Las Vegas Sun

September 30, 2014

Currently: 67° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Even Republicans can be in the 47 percent

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

It may come as a shock to Robert Blanner, (“We’re not all victims, Romney,” Sept. 23) but I consider myself one of the 47 percent he alludes to except that I happen to be a Republican. I agree with everything he says in his letter about entitlements but see things differently in regards to his views on Mitt Romney.

The interesting thing about all of this is how many other 47 percenters see things as I do. If there are many of us, then the 47 percent is overblown.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 39 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. In today's column, David Brooks summarizes his opinion thus:

    "Some people blame bad campaign managers for Romney's underperforming campaign, but the problem is deeper. Conservatism has lost the balance between economic and traditional conservatism. The Republican Party has abandoned half of its intellectual ammunition. It appeals to people as potential business owners but not as parents, neighborus and citizens."

    This is one big reason many people cannot accept Romney's message. They cannot connect with him. We are simply parents, neighbors, and citizens. All we want is to live a decent life and the freedom to pursue what makes us happy. Money does not guarantee happiness.

    Business ownership is not the only way toward self-actualization. That is where Romney fails.

  2. I'm quite sure Anthony is not the only Republican in the 47%. There are probably a lot of seniors on Social Security, disabled veterans, students and many others who are Republicans and/or not backers of President Obama. But, Romney groups all of these into a single monolithic stereotype of needy victims that have only the singular commonality of not owing any income tax.

    It's pretty convincing proof that Romney doesn't know anything about us, but we've certainly learned a lot more about him.

  3. I agree with Nancy that the R message, as delivered by Romney and many other leading R's is lacking. What must also be examined though, is the D's message.

    The D's message is that Capitalism and our economic, governmental and social model has run amok and must be 'fundamentally' changed. That word 'fundamental' has been and still is often used by President Obama.

    Let's look at the definition of 'fundamental' ... 'serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure'

    So, it should be obvious what 'fundamental change' means. It means changing the basis, the core blocks of our economic, governmental and social systems.

    To me, this is a bridge much too far. Our system has served us well for over 250 years and made us the envy of the world. Our system needs some corrections, but it DOES NOT need to be fundamentally changed.

    R's tend to want to let Capitalism run unfettered and limit government's role. D's tend to want a large transfer of private capital into government so it can distribute it more fairly. Both those philosophies are incorrect and dangerous and we need to start standing up and rejecting both of them.

    Michael

  4. Letter writer is correct. The statement by Governor Romney was spun way out of proportion. He said it very clumsily in part because it was a private fund raiser. What he meant was 47 percent of Americans, primarily those not paying any Federal income taxes, are entrenched in President Obama's base. He's not interested in getting their votes. Governor Romney is focusing on the 6-8 percent of independents and undecideds, based on polls and past elections, in order to win the election.

    CarmineD

  5. Letter writer is correct. The statement by Governor Romney was spun way out of proportion. He said it very clumsily in part because it was a private fund raiser. What he meant was 47 percent of Americans, primarily those not paying any Federal income taxes, are entrenched in President Obama's base. He's not interested in getting their votes. Governor Romney is focusing on the 6-8 percent of independents and undecideds, based on polls and past elections, in order to win the election.

    CarmineD

  6. There are many people dissatisfied with the current administration. Theoretically Romney should win by a landslide. However he is failing to connect to the core population because of his arrogance. He needs to come down a few steps down his pedestal and show his understanding of the common masses - the poor and the downtrodden. He needs to retool his communication box and speak the language ALL people will understand not just the rich, the conservatives, the bigots among us, the ignoramus, the intelligent, and the not so intelligent.

    The hallmark of a great leader is his ability to communicate. If he does not do it soon, he will fail and millions of PAC money will be better off spent on more worthwhile projects.

  7. Again, Nancy makes good points. It should also be pointed out that Romney is in a tough place. For all intents and purposes, the President and his party are arguing that our position isn't really that bad and if we just tax the wealthy and do a few other undefined things, everything will be just fine.

    That simply cannot be true and it isn't true and most Americans know this. If Romney tells the ugly truth, which is really the ONLY way to successfully counter the fairy tale the President is telling, he risks telling Americans some very unpleasant facts that would undoubtedly be very unpopular.

    Romney has been unwilling to tell those truths and instead has chosen to tell a 'different' fairy tale than the President tells.

    The President is a far better fairy tale teller than Romney is, so Romney loses in that battle.

    Unfortunately, we all lose if we believe either one of the fairy tales being told by Obama or Romney.

    Michael

  8. The attacking lynch mobs should consider that GOP includes many millions who are NOT 1%ers. So hey, reconsider your line of attack. I'm not GOP but I understand some of what they're after. With all the social welfare and wasted K-12/no results and wasted government programs, there's nothing left to retire on--taxes take too much of our incomes so we can't invest well in a home, save enough in IRA's, stay in one job long enough to vest a pension. So seniors and retirees are swept into the fixed-income set before they figure out that the spending hype means THERE'S NOTHING LEFT FOR THEM.

  9. This election is NOT ABOUT THE CANDIDATE, it's about a life style. Do we want to have a life style or do we want to be indentured servants to fund government?

  10. @ Nancy Augustin...

    Amen, sister!

    It's not ALL about the money.

    The nattering nabobs of negativity that now comprise the majority of Republicans and TeaNutians have tunnel vision.

    The 'right' seems to think M.O.N.E.Y. is EVERYTHING...
    and/or that everything can be addressed in monetary terms...

    They are the ABACUS Party.
    Add/subtract. Multiply/divide. Take/give.

    The 'R' party has NO INTEREST in Cause & Effect...'it's too complicated! All that THINKING! Makes my head hurt! Just let me keep ALL MY MONEY! That's all I care about, and all I THINK about! I'm a GREAT COUNTER'!

    'Constructing & deconstructing BIG numbers; NOW your speaking my language'!

    That's how they think...linear...with NO understanding of cause & effect.
    We need more lateral thinking... our problems are many and complicated, and the old rules of engagement are not necessarily germane to 2012 & beyond.

    The fact that in many cases, saving a buck now will cost you 5 later... means NOTHING to these people. It just doesn't register with them.
    'How about cutting it from 5 to 3.5 or 3...cutting it to 1 or none causes a new set of problems; EXPENSIVE problems.'
    'HOGWASH! That's MY MONEY! I want it! ALL OF IT! I need it to...um, 'create jobs'! Surely you get that...

    Mittens Howell Rmoney & lil' Eddie Munster Ryan...

    They want to do the Bush dance all over again; only this time they want to 'SUPER-SIZE' it...

    As if to say, 'BIGGER tax cuts! MORE WAR! Less regulation! Hail the Corporation! God BLESS the CEO! Onward, Christian Soldier! DRILL, baby, DRILLLL!'

    'It can all be solved by simple mathematics.'

    If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarity, SUPER-SIZED!

    We are in DIRE need of consensus building...
    all across the USA & the whole of the world, fashioned by good old common sense, integrity & ingenuity.

  11. Gmag39,

    You write long letters to the editor (like I do) and in them you demonize the Conservatives, R's and Tea Partiers.

    Odd's are that President Obama is going to be re-elected. Let's assume for a moment that either D's retake the House and keep the Senate or that a compromise can be forged. You're all about what's wrong with R's and their plans. What, exactly should President Obama do to reduce and then eliminate the budget deficits, start to reduce our enormous debt, kept SS and Medicare as they are but solvent into the future, create millions more jobs and get us going in the right direction?

    I am perfectly willing to admit that a plan such as Romney's that includes more tax cuts and unspecified spending cuts sounds like a fairy tale. Please enlighten me as to why the President is the correct choice..... without just saying the R's are wrong on everything. What will President Obama try to do that isn't also a fairy tale... just a different fairy tale than the one Romney tells?

    Do you REALLY have total faith that President Obama has a good plan that will work? I'll tell you that if Romney wins, I'd have MAJOR reservations as to whether he has a real plan that could succeed. I have those same reservations about President Obama. Don't you?

    Michael

  12. I am a conservative Libertarian, not in the 47%. And proud of it.

  13. Excuse me Michael but to what plan of Romney do you refer? The problems (leaving aside Mr. Romney's personality issues) are: (1) he has no plan and (2) he will not divulge any specifics of what he might do.

  14. Let's see. Now just how do we decide if we are in the 47%. Are we talking about the 47% who pay no federal income taxes.Or those who are receiving Medicare and Social Security. Or those who are on welfare--jobless benefits,food stamps,Medicaid?

    Which group do you think Romney was talking about--really? It seemed that he was referring to those who are paying no income taxes based on his recorded comments. But if he really thought it out before opening his mouth, he might have made it more clear that he was really referring to those on Welfare. At last count I believe that adds up to about 100 million folks. Correct me if I am wrong on this,but that would be about 33% of the population, which might equate to roughly 50% of voters. Therefore while Romney may have had his percentage right at 47%, he was referring to the wrong grouping--he really has very little chance of capturing the welfare contingent. Obviously there is some overlap between the groups but based on pure focus Romney really meant the welfare recipients as being the ones that he should not be focusing on --these people are in the bag for Obama.To say that Romney has kicked these folks to the curb as the Democrats have maintained is pure false reasoning--these folks would be beneficiaries of Romney's investment/job spuring policies. They would get to work, earn money and enjoy a better life.Being a beneficiary of Romney's policies is quite different than being the focal point of his vote recruitment effort.

  15. In today's column, David Brooks summarizes his opinion thus:

    "Some people blame bad campaign managers for Romney's underperforming campaign, but the problem is deeper. Conservatism has lost the balance between economic and traditional conservatism. The Republican Party has abandoned half of its intellectual ammunition. It appeals to people as potential business owners but not as parents, neighborus and citizens."

    David Brooks strains to figure it all out. The simple reason why the concervative message is not getting through is due to the messenger, Mitt Romney---Obama, who is a stumble bum in performance, is simply a better orator--he communicates a slick and silky message that millions of Americans like to hear. Romney would be a much better executive in the Executive Branch,but he cannot attract the interest that Obama can. It's that simple. Brooks should take a vacation and rethink his piece in todays Sun. It's a shame that those who rely on Obama's promises must endure more disappointment as he chronically misses his targets.

  16. Leric,

    The claim that Romney has no plan is about as correct as the claim that Obama has no plan. If we really want to see each plan, all we have to do is go to their websites and be willing to read (I have read both plans).

    The reality is that Romney wants to cut taxes, is willing to admit that government spending must also be cut but is unwilling to say how much or where. On the other hand Obama wants more government stimulus spending and higher taxes on the wealthy and is also willing to admit that government spending will have to be cut but is equally vague about how much and where.

    If any fair minded person looks at our tax revenue ($ 2.4 Trillion) and spending ($ 3.7 Trillion), they know that even with 6 % growth and higher taxes on the wealthy, spending needs to be cut by at least 35 % to even approach a balanced budget.

    Both these guys are proposing fairy tales that don't contain the cuts we are going to have to make. We ech have to support somebody, but none of us should believe either guy has a viable plan.

    Michael

  17. @ Casler...

    "Do you REALLY have total faith that President Obama has a good plan that will work? I'll tell you that if Romney wins, I'd have MAJOR reservations as to whether he has a real plan that could succeed. I have those same reservations about President Obama. Don't you?"

    Of course I do.

    I don't think that President Obama has done everything right, nor does he have a 'magic plan' to pare down the debt or fix all our other problems, like Medicare, Social Security & the job market.
    What he DOES have is a good start, a good heart & and he's plenty smart...

    Until & unless the Repub's quit blocking every single attempt by the Obama admin to make changes, we'll never KNOW how good his 'plans' are, will we?
    They've behaved shamelessly and to the detriment of our country; they should pay dearly for that in November.

    A note on your post to me, Michael...
    This ain't a debate.
    I read an article, I comment.
    I'm not here to 'win' anything; just to voice my opinion. It's the 'comments' section, after all...not the 'debate' section.

    Have a nice day, y'all!

  18. Bob,

    As I've said before, Romney is a poor messenger and Obama is a good messenger. Obama knows not to deliver the bad news that government spending is going to have to be cut by at least 1/3 for us reach a balanced budget, so he just doesn't mention it and makes promises he won't be able to keep, just like in 2008.

    It's unfortunate but true that if Romney really told the true about what we must do, instead of providing the same type of feel good crap that Obama provides, he'd take a great chance of being completely blown out of this election. The problem is if he doesn't take that chance, people are going to believe Obama, just like in 2008 and he is going to lose this election.

    Michael

  19. Gmag39,

    For me, it's the numbers and little else. $ 2.4 trillion in revenue, $ 3.7 trillion in spending leaving a yearly deficit of $ 1.3 trillion.

    Growth at even 6 % can't close that gap enough, more tax breaks can't do it, more government stimulus and higher taxes on the rich can't do it. Numbers don't lie and numbers say that we will nedd to cut government spending by more than 1/3 to even approach a balanced budget.

    If either Romney or Obama would admit that and then make specific proposals to at least start to cut spending, I'd have respect for them.

    The fact that in the face of all that, so many people do have faith in Romney or Obama scares me to death.

    Michael

  20. Harry Reid made some gaff comments about a light skinned man and it went away eventually, as will the 47% comment.

  21. Thank you Michael, that neither candidate has a real plan is quite clear. However, from the point of view of Nevada, which depends on increased demand and a broadly felt sense of wealth to stimulate the totally discretionary spending which leads to gaming and serves as the major basis for employment here, Mr. Romney's proposed tax cuts would have no discernable change on business here -- and the corresponding (but as yet unspecified "loophole" closings) would seem to reduce "middle-class" deductions, which would reduce business and employment here.

    Our 2-party system has given us this "choice" and nearly complete governmental paralysis. But the real problem with the 2-party system is that it frames public discussion so that it only occurs between the 2 sides the parties stake out, with the result that real problems are ignored and real solutions aren't considered.

  22. "Romney is a poor messenger and Obama is a good messenger." - wtplv

    Michael, that is true only so long as Obama has a teleprompter to work with. He has also been caught with some less than tactful remarks when speaking off the cuff or in a supposedly private setting.

    I think Romney's 47% comment is on a par with Obama's "you didn't build that" gaffe. And let's not forget Obama telling the Russians he'll have more flexibility after he is re-elected.

  23. Boftx,

    I realize that Obama is gaff prone and not very good 'off the cuff' and that gives Romney an opening in the debates. However, Romney tends to be scripted and stiff and that won't play well in the debates.

    Michael

  24. El_Lobo,

    You are correct of course. In my opinion however, with a debt of over $ 16 trillion and deficits each year exceeding $ 1 trillion, we are not too far away from a financial catastrophe. The numbers say that no matter how much Romney or Obama can grow the economy, to reach a balanced budget, government spending needs to be cut by at least 30 %. Do you hear either candidate saying that? I don't and for that reason I suspect we are in deep do do.

    Michael

  25. <<A state like Illinois will go the way Chicago goes...>>

    Not necessarily true. Yes, Chicago is pretty much Democratic, but Illinois is not. It has it's share of republicans in the collar counties and other parts of the State, ie southern Illinois for instance. Here's a bit of weird info: when it's time for voting for a governor, even Chicago voters favor the Republican candidate. Blagoyovich was a fluke. Even as a lifelong democrat, I have always voted for a republican governor.

    @@boftx and Casler:

    I commend both of you for the intelligent and civil comments you are both posting. It's refreshing to see that not everyone is full of hate and anger and name-calling, and that yes, people can respect each other regardless of their political affiliations.

  26. Michael

    Instead of expecting either candidate to explain their plan( no real chance), maybe what we are going to have to settle for in making our decisions as voters are
    !. Which one is more successful in selling himself to the voter.(via debates, for example)
    2. Which one we think will be the most effective Executive to run the Executive branch.( which we think will achieve the best results).
    3. Who we trust the most to be our leader.

    Bob

  27. Number one above is still up in air. Number 2 and 3 are Romney for me.

  28. El_Lobo,

    It's math. Where is the 30 % cut in government spending that math says MUST happen? Obama shows know phoniness? REALLY....

    Michael

  29. Bob,

    I don't expect either guy to reveal any cuts he'd make, although I think they should. Obama is clearly winning number 1.. to this point. Obama is leading on number 2 as well, according to the polls and number 3 as well.

    This reminds me of the wizard of OZ. Obama is the all powerful wizard... and until and unless somebody (Romney) pulls the curtains, the illusion remains. I think the only way to pull that curtain open is by saying what Romney would do, in detail and saying at least that big spending cuts will be necessary and President Obama won't enact any of them and I will.

    Michael

  30. wtplv Michael 4:39: Obama will not cut spending. He'll increase it. He asked for a ONE YEAR EXTENSION in tax cuts. That year will be up in January 2013. Expect a tax hike, a LARGE TAX HIKE. National media isn't covering it but it seems Mr. O. is working on international treaties to send our tax money to the third world as redistribution for every culture less "affluent" than us.

  31. Who cares? It's game over for Romney. The deal will be sealed on Oct. 3rd. Obama will be presidential, and Romney will bet him 10k that he will win the election. Pay him now Mittens.

  32. "PRESIDENT OBAMA is a Constitutional Law Professor
    who taught Constitutional LAW classes."

    As a group, at least as US presidents go, teachers do not make good presidents.

    CarmineD

  33. "The deal will be sealed on Oct. 3rd. Obama will be presidential,"

    Just the opposite. Romney will easily win 2 of the 3 presidential debates including the first and most important. Romney will come off looking presidential and Obama like a big wind bag. Fact check will shoot holes in most of what Obama says diminishing his stature.

    CarmineD

  34. "Illinois will again go Democrat come November. Illinois went Democrat in 2008....Of course, I'm talking about the presidential race!

    Actually Illinois has voted for a Democrat candidate for president in every election since 1992. The last time Illinois voted Republican in a presidential election was 1988......

    Presently, Illinois is considered a "safe blue state.""

    TRUE BUT this is not 2008. Illinois has 19 percent Evangelical Christians and 32 percent Catholics. And 2 percent Jews. That's 54 percent of the population. Many of whom vote.

    CarmineD

  35. Woodrow Wilson (28) was a terrible president. A dinosaur. He was anti-civil rights and women suffrage. His wife ran the country as the de facto president for his second term leading to the passage of the 25th Amendment.

    WRT Lyndon B. Johnson (36), a democrat: He finished out Kennedy's term after Kennedy was assassinated. He chose not to run for a full term, many opined, because he knew he would lose. Recall: "I will not seek and if nominated will not serve...." And in fact the election went to Nixon in 1968, a Republican.

    WRT Illinois, don't count your chickens before they hatch. That's why we have the elections.

    Time will tell on the debates. Next week is D day. D for your guy is going "down." All history of debates tell us incumbent presidents, or their VP's, never fare well against the opposing party's nominee. Never.

    CarmineD

  36. FYI:

    Republican candidate Wendell Willkie challenged President Franklin D. Roosevelt to a debate in 1940, but Roosevelt refused.

    FDR, the golden tongue orator refused debates with off all persons: Willkie. FDR may have been a coward for saying no, BUT he understood political reality.

    CarmineD

  37. It is almost comically to hear some one "whistling as he walks thru the grave yard.

  38. You're right on one account. I should have said LBJ chose not to run for a second term. On the rest you're burning daylight.

    In today's history, successful presidents are those who win a second term and the person to whom they pass the baton, win election. Think Ronald Reagan.

    CarmineD

  39. "Carmine is like all other desperate republicans
    who just throw stuff out there and hopes nobody
    notices."

    Mr. Teamster: That is an accurate definition of a liberal.

    CarmineD