47%: What Bothers Me Most About Romney’s Speech
A lot has been written about Romney’s 47% speech. To save you the time of having to click over to it, here’s an excerpt:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. 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. [Mother Jones]
The first thing that bothers me about Romney’s remarks is that I believe that the citizens of the most powerful nation on this earth are entitled to healthcare, food, housing, and education—not as handouts but as by-products of a well-functioning and just society.
The second problem I have is with his phrase “…my job is not to worry about those people…” Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he’s referring to those voters that he will never be able to convince because they “will vote for this president no matter what,” I cringe at his next sentence, “I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” As David Brooks pointed out in his article Thurston Howell Romney, the people who Romney is referring to in his speech do take responsibility for their lives: ”..the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A…the student getting a loan to go to college…the retiree on Social Security or Medicare.”
The third thing that bothers me is his allusion that a big portion of President Obama supporters have a welfare mentality (or are actually receiving some kind of welfare), which of course, inadvertently or not, carries racial undertones (in no small part due to past Republican campaigns equating welfare to poor African-Americans). Once again David Brooks clarifies:
The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.
But, as disturbing as I find the Romney speech, the thing that bothers me most is not the speech itself but his response to the public outcry that it has rightly generated. Even though Romney has insulted half of the country and many of his own constituents, the closest apology Romney has given is that his remarks were “not eloquently stated.” Then he has doubled down in defense of his remarks by saying that he was speaking about government dependency. I still don’t understand why he had to insult half of America in the process, but I’m not surprised about Romney’s typical cluelessness.
Nor am I surprised by his next move: the unearthing of a 14-year old Obama audiotape where he spoke about wealth redistribution. The candidate whose policies overwhelmingly favor the rich while penalizing the middle class wants to open the door to the subject of redistribution. I can’t wait to see what PBO’s camp does with this.
So, this is the bottom line: Romney messed up, big time. A bigger candidate would man up, apologize, and move on. But not Romney, in his typical fashion, he makes a lame comment and then starts pointing the finger. How ironic that a man who believes so much in personal responsibility refuses to take on his own.
![Revenge: [My] 10 Truths About Truth](http://opinionista.us/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/RevengeTruth-217133_38x38.jpg)
I’m so pleased to hear someone else say that they believe Americans ARE entitled to certain things such as food, housing and education. I’m not sure what the point of government is if it isn’t first and foremost concerned with a certain minimum level of quality of life for its citizens.
What concerns me most about this latest Romney debacle is the way he speaks about what he considers to be almost half of the country: as The Other – as someone he can’t relate to, can’t communicate with, and will never be able to have any common ground with. I’m wildly uneasy about the idea of having a president who looks upon me and about half of the country he’s supposed to be leading with obvious disdain and dismissiveness – and doesn’t hesitate to make that opinion known publicly.
Well, I’m pleased to know that you agree about us being entitled to basic things.
“The Other” is a good way to describe how Romney expressed himself, a non-entity that doesn’t agree with him, and therefore he can swat away like a fly. This is a candidate that has traded his principles for the GOP nomination. He doesn’t deserve to win.
Thank you for stopping by, and for your thoughtful comment.
Amen. I’m so appalled that Romney is still in even in this race after writing off 47% citizen’s as irresponsible “moochers”, I couldn’t even blog my hatred for this man. You put the argument so eloquently,no the truth so eloquently I hope everyone gets a chance to read this. Vets, teachers, disabled, anyone that provides service to this country, as you said damn sure is entitled to the basic necessities! If Romney doesn’t think so let him hire his own security (don’t use our police or armed services), build his own schools (don’t employ citizens from our public schools), use his private jets for him and his cronies to get everywhere (don’t use our roads and bridges)if all these people are beneath you. Excellent article!!
Theresa Powell recently posted..From ‘let me be clear’ to ‘racist’: A beginner’s guide to Obama-speak
I think that Romney has enraged many people with his speech. As I’ve said on Twitter, I used to think he was a good man but a bad campaigner. After this speech I think he’s a bad man and a worse campaigner. By bad, I mean someone who is cold, calculating, and has no empathy for those who have much less than him. I have nothing against rich people. On the contrary, I admire those who have the savvy and/or hard work to make it big. But I am not going to vote for a candidate without compassion and for a party that has put their political ambition above the wellbeing of our country. Thank you for visiting and for taking the time to write your comment. Hope to see you around more often.