Sunday, September 23, 2012

47 Percent?

Today I would like to just say a few words about the recent "47 percent" comment made in a speech by Governor Romney.

Originally, I figured he must have been mis-quoted. I figured that he may have said that he didn't care about the 47 percent of the US voters who are going to vote Democratic, no matter what. During the election, sure, it makes sense that he isn't going to care about die-hard Liberal voters. Why should he? But you know what? I actually listened to what he SAID. And while he started off talking about not needing to craft an election message to 47% of the voters, what he ended up saying was that these people are free-loaders and lazy. Now, again, he may have mis-spoken. I think he mixed up the 47% of the voters who will absolutely not support him with another 47% of people who pay no income tax. In reality, these are not the same groups of people. However, in his eagerness to make a point he *seemed* to be saying that they are the same 47%.

Disagree with me? Watch/listen to it yourself. Was this clip edited? It could have been, but it sounds pretty one-cut to me.

My gripe is pretty clear. If Governor Romney is in fact saying that he believes anyone who is supporting the President is a loafer or expecting entitlement of any kind, I am livid. I have been employed every day of my life since I graduated college. I am not a loafer and I do not expect any hand-outs. Did the government offer me student loans? Then I will take them, happily. (And I have already paid mine back, thank you very much.) Did the government offer me a tax break when I had a daughter between a certain age? Then I will take that tax break, willingly. Does the government allow me to save millions of US dollars in an untaxed Swiss bank account? Then if I had that money, Governor Romney, I would do what I could *legally* to take advantage of the system. Wouldn't.... Don't you?

More so than the insult that he tossed at all Democratic supporters, I am dismayed that he is basically saying that IF elected, he would not even try to represent the entire country. It's not his job to worry about 47% of the American public? Wow. When was the last time we had a President who *actively* worked at representing everybody? President Reagan, maybe? More recently President George W was everyone's President for about six months after Sept 11. All too soon he wasted the public's good fortune on some mistaken idea that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda. And then it was back to normal, i.e. political hatred.

I know that during elections each party says things they don't mean or promise to do things they aren't going to do. But after the election, it's time to get back to One Country. I haven't seen that happen much since I came back to the US (in 2001). I know two people who tell me to my face, "President Obama is not MY President." That kind of talk really burns me up. Now we have Governor Romney appearing to say, "These people are not my people." Shame on you, Mr. Romney. Shame on you.

Again, if he mis-spoke then he needs to fix this. It sounds like he called 47% of the US population dead-beats, and that is NOT okay.


  1. Yeah, you misunderstood. What he is saying is he can never convince those people who are voting for obama, anything other than what they already believe. The 47% is 47% of those people actually expected to vote.

    Not 100% of Americans so the number he is referring to is actually quite lower. Whoever chopped this did so maliciously. I will look and get you the whole speech (I have heard it and this is purely as one might suspect a context issue.) Or if you want to find a full copy yourslf and make sure of no tampering be my guest, you will find the same thing.

    And the reason this 47% is part of the voting populace is because obama is going to say and do anything he can to get those people to the booth in November. But a lot of groups are starting to bear down and watch now (on both sides) as he is expected to cheat. He did so in the last election, do you recall the interviews with the seniors who were told they were being given free ridse to the polls and when they got there, and checked in someone met them at the booth and voted for them to save them the trouble of pushing the buttons, then voted opposite of thier wishes. And of course ACORN which in name does not exist anymore afer their antics but they are still a loose knit group working to sway the ote in obama's favor. Of course the liberal media will never report this, the media wouldn't know objective anymore if it bit them on the butt, they have a clear agenda and that is to side with obama.

    So basically the fix is in, that is why obama isn't really acting as worried as he should. He pretends on occasion to be beleaguered but he is confident of his cheat. So time will tell, and you & I are merely stuck waiting for the dust to fall one way or the other.

    Truth be told I would have had a different candidate than Romney, would have loved to have seen Ryan for Pres and Romney for vice if no one else would take it lol! Or even Chris Christie (who didn't want it.)But I will have to vote for ROmney, even he could not be as bad as obama. Sorry we obviously have differences of opinion (which I hold against no one) I am pro life, I support the 1st and 2nd amendments (the 2nd fiercely, you know why.)

    Having worked in a field where governmental information is everything and having connections all over Washington these days. I get the drift of what is going on that most of the public do not. From that point of view I will tell you, it would be very bad for all of us if obama is relected. Good blog, well written Russ; keep up the great work. The shrine is great but is more visually oriented this is a great thinker's blog. (in more ways than one lol!)

  2. Russell, just go occupy Broad Street or something. ;)