To me, Romney's comments seem to imply that these minority voters were looking for handouts that Obama promised. While I don't agree with this implication, it seems awfully reminescent of Romney's infamous 47% line. Similarly, many in the Republican Party also did not agree with Romney's comments. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal immediately rejected Romney's idea that minorities were gifted policy. He voiced what that Americans must "stop dividing" and that congress should work together towards shaping new policy in the future. Gov. Jindal has not been the only politician to distance himself from such ideas and the party appears to be looking forward to change and reform. What do you guys think? Did Romney come full circle back to rejecting the 47%? Do these comments carry the same meaning as before, or is this a completely separate issue? I'm curious to hear where you think the GOP is headed and whether this inner split will grow.
11 comments:
It does sound a lot like his 47% comment. Well, now it doesn't matter if he insults half the country since it won't affect whether he can get the presidency or not anymore. His idea about "gifts of policy" doesn't make any sense to me. Basically all policy is out there to make some group of people happy, so isn't everything, including his own policy, a "gift" in exchange for votes? I also think it's ironic that Romney thinks Obama was wrong to target minorities which landed him with a majority of the vote. So what was Romney doing? Appealing to the majority?
I honestly do feel like Romney is rejecting the 47% again. In stating that the minorities fell for Obama's playbook plays, Romney once again accuses this younger minority group for siding with Obama no matter what. This parallels Romney's statement about the 47%. Also, like Tina said, Romney could have done the same thing in trying to appeal to those African Americans, Hispanics, and the younger votes. On the other hand, Romney's response to his donors may have been better than simply stating that Obama was just the better candidate.
I don't think Mitt Romney has necessarily made a full circle back to his 47% comment, because his most recent comments were not nearly as blatant or potent as those made during the election season. What we're seeing, however, is undeniably an expression of the same ideology, Romney remaining the firm Republican that he is, continuing to beleive in less government involvement in peoples' lives.
I also feel that his earlier 47% comment and his new complaints about "gifts" to minorities aren't directly similar. Romney's 47% comment was addressing how much of America depended upon some type of government aid, a blunder that made it seem as if he didn't care about such people. During a tight run-up to the election. the media jumped on such a statement because it had the potential to make a difference, to have an impact on voters. In contrast, Romney's recent complaining is about a completely different issue, minorities. Because he's already lost, the media lacks a compelling incentive to exaggerate his statements as before.
To me, this seems nothing more than some harmless, bitter resentment coming from a candidate who truly beleived he had won the presidency.
I thought the comments on minority voters accepting "gifts" in the form of social policy was a cheap shot and not even true. I feel like they are fairly reminiscent of the 47% comment but this time definitely more thought out. The original comment was meant as a sort of under the table comment that went public, but this was fully thought out. Romney still seems intent on isolating himself from important constituencies and he just doesn't seem the failings within his own policy. Overall the point is generally moot seeing as he has lost the election and no matter what, this isn't going to change no matter where he passes the blame.
However, he should really think more before speaking because these comments can be taken offensively, and I thought it was a terrible thing to say.
As Keaton said, this isn't quite the same as Romney's 47% comment, and seems much more like him expressing resentment towards Obama after losing the election to him. These "gifts" are merely an expression of one of the frequent Democratic view that government should have a greater role in people's lives. It's only natural that Romney would be against it, considering it goes against his party's general view. Personally (and let me just say this is biased before I even start), I think that the "gifts" show attention and caring for minority groups. Regardless of whether or not they have much impact in the large-scale aspects of American politics and economy, they show that our president actually pays attention to what citizens want. And isn't that why we have a President (and government in general, actually) in the first place--to further the interests of the American people?
Romney is definitely going back to his 47% theory, and assuming that almost half of the population just looks for handouts is a bit shallow. However, he was getting at a good underlying point. One of the reasons we have such a huge deficit and debt is because cutting social programs is a very controversial issue. The democrats have generally been the ones who promise social programs (FDR and LBJ) which can be very popular at first, but when it comes time to pay for these programs, people don't want to see their benefits that they expected go away. Romney's comment alludes to the general campaign process: many promises are made to lure certain groups into voting for a candidate and of course not all these promises will be fulfilled.
I think Romney never left his 47% theory, he was just smart enough to hold it in while he still had a shot at presidency. Now that he has given it his best shot at becoming president and most likely will not get to the the presidential candidate again, he is able to say whatever he wants without it hurting him. Now we get to really hear what he has been thinking this whole time.
I agree with Sam; at this point, Romney simply seems like a whining, immature child upset over losing a game (kind of reminds me of the traditional kid complaining, "It's not fair! He cheated!"). What he should really be doing is helping Obama by asking the Republicans to compromise and work with the Democrats in Congress to formulate policies that both parties agree with to help bolster the economy, but through senseless complaining and whining, Romney is only hurting his image as a mature politician.
In contrast to nearly every commenter here, and with respect, I do think that many minority groups voted for Democrats for hand outs. I know a few personally who felt threatened by a Republican headed government, fearing they'd lose what they felt entitled to - a government that will take care of every individual. I don't know where Romney gets his 47% figure. Although the number might be large (large enough to change the election), I don't think we can put a number on the amount of people who voted Democrat for the reason above.
People don't want to lose free things. It is not beneficial to them. People will always do what is best for themselves, and for Romney, a rich Business man, small government is much better.
I feel that his comment just reflects what is best for himself. If I was rich, powerful, and well known politician, I believe I would agree with Romney whole-heartedly. If I were really poor and a child from a family on welfare, I would be angry at Romney.
Just like Ali said (though he might of said it politically incorrectly) people will vote for who gives them the most. So to an extent, Romney's words were not wrong. That's why political factions start. People vote for what benefits them the most.
Romney's just a sore loser, that's all. Samantha is right, he's just whining. Even if Romney's claims "gifts" are true (and they may very well be), he has no right to complain about them. Obama and the policies he believes in just happen to align with what those minority groups believe in. I don't like Romney's choice of the word "gifts"--I think that Obama just trusts the policies that assist minorities are beneficial to America.
Ultimately, to me, it sounds like Romney is complaining about unfairness in some game because he lost. It's simple, Obama realized that he could gain advantage by acting the way he did and advocating the things he did. Obama just exploited a weakness of Romney, and Romney has no right to complain about that. That's how you win the game.
I'm inclined to believe that, if positions were reversed, Romney wouldn't think these so-called "gifts" were unfair.
Post a Comment