Skip to main content

Romney raises a middle finger to half the country

More and more details are emerging from a speech Mitt Romney gave at a private fundraiser in Boca Raton in the middle of May of this year.

Romney 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 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. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my 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 is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents...that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."

Now granted, this took place at a private fundraiser and the Republican candidate had no idea he was being recorded. At the same time, however - in the quick information era we're in right now, it's wise to always be relatively cautious when speaking in front of groups of people, because one will never know what might land them on YouTube. Taking all of that into consideration, this was an extremely stupid political move by Mitt Romney and could very well be the final blow to his campaign.

This speech hurts Romney on multiple levels. First off, he basically raised his two middle fingers to half the country and said, "Who needs you? I sure as hell don't!"

Secondly, while in reality, President Obama hasn't fit into the mold the Republican Party has attempted to place him in - instead creating an imaginary version of the president, which can be best scene in Clint Eastwood's speech at the Republican National Convention when he spoke to an empty chair pretending that it was the president sitting on it, this video showed Governor Romney to be exactly what Democrats have been saying all along - that he's out of touch with middle- and lower-class Americans.

Thirdly, it places his tax returns (or lack there of) right back at the center of discussion for the news media. Even though part of his vetting process with his potential running mates included that they submit 10 years of their tax returns, he's stated that he will only release 2 years worth of returns. This has led to a great deal of suspicion, wonder and speculation by both the average voter and the news media. It had appeared as if Romney's tax returns had all but exited the pool of daily and weekly talking points circulating through the news media, but this slip up places it right back toward the top of the discussion-point priority ladder once again.

Lastly (for the time being - I'm sure I'll be able to think of more reasons as time moves along), once again, it makes Romney look like a complete jerk. While I agree that a politician's policy ideas should carry with them more weight than his or her personality, that often times hasn't been the case, especially during the television era. It's common for an individual to want to like the person for whom he or she is voting. President Obama has held the likability edge and by quite a substantial margin over Romney for quite some time. This event should only widen that gap.

The thing about it is, when it all comes down to it, Romney is wrong with regard to both the numbers and who those numbers represent.

While it is true that 46.4% (Romney used a special kind of math and rounded that number up) of Americans don't pay federal income taxes, what Romney and most similar-minded people don't mention is that the majority of that "47%" still pay taxes of some kind or another. Many still pay payroll taxes, local and state taxes, as well as sales taxes. Only 18% of Americans don't pay either federal income or payroll taxes, which means that 28.4% of that 46.4% pay payroll taxes (which comes to 61.2% of the 46.4%).

That 46.4% is largely composed of three groups: The working poor, the elderly and low-income families. However, these three groups don't make up the entirety of that 46.4%. The Tax Policy Center found that approximately 24,000 of the top 1% of earners also pay no federal income taxes. Whether Romney was one of those 24,000 in past years has yet to be determined.

Also, while Mittens Willard Romney may not want to hear this, a Gallup Poll shows that approximately 33% of those whom make less than $24,000 annually support him over Obama. When we combine that group with retirement-age voters (whom, combined, make up the majority of the 46.4%), Obama leads by just a 49-43% margin.

It will be quite interesting to see what happens in the coming few days and if the Romney team is able to talk their way out of this pending disaster, to minimize the damage and be able to alter the momentum at all to where they're finally playing offense as opposed to defense. However, based on how the campaign has been going so far, I'm thinking that the more Mitt Romney talks and tries explaining his comments, the worse he's going to make things. He may now want to carry with him a shovel wherever he goes and prepare to do some more digging. I didn't think that hole could be dug any deeper following his Egypt and Libya comments from a week ago, but following the airing of this new video concerning the "47%," I have to admit that he proved me wrong and will likely do so again. In other words, Mitt Romney has about as much chance of successfully talking his way out of this little conundrum as Elvis Presley has of winning the lottery next week.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012/09/18/who-are-the-47/57802074/1

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"