Romney in Trouble…

for being out-of-touch plutocrat who cynically holds half of the American people in contempt.

This is, I think, grossly inaccurate. 47% is *far* too low a figure. In addition to holding half the electorate in contempt, he also holds in contempt much of his base as well as he lies that he governed Massachusetts as a prolifer, telegraphs his clear disinterest in gay “marriage”, telegraphs his obvious disinterest in doing anything about the HHS mandate’s attack on religious liberty, and makes clear that the only thing that really interests him is strengthening Caesaroligarchic power for himself and the rest of the Ruling Class.

The main difference is that the 47% already knew that Romney holds them in contempt, while his base, like an abused spouse, keeps telling themselves that if we just don’t upset him by demanding that he take us seriously, he will come to care about us.

  • Kris

    Mr. Shea, the check is in the mail. –the Obama Campaign

    • Melanie

      Which is worse: a known evil or an unknown evil?

      • Irenist

        Depends on the evils.

      • ivan_the_mad

        If one of the evils is unknown, we have no ability to judge whether it is more or less worse than the known evil, do we?

        • Irenist

          The worse the known evil, the lower the prior probability that the unknown evil is worse than the known. “Bayes and all that,” as the “Less Wrong” folks might hand-wave:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

          E.g., “Would you prefer Satan, or what’s behind door number 2?”
          “Door #2, please!”

    • buck cameron

      I’ve been reading some of this fanciful comments and wondering “How do people come to believe such strange stuff?” then I saw that it’s a Catholic site. After 19 years in Catholic schools, the answer was obvious – IOf you’re brought up to believe in “mysteries and miracles” you might even be able to believe in Romney>

      • Mark Shea

        Yes, if there’s anything this site is about, it’s unquestioning belief in Mitt Romney.

        Sorry you can’t hear me over the sound of your smug self-regard.

  • Bill

    Yes because Mark is obviously an Obama shill with him telling Catholics to resist the tyrant.

    This “you get in line and shut up” response is nothing but idolatry. Dulia (if not hyperdulia) for religion but Latria for politics.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      There’s a middle ground between “get in line and shut up” and “tear down Romney so badly that his vote will be suppressed and Obama will get in”. That’s the middle ground that Mark Shea could be walking honorably. He isn’t, though and it’s sad.
      Is it so hard to say “Mitt Romney’s political incompetence, arrogance, and cluelessness makes it very hard to cast practical votes against the manifest evil of the Obama administration.” which would be a fairly accurate assessment of a lot of Catholics. Mark Shea’s got this forum and it’s not for me to stuff words in his mouth but he does have other options that would fit his stated positions without giving such practical aid to Obama.

      • Mark Shea

        Yeah, everybody here is just teetering on the brink of voting for Obama. All it would take is a word from me and they’ll all be pro-abortion Dems. We must, at all costs, always defend Romney and never put any pressure on this fragile flower of political innocence to keep his transparently phony semi-promises, or he might not love us any more.

        • Bill

          Exactly Mark

          there is a hell of a lot more of “get in line and shut up” than there is the other end of the spectrum here

        • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

          Damping down enthusiasm means you’ll vote but you won’t put up a lawn sign. Or maybe you won’t talk your waffling cousin into voting. Or maybe you won’t bother to vote at all. All of this is nebulous and fuzzy and cumulative and very hard to lay at the feet of any one article or even personality. I do know that you depress me quite effectively and I suspect that I’m not the only one.

          • Mark Shea

            Right. I totally believe that you are not going to vote for Romney because I’m saying we should put pressure on him not to betray us. Who knew you were so psychologically fragile?

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              Can I answer that?

              Please oh please oh pretty please?

              • ivan_the_mad

                Hez you’re terrible…ly funny.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    Since I was able to vote, I have voted in almost every election. I’ve not missed a presidential election except once, in 1992, because I just moved to Florida and didn’t get things straightened out in time. I’ve always loved the right to vote, and would never have thought about not voting…until this year. I’ll still vote, and there are a couple local issues and a couple regional candidates that I support. But for the first time, I’m seriously considering not casting a vote for the presidential candidate. We’ll see.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “I’m seriously considering not casting a vote for the presidential candidate.” Ditto.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      I have had you completely mis-pegged for a long long time. My apologies. I have been wrong. I’ll pray you do what He wills in the booth.

      • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

        Hooray! You’re back, Mr. Garrett. Good to see you.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Do I know you? And frankly, if you are that excited at my return, might I suggest you seek help?

          :-)

  • JoFro

    The media is making this out to be the thing that sinks his campaign – I think his 47% quote is no different to the Obama quote on religious people and their guns – in the end, it didn’t really hurt either candidate to be very honest becos the people who like Obama and voted for him did fear those “religious people and their guns” and the people who will vote Mitt really do believe those 47% are lazy-good for nothings who are sucking the tax-paying good citizenry dry!

    So really, nothing has really changed. Minds have been made up.

    As for me, a non-American, I would actually vote Mitt – sorry Mark, it seems even as a fan, your evil plan to convince even me, a non-American, has not worked :( You are a pathetic villain!! Muhahaha!!

    The reason being that a vote for Ron Paul would be a waste and Obama seems to be the greater evil at the moment.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “The reason being that a vote for Ron Paul would be a waste” quid gratis asseritur gratis negatur

      Not too mention the fact that, you know, RP isn’t on the ballot anywhere, so the issue is rather moot.

    • Mike Petrik

      It is too bad you don’t want to vote for Obama, in which case your being a non-American would not be an encumbrance. Perhaps you could die and vote twice?

  • JoFro

    The media is making this out to be the thing that sinks his campaign – I think his 47% quote is no different to the Obama quote on religious people and their guns – in the end, it didn’t really hurt either candidate to be very honest becos the people who like Obama and voted for him did fear those “religious people and their guns” and the people who will vote Mitt really do believe those 47% are lazy-good for nothings who are sucking the tax-paying good citizenry dry!

    So really, nothing has really changed. Minds have been made up.

    As for me, a non-American if I could vote, I would actually vote Mitt – sorry Mark, it seems even as a fan, your evil plan to convince even me, a non-American, has not worked :( You are a pathetic villain!! Muhahaha!!

    The reason being that a vote for Ron Paul would be a waste and Obama seems to be the greater evil at the moment.

  • Jamie R

    In fairness, much of his base is in that 47%, so the number doesn’t have to be that high.

  • crazylikeknoxes

    @Tim in Cleveland

    Still awaiting further information so that I may support your write-in candidacy.

    • Tim in Cleveland

      Write Tim in Cleveland on the ballot (anywhere is fine). As a president, I won’t do anything except collect my paycheck. I am the 47%.

      (I’m Tim in Cleveland and I’m not sure how I feel about this message).

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        Sounds good, Tim! I wish our last four Presidents would have done nothing except collect their paychecks. You may need to appoint some judges and repeal some executive orders, though. I can help you with that, since I’m sure that you need to fulfill your campaign promise to do nothing.

        • Tim in Cleveland

          Alright, but the VP spot is already taken. Joe Biden will remain in that position because I find him hilarious.

          • crazylikeknoxes

            @Tim in Cleveland,
            I’m also a Catholic and a lawyer and member of the Cleveland diocese. I wonder if you’ve read J. Berry’s Render Unto Rome. I’ve noticed we read alot of the same blogs and would be curious about you impressions of Catholicism here in the Western Reserve.
            Peace, William

      • http://www.JonathanFSullivan.com Jonathan F. Sullivan

        Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Thinkling

    >>Mr. Shea, the check is in the mail. –the Obama Campaign

    Scholars recently determined that there was a third stone tablet that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai. Apparently, not having three hands, he dropped it on the way down, shattering it. Recently, forensic archaeologists were able to reconstruct the tablet, revealing the message:

    “XI. Thou shalt not have False Dichotomies before me.”

    By sheer coincidence, this week archaeologists unearthed a fourth century papyrus fragment from a gnostic sect written in the hand of one of Dan Brown’s ancestors which contained the messeage in its full context. It reads:

    “Thou shalt not have False Dichotomies before me. Take it or leave it!”

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    The problem is, Romney’s basically telling the truth. No wonder politicians don’t tell the truth much. When they do, it gets them in trouble.

    Sure, not all of the 47% are deadbeats. His remarks were not stated very elegantly, as he said, and overly generalized. But a lot of the folks casting the ballots for the Dems, are, in fact, paying no taxes, dependent on the government, and make their voting decisions based on which side they think is going to give them the most free stuff.

    • Andy

      Most of the 47% comes from the confirmed red states that Mr. Romney will win. The generalization that Mr. Romney uttered includes many folks who have an income so low that their federal taxes are returned, it includes the military serving in war zones, it includes retired folks, it includes many millionaires who paid no taxes due to deductions. It is not the blanket “folks casting the ballots for the Dems, are, in fact, paying no taxes, dependent on the government, and make their voting decisions based on which side they think is going to give them the most free stuff”.

      Having said that I am voting for a third party candidate, as I live in NYS which Mr. Obama will win I can register my displeasure with both parties and vote to keep a third party at least on the ballot.

      • Ye Olde Statistician

        millionaires who paid no taxes due to deductions.

        There are about 7000 of these. There are three basic ways to bring taxable income down from $1 million to zero:
        1. tax tricks. The IRS should crack down more.
        2. relying heavily on investments. The administration can try to level taxes for earned income and investment income.
        3. great misfortunes.
        3.1 investments lose significant income,
        3.2 house or business is destroyed,
        3.3 a family member gets sick and incurs high medical costs for the self-insured

        Some of the 7000 millionaire non-tax payers may be heavily invested in tax-free bonds issued by cities or states to fund roads and bridges. But you’d have to be invested almost exclusively in tax-free munis, and earn little or no salary, to bring your adjusted gross income down to zero. And in addition to a tornado tearing through your home, contracting an expensive form of cancer, or losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in an investment, there is also charitable contributions that match income for the year.

        IOW, at least some of the 7000 are people who:
        a) lend money to state and local governments
        b) suffer big losses, or
        c) give large sums to charity.
        + + +

        The 47% is probably high, because the IRS considers income by household. The vast majority of poor households are single-mother or young people just starting out. The vast majority of rich households — if you pay taxes, you are one of that 53% — are married couples. Two people with modest incomes, say husband-wife schoolteachers with reasonable seniority, will add together for tax purposes into a higher bracket well-to-do household. Hence to a rough order of magnitude, the 47-53 split can be thought of as 47-106. All is not yet lost, and despair is a sin.

        There is a discussion here: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=9622

  • MarylandBill

    I will almost certainly vote for a third party candidate this year… though living in Maryland helps since there really isn’t much of any chance that Maryland will go for anyone other than Obama. That being said, if I lived in a swing state, I might well vote for Romney. Not because I think he is very pro-life or likely to really repeal Obama care or the HSS mandate but more because he is not very likely to try to extend abortion or Oboma care either. Better someone indifferent to life and freedom than someone actively hostile to it.

  • Irenist

    Attempt at a possible charitable interpretation of Romney’s words, from someone who instinctively dislikes Romney and vehemently disagrees with his fiscal policy proposals, but thinks it’s Christian to give Romney the benefit of the doubt:
    *
    Romney sincerely believes that deregulation and lower taxes on job-creating wealthy folks will create a rising tide that lifts all boats. He further believes that entitlement programs create a culture of dependency that saps the entrepreneurial drive that will raise up the poor. He worries that our democracy risks becoming an ochlocracy in which those on the dole constantly vote themselves more dole–a conservative worry at least as old as the fretting in the Federalist Papers about redistributionist state legislatures. Romney also worries that our entitlements will bankrupt us, since as our population ages, either entitlement spending must explode, or entitlements must be cut. Given the culture of dependency that both entitlements for the poor and entitlements for middle-class seniors create, Romney is trying to thread a very narrow electoral needle, which is all he intends to describe in his quote: it’s not his job to worry about appealing to those who have succumbed to the culture of dependency, because no campaign ad will change their whole worldview so radically. Instead, Romney must appeal to that segment of undecided voters who are still rooted in the can-do entrepreneurial culture of America’s great past.
    *
    I don’t know if that’s what Romney was thinking. But it might have been. I think there are flaws in the thought process I’ve just described, but I also think it’s an honorable position. So I’m going to assume Romney is thinking something like that until more evidence comes in; he deserves that much respect at least. Still not going to vote for him, though.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Thank you! That is what I think Romney was trying to say. “Culture of dependency” is a good phrase…and not all of the 47% are part of that culture, but I think he was lumping in the people who are part of that culture and the rest of the people who will vote for the Dems automatically for ideological/self-identification reasons.

      I’m more worried about the effect of the media in determining elections. Does anyone doubt that if a similar secret talk were found from Obama, it would never see the light of day, or be restricted to Fox News?

      • Irenist

        “Thank you!”
        You’re very welcome. I disagree with Romney’s ideas about fiscal policy, but I’d rather engage with the best version of them than play “gotcha”; I won’t learn anything from my interlocutors unless I respect them. “Culture of dependency” is not my phrase to take credit for, btw; it’s common in some conservative quarters.
        *
        “Does anyone doubt that if a similar secret talk were found from Obama, it would never see the light of day, or be restricted to Fox News?”
        I think Obama’s remarks about folks who “cling to guns or religion” was quite well covered when it was discovered, and is being widely compared to Romney’s recent remarks now, throughout all sectors of the media. To me, the problem is more that in both cases, commentators are more eager to score points for Team Blue or Team Red than they are to shed any light on what would improve the state of our beloved nation–a curse of party politics unlikely to disappear soon.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          “To me, the problem is more that in both cases, commentators are more eager to score points for Team Blue or Team Red than they are to shed any light on what would improve the state of our beloved nation–a curse of party politics unlikely to disappear soon.”

          Amen to that. I still think that there was a different dynamic between Obama’s previous comments, and Romney’s current comments. With Romney’s current comments, it seems like the media pounced. With Obama’s, it was more of a grassroots thing, which the media eventually had to discuss. I could be wrong about that; just my perception.

    • Andy

      I appreciate your intent to give him the benefit of the doubt – it is a Christian ideal and I agree with it. I wish that indeed his statements when coupled with others did indicate that he “sincerely believes that deregulation and lower taxes on job-creating wealthy folks will create a rising tide that lifts all boats”. However, deregulation and lower taxes on the job-creating wealthy have not produced more jobs in America. Instead the jobs have been sent overseas where wages are lower, and the wealthy have invested not in America, but in overseas banks to avoid taxes.
      In your charitable attempt you say ” Romney also worries that our entitlements will bankrupt us, since as our population ages, either entitlement spending must explode, or entitlements must be cut. Given the culture of dependency that both entitlements for the poor and entitlements for middle-class seniors create, Romney is trying to thread a very narrow electoral needle, which is all he intends to describe in his quote: it’s not his job to worry about appealing to those who have succumbed to the culture of dependency” . I would posit that what is breaking the “bank” is not only an entitlement problem for the poor and middle-class seniors. It is an entitlement problem in the defense industry, it is an entitlement problem for Oil companies and other industries. It is an entitlement problem that Mr. Romney pays a lower tax rate then my son who works two jobs, because Mr. Romney’s income is based on investment and not labor. Entitlements run rampant throughout our system and until conservatives and liberals alike recognize that our favorite entitlements must also take a hit, we will have this deadlock leading to deadly consequences.
      I can respect a belief that is acted upon. I can respect a belief that though not acted on can work. Unfortunately , with Mr. Romney’s statements, and not just this one, I see a person who believes only in his and those like him life style. I wish indeed it were otherwise.

      • Irenist

        Andy, FWIW, I actually agree with far more of your analysis of our economy than Romney’s.

        • Andy

          Thank you – I have been told that my beliefs are liberal garbage..

          • Irenist

            Given my bleeding heart, my having agreed with you is unlikely to change that assessment on the part of whomever made it.

  • Kirt Higdon

    I’ll be writing in Ron Paul except in the unlikely event that he endorses one of the unacceptable candidates – and yes that includes Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. If he endorses one of these, I won’t waste my vote; I’ll write in Mark Shea.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Virgil Goode seems OK, but then I don’t know much about him yet, since it’s not exactly a pressing matter. I will join you in writing in Ron Paul, as long as those votes will be counted in my state (which I don’t know yet either)

      • Ted Seeber

        The only disturbing thing about Virgil Goode is his opinion about hispanic Catholics (that they should all go back to Mexico).

        • Blog Goliard

          Well, either a nation has the right to have and enforce immigration laws, or it doesn’t. I believe that all nations do.

          As it happens, the Mexican government and the plurality of transnational elites agree with me on this point too, except for one little quibble–they believe that all nations outside the G-12 have this right.

          • Hezekiah Garrett

            Virgil Goode goes much, much farther than that. He may not be anti-hispanic, but his other policy proposals and some of his statements certainly leave me feeling that way. He seems at times to mistake knowledge of English for the Imagio Dei.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              And I’m all for outright ENDING immigration…

              Retroactively, back to 1580 or so.

              Who’s with me?

      • Kirt Higdon

        Goode is somewhat of a militarist, an unrepentant supporter of the Iraq war. My full spectrum pro-life views include the right to life of foreigners.

    • Irenist

      “I’ll write in Mark Shea.”
      Now THAT is an idea! (Also a good t-shirt idea, Mark: “Write in Mark Shea!”)

      • Mark Shea

        God forbid.

        • Irenist

          “Therefore a sage has said, ‘I will do nothing, and the people will be transformed of themselves; I will be fond of keeping still, and the people will of themselves become correct. I will take no trouble about it, and the people will of themselves become rich; I will manifest no ambition, and the people will of themselves attain to the primitive simplicity.’” –Tao Te Ching, lvii, Legge trans.

    • Mark Shea

      I’d screw up everything. Don’t waste your vote.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        All I needed to hear, brother! I’m voting this time!!! Mark Shea for President! He’ll screw up EVERYTHING!

        • Blog Goliard

          This is an even more satisfying cause than Cthulhu for President! (And it’s easier to spell!)

      • Irenist

        “I’d screw up everything. Don’t waste your vote.”
        Finally! An honest politician!

      • Ted Seeber

        Yeah, vote for Lucy the Cuteness instead.

  • Blog Goliard

    “[Lenin’s] humanitarianism was a very abstract passion. It embraced humanity in general but he seems to have had little love for, or even interest in, humanity in particular. ” — Paul Johnson, Modern Times

    It occurs to me that Mitt Romney–charitable and helpful and kind to so many people over the years on an individual and personal basis, while uncomprehending (when not actually dismissive) of vast swathes of Americans generally–may represent a conservative archetype that is the exact opposite of Johnson’s description of Lenin.

    • Irenist

      That’s a really intriguing suggestion.

    • Marion

      I think a respectable case can be made that the federal and state governments should handle direct financial assistance to those facing poverty because they are unable to support themselves due to a disability, or who are past retirement age, or are serving in our nation’s military, while those facing poverty for reasons that are deemed able to be addressed by programs offering rehabilitation, job training, and educational programs would be best served by opportunities to work with folks who can get to know each one personally: hence locally-based programs, and programs run by a partnership of private and government entities – churches, not-for-profit, individual, neighborhood, as well as community.

      This, I believe, would be far more responsible than putting able-bodied people on the federal dole . . . and not for a few months or a year or two, but for most of their adult lives . . . . as well as their childrens’ lifetimes . . . and their grandchildrens’ as well. Some close by neighbors of ours. . . it’s so sad, and so awful. So hopeless.

  • Dan C

    I like Douthat’s interpretation in the NYTImes.

    My contention is that the conservatives are revealed in this campaign more than the candidate of the conservative.

    During the primaries, the audiences applauded and hooted at any number of morally reprehensible positions. The VP candidate is a Makers vs. Takers supporter as demonstrated by his enunciation of such over the years, and then, in what Romney thought was a closed room, he is heard appealing to folks who are likely to be defined as “Makers” who find the underclasses as parasitic.

    I actually think he is has a deep sense of noblesses oblige, but his own supporters find the rest of us as a servant class that is too sassy and fat for them. That and the family-values-type lifestyles these wealthy folks live.

    Conservatives are routinely embracing appalling, unChristian ideologies. Conservative leaders are dragging the followers along immoral paths. And it is not a new problem but has been percolating for years.

    • Irenist

      “Conservatives are routinely embracing appalling, unChristian ideologies.”
      True. Romney and Ryan are sincere and honorable in their Randianism, but that doesn’t make Randianism any less heretical or dangerous.

      • Dan C

        I don’t mean Romney and Ryan actually. I think these are the least reprehensible and most presentable folks to represent these conservative opinions. I mean the crowds who invest substantial spiritual effort into denouncing welfare mommas with the fervor of a religious jihad. I mean the conservatives who are personally invested in a dystopic America future they are convinced will involve Sharia and as a consequence hate Muslims (who, by the way, are closer to conservativism than liberalism and, had conservativism not veered into Michelle Bachman whackidom, Muslims could have been counted on for support of Republicans).

        I mean the audience members who cheered Ron Paul’s answers about the need to allow some folks to die from treatable diseases if unable to pay for care.

        “The people” and their embrace of the technique of demagoguery of Limbaugh and Beck are first to blame for this. Not Romney and Ryan.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Mind your terms. You mean, by turns, Republican, libertarian, or plutocrat rather than conservative. Some Republicans are conservatives, but not all conservatives are Republicans. And there’s very little conservative about the national GOP.

      • Dan C

        I mean clearly blue vs. red, Whatever the vocabulary.

        • ivan_the_mad

          “Whatever the vocabulary.” Sorry, I can’t accept that. I’m a conservative, and you’re attributing things I certainly don’t share, especially in your response to Irenist. See Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind” for a good primer on what conservatism is. Just because the popular parlance calls a spade a paring knife is no reason to aid and abet the misnomer.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Kind of like the way the other side interchanges communism/socialism/secularism?

          • Dan C

            No… More like socialism (think Germany when Ratzinger was paid a check by the government to each theology) vs. American entitlements (which are paltry support arrangments compared to Australia). This propagandistic description of barely liberal entitlements in America as “socialist” does drive me nuts.

            How to describe the Red Team mob, then? Blue Team mob is liberal. I accept that without a need to describe the arch differences of the anarch-leaning Occupy folks, from the folks advocating for single-payor health systems, for the center-left advocating for reasonable budget cuts.

            • ivan_the_mad

              Unwillingness to distinguish is a bug, not a feature. Why bother with Red Team and Blue Team at all? Why not Purple Team? I can accept that without a need to describe the arch differences of the libertarians, from the folks advocating for compulsory health insurance. They all just go in one big box, right?

              • Dan C

                I think few in red state regions advocate for single payor and do turn right more often. Few do embrace libertarianism in its truest form- as the anarch-leaning OWS crowd advocated for federal solutions to local problems. But they will more likely by a large margin vote blue and libertarians and pro-military folks will more likely vote red by large margins.

                I think folks have a reflex today. Red vs. blue.

                • ivan_the_mad

                  Call it candy corn vs. twix for all I care, I don’t care about voting patterns, I care about using words according to their meanings, which you apparently can’t do with “conservative”.

            • Irenist

              Given how far doctrinaire G.O.P. positions diverge from the tradition of Burke and Kirk, I don’t think “conservative” is a very good word, either, just as I dislike the indiscriminate use of terms like “socialist” and “fascist.” Unfortunately, there’s no good single word for “neo-conservative imperialism abroad coupled with Randian economics at home” that I can think of. Even “Republicanism” is already in use by opponents of monarchy. And given the warmongering and drug-warmongering, the party is far from being libertarian, either.
              I’d be interested to hear suggestions for a term.

              • Dan C

                Red mob. Blue mob.

                • Irenist

                  Good. Now if only “red” didn’t mean socialist/Labour and “blue” conservative everywhere but the United States….

                  • ivan_the_mad

                    More like, now if only “red” didn’t mean “not blue” and “blue” didn’t mean “not red” in the United States …

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              I’ve not met 5 actual liberals in the entire Blue Mob, dude.

        • Ted Seeber

          There’s a difference between blue and the red?

          • Josh

            Umm yeah. Like 200 THz. Geez.

  • Lloyd Petre

    Those of you whose sense of fair play doesn’t stop before it gets to Mormons might be interested in this exchange between the author of the piece Mark links to and the law professor who noticed that a chunk of the tape was cut out of Romneys’ remarks.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/critical-audio-gap-in-complete-romney-tape-released-by-mother-jones/

    • Blog Goliard

      Oh, you silly person. “Sense of fair play”! Don’t you realize that our duty to charitably interpret the words and actions of others doesn’t apply when we’re talking about politicians we don’t like?

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        What do you posit he might have said in the missing chunk, that would alter the plain meaning of what he already said?

        IOW, so what? I don’t expect honesty from Mother Jones, but that WAS Romney’s answer. I can’t imagine what 2 or 3 clauses he could have added to mitigate that.

      • Dan C

        I don’t think he was anything more than dismissve. His listeners and contributors on the other hand are very very different than this Mormon who is well aware of charity from his days as a Mormon bishop.

        The “Makers” expect worship and material sacrifice. This is about their money, not about a nation’s security.

  • Michael F.

    Another article covering the fact that the tape was edited. The people who released the tape are claiming that the recorder just coincidentally malfunctioned at that crucial moment. Um, not sure I’m buying that.

    But it’s nice of the main stream media to jump to dutifully report this without bothering to do any due diligence. Let’s see how much coverage they give to the latest news about the tape.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/19/Mother-Jones-Admits-Romney-Tape-Missing-One-or-Two-Minutes

  • Irenist

    That the Romney tape has such a convenient gap is indeed another reason why those, like me, who disagree with him should be very careful to give him the benefit of the doubt, lest our biases corrupt our analysis.

  • Lloyd Petre

    By the way, this tape, made illegally under the law of the state in which it was recorded (Florida), before it was dishonestly edited was made by Jimmy Carters grandson James. If his name were O’Keefe wattaya wanna bet the editorial view of this blogsite towards it would be different?

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      Everything I own, Lloyd, EVRYTHING I FREAKING OWN!

      James Carter just sat back and recorded Rmoney and his supporters running their mouths.

      James O’Keefe lies and manipulates people into sin.

      Mark knows the difference. All of us who don’t have our heads stuck in an elephant’s rectum know the difference. Why don’t you?

    • Mark Shea

      I have no knowledge of the circumstance of the taping. If it was obtained by dishonest or illegal methods, I of course condemn it for precisely the same reason I condemn it when O’Keefe or Live Action lie. Why (apart from knee jerk tribal assumptions) would you think otherwise?

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        I never thought I would ever say this, Mark, but I am disappointed. if you hadn’t included the word ‘illegal’, it’d be cool.

        But I can’t see any equivalence between ” lying to induce others to sin” and “filming a politician running for the Highest office without his consent, contrary to positive law” in, of all places, Florida, America’s dangly bits.

  • Michael F.

    Correction. I wrote: “The people who released the tape are claiming that the recorder just coincidentally malfunctioned at that crucial moment.”

    Actually, they’re claiming that the camcorder “inadvertently turned off.”

    Are you kidding me? Let’s see what the media does with this new information. I’m guessing it won’t get much attention or they will nuance it because otherwise it would be quite embarrassing for them.

    • Ted Seeber

      If it was a cell phone running either Android or iOS, I believe it. I’ve had such a thing happen to me- especially when coming close to running out of memory on the SD card.

      • Irenist

        It’s getting more and more annoying for attorneys who work in the many courts where cameras aren’t allowed to find a camera-free cell phone to buy anymore.

        • Ted Seeber

          I find it patently ridiculous that in a country with freedom of press, that cameras and recording devices wouldn’t be allowed in courtrooms at all.

      • Michael F.

        You believe it at *that* timing? Too coincidental to be plausible, imo. And why didn’t they admit this right up front? Why wait until only after it has gotten all the media attention? Why did they hold on to this for months and release it now? Why did they only admit the missing section after they were called on it?

        Here’s an interesting analysis of the missing tape.

        This guy isn’t an expert, but I think he makes some reasonable observations.

        http://not-yet-europe.com/2012/09/19/romney-tape-gap-not-recording-error/

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Name one.

          His claims boil down to “Waiters are sloooooooow” and “I am too spastic to pick up an object and then replace it in the same position, so everyone else must be too.”

          I still want to know what this missing context could possibly be that mitigates whats on tape. You don’t have to have been there, but if you’s guys is claiming that, then surelyyou’ve imagined what those missing minutes MIGHT contain.

          Share with us.

          • Michael F.

            You might want to check out the comment I left to Ted about this. It was a camera. And whoever it was placed a napkin over it. You can see that in the reflection in the vase to the right at the beginning of the tape.

            And I also gave you something that Romney could reasonably have said that would have softened his earlier, harsher statement. He may have clarified and softened it a bit, and I think that’s exactly why it was edited out.

            These people hid that a whole section was cut out. And if you watch the two consecutive tapes, you’ll see that the whole context of what he’s saying has *completely* changed.

        • Dan C

          How does this Romney comment differ in any substamce than what is commonly discussed by the right? I refer to Paul Ryan’s pre-Aquinas days (which was so long ago-like December 2011). This is the right’s mantra, including Acton’s, for a while now.

          My concern is the audience, and then, the ignorance of Romney- these 47% folks are going to vote for him in substantial proportions. He clearly will sell out even his voters to his donors. Doesn’t that concern anyone? Pro-lifers, anything seem like a revelation explaining circumstances of your ineffectuality yet?

      • Michael F.

        It wasn’t a cell phone, Ted. It was a camera.

        At the very beginning of the video, the person who did the taping set up the camera behind the glass flower vase. Now watch the reflection in the silver vase on the right and you’ll see a reflection of the camera….it’s not a pen or a phone. In the reflection you can also see the person placing a napkin or small towel over the camera, then shortly after the person moves the vases to the right so the camera has a better field of view. When the vases are moved during the video, it’s sometimes possible to see the reflection of the camera and sometimes not depending on their location.

        It doesn’t seem likely that a remote control was used given that the person taping this event set up the camera while it was *already taping*. And considering that the camera was shielded by the napkin at the beginning, it doesn’t seem as likely that the person taping saw that it had stopped.

        So, I think we’re back to how did the person fix the problem with the camera, cover it up again, and not move the camera *at all*?

    • Blog Goliard

      Rose Mary Woods lives!

  • Ted Seeber

    I still think they should spin this into a dare: “So Obama has forced you to be a parasite by his horrid handling of the Economy? Prove how independent you really are, Vote For Romeny”

  • Observer

    Take pause….step back…and look, first:

    How many of those who are under the 47% umbrella are contributing to the economy? Suppose you had someone name Joe. He had to take disability and unemployment for awhile. He even considered getting back to work. However, the job market remained grim and didn’t look good, and he continued to receive whatever available oncome the govt could provide him. Soc. Welfare gave him some money, so did the state and county. Also, he was able to get some help from charity groups. Through it all, he lives in an apartment with one child and his wife. They’re able to get a cable subscirbed service and cheap internet access….and eat out from time-to-time.

    Okay, getting to the over simplified example, how many jobs would be lost, if and only if, those who are dependent (i.e. the 47%) no longer contributed to the “free enterprise” (those jobs which exist because someone pays and subscribes to some service or makes a purchase at some business) when their income is taken away? In many respects, on the side, the above illustration isn’t to say no one should get off of state-dependence. In fact, people ought to be free of becoming dependent.

    However, you cannot say our economic condition truly reflects “free enterprise” and independence. It doesn’t. You cannot have a job unless someone takes income and produces something from it (i.e. buying something which results in an end product.) And, you cannot call an income which is state dependent as merely re-distribution, since the money is being expended upon something (a purchase as a result of free enterprise) and is exhausted on an exchange of goods or services renderred to the buyer. So, nothing about 47% even makes the remotest sense to what Romnee nor any of his constituents who speak on his behalf outlayed the argument that the 47% are non-productive people who are simply living on govt.

    Yes, people need to be independent and ought to be free of being dependent. However, no one can have independence when the very people who talk about it are the very same people who are compromising it (not because of business.) Rather, you have people who must become dependent on not being able to take care of themselves, which is based upon the system which they’re being told is much better than the one they’re on. In other words, a person is not able to be indepdendent, unless the economy reflects one in which a person may be the sole owner of his or her own posessions and being able to afford (and keep) his or her own productive means of property.

  • Adolfo

    I’m part of the 47%. I am a Catholic high school teacher, supporting my family of 6 on an income that is deemed to be slightly above the poverty line. As such, we don’t pay any income taxes and my children are on Medicaid since I cannot afford health insurance on the Archdiocesan family health plan. Am I a Taker? I don’t know… I teach theology to Juniors and like to think I’m helping mold young minds and hearts. Does that make me a Maker?
    I refuse to vote for Obama on principle but has Romney earned my vote? No, and it doesn’t sound like he wants it.

    • Richard Johnson

      By Romney’s definition you are part of the 47%, as are the disabled veterans who, because of their injury, cannot work and must receive disability benefits and medical care from the VA. Are these people parasites as well?

      Ayn Rand would be proud of Romney/Ryan today.

  • Ted Seeber

    It also occurs to me that by my total anti-collectivism; it is Bain Capital that is the parasite.

  • Marthe Lépine

    It occurred to me that those billionaires who complain because in their opinion half the population are whiners who are claiming their entitlements are in fact doing exactly what they blame other people for doing.

    Rich men will not invest time, money and effort into starting and/or maintaining businesses that are providing jobs, unless they can find substantial benefits for themselves – profits – for doing so. Therefore they would not be interested in businesses that provide them with less than optimal profits but would provide jobs for the workers and therefore allow these workers to provide the necessities of life for themselves and their families, even if the profits these rich men would be getting would certainly provide for them much more than the necessities of life… They will expect the government to contribute bailouts or other incentives like tax breaks as motivation to start such businesses or to keep these businesses as profitable as they want them to be, but they do not call that “claiming for entitlements”.

    Workers will not take jobs – e.g. invest their time and efforts – unless they can find substantial benefits for themselves – salaries – for doing so. Therefore they would not be interested in jobs that pay so little that they would still be unable to provide the necessities of life for themselves and their families. They will expect the government to provide for them the necessities of life that they could not provide for themselves even if they held jobs. The rich decry this as “claiming for entitlements”.

    There may be differences in incomes between the two groups, but their attitudes are in fact quite similar… The billionaires just have more power, but they are just as unwilling to do their part as they think that the workers are unwilling to do theirs, since it seems (to me at least) that the responsibility of the rich is to provide opportunities for people to work, instead of just complaining that too many (other) people expect government assistance and do not want to work.

    It is not just a matter of social assistance vs private charity… Instead of so much emphasis on private charity, there should be an effort from the rich to provide the jobs that “ordinary” people need to support themselves, even if their profits might not be as great as if they sent the jobs overseas.

    What do you think? Does this make sense?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X