beware of backfire Obama

[Laura PourMeADrink]

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

if Obama pushes too much on the 47% statement of dogma. You KNOW that was the first thing they came up with a response for.

I am picturing...."Now, President Obama, I admit, I am not perfect. On occasion, I wish I could say things better. Haven't you ever done that, Mr. President? I may say things wrong sometimes, but I know what's in my heart. In my heart and my soul, I want to make things better for every single American."

[lonestarnot]

1. Too bad he (Mr. President) can't filet his (Mittwiit's) soul right there on the stage in front of us

for the real reveal.

[GoneOffShore]

13. What soul? Rmoneymort doesn't have a soul.

[lonestarnot]

15. touche'!

[spanone]

2. 47% was not a gaffe....it was a statement.

[Cha]

3. Thank you, spanone.

[Ecumenist]

4. Hell, Spanone, it was a expression of DOGMA.....I really don't see Twit Robme suddenly becoming

eloquent and erudite. He's wooden, shapeshifting and shady; that's not going to change overnight.

[southernyankeebelle]

7. It sure was a statement. No gaffe at all. Besides that his statement is what people

already felt about him. He never cared for the middle class. If he did he would have been a patriotic business owner instead of a greedy business owner.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. good point. Not a gaffe

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Willard can't explain away the 47% remarks as a gaffe or a slip of the tongue.

He spent way too long - in front of an audience of rich people during a private event - explaining exactly what he meant. There is no way on earth he can credibly claim to "want to make things better for every single American" after stating so explicitly that it wasn't his job to worry about "those people." He just can't. The Obama campaign is ramming those words right up his butt, to great effect, and I'm sure the president himself has a damn good idea of the most effective way to handle the whole thing during the debate.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. No, he can't explain it away...but he can obfuscate like I said in OP. Say he says what I said,

So the moderator or Obama will have to hit back like you say.

But, how would you rebut? Rebut, without him going into his canned speech about being Prez for 100%?

I hope you are right, it will be tricky. Don't want to open the door to let him blabber about loving everyone.

Plus, you can be guaranteed they will have a rebuttal and a re-rebuttal ready on this.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Just add to that his earlier comment that he is "not concerned

about the very poor" (remember that one?) along with what he said when he joined Bain Capital: that his intent was to "harvest" businesses. Mittens has provided his opposition with plenty of ammunition - I'm not worried.

[Amonester]

18. At this point (to swing voters leaning D)...

rebuttal or re-rebuttal, or not, robme has twisted and lied so many times that none of them independents will suddenly start believing any words he says, and especially words about himself lol

[JDPriestly]

19. Agreed, The Velveteen Ocelot

[Siwsan]

6. For Willard to say that, would come across as incredibly disingenuous, People would laugh

And, he would probably find a way to use the word 'inelegant', again.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

11. I hope Obama has thoroughly memorized the exact quote of what Romney said about the 47%

and merely repeats it, saying that there's no way it was a gaffe, a mistake, or an inelegant phrasing of what he was trying to say:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. 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. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

[RiffRandell]

12. There's no way Romney can defend what he said.

I'm sure he's being fully prepped to answer, but I'm sure Obama is as well.

[obxhead]

14. BS

There is no come back from Romney's attack on half of the US. This wasn't a "gaffe". His statements on that tape are a clear and concise look into the real Mitt Romney.

He can zing, but it won't stick.

Besides all of that, Obama and his team of fine handlers know how to keep a debate and a conversation fluid. They'll attack, let it sink in, then attack on a new front while Romney is still trying to formulate a response to the first attack.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. BS? I always flinch when anyone says, "oh I am sure they have it all covered." nt

[obxhead]

22. Go ahead and flinch.

We'll know for sure this time Wed night.

[markpkessinger]

16. And if Romney tries that . . .

All President Obama has to do is point to the fact that Romney never retracted the substance of his statements and, in fact, subsequently doubled down on them. I don't see the problem here.

[backscatter712]

17. rMoney said, IIRC "I should have stated that more elegantly"

Colbert came to the rescue by restating Romney's 47% speech more elegantly!

Pity: DU doesn't easily handle embedding of videos direct from Comedy Central, Colbert Nation or the Daily Show site...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/419186/september-18-2012/mitt-romney-s-secret-video?xrs=share_copy

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. yes, that whole thing was brilliant. i laughed my ass off. thanks for posting the clip. nt