47% – Where Was That Comment?

“… 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….”

“Our message of low taxes doesn’t connect … 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 live.”

Mother Jones, by the way, said, “He [Romney] dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don’t assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them.” But Mother Jones never explains Romney’s remark: ” … they will vote for this president….” I guess that remark is beyond Mother Jones‘ spin capability.

What Mother Jones (and others in the MSM) failed to point out is that Romney did NOT characterize Obama supporters “as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don’t assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them.” Romney clearly, in his statement, is saying that these people will vote for Obama no matter what he does. And that reducing taxes will not connect, will not be understood, will not change a single vote, regardless of what he does or says. In fact, when the video was published, Romney said, “Those that are dependent on government and those that think government’s job is to redistribute – I’m not going to get them.” So, try as they may, the MSM cannot spin the truth, cannot change what Romney meant.

So, what are the MSM and Obama campaign saying about the conspicuous absence of the 47% remark?

• Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, said, “It just didn’t come up in the course of the conversation. We continue to believe it is a very clear difference. Gov. Romney is trying to run away from that comment. It just didn’t come up tonight.”
• Jen Psaki, Obama’s campaign spokeswoman, said, “I think the president wanted to come in tonight and not deliver attack lines. He wanted to lay out what his plans were ….”
• Carl Hulse, The New York Times columnist, said, “Why not push the 47 percent comment that is the subject of saturation ads? Keep pres above it? Or deny Gov Romney chance to explain it?”
• Larry Sabato, political analyst, said, “Seriously, Dems, can you believe that Obama never used the 47% video? Incredible!”

Personally, I think the absence of the remark was because Obama did not want to provide Romney with a forum where Romney could elaborate upon his remark, what he was really saying. Relentless Obama campaign commercials spin Romney’s remark into untruths, and those commercials do not permit refutation. Allowing Romney to refute Obama’s commercials will reveal Obama to be nothing more than the “empty suit” that we (and the rest of the world) know him to be.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.