l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 by Aaron Goldstein
Like Mitt Romney, I would like to see the entire question and answer not
just the snippet of video of a fundraiser in Boca Raton, Florida in which he
said:
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 take 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...These are people who pay no
income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.
Romney went on to state:
(M)y 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 do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are
independents that are thoughtful, that look voting one way or the other
depending upon some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
Romney is absolutely right to say that 47% of the people will vote for Obama
no matter what. He is also right to say that an increasing number of people
are in receipt of money from the federal government while paying no federal
income tax. Indeed, our state of economic affairs is not good when there
are more people who obtained Social Security Disability Insurance than
obtained a job.
Yet it would be a mistake to say that all of his vote comes from people in
receipt of government entitlements. There are rich people who support Obama
and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of hearing him speak.
While it's true that some people are content to be receipt of government
entitlements, there is an assumption that others in receipt of said
entitlements don't want to improve their lives. So when Romney says it's "
not his job to worry about those people", it is reminiscient of when he said
he's "not concerned about the poor" last February.
With that said, I think it was unnecessary for Romney to call an impromptu
press conference last night. After all, Barack Obama didn't call a press
conference after it was revealed that he had called small town Americans "
bitter" people who "cling to guns and religion" at a Democratic fundraiser
in San Francisco. Of course, there was no demand for him to do so because
not only did the liberal press not question him about it but they were in
agreement with him and still are. The liberal press, by and large, holds the
values of small town America in low esteem.
I think it was unnecessary for Romney to have the press conference because
he was drawing attention to himself on the defensive rather than drawing
attention to himself for going on the offensive against Obama. Besides I
hardly think this press conference will placate the liberal media.
The silver lining is that Romney still has time to convince people why he
should be President and Barack Obama shouldn't. We'll see if Romney can rise
to the occasion next month during the debates. |
|
