Mitt Romney just needs to go away. He lost. All his excuses about the
"moochers" and "gift handouts" will only diminish him
further.It also shows that when he morphed into "moderate"
Mitt, he was just putting us on. Unfortunately, if he had stayed "severely
conservative", his loss probably would have been much greater.
Joe Moe-Democrats agree with you 100%. Let Mitt keep talking.
It is sad to me how many attribute these comments to being a sore loser,
whining, victimology, etc. After every major election there are discussions as
to why and how the results came down like they did. I didn't vote for
Romney, but I can see what he is aiming at, why he has said the things he did,
and I believe he is speaking in good faith. He has concerns about the attitudes
many people have about government. He's now just a private citizen
continuing to share his opinion. You can wish he would shut up, but he has as
much right to speak his mind as much as any of us. And don't forget, 49%
of this country agreed with him more than with Obama, and the nation kept
like-minded Republicans in control of the House. We should not be stifling
dialog, but quite the opposite. A "we won so sit down and be quiet"
approach will not help this nation.
Romney has just turned being a bad loser into an art form. Does anyone have any
cheese to give him to go along with his whine?
HappyValleyHeretic, thanks for the explanation and reasoning. I think I
understand better. But if I apply your definitions, then this is where it takes
me:The Democrat I voted for to represent me in the state House did
not win. He did pretty well, but he could have done better in getting his
message out. He could have sold himself better. But now, he and I are victims
of the majority who fell for what we obviously think are short-sighted or
wrong-headed ideas. That Democrat (this is not hypothetical) who ran for the
House has said very similar (if mirror image) things to what Romney said,
lamenting that the citizens just didn't "get it," that they are
buying into the wrong message. Would you agree he was acting the role of
victim?Obama made mistakes in his campaign, Romney made mistakes in
his. In the end, the voters supported Obama. Discussing how and why the loss
happened can be described as playing the role of "victim," I agree, but
it is a pretty broad definition. And in such a paradigm, having a victim is
part of every election as far as I can tell.
Why doesn't Mitt and the GOP offer to HELP bring the country together and
solve our problems as a civilized society instead of the same rhetoric we heard
for the last year. A gloating winner is obnoxious, but a sore loser
is just insufferable.
problem solved raise all taxes. cut as much spending as possible in military and
get out of the war in afganistan. cut some social programs dont ever take money
from social security like has happened in the past. the real reason it does not
workis money was takken out by both parties many times, or it would have plenty.
let the post office run itself not congress as it has been.
Counter Intelligence said:"Romney is right, Obama won based upon
class, race and gender warfare and by handing out freebies in order to enslave
entire classes into government dependency." JoeMoe: You are
wrong. If you blame everyone but Yourself then you are a victim of those other
people, not by any fault of your own, that is exactly what Mit and CI are
claiming. Mitt was perfect everyone and everything else prevented him from
winning. You said: "go ahead and make the person out to be
whatever you need them to be so that your judgment fits."Mitt
and CI own words make them a victim, not Tolstoy's observation.The
guys on the radio make horrible analogies, and fool others into the same flawed
MountainmanSeriously? One example is the tax breaks for Big Oil,
that's in the billions. If Romney is right, and corporations are people
should they not be taxed at the 35%? I'm not advocating that but there is
a reason why business's have lobbyist and shelled out billions in this
year's election. The role of goverment is subjective and we should all
understand that people will have a different perspective on that. This is still
the greatest country in the world and why some may not be happy with the recent
election think of a place you would rather live.
Tolstoy, neither Romney nor CI claimed to be victims. It's easy to win
arguments in your own mind if you are able to state others' words and ideas
for them. Or, as the Evanesence song says, go ahead and make the person out to
be whatever you need them to be so that your judgment fits. It's a human
tendency we all need to beware of.
@CIyes you and Romney are victims as usual.
Just goes to show that hidden video about the 47% WAS the real Mitt Romney after
all.Makes me wonder about the rest of the hidden real Mitt Romney
[un-paid taxes, ect.]
Mountanman: Check into the little loophole Romney took advantage of through the
Mormon church and tithing. I would call those handouts to the rich. When the
rich can tak advantage of tax loopholes and overseas bank accounts that the
working class cannot, I would call those handouts. When the rich can hire the
best accountants to hide their money, I would call those handouts.We
may be arguing semantics here, and I know some would argue that these are the
advantages that "the rich" have earned - I quote that because a lot of
rich people are handed down their wealth and don't really earn it at all -
but I can understand - maybe not you - why Romney could not gain the trust of
half the voters!
This story is trying so hard to be a story. Romney was talking to some donors
on a conference call. Big deal. He wasn't making a public statement. He
is not trying to whine to the country about why he lost. His speech after the
election showed that. Anytime someone loses at something that takes so much
time and energy it is only human to vent your frustrations to others you know.
I like how the article speculates on what Romney said. What he said was quoted
was in parentheses. Singling out blacks, latinos and others were not in
parentheses so Romney most likely did not say it. Everyone knows that Obama
gives free stuff to people and that is probably half the reason those people
voted for him(Obama phone lady comes to mind). Majority of voters
may not have wanted Romney in the White House, but the fact still remains that
he knows how to get things done in government and balance a budget. Obama has
proven that he does not.Definition of insanity:Electing the
same person as president and expecting different results.
Romney is rightObama won based upon class, race and gender warfare and by
handing out freebies in order to enslave entire classes into government
dependency The comments on this thread clearly attest to that fact
Mitt Romney would leave a better impression if he said nothing at all rather
than depart on a farewell note of sour grapes.
"What handouts to the "rich" get from Republicans? "The kind of handout that allows Mr Romney to pay sub 14%.And many
of that 47% pays a higher tax rate because of payroll taxes.Pretty
nice "handout" if you ask me.
Any shred of respect I had for Mitt is now gone completely, he is exactly who
the majority of American new he was.Worship of the affluent is nothing
new, envy to be like them, is nothing new. Degrading the middle class, will not
win over new converts to the religion of conservatism and it's radio
@ FT; What handouts to the "rich" get from Republicans? The
"rich" are currently paying about 80% of all federal income taxes paid
while about 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all! The truth is
the 47% are gaming the system and whining for more!
Democrats give hand outs to the poor, Republicans give it to the rich. If
that's the sole basis for determining winners for future elections,
Republicans are in trouble.
Obama won the election because Mitt managed to insult, or scare the daylights
out of all the groups in America that feel marginalized. Mitt even lost big
among the affluent, and generally, successful Asian population.Come
on Republicans, we need you to get back into the inclusive mainstream, the
politics of fear don't work anymore. ll
@WonderOf course every US citizen gets some kind of benefit. The problem
starts with the mountain of benifits provided to those who put nothing back into
the system. The Romney's of the world are not the problem. Wouldn't it
be great if our politicians focused more on what is best for our country rather
that just getting elected.
It's the Chicago way.PIEProjectsIncentivesEntitlementsYou have clout because you control how public revenue is
Romney once again shows why he lost. He wouldn't recognize the truth if it
reached up and bit him, and would never consider telling the truth if it got in
his way. Mitt -- you lost. People didn't want you because of the way you
acted. Live with it . . . and maybe learn.
Romney is not only a whiner, but he is also a hypocrite. The promises he made to
the wealthy showed who he cared about, and it wasn't the middle class. And
could it be that he ran a terrible campaign and gave us no reason to support
him? Time to go away, Mitt.
Romney and the Republicans needed to explain how they were going to give the
poor "a hand-up in place of a hand out." They didn't think about
it because, I fear, they were in their own world of casino magnates, wealthy
donors, fighting off people like Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump.
Reality is this is the Achille's heel of democracy. “A
democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist
until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public
treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a
democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a
dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has
been 200 years.”Name that quote. Hint: it wasn't
Romney.And Republicans are _almost_ as guilty as Democrats in this.
Romney may not be the best spokesman for this issue, but then I can't think
of anyone that is. But it HAS to be part of our national dialog if we are going
to avoid the above prediction. We can do it. But will we?
So Mountanman, what are you willing to give up? Which of your government
benefits do you want to cut? Not something that someone else has to give up,
but YOU. Because my guess is that you have received or are receiving some
government benefits. The problem is that everyone wants someone else to suffer,
but they don't want any pain for themselves. It isn't just the poor,
inner city folk who get government benefits, although you wouldn't know
that by hearing all the Republicans complain about the "takers". For
example, why should Mitt Romney have been able to take a deduction for his
horse? That sounds like a "goodie" to me. Why should people who make
their money from stock dividends instead of a wage pay less in taxes? Again,
sounds like a "goodie" to me. It's just that some people are
deemed to be worthy of getting goodies and some aren't.
Thank you Mitt for telling those billionaires how you really feel about
minorities. I guess they weren't expecting anything in return for the
millions and MILLIONS of dollars they contributed to your campaign and Super
The choice in this election was capitalism or socialism. Socialsim won out.Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, Socialism is the equal
distribution of poverty.- Winston Churchill -
Moderate. $5 trillion in tax increases and spending cuts? The last projection of
tax increases on the "rich" are less than $150 billion and spending cuts
have only been mentioned casually, no details and there never will be anything
even close to the $4 trillion spending cuts! So in answer to your question, will
"just about cover it"; not even close! Do you really think Obama and the
Democrats will cut spending more than just an infinitesimal amount? All smoke
It becomes more clear everyday why Romney could claim with a straight face that
he cared about those that see themselves as victims. he clearly sees himself the
Don't dismiss 1/2 of America as worthless and then expect to have them vote
for you? Unfortunately, in fairness to Romney, he did have to dance a thin line
to try to get the far-right, who do include "Everyone except my group is
worthless" groups, to vote. That he got as much of the vote as he did is
quite impressive. I'd put him up again in 2016 as he's probably the
best guy on the Republican side to at least keep a two-party system in working
"Obamacare alone is projected to add $1.2 trillion to the national debt the
first year!"The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts and automated spending
cuts adds $5 trillion in revenue. That should cover it.
In sports, business and politics, you either make it happen or you make
excuses.Sadly, romney chooses to make excuses.
@ Joe Blow. My brief absence was caused by a change in my daily routine. But
back to the subject at hand.Did we or did we not see ads on national TV
during Obama's re-election campaign urging Americans to apply for food
stamps? No work requirement, just the promise of, "You may be eligible for
food stamp assistance" with detailed instructions of whom to call for
assistance in getting in on the entitlement. It must have been effective because
as you know, we now have record numbers of Americans receiving food stamps (49
million and growing) and no work is required! So much for that!As
far as the dream act is concerned. Election statistics show that McCain got more
Hispanic votes in his election bid than Romney did because McCain supported the
dream act and Romney advocated LEGAL immigration. Say something doesn't
it?Which leads us to the vexing question, how are we going to pay
for all the entitlements? Obamacare alone is projected to add $1.2 trillion to
the national debt the first year! And weren't we promised that it would not
cost taxpayers anything, that it wasn't a tax?
What Romney points out is true, lot of handouts win votes, always has. But it
won't do any good to point it out, but to offer better plans, better ideas,
a better future for our children. The current path of Obama is unsustainable,
it will fail because it has no foundation. Now is the time to start thinking of
better option that treat americans as people not as pawns.
Uh, Welcome back Mountanman. I guess you decided to shorten your hiatus from
the board.You may recall that Mr McCain championed the dream act not
too long ago. I guess he was buying votes also.And as far as
"gutting the work requirement". We have been thru that quite a bit.
Try some fact checking. Let me help"Utah, Nevada, California,
Connecticut and Minnesota.These states, some with Republican
governors, asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand
out welfare dollars. Their purpose was to spend less time on federal paperwork
and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with
jobs."This is what you are referring to? Same ole
same ole. Factually incorrect posts.
The Democrats have won elections by promising entitlements for years! Obamacare,
the so called dream act and gutting the work requirement for food stamps are the
most recent examples. It still remains to be seen if this flood of entitlements
can be paid for. $16.2 trillion and growing by more than $1 billion everyday
says not! The only "solution" Obama has proposed is taxing the
"rich" more which would pay for his entitlements for about 9 days! The
other 354 days a year are still a problem! But hey, its sure wins elections!
Laughable! And sad!