Because our entitlement situation is in dire need of reform and Obama won't even have a discussion about it because he's so beholden to the dependency electorate.

Anonymous wrote:The poll data of military and veterans in that article are more then two weeks old, which considering what has happened to the Romney campaign in the last two weeks, make those numbers kind of meaningless.

Ok, if you say so, James Carville. He's lost veterans, and still the economy stupid and the middle east is burning. Wednesday can't get here fast enough.

The poll data of military and veterans in that article are more then two weeks old, which considering what has happened to the Romney campaign in the last two weeks, make those numbers kind of meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

What's funny is Romney is up 20% with military and veterans

Source?

Shocker that they would side with the guy who won't cut their budget. What makes them different from any other interest in this particular regard?

Anonymous wrote:

What's funny is Romney is up 20% with military and veterans

Source?

http://mobile.politico.com/iphone/story/0912/81616.html

Have some intregrity and also paste the portion that followed, the one where I admit the polls are inconsistent.

Anonymous wrote:Tell me if I am wrong about this:

Romney confused two groups, those who pay no federal income tax (47% of all households) and those on welfare, who he thinks are addicted to dependency. It seems clear to me that it is the latter group he despises, but by using the 47% figure, it seemed he was speaking of the former, which contains soldiers, people on social security, low-income working families, and perhaps others that he had no intention of demeaning.

The moral is that a politician who insults a large part of the nation risks the resentment spreading further than those he aimed the insult at.

Romney conflated two croups - those who pay no income tax, and those who he believed are addicted to dependence (the proverbial welfare queens). Then for good measure, he confused all of them with the 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what (like me). He's right that there's no need to reach out to THAT 47% for their votes, though he has an obligation, if elected, to govern them responsibly.

The message he seemed to convey (intentionally or not, and I believe it was intentional) was that the anyone who is solidly in his camp is a good, hardworking, moral person who disdains all forms of government assistance, while those solidly in Obama's camp are shiftless bums who delight in sucking on the government teat and are driving the country to ruin. Both those premises are wrong - quite a few GOPers get a significant amount of government assistance, and many Democrats are productibe members of society. But even worse is the misperception (or lie, however you want to characterize it) that anyone who receives any government assistance or preference is a freeloader. This coming from a man whose income is taxed at a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced level the vast majority of the rest of the country. If that's not government assistance, a government preference or (gasp) redistribution of wealth, I don't know what is. `

What's funny is Romney is up 20% with military and veterans

Source?