The Democrats want us all to believe that they are the party that cares about the poor in America. If that’s the case, why does the leader of their party, President Barack Obama, avoid the subject of poverty like the plague? The candidate that routinely talks about poverty is Mitt Romney, because he truly does care about all Americans. He doesn’t see poor people as a key voting block, he wants to enact policies that will lift people out of poverty. That’s why he stays focused on the problem that has gotten worse over the past four years.
He’s done it for a long time. Go back to Romney’s March 30 speech in Appleton, Wis., in which he introduced the charge that President Obama is creating a “government-centered society.” “Over 46 million Americans are now living in poverty, more than ever before in our nation’s history,” Romney said. “In households with single moms, over 39 percent are living in poverty.”
In speech after speech since then, Romney has included the nation’s poverty rate in his case against Obama. “Today, more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before,” he said in his address to the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., on Aug. 30. “Look around you. These are not strangers. These are our brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans.” Romney also brought up poverty at both presidential debates that covered domestic policy.
In contrast, President Obama rarely utters the word, and usually not in a campaign context. For example, he mentioned poverty at the dedication of the Cesar Chavez National Monument in Keene, Calif., on Oct. 8, but mostly to discuss the conditions Chavez addressed in the 1960s and ’70s. Obama spoke the word again in his Sept. 25 address to the United Nations — also not a campaign speech — but only in the context of discussing religious tolerance around the world.