creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
8 Oct 2014
Stomachaches

I've had stomachaches for as long as I can remember. As a kid, I called it an "uncomfortable feeling." As an adult,… Read More.

3 Oct 2014
The President's Security

When you hear Rep. Darrell Issa, one of the president's harshest Republican critics in the House, demanding … Read More.

1 Oct 2014
Helen

Today would be my mother's 88th birthday, which is not so old, but my mother seemed very old eight years ago, … Read More.

The 47 Percent

Comment

If one thing should be clear by now, it is that nothing a president or presidential candidate says is private. Assume every microphone is hot, every fundraiser is public, every side comment will be reported.

You would think by this time — having been burned on the height of the trees in Michigan, his friendship with NASCAR owners and the family Cadillacs — Mitt Romney would appreciate that. With only weeks to go until the election, you would think a candidate who has been criticized repeatedly for being scripted would know that he needs to be careful when he goes off script.

It's a matter of discipline, but also of judgment.

Knowing all that, how in the world could Romney say this:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent 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 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. ... These are people who pay no income tax."

"(M)y job is not to worry about those people," Romney reportedly said. "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Romney's campaign does not dispute the accuracy of the quote. Romney does not even disown the substance of what he said. According to him, the only thing "wrong" with his dismissal of 47 percent of the voting public as "victims" who depend on government and "pay no income tax" is that he chose his words poorly.

"It's not elegantly stated, let me put it that way," he said. "It's a message I'm going to carry and continue to carry — which is, look, the president's approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes, because, frankly, my discussion about lowering taxes isn't as attractive to them.

Therefore, I'm not likely to draw them into my campaign as effectively as those who are in the middle."

Let me state the obvious: The government would shut down tomorrow if 47 percent of all voters paid no taxes. As a matter of fact, many of us, myself included, not only pay taxes, but pay them at higher rates than Romney does. I don't depend on the government for my job or my health care or my kids' college tuition. I take personal responsibility not only for myself, but also for friends and family whom I am fortunate enough — and work hard enough — to be able to help.

As for Romney's "job," the idea that a president need only concern himself with those who vote for him, that he has written off nearly half the country as victims who won't vote for him for that reason, is wrong as a matter of principle and stunningly wrong as a matter of politics.

Romney is already vulnerable because he has not made full disclosure of his tax returns. He is already vulnerable because many working people — people who take responsibility, work hard, play be the rules, don't depend on the government for any form of handout — worry that Romney simply doesn't "get" people like them. Romney is already vulnerable, particularly after his choice of Paul Ryan, because many senior citizens, who built this country and now do depend on the nation's two biggest "entitlement" programs, Social Security and Medicare, are worried that Romney and Ryan will not protect those programs.

Those are major vulnerabilities. But perhaps the biggest problem with Romney's statements goes to the larger question of whether the poor judgment reflected in these remarks undermines his broader case that he is qualified to be president. The easiest way to beat a challenger is to paint him as a risk: the devil you don't know. Remarks like this call into question not only whether Romney "gets" it, but also whether he is ready to be president.

If 47 percent have already decided not to vote for him, as Romney concedes, then it will only take 3 percent more to seal his fate.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

31 Comments | Post Comment
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent 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 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. ... These are people who pay no income tax."

Well, such is true. People who vote for a living will vote for Obama; otherwise, they may have to start working for a living.

People work for a living will vote for Romney.

The only problem I have is the 47% figure. I hope it is much less, say 20%. I would like for it to be zero, but as long as we have Democrats, we will have the poor dependent on government handouts.

Comment: #1
Posted by: SusansMirror
Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:17 PM
Another interesting article by Ms. Estrich. However, as usual, I don't agree with almost any of it.

First, I have to state that I think what Romney said is obviously correct. There is a percentage of the population (is it 47%?) who will vote Democratic no matter what. In this election, Romney shouldn't concentrate on trying to obtain their votes any more than Obama should spend resources trying to obtain the 'neo-con' vote. And yes, I suspect an alarming large percentage of the safe Democratic vote does not pay Federal Income Tax (not all taxes as Ms. Estrich incorrectly hints). (This cohort is of concern to me because, with no feedback in the form of increased taxes, their demands are likely to be endless.) If he is becomes President, Romney will no doubt do his best to better the lot of all Americans, including this group

However, the most aggregious statemnt in the article is that: "... perhaps the biggest problem with Romney's statements goes to the larger question of whether the poor judgment reflected in these remarks undermines his broader case that he is qualified to be president." Since when is stating the facts a example of poor judgement?

The present denizen of the White House has the following on his record:

(1) $1500 billion per year in deficit spending with no real plans to curb it. Oh there are some ersatz plans put forward, mainly for political points, to make the rich 'pay their fair share '(whatever that means). Unfortunately, the most generous estimates indicate that these would at most raise about $200 billion per year in revenues. Apparently the progressives are so innumerate that they fail to realize that $200 B << $ 1500 B. Perhaps this is due to there having only been taught the new math in their youth?

(2) In face of (1) above, the president has offered absolutely nothing in the way of real budget cuts. Nothing is excess in our tight $4000 billion per year Federal budget. Incredibly, each year Obama's proposed budgets have asked for 10-15% increases. Fortunately these proposals have failed to garner more than a handful of votes.

(3) Unemployment has renmained stubbornly high. Despite getting every last thing he wanted from Congress in his first two years in office, he has failed to produce any reasonable or effective plans to attack this problem. Instead, he proposes plans designed to be rejected by the Republicans so that he can gain political points.

I could go on and on with more examples of the failure that is the Obama presidency. Example after example of blaim dodging and non-existent leadership. Perhaps Ms. Estrich should concentrate on the facts on the ground (as Romney apparently has) and consider whether Obamas poor judgment and lack of accomplishments "undermines his broader case that he is qualified to be president".
Comment: #2
Posted by: Old Navy
Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:23 AM
Something Romney won't do when he is President - Instead of borrowing a billion+ dollars from China and giving it to Egypt he will stop senseless spending which will ultimately help the so-called 47%.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Oldtimer
Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:01 AM
Something Romney WON'T do when he's President - Borrow a billion+ dollars from China and give it to Egypt. Instead, not borrowing the money will help the 47%, their children and grandchildren to live better lives.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Oldtimer
Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:35 AM
If only Mitt had released years 3, 4 and 5 of his tax returns, then the Muslims in Libya would not have murdered the ambassador! They were chanting, "Death to America! and Romney deducted a carried-interest charge in 2009!" Romney also had the AUDACITY to say the US should have condemned the assassinations of our diplomats and NOT apologized because someone made a video about a religious figure. Imagine! He lets principle govern his judgment. When everyone knows that principle is only something you say that you support in order to get the votes of people who have principle.
It is President Obama who has written off large sections of the population and who openly panders. He tells millions of Catholics, "Go without health insurance or go to hell." He expects these devout people to give up their immortal souls in trade for the eight dollars a month his plan will pay for birth control. But he claims that those who oppose this exchange are making a war on women, when he himself is making a war on women who take the sacraments and love the Church; the ones who cling to their religion. Obama has no compassion for people who disagree with him. They must be stupid.
The Democratic Party has a plank in its platform advocating the repeal of the Bill of Rights. This party does not want people to use money to support political ideas, so they adopted a plank which will amend the Constitution and limit freedom of speech. The left-wing says that corporations are not people. So, if you work for Sears you lose freedom of speech. It used to be that you lost your civil rights because the government didn't like your race; now the left-wing will take away your human freedoms because you have a job.
The Democrats WORSHIP money. Obama WORSHIPS money. Money buys votes. Money wins elections. The purpose of power is to control the treasury and shower money on people who will support you. More than eighty per cent of this money comes from the wealthy, BUT THEY ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH! They are not paying their FAIR SHARE! Give Obama more money!
Romney has never in his life had to worry about acting drunk. People who have intoxication in their lifestyles are always worrying about appearing sober. But Romney has always been clear-headed and he knows that even with the full powers of his brain he might state things ineptly. So he is not afraid of candid remarks because he believes that ultimately a truthful argument persuades. He simply said that a large percentage of the voters don't pay income tax and therefore would not be moved by his argument to lower taxes. The fight would be for the group in the middle. He said it was wrong for people to feel that they were entitled to get everything from the government, and his syntax made it sound like this characterized the 47 percent. But he is willing to campaign on the issue of an entitlement society.
The real 47 percent that concerns Obama is the 47 percent who voted for McCain in the last election. Obama has not won a single one of these votes, while he has lost millions of people who once supported him. The real story of Obama's administration is that his majority. FDR added to his margin of victory when he ran for reelection. No one says that Obama will get more than what he won in 2008.
The number that frightens Obama is 41 percent. The is the portion of the vote of the Democratic primary in West Virginia who voted for a convicted felon sitting in federal prison instead of casting their votes for Obama. No one gets off his ass to vote for a prisoner sitting in a federal penitentiary--this was a protest vote against the incumbent President. The totals were the same in the Kentucky Democratic Primary. Obama has not only lost this 41 percent, he has alienated them. But this will all turn around if these voters see years 2009, 2008 and 2007 of Romney's tax returns. Obama sure shows good judgment.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Cowboy Jay
Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:03 AM
The 47% comment was not a smart thing for him to say, but I have to agree with my fellow posters here by saying he's right. But not all of those 47% are freeloading moochers. At least some of them have jobs and work hard and use the system in a responsible way. Then there are those who give the rest a bad name. The "welfare queens", and people using food stamps that always seem to have the latest versions of the iphone and all the other goodies out there. One thing that libs like Susan seem to forget is that Romney hasen't had a job in many years, so yes, during that time he will pay a lower tax rate than the rest of us. What do you want him to do, pay taxes on the money he's saved and already paid taxes on? Get bent. There are lots of better ways to critizise Mittens, no need to do it by proving how bad your math skills are.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:41 AM
I'm guessing EVERY poster here pays a higher tax rate than R-Money did in 2010. And that's a year he's willing to show us. Makes me wonder what's in the years he's hiding.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Bruce Strickland
Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:59 AM
The 47%
Romney is simultaneously correct and incorrect re the 47%. He is correct that there appears to be 47% of some unit of population prepared to stick with the self admitted redistributionist of wealth in chief (aka thief) obama no matter what destruction that will bring to the Republic, but wrong as to its constituent parts.

The said 47% is NOT made up entirely of those not paying federal income tax because within that group there are those that receive or depend on S.S. or Medicare or other benefits that they have contributed towards and who will vote for Romney.

The 47% (the obama zombies) is comprised primarily of the

• IDIOT CLASS. [the uninformed, the ignorant, those that believe the media spin for obama, clueless soccer moms, Gucci liberals wearing obama as a fashion accessory, those that believe there is a war on women, those that still believe that they can keep their doctor under obamacare or that obamacare will not create increased unemployment, those that cannot see the obvious destruction being done to the economy and to the Republic by redistributionist ideology, those that believe the no increased taxes on the middle class lie, the ilk that would believe the murderous events in the mid east were triggered by a movie and all those that still think Bush is running in the upcoming general election]

• THE RECIPIENT CLASS [The moochers, the parasites, a proportion of the unemployed, some of those who have gone on disability after unemployment benefits expired, the public school teachers, the public sector unions, the auto unions, all those benefiting from the endeavor of others via obama's theft of the private property of those others, illegals and their children et al]. It is fair to note that obama has deliberately increased the recipient class and is deliberately maintaining a sizable recipient class in order to get their vote. It is the Democratic Party way and mantra.

• THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL HATE AMERICA CLASS. All of the main stream media, the leftists, the socialists, Move on, Occupy, ACORN, 99% of Academia, the radical environmentalists, Code Pink, et al.
A sizable number are simultaneously members of two or even all three classes.

Ariel Durant famously said “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within” arguing that decline lay in the people, in class struggle, in failing trade, in bureaucratic despotism, in stifling taxes.

Familiar? It ought to be. This is a precise description of what Democratic, Liberal, Progressive, policy since the time of Woodrow Wilson has been designed to achieve, to wit, demoralization of the population, class envy, cronyism and despotism and wealth distribution through stifling taxes on the producers. The culmination of progressive ideals was the election of the “one they were waiting for” the boy barack along with a majority in the House and unassailable majority in the Senate.

Obama has deliberately accelerated the destruction from within so as to make America ripe for destruction from without. Whether knowingly or not, the 47% referred to above are his allies in that unholy endeavor.
Comment: #8
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:08 AM
Re: Old Navy
We are still waiting for you to post the Trumbull county unemployment figures from your source from 2008 to compare it to the unemploymnet numbers for 2012 so that we can compare and confirm the truth of what you posted several columns ago. You called me a liar when I stated that things have improved in that Ohio county and also inadvertantly called Gov. Kasich a liar because he has also publically pointed to this area as one of the success stories of his administration.
I saw an interesting video clip over the weekend showing Mitt Romney's mother talking about how Mitt Romney's father lived on welfare for a couple of Mitt's early years....and now he bashes those who live on welfare as moochers?? It is interesting to note that Ayn Rand, a notorious chain smoker, developed lung cancer and had to have medical help. To get it , Ayn Rand went on public assistance or welfare to get treatment. Ayn Rand, who promulgated the theory of presonal selfishness known as OBJECTIVISM that Paul Ryan says guides his political philosophy, was herself a member of Mitt Romney's MOOCHER class. How ironic.!!!
I am waiting for OLD NAVT to post those unemployment numbers for comparison. Then post the site where you researched those numbers Old Navy. I would appreciate reading the comparison numbers. Thanks.
Comment: #9
Posted by: robert lipka
Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:52 AM
RL wrote:
"...We are still waiting for you to post the Trumbull county unemployment figures from your source from 2008 to compare it to the unemploymnet numbers for 2012"

(1) I tried to provide you with a response after your last posting, but the site apparently wouldn't allow posts to a blog after it has been closed out. Seriously, I got my facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistic, part of the US Department of Labor. (Try: bls. gov/lau/ ). The data really isn't very pretty for Ohio and demonstrates quite convincingly that the economy in Ohio and Trumbull county is is not 'booming'. I don't feel any need to do your homework for you. If you want the statistics posted, research them and post them yourself.
(2) Your entire thought here is a demonstration of the logical fallacy know as "moving the goal post. Unable to show that the unemployment rate in Ohio is low by any rational standard, you have moved the goal post to a much easier goal that your candidte can meet (i.e., The unemployment rate has come down since the peak of the recession.). Sorry, I'm not impressed by ~8% unemployment rates.

RL further wrote::
"You called me a liar when I stated that things have improved in that Ohio county ..."

I did not call you a liar (i.e., a teller of known untruths). I said you were confused and I speculated that you had been a victim of "confirmation bias" (i.e., You ignored the bad data and only remembered the factoids that supported your hypothesis). Can you see the difference? I'm sure you believe what you write, but you are simply wrong. The BLS statistics confirm this. Facts always trump hopes and wishes in a debate.
I hope this matter is now closed.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Old Navy
Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:08 AM
Bruce let me share with you a theory on why Mittens is not releasing his tax returns. He's not tithing. You're supposed to give 10% of your earnings to the Mormon church. If Mittens didn't give at least that since he's so wealthy, it would be a HUGE embarassment to him and the Mormon church. Think of what kind of message that would send to the rest of the Mormons. Purely specualtive, but its plausable.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:11 AM
Re: Chris McCoy
What makes you an authority on how Romney practices his religion? He has already published his tax returns, did they cause him any trouble with his church? Believe me, a lot of Mormons like this guy. He could start a coffee plantation and they would vote for him.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Cowboy Jay
Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:56 AM
It is my understanding that Romney has not released all the tax returns that reid and the other corruptocrats have asked for. There has to be a reason why. Again, I don't know the reason for sure. I already said its purely speculative.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:40 AM
Romney has been coming out with gaff after gaff lately. We have to consider the possibility that he is throwing the election on purpose. He could be counting on the economy to collapse in the next 4 years. Entirely possible. It woulden't be a bad plan either. Let BO finish wrecking the economy, prove once and for all that he is a failure, then get the White house, Senate, and HoR in 2016. If Romney wins the election and the economy continues to plummet on his watch, dems could counter with "see, should have stuck with Obama". That would set Hillary up for a win in 2016. It would make more sense for both sides to want to lose the election, but BOs enormous ego would never allow it. If BOs ego had mass, it would collapse on itself and create a black hole that would suck the planet into abyss.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:52 AM
Re: Chris McCoy

The one thing absolutely certain is that if obama gets re-elected with the aid of an America hating 47% that seems to be in the tank for the hateful punk then America is finished forever. There can be no recovery from another four years of destruction from within. Trying to find a reason why any sane, right thinking, America loving individual would consider voting for the boy, given his record is an act of futility that ranks up there with trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. Thinking of which brings one back to voting for obama. One and the same thing.

Comment: #15
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:10 PM
Romney should have said that there is a high probability that most of the 47% would not vote for him if entitlements were the only issue. Unfortunately, few people grasp the concept of probabilities and probabalistic facts are often presented in a black or white, yes or no fashion, which is statistically inaccurate. Entitlements are not the only issue that people vote on and I am sure that a rather substantial percentage of the 47% will still vote for Romney.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Uldis Sprogis
Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:45 PM
RE: Old Navy,
Thank you for the clarification...I had assumed that you were calling me a liar thanks for clearing that up. ....I went to the website you recommended and it was an eye-opener.

It had a graph titled Employment growth and Decline by County that listed Trumbull County Ohio as the number one county in the country in unemployment five years ago. NUMBER ONE !
Here are the numbers 2007 = 7.5% in January 2008 =7.1% in January then in January 2009 (the last month of the Bush administration) it jumped to 14% Repeat 14%. By January of 2012 the Obama administration got the rate down to 9.2% . Looking at these figures, the perception that I and many others have is that the unemployment rate has declined is certainly correct. Trumbull county is on the way back thanks to the auto industry and the auto industry bailout. From the absolute worst couty in the country five years ago to this is great news. And the people of Ohio are fully aware of what caused this.
Comment: #17
Posted by: robert lipka
Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:08 PM
Re: robert lipka

Only a liberal like Lipka could expect us to feel good about a 9.2% unemployment rate anywhere, particularly when his boy indicated that the stimulus would keep it under 8% and indicated that by today we would have an unemployment rate of about 5%.

Still what does truth or facts matter to a liberal, particularly the truth or facts surrounding the much vaunted lie about obama's auto bailout.

The inconvenient truth for Lipka and the other members of the Idiot class (see post above for definition) about the “government rescue” of the auto companies is that it was not initiated by the boy barack at all but set in place by Lipka's favorite president George Bush. Likpa, you may now say thank you President Bush. LOL!

On December 19, 2008, Bush against the will of Congress, unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billions of taxpayer cash to GM and Chrysler, $13.4 billions of which was extended immediately. Moreover, he twisted the law to do it by diverting funds from TARP.

Obama, once inaugurated then turned the whole matter into a crony capitalist bailout spending binge, a UAW pension saving, American jobs outsourcing fiasco in which we the taxpayer will forfeit billions of dollars.

Obama perverted bankruptcy law, the UAW profited by getting a 17% stake in GM, secured creditors got screwed, 20,000 non union Delphi auto parts workers got the shaft, some teachers pensions funds got hammered, the new GM was allowed to take old GM's losses as a tax writeoff at our further expense and Chrysler is now owned by Fiat.

GM is once more on the verge of bankruptcy, GM stock is rock bottom, the Government will not get out of GM because the truth will emerge and GM still owes $30 billions to the taxpayer.

Oh additionally, GM increased its manufacturing capacity but in China, by 55%, not in the US. Obama's cronyism has been subsidizing Opel AG in Germany and funding GM's plans to invest $1 billion over the next five years, again not in the US, but in Russia, and another $1billion in Mexico.

Those who are prepared to learn the truth and who are not blinded by the obama media and the obama admin lies are fully aware of the efforts of the greatest outsourcer of them all, to wit, obama, to destroy American manufacturing.

And the people are fully awars that what caused this and what will continue to aid and abet it, is the 47% obama zombies aka morons.






Comment: #17





Comment: #18
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:22 PM
RL wrote:
"By January of 2012 the Obama administration got the rate down to 9.2% . ..."

Some people are easily pleased. I wonder what the reaction would be if a Republican president had inflicted such excellent employment numbers on Ohio?
Comment: #19
Posted by: Old Navy
Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:23 PM
I'd like to point out that Uldis is right. Not all of those 47% are lazy, Obama-dependent voters and some will vote for Romney. Money isen't everyones top issue. For some, just the sense that we are heading in the wrong direction is enough to steer them away from BO. And Joeseph, I think we can recover from a BO second term. We may have to. This country survived the great depression and many recessions in the past century. A crisis may open our eyes to some lost truths, like that the federal reserve is destroying the country, that public labor unions are too greedy, the mindless spending won't fix mindless spending, ect. A disasterous BO second term might be what we need to wake up. Money will always be there. As long as people are willing to work hard, there is hope. I'm more concerned about the loss of civil liberties. There can be no recovery from the slow implimentation of a police state with drones flying over to "protect" us.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:50 AM
This is meant for all the libs on this site.
If you want the wealthy, like Romney, who pay little income tax because 'they have little income' to pay more in taxes you must be in favor of the Fair Tax!
Comment: #21
Posted by: Oldtimer
Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:46 AM
Re: robert lipka
I do believe your new Governor has something to do with the economic improvement in Ohio. It's definitely not the Obama Administration. Just look at the rest of the country.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Oldtimer
Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:51 AM
Re: Chris McCoy

When I said there would be no recovery I had more in mind than an economic recovery. This admin and it's supporters are systematically balkanizing us, are attacking all of our freedoms in particular freedom of speech, freedom of religion, rights to bear arms, State's rights, our sovereignty and are trying to make us just one cog in a socialist world order. Another Obama term will a four year determined assault on freedoms we hold dear.
Comment: #23
Posted by: joseph wright
Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:14 AM
Oh I see Joe. Well in that case you are dead on. And Romney will no doubt try to pull some of the same crap. He has already shown his support for the NDAA. But the difference is when a republican goes after civil liberties, they catch hell from the media and groups like the ACLU. When a democrat does it, these groups sit on their hands. These kind of groups are only an extention of the liberal machine and they have no true ideals to fight for.
Comment: #24
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:10 AM
From today's Columbus Dispatch:
"Ohio households were poorer last year than they've been in more than 25 years, and the number of people living in poverty is higher than it's been in more than 30 years, according to a census report released yesterday."

RL recently wrote concerning the 'improvement' in economic conditions in Ohio over the last four years:
"...the people of Ohio are fully aware of what caused this."

For his candidates sake, RL should hope he is wrong.
Comment: #25
Posted by: Old Navy
Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:15 PM
RE: "...If 47 percent have already decided not to vote for him, as Romney concedes, then it will only take 3 percent more to seal his fate."
And that would seal this country's fate as well. When the obama regime throws you under the bus with the rest of us will you be still supporting him?
Comment: #26
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:15 AM
RE: My Optimism versus ???
How very sad that so many Republicans are rooting for the failure of America. I prefer to be optimistic.
Comment: #27
Posted by: robert lipka
Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:47 AM
RL wrote:
"How very sad that so many Republicans are rooting for the failure of America. I prefer to be optimistic."

This is silly. As a great man once said, "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst." No one is 'rooting' for things to get worse. We EXPECT things to get worse based on the past trends and what we know about history and the reality around us. Perhaps we are wrong, but it sure doesn't look that way (See the Columbus Dispatch article I reference in an earlier note).

The last time this country voted for pure 'optimism' it got Obama. The last four years have shown the man to be a near perfect failure. Should I vote for him based on the hope that he will suddenly demonstrate Churchillian wisdom and leadership skills? Or maybe I should vote for him based on the hope that he will suddenly formulate a coherent plan to deal with this countries problems? Based on his miserable performance in the last four years, it is more likely that a horse will learn to sing than that Obama will suddenly become a real leader and demonstrate the right stuff. I prefer to be optimistic that Romney may actually be able to solve a few of our problems. Romney may be a long shot, but with Obama the probability of failure is near certainty.
Comment: #28
Posted by: Old Navy
Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:42 AM
We've NEVER had a more unpresidential President.
Comment: #29
Posted by: Oldtimer
Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:27 AM
Old Navy nailed it again. We don't want this country to go under, thats why we won't vote for BO. With the direction this country is headed, its time to face reaility and prepare for an economic collapse, its not that we want one. I am saying that if we do face an economic collapse, we could learn some hard truths and turn things around. Thats realistic optimism. We cannot just keep creating money and inflating more bubbles forever. At one point, the other shoe will drop.
Comment: #30
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:37 AM
Re: robert lipka

If Likpa and his ilk are not actually firmly invested in the economic and moral failure of America, and do not actually fully endorse the deliberate attacks on its values and do not actually endorse the systematic dismantling of its freedoms by obama and his hateful administration then why why why are they prepared to ensure such a thing by continuing to defend obama and his radical distribution, transformation, and socialization agenda?????
Comment: #31
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:21 AM
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:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 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 30 31 1
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
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 27 Oct 2014
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 25 Oct 2014
diane dimond
Diane DimondUpdated 25 Oct 2014

5 Aug 2011 Heroes

21 Feb 2014 I'm Not Watching the Olympics

4 May 2007 The Republicans On Hillary