Mặc ai nói ngả ,nói nghiêng ..(Bầu Cử Mỹ )

[FatDuck]

From http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/r...risy-1.2910513

Romney’s 47 percent remarks expose his hypocrisy

By Kirk Auvil
Published: Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Updated: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 07:09


By now, most Americans have probably heard about Gov. Romney’s "47 percent of Americans" remarks, in which he essentially wrote off nearly half of the country as immovable barnacles on the underbelly of society. For anyone who hasn’t heard it yet, here is the quote in full:

"All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."

He went on to add, "My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

First, we must put the quote in context. Romney was speaking to a room of donors at a $50,000 per plate fundraiser in May of this year. Naturally, Romney was unaware that anyone was recording his remarks at the time, and the person who recorded the video has chosen to remain anonymous.

As it turns out, Romney’s assessment of 47 percent of Americans is a bit off. First, it is true that roughly 47 percent of Americans do not pay income tax.

However, nearly two-thirds of these people pay payroll tax. That said, 18.1 percent of American households do not pay payroll tax or income tax. Ten percent of these households are senior citizens, and another 6.9 percent of the households make fewer than $20,000 a year, exempting them from income tax. So, it seems Romney’s remark may have been misleading.

Of course, poor people aren’t the only ones who get out of paying income taxes. It turns out that about 13,000 of the richest people in America (one percent of the richest one percent) did not pay income taxes either. The Tax Policy Center also states there are roughly 4,000 millionaires in the U.S. who paid no income taxes in 2011.

Finally, Romney has decided to step up and lead the charge against these tax-dodging sponges who are refusing to take personal responsibility.

But Romney’s remarks extend beyond the realm of imperious gaffes and into the realm of bad politics. It turns out the majority of seniors support Romney by a substantial margin. So, he’s now attacked his own supporters by accident.

Furthermore, it turns out seven of the 10 states that boast the lowest income tax liabilities are traditionally Republican-leaning states (Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina).

Romney’s aspersions affect another target particularly close to home: his own father. George Romney, Mitt’s father, was on welfare for a time before he ran for office. Mitt’s mother was featured in George Romney’s 1962 gubernatorial campaign video talking about how America gave George Romney a chance to succeed, with a large part of that chance coming from welfare.

So, it seems Mitt Romney did not fully think his statements through, because if he had, he would have realized he was about to refer to his own father as someone who didn’t take personal responsibility and care for his own life.

And while cracking wise about 47 percent of Americans being unreachable was perhaps the worst of Romney’s gaffes during the fundraiser, it was far from his only questionable statement.

He went on to joke it would be much easier for him to win the Hispanic vote if his mother had been Mexican and said he wanted to use Ann Romney sparingly so that the American people wouldn’t grow tired of her.

These are not inflammatory remarks, as was his 47 percent comment, but they do paint an eerie portrait of a candidate who views the American people as a hostile electorate rather than his fellow Americans.

So, Romney has explicitly stated he does not care to win the hearts and minds of Americans or even watch out for the best interests of nearly half of the country. It’s not his job to care about those people, after all.

[FatDuck]

From
http://www.sfgate.com/business/botto...sy-3886112.php

Romney 'victims' remark reveals hypocrisy

Andrew S. Ross, Chronicle Columnist
Updated 3:15 p.m., Saturday, September 22, 2012



The question that led up to Mitt Romney's "47 percent" rumination went like this:

"For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, 'Don't worry, we'll take care of you.' How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?"

Romney, as we know, responded with references to those who are "dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, you name it."

But the question, asked by an audience member who could afford the $50,000 per head fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla., was indicative of a broader mind-set, akin to the observation New York Times conservative commentator David Brooks made about Romney's remarks - "It's what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other."

It's also supremely hypocritical. Many of those millionaires, especially alumni of the private equity field, like Romney and his Boca Raton host, the CEO of Sun Capital, have been very well taken care of by the U.S. government, Republican and Democrat.

Yes, they pay federal tax, unlike the 47 percent, but oh, so little, thanks to a tax code that allows them to count most of their earnings not as ordinary income, taxable up to 35 percent, but as "carried interest" taxable at a 15 percent rate. In 2011, Romney, as his returns revealed on Friday, paid 14.1 percent ($1.9 million) on income of $13.7 million, even though he left Bain Capital 13 years ago.

Some private equity mavens pay even less, by means of a "fee-waiver conversion," i.e, counting management fees, taxable as ordinary income, as investment income, payment of which, incidentally, can be deferred for years. In one case, Apollo Capital Management reported management fees as ordinary income to the Securities and Exchange Commission but as investment income to the Internal Revenue Service.


N.Y. investigation
In July, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed several private equity firms, including Apollo, Bain Capital, KKR and TPG Capital as part of his investigation into what tax experts regard as a highly dubious practice. So far, nary a peep from the IRS, Congress or the Obama administration.

(A lawyer who handles Romney's financial affairs said the presidential candidate never participated in the scheme.)

Yet, for all the government generosity, some mavens believe that they, too, are victims. Squeals erupted in 2010 when the Obama administration and some in Congress suggested that loopholes favoring private equity, hedge funds and other partnership structures be closed. Few were louder than Steve Schwarzman, CEO of Blackstone Group - net worth $5.2 billion according to the latest Forbes 400 richest list - who likened the proposals to "when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939."

"Steve thinks the president lacks an intuitive feeling for the role of capital markets," a Wall Street executive said at the time. "Obama is from Mars and Steve is from Venus."

Much the same cosmic difference might be observed between the 47 percent as we have come to understand them, and other members of the private sector who look to the government for care and feeding. Take Silicon Valley companies like Apple, Google, Oracle, eBay and Hewlett-Packard, for example.

Instead of earned-income tax credits or Social Security, they, like most U.S. multinationals, avoid or minimize taxes by stashing most of their money overseas. HP, as reported in Friday's Chronicle, has been particularly creative, using subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands to send back money ostensibly as "loans," thereby avoiding the 35 percent tax on repatriated profits.

How can this possibly be legal, you ask, let alone moral? Well, according to HP's senior vice president, the IRS "did not find the tax treatment contrary" to the law.


Entitlement attitude
In fact, such companies believe they're perfectly entitled to, even dependent on, well, "you name it," whether it be the oil-depletion allowance energy companies like Chevron enjoy (second quarter profit $7.2 billion), or a tax code that encourages major banks to use debt to finance activities instead of equity.

The upshot: As a proportion of federal receipts, corporate taxes have dropped from 32 percent in 1952 to less than 9 percent today, according to a report issued by a Senate subcommittee on Thursday. Payroll taxes, which many who reportedly "believe they are victims" do pay, have risen from 10 percent of federal revenue in 1952 to 40 percent now.

Mars and Venus, indeed.


Andrew S. Ross is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. E-mail: bottomline@sfchronic le.com Blog: www.sfgate.com/columns/bottomline Twitter: @andrewsross Facebook: sfg.ly/doACKM

[FatDuck]

From http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/...esnt-work-tha/


Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way

By Rich Smith, The Motley Fool
Posted 2:53PM 09/25/12
Posted under: Economy, Taxes, Money and Politics


Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, and cut taxes even further in order to boost economic growth. In contrast, President Barack Obama argues that in order for the government to to pay its bills, we must allow the Bush tax cuts to expire (at least on the wealthy) and add surtaxes on high-income taxpayers in order.

But would cutting taxes on "job creators," as Gov. Romney proposes, rather than raising taxes on "the rich," as the President proposes, actually boost economic growth? No -- at least not according to the Congressional Research Service.


A Storm in the Making...?
Last week, in a headline that seemed about to spark a firestorm on the Internet (until Governor Mitt Romney's "47%" video preempted the pundits' attention), the CRS took up the question of whether "reduced [tax rates on the wealthy] would increase economic growth, increase saving and investment, and boost productivity."

Their conclusion: It wouldn't.

To the contrary, after 20 pages of charts, graphs, and economic navel-gazing, the CRS (Congressional Research Service) came to a startling (to some) conclusion: A review of 65 years of tax and economic data running from 1945 (when top capital gains and top marginal income tax rates topped 90%) through 2010 (by which time the top income tax bracket had declined to 35%, and the capital gains rate had fallen to 15%) shows no "conclusive evidence ... to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth." (Here -- see for yourself).



Rather, the "data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." These reductions did, however, result in "increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession."

To summarize: Lowering taxes on the wealthy makes the rich richer, and doesn't do anything to boost economic growth


... Or Just a Tempest in a Teapot?
The reaction from the political right wing was just as you'd expect, with the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation firing off a quick rebuttal: "The Congressional Research Service ... set out to make a convincing case that lower income tax rates do not strengthen the economy. It failed, but in so doing, it called into question the quality of CRS analysis and the institution's credibility as non-partisan."

Heritage proceeded to work itself up into a fine lather, declaring that no matter what the data show, it is "impossible ... to argue that lower [tax] rates do not encourage stronger economic growth." The attempt to do so is "simplistic," "flimsy," and "misleading."

Impossible why? Apparently, just because the Heritage Foundation says so: "Of course, if you tax income, investment, and savings less you'll get more of them and the stronger growth that comes with the increase in these activities."

(Oh, well. If it's "of course," then I guess there's no point in looking at evidence ....)


Can't We All Just Get Along?
Now to be fair, Heritage's argument sounds sensible -- even in the absence of evidence to back it up. Taxing anything makes it more expensive, and as we all know from Economics 101, when the price of something goes up, demand for it goes down. (It's right there in the line graph.) Logically speaking, therefore, the Heritage Foundation's argument should be right, and the CRS's data should have shown this to be the case.

Except it didn't.

Instead, the CRS research showed that lowering the rate of the top income tax bracket was "not associated with private saving" and "not necessarily associated with productivity growth." As far as growing the economy goes, the "fitted values seem to suggest that higher tax rates are associated with slightly higher real per capita GDP growth rates."

So... so much for that theory. Apparently, now we're stuck with only two options. Option 1: Dismiss the facts as "impossible." Option 2: Follow a new theory that better fits the facts.

[FatDuck]

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-to...b_1962465.html


Uninsured People Do Die in Their Homes
Ben Townsend.
Brooklyn-based writer



In Cleveland this week, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney addressed concerns about his proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act (more commonly known as Obamacare), a law that would insure an estimated 30 million Americans. Critics contend that depriving so many people of coverage would lead to unnecessary deaths. Romney contested that claim:

"We don't have people who become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance," Romney told reporters. He pointed to the example of an uninsured heart attack victim who can go to any emergency room and still receive care.

Romney's statements would seem to defy logic. With roughly 50 million Americans uninsured, there must be some people who die because they cannot get treatment. And indeed one study estimates that 26,000 deaths occur every year as a direct result of not having insurance, a rate of one person every 20 minutes.

But Gov. Romney was not talking about the people in that study, the Americans who develop life-threatening conditions over time because they can't afford to see a physician. Romney was simply noting a fact, that anyone can go to the hospital if he or she has a heart attack. Which is true. A law passed by Congress in 1986 requires all hospitals to provide emergency health care, regardless of the patient's citizenship or ability to pay.

Now, I'm an Obama supporter. And I don't think very much of Romney's health care proposals. But I would like to comment on his assertion that uninsured people don't die in their homes. Because I happen to know a person who did. And this occurred despite the fact that he went to the emergency room and sought help.

His name was Todd. I met him when we worked together at a Biggby Coffee (formerly known as Beaner's) in downtown Lansing, MI. He was in his mid-30s and I had just graduated high school. Todd was a funny guy -- the kind of person who threw around his big personality. The coffee shop where we worked was located among several state government offices and we served a lot of state senators and their staffs. Todd was well known for refusing to allow anyone to order with a grumpy attitude, no matter how important they were.

After I left Lansing to attend college, I came back and visited the coffee shop a couple times to catch up with Todd. But one day my dad (a regular customer) called to let me know that he had very suddenly and tragically died. It happened on one of the hottest days of the year. Todd was laying down in his apartment, which didn't have air conditioning, and he was suffering from chest pains. Eventually he went to the emergency room. The doctors checked him out and determined that he had heat stroke. They told Todd to sit in the emergency room's air conditioning and drink water.

So he did. After a few hours, Todd returned home and went to sleep. He died sometime before the next morning. It was later discovered that Todd had a very rare heart disease. He didn't tell the doctors about the condition because he didn't know that he had it.

When I heard about Todd's death, I was not exactly sad. I was more surprised. It seemed strange that a middle-class (i.e. privileged) person like me would know someone that died of preventable causes. I suspect that Gov. Romney would be surprised as well. This didn't happen in a Third World country or an area of extreme poverty. It happened in the middle of Lansing, just blocks from the Capitol building where Mr. Romney's father once presided as governor.

It's impossible to know if the emergency room could have prevented Todd's death if he'd had insurance. But it's hard to blame the doctors for failing to diagnose him. Todd was displaying signs of heat stroke, and it was a hot day. Why bother to run tests on the off chance he had an extremely rare disease? And who would pay for those tests? The numbers just didn't add up.

Whether or not you think that the federal government should help more people get insurance, most Americans believe that hospitals should provide care to someone in a medical emergency. But our bodies are complicated. The emergencies are not always obvious.

It's extremely difficult for researchers to gather statistics on how many people die as a result of not having health insurance. This is because, by definition, they are the people who rarely have contact with our health care system. But if Obamacare is allowed to move forward and the uninsured receive coverage, then perhaps emergency rooms will run a few extra life-saving tests on those suffering from chest pains on a hot day. The numbers will start to add up in favor of people like Todd.

(I be remiss if I didn't conclude by noting that Todd was a Navy veteran. At first I was confused when I heard he didn't have insurance because I thought all veterans were covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). But it turns out that there are very strict guidelines on emergency care that veterans can receive at non-VA hospitals. I think this makes the case against repealing Obamacare even stronger, but I suppose you could consider it a completely separate policy matter.)

[FatDuck]

From http://www.newsleader.com/article/20...e-Romney-plans


Army veterans criticize Romney outside his VMI speech

10:49 PM, Oct. 8, 2012


LEXINGTON — They traveled all the way from Northern Virginia to stand in the cold and intermittent drizzle downtown to warn prospective voters away from Mitt Romney after the Republican presidential nominee made a case for his foreign policy approach.

Terron Sims and Ben Webb have both retired from the U.S. Army after stints in Middle Eastern conflict zones. Just outside the Virginia Military Institute campus where Romney outlined his plans as president Monday, Sims and Webb made it clear that they would not want the former Massachusetts governor as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Sims, a retired captain who lives in Arlington, noted that Romney changed his views on President Barack Obama’s response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“One day he was against the president’s position on Libya, the next day, he said it was the right thing to do,” said Sims, director of Virginia Veterans for Obama.

Romney is trying to “hit the reset” button in hopes that American’s will forget his blunders overseas this year in Great Britain and Israel, said Sims, who served in Iraq.

“Incident after incident after incident, Mitt Romney shows his naivete when it comes to national security and foreign policy, but here we are at VMI, where he’s trying to show this strong presence, when it really isn’t there,” Sims said.

Webb said Obama has provided steady, informed leadership as president and that some of Romney’s pronouncements are reckless and even scary.

“When you’re the commander-in-chief, every decision you make regarding the military, you’ve got the lives of the sons and daughters of America’s at stake,” said Webb, of Springfield, who served in Desert Storm and in the most recent Iraq operation.

Further, Romney has neglected in his campaign platform to show much concern about veterans and the needs of those returning home after serving in Middle Eastern conflicts, Webb said.

[Ba Búa]

Ước gì mấy bài trên được dịch ra tiếng Việt thì thu hút nhiều đọc giả hơn .
Tỉ dụ như FatDuck dịch ra là Vịt Bầu vậy mà . Hahaha xin lỗi, dịch đại cho vui thôi !

[FatDuck]

Ước gì mấy bài trên được dịch ra tiếng Việt thì thu hút nhiều đọc giả hơn .
Tỉ dụ như FatDuck dịch ra là Vịt Bầu vậy mà . Hahaha xin lỗi, dịch đại cho vui thôi !

Xin lỗi Ba Búa. Tiếng Việt tôi không tốt nên không dịch được. Đọc và viết tiếng Việt là điều khó với tôi. Nếu Ba Búa dùng Google translate thì có thể hiểu đại khái, tuy không đúng 100% nhưng vì tiếng Việt của Ba Búa tốt nên có thể hiểu.

[FatDuck]

From http://www.opposingviews.com/i/polit...m-draft-dodger

Was Mitt Romney a Vietnam Draft Dodger?

By Michael Allen, Sun, August 05, 2012


Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney talks tough when it comes to foreign policy. He has slammed President Obama for bringing U.S. troops home and recently gave the greenlight to Israel if they wanted to launch a preemptive attack on Iran, under his presidency.

But what about Romney's own military service or lack of?

Romney supported the Vietnam War, but did not enlist. Instead, he got draft deferments and worked as a missionary ["minister of religion"] for 31 months, for the Mormon church, in France, one of those "European countries" that he often tries to tie President Obama to.

The Associated Press reports that after Romney completed his missionary service in 1969, but he asked for and got more deferments, a total of four, successfully staying out of the war that claimed over fifty thousand American lives.

However, when he got into politics, Romney gave dual recollections of those days.

According to the Maddow Blog:

Many years later, in 1994, Romney said, "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft." That wasn't true -- he took several steps to remove himself from the eligibility pool.

By 2007, Romney, a presidential candidate, argued. "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

While some criticize Romney's lack of military service or even call it draft dodging, it's worth noting that President Bush did not serve in Vietnam either, but joined the texas National Guard, and he still defeated Vietnam veteran Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

Vice President Dick Cheney got five deferments to stay out of Vietnam and Republican advisor and SuperPac founder Karl Rove got three.

[FatDuck]

The article below is a bit dated, but it reveals the hypocrisy of Republican fat cats.


-------------------------------------------


From http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...ohio-veterans/

Why Does Mitt Romney Want To Restrict Voting Rights For More Than 900,000 Ohio Veterans?

By Guest Blogger on Aug 6, 2012 at 8:05 am

Our guest blogger is Jon Soltz (@jonsoltz) is a two-tour Iraq veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org.


When I read stories this weekend that said the Obama campaign was suing to restrict the voting rights of military in Ohio, my blood got boiling. Of course, Think Progress has already documented that story, inflamed by the Romney campaign, is patently false. In fact, the Obama campaign was suing to block an Ohio law which restricts a very successful early voting program in the state. The President’s campaign was trying to keep expanded voting rights in place for everyone, military included. So, why am I still so disturbed?

Because Mitt Romney, by supporting the Ohio law that would do away with three days of early voting for all but those covered under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (‘UOCAVA’), is supporting the restriction of voting rights for as many as 913,000 Ohio veterans. This includes military retirees with over 20 years of service and multiple deployments. In short, Mitt Romney supports efforts to make voting more difficult for the very people who have put their lives on the line after swearing an oath to uphold our Constitution and democracy.

Once you leave the military, you are no longer covered by UOCAVA. Your voting rights are the same as any civilian. That means the early voting law which Mitt Romney wants to undo, provided hundreds of thousands of Ohio veterans with more of an opportunity to vote. By all accounts, Ohio voters liked and used the early voting law. In 2008, nearly one-third of all ballots was cast under the early voting measures, surely many of them veterans.

Interestingly, the press reported that 15 military and veterans’ groups supported Romney’s position. Yet on Friday, the Obama Campaign actually signed a brief to the court that backed the petition of those groups – welcoming them into the case, because the Obama campaign says it wants to ensure that military voters aren’t kept from early voting. Now that we know the truth, I hope those groups will come out and fully support the President’s campaign, in court. Because if they don’t, the change in law will hurt so many who have served in uniform.

So, how is the law about to change? Under the previous statute, Ohioans were allowed to vote early, all the way up to election day. Under the new law that the Obama campaign is seeking to block, almost all Ohioans will not be able to vote early starting three days before the election – doing away with weekend voting, which was the easiest for those with a full time job, or multiple jobs.

For veterans, most of whom have full-time work, often in jobs they can’t leave during the day, that lessens their ability to vote.

We’ve already seen what a non-early-voting Ohio looks like. We saw it in 2004, when in many polling places had extremely long lines (especially in urban areas), and polling places were shut down before everyone in line had a chance to vote. Non-early voting, quite literally, resulted in the disenfranchisement of voters. That’s what Mitt Romney wants to go back to. That’s what he wants to subject nearly a million Ohio veterans to, after they wore the uniform, and swore their lives to uphold our Constitution, including the right to vote.

My question for Mitt Romney is simple: “Why won’t you join the Obama lawsuit in Ohio, and protect our veterans’ right to vote?”

[FatDuck]

The article below is a bit dated, but it still rings true.

---------------------------------------

From http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...llenge-romney/

Nuns Challenge Romney To Spend A Day With Them To Learn About Plight Of America’s Poor

By Travis Waldron on Aug 8, 2012 at 1:05 pm


The group behind the Nuns On A Bus tour that highlighted the ill-effects of the House Republican budget in congressional districts across the country is now setting its sights on the party’s presidential candidate, inviting Mitt Romney to spend a day with the nuns to learn about the plight of America’s poorest citizens.

NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice lobby, is inviting Romney to “spend a day with Catholic Sisters who work every day to meet the needs of struggling families in their communities,” according to a release. The group is specifically targeting Romney a day after his campaign released a misleading ad about welfare reform that Sister Simone Campbell, NETWORK’s executive director, said “demonize[s] families in poverty” and shows Romney’s “ignorance about the challenges” the poor face in America:

“Recent advertisements and statements from the campaign of Governor Romney demonize families in poverty and reflect woeful ignorance about the challenges faced by tens of millions of American families in these tough economic times,” stated Sister Simone Campbell. “We are all God’s children and equal in God’s eyes. Efforts to divide us by class or score political points at the expense of the most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters reveal the worst side of our country’s politics.”

Romney has endorsed the House GOP budget plan authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). It was that plan, which includes deep cuts to food stamps and other safety net programs that benefit the middle class, that NETWORK’s Nuns On A Bus tour targeted, with Campbell and other sisters blasting it as “immoral” at the tour’s conclusion in Washington D.C. Romney has also proposed massive tax cuts for the rich that would likely come at the expense of lower- and middle-class families, which would see higher taxes or significant cuts to the programs they depend on.

Those policies, Campbell told ThinkProgress, show that Romney “doesn’t have clue” about the struggles the poor face. “The fact is, his policies shift wealth to the upper class,” she said. “Yes, it hurts the middle class, but it devastates those at the margins of our society.” If Romney were to accept their invitation, Campbell said she would take him to places like St. Augustine’s in Cleveland, where food programs “provide a hand up” to the community’s neediest members. “He thinks they’re lazy,” Campbell said, in reference to Romney’s misleading welfare reform ad. “It is hard work to keep things together when you’re poor. He doesn’t have a clue. Let him talk to them, and maybe they’ll touch his heart. And his mind too.”

The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Campbell said she “lives in hope” that he will accept, even if he spends only an hour with the group. “I’ll take whatever I can get,” Campbell said. “He should accept.”