The msm won’t look at what Mitt Romney said. They’re so busy trying to push the narrative that the wheels are coming off the Romney campaign and that Obama’s re-election is inevitable that they have no time for real news and analysis like trying to figure out why our embassies throughout the Muslim world are in flames, why the economy can’t get any traction, or whether there might be anything to what Mitt Romney said in his remarks several months ago. Let me just note that the Romney is doomed spin is just that – spin. The polls cited in support of that idea systematically over-sample democrats. The over-sampling of democrats is utterly unjustified since all objective indicators point to a stronger turnout by republicans than by democrats. Those very polls show Romney well ahead among independents, but they keep Obama ahead in the overall poll by sampling lots of democrats and very few republicans. Look behind the numbers and you can see for yourself. If you want to look at a reliable poll, check out Rasmussen, which continues to have the race as a dead heat. Rasmussen does an excellent job tracking party affiliation, which drives turnout. Just before the election in 2008, the democrats had a huge affiliation advantage. The republicans now that reversed that. There can be only one explanation for the systematic over-sampling of democrats in the msm polls -- intentionally skewed results.
Better yet, look at what the candidates are doing. Candidates battle over what they know to be the battleground. If one candidate surges, the battle ground changes – new states come into play and former battleground states go out of play. Name one Romney state that Obama now is fighting for. [Crickets.] Obama has given up on North Carolina. Wisconsin and New Hampshire now are tossups, as are Colorado and Nevada. The race today is precisely where it has been for a long time – most states long decided and a dead heat in a few states that ultimately will determine the outcome. Having thus put the lie to the msm narrative that is designed to tamp down republican turnout, let’s do their job for them and actually look at what Romney said.
Better yet, look at what the candidates are doing. Candidates battle over what they know to be the battleground. If one candidate surges, the battle ground changes – new states come into play and former battleground states go out of play. Name one Romney state that Obama now is fighting for. [Crickets.] Obama has given up on North Carolina. Wisconsin and New Hampshire now are tossups, as are Colorado and Nevada. The race today is precisely where it has been for a long time – most states long decided and a dead heat in a few states that ultimately will determine the outcome. Having thus put the lie to the msm narrative that is designed to tamp down republican turnout, let’s do their job for them and actually look at what Romney said.
He said that “there are 47% . . . 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.” So the republican candidate for president thinks the nanny state is a bad idea, that it fosters a dangerous dependence, and this is supposed to be news? The republicans have been running on that time immemorial. Here’s the question the msm should be addressing, but won’t: Is Romney right? John Stossel thinks so. I tend to agree. Romney may have conflated the number of those who pay no net federal income tax with this separate group of chronically dependent, but his fundamental point about the dangers of dependency is sound.
Romney also said that “These are people who pay no income tax.” Again, this problem has been the topic of discussion for a long time. I thought there was bi-partisan support for the idea that the slowly increasing percentage of people who pay no net federal income tax is a potential problem as fewer and fewer people have skin in the game. Romney’s recognition that his tax-cutting message will not resonate with those who pay no taxes seems to me a truism. The part of Romney’s remarks where he essentially gave up on getting the votes of these folks probably is the kind of calculation that all politicians make, but not in public. I have to assume that the Obama campaign has given up on my vote – if not, then they’re fools, and I don’t think they’re fools.
Romney also said that “These are people who pay no income tax.” Again, this problem has been the topic of discussion for a long time. I thought there was bi-partisan support for the idea that the slowly increasing percentage of people who pay no net federal income tax is a potential problem as fewer and fewer people have skin in the game. Romney’s recognition that his tax-cutting message will not resonate with those who pay no taxes seems to me a truism. The part of Romney’s remarks where he essentially gave up on getting the votes of these folks probably is the kind of calculation that all politicians make, but not in public. I have to assume that the Obama campaign has given up on my vote – if not, then they’re fools, and I don’t think they’re fools.
I’m glad for these sorts of recordings that come out showing candidates in a candid moment. I learned a lot about what the president thinks of me when he described my kind as bitterly clinging to our guns and Bibles when he thought only his friends were listening. I think I learned something important when the open mic caught the president promising the Russians increased “flexibility” in his second term. The same goes for this Romney revelation. Based on his record in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, I’ve always worried whether he really understands the dangers that government dependency poses for our society. Now I know a little more about what he thinks on this subject, and I’m more comfortable voting for him having heard what he said here.
