2012 Tuesday: What Romney got right about Obama and dependency, where he went wrong
So it appears that, with the Muslim world burning and reports that some but not all embassies were on alert for possible security threats on the 9/11 anniversary last week, with unemployment still so high and the Obama administration’s policies still so ineffective that the Federal Reserve has resorted to a new round of printing money — with all that, we’re nevertheless doomed to another round of debate about another “gaffe” by Mitt Romney.
That gaffe consists of Romney’s remarks, during a a closed-door fund-raiser four months ago, when he said, in part:
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. These are people who pay no income tax. 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 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.
This is, of course, exactly the kind of sentiment you can hear on, say, Neal Boortz’s radio show: the idea that the nation is reaching a tipping point of “makers” vs. “takers,” of people who pay income taxes vs. people who receive benefits funded by those taxes (and debt).
Is it the kind of thing a presidential candidate should say? No. Is it true that all 47 percent — that statistic is correct, by the way — are “moochers”? No.
But here’s another question: What about Barack Obama’s political career, including his presidency, refutes the broader point Romney made?
Is it the cradle-to-grave dependent “Julia,” about whom the Obama campaign constructed a narrative describing her inability to make it in America without government aid?
Is it the fact that food-stamp spending is on pace to more than double between 2008 and 2013?
Is it the fact that Obama’s signature legislative achievement would have the effect of making even more people — what’s that word again? — dependent on government for their health insurance?
So there are two aspects to Romney’s remarks. The first is the underlying substance of what he said, which boils down to the basic conservative critique of Obama specifically and liberalism in general: that they are highly, maybe even chiefly, interested expanding government and Americans’ dependence on it. Is anyone actually surprised by this? Does anyone think this is not a large part of what this election is about?
The second is the way he phrased it, and that did his candidacy no favors. If nothing else, he should have acknowledged that not all of the “47 percent” are dependent on government, that many of the ones who are dependent would prefer not to be, and that it is worthwhile to try to persuade at least some of the holdouts.
But I’m not sure it will be overly damaging to him, either. For starters, I agree with Ben Domenech that many members of the “47 percent” do not think they are members. How many people will hear that and think Romney was talking about them?
Going further, how many people will hear that and be offended by Romney’s remarks? And, adding the two groups together, how many of them were still actually considering voting for Romney anyway?
I would suggest we’re not talking about a very large number of people here. Now, in a close race, even a relatively small number of people can have a significant effect. But, with almost two months still to go in a campaign with much bigger issues front and center, I’m not sure a significant number of voters will make their decision even in part on Romney’s remarks at a fund-raiser back in May.
It is, however, one more reason for Romney to get back to playing offense on the economy and the size and scope of government — and soon.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
485 comments Add your comment
MarkV
September 18th, 2012
1:24 pm
md @1:14 pm “And there in lies the whole point of his comments……those democrats weren’t going to vote for him anyhow, so where exactly is the gift?”
It is in the arithmetic. If the 47% of the electorate were the ONLY people voting for Obama, Romney might have a point – insulting them would not change anything. But that is clearly not the case, therefore, a fair number of those 47percenters would have voted for Romney, and may change their mind when they are insulted.
Road Scholar
September 18th, 2012
1:24 pm
Just saying: Are you that stupid?
getalife
September 18th, 2012
1:25 pm
Verbal Kint .
President Obama’s campaign ad.
I am sure he will make one on the real mitt romney.
He finally talked about his Mexican roots so I need to see his long form birth certificate and his taxes.
Thanks, never trust and always verify.
Just Saying..
September 18th, 2012
1:28 pm
“Perhaps the next GOP candidate can shed the 30 year old neocon demons of their past and see if they successfully can run their inter-party gauntlet that allows no moderates, no centrists, no compromise and no accommodation.”
Maybe putting it in ALL CAPS would help…
md
September 18th, 2012
1:28 pm
“But that is clearly not the case, therefore, a fair number of those 47percenters would have voted for Romney, and may change their mind when they are insulted.”
And if they vote against they best interests, then they deserve to suffer the consequences……..ask the Greeks how that not paying taxes method worked for them……….
Sick of Progs
September 18th, 2012
1:29 pm
Kyle, how many voters will hear that and decide that the next POTUS should be working for ALL Americans and not just the wealthy ones???
I guess we’ll find out in November!
It used to be that the president would work for the nation’s best interest, and that would benefit the citizens. Now it appears that people think that the president is working directly for the individual. So I ask you Goldie, what is Obama going to do for you if he gets re-elected? Benefits? A good job? A pay raise? Maybe it would be better if you worked to improve your situation in life, not some politician.
JDW
September 18th, 2012
1:30 pm
@Kyle…”Is it the kind of thing a presidential candidate should say? No. Is it true that all 47 percent — that statistic is correct, by the way — are “moochers”? No”
However the broader problem remains true, in spite of all Obama’s faults he at least gets that and Romney, along with most of the Republican base simply does not. This might have been the most honest thing that Romney has said during his entire campaign and because he believes it he will lose .
What should be even more frightening to the Republicans is that unless they can somehow force the Right Wing back in the closet losing is going to get very monotonous.
Gimme Gimme Gimme
September 18th, 2012
1:31 pm
Romney broke the golden rule of politics…..never tell the truth.
Obama doesn’t have that problem.
tiredofIT
September 18th, 2012
1:33 pm
There is one major reason to vote for Obama: Supreme Court
getalife
September 18th, 2012
1:34 pm
Just keep in mind, if he wins your vote for him just cost you 8 grand.
“Chinese General: Prepare for Combat with Japan…” drudgey.
After the last collapse we got WWII.
Will history repeat itself again?
@@
September 18th, 2012
1:34 pm
Going further, how many people will hear that and be offended by Romney’s remarks?
For those imbedded with the democrats’ generated chip (on the shoulder), it will compute.
schnirt
For those waiting on the sidelines…..looking to get back in the game? Not so much. They’re the ones Obama referred to as “clinging” to their guns and religion.
Just Saying..
September 18th, 2012
1:35 pm
Road Scholar:
Wonder if you’d like to read Don Abernethy’s post at 1:18, and re-direct your question?
@@
September 18th, 2012
1:37 pm
Oops!
Call me textually slanted.
independent thinker
September 18th, 2012
1:38 pm
Once again the Republicans demonstrate their lack of concern for veterans. They are some of the so -called free loaders Romney hates and particularly disabled veterans who get government checks. It is nice to know that they are not wanted by the cons and should vote for Obama since the Republicans have no use for them. Instead of lambasting liberals and the 47% ( most of whom pay payroll taxes and all pay sales taxes so Romney is partly wrong) the Repubs could put their energy into passing the Veterans Employment Act that is before the Senate and which the Republicans are of course blocking- calling it as always a political stunt. It allocates one billion dollars to get veterans EMPLOYED in public sector jobs.
Public sector jobs should have increased during this recession if Repub. practices were followed by over a million jobs. Instead they have fallen by over 600,000 due to the party of NO.
As the big dog said in his speech – it is just simple math. Unemployment of veterans stands over 10.1 percent.- higher than the national average.
We know Romney has no way to relate to veterans since they are alien to his family’s history.
However I dare Kyle or any Repub here to advocate passage of this bill.
getalife
September 18th, 2012
1:38 pm
@@,
Yes corporate media looped that comment and will loop romney’s words too for fair and balance.
Goldie
September 18th, 2012
1:39 pm
Too bad Mitt accepted all that Gov’t bailout $$ to save Bain and all those Gov’t subsidies for his Olympics in Salt Lake — really makes him look just like another Con-man moocher…
["Today, Rolling Stone rolled out a blockbuster story by Tim Dickinson, who purports to have discovered — via a Freedom of Information Act request — that in the early nineties, when Bain & Company was struggling to stay afloat, Mitt Romney orchestrated a secret, lucrative last-minute "federal bailout" that allowed the firm's executives to reap millions of dollars in bonuses while leaving taxpayers on the hook.
Romney has characterized his return to Bain & Company, the consulting firm from which Bain Capital was spawned, as the first step in a successful turnaround. But Dickinson says that Romney was no white knight. The Bain bailout was actually "a disaster," he writes, and Romney "rewarded top executives at Bain with hefty bonuses at the very moment that he was demanding his handout from the feds."]
Shame on you Cons, still supporting this terrible candidate for POTUS!
Truth Squad
September 18th, 2012
1:39 pm
@Kyle, I know you are a smart man. That is why I find it curious that you want to cling to the RCP(owned by Steve Forbes) horserace numbers rather than look at the numbers from individual states. Perhaps you can get with Al Gore and discuss how misleading such numbers can be?
Right now, it looks like Obama will not hold on to Indiana and/or North Carolina. He has not lead in Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia as well as most other battleground states. President Obama is at or above 50 in Florida and has maintained that lead for some time now. Romney is not spending in Pennsylvania or Michigan.
So I ask you Kyle, how does Romney win without Florida or Ohio? The truth is he can’t!
Why is your the Republican losing in the race to replace Lugar? Why are you losing in North Dakota? The only pick up for you guys seems to be in Nebraska. The RNC has already given up on the New Mexico Senate race while Nevada and Arizona are much closer than they should be.
So, like I said, this cycle is about control of the House of Representatives. Follow the ad money Kyle, but you already know that don’t you?
Just Saying..
September 18th, 2012
1:40 pm
“Gimme Gimme Gimme
September 18th, 2012
1:31 pm
Romney broke the golden rule of politics…..never tell the truth.”
So what is Romney’s actual goal? Win political office, or ….?
Verbal Kint
September 18th, 2012
1:41 pm
getalife – Your source for an $8K tax increase to the middle class by Romney is an Obama campaign ad??? Good lord.
JDW
September 18th, 2012
1:43 pm
Some of you are all wet on “the 47%”…when polled that 47% splits around 60/40 for Obama. All Romney has done here is chase off part of his base.
Truth Squad
September 18th, 2012
1:43 pm
Oh, for those who claim to be worried about dependency, the truth is that 83% of that 47% work or are senior citizens. I blame Ronald Reagan and Bush 43 for those massive tax cuts that took a lot of the working poor off the tax rolls. Now the Republican Party speaks ill of them.
Mr. Holmes
September 18th, 2012
1:44 pm
Mr. Kyle Wingfield: In either your personal recollection or from what you’ve learned about older campaigns, have you ever seen a major-party presidential nominee as inept as Mitt Romney?
Yes or no. If yes, please name names. Thank ye.
Gimme Gimme Gimme
September 18th, 2012
1:44 pm
Liberal’s must hate all the people who are unemployed because they seem to think the economy is just great.
ATLien
September 18th, 2012
1:45 pm
There is no issue with saying 47% of people don’t pay income taxes as that is a true statistic. However, the real issue is his disregard for them when he says he will “never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
In that 47% are retirees, veterans and others who have worked and paid taxes and some point in their lives, as well as those who fought for the ideals of this country. That’s the issue. Secondly, its highly hypocritical to broadly brush them as moochers with no ambition when he in affect does everything he can albeit legally to not carry his share of the burden. Mitt has twisted and turned himself over so many times to appease all factions of his party that he everything he says has some type of political expediency and he’s burying himself under the weight of trying to curry favor with so many factions.
Del
September 18th, 2012
1:46 pm
Rasmussen’s electoral map see’s the swing states all within a point or two. Rasmussen polls likely voters, which at this point is far more accurate. Democrats are wrapping themselves in a false security blanket when they rest their case on electoral maps that show Obama with a big lead.
Darwin
September 18th, 2012
1:46 pm
Romney’s comments are nothing new as he was playing to his base for money. This is the anti-Democratic party stereotype. We’re all a bunch of moochers who don’t pay taxes. We’re welfare queens. I’ve been around long enough to have heard it over and over again from friends and family. This is the ignorance that is the Republican voter. Republicans are great marketing people. It’s never the fault of the white voter. It’s the poor, the minorities, it’s the gays. And apparently, it works.
getalife
September 18th, 2012
1:49 pm
romney shows disdain for half of America. The great divider. Politics is all about perception and he looks bad.
Toast.
iggy
September 18th, 2012
1:50 pm
I think come election day there will be some big surprises in store. There are very few “obama voters” that will acknowledge not voting or planning to not vote for him. However, many previous obama voters are just gonna sit this one out.
Del
September 18th, 2012
1:50 pm
Obama’s lost his meager post convention bump but no ones informed our left wing posters.
Gimme Gimme Gimme
September 18th, 2012
1:51 pm
Democrat’s are great marketing people. It’s never the fault of the themselves. It’s the old white men who are the reason they didn’t succed. And apparently, it works.
Sick of Progs
September 18th, 2012
1:51 pm
Mr. Holmes
September 18th, 2012
1:44 pm
Mr. Kyle Wingfield: In either your personal recollection or from what you’ve learned about older campaigns, have you ever seen a major-party presidential nominee as inept as Mitt Romney?
Yes or no. If yes, please name names. Thank ye.
Barack Obama
getalife
September 18th, 2012
1:52 pm
Verbal Kint,
Yes and it was fact checked as true.
If you are middle class and vote gop, you voted for a 2000 year tax increase.
His first term will cost you 8000.
Do you have 8000 for government?
Gimme Gimme Gimme
September 18th, 2012
1:52 pm
“Romney shows disdain for half of America. The great divider. Politics is all about perception and he looks bad.”
It’s working for Obama so why not give it a try. Division seems to work.
Goldie
September 18th, 2012
1:54 pm
“It used to be that the president would work for the nation’s best interest, and that would benefit the citizens. ”
Yes, Sick @ 1:29 — the POTUS should work for America’s best interests, and that includes all of its citizens not just the ones who may have voted for him/her during an election. Mitt’s “best interests” are obviously the multi-millionaires and multi-national corporations, and how has that whole “trickled on economics” worked out for America today? Where are all those jobs that were supposed to be created by having the workers trickled on for all these years?
And personally since you asked, I believe the Dems are the ones who can best help the poor and Middle Class to benefit from growing wages, schooling and work opportunities, as well as keep the progress that women have made for the past 50 years still moving forward… thanks so much for asking! You see, I’m part of the many voters in the 53% status who still has a steady good-paying job in this economy that the Repubs wrecked so badly. So I’m grateful for my lot in this life and want to see others do better for themselves while they are struggling but still showing some “personal responsibility” each day that they get out and look for work to support themselves.
Ya see, I never once thought that all 47% of the low income wage-earners did not take “personal responsiblity” for their lives while they’re trying to make it in this terrible economy that the Cons’ fiscal policies created!
Buzzy
September 18th, 2012
1:54 pm
The Republicans picked another dud. It’s a reflection of their poor judgement.
Kyle Wingfield
September 18th, 2012
1:54 pm
Truth Squad @ 1:39:
1. Right or wrong, the horse race numbers affect perception about the race. So they’re important for that reason.
2. I agree the state races are paramount. But as I said earlier, much of the state polling is outdated, i.e. it predates the conventions. Until that changes, focusing on how the candidates look in those states is kind of pointless.
3. Obama is not at or above 50 percent in any major, recent poll. See here.
4. Romney’s super PAC is buying airtime in Michigan. This is another sign that the battleground has shifted away from states that Republicans traditionally carry (as you mentioned, IN and N.C.) and toward traditionally Democratic-leaning states (WI and MI, to name two). Which doesn’t exactly suggest Obama is running away with the election.
5. I haven’t seen enough polling data on those Senate races to say. But I could ask the same question: Why is MA still a toss-up when the Democratic candidate was a keynote speaker at the DNC? Why is CT a toss-up when the Republican got whipped two years ago for the state’s other Senate seat?
6. As for ad money, Romney and his aligned groups (RNC, super PAC, etc.) have somewhere between $40M and $60M more cash on hand than Obama — even though Obama has raised and spent more. So, a question for you: Why is this race still so close?
Del
September 18th, 2012
1:55 pm
Sick of Progs,
You forgot John Kerry who tried to run on his cheaply earned Purple Hearts and got exposed by the Swift Boat Vet’s.
Gimme Gimme Gimme
September 18th, 2012
1:56 pm
Sick of Progs-
Mondale, Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, McCain to begin with.
md
September 18th, 2012
1:56 pm
“Yes and it was fact checked as true.”
No it wasn’t, it was “fact checked” using assumptions……BIG difference.
A bit like plugging in the unknown numbers to declare MMGW………
Gimme Gimme Gimme
September 18th, 2012
1:57 pm
“And personally since you asked, I believe the Dems are the ones who can best help the poor and Middle Class to benefit from growing wages, schooling and work opportunities,”
Yeah….. those Democratic votes have really helped the inner cities. LMAO
Rightwing Troll
September 18th, 2012
1:58 pm
“Mr. Holmes
September 18th, 2012
1:44 pm
Mr. Kyle Wingfield: In either your personal recollection or from what you’ve learned about older campaigns, have you ever seen a major-party presidential nominee as inept as Mitt Romney?
Yes or no. If yes, please name names. Thank ye.
Barack Obama”
Mittens sure is giving him a run for his money…
Sick of Progs
September 18th, 2012
2:00 pm
Mitt’s “best interests” are obviously the multi-millionaires and multi-national corporations, and how has that whole “trickled on economics” worked out for America today?
I guess your solution is the European model. Which one would you like to emulate Goldie? Spain? Greece? Italy? And what specific plan does the Obama administration have to increase wages of the average worker? Can you name one? And last time I checked, women have it pretty good in this country. Maybe all of the malcontent victims er feminists who think that they have it bad here should go spend a couple of years in a muslim country and see the real victims.
Just Saying..
September 18th, 2012
2:00 pm
Verbal Kint
September 18th, 2012
1:19 pm-Just Saying..September 18th, 2012
12:56 pm
Akin, Hurricane, Clint, Marathon Math, Plane crash, Judas meeting: How much luck can one campaign enjoy?
Meanwhile…JayZ and Beyonce fundraiser and the Letterman show for Hussein!!
Verb: The point is, the Obama events, notwithstanding your disapproval, were planned and touted by Obama’s campaign. Romney’s listed “events”, however, were ill- or unplanned. Meaning: To-date, at the very least, Mitt has had buzzard’s luck.
JoeBob
September 18th, 2012
2:01 pm
Kyle, Romney never called anybody “moochers.” even though food stamps expenditures and social security disability claims have risen to record levels.
Bigboy
September 18th, 2012
2:02 pm
Romney is going to get crushed in this election,I served in the military for 10 years and never made enough money to owe any taxes,does this make me a free loader?Idiot.
md
September 18th, 2012
2:02 pm
“And personally since you asked, I believe the Dems are the ones who can best help the poor and Middle Class to benefit from growing wages, schooling and work opportunities, as well as keep the progress that women have made for the past 50 years still moving forward… thanks so much for asking! ”
Ironically, for any of that to occur the private sector has to grow……and grow a lot. And the dems don’t have policies that allow for that growth………..
All those programs cost money, and the more that is taken from the private sector the harder it is for it to grow……………
JDW
September 18th, 2012
2:02 pm
@Del…”Rasmussen’s electoral map see’s the swing states all within a point or two. Rasmussen polls likely voters, which at this point is far more accurate. Democrats are wrapping themselves in a false security blanket when they rest their case on electoral maps that show Obama with a big lead.”
Except for two small points…Rasmussen runs about a 3.5% to 4% Republican bias and all those other polls…psssst don’t tell but they are mostly LV’s too.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/
Cutty
September 18th, 2012
2:04 pm
I wonder if Kyle and any other cons every took out a student loan for college that was subsidized by the federal government. If so, you’re a moocher who should’ve just borrowed the money from your parents. I’m middle-class, advanced degree, pay taxes, and I’m voting for Obama. Robme will simply end my mortgage interest deduction and child tax credit to give billionaires more money. Of course, he won’t say what deductions he’ll end. No thanks.
Archibald Leach
September 18th, 2012
2:04 pm
Hey Kyle, Romney is definitely wrong when he says all those 47% are voting for Obama. Most of the people who dont pay federal income taxes live in red states. Check this out from the Wonkblog
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/mitt-romney-will-probably-get-95-electoral-votes-from-moocher-states-obama-will-probably-get-5/
Hillbilly D
September 18th, 2012
2:06 pm
Both sides jump all over the gaffes of the other side.
I really wonder if either of these guys really want to win. Their performance sure leaves a lot of doubt. Every time one of them seems like they might start to make a little progress with the electorate, they step in it, hip deep.