So, it has become a generally accepted meme on the right that Mitt Romney lost because Obama "gave" people "stuff." Bill O'Reilly summed it all up with this remark:
"And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want
things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows
it. And he ran on it."
Yeah, those greedy bastards want "stuff." Stuff like medical care when they are sick, or a chance at a decent job, or an education for their kids, or a chance to retire after working their whole lives without ending up living on a street corner. How dare they?
Well, no one is surprised with piggish behavior on the part of Bill O'Reilly. He gets paid very well to be a pig. But when the Republicans nominate an even bigger pig to run for President and then spend billions trying to con people into voting for him, that's another matter.
Yesterday, Mitt gave a speech to his donors, trying to "explain" to them where their massive contributions to his campaign went. Here's a report from the New York Times, with some good quotes from Mitt that everyone should hear:
"In a conference call with fund-raisers and donors to his campaign, Mr. Romney said Wednesday afternoon that the president had followed the “old playbook” of using targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”
"Targeted initiatives." I suppose that it never, ever, occurred to Romney that planning to give trillions in tax breaks to the very people he was speaking to might also be considered "targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups." Oh no, bribing voters only applies when the government tries to help "the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people." Mitt continues:
“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups...With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008."
Trying to insure that people can have health care or an education is a "big gift." On the other hand, seeing to it that the rich have to contribute nothing to the running of our country is sound national policy that could never be confused with favoritism.
"You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Well, enough of that. The other reason cited by Republicans for Romney's loss was that Obama "defined" Romney to the voters as the sociopathic, entitled rich bully that we saw in the now-famous "47%" tape. Well, here is the truth: Obama did not define Romney; that is what Romney was, is, and will always be. It was Republicans who did the "defining," spending their money to try to convince people that Romney was a decent human being with the nation's best interest at heart. A bigger lie was never told, and we can be very thankful that the truth was so obvious that they couldn't convince enough people to win the election.