GOP Nominee 2012 - Pt. 5

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Assuming these people are being truthful, well I find it very depressing. I'm posting the whole thing because it requires a login. He's never struck me as being an empathetic person, but at least make an effort. That's just the way I see him- big trouble connecting with anyone who is unlike him. Not the first time that's been written either. I think that's a necessary quality in a President. You're not just the President of rich straight white male America.

boston.com

Note: The following story is adapted from the September/October 2012 issue of Boston Spirit magazine.

By Scott Kearnan

It was 2004, after the Supreme Judicial Court had cleared the way for same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in Massachusetts. Governor Mitt Romney remained a roadblock, endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban it.

Julie Goodridge and other plaintiffs in the landmark case had written a letter to the governor, asking for a meeting. He ignored it, so they staged a press conference at his office to read the letter to the media. That, finally, got them through his door. Once inside, they were shocked.

For about 20 frustrating minutes, say those in attendance who Boston Spirit interviewed recently, they shared their stories, pled their case, and tried to explain how equal marriage would protect them and their families. Romney sat stone-faced and almost entirely silent.

“Is there anything else?” Romney asked when they finished. With that, the meeting was over.

“It was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling,” recalls David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case who met with Romney that day. “People were sharing touching stories, stories where you’d expect recognition in the other person’s face that they at least hear what you’re saying — that there’s empathy. He didn’t even shake his head. He was completely blank.”

Occasionally Romney would say something.

“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson.

The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about. By this point the plaintiff’s stories had been widely covered by national media — in particular, Julie Goodridge’s heartrending tale of how her then-partner, Hillary, was denied hospital visitation following the precarious birth of daughter Annie. It was the ignorance of these facts — and Romney’s inaccurate, insensitive answer to her parting question, that pushed Julie Goodridge to her breaking point.

“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”

His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”

Romney’s retort enraged a speechless Goodridge; he didn’t care, and by referring to her biological daughter as “adopted,” it was clear he hadn’t even been listening. By the time she was back in the hallway, she was reduced to tears.

“I really kind of lost it,” says Goodridge. “I’ve never stood before someone who had no capacity for empathy. It went behind flat affect. It was a complete lack of ability or motivation to understand other people.”

While Goodridge cried, Romney brought the press into his office to give his take on the meeting.

He described it as, “Pleasant.”

‘HE COMPLETELY LACKS EMPATHY’

Romney has often been characterized as a flip-flopper, a stiff suit, and an out-of-touch elitist. That’s not news. And he’s been a disappointment on LGBT issues — that’s clear, as well. The man who promised he’d be “better than Ted [Kennedy] for gay rights” during his 1994 senate race now opposes equal marriage and even civil unions — which in 2012, are increasingly seen as a compromise position.

But less explored is how Romney’s personality intersected with his policies on LGBT issues. How did he treat gay couples when his back was against the wall on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts? How did he rationalize dismissing well-regarded LGBT government officials during his governorship? Why did he deny important anti-bullying resources to queer youth? The answers, it seems, are: Poorly. He didn’t. And because he wanted to.

Speaking with those locally who had experience knowing, meeting with, or working with Romney, a few commonly held perceptions emerge. Perhaps the most common is that Romney seems generally disinterested in others, and has trouble connecting with anyone unlike him — whether in terms of lifestyle, economic class, or sexuality. Some share stronger words.

“He completely lacks empathy,” says Goodridge, speaking this time about her own experience meeting the governor.

Romney and the dissolution of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth

That lack of empathy plays out in Romney’s tendency to gloss over incidents that are distressing to the gay community. Take the time he tried to dismantle the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. The Commission, established in 1992 by Republican Governor William Weld, was intended to specifically address youth-related issues like anti-gay harassment and teen suicide. Its work, which included teacher trainings and supporting community drop-in centers, became a model for similar organizations nationwide.

At first Romney seemed as though he’d be an ally to the Commission, says Kathleen Henry, who chaired the Commission during Romney’s administration. Romney released official proclamations recognizing Youth Pride, and in his inauguration expressed the importance of defending civil rights regardless of, among other things, sexual orientation.

“I opened almost every meeting reading that [passage from Romney’s inauguration], like it was a prayer,” recalls Henry. “I’d say, ‘This is what our governor believes.’”

Then in May 2006, Henry got a phone call from Romney’s chief of staff. A Commission press release touting the Youth Pride parade had been sent out on stationery that included the governor’s name in its sidebar. This placed Romney’s name on the same page as the word “transgender.” He was not happy. He was going to shut down the Commission. Just like that. The end.

Henry’s heart sank. Suicide prevention programs, support for Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA), training administrators to establish “safe school” practices for gay youth — all of that was “flashing before my eyes,” says Henry, who was only hours away from a Commission fundraiser at the Omni Parker House when she received the call. Luckily, political allies leapt to the Commission’s defense, and within hours Romney reversed his order to dismantle the group. In response, Henry worked with the Massachusetts Legislature to hurriedly create the Massachusetts Commission on GLBT Youth, which would exist independent of the governor’s office.

Once that was established, Romney dismantled the original Commission as a redundancy. Then something strange happened. Henry’s phone rang again, it was Romney himself calling, and the tone was very different.

“It was the only time I had received a call from him,” recalls Henry. “He said he wanted to personally express his gratitude, to thank me for my service, and to make sure we understood it was a redundancy now for the Commission to exist.” There was no mention that, only months earlier, he had planned to eliminate that very commission because his name was on its press release.

“It was as if nothing had happened,” says Henry. “When he was done with his lovely speech, I thanked him and said, ‘Governor, this is very gentlemanly of you.’ It kind of took his breath away, the tone in my voice.”

“He knew I was shaking my head as if to say, ‘Who are you?’”

ROMNEY AND THE STONEWALLING OF THE ANTI-BULLYING GUIDE

Later that month, Romney’s administration attempted to squash another youth-oriented effort over inclusive language: the publication of a 120-page anti-bullying guide for public schools. The guide had already endured one setback, in 2003, when Romney de-funded the Governor’s Task Force on Hate Crimes, which was responsible for the guide. Activist Don Gorton, who continued to work on the report anyway, approached an enthusiastic Commission on GLBT Youth for $10,000 in production costs, and he authored a seemingly final version by May 2006.

Then, another blow: word from the administration that the anti-bullying guide would suddenly need to undergo a significantly more extensive review process. That was the excuse given at the time, says Gorton. But what was the real reason? Newly unearthed e-mails between officials at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health show that the administration objected to the words “bisexual” and “transgender” in certain passages of the anti-bullying guide.

Gorton eventually saw the anti-bullying guide to eventual publication. Ten thousand copies of an updated version were released in 2008 under Governor Deval Patrick’s administration.

Gorton connects Romney’s obstructionist stance toward the anti-bullying guide with other bullying incidents tied to the former governor. This includes The Washington Post’s recent revelations of Romney’s own role in bullying. Allegations that during his prep school days, Romney held down a gay classmate and forcibly cut his bleached hair – worn in a fashion deemed effeminate — while classmates cheered. Romney has publicly stated that he doesn’t remember the incident, while simultaneously apologizing for any “dumb mistakes” made in his school days.

“It knocked the wind out of me,” says Gorton on hearing the story of Romney’s bullying tale.

ROMNEY AND HIS COURTING OF GAY REPUBLICANS

The story from Romney’s schoolyard days echoed another incident that Gorton once observed in an adult Romney. It was at a 2003 fete held by the Log Cabin Republicans, a group for LGBT Republicans, to honor William Weld, recalls Gorton. Romney was politely greeted by one of the attendees, who remarked that it was good to see the increasingly scarce governor at a Log Cabin event. Gorton can’t recall the governor’s exact response, but he recalls Romney making a limp-wrist motion and replying with an affected stereotypical lisp. This was, assumed Gorton, an attempt to be funny and charming. It seemed more like unintended evidence that Romney’s sense of appropriateness hadn’t much evolved since his prep school days.

Romney’s fervent aversion to even mere mentions of transgender issues, and the revealing excerpts from his personal biography, make clear that Romney has an especially strong problem with non-traditional gender expression, say those who have had dealings with him over the years. That’s consistent with a more general observation that he seems either unable or unwilling to connect on an interpersonal level with those who are unlike him. Which is consistent, remark observers, with Romney’s behavior of being willing to align himself — at least when it was politically advantageous during political campaigns — with Log Cabin Republican-type groups, where leadership positions are often held by white males who could “pass” as straight in casual social settings.

“He seemed more uncomfortable with the fact that people might be drinking wine than that they were gay,” recalls Michael Motzkin, former president of the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans. Motzkin says that while he is disappointed that some of Romney’s social policies aren’t where they should be, he never sensed that the former governor had a strong personal issue with his gayness. In fact, Romney supported Motzkin in his unsuccessful 2004 campaign for state representative. Romney publicly endorsed Motzkin (and another openly gay candidate, Richard Babson), fundraised for him, and even appeared with Motzkin on a mail piece.

And in contrast to his meeting with Julie Goodridge, David Wilson, and the other plaintiffs in Massachusetts’ landmark equal marriage case, it was in a meeting with prominent LGBT Republicans during his gubernatorial run that Romney showed at least some sympathy for the equal marriage movement — though for reasons that are telling on their own.
The meeting was at Dedo, a now-closed gay piano bar in Bay Village, recalls Josh Friedes, who was invited to attend as advocacy director for the Massachusetts Freedom to Marry Coalition. (He’s now a director at Equal Rights Washington.) At the meeting, attendees shared with Romney personal stories that emphasized the need for equal marriage. It’s the emotional appeal of such stories that are usually most effective at swaying hearts and minds, says Friedes. But Romney was unmoved by them. “I came away with the realization that he simply did not see gay and lesbian families as being similar to his family, and was not able to draw analogies between experiences,” recalls Friedes.

Yet economic concerns like tax inequalities and inheritance issues did seem to concern Romney. “He made clear that he was willing to listen to business leaders about the issue of family recognition,” says Friedes. “The impression was that if business leaders told him certain benefits and protections would increase the productivity of gay workers, he would be open to supporting those. … It was not really about what these protections would do for gay families, but what they would do for the titans of industry.”

The inference was “almost crass,” says Friedes. Though he says he’s not sure Romney intended to be offensive. “It felt like there was a lord/serf relationship,” remembers Friedes.

ROMNEY AND THE GAYS WITH WHOM HE WORKED

Many of those who served under Romney’s feudal system aren’t exactly keen to relive their experiences. Boston Spirit reached out to a number of other former and current government officials who worked under the governor’s administration, as well as several prominent gay Republicans who supported Romney political campaigns at various points. Most were unwilling to comment on their experiences, some alluding that they were tainted by elements of homophobia they’d rather not revisit — or that they feared burning bridges that could jeopardize their livelihoods.

“It would be great if more people would ask Mitt Romney to be accountable, but people tend to weigh the pros and cons of that. And when the cons are your career and public perception, you understand why people don’t,” says Ardith Wieworka.

But Wieworka will. She spent eight successful years as commissioner of the state’s Office of Child Care Services under multiple Republican governors. By all accounts well-liked and highly regarded by the constituents she served, Wieworka was very publicly fired two years into Romney’s term as governor. At the time, the administration offered conflicting reasons for her dismissal. A clear reason never emerged. So what had happened to explain her firing?

Quite possibly, it was a May 2004 announcement that Wieworka would soon marry her partner, Carol Lyons, following the arrival of equal marriage in Massachusetts. During this time Romney was in D.C., courting conservatives on the national stage by decrying what was happening in his home state.

“As an out lesbian for a very long time in state government, it was an uncomfortable position to have the leader of your state testifying so vehemently against basically who you are,” says Wieworka. Over the summer, she was fired.

The following year a second woman, Katherine Abbott, former commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, was also asked to resign shortly after marrying her female partner — ostensibly over “poor shoveling.” Abbott didn’t respond to interview requests.

The 2012 resignation of Romney spokesperson Richard Grinnell — who was essentially forced out following anti-gay backlash and with little defense from his boss — bears shades of similarity to the ousting of Wieworka.

Wieworka has declined to comment to national press about her experience with the Romney administration. But she thought it was important to speak to Boston Spirit. Was she fired for being gay? For wedding her partner while her boss was actively trying to distance himself from any endorsement of the equal marriage movement? That’s hard to prove, Wieworka knows. But she feels it in her bones, and believes it to be so. And she’ll never forget what, upon her firing, she was told by the administration.

They said they wanted someone more “like them,” she says
 
team Romney's response to the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya is shameful and proves him unfit for office.

36c74b4852a6a3d3125c434e57610eb9_rectangle_fullsize.png
 
It takes time for a robot to compute facts.

He should at least be responsible when criticizing the President during a horrible incident like this. Wait the proper time for FACTS to emerge.
 
this kind of sums it up for me:

But I suspect Romney won't do so well in the debates for the same reason that he didn't do so well on Meet the Press. It's hard to be effective when you're biting your tongue and swallowing your pride at the same time. Romney has dumbed himself down to fit a Republican Party that has become anachronistic, hateful and foolish. He has never once stood up to the party's extremist base in this campaign--not even when asked whether he would accept a deficit deal with $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenues, not even on immigration and contraception, issues that sent women and Latinos scurrying toward the exits. His has been a shameful, shameless campaign. The public will occasionally turn out an incumbent President, but only when offered a real alternative. Mitt Romney has offered them only a mirage.

Read more: The Mitt Mirage - TIME
 
The whole thing is, um..but the Bush story is straight out of creepyville. Thanks Kelly Ripa.

The Funniest Mitt and Ann Romney Interview Ever Involves a George W. Bush Massage - ABC News

Ann: We had the unbelievable pleasure of spending the night at the White House and the next morning I was like, exploring everywhere. And I was supposed to be at meetings and Mitt was like Ann you’re supposed to go, and I said no, I’m exploring. I went into one door, I was with Anita Perry by the way I’ll put blame on her. And Anita and I were like we wonder what’s behind this door? It was George Bush having a massage.

Kelly: Which George Bush?

Ann: George W, and he was covered up but I was so embarrassed that the next time I did see him I didn’t know what I was going to say to him we were going down the elevator from the White house going to an event together and I walked up to the elevator and am just like blushing, blushing, blushing and he looks at me and he winks as he does and says, ‘I look pretty good, don’t I.’”
 
yahoo.com

Rick Santorum said Saturday the media and, "elite, smart people," never side with the Republican party, during the same speech that he said President Obama shares part of the blame for the international riots over an anti-Islam film.

Speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, Buzzfeed's Rosie Gray reports the former senator joined the increasingly common 'blame the media' GOP chorus. "We will never have the media on our side, ever, in this country," Santorum said. "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." Santorum's theory on media is as follows:

"If just a few people make decisions about what this world looks like, what this country looks like, then you have people sitting in offices at major media outlets and Hollywood who think they can deal with a small group of people, to get them to jump through the hoops they want you to," Santorum said.

Santorum also said the President shared some of the blame for the international outrage over the anti-Islamic film that's sparked riots as far as Australia. "This president has to take a share of the responsibility for what the Middle East looks like today because he helped structure it," he said. Santorum said the President "turned his back" on former allies like Israel, despite Obama's make-up phone call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this week.
 
Now I think Romney's campaign is in deliberate self destruct mode. It looks to me like they really don't want the WH in 2013 because they know now how unprepared they are to handle it. Ok, maybe I am over reacting :D but really... it's just a comedy of errors now...

Mitt Romney Video: Barack Obama Voters 'Dependent On Government'




gosh, this seems every bit if not more offensive than the "bitters" who "cling to guns and religion" comment from 2008.
 
Now I think Romney's campaign is in deliberate self destruct mode. It looks to me like they really don't want the WH in 2013 because they know now how unprepared they are to handle it. Ok, maybe I am over reacting :D but really... it's just a comedy of errors now...

Mitt Romney Video: Barack Obama Voters 'Dependent On Government'

Oh dear. Yeah, way to win over those moderates. :rolleyes:

As Romney explains, 47 percent of Americans "believe that they are victims." He laments: "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Just disgusting. The thing is, this is not only bound to kill his campaign, but it's going to hurt the Senate and Rep races.
 
Now I think Romney's campaign is in deliberate self destruct mode. It looks to me like they really don't want the WH in 2013 because they know now how unprepared they are to handle it. Ok, maybe I am over reacting :D but really... it's just a comedy of errors now...

Mitt Romney Video: Barack Obama Voters 'Dependent On Government'

The overwhelming majority of voters who back President Barack Obama do so because they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing," Mitt Romney told a closed-door gathering of about 30 major donors earlier this year, according to video of the event that has surfaced on the Internet.

Yeah! How dare people think they're entitled to eat or have a roof over their heads or stay healthy...

...wait...

Also:

"My dad, as you probably, know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico ... and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this," Romney said. "But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. ... I mean I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino."

Holy shit, shut up, Romney.

Love the "silver spoon"/inherited comments towards the end of that article, too. No. He's not out of touch. Not at all :rolleyes:.

Rick Santorum said Saturday the media and, "elite, smart people," never side with the Republican party

:giggle: Way to phrase that last part, Santorum.
 
Now I think Romney's campaign is in deliberate self destruct mode. It looks to me like they really don't want the WH in 2013 because they know now how unprepared they are to handle it. Ok, maybe I am over reacting :D but really... it's just a comedy of errors now...

Mitt Romney Video: Barack Obama Voters 'Dependent On Government'



it's just awful how the Republicans rely on class warfare to make their arguments. why do they resent and hate people who have less money than they do? class resentment seems every bit as awful and destructive as that terrible, terrible class envy we hear about.
 
So his dad was born in Mexico. . . that is a concern.

I'd like to see a real copy of his birth certificate. . . .

Given his father's heavy Mexican influences, I think it's clear that Mitt has been seeped in the traditions and philosophy of the Mexican drug cartels, making him a catastrophic choice for president.
 
Correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding is that the 47% that Romney is on about are those that still pay their state taxes? But also that the majority of those 47% (and people who benefit from government support the most) also come from what are generally conservative states?

edit: Just also thinking, does that 47% include people that are retired? Surely he wouldn't be lumping all those conservative old folk in with the rest of the evil poor?
 
LJT said:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding is that the 47% that Romney is on about are those that still pay their state taxes? But also that the majority of those 47% (and people who benefit from government support the most) also come from what are generally conservative states?

The blue states essentially subsidize the red states.

Often, as in Virginia, the blue counties -- home to commerce and a highly educated workforce -- literally subsidize the rest of the date. Northern Virginia is diverse and home to a powerful educated workforce. They vote blue.

The rest of the state wants to force women to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds and has an AG who thinks its important to let everyone know that it is legal to discriminate against gay people in VA.
 
1. “clinging to their guns and religion”

2. “You Didn’t Build That”

3. "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the 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. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."


The above are stupid remarks that a candidate should never say, even to his supporters.
There is no gain in making the remarks, are your supporters going to vote for you more?

That said, two of them are survivable.
 
David Brooks eviscerates Mittens:

September 17, 2012
Thurston Howell Romney
By DAVID BROOKS

In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/o...ey.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks&pagewanted=print


remember guys, Romeny was supposed to be the competent one. and especially when compared to Gingrich, Bachman, and Santorum, he probably still is.
 
I don't think Romney is pretending to be something he's not in those comments he made to donors. I think he believes that, and I think most people who will vote for him do as well.

Talk about a self satisfied millionaire.
 
Yahoo news

COSTA MESA, Calif.—Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts.

In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but given several opportunities to back off the comments, he did not.

Romney said he was merely talking about the "political process of drawing people into my own campaign." He described the incident as a "snippet of a question and answer session" and called on the full video to be released to show the question and his response in its full context.

Asked if he was worried that he had offended the 47 percent of people he mentioned in the statement, Romney did not back off his remarks.

"It's not elegantly stated, let me put it that way," Romney said. "I'm speaking off the cuff in response to a question, and I'm sure I can state it more clearly in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that and so I'm sure I'll point that out as time goes on."

But, he added, "It's a message which I am going to carry and continue to carry."

Still, Romney ignored a question about whether he really believes what he was saying. Asked if his words were reflective of his "core convictions," Romney simply walked away.
 
It just occurred to me that I pay probably at least 3x as much of my income in tax as Romney does of his income.

How is that fair?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom