The election is far from won by either party, and both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney continue to campaign vigorously, both against each other and for themselves. Romney in particular seems to be attempting to address some of his past missteps as the race gets closer. Now, rather than making a point of disparaging President Obama, as he does here or in the recently released "secret video," it appears that he is attempting to meet the approval of a wider audience by refocusing, or at least broadening, his campaign. Some of his topics of chocie: the economy and immigration. He claims that he would like "all Americans" to have the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and emphasizes moving people "from poverty to the middle-class." It seems unlikely that Mr. Romney will be able to rally the impoverished or the middle-class, however, as he has gained the reputation of a member of the wealthy elite, and has thus far been unable to eloquently explain how he intends to help said people. I quote from the above video: "...my campaign is about helping people take more responsibility and becoming employed again, particularly those who don't have work...." His chances of being supported by anyone in favor of the DREAM Act, (what was that about everyone being able to follow their dreams, he mentioned before? Strange coincidence) or by those who speak with sensitivity towards others does not seem to be improving either. However, Romney has said that he knows he has people in his camp who are with him through and through, and has (obviously) gained enough support to make it this far. But is he really winning the people over, as he desires, or is he truly floundering?
4 comments:
It seems that by depicting "47 percent" of voters as people Romney inherently repudiates and despises, he is definitely floundering in trying to capture the vote of the American people. Romney goes as far as to say that "47 percent of Americans pay no income tax" as if they are people mooching off the system, when in fact a majority consists of low-income people, the elderly, students, and the unemployed. His statement is a blatant disregard for nearly half of the country, with a new focus on his party and seemingly neutral independents. I think its great that the public finally has a view of Romney's true colors behind closed doors of a private fundraiser.
Romney's chances are certainly sinking, especially with his 47% comment that blatantly contradicts his previous promises to help the unemployed find jobs. After stating that "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," how can Romney assure potential voters that he will assist the unemployed when they are part of the group that he will "never convince" and therefore will not focus attention towards during his campaign? How will they even know if Romney will assist them as a president if he has such indifference (and perhaps scorn) towards them already? Furthermore, as Alvin mentioned, Romney emphasizes his ignorance by claiming that the 47% are simply lazily waiting for benefits when in reality most of them are retired or are actively seeking work. This simply highlights that Romney is out-of-touch with society.
While I'm just as outraged as most people that one of our presidential candidates should display this blatant disregard for such a large portion of the country, Romney isn't the only person who I've heard express a low opinion of so-called "freeloaders." Even some people who call themselves liberal and libertarian have voiced disgust to me about how such a large portion of the country depends on the aid of others (including the government) to get by, supposedly due to laziness. Granted, these conversations have generally devolved into shouted political/moral debate, but I can at least understand their point of view: sometimes people really are capable of financial success and simply refuse to do the work to achieve it. To people who've worked extremely hard to reach their financial standing, these "freeloaders" cause so much indignation that it becomes easy to merely cast blame on all non-taxpayers, ignoring those who genuinely need to get a break from the government. While this is no excuse for the lack of sensitivity and elitist opinion that Romney expresses with his "47%" comment, it does show that it is more than just an isolated idea, and in fact is repeated belief among certain portions of the population—namely the well-educated with high-paying jobs.
Post a Comment