As critics pummel Mitt Romney over his secretly recorded comments at a fund-raiser, he can at least take comfort in this: he's not the first.

Presidential campaign history overflows with candidates who tripped over their own loose tongues - some obscuring their actual meaning, others accidentally revealing it. Even a cursory statistical analysis shows more than 47 per cent of races for the White House have featured a candidate suffering self-inflicted wounds.
In Romney's case, he has stood by his remarks, while acknowledging he spoke inelegantly.
Consider this a list of the top 10 verbal misfires under the pitiless glare of the national political stage.

John McCain, 2008: ''The fundamentals of the economy are strong.''
This off-key attempt at reassurance, delivered in mid-September as Lehman Brothers was collapsing, helped seal the fate of a losing campaign. The beneficiary was Barack Obama, who had endured his own embarrassment over a secretly recorded remark to donors that some working-class voters ''cling to their guns or religion'' as reasons to support Republicans.

John Kerry, 2004: ''I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.''
The comment about money to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan helped cement Kerry's reputation as an equivocating politician after President George W. Bush's campaign exploited it in mocking television ads.

Al Gore, 2000: ''I took the initiative in creating the internet.''
Critics seized on this clumsy assertion, made during a CNN interview, to lampoon Gore as a brazen embellisher taking credit for the innovation. The attacks later helped Bush's campaign to influence media post-mortems after a debate in which Gore made minor misstatements.

Bill Clinton, 1996: ''You think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.''
With that acknowledgment at a Houston fund-raiser, Clinton roiled Democrats, Republicans and his own aides. He won re-election against Republican Bob Dole easily anyway.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/open-mouth-insert-foot-join-illustrious-campaign-tradition-20120921-26c0j.html#ixzz27AkxG14A

Five myths about the 47 percent

1. Forty-seven percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.

The most pernicious misconception about people who don’t pay federal income taxes is that they don’t pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives. Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare. Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent.

And those aren’t the only other taxes they bear. According to economic research, the corporate income tax discourages domestic investment; that depresses wages, so workers are effectively paying some of the corporate tax. More directly, many households pay federal taxes on gasoline, beer and cigarettes. And then there are state and local sales, property and income taxes — all of which are often less progressive than the federal income tax. Putting all these together, a family of three with an income of $30,000 would owe no federal income tax (in fact, they would get money back). But they could easily pay more than $4,500, or 15 percent of their income, in taxes.

2. Members of the 47 percent will never pay federal income taxes.

Politicians and commentators often talk about those who don’t pay income taxes as though they’re in a special club with lifetime membership. In fact, it’s a highly diverse group, some of whom move in and out from year to year.

When they first join the workforce, for example, young people may not earn enough to pay federal income taxes. The same is true for many of the temporarily unemployed, working parents and entrepreneurs whose businesses experience a loss. But most of these people look forward to the day, perhaps in just a year or two, when their incomes will rise and they will join or rejoin the 53 percent of Americans who do pay federal income taxes.

The reverse is true for many senior citizens: They may pay no federal income tax in retirement, but most did during their working years.

3. Many high-income people game the system to pay no income tax.

Our jerry-rigged tax code leaves many Americans with a nagging sense that other people are exploiting loopholes to avoid taxes — and the rest of us have to make up the difference. Sadly, there’s an element of truth to that. 

read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-47-percent/2012/09/21/57dc7bbe-0341-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_print.html

If you’re the son or daughter of a billionaire, now is the time to act. Convince your parents to donate millions of dollars to one of the Super PAC’s trying to get Mitt Romney elected.

Here’s the sell: Mom, Dad, Mitt is going to give you millions in tax breaks over his four years in office, according to a new study by the non-partisan Brookings Institute. But don’t just think of yourself. Think of me. I could get billions! Mitt wants to completely eliminate the Estate Tax, which is only paid by one out of 1000 Americans. This would effectively make me as much of a billionaire as you are without me doing anything except being born to the best parents in the world.

Of course, the benefits Mitt is offering to his billionaire donors aren’t limited to billions in tax breaks to them and their kids. There’s also rampant deregulation, potential wars and possibly even a shoe contract.

Meet five of the thirty-two billionaires who are spending big to put Mitt in the White House and who accordingly want big things in return.

read more: http://www.nationalmemo.com/five-of-mitt-romneys-scariest-billionaire-donors/

Read also: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/right-wing-billionaires-behind-mitt-romney-20120524?print=true

Republican politics (and American politics in general) has treated ‘government’ as a dirty word for a long time; it is a cultural constant in a nation which defines itself in terms of the Wild West, Henry Ford and free enterprise. It is an inherent part of the American mindset to be distrustful of government.

There does appear to be a gradual shift from a position of scepticism towards government to a position of animosity towards it in all its forms. On his first day in office, Ronald Reagan said that ‘government can and must provide opportunity’. It is hard to imagine Mitt Romney saying the same thing now, which is remarkable considering that Romney is considered too moderate by vast swathes of the GOP.

But it is of course the case that, though he would never admit it, Mitt Romney himself is dependent upon the government. Without the protection of property established and maintained by government, Romney’s great personal wealth would not be safe. Without the legal assurance of contract, Bain Capital would have made no money.

Romney was wrong to say that 47% of Americans are dependent on the government. In truth, all Americans are. All Americans depend on the Judicial system to bring about justice. All Americans depend on the police to maintain the rule of law. Unlike Reagan, who talked about giving power back to the states and the people (though in reality he expanded the federal government hugely), Romney does not distinguish between the types of government he says people are dependent on.

When Romney dismisses people who are dependent on the government, he isn’t thinking about the armed forces, or the police, or the judiciary which upholds the constitution, because these are all things he realises are beloved by America. ‘Government’ has become so loathed by sections of the Republican Party that to even acknowledge that all citizens are to a degree dependent upon it is sacrilegious. In actuality, even the richest Americans are.

When Romney talked about 47 per cent of people not paying taxes, he of course included in this total, the 1 per cent of people who don't pay taxes either. See toon at top.

see also: The Panamarama papers...