Associated Press
Obama at a 2008 fundraiser
As the political world digests the significance of Mitt Romney's "47 percent" controversy, I've seen this comparison come up quite a bit.
It was just four years ago that Obama was recorded at his own closed-door event talking about how people "cling to guns and religion" when things don't go well in their lives.
The parallels between the two situations are striking; both feature the candidate inartfully characterizing people who support the other team. Of course, Romney's comments will be much more important to this campaign, given that they aren't four years old.
Conor Friedersdorf is thinking along the same lines, referencing "Mitt Romney's 'Clinging to Guns or Religion' Moment."
The superficial similarities are, of course, obvious. Both involve presidential candidates getting caught on secret videos saying something politically embarrassing, while speaking behind closed doors to supporters.
But I think the parallels effectively end there. In fact, on a substantive level, the two secretly-recorded videos are actually opposites.
It's been four years, but if you go back and look at Obama's comments, the then-senator was talking about white, working-class voters who feel politically skeptical as the economy has left them behind, but he told his supporters that he intends to fight for these voters' support anyway. Obama defended these folks, said they have a right to be "bitter," and explained why he felt like his plan would meet these voters' needs.
Romney's comments, meanwhile, offer an entirely different perspective -- instead of defending those who may skeptical of him, the Republican is writing them off, chastising them for considering themselves "victims" and failing to "take personal responsibility." While Obama's comments show his desire to fight for every last vote, even in communities where he wouldn't expect to be popular, Romney said, "[M]y job is not to worry about those people."
They offer fascinating bookends that tell us a great deal about these candidates' values, but to see them as similar is a mistake.
Update: Jon Chait had a good piece along these lines, explaining, "Obama was aspiring to become president of all of America, even that part most hostile to him, in the belief that what they shared mattered more than what divided them. Romney genuinely seems to conceive of the lowest-earning half of the population as implacably hostile parasites."
Leave a Comment:
I couldn't understand why Chuck Todd brought this up, there is no deceitful element in the President's conversation versus Romneys'.
Exactly what I was thinking. Obama's comment was true. I never understood why that was a controversy. Even now, Paul Ryan is telling his audiences that he does cling to his gun and religion.
Can't understand why Chuck Todd brought this up?
Chuck is an unabashed Republican apologist.
I can. Dogjudge already beat me to it.
Chris Jansing was doing the same thing this morning. I wanted to yell at her through the TV. Another false equivalency.
The important point is what those two comments say about Obama and Romney. Obama said that he wanted to work to make things better for people with whom he disagreed. Romney wants to ignore people with whom he disagrees, and to demonize them. What more can be said about that fundamental difference.
One of these people has shown that he's right for the job. Mitt Romney hasn't.
Chuck Todd was merely being a journalist and pointing out the similarity of the two scenarios. His comments were prescient, not prejudiced. He was taking neither side, but, rather, highlighting the analogy that was bound to be made by Romney supporters in defense of their candidate.
His comments were not editorial, they were journalistic-something that is sorely lacking in our mainstream media.
The similarities are that both Obama and Romney were unknowingly recorded. That's it!
Obama said they cling to their gun's and religion.Yeah but,Romney say's that us 47% want them thar gun's handed to us fer nothin by the gubment,cuz we're to lazy to work and by our own.
Progressivejustlikejesus
Prescient: knowledge of things or eventsbefore they exist or happen; having foresight:
Progressivejustlikejesus
Chuck Todd was merely being a journalist . . . His comments were prescient, not prejudice
Always nice to have one of you morons come along and demonstrate that you can't think logically, and that you're an ignoramus who can't properly use the English language. Go back to MoronWacko World. diptard.
If Chuck Todd's comments were observations rather than prejudice, he was still pointing out similarities and inviting discussion. Thoughtful discussions brought out the significant differences between the two statements. Demonizing Todd for not being a faithful Obama devotee contributes nothing to thoughtful discussion. I'll bet that the President himself would disapprove of the demonization. It befits TeaHadists and RWNJs. Let's not turn into our own enemies
last night on the nightly news it was brian williams saying it. it was nonsense then and nonsense now.
sometimes i think there is some perverted "we have to present both sides" thing. it's stupid as all hell.
The big difference is Obama was working to get their votes. Swiss Mitt does not appear to care about getting the votes of the 47% he disparaged, but rather wants to sway the 5% that may swing his way.
Obama, like nearly every President before him, wanted to be President to serve all Americans whether they supported him or not. Romney wants to be President only to reward "his people." I wonder if Romney thinks the 47% are worthy of continued life or if he is prepared to impose a final solution on the parasites?
That is why Paul Ryan always wears black, he's anticipating what will happen if the Republicans get their way, Noone will be able to see a doctor or get medical attention unless they're rich, that is what it was becoming, that is what Romney and Ryan propose, only worst. It would be considered a luxury item to see a Doctor.
Soylent Green is people, too!
Romney essentially calls 47% of America parasites, while totally ignoring he and his ilk are a cancer metastasizing state by state, eating at the heart and soul of America. The cure is a radical GOPectomy.
The parasites and the "takers" are the ones who were attending Romney's meeting.
Let's not overlook Rmoney's "I inherited nothing..." nonsense. This man, just like W and the legions just like them, were "born on 3rd base and think they hit a home run." They believe "I built that" all by themselves. They attribute where they are financially to themselves entirely and give no credit for the world they were born into, and none to the society that makes it possible in so many ways.
These people suck. Out loud.
It's born on third base, going thru life thinking you hit a triple, Quit crying about what others have, and be accountable for yourself, typical liberal
Oooh big bad wacko comes on the board. If this was a bar, I'd follow you into the mens room and stick your head down the toilet and flush repeatedly, you beer-bellied dickwad.
Catmandoodoo, I mean doodle sounds like a typical retarded troll. Says exactly what said, just word differently and adds an ad hominem. Bet he is part of that 47%!
The MSM is determined to have their horserace
The difference should be obvious to the journalists who know the details of the both incidents.
The Romney campaign hopes that the average voter will not fully understand the difference and see this as a wash. ("Both sides do it")
It seems as if the MSM is attempting to keep this thing the horserace they so desperately want by muddying the waters, which conveniently helps the Romeny campaign.
The media is reporting, it is up to voters to make decisions.
Letting us know what has happened is the job, isn't it?
We are supposed to do make the comparisons and come to the determinations based on what we ferret out.
Chuck Todd:
This is not reporting. This is an OpEd disguised as an interview.
And it is also inaccurate. Obama was not talking about the Republican base. As Mitt Romney was clearly talking about Obama's base (False equivalency).
Also, Obama was not saying he would write those voter off, as Chuck Todd erroneously stated. Obama said the opposite, he was described how his team had to focus on what he had in common with those voters.
Yeah, but that's not being done, what's being done is an attempt to convince us how they are the same. And if "journalists" misrepresent facts to make that happen, then they're not reporting.
Here's a question about the mind of mitt romney: Romney at this point has 0% of the black vote and the president has 100%. Judging him strictly by his statement that 47 percent of americans (anyone who votes for Obama) is dependent on government, doesn't pay taxes, and can't be convinced to take responsibility and care for their lives. 100% of african americans are among that electorate. Does mitt romney believe that 100% of black people are dependent on government, 100% of black people don't pay taxes, 100% of black people can't be convinced to take responsibility and care for their lives and that his job is not to worry about 100% of black people? To be written off by a candidate in this day and age is refreshing because it shines the harsh light of truth on what is said and thought behind closed doors and proving yet again that electing a black man didn't erase how many think about black people
The GOP can at least die with a little dignity. Go down with the ship like a brave Captain, MItty, not like a whiney little craven begging for his life.
@synthfiend - In Mitt's world that 47% isn't just black, it's white people that don't own NASCARS, it's white people that don't have Oprah's bank account, it's Veterans, it's Seniors that depend on SS - cause their job went bankrupt and that's all that they have left, it's poor working Americans that might be on food-stamps, or disability, it's people like Paul Ryan whose father died and he went to school on the Social Security that his daddy paid into! Basically that 47% includes "the GOP base" - cause all of them don't have Buffet's money either - but they figure "they're white" so they get a pass!
Zora, I don't want to speak for synthfiend, but I doubt synth would disagree with anything you added. But, synth's point that, by doing the math, Romney must think ALL black people are dependent on government, don't pay taxes, are not responsible for their own lives, etc., is a very valid a poignant point.
You find out a lot about what someone really thinks when that someone is safe and alone with "his people".
Synthead makes a good point. The way I heard this was not the 47% of Americans who dont pay Federal income tax but the 47% of Americans that SUPPORT President Obama. That is a big difference in interpretation. I just started to notice the tax interpretation today and was wondering if our pundits are just so galled that he might mean Obama voters, that they spun it to mean those not paying taxes. Depending on the polls, the numbers are the same.
Alextucky, some might mean "black people" - but in Robme's out of touch with reality world - I think it's safe to assume that in that 47% are white people in those categories that he's not counting on.
Lets not forget the people who Wall Street robbed without a gun while CEO made millions in salaries and bonuses. For the life of me I cannot understand how someone can perform so poorly and be rewarded for it. The average Joe would be so fired!
The one thing we can all agree with Romney is that we are victims. Not just the 47% he mentions, but more like the 99%. We are victims of the failed policies enacted by the previous Republican administration led by one George W (apparently the Republicans' Voldemort, as they don't mention him) and the inactive congress led by the Tea Party Republicans (anyone say Paul Ryan), whom have blocked just about every measure to improve the economy the Obama administration has sent to congress. If elected, Mr. Romney will be the first president to govern exclusively for the 1% richest Americans, who are the ones trying to buy him the election. What about his re-election?? He really wont be worried. In 4 years the electoral game will be rigged to allow only a select few inside a voting booth, and run over a period of two hours, say 3-5 PM.
BTW, I see in Romney no scruples to prevent him from using nuclear power against Iran or any other country he might see fit. (completely off topic)
Face it, not only is Mitt a despicable human being, he's not even a good politician. A lot of very despicable human beings have figured out how to bewitch and beguile those they are planning to gouge and do harm. This guy could not beguile his way out of a paper bag.
Yes, Romney keeps saying that President Obama is totally unqualified to be President. Mitt is not even qualified to be a candidate. Obama has shown over the past 3+ years he has what it takes to be President, despite the overwhelming odds against him. Where would Romney be without the cash from all his billionaire friends? He would not have even made it out of the primaries.
The ironic thing about the Obama "gaffe" is that those exact same folks he was talking about, those who were and are economically disadvantaged yet still motivated by fears of losing their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, are firmly in the 47%.
Those are folks that would vote for Romney based on "guns and religion" no matter how much or little they pay in federal income tax, whether or not they receive any assistance. Perhaps not now?
Actually, I realize that "clinging to their religion" is not the same as simply wanting to ensure "freedom of religion." For a significant portion of so-called "values voters," having the freedom to practice their religion is not enough. They want everyone to practice their religion. Which is, of course, the opposite of the 2nd amendment.
This is the most fascinating to me. How many if any of his voters & base will recognise he is including many of them in the 47%? I wonder if we will ever know.
Opposite of the 1st Amendment. Sheesh.
Let's see, Obama is talking about how in desperate times people cling to things that make them feel secure. Could the line be spun to be negative? Yes. If you fall into the demographic could you take the line as disparaging your views? Yes. Did the President say anything about ignoring this segment of the population for their views? No.
Did Mittens intend his comments to disparate a group? Absolutely. Did Mittens say that if you fell into that demographic he was going to ignore you? Absolutely.
Did candidate Obama's comments have any racial undertones? Only by the MOST partisan people could it have been interpreted that way. Did candidate Romney's comments have any racial undertones? Absolutely.
So much for discussing things in "Quiet Rooms". . .
The major difference is that Obama's statement, while using dangerously blunt words, was true (I think "cling to" was the kicker).
Romney's was false (and/or delusional) for the following reasons:
1) Half (I'm estimating, but it is a significant minority minimally) of the 47% are actually voting for him (hint: they "embrace" guns and religion).
2) When you include payroll taxes, many actually exceed his tax rate.
3) They pay no income taxes because of Republican (Reagan, Bush 2) policies of cutting taxes that Democrats are simply going along with because they are popular.
Romney's arrogance when speaking about the elderly, retired military, disabled, and unemployed is unparalleled. President Obama was speaking about people's fears, and Romney is speaking about himself.
In these comments I don't see the largest fallacy of all: that the 47% of voters who will vote for Obama are all ipso facto irresponsible, free-loading, no-tax-paying moochers. I support Obama; I pay income taxes; I am responsible for my life and care; I take no government "handouts." (And, should Romney become president, will I still be a no-count 47%-er?)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/120443891437928/
Based on Romney comment on this video - I want to see Mitt Romney's ta returns for the past 10 years - NOW!
Do you? Please join the FB and share with your friends ... thanks.
And one other thing: of the 47% who pay no taxes, 28.something% pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.; of the remaining 18.something%, many are elderly and living on Social Security which is not taxed up to a certain annual amount.
The man makes no sense whatsoever, and I hope this crashes his campaign and his hopes.
The question all Americans are asking Romney today, "You talkin' ta me?"
We need to never forget this line:
There is no way Romney can explain this away. The Democrats of every level need to hit him over the head with it 24/7 for the next 49 days.
That was the line that really stood out to me, too. That's the most condescending, mean-spirited remark he could make about 47% of Americans.
What does HE know about how "those people" of whom he speaks live their lives? He has certainly never had to live paycheck to paycheck. He's never had the financial burden and worries of "those people".
Romney is an out of touch elitist who couldn't give a rat's you-know-what about the middle class.
That's funny because the line that actually hit me the most was the deriding way he said... "there are 47 percent... who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing..."
He is literally saying that people don't have a right to basic food, shelter and health care!!! That is coming awfully close to the "let 'em die" cat call of the debates.
Astounding!!
Not only is he saying that we shouldn't have the right to food, shelter and health care, he is also betraying a very weird resentment of the fact that people who aren't wealthy actually do have food, shelter and health care. Imagine being the kind of person who has a fully-stocked fridge and feeling jealous rage at the sight of someone holding a moldy crust of bread. I can't. What kind of damage must be inflicted on a person that they come to believe that the less you have, the less you deserve to have however little you do?
So, if the President gets the vote of 50% of the American people, and that includes the 47% of all Americans who feel "entitled", that means that 94 out of 100 people that vote for President Obama are "lazy bastards that want a free ride". That's a fairly broad, bitter, resentful brush you insult people with, Mr. Romney. Perhaps the sense of "entitlement" you see in others is projected from your own eyes.
I don't expect that a president who thinks I'm a mooching whiner will care anything more about me than a president whose religion tells him that I'm going to hell. I'm sure Romney believes that I'm damned and that I'll therefore be a pretty low priority to him whether or not I pay taxes.
Just watched Hunger Games on video. Does anyone who saw this movie get the feeling that this is what the country might be like under a President Romney?
YES!
Where is the simularity in what Pres. Obama said, and what Romney said? Maybe republican MSNBC jouralist, and show host's, need to curb their the untruths.
This comparison is being brought up by a great many pundits. "Oh, well, y'all forgot about Obama talking about white people and their guns and religion." It's right up there with "well, you know, it's not just the Republicans who aren't cooperating in Congress, Democrats are at fault too."
In reality, Republicans have stated from day one that Mr. O would be a one term president and have fought to make it so. And Romney doesn't give a rat's ass about most of the people in this country, just those he can sway.
In some ways, the press is trying to be even handed (oh, Mr O had his gaffes as well, you know). It's like a mother telling a good child with a brother in prison for burglery "well, Jimmy, remember the time you stole a bag of chips from the store?"
His [Chuck Todd's] comments were not editorial, they were journalistic-something that is sorely lacking in our mainstream media.
Yes, the new journalism of "he said, she said" false equivalency! After all, chuck is now in or close to being in the top 1% and he would not be a "traitor to his class?".
Chuck Todd likes the competition or political battle. No battle. No need for Chuck Todd and many pundits like him!
There is no comparison between the two secret videos. Then Senator Obama was stating a truth whether people like it or not but at least admitted that even so he understood their bitterness and still needed to reach out to them. Rmoney is stating a truth too. We little people that cling to our government cheese (totally non factual) are not important for his majesty to be bothered with. He needs to get to those 10% of independent -- some more of us on government cheese that he's too stupid to realize.