logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> What Mitt Romney Thinks of Americans, Are You Part of the 47 Percent?
nighttimer
post Sep 18 2012, 02:24 AM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Mother Jones magazine has a tape of Mitt Romney speaking to a room full of donors and he makes it pretty clear what he thinks about a good sized chunk of the American population:

QUOTE
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.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."


Questions for debate:

1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

2. Should Romney apologize for his remarks? Explain what he meant? Totally ignore the remarks and focus on the campaign?

Bonus question: Are you part of the 47 percent Romney isn't worried about or the 53 percent he is?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Paladin Elspeth
post Sep 19 2012, 03:34 AM
Post #41


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(vsrenard @ Sep 18 2012, 10:15 PM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Sep 18 2012, 01:17 PM) *
QUOTE(vsrenard @ Sep 18 2012, 03:03 PM) *
I would like to see how candidate Romney intends to reach out as President Romney <shudder> to the disdained 47% he doesn't care about. I would also like to see someone (the media, the President in debates, other?) get an answer out of him on how he intends to govern if he doesn't care about half of the population.


Well we have already seen how well Obama has(n't). ANYTHING would be better.


What does Obama have to do with anything Romney said about 47% of the country being victims who don't take responsibility for their lives? Regardless, I'm not sure how a presidential candidate be earnest about caring about all Americans when these kind of remarks are revealed. As trite as it sounds, we really don't need any more divisive politics.

And perhaps your imagination is limited, but I can think of a plethora of alternative to Obama that would be much worse. All caps notwithstanding.

At a $50,000 per plate fundraiser, I'm sure Romney figured he wasn't going to offend anybody in the room, excepting maybe a waiter or two, with his remarks. Obviously he had no clue that what he was saying to wealthy people would make it to the ears of the peasants.

Of course he was wrong about that, and he was wrong about the fact that a good chunk of the 47% that he described might very well have voted for him, had he not said that. WWII and Korean war veterans who still believe in the Republican principle of a strong defense being among them. There are still people who are Republican who are struggling to make a living wage, and Republican people who have a hard time raising a special needs child along with other children on a low-paying wage. Struggling people are not only Democrats. I think he has probably let down a lot of people who have had to depend upon one or two government programs in order to survive, and they do not appreciate being looked upon as freeloaders or somehow unworthy of Romney's concern.

For people who have worked all their lives until age or bad health has made them unable to continue, this could be interpreted as a slap in the face from the Republican nominee.

This man has made a serious mistake. But if that is what he really thinks about struggling Americans who need a hand (his running mate got government assistance after his dad died), it is better to know that this is how he thinks than to assume that since a portion of his money goes toward charity, he really must care about the nation's struggling middle or poverty classes.

Edited last sentence

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Sep 19 2012, 03:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 19 2012, 05:20 AM
Post #42


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 18 2012, 03:10 PM) *
You only have to work 40 hrs to get by?


Sure. As long as my wife keeps her job too.

QUOTE(aevans176)
Seriously, but... if you have a federal tax burden, aren't you part of what he's referring to in the 53%?


No, because I'm an Obama supporter. That disqualifies me from Mitt's majority and I'm okay with that. The only way I would ever be at a $50,000 a plate soiree is if I were catering it.

QUOTE(Aevans176)
The truth is that this election and this board have become like rabid sports fans. It seems that many people blindly support their candidate based upon party, race, or some other inane idea that has nothing to do with record or ability.


You're including White folks who are only voting for Mittens because he's White, right?

QUOTE(Aevans176)
I'm not sure that it's easy to sort truth from fiction, and I find it very difficult to understand what this President has actually done (or not).


Easily solved. What else you got?

QUOTE(Aevans176)
What I do know is that taxation and the economy are horrible, and they will most likely get worse with another Obama administration. I also know that we still have troops abroad (out the wazoo), that we are still getting attacked, and that America's tough stance on terrorism seems to be flacid at best. Heck, our UN (an Obama crony) Ambassador literally apologized for a video that "supposedly caused" terror attacks (like these were planned over night?). To be fair, GW got us mired down in two wars and the economy began to crumble on his watch. But the fact is... Obama has had nearly 4 years to do something. At this point, I'd vote for an Armadillo over what we have...


I know it's Republican boilerplate to whinge over how horrible taxes are, but the facts are federal taxes have gone down, not up. As for the state of the economy, do you really think Bush's eight years of economic malfeasance (waging two wars, creating a new, costly and unpaid entitlement program for seniors, burning through his predecessor's budget surplus and putting it all on future generations to pay for because as Evil Dick Cheney said, "deficits don't matter") could be fixed in four years when the first thing Obama found when he walked into the Oval Office was a nation teetering on the brink of financial collapse?

If you do, you're kidding yourself.

QUOTE(Aevans176)
Is it possible to bring back Reagan and prop him up in the oval office like weekend at Bernie's?


Is it possible you're taking hero worship of Reagan to absurd new heights? blink.gif

As the Evil Dick Cheney link shows, Live Reagan created budget deficits, not surpluses during his time in office.

QUOTE
The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.


The myth that Living Reagan was some magical balancer of budgets doesn't line up with reality. Dead Reagan would be no better at it and an extremely unpleasant sight to boot.

QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Sep 18 2012, 04:17 PM) *
QUOTE(vsrenard @ Sep 18 2012, 03:03 PM) *
I would like to see how candidate Romney intends to reach out as President Romney <shudder> to the disdained 47% he doesn't care about. I would also like to see someone (the media, the President in debates, other?) get an answer out of him on how he intends to govern if he doesn't care about half of the population.


Well we have already seen how well Obama has(n't). ANYTHING would be better.


Untrue.

Michelle "Lights On But Nobody's Home" Bachmann, Rick "Foamy" Santorum, Herman "Where Da White Wimmen At" Cain, Rick "Good Hair" Perry, Chris "Crumbs" Christie, Jan "the Evil Witch" Brewer, Bobby "Jingles" Jindal, Slick Rick Scott, Jivin' John Kasich, Rush "Oxycontin and Viagra" Limbaugh, Mike "Huckleberry" Huckabee, Ann "Adam's Apple" Coulter, John "Crybaby" Boehner, Mitch "Magoo" McConnell, Pat "Sieg Heil" Buchanan, Rand "Hair Club" Paul, Ron "Depends" Paul, Glenn "Batty" Beck, Bill "Blowhard" O'Reilly, Sean "Suck Up" Hannity, and Clint "Trouble With the Chair" Eastwood would NOT be better.

Just to name a few. So many right-wing whack jobs. So little bandwidth. dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 19 2012, 08:37 AM
Post #43


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,342
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

The rest of the recording is out now. It has to be the most cruel, misinformed, pessimistic and outright un-American piece of trash ever put on tape (digital or analog). Yet this is how the man really thinks.

I'm modifying my take from a fairly mild negative reaction to an outright rejection of his thinking by the vast majority of the electorate. Even leading Republican commentators are shocked at what went on in that fundraiser. Some of it has to do with Romney's stupidity, but there's also an undertow of fear for the country if he gets elected.

Keeping President Obama suddenly looks a lot better, even critical.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 19 2012, 09:08 AM
Post #44


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 19 2012, 01:37 AM) *
1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

The rest of the recording is out now. It has to be the most cruel, misinformed, pessimistic and outright un-American piece of trash ever put on tape (digital or analog). Yet this is how the man really thinks.

I'm modifying my take from a fairly mild negative reaction to an outright rejection of his thinking by the vast majority of the electorate. Even leading Republican commentators are shocked at what went on in that fundraiser. Some of it has to do with Romney's stupidity, but there's also an undertow of fear for the country if he gets elected.

Keeping President Obama suddenly looks a lot better, even critical.

Not to argue your point but aside from a political slip up here and there what was shocking as seen from a republican perspective?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Sep 19 2012, 09:25 AM
Post #45


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,189
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Questions for debate:

1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

I have rarely looked for or linked to an online video, but I was watching a rerun after we went to bed...

Republican strategist: Romney doesn't have many friends left

QUOTE
Republican strategist Mark McKinnon tells "Say Anything!" host Joy Behar that a leaked video of Mitt Romney has caused him to lose even more support among the GOP faithful.


N.B. My computer is a bit fudgie this morning. I was looking to capture the dialogue from Mark McKinnon that he did not plan to vote for Obama, but he was going to take a long look at his state's Libertarian candidate. By the time that I can get sound, I am listening to the end of the interview with Susan Sarandon...

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Sep 19 2012, 09:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trumpetplayer
post Sep 19 2012, 12:08 PM
Post #46


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 7,739
Joined: May-22-07

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(vsrenard @ Sep 18 2012, 09:15 PM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Sep 18 2012, 01:17 PM) *
QUOTE(vsrenard @ Sep 18 2012, 03:03 PM) *
I would like to see how candidate Romney intends to reach out as President Romney <shudder> to the disdained 47% he doesn't care about. I would also like to see someone (the media, the President in debates, other?) get an answer out of him on how he intends to govern if he doesn't care about half of the population.


Well we have already seen how well Obama has(n't). ANYTHING would be better.


What does Obama have to do with anything Romney said about 47% of the country being victims who don't take responsibility for their lives? Regardless, I'm not sure how a presidential candidate be earnest about caring about all Americans when these kind of remarks are revealed. As trite as it sounds, we really don't need any more divisive politics.

And perhaps your imagination is limited, but I can think of a plethora of alternative to Obama that would be much worse. All caps notwithstanding.


You stated about reaching out, Obama has not and when he has, it's only to pick winners and losers and to launder tax money back into the DNC. Any questions or is this beyond your capabilities? No caps to stress a point or to make it harder for you to understand this time. thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by trumpetplayer: Sep 19 2012, 12:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Sep 19 2012, 12:40 PM
Post #47


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 19 2012, 05:08 AM) *
Not to argue your point but aside from a political slip up here and there what was shocking as seen from a republican perspective?

Any time a politician admits political realities -- in this case, that there is a sizable piece of the electorate that won't vote for you and won't be persuaded by your political arguments (in short, there are some voters that were never undecided). Even in Reagan's landslide 1984 re-election, Walter Mondale got almost 41% of the vote.

Now, I think the 47% number is wrong. Probably closer to 40%, but now we're splitting hairs.

Romney never said he wouldn't govern for the 47%. He just stated that there was no easy way to gain their votes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Sep 19 2012, 01:16 PM
Post #48


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Sep 19 2012, 05:08 AM) *
You stated about reaching out, Obama has not and when he has, it's only to pick winners and losers and to launder tax money back into the DNC. Any questions or is this beyond your capabilities? No caps to stress a point or to make it harder for you to understand this time. thumbsup.gif


You are missing the point. Romney is saying he doesn't care about 47% of the voters. Not politicians. Not pundits. Not the media. The voters, and this is before he is even elected.

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to with respect to Obama.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Sep 19 2012, 01:20 PM
Post #49


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(vsrenard @ Sep 19 2012, 09:16 AM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Sep 19 2012, 05:08 AM) *
You stated about reaching out, Obama has not and when he has, it's only to pick winners and losers and to launder tax money back into the DNC. Any questions or is this beyond your capabilities? No caps to stress a point or to make it harder for you to understand this time. thumbsup.gif


You are missing the point. Romney is saying he doesn't care about 47% of the voters. Not politicians. Not pundits. Not the media. The voters, and this is before he is even elected.


When did he say that? He said he can't convince them to change their world view. He said he couldn't convince them to vote for him. He said he can't concern himself with getting their vote.

When did he say "I don't care" about them or that he wouldn't represent them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Sep 19 2012, 01:40 PM
Post #50


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 19 2012, 06:20 AM) *
When did he say that? He said he can't convince them to change their world view. He said he couldn't convince them to vote for him. He said he can't concern himself with getting their vote.

When did he say "I don't care" about them or that he wouldn't represent them?


A good president, or a good presidential candidate, should be concerned with convincing all voters that his vision is the right one. By saying 'his job is not to worry about' his so-called 47% essentially disenfranchises them before the election even happens. He's telling them his plan for the country has nothing to appeal to them and that their concerns, as they see them, will not be considered in his plans. He disdains them by calling them victims who don't take personal responsibility for themselves. He says he'll never convince them they "should take personal responsibility for themselves." *Should,* not *can.* Meaning he sees it as part of their character, not circumstance.

If I were one of the 47% comprised of "freeloading self-proclaimed victims," I'd have a hard time thinking Romney cares about me and my circumstances, or that he would be interested in making that better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 19 2012, 01:59 PM
Post #51


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,342
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 19 2012, 05:08 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 19 2012, 01:37 AM) *
1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

The rest of the recording is out now. It has to be the most cruel, misinformed, pessimistic and outright un-American piece of trash ever put on tape (digital or analog). Yet this is how the man really thinks.

I'm modifying my take from a fairly mild negative reaction to an outright rejection of his thinking by the vast majority of the electorate. Even leading Republican commentators are shocked at what went on in that fundraiser. Some of it has to do with Romney's stupidity, but there's also an undertow of fear for the country if he gets elected.

Keeping President Obama suddenly looks a lot better, even critical.

Not to argue your point but aside from a political slip up here and there what was shocking as seen from a republican perspective?


William Kristol of the Weekly Standard

George Will saw the light earlier

David Brooks on Romney being way out of touch

I'm now thinking about my mother, a staunch Democrat back when, who voted for Ike instead of Stevenson. Also about the Reagan Democrats who brought him to power and kept him there with the hope of stemming inflation. The parallels I see are that Romney, like Stevenson, is out of touch with how people actually live and struggle, and how Obama gives hope that at least we won't go back to the crazy stuff that caused the Meltdown of 2008. As with Reagan Democrats, the Obama Republicans have nowhere else to turn. There's no viable third party candidate, and a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.

It's probably true that maybe 30% of the electorate will vote for Romney in order to defeat Obama, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! However, when it comes right down to it, Romney has insulted the military, the senior citizens, every family out there struggling to make ends meet, Hispanics, women (well, not directly in the video but it came out later), and never had the black vote.

There just aren't many people left. Rationalizations aside that he never said straight out that he wouldn't represent the 47% he expressed disdain for, there is no reason to believe that he would.

He's also quite eccentric regarding his ideas on foreign policy. I think that when this weakness shows in the debates, his numbers will plummet right before Election Day. I really don't see him pulling out of the dive because he simply is not that good of a political pilot, and neither are his staunch supporters (apologists).

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Sep 19 2012, 02:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Sep 19 2012, 03:34 PM
Post #52


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

Hard to say. I'm more with Amlord on this after watching the video...Romney was acknowledging political realities and targeting a specific audience with the speech, not stating that he won't represent everyone (though there was an obvious distain for that 47 percent, which might influence the vote a bit with enough targeted spam chain e mails. Hard to say).
In a nutshell, this speech is to "Romney doesn't care about 47 percent of the population!" as Obama's speech was to "Obama claims the government built your business!"

2. Should Romney apologize for his remarks? Explain what he meant? Totally ignore the remarks and focus on the campaign?

Explain briefly and then ignore. There's no point, really.

Bonus question: Are you part of the 47 percent Romney isn't worried about or the 53 percent he is?

As a military dependent for the majority of my life, I don't think I'm qualified to answer.

Additional thoughts: I am far more concerned with other things this candidate has done and said. He is awful. We've become so polarized as a country the other 47 percent will vote NottheObama regardless of anything NottheObama says or does. My husband has never in his life voted for a Democrat but he's either going to skip voting this time or vote for a Democrat for the first time ever. Not because he likes Obama, but because Romney is so unlikeable.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Sep 19 2012, 03:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Sep 19 2012, 05:18 PM
Post #53


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Some developments regarding the "secret tape" in question:

1. The "full tape" isn't so "full" after all.

2. The missing bits' timing just so happens to have occurred during Romney's "47 percent" remarks.

3. David Corn/Mother Jones didn't disclose the existence of the missing portion until a blogger forced them to.

4. David Corn/Mother Jones then lied about having, at the outset, posted a disclosure about the missing portion.

Link: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/maybe...pe-was-missing/

David Corn/Mother Jones, meet Rosemary Woods.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 19 2012, 06:03 PM
Post #54


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Sep 19 2012, 08:08 AM) *
You stated about reaching out, Obama has not and when he has, it's only to pick winners and losers and to launder tax money back into the DNC. Any questions or is this beyond your capabilities? No caps to stress a point or to make it harder for you to understand this time. thumbsup.gif


A few attempts of Obama outreach to the other side:

QUOTE
WASHINGTON — Emboldened by the response to President Obama's face-off with House Republicans last week, the White House is intensifying its push to engage Congressional Republicans in policy negotiations as a way to share the burden of governing and put more scrutiny on Republican initiatives.

The president has invited members of Congress from both parties for a meeting at the White House next Tuesday, the first of the bipartisan brainstorming sessions that Mr. Obama proposed during the State of the Union address. Republicans will also be invited to the White House this weekend to watch the Super Bowl, as well as to Camp David and other venues for social visits.

The outreach represents a marked shift in both strategy and substance by Mr. Obama and his allies at a time when Democrats are adapting to the loss of their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate and the president has been losing support among independent voters.

The White House's goal is to show voters that Mr. Obama is willing to engage Republicans rather than govern in a partisan manner while forcing Republicans to make substantive compromises or be portrayed as obstructionist given their renewed power to block almost all legislation in the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/polit...bipartisan.html



QUOTE
On a frigid January evening in 2009, a week before his Inauguration, Barack Obama had dinner at the home of George Will, the Washington Post columnist, who had assembled a number of right-leaning journalists to meet the President-elect. Accepting such an invitation was a gesture on Obama’s part that signalled his desire to project an image of himself as a post-ideological politician, a Chicago Democrat eager to forge alliances with conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill. That week, Obama was still working on an Inaugural Address that would call for "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

Obama sprang coatless from his limousine and headed up the steps of Will's yellow clapboard house. He was greeted by Will, Michael Barone, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Lawrence Kudlow, Rich Lowry, and Peggy Noonan. They were Reaganites all, yet some had paid tribute to Obama during the campaign. Lowry, who is the editor of the National Review, called Obama "the only presidential candidate from either party about whom there is a palpable excitement." Krauthammer, an intellectual and ornery voice on Fox News and in the pages of the Washington Post, had written that Obama would be "a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin," who would "bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan." And Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard and a former aide to Dan Quayle, wrote, "I look forward to Obama's inauguration with a surprising degree of hope and good cheer."

Over dinner, Obama searched for points of common ground. He noted that he and Kudlow agreed on a business-investment tax cut. "He loves to deal with both sides of the issue," Kudlow later wrote. "He revels in the back and forth. And he wants to keep the dialogue going with conservatives."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01...30fa_fact_lizza



QUOTE
President Obama's not big on Oval Office addresses; no audience to play off of.

But he does love his outdoor summits.

Remember the White House beer summit after he called Cambridge police actions stupid after they handcuffed a Harvard professor friend? So POTUS had the cop and the professor and VP Joe Biden out back for a well-photographed beer.

Well, today was supposed to be the Golf Summit with the country's top two Democrats golfing all-friendly-like with Republican House Speaker John A. Boehner and his Ohio GOP pal, former representative and now Gov. John Kasich.

They did play golf today. It was reportedly a $2 game (each), decided on the 18th hole and -- who would have guessed? -- the duo of bosses, Obama and Boehner, beat the other two.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...f-courses-.html


You can say the attempts to reach out to Republicans wasn't sincere. You can say the attempts to reach out to conservatives failed. You can say the attempts to be truly bipartisan was inadequate.

But you can't say there was no outreach by the president. That is simply factually incorrect. dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 19 2012, 06:22 PM
Post #55


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 19 2012, 05:40 AM) *
Now, I think the 47% number is wrong. Probably closer to 40%, but now we're splitting hairs.

Special exceptions noted, what I've heard over the years is that generally in a presidential election each party owns roughly 45% of the vote, leaving 10% undecided to be fought over.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Sep 19 2012, 06:32 PM
Post #56


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 19 2012, 02:22 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 19 2012, 05:40 AM) *
Now, I think the 47% number is wrong. Probably closer to 40%, but now we're splitting hairs.

Special exceptions noted, what I've heard over the years is that generally in a presidential election each party owns roughly 45% of the vote, leaving 10% undecided to be fought over.

How mean and dastardly you are for pointing this out!! devil.gif Why don't you care about the American electorate? wacko.gif

QUOTE(Romney)
Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 19 2012, 06:57 PM
Post #57


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 19 2012, 06:59 AM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 19 2012, 05:08 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 19 2012, 01:37 AM) *
1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

The rest of the recording is out now. It has to be the most cruel, misinformed, pessimistic and outright un-American piece of trash ever put on tape (digital or analog). Yet this is how the man really thinks.

I'm modifying my take from a fairly mild negative reaction to an outright rejection of his thinking by the vast majority of the electorate. Even leading Republican commentators are shocked at what went on in that fundraiser. Some of it has to do with Romney's stupidity, but there's also an undertow of fear for the country if he gets elected.

Keeping President Obama suddenly looks a lot better, even critical.

Not to argue your point but aside from a political slip up here and there what was shocking as seen from a republican perspective?


William Kristol of the Weekly Standard

George Will saw the light earlier

David Brooks on Romney being way out of touch

I'm now thinking about my mother, a staunch Democrat back when, who voted for Ike instead of Stevenson. Also about the Reagan Democrats who brought him to power and kept him there with the hope of stemming inflation. The parallels I see are that Romney, like Stevenson, is out of touch with how people actually live and struggle, and how Obama gives hope that at least we won't go back to the crazy stuff that caused the Meltdown of 2008. As with Reagan Democrats, the Obama Republicans have nowhere else to turn. There's no viable third party candidate, and a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.

It's probably true that maybe 30% of the electorate will vote for Romney in order to defeat Obama, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! However, when it comes right down to it, Romney has insulted the military, the senior citizens, every family out there struggling to make ends meet, Hispanics, women (well, not directly in the video but it came out later), and never had the black vote.

There just aren't many people left. Rationalizations aside that he never said straight out that he wouldn't represent the 47% he expressed disdain for, there is no reason to believe that he would.

He's also quite eccentric regarding his ideas on foreign policy. I think that when this weakness shows in the debates, his numbers will plummet right before Election Day. I really don't see him pulling out of the dive because he simply is not that good of a political pilot, and neither are his staunch supporters (apologists).

Well I don't ultimately know what negative bounce Romney will get from the tape but right now it appears the race is tightening. The first two folks you quoted were rather tepid in their criticism. The more disgusted Brooks is so far out of the republican main stream he is practically a democrat. Compare this to seriously influential republicans like O'Reilly and Limbaugh who are calling for Romney to double down on his remarks. And then there is the biggest republican conservative forum I know, Free Republic, whose participants were suspicious of Romney and now have become born again Romney enthusiasts, warning him he better not repudiate what he said.

My own view is that the republican party has almost become a crack house party. They live on nonsense. On climate change they are flat earthers. They say things like "I don't want government messing with my medicare." They have Tea Party folks dedicated to the proposition that a millionaire shouldn't have to pay a penny more in taxes. And of course they want a balanced budget while they are cutting taxes and insisting that more needs to be spent on our already bloated military. And what can you say about their less government-climb in your bed cognitive dissonance. Their history while in power is wall to wall failure and their legislative agenda while out of power is unending obstruction and their political tactics are wall to wall ignorance, blatant contradictions and lies.

Has Romney upped the ante? I don't know how he could.

This post has been edited by Dingo: Sep 19 2012, 07:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lo rez
post Sep 19 2012, 07:00 PM
Post #58


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 388
Member No.: 10,616
Joined: August-8-09

From: Minneapolis, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 19 2012, 12:18 PM) *
Some developments regarding the "secret tape" in question:

1. The "full tape" isn't so "full" after all.

2. The missing bits' timing just so happens to have occurred during Romney's "47 percent" remarks.

3. David Corn/Mother Jones didn't disclose the existence of the missing portion until a blogger forced them to.

4. David Corn/Mother Jones then lied about having, at the outset, posted a disclosure about the missing portion.

Link: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/maybe...pe-was-missing/

David Corn/Mother Jones, meet Rosemary Woods.


I would also like to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt and allow for the distinct possibility that the two minutes or less of missing tape includes a 180 walk-back of the previous remarks followed by a total denial that those statements were ever made.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 19 2012, 07:11 PM
Post #59


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(lo rez @ Sep 19 2012, 03:00 PM) *
I would also like to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt and allow for the distinct possibility that the two minutes or less of missing tape includes a 180 walk-back of the previous remarks followed by a total denial that those statements were ever made.


"I'm not familiar precisely with what I said, but I'll stand by what I said, whatever it was." —Mitt Romney (May 17, 2012) blink.gif

Mitt is a robot with bad programming. Most candidates at least wait until they are elected before they show they don't give a damn about you.

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Sep 19 2012, 07:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Sep 19 2012, 07:12 PM
Post #60


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Sep 17 2012, 10:24 PM) *
Mother Jones magazine has a tape of Mitt Romney speaking to a room full of donors and he makes it pretty clear what he thinks about a good sized chunk of the American population:

QUOTE
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.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."


Questions for debate:

1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

2. Should Romney apologize for his remarks? Explain what he meant? Totally ignore the remarks and focus on the campaign?

Bonus question: Are you part of the 47 percent Romney isn't worried about or the 53 percent he is?



I defiantly have an opinion here. I really understand Romney's comments, although I know it doesn't apply to everyone who is dependent on some sort of government check.

I would be part of the 47% NT, however I think what Romney is getting at is that there are many people who have grown dependent on the government, who could do so much better on their own if they didn't have that money indefinitely. This wouldn't apply to people who have debilitating health issues who need this money to survive. Just to those who abuse the benefits they get or don't progress because of this substantiation. Theirs more people like this than you may think.

I'll give you a great example in myself, and many of my friends. I'm technically disabled and receive an SSI check. 698$ a month, it just got bumped up about a year ago. I spent the majority of my 20's doing a whole bunch of nothing. I do have some problems but by the time I was 28 or so I realized the thing keeping me from holding a job or being motivated to fight is in large part that SSI check. I could always fall back on it, In my case it wasn't always because I was incapable holding a job, but because I could always depend on that check. It killed my motivation for almost a decade, although in my late teens and early 20's I really needed it.

I've lived in poverty stricken areas for the last 10 years or so, and still do. I have friends who use their SSI check for drugs, others who use it to buy movies and buy video games they can play all night long. One of my friends right now is in deep trouble, he told me he supposes he'll just live off of SSI for the rest of his life. I'm trying to get him to go to AB tech with me to take free basic education classes, but he stays up till 5am every night playing games, watching movies, and hanging out with friends that are not wanting to do anything but live off the government. I can usually pick out when people need the money or just want to live off the money. In the majority of the places ive lived there lots of people just mustering around because they can.

You know what I spent my Obama checks on a few years back? Saving up for a 55 inch LED TV, which I didn't absolutely need. I'm changing for the better though and I'm getting the hell out of this life, but it's going to taking real effort on my part.

This post has been edited by net2007: Sep 19 2012, 07:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: May 24th, 2018 - 09:54 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.