DCP's Stock goes Down again

[_DarkHelmet]

Near the end, at about 35 minutes, he answers a question about "How're we going to do it [i.e. convince people to vote Republican]?". The answer begins:

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. ... [My job] is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

The man who made these remarks did not appear to think a great deal of the people he was talking about, did he? As you can see and hear for yourself, there is no 'saving context' for these remarks. They start where the quote above begins.

What's to misinterpret here?

I have family members who are defending Mitt's 47% comment, and I ask them if they actually listened to what Mitt said, and how offensive it is, and that it might be the turning point that cost him the election. He is saying that nearly half of the American population "believe they are victims" and that they cannot be convinced to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives" and his job is not to worry about them. I hope that he didn't have this attitude as a bishop. What if a widow, whose husbands worked and paid taxes for 50 years, came into his office and needed assistance from the church. Does he really believe that that widow cannot be convinced to take personal responsibility and care for her life? I assume he is talking about welfare queens. The problem is welfare queens do not make up 47% of the population. He lumped all people who don't pay taxes in with the welfare queens, including senior citizens, students, and military personnel serving overseas. If you take those people out, that leaves about 8% who don't pay taxes either because they are poor, or they can deduct enough to have no tax liability. So it turns out only a small percentage of Americans want to sit around and collect a check without taking personal responsibility for their lives.

I agree that Romney probably really doesn't feel this way. As bishop, he deals with this 47% and knows that they aren't a bunch of free loaders. Most of them are probably young married couples ins school struggling to make ends meet. So why would Romney say something like that? It gets to the core of his problem, he isn't genuine. That video is probably not the real Romney, but there he is saying those things. So who is the real Romney? Is he the bishop who sacrifices his time to help the poor and needy in his ward. Or is he the jerk who says 47% of Americans are free loaders who can't be convinced to take responsibility for their lives.

[_Chap]

He isn't saying that he doesn't care about their struggles. He just regards them as a bunch of dependent moochers with a victim complex.

I think he was way off with the percentage, but I didn't know we were all supposed to pretend that there aren't people who have set themselves up to be as dependent on the government as possible.

...

Did I ever say we should?

But you seem to be trying to find a way round the obvious fact that, when speaking to a bunch of people as rich as he is, Romney shared his open disdain for just about (in his misguided view) half of the American people. There's no way out of that.

[_Jaybear]

Romney spoke those words, but the press has represented them to the public as what a President Romney's attitude towards 47% of the people he would govern would be. That is the press's error.

I don't understand your point.

If Romney's core belief as a candidate is that people who depend on government assistant think of themselves as victims and will never learn to "take responsibility" for themselves, then why would/should we expect that that his "attitude" towards these people would change if he were elected?

by the way, if you are going to criticize "the press" it would be helpful if you would be more specific.

[_DarkHelmet]

He isn't saying that he doesn't care about their struggles. He just regards them as a bunch of dependent moochers with a victim complex.

I think he was way off with the percentage, but I didn't know we were all supposed to pretend that there aren't people who have set themselves up to be as dependent on the government as possible.

For example, I hire about 25 people a year for seasonal work. In the last 10 years, I've had at least 15 people decline a job offer because they wanted to max out their unemployment benefits. I've literally offered them a job, and they say "No thanks, I've still got some unemployment left so I'm going to wait a little longer."

So if you were a politician and part of your platform was to reform unemployment benefits and make them harder to get and shorter in duration, would you "worry" about getting the votes from those 15 people?

Probably not, but I would also refrain from making derogatory comments about them, while also lumping ALL people on unemployment into the same group of moochers?

[_Chap]

Any more of the kind of excuses we have been reading on this thread will force me to go nuclear and coin a new term: "Rompologetics"

Don't make me do that. Please.

[_Jaybear]

Any more of the kind of excuses we have been reading on this thread will force me to go nuclear and coin a new term: "Rompologetics"

Don't make me do that. Please.

So far we have been treated with:
1. Context: "If you're referring to Romney's comment at the fundraiser, you've either misunderstood it or deliberately misrepresented it."
2. Straw men: He isn't saying he doesn't care about their situation, or their struggles. ...
3. Romney said it as a candidate, not as a sitting president.
4. Misdirection: Obama said something similar
5. Hyperbole: I didn't know we were all supposed to pretend ...

Now all that's left is for BCspace to show up and tell us Romney does not have a disdain for poor people, just for people who don't have money.

[_sock puppet]

Romney spoke those words, but the press has represented them to the public as what a President Romney's attitude towards 47% of the people he would govern would be. That is the press's error.

I don't understand your point.

If Romney's core belief as a candidate is that people who depend on government assistant think of themselves as victims and will never learn to "take responsibility" for themselves, then why would/should we expect that that his "attitude" towards these people would change if he were elected?

by the way, if you are going to criticize "the press" it would be helpful if you would be more specific.

Do not mistake me for a Romney supporter or even sympathizer.

That said, I think that his time as governor of Mass (more relevant in my opinion to how he'd be as president than his time as a bishop or SP) does not reveal disdain in governance. RomneyCare actually extended health coverage to many of the people that would populate that 47%, for example. Indeed, thinking that people feel disenfranchised, as victims, simple informs as to what Romney's perceives they view themselves, not that they are not worth assistance in his estimation. I have no idea what percentage of Americans feel victimized, financially. I doubt it is 47%, but there is some percentage. Government officials understanding that some do feel victimized might lead to more job training/re-training programs, and other ways of helping them feel more empowered and in charge of their circumstances.

The way that Romney's comments have been interpreted has assumed every negative possibility, when it is not clear what impact those comments would have about his attitude towards them in governing. Let's not forget Obama's 2008 comments about gun-toting, Bible-toting rednecks in rural Pennsylvania. He mentioned them to a San Francisco fund raising audience. Did that mean that he has disregarded such individuals' interests in his nearly 4 years governing? (Even though Janet Napolitano, as a cabinet member, signed off on a document in early April 2009 labeling those that believe the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to own guns as 'domestic terrorists.')

[_Kishkumen]

While its hyperbole to say that Romney "despises" half the public, his words clearly an unequivocally conveyed a contempt/disdain for those people who rely on public assistance.

And senior citizens.
And people working several jobs in order to support a family.
And people serving patriotically in our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's face it, it was a transparently idiotic statement made to appeal to the worst prejudices of a generally pampered American elite.

The statement is vile, and it deserves no defense.

The only worthwhile question here is whether one can pigeonhole Romney based on this statement.

I say no.

[_Kishkumen]

Now all that's left is for BCspace to show up and tell us Romney does not have a disdain for poor people, just for people who don't have money.

LOL!!!

Well said.

[_sock puppet]

While its hyperbole to say that Romney "despises" half the public, his words clearly an unequivocally conveyed a contempt/disdain for those people who rely on public assistance.

And senior citizens.
And people working several jobs in order to support a family.
And people serving patriotically in our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's face it, it was a transparently idiotic statement made to appeal to the worst prejudices of a generally pampered American elite.

The statement is vile, and it deserves no defense.

The only worthwhile question here is whether one can pigeonhole Romney based on this statement.

I say no.

+1