Not good for Romney

cincybearcat

Didn;t want to start a new thread...

What do you think about this? Seems like could be the old Mitt back. But, can you believe him?

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... hpt=hp_bn2

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Didn;t want to start a new thread...

What do you think about this? Seems like could be the old Mitt back. But, can you believe him?

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... hpt=hp_bn2

based on his running mate - i don't think he is credible ... the reality is he knows he's gonna get x% of the vote whether he is a tows the tea party line or not ... so, he needs to reach out to moderates and this is what I suspect he is doing ... but i really don't think he's got any credibility whatsoever as it's is pretty clear that he will say whatever it is that will get him elected ...

take the 47% comment for example ... first he tried to claim it was out of context ... when that failed, he now admits he was wrong ... it's not like he was citing a capital city ... he was openly discussing his philosophy - something you really can't be wrong about ... but who knows - maybe he said that just to pander to his audience that night ... either way - he's a bit low on credibility ...

prism

:nono: mitt....

don't underestimate the raging fury of 2 year olds being denied their elmo...


think of the the parents & childcare providers! they'd have to live with them as well

PJ_Soul

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Didn;t want to start a new thread...

What do you think about this? Seems like could be the old Mitt back. But, can you believe him?

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... hpt=hp_bn2

based on his running mate - i don't think he is credible ... the reality is he knows he's gonna get x% of the vote whether he is a tows the tea party line or not ... so, he needs to reach out to moderates and this is what I suspect he is doing ... but i really don't think he's got any credibility whatsoever as it's is pretty clear that he will say whatever it is that will get him elected ...

take the 47% comment for example ... first he tried to claim it was out of context ... when that failed, he now admits he was wrong ... it's not like he was citing a capital city ... he was openly discussing his philosophy - something you really can't be wrong about ... but who knows - maybe he said that just to pander to his audience that night ... either way - he's a bit low on credibility ...

Since he didn't think he was talking to the nation when he made the comment, and now is back-peddaling furiously, I am comfortable assuming that he absolutely meant what he said at the fund-raiser, and is simply lying through his teeth now so that people will stop being mad at him for how he actually feels and what he actually believes. :problem: Anyone who thinks he doesn't truly believe what he said about the 47% is a fool IMO.

acutejam

So nearly 3 weeks later, still not good huh?

The 47% comment doesn't really bug me. First, yeah, I'm voting for Mitt. Second, it's real -- did he say it in confidence to insiders? Sure. Would he ever publically say that? Nope. But he did, and it's out. Ok. Boneheaded, yup -- stupid stupid... Coverup fumbled, backpedal. Let's see how the cover-up and back-pedalling works out for Fast & Furious and the Libyan Ambassador, huh?

So now sure, rally around it! He doesn't even CARE ABOUT 47% of us!!! Waaah.

Guess what percentage EVEN VOTE?!?!? In 2008 with about 213 million eligible voters, only 132 million voted - just over 60%. Is he supposed to pander to those 40% that won't even VOTE?!?!? You want our candidates to be that phony? It's THIS scary when the curtain falls away on modern politics? Puh-lease...

Then sure, of the 60% that do... he knows what his base is, what his opponent's base is, so why pander to folks you know you've lost. I certainly didn't see ANY campaigning from EITHER candidate out here in CA. Does Obama care about me?!?!?

And then I just think, c'mon. These conversations are happening at ANY candidates offices, in private, in confidence... "I don't think we should even bother with 47% of folks in this distict, in that state."

It shows he's willing to talk plainly with folks he trusts. It also shows he's a bit naive. But I don't take it much beyond that...

The 47% is just political calculation reality -- I don't think it speaks to his heart.

whygohome

And this:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=196733

And this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 33730.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 43073.html

Whether you agree with these types of statements or not--and, I have no problem if you do--they are still politically damaging.

Does anyone else get the feeling that Paul Ryan is just using this experience to establish some credibility/notoriety for 2016? 2020?

PJ_Soul

acutejam wrote:

So nearly 3 weeks later, still not good huh?

The 47% comment doesn't really bug me. First, yeah, I'm voting for Mitt. Second, it's real -- did he say it in confidence to insiders? Sure. Would he ever publically say that? Nope. But he did, and it's out. Ok. Boneheaded, yup -- stupid stupid... Coverup fumbled, backpedal. Let's see how the cover-up and back-pedalling works out for Fast & Furious and the Libyan Ambassador, huh?

So now sure, rally around it! He doesn't even CARE ABOUT 47% of us!!! Waaah.

Guess what percentage EVEN VOTE?!?!? In 2008 with about 213 million eligible voters, only 132 million voted - just over 60%. Is he supposed to pander to those 40% that won't even VOTE?!?!? You want our candidates to be that phony? It's THIS scary when the curtain falls away on modern politics? Puh-lease...

Then sure, of the 60% that do... he knows what his base is, what his opponent's base is, so why pander to folks you know you've lost. I certainly didn't see ANY campaigning from EITHER candidate out here in CA. Does Obama care about me?!?!?

And then I just think, c'mon. These conversations are happening at ANY candidates offices, in private, in confidence... "I don't think we should even bother with 47% of folks in this distict, in that state."

It shows he's willing to talk plainly with folks he trusts. It also shows he's a bit naive. But I don't take it much beyond that...

The 47% is just political calculation reality -- I don't think it speaks to his heart.

You seem to be assuming that all 40% of those who don't vote are a part of that 47% he doesn't give a shit about. That's obviously not the case.

acutejam

That 47% he doesn't give a shit about ... in his political calculations while he tries to win the presidency.

That last part you keep forgetting. I think he is talking about who he can get to vote for him, that a certain percent is predisposed to vote Obama. And then yeah, he goes on to denigrate them. But heck they ain't votin for him anyway, huh?

It doesn't matter what that percent is made of, of course it's not the non voting block only. These are smart people that run campaigns. And both sides can make stupid comments. It's stupid to you, it's stupid to the waiter who filmed him. How stupid did it sound to the deep pockets in the room?

"ah good, he won't waste my money campaigning at the code pink rally...."

PJ_Soul

acutejam wrote:

That 47% he doesn't give a shit about ... in his political calculations while he tries to win the presidency.

That last part you keep forgetting. I think he is talking about who he can get to vote for him, that a certain percent is predisposed to vote Obama. And then yeah, he goes on to denigrate them. But heck they ain't votin for him anyway, huh?

It doesn't matter what that percent is made of, of course it's not the non voting block only. These are smart people that run campaigns. And both sides can make stupid comments. It's stupid to you, it's stupid to the waiter who filmed him. How stupid did it sound to the deep pockets in the room?

"ah good, he won't waste my money campaigning at the code pink rally...."

I think the implications of what he said run deeper than that. I think his basic attitude displayed towards people without lots of money or the otherwise unfortunate is what's beng expressed, and what is disturbing here. That he thinks those people make up a particular voting group is just secondary nonsense.

whygohome

acutejam wrote:

That 47% he doesn't give a shit about ... in his political calculations while he tries to win the presidency.

That last part you keep forgetting. I think he is talking about who he can get to vote for him, that a certain percent is predisposed to vote Obama. And then yeah, he goes on to denigrate them. But heck they ain't votin for him anyway, huh?

It doesn't matter what that percent is made of, of course it's not the non voting block only. These are smart people that run campaigns. And both sides can make stupid comments. It's stupid to you, it's stupid to the waiter who filmed him. How stupid did it sound to the deep pockets in the room?

"ah good, he won't waste my money campaigning at the code pink rally...."

Those 47% are also the ones who have suffered due to the economic collapse. Those 47% did not have the role in the collapse that the banks and Wall St. did. Those 47% are the ones who suffer when Bain comes in and liquidates a company for the profit of management and shareholder.

whygohome

PJ_Soul wrote:

acutejam wrote:

That 47% he doesn't give a shit about ... in his political calculations while he tries to win the presidency.

That last part you keep forgetting. I think he is talking about who he can get to vote for him, that a certain percent is predisposed to vote Obama. And then yeah, he goes on to denigrate them. But heck they ain't votin for him anyway, huh?

It doesn't matter what that percent is made of, of course it's not the non voting block only. These are smart people that run campaigns. And both sides can make stupid comments. It's stupid to you, it's stupid to the waiter who filmed him. How stupid did it sound to the deep pockets in the room?

"ah good, he won't waste my money campaigning at the code pink rally...."

I think the implications of what he said run deeper than that. I think his basic attitude displayed towards people without lots of money or the otherwise unfortunate is what's beng expressed, and what is disturbing here. That he thinks those people make up a particular voting group is just secondary nonsense.

Did Romney apologize---17 days after the video surfaced---for what he said or for the fact that it was caught on video?

PJ_Soul

whygohome wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

acutejam wrote:

That 47% he doesn't give a shit about ... in his political calculations while he tries to win the presidency.

That last part you keep forgetting. I think he is talking about who he can get to vote for him, that a certain percent is predisposed to vote Obama. And then yeah, he goes on to denigrate them. But heck they ain't votin for him anyway, huh?

It doesn't matter what that percent is made of, of course it's not the non voting block only. These are smart people that run campaigns. And both sides can make stupid comments. It's stupid to you, it's stupid to the waiter who filmed him. How stupid did it sound to the deep pockets in the room?

"ah good, he won't waste my money campaigning at the code pink rally...."

I think the implications of what he said run deeper than that. I think his basic attitude displayed towards people without lots of money or the otherwise unfortunate is what's beng expressed, and what is disturbing here. That he thinks those people make up a particular voting group is just secondary nonsense.

Did Romney apologize---17 days after the video surfaced---for what he said or for the fact that it was caught on video?

Nope, not as fat as I've heard. I don't think he could have handled it worse. I mean, first he gets caught acting like such an asshole on tape, then defends his assholery for days and days, and THEN turns around and says he was totally wrong?? He would have been better off sticking to what he said! What the fuck are his advisors doing??

norm

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22comp ... 80&bih=832