>> >Why would something that is not true be attractive to conservatives and independents?
I would argue, and I think I posted it here at the time, that it was a brutal statement of the truth. Totally factual, and what many of us have been saying for a very long time.
There are all kinds of ways of parsing his comments, but the essential concept is absolutely factual -- that at some point, you get so many people on the public dole that you can no longer have free and fair elections. This is what Franklin was referring to with his famous "vote themselves money" quote. We are very close to that tipping point; he didn't say it, but the fact is those who aren't "technically" on the dole (e.g., SS & Medicare) are subject to extensive demagoguery from the left. So, while the 47% figure may include people who aren't exactly on the dole, the point holds: the other people, just as those who ARE on the dole, have a conflict of interests when it comes to their votes. Do they vote for their own (real or perceived) interests, or do they vote for the good of the country?
Truth can be elusive. Certainly, Obama has taken political lies to a new level. But Romney's statement was as true as anything I've ever heard a politician say, and my guess is most independents will see it positively as a result. The liberal media has distorted it badly, and they may, instead, respond to the media rather than what was said, which is the reason I'm uncertain about it. |
