Mitt Romney... 47 percent will vote for Obama "no matter what"

[Townsend]

WATCH: Full Secret Video of Private Romney Fundraiser


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser

On Monday and Tuesday Mother Jones published exclusive video that captured Mitt Romney speaking to donors at a May 17 fundraiser, which was held at the home of private equity mogul Mark Leder. Responding to a question about the "Palestinian problem," Romney said peace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible, telling donors that Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish." At another point, the GOP presidential nominee told attendees of this $50,000-a-plate dinner that 47 percent of Americans—those who back President Obama—are "victims" who are "dependent upon government" and "pay no income tax." He noted: "my job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." These comments set off a media firestorm and generated headlines around the world.

Romney's remarks, denigrating nearly half of the electorate, sent the Romney campaign—already roiled by infighting—into panic mode. The campaign hastily convened a late-night press conference to address his controversial statements, and Romney stood by his "off the cuff" comments, while conceding that they were "not elegantly stated." He claimed his comments where merely a "snippet" and not the "full response." That was not true; his comments were shown in full. He added, "I hope the person who has the video would put out the full material."

Romney is not the only one who has called for the release of the full 49-minute video. And we're more than happy to oblige. The complete video demonstrates that Romney was not snippetized and that he was captured raw and uncut. Here it is, in two parts:

[Hoss]

The press pool at the White House was grilling Carney on Obama's "bitter clinger" remarks this morning. Funny stuff.

That's because unlike Romney, they'll field questions from the press.

[erfalf]

That's because unlike Romney, they'll field questions from the press.

Ok, now that I have picked myself up off the floor. That's a good one for sure.

[Conan71]

Yes, blame population growth and the continued lack of demand on Obama, not the Congress that refuses to do anything about the situation.

And now you're blaming Obama for the economy not being as bad as it was when he took office. You know very well that the only reason gas was that cheap was because oil prices were in the toilet because of the credit freeze.

It didn't say that at all. You might check your dates again.

Why do you feel the need to apologize for poor leadership?

These are all metrics by which any sitting president would be judged. 

Except for this one, apparently.

[nathanm]

Or oil prices are high due to a combination of EPA regs, administration willingness to demonize the oil industry, and quantitative easing? Let's not forget any of those things.

What new EPA regulations have increased the cost of oil or gasoline? Domestic production is up, so I'm not quite sure what your argument is? It would be up more if it weren't for the EPA? I'm also not sure what hurting people's feelings has to do with price discovery in an efficient market. The QE argument seems a lot more reasonable, but QE wouldn't be necessary if Congress would act. The Fed is required by law to keep inflation and unemployment low. With inflation at or below target, the Fed can't just decide to say love it and not act on the other half of their mandate. With Congress refusing to move on stimulus and interest rates already near historic lows, the Fed doesn't have a lot left in its toolbox.

If the problem is that the Tea Partyists are worried about increasing the deficit, why are they against a deficit neutral stimulus? Taxes go up temporarily to pay for a temporary increase in spending so as to accomplish something with government that the people are incapable of doing on their own. Their inability to brook such a compromise is very revealing.

I agree. But just out of curiosity, are there any forecasts for the second ten years? I thought most of the "balancing" of the ACA was due to the fact that most of the benefits were postponed in relation to the revenue generating.

It's projected to reduce the deficit out to something like 2050. Of course, much of that is from bending the cost curve, not any kind of reductions relative to today's spending. But that's largely unimportant. Keeping cost growth in line or better than GDP growth is enough. The issue isn't the present rate of spending (presuming we can get the economy back where it should be and let the Bush cuts expire when it does), it's the continuing large increases projected far out into the future that makes the forecast look so bleak.

Conan, if you have a problem with my pointing to Congress when discussing the economy, you might take it up with the Constitution and the 54% of our countrymen who blame Bush and the Republicans for the current state of the economy. Mitt Romney's deadbeats plus some, apparently.

The Republicans are rapidly losing the electorate on issue after issue. 43% of Republicans want to see the Bush cuts expire on either all taxpayers or those who earn more than $250,000 a year. Better than 60% majorities of both Independents and Democrats are on that page also. A majority of the country agrees that the stimulus was the right thing to do. A majority of the country sees favoritism for the wealthy as a bigger problem than over-regulation. More than half the country wants more stimulus, barely a third want more tax cuts. It's no wonder Obama is polling so well relative to Romney. He is arguing for the things the country wants. Romney isn't, get over it. It doesn't help that the approvals on his reaction to Libya are so embarrassingly awful. (-20% approval..even his supporters didn't like what he had to say)

[Townsend]

Out of curiosity, is Romney part of the 47%?

[Hoss]

Ok, now that I have picked myself up off the floor. That's a good one for sure.

Have you seen him field many questions?  He walked out on them after his missive about the consulate attacks the other day.  See my avatar for what Romney is doing to his own campaign.

But I get it.  Can't respond to my statement?  You just talk about laughing hysterically.  Keep doing that.  I'm sure that will help your boy Romney win the election.   

[Conan71]

I'm sure that will help your boy Romney win the election.   

My BOY ?!?!?! Did you say my BOY ?!?!?

[erfalf]

Have you seen him field many questions?  He walked out on them after his missive about the consulate attacks the other day.  See my avatar for what Romney is doing to his own campaign.

But I get it.  Can't respond to my statement?  You just talk about laughing hysterically.  Keep doing that.  I'm sure that will help your boy Romney win the election.   

Uh, I'm watching a press conference right now, where he is answering questions, not just talking. He had one the other day after his comments in regards to the Libyan embassy remarks, where he again answered questions. He has the balls to go out after so called gaffes and field questions from an openly hostile media who it would seem are out to get him (as they should, however it seems to be singularly focused on Romney until today).

By comparison, Romney is an open book in comparison to his counterpart. Obama has given 17 press conferences, which to be fair is more than Bush Jr. However Obama has only fielded 97 questions as opposed to Bush Jr's 307. So to come out here and criticize Romney for not being accessible is as laughable as I first indicated.

[Townsend]

By comparison, Romney is an open book in comparison to his counterpart. Obama has given 17 press conferences, which to be fair is more than Bush Jr. However Obama has only fielded 97 questions as opposed to Bush Jr's 307.

W only had to answer "9/11" to 289 of the questions.

[erfalf]

W only had to answer "9/11" to 289 of the questions.

Obama only had to answer "Bush" to all of them. 

[erfalf]

Yes, blame population growth and the continued lack of demand on Obama, not the Congress that refuses to do anything about the situation.

I certainly wouldn't blame population growth on Obama. That's for sure considering his radical stance on abortion, he more than most is trying to keep the population down. 

Ok, that was a little below the belt, but I couldn't help it.

[erfalf]

A more "eloquent" quote would have been "that roughly 40% of the population, the ones that would never vote Republican, believe in trickle down welfare, whereas I believe in Trickle Down Wealth."

[Hoss]

I certainly wouldn't blame population growth on Obama. That's for sure considering his radical stance on abortion, he more than most is trying to keep the population down. 

Ok, that was a little below the belt, but I couldn't help it.

How is that stance radical?  Guess you've never heard of Roe v Wade?  It IS the law of the land.

[RecycleMichael]

This whole discussion smacks of a setup. Romney says things that piss off people who won't vote for him anyway as a homage to the rich. Either it don't matter if he loses as long as they make this fight or they are desparate to change the conversation about Romney's other failing ideas.