Should Mitt Romney just concede to President Barack Obama now? It seems that he's falling so far behind in polls that even pundits in support of the presidential hopeful are predicting another four years for Obama. Certainly this has the Mittens campaign sweating bullets, but when is enough enough for them?
First of all, President Barack Obama is currently ahead of his challenger by least eight percentage points. This Pew Research Center survey puts Obama in the biggest lead so far.
When Mitt Romney made his comments about 47% of America, he obviously didn't intend on the public knowing about the "closed to the media/public" event. Well, it's obvious that the reason is because he knew he was making blatantly insulting comments against almost half of the country. In fact, his comments were downright anti-presidential.
He continually puts his feet in his own mouth every time he opens it, shaping up to be the male version of Sarah Palin, so is Mitt going to win in November? It doesn't seem likely at all. Obama is so far ahead in polls right now, and the Republican party seems to be eating its own in the backlash of Mitten's comments about 47% of the U.S. It truly seems that Obama has been given his next four years by none other than the man running against him.
So should he concede or fight this out to the bitter end? You know things are tough when even the VP candidate chosen by Mitt himself is speaking out against him. Paul Ryan spoke against Romney's "47%" gaffe, and his words were rather harsh. He said that Mitt's comments were "Obviously inarticulate." When asked if he agrees with Romney, he responded with a very simple response:
So the VP and the presidential wannabe can't even see eye-to-eye publicly with their issues. Meanwhile, 47% of the United States knows, publicly, that it has been insulted and accused of relying on welfare, accused of being "victims." There are plenty of people who vote GOP who have been on or are currently on welfare, and there are plenty of people who are voting for Obama as part of that 47% that are not on welfare. Furthermore, just because someone has had or currently does rely on government assistance doesn't make them "victims," and it doesn't make them lazy or dependent on handouts. Obviously Mittens is out of touch to the point that he spits on nearly half of the country he is running to represent.
These disparaging comments against nearly half of the voting nation may just be the crippling blow to his campaign that loses him the election. With there only being about 50 days left in the race, he should really be minding his "Ps" and "Qs".
Photo: The Week
Crime analyst and profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on The Huffington Post, Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case and many other outlets. Follow @TheRealChelseaH on Twitter or click here to contact Chelsea directly.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 117 ( 2 removed by Chelsea Hoffman )
1. The 47% are all going to vote against Mitt? Idiotic. Tea Party retirees and southern poor whites, the backbones of the Republican Party, are heavily represented in the 47%.
2. Income taxes are not the only taxes we pay. Payroll taxes, for many of the 47%, take a bite out of our paychecks that proportionally equals the 15% income tax rate that Mitt pays on his 20 million dollar yearly income from Cayman island investments.
3. He left out the fact that the Earned Income Credit, one of the factors that drove the zero income tax bracket up to 47% of the population, was created by Ronald Reagan. It's way too liberal for today's Republicans, even though many working poor Republicans collect on it.
I could go on.
It is about intent.
"Everybody pulled their weight" - Edith Bunker
Actually the welfare clause was basically to protect the people from harm not to break the bank and make a welfare state.
He left out the fact that the Earned Income Credit, one of the factors that drove the zero income tax bracket up to 47% of the population, was created by Ronald Reagan. It's way too liberal for today's Republicans, even though many working poor Republicans collect on it.
Chris, Ronald Reagan is a hard core communist by the standards of today's Teabaggers.
Many of those working poor Republicans who rely on the Earned Income Credit are the same folks who used to sport signs at Tea Party rallies that read: "Government, keep your hands off my medicare."
Of course. It fits into the dishonest meme created by the current embarrassment that used to actually be the Grand Old Party, which is, "I got mine, you don't count."
This dishonesty is epitomized by commenters here, who say things that are dishonest solely to justify their own lack of intellectual integrity. Screw facts, let's just make everything up, call half the country leeches, and pat yourself on the back for being so righteous.
The current Republican party has devolved into simply being despicable.
Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Ronald Reagan would be allowed into the Republican party of today. The good news is that neither Abraham Lincoln nor Ronald Reagan would want to be in the Republican party of today.
The former GOP dishonors America and all Americans.
When will the honest members of the party stand up and push out the zealots, the bigots, and dishonest Rovians?
No. Watching Mitt trip all over himself is way too much fun.
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."
or 2008: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
At least he is consistent on something ;-)
"Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition re-distributional."
Science Czar John P. Holdren, “Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being”
Of course other Czars aren't keen on the Free Market, either...
Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom: "We know that the free market is nonsense."
Nice that he can align with like minded people ;-)
To provide policing, clean water, fire protection, public schools and many other features of modern life a nation must redistribute wealth.
There is a word for countries that don't do these things: medieval.
And that is where the Teabaggers want to take America.
What does it tell about the Republican party and its marketing wing, aka, Fox News, Drudge, and certain Gather Skywriters, that is so patently dishonest that they try to cover up Mitt Romney's full length video by cherry picking one line out of a 14-year old paragraph, creating an alternative meaning diametrically opposed to the actual and obvious meaning, and then continuing the lying about it even after their initial lie has been exposed?
It tells you these people should not be engaged in discussion because they cannot be honest.
In a country of this size, with a political party of that size, they can't come up with someone who is at least "presidential" ???
We know, it's not necessary to remind us, that Ron Paul lost his third bid for the presidential nomination.
BTW: Since Renee Nal is vehemently backing Mr. Romney position here on GN, one can only assume that Renee is in complete agreement with Mr. Romney. Inasmuch, by her position, she is also calling me a lazy leaching moocher. Therefore, I feel entitled to know how much income earned taxes she has paid into those same three IRS payroll withholding tax programs and what gives her the right to criticize me for accepting my own invested money in a retirement pension and healthcare program.
I'm not for either, but damn, he just ruined what hope I mayy have had that he'd be a good president.
You can bet your bottom dollar, no matter what the subject is, there is always those on the right who try to twist the meaning of the article and/or throw in the skeleton of a red herring in an attempt to change the subject.
Shame on you, Margie, it would seem that you are picking up bad manners from Renee Nal.
Get used to his face. You'll be seeing a lot of it for at least the next 4 years...
Get over her, creep!
Better late, than never, Jeff !!!
4 years later you are getting behind the same promises and the same canned, tired speeches that got you to make complete asses out of yourselves with the "YES WE CAN" chants. 4 years later you are still complaining about Palin. Now who has the inability to join the rest of the world?
You guys only know opposition. You have no comprehension of fundamental leadership. It's why Obama finally admitted that "NO HE CAN'T" change Washington from the inside. He admitted to being naive to believe that nonsense. He said change can only come from the outside. Because he only knows how to protest power. He knows that he can't lead or bring about change. He admitted that you clowns weren't the ones we've been waiting for.
Is Obama a better politician than Romney? Yes. But he's an empty chair, like all career politicians. Romney is a better leader. Both have been in positions of power and only one knew what to do with it.
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico. (Florida)
Now guess which states in the United States have the most people on government welfare programs or living off Social Security checks and/or are accepting government healthcare.
Believe it or not, it's a documented fact and easily checked. Those same states in which Mitt Romney has his largest Republican base, his Evangelical base, his altra conservative base as well as his Teapublican base. {i.e.} are where the vast majority of those in the 47% bracket reside and those are the people which he has stated that he does not need nor does he want nor will he represent if he is elected to the presidency. Go figure !!!
For those who are in the 47% bracket of Americans receiving some kind of government aid or Social Security retirement checks, how can you now support, much less vote for a candidate who has not only abandoned you, but in the process, has labeled you as being a lazy non working leach on the federal government ?????????????
Credible source with that claim?
Aside from common sense?
The request wasn't for something you are seriously lacking, the request was for a citation to back up your claims because you are incorrect.
So to consider that 49% of Americans are either democrat or republican is asinine just because they happen to be on some form of government assistance. That is completely illogical and insulting to many people including veterans, elderly people, middle class families and people who aren't even involved with any political affiliation. You know, average people who couldn't give a sh*t less who becomes president in 2012; they do exist.
So yeah, I challenge you to find a study or poll that literally proves whether or not the majority of welfare recipients in the U.S. (49% of the U.S., btw) are dems or repubs. Because, frankly, I don't think that kind of poll exists and I don't think it matters because it's pretty much "common sense" to know that there are both dems and repubs and people who don't care in that number. I for one know several people who have used welfare in their lives who are right wing conservative voters. I have idiot family members who say blacks and liberals sit around on welfare all the time -- meanwhile they're cashing in WIC checks and spending food stamps on junk food. I'm sure if I can name about a dozen right wingers who have used government assistance at least once, then I wonder how many others can do the same and so on and so forth. Just like I'm sure everyone can name the same amount of liberals in the same fashion. 49% of the U.S. is a pretty huge number of people who have used welfare in the past few years.
As for the whole "red state" thing;
It's true that red states make up for the highest amount of government welfare spending in the country -- and Jeff's argument that red states are full of liberals makes only a tiny bit of sense (but then what does Jeff say that does make much sense anyway?) If a state is red or blue that means the majority of voters voted for the representatives that turned that state red or blue. So yes, whether or not a state is red or blue is indicative by the citizens.
For example:
the state of Alaska is both a red state and a veritable welfare state. It has one of the highest unemployment rates and has since far before the Obama administration. We're talking quite a few years of fluctuating economic distress for Sarah Palin's happy home state. One of the reddest states and the most reliant on welfare in the nation. Most notably, Alaska is known for giving every Alaskan resident a check from the state JUST FOR LIVING IN ALASKA. The republican run state approved of all of this and pays people to live there, who in turn have to rely on unemployment and other assistance due to the lack of decent work in the state. -- and to say that all of those people are "liberal?" -- that's nonsense.
Jeff H. Sep 22, 2012, 2:23am EDT
Retirees aren't insulted when republicans speak truth to freeloaders...
Retirees are insulted when they are lumped in with those being called freeloaders, which is what Romney's comments did. It's not called truth, it's called judgement, something the right seems to feel they have the right to do.
;-)
What Romney is is a privileged rich man who believes society's only function is to enable him to get richer and to serve him. But that doesn't win votes, so he pretends to hold other opinions and positions. He just has trouble faking it and remembering what position he is supposed to be holding this week.
You have no effing idea what Romney believes. For someone who believes everyone is here 'to serve him', can you explain why he has went on his mission, gone to Church for THREE+ hours every Sunday, spends Monday nights with his family for Church/family stuff, has only missed a few of his Home Teaching assignments, has served in the Church WITHOUT PAY as a bishop and more...I could go on about exactly how much time he spends SERVING OTHERS, but it doesn't matter. You all think being rich is a crime.
Rich or poor, the one thing you CANNOT say about him is that he just wants others to serve him. Ludicrous.
I don't consider prosletyzing to be an example of "serving others".#
You really need to research Mr. Obamas' background from birth to present and then, as an honest person, offer your apology for misrepresenting the fact concerning his past life as being privilaged.
I'm going to say this one time only in hopes that you will get the message. I have not posted a comment to any of your articles for about three months and it would be extremely detrimental to your health if you hold your breath waiting for me to do so in the future. Why, because frankly, I don't like your childish style of posting and encouraging others to post, derogatory comments to honest comments by members with opposing views. (we are all guilty of it, to some dehree, but you are the epitomy of asinine commentary)
Therefore, I suggest that you stay away from comments which I may post to other authors' articles. I do not want anything to do with a person who I consider to be a liar, who gives false testimony, who creates reasons for others to engage in argument instead of debate, who is ashame to admit what country she is a citizen of, who constantly provokes people into aggression against others, who knowingly instigates others into lying, who refuses to stay on the subject of the debate, who pretends to be something which she is not, who seeks fan based followers instead of honest debaters to her articles, who is childish in her responses to posted comments, etc. etc.etc.
You may be 29 years old. (I suspect much younger) But you act like a 16 year old high school self appointed queen who gathers her special group of admirers around her at recess, plotting against all other girls who doesn't meet up to her standards.
Suggestion: If you want respect from others, Grow UP and Become an Adult !!! Learning how to be HONEST would be a good start.
From the very beginning, the only pathway to victory for Romney was lots of Dems sitting out election day at home. Assuming victory risks some Dems looking outside and saying "it's raining, and he has enough votes without me." The Republican Party needs to hear a message: we are not buying what you are selling. Staying home does not communicate that message, and it risks Dems being beaten by Tea Party whack jobs like Todd Akin. Staying home is unacceptable, and assuming victory can feed it, so I would rather be paranoid and argue that Romney is not whipped until the day AFTER the election.
Remember the victorious, "Get Out To Vote" strategy, by Rove--a plan that handed the reelection to Bush II?
And Obama lost the 2008 NH Primary, when his campaign became complacent....
We must be constantly vigilant.
The meaning of the word, "Redistribution", has been adulterated, abused, and consumed into the propagandistic vernacular, by the Right.
To connect socialism and communism to `redistribution' is laughable--and the Right Wing knows it.
Those on the Right, who don't know it, are too undisciplined to do simple research to admit, and realize, that they are utterly wrong.
The MORE important issue is that, of the 47%, some of these men, women, and families pay non-federal taxes--AND THEY DON'T SEE THEMSELVES AS VICTIMS.
And many on SS and Medicare--who are part of the 47%--do not see themselves as victims, either.
Romney's comment was pathetic and self-destructive, Thank God.
And guess what?
WILLIAM KRISTOL, OF THE WEEKLY STANDARD, HAS ASKED HIM TO STEP DOWN.
Romney's comment was pathetic and self-destructive, Thank God. wow. true colors.
As in True Blue! Got a problem with that?
"If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference between that proposal and the basic principle of communism."
- Ayn Rand
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
- Winston Churchill
Abe said it, “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred."
"The goal of socialism is communism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Ayn Rand, the sociopathic admirer of a child murderer, whom she saw as a superior being for his complete disregard of the suffering of others, had a lifelong hatred of communism because of what the Soviets took from her family. Her philosophy, if one can use that word for it, was basically 'selfishness as a virtue', the complete antithesis of the core teaching of every major faith in the world, including Christianity.
Winston Churchill was one of Britain's most inspiring wartime leaders, but so bad at peacetime governance that the British turfed him out of office immediately after the war he led them to victory in.
Abraham Lincoln is hardly remembered for his economic leadership. In fact, this is the very first time I have ever seen a quote from him on the subject cited by anyone. And he is one of the most quoted politicians of all.
Lenin, whom you love to quote, despite denying you are a follower. Hmmm?
Wife works at McCain Foods and a Rmoney supporter assaulted an Obama supporter at her work. A young couple at a dinner were harassed over an Obama Bumper sticker. There will be blood after the Obama win, mark my words.
Of course there is random violence from both sides and I don't believe Romney will win, but if he did, there would be riots, murders, fires...all of it. The history is there.
There will be blood after the Obama win, mark my words.
I am progressive in ideology, however,, I find your statement to be cynical, as such, I feel real sorrow for you as a person. For anyone to equate the U.S. Electorial system with ending in bood, is so UnAmerican in thought, it boggles the reasoning mind to even consider.
Margie (a conservative) and I (a progressive) hold opposing views on who should win the presidency, in fact we hold opposing views in most all of our individual political ideologies, but we are both Americans and respect each other as such. The thought that either of us would do the other harm over the results of an election is absurded to say the least and pathetic in it's principle suggestion. (I used Margie in my comment simply because she had responded to your comment and for no other reason) (Margie, if my using your name is in anyway offensive, you have my sincere apology)
Rude, if you actually believe that which you wrote in your comment, then I honestly feel sorry for you and would suggest that you devoid yourself of all politics and discussions on political issues until you are able to speak with more sound and sane reasoning.
this statement may help explain why I no longer comment on posts written by Ms. Wilson-Mars.