Mitt Romney should watch his words. As a former major-party presidential nominee, he has a chance to make good on his promise of public service, either by accepting President Obama’s overtures to play some sort of advisory role, or by working on his own for causes he believes in. But his future won’t be advanced by ungenerous comments of the type he made on a conference call to major donors this week. Blaming his loss on Obama’s “gifts” to targeted groups like blacks, Hispanics, and young people (example: the promise of free health insurance “in perpetuity” for low-income people), Romney not only failed to take responsibility for his own missteps but revived memories of the biggest one of all, his fateful “47 percent” comment.
Clearly, Romney talks a different language with rich donors — and it’s an ugly, divisive one. Romney’s censuring comments, delivered behind closed doors, are genuinely surprising even to former Massachusetts political rivals. Many of Romney’s GOP supporters rushed to condemn the remarks, as well. In the conference call, Romney complained about “getting beat up” by Obama’s ads, which portrayed him as insensitive to the needs of average people. Judging by Romney’s own words, those ads may have been spot-on.
Comments
Just remember that had the Republicans gotten away with their well-planned voter disenfranchisement in the swing states, Romney would be President-elect. Pure arithmetic.
Court intervention plus with people willing to wait in long lines to vote foiled the Right's real plan to steal this election.
Had Romney won, there would be a litany about Judeo-Christian morality having triumphed in America.
Some of the statements that Romney has made since losing have been over-the-top evidence of his contempt for the non-rich - of all demographics.
We dodged a bullet.
Big time.
Romney is no longer a candidate, and need not worry about being scolded for telling the truth. Yes, Obama won by promising more and more to many special interests. We are slouching toward welfare statism, and this is what won the election. Thanks for speaking honestly, Mitt.
This comment has been removed.
So when Obama proposes a sane and humane policy for kids brought to this country as babies, or an extension of unemployment benefits, it is a gift or bribe. So what is it when Romney offers lower taxes for the superrich or fewer regulations for the banks or oil companies? I'd call is a sense of entitlement. And to that extent, I agree with the hard right that we ought to curb entitlements.
This comment has been removed.
Never did agree with Romney's 47% assertion as it appears to be a major underestimation. As for his recent "gifts" comment - again, I think the term "bribes" would have been a better measure to point.
You think that more than 47% of the people are just taking and not giving? Shame on you and on your fellow believers that you are the only ones contributing to this country. To believe that all people who voted for the President are on the take is truly cynical and wrong-headed.
This comment has been removed.
This idea of or belief of "takers versus makers" was always doomed to failure. It was always based in this pathetic notion that one group is better than another group. The problem with this idea has always been is that most people are both. As a retiree, as a Veteran I am a taker but throughout my life was a maker, at least under this argument. Obama would argue I earned what I have, Mitt would say Obama gave me a gift. If there was a gift it was Clinton who gave it to me and Bush re-gifted.
If it was a "bribe" then I earned the bribe in the ricepaddies of Vietnam, others in factories, others in Iraq or the Afghan. The problem with Mitt's stupid remark is he simply has restated his belief that the nation owes nothing to its people and its people owe nothing to the nation. The really sad thing is there are millions of folks out there who think they are so much better than the guy down the street or perhaps even better than their own retired, sick or wounded rellatives. Kinda sad.
This comment has been removed.
He comes across like a small, petty cry-baby. Blaming Obama's "gifts" he demonstrates that where he is concerned, excuses are almost as good as results. Besides that he misrepresents - I mean lies about - the nature of the Obama policies that benefit many Americans. Mitt was just half decent as Governor, and would probably have been a terrible President. Hard to be really sure because we never learned where he really stood on anything other than really, really wanting to be President.
It's really surprising that the Globe should take yet another shot at Romney. You have consistently endorsed him for any office he was seeking. Oops - that's a cheap shot by me. Now that Obama has won, let's start concentrating on what we as a nation need to do, not what Romney should do. $1 trillion deficits and constantly rising federal debt and unfunded liabilities can't be sustained much longer. You should be demanding basic governance by EVERYONE in Washington - Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Having a real budget, honest politics and a cooperative bipartisan agreements would better serve us than basically nit-picking at history. If we don't come together, we are in truly deep weeds that are already difficult to dig out from. And if we don't get it done quickly, we get right back in election politics instead of measured debate and decisions. JP05
The Globe 'reports' the news it wants known and ignores the rest.
When Romney's ready to stop "taking shots" at the majority of Americans, I'll be perfectly content to see the Globe stop taking shots at him in return.
"Kitch" That has always been a fundamental debate within the American psyche. Exactly what does citizenship mean? What exactly is the social contract in the American system. I think in the long run the relationship between citizen and nation always evloves into one of mutual benefits. You can't have a "social contract" based solely upon "economic" relationships.
This comment has been removed.
Of course, Obama used the power of the presidency to buy as many votes as possible. What Romney said was absolutely true, but also painfully obvious. So, what's new?
And Romney used the power of billionaire backers, Super-PACs, and lies to try to twist as many votes his way as he could. If America had in fact voted in a candidate who, faced with universal repudiation of his lies, consistently insisted they were true and continued to run on them... that would have been a truly sad day.
Obama had the same tools at his disposal PLUS the power of the presidency. And why is it that the lefties always revert to the "he's lying" argument? Is that all you've got?
Kind of a petty comment to make. Both sides were going to give "gifts" to those who supported them. It's just that Obama's "gifts" spoke to a larger percentage of the voters. It kind of defines politics in America, no?
The question now is, as the GOP undertakes this alleged "soul-searching" to figure out how to win, what things will they now say they support in order to do better with specific demographics? As far as I'm concerned, the answer is not "what do we need to say/do to win with this minority", but what should the new face of the GOP look like. Unfortunately you know it's pretty much going to be the same people, just insisting they now think differently. We really need new Republicans in office who truly represent the nation, not simply the extremes of their party.
Gifts to rich people good...gifts to poor people bad! Also, I bet in private Obama talks all ghetto and how much Alabama and Texas suck! That would be sarcasm for you Tea Partier's out there.
Funny how all you commenters never brought these 'gifts' up before the election as well as Romney. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess - or just sore losers. LOL LOL LOL LOL
The "Right" perplexes me. Let me get this straight: the unborn must be defended [pro-life] using all the power of the Federal Government. However, after they are born they become "takers" and a member of the 47%. Doesn't anyone find that kind of thinking strange ?