Romney’s Freudian Slip

Via my car radio I heard again this morning a now-familiar exchange between Romney and the President during Wednesday’s debate:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And part of the way to do it is to not give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. Right now you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn’t make sense. And all that raises revenue…

MR. ROMNEY: …you said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.

My first response to that was what a lie it was. My second response to it was why didn’t Big O smack it down? My third response to it was how often Romney expresses his desire to fire people, something he apparently inordinately relishes.

But this morning I heard something else in Romney’s comment that I confess I didn’t hear the first few times.

Romney is saying that he would fire his accountant if that accountant didn’t take advantage of available tax breaks for business folks like him who ship American jobs overseas.

In other words, he is admitting that he would have qualified for any such tax break.

Hmm. I have heard a lot of debate commentary and I have not heard anyone say a word about Romney’s suggestion. So I checked around online and found that Bob Cesca had picked up on it early. In fact, he said,

…this might be the biggest news of the debate — news that no one is talking about. Mitt Romney accidentally admitted to shipping jobs overseas.

I do find this important and worthy of follow up. The question is will anyone actually ask him about it? Will anyone ask him how his accountant could have saved him money by utilizing a tax break for businesses that moved jobs offshore?

Cesca suggests, “So, then, which factory and how many jobs, Mr. Romney?



  1. And how did Mittens let this slip? He couldn’t help himself. He’s an undisciplined dumbass. He doesn’t believe anything he says or promises or cites, anyway. He had that “zinger” tucked away, ready to use — and well, that was his only chance to use it. Even our pathetic, useless Press will have to move him to reflect on this newest Homer Simpson moment. The President knows it’s useless to argue with a fool, but he’ll have to call Mittens out at Hofstra. Our piteous culture seems content to award victory to aggressive loudness rather than thoughtful truth.


    • I agree with your assessment of the tendency to “award victory to aggressive loudness rather than thoughtful truth.” But the problem with the last debate was that Obama didn’t give us enough “thoughtful truth” to counter Romney’s lies. The President had plenty of opportunities to call him out but failed, for whatever reason, to do so. That will, as you suggest, change next time.

      While I don’t think Romney is a “dumbass,” I do think he is remarkably undisciplined as a candidate. In fact, it has been a while since a man with so much experience has made so many unforced errors. Indeed, his whole campaign, up until the debate, was one big unforced error. And if Obama had been the least bit aggressive, even his debate performance would have looked much different.



  1. What is a Freudian Slip? - Definition | What is psychology?
%d bloggers like this: