Which sentiment exactly? You just said he was right in his facts. How is he supposed to address the problem if you won't allow him to speak on it?
And this is also why this blurb was intended for a handful of faithful supporters and not the general public. He's talking nuts and bolts because these big money guys want to hear specifics. They already heard the commercials like the rest of us; if you want the hundred grand, they want to hear how smart you are. Romney blurts the uncomfortable elephant in the room truth out like somebody that doesn't have time to waste on a bunch of platitudes. A liberal hears that, is offended right off, that one's worth is judged by their income and taxes, especially by a rich man. it figures, huh?
And miss the whole point. Namely, that not only are these people not paying taxes, worse; they are not earning incomes worth taxing. And they still have to live and eat and spend on healthcare the same as the rest of us; 47% of the people are basically not even making a living. They are just squeaking by, or they're falling behind, but they're certainly not creating any wealth, which is what has to happen for us not to go broke. Exactly what this article says by the way: An influx of capital to jump-start business and jobs at the low end of the economy. (I wonder who would have been well qualified for that...)
So he's telling the rich Republican donors exactly the truth, and the real problem that needs to be attacked, and he still can't get a break from you. Okay, you did cut him a bit of a break, but you still couldn't possibly support him? Or the sentiment that some portion of that 47% need jobs? There's no evil there, which I believe you recognized.
Let me tell you something in case you're unaware: We're broke. Well, going broke; it takes a long time in a country this big. Romney would have made us money; that's what he does. He seems to be very good at it. Everything he touches. How many Olympics actually make money? I believe his Utah one did. And it was fucked up when he took over.
Here's another hint. Don't listen to what they say; look at what they've done. I know your biggest fear might be how far he sets back your causes, even while you admit the benefits of fiscal responsibility. But Massachusetts is still a pretty liberal place, in spite of him turning their giant deficit into a surplus, while phasing in universal health coverage, improved schools and tax cuts. They survived Romney.
They did what they had to do, not only to get a guy to run things right for a while, but more importantly maybe, send a message to the other side, which would be your side, that they don't own you, especially if they get too far from the center. And of course that goes for both sides. I wish you'd give me a Democrat I could cross over and vote for btw.
Is the Democrat that followed Romney more fiscally responsible than the ones before? I'm off to see if I can find out.