Yesterday was: 1. The 1-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, where the chant was "We are the 99%," and 2. The day we got the video of Mitt Romney talking to his affluent donors and saying "There are 47% who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. These are people who pay no income tax."
The percentages are different, but the us/them attitude is similar. It's a way of speaking politically: There are X% of us and Y% of them, and the recognizing the comparative size of the 2 groups tells us what our politics should be.
The people within group X and group Y aren't all alike, but the speaker is choosing to portray them as alike, because it's a step in an argument about what supposedly needs to be done. The claim of representing 99% is especially ludicrous, but the effort is to focus anger on the evil 1%, who elicit no sympathy at all. But it doesn't make sense for other people near the top not to worry that the greedy mob — the takers — are coming after them... which is why the 99% can't possibly be the 99%, because the top end of the 99% can see that it too is under attack, and they won't want the bottom end of the 99% speaking for them.
That's the flaw in the 99% chant: There's no credible threat that all 99% will vote together. Some of those Occupy protesters dreamed of revolution, but we've still got a democracy, and the only serious question is how many of the 99% will vote for the Democratic Party's candidates. The Democratic Party used a modified version of what the protesters were saying. That's what Elizabeth Warren articulated in her famous "underlying social contract... take a hunk of that and pay forward" rant. Obama was trying to make the same move when he inelegantly said "You didn't build that" — the 4 words the Republicans built their whole convention around.
Romney supporters can hardly complain when Obama supporters seize upon his 47% quote and use it any which way they can.
It's the most knuckle-bustin', gut-wrenchin', brain-scramblin', butt-bruisin', lip-splittin' brawl of all time.
September 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
178 comments:
A wonderful self-inflicted wound, and well-timed! Now the media can focus on Romney's comment about the 47% and ignore any and all fuck-ups by Hussein Soetero. Just ignore that dead ambassador in the street and the al Qaeda flags flying over our embassies. Sometimes I wonder if Romney is a plant by the Democratic Party.
You didn't quote the worst part: "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
But then I remember that the more likely explanation is that the Republicans just suck as much as the Democrats.
"The worst part" was only the worst because it's completely true.
The State has by design created a permanent dependent class that fears it will lose the teat it suckles.
As the Coptic filmmaker found out, one must never ever speak the truth. It really pisses people off.
It's the most knuckle-bustin', gut-wrenchin', brain-scramblin', butt-bruisin', lip-splittin' brawl of all time.
It's a battle over nothing, about nothing, engaged in by idiots, and serving no purpose.
And - this is the worst part - we can't talk them out of doing it.
Please, somebody, tell me how remarkably different from those Middle Easterners you are again.
Ann was saying, just yesterday, how much we had in common.
The smart ones were saying, "Who's 'we' Kemosabe?"
"You didn't quote the worst part..."
I sure did. 2 posts down.
Romney is still going to win.
Icepick, you may not have noticed but the media has an unlimited supply of distractions already on hand. I find nothing offensive with Romney's statement. Maybe the Obama campaign does. What does that have to do with what the media reports about the burning embassies?
The press is so hostile to Romney that it doesn't matter what he says... the press is going to rip him a new asshole.
He needs to go over the heads of the press, directly to the voters.
Romney's problem is that we already know that he pays a relatively low tax rate and that he hasn't had a real job in years. For many of us that puts him firmly in the moocher category. I pay a much higher tax rate, as do a lot of other people, and we all have real jobs that involve going to work each day. A lot of swing voters look like me and we don't see someone who thinks like us.
He has now placed enormous pressure on himself to release his tax forms. Just how much tax did he pay when he was out of the spotlight? Just how big a moocher is he? This question is now front and center in the campaign and Romney put it there, not the press.
Please, somebody, tell me how remarkably different from those Middle Easterners you are again.
Ann was saying, just yesterday, how much we had in common.
Here is something we have in common. When the Fed eases, the price of oil goes up and therefore our food costs more.
Romney has consistently permitted the debate to stray from his strongest issues. It may be too late for him to change this trend.
Wouldn't you just love it if we had Obama's tapes with his donors? But we won't.
Now we get to watch Romney limp home, having shot off his own foot.
Shouting Thomas said...
He needs to go over the heads of the press, directly to the voters.
He did, it was called the Republican National Convention. It seems to be the point where most of his problems really started, when people began to think about what he would actually be like as president.
But Ann, the difference is that one is trying to protect the producers, and the other is trying to take away from the producers.
I don't care if they used similar methodologies. So I reserve my right to complain, because the taking from the producers, and borrowing from future producers, is destroying this country.
Romney has consistently permitted the debate to stray from his strongest issues. It may be too late for him to change this trend.
Translated: The press is totally in bed with Obama, and absolutely hostile to Romney.
Solution for Romney: He's going to have to be awfully clever and go over the heads of the press to the voters.
He's going to have to be awfully clever and go over the heads of the press to the voters.
Reagan did it.
It seems to be the point where most of his problems really started, when people began to think about what he would actually be like as president.
The "problem" you're referring to is a press that is totally in bed with Obama.
See above.
Shouting Thomas,
The press is so hostile to Romney that it doesn't matter what he says... the press is going to rip him a new asshole.
I don't buy it - that's the mantra you repeat to yourselves to explain your lack of traction, rather than admit you picked the wrong guy.
What? You didn't know the press leans left? Really? Awww - poor ol' Mother Jones caught you by surprise?
Geez.
Mitt Romney is, was, and always will be, wrong for America.
Obama is too.
It's the Boomers.
Welcome to Hell,...
I don't buy it - that's the mantra you repeat to yourselves to explain your lack of traction, rather than admit you picked the wrong guy.
I didn't pick anybody.
I've got two choices... Obama vs. Romney.
I know! Can you believe he actually said the truth?
What a fucking nut!
Now Oabama, well, there's a reliable liar. He never ever speaks the truth. That needs to be rewarded with a second term.
The choice just keeps getting more and more clear. The central questions is: Do you want 4 more years of Obama?
While it gave Obama a brief talking point, it will not matter to most. But I think Republicans (disclosure: I'm a registered Democrat who has been voting Republican for years) need to be careful with the 47% figure. How many of that number are retirees living on Social Security, who paid federal taxes all their working lives, and who, by and large are probably Romney supporters? The number can be used to make general statements about the growing entitlement/dependency state, but it was wrong of Romney to conclude that none of those 47 percent will vote for him. I appreciate what he meant, but he didn't say it well.
I will still vote for him, though.
How many of that number are retirees living on Social Security, who paid federal taxes all their working lives, and who, by and large are probably Romney supporters?
I'm one of them. Looks like I'll draw less from SS than I paid in.
I'd like to have the money back, so that I could invest it on my own.
Please, somebody, tell me how remarkably different from those Middle Easterners you are again.
Small differences yield huge results.
Insofar as Ann's comments we are only X number of years away, I disagree. The roots of the divergence go back to the reformation. If you read what was going on back then regarding religion and intolerance, it sounds a lot like what's going on today.
The odd thing is the Muslims want to go back to pre-reformation times, when all believed in the same way, in the same god.
It was a mistake for Romney to talk that way.
I pay a much higher tax rate, as do a lot of other people....(blah blah...)
Romney likely pays in taxes many times over what you MAKE in total income. He has contributed a lot of money to the public treasury. Not enough for people like you, though.
I'm really tired of this argument. You want to confiscate what other people have earned to use for your purposes. Just be honest about.
But also be honest about this: There is not enough money in the hands of people like Romney to cover off all the spending that people like you vote for...you are voting us to ruin. And the ruin will be wide-spread - it will ruiin the poor and the most of the middle class and a number of the rich. But the political and the politically-connected will be alright.
Dante,
The roots of the divergence go back to the reformation.
No, they go back to McCain/Palin.
THAT'S when they picked the wrong guy.
Romney likely pays in taxes many times over what you MAKE in total income. He has contributed a lot of money to the public treasury. Not enough for people like you, though.
I think it's a legitimate argument, though it's difficult to sort out the money flows. The government encourages entrepreneurship, by giving lower taxation to capital gains.
That having been said, I have a very difficult time reconciling the idea that those who make many times more than a middle class couple ought to pay less to support Welfare (note, Social Security is being raided for welfare as we speak, with swelling SSDI rolls.)
I'll repeat what I said in the previous thread: Didn't Obama's Julia ad validate what Romney said?
Why are Democrats thinking this is so damning when they run ads showing how much we need the Federal government in our lives?
He needs to go over the heads of the press, directly to the voters.
Won't matter. The press directs the debates. They control the entire process.
You have to beat up the MSM, but you still have to play by their rules.
Ann Althouse gets paid by the taxpayers of Wisconsin over $160,000.00 a year. In return she does barely any work. She is engaging in tenure abuse.
Ann, I think Romney was talkin' about you!
Shouting Thomas,
I've got two choices... Obama vs. Romney.
And your pitchfork stands there in the corner, hoping for a trip to Washington that will never come.
THAT'S the other option you're not considering.
And the reason for our downfall,...
THAT'S when they picked the wrong guy.
Bush was the wrong guy, and the wrong direction, except he was the right guy to stand up to terrorism (I mean, imagine if Al Gore had been president, what he might have done).
The "compassionate conservative" was a move of self preservation for Rs to stop the party from splitting to form a third, moderate party.
Why are we talking about this? I don't see anything bad about it at all.
How many of that number are retirees living on Social Security, who paid federal taxes all their working lives, and who, by and large are probably Romney supporters?
Since when have seniors been in the GOP camp?
The mantra of the Dems at their convention was:
Government is the only thing we all belong to!
They said it. Now, they're pissing on Romney for noticing that they said it.
I'll repeat what I said in the previous thread: Didn't Obama's Julia ad validate what Romney said?
That is very good. VERY good.
THAT'S the other option you're not considering.
No, there is no other option.
Yeah, I agree that rightist class warfare is no less heinous than leftist class warfare.
"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states - red states for Republicans, and blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states. ... We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
Where did that guy go?
"Shouting Thomas said...
Solution for Romney: He's going to have to be awfully clever and go over the heads of the press to the voters."
Not that hard. He has lots of money.
I don't see this as a big deal at all. SUre, Obama will try to make some hay with this, but for the most part, as Romney knows, he is talking to people who already will vote for him. It's not new messaging, but the same ole same ole.
Has anyone considered that this will energize the GOP base even more? And independents? They are all sick of the moochers in society.
The problem with the 47% is that the math cannot work out in the long run.
Math is a ruthless bitch.
1% cannot cannot cannot pay for 99%.
But Obama and the Dems are pretty sure "the long run", where math bites us in the ass, is far off into the future, and those future morons will have to pay. Sucks to be them, but they got theirs.
Meanwhile, math is roiling my industry, and a whole lot of the 47%ers are getting a letter saying we cannot afford to see them anymore, so good luck.
The future is here.
Has anyone considered that this will energize the GOP base even more? And independents? They are all sick of the moochers in society.
Two different issues here.
On FB, I'm already hearing from intelligent Republicans and independents who agree with what he said.
There are "moochers." But, the real thrust of Romney's idea is to increase the incentives for people to be productive and to decrease the incentives for doing nothing.
Since when have seniors been in the GOP camp?
Split in 2008. 66% of them went GOP in 2010.
Since then.
by giving lower taxation to capital gains.
But let it not be forgotten that those gains were most likely taxed as corporate income before they were taxed as capital gains. (depending on the tax treatment and entity organization)
I have to stand against the idea that we should be about maximizing the amount of money we confiscate from the private sector to spend in the public sector.
This attitude is the anthesis of freedom and ultimately, prosperity. It makes us all worse off in the end. (except the powerful government officials - who benefit greatly from this approach - as well as the big wig business guys who are in bed with them)
Dante,
Bush was the wrong guy, and the wrong direction, except he was the right guy to stand up to terrorism
So he wasn't the wrong guy - what was wrong, just as in previous wars, is an electorate convinced "war is not the answer" even when you have to fight.
War makes people crazy - especially in this country.
We're still dealing with the fallout, not just of being in them, but in refusing to fight the ones we're in.
The idea that we're not "all one," and have to kill somebody sometimes to get them off our backs, is just too much reality for these delusional types to wrap their minds around. THAT'S our failing.
Look at Israel, gearing up for war, no reservations - they know the stakes, have lots of regrets nobody will listen to reason, but no doubts about what needs to be done. And they're not going to let our namby-pamby bullshit deter them.
We do - we've become experts at throwing unnecessary roadblocks in the way of reality - that's why I focus on the subjects I do. It's the central issue destroying who we are, what we need to accomplish, and quite simply, what "is."
I ask you again: is water, water? Then why is it sold in almost every pharmacy in the country as "homeopathic" medicine?
Because we refuse to submit to reality.
Our politics are no different - it's who we are now.
And we're paying the price for it.
And it won't stop until we do.
This should not be big news. The fact it is tells us a lot about journalists priorities.
Hey, isn't there a tape the LA Times has of Obama talking with donors we're not allowed to see? Funny that.
Now the media can focus on Romney's comment about the 47% and ignore any and all fuck-ups by Hussein Soetero. Just ignore that dead ambassador in the street and the al Qaeda flags flying over our embassies.
Because, God knows, they haven't been burying that story before Romney said a word.
Hell, MSNBC blamed Romney for them ignoring Obama's epic fuck up.
For many of us that puts him firmly in the moocher category.
Well, that can largely be explained by the fact that you're a moron who is unaware that Obama's primary job isn't getting re-elected but, instead, to go the job he was already elected to do.
Crack, you're constantly raging against something called "the human condition." Originally, a French term.
Yeah, it's a mess.
You aren't going to do anything about it in your lifetime, and neither am I.
About all you're doing by fretting constantly about it is wearing yourself out. And preventing yourself from doing something with your time that profits yourself.
Now, I will take my own advice and start getting ready for rehearsal tonight.
The Crack Emcee said...
Shouting Thomas,
The press is so hostile to Romney that it doesn't matter what he says... the press is going to rip him a new asshole.
I don't buy it - that's the mantra you repeat to yourselves to explain your lack of traction, rather than admit you picked the wrong guy.
What? You didn't know the press leans left? Really? Awww - poor ol' Mother Jones caught you by surprise?
Geez.
Mitt Romney is, was, and always will be, wrong for America.
Obama is too.
It's the Boomers.
Welcome to Hell,...
No. My son. Four more years of this is hell.
Here's another thing that is surely going to cost Romney the election.
Dennis Miller says 5-10% of Americans are helpless and we have to help them while another 5-10% are hopeless and we should not worry about them. Romney was not wrong.
That Eastwood movie was from when they made movies that were just fun to watch. When did they stop doing that?
Hey, isn't there a tape the LA Times has of Obama talking with donors we're not allowed to see? Funny that.
The same LA Times that told its bloggers to not discuss the Edwards story after it came out about his affair?
Even funnier that.
Pogo,
The problem with the 47% is that the math cannot work out in the long run.
Math is a ruthless bitch.
1% cannot cannot cannot pay for 99%.
You've almost got it right:
None of that math is right - there is no 1% or 47% - there's just us.
Anyone who buys into the 1-47% nonsense is an idiot.
And we're fighting over nothing.
The Maharishi smiles,....
I think the worst Republican campaign for the Presidency in history was Bob Dole's in 1996, McCain's just not quite as bad in 2008, and now Romney seems to aim at coming in third, just above McCain.
Those were just stupid things to say, not particularly true either, there was no need for it, and he should have known the odds were at least 6 to 5 he was being recorded.
"Inartful" does not adequate; it was just plain stupid.
Republicans know going in that the press favors the Democrats. It's something they have to deal with, and they have not dealt with it well. Or at least Romney has not. It's not easy. But being President is not easy, so it's a test.
Since Nixon resigned, only three Republicans have been able to break through directly to the electorate. Reagan, and two guys named Bush.
Reagan had the advantage of opposing one of the worst presidents in the 20th Century with a group of Americans held hostage. The media could not ignore the hostage crisis and this made the media a more or less neutral factor. Carter was so crippled he got only 41% of the vote.
Bush I only had to beat the pipsqueak Dukakis. Enough said about that. Then he lost to Clinton, aided by the press, his own tax increase and a well run Clinton campaign.
Bush II lost the popular vote but won the electoral. He was lucky, and Gore was a lousy campaigner. Gore also was a lousy steward of the Florida controversy, chosing to favor a recount method that his own lawyers had told him was unconstitutional.
Bush II then beat Kerry, another terrible candidate who was presented on a ridiculous premise--that of noble warrior. He was not a noble warrior. He was and is a golddigging, somewhat dense phony.
Bush also had Rove--a considerable advantage, just as Jim Baker was. Who is playing Baker or Rove to Romney.
I think that Obama has been as bad a president as Carter was, but his failures are not quite as obvious as the raging inflation and hostages that the press and voters could not ignore. To beat Obama, Romney has to be a special candidate. So far he is not.
Part of the issue, I think, is that Romney has yet to learn the media is out to get him, will bribe or strongarm people to get damaging information, and that, in short, he has no political friends he should trust. Even true statements from his team (such as the Janesville plant line in Ryan's speech) will be called lies, and he'll have to burn time and resources correcting the record. That reality needs to inform how every Republican campaigns.
Shouting Thomas,
Crack, you're constantly raging against something called "the human condition."
True that, but I also know we're Americans - supposedly the humans who break that condition. We're just refusing to do so.
About all you're doing by fretting constantly about it is wearing yourself out. And preventing yourself from doing something with your time that profits yourself.
True again, but I find I can't work much until this is resolved, so I do this.
I don't fight with reality,...
As confirmed by this Gallup poll (via Drudge), Democrats are the party of government. When asked if government is doing too much, 82% of Republicans and 62% of independents said yes. Only 24% of Democrats said yes. The converse, that government should be doing more, was 15% of Republicans, 29% of independents and 67% of Democrats.
Democrats are the Party of Parasites.
This is another example of why, to a great extent, Zero and Mitt both look like automatons. There are too many true things [many of which are commonly known] that can not be said out loud and, for Republicans, most of the media is examining everything they say for any morsal that can be twisted and used against them.
Who can blame them for "playing it safe" or sticking to a script or telepromter?
The problem with Romney is ... he's not really a conservative. The ideas, the language, the arguments, do not come naturally to him, because he's not a conservative. He's a pro-business, big gov't, liberal, making believe he's "severely conservative.' Like many others.
When people are promised free govt. health care and housing and cheese, imagine my shocked face when they learn that sure, it's free, there just isn't any.
Too bad about your hip pain, old lady Julia.
Time to take the blue pill cuz there ain't gonna be a surgery.
And thanks for volunteering in the community garden! Be sure to leave your govt. apartment keys on the table before you take the pill,though, so we can find it easily.
Ciao.
! O_o !
(my shocked face)
Tank,
There are too many true things [many of which are commonly known] that can not be said out loud,...
And back to Islam we go,....
Doesn't Romney need to release his tax returns to prove he's not part of the 47%?
The problem with Romney is ... he's not really a conservative. The ideas, the language, the arguments, do not come naturally to him, because he's not a conservative. He's a pro-business, big gov't, liberal, making believe he's "severely conservative.' Like many others.
Yes.
Tank, I love that "severely conservative" phrase. Reminds me of a Father's Day card my son made that said "You have helped me excessively."
Obama has helped the 47% excessively!
If you vote for Obama, and you pay taxes, your taxes are going to go up substantially. If you don't pay taxes and you vote for Obama, you will be paying taxes. The truth is the government spends way too much. Under the Clinton tax regime where a lot more people paid a lot higher taxes, we were still only bringing in 20% of GDP in revenue, and that was during a boom stock market.
Obama's spending policies are driving this country to ruin.
Romney has proposed reducing spending to 20%. At least that is a start.
We already live in a Marxist system. THE bigger problem?
The democrat party's broken promises about stimulus and shovel ready projects.
Do you see any bridges and Hoover dams?
Instead the democrat party uses tax payer dollars as a rewards program for donors and insider cronies (who by the way are ALREADY WEALTHY)
I don't see how this supposed "gaffe" hurts Romney with getting independednt voters. These independent voters are people who pay taxes. Now they know that Romney is for them, and Obama is for those want to TAKE money from independent voters.
Garage, what the US clearly needs are more fat teachers in Che t-shirts out on strike demanding that they get a 30% pay increase, when they already make twice the average income.
More obese teachers and cops and highway workers and city clerks, please, demanding that they make more than the rest of us, have shorter workdays, retire earlier, and never get fired for any reason ever.
Too bad for you non-gubmint fucks, but garage got his. Ain't his fault you're too stupid to get yours.
Not relevant - but how about a discussion about the school food boycott in Mukwonago? Is Wisconsin leading the way again? Apparently school administrators have been upset all summer after receiving these new "guidelines" which are in fact, requirements. There are several points.
The main one is the one made by the athletes which is that they need more calories than fourteen year old non athletic girls - that a one size fits all calorie count "guideline" is not even healthy.
But there are others - anorexia is a problem as well as obesity, particularly among teen age girls in school. These rules will probably increase the problem because they aim to teach that fat is a villain whereas fat is a nutritional requirement for growing children and teen-agers.
It's true that students could just buy more than the basic subsidized lunch but then that means that poor students will go hungry - totally ironic that the program meant to feed poor students is now mandating hunger for them.
The boycott will not affect the schools as such but their suppliers will be bankrupted if the lunches are not bought by 70% of the students. Then what?
The Obama years are such a failure the only regurgitation they have is "Romney needs to release more taxes".
Romney's tax returns will remove all of Obama's lies and failures.
Amazing!
Politicians always get in trouble when they speak the truth.
Romney should say he meant what he said. Afterall, this is an issue that needs to be argued in this election- we are at a tipping point where govt can be cut severely or it can continue to grow until our country's finances collapse.
Tank,
Like many others.
That would be the voters. Are you going to tell me the people here aren't "examining everything they say for any morsal that can be twisted and used against them"? That that's not what Glenn Reynolds is doing? Hot Air? All under the guise of supposedly "informing" people of what's going on?
No - you're all LYING - as I've been saying all along.
None of you cares about the truth - you're out to get the other guy. It's the Hatfields and the McCoys - not politics.
I blame all of you, every day, for "playing it safe" and sticking to the script but what do I get?
"Crack's crazy."
None of you are really conservative. You've abandoned the ideas, the language, and the arguments - supposedly to win - making believe you're being "severely conservative" in doing so. Look at you:
YOU'RE FIGHTING TO ELECT MITT ROMNEY.
If that's not abandoning conservative principles then I don't know what is.
You have all - left and right - lost your minds (Ann's "rational choice" to vote for Obama is a perfect example) and we're losing our country in the process.
Can't you see that?
Until you're - all - ready to dig down, blame yourselves for your foolishness and resolve to stop being so, nothing will change.
You'll just be Elmer Fudd, shooting himself in the face, forever.
We're supposed to Bugs,...
We're supposed to be Bugs,...
Well he just lost the vets who use the VA hospital, those who worked to earn social security for starters-- heck of a job Mitt.
Crack:
OK, I'm listening.
"Well he just lost the vets who use the VA hospital, those who worked to earn social security for starters-- heck of a job Mitt."
-- How come no one assumes that Obama's leaving our embassies undefended has lost him huge swaths of voters? It's almost like the only time people talk about "losing" votes it is when it allegedly happens to Republicans. Quaint, really.
Nope as a bitter clinger, I don't mind Team Bamster talking about thier 47%. Not at all.
Tank's statement is one that the Romney folks need to look at very carefully.
The differences between Obama and Romney are being wildly exaggerated by the press. Romney, after all, was governor of MA, the most liberal state in the union.
Romney is not going to go on moral crusades over abortion and gays. Obama and Romney really have the same foreign policy. Obama copped Bush's foreign policy.
The only real difference is that Romney has experience as a business manager. He has the confidence of the business community. And, he has some sense about balancing budgets and cost versus benefit.
On the negative side for Obama, his supporters are being ever more vocal that he is above criticism, and in some cases above the law, because he is black. That's dangerous. If being black exempts him from criticism and compliance with the law, he shouldn't be president.
"Well he just lost the vets who use the VA hospital"
He never had them.
"those who worked to earn social security for starters
Liar. We don't "earn" SSI at all. It's a pay-go welfare program, not retirement savings.
"-- How come no one assumes that Obama's leaving our embassies undefended has lost him huge swaths of voters? It's almost like the only time people talk about "losing" votes it is when it allegedly happens to Republicans. Quaint, really."
Obama never loses votes. Never.
If Romney does a walkback he's dead. It energizes his base to tell the simple truth about our producers versus moochers dilemma. Also a significant percentage of the 47% aren't moochers at all -- social security recipients and those on medicare will vote anti-moocher in large numbers.
Too bad for you non-gubmint fucks, but garage got his. Ain't his fault you're too stupid to get yours.
I don't work for the gubmint. The reason so many are off income tax rolls is people like Romney wanted their wage-crushing bullshit subsidized by the government and got it.
Crack: YOU'RE FIGHTING TO ELECT MITT ROMNEY.
Santorum, McCotter and Johnson lost in the primaries. Ron Paul would play nationally about as well as Alan Keyes did in Illinois.
Doesn't Romney need to release his tax returns to prove he's not part of the 47%?
Doesn't Obama need to release his college transcripts to prove he's not a telemrompter-addled buffoon?
Romney supporters can hardly complain
Sigh. Look who is telling us to shut up now. Ms "I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and F'ed America".
"The reason so many are off income tax rolls is people like Romney wanted their wage-crushing bullshit subsidized by the government and got it."
-- That's amazing. Obama is the president; Obama's administration has been enforcing laws and pushing regulations the past three years (PS: When things got worse.) Obama's stimulus was supposed to hold unemployment down, instead, unemployment shot past what he said we'd have if we did not pass it. So, instead of accepting the flaws of his policies, or at least, acknowledging that they may be at fault, instead, we'll just lay it at the feet of anonymous people we don't like.
But, hey, bailing out GM is the GOOD kind of subsidies, right? Those are the kinds of rules we should be breaking, just like funding Solyndra.
age mahal said...
I don't work for the gubmint. The reason so many are off income tax rolls is people like Romney wanted their wage-crushing bullshit subsidized by the government and got it.
Bullshit you don't work for the government.
And the reason why so many have no federal income tax liability is the Bush Tax cuts.
You abject idiot.
Any Which Way You Can was a bad movie. It was so bad that my 20-year-old self knew enough not to waste my money on it.
roesch/voltaire said...
Well he just lost the vets who use the VA hospital, those who worked to earn social security for starters-- heck of a job Mitt.
Thank you for that.
As we see by the drivel you post here, the opposite is actually true.
Shouting Thomas said...
On the negative side for Obama, his supporters are being ever more vocal that he is above criticism, and in some cases above the law, because he is black. That's dangerous. If being black exempts him from criticism and compliance with the law, he shouldn't be president.
This is deranged slander.
I don't work for the gubmint. The reason so many are off income tax rolls is people like Romney wanted their wage-crushing bullshit subsidized by the government and got it.
Come on, garage, this has been an bipartisan affair.
Both parties support open borders in practice, which depresses wages.
Off-shoring? Tell me how you fix that. The problem here is that a Filipino will do your job for 25% of what you make, and a Chinese will do it for 10%.
This is deranged slander.
a/k/a... the truth.
All who work work for the gubmint. The feds consume 23% of our productivity, and the states and local gubmints consume more. Corporations, our employers, our grocers, and everyone with whom we transact business are the tax-collectors.
Since when have seniors been in the GOP camp?
Split in 2008. 66% of them went GOP in 2010.
Since then.
And in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, seniors are breaking 66/33 for Romney.
So I will say it again, a lot of those 47% are probably Romney supporters. He needs to be careful, and a bit more nuanced, about this.
AReasonableMan said...
This is deranged slander.
Hysterical.
You must love living in that cocoon of ignorance.
Also a significant percentage of the 47% aren't moochers at all -- social security recipients and those on medicare will vote anti-moocher in large numbers.
Its not that Obama's supporters are all moochers, its that Obama's supporters support the idea of a moocher society. Why else would you vote for Obama.
Someone who paid in their social security and medicare taxes all their life and is now collecting them is not a moocher. These are not the people Romney is talking about. He is talking about the the 47% of Obama supporters who want wealth to be redistributed.
While 47% may not pay federal income taxes, a great deal of that is circumstantial and argumentative. Mitt’s tone suggests that this under tax (for them but not for corporations, which are people too, people that Mitt’s job does indeed require him to care for) is somewhat of a problem that needs to be addressed and resolved. Considering Mitt falls short on clear and decisive commitment to anything (unless someone of the moment wants him to which he can easily etch-a-scetch in the event someone else doesn’t want him to) it’s not hard to deduce they will indeed be taxed in order to offset for the those that Mitt cares for or likes. You know, people like him.
Mitt also falls short on his explanation of who these 47% that he cares nothing for are. It’s just somewhat disturbing that the guy’s going around blaming the President for dividing the country while he’s dismissing half as deadbeats as they are "the people who will vote for the president no matter what". I just don’t think it sets well to be implying that disabled vets should be ashamed of themselves for having the audacity to think they’re entitled to not be starving in the streets that they fought to protect. That’s not who we are. We’re not Mitt Romneys. We have a condescending smirking Plutocrat stating the middle class are folks making around $250K while chastising teachers for complaining about their $70K salaries, all while denying us to see what kind of tax paying history he has. This is the arrogant non-caring hypocrite we’re dealing with.
Yes, Romney does indeed have a perception problem. The best thing he could do at this point is to just shut the hell up and hope for the best. He may as well as he continues to refuse to tell us anything about his agenda other than being a lapdog for corporate interest. That’s really not what a country trying to rise above the Bush ashes wants nor needs to hear.
Bad movies can be fun Mad Man- suggest you remove the stick from your ass.
furious_a,
Santorum, McCotter and Johnson lost in the primaries. Ron Paul would play nationally about as well as Alan Keyes did in Illinois.
And whose fault is that?
What you're missing is all of those candidates are conservatives. It was up to us to back them - no election is about winning everybody - but you abandoned them for "playing it safe" every time.
Do I look like I'm "playing it safe" out here?
I've told you, I don't worry about imagery, because it means nothing - reality will eventually catch up with it every time.
That's the race you're running - it's not Romney vs. Obama but Romney vs. reality.
A slip-up is bound to happen eventually, because your candidate is lying through his teeth, and we all know the trouble with lying:
You've got to remember how to keep your story straight - and Romney is incapable of it.
No "conservative" would adopt a strategy of lying to begin with,...
Mitt also falls short on his explanation of who these 47% that he cares nothing for are. It’s just somewhat disturbing that the guy’s going around blaming the President for dividing the country while he’s dismissing half as deadbeats as they are "the people who will vote for the president no matter what".
This is an outrageous lie. Mitt wants those in the middle who do not support a government centered society - a society where the government makes all our important decisions - to vote for him. That is what this statement is about.
In contrast, Obama wants a dependency society. ONe where wealth is redistributed and people are dependednt on government handouts to exist.
Its a fact that those who vote for Obama support big government, redistribution of wealth. It has nothing do do with whether you yourself receives govenrment beneifts.
It's liars like you who try to spin this saying "romney doesn't care" IN fact its Obama who doesn't give a crap about this country's future and the future of liberty and freedom. It is Obama who wants everyone to be poor.
Ronald, that was some of the most confused nonsense I've ever read.
But, that's just about the standard junk Dems have to offer.
About all I can get out of it is that you're pissed off and looking for a scapegoat. I can understand that.
Shouting Thomas wrote:
I've got two choices,Romney or Obama.
a point crack doesn't get, and will never get apparently.
I suppose one must prioritize. For many/most I'm fact the priority is the economy which directly impacts their lives. And here, there is a clear articulated difference in how both parties will run the economy.
For crack the priority is cult influence, which frankly is not relevant for either Romney OR Obama, at least the way I would define cults. To each his own I guess.
Interesting way to look at it, although it's not a given Romney will win FL:
Mitt Romney will probably get 95 electoral votes from ‘moocher’ states. Obama will probably get 5.
Huh.
You didn't quote the worst part: "My job is not to worry about those people
Is it possible he meant that he can't worry about whether they'd vote for him (they won't), rather than he dosen't worry about them as human beings?
Christopher in MA,
Doesn't Romney need to release his tax returns to prove he's not part of the 47%?
Doesn't Obama need to release his college transcripts to prove he's not a telemrompter-addled buffoon?
There - right there - Hatfields and McCoys.
The truth is Romney should be releasing his tax returns - just as we should've seen Obama's transcripts - but one doesn't eliminate the need for the other.
You are not defending Romney by using this argument,...
"He may as well as he continues to refuse to tell us anything about his agenda other than being a lapdog for corporate interest."
-- Romney isn't the one who bought shares in GM with government money. Romney isn't the one who provided a give away to the insurance industry via the Affordable Care Act. Romney isn't the one who ignored obvious warning signs and loaned money out to multiple green energy companies that were known to be bad risks that failed. Those are tangible, actual actions taken in pursuit of corporate interests. That's before we look at Obama using government muscle to punish Gibson's guitars and protecting Corzine.
If you are worried about corporate interests, maybe you should look at a guy who has a revolving door installed between Goldman Sachs and his administration.
"Three of the states with the lowest number of non-filers are solidly conservative"
-- Ezra Klein uses total population of non-filers without taking into account the variety of other factors at work? Yeah. He's an idiot and we shouldn't trust what he says, considering he had a headline that said Janesville didn't close the factory under Obama, then in the third paragraph he said, in April 2009, the plant closed. Klein is an idiot and should be treated as such.
Doesn't Romney need to release his tax returns to prove he's not part of the 47%?
Actually you can tell that Romney has paid taxes in the last 10 years from just a one year tax return because he has to file schedules that include prior year information (such as credit carryforwards, etc).
But, a lot of people don't know anything about this because they don't pay any taxes.
The Crack Emcee said...
Tank,
Like many others.
That would be the voters. Are you going to tell me the people here aren't "examining everything they say for any morsal that can be twisted and used against them"? That that's not what Glenn Reynolds is doing? Hot Air? All under the guise of supposedly "informing" people of what's going on?
No - you're all LYING - as I've been saying all along.
None of you cares about the truth - you're out to get the other guy. It's the Hatfields and the McCoys - not politics.
I blame all of you, every day, for "playing it safe" and sticking to the script but what do I get?
"Crack's crazy."
None of you are really conservative. You've abandoned the ideas, the language, and the arguments - supposedly to win - making believe you're being "severely conservative" in doing so. Look at you:
YOU'RE FIGHTING TO ELECT MITT ROMNEY.
If that's not abandoning conservative principles then I don't know what is.
You have all - left and right - lost your minds (Ann's "rational choice" to vote for Obama is a perfect example) and we're losing our country in the process.
Can't you see that?
Until you're - all - ready to dig down, blame yourselves for your foolishness and resolve to stop being so, nothing will change.
You'll just be Elmer Fudd, shooting himself in the face, forever.
We're supposed to Bugs,...
I believe you over generalize too much here. Many of us here, and elsewhere, have indeed spoken the truth.
But I like your outlook - "you're all lying" - I'm the only one telling the truth.
Keep deluding yourself.
Memo: It's not about you.
Cack wrote :
What you're missing is all of those candidates are conservatives. It was up to us to back them - no election is about winning everybody - but you abandoned them for "playing it safe" every time.
Ron Paul is a southern baptist. Wouldn't you describe tht as a cult? so why would YOU vote for Ron Paul? And for such an atheist why would you forgive Alan Keyes and santorum wearing their religion on their sleeves so prominently? Shouldn't they have to answer for their crazy beliefs too? Are you now a cult apologist?
Romney is probably right about the 47%, but wrong about their reasons for voting Democrat, no matter what.
Black people vote 85-90% Democrat, and so do an appreciable number of white Southerners who have not yet got the memo that the Civil War is over.
"Blue collar" labor will mostly vote Democrat, though they be "bitter clingers," etc. and strongly opposed to all that NEA/AFT and AFSCME hold dear.
Irish-Americans will vote Democrat because they somehow identify the Republicans with the British government.
And so it goes.
- Ezra Klein uses total population of non-filers without taking into account the variety of other factors at work?
Such as?
For example crack here is a site from former southern baptists (just as you linked to the former Mormon site)
http://www.thinkatheist.com/group/formersouthernbaptists
Your boy Ron Paul is part of a cult, and you are a cult apologist for supporting him.
jr565,
For crack the priority is cult influence, which frankly is not relevant for either Romney OR Obama, at least the way I would define cults. To each his own I guess.
As usual, jr, you've got it wrong:
My priority was ALWAYS vetting Romney.
His being in a cult was always what I saw as his weakest link - which is why it has to be off the table for discussion, right?
If you had properly vetted Romney, his wayward flip-flopping incoherent nature would've revealed itself, and then you never would've been stuck with him as a candidate.
But you didn't - you chose to hide his flaws, hoping to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, long enough to get him into office - which was dishonest from the get-go.
Even to yourselves - which is denial - and "Denial Is Rank Cowardice, It Always Is,..."
You can say whatever you want about me - and have - but you'll never say I'm a coward,...
So, Romney speaks the truth and get castigated.
Obama spouts out "bitter clingers" on the campaign trail four years ago and gets a pass.
Got it.
The Crack Emcee said...
jr565,
For crack the priority is cult influence, which frankly is not relevant for either Romney OR Obama, at least the way I would define cults. To each his own I guess.
As usual, jr, you've got it wrong:
My priority was ALWAYS vetting Romney.
His being in a cult was always what I saw as his weakest link - which is why it has to be off the table for discussion, right?
No, his weakest link is that he is not a conservative.
Ron Paul was raised as a Lutheran and we know that Lutheranism is as crazy as Mormonism
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/lutheran_lies.htm
So he went from one cult to another. And youre advocating voting for him.
Tank,
No, his weakest link is that he is not a conservative.
Again - if he was properly vetted - we would've weeded it out, or been able to fix it, or get him on track. But we didn't:
We chose deception.
That's not a winning strategy.
Obama spouts out "bitter clingers" on the campaign trail four years ago and gets a pass.
This isn't news. Obama has gotten a pass his entire life and will likely get another one in November.
I hope Ann and Romney realize that many junior enlisted military are part of the 47%
jr565,
Ron Paul was raised as a Lutheran and we know that Lutheranism is as crazy as Mormonism
Now you're ignoring my words in favor of your obsession:
That's not a winning strategy either,...
Crack wrote:
If you had properly vetted Romney, his wayward flip-flopping incoherent nature would've revealed itself, and then you never would've been stuck with him as a candidate.
But you didn't - you chose to hide his flaws, hoping to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, long enough to get him into office - which was dishonest from the get-go.
how did I choose to hide his flaws. Conservatives can potentially find plenty of flaws on hitch to judge Romney, and these are well known to all. Where you were going with Lu so called "vetting" was into the area of religious bigotry. Why don't you vet Ron Paul for his souther baptism, which many argue is similarly a cult?
I'm all for vetting Romney on actual policies not for the bogeyman living in cracks brain.
God, what nonsense.
The Lefties can't wait to mobilize the 47% the way they failed with the 99%.
And they'll fail at that, too. Half of them will be too lazy and apathetic to vote.
However, a couple of thoughts on what the Romster said. Consider this headline off Breitbart, "**SHOCK** LEFT-WING SITE UNEARTHS VIDEO OF ROMNEY... TALKING LIKE A CONSERVATIVE".
This may end up solidifying his street cred among some wobbly Conservatives, Libertarians, and independents, as he was speaking his mind at the time. So that's a plus.
Then, there's his other "stumble", where he saw some problems for the London Olympics - which, of course, proved very prescient. As he did during the primaries, he's going to prove himself not only the smartest guy in the room, but the most perceptive. And people will notice and that will be a plus.
Think about it.
Liars lie.
Truth tellers speak truth.
Liars hate truth tellers, because it tends to expose lying liars.
Truth tellers resent liars because liars aim to invalidate what is generally known to be true.
And people that overuse terms like 'racist' and 'cult' permanently damage and change these words' original meaning.
The Crack Emcee said...
Tank,
No, his weakest link is that he is not a conservative.
Again - if he was properly vetted - we would've weeded it out, or been able to fix it, or get him on track. But we didn't:
We chose deception.
That's not a winning strategy.
What's with the vetting? As I said long, long ago here, and elsewhere. Romney thought that Romneycare was a good idea. No conservative would EVER think that. No other vetting was needed.
The idea that we're not "all one," and have to kill somebody sometimes to get them off our backs, is just too much reality for these delusional types to wrap their minds around. THAT'S our failing.
Oh yes. To add to this idea, it seems to me pre-9/11 the US was in a sensory deprived cocoon.
As an example, some talk show host out here in San Jose made a stink about some guy who lost his cool and threw a poodle into traffic and it died(some kind of anger over the congested roads, I recall). It became national news. It's not as if we don't have enough to talk about, but apparently it isn't strong enough stuff.
It's just a dog. It's not like kids getting raped and killed. There are plenty of examples of things like this. Crazy.
"I hope Ann and Romney realize that many junior enlisted military are part of the 47%"
Ann and Romney DO realize that many junior enlisted military, once part of the uneducated/indoctrinated "47%", are now firmly ensconced with the "53%" now that they have had real-life experience that tells them a substantial percentage of the 47% are gaming the system and sold on big government.
//fixed
..you chose to hide his flaws, hoping to pull the wool over everyone's eyes,...
You mean like the democrats and media did with Obama? (and are still doing?)
Romney wasn't my first choice. And from the 2008 primaries, I understood his weaknesses. But, while far from perfect, I think he'd be much better for the future viablity of this country than Obama.
Freder Frederson said...
I hope Ann and Romney realize that many junior enlisted military are part of the 47%
I'm sure they do. When I was a junior enlisted guy, I still had to pay income taxes, social security and everything else. The tax laws have changed since then, though, and I wasn't married either.
Again, the Democrat Party campaigns on the platform of constituency dependence on the Federal government. Romney is simply pointing out that a vote for Obama is a vote for more government influence in your lives.
"Romney's problem is that we already know that he pays a relatively low tax rate and that he hasn't had a real job in years. For many of us that puts him firmly in the moocher category."
True! Well, if you define "many of us" as "absolutely nobody, actually".
Christopher in MA,
Doesn't Romney need to release his tax returns to prove he's not part of the 47%?
Doesn't Obama need to release his college transcripts to prove he's not a telemrompter-addled buffoon?
There - right there - Hatfields and McCoys.
The truth is Romney should be releasing his tax returns - just as we should've seen Obama's transcripts - but one doesn't eliminate the need for the other.
You are not defending Romney by using this argument,...
Who's trying to defend Romney? I'm just slapping back at garage's usual snarky content-free inanity.
Crack wrote:
The idea that we're not "all one," and have to kill somebody sometimes to get them off our backs, is just too much reality for these delusional types to wrap their minds around. THAT'S our failing.
< br>
Is followed by:
None of that math is right - there is no 1% or 47% - there's just us.
Anyone who buys into the 1-47% nonsense is an idiot.
And we're fighting over nothing.
The Maharishi smiles,....
Are we all one or not? Funny, because your second comment sounds like something George Harrison or a guru might argue. And yet, you cite the Maharishi,with your appeal to our universality as if he's somehow wrong in believing in our universality.
We're talking about ideas, right? Why a jihadist MIT want to kill us is because of differing ideas about what is permissible and moral right? And ideas in practice give birth to action. Why would it be any different in the realm of ideas about how to run the economy. in the grand scheme of things all people are people, but both sides are arguing completely differently about how to run an economy and those ideas will give birth to actions. As such there really is a difference between the 1% and the 47%.
jr565,
We're done for the day, guy.
Tank,
What's with the vetting? As I said long, long ago here, and elsewhere. Romney thought that Romneycare was a good idea. No conservative would EVER think that. No other vetting was needed.
Agreed, mostly, but a proper vetting still would've given Romney and us a chance to get things on track. Now, we're lost to fate.
I gotta go - you kids have fun.
Jim Treacher sums it up:
“The economy is collapsing, our embassies are being overrun, our diplomats are being murdered, and Obama doesn’t know what to do about any of it except for his usual plan of lying his ass off. So he and his enablers in the media hope you’ll be distracted by Romney’s ‘gaffe’ of criticizing the Democrats’ strategy. They hope you’ll be offended that Romney pointed out what the Dems have been telling you your whole life: that you need the government to provide for you, that you can’t go a single day without a handout. They hope you’re as credulous as the people who voted for them last time.” Well, that’s pretty much their only hope at this point."
LilyBart,
You mean like the democrats and media did with Obama? (and are still doing?)
Mr. Hatfield meet Mr. McCoy.
You guys just won't stop.
Christopher in MA,
Who's trying to defend Romney? I'm just slapping back at garage's usual snarky content-free inanity.
Hatfield slept with McCoy's daughter.
Sigh,...
I'm not sure how Romney is in the moocher category when he's living off his investments which he still pays taxes on.
Tank,
You do know that romneycare was blessed Blythe heritage foundation right? Are they left wing.
As they wrote:
… to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.
And
As stated by Romney back then, "you will be free to choose but your choices will have consequences." Buy insurance or pay for your healthcare. Romney's goal was finite and simple: to require the few who were sapping the Massachusetts' taxpayers to ultimately pay for healthcare either by paying the state or by paying an insurance provider. These people who had no health insurance -- fewer than 10% in Massachusetts -- would now have to contribute if they wanted healthcare. That was it. Insurance companies were not nationalized. Massachusetts did not become the default healthcare provider in that state. It is not what I would have done, but it was seen as bold and it was the kind of "outside the box" thinking that many from both Parties admired. Newt included.
Many conservatives were on board with Romney care.
Romneycare is not the same as Obamacare, despit e assertion by dems to the contrary.
Tis article lays out the case.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/obamacare-vs-romneycare-a-
Agree or disagree, let's not forget that romneycare had its conservative defenders.
Hatfield slept with McCoy's daughter.
Sigh,...
And sigh right back at you, too, Crack. Your Khan Noonien Singh shtick is getting stale.
But I'm a nice guy. I'll try to remember to put in a good word for you when the Mormon SS come to drag you off to the reeducation camps.
Noonien
Did you have to look that up to spell it right?
If not: Nerd.
garage mahal said...
Such as?
Hey, remember when you used to squeal about "edited videos"?
Funny how that's gone out the window, huh?
"This is deranged slander."
True, but since this is a con blog, we'll just call it free speech! And let the chips fall where they may.
"Mitt Romney will probably get 95 electoral votes from ‘moocher’ states. Obama will probably get 5."
Only 95 ?!? I demand a recount!
>
As the Althouse con whining intensifies unabated! :)
March 20, 2012. Romney to heckler ‘If You’re Looking For Free Stuff, Vote For the Other Guy’.
Nothing new here, except "Squirrel!" from the left.
Link
Mitt also falls short on his explanation of who these 47% that he cares nothing for are. It’s just somewhat disturbing that the guy’s going around blaming the President for dividing the country while he’s dismissing half as deadbeats as they are "the people who will vote for the president no matter what". I just don’t think it sets well to be implying that disabled vets should be ashamed of themselves for having the audacity to think they’re entitled to not be starving in the streets that they fought to protect. That’s not who we are. We’re not Mitt Romneys. We have a condescending smirking Plutocrat stating the middle class are folks making around $250K while chastising teachers for complaining about their $70K salaries, all while denying us to see what kind of tax paying history he has. This is the arrogant non-caring hypocrite we’re dealing with.
Everyone is forgetting that this was Mitt Romney talking to his affluent donors and saying "There are 47% who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. These are people who pay no income tax."
This was not a stump speech, or a speech aimed at the general public, but a talk with potential donors, who are likely believers, but not quite not true believers yet. He doesn't have to explain moochers and producers to this group of people - they wouldn't be there if they weren't at least partially convinced already. The crowd is likely fairly sophisticated financially, and fairly affluent, to get face time at this late date in the campaign (both candidates' time is too valuable to spend much of it with small donors right now).
This is the type of conversation where the candidates can talk in shortcut code, because their big supporters wouldn't be there if they didn't understand and mostly agree with their major contentions and how they paint their opponents.
The people who were there understood that Romney wasn't talking about Social Security recipients who had spent their lives contributing, and then were collecting based on what they had contributed. They aren't the moochers, but rather, part of the producers who earned their retirements, etc.
And, yes, this is akin to Obama's bitter clinger statement in the previous election, which also was said to true believers. And, yes, it was code for the blue collar yokels who didn't understand that he was going to save him, but were straying from the Democratic Party. He didn't mean it to apply to, say, Harry Reid, who is a well-known gun owner, and appears to cling to his Bible (and Book of Mormon) quite tightly. And, Reid, hearing it, most likely didn't think it applied to him.
There is nothing Romney can do but speak the truth. The Occupiers' 99% is not the truth. Romney's 47%, however, is the truth. Not all 99% vote Obama, buy very sure the 47% will vote for him, no matter what.
I don't see what's the fuss.
I find this far more damning and offensive.
If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
He just lost Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/note-romney-s-arrogant-and-stupid-remarks_652548.html
Not a good day for Romney.
When you've lost Bill Kristol ...
iMitt Romney is, was, and always will be, wrong for America.
Obama is too.
It's the Boomers.
Welcome to Hell ...
Okay, I get that you regard Mormonism as a form of cult, and you hate cults so you hate Romney. Check.
Mind you, I've worked with and for Mormons, and along with their aversion to alcohol and cola beverages I have found them to demonstrate integrity in their day to day interactions with everyone. Not just other Mormons, everyone. Let me know if you find a Democrat about whom you can say the same.
And I get that you agree that Obama sucks as a president. That's so obvious that there's no riposte.
But when you blame Baby Boomers for all your ills, you're getting on the fighting side of me (to quote an anthem from my youth).
That personal computer whose keyboard you're pounding on? Us Boomers. That goes for the operating system and the World-Wide Web (though, having been born three years prior to 1946, Internet inventor Vint Cert belongs to the previous generation). Would you like to live in a previous era? Maybe you would, but maybe you'd want us Boomers to have gotten in there and demonstrated for Civil Rights and gotten rid of Jim Crow laws, yes?
Are we in Hell? Maybe. Perhaps the worst is yet to come. Based on what I've seen in Wisconsin, I'm getting ready for violent riots in the streets when Obama loses.
As someone explained on Al Jazeera, this election is pitting those who want to dictate how everyone should live against people who want to be left alone.
That's Al Jazeera's take. And they're right.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
When you've lost Bill Kristol ...
There's a Hell of a lot of Conservatives and Libertarians who will love you for it.
Are we in Hell? Maybe. Perhaps the worst is yet to come. Based on what I've seen in Wisconsin, I'm getting ready for violent riots in the streets when Obama loses.
LOL
jr565 said...
Tank,
You do know that romneycare was blessed Blythe heritage foundation right? Are they left wing.
Point taken. What the hell was the foundation thinking? Just goes to show how conservatives so often fall into the liberal mind set. Really, it's hard to avoid.
Pointing out the Julia sideshow really is he est point on this, since Romney has basically put Ito words what the dems having been saying about themselves and govt.
As Jim treacher writes:
Democratsthink Romney just self destructed by pointing out ...um... Their entire strategy.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/democrats-think-romney-just-self-destructed-by-pointing-out-um-their-entire-strategy/
If you haven’t seen the whole “Life of Julia” slideshow on Obama’s campaign site, or if you need a refresher, check it out. The entire premise is that you’re dependent on the government from cradle to grave, and The Evil Mitt Romney is going to take it all away from you and make you fend for yourself.
It's a plain statement of fact, that the dems are suggesting is a FEATURE of their governance and not some radical gaffe on Romneys part. The thing you could quibble with is the 47% tax and that that entire 47% doesn't pay taxes. I think that what he means by being Inartful with his statement. Perhaps painted with too broad a brush by using the words "all" instead of "many/most/ a lot". The point is still valid,
And the dems ads prove it.
It appears that people are both misreading what he said, and taking things out of context. He isn't talking about 47 percent of ALL AMERICANS don't pay taxes, although he does say a similar phrase at one point in the speech (a slight slip up). In full context he is saying that of those who supported Obama, 47 percent don't pay taxes and like it that way. They will never be convinced to switch to him by argument of cutting taxes. They voted for Obama because they are moochers.
What he needs to focus on, he says, is the about 10 percent Independents who voted for Obama. They can be convinced by tax correctives and economic arguments.
Talk about blowing things out of proportion and taking the Media's word for it. Listen for yourself. His slip up was out of context of what he was actually saying.
@garage, regarding your comment at 10:20.
I can picture you being squarely in the middle of the mob.
You are, sir, an enemy of the people.
Rush Limbaugh is hysterical right now. He's spinning this like crazy. You can tell the GOP is going down down down this year. Romney just cost the House too.
Alex,
Never know if you are serious or not but, your comment is interesting to me because I was listening to him too.
Rush, actually, doesn't seem that hysterical to me, for Rush standards. He actually strikes me as making a case for Romney's statement being not damaging, and not ill-intentioned towards those who will not vote for him. It's the "electoral strategy" explanation. Not terribly dissimilar to the case Althouse herself is making.
I don't find this explanation credible, even a little. But I think there are those will will buy it if the case is persuasively made. Running from the 47% comment, acting like it doesn't matter, is the worst thing they can do. IMO.
"He needs to go over the heads of the press, directly to the voters."
As Sarah did/does after she got free of mccain's pussy advisors. It works. From the silence of his campaign, I guess romneys advisors are debating doing that as the only way to communicate with voters.
If he goes on the "debates," we'll know his advisors are pussies too. If he goes on the "debates," he wants to lose and will. I think he will anyway, but at least he could show himself a man by not playing on the enemy's turf.
That 47% spend their days on couches and easy chairs watching tv. No voting block that monolithic, numerous and committed has ever not voted to give itself other people's money, so, they can sit and watch tv. Trained dogs leashed electronically to marketers.
In the second term the cabal occupying the WH will turn the divided federal property it has made of the once united states over to Mohammedan domination. They already voluntarily surrendered USA national sovereignty to Mohammedan hegemonism. "If the politics get ugly, I will side with the Moslems." Didn't the line go something like that?
Romney's out of his depth. Economics is not the issue. 47% is not the issue. Self-surrender of a nation state by a racial/sexual cabal to a "religious" cabal is the issue.
Rush is delusional if he thinks this is a viable electoral strategy. I know people who were thinking about voting for Romney that will now enthusiastically vote for Obama because they can't stomach people who talk nasty about poor people.
Limbaugh is preaching to his dwindling choir ie a non-factor!
edutcher,
The Olympics comments Romney made were callow and unfriendly at a moment--the cusp fo the Games-- when tone is everything. Romney has that callow side to him, a strain of dismissiveness of those who are, ahem, *not Romney*, that reminds me more than a little of the way Donald Trump "evaluates" things and people.
As to your statement that the Olympics comment was "prescient," that is bullshit. By any sane metric London acquitted itself very well indeed; but again, even if they had stumbled in rolling out the Games, it is frankly ungenerous for a high profile US politico to go there and slam on them, on the cusp of the event.
Romney consistently displays a lack of ability to see past his own nose. This is a problem for more and more voters.
Crack,
you said:
My priority was ALWAYS vetting Romney.
His being in a cult was always what I saw as his weakest link - which is why it has to be off the table for discussion, right?
If you had properly vetted Romney, his wayward flip-flopping incoherent nature would've revealed itself, and then you never would've been stuck with him as a candidate.
But you didn't - you chose to hide his flaws, hoping to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, long enough to get him into office - which was dishonest from the get-go.
Priorities.
It is too late to "vet" him, and you are assuming that you are the only person who knows anything about Mormons.
There are others (like me!) who know as much, or more, or maybe slightly less than you do, who do not share all your concerns for a few reasons:
1) Very few of his cabinet and other top officials will be Mormon
2) There are zero Mormons on the Supreme Court, and likely to still be zero even after Romney fills a few vacancies
3) Mormons have almost no power as a caucus within Congress
So Romney's ability to enact a secret Mormon agenda is virtually nil.
But you can rest assured that there are many of us who will watch for signs of it, but only after he is President. He won't be able to sneak anything through.
Even aside from those of us aware of the Mormon cult, do you think the Press, fresh off the stinging defeat of their secular Messiah, will give Romney a pass on anything?!?!
There is some danger of Romney being a RINO. So what?
If Romney was a die-hard conservative, but faced a RINO Congress, we'd still be screwed. Better to have a Tea Party Congress that passes laws that a RINO President won't see as worthy of a veto.
Romney will want to be re-elected. We have between 4 to 6 years to get Congress in fear of their jobs if they don't enact the Tea Party agenda of slashing spending, reforming entitlements, strengthening the military, reducing business-strangling regulations and uncertainty, and lowering taxes when/where feasible.
Stop obsessing about Romney and get cracking (pun intended) on the composition Congress.
Elect Romney, then ensure he is so thoroughly blocked in by a conservative Congress that he can do nothing but enact a conservative agenda.
Priorities, Crack.
So Alex, you're in Romney's "war room." The deed is done, he's recording saying these things. What do you do?
I really cannot see another path for dealing with this particular moment, than aggressively framing it as, "I'm talking about the people who are going to vote for me and who might vote for me when I talk about my campaign. But I'm talking about ALL Americans, including the poor, when I talk about me being President."
Again, what would you do differently?
Problem for voters: Saying some little thing less than glowing about someone's else's organization of the Olympics.
Not a problem for voters: Telling a news organization that Egypt isn't our ally.
You are, sir, an enemy of the people.
You've lost your damn mind, much like the rest of your party.
"He isn't talking about 47 percent of ALL AMERICANS don't pay taxes,"
He said that 47% don't pay *income* taxes. That's what he said and it's the truth and it should scare the crap out of anyone who hears it that we have half the people paying for everyone else. Even if that number includes those who are retired or children or stay-at-home parents, it's a shocking number. And I don't know that it *does* include those people.
What he said about that 47% is that you can't reach them by explaining that you'll lower their taxes.
Well.. duh!
And what he said was that what those Obama voters *hear* if you try to explain lower taxes for the middle class, is "tax breaks for the rich!" which is how the Democrats spin it.
So talking about lower taxes to non-income tax payers, as a campaign strategy, does not work.
So don't say he didn't say it. He did. And it's the truth.
He shouldn't walk any of this back.
He should own it. Wholeheartedly.
Then, it ceases to be a "gaffe" or "misstep" and becomes part of a dialogue that is aimed at talking truthfully and bluntly about what this country faces for this election.
Such a damaging gaffe that OFA is omitting the link from their latest fundraising email blast...
...the video is only horrible to Democratic base voters. Show it to an undecided swing voter, and there’s far too high a chance that he or she will pretty much agree with the sentiment. Which is something that Mitt Romney knows very well, which is why he smilingly encouraged the people who published the clip to publish the whole video. And it’s also something that Jim Messina knows very well; which is why he deliberately didn’t make the video easy to see and held off on the usual begging for five bucks that stereotypically infests Obama campaign ads.
Synova said...
He said that 47% don't pay *income* taxes. That's what he said and it's the truth and it should scare the crap out of anyone who hears it that we have half the people paying for everyone else.
Of course we're hearing that because it's just income tax, we are omitting payroll, etc. from the equation.
But when we consider net taxes minus expenditures, the results are scarier.
Posted here before (from CBO and Greg Mankiw):
For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):
Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent
Top one percent: 28 percent
The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.
The most surprising fact to me was that the effective tax rate is negative for the middle quintile. According to the CBO data, this number was +14 percent in 1979 (when the data begin) and remained positive through 2007. It was negative 0.5 percent in 2008, and negative 5 percent in 2009. That is, the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess.
What is hilarious about Romney's statement is that seniors, the largest beneficiaries of public entitlement programs, tend to vote Republican. Neither party is serious about reforming or scrapping the entitlement programs that benefit their constituents. Thus, Romney's sweeping generalization could just as easily be leveled against him. Caveat: I do not endorse voting for Obama either because he seems even less inclined to seriously address the programs that consume the majority of the federal budget- Defense, Medicare, and Social Security.
It wasn't just people who receive government benefits, it's ones that get government support and also feel that they deserve it because they are victims.
I wonder how many people didn't know that almost 50% of the people in the U.S. don't pay income tax. The big deal that's being made about this will make them aware of it. How many will look at the income tax deduction on their paycheck and feel like dupes for paying out when so many others don't.
The problem with this, of course, is that rich people and corporations are often the most enmeshed with the government - that's the real strength of the Occupy movement.
Rush Limbaugh probably had the best take on how to spin it - that there are a huge amount of people who hate being in the 47%, and chafe at the harness, but feel forced by circumstances - which of course makes them "victims" just as much as the victimhood they decry.
Me? Don't have much use for either candidate.
Post a Comment