Posted on 10/15/2012 11:21:41 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Driving around today and heard Rush struggling to get his mind around the 47% charge, the meaning thereof, and how to counter these meaningless charges. Part of me wanted to phone in because I know what he is missing. But I've tried before and never gotten through.
In the hopes that Rush Freeps or if not then somehow ideas can percolate up to the great Maha-Rushi - here's my attempt to help him out.
The RATS think that the "47%" line is the RATS golden chalice their keys to the kingdom. All they really have to do is bring it up in the debates and power is theirs forever. Rush was thinking that there was an easy way to rebut this and in my mind there is.
There are two basic flaws in the RATs argument that need to be pointed out and the issue goes away. Here they are:
1. Implicit in the RATS arguing about the 47% is that this purports to show that Romney only cares about 53% of Americans. This is NOT what he said. He said that as a matter of political STRATEGERY it did not make sense to actively expend campaign resources to go after the VOTES of the dependent class. It's the difference between political stragerery and policy. As president, I feel sure that Romney would govern with the interests of the entire country in mind. But as candidate, he has to expend resources where they will do the most good. In short the dems would have you believe that the "47%" is about policy. It's not. It's about strategery and tactics.
2. Implicit in the RATs attack (and now explicit) is that their candidate is "for the 100%". This is demonstrably false both in terms of strategery AND more importantly with regard to governing. He has proved this over and over. He truly is the purely partisan hack, with every political and policy move being viewed through a partisan prism. Thus their attacks are pure projection as is the case about 100% of the time.
The simplest approach is to call Obama’s use of it a lie, which is what it is. Any type of nuancing gets Mitt into a “macaca” moment.
I also thought about Mitt turning “47” (or perhaps “47%”) and turn it against Obama, for example:
47 - number of jobs lost per minute under Obama
470 - number of xyz..
470 million - dollars of debt per hour...
470 billion - you get the idea...
My two cents worth, and worth every penny!
its really worse 47% of tax returns paid no income tax not 47% of the population the number that pays no taxes is even higher
It wouldn’t have mattered WHAT Romney had said; the Democrats had to seize on anything they could warp and twist to give Obama something, anything to exaggerate.
47% of voters ARE likely to vote for their Messiah because he throws them a few crumbs after he and Michelle eat the cake.
If it hadn’t been that, it woulda been something else. - Obama needs to EXPLAIN - Benghazi. Hillary needs to explain - Benghazi.
O/T a little:
Response to taxes: If Obama thought Rpmney wasn’t paying enough taxes, why didn’t they change it in 2008-2010?? when Dems had house and senate?
Bain: Big Obama donors - if bad, give back the money
It’s not enough to simply say “it’s a lie” because after all the Mittster *did* say it. But it’s the RATS’ *characterization* of the statement that is the lie.
That Romney only “cares” about the 53%. That’s a lie.
That Obomma doesn’t actively despise and in fact hate with every fiber of his being the 53% - because he most definitely does. That’s another lie.
47% is the percentage which pay no FEDERAL income taxes.
Some of this class is the welfare, dependent-on-government, class. Most of those people are Democrat voters.
Most of the 47% - people who do not make enough money to have to pay federal income taxes.
THEY do not like having so little income and would happily pay more taxes if they could be making more money.
They NEED more money.
The Disaster’s policies PREVENT them from making more money and joining the 53% who are so happily paying ALL the federal income taxes who are paying their FAIR SHARE and more.
Were enough buzz words hit?
It is an easy argument to make.
I agree with you. But it was clear that in listening to Rush today that there was a kernel of something he was looking for and I wanted to think that this was it. I think being able to parry attacks is key in any campaign and in any debate. To leave an attack unanswered is in many ways a backdoor concession as to its truth. Let’s have a discussion as to just which candidate is IN FACT the more inclusive!
Not true. Of that 47% most are people who just do not earn enough money not welfare recipients.
See my comment above.
You hit it on the head. The discussion needs to be just what you said. Mitt was addressing a question about how he would get votes in the election. He (correctly) stated that 47% are on government support and that the message of cutting government will not resonate with that crowd. He (incorrectly) mangled the rest of his answer for two reasons. One is that it is not a 100% correlation. Many on government support WANT to return to be productive. He could easily turn that around and give hope to those people in his response during the debate. Secondly, by uttering “I don’t care about...”, he opened himself up to this attack. He was referring to caring about getting their votes, not caring about their lives. That’s where it has been mangled, and his phrasing opened up that line of attack. He will hopefully use this opportunity to mitigate any damage from that part of the attack.
He could be honest & simply say, “47% of the country is receiving some kind of government benefit. The democrats have spent a considerable amount of time demonizing Republicans & convincing these people that I will take away their benefits if elected. That, of course, is a lie. But as a matter of political reality, I probably won’t be able to correct this lie, given how our current media support Obama, & have to put my case before those I can realistically reach.”
All true - the key distinction is (in my mind) one of policy vs. campaign tactics.
As a candidate you expend resources where they will do the most good. Be those resources, time, money, boots on the ground, whatever. No point in sending legions of mormons for Romney into the housing projects. Call that racist if you want, but that’s just the way that it is.
Once elected president then the policies that Romney will hopefully enact (and the taxes and regulations that he’ll roll back) will hopefully be a rising tide that will in fact float all boats - in the projects as well as everywhere else.
I’d just say if you want to talk divisive videos Mr Resident, we can discuss the one where you were using that odd accent stirring up black hate against white people regarding the Stafford Act after Katrina. I would also add that you lied to those people because you voted against the waiver, you were one of 14 senators that voted against New Orleans.
Game, Set, Match.
Yes! This is what I’m trying to say. Exactly so.
I want to convert 47% into 1%. It will increase tax paying citizens and will bring prosperity.
Since the 47% of tax filers probably have larger families than the 53% of tax payers that is likely to be true.
Plus, there are substantial numbers of people who don’t even file.
In fact, delineating just who the 47% is might be useful.
WRONG! Romney did not use the word “care,” he used the word “worry.” As in “I don’t worry about getting their votes.”
True - but it’s the mangling of what was said that needs to be forcefully countered. And the message has been mangled into “Romney doesn’t care about the 47%”. And this MUST be corrected and assertively.
Very good except the 47% is not “receiving some kind of government benefit” it merely does not pay federal income taxes. It still pays sales taxes, social security taxes, state income taxes perhaps, property taxes, taxes on taxes, etc.
As a Christian nation, those are people we will ALWAYS assist and we always have.
Romney was talking about the element which is able bodied and who have no intention of EVER being or becoming self sufficient. They now have or have had at some time, government assistance and want only to continue and enlarge on that arrangement.
This element permits themselves to be used each and every election merely to cast Conservatives as greedy and uncaring when in fact, Conservatives are really demanding greater accountability in the disbursement of government programs and also, asking for curtailment of the growing mass of recipients... who are neither disabled nor under served.
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.