opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Linda Chavez
Linda Chavez
12 Feb 2016
Calling Out Trump

For months, responsible Republicans have been pussyfooting around Donald Trump. No one has been willing to … Read More.

5 Feb 2016
Doing the Honorable Thing in New Hampshire

New Hampshire may well be the end of the campaign trail for more GOP hopefuls, as Iowa was for Rand Paul, … Read More.

29 Jan 2016
President or Divider in Chief?

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what it will mean if Donald Trump wins the Iowa caucuses in a few days and … Read More.

Media Bias and the 47 Percent


The narrative of the Romney campaign as portrayed by most major media last week has been one of a tone-deaf, elitist candidate. In a presidential race as tight as this one — the Gallup daily tracking poll Thursday showed the candidates tied at 47 percent — the media potentially can tip the balance for or against a candidate in a decisive way.

Most outlets ran with the stories suggesting Romney was describing 47 percent of American voters as government-dependent slackers who pay no taxes. In fact, Romney suggested nothing of the sort. The videotape of Romney's remarks received publicity after James Earl Carter IV — grandson of former president Jimmy Carter — promoted the tape through the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. It turns out, the version of the tape available via Mother Jones was edited, with important sections left out.

But even the edited version didn't justify the media feeding frenzy it provoked. Romney did not say 47 percent of Americans were freeloaders. What he did say was: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what." His words were simply a statement of fact. The electorate is polarized, with each party winning the loyal support of nearly half of the voters.

But the most controversial parts of his comments had to do with who makes up the 47 percent who are unconditionally in Obama's camp. It's important to note the context in which the statements were made. Romney was answering a direct question, which asked: "For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, 'Don't worry, we'll take care of you.' How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?"

His reply listed among the 47 percent who won't vote for him those "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

But Democrats have been encouraging Americans to believe just that since the presidency of Lyndon B.

Johnson. And President Obama reiterates it every time he has the chance. So why is Romney's repeating the Democratic mantra controversial? Isn't it logical to assume that those who support President Obama agree with him about the role of government in providing health care, housing, food stamps — you name it?

Romney has said his statement could have been made more elegantly. But inelegant or not, he was right; we are becoming a nation of people who depend on government. Nearly half of Americans pay no income tax — Romney suggested it was 47 percent, coincidentally the same percentage that support Obama. But even though many of these people contribute payroll taxes, income taxes are what pay for government spending outside Social Security and Medicare.

All Americans share the benefits of national security and other necessary government programs, but nearly half of them contribute little or nothing to pay for those programs. Democrats believe this is as it should be — we should just tax the rich more. But what does it say about a nation when half its population contributes so little to the protection and services they enjoy?

Of course not all those dependent on government subsidies are Democrats or Obama supporters. Seniors make up the biggest share of dependents. Most seniors feel that they've "earned" their Social Security checks and Medicare benefits. In fact, the majority of recipients will receive substantially more in benefits over their lifetimes than they contributed.

But Romney's larger point was that it's harder for candidates who want to talk about personal responsibility and smaller government to make headway when an increasing share of the population become recipients of government largesse. And it's harder still when the media distort what the candidates actually say and the context in which they say it. Romney summed up his answer by saying, "what I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center ... " He wasn't writing off half the country but outlining a strategy to win the election.

The media's attempt to twist Romney's statement moves them from being journalists to partisans. And in an election this close, media bias just could be the deciding factor.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



3 Comments | Post Comment
It is amazing how out of touch with most of us the media really is. Of course we sympathize with those unfortunates who, with no fault of their own, find themselves needing Government subsidies to survive, but knowing that fully half of the citizens of this country have no financial skin in the game is unsettling. We know those folks still pay sales tax, state tax, and social security but so do the 53% of Americans that do pay federal taxes. It is also true that a fair percentage of those who pay no federal tax receive a refund (negative tax burden) which negates the revenue collected by those other taxes. I'm sure most of the retirees that fall in the 47%, who have worked hard all of their lives, who have contributed their share of taxes over their life times; feel equally shocked that so few contribute for so much. I believe a broader tax base that allow all to pay some will benefit this Country more than a code that forces the top 5% to pay 94% of the tax revenue collected. Even if they don't know it these people are victims of a Government that has set them up for a lifetime of dependency. I'm a retired veteran with 25 years of service, I collect a check from the government (federal and state taxes are taken out) and am working now as a civilian in the department of defense (also paying substantial taxes) and I'm alarmed by the number of people now receiving Government assistance. We need to get this country growing again, get people working, and start being the country we used to be.
Comment: #1
Posted by: david
Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:25 AM
They don't have any financial skin in the game because wages are too low compared to cost of living and soaring prices.
Give them a living wage and watch them joyfully pay their taxes!
Comment: #2
Posted by: morgan
Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:06 PM
How do you define "living wage"? It depends on what an individual is capable of doing--for those who expect to be paid more than what they can produce, it is welfare under another name.
Comment: #3
Posted by: partsmom
Mon Oct 8, 2012 4:14 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Linda Chavez
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 14 Feb 2016
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 14 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 13 Feb 2016

9 Feb 2012 Referendum on the Incumbent

14 Aug 2009 Who's Un-American?

4 Mar 2011 Obama Irrelevant on World Stage