What Romney should have said is that 47 percent of Americans will cling bitterly to their entitlement programs. If, instead of plainly stating his fact, Romney colored it with the disparaging epithets of Obama, then perhaps the media would have ignored the comment.
Mitt Romney said nothing outrageous. He said that the 47 percent of the population who pay no taxes yet receive some form of payment from the government are likely to vote for Obama, the man Senator John McCain famously described as “Senator Government.” Given the wild protestations of other people threatened with lessened share of the public kitty, (be they Greek civil servants or Chicago teachers), it seems common sense to suppose they would vote for the redistributor-in-chief rather than a potential budget-cutter. Yet all of this is beside the point.
I am frequently asked my opinion on the coming election. So far, I have offered without hesitation, my opinion that Romney will win by a solid margin. Without delving too deeply, the sum of key factors amounts to an Obama loss. First, population trends have shifted Electoral College votes away from Obama states to likely Romney states. Second, polling throughout the summer showed Obama could not crack 50 percent support levels. Importantly these polls typically oversampled Democrats, measured public opinion which is different than likely voter behavior and, I believe, Obama’s numbers are bolstered by “false positives,” those who want to profess support to pollsters for fear of appearing racially insensitive. Finally, the economic case against Obama is absolutely devastating.
Romney should win the election. In a fair fight, Obama leaves the national scene a bloody failure. So bad is his record that Obama has staked his campaign on two events, the bailout of General Motors and the killing of bin Laden, both successes, if they can be called that, that were initiated by George W. Bush and fueled by debt and tactics Obama had once labeled “unpatriotic” and criminal, respectively.
Alas, there will be no fair fight. Consequently, I begin to wonder if Romney will indeed lose.
This week the media has demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt (they were caught on tape!) that it is working to construct a narrative that defeats the candidacy of Mitt Romney.
In the past seven days the American credit rating has been downgraded for only the second time in history (the first also occurred under Obama), it was revealed that median household income has dropped $4,000 since Obama took office, and the middle east has erupted in anti-American violence that the administration was warned about, and chose to ignore. By any reasonable standard the domestic and foreign failures of the Obama administration were on display and yet, the news media is only interested the comments of Romney.
Several news cycles have been dominated by coverage of Romney’s statement on Libya – none on the Administration’s policies in Libya. With staged histrionics the legacy news blasts the 47 percent comment, yet was comfortable dismissing every similar (but less factual) admission of the sitting President.
Sources, including the hacks at Buzzfeed, are dissecting every utterance of candidate Romney, telling us how unguarded moments, old friendships, and long-forgotten acquaintances, all reveal some deeper truth about the man – a truth that we should find horrifying. The old relationships of Obama? “Nothing to see here,” declared the media vanguard.
If the media grilled and examined Obama with half the vociferation it reserves for Republican candidates, I feel confident, as did Bill and Hilary Clinton, that Obama would never have been elected.
What role did the Obama-sanctioned overthrow of governments in Egypt and Libya play in the recent murderous rampage? What did the Obama camp have to say about a member of the Cabinet violating the Hatch Act to campaign before the DNC? How about those credit downgrades? What about the new shocking number of Americans on food stamps, or the revelation that median income is below Great Depression levels when inflation-adjusted? We do not know. The fourth estate is not interested because the answers might hurt the President’s re-election bid. Instead, we get a week of false shock over a Romney statement that echoed one put out by the State Department.
The news media has been right all along that a free and dynamic press is a lynchpin of a working democracy. They knew it all along. It rather seems that they just are not too keen on the working democracy part.
Oh, and by the way. Romney understated the case. 49 percent, not 47 percent, of Americans are receiving benefits. Democrats want that number higher. How do I know? Because Democrats, via the Obama campaign, told us so when they urged everyone to adopt the life of Julia, the composite young lady (like those invented for Obama’s biographies) who is carried cradle to grave by varied government entitlement programs. Government dependency is the very point of Julia, and the Elizabeth Warren/Barack Obama “you didn’t build that” reasoning.