This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 17, 2012 9:58 PM. The previous post in this blog was Super Carole bungles another one. The next post in this blog is Horrible reporting by Portland media in L.O. stabbing. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, September 17, 2012

Romney snatching defeat from jaws of victory

The yacht with the Cayman Islands flag at the convention was nothing compared to this bomb, which he dropped in May. It just goes to show you that rich don't mean smart. (More here.)

Comments (44)

That's why they called him "Mitt" -- he's almost as sharp as one. Was born on third base and thought he hit a double.

He never was close to the jaws of victory.

Hope you watched The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. Priceless.

He never was close to the jaws of victory.

This was clearly the Republicans' election to lose. They're doing it.

Not a big fan of Mitt, but really dislike Obama. Whatever, anything other than very liberal votes don't count for much in Oregon. When the country turns to a popular vote for Pres., then I can become more involved. Until then, it's like I'm just a spectator at a sporting event cheering for one team or the other. Rah rah.

Nolo, thanks to Romney’s perfect timing of foot in mouth, I can just enjoy the football season with you!

He made the comments in May. The perfect timing is by his opponents.

What Mr. Money Tit fails to mention is that .01% of the voters KNOW they can depend on the government, and they are entitled to, because whichever candidate is elected, they will own him lock, stock, and barrel.

I don't understand the issue, because he is probably right, 47% will most assuredly vote for Obama. Why can be debated, but in percentages the difference between winning and loosing the presidency is small.

Losing. One "o."

The really damning part is the suggestion that people who receive government assistance don't "take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That includes elderly people who paid their whole lives into Social Security and Medicare. Screw you, Richie Rich.

George Bailey said it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ne13Zft9Q

Pardon me, but this dog (video) won't hunt. people ignore gaffes. This video is meaningless and just proves that Romney can have a gaffe every once in a while, like Obumma (whten TOTUS is not around) can make too. and don't for Joe "The Gaffemaster" Biden.

gaffe  /gaf/
An unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder: "an unforgivable social gaffe"

Romney's remarks weren't unintentional nor did they cause him embarrassment. It was an unmasked look at his true feelings / policy stance showing his utter contempt for nearly half the country. The only "gaffe" is that they let it get recorded.

This is one of my biggest gripes about Republicans. They preach "personal responsibility" and then sit quiet while millions of job get outsourced. Well, which is it? If they were serious about this personal responsibility crap they would fight for each and every job that was in danger of being outsourced. They don't.

The problem isn't saying that 47 percent won't vote for him no matter what, it's saying they won't do so because they're nothin more than piglets suckling from the government teat. Not only will this dog hunt, it'll search and destroy.

I'm still waiting for anyone in the Obama adminstration to tell me how they helped mr build my business over 22 years. If anything, at least half the government agencies I was dealing with were a complete pain in the ass - from the phony fire inspections that started after I had already been in business more than ten years to the ever-growing TriMet tax, even though virtually none of my clients ever used TriMet to reach my business.

I'm not involved with his campaign, but as a statement of strategy, what he said was unremarkable. Every lobbyist and politician in America takes the same approach to a big vote or an election: you can't persuade the hard-core opposition, you don't need to worry about your hard-core supporters, so you focus on the undecideds in the middle.

And if 47% of voters pay no taxes, then it's probably true that they won't be interested in a message of tax relief, and they'll probably be attracted to a candidate who has an expansive view about the role of government.

I doubt a 1-minute video will matter. Obama has a 4-year track record; people will either decide that they're satisfied with that, or they'll gamble on something different.

Romney takes gubbmit money too....the Salt Lake Olympics consumed millions of US, and Utah dollars.
And let's remember he and many others use the current tax laws, written to enhance the "legal" tax avoidance of the rich, to shelter billions of dollars in off shore accounts, deductions, and other stuff the rest of us don't know anythingng about, cause we don't have millions of dollars a year in "unearned income".
We are going to a real job everyday and paying 40% of that earned income in taxes.

One minute videos do work in swaying the public. They ain't spending billions on TV commercials for kicks.

I guess there is gaff there. But he was making a point about who votes for his opponent and where to focus campaign efforts.
He certainly didn't say or literally mean everyone on government assistance is worthless or that he has "utter contempt for nearly half the country".

There are millions of Romney voting Republicans in that 47%.

Romney will have to go on defense for a few days because Obama supporters will seize the opportunity to cast Romney as having that "contempt".

IMO it's unfair and almost assuredly wrong to stretch Romney's remarks about,

"people who receive government assistance don't "take personal responsibility and care for their lives"

to include elderly people on SS and medicare.

There is no train of thought possible by either Romney, Obama or anyone remotely rational to have such a derogatory impression of the elderly receiving their senior assistance.

Should it not require a lot more to convict a man of having such disregard for the elderly or of having utter contempt for nearly half the country?

People can apply their own psychoanalysis but IMO Romney could not possibly hold either views.

Until I see or hear something truly to the contrary I have to believe Romney et al have as much care and respect for the elderly and the public at large as anyone across the great- campaign season- divide.

Of course I could be horribly wrong and Romney is dirt. If so, I'm sorry, please forgive me.

I'll forecast that if he is elected his administration will vary little from the many since Carter.
Hopefully the biggest variation will be to genuinely reduce spending and reverse government mission creep.

The rest of the federal government operation is too entrenched and politically constrained to permit any rich boogieman President who supposedly hates the elderly and half the country to assail them with anything harmful at all.

There is nothing to fear but the fear of nothing to fear.

Or something like that?

The Firm of Karl and Koch went to a lot of trouble and expense the last four years to rewrite history and blame O for all of the problems of America. And during the victory parade Mittens shows up without his pants and mismatched socks. O the horror.

Romney is looking so bad you'd think he was chosen by the Obama reelection team.

if [Romney] is elected his administration will vary little from the many since Carter.
Hopefully the biggest variation will be to genuinely reduce spending and reverse government mission creep.

Yes, because that's been the hallmark of past Republican administrations, hasn't it? Especially W's, which blew up the federal budget with tax cuts, wars and unfunded Medicare expansion. But Reagan and Poppy, too.

It's more than a little ironic that clueless people like "One vote" see the democrats as the Big Government problem. They have the world upside down. Budget surpluses? Thank Clinton and his income tax hikes. Size of government? It's actually measurably smaller under Obama. You can look it all up.

For those interested in some facts behind the "47% don't pay taxes" canard, here are some very straight forward charts showing the breakdown:


53.6% pay some net income tax. An additional 28.3% pay no net income tax, but do pay payroll taxes, which is their contribution to social security, medicare and unemployment insurance. Of the remaining 18%, 10% are elderly (i.e. don't work). 7% are poor households who earn under $20,000 and don't pay any taxes once credits are taken into account.

It is much more nuanced than "47% don't pay taxes" isn't it?

Ezra Klein: "Part of the reason so many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes is that Republicans have passed a series of very large tax cuts that wiped out the income-tax liability for many Americans. That’s why, when you look at graphs of the percent of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, you see huge jumps after Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform and George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts."

Yes, it's true. The elderly, the ailing and the retired are a big part of that lazy-ass 47 percent.

But don't worry: Paul Ryan has a plan (and an ice floe) to take care of them.

He's got less than two months - maybe he'll run as the Governor of Massachusetts now. It's can't be a worse strategy than running as the Country Club D****e.

"_______ is looking so bad you'd think he was chosen by the Obama reelection team."

Fill in the blank. Any R nominee would be getting the identical treatment.

The federal government is a monster that knows no party labels.
You allegiance to hallmark-speak needs some broadening.

Congress spend and grows the government.
Congress blew up the federal budget, passed tax cuts, funded wars and adopted unfunded Medicare expansion.
Congress acted barely less irresponsibly during the Clinton years.

So I am not as clueless as you regarding "Big Government".

You can think the Clinton/congress budget surpluses were due to tax increases if you choose.
But don't make leaps and put words in my mouth.

As for Obama making government smaller?

What a useless argument that will spawn. No thanks.

However, his energy policies, EPA, NOAA and other arenas are horrible. :)

Much like SamRand/Blumenauer would impose.

Oh yes drill baby drill...in the national parks!

One video vs. a terrible economy, high jobles rate, terrorist attacks and a fraud for a President. Gov Romney is going to win. The liberals are desperate.

Don't forget the October surprise playbook used by Reagan/Bush against Carter.

Romney either is the stooge to make sure Obama gets in, or has been assured that he will be the winner. So he doesn't really care what he mutters to the wee folk.

Just another example in a long list, all pointing to the idea that we need more than two viable political parties in this country. Neither party represents the average family anymore. I won't vote for either Obama or Romney this November. They're equally contemptible, as are their respective parties.

Congress spend and grows the government.
Congress blew up the federal budget, passed tax cuts, funded wars and adopted unfunded Medicare expansion.

All initiated by the President and signed into law by him, as you may have noticed.

Oh come on Allan.
Do you honestly believe they were all "initiated" by W?

The spending, prescription drug coverage too?
NCLB too?

Hogwash. DC is a factory of dysfunction with 1000s of parts and even more incompetent & conflicted operators.

Nothing is really initiated by any President.

Especially nowadays.

The may similarities beteeen W & Obama administrations make it clear as can be.

IMO it's unfair and almost assuredly wrong to stretch Romney's remarks... to include elderly people on SS and medicare.

Wow, that's a fabulous attempt at dissembling. As many have pointed out, the elderly are part of that 47% and Mittens surely didn't exclude them from his, yes, contempt-filled remarks. How else would you characterize the labeling of nearly half the country as "victims" who "will never be convinced to take personal responsibility or care for their lives"?

This has been the GOP narrative for some time. It's just rare that's it been captured being spoken so plainly.

It doesn't sound like a "gaffe" or a "misstatement" to me and Mitt Romney isn't backing down.

The real question isn't whether he believes what he said - he does and he probably didn't become a successful businessman by being completely selfless - but whether this is a good strategy . . . assume that you can get every one of the other 53% to agree with you on this issue and collect their votes. Big gamble.

It's a ridiculous premise anyway. Plenty among that 47% vote Republican ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"), and more than a few in the 53% are Dems too - how else could there be those GOP bogeymen, the "liberal elite"? And yet Obama is the one who gets accused of class warfare.

"...assume that you can get every one of the other 53% to agree with you on this issue and collect their votes. Big gamble."

He does not need all of the 53%.

He will get many voters from the 47%. You know, all those who previously voted for Obama, but won't a second time, because they ..... now are suddenly racist, or something.

This week will be this distraction.... that actually was words spoken (as Jack says) in May.

Next week will be another distraction, maybe from words spoken in June.

Come October we will have more stuff to get outraged at, from: ...the middle east? ... a sex scandal? ... Mitt's tax returns? ... Mitt's faux tax returns?


Wake me in January, when the votes have all be counted 12 times, and the SCOTUS has settled the last four swing states vote/ballot challenges.

Do you honestly believe they were all "initiated" by W?

The spending, prescription drug coverage too?

Do explain to me how President Gore would have signed trillions of dollars in income tax rate cuts into law and launched the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. I can hardly wait.

I worry about what will happen after the election no matter who gets in.
...or might the hammer fall after the dollars spent for the Christmas season?
I so hope I am wrong. The plan may be to just slowly proceed.

There is, like, a 'pack' of trolls going around throwing sand in the wheels of internet info. You can spot them in comments that say, "ditto ditto Rash Limbaugh seig heil! all you deadweights Rash hates are gonna go in slave-labor death camps for torture murder fun." But nobody asked them. They show up like ants, single-file out of nowhere, and type their cyberprompter script referring to nothing real or rational.

Ever since Cass Sunstein started paying mercenaries for public info-confusion, these subversives slandered into view. Hatetalk radio used to complain that 'opponents' held 'seminars' instructing 'callers' to interfere with hatetalk programming on-air. In reality there never were 'seminar callers.' But nowadays there are trained and paid mercenary 'shill' callers who jam the call-in line and get on-air and suckup to any and every thing the hatetalk host says, "oh, brave host, your message is important and conclusive to barf on people." A lot like the 'shill' commenters who inflate the thread with airheaded hate to make it long and boring, until no one reads through to the solid credible material.

Larson said his inside connections have tipped him off that their plan to cause society breakdown is going to happen Real Soon Now, so when it does we better have Romney in charge at the time. Social moral bankruptcy is because of all the leeches of low character and personal indigence expecting Richie Riches (Larson's contract is $5000 a day on 250 working days a year) to pay due share of tax burden. Sharing is not in Richie Rich character -- that deficiency (lame or invalid conscience) ingrown is diagnosed as a sociopathy.

How do we attach meaning to other's behavior, or our own? This is called attribution theory.

There were two main ideas that he [Heider (1958)] put forward that became influential.
1. When we explain the behavior of others we look for enduring internal attributions, such as personality traits. For example we attribute the behavior of a person to their naivety or reliability or jealousy.
2. When we try to explain our own behavior we tend to make external attributions, such as situational or environment.

So you know, as Romney and Larsbaugh say, mooches on the public dole not paying taxes are character-deficient, whereas Larsbaugh Romney don't pay their tax share (it's not their greedy guilty-character fault) rather because they are in a bind situation and around them is the wrong environment.

There is nothing bad enough you can say about Obama to make me vote for Romney.
There is nothing bad enough you can say about Romney to make me vote for Obama.
The totally faked Touch-the-TV prerigged-totals Election is a fraud. Obama is a 'D'-labeled frontman (mask) for extreme rightist (totalitarianism) operations run by CIA&powerlusts known as The Company (think: global corporations of mil.violence industry). Maybe you noticed Obama's War o'Terror has carried on Dubya's War o'Terror -- working for the same 'Company.' Romney is set up -- SUCKER! -- to lose (bad cop) so that massmedia then can announce, 'See, USA loves Obama, (good cop), the vast majority of Americans voted for him and more of his (dictator) administration.'

Or socialmedia networking -- WILD CARD -- might be able to cause a Flash Election 'overnight' and an influential 100 million votes for a third option, maybe the Justice Party presidential candidate Ross Carl "Rocky" Anderson rising in renown, here:

Neither D's nor R's are going to like this.

I wonder if that guy believes his own bulls**t? Or is he just preaching to the crowd here?

47% don't pay taxes and are loafers? Lol. Who. I don't know any. Neither does he.

The leftists' primary goal over the last 50 years is to create a permanent, dependent, under-class that has no motivation to better itself and will continually vote more leftists into power to keep their lips on the government teat. It's always been about power. So I don't fault Mitt for pointing this out, even if he didn't do it elegantly.

The left-oriented media will take this and run with it (as they have been) and try to use it to distract voters from the rapidly sinking economy and Obama's continued subversion of that pesky Constitution.

Hagbard Celine: Why don't you discuss the permanent, dependent, wealthy upper-class elite who have their lips firmly planted on the government teat through generous government subsidies, very generous tax policies that allow them to pay a very low tax rate (much lower than your average middle class earner) or no taxes at all, and promoting non-ending wars? None of these government teat-sucking "dependents" are conservatives, right?

You should stop listening to the Republican Propaganda station and repeating every imbecilic and false thing you hear.

Hagbard your lack of independent thought is astounding.

Clicky Web Analytics