Mitt Romney Video Caught On Camera Telling the Truth!! Hidden Camera Catches Off the Cuff Remarks at Fundraiser. Gallup: 67% of Dems Want More!

GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney was taped while speaking at a private fundraiser back in May of 2011. His remarks were in a Q&A style, addressing concerns of potential diners as to Romney’s potential as a contender for the White House. The tape was released yesterday by the left-leaning, Mother Jones magazine. In this “hidden camera” tape, Romney speaks to the audience about his campaign strategy and which voters he will win over, and those he will not - it is evident that this is what is taking place in the video (even though it was cut to a smart 30 second clip). The New York Times offers a take on this as “Romney Faults Those Dependent on Government” leading with:

”During a private reception with wealthy donors this year, Mitt Romney described almost half of Americans as “people who pay no income tax” and are “dependent upon government.” Those voters, he said, would probably support President Obama because they believe they are “victims” who are “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

Nowhere in the taped remarks does Mitt Romney "fault" anyone.

Of course, the opening paragraph is close to what Romney said, and Romney is correct in his video remarks, the media and Mother Jones think it’s shocking that Romney’s campaign believes that he will appeal to Republicans! It is shocking that the campaign would focus their attention on independents! It is shocking that the campaign would not go overboard trying to attract those individuals who would automatically vote Democrat. In speaking of automatic Obama voters, Romney points out that 47% of the nation pays no taxes and is dependent upon the government – citing these individuals as the Obama base. Of course, it’s a bit broader than that, but not by much.

According to a new Gallup Poll 67% of Democrats do not believe the government is doing enough! When one thinks of those who are most likely the partisan Obama voters, one thinks of those who rely on the government in some way, shape or form, specifically public employee union members and organizers, those individuals who are generational welfare recipients, and those who are going to vote for a Democrat, no matter what, due to blind partisanship.

On the flip side, one has the generic Republican voter who will vote for a Republican no matter what, those that are in the military, those that are the middle income taxpayers, those that are concerned about the economy, and those that are big on individual liberty rather than government intervention.

Then you have those moderates, who are concerned with helping others, but not to the point where one is given and EBT card that offers free tattoos (Massachusetts EBT, no kidding), those who feel that the economy is in tatters and that JFK and Reagan using tax cuts as a means to jump start the economy, were right, those that are concerned about Middle East policy and will vote for a Democrat or Republican, depending upon who that individual feels is most like to “fix” the situation. Those are the moderate and independent voters who swing elections. That’s this opinion of course, based on polls, and statistics available through a simple Google search.
So, Romney is caught on camera, telling the truth about who is going to vote for whom. Shocking!

See the full video on You Tube here at Mother Jones You Tube Channel which has received 338 views – so help them out!

Meanwhile, what you will see is a smart and savvy campaigner who understands his base, the middle, the way the economy will react, and get this: Romney’s remarks will not appeal to the Obama base, it will automatically appeal to the Romney base, and the moderate or independent? One has to guess these are the smart voters who are not taken in by the constant hype of any campaign, but reality – and Romney is speaking directly to the moderate who might vote either way, who might just find his remarks to be not only “off-the-cuff” but, grounded in reality. This was not a slam at Obama’s base, but a strategy of which voter Romney felt he would appeal.

Go figure. Every campaign has their supporters:

Classic 2008 campaign clip: “Now I don’t have to worry about paying for…”


The flip side: Welfare Fraud (Short Documentary) “It’s free money!” (Talking to the Middle)

A sensible response to the entitlement program by an average American! – Talking about limits!! And Tax Credit Limits!!!



Consider that President Obama’s Administration has waived the work requirement for welfare recipients (the claim is they tweaked the current law, not gutted the law), especially during an election year cycle, it does, intentionally or not, appear that the Campaign is attempting to solidify its base – i.e. those who feel that the government should do more.

In short, both President Obama and Mitt Romney need to appeal to their base, both need to appeal to the independent voter – both will most likely loose voters to the other candidate, or alienate voters who will stay home rather than vote at all. That said, although many may claim that the polls are extremely close, and that likeability is a factor, will vote with their pocketbooks, and whether or not they “like” a guy (or a woman for that matter), it is the one who is perceived as most competent that will rule the day.

This non-story will be a huge story for the next three days – while the Middle East is burning, while the Libyan President specifically stated that the the murder of our U.S. Ambassador was premeditated, and that it had nothing to do with a stupid movie - the strategy form the White House and its campaign supporter will be to ignore, deflect, and hope that the American Public finds Mitt Romney, telling the truth news! Those 50% of American’s working extra hours; extra jobs to make ends meet, might just miss it entirely, or agree with Romney if they do manage to catch the clip. This is not a “gotcha” moment, no matter how one slices it – the left will eat it up, and the middle? It’s: Nothing to see here, move along.

What In Romney’s Tax Returns? – Digging for Dirt Reveals Romney Helps Family Purchase First Home

Romney's Pictured with his "Build It" Slogan - Walks the Walk - image Chron.com

While the Obama Campaign, Harry Reid and every news outlet continues to call for more than two years of Mitt Romney’s tax returns to be released, accusing Mitt Romney of not paying his “fair share” of taxes - The New York Times has uncovered an investment that might make those who would see Romney as a “vulture capitalist” back track a bit. Tucked into the real estate news section is an article about Romney’s investments in Houston in the early 1980’s. This real estate investment involved purchasing lower income properties, renting them out to own, in order to for everyone to benefit – the investor and those renting the properties. The housing market in Texas took a turn for the worst, and Romney held onto the properties even when other investors bailed. When the market improved, he gave the renters the opportunity to buy the homes – personally backing the mortgages, even to those that could not be approved for a traditional bank mortgage. (NY Times)

From the New York Times:

“The renters were offered the first chance to buy, but the Stampses could not qualify for a mortgage, recalled Mr. Stamps, who at the time had recently lost his job at an oil company.

“Then I got this phone call, personally, from Mr. Romney, asking if we really wanted to buy the house,” Mr. Stamps, 63, said in an interview the other day at the barbershop he now runs. “I said, yes we did. And he said he would loan us the money. He really helped us when we needed it.”

“Mr. Stamps said that he and his wife had received calls in recent months from strangers who “seemed to be looking for negative stuff” about Mr. Romney, but that the couple had nothing to say to them. (The Stampses recently refinanced the original 30-year loan; the new mortgage, still with Mr. Romney, was dated June 12 but signed just two weeks ago. Details of the interest rate were not included in the public record.)”

The Times article notes that the Romney Campaign had no statement on this particular story – which is not unlike the Campaign – given that there are instances in Romney’s character that show a man that would help individuals, no matter the circumstances, and no matter who the individual are. It is a rare glimpse at the “other Mitt Romney”, the young man who gave his entire inheritance to charity away while in college and opted to live in a basement apartment in Boston instead. A young man who worked his way up the ladder on his own – no handouts. Critics are quick to site that there must be something he’s hiding in those tax returns, and perhaps there is – perhaps additional investments and or charitable ventures that, the reserved Romney might prefer to keep to himself.

Little has been reported about his selfless rescue of a family and their dog while he was the Governor of Massachusetts – those types of stories don’t fit with the Press and Obama Campaign narrative. Moreover, and the reserved Romney doesn’t tout personal information that might put him in a very positive light. Perhaps given his position in the national spotlight, he prefers not to involve others that he may have helped – the result being hounded by “people that were looking for negative stuff” on Mitt Romney. It is all speculation on what drives the man who has built a fortune from the ground up, while being characterized as heartless by the Obama PAC’s and Campaigns – with 98% of the “news” coverage regarding Romney being negative. One might think he’d like a boost – but it’s obvious that’s not in his character. It does however, play into the Romney narrative of a hand up not a hand out to those in need, unlike the current government policy.

Perhaps those other returns might reveal instances where he reached out and helped others, something that would go missing from the main news (but tucked into “real estate” or under some other heading bound to less viewed) while the focus would continue to be on his ability to amass a fortune, as if the very act of striking it rich, were a crime in our society. Those returns may tell a different story and show a side to the former Massachusetts Governor that would not work for Harry Reid, or the Obama Campaign, but Romney’s sticking by the law that does not require candidates to release any tax returns.

Obama To Hit Campaign Trail – Universities in VA and OH, Romney On The Trail in OH – Also Speaking at University - Battle of the Professor vs. A CEO

Romney Speaking at Lawrence University Students Line Up to Hear Romney Speak - Obama Enters the Twilight Zone - image Appleton Post Crescent

From the Boston Globe: President Obama will officially kick of his 2012 re-election campaign on May 5th at two University rally’s, one in Virginia and one in Ohio Best line from the Globe: “Not that Obama hasn’t been campaigning for months.”

Obama has earned the moniker Campainger in Chief from the media, Ann Arbor.com’s headline: “Campaigner in chief: Obama address to Ann Arbor crowd sounded like stump speech”suggests that the President’s tone is more about his re-election and less like a “speech designed to “move Congress,” not his standing in the polls”, as suggested by his Campaign Manager, David Axelrod (Boston Globe)

When the administration is transparent, they deny it – go figure.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney will be campaigning with Governor John Kasich in Ohio Romney's campaign announced Wednesday afternoon that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and Kasich will hold a 2 p.m. meeting with graduating seniors at Otterbein University in Westerville.(Cleveland.com).

Now, as to style, the President holds a rally, and Romney holds a meeting – while one is looking to rouse up a crowd, the other is seeking input from the crowd – The President is big on “forgiveness of student loans”, while Romney will most likely speak to the same theme, yet include something about opportunities, and putting that education to good use – by working in one’s chosen field. The two could not provide a sharper contrast in a Campus setting – as the youth vote seems to be the target.

Which brings up a question, just how interested are the “youth” in this election and in Obama’s re-election in particular? Apparently, the enthusiasm from 2008 has “waned” a bit according to the News Observer (Raleigh, NC) although the youth vote in North Carolina still favors the President, they are not all that excited about him – he’s lost his “aura” one student noted in the article. – And that’s Raleigh, NC, where the President is expected to do well.

Overall the “youth vote” was at 9% in the 2010 midterm elections, and in 2008, the Youth Vote, gained 1% over the 2004 elections, for a stunning 18% of the total vote, (up from 17% in 2004) (study of voter patterns from 1960 through 2008 from Nonprofitvote.org.
The study also concludes the Youth vote splits party affiliation, and in viewing the statistics by year, one can see a pattern emerge, economics drive the youth vote.
Suddenly Mitt Romney is looking like a Rock Star.

Obama does have that “get to see a sitting President and get out of class by attending a rally advantage”, however, one has ask: if the youth vote are disenfranchised with Obama (except for the student loan forgiveness effort aimed specifically at the youth vote), a percentage of those students might prefer to put their education to good use, rather than say, have their loan forgiven. As Romney will be speaking in terms of education equals a future with a job and sufficient salary to leave Mom’s house and get a real job that might make the difference as to who gets the vote.

One would think that the youth vote is of some import, and while both candidates are on the stump (one who may have a bit of difficulty running on his economic record, and the other, campaigning on his record of financial successes, the other demographics to consider are the people that have jobs, and those that don’t.
A final note highlighting the ridiculous comment, made by a Congressional Democrat, via Real Clear Politics: “The Unemployed will vote for Obama to Keep their benefits.” One would think that those who are receiving “taxable” unemployment benefits, would much prefer to have a job, rather than collect a check that does not reflect their potential earnings. It is the divide between the Democrat Party thought, and in the aforementioned case “speak” that all American’s prefer to get their money from the government, while – Romney is out there campaigning for individual freedoms and the ability to make one’s own cash, with the only government interference being taxes, not limits on how much one can collect from the government.

Although it is true, the education system in this nation, run by Progressives, has been dummying down the electorate since the 1970’s, turning them into the “masses” that would be sheep – yet, sheep revolt when they are hopeless, and see no future, until some old white guy, comes along saying: “Look I made Millions, you can too – all without the help of the Federal government.” – Romney just may end up being the pied piper of prosperity. Then again, if the youth vote holds true to Progressive tenants, then Obama just may end up with 17% of the vote.