One thing that I love about the left has been this "99%" vs. the "1%". Some kind of weird number thing.
So, the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, was "caught" speaking truth to power once again to a group of supporters at a Florida fundraiser back in May.
The reason I quote mark caught is because the left is making his comments seem nefarious because he does not exactly say what he said while campaigning.
So, what was the pure eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll that Mr. Romney said when asked a question during this fundraiser? Here it is:
“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 the 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 … 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. So 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 they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”
Now the above is spot on generally. And keep in mind, he is by his own admission in this press conference, speaking off the cuff.
But one has to divide the election numbers part of the comment, the point of government dependency and that he will not change a lot of those minds.
So, here is the election and the numbers area.
OK, I think that the numbers are a little off, but the reality is that Mr. Romney is correct. Under the three-plus years of the Worthless Leader, President Obama, dependency on government has increased. And especially with the federal government.
Mr. Romney is correct that the Worthless Leader, President Obama, starts off with big numbers and still a lot of support. But where he is wrong is to say that it starts off as high as 47%. Like I have written time after time about candidate and party support, the number that the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is probably at is between 40-45%. For the sake of arguement, say it is at 43%.
Essentially, that is the Democrat party base.
But where the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is steadily losing group is among independents. On pretty much issue after issue. So that number, 43% is the starting point.
For Mr. Romney, his number is probably at 35-40% to start. Again for the sake of arguement, lets make it 37%.
Those numbers make it a total of 80% probably locked it to said party and or candidate. Leaving that number I keep writing about at 20%.
Thus when Mr. Romney starts off giving the Worthless Leader, President Obama, 47%, he is being kind.
Maybe Mr. Romney should have said that the president will probably not get more than 47% of the vote.
Now, this is important.
Mr. Romney did come off way too flippant in this part of the comment:
And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Even some of those that benefit from the government trough are begining to realize that it is unsustainable. And he should never, ever rule out ANY potential vote. I mean, I know what he is saying in general, but it comes off badly. Even at a GOP fundraiser with donors looking for the red meat.
Keep in mind that this comment came on May 17. So the numbers and all have changed and the reality is that this is a close race.
So what about those that are becoming and or are dependent on government? Is Mr. Romney wrong on that.
Once again in general, not at all.
Since the Worthless Leader, President Obama, became the current occupant of the White House, here are some numbers.
Poverty is at the highest number of people in over 40 years. Which means that this would be at the apex of President Lyndon Lynchin' Baines Johnson's so-called War on Poverty.
In 2011, according to the 2010 census, 49,100,000 live in what is considered poverty. And it is a record.
As of 2011, 45,000,000 Americans received SNAP assistance or what we remember it being called Food Stamps. In 2007, the number was 31,500,000. That is an increase of 70%. Seventy frickin percent!
None of this counts in the costs of implmenting the dreaded so-called health care "reform", aka Obamacare. Nor have I mentioned anything about government subsidized housing or a slew of federal programs.
And I have not mentioned some that yes, do benefit the middle class.
But fundamentally, all of these goodies are designed to make people believe that the federal government is there for them. And yes, creates what can only be classified as dependency.
So, how can Mr. Romney change the majority of these people's minds that his solutions for the ills facing the United States is better than what we are currently dealing with?
Again, he is correct that he will not be able to change most of those people. But some of those people realize that they are in a cycle that they are not happy to be in and those are the people that Mr. Romney needs to address.
There are persuadable people that have become so victimized by the Obamaconomy and do not like where they are and willing to listen. These are the people that want to get back to work. These are the people that will do something for the assistance that they are receiving from the federal government.
Which is why he needs to expand that 5-10% number of persuadables he mentioned in the comment to 10-20%.
Because that is the magic number.
Some of those people are very much really wondering can they be voting for the guy that will keep extending unemployment benefits rather than create an enviornment in which businesses will start up
Some of those people will think can they vote for the guy that wants the government to determine their future or the guy that wants to let them make their own decisions.
But the overall comment is correct.
So, what really surprises me is that he said it.
For all the talk that Mr. Romney is not really all that conservative and that he is overly cautious, that sure does not sound like a liberal and someone cautious. It sounds like someone who gets the problems facing the United States today and states the obvious.
And while many think that this was terrible and disdainful of a large swath of Americans, remember that then presidential candidate Sen. Messiah Barack had this to say about the rural voters of Pennsylvania:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Yes, if the economy was peachy-keen in those Pennsylvania small towns, why the people would give up their guns, welcome the half-Black, half Norweigen, gay man in the wheelchair that likes to wear dresses and then give up on God for the government would be the new God.
And also, one is truly spot on, Mr. Romney, while then Sen. Messiah Barack was stereotyping.
And, give Mr. Romney credit for when he had a press conference in Costa Mesa, California last night, he did not back down from the comments.
What Mr. Romney needs to do now is turn this into part of what he will do differently as president. He needs to make this part of the stump speech.
Mitt Romney needs to stand up for those of us who choose not to be dependent on government but try to live our own lives and respect others doing the same.
While this is not the way that I think he wanted this talk to come out, he shoud welcome it and embrace it.