Romney Was Clumsy, but He Had a Point

[mikesilvia]

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Mitt Romney told donors in a $50,000-a-plate Florida fundraiser that was secretly recorded in May and released by Mother Jones this week. In an unfortunate choice of words, Romney described those 47 percent as people 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."Factually, Romney was in the right neighborhood....

More...

[drtom2005]

Is there a D.J. in the house? Because the spin has begun.

[habsheaven]

They can spin it all they like. He said what he said. He meant what he said. It wasn't clumsy at all. If you want to describe it, it was ignorant, rude and insulting. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Wickabee]

It was a very clumsy way of calling war veterans incapable of taking responsibility of their own lives. What they should have done was gone out and found a WWII vet and put him in a nerd circle. Would have gotten the point across more efficiently. Then follow it up with a poor working family, a college student and top it off by pushing Nana down the stairs.

[JustAlex]

All of these articles are a huge parody of themselves.

LOL, Romney had a point?

OK, just like Extremist Muslims have a point....they're just "clumsy" in the way they choose to show it.

[Wickabee]

All of these articles are a huge parody of themselves.

LOL, Romney had a point?

OK, just like Extremist Muslims have a point....they're just "clumsy" in the way they choose to show it.

Well, first it was just a liberal distraction.
Next, Romney misspoke (leading to conservatives, even on this board, defending a guy who pulled a stat right out of his rectum)
Then, he had a point, and a good one.

So, this misspoken, liberal distraction was an accurate depiction of Romney's ideals, and it's a winner!

Remember the first one about distraction? Well, it was, but the video of Obama from 1998 (remember Romney was ALL THE WAY back in May) is definitely NOT a distraction.

This Romney video has shown many conservatives to be blindly following the party and defending their nominee at all costs. It's sad because many of those people (around here) claim to never do such a thing and only look at the numbers. Well, I'm looking at the numbers. The number Romney insulted, and the numbers within that 47%. My conclusion? Nothing conservatives are saying to defend this makes any sense when you look at everything else they're saying to defend it. They're contradicting themselves at every turn.

I also love how Obama is "the worst President in history" but Romney is neck and neck. If he can't handily beat the worst President in US history, what kind of a President would HE be?