Just look at a lot of the media reaction to Romney's awful comments today. Oh, Obama did the same in 2008, it's a wash.

Carl, I'm sorry but you're wrong.

There will always, always be Beltway village media who try to force the false equivalency, yes, that much is true. But just because they try doesn't mean it always works and is all-consuming. It failed in 08 and it's failing even harder now. The public and press reaction to this has been overwhelming shock and disgust. It's going nuclear. Going by the desperate spinning of Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd or most of the droogs at Politico will always make you unhappy. But they are not the majority. And even they know this is awful and another death blow. I'm sure Todd will say so this morning, and Mitchell all but admitted it last night.

I understand the way those kind of press corps tools work; I grew up in a family that worked inside the Beltway village. But you can't let it all get to you. Those few shills are trying to preserve a mentality and a cocktail circuit that needs that mentality, and above all preserve the illusion of the 'close' horse race election to keep ratings and ad revenue up. But they know how bad this tape is, and they know this election is done. It's one thing to be practical and pragmatic. But in this case, letting a few negative voices dominate the spectrum from your vantage point is only feeding a dying beast. They know they're spinning ashes.

I just wonder how many in the public will react to this. The common public view often seems to be, "Yes, there are moochers and lazy people. I'm not one of them. The other guy is." The public is comfortable with the idea of those who get assistance from the government being demonized, as long as they themselves don't lose those benefits.

I don't believe that the public is going to see this that way at all. It's contemptuous of most Americans and the American way in general.

http://www.nytimes.c...omney.html?_r=1

"This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare? "

"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. "

When David Brooks has to call out Romney and his delusion about the American people, you know things have hit bottom.

I just wonder how many in the public will react to this. The common public view often seems to be, "Yes, there are moochers and lazy people. I'm not one of them. The other guy is." The public is comfortable with the idea of those who get assistance from the government being demonized, as long as they themselves don't lose those benefits.

I don't think that this is the common public view at all. Yes, there is a segment of the population that is delusional about the truth about their socioeconomic status and are disdainful of others less fortunate and have no close that Romney and his ilk feel this way about them, but this not close to being everyone or I think even most of population.

Just look at a lot of the media reaction to Romney's awful comments today. Oh, Obama did the same in 2008, it's a wash.

Yeah, I don't see this is the mainstream media coverage at all. There might be a line on Obama's gaffe in 2008, but most of the articles focus on Romney's disdain and misrepresentation of almost half of the population.

The media loves "strong father" types. They love the idea of Obama as Jimmy Carter. Romney hasn't been able to seal the deal but that's in spite of the "both sides are bad but Democrats are worse" Beltway mindset.

I don't get this at all and read lots of political commentary.

Edited September 18, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

The Obama/Carter stuff is brought up fairly often.

Here's some of the mainstream press coverage bringing up the "bitter" comment as a comparison.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/17/47-percent-vs-bitter-clinger/189956

A lot of this ends up filtering in from the far right media outlets. Some spin sites are also trying to say he was only speaking of Obama supporters, which of course would make it OK.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/did-romney-just-lose-the-election-ctd.html

I also don't see where he's turned his back on Israel and how bowing to Benjamin Netanyanhu would have changed any of what is currently going on.

The dude can't meet with the Israeli Prime Minister at a time when Israel is considering a strike on Iran? You don't see that as turning his back on the man? Honestly, Wales... Then again, Obama IS confused about who our allies are...

And now Barack Obama is the one who is responsible for making America dependent on foreign oil. So in under four years he was supposed to take office and change America's energy habits???

Who said that? It was Obama, himself, who claimed he would do it! Another broken promise, Wales? You give him a pass on yet another broken promise? When do you hold him accountable for all the things he said in 2008 to get elected... all the things he promised from that podium between huge Greek columns and an unbelievably huge crowd... Remember all that?

Mitt Romney's statements are in line with his position that black people want free stuff thus the dependency on the government.

When did he say that? Excerpt this for me so I can read it... and in context, not the typical liberal "piecemeal-twist-to-mean-what-you-want-it-to-mean" routine...

...these dependent people he's talking about are white because a percentage of the welfare recipients are probably some of those extreme patriots wedged into the Republican party.

Probably? You say "probably"? You are doing what you've accused Romney of doing.

Then he tops it off by suggesting that Hispanic/Lationo voters would be squarely in his corner if his father had actually been a Mexican. America seriously needs a president who looks down on more than half the population. It's so truly American.

Do you mean this tongue-in-cheek? Or are we getting a true glimpse into what Wales really thinks about America?

Edited September 18, 201213 yr by GoldenDogs

If you really think that every democrat does not pay taxes, thinks they are a victim and wants the government to give them food, then in what way are you different than your garden variety, typical, insane, tea party imbecile?

Who said that? Who claimed "every democrat" does not pay taxes, thinks they are a victim and wants the government to give them food? Come on, Q-Fan, quit distorting Romney's comments. It's getting old... and it's exactly what the media Carl claims loves Romney is doing.

He never said that. Now, analyze precisely WHAT the man SAID and explain to me where he was wrong... and try to be a little balanced and less partisan about it.

Just look at a lot of the media reaction to Romney's awful comments today. Oh, Obama did the same in 2008, it's a wash.

The media loves "strong father" types. They love the idea of Obama as Jimmy Carter. Romney hasn't been able to seal the deal but that's in spite of the "both sides are bad but Democrats are worse" Beltway mindset.

Excerpt some of this for me. I'm not seeing this in the mainstream media. And please don't quote or point to opinion pieces... where is the hard news coverage that portrays the "both sides are bad but Democrats are worse" mindset. Does that comes from the New York Times? MSNBC? CNN? Fox News? The Huffington Post? Politico?

In recent years, just about anything I've seen on CNN or read in Washington Post or Politico.

It's very doubtful that the majority of those who voted for Obama don't pay taxes. This issue with the truth is a big problem that conservatives have. You can't have your own version of the truth.

Large portions of Obama's base are middle class, just take a look at any map and you'll see that he won plenty of middle class and even working class counties across the nation.

The majority of Americans who don't pay taxes are in Republican held states.

In January, an article that appeared in Carl's New York Times stated that "Thanks to the recession, and changes in program rules, a large fraction of households receive government assistance, especially those headed by people without a four-year college degree."

One cannot deny that there has always been a significant segment of society - all ages, all races, etc. - who have made a living on the dole. It's true that some work harder to avoid working at all... we've all seen and even know those who do it! The article indicates the largest number of people receiving some form of benefits are those who did not receive a high school diploma. The article does not include old people forced on to Medicaid and Social Security. The article also does not offer a breakdown on race or ethnicity.

I'm not going to go there because Romney NEVER brought race or ethnicity into the argument. If he did, excerpt it for me so I can read it.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/who-receives-government-assistance/

I gotta get ready for work... I can't play any more this morning... LOL!!

The majority of Americans who don't pay taxes are in Republican held states.

Roman is right on this one... It seems I have heard this before. Or was it that most entitlements are given to those in Republican states?

My question is... are these poor states? Are they unemployed? I don't have time to research right now...

In recent years, just about anything I've seen on CNN or read in Washington Post or Politico.

Link to them... quote them for me... thanks dude!

All day every day. That's their existence. There's no real point in saying more because you'll disagree anyway.

Ok I don't want to defend Romney but there was an article in the local paper this morning and it talked about Americans paying taxes. In 2009 and 2010, 47 and 46 percent of Americans did not pay federal income tax. Now that doesn't mean they didn't pay other taxes, they still payed into social security, payed sales taxes, state taxes, county taxes where applicable. All it says is in those years that a percentage of the population didn't have to pay federal income tax, whether it was due to income level or tax incentives. Now I have no idea, Romney might have been referring to that statistic in general I have no clue, and we really don't know what the entire context was of what he said.

As for unemployment, it's a given that there will always be a certain percentage of the population that will never work for a variety of reasons, I think that number is somewhere between 3 and 4 percent. So when unemployment is at 4 percent, it's assumed that anyone who wants to work or is capable of it, is working.

Edited September 18, 201213 yr by JaneAusten

The dude can't meet with the Israeli Prime Minister at a time when Israel is considering a strike on Iran? You don't see that as turning his back on the man? Honestly, Wales... Then again, Obama IS confused about who our allies are...

Who said that? It was Obama, himself, who claimed he would do it! Another broken promise, Wales? You give him a pass on yet another broken promise? When do you hold him accountable for all the things he said in 2008 to get elected... all the things he promised from that podium between huge Greek columns and an unbelievably huge crowd... Remember all that?

When did he say that? Excerpt this for me so I can read it... and in context, not the typical liberal "piecemeal-twist-to-mean-what-you-want-it-to-mean" routine...

Probably? You say "probably"? You are doing what you've accused Romney of doing.

Do you mean this tongue-in-cheek? Or are we getting a true glimpse into what Wales really thinks about America?

As I said in my response to you before. We obviously see things differently and should just leave it at that. I don't find it beneficial to engage in discussions or debates where I have to substantiate all my claims and the other person can pick and choose when to give a response and what constitiutes sufficient validation. It's kind of like my saying that I.D. would not help in instances of voter fraud where people are voting multiple times or in other instances where identifying the voter is not the issue and not having that acknowledged as a valid point.

Since you've already stated that Mitt Romney never brought up race or ethnicity then his standing before the NAACP specifically referring to free stuff would mean nothing to you anyway as he goes around telling other groups of people he addresses the same thing.

For anyone else who may be interested, I don't believe if a person refuses to meet with another once that it then constitutes turning his back on that person.

I don't think blowing up Iran or whatever the plan is to pertaining to Iran has any direct correlation to the unrest that this anti-Mohammed video is being used to stir up.

Oh and I have no idea what Barack Obama promised on energy but I doubt that he claimed he was going to fix America's energy dependency issues in less than four or even four years. And if he did, then whoever was naiveenough to believe him now knows better.

Ok I don't want to defend Romney but there was an article in the local paper this morning and it talked about Americans paying taxes. In 2009 and 2010, 47 and 46 percent of Americans did not pay federal income tax. Now that doesn't mean they didn't pay other taxes, they still payed into social security, payed sales taxes, state taxes, county taxes where applicable. All it says is in those years that a percentage of the population didn't have to pay federal income tax, whether it was due to income level or tax incentives. Now I have no idea, Romney might have been referring to that statistic in general I have no clue, and we really don't know what the entire context was of what he said.

Wasn't he basically saying the people who don't pay taxes are the people who vote for Barack Obama? Even if he was referring to those statitstics, he still implied that all those people are moochers. He must not use tax loopholes or anything to attempt to pay as little in taxes as possible. He hides his money in other countries and he's attacking a percentage of the population for doing essentially the same thing he does, only in their case they have less income and those loopholes keep them from having to pay. Plus I am not sure that I believe that many people paid no federal taxes at all because even under a meager income there are automatic deductions made to a pay check and it would have to mean that all those people received 100% of whatever was deducted back and that seems a more likely scenarion under EIC than it does in general. They may not have owed any money but I can't believe that many people would have gotten all their federal deductions back.

Edited September 18, 201213 yr by Wales2004