This is a very dubious argument. The whole reason we dislike recessions so much is that they can push more people into poverty. Additionally, the most vulnerable people in a recession are those with lower levels of education and less work experience.

For instance, in 2007, the unemployment rate for 25+ age adults with no high school diploma was 7.1%; by 2010, it had more than doubled to 14.9%. Among 25+ adults with a bachelor’s degree, though, unemployment was 2% in 2007 and 4.7% in 2010.

These data come from Table 7 of the CPS. Given how much lending there was to low-income people during the bubble years, I also doubt the claim that middle class people have been hurt more than the lower-income people by foreclosures.

Stipulated. Doesn’t matter, though. We’re talking about campaigning, which is rife with disingenuousness.

I try very hard not to be a cynical person but it’s getting to the point where campaigning just breaks all the rules. If something can possibly be used as a weapon, it will be, disingenuous or not.

The Ems Dispatch and the Zimmermann Telegram spring to mind

It’s disingenuous, for Gingrich, or Obama, to exploit these words of Romney, because in substance, they agree. Perhaps Pres. Obama, as a Democrat believes that we should have a bigger safety net, than the Republicans, but not on the need for one.

One could argue that Romney assumed that the american public is intelligent enough to decipher what he meant, and if so, they’re not going to be fooled by the exploitation of his comments by his political opponents. In fact, the public may be insulted. Why? Because implicit in these attacks on Romney’s “poor” comments, is the assumption that the public will not see them for what they are: political cheapshots of the crudest form.

It seems that we had a couple of Presidents, of the Bush variety, who made some errors in speech, but did just fine negotiating with foreign leaders.

That happens on episodes of Star Trek: the Next Generation, not elsewhere. Countries do not begin a general mobilization for frivolous reasons.

Another way of looking at this is, instead of Romney being “dumb” for wording this awkwardly, maybe those who criticize him for it, are dumb for not interpreting it in the way that it was intended.

So, okay, when the man is deep in negotiating with hostile nations, and he inadvertently insults the guy he meant to make peace with, it won’t matter if war breaks out because that wasn’t what he meant?

I’m sorry, but all these defenses of Romney strike me as absurd when set against the things that were said about Perry and Gingrich when those two said tactless and/or stupid things. Pick one standard and apply it evenly, please.

Yeah, I was born with a lead foot in my mouth. ;-)

Only if the taxpaying, working, middle class ever hears it.

And they won’t. Because the only way they will is if the Romney campaign repeats it. And they don’t dare repeat it, because it will only remind people of the part the DNC will be playing every 30 minutes around the clock in their commercials, the part about “I don’t care about the very poor.” You don’t remind people of a real or apparent gaffe if your opponent is using it against you.