Mitt, Mitt, Mitt…
Ah, Mitt, Mitt. We know you’re disappointed. We know you don’t like to lose, especially when you feel smeared and misunderstood.We know its got to hurt.
There is only one way to lose a Presidential election, though, and it is to smile, say that the winner ran a tough campaign, that the people have spoken, that Americans are lucky to live in a democracy, and that’s it. Hell, Richard Nixon had this act down in 1960, when he lost to Mayor Daley, the Mob, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr, the Texas machine and JFK. He didn’t challenge the integrity of the process or the wisdom of the voters. He just resolved to fix his own Presidential election as soon as he had the chance.
But Mitt, for you to say, as you did yesterday,
“The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African American community, the Hispanic community and young peopleIn each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups.”
is unethical, corrosive and stupid. I’m sure you believe that, and to a limited extent, so do I. But while it’s fine for Rush Limbaugh, in his puckish, ‘I-know-how-to-make-liberals’ -heads-explode’ way, to say “It’s hard to beat Santa Claus,” its’ not fine for a defeated Presidential candidate to say it. It is ungracious, and it comes perilously close to saying that Obama bought the election, and that his supporters don’t care about the country, just their own selfish needs. That insults an awful lot of Americans, and the system as well. I guess you should be commended for ending any controversy over whether you really meant that “47%” comment, since this is essentially the same statement, but other than that, these are the words of a petty, bitter man who can’t find the decency to acknowledge that he was beaten fair and square.
Ethics Alarms 
IMHO it’s so damn close to the truth it really hurts>>>Obama bought the election, and that his supporters don’t care about the country, just their own selfish needs…what they don’t understand is honesty, sincerity, integrity and good moral fiber. If they did it would have been a landslide for Romney.
Then please explain to me just what exactly was the nature of the student loan forgiveness, the Obamaphones, the DREAM Act by executive fiat, and the free contraception if NOT to pay off groups who strongly supported Obama in 2008 and to secure their continued support in 2012.
If Obama DID buy the support, then it seems to be truth-telling, not sour grapes.
Obama was simply following a century old tradition .
Why would Obama break from tradition, when it has worked so well in the past?
My one foray into this thread:
* The :”Obamaphones” is a Bush era program.
* The decision to direct prosecutorial dollars away from prosecuting technically illegal, but non-dangerous for society behavior is sound and should be respected.
* Healthcare covering contraception is supported by both health care professionals and health care insurers for both medical and monetary reasons. It’s sound policy. If healthcare plans refused to cover splints for broken arms, forcing coverage would be similarly appropriate.
*** Every policy that benefits one group over another can be considered buying support. Was Romney buying support when he proposed cutting capital gains taxes? Extending all the Bush tax cuts? Suggesting the Navy needed to be greatly buffed? This is just special pleading sour grapes.
I love it Jack. But the attitude, as expressed by my long-ago political science professor, that “… if rape is inevitable, lean back and enjoy it,” just doesn’t fly in today’s world any more than it did then.
So being a gracious loser is more important than telling the truth about the state of our election process? Maybe it is since there are plenty of others who can make that point but nothing Mitt said was untrue.
I just read the wikipedia article on China’s new General Secretary and it’s pretty clear they chose a better leader than we did.
A sad group of losers.
Sad but not violent, like the “winning” losers surely would’ve been.
Well, there is an upside. With actions like that, it is almost certain that he won’t run again.
Seems to me that both candidates were trying to buy the vote in their own way. They both made promises of (what boils down to) financial rewards. Obama’s message was framed as helping the middle class, while Romney’s message was framed as helping the rich. Whether those messages were accurate, fair, or truthful is another matter. What matters now is that both sides move on, and learn to work together instead of pointing fingers. Mitt’s statements imply those are things he is unwilling to do.
Well, sure, I’d be unwilling to let my pants be groped without interruption by an insatiable pickpocket, too.
Interesting. Let’s say, hypothetically, that Candidate A blatantly cheats – buys votes, stuffs ballot boxes, supresses votes, and does it all openly and gleefully, defying anyone to call him on it. He then wins. Why on earth should Candidate B congratulate him of running a tough race, and not scream to high heaven about it?
Sure, complaining about the game being rigged is poor sportsmanship if you actually lose. But it’s hardly that if the game is actually rigged – then instead of tearing down faith in a good and stable system, you’re tearing down faith in an elaborate series of lies.
I don’t know if Obama stole the election. I don’t really want to think he did. But there are… questions. Which will not be answered, and be left for people to wonder about. The possibility that he did so is a non-zero one. And even more than that, our system is not set up to prevent the possibility of wrong-doing, and when moves are made to remedy that, they are opposed. And it’s not just Obama – maybe the reason neither side has much faith in the electoral system is partly because our system isn’t quite good enough to inspire much faith in it.
It’s possible that a human baby could fly. It’s a nonzero possibility, therefore, we should think about it.
Maybe the problem is that people like you make stupid statements.
Jack, I disagree with you entirely on this. When one candidate courts constituencies, the majorities of which have already been conned into loyalty with divide-and-conquer tactics – and promises free citizenship, free college, and free abortions – that IS Santa-Claus-ing.
Either Mitt Romney is absolutely correct, or the same cheerleader media who helped the country to the “second coming of Obama” (ah, “vengeance!” – what Obama said) are absolutely incorrect as to the reasons why Obama prevailed. Not much wiggle room or spin-space there.
Policies a leader believes in are not “gifts.”
Oh, Jack. These are not Obama’s gifts to give. They are the involuntary gifts of taxpayers already saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in national debt, the results of executive orders made when Congress doesn’t give him his “DREAM,” and “medical procedures” that must be funded by those whose own ethical principles strictly forbid their personal and financial support.
Well, Obama is pretty much getting people stuff that third parties are having to pay for. He may not be giving gifts, but he is holding a figurative gun to the heads of others to make THEM provide people what he thinks should be provided. In some cases, he uses the government as a middleman.
Yeah, kind of like the 2 wars we were led into and the funding to other nations for security, etc. I think Obamacare, the Dream Act, cell phones used for employment search, and cash for clunkers pretty much equals the previous administration’s deficit spending. Oh and… TARP. Some, not all, of those in the 47% appreciate the reciprocity the good ol’ USA is employing. Especially the vets and vets with disabilities. Isn’t free birth control cheaper than free abortions? I know they like their “GIFTS”. I’ll speak less of entitlements when those who rely on subsidies, give them up. Perhaps they feel “entitled” to them as well. After they have paid no corporate taxes. I almost forgot that we should stop blaming Bush for the trouble we are in as it was ALL Presidents Obama’s fault. I will stop blaming Bush when people stop blaming Mr. Obama for the past 4 years when we have had an obstructionist congress.
We did not have an obstructionist Congress the first two years of his term. What is the excuse?
How about the users pay for it themselves?
Name a subsidy Obama did not like.
That is correct about the first 2 years, but you won’t deny that there was a considerable amount of obstruction the last 2 years? I don’t see a problem with people buying their own birth control. Although some birth control is used for hormonal reasons as well. Then other insurance items such as Viagra and addiction therapies should be on the block as well. No one needs Viagra for prevention. If men want to have sex, they can pay for ity themselves. And why should I pay for addiction insurance that others could pay for since they were able to spend money for the habit. Obama doesn’t like gas and oil subsidies.
What federal law requires insurance companies to cover Viagra? Or addiction therapy?
There is no federal law that requires Viagra or addiction therapy. No one is required to take Viagra, addiction therapy or birth control. Just like no one has to get an abortion. The point is if someone needs birth control for whatever reason – they can not be denied. Why should women be denied, because of cost, something that could help save lives? Do people know what birth control costs without it being available via copay? The churches and other organizations that don’t want birth control on health plans are taking away the liberty among their members to choose. If a person has a strong conviction not to have sex, what are the churches worried about? Are they going to banish someone from their church for taking birth control pills used for other female health problems?
People are denied all sorts of things (food, replacement brake pads, oil changes) because of cost. What makes birth control so special?
Condoms are not made out of gold foil.
Their members are free to choose a health plan apart from their church.
these mandates take away freedom, as Dänk 42Ø explains
Mitt Romney should have never apologized for what he said about the 47%, if he didn’t mean it. He proved with his more recent statement that he lied when he made the apology. For votes no less. He was and is out of touch. Was he also talking about vets? He said people, so I would guess he was talking about anyone who didn’t vote for him. I will admit that I voted for Mr. Obama. I don’t rely on any free handouts! I wasn’t bought off with any gifts. I am a vet. I am disabled. I worked hard. I paid taxes. My dad worked over 40 years-6 days a week and well over 50 hours a week. My mom worked over 50 years without ANY benefits. They had to and still buy their own health and life insurance. And it isn’t cheap. We never had any disposible income. My folks would never be able to send me to college without financial aid. I relied on the G.I. bill. I would have never had health care after high school without going into the service. I had friends of all races and creeds who grew up with the same circumstances. I have at least 4 friends who are lawyers. Some are doctors. and some who are scientist. One with a published paper and an invention. Another who made a discovery in Indonesia. I have a childhood friend who is a Division 1 football coach. His brother just won a CMA. Even a few who are officers in the military. I have another friend who went to Harvard and writes for Saturday Night Live. One, who has designed dresses for Beyonce.They all had to rely on scholarships and financial aid to get their degrees. We all worked very hard to get where we are. We all voted for Mr. Obama. Anyone who says we voted for free stuff is dead wrong on every account. Mr. Romney lost the election! Get over it. Quit whinning. Quit with the conspiracy theories. And there was attempted voter fraud on the right as well. Get over the politics! They have jobs to do. And be fair with the ethics! Both sides have ethics problems! I judge everyone the same.
Could the CEO of AIG say the same thing?
Nope!
I don’t understand why so many people get so upset about middle class American citizens, many of which paid some sort of federal tax, getting government “gifts”. So many big businesses, banks and farmers receive tax payer paid subsidies. Not to mention all the countries receiving money from our government. I would rather have some of my taxes, not all, help the people in the U.S.. I’d rather see the 47% get some “free gifts” than companies and foreign countries get their “free gifts”. Companies and too many countries believe they are entitled as well. Many of which pay big bonuses to their CEOs. They also receive so many tax write offs. Write offs which many small businesses can’t afford an accountant to exploit. I thought the U.S. was a free market society. Even Mr. Romney has taken advantage of government subsidies and personal tax write offs. He has received his fair share of entitlements or “free gifts” as well.
Agreed. Well stated Michael.
That is a huge part of the problem.
Did Obama attack bank subsidies?