Posted on 09/21/2012 5:43:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
The narrative of the Romney campaign as portrayed by most major media last week has been one of a tone-deaf, elitist candidate. In a presidential race as tight as this one -- the Gallup daily tracking poll Thursday showed the candidates tied at 47 percent -- the media potentially can tip the balance for or against a candidate in a decisive way.
Most outlets ran with the stories suggesting Romney was describing 47 percent of American voters as government-dependent slackers who pay no taxes. In fact, Romney suggested nothing of the sort. The videotape of Romney's remarks received publicity after James Earl Carter IV -- grandson of former president Jimmy Carter -- promoted the tape through the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. It turns out, the version of the tape available via Mother Jones was edited, with important sections left out.
But even the edited version didn't justify the media feeding frenzy it provoked. Romney did not say 47 percent of Americans were freeloaders. What he did say was: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what." His words were simply a statement of fact. The electorate is polarized, with each party winning the loyal support of nearly half of the voters.
But the most controversial parts of his comments had to do with who makes up the 47 percent who are unconditionally in Obama's camp. It's important to note the context in which the statements were made. Romney was answering a direct question, which asked: "For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, 'Don't worry, we'll take care of you.' How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?"
His reply listed among the 47 percent who won't vote for him those "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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."
But Democrats have been encouraging Americans to believe just that since the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. And President Obama reiterates it every time he has the chance. So why is Romney's repeating the Democratic mantra controversial? Isn't it logical to assume that those who support President Obama agree with him about the role of government in providing health care, housing, food stamps -- you name it?
Romney has said his statement could have been made more elegantly. But inelegant or not, he was right; we are becoming a nation of people who depend on government. Nearly half of Americans pay no income tax -- Romney suggested it was 47 percent, coincidentally the same percentage that support Obama. But even though many of these people contribute payroll taxes, income taxes are what pay for government spending outside Social Security and Medicare.
All Americans share the benefits of national security and other necessary government programs, but nearly half of them contribute little or nothing to pay for those programs. Democrats believe this is as it should be -- we should just tax the rich more. But what does it say about a nation when half its population contributes so little to the protection and services they enjoy?
Of course not all those dependent on government subsidies are Democrats or Obama supporters. Seniors make up the biggest share of dependents. Most seniors feel that they've "earned" their Social Security checks and Medicare benefits. In fact, the majority of recipients will receive substantially more in benefits over their lifetimes than they contributed.
But Romney's larger point was that it's harder for candidates who want to talk about personal responsibility and smaller government to make headway when an increasing share of the population become recipients of government largesse. And it's harder still when the media distort what the candidates actually say and the context in which they say it. Romney summed up his answer by saying, "what I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center ... " He wasn't writing off half the country but outlining a strategy to win the election.
The media's attempt to twist Romney's statement moves them from being journalists to partisans. And in an election this close, media bias just could be the deciding factor.
The "elegance" or lack thereof doesn't matter, he'd be criticized nonetheless by the media clowns for calling attention to the amount of people expecting something for nothing.
There is never any need to ‘dress up’ the truth... it stands on its own.
That will never change no matter who tells the truth!
I think THAT’S what the Liberals most dislike about the statement. It is factual and and as usual, the facts put Liberals in a bad light!
Linda Chavez ??? LOL,
Those comments Romney made would make sense to make AFTER he loses the election, not before. Now he is supposed to be trying to change their minds like Reagan did.
Notice how Romney lets Dems with Recording devices into his fundraisers collected stupid statements like this but you dont see Republicans trapping Obama similarly?
When Obama responded to this by saying that he tries to represent 100% of Americans (he didnt mention the illegal Dreamers he is representing for some reason) Romney COULD have had a field day with that. Examples:
Does Obama represent the successful Americans (the 1%ers)?
Does Obama represent the AZ state Americans being invaded?
Does Obama represent the unborn ?
Does Obama represent the practicing/believing Catholics who dont want to be forced to pay for others abortion pills?
Does Obama represent those who will inherit the $6T in debt he ran up?
Does Obama represent those dead embassy officials who he is lying about how they were attacked?
Does Obama represnt the majorities in those states who voted against him in 2008 that he forced Obama-care on?
sigh...
It's Obama, in his own words. Romney should use it in an ad. It not only exposes him as a radical, but also exposes the media hypocrisy. That would be a powerful ad, IMO.
” Notice how Romney lets Dems with Recording devices into his fundraisers collected stupid statements like this but you dont see Republicans trapping Obama similarly?”
I noticed. we never do it right.
“...Romney lets Dems with Recording devices into his fundraisers...”
Guy was probably registered Republican, and was doing intell gathering for the dems.
Hell, we should be doing the same thing to the dems at every opportunity.
” Hell, we should be doing the same thing to the dems at every opportunity.”
Obama’s handlers are probably good screeners, but yes we should.
“...Obama’s handlers are probably good screeners, ...”
Gotta protect the agenda after all...
Not sure about the ‘we’, but that was my point.
Dems always seem to have a greater desire to beat Rs (party Rs) in elections than vice versa based on their actions.
Either that or they are just smarter when it comes to political stuff.
” Gotta protect the agenda after all...”
Leftist dictators take a lot of protecting.
“...Not sure about the ‘we’...”
Hell, I’d do it, but I’m pretty well-known in my neck of the woods as a Patriot/Gunny/Conservative/Evil Redneck/blah-blah. You get the picture.
“...Either that or they are just smarter when it comes to political stuff...”
Definitely more devious. They want to win. To me, it seems the Rs still think of it as a win-win game for them. “Even if we lose, well, I’ve still got MY job...”
We need Pit Bulls...and we send Poodles. And those Poodles...well, every once in a while we find out that they’re getting screwed by the Pit Bulls...and enjoying it.
Hence....here we are.
And....speaking of Poodles versus Pit Bulls...here’s one of “our” Poodles right now...
Maine Senator Bucks Republican Party on Gay Immigration Rights
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2934227/posts
“Bucking” the party...another “maverick”.
On Dem TV they were playing more of that Romney tape where he was explaining why he is afraid to go after Obama too hard in the upcoming debates.
Also they were reporting that the reason Romney ran ads saying Obama is a nice guy is because they are scared of offending independents who voted for Obaama in 2008. So the ads go “Obama is a good person who did his best but his policies just didnt work ”
Poodles? More like rabbits, er wabbits.
Yep, Susan Collins voted for the stimulus and more notable and important (to Dems) was her key vote to end DADT.
In comparison Scott Brown looks like a conservative. But you replace her with a Dem and you got less chance of giving Reid a demotion.
collins a poodle ??? a bitch fer sure but ive seen loyal poodles...
that why the rin-o-p is dead...until a politician [like Rand Paul does] calls em out for the historically demonstrable marxists and commies that they are, we have no viable two party system...
hit em with facts and ridicule from a position of power, and hold to it w/o apology...mcquuuuuuueeeeeeeeeg was done as soon as he mouthed that nice guy bs...
as will mittens be, if he aint already...
Don’t personalize your crusade to the point of posting to me on threads that I’m not even on, like you did here.
That reminds me.
I know this is intended by them as Dem propaganda but the socialists over at the Dem channel including Sharpton are all now praising McCain for his civility in the 2008 campaign, compared to Romney.
They are mad because when a McCain follower would say that Obama was not Christian, or he was not an American, McCain would slap him or her down killing his own votes.
But Romney just smiles and says nothing in response.
Its always fun to watch those Dems whine about stuff like this. They make the funniest faces :(
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.