Romney on '47%': I was 'completely wrong'

[ShotgunBlast]

Well, so much for Mitt standing up and telling it like it is. Might as well flip flop on this too. Guess it's time to reboot the campaign (again)!!

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has described his disparaging remarks about the 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes as "not elegantly stated." Now he's calling them "just completely wrong."

"Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right," Romney said. "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong."

He added: "And I absolutely believe, however, that my life has shown that I care about 100% and that's been demonstrated throughout my life. And this whole campaign is about the 100%."

You know, I believe him. When you're on the road as much as he is, you're energized by the crowds that show up, sure, some things might come out that weren't elegantly stated because you're wrapped up in the heat of the moment. But when you're behind closed doors at a big donor fundraiser, I'm not sure that excuse holds up nearly as much.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... g/1614703/

[VACoastie]

How much BS do ya think gets spewed by NAACP, Feminazis, and... Wait for it... Congress... In behind closed door meetings? Sure, he's speaking to his people (who paid damn good money too), but even I must say - what's behind closed doors doesn't always stay there. I bet he does feel guilty about saying that! I'd have an "oh sh*#" moment too.

Let it be a lesson learned for him. His opinions should be kept as opinions and let the facts speak for themselves. That goes for everybody in general. Evvvvvverybody.

And as for energized, well that's part of dealing with pressure. If he can't handle that then he needs to step aside as Obama should have done as well 4 yrs ago.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mk4]

i saw this story the other day, too.

after listening to a lot of the post-debate yapping, especially the msm crying about why bambam didn't hammer on the "47%" to go on the offensive. i wonder if the romney handlers decided that this would be a good way to diffuse the topic, at least partially, if it comes up in the next one...

[ShotgunBlast]

i saw this story the other day, too.

after listening to a lot of the post-debate yapping, especially the msm crying about why bambam didn't hammer on the "47%" to go on the offensive. i wonder if the romney handlers decided that this would be a good way to diffuse the topic, at least partially, if it comes up in the next one...

Oh absolutely. Very smart move by the Romney camp. Obama blew it by not mentioning it in the last debate and now if he mentions it there won't be as much punch to it.

[allingeneral]

The only problem is that he wasn't completely wrong. He was telling like like it is, more or less. He just made a bad assumption - that those who don't pay income taxes are the same people who are too lazy to work for a living and prefer to live off of the government dole. He forgot about the elderly who have paid taxes all their lives and deserve to retire and not pay taxes, the legitimately disabled, who clearly need a hand getting along and others...

So, based on his incorrect assumption, he was pretty much correct. Those who don't want to work for a living will never vote for him. I believe that's essentially what he was trying to say.

[Kreutz]

i saw this story the other day, too.

after listening to a lot of the post-debate yapping, especially the msm crying about why bambam didn't hammer on the "47%" to go on the offensive. i wonder if the romney handlers decided that this would be a good way to diffuse the topic, at least partially, if it comes up in the next one...

The ads attacking the speech rolled out the next day.

[mk4]

i saw this story the other day, too.

after listening to a lot of the post-debate yapping, especially the msm crying about why bambam didn't hammer on the "47%" to go on the offensive. i wonder if the romney handlers decided that this would be a good way to diffuse the topic, at least partially, if it comes up in the next one...

The ads attacking the speech rolled out the next day.

no kidding? really?

read my post again. what i said was that romney's "apology", coming after the debate where obama didn't even mention the the 47% (much to the chagrin of the matthews and madow crowd), was likely a preemptive attempt at diffusing any impact resulting from obama bringing it up in debate #2 or 3.

[Kreutz]

Point is it didn't come up because it didn't need to come up. Its been widely reported and the ads with Romneys voice saying it works well enough, especially when superimposed over images of old people, veterans, and generic yet oddly diverse factory workers.

[mk4]

the ads have had their impact and have probably started to wane in effectiveness, in their current incarnation. the majority of the populace doesn't have a very long attention span, especially for same-old-same-old.

on the other hand, if obama were to bring it up at the next debate, live and with 60+ million people watching, it reignites all over again, if, romney hadn't come out and 'apologized'. now, any attack is blunted, at least in that forum, and a different counter-response is available to romney.