The Full Mitt Romney Fundraiser Speech

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Romney, Video

The first clip blew up yesterday and now we have the full video. In two parts. From Mother Jones.

First Video

Second Video

What will this do the Romney campaign? Three things.

First, it reinforces the notion that Romney will do or say anything to get elected. And before you jump on me, there’s a reason he held a press conference almost immediately after this video blew up. This hurt. No doubt. And he’s doubling down on his remarks. That’s understandable given he can’t really back away from them at this point, but the way he said what he has been talking about on the campaign trail…is what’s telling. He seemingly dimisses a wide swath of voters…who are in his corner. The 47% he mentions, inaccurately, are composed of folks who believe all sorts of things. Of all political stripes. Those aren’t all Obama voters. Let’s remember that we had one of the worst recessions in modern times. So yeah…bad move.

Second, while a lot of folks have been comparing this to Obama’s guns and religion remarks, this is far more damaging to Romney. Obama made those remarks during the Dem primary seasons. By the time the general election had rolled around, those remarks were nearly forgotten. Romney’s statements are being publicized less than 2 months way from the campaign. And while the story will definitely die down in the next few weeks…his remarks have to be brought up at the first debate on October 3rd. And that will reignite the controversy.

Third, it brings the tax questions that Romney dodged earlier in the campaign back to the fore. Why hasn’t he released his tax returns? How much income tax did he pay? Those are now fresh questions…and they didn’t need to be.

All in all, this is obviously a very negative situation for the Romney camp. Will they be able to pull out of it?

Leave your thoughts below.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 18th, 2012 and is filed under Romney, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

16 Responses to “The Full Mitt Romney Fundraiser Speech”

  1. Tully Says:

    The full video? There’s absolutely nothing in the gap between the two videos? They are continuous and congruous? (Mother Jones has now reluctantly admitted the obvious, that there is indeed a substantive gap and that it covers the latter parts of the discussion in question.)

    The 47% he mentions inaccurately? How was the figure inaccurate? Other than that those 47% are almost certainly not 100% lockstep Obama voters?

    Heh. For sheerly Devil’s Advocate purposes, I note that the privacy advocates of the Left are conspicuously silent on the felonious illegality of covert one-party recording under Florida law.

  2. David P. Summers Says:

    There is a real question about how progressive taxes should be and whether we are making segments of society dependent on the government. Of course this gets almost no discussion that I can see in our partisan world. All I’ve heard is discussion about whether Romney “cares for” or “hates” the poor and how it plays politically.

  3. Jim S Says:

    Really, Tully? Tell us about the 47%.

  4. Eugene McCain Says:

    Let’s keep this simple…this GOP Presidential candidate, Romney, clearly and unequivocally called 47% of Americans “victims” who think they are “entitled to food and health care” “who are dependent on government” and “my job is not to worry about them”.

    Just stop and look at these statements. Don’t spin anything… these are his words….he is dismissing with condescension 47% of Americans.

    This man has no moral right to be running for President of the United States of America. Period. IMHO

  5. WHQ Says:

    “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

  6. Mike A. Says:

    I find it ironic that the party that wants to reduce taxes (particularly federal) to as close to zero as possible, turns around and demonizes those that pay zero federal income tax. I understand the underlying low income dependency point, but if you are wealthy and pay zero federal income tax while living in the US, are you not dependent upon the benefits you are provided (security, infrastructure, etc)? Isn’t this just a different form of dependency, only for the wealthy and not the poor? Both cases consume resources (tax dollars) but don’t pay into the system.

  7. mdgeorge Says:

    @David: I agree with you. That said, this discussion is in the context of a debate that both sides have said is about tax policy and “the kind of country we want to have”.

    But it would be much better if we could take the personalities out of the question and instead talk about the progressivity of the tax curve we want, as compared to the tax curve we have.

  8. Tillyosu Says:

    This man has no moral right to be running for President of the United States of America. Period. IMHO

    So let me get this straight. Having a tax policy in which half the population contributes nothing to the government from which it benefits is A-OK. But if a candidate for president points this out, he’s morally unfit for the office.

    Makes total sense.

  9. WHQ Says:

    So let me get this straight. Having a tax policy in which half the population contributes nothing to the government from which it benefits is A-OK. But if a candidate for president points this out, he’s morally unfit for the office.

    Ah, yes, it’s that he’s suggested that our tax code needs fixing that people are talking about. Not that he suggested that. He stated outright that people who don’t pay federal income taxes saw themselves as victims and were unable to take responsibility.

    Read what he said. I get that Justin made a big deal about the truth of the factual 47% claim. But that’s not what most people are upset about.

    I have no problem with getting more people into the category of federal income tax payers, be it by enacting policies that improve their opportunities to make more money or by changing the tax code itself. (The current percentage of non-payers isn’t just a function of the tax code. It’s also a matter of economic conditions and age demographics.)

    What I do have a problem with is the assumption that 47% of Americans are lazy moochers, be it because they don’t pay federal income taxes or because they would vote for Obama.

  10. WHQ Says:

    Oh, and federal income taxes aren’t the only federal taxes, so get off the “contribute nothing” horse.

  11. David P. Summers Says:

    But it would be much better if we could take the personalities out of the question and instead talk about the progressivity of the tax curve we want, as compared to the tax curve we have.

    Yes. Another thing we might discuss is whether one can consider the “payroll tax” as “just another tax” like the income tax. It is because this is a “contribution” to your “retirement insurance” that you are “entitled” to your SS check. But, if course, instead we have claims like Romney having “no moral right” to run for president (because only people who share your viewpoint can be moral).

    I’m not going to vote for either of these parties. I wonder if we should have a national movement to write in “Note of the Above”. If independents by into this partisan war, nothing will ever change.

  12. WHQ Says:

    Take the personalities out of what question? What if the question is about the personalities and not the tax curve? People can discuss all sorts of things at different times. Mitt Romney is running for president. If one of his personality traits is disdain for half of America, that might be worthy of discussion. That doesn’t mean you can’t talk about the tax code or quantum physics or migratory patterns of geese or the feudal history of China or Boardwalk Empire.

  13. khaki Says:

    When can we start talking about what a collosal failure the Republican party has been? How they got stuck with this pandering loser of a candidate because the tea party chased away all the reasonable Republicans, and this snake was the only reasonalbe one who could slither his way through the primaries? What’s happening now – the gaffes, the video, the lack of substance – is a direct consequence of the Republican party eating itself over the last four years and beyond unable to accept any reasonable candidate, demanding that their candidates lie to them to salve their irrational fears. This dumb show is your fault. Laura Ingram (or whoever said it) is right. Shut this party down and start over. Please.

  14. Tully Says:

    Why, Jim? Do you disagree with my statement that the 47% are almost certainly NOT lockstep Obama voters? Do you believe they are? Do please tell me what part of that statement you disagree with.

  15. Jim S Says:

    Tully, you said “The 47% he mentions inaccurately? How was the figure inaccurate?”.

    What Romney said: “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 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.”

    So do you believe that is true of 47% of the country?

  16. Tully Says:

    Conflation, Jim. Justin claimed that the statement that 47% paid no federal income tax was false. It isn’t. And I clearly stated that the rest of Romney’s statement, the part you quoted, was NOT accurate. Do you have difficulty distinguishing between the two? I don’t.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: