Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Obama Didn't Mention the 47 Percent Video (Axelrod promises "some adjustments" for next debate)
Thu Oct. 4, 2012 ^ | David Corn

Posted on 10/04/2012 11:05:06 PM PDT by presidio9

After the first presidential debate in Denver—which an on-the-attack Mitt Romney seemed to exploit better than a noncombative President Barack Obama—at least one question loomed: Why had the president not once referred to the 47 percent video that showed Romney denigrating half of Americans as moochers and victims who don't assume responsibility for their lives? After all, this video seemed to have sent the Romney campaign reeling, and focus groups conducted by both campaigns have found it had a serious impact on voter perceptions of Romney.

The morning after the debate, I contacted several Democratic strategists. They each said they were puzzled by Obama's silence on this topic and by his decision not to say a word about Romney's days at Bain Capital. "This is the stuff that has been working for us," one remarked. "Bain, 47 percent,

(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; 2012debates; democrats; obama

1 posted on 10/04/2012 11:05:16 PM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I suspect there is a little matter of some Obama videos where he shows his hate of whitey.


2 posted on 10/04/2012 11:17:28 PM PDT by llevrok (By comparison to Obama, at least Nero could play a fiddle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Anyway, make that the 37% now.


3 posted on 10/04/2012 11:23:48 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell (E pluribus biden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Mitt has rendered the issue moot today by admitting his remarks were “completely wrong”. Good move on his part. It’s a non-issue now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57526535/romney-47-percent-remarks-completely-wrong/

Then there’s this:
The New York Times reported that Romney had hoped to try to repair the damage during the debate, when more than 67 million people were watching. But Obama did not bring it up, in part to deny Romney that opportunity, an aide told the newspaper.


4 posted on 10/04/2012 11:25:41 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamanation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Why don't we just drop this over played nothing from FR?
5 posted on 10/04/2012 11:28:08 PM PDT by annieokie (O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annieokie

Because there are more overplayed nothings to consider first.


6 posted on 10/04/2012 11:37:29 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

This 47 % thing really annoys me, the idea that a single Mitt Romney comment is the big issue in an election about our country’s future. And the media at all levels keep echoing this as if it’s something monumental.


7 posted on 10/04/2012 11:49:57 PM PDT by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Yes, because that is not what he said..He said he would not get the vote of 47% of the electorate because they did not pay taxes...


8 posted on 10/04/2012 11:58:23 PM PDT by richardtavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Because he doesn’t want to acknowledge the REDISTRIBUTION and other Marxism videos he made?!!


9 posted on 10/04/2012 11:59:48 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I hope he does bring it up. I'd say, 47% of the American people have been pushed on dependency by this President and when someone gives you money and things, they obviously expect your vote in return. I will empower you, the 47%, so that you can get a job and make more money then Obama could ever give you, so that you can buy your own things! Because while you'll never reach the perpetually dependent welfare people, many in that 47% don't like it and want a path out. I think O knows this so he didn't bring it up. Obama will bring it up next time, but have a completely lying attack prepared.
10 posted on 10/05/2012 12:00:11 AM PDT by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The real reason they did not mention the 47% comment is that Romney would explain his comments and destroy a hundred million dollars of ads based on the lying out of context use. Romney would have also neutered the effective of those ads if run the future. Since it was not bought up, Obama can keep trying to run those ads.


11 posted on 10/05/2012 12:02:55 AM PDT by MrDem (Founder: Democrats for Cheney/Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrDem

Isn’t it amazing that the media and pundits will jump all over this 47% thing and ignore the major issues in this campaign? The things that will destroy our county with the leftist policies? Its sickening. They think they are sitting on a goldmine with this thing and the idiots who are dumb enough to vote on one issue are just that - idiots.


12 posted on 10/05/2012 1:15:36 AM PDT by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrDem
Romney would have also neutered the effective of those ads if run the future. Since it was not bought up, Obama can keep trying to run those ads.

ABC News's overnight news show had Romney responding further to the "47%" ads, adding comments to inoculate himself, so he's continuing to react to that videotape. Presumably what we were hearing yesterday and today on the early news is what he would have replied to Obama, had it been brought up during the debate.

What he's doing is a straddle -- something he did last week -- defending the content of what he said, while deploring his stylistic abuse of the 47%.

When you think about it, it's still a hell of an indictment of the 47% coming from a candidate. He was essentially saying they're bought, that the Democrat strategy of dividing the electorate using tax policy has worked.

13 posted on 10/05/2012 1:47:51 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Come the 2nd and/or 3rd debate, I'm counting on Romney to be that much more prepared to deal with and end this stupid 47% non-issue that the Marxist Media keeps trying to bring up. In fact, if the debate moderator or the Zero is dumb enough to bring it up come the 2nd debate, I've got my hopes up that Romney will lay it to rest. And that will leave Zero, Axlegreasy, and the Marxist Media even more stumped and panicky for the 3rd debate!

For the sake of our country, my hopes and prayers are with Romney.
14 posted on 10/05/2012 1:49:17 AM PDT by hawaiianninja (Palm note to self: Work for a successful 2012! +Throw the liberal garbage out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

It’s not that complicated, kids. Obama did not bring up Bain or the 47% because they like the message as it is. To raise it in a forum where Romney would get two minutes to rebut would risk changing how people feel about the two things that are working for the president’s campaign.


15 posted on 10/05/2012 2:00:55 AM PDT by wizwor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Yes, a hell of an indictment AGAINST the leeches. And he was right, the 47% who do not pay any federal income tax would not care about his lower tax rate policy.


16 posted on 10/05/2012 2:06:30 AM PDT by MrDem (Founder: Democrats for Cheney/Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrDem
And he was right, the 47% who do not pay any federal income tax would not care about his lower tax rate policy.

Well, yes -- that is the substance he was right about.

17 posted on 10/05/2012 2:10:28 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I noticed that the only thing the MSM are vetting is Obama's eyeballs and hands, literally.
Nothing about substance like his deceptions from truth and reality.
Of course they'll vet Romney for anything and everything as expected.

If they want Obama to become petty when over 70-million Americans are watching,
then by golly go for it.

18 posted on 10/05/2012 2:15:02 AM PDT by MaxMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Romney’s answer to any “47%” dig that teleprompterless Obama has in the next debate should be this:

“My thinking that the 47% of Americans who do not pay income taxes would not vote for me, while pragmatic, was perhaps shortsighted, especially when conservatism at its core offers EVERY person the way forward to success.

My pragmatism then, however, is a far cry from Mr. Obama’s 2007 Hampton Universtiy speech where he implied that white people are “their” (his words) enemy.”


19 posted on 10/05/2012 2:21:13 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Isn’t it going to be a little touch to slip the 47 per cent theme into a debate on foreign policy? How is 47 per cent going to help Obama defend the fact that he allowed an American ambassador to die on his watch?


20 posted on 10/05/2012 2:33:51 AM PDT by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a United States Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MacMattico

The 47% includes the retired on SS, the disabled, those between jobs (who are actively working and want even a low paying job), and people like myself who have chosen to work (for 40 years now) for under 25K and often under 20K.

I consider myself a millionaire. I have lived in a third world for a number of years and am so blessed to live in America.
I have a roof over my head, clothes on my back, and food on the table. I don’t have cable or ‘dish’ but I don’t want it - I can use my money wiser in other ways.
The government has ‘tried’ to send me help and I have sent it back registered mail. I don’t want it.
When I crunch the numbers - I do pay in taxes about 4.5K and with matching payroll about 6K. [Durable goods, state tax, phone, town, gas, SS, Medicaid, Medicare,...]
I will not vote for a liberal. Romney does not have to worry about me voting for his opponent - but I am part of that 47%.
We need smaller government and lower taxes for all. Al Gore’s tax on the phone bill to provide computers in the classroom was taxation without representation.
MacMattico: I am not attacking you or your comments, I guess I am unloading as one who seems to be included in the 47%. At least 20% of those in the church here would fall into that 47% category and not one of them will be voting for Obama that I know of.
The 47% that Romney seemed to refer to and Obama seems to count on may be closer to 39%.
God Bless.


21 posted on 10/05/2012 4:00:51 AM PDT by PastorJimCM (truth matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I’d like to think that Mitt had a response ready for that, should it come up. Thirty seconds would be more than enough time to explain, elaborate and send it back in his face.


22 posted on 10/05/2012 4:41:30 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PastorJimCM

You words are insightful and humbling to all. In my view, you are what an American was in the past. We have all become lazy and neglectful. Thanks for speaking up and letting us all hear it. Liberty and Freedom are not just words. You live it.


23 posted on 10/05/2012 4:44:06 AM PDT by marygam (#Hurry November 2012, we might not make it#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PastorJimCM

I totally didn’t post what I meant to say! (Like Romney?!) I meant that all the 47% aren’t freeloaders and won’t necessarily vote for Obama. Those that will vote Obama are pretty much unreachable, depending on entitlements for every aspect of their life and not trying to do anything else. I wasn’t counting retirees, those disabled, or those that lost a job. I’m sorry if it sounded otherwise. I grew up in a family where my father didn’t make much, but I never really looked at his taxes. With a family of six, we were eligible for certain “programs”, like free lunch, but my father and mother always said it was their job to provide, and they did. We did lots of things at home, this made us close as a family. I never realized I was “poor” as a child until I was much older. Once again, sorry for that post. My mom and dad would never have voted for Obama, either!


24 posted on 10/05/2012 4:49:39 AM PDT by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

I’m sure he did have a response. I’m thinking it was probably the Obama tape released the day before where he expressed his angry anti white sentiments. Obama didnt want to put the tapes on the table.


25 posted on 10/05/2012 4:52:13 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MacMattico

Amen. No offense taken.

The card shark of a president, with slight of hand, says that if we don’t raise taxes (and the debt ceiling) then seniors won’t receive SS payments and roads and bridges won’t be repaired.
SS payments go in each quarter and gas taxes more than pay for the road repairs. They just don’t seem to put it into a ‘lock box’ as Al Gore promised. [Another pet peeve]
:-)


26 posted on 10/05/2012 4:59:21 AM PDT by PastorJimCM (truth matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Mitt has rendered the issue moot today by admitting his remarks were “completely wrong”. Good move on his part. It’s a non-issue now.
///
Obama didn’t mention it... because many reports show it HELPS ROMNEY!
...so Romney now saying it was wrong... makes me, and others, like and respect him less.
he’s just another politician, who will say what he thinks will win.
i’ll only vote for him, because Obama is magnitudes worse!


27 posted on 10/05/2012 6:04:50 AM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrDem
The real reason they did not mention the 47% comment is that Romney would explain his comments and destroy a hundred million dollars of ads based on the lying out of context use. Romney would have also neutered the effective of those ads if run the future. Since it was not bought up, Obama can keep trying to run those ads.

Right on! Obama knew Romney would have a well-prepared response. What Romney has to do now is take the initiative and put that response out on his own.

28 posted on 10/05/2012 6:06:21 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: llevrok
To All:

I think the 47% is working for Obama because it's a large number and easily outweighs 8% unemployment. It's catchy and sticks in your mind. I think Romney should come out with a large, positive number - say 97%, that is his goal of the number of Americans seeking employment to find jobs. Either that or bombard the public with so many numbers that they become irrelevant and are easily dismissed.

29 posted on 10/05/2012 6:16:34 AM PDT by Boomer One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson