Posted on 09/17/2012 4:47:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via Mother Jones and Ace, watch this now if you haven't seen it elsewhere because political media will be having 20 heart attacks about it tomorrow and you'll want to be up to speed. This was recorded awhile back at a fundraiser, just like Obama's infamous "bitter/clinger" comments in 2008. Remember how big that blew up? That's how we ended up with President McCain.
The dirty little secret of most "controversial" political statements is that voters pay them little mind, especially when they’re preoccupied with bread-and-butter issues. The GOP spent three days in Tampa hammering Obama for the “you didn’t build that” line and a fat lot of good it did them in vaulting Romney past O in the polls. Then again, the GOP didn’t have a media megaphone like the one that’s going to be amplifying this for the rest of the week. The money quote:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, 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. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…
“And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49 … he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”
Certainly, the Obama campaign’s never done anything to tout the sort of cradle-to-grave dependency that Romney describes here. I think David French’s recent post about the “bookends” that compose the modern liberal coalition is closer to the mark than Romney’s familiar makers-and-takers formulation here, but he was at a fundraiser and tossing red meat and I guess wanted it to be as red as possible. As for his claim that 47 percent pay no income tax, it’s true but carries lots of caveats. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote an insightful piece about last year; this new article from National Journal is worth reading too. Two political difficulties here. One: While some Obama supporters may not pay federal income tax, they still pay federal payroll tax and may well pay state and city taxes. They do contribute something to government. Two: A lot of pro-Republican working-class voters pay no income tax due to the Earned Income Tax Credit, and a lot of pro-Republican seniors pay no income tax because most or all of their income is Social Security. Not sure how either of those groups will react to Romney’s critique of O’s fans, but my hunch is that Ben Domenech’s right in believing that no one really thinks they’re part of the 47 percent. Everyone thinks they’re a “maker,” not a “taker,” due to whatever little tax they pay, so when Mitt lays into freeloaders, even people who pay no income tax think he’s talking about someone else. It’s sort of the flip side of senior citizens saying that America needs small government while telling politicians “Hands off my Medicare.” I doubt it’ll end up hurting Romney badly, but the media will do its level best. Buckle up!
That’s the first video. The second video is of Romney joking that he’d have a better chance at being elected if he was Latino, which is almost certainly true.
There was absolutely nothing factually inaccurage about Romneys statement. I say he needs to go out there and explain to the 100 percent of Americans that continuing down this road of entitlment and dependency will collapse the entire economy and those very people that are voting for Obama will lose the most because austerity hurts them more than any, segewey into the Greece crisis and its affect on the people. Thomas Sowell had a recent quote “The political mirage of something for nothing has ruined many a nation. Obama claims he can do all these things by raising taxes but that is a lie, the rich will not pay they will move their money, because they have the means to move it, hide it, or pass on costs to consumers, Obama supporters are living in a fantasy land, the real question in this debate is do you want a job or do you want other people to work so their taxes can support your lazy butt????
Mother Jones!
Redder than Mammy’s petticoat!
Damn straight someone needs to point this out...
Play fair? Get the leeches who pay no fed income tax to pay THEIR fair share!
Be a dog with a bone, Mitts....
He’s right.
Oh, I guarantee you, the Left will try to make this The Next Big Thing, THE talking point for as long as they can sell it. They will try to make "victims" into the next "legitimate rape." I do not think they will succeed in making it stick, though.
This is a win for Romney. The people who see themselves as the 47% weren’t going to vote for anyone except O no matter what. The people Romney is after are the people who see themselves as the 53%. If he gets them its over.
The problem Romney is going to have with this is explaining what he’s going to do about it. Those of us picking up the tab for this entitlement society want to see the beginning of a reversal of this policy at the very least, while those cashing in want the assurance that it will continue.
Who is this AllahPundit? Why is this person such an A Hole most of the time.
This should be a line-in-the-sand election. It may be, and we may not like it.
Thanks for posting this.
Now that I have seen the entire quote in context, It is clear that CNN is trying to make it appear he said something he didn’t say.
Romney said that he wasn’t going to worry about getting the votes of that 47%. The media is going to try to spin it as he doesn’t care about them. But, that isn’t what he said.
He can turn this into an advantage if he doesn’t back off, and says that he wants the vote of the 53% that pay taxes, and isn’t going to pander to the other 47%. That’s a winning message.
““There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, 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. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…
“And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49 … he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”
Do the libs really want to run with this? I’m not seeing the “OMG HOW DARE YOU” in this at all.
That is why Romney is killing with the independent vote. And this gives him a nice jolt with the right.
A big portion, but hopefully the minority, of the American electorate will vote for someone who wants to take from me what I’ve worked for and earned. Why should I not think of many of these people as enemies who want to steal from me?
This touches on something I've tried to say from time to time. Repubs habitually blab on about tax cuts as short hand for a real discussion about freedom and limited government. It doesn't really work. We need candidates who can actually articulate the whole moral argument about freedom because at this late stage of the republic hardly anyone younger than a certain age have every heard it. If we don't make the argument not only do we lose the argument but with our passing it will be written out of the history books altogether.
I'm glad Romney has made this point. He needs to take it further.
I simply refuse to believe that nearly 100% of those dependent on the government are 100% lockdown Obama voters. I know some of these people and they don’t believe their situation is permanent and Furthermore, they sure the hell won’t vote for Obama.
It’ll be interesting to see how Romney tries to explain it all away tomorrow and say what he really meant was...because you know that’s whe he’s going to do.
Obama’s right then when he says, “You didn’t do that yourself”. At least, he is when he speaks to most of his voters.
What CAN he do? He’s talking about people who don’t take care of their money, nor their health or resources. They despair, act like and feel like victims and have been enjoying the class warfare.
They hate Mitt. I find it refreshing to learn that he knows about them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.