Two statements, two visions

Candidates' straight talk reveals where true compassion lies

  • Follow Editorials

“It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

– Barack Obama, in 2008, on the views of small-town Pennsylvania voters

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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.”

– Mitt Romney, in May 2012, in a video shot at a
private fund-raiser

Let’s look at those two unguarded moments of the two men vying to be our next president.

The “mainstream” media want you to believe what Mitt Romney said is scandalous. They did not feel the same way about what Mr. Obama said in 2008.

But the truth is, Mr. Romney was speaking largely about facts and reality. Some 47 percent of Americans do not pay income tax. Perhaps coincidentally, Mr. Obama’s support in a recent Gallup Poll stood at 47 percent.

Mr. Romney is not “caught” on the hidden camera disparaging anyone. If anything, his comments – issued last May – are honest and have been proved prescient, and simply reflect the state of America.

Mr. Obama’s summation of small-town America, on the other hand, is an elegant, elitist diatribe filled with stereotypes and scattershot accusations of rage-filled racism among working-class voters. In one derisive bit of ridicule, he convicted wide swaths of America of
unalloyed xenophobia and hatred.

There simply is no comparison between the two. Yet, the national media are apoplectic about Romney’s statement.

Will the media find another Obama unguarded moment, from 1998, as captivating? In it, he admits, “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution – because I actually believe in redistribution ...”

Oh, wait. That socialist sentiment didn’t much matter to the media in 2008 when candidate Obama talked with Joe the plumber about spreading the wealth around.

Romney’s statement actually reveals nothing new. His facts are well-known.

But lost in all this back and forth, and the media’s rabid reaction to the Romney video, is the fact that the candidates’ statements do reveal strikingly different visions of and for America.

Mr. Obama’s love of government is leading to record numbers of Americans becoming dependent on it – 47 million on food stamps, 9 million on federal disability – at a time when governments, here and worldwide, are dealing with dwindling resources.

Governments are collapsing from the weight.

Mr. Romney represents the more traditional American view – the one that made this country the strongest, most prosperous in history – that free individuals must be allowed to set their own course, unfettered as much as possible by the heavy hand of the collective.

At bottom, this election is about whether the American ideals of individual liberty and self-determination endure.

The current imbroglio between the two candidates could be instructive – if the national media let it – about the definition of “compassion.” Mr. Obama’s camp seems to think that feeding and encouraging dependence (they’ve actually advertised to get more people on food stamps) is compassionate. But destroying the work ethic and preventing people from realizing their God-given potential – often through adversity and hardship – is the opposite of compassion.

You’ll never hear that from media that are simply obsessed with getting this president re-elected.

America’s ability to handle straight talk is being tested. The early results are not promising.

Comments (65)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
specsta
5779
Points
specsta 09/20/12 - 07:49 pm
2
2

Simple Terms

I'll put the two candidates' "vision" into terms simple enough for a second-grader to understand, since the Chronicle has failed once again to bring clarity to the issue.

Romney is rich. He became rich my making others poor and losing their jobs. He wants himself and his rich friends to have even more riches. So he will make it easier for rich people to hide money and pay no taxes. He thinks that poor people are that way because they enjoy being poor and don't want to do anything.

President Obama, on the other hand, understands that being poor is not good. He knows that whatever the government can do to help another human being, it should do it. He thinks the rich should not live off the poor and should pay their own way. He knows that being able to go to a doctor, or eat healthy food, or live in a home instead of outdoors is a good thing. So he will do what he can to help everyone.

Is that simple enough for you?

KSL
106049
Points
KSL 09/20/12 - 08:07 pm
1
2

When will they admit to the

When will they admit to the other lies?

KSL
106049
Points
KSL 09/20/12 - 08:13 pm
2
3

Spec

Huh? Spec, don't answer the question, you or any of your relatives.

burninater
6825
Points
burninater 09/20/12 - 08:33 pm
2
1

ICL, this is the point that

ICL, this is the point that some are apparently completely oblivious to. The 47% not paying federal income taxes? That includes families of four making less than $54,000. That includes service members. That includes elderly on fixed incomes. So if you say that the 47% not paying federal income taxes consider themselves victims entitled to government handouts (i.e. LAZY), then you are calling all those people lazy victims. Pretty straightforward, hopefully we haven't gotten to the point where even common sense needs a link ...

And it is absolutely stunning to me that Romney is oblivious as to who this 47% really is. It's one thing for people like Limbaugh or Hannity to say ignorant and inflammatory things, because that's their business. It draws attention, and it makes them money. But for a presidential candidate to be this ignorant? That's the major eye-opener for me. Before this campaign, I believed the myth that Romney got where he was through competence and intelligence. Boy was I ever mistaken.

Bizkit
21999
Points
Bizkit 09/20/12 - 08:38 pm
1
2

Good golly spec. talk about a

Good golly spec. talk about a strawman argument. Where do you get such nonsense. So you can argue that Obama wants to make the poor rich off the backs of the rich. So he will make it easier for poor people to take rich peoples money. Geez some solution. Such is the idiotic logic. It is called an economy-we all participate and all our money is worth the same-a dollar is dollar. Wealthy people spend time, money, education to invest in their income and livelyhood. They aren't employees so they aren't guaranteed income or have any special employee rights. They may make a dime or lose it-we all have equal opportunity for such things as protected by law. Their employees are paid and even have benefits no matter what the business makes-by law you have to pay your employees least you are bankrupt. No such guarantees for the businessman-except maybe if you're friend of Obama and get lucrative govt handouts.

KSL
106049
Points
KSL 09/21/12 - 12:28 am
1
1

If one becomes rich by making

If one becomes rich by making others poor, where in the heck are you going to find people who will work for you if they can collect money from the GOV. Wait, that is happening.

InChristLove
21844
Points
InChristLove 09/21/12 - 06:53 am
0
0

"All right, there are 47

"All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, 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. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

No burninater, what Mr. Romney said is that there are 47% that believe they are victims (not that he thinks they are lazy or that HE believes they are victims but that they themselves think they are victimsand entitled to government assistance) who believe that the government owes them, that the government is responsible for their food, housing and medical needs, (and here's the kicker) those individuals will vote for Obama no matter what.

He never called them lazy, he was making a point that no matter what the situation, no matter what he said, what he did, what he showed them, those people will vote for Obama anyway.

Pretty straightforward to me....that's why I asked for a link where Romney said the 47% were lazy. I don't see it in his statement....guess it's in the way you want to interpret the meaning of words.

wayne2410
1239
Points
wayne2410 09/22/12 - 05:55 am
0
0

What Romney said is just

Unpublished

What Romney said is just plain truth. That 47% he speaks of know nothing but how to hold their hand out and wait for someone to give them something because they are too sorry to earn it. Maturity and responsibility are not traits common to liberals, I'm sure there are exceptions but most of them just stomp their feet like children when they do not get their way. I fully support Romney's comments and am willing to use whatever means neccessary to take this country back from the undeserving people who seem to run it now, or actually I should say ruin it now. That is what the left is doing, on purpose I believe

Back to Top

Loading...