I wish I were surprised.

[laurelindel]

Y'all have most likely heard of this already. Just in case you haven't, at a fundraiser, Mitt Romney said, among other things, the following:

"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

Comments

[lyssabard]

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

Why yes, yes I do.
Gah. To the choir, love. To the choir.

[hasufin]

Well, the thing is, I firmly believe Romney knew he was bullshitting when he said it. Even if, in some absurdity, you believe the basic premises behind such a statement, the numbers don't make sense. A 47% voter turnout would be remarkable regardless of for whom they voted. If Obama had a guaranteed 47% of registered voters in his favor, he wouldn't even need to campaign.

So why'd he say it?

Because it's the sort of thing that resonates with that particular audience - the people who want to believe that the poor are just lazy, irresponsible welfare queens. It was a message crafted to be exactly what his audience wanted to hear. It contained no truth, wasn't consistent with the message he gave before, won't be consistent with the message he will say in the future. It's 100% lie. And he said it anyway.That's the thing about Romney. He'll say any damned thing. He'll make things up on the spot. He'll disavow a stance he supposedly held in the prior breath. He'll shift "positions" on a dime. This is a man of no convictions, who can't

[hummingwolf]

Perfect tag for the post.

[elenbarathi]

I pay income tax, and there's no way I would vote for any Republican, for any office. Not that I like the running-dog Democrats any too well either, nor the self-centered Libertarians, nor the flaky-granola Greens, nor the also-ran, what-they're-still-around? Socialists... but I'd vote for any one of them, whichever had the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate.

Of course, it would be a damned hard decision if it was, say, Romney running on the Libertarian ticket against a moderate and rational Republican. It would never come to that, though: Romney wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in hell of winning an election if he were a Libertarian, even if by some graft miracle he got the nomination, and the Republicans are never going to nominate anybody moderate and/or rational. They really have turned into the Party of Evil, to the point where it's hard to credit because it's so over-the-top that it sounds like a caricature. But no, they really are *that* evil. GOP: Greedy Old Parasites.