The "left" has taken that quote, mis-characterized it, and successfully blown it out of proportion. Essentially, the "left", like the Imams in the Muslim world, has successfully inflamed the mob.
Very poor analogy. Are you really trying to compare the media surrounding Mitt Romney's statements to the actions of religious extremists that caused American deaths? You can say they mis-characterised, that it is not right, etc, but I think you're stepping over a line of decency when you make a comparison such as you have. Your posts, while I don't always agree with them, are usually very factual with links to your sources. You're better than the above quote.
Romney was essentially expressing a tactical decision, he knows that a certain segment of the population will not have an interest in voting for him. Therefore, devoting resources to entice that segment to vote for him would be unproductive.
And that's fine, but when he specifically said 47%, and that 47% is a well-known figure that represents everyone that does not pay income tax, then it is hard to shrug off the connotations. Had he just said "There is a large group of Americans that will not vote for me, because they are dependent on government", there wouldn't be a problem. Heck, I think we need to have that conversation as a country. But the way he did it lacked tact, and would be an embarrassment if it was uttered by a sitting president.
The Washington Post even had some nice graphic that demonstrated that the poor, woman, Hispanics, and blacks had a propensity to vote for the Democrats. Romney's remarks were an acknowledgement of this propensity.
It is no secret that Democrats tend to favor the middle & poor class, while Republicans favor the upper class. The majority of poor, Hispanics, and blacks fall in these two segments that Democrats represent. That should not be a shock. Again, it is not that Romney said it, it is the way that he said it.
Additionally, many of those fanning the flames of outrage purposely distorted the "tax" issue. Essentially there are two types of "taxes", 1) an income tax and 2) a payroll tax that is really a (forced) contribution to social security. The "left", even though the poor may not pay an income tax, loudly proclaim that the poor are still somehow facing a repressive tax burden; not bothering to acknowledge that this faux repressive "tax" burden really is a retirement contribution that the person gets back when he or she retires.
Where do Democrats claim that the poor are facing a "repressive tax"? You seem to be taking on the mantle of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and blowing everything up to absurd proportions.
Taxes are a part of life. Income tax, payroll tax, sales taxes, etc. When someone says "These people pay no taxes, they're irresponsible and will never be convinced that they are the problem", that is a very derogatory comment. Especially when you realize that these people do pay payroll taxes and sales taxes. Your rationale regarding payroll tax very well may have some merit (assuming that by the time these people paying payroll taxes would benefit from the programs they are funding are still around).
But what about sales taxes? Are you going to try to claim that sales taxes that poor people pay don't matter? Romney essentially called all of these people losers that are living off of everyone else. That is highly offensive.
In terms of who should be elected President, we have a choice between two "evils". Obama's "bread and circuses" or Romney's proposed restoration of failed Republican economic policies.
There is never going to be a candidate that is going to come along and satisfy your requirements unless you trust them. Some people trust President Obama, some don't. I think when you weigh the positives versus the negatives, President Obama is clearly the better choice.
But as Vassago has said in the past, why not cast your vote for Gary Johnson? You seem to be more in lockstep with the Libertarian viewpoint based on your previous comments.
