By now, if you have been following politics at all, you’ve heard about the secretly recorded video of Mitt Romney at a fund raiser in Florida where he said things that he doesn’t say in public. There are those who insist that this is the real Mitt Romney, but we can’t know that. He was at a fundraiser with wealthy republican donors, so this could be Mitt Romney saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear. He does that a lot, but without the skill that Bill Clinton, the master, had for such performances.
Regardless if these statements reflect his core beliefs, supposing he has such ideals, these statements are damaging and may well sink his chances at being elected.
One the first front, these sort of statements are likely to stick to Mitt Romney because they reinforce the image that his is a rich, heartless, out-of-touch plutocrat. That is not to say he is these things, but these sound bites synergize with such impressions and impression are more powerful than reality.
Next let’s unpack one of his statements:
“My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Many people have been taking that first sentence to mean as president he would not care about 47% of Americans, but a more charitable view, and one I think supported by the text around the statement, is that he isn’t worried about getting Obama’s core voters to vote him, and if that was all there were to the comments it would be nothing, but there’s that second sentence.
“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
This is stating that Obama voters, including myself, are shiftless lazy bums who are unwilling to take responsibility for their lives. Such insulting language is rarely persuasive.
It doesn’t help that Mitt Romney is either so clues that he is mixing up two statistics, 47% is about the base Democratic vote, and coincidently 47% of the citizenry do not pay federal income taxes, or duplicitous he is deliberately conflating the two statistics to play on the stereotype that people who vote democratic are ‘moochers’ feeding off the public teat. These two percentages are separate populations with some overlap, but hardly a Venn diagram comprised of a single circle.
(And that 47% number is hardly comprised of shiftless welfare bums just sitting on their asses while waiting for the government dole. It is primarily people on Social Security (untaxed), Students who do not work, people who are out of work, and the working poor who have their tax burdens wiped out by Tax Credits championed by tax cutting Republicans.)
There is a culture and class war going on and the aggressors are the conservatives who insist that the world is made up of makers and moochers and that the social norms of the 1950s must be enshrined into perpetuity.
I am by nature a small government person. The ideal president would bless same sex marriage and fully automatic weapons as wedding gifts, but I don’t have the luxury of an ideal candidate. I will fight the social conservatives and the Randians, and when they’ve been boxed down and put into a very small electoral box then I can turn to the numerous sins of the left.
Not all wives file jointly. There are plenty who do not file at all. (I’ve had to deal with that situation in my day job.)
“Romney may or may not be looking to force women back into the home, but a high percentage of his party wants just that and he is currently pandering to the base so what he may or may not want does not signifiy. His base wants it, so he will say he wants it.”
“A high percentage of his party wants just that?” That is a fear based on pure phantasms. And that’s putting it nicely.
“Full time home makers would be among the 47% of American adults who don’t pay taxes. These women are definitely in the group he is speaking about.”
The IRS would beg to differ. Full time home makers, the so-called “typical housewives”, pay taxes by jointly filing income tax returns with their husbands, so by definition they pay taxes. The home maker is fully liable for payment of those income taxes if for some reason the husband fails to pay the Government.
So unless Romney understands the income tax system as you do, your accusation holds no water.
Romney may or may not be looking to force women back into the home, but a high percentage of his party wants just that and he is currently pandering to the base so what he may or may not want does not signifiy. His base wants it, so he will say he wants it.
Here’s the way it breaks down, Bear: Full time home makers would be among the 47% of American adults who don’t pay taxes. These women are definitely in the group he is speaking about. I never said he said they were lazy or shiftless. What he said was that 47% are “dependent upon government,” and “believe that they are victims” . He stated that it is not his job “to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” This is the connection that I made – that Romney assumes that those not paying taxes are automatically people who don’t take resposibility for themselves and this is not the truth at all when you actually stop and look at who these people are. Homemakers are the exact opposite of someone who is not taking responsibility for themselves. They take responsibility for themselves and for the children they are raising and the husband they are creating a home for. What they do not do is earn money (thus, no taxes.) Senior citizens certainly have taken responsitbility for themselves and are not dependent on the government, aside from Social Security – benefits that were earned, not given gratis. Recent vets unable to find work are not vicitims dependent on the government – again, aside from benefits they have earned through their service, like certain health care benefits, the GI Bill, and VA loans for housing – but they sure want to find work. Recent college grads. of whom Ryan pithly says that we want to get them out of living with their parents, well, they would be in this group, too, because there are no jobs out there. VIctims? Of the bad econmy, certainly, but not dependent and certainly not out of work by choice. (I find it ironic that, in my part of the world, if these recent college grads are teachers, they will never be able to move away from their parents, since they are paid so poorly that they can’t afford to live independently. How about we pay the teachers, Mr. Ryan? Oh, wait, we can’t do that because we have to pay for all the testing that proves that the public schools are bad so we can let people send their kids to private schools that teach creationism as science.)
I am sure this is not who he had in mind when he made this statement. I am sure he was thinking of the classic “Welfare Queen” who keeps popping out kids to keep the checks coming in. Well, guess what? There’s a great many more different kinds of people in that group than he thought. I guess he should have thought a little more before he opened his mouth. An apology would be a good, wise thing – but since he is pandering to the base, that won’t happen.
Bear, there is simply no way to see the good in this. I am very familiar with Mother Jones and I understand why you would not want to accept their information at face value but, as Bob has pointed out, no one in the Romney camp has said one thing to indicate that the context would soften this in any way. If they accept that the context won’t change it, why can’t you? You can and will vote for him anyway. But you shouldn’t.
The citation is the speech by Romney, or are you contending that the 47% of people who do not pay federal income tax does not include non-employed housewives? Yet have a two step process here, Mitt Romney makes comments about 47% who do not pay federal income tax – those comments are deragatory in their nature (if we do not agree there then that’s a clear disconnect), second, that same 47% incldues people of whom we do not general speak badly of, stay at home wives, veterans, the working poor. I have not siad that Romney MEANT insutl those people, but given the first step that is what he did.
Why does the break in the recording seem so important to you?
Sigh,
First, you took a single point and split it in two, to wit Mother Jones and the edit. Single point, these two facts, together, are what completely discredit the video with me. Second, your contention that he was talking about housewives is a theory, completely innocent of anything resembling factual evidence. You think this, reason this, but have no facts to support. Once again, citations please!!
Okay Bear, let’s unpack you four main points.
1)” No, Romney is not looking to force women back into house work. there is no proof at all that wants to do that.”
This is more Melissa’s point to respond to. I think that she has engaged in hyperbole, but it is understandable. However when people see rights that that they take very personally under assault they tend to react strongly. From a stand point of rights important to women, Mitt Romney is a bad deal.
2) “There is also no evidence that he views housewives as shiftless and lazy. If you have something that says otherwise, citation please.”
Here you are simply factually incorrect. Here are Mitt Romney’s words on people who pay no income tax, which included stay at home wives.
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. And 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 that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Now, weather he knowing wanted to include housewives, the retired, the working poor is something only he knows in his heart. I think it is the most likely interpretation that he simply thinks of the 47% not paying taxes as moochers living off the tax funds paid for by others without ever learning who comprise that 47%, but that is supposition as I cannot know what is in his mind. By the words he spoke, he did call housewives out as people who would never ‘take responsibility for their lives.’
3) “As for the 47 speech, the simple fact that there is a two minute hole right next to the quote in question”
true, but I have heard no person, not Romney nor a person in the room come forward and offer a context that lessens the blow of theses words, or changes the tone that the people who do not pay taxes are freeloading moochers. When Mitt had his hastily called presser on the subject he specifically did not distance himself from what he said only the manner in which he said it. Can you offer, even in pure speculation, what might have been said in those missing two minutes that would change the meaning of the afore spoken phrases?
4) and that the video is from Mother Jones, a site that is dedicated to the reelection of President Obama completely disqualifies this video as a reliable source to me. Give me the complete, unedited video and then we’ll see.
It is an ad hominem is put forth the proposition that. because they are liberals (Mother Jones) their reporting can be discarded without analysis. I have heard people make the same charge for conservative publications, The Daily Caller, Drudgereport, Fox News, etc, and I that case it is still an ad hominem.
Missy,
My replies concerning you and Bob have gotten a little mixed up, sorry about that. No, Romney is not looking to force women back into house work. there is no proof at all that wants to do that. There is also no evidence that he views housewives as shiftless and lazy. If you have something that says otherwise, citation please. As for the 47 speech, the simple fact that there is a two minute hole right next to the quote in question and that the video is from Mother Jones, a site that is dedicated to the reelection of President Obama completely disqualifies this video as a reliable source to me. Give me the complete, unedited video and then we’ll see.
Bear, are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Mr. Romney (Of political necessity) has been pandering to the social conservatives on every issue. This means supporting the most traditional form of American family as the ideal model. It may not have been his record previously, but he is embracing it now. Address the issue – are widows (Former home makers) who pay no taxes (in his exact words), people who don’t “take personal responsibility and care for their lives”? This is a large segment of the population he is referring to – those with only the promise of Social Security and Medicare and no time now to go back and make a different choice.
As for Randian – I don’t really know what that is. If I said it and it is inaccurate, well, sorry for that. I’ve never read any of her works and I don’t give a fig about them. Near as I can tell, she became a cult leader and bought into the very structures she claimed to disavow, so she’s a hypocrite, too. There’s enough that irritates me about these guys without worrying about an abstract, out-of-touch, hypocrite philosopher.
Charity and business records are also inconsequential. He is attempting to become the leader of the free world and, whether he said it to appeal to donors or he said it because he believes it, he has dismissed 47% of th population – again, his numbers, not mine. The leader of the free world should not do that.
Romney’s charitable donations have nothing to do with his statement that he couldn’t convince the 47% of the population who are going to vote for the Democratic to ‘take responsibility for their lives‘. It had nothing to do with the conflated thoughts on the 47%, currently, who are off the federal income tax rolls, that he seems to feel is comprised of moochers and takers, that is the Randian aspect I have been talking about. I suspected, I cannot know because I do not personally know Romney, that he is a decent and likable guy in private. There are certainly a lot of stories about him doing lots of good works, but that is not the issue. Either he believes that the population is broken down in producers and moochers, or he was playing such a belief because he thought it would please his big ticket donors. Either way it is insulting and dismissive. As too his charitable giving, well we really don’t know much about the factually as he has released limited tax returns and what he has released indicates that most, about 80%, of his charitable giving is to his church, something that by the teachings of his church he is required to do.
Also it’s not just liberals who are attacking Romney for what he said and what he got all confused there. Though I note that Mr Lowry skips right over the insulting attitude that voting Democratic is an indication that you don’t believe in personal responsibility.
What I see is a whole hearted belief in the talking points from the left concerning Romney. Romney is not proposing forcing women back into the kitchen. And your Randian charge totally ignores the millions of dollars that he has donated to charity as well as direct charity and ministry that he and his family has done. Another thing that you’re ignoring is that Romney has a substantial political and personal business record that simply does not support your charge. If you insist on sticking by this, than I insist that you show me (citations please).
Bear
Bear and Brad – let me see if I’ve understood clearly:
1) There is no break in between the two sentences at all, regardless of what might have come before or afterwards.
2) These statements would have included my mother – who paid no income taxes the last five years of her life because her income was so small (though, naturally, she paid property taxes).
3) My mother was a full-time, life-long home-maker raising a traditional family (Dad worked. Mom stayed home and took care of me.) and she. according to Romney, is someone he can’t worry about because she will never take personal responsibility for herself?
Um, in a tradiational family model (the kind championed by the social conservatives in the Republican Party), someone will need to wkae up and worry about the home makers because their planning and money are not entirely with-n their control. They are at teh mercy of the men in their lives. If the men are decent and sensible (like my dad), then there will be a plan that cares for the home maker adequately in his absense but if not, whose job will it be to “worry about” them, ultimately? They are not slackers who’ve refused to take responsibilty. They are decent women who have chosen and unpaid role. If we take the statement as made then no woman should ever choose a tradiational role since we become fiscally dependent on the men and, therefor, Takers and Moochers. This is very confusing because social conservatives would love us to get back in teh kitchen where they think we belong.
Are you guys even trying to justify the lack of sense in this? Bear, if I remember correctly, your mom was a full time home maker too. Do you not want, as your President, someone who is concerned about her future?
Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood the man – but I don’t think I have. He is certainly not endearing himself to me with his disregard for women in this statement.
You believe the worst from this video clip because it is convenient to do so. This statement is demonstrably false, since in my posting I stated that the ‘My Job is not to worry about those people.” sentence is clearly about gathering votes, from the context, and not how he’d feel as president, and to take this statement at the worst interpretation would be to take the much more common, and wrong one, of he’s writing off people if he were president.
The sequence from the video is he is asked how can he reach these people? he responds, conflating, two different 47% population groups, has an extended segment about people feeling entitled, makes the comment its not his job worry about them, then the comment I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives., and then he starts into polling data and the recording breaks.
If I understand you and Brad correctly you believe that there is likely something in the missing section that would exonerate his earlier comments. While it is possible I do not think it is likely. One I have a hard time even creating a bit of text that would do that without him walking back entirely what he had said. Two When Romney called his hasty presser over this affair he made no mention of cut out words or phrases that would clarify his remarks.
I remember you once posting a 7 second clip from Rush Limbaugh that made him sound terrible. I couldn’t believe it because it was so out of character from what I knew of him. I looked up the monologue that it was a part of, and the meaning of the clip was radically different when put into the context of the monologue. How can you possibly know what was meant when the so called full video was so conveniently chopped. You believe the worst from this video clip because it is convenient to do so.
Bear
The whole Makers vs Takers, Producers vs Moochers is a very Randian philosophy. I whole heartedly reject the Randian concept that selfishness is a virtue. Now the Randians have been on the upswung the the republican party because the conservatives and the Randian see a common enemy in the liberals, seeing the specter of socialism in every proposal, the masses ready to rise up and snatch the bread from the well deserving makers. This alliance is an uneasy one because of the conflict between the religious core of the social conservatives and the rejection of religion by the Randians. This is why Paul Ryan this year had to suddenly backtrack on how influential Ayn Rand was to him, despite having been on the record that her writing was required reading for his staff, and affirm his religious grounding because the social cons were getting concerned.
What moderate position has he taken in the run for the presidency? Any?
There is no edit around the statement I commented upon. (“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 second statement is highly insulting to me. It is staggering in its ignorance, and demeans people simply because they are of a different political ideology. (Which includes most of my immediate family.) I can’t imagine what he could have said that might have turn that sentiment into something benign and even-handed.
As for what Romney said, it’s a shame we don’t have the full context. And it’s also a shame the source of the video also seems to have deliberately concealed that the full context was missing when he first offered up the story to the MSM.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/maybe-romney-answer-was-inelegant-only-because-mother-jones-didnt-disclose-that-part-of-tape-was-missing/
But even if there is no important missing context, Randians? Really? Randians are a threat?
So now “Randians” are part of an evil alliance fighting against truth, justice, and the American way? By Randian I suppose you mean those who admire Ayn Rand. And Romney’s remarks are supposed to indicate he is some kind of Randian? Won’t that Massachusetts Moderate be surprised to find out he is now a Randian!
Though no more surprised I suppose than the bible thumping Social Conservatives who are now in alliance with atheist Randians! What a country!
Yep, the political power of those dastardly Randians must be culled before they go to far! My God! Think of the threat to the Post Office! Then maybe, perhaps, some day we can get around to worrying about stuff like…
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/091812-626216-media-matters-colludes-with-justice-department-to-halt-critics.htm
Naah! Because Obamacare is already working so very well…
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/09/19/the_emerging_obamacare_truth_is_disarray_99890.html
I’m reading reports that the supposedly complete video is missing 1-2 minutes. I’m withholding comment until the missing part of the video is released. I reference:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/critical-audio-gap-in-complete-romney-tape-released-by-mother-jones/
The post documents the communication between the blogger, William Jacobson, and the releaser of the video, David Corn, as well as Jacobson’s investigation to date. There is also information from Moe Lane:
http://moelane.com/2012/09/18/rsrh-mother-jones-caught-tampering-with-their-untampered-video-tsk-tsk-tsk/
and The Blaze:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-full-secret-video-of-romney-at-fundraiser-really-unedited/
If a video is going to be used to demonstrate the unsuitability of a presidential candidate it should damn well be complete.
Bear