At The Passing Parade, David, an acerbic commenter on the Scots-Irish culture of his home state of Tennessee, offers an unusual perspective on Mitt Romney's 47% comment:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney isn't "dog-whistling" about race when he writes off 47% of the American electorate. Blacks are only 12% of the US population, not 47%. Much of the shortfall is white troops, teachers, vets, unemployed, students, retirees. This means Romney is bundling them with the fewer than 12% of people who are crack-dealers etc. who are on welfare. Finally, a Republican who doesn't see race.
Perhaps the GOP can stress that in campaign ads. "Lost your job? Received unemployment checks? Chances are, you're white, but Mitt isn't racist. He thinks YOU'RE scum, too."
Such an ad would probably play well in red states such as Tennessee, despite this state's being a net taker of federal funds and much of its employment's being government employment.
Which leads your seldom blogger to his point. Don't give up yet on Romney's presidential bid. For American voters are as reliable as Pavlov's dogs, if certain bells are rung. We all know that "strong defense" works, but "hard work" works even better. "Useless eaters" gives many a disabled vet a tingle. They will climb mountains and swim rivers to get to vote for more outsourcing, fewer government services, and higher taxes on themselves or their families. "I'm not a victim," they will assert even as they take up residence in their American-flag-festooned cars and Mitt goes to China on a junket.
By the way, David has attempted to translate Benjamin Franklin's crucial but difficult 1751 essay Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind into 21st Century English here. Seems like it needs a better opening paragraph, but it's pretty useful after that. I wouldn't mind seeing side-by-side versions, original and modernized.
Posts
89 comments:
David seems to have internalized the liberal meme that Romney "thinks the 47% are scum".
All he said was that those people are probably not going to vote for him, and that he's not planning on trying to get their votes.
Ok, why is everyone confusing "outsourcing" with "offshoring" now? My company does work for governments that outsource specialized parts of their IT. Over 200 Americans work here.
This guy David is one of those who still thinks its all about Black and White. Whites are only about 62 percent of the U.S. population. That leaves about 38 percent of lively, vibrant, diverse parasites. Probably a majority of Mitt's 47 percent is composed of these vibrant new (Hispanic) and old (Black) Americans. And let's not forget the huge numbers of south Asians currently infesting the good ol USA. So Mitt's overwhelmingly talking about nonWhites. He should include the roughly 50 percent of Whites who are out and out cowards and who will always participate in their own dispossession by voting for the government party.
"All he said was that those people are probably not going to vote for him, and that he's not planning on trying to get their votes."
That, and that the 47% who don't pay fed. income tax are probably not going to be swayed to the side of the candidate who is arguing for lower fed. income taxes.
Of course, the msm wants to see it their way. God, I hate them.
If PP is right then how come Mitt's going to win TN-as well as pretty much every county along the Scots-Irish belt?
Looking at the foliage I doubt that that tent city is in the South.
Choose yourself: photobucket.com/images/tent%20city/
1607 photos!
The old iSteve would have remarked on how modern technology has made hobo jungles look much better than they used to.
BTW I'm guessing those tents are made in China.
"All he said was that those people are probably not going to vote for him, and that he's not planning on trying to get their votes."
Right. Also, re China, David should read Romney's platform on trade (see "Confronting China"). Romney is pretty explicit about hitting China with duties to offset its currency manipulation. He's been consistent on that throughout the campaign.
And more generally, what's with conservatives getting their panties in a bunch about Mitt's off-the-record comments about the 47%? Would you prefer he were more of a "compassionate conservative"? We had 8 years of that with W. -- how'd that work out?
that guy's post is excellent.
All he said was that those people are probably not going to vote for him, and that he's not planning on trying to get their votes.
Why is it such a shock when politicians point out the obvious? Why is it every president since Reagan has vowed to shrink the government and not a single one (including Reagan) has actually managed to do it?
I wonder why Franklin thought that the Swedes and Germans (ex Saxons) were darker than the English.
Blacks are only 12% of the US population, not 47%. Much of the shortfall is white troops, teachers, vets, unemployed, students, retirees. This means Romney is bundling them with the fewer than 12% of people who are crack-dealers etc. who are on welfare.
What about the hispanic share of this shortfall? After deducting the the 12% black part of the population, the remainder is not all white. A good chunk of it is hispanic.
47%?
Romney sucks up to the 2% that supports Obama.
Mitt is an idiot. Big government may dole out goodies for the welfare class but it is the employer of elites and well-educated professionals. And 2/3 of the superrich are Democrats. And Jews, the richest people in America, are overwhelmingly Democratic and for big government.
And urban 'creative' rich are almost all Democrats, and they are the creme de la crop of society.
Mitt acts like he's speaking for the rich and successful and hardworking, but most of the successful and hardworking in cities--the centers of power--are Democrats and for big government. and many educated people seek employment in government because of greater security and benefits.
If most of the rich and upper middle class were with Mitt, I can understand him putting down the 47%. But the fact is many successful people are for big government.
I think it's highly unlikely Romney will confront China on trade. Didn't Obama promise to do something similar?
It's pretty clear that Romney's heart is with the globalist elite and that his populist leaning statements are just posturing for the election.
I'd be REALLY surprised if I'm wrong about this.
Mitt is an idiot. Big government may dole out goodies for the welfare class but it is the employer of elites and well-educated professionals.
How does recognizing that make him an idiot? Those people are Obama supporters and they'll continue to be Obama supporters, so he's right - there's no point in spending a lot of time and money on them unless he's going to promise more goodies.
I would say David did not understand Romney's comment, perhaps deliberately.
All he said was that those people are probably not going to vote for him, and that he's not planning on trying to get their votes
He said quite a bit more than that.
“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax...
And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Perhaps not as heinous as many commentators allege, but still, it was pretty damn foolish to diss everyone who pays no income tax. Many of those people are potential Romney voters.
ATBOTL,
"I think it's highly unlikely Romney will confront China on trade. Didn't Obama promise to do something similar?"
Not that I recall, but in any case, he hasn't. If you've got one guy who promises to do it, and one who had a shot and didn't, the choice seems pretty clear.
"It's pretty clear that Romney's heart is with the globalist elite"
Based on what? Through his church work, he has had plenty of contact and concern for non-elites over decades.
"I'd be REALLY surprised if I'm wrong about this."
Worth a shot to find out, no? The election will be decided based on turnout. Polls showing Romney losing are based on weaker Republican turnout. Character assassinations of Romney by the right can help make that a reality.
Romney said that the 47% who pay no income tax won't be bowled over by his promise to lower income taxes, since they already don't pay any. There was about 18 minutes edited out of his remarks, because it was too positive.
The problem with the take on the Scots-Irish (and if anyone knows it, its me ... how many here have Mormon cousins btw) ... is that they get basically nothing. They're lower even than White women on the diversity totem pole eating-order. A White guy gets basically nothing (unless he pretends to be gay).
FDR was the only guy who really converted the Scots-Irish to government, electrifying the Tennessee Valley was done to get votes as much as anything else. What exactly do Democrats offer White guys? [As opposed of course to Gay White guys and White women.] Basically nothing. They wont' get hired in government. They get no help in school or aid for higher education (like those diversity scholarships aimed at Blacks, gays, Hispanics, Asians, etc.) They get the PC police pouncing any little social miscue (in Britain they hounded out the top English soccer star for making "racist" comments on the pitch) while those of Blacks, gays, Hispanics, and women go unpunished.
And this goes to the HEART (Sorry Steve, love you but you're dead flat WRONG on this) of the SAILER STRATEGY FLAW: Whites are DIVIDED.
If you are a coastal elite who is connected, forget all that, you are an honorary non-White guy. Same for White women. The explosive growth in universities, and junk courses, post WWII, fueled mostly by cheap student loans, employs a lot of "Diversity" anti-White guy drones like Tim Wise and Chief Heap Big Fake Indian Ward Churchill and Fauxcahontas, Elizabeth Powow Warren. An insider who is connected (Warren's family were OKC Democrat bigwigs it appears) can claim bogus Indian descent and get diversity goodies. Try that as a White guy with no connections.
That's the flaw in the Sailer Strategy. The GOP is not stupid or deluded. They can count with both hands. White votes at the 60% level is about all you can get. Because DUH UNMARRIED WHITE WOMEN VOTE DEM. They get all sorts of goodies, aid, and PREFERENCES AT THE EXPENSE OF WHITE GUYS.
That's the genius of "Diversity Inc." It peels off Whites to the tune of 40% (and growing) as White women don't marry, divorce or divorce and remarry and have basically zilch invested in Hubby #2, #3, or #4. That's a wave you can't fight but can surf (or drain).
The response is to kill government entirely. Paint it as unaffordable and broke, paying out in worthless monopoly money that won't buy anything. That hits the Scots-Irish perspective as government is something distant elites use to screw you over and punish you for not being elite. Hunger Games was a hit for that reason -- the cultural memory of all those Border people in Scotland/England who got screwed over by distant elites since BEFORE the Romans.
Call this the fruit of Derbyshire's "Dark Enlightenment."
David sounds like a dope. Unless we're being asked to praise his ability to regurgitate the pap the media fed him? In that case, he's doing an A+ job!
Mitt goes to China on a junket.
Not that mere reality matters anymore to anybody, but Mitt is the anti-trade-with-China candidate.
Off-Topic:
"NAACP to file complaint over entry test for elite New York high schools"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/us-usa-newyork-naacp-idUSBRE88Q04020120927
"The problem with the take on the Scots-Irish (and if anyone knows it, its me..."
I had to pause to reorient myself at this point, and realize Whiskey was talking about Scots-Irish, and not "Scots-Irish".
"What exactly do Democrats offer White guys?"
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, extended unemployment benefits, and, if the Obama Administration is successful in combating "mountain pride", food stamps.
Look, the real divide isn't between those who are dependent on government and those who aren't; it's between those who think that having more Americans on the dole is a good thing, and those who think it's unfortunate and in the long run unsustainable. Obama is in the first group, Romney is in the second.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/09/26/coming-crisis-to-make-japans-lost-decade-look-like-a-cake-walk/
The 30 year old feminist/journalist/whatever Elizabeth Nolan Brown has a new Tumblr showing how America should view 30 year old women as sexy:
http://heythisis30.tumblr.com
This guy David is one of those who still thinks its all about Black and White. Whites are only about 62 percent of the U.S. population. That leaves about 38 percent of lively, vibrant, diverse parasites.
Well, a fair percentage of that is Asian, so those are sort of honorary whites, at least economically speaking.
And Jews, the richest people in America, are overwhelmingly Democratic and for big government.
This should be better analyzed.
"Not that mere reality matters anymore to anybody, but Mitt is the anti-trade-with-China candidate."
And on what planet does some candidate's cheap campaign rhetoric automatically become "reality?" Remember Bush Jr.'s "humble foreign policy" or Barry O's pledge to end "divisiveness" in politics? Hahaha....
"And 2/3 of the superrich are Democrats."
This is absolutely untrue. Do you enjoy making up nonsense? The one poll of millionaires to date shows Romney with a solid lead over Obama.
"And Jews, the richest people in America, are overwhelmingly Democratic and for big government.
And urban 'creative' rich are almost all Democrats, and they are the creme de la crop of society."
Jews and especially the "urban creative rich" (i.e. hedge fund managers) are Democrats primarily because of social issues, and not out of a desire to expand the size of government. This is why the Jews and the secular wealthy urbanites typically support the most fiscally conservative Democrat in the primary, and why they even will strongly support socially liberal Republicans such as Giuliani and Bloomberg in general elections over a working class Democrat fiscal liberal. The Republicans have regularly won twenty years worth of NYC mayoral elections on the backs of Jewish and SWPL voters.
1. Random comment:I just want to say thank god for the ease by which one can comment on this site (whilst allowing nonsence to never be appear by blogger approval). Having tried to write comments on taki's or bh.tv or david frum's blog only to find they've all joined this terrible Discuss 1984 b.s. (we must be able to hunt you down if you say something we don't like!). If the Sorkins get their way you'll need retina scans and every comment will have your full name and address under it (comments are the last vestige of true free speech in the age of PC i think). They want you to use your facebook or email so they can know who you are forever. 9 out 10 times I give up out frustration (Passwords, etc.). So thank you to steve or google cause Discuss is killing comments. The set up here is perfect. Simple. alt right should ditch discuss and if they did you'd find 3 times as many comments rather than the same 10-20 commenters everytime. Btw, isteve has the best commenters online. You guys give me hope in people.
2. The excerpt has a tone i don't like (nihlistic, angry, etc.). Yes, most Americans probably are idiots. Even most euros today I think are pretty base beings but dwelling on such negatives is not a winning strategy. It's easy but not the right direction. Sailer is the perfect model I think of how to be right on all the issues (be un-pc) whilst still not writing in a way that turns people off as pessmistic. I introduce Sailer to friends and family and they all have liked his work cause he's not so "woe-is me, sky is falling, this is the end" in a way the great Buchanan can sometimes be.
the vague appeal of Romney actually lies in his calculated phony-ness. He scripts everythings, seemingly hiding his real thoughts and ideas (which are said to be those of a smart guy) behind his focus grouped mask of cliches and the like. Obama is similiar except that he is coming from the left (and a non-euro kinda of left at that) so the ideas he's hiding are probably bad PC left wing non-western minded ideas (would he mind if europe became brazil? i would think not). But Romney so it appears is coming from a rightward direction and so one can hope that while duping the GOP base idiots (Mark Levin neocon fans) Romney maybe knows of steve sailer maybe he's read this blog maybe he secretly agrees with us on some things. If you really wanted to implement Sailer/Buchanan type policies in this unrecognizable US the best strategy probably would be to pretend to be boring or moderate up until you get into the oval office. This is a long shot ofcourse. I am quite young and naive.
It may be true that only 12% of the US population is black.
But when asked to guess, whites on average estimate that 32% of the population is black, and 28% Hispanic. (Nonwhites guessed even higher numbers.)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/4435/Public-Overestimates-US-Black-Hispanic-Populations.aspx
Never underestimate how stupid and ignorant people can be.
Wait, what? I thought "Scots Irish" was some sort of in-joke around here for a certain ethnic group that does not in fact come from Ulster. It's rather confusing if all of sudden you start using the term to refer to Americans whose ancestors came from… Ulster.
OT: Steve, perhaps you can review the new documentary called "They Come to America" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2304997/). It's really well done and since it is buried Soviet-style, others might benefit from you letting others know of its existence. For those curious: It has its own web site and Youtube trailers.
I'm voting for Merlin Miller for president, an explicitly pro-white candidate. If Miller is not on the ballot in your state, I would urge anyone who can to vote for the Constitution party candidate, Virgil Goode, who has made reducing legal and illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign.
Remember that Romney recently told Hispanics that he would not seek to round up and deport illegals and that he wants to increase legal immigration. It's time we wised up to this act. The only way the GOP is ever going to change it's tune is if it starts hemorrhaging votes to candidates who better represent white interests.
"And this goes to the HEART (Sorry Steve, love you but you're dead flat WRONG on this) of the SAILER STRATEGY FLAW: Whites are DIVIDED." - And Steve's strategy is to increase the fortunes of those whites who do vote republican. The parties involved in forming families do vote republican. middle class workers with higher wages do pay taxes and don't consume benefits.
Not all of those white women(that hate hate hate, white men) will be made into republicans, but are you suggesting that none of them could be pealed off? that raising the status of their peers above them(or rather not bashing it down below said women), won't shift the electorate to be in the republican's favor?
The one poll of millionaires to date shows Romney with a solid lead over Obama. --Arctor
The fellow said 'superrich', which does not include mere millionaires. A top-of-the-head survey comes up with many more billionaire Democrats-- Gates, Jobs, Buffett, Soros. All of Silicon Valley. And Hollywood. (Studio heads are just as D as their hired help.) Much of Wall St. Costco.
Bloomberg, Adelson and even Trump easily qualify as 'RINOs'. For Republicans, the Walton kids are about the best you can do.
Mitt's mistake is to expand the "welfare queens" complaints of the Reagan Era - which applied to ~15% of the population, almost none of whom would ever vote Republican - to fully 47% of the population, implying they're welfare queens simply for not paying income taxes.
Many of these people are basically responsible citizens, and a good chunk of them, though definitely not the majority, are Republican. To lump them in with crack dealers, ex-cons, current cons, future cons, and layabouts is a major unforced error.
The entire '47%' meme was always a lie, the product of conservative think tanks. The great majority of the '47%' pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. All pay sales taxes. Many of them have higher total tax rates then Mitt Romney. With the child tax credit and the mortgage deduction a homeowner family with two or three kids earning $40-$50,000 could easily pay no Federal income tax.
Reg Caesar:
Peter Thiel? Charles Koch? Foster Friess? John Chambers? There's a dozen more I could name.
"Bloomberg, Adelson and even Trump easily qualify as 'RINOs'."
Hahaha, no they're not "RINOs" - that's exactly where the modern GOP is located philosophically. Traditional conservatives who believe in antiquated and passe things such as the Constitution and individual liberty are the real "RINOs."
We need to get out of this sentimental habit of thinking that the GOP is anything other than what it really is, namely the establishment's ideological enforcement apparatus on the right end of "acceptable" political opinion, with the Democrats as the equivalent institution on the left end.
I honestly don't quite get what he's trying to say here, and therefore why you think this excerpt is interesting.
David seems to have internalized the liberal meme that Romney "thinks the 47% are scum".
Yes.
It's pretty pathetic when a Republican candidate can't say the obvious -- that the segment of the electorate that depends on government largesse in one way or another will likely not vote for someone who promises to significantly curtail that, so why bother courting them? -- without being skewered by media idiots.
Imagine if he said the government shouldn't give single black women more money for having illegitimate children because evidence shows this disproportionately subsidizes later delinquency and criminality, so why should (ahem, predominantly white) taxpayers be forced to do that?
But a politician who said that would get my vote.
Anonymous wrote:
"Off-Topic:
"NAACP to file complaint over entry test for elite New York high schools"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/us-usa-newyork-naacp-idUSBRE88Q04020120927"
"These are schools for the brightest students in New York City," he added. "We're saying something wrong if we're saying New York City's brightest students are almost all Chinese or Korean."
Hahahahahaha! Really? You don't say.
Something I find interesting about this, and has been mentioned in an offhand way on this blog in places, is that asian students are outperforming jewish ones.
It takes a while to kick into gear, but 20 years down the road it really seems to me that asians and jews are going to be fighting tooth and nail over the same lucrative niches. Probably not lawyering for the most part, but medicine, finance, maybe even the movie and television business.
It might not happen, but I can also see whites coming to not identify as strongly with the United States, and adopting a more clannish identity politics based on race.
If that were your goal, I think the current crop of politicians and ideologies the Republicans promote offer very little to the typical white person.
There are a lot of whites who vote Democratic because the Republicans are essentially useless to them.
Huey Long would have a broader base of support than someone like Romney, Ryan, or any of the rest.
Or you could take the opposite approach and peel off "elite" whites from the Democrats. As Bloomberg's and Giuliani's success in New York shows, this is possible.
Nothing either of those guys promote does me one iota of good though. I'd love to lock Bloomberg in a prison cell with nothing to do but guzzle Big Gulps and eat Big Macs. Fried Chicken every night, with a bag of Cheetos as a chaser.
His body has undoubtedly been weakened by it's purification though. He'd be dead in weeks.
The article implies that all blacks are on welfare or are criminals. Whites on other hand always have a noble reason for receiving their check from the government.
The difference between white and black government checks is whites get more money, and pretend they earned it.
47% seems rather high. Who's included in that? Social Security recipients? Disabled vets? Or is it just the illegals with five children who burn up tax money, along with the general black population? Remember, both of those groups, the recent vibrant Hispanics and the long resident blacks, are here because of the desire of the upper income class to have them here for their labor. Lower and middle-income whites never wanted them here nor derived any benefit from their presence.
30 year old women as sexy:
whoa, guy in tbe third pic looks gay...those oh-so-big eyes.
Mitt's mistake is to expand the "welfare queens" complaints of the Reagan Era - which applied to ~15% of the population, almost none of whom would ever vote Republican - to fully 47% of the population, implying they're welfare queens simply for not paying income taxes.
Many of these people are basically responsible citizens, and a good chunk of them, though definitely not the majority, are Republican. To lump them in with crack dealers, ex-cons, current cons, future cons, and layabouts is a major unforced error.
The major unforced error comes from alleged conservatives who, mindlessly accepting what the media tell them, believe that Romney claimed that 47% of the population are just like welfare queens, crack dealers, ex-cons, current cons, future cons, and layabouts.
I'm not sure whether to be impressed by the power of the media, or disgusted by the stupidity of my fellow citizens.
And on what planet does some candidate's cheap campaign rhetoric automatically become "reality?"
This one.
A candidates rhetoric is a far better basis for "reality" than the unhinged raving of some anonymous internet commenter.
ATBOTL said... I think it's highly unlikely Romney will confront China on trade. Didn't Obama promise to do something similar?
It's pretty clear that Romney's heart is with the globalist elite and that his populist leaning statements are just posturing for the election
I think it's pretty clear that ATBOTL is an Obama supporter.
I am one of the forty seven percent but I'm still voting for Romney.we rationalize using government money because of what they did to the housing market here in Vegas which wiped out any wealth we accumulated.
Romney's comment indicates that he doesn't understand the situation. Not only do many of the 47% vote Republican, but many high income people who pay income taxes vote Democratic (the Congress is full of wealthy Democrats).
Never underestimate how stupid and ignorant people can be.
Translation:
Never underestimate the effectiveness of constant brainwashing and misrepresenting of reality by the purveyors of information.
If you lie to someone and they believe you, is it 100% because they are so stupid or are you partly at fault for the time and effort you put into researching their weaknesses and how to best appeal to them so as to effectively deceive them?
Anon 10:00:
Exactly right. Successful politicians get their supporters to kind-of fill in the blanks in favorable ways. I've seen this with Romney and Obama--they say X, and some subset of their supporters say "well what he must really mean is Y," to convince themselves they can vote for him.
I don't see how anyone can know much about Romney's beliefs or intentions. He's changed a bunch of his public positions as the voters he needed changed, and pretty obviously says whatever his pollsters and fundraising guys think will help him out. For all I know, once in office, he'll turn out to be a liberal democrat. Or a libertarian. Or a facist. Who knows?
I would say David did not understand Romney's comment, perhaps deliberately.
Bingo!
Until recently, I thought of myself as straddling the social/cultural divide between redneck & yuppie. But I've been totally blindsided by how many rednecks have this visceral hatred for Romney. Evidently, if you put on a Southern drawl and make a show of clearing brush on your ranch like Dubya, you can be a fantastically rich global elitist and that's OK. But speak with a Yankee accent and own a "dancing horse" and you're evil.
I'm starting to think that traditional white Americans deserve to go extinct.
"DaveinHackensack said...
Right. Also, re China, David should read Romney's platform on trade (see "Confronting China"). Romney is pretty explicit about hitting China with duties to offset its currency manipulation. He's been consistent on that throughout the campaign."
Consistent like he was consistent about getting tough on illegal immigration? i.e., consistent on the issue until he stopped being consistent on it?
"Whiskey said...
The problem with the take on the Scots-Irish (and if anyone knows it, its me ... how many here have Mormon cousins btw) ..."
Whiskey has already demonstrated that he doesn't know what the term "scots-irish" even means. He now seems to be reiterating that. Most mormons aren't of scots-irish descent (at least not the descendents of the old mormon stock) - they're of english, welsh, and scandinavian descent.
In the last couple weeks I have had a blinding insight. I remember the first time I had a blinding insight. It came to me all at once. Clouds, I suddenly realized, were the smoke from the burning sun. I was, I think five, at the time. So just because something seems to fit and explain everything doesn't mean it's really true. But for what it's worth...
The startling realization was that contrary to the major premise of the Romney campaign, the economy doesn't matter much.
Think about it, Is it possible to fix the economy? Sure. In fact it's rather easy. Half a dozen states elected Republicans and their state economies immediately turned around. None of the Republican remedies were secret or arcane. They just opposed excess spending, public unions and unfunded liabilities.
This insight leads to a couple others. How bad can the recession be if the public knows the right answer but is unsure about whether to bother? Right now we have an administration that favors poverty because they think it's good for the environment and promotes "fairness".
Steven Chu wants higher gas prices but I notice that for all the talk about "pain at the pump" the populace does not come for him with torches and pitchforks. The public is remarkably accepting of Obama's policies that foster poverty. Other examples include the Keystone pipeline, banning coal, banning oil exploration on public lands, banning off-shore drilling. These examples are all energy examples but the pattern is clear. The public doesn't really care all that much about the recession and their poverty.
Also how tough can a problem be if we know the answer? Romney reveals in private what everyone else speaks about in public. Every news show on every news channel has noted that Romney isn't going to win certain groups.
What Romney won't discuss (or anyone else for that matter) is how to fix Detroit. After WWII Europe was in ruins. Berlin was a smoking shell. Dresden worse yet. But Marshall had a plan and it worked. What are the candidates plans for Detroit?
No one talks about Detroit because no one has any idea of how to fix it, whereas fixing the economy is rather simple. If Obama wins, Detroit will get worse. If Romney wins, Detroit will also get worse.
If Obama wins it means that the public doesn't much care about the recession and are willing to accept mass poverty in exchange for feelings and images. If that's the will of the people so be it. Far be it for me to substitute my preferences for those of the majority.
Albertosaurus
Is it really as low as 47%?
The entire '47%' meme was always a lie, the product of conservative think tanks. The great majority of the '47%' pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. All pay sales taxes.
Except that Romney didn't say "taxes", he said "income taxes". And in that he's perfectly correct.
The Democrats under Obama have become the nostalgia party. This simple truth befuddles the Republicans.
The simplest example is wealth. Romney is attacked for being wealthy. This plays on the public's memories of "Daddy Warbucks". Rich guys are seen as uniquely privileged. But of course this is a nineteenth century idea much less a twentieth century one.
In the nineteenth century a robber baron would have a private rail car, something no ordinary man could hope for. Today however everyone drives a car on the same public highways. Bill Gates can afford a better car than you can but he's still required to be the same road. A better example might be Jay Leno. He can afford to buy a Bugatti and probably has. Personally I prefer Ferraris. When I got the $85,000 Obama stimulus grant I toyed with the idea of buying a Ferrari. It would have to have been a used one, because not being a Democrat I didn't qualify for the really big money.
But when I see Ferraris on the street they are always stuck in the same traffic jams that I am. Even with an Enzo I couldn't get from my house to the beach any faster than I can right now.
That's because Bill Gates, Jay Leno and all the other plutocrats aren't really rich at all. The modern reality is that only public officials not private fat cats can command the traffic to make way for the big cheese coming through. Obama does this all the time apparently largely for his own amusement.
In the recent past KGB officers drove on restricted roads too, so has to avoid the inconvenience of mixing with the proletariat.
The news this morning tells us that Obama cost $1.4 billion dollars - a year - for his personal upkeep. That's a lot of perks. It wasn't always this way. Harry Truman had to move back in with his mother-in-law when he left the White House. Now ex-presidents and serving presidents expect a level of personal luxury more appropriate for an oriental potentate.
But the public hasn't caught up with reality. I remember during the Humphrey/Nixon race they did one of those man in the street polls. A large proportion of the public still thought Harry Truman was the President. The public today responds to memes that only made sense in their grandfathers day.
There really was a time when contraception was controversial but you would think that the so-called "War on Women" would be like crusading for electric lights. It's not a real current issue.
But the Democrats continue to get mileage out of such ancient issues as voting rights for blacks, and ending the War in Viet-Nam (err make that Afghanistan). I expect at any moment for Obama to announce a campaign to find a Polio vaccine.
Albertosaurus
The problem of big government is less welfare than workfare. Too many people WORK for the government.
I knew a conservative military guy in the 90s but when GOP Congress was talking of cutting military benefits, he got all angry and sided with Clinton.
GOP's disadvantages:
Moral defensiveness on:
1. 'racism'.
2. 'homophobia'.
3. 'sexism' or 'war against women'.
4. pro-rich and lacking in compassion.
5. 'xenophobia' or anti-immigration.
So, Democrats fight moral offense, Republicans fight moral defense.
Republicans had offensive advantage during parts of Cold War cuz of anti-communism(though McCarthy dangerously overplayed it) and after 9/11 with WAR ON TERROR.
Otherwise, it's been on the moral defensive.
And notice GOP moral offensive happened to about FOREIGN ENEMIES. Conservatives are afraid to go offensive on domestic enemies whereas openly declare war on 'angry white privileged males'.
It's the morality, stupid.
So, for conservatives to win, there has to be new moral paradigm. And for whites, this new paradigm must be founded on the fact that:
1. Jews are smarter, control media, own 'too much wealth', and rob us through Wall Street.
2. Blacks are stronger and rob us in the public streets. Blacks OWN many streets and rule by reign of Negro terror.
3. Gays are privileged and a bunch of a**holes.
4. Illegals INVADED this country and are leeching off us.
Unless these issues are addressed, cons will just play defense. You can't win by only playing defense.
When Obama speaks, he's on the offensive.
When Romney speaks, he's afraid that what he says might offend some key group.
Dicks beat pussies in politics.
Whiskey has already demonstrated that he doesn't know what the term "scots-irish" even means. He now seems to be reiterating that. Most mormons aren't of scots-irish descent (at least not the descendents of the old mormon stock) - they're of english, welsh, and scandinavian descent.
And Mr. Anon has just demonstrated he knows little about modern Mormons. Most Mormons today are converts, not descended from the bug-eating desert-crossers.
Is it really as low as 47%?
If you look at how many people get more in services from the federal government than they pay in federal income taxes, I believe the number is around 75%.
>Mitt's mistake is to expand the "welfare queens" complaints of the Reagan Era [...] to fully 47% of the population, implying they're welfare queens simply for not paying income taxes.<
It also shows he has only one tool in the box when it comes to voter appeal: lowering income taxes.
The rest of his plan is basically deregulate, offer some form of amnesty, and extend the military further. None of those things are vote-getters. (The rest of the rest is eyewash. For example, no one is really going to get tough with China.)
Obama is not good, but my point is how disappointing Romney is.
As far as the horse race is concerned, I expect Romney to come from behind. Call it intuition or idiocy, but I feel, despite nearly all poll results and despite all sense, that over the next month popular opinion about him will improve/the media's narrative will turn around. Yes, I'm saying Mitt will win. The only question is how big the win will be. Humongous, or merely gigantic?
Severn:
"A candidates rhetoric is a far better basis for "reality" than the unhinged raving of some anonymous internet commenter."
If I remember correctly you were the fellow who told everyone a few months ago to vote for Romney because he promised during the primaries to deport illegal aliens en masse. How's that working out for you?
If believing that the empty promises of GOP politicians have any meaning isn't "unhinged" then they should take that word out of the dictionary.
Anon 11:54 AM:
I think when Romney speaks, he's more likely afraid of offending a key group on the right than on the left. And Obama has already lost all those guys, and has most of the key groups on the left sewn up with a combination of being black and fear of the crazier rhetoric on the right, and so can spend more of his energy being focused on the center.
And that comes, I think, from the fact that the right end of Republican voters have never really trusted Romney. They correctly saw him as a moderate Republican who could get elected in Massachussets, and who was a lot more on board with the economic side of the Republican message than the social side. He's still got to worry about losing his base on the right, whereas Obama can try to pry some more of the center away from Romney, and that's a big advantage.
Paul:
One thing misleading about this is that government programs create the environment in which we live, and often distort the market alternatives.
a. Federal money and special legal status for student loans has driven rising tuitions, ensuring that if you're not from a reasonably well-off family, you may get the choice of using govenrment loans or not going to college, in a world where college is how employers find out if you're literate and functional.
b. Social security and medicare provide more benefits to their users than they collected from them during their working years, but if you don't pay into those programs, you go to jail. Having paid in, it's not terribly parasite-like to take your benefits.
c. If your employers have paid into unemployment insurance your whole employed life, it's not parasite-like to file for unemployment when you're out of work.
d. If your parents' taxes have been going to support public schools, it's not parasitism to go get the education they're forced to pay for, accept in-state tuition, etc..
e. If you joined the military or worked for the government and were promised some benefits, pension, etc., and now you collect them, that's not parasitic.
And so on. You can use those programs even while thinking the world would be better without them.
"And 2/3 of the superrich are Democrats." This is absolutely untrue ... The one poll of millionaires ...
Nice elision there, Bob. "Millionaires" are mostly people over 65 who saved all their lives, the ones getting killed by inflation and crime. The superrich, or even the gentry, live in a different insulation zone. I urge you to take up intellectual honesty, at least part time.
"Consistent like he was consistent about getting tough on illegal immigration? i.e., consistent on the issue until he stopped being consistent on it?"
Has he changed his platform on that substantively? He's still opposed to amnesty, is he not? If you want to ditch him because he didn't channel Tom Tancredo on this issue in his Univision appearance, you're making the perfect the enemy of the good.
"Mitt is an idiot. Big government may dole out goodies for the welfare class but it is the employer of elites and well-educated professionals. And 2/3 of the superrich are Democrats. And Jews, the richest people in America, are overwhelmingly Democratic and for big government.
And urban 'creative' rich are almost all Democrats, and they are the creme de la crop of society.
Mitt acts like he's speaking for the rich and successful and hardworking, but most of the successful and hardworking in cities--the centers of power--are Democrats and for big government. and many educated people seek employment in government because of greater security and benefits.
If most of the rich and upper middle class were with Mitt, I can understand him putting down the 47%. But the fact is many successful people are for big government. "
Point made over and over again on this post, but doesn't seem to have reached Mitt. Whatever I think of him, I've really tried to avoid the clueless retro-nerd from the Ozzie and Harriet zone stereotype of him, but things like this really reinforce the idea that he's watched life badly.
"For example, no one is really going to get tough with China."
Romney seems numerate enough to understand that the country with the most to lose in a trade war between the US and China is China, by a long shot. I really don't think Obama groks this. I don't think he groks much at all about the economy. If you listen to what Obama actually says, he seems to believe that the way to fix the economy is to go back to Clinton rates for top earners, keep Bush rates for everyone else, throw federal money at the states so they can hire more teachers without getting their fiscal houses in order, and give cheap loans for electric car companies and the like. Other than the first item, he's tried the rest, and the results have been pretty bleak.
"Mitt is an idiot. Big government may dole out goodies for the welfare class but it is the employer of elites and well-educated professionals. And 2/3 of the superrich are Democrats. And Jews, the richest people in America, are overwhelmingly Democratic and for big government.
And urban 'creative' rich are almost all Democrats, and they are the creme de la crop of society.
Mitt acts like he's speaking for the rich and successful and hardworking, but most of the successful and hardworking in cities--the centers of power--are Democrats and for big government. and many educated people seek employment in government because of greater security and benefits.
If most of the rich and upper middle class were with Mitt, I can understand him putting down the 47%. But the fact is many successful people are for big government. "
Point made over and over again on this post, but doesn't seem to have reached Mitt. Whatever I think of him, I've really tried to avoid the clueless retro-nerd from the Ozzie and Harriet zone stereotype of him, but things like this really reinforce the idea that he's watched life badly.
I expect Romney to come from behind... Yes, I'm saying Mitt will win. The only question is how big the win will be. Humongous, or merely gigantic?
I agree with the prediction that Romney will win. I think the pundits are going to be blindsided by who does/doesn't turn out to vote.
But I'm expecting it to be a squeaker. If it's a replay of 2000 -- narrow Electoral College win for Romney but popular vote win for Obama -- it won't be pretty.
Incidentally, related to this, a voter explains why she is voting for Obama over Romney (Obama got her a free "Obama phone").
He's still got to worry about losing his base on the right, whereas Obama can try to pry some more of the center away from Romney, and that's a big advantage.
Couldn't disagree with you more.
I've got lots of contacts with TEA Party groups in my state, and they are rabidly enthusiastic about getting rid of Obama. Romney doesn't have to worry about losing his base. They don't like him one bit, but they'd vote for Teddy Kennedy's ghost if it would get rid of Obama. There will be no protest voting for oddballs like Merlin Miller or Virgil Goode this year (sorry ATBOTL).
@Paul Mendez,
The Romney-hatred is pathetic. It's basically two things: Israel-bashing in drag and a thinly-veiled wish for America to go blooey. There are a lot of loser-disaster-freaks in the manly blogosphere, because a lot of them are failures.
I think Romney could make an acceptable Prez if he got a Republican Congress, and they held his scrotum to the fire and forced through a few good laws.
He is running for President, not Messiah. The President doesn't, contrary to rumor, run the country. He runs the executive branch.
"I think it's pretty clear that ATBOTL is an Obama supporter."
You're an imbecile.
I would say David did not understand Romney's comment, perhaps deliberately.
WNish commenters supporting Dems over Republicans is one of those mystery-wrapped-inside-an-enigma things. Not saying Dave is one, but if he's not he reminds me of one of the commenters here who is.
The Republicans are dogshit, but the Dems are steaming dogshit.
Worth a shot to find out, no?
They're concern trolls, dude. Like I said, a mystery in an enigma; why they're doing it is obvious, but why they think it'll work is beyond me.
That's the genius of "Diversity Inc." It peels off Whites to the tune of 40% (and growing) as White women don't marry, divorce or divorce and remarry and have basically zilch invested in Hubby #2, #3, or #4. That's a wave you can't fight but can surf (or drain).
There's no "genius" to the multicult. Just raw power. Give someone else control over the TV, and their schtick'll be the new "genius."
The majority of Whites of both sexes voted for McCain, IIRC.
I agree with the prediction that Romney will win. I think the pundits are going to be blindsided by who does/doesn't turn out to vote.
But I'm expecting it to be a squeaker. If it's a replay of 2000 -- narrow Electoral College win for Romney but popular vote win for Obama -- it won't be pretty.
I think so too, but like you said I think it's going to be a squeaker either way.
Translation:
Never underestimate the effectiveness of constant brainwashing and misrepresenting of reality by the purveyors of information.
If you lie to someone and they believe you, is it 100% because they are so stupid or are you partly at fault for the time and effort you put into researching their weaknesses and how to best appeal to them so as to effectively deceive them?
Haha, yeah, the sociopaths never fail to come through, do they? "Little old ladies deserve to be defrauded of their life's savings! I hate little old ladies!"
Theirs is the "fraud should be legal" platform.
Nick Watney!!!!
Who knew?
You're an imbecile.
You're an Obama troll.
"If most of the rich and upper middle class were with Mitt, I can understand him putting down the 47%. But the fact is many successful people are for big government. "
That is the utter surprise involved with Mitt Romney, some of his quotes seem head-scratching and apoplectic in their cluelessness:
"The middle class starts at $200,000 a year"
"If you want to start a business, just borrow the money from your parents..."
There has been so much right wing generated hysteria over Barry's supposedly not being an American for years now, but the fact remains, Kenyan, or not Barry seems more of an American than his counterpart who is a died in the wool globalist. He was a Frenchman during Vietnam, he was a Chinaman during the Bain Consulting era, and it does not seem that he knows any true Americans at all. Even with all of the high-level coaching he receives, he seems so far out of touch with the American populace it's a wonder he was able to gain a nomination.
The polls don't support the Romney enthusiasm here, though anything is possible. But out of curiousity, for those who think Romney will win: How much have you personally dug through the polling data, or other relevant data, to try to untangle this? Is this actually an opinion based on data? Or is it possible someone (say, a part of the MSM targeted at you) has fed you a talking point?
It's worth remembering that Fox and talk radio and such are part of the MSM, as much as NBC or CNN or NPR. They are unlikely to be fundamentally different just because rhey have a somewhat different target market.
This article talks about what assumptions are needed to give Romney a decent chance of winning.
Basically, Romney needs some huge issue to shift the whole country toward him in the next few weeks. I think short of a scandal sinking Obama or some huge unknown like a terrorist attack or big disaster or something, Romney's done for.
"DaveinHackensack said...
""Consistent like he was consistent about getting tough on illegal immigration? i.e., consistent on the issue until he stopped being consistent on it?""
Has he changed his platform on that substantively? He's still opposed to amnesty, is he not?"
Sure, Romney is opposed to an "amnesty". So were G.W. Bush, and John McCain, and Ted Kennedy. Whatever they intend to push through, they always insist is not an amnesty, even when it is.
"If you want to ditch him because he didn't channel Tom Tancredo on this issue in his Univision appearance,....."
This is akin to saying that we shouldn't question a politicians dedication to the defense of Israel just because of what he wrote in his recent op-ed article at "Stormfront". The fact that Romney appeared on Univision is itself a problem. The fact that his campaign produces spanish-language ads is itself a problem. These things indicate what we can expect from him when it comes to immigration policy.
".....you're making the perfect the enemy of the good."
No, I'm simply observing that the "perhaps not as bad as the other guy but still plenty bad himself" is the enemy of the good.
>for those who think Romney will win: How much have you personally dug through the polling data, or other relevant data, to try to untangle this? Is this actually an opinion based on data?<
No. It's faith in my countrymen.
The wonks were wrong in 1980. They will be wrong again.
Barry seems more of an American than his counterpart who is a died in the wool globalist.
But remember, everyone - Troot has voted Republican in every election since Truman!
Sure, Romney is opposed to an "amnesty". So were G.W. Bush, and John McCain, and Ted Kennedy.
What are you babbling about? Bush, McCain, and Kennedy were NOT opposed to amnesty. They never PRETENDED to be posed to amnesty. Bush ran for election in 2000 on integrating the US with Latin America.
"Anonymous said...
""Sure, Romney is opposed to an "amnesty". So were G.W. Bush, and John McCain, and Ted Kennedy.""
What are you babbling about? Bush, McCain, and Kennedy were NOT opposed to amnesty. They never PRETENDED to be posed to amnesty. Bush ran for election in 2000 on integrating the US with Latin America."
As I remember it, they (or their flacks) were all insistant that it was not an amnesty. Of course, that was all lies.
for those who think Romney will win: How much have you personally dug through the polling data, or other relevant data, to try to untangle this? Is this actually an opinion based on data?
I've dug through the polling data - something you have not done, incidentally. The polls are lying, blatantly so in some cases. They overcount Democrats to an absurd degree.
Svigor says of the prospect of Romney winning the election:
"I think so too, but like you said I think it's going to be a squeaker either way."
If you take the purely scientific and objective and CUMULATIVE look at polling data, there is very little chance of Romney winning.
I suggest some go to the political news and polling clearinghouse, realpolitics.com; basically, Obama is leading in every poll and doing so at about a clip of 1-to-3% more a lead than he held, month-to-month and week-to-week during this stretch of the campaign four years ago against McCain. There's never been a case in a modern prez election in which a candidate is so consistently behind, only to pull it out in the last month.
And all of this makes sense, because Romney is a terrible candidate in terms of his ability to effectively communicate and not create problems for oneself when trying to speak contemporaneously. Say what you want about Obama's policies, but I think it's likely he will destroy Romney in the debates. This was a problem for W.Bush, too, off course.
Myself and many other moderates, black or not, wouldn't particularly mind the thought of a Republican president.
However, I DO ask that such a candidate be able to make serious decisions on matters such as war and economic policy, and ----- perhaps as a bonus ------ be able to articulate those decisions with grammar and syntax of a confident adult.
I really don't believe that is asking much ----- but in the case of this year's GOP candidate and the that of the last Republican president, it apparently was way too much to expect or receive.
Post a Comment