Once again, Romney is right on target. As Bill O'Reilly said: This election was about "Stuff" and who was going to promise the most "Stuff" was going to win the election. Obama Clause wins!

Romney still doesn't get it. he blames Obama when he should look in the mirror and wonder who will be looking back at him.

Yes, Obama won the election by identifying special interests, and bestowing upon them many gifts. Our country is sliding into a European mentality, where self interest trumps national interest. As we slog toward Greek style bankruptcy, I hope the Obama supporters are happy with their free birth control, food stamps and neer do well health insurance to age 26.

Oh well Romney probably did not want to accept an invitation to the White House anyway.  As usual he uses the back door to make sure it doesn't happpen completely unaware how foolish and clueless he is.  He should be escorted to the back bench of American politics where he belongs.  Anyone who wants to join him feel free to do so.

Romney confirms his views on the 47% with this latest shape-shifting statement. Romney is a dishonest, pandering hack of the worst type, and we are fortunate that he will never be president. None of his fat cat backers expected anything from him, of course. What a complete loser.

Romney also promised "Gifts" to his backers, like extremely low tax rates, no Capital Gains Tax, getting rid of bank regulations and easing regulations on energy. His "trickel down" ecconomics was what President Bush tried but look what happened. People are greedy and we need some regulations to keep out economy on balance.

Mitt is just acknowledging that we have reached the tipping point, of which someone (debate over whether it was deToqueville or someone named Tytler)warned: Democracy cannot exist for long, because eventually voters will figure out that they can vote themselves free stuff at the expense of others, leading to econominc collapse.... Thanks, Mitt, for speaking the truth, thanks for running.

66% of Belmont, Mr. Romney's home town (83.5%  white, $95,377 median income) voted for President Obama.   The election as it happened in his own back yard does not square with Mr. Romney's theory.

So...offering"stuff" to poorer people is bad, but offering"stuff" to rich people is good?  Just wanted to make sure.  Make no mistake about it, he would have offerred LOTS of stuff to rich white folks, just like W did!  Also, the average person on welfare is a single, white mother...the vast majority!  He was and is a fraud!

Hard to believe by how much Romney actually Underestimated his 47% assertion.

As the LA Times says, the facts contradict the assertions.  Speeches like this are the real reason he loss.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-donors-20121115,0,1719033.story

Obama won several key states without large cities or minority populations. And he did so in part by asserting that it was Romney who was planning to disburse gifts — by virtue of a budget plan that included tax breaks heavily skewed toward the wealthy.

Gifts? Stuff? Hmmm...the president believes now and has always believed in quality, accessible education, including an abiding interest and support for student loan programs, which he rightly believes helps to create a more educated and work-ready society. Governor Romney wanted to cut these programs. Mr. Obama believes in immigration reform, a difficult issue to address in the recent political climate, and took a bold step to help the children of immigrants. He sincerely believes and has always believed that promoting their welfare is in all our best interest, and poverty, crime, and education statistics bear him out. Mr. Romney disagrees. President Obama also believes that all Americans should have access to health care, including young people (whose coverage under their parents' plans until age 26 is hardly 'free'); Mr. Obama believes their welfare is in all our best interest, both morally and economically. Again, Mr. Romney emphatically does not (although he most certainly did when governing MA). So, one may ask, whose welfare benefits us all the most, according to Romney/Ryan? The so-called 'job creators' - that top 1% whose tax breaks and loopholes will lead to more jobs and production, according to their campaign. History shows that the opposite is true, however: job creation has historically been robust during periods of both slightly higher upper tax rates (Clinton-era top rate of 39.6% above $283K income per annum) and drastically higher rates (Eisenhower-era rates of 50% above $32K, 75% above $100K, 90% above $300K). Studies have repeatedly found no correlation at all between upper rates and job creation, in fact. So, the 'gift' that Romney was trying to dole out, like Reagan and Bush before him, would chiefly benefit only the wealthy, who have historically diverted this extra income not to creating jobs but creating more personal wealth and a greater distance and insulation from the middle class and poor - a gap that increased dramatically during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Oh geez. Tried to respond to nimitta's reply to mine and somehow just got his reply repeated. He asked which truth of Mitt's I was thanking him for; it was just a response to today's news story, the fact that we are reaching the tipping point for voters' voting for more free stuff. I agree, there were some things his campaign said that were not the truth, and I didn't like it either, though they weren't the things nim mentioned: the charge that Obama was attacking welfare reform when he agreed to the states' having more flexibility wasn't accurate.But in general Mitt seems to be a truthful person, certainly more than Obama who keeps telling us that taxing the rich will solve the economic problems.

Doesn't much matter what Romney was talking about...he showed us that whatever he said on Monday he would negate by saying the opposite on Tuesday. He revealed himself to be a liar, a bully, a manipulator and a charlatan and THAT'S why he lost. The Nation really dodged a bullet by consigning this guy to the trash heap.

What a baby and a sore loser. Just accept the fact that you lost and go home and roll around in your piles of money.

Sorry you had trouble replying, Barbara, and I do appreciate your candor about Mr. Romney's welfare charge. You know, though, I and most voters seem to have come to a different conclusion: the Romney/Ryan promises/gifts simply couldn't be trusted. The president has not achieved everything he promised in 2008, but he certainly did believe in his own promises and tried hard to enact them despite the pledges by Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders to make him fail. A good example of this was the jobs bill that Republicans thwarted. And don't forget the debt ceiling, which Tea Party influence escalated into a needless election year stalemate. On the contrary, many Americans had a hard time reconciling Mr. Romney's statements on Obamacare, reproductive rights, and many other social issues with diametrically opposed views he seemed to cherish as our governor. More to the point, I think the country has tipped toward a more realistic, experience-driven weariness with the false promise that military spending can be increased while taxes are cut, especially for the wealthiest, without increasing the deficit. It was only a decade ago that we engaged in two wars we couldn't pay for, while allowing the regulatory dike that held insanely risky speculative behavior in check to weaken fatally. I think most American voters sense on some level just how extraordinary the economic collapse was, and how such collapses can take many years to heal - decades and a world war in the case of the Great Depression. Mitt Romney's conference call confirms yesterday that he had no intention of being the president of all the people. Far more than Mr. Obama, Romney represented a narrowing segment of US society, and far too narrow an emphasis on self-interest.

Thanks to Governor Romney reminding us one more time why he did not deserve to be President. Governor, don't go away angry, JUST GO AWAY!

Reply still doesn't work for me with nimitta. Well we do all understand that we can't believe any politicians very much don't we? So it's comparative, and we have to balance the things we think they really do believe in with what we ourselves think is important. With all due respect, you don't know that "the president did believe in his own promises". You, like the rest of us, really know very little about him, since while Romney was changing some positions to deal with the social conservatives with which the Republican Party is burdened, Obama was careful not to vote on Illinois or U.S. Senate issues at all, so no one could refer to those votes in the future. However, I think we will be finding out soon. The numbers don't add up for either of them: even if there's a cause we support, we can't afford any more defense spending; can't afford anything new, since every time we raise the debt ceiling the situation gets worse and will soon be beyond control Then you will see the economic collapse you have described so well: disaster that takes years to heal, if in fact we can ever find our way back. Not sure anyone can prevent it, so kind of good that it won't be Mitt's responsibility, or mine: I didn't vote for the MOST irresponsible candidates.

Gov. Romney's big ideas were: add more to an absurdly large military budget, reduce taxes, and hope you can cut sufficiently from things like R&D funding, food inspection, education, infrastructure investment (discretionary expenses) and social support programs to make up the difference. Oh yes, and pretend global warming and pollution aren't problems. Obama's policies and performance are open to criticism, but he's considerably more realistic than Romney and Ryan.

If it came to his desk, Romney promised sign a bill to outlaw abortion.

Barbara, I find it fascinating that you can have such strong, polarizing, bitter views on the laws, politics and policies without actually having a clue about any of them.  It is crystal clear who Mitt was targeting when he figured he could change like a chameleon and his supporters would not notice.