“47 percent” versus “redistribution”

We’ve heard in recent days of the tales of the tapes – videos of the presidential candidates saying things that are being put in a context meant to make them appear as though they are grotesquely out-of-touch with “real” people.

OBAMA: The same old criticisms



Mitt Romney’s alleged gaffe has become a national stink – the bit about 47 percent of the people of this country likely never to consider voting for him because they’re too attached to welfare and government programs to make it on their own.

THAT HAS CAUSED the Romney camp to dredge up an old video of then-state Sen. Barack Obama speaking at Loyola University back in ’98 and making a comment about supporting “redistribution.”

We’re supposed to be outraged by whichever one of these guys doesn’t agree with what we already believe. Although the only thing that really outrages me about any of this is that these campaigns think we, the public, are nitwitted enough to fall for any of this.

Because when you think about it, these “tapes” aren’t showing us anything new. They’re just the same old rhetoric, only given to us in a new instance.

If anything, the Romney moment is having more impact; as evidenced by the fact that Mitt has had to make many mea culpas in recent days – even though he really doesn’t want to say he was wrong or apologize for what he said.

WHY SHOULD HE? He was just being honest about what he really believes. I also don’t doubt that the kind of people who are eager to vote for him have no problem with someone who wants to write off a segment of the U.S. population and focus all their attention on the remaining people!

Call this a moment of a Republican speaking bluntly, rather than trying to cadge his thoughts in “code” that are meant to get their point across to a select few – while leaving the masses scratching our heads and wondering, “Huh??!?”

So the truth of the matter is that I would be more offended if Romney were to suddenly try to “take back” what he said. He might as well stick by it and accept the few supporters such comments will get him.

ROMNEY: Merely being honest?



Besides, Romney has already managed to tick off so many different segments of society with his talk on so many points that what is another group – one that likely wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.

BECAUSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS whose incomes are so low that they don’t have to pay federal taxes (my mother was in that bracket of society in the final years of her life on account of the fact she was on a fixed income) really are in a different plane of existence from somebody like Romney.

That may well be the reason he falls short of victory on Nov. 6, even though the economic struggles of recent years are intense enough to take down any candidate.

Which is what the ideologues want to do to Obama in another 47 days, and why they’re countering the image of a “rich guy” Romney with that of a “socialist” Obama.

That’s what the harping on the “redistribution” line is really meant to mean. Big bad Barack will come along and take everything away from you. Worse yet, he’ll give it all to a batch of undesirables who don’t deserve to have anything in life!

BECAUSE ANYTHING THEY gain is something that you could have put to better use.

Writing those two lines of rancid rhetoric was such an absurd experience that it makes me wonder how anyone could take such thoughts seriously. But I realize it is true that some people in our society seriously want to believe that.

They’re the ones who have been using “socialist,” “Communist,” “un-American” and continue to spew the bit about Obama not really being a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Which means the fact that this latest tape is not catching on as much as an issue may well be the ultimate evidence that the real majority (the one that the ideologues wrongly want to believe they comprise) sees through the nonsense-talk that has dominated this campaign cycle.

  -30-