Romney loses election

[regexcellent]

That's not the same thing as "clinging" to it. Or expressing resentment toward foreigners (which Romney has tried to capitalize on with his nonsense about calling China a "currency manipulator" ).

I'm pretty sure the currency manipulation thing is something Chuck Schumer goes on about too. He's not exactly what you would call a right wing neocon.

HC is right, something like half of Americans have guns in their home and the vast majority are religious. Expressing disdain toward gun ownership and religion is basically saying "Americans are ****ty people, don't you fellow liberal elites agree?"

[kentonio]

HC is right, something like half of Americans have guns in their home and the vast majority are religious. Expressing disdain toward gun ownership and religion is basically saying "Americans are ****ty people, don't you fellow liberal elites agree?"

That must be why he lost the 2008 election so heavily.

[regexcellent]

Believe it or not, politicians can say a lot of ridiculous **** and get away with it. Witness Joe Biden.

[giblets]

I'm pretty sure the currency manipulation thing is something Chuck Schumer goes on about too. He's not exactly what you would call a right wing neocon.

HC is right, something like half of Americans have guns in their home and the vast majority are religious. Expressing disdain toward gun ownership and religion is basically saying "Americans are ****ty people, don't you fellow liberal elites agree?"

He obviously picked the wrong words when explaining why white working class skepticism toward him had nothing to do with racism.

[DaShi]

HC is right, something like half of Americans have guns in their home and the vast majority are religious. Expressing disdain toward gun ownership and religion is basically saying "Americans are ****ty people, don't you fellow liberal elites agree?"

HC is wrong, because that statement was referring to a narrow group of people who happen to own guns, not all gun owners. Romney did not make such a distinction in his statement. In fact, he made sure that people understood that he was planning to neglect 47% of the American population. Comparing these two is like comparing strawberries and melons.

[Elok]

This actually improved my opinion of Romney. I read the words about 47% of the US being worthless welfare leeches and thought, "hey, he's finally saying something he sincerely means!" This quiets the part of my brain which feared he was a complete cipher with no actual soul, or else some kind of alien pod-person replicant. He's a human being! A rather crappy human being, but a human being nonetheless. He finally has a message he can stand behind. And that message is, "you miserable panhandling hobo ****s aren't good enough to vote for me, so go back to your shantytowns." Pretty much GOP boilerplate; I can live with that.

Sadly, I'm not silly enough to actually waste good gas money on voting. Sorry, Mr. Romney. You still get points for being principled at last.

[DaShi]

I expect to see Romney use the same pattern here as with all of his other gaffes:

1. Make embarrassing gaffe
2. State that he stands by his statement
3. Back away from his statement

People want four years of this?

[DaShi]

This actually improved my opinion of Romney. I read the words about 47% of the US being worthless welfare leeches and thought, "hey, he's finally saying something he sincerely means!" This quiets the part of my brain which feared he was a complete cipher with no actual soul, or else some kind of alien pod-person replicant. He's a human being! A rather crappy human being, but a human being nonetheless. He finally has a message he can stand behind. And that message is, "you miserable panhandling hobo ****s aren't good enough to vote for me, so go back to your shantytowns." Pretty much GOP boilerplate; I can live with that.

Sadly, I'm not silly enough to actually waste good gas money on voting. Sorry, Mr. Romney. You still get points for being principled at last.

One of the criticisms is that he was telling the audience what they wanted to hear, which he is often accused of doing. He was in a room full of wealthy donors who believe those exact words. I wouldn't interpret this as any sign of honesty or integrity from Romney.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think he was discussing election strategy more than actual public policy.

[rah]

I expect to see Romney use the same pattern here as with all of his other gaffes:

1. Make embarrassing gaffe
2. State that he stands by his statement
3. Back away from his statement

People want four years of this?

A big dilemma for republicans. The alternative to us is worse. I certainly didn't want Obama the first time, and if anything, has only made himself less attractive since.

[Hauldren Collider]

How is that 1,2,3 any different from any other politician? All of Obama's gaffes have proceeded that way.

[Hauldren Collider]

This actually improved my opinion of Romney. I read the words about 47% of the US being worthless welfare leeches and thought, "hey, he's finally saying something he sincerely means!" This quiets the part of my brain which feared he was a complete cipher with no actual soul, or else some kind of alien pod-person replicant. He's a human being! A rather crappy human being, but a human being nonetheless. He finally has a message he can stand behind. And that message is, "you miserable panhandling hobo ****s aren't good enough to vote for me, so go back to your shantytowns." Pretty much GOP boilerplate; I can live with that.

Sadly, I'm not silly enough to actually waste good gas money on voting. Sorry, Mr. Romney. You still get points for being principled at last.

The 47% figure is rather high, but I think he correctly observed that there's a substantial part of the democratic base that votes democratic because they see themselves as victims deserving government entitlements. Is there anyone who really believes that's false? The only thing I could see someone really disagreeing with here is whether or not they actually are victims.

He then comments that they won't vote for him because they want their entitlements they feel they have a right to, and it would be fruitless to try to sway them. Again, simple statement of fact. Who really disagrees? I'm almost inclined to think that this wouldn't be such a ****storm if he had said it at a public rally. Something about it being in private makes it seem vaguely seedy.

Also you live in Maryland. It's not like your state is competitive anyway [/obligatory virginia-is-better comment]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Truthfulness

Political nuance


http://www.businessinsider.com/cnbc-...omments-2012-9

[Wiglaf]

The 99 percenters must be so pissed the 47 percenters are getting all the attention now.

[Hauldren Collider]