|

Romney says his 47-percent rhetoric was completely wrong

Appearing last night on Fox News Channel, Mitt Romney apologized, sort of, for his infamous disparagement of nearly half the American populace. He said it was “completely  wrong” (see HERE).

Steve M. of No More Mister Nice Blog WONDERS, in hindsight, if President Obama actually was right in avoiding any mention of the 47-percent stuff in the debate on Wednesday night, lest it make him look unpresidentially snarky:

Whatever you think of Obama’s strategy, we can assume he wanted to seem dignified and presidential in the debate. He seems to think he’s freer to be combative and feisty at campaign rallies (as he was yesterday in Denver).

And maybe that’s not crazy. He’s campaigning to win votes, not to impress us or the Beltway insiders, and he may have a sophisticated sense of which approaches, in which contexts, turn off the voters he’s trying to reach.

Share:

4 Comments

  1. I agree with Steve Benen. It is the exact same thought that I had while watching the MSNBC post-mortem of the debate.

  2. Obama’s response was exactly as planned. Just give Willard enough rope to hang himself with his verbose oration and lies.

  3. Here is some more opinion on the debate, and not from a right leaning news source.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/wed-like-more-clarity-in-the-debates-to-come-347447h-172738211.html

    Taxes: Is the former Massachusetts governor really proposing a “$5 trillion tax cut,” as the president charged? No. Like any good politician, Obama is assuming the worst about his opponent’s ideas.

    Romney is proposing to cut tax rates by 20% (from 35% to 28% at the high end). He says his plan would be “revenue neutral” because he would close tax loopholes and eliminate or limit deductions. He floated the idea of limiting itemized deductions this week, including the one for mortgage interest, but Romney has been reluctant to lay out a fuller proposal for fear of having it picked apart. That means we have no idea whether what he says is true or not. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has concluded that it’s impossible to make his tax plan “revenue neutral,” and we suspect the center is right – unless Romney and his acolytes make unrealistic assumptions.

    We favor a flatter, simpler tax code for individuals. But we think it should produce more revenue and be more progressive (wealthy Americans should pay a bit more). Obama’s plan calls for raising rates on the rich, but no tax reform. Apparently, he’s satisfied with the same old Byzantine system.

    Jobs: Romney promises to “help create 12 million new jobs.” Sounds good until you realize that unless the U.S. falls back into recession, that’s about how many jobs will be created no matter who wins. Moody’s Analytics reported in August that it expected 12 million jobs to be created by 2016, reports Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s fact-checker. As we have said repeatedly, presidents have far less power to “create” jobs – or destroy them -than many voters seem to believe. The global economy is a very big place.

    It’s better to focus on things that the president can exercise more control over – such as the deficit.

    The deficit: Obama likes to claim that his deficit-reduction plan is similar to one proposed by the deficit reduction commission that he appointed – Simpson-Bowles. It’s not. Obama relies on gimmicks to get to $4 trillion of deficit reduction, such as counting about $1 trillion in budget cuts that he and Congress have already agreed on. Simpson-Bowles spread the work over nine years; Obama looks out 10 years, and a lot of his savings are backloaded. Compared side by side, Simpson-Bowles comes to about $6.6 trillion in deficit reduction; Obama’s plan, about $3.5 trillion.

    And Romney? He says he’ll reduce the deficit. He just hasn’t said very much about how. As noted, there are big questions about his tax plan.

    We could go on – to health care policy for example – but you get the point. It was a better debate than most. But on policy matters, the picture remains murky.

  4. And here is the truth about Obamacare. I truly hope at least one of the remaining debates focuses on this all important topic.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444004704578032162895356162.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    Just what were the little-known facts about ObamaCare that the 24,000 independent households found so persuasive? You can find them, and their sources, at HealthReformQuestions.com, but here are a few examples:

    • Americans know that ObamaCare requires insurance companies to allow families to keep adult children up to age 26 on their parents’ policy. They are less likely to know that the provision increased the average family premium—even for families that didn’t add adult dependents—by $150-$450 in 2011.

    • The average family’s health-insurance premiums are already up $1,300.

    • Young workers who buy their own insurance will see a 19%-30% increase in premiums as a result of ObamaCare.

    • Remember the 700,000 people whom the Congressional Budget Office predicted would make use of ObamaCare’s federal high-risk program? Just 78,000 people have enrolled. As a result, each person in the program costs taxpayers millions of allocated dollars. Americans, when they hear this, know instinctively that there must be a better way to address the problem.

    • ObamaCare was sold as the solution to covering the 47 million uninsured in America, but 10 years after the law is implemented, 30 million Americans will still be uninsured. What problem, exactly, is ObamaCare solving again?

    • Americans are also generally familiar with Medicaid’s problems, among them the refusal by many doctors to accept Medicaid patients. What most people don’t know is that approximately 10 million of those who gain insurance under ObamaCare will just be dumped into the already cash-strapped Medicaid system.

    IWV’s research shows that this information makes a difference, and a big one. Independent voters who came to understand that ObamaCare’s increased regulations would drive up insurance costs for young adults supported Mr. Romney over Mr. Obama, 74%-14%, up from a 50%-43% Romney lead before they were given the facts. Those informed of the disappointing enrollment in risk pools for pre-existing conditions support Mr. Romney over Mr. Obama, 60% to 31%.

    For IWV’s Repeal Pledge effort, the results are heartening: When they take onboard the facts about ObamaCare, many independents will adjust their thinking. As for the political meaning of it all, we’ll leave that to the campaign consultants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>