It looked gloomy this morning from the PostScript bunker. The onslaught of comments came thick and fast in response to stories about Mitt Romney’s secret tax policy video. Fine and good, except that commenters and PostScript had their say on the subject yesterday. Furthermore, it’s Talk Like A Pirate Day, which PostScript cannot celebrate because she already is a pirate and consequently talks like one every day. It’s complicated.

But in the 4000+ comments to Matt Miller’s column describing the secret video as a new low for Candidate Romney, PostScript found this:


What I would have loved to have heard Romney say is, “Those of us in this room can afford to pay $50,000 for a lunch, which is the same amount of money the average American family earns in a year. We need to find ways to raise the incomes of those 47%. It may mean that those of us at the top make less, but, after all, these people work hard every day to make the companies we own successful.”

Which in turn made PostScript think of Kathleen Parker’s column on the video’s particularly Cyborgian Mitt and what he should have said. Per Parker, it is:

“I know that the 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay any federal income tax are not going to be moved by my message of lower taxes. Heck, they need jobs and income before they can enjoy the problem of a high tax rate. Since I can’t get their vote, I’m focusing on independents. But when I become president, my first priority will be to help all Americans get back to work so that everyone can contribute. I believe that most people would rather earn their own keep, care for their families and enjoy the rewards of self-sufficiency.”

Aha! These statements are what Romney should have said, had he been talking to adifferentpointofview and Kathleen Parker and PostScript. But in this case he was not. Clearly, what he said was a good thing to say to his investors.

amaikovich agrees that the video doesn’t show “real” Romney any more than any other video:

I actually think that Governor Romney has slightly more empathy for the poor than he showed in that video. I also think he would tell anyone anything they want to hear to win votes and campaign contributions.

sanfran6003 says that the wrong audience will of course wrongly interpret Romney’s statement:

Democratic partisans are deliberately misconstruing Romney’s remarks to donors back in May. He used an off the cuff statistic to make a point about ‘the dependent society’. It is a valid political point. His remarks were not referring to people hurt by the recession or to seniors or to veterans, or to people who work for a living and his critics know that. Try the Occupy Wall Street crowd and those to whom the world owes a living. They are not his voters so Romney gives his donors a peek at his inside strategy. He will concede the “dependent society” to his opponent and concentrate on winning the middle. Outrageous? Hardly.

And i_go_pogo discovers a new wrinkle that complicates matters further:

So Mitt was saying that if I vote for Obama, I don’t need to worry about paying my taxes?

What’s important about i_go_pogo’s wrinkle is that for it to work, the individual who votes for Barack Obama does not have to pay taxes, but ONLY IF Romney is elected in November. It’s a tough choice.