-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
That’s a Lot of Caca in Caracas
May 16, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Like Mitt Romney, I would like to see the entire question and answer not just the snippet of video of a fundraiser in Boca Raton, Florida in which he said:
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 take 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…These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.
Romney went on to state:
(M)y 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 do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look voting one way or the other depending upon some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
Romney is absolutely right to say that 47% of the people will vote for Obama no matter what. He is also right to say that an increasing number of people are in receipt of money from the federal government while paying no federal income tax. Indeed, our state of economic affairs is not good when there are more people who obtained Social Security Disability Insurance than obtained a job.
Yet it would be a mistake to say that all of his vote comes from people in receipt of government entitlements. There are rich people who support Obama and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of hearing him speak. While it’s true that some people are content to be receipt of government entitlements, there is an assumption that others in receipt of said entitlements don’t want to improve their lives. So when Romney says it’s “not his job to worry about those people”, it is reminiscient of when he said he’s “not concerned about the poor” last February.
With that said, I think it was unnecessary for Romney to call an impromptu press conference last night. After all, Barack Obama didn’t call a press conference after it was revealed that he had called small town Americans “bitter” people who “cling to guns and religion” at a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco. Of course, there was no demand for him to do so because not only did the liberal press not question him about it but they were in agreement with him and still are. The liberal press, by and large, holds the values of small town America in low esteem.
I think it was unnecessary for Romney to have the press conference because he was drawing attention to himself on the defensive rather than drawing attention to himself for going on the offensive against Obama. Besides I hardly think this press conference will placate the liberal media.
The silver lining is that Romney still has time to convince people why he should be President and Barack Obama shouldn’t. We’ll see if Romney can rise to the occasion next month during the debates.
Derek Leaberry| 9.18.12 @ 10:52AM
I agree with much of what Mr. Goldstein writes but would add to it. It is a facile assertion to conclude that the 47 % who don't pay federal income taxes will vote en-masse for Obama. For instance, most conservative religious folks with large families pay little to no income tax and they receive little from any level of government. That is the sort of independent people conservatives should wish for.
The income tax argument and "skin in the game" argument is the wrong approach for conservatives to make. When the income tax was brought to use in 1916, very few people paid income taxes and government was comparatively small. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt increased income tax rates and added more people onto the tax rolls so they would have more funds to enlarge government. The liberal ascendancy of 1959-1979 increased big government further. It is in the conservative interest to decrease income tax rates and decrease tax payers in order to curtail funds to big government. Starve the beast.
rightasrain| 9.18.12 @ 11:21AM
I disagree that conservatives should want fewer tax payers. It is indeed in our interest to shrink government so that less tax revenue is needed and thus lower tax rates would suffice. But increased economic growth and prosperity would mean more people with better jobs paying at these lower rates. When 47% of filers pay no federal income tax, why should they care how much the other 53% pay? Everyone should have some skin in the game.
brianthedawg| 9.18.12 @ 12:12PM
The opposite is also wrong, regarding the 53% who do pay taxes. Many get nothing from the government yet still vote for liberal candidates. The level of tax payments (or the received government largesse) is a crude way to split the electorate which does not accurately describe voting patters.
Trinacria| 9.18.12 @ 1:58PM
I don't think Mr. Romney literally believes that every individual among the 47% who don't pay taxes will vote for Obama "no matter what". His point (and remember who his audience was here) was that if you don't currently pay taxes, you're generally unlikely to be moved by his message of lower taxes (they should be, as it would mean more investment and more job opportunities, but they don't generally have the capacity to see the big picture - which rather explains their present circumstances).
His goal here was to motivate his base and get them to open their wallets, which is generally much easier to do when there's a sense of urgency. Presenting a scenario in which he's spotting Obama 47% of the vote, followed by the message that the goal is still attainable (despite the odds, we only need to convince the 5% of voters who are in the middle) serves to provide both a sense of urgency and a sense that their money won't be wasted (i.e. their investment is both necessary and prudent). It's boilerplate campaign fundraiser strategy and no more shocking than the fact that the sun will rise in the east. BTW - it generally works. So let's not get our panties in a wad over nothing...
Bob Grant| 9.18.12 @ 11:04AM
Aaron,
I disagree.
As a matter of fact, I think Romney should call a press conference EVERY day to get his message out, whether on offense or defense.
Think about it.
Because of the way in which the mainstream media corruptly allocates the news, one of the ways for Romney to get his message out is via press conferences.
Call a press conference every day, one hour in length. Twenty minutes devoted to remarks, Forty minutes debating the obama surrogates...er...I mean...the press.
Romney needs to try something unique and this fits the bill brilliantly.
It allows him to speak truth to the lies.
Play their game!!
Aaron, this is not your father's media we're now dealing. They are more shrewd, calculating, and ideological...and corrupt.
Mike G| 9.18.12 @ 11:27AM
It's a good idea, but the surro--I mean press would simply bury meat of what he says, just like they do now. They don't want people to know what he stands for and will do everything they can to hide it.
Bob Grant| 9.18.12 @ 11:50AM
Mike,
The key is repetitiveness, relentlessness.
A press conference every day... say... right after the Jay Carney Carnival.
An hour long, Romney can stand there an repeat truth to lies for one hour each day from now until the election.
If the press wants to debate, give 'em one.
At some point the truth will win out and it will not be lost on most of those undecideds.
The press will either continue to cover the press conferences or decide to not cover them anymore.
This surely will make Romney a tougher candidate.
What's the saying: If a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth? ...Surely this applies to speaking the truth as well?
Dai Alanye | 9.18.12 @ 11:10AM
47% automatically for Obama? This is bilge! Even those benefiting from Federal largesse have patriotic impulses from time to time. It's up to Romney and Ryan to bring those feelings to the fore.
Romney's statement regarding the Cairo apology, despite its condemnation by liberals and RINO fools, was a good start. He needs more of that, and a more offensive approach to Obama's mistakes. Of course, offensive tactics without being personally offensive is most desirable.
As for the rest of us, a little less pessimism would be in order. The polls always lean toward the Dems at this stage of the game, and Barack is sure to have more problems going forward. Romney is still the realistic favorite in the race.
geronl| 9.18.12 @ 12:14PM
Romney is correct. I have some thoughts on the MSM reaction to this as well:
http://asspos.blogspot.com/201.....ction.html
acix| 9.18.12 @ 12:25PM
Dai I absolutely couldn't agree more. This campaign is still in a state of flux. In September it looked like Bush had it won with a double digit lead in September of 2004 but then Kerry closed the gap by October :
At this point in 2004 Bush had basically a 6 point lead :
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....kerry.html
Luckily Kerry didn't close the gap all the way but it got very close despite being six points down. Granted the press was pushing him but they always push the Dem.
Another angle is what if Romney were clearly showing a lead right now? It may not have mattered as McCain was leading as late as 09/16/2008 (of course today being 09/18/18). : http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....ccain.html
I'm not saying Romney's doesn't need to improve his messaging/tactics. It's just that it will probably be close until at least a week before the election and it's soooo important in the meantime to for conservatives to not fall for the media's BS and get dejected right now.
RFisher66| 9.18.12 @ 3:20PM
I hate to parse words, ala Bill Clinton, but I think one has to consider just what Romney meant by "not worrying about the 47%". I doubt if he meant he doesn't give a damn what happens to them but he isn't going to spend a lot of time worrying about getting their vote. Big difference. That said, let's face facts. Of that 47% how many will get off of their apathetic assess on election day to go to the polls? Not that many. Pissing off the 47% doesn't really bother me. I think we need to take Obama's "fair share" argument and apply it to these people. They need to pay their fair share, even if it's only a few dollars a year.
guru4u | 9.18.12 @ 9:46PM
Romney did not say he would not represent the 47%. By improving our national security and restoring our economic situation, he will serve all Americans. Who he will represent is not the question. The truth of his statement only rides on whether it's 44, 45 or 47%.