posted on 10/04/2012 11:05:16 PM PDT
I suspect there is a little matter of some Obama videos where he shows his hate of whitey.
posted on 10/04/2012 11:17:28 PM PDT
(By comparison to Obama, at least Nero could play a fiddle.)
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.
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.
posted on 10/04/2012 11:25:41 PM PDT
by Deo volente
(God willing, America will survive this Obamanation.)
Why don't we just drop this over played nothing from FR?
posted on 10/04/2012 11:28:08 PM PDT
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.
posted on 10/04/2012 11:49:57 PM PDT
by Andrei Bulba
(No Obama, no way!)
Because he doesn’t want to acknowledge the REDISTRIBUTION and other Marxism videos he made?!!
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?)
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.
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.
posted on 10/05/2012 12:02:55 AM PDT
(Founder: Democrats for Cheney/Palin 2012)
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.
posted on 10/05/2012 1:49:17 AM PDT
(Palm note to self: Work for a successful 2012! +Throw the liberal garbage out!)
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.
posted on 10/05/2012 2:00:55 AM PDT
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.
posted on 10/05/2012 2:15:02 AM PDT
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.”
posted on 10/05/2012 2:21:13 AM PDT
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?
posted on 10/05/2012 2:33:51 AM PDT
(I may not be much, but I raised a United States Marine.)
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.
posted on 10/05/2012 4:41:30 AM PDT
by Tanniker Smith
(Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson