Romney disavows his 47% remark

[Anonymous]

But he had to go running to Hannity to do it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/romney-47-percent-remarks-were-completely-wrong/2012/10/05/a346beaa-0ed8-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html

On the one hand, that was probably a smart move coming on the heels of the strong debate performance.

But I'd have more respect if he'd made a speech about it to ACORN or something. I mean, really, Hannity?

And, I didn't hear an apology, a "I'm sorry I ever said that. It was heartless of me."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And, I didn't hear an apology, a "I'm sorry I ever said that. It was heartless of me."

Or, more accurately, "I was pandering because I'm running for President for Pete's sake."

Remember when the right wingers here were all supporting the statement and saying he was correct? Or the Fox commentators who said it would turn out to be a positive statement for Romney?

[Anonymous]

I thought Romney said he stood behind his comments. I thought while "inelegantly" stated his response clearly differentiates his beliefs from that of Obama's. And now:

"Clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right," Romney said on Fox News. "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong."

It’s one thing to say something that does not come out right, it’s another to hold a certain belief and value system! From his earlier comments it was apparent that he holds that belief and wants to have the "entitlement" debate in open.

[Anonymous]

Like everything else, he was for it before he was against it. I can't wait for the Daily Show on this one (and all the commentators who said he was just telling the truth).

[Anonymous]

Of course he disavows it.

The question is whether he was pandering then, and candid now. Or whether he was being candid then, and pandering now.

This is the problem with Romney. There is no way to tell which is which. He has turned his back on so many of his own ideas, there is no way to divine the true Mitt Romney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course he disavows it.

The question is whether he was pandering then, and candid now. Or whether he was being candid then, and pandering now.

This is the problem with Romney. There is no way to tell which is which. He has turned his back on so many of his own ideas, there is no way to divine the true Mitt Romney.

I don't think there IS a "true Mitt Romney". That's the point. He will say anything to be elected and he doesn't appear to believe ANY of it. There's no reason to vote FOR him because he doesn't stand for anything (except tax cuts), but some people are happy to vote against Obama.

[Anonymous]

Instead of Mitt Romney Style, someone needs to make a parody video asking "Will the real Mitt Romney stand up?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course he disavows it.

The question is whether he was pandering then, and candid now. Or whether he was being candid then, and pandering now.

This is the problem with Romney. There is no way to tell which is which. He has turned his back on so many of his own ideas, there is no way to divine the true Mitt Romney.

I don't think there IS a "true Mitt Romney". That's the point. He will say anything to be elected and he doesn't appear to believe ANY of it. There's no reason to vote FOR him because he doesn't stand for anything (except tax cuts), but some people are happy to vote against Obama.

I think Romney's willingness to say anything to get elected will be what keeps him from being elected. A lot of people don't trust him.

[Anonymous]

He just took this off the table in case Obama remembers the next two times he's getting his ass handed to him again.

[Anonymous]

He clearly had this answered all prepped for the debate, Obama didn't bring it up so he didn't get a chance to use it. Hence, going on Hannity the very next day and making sure he gets his chance to say it. While I think Obama missed a lot of opportunities in the debate, I think it was smart not to bring up the 47% line. Romney had prepared for that question and was just itching to answer it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, I didn't hear an apology, a "I'm sorry I ever said that. It was heartless of me."

Or, more accurately, "I was pandering because I'm running for President for Pete's sake."

Remember when the right wingers here were all supporting the statement and saying he was correct? Or the Fox commentators who said it would turn out to be a positive statement for Romney?

I am not a right winger any more so than you are a communist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, I didn't hear an apology, a "I'm sorry I ever said that. It was heartless of me."

Or, more accurately, "I was pandering because I'm running for President for Pete's sake."

Remember when the right wingers here were all supporting the statement and saying he was correct? Or the Fox commentators who said it would turn out to be a positive statement for Romney?

I am not a right winger any more so than you are a communist.

NP here.

If you were not one of those defending the claim that 47% of Americans are lazy and irresponsible, then I don't think you were among those the PP called right-winger. And if you did make that claim, then you are clearly more right-wing than the "severely conservative" Romney. Anyway, as long as we're (almost) all anonymous, your reputation is hardly at stake.