Skip to main content

Romney in 47% denial

Remember Mitt Romney's 47% comments? What kind of question is that? Of course you remember. Even if I had been in a coma during the entire duration of election season and woke up with Alzheimer's, I'd still remember. Well, unfortunately for Mitt Romney, he's appearing to be in denial about those very comments.

As reported in the Washington Post, the following excerpt can be read in reporter Dan Balz's new book, Collision 2012:

[Romney] was in California and said at first he couldn't get a look at the video. His advisers were pushing him to respond as quickly as he could. "As I understood it, and as they described it to me, not having heard it, it was saying, 'Look, the Democrats have 47 percent, we've got 45 percent, my job is to get the people in the middle, and I've got to get the people in the middle,'" he said. "And I thought, 'Well, that's a reasonable thing.' ... It's not a topic I talk about in public, but there's nothing wrong with it. They've got a bloc of voters, we've got a bloc of voters, I've got to get the ones in the middle. And I thought that that would be how it would be perceived - as a candidate talking about the process of focusing on the people in the middle who can either vote Republican or Democrat. As it turned out, down the road, it became perceived as being something very different."

Romney was also quoted in Balz's book as saying, "The president said he's writing off 47 percent of Americans and so forth. And that wasn't at all what was intended. That wasn't what was meant by it. That is the way it was perceived."

Does Romney remember what he said? Was he actually there when he said it? Was this a different Mitt Romney? Does he have a clone? Here's what the 2012 Republican presidential nominee 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... These are people who pay no income tax... [M]y job is is not to worry about these people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Allow me to condense the quotes:

What Romney believes he said: "About half the people in this country are Democrats and they'll vote for Obama. About half the people in this country are Republicans and they'll vote for me. What I need to do is grab those undecided voters."

What Romney actually said: "Democratic voters are worthless piles of sh*t and they're going to vote for Obama anyway, so what's the point of trying to win their vote? To hell with them, because that's where those abortion lovers are going! I do have the Republican voters, though. So what I'll need are those undecideds."

Romney really is something else. He stated that almost half this country is fully dependent on government and will never take personal responsibility in their lives, yet is now contending that's not what he meant at all - he was simply providing an accurate layout of election day via party affiliation numbers.

That would be like Rush Limbaugh saying something like the following:

"I'm just going to put it out there - the only place where women belong is in the kitchen. They don't have good business sense, aren't very smart, are too busy with their make-up to focus on anything of actual importance, are slutty with their birth control pills, and they're so hormonal, they can't make up their cotton-picking minds, and once they think they do, they change it! I'm just being real, people. I've been married to four women now. I think I should know. On the other hand, though, men are sharp, professional, don't let their emotions get the best of them, and can actually handle money."

Then a year later, Rush offers up this revision:

"What I was simply saying was that men and women are different. Some people made me out to be this woman-hater, who didn't think they were smart or good at anything. That's not what I was saying. Men have penises. Women don't. We're just different. That's all I was saying, and I'm getting sick and tired of the liberal media perceiving my quote differently and spinning it in a way it shouldn't be spun! I'm not sexist! I've married four women, dammit! I love women, so long as they're in the kitchen!"

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/mitt-romney-47-percent-denial

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!"