Romney Is Correct: The Democrats’ Voters Are Largely Moochers

When ‘Puter writes his musical version of
the 2012 election, Bye Bye Barry, he’s
signing the young, hot Ann Margaret to
star as him.  Dang, what a fine looking woman.

What’s the story, Morning Glory? What’s the word, Humming Bird? Have you heard about Hugo and Kim?”

Or, if you’re listening to the media today, it goes more like, “ZOMG!1!!! TEH ROMNEEZ HATE U CUZ U R TEH POORZ!1!!!eleventy!!!! WHUT A IDJUT!1!” This media statement is usually closely followed by, “N OBAMA IZ TOTULY GOODER CUZ HE GIVEZ US FREE GAS N MORGIDGEZ!!1!! DONT VOTEZ FOR TEH ROMNEE!1one!! HE WIL TAK UR FREE STUFF UHWAYS!!11eleventy!!1!”

Rather than resort to histrionics, hyperbole and hyperventilation like many liberal outlets (see, e.g., the quickly fading into irrelevancy and hyperpartisan Morning Joe hard leftists), let’s look at what Mitt Romney actually said in that edited and leaked snippet of tape.

‘Puter cites to the Washington Post’s “Post Partisan” blog, where frequent Morning Joe contributor Jonathan Capeheart cites the following as an accurate transcript of the offending language:

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.

And, I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 [percent], he starts with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years.

And so 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. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon, in some cases, emotion, whether they like the guy or not . . .

So, to my intellectual superiors in the media, I ask this question.  What specifically is inaccurate or offensive or both in anything Mr. Romney said?  Please let ‘Puter know, for his a simple, Upstate country lawyer, dependent on those smarter than he to tell him what he needs to know and how he should vote.

Poor simple ‘Puter reads Mr. Romney’s words and sees only the following non-controversial statements:

1. About 47% of Americans are going to vote for President Obama no matter what.

2.  The 47% of Americans who pay no income taxes are largely dependent on involuntary taxpayer largess for their maintenance and upkeep are probably statistically overrepresented in Mr. Obama’s voting base.

3.  The 47% of Americans who pay no income taxes and are largely dependent on involuntary taxpayer largess for their maintenance and upkeep who comprise Mr. Obama’s voting base firmly believe that they are entitled to their monthly check regardless of the financial state of the country, the long term sustainability of the government handout program or the impact of increased taxes on the 53% who do pay income tax.

4.  People who don’t pay income tax don’t care about tax policy, whether Republican or Democrat, unless such tax policy either requires them to start paying taxes or such tax policy cuts their handouts benefits.

5.  People who have never taken personal responsibility for themselves are never going to vote for Mr. Romney who is calling for everyone to shoulder their fair share of the burden.

Whether you agree with Mr. Romney on policy or not, there is nothing controversial or offensive in his remarks.  Takers take from the makers.  Takers don’t care about the aggregate impact of their taking on the makers.  Takers vote Democrat.

Duh.

‘Puter would like to think Mr. Romney’s press conference last night was a first attempt to push back on the Democrats’ ahistorical notion that government can do all things for all people for eternity, without harm to anyone.  ‘Puter, however, harbors deep doubts.

Mr. Romney and Paul Ryan would be well served to embark on a smiling, polite and confrontational campaign of defending Mr. Romney’s remarks.  But they should unleash a surrogate to deliver the following message loud and clear:

What part of Mr. Romney’s statements were wrong?  Which part?

The part where he said America has a multigenerational permanent underclass living solely on government handouts?  Look around you.  America’s welfare system has destroyed the poor family, damning generation after generation to addiction to government benefits, which provide just enough to keep them hooked.

Or the part where he said most Democrats who voted for Mr. Obama last time aren’t going to vote for me?  Is this really at issue?  Show me one piece of evidence, just one, indicating that Blacks are in play.  Or gays.  Or the poor.  Or the press.  Look, Mr. Romney believes his polices are pro-people, pro-empowerment and pro-American.  His policies are good for everyone.  But let’s be realistic.  You’re going to vote for Mr. Obama again, aren’t you Mr./Ms. Reporter?

Or maybe it’s the part where he said he’d like to peel off the 10% or so of voters in the middle who think that maybe government dependency isn’t a great way to go through life?  Gosh, that’s horrible.  A politician looking for votes.  I’m certain if you actually asked Mr. Obama this question, you’d get the same answer.  Mr. Romney wants to win the election.  Mr. Romney knows he’s the best man for the job.  And yes, horror of horrors, Mr. Romney would like to convince the 10% or so of moderate voters that Mr.Romney’s program is better than his opponent’s.

If it wasn’t any of those parts, there’s not much left.  Which part has your undies in a bunch?  Be specific.

 Anyway, that’s ‘Puter’s two cents, which is likely two more of ‘Puter’s cents than you wanted. 

About 'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.'Puter suggests the Czar suck it.

Comments are closed.