wrong and are entirely belied by the plain evidence so you use the fact that you have more money than anyone else to buy an answer that you want. Truth is hopefully cheap and easy to come by, but if you have to bite the bullet and buy some "truth" once in a while....well that's just the cost of doing business.
JS on December 11, 2011 9:44 AM:
$10,000 in your pocket to toss out there over a bar bet over a line that's in a book, or not?
The guy mis-spoke. The proper line is:
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR MITT ROMNEY!
Kiweagle on December 11, 2011 9:54 AM:
Maybe it's just me, but I find this sensationalism over the flippant bet remark a total snore-fest. There's absolutely no substance to this other than the acknowledgement of Romney's wealth.
For goodness sake, we're trying to prove how dangerous the GOP's policies are and how delusional these candidates will be should they ever - God forbid - make it to The White House, and instead the conversation is about a bet people make all the time. Hell, Bill Maher bet a million dollars that Herman Cain would be out of the race within a few months (which he won) and people's heads didn't explode then either.
biggerbox on December 11, 2011 10:05 AM:
I don't buy this as a scandal-ette.
It's a pretty typical American speech pattern to offer to bet an enormous amount of money when you are sure you are right. The more enormous the bet, the more it signals your confidence in your position. The point is, you know you aren't going to lose, so you could bet "any amount of money" that you are right. Most Americans have a memory of offering to bet someone 'a million dollars' as a kid.
I think most people won't interpret this as "to Mitt Romney, $10,000 is like $20 to me", they'll interpret it as "Mitt was really sure he was right."
Kathryn on December 11, 2011 10:05 AM:
Severian nails Mitt, he's a nasty piece of work and I hope he wins the nomination but it's looking increasingly unlikely. Newt appears to have the upper hand to me and have developed a bit more self control than he perviously possessed. He's still a lying grifter and would be a horrible president, but he's cocky and glib which turns on the tea baggers. In a general election effort, it's anybody's guess.
withay on December 11, 2011 10:07 AM:
Romney's cavalier chump change bet versus the average $38 per bi-weekly paycheck or $83 per monthly paycheck that is the "insignificant bandaid" for most American workers. Romney may not miss the $10K but American workers will be missing the bandaid - too late to let their representatives know it is not insignificant to them.
martin on December 11, 2011 10:09 AM:
Romney’s off-the-cuff offer only reinforced the perception that he’s the out-of-touch elitist in the race.
Or a successful capitalist job creator Galtian overlord.
And the $10k was going to come out of the campaign fund anyway, not Mitt's lint free pocket.
And Perry missed the perfect opportunity to out-christian Mitt by claiming gambling's a sin.
Mark on December 11, 2011 10:13 AM:
It is a typical speech pattern to make big bets as a way of showing your convictions and I agree it's overblown but there is something different. When Bill Maher bet a million dollars that Herman Cain would be out of the race in a few months, there was at least some chance, however small that his bet could be a losing one. Mitt Romney was betting that a line wasn't in a book when it plainly is. He was willing to bet that up was down. What makes it illustrative is that he wants to use his money to buy his own reality and that's essentially the story of how we are where we are.
hoi polloi on December 11, 2011 10:26 AM:
Three things stick out for me regarding Romney's wager:
1) The last time I tried to stifle an argument like this I was in the fifth grade (and I was willing to wager, iirc, a million dollars);
2) Will this impact the Mormon vote? My understanding, limited as it is, is that Mormons don't gamble. Does Romney gamble? Is settling arguments with wagers a pattern with Mitt?
3) Clearly, putting $10k on the line at the drop of a hat on this matter suggests that Mitt is highly confident in his flip-floppery. As opposed to say, foreign policy, the nuances of Team Romney's flip-flop management are not lost on Mitt.
T-Rex on December 11, 2011 10:59 AM:
I'm no fan of Romney or anyone else on that stage, but let's not willfully misinterpret what he obviously meant. The point of offering a ridiculously large bet is to indicate that you know for sure you'll win. We all do that. We don't usually mean it and we don't have the case. We're trying to intimidate the other guy with confidence, not wealth. This is another example of "Oh look, a shiny object" journalism, the mentality that leads the press to cover every Presidential race as though the most important issue was whether the candidate orders coffee or tea.
T-Rex on December 11, 2011 11:00 AM:
Dammit, that was supposed to be "cash," not "case."
Sgt. Gym Bunny on December 11, 2011 11:11 AM:
interesting point hoi polloi,
I'm from Southern Free Will Baptist country (NC - east of the I-95 divide), and I was always under the impression that--minus beach bingo--gambling/betting was a no-no. So much, in fact, that I was really shocked that NC got it's own lottery in the aughts. There was a big debate (on my side of I-95, at least) with religious undertones about the perils of gambling before the NC lottery was put into effect. If anything, big city Mitt's wager again Perry (of all people) might sour the southern fundie coalition even more...
MNRD on December 11, 2011 12:11 PM:
"The problem is compounded by the fact that it’s part of a pattern":
Corporations are people.
718BKNYC on December 11, 2011 2:00 PM:
Ahh, the stupidity of the Republican Party. "Bets" more or less destroyed the economy and this dimwit suggests a bet during a debate.
Can anyone imagine what the ghouls on the right would say if BHO said such a thing? O.M.G. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Captcha: financial ndphour.
How fitting. Romney's financial NoDamnProblem hour.
Steve on December 11, 2011 5:43 PM:
Sorry, but I'm not getting my shorts all in a wad for some throwaway remark like this. It may be juvenile or it might even be the mark of someone who believes he's right, "betting" on a sure thing. I frankly don't care.
There are far more important things to worry about in Mr Romney's philosophy than this.
But I'll bet you a billion kagillion exquillion dollars the media never talk about that.
Anonymous on December 12, 2011 7:28 AM:
The point is, you know you aren't going to lose, so you could bet "any amount of money" that you are right. Most Americans have a memory of offering to bet someone 'a million dollars' as a kid. - biggerbox
Yes, it is juvenile. But I tend to think of people that use large bets like that to settle their arguments as a type of bullying. Why do they have to bet? Why not just state your facts to prove your point? All big bets do is cause big arguments because neither side will be willing to cede their point.
June on December 12, 2011 10:25 AM:
Is this how Romney would settle disputes as President? I can imagine the scenario -- CBO comes back with a report that says a Republican policy Romney supports would increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. Romney argues with them, then says, "Look, I'll bet you $10,000 it doesn't end up increasing the deficit."
That's no way to govern.
Danp on December 12, 2011 10:43 AM:
Maybe it's just me, but I find this sensationalism over the flippant bet remark a total snore-fest.
I don't disagree, but it is interesting how many of these "snore-fest" comments become the iconic moment of campaigns:
"There you go again."
"You're no Jack Kennedy"
"lockbox"
"I voted for it before I voted against it."
I think it says more about the media than the candidates, but somehow Chris Matthews has an audience by focusing exclusively on this kind of superficial nonsense.