Mitt Romney: President Obama won with 'gifts' to certain voters

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Ying Fah Provo, UT
    Nov. 18, 2012 7:27 p.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 9:38 p.m.

    Joe Moe-Democrats agree with you 100%. Let Mitt keep talking.

  • Joe Moe Logan, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 8:49 p.m.

    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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 5:28 p.m.

    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?

  • Joe Moe Logan, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 4:34 p.m.

    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.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 3:54 p.m.

    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.

  • lket Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 12:26 p.m.

    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 logic.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    Seriously? 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.

  • Joe Moe Logan, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 9:54 a.m.

    yes you and Romney are victims as usual.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    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.]

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Nov. 15, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    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!

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    Nov. 15, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    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
    The comments on this thread clearly attest to that fact

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 15, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    Mitt Romney would leave a better impression if he said nothing at all rather than depart on a farewell note of sour grapes.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 15, 2012 8:20 a.m.

    "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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    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 warlocks.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 15, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    @ 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!

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 7:31 a.m.

    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.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Nov. 15, 2012 7:25 a.m.

    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

  • Barnbug1 SPANISH FORK, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 7:01 a.m.

    Of 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.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 6:26 a.m.

    It's the Chicago way.
    You have clout because you control how public revenue is spent.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 5:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 5:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 15, 2012 3:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Joe Moe Logan, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 12:43 a.m.

    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?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 11:53 p.m.

    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.

  • AFVet Lindon, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 10:40 p.m.

    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 Pacs.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 10:09 p.m.

    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 -

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 14, 2012 10:02 p.m.

    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 and mirrors!

    Nov. 14, 2012 9:34 p.m.

    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 same way.

  • DVD Taylorsville, 00
    Nov. 14, 2012 9:26 p.m.

    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 order.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 9:18 p.m.

    "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.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 9:18 p.m.

    In sports, business and politics, you either make it happen or you make excuses.

    Sadly, romney chooses to make excuses.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 14, 2012 9:14 p.m.

    @ 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?

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Nov. 14, 2012 8:41 p.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 14, 2012 8:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 14, 2012 8:05 p.m.

    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!

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Nov. 14, 2012 7:45 p.m.

    Laughable! And sad!