Haha, cool cat, not at all. Perhaps you need to learn what stereotyping means.
Clearly I don't know the exact reason he was there, he did say he was there
to make a change, but I never besmirched his character, except in the area he
offered up: accusing others of being lazy and shiftless, when they too could
have just as easily been there for the reason of replacing a lost card, etc. No stereotyping at all. Really, you do need to learn what sterotyping
is. Saying that people waiting in line at a social security office are looking
for government handouts and do not believe in honest work, or self reliance, is,
among many other things, sterotyping. Pointing out the inanity of
criticizing others while waiting in the same line is just astute observation.
@ Mark...Perhaps he lost his card and was looking to get a new
one...? Or maybe he was there to ask about a new social security card for his
newlywed wife? Those are certainly possibilities.However, he also
made the assumption that most everyone else was there for a handout, so I guess
you BOTH are guilty of stereotyping people. Congratulations.
Mitt Romney ran for President?
So, New to Utah, you fit right in. Your post on the 5th at 8:30 hit just about
every single right wing talk radio bumper sticker talking point out there.
Strong work. You fit right in. Then you posted this, "Government
handouts seem more acceptable than honest work,self reliance. I had to make a
change at Social Security in Provo and there was hardly standing room
available."You had to make a change to your social security? So
I can assume you are on social security? And you are right there with everyone
else in the offices with standing room only? And yet all of THEM are the lazy
ones taking government handouts, and YOU are the only one that is self reliant
and a hard worker? Really? Too funny.
It is troubling that so many people in Utah have accepted the Obama playbook of
dependency.Government handouts seem more acceptable than honest work,self
reliance. I had to make a change at Social Security in Provo and there was
hardly standing room available. My thought our country will be bankrupt just as
Obama finishes his second term.
I knew Obama was going to win a least a week before the election, the polls said
so. So hearing Romney say he thought he was going to win until the Florida and
Ohio returns came in is kind of disturbing. He is that out of touch with
troubsEnterprise, UTIt's hard to beat free...everyone wants
something for nothing and the Dems will never be beat as long as they hand out
entitlements for votes. =======================================Why is this a Democrats issue? I didn't see Romney wanting to take
a machete to government entitlements.
Romney lost because of his gaffe-prone rhetoric and because he had enough
"flip flips" to give John Kerry a bad case of ideological vertigo.The GOP needs to embrace diversity and come up with better candidates.
Mitt Romney didn't lose! We did.
frugalfly,If you think the Tea Party was moderate back in the day, then
you must have been living solely in a conservative strongholds. Most analysts
I've heard on this matter say BOTH parties have been trending towards their
extremes in recent years. Hence our gridlock. Your wistful nostalgia
of America from 80 years ago is selective. There is a lot that has been
Romney lost, period. Barrak Hussein Obama won, period. What we learned in the
last election is that the general direction of the country over the past 80
years has drifted to "liberalism" and "progressivism". We now
are a people who have culturally evolved into a culture of less religiosity,
more government involvement/intervention, less oriented to family, more
perverse, less self sufficient, more self gratifying, and more reliant upon
debt. The evidence of this is that the so called "Tea Party" is
considered "Radical". I just laugh. I am no tea party member but the
statutes which it holds and puts forth are considered radical by our current
culture. The Tea Party would be considered center earlier in my lifetime and
now it is considered the "radical right". I am just amazed. We
aren't the same country...
I have participated in campaigns in liberal states and honestly Obama is a great
campaigner. He is a horrific president and has not lead as president. David
Axelrod and team Obama had to destroy Romney and suppress the vote to win. They
used principles from rules of radicals and class warfare, race, gender, age to
coble together a win. It was a dirty, slimy and yet carefully crafted campaign.
Romney was too nice a person and had to much love for our country to really get
into the mud slinging. Ultimately the news media, liberal establishment in
academia,Hollywood and the organizational ability of the unions was just too
much.The message was good but was drowned out by Obama's divide and conquer
effort.Obama should accept that he is the leader and quit campaigning and show
Many of the comments are excellent and reflect my feelings as well. I voted for
Romney as a vote against Obama. I was profoundly dissapointed in his campaign.
Romney never articulated where he would cut spending and insists on
increasing defense spending. As if the pentagon is some sort of sacred cow and
is exempt from being accountable for being wasteful. I am tired of Republicans
crticizing those who don't pay federal tazes. Could it the way the tax
laws are written. It's not if people are somehow finding ways to
deliberately avoid taxes. Isn't taking advantage of all legitimate
deductions what the wealthy do. Romney supporters need to take the time read
the comments on here. Romney's loss had nothing to do with voter fraud
and Obama promising free stuff and more to do with the message.
@Oatmeal"I knew Mitt was in trouble when I (a middle-aged, white,
politically moderate, LDS, male) had trouble connecting with him on just a human
level."Perfectly put, those are my demographics as well. I
watched Romney for years hoping he would get a shot. But when the opportunity
came it was at the price of running to far to the right for my taste. I was
disappointed because I couldn't see anything authentic in his campaigning.
I became convinced that he wasn't being true to himself and that he was
saying what he thought others wanted to hear. And then the 47% comments came
out and he lost me. I have been one of the 47%. I know what it is like to
struggle. Romney never has, and if he was willing to write off millions of
Americans who struggle to make basic ends meet, then I couldn't vote for
him.Where did the Romney who ran for governor of Massachusetts go?
I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat.Where did the Romney who
ran for Massachussetts governor go? I'd have voted for that Romney oj a
@troubs, may we assume that you gave back all your free stuff.
Messaging or Messenger?BothThe messengerSomeone who was
born into affluence, attended elite private schools, made money by taking over
companies, laying off union workers and leveraging companies with debt while
skimming off the profits is going to have a hard time with voters suffering from
an economic crisis. To top it off, he hid most of his tax returns and the 2 he
released revealed an extremely low tax rate as a result of special loopholes.
His continual shifting of positions and stances as candidate and governor caused
mistrust and confusion. Free healthcare--isn't that what he implemented as
Gov. Of MA?SecondlyThe messageNobody can win a general
election by castigating 47% of Americans (2/3 of whom work), women, and
minorities. Republicans remain unaware welfare was reformed in the 90's.
A majority of Americans don't believe in "trickle-down" economics
or that the wealthy are paying too much income tax. Most Americans are aware
that growing inequality is a threat to the U.S. economy--and see the great
economic gains by only those in the top1%. Most American women believe they can
and should be in charge of their own medical issues.
It's hard to beat free...everyone wants something for nothing and the Dems
will never be beat as long as they hand out entitlements for votes. Its going
to get worst before it gets better.
@John Wilson What you said is so true! I am amazed at the people on this post
who don't put forth the effort to watch the entire interview but just
believe what the author of this article wrote. Shame on you all! Romney was
right on with the 47% comment, he is a business man whose ability to accurately
assess a situation is sorely needed in our government. Everyone talks about
disliking politicians and needing statesman and yet they only want to hear the
warm fuzzy "I will make everyone happy" comments. A politician actually
gives an accurate assessment of a problem and he is demonized for being uncaring
and out of touch, oh, and having too much money. Have any of you ever lived in
the slum areas of the US? I have, and I understand what the Govt dole is doing
to the 47%. Have compassion, but change the system so the 47% has the
motivation to increase their income through education, not by having another
baby! @Oatmeal "Politically Moderate" is the politically
correct way to identify oneself these days…get a backbone and stand for
I had a song that I liked a lot. every place I went that song was played over
and over again until I couldn't listen to it ever again. I loved banana
milk shakes till I had one to many of them and I could not drink one without
getting sick. Romney is in that category of stuff I can't stand any more.
because I heard to much of all the time.
Let me tell you what the Govt dole is…I see it every morning. Parents
dropping their kids off at 7:00 to get free breakfast, after which they get free
tutoring, then free schooling (none of these parents pay property taxes), then
more free lunch, free dental care, free after school tutoring and then they pick
them up at 4:30 when the school closes. Yes, I have compassion for these
children and their parents but I am tired of the 47% in my elementary school
that is bringing down the level of teaching--I asked one teacher why she
wasn't requiring the memorization of the world countries and their capitals
for my second child as she did for my first. Her response: "because half
the class won't get any help from home to memorize it" This goes right
back to the lack of personal responsibility--let someone else do it/pay for it.
Oh, did I mention I see many of these parents pull up in their new SUV's
and talking on their iPhones? They take it because they can. Needing to take
Govt dole used to be an embarassment, now it is a supplemental income.
@kberry, are you painting a self portrait .
re: wrzI'm a school teacher. I'm part of the 47%.
Police, Firemen, Etc.. We're all "sucking up to welfare?" I don't think so! I'd even bet you have a job
that in some way benefits from government funding. Go back to school!
Romney was beholden to the Koch brothers and large donations from people who
dictated his campaign. Romney's campaign was so far removed from
understanding the actual voters because of these donations that came with
restrictions. Americans don't want freebees, but many of us have worked
hard and are still working hard, but because of lack of breaks or luck or
whatever we don't have, we have not achieved the success of even providing
for our families. If Romney had put in more effort to show us how we could
achieve our needs with his policy, he would be president today. He dwelt too
much on government deficit spending and not enough on how his ideas would
promote the American dream. Obama showed us a way to get what we need better
than Romney did. The negativity in his campaign was disastrous to him.
I am an independent who voted for Obama in 2008. and voted against him in 2012
by voting for Romney. I never cared for Romeny, so it was truly a vote against
Obama. I was curious, so I watched the entire interview. I was impressed with
Romney's answers. He took full personal responsibility for the loss. He
didn't make excuses. He was clear, charming, engaging, and articulate. In
sum, he was what you would hope for from somone who lost the election. I have
read several articles about the interview, including this one. I don't
believe the writers even watched more than sound bites. I don't think they
watched the entire interview. Romney lost, and was gracious in talking about it.
The country needs to get over him. He is no longer a political player. He
knows that and freely admitted it. Give the guy a break. He lost, and is being
classy about it.
While the messenger and the message are never "perfect" the majority of
the problem is with the voters. More voters are ill-informed, ill-educated, and
immoral. The bottom line is we need to take more personal responsibility to
take care of ourselves and to help our fellow men. Taxes are not charity!
President Obama's campaign had been planning on Mitt Romney getting the
Republican nomination for months prior to the convention. They had the strategy
down pat on how to erode any gains the Governor had made in the almost 2 dozen
debates on national television. They knew that Mitt Romney would be an open
target for their type of Chicagoship type of operations. His father had been a
candidate and made some errors that were capitalized by the adversaries, even
within the Republican party and especially the press of the 1960s. The Press
did the same this time with the 47 percent remark that an insider made capital
on with that recording surfacing at the appropriate time. Since the Tea-Party
was new to the national Presidential election campaign and convention process,
that probably didn't help for unifying a party that has some growing pains.
The President knew how to capitalize on the entitled people to get their votes
with threats of having those entitlements cut by the Republicans. Those
entitlements won't go away as they are entrenched into the livelihood of
constituents/providers for 70 years and more. These are not short term
entitlements that Congress thought would go away.
Does it really matter?
I guess one could say that the prove is in the pudding. Mr. Obama got elected
president and things are getting better. Mr. Romney is sulking about his hurt
feelings and doing nothing to make things better. Mr. Obama just seems like the
better all around man.
Let the blame game begin!That simple little gentleman wager of $10,000 did
it for me! Definitely don't run in that world, and that is betting, imo.It is absolutely amazing, or maybe not, that a question of "Why
didn't you vote for Mitt?" is never asked by the GOP.I will get
the stupid surveys asking if I believe we should support more government
spending or some other redundant question.I watched the GOP in action...
again. They turned a blind eye toward the slighting of Ron Paul. Okay, but now
you want to get serious when your man gets whacked?What was the difference
between BO and MItt on pre-emptive war... none.What was the difference
between BO and MItt on the Federal Reserve and the monetary issues.... noneWhat was the difference between BO and Mitt on health care, about the same.So we will be introduced now to another Bush Presidency by the GOP in '16
with Jeb Bush, (he can win!). Hope this works out well.Maybe next
time the GOP will start asking real questions, but I am not holding my breath.
I think it was the messenger. I knew Mitt was in trouble when I (a middle-aged,
white, politically moderate, LDS, male) had trouble connecting with him on just
a human level.
How could you ignore a third, and the most important option - MESSAGE?
Whatever the Republicans do, keep Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove away. They should
be as welcome in Republican circles as Reid and Pelosi.
Absolutely--- the messenger.Mitt came across as brash, and really
had zero connection to the everyday voter.PLUS...caught on video in
the first debate with President Obama, he was seen cheating...smuggling in notes
that are specifically not allowed.The nation didn't trust him.
The simple facts of election history shows us that no president in the 20th
Century, other than FDR, could really be called anything but a moderate within
his chosen party. And truthfully, FDR was only farther left because the times
dictated what he referred to as "bold experimentation" in order to try
and alleviate the economic disaster of The Great Depression. Even
President Obama is a centrist. The political spectrum demands it, because no
president can get elected without a majority of support of those in the center.
10% of the population (both left and right combined) are in the extreme wings of
the political spectrum, but about 80% of Americans are in the middle 10% of the
political spectrum, with only a few differences in opinion/belief separating
them. Without that base, no president gets elected.Romney messed
around with the group which actually defines an inability to present a unified
message in American politics---The Tea Party. Coming back to the center was
what he needed to do, but in doing so, he lost the only gain he made with his
swing to the right---that Tea Party.
Mitt and Ann still don't understand why he lost. That's reason enough
to be glad they aren't in the White House. As for Republicans and "job
creators", they don't understand who the job creators actually are.
It's not the business owner, it's the consumer. Demand creates jobs.
It's basic economics.
Mitt impressed me as a person that could easily have become a war monger if
given the position of President and Commander in Chief.In the third
debate w/ Obama on foreign relations, Romney was almost one hundred percent in
agreement with Obama's policy. Romney pledged to put even more money into
military spending.I voted for Obama his first term because he
promised to end the wars. He got elected and escalated the wars. I did not
vote for him again, he had proven himself not to be a man of his word.Both Obama and Romney are controlled by corporate interests that are profiting
from war. The US has become the terrorist of the world. Iraq was for oil,
Afghanistan is for real estate for a pipeline. The next war will be to try to
save our collapsing currency. I count it a blessing to live in america, and
have served in the military, but our current government policies make me sick.
It is we the people responsible for putting them in office. We have the best
government that corporate money can buy; The best government for corporations
wrz,"The comment was accurate. He didn't say they were lazy. He
said they were on government dole. And they are/were"Lots to
deal with here. The comment was only accurate in that he had the correct
percentage of people who were paying no federal income taxes. That's where
accuracy ends. They still pay FICA payroll taxes, which are substantial. And the
47% did not vote exclusively for Obama as Romney stated, a very sizable
proportion vote Republican. Really, this was debunked quickly after Romney said
it, so why do you still believe it months later? Now about the government dole
comment. If qualifying for a lower tax rate is "being on the dole", then
everyone is. If you get tax breaks for your kids, you are on the dole. If you
deduct your mortgage interest you are on the dole. If you are contributing to an
IRA and taking the deduction, you are on the dole. Romney pays a lower percent
tax rate on his capital gains. Well, he's on the dole. "Many of the 47% are sucking up unemployment benefits.."Many? How many? Care to give a percentage?
@andyjaggy:"The 47% comment was the clincher for me."The comment was accurate. He didn't say they were lazy. He said they
were on government dole. And they are/were. "Anyone who
honestly and truly believes that half of the nation are lazy freeloader does not
deserve to be in the white house."Many of the 47% are sucking up
unemployment benefits and are not seeking employment until the benefits are
about to run out. That's freeloading. In any event, Romney made a mistake
by dissing these folks. If you want to win an election you must not be found
dissing anyone... in public or elsewhere.@ThornBirds:"Many
of us are undoubtedly curious how the Romney family can ever put this behind
them if the DN continues to publish endless stories about why Mitt lost."How can you say that...? This is the first story since the election."Perhaps Mitt and Ann could avoid those interviews if no one was
interested any longer?"You seem interested since you apparently
read the article and took the time to comment.
BYUalum"We would be solving some of the economic mess we have now if
he were president!"There's some wild unfounded speculation.
All through the campaign season, people were badly overstating the role the
President has in directing the economy of this country. The economic collapse
wasn't caused by a President, and it isn't going to be solved by one.
One case in point: during the campaign, Romney promised X-millions of new jobs
over 4 years if he won. But economists were predicting that many jobs regardless
of who occupied the White House. "Mitt's executive
experience was turning around businesses and making them profitable. He could
have done the same for our country"Ronald Reagan's Budget
Director, David Stockman, strongly disagrees with that one. He argued in a very
lengthy analysis that Romney was a financial speculator, not a job creator or
true businessman who actually creates and markets a product. And as such, his
corporate experience would be of little benefit in shaping national economic
policy. Because it will never be tested, it is easy to keep believing Romney
would have saved the economy. But you're probably wrong.
There was nothing wrong with Mitt Romney, nor his message. If the opposing side
would have listened and considered the strength of his ideas, things would have
turned out differently. But unfortunately, MSM,lefties, Hollywood and the
Obama-phoners drowned out and distorted his message to the point that it was
unrecognizable. Such a shame! We could be on the road to recovery if just a
fraction more of the country had listened and used their brains.
I had almost forgotten about what a cast of characters the GOP primary field
was. Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry. You couldn't make this
stuff up if you tried. Romney was the best of a truly uncompetitive
lot. Rather than running as the thoughtful moderate Republican he seemed to be
as governor, he proceeded to flip-flop across the general election, changing his
position, offering vague & meaningless platitudes instead of specifics,
throwing bones to Tea Party voters while insulting 47% of the nation by lying to
rich constituents at a $50K a plate fundraiser. Romney was a chameleon who
rarely showed his true colors, and when he did (like the 47% comment), they
weren't colors many people liked. Then there were the strategic and
logistic flaws in his campaign. Message or messenger? Both.
Look at the field of GOP candidates who ran. I still shake my head in
amazement.That Romney was considered the best the GOP could muster
in 2012, even with high unemployment and a struggling economy, speaks volumes
about how weak the GOP bench has become.
Mitt Romney is a good man and would have made a great President. We would be
solving some of the economic mess we have now if he were president! All the
freebies BHO handed out won him the election. Plus, some people were able to
vote numerous times, i.e. Florida and Iowa. Voter fraud played a huge part.
Mitt's executive experience was turning around businesses and making them
profitable. He could have done the same for our country. No wonder he is
frustrated. BHO continues to spend huge amounts of money touring around in
campaign mode instead of staying home and showing leadership! He blames, blames,
blames when he should take responsibility and begin to unite this country.
It was definitely the message.Liberal republicanism does not
sell.It just compromises and stands for nothing.It lets
the opposition define them.It does not rouse the base.
@ ShaunThe problem with the Republican Party is they treat you like
your worthless unless your a job creator. Not every one wants to be a business
owner but they want to go to work earn a wage their family can live on.No Shaun, but this is undoubtedly the message you took out of the Republican
Party. I would guess that you are not a job-creator or business owner. Having
said that, if the Republican Party thought everyone else was
"worthless", than there wouldn't be a purpose for job creators
The GOP had organizational and message problems across the board. Although I
was never predisposed to support them, among the more galling things were
putting out the false (but easily rebutted) statements about outsourcing Ohio
auto jobs to China and "legitimate" rape. The blatant attempts to
suppress minority voting by cutting election hours and inhibiting early
registration in several states also was offputting.As to Gov. Romney
himself, his pandering to the Tea Party wing was a dealbreaker. The man had
solid centrist credentials with a state run health care plan that was the model
for Obamacare, support for climate change initiatives, and tolerance for LGBT
rights. He unnecessarily distanced himself from those stands to win the
nomination against a weak field of ultra-rightwingers already prone to
self-destruction. His shift to the right was transparent to anyone. You could
tell that he was uncomfortable saying some of the things he had to say to win
delegates. It revealed him to be a man without principle or conviction, willing
to say anything to get elected. In the end, ironically, it boiled down to his
character. He might have won as a center-right candidate, but threw it away.
Richard Nixon's formula for winning the White House was to "run to the
right" to get the Republican Nomination, then "run to the middle" to
win the General Election. But what happens when "running to the right"
takes you so far to the fringes of the political landscape that a journey back
to the center cannot be accommodated? Isn't that what happened here? The
more the Radical Right monopolizes the Republican Party, the more they are going
to put it out of business. Ronald Regan could not win the nomination of
The problem with the Republican Party is they treat you like your worthless
unless your a job creator. Not every one wants to be a business owner but they
want to go to work earn a wage their family can live on.
@andyjaggy 5:07 p.m. March 4, 2013Exactly right. This was a case of
a lousy message promoted by a lousy messenger. Contrary to what Mitt wants to
whine, his message was fully and accurately understood by the voters (and found
to be wanting). And, especially when Mitt was himself, he showed how unqualiied
he was to be president for anyone but the extremly privileged, and what an
unappealing candidate and person he really was and is. The majority of the
voters had the discretion to see through him and his message, and rejected him.
Much as I don't like Obama, and didn't vote for him, Romney (by his
own words and actions) showed that he would have been infinitely worse. The
country dodged a huge disaster when Romney was defeated.
Many of us are undoubtedly curious how the Romney family can ever put this
behind them if the DN continues to publish endless stories about why Mitt lost.
Perhaps Mitt and Ann could avoid those interviews if no one was interested
any longer? Really, after all, does all this conversation change their lot
The nation is moving on. Romney, however, was tied to the republican party, and
it is firmly and stodgily tied to all the baggage and anger that is the tea
party. We're movin' on.
A little bit of both I believe. I wanted to vote Republican this election, but
at the end I just couldn't do it. The 47% comment was the clincher for me.
Anyone who honestly and truly believes that half of the nation are lazy
freeloader does not deserve to be in the white house.The 47% were
those not paying federal income tax, they still paid plenty of other taxes. It
also included seniors and military personnel. It also included a whole lot of
Utahns who get lots of tax breaks because of the child tax credit and our large
families. Yet somehow everyone in Utah thought that it was only referring to