Update on Tim Osmar, the OccupyOrlando gent who was incarcerated after using sidewalk chalk on [gasp!] the sidewalk: He has been released and his case tossed out. Apparently, he was the only person to ever to be arrested under the decades old ordinance about sidewalk chalk that was used to justify his incarceration.
So... justice? Not sure what all he'll have to pay as far as court costs go, if there are any.
Update on Tim Osmar, the OccupyOrlando gent who was incarcerated after using sidewalk chalk on [gasp!] the sidewalk: He has been released and his case tossed out. Apparently, he was the only person to ever to be arrested under the decades old ordinance about sidewalk chalk that was used to justify his incarceration.
So... justice? Not sure what all he'll have to pay as far as court costs go, if there are any.
Correction to the earlier thing. I think I read the clerk report wrong initially. It looks like he may have been being held without bail. I was reading the arrest on 12/16, but it looks like he was arrested on 12/23 for the same thing. He was also arrested on 12/8 for camping. If I'm reading it right, he was out on bail on the 16th and forfeited it when he got arrested on the 23rd.
From this interview it looks like he's going to get himself arrested again.
No. No it isn't. A court cost is money you have to pay to the courts to cover the cost of the proceedings. Time served is a cost to the individual on a different level, but it isn't a court cost.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
All told it looks like he owes $50 for each of the sidewalk chalk arrests and $273 for the camping.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Meh, the sidewalk law is dumb but that's not such a bad group of fines.
I should think the DA doesn't want to waste time going after sidewalk chalk because its a dumb law.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Meh, the sidewalk law is dumb but that's not such a bad group of fines.
I should think the DA doesn't want to waste time going after sidewalk chalk because its a dumb law.
...and he may have noticed that the guy already got fucked out of whatever his original bail was over the incident, so issuing another minor ticket would essentially not be worth the bother.
Guys, just wanted to pop in and let you all know that Occupy Tallahassee was visited by Cornell West this evening. Turnout was good and he spoke passionately about the movement. Overall a great event, and a great opportunity to bring people out to our campsite who might not normally show up. I'll post pictures and videos later when they are online.
WASHINGTON -- During Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's much-anticipated speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), "Occupy" protestors conducted a silent protest that erupted into a chanting match between protestors and conservative conference attendees.
In an overflow room next door to the main ballroom broadcasting Romney's speech, about two dozen protestors stood in front of the monitors attempting to block the view, according to two conference attendees in the room.
Two college students from New Jersey, Matt Bowe and Kevin Spiley, gave Hotsheet the play-by-play.
"They weren't tall enough to block the screen, but it was still annoying," Spiley said.
The crowd started to yell at the protestors, who covered their mouths with tape and wore shirts that read, "If money is speech, poverty is silence." Bowe said people started to shout the protestors down by saying, "'You smell, get a job' -- you know, the usual stuff."
Hotsheet witnessed the protestors being escorted through the maze of conference rooms, down an escalator, through a hotel bar and out the side doors of the sprawling hotel.
By that time, the "Occupy" protestors had torn the tape off their mouths and loudly chanted, "We are the 99 percent." The group of protesters were college students from different parts of the nation who said Romney's policies would only benefit the nation's elites.
"Romney says 'I'm not concerned about the very poor,' and I'm here to say he should care, I'm one of them," said Joe Gallant, a recent graduate of George Mason University. "I'm working two jobs and still can't make it."
As the protesters were escorted out, conference participants shouted back, "We pay your rent," and moved into the hotel lobby and perimeter hotel bars chanting, "Get a job."
The Occupy movement has not received much attention at CPAC, but both radio host Laura Ingraham and commentator Ann Coulter made jokes about it.
Ingraham opened her speech with with a jab at the group. Referring to about 100 protestors outside the hotel hosting the conservative conference, she said, "You might not have seen them, but you smell them."
>:( Political discourse, can you smell it? Fanatic Conservatives, happily missing the point since ... time immemorial?
WASHINGTON -- During Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's much-anticipated speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), "Occupy" protestors conducted a silent protest that erupted into a chanting match between protestors and conservative conference attendees.
In an overflow room next door to the main ballroom broadcasting Romney's speech, about two dozen protestors stood in front of the monitors attempting to block the view, according to two conference attendees in the room.
Two college students from New Jersey, Matt Bowe and Kevin Spiley, gave Hotsheet the play-by-play.
"They weren't tall enough to block the screen, but it was still annoying," Spiley said.
The crowd started to yell at the protestors, who covered their mouths with tape and wore shirts that read, "If money is speech, poverty is silence." Bowe said people started to shout the protestors down by saying, "'You smell, get a job' -- you know, the usual stuff."
Hotsheet witnessed the protestors being escorted through the maze of conference rooms, down an escalator, through a hotel bar and out the side doors of the sprawling hotel.
By that time, the "Occupy" protestors had torn the tape off their mouths and loudly chanted, "We are the 99 percent." The group of protesters were college students from different parts of the nation who said Romney's policies would only benefit the nation's elites.
"Romney says 'I'm not concerned about the very poor,' and I'm here to say he should care, I'm one of them," said Joe Gallant, a recent graduate of George Mason University. "I'm working two jobs and still can't make it."
As the protesters were escorted out, conference participants shouted back, "We pay your rent," and moved into the hotel lobby and perimeter hotel bars chanting, "Get a job."
The Occupy movement has not received much attention at CPAC, but both radio host Laura Ingraham and commentator Ann Coulter made jokes about it.
Ingraham opened her speech with with a jab at the group. Referring to about 100 protestors outside the hotel hosting the conservative conference, she said, "You might not have seen them, but you smell them."
>:( Political discourse, can you smell it? Fanatic Conservatives, happily missing the point since ... time immemorial?
When the other side's message is deliberately taking part of a quote out of context, I think both sides are equally to blame for the lack of real discourse. . .
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
"GET A JOB!" Then the next minute, "OBAMA ISN'T CREATING JOBS."
That protest moniker, on their shirts, that's good stuff. I fucking approve. :^:
This whole Occupy thing is a failure. It'll have no effect on the election except for the GOP to use it as fodder to show why Obama is a socialist liberal who hates America. They're just annoying.
This whole Occupy thing is a failure. It'll have no effect on the election except for the GOP to use it as fodder to show why Obama is a socialist liberal who hates America. They're just annoying.
Do you even vote?
Gotta move that fucking Overton window before anything actually happens.
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
ROMNEY: I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm just concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans right now who are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.
We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but my campaign is focused on middle income Americans.
What additional context is needed for this to not be horrible?
"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation."
At the very least, this speaks to his ignorance of the plight of said 'very poor'. His percentages are off by quite a wide margin, too. What about this is being misconstrued?
EDIT: Damn, beat'd.
Xenogear_0001 on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
ROMNEY: I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm just concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans right now who are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.
We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but my campaign is focused on middle income Americans.
What additional context is needed for this to not be horrible?
I actually don't see how this can be interpretted as being horrible, unless you are deliberatly trying to make it look bad. Both quotes are clearly saying America is helping the poor, but not the middle class, so let's help the middle class too. he even explicitly says we should fix the safety net for the poor. Regardless of how you feel about Ronbey's real feelings on the matter, I think it is a real stretch to make this soundbyte a bad thing.
ROMNEY: I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm just concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans right now who are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.
We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but my campaign is focused on middle income Americans.
What additional context is needed for this to not be horrible?
I actually don't see how this can be interpretted as being horrible, unless you are deliberatly trying to make it look bad. Both quotes are clearly saying America is helping the poor, but not the middle class, so let's help the middle class too. he even explicitly says we should fix the safety net for the poor. Regardless of how you feel about Ronbey's real feelings on the matter, I think it is a real stretch to make this soundbyte a bad thing.
No.
it's really not. It's a stretch to defend it.
Mitt Romney does not care about the poor. Sure, they have this whole safety net thing. that he has repeatedly said he would help to destroy. The Paul Ryan budget, getting rid of Obamacare, defunding Planned parenthood, all of these things that Romney has promised to do when he become president that would directly or even indirectly harm the poor. And destroy the safety net of the government and even parts of the private safety net that is set up through private organizations (PP).
It's a bad thing. And even if you're only sort of paying attention to politics and not as involved or aware as most people are on this board, even if you only start to pay attention on Halloween, that line "I'm not concerned about the very poor" is horrible. Most people will hear 'very poor' and will conjure up the images of children from africa or south america who are on those 'save the children' commercials. The ones that everybody turns the channel on because nobody wants to be reminded of it all. Or they will think of the people in their neighborhood, or even their family, who are struggling to get by. And people who are honest with themselves might even hear themselves in that quote. Suddenly, even to those people that have no idea what is going on, Mitt Romney lacks empathy and compassion, he's just another rich man wanting to make a bigger name for himself.
A cursory look at Mitt Romney's plan makes his intentions obvious and that statement far more sinister.
He wants to lower capital gains taxes and taxes on the wealthy and business. He also wants to gut regulation on those same entities.
And at the same time, to pay for this, he wants to gut social safety net programs.
He literally wants to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
I don't think that's true. I don't think that he wants to take wealth from the poor and give it to the rich.
That's what will happen, but I don't think that's what Romney necessarily is trying to do.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
A cursory look at Mitt Romney's plan makes his intentions obvious and that statement far more sinister.
He wants to lower capital gains taxes and taxes on the wealthy and business. He also wants to gut regulation on those same entities.
And at the same time, to pay for this, he wants to gut social safety net programs.
He literally wants to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
I don't think that's true. I don't think that he wants to take wealth from the poor and give it to the rich.
That's what will happen, but I don't think that's what Romney necessarily is trying to do.
? So... he doesn't want to do the wrong thing, but will be forced to? Or will do so accidentally? Or he doesn't recognize what he's doing? Or it's incidental to what he really wants to do? What?
A cursory look at Mitt Romney's plan makes his intentions obvious and that statement far more sinister.
He wants to lower capital gains taxes and taxes on the wealthy and business. He also wants to gut regulation on those same entities.
And at the same time, to pay for this, he wants to gut social safety net programs.
He literally wants to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
I don't think that's true. I don't think that he wants to take wealth from the poor and give it to the rich.
That's what will happen, but I don't think that's what Romney necessarily is trying to do.
? So... he doesn't want to do the wrong thing, but will be forced to? Or will do so accidentally? Or he doesn't recognize what he's doing? Or it's incidental to what he really wants to do? What?
He likely believes that it will in fact help the very poor. He's wrong, but that's what he believes I imagine. At the very least he might be concerned about what effect it will have on the poor however it's more in line with what is right to go ahead and do it.
Really my point is that Romney likely isn't a person who just wants to hold down poor people and fuck them in the ass for his own pleasure.
It's a symptom of American political discourse (as well as the discourse in lots of other places I imagine) that we choose to see those people we are opposed to as evil because we predict the damage that they are going to do and we figure that they must see it too so they are doing that damage deliberately. The right uses it to demonize the left, the left uses it to demonize the right. There are probably people on one or both sides who truly want to hurt or fuck up certain groups of people (rich, poor, etc) but I imagine that the majority of people are just trying to do the right thing as they see it. This doesn't necessarily mean that we can't judge them for doing the wrong thing, but minimally they're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. An example would be that the libertarians don't want to eliminate government programs because they want to hurt anyone, but more because they believe that everyone will be better off because of it.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Romney is a person who doesn't give a shit what happens to the poor. From his own mouth.
You are trying to act like there's a difference between me running your mother over and killing her cause I hate her and me doing it cause I just didn't consider breaking because I don't care whether I kill her or not.
Romney is a person who doesn't give a shit what happens to the poor. From his own mouth.
You are trying to act like there's a difference between me running your mother over and killing her cause I hate her and me doing it cause I just didn't consider breaking because I don't care whether I kill her or not.
Negligence is not absolution.
I'm not trying to absolve anyone of anything. However, I think that it's terribly unproductive to just get your hate on. Hatred of the other side is why our political system is in such a shitty state. I genuinely don't think that Romney doesn't care if poor people die or live in misery. I don't think that he's concerned about the economic woes of the very poor, but those are very different sentiments.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm not trying to absolve anyone of anything. However, I think that it's terribly unproductive to just get your hate on. Hatred of the other side is why our political system is in such a shitty state. I genuinely don't think that Romney doesn't care if poor people die or live in misery. I don't think that he's concerned about the economic woes of the very poor, but those are very different sentiments.
They really aren't, if you are a politician. If your job is to oversee the services of the very poor, and you express the idea that this is not a concern of yours, then the policies you support will lead poor people to live and die in unnecessary misery.
It's not like he's some dude at the local barber shop.
I'm not trying to absolve anyone of anything. However, I think that it's terribly unproductive to just get your hate on. Hatred of the other side is why our political system is in such a shitty state. I genuinely don't think that Romney doesn't care if poor people die or live in misery. I don't think that he's concerned about the economic woes of the very poor, but those are very different sentiments.
They really aren't, if you are a politician. If your job is to oversee the services of the very poor, and you express the idea that this is not a concern of yours, then the policies you support will lead poor people to live and die in unnecessary misery.
It's not like he's some dude at the local barber shop.
So some dude at the local barber shop can express that he believes that the social safety net is in fairly decent shape and thus he doesn't concern himself with the plight of the very poor, but if a politician does it now he is obligated at all times to needlessly fret over the plight of very poor people?
I think that you've missed the point of what I'm trying to get across here. Due to Romney's words, he's painted as someone who is actively opposed to the interests of the very poor. I doubt that Romney sees himself that way. I don't think that when he's dreaming up policies, he thinks "man, how can I fuck over poor people today?" I think that if you were to ask Romney whether or not his plans with respect to federal governance are actually the best policies for the very poor he would say yes. He's wrong, but not evil.
Also, in case it requires any clarification, I'm just about the most liberal a person can be. I mean, I'm really just a communist. So I'm not a follower of Romney, but I think that it's counterproductive to the project of politics to frame the discussion with respect to the other side being deliberately malicious. At worst I think that the malice of republicans in the US is largely due to ignorance.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I think that you've missed the point of what I'm trying to get across here. Due to Romney's words, he's painted as someone who is actively opposed to the interests of the very poor. I doubt that Romney sees himself that way. I don't think that when he's dreaming up policies, he thinks "man, how can I fuck over poor people today?" I think that if you were to ask Romney whether or not his plans with respect to federal governance are actually the best policies for the very poor he would say yes. He's wrong, but not evil.
I don't think it matters how Romney sees himself. It's his actions and policies that matter, and he's stated that his actions and policies will not concern themselves with the very poor at a time of national economic calamity. Hoover also saw himself as a humanitarian - he was, actually - but oversaw the greatest unneeded imposition of worldwide misery in history through policies that did not concern themselves with the very poor.
That's a glaring sign that this guy should be kept away from the levers of power.
Posts
I'd be surprised if he had to pay court costs.
Correction to the earlier thing. I think I read the clerk report wrong initially. It looks like he may have been being held without bail. I was reading the arrest on 12/16, but it looks like he was arrested on 12/23 for the same thing. He was also arrested on 12/8 for camping. If I'm reading it right, he was out on bail on the 16th and forfeited it when he got arrested on the 23rd.
From this interview it looks like he's going to get himself arrested again.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-tim-osmar-chalk-writer-occupy-orlando-20120111,0,5564376.story
In fairness, this wasn't tossed out by a judge, this is the prosecutor deciding to just let it drop.
No. No it isn't. A court cost is money you have to pay to the courts to cover the cost of the proceedings. Time served is a cost to the individual on a different level, but it isn't a court cost.
I should think the DA doesn't want to waste time going after sidewalk chalk because its a dumb law.
...and he may have noticed that the guy already got fucked out of whatever his original bail was over the incident, so issuing another minor ticket would essentially not be worth the bother.
Some articles:
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20120111/NEWS01/201110317/Occupy-movement-invades-state-Capitol
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/01/occupy-protestors-banned-from-florida-senate-visitors-gallery.html
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/01/video-state-of-the-state-and-capitol-protests.html
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2012/01/occupy-group-cant-occupy-the-house-and-senate-gallery.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+news/politics/politicalpulse+(Central+Florida+Political+Pulse)
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2012/01/progressive-group-rallies-targets-lawmakers-businesses-that-supported-gov-scott.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+news/politics/politicalpulse+(Central+Florida+Political+Pulse)
>:( Political discourse, can you smell it? Fanatic Conservatives, happily missing the point since ... time immemorial?
When the other side's message is deliberately taking part of a quote out of context, I think both sides are equally to blame for the lack of real discourse. . .
That protest moniker, on their shirts, that's good stuff. I fucking approve. :^:
That's not a failure at all.
Yeah, and the conversation still holds on that. It worked. Again, no overnight results, but people would be silly for that to be expected.
Do you even vote?
Gotta move that fucking Overton window before anything actually happens.
What additional context is needed for this to not be horrible?
At the very least, this speaks to his ignorance of the plight of said 'very poor'. His percentages are off by quite a wide margin, too. What about this is being misconstrued?
EDIT: Damn, beat'd.
I actually don't see how this can be interpretted as being horrible, unless you are deliberatly trying to make it look bad. Both quotes are clearly saying America is helping the poor, but not the middle class, so let's help the middle class too. he even explicitly says we should fix the safety net for the poor. Regardless of how you feel about Ronbey's real feelings on the matter, I think it is a real stretch to make this soundbyte a bad thing.
No.
it's really not. It's a stretch to defend it.
Mitt Romney does not care about the poor. Sure, they have this whole safety net thing. that he has repeatedly said he would help to destroy. The Paul Ryan budget, getting rid of Obamacare, defunding Planned parenthood, all of these things that Romney has promised to do when he become president that would directly or even indirectly harm the poor. And destroy the safety net of the government and even parts of the private safety net that is set up through private organizations (PP).
It's a bad thing. And even if you're only sort of paying attention to politics and not as involved or aware as most people are on this board, even if you only start to pay attention on Halloween, that line "I'm not concerned about the very poor" is horrible. Most people will hear 'very poor' and will conjure up the images of children from africa or south america who are on those 'save the children' commercials. The ones that everybody turns the channel on because nobody wants to be reminded of it all. Or they will think of the people in their neighborhood, or even their family, who are struggling to get by. And people who are honest with themselves might even hear themselves in that quote. Suddenly, even to those people that have no idea what is going on, Mitt Romney lacks empathy and compassion, he's just another rich man wanting to make a bigger name for himself.
It's a bad thing.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
He wants to lower capital gains taxes and taxes on the wealthy and business. He also wants to gut regulation on those same entities.
And at the same time, to pay for this, he wants to gut social safety net programs.
He literally wants to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
I don't think that's true. I don't think that he wants to take wealth from the poor and give it to the rich.
That's what will happen, but I don't think that's what Romney necessarily is trying to do.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
? So... he doesn't want to do the wrong thing, but will be forced to? Or will do so accidentally? Or he doesn't recognize what he's doing? Or it's incidental to what he really wants to do? What?
He likely believes that it will in fact help the very poor. He's wrong, but that's what he believes I imagine. At the very least he might be concerned about what effect it will have on the poor however it's more in line with what is right to go ahead and do it.
Really my point is that Romney likely isn't a person who just wants to hold down poor people and fuck them in the ass for his own pleasure.
It's a symptom of American political discourse (as well as the discourse in lots of other places I imagine) that we choose to see those people we are opposed to as evil because we predict the damage that they are going to do and we figure that they must see it too so they are doing that damage deliberately. The right uses it to demonize the left, the left uses it to demonize the right. There are probably people on one or both sides who truly want to hurt or fuck up certain groups of people (rich, poor, etc) but I imagine that the majority of people are just trying to do the right thing as they see it. This doesn't necessarily mean that we can't judge them for doing the wrong thing, but minimally they're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. An example would be that the libertarians don't want to eliminate government programs because they want to hurt anyone, but more because they believe that everyone will be better off because of it.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
You are trying to act like there's a difference between me running your mother over and killing her cause I hate her and me doing it cause I just didn't consider breaking because I don't care whether I kill her or not.
Negligence is not absolution.
I'm not trying to absolve anyone of anything. However, I think that it's terribly unproductive to just get your hate on. Hatred of the other side is why our political system is in such a shitty state. I genuinely don't think that Romney doesn't care if poor people die or live in misery. I don't think that he's concerned about the economic woes of the very poor, but those are very different sentiments.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
They really aren't, if you are a politician. If your job is to oversee the services of the very poor, and you express the idea that this is not a concern of yours, then the policies you support will lead poor people to live and die in unnecessary misery.
It's not like he's some dude at the local barber shop.
So some dude at the local barber shop can express that he believes that the social safety net is in fairly decent shape and thus he doesn't concern himself with the plight of the very poor, but if a politician does it now he is obligated at all times to needlessly fret over the plight of very poor people?
I think that you've missed the point of what I'm trying to get across here. Due to Romney's words, he's painted as someone who is actively opposed to the interests of the very poor. I doubt that Romney sees himself that way. I don't think that when he's dreaming up policies, he thinks "man, how can I fuck over poor people today?" I think that if you were to ask Romney whether or not his plans with respect to federal governance are actually the best policies for the very poor he would say yes. He's wrong, but not evil.
Also, in case it requires any clarification, I'm just about the most liberal a person can be. I mean, I'm really just a communist. So I'm not a follower of Romney, but I think that it's counterproductive to the project of politics to frame the discussion with respect to the other side being deliberately malicious. At worst I think that the malice of republicans in the US is largely due to ignorance.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't think it matters how Romney sees himself. It's his actions and policies that matter, and he's stated that his actions and policies will not concern themselves with the very poor at a time of national economic calamity. Hoover also saw himself as a humanitarian - he was, actually - but oversaw the greatest unneeded imposition of worldwide misery in history through policies that did not concern themselves with the very poor.
That's a glaring sign that this guy should be kept away from the levers of power.