I think that I can prove that the Romney tape “1-2 minute gap” was not the result of a technical failure, but instead was done in post-production. It is possible that was a technical error but we’re getting deep in Rosemary Woods territory there.
Here is a screenshot of the Mother Jones page, where I have stopped the two videos at the end of the first and beginning of the second. This brackets the time that Corn’s begrudging “update” suggests that the perpetrator had to fix the recording device. Clearly we see that enough time has elapsed for several items on the table — items that had not moved in half an hour — have now moved, and for a waiter to have moved into the field of view. So, yes, and least a few minutes have passed.
But do you see the problem? Looking into the distance at the room itself: the ceiling and support column, the chairs, etc, the placement of the camera has not changed in this time. Mother Jones would have you believe that 1) the recording device suffered an unknown failure; 2) this was discovered and fixed; and 3) the device was either never budged in this process or it was placed down exactly in the same place afterwards.
I call bullshit. I have had electronic devices fail, sure, but it has never been so obvious that I could fix it without at least picking it up and looking to see why. Further, Corns isn’t an idiot, so this was obvious to him, too. He’s clearly lying and knew that the tape had been edited in a critical place right from the beginning.
Which makes this a fraud and that gap most certainly contains context that spoils the narrative.
UPDATE: Animated GIF. There is a slight change in the two minutes. which could be lighting, could be my poor animation skills, or could be the effect of the waiter’s hand goning going on the table, but is still too tiny to be “fixing the camera.” Unless you really, really, really want it to be.
Looks pretty convincing to me. Of course once you start talking about camera angles and missing time, the media will coccoon and call it all “nutty conspiracy” talk.
Of course they will, because it is.
No they will because they’re lying lawless fascists.
That is because they believe that reality is a nutty conspiracy.
The relative positions of the architectural moldings and archways is absolutely identical. Good catch. An animated GIF toggling between the two images would bring the point home nicely.
Did it. Sorry, you’re wrong. chair stays right where the mouse is pointing. Lighting is different which creates the illusion of movment, but no movement occurs. Your suggestion provides further proof that the recording device did NOT move. Thanks!
Hey, I believed you from the beginning. Read my 1st comment again. Apart from my subject/verb grammar error, its clear enough. You must be confusing my comment with Nikolay’s comment.
If you put the mouse pointer at, say. the chair at one video, and then scroll down to another video, it will become obvios that the placement of the camera _did_ change. So your whole point is false.
Dude, I just did what you suggested by placing my mouse arrow at the chair that the blonde woman was sitting in. The camera didn’t move. This is fraud.
Agree, toliver.
Also – if you use your hand to block the area of the animated GIF portion where the waiter appears, the difference in position of the bowl and the arch becomes minimal. Just a few pixels.
Corn’s credibility is now right there with Jayson Blair.
“If you put the mouse pointer at, say. the chair at one video…” Hmm, cause chairs do not move. Let’s place the mouse pointer on the woman’s head sitting on the chair. Holy cow her head moved. This whole theory is FALSE!
Way to go Einstein….did it occur to you to test the theory on something that does not move, like say, a wall? There’s an idea. Walls do not move and clearly the corner of the arch lines up on both videos. Totally edited to continue the crusade against the afluent ones in this country. Class warfare is Obama’s style.
I got caught up with the hope and change four years ago. But I have gotten wiser and now I can see his true colors. He is not getting my vote again.
A chair can easily be moved by its occupant with little effort and in a matter of seconds. The walls, ceiling, etc – not so much. Try your experiment again with a fixed object in the distance and see if its the same result (I have not done so)
@Nikolay, “If you put the mouse pointer at, say. the chair at one video, and then scroll down to another video, it will become obvios that the placement of the camera _did_ change. So your whole point is false.”
That is not true.
Set your mouse on the back of the blonde lady’s head, scroll down.
Now, set it in the gap between the blonde lady’s head and the gentleman to her right and scroll down.
Select the peak of the red arch in the background behind Romney., scroll down.
Ummm I think you forgot more obvious question. Where is the point on the video where the person is recorded placing the recorder back or their arm pulling back from the device after having turned it back on?
lol
Duh, yeah.
Which would argue that the device was restarted in place without so much as a wobble as one handled it. Never mind figuring what was wrong without touching it. Same points as above.
I think you’ve very probably nailed it, Kevin.
I put the images on Inkscape and pulled vertical and horizontal guides across both images (oriented side-by-side both next to each other and one on top of the other). The vertical lines match perfectly. The horizontal lines match nearly as well. The vertical lines are the bigger coincidence using the techniques the recorder appears to have used.
Somebody from the Mother Jones side of things is very probably lying.
Props to you for sniffing it out.
The Republicans took the snippet of “you didn’t built that” completely out of context and beat the meme into the ground, they even dedicated an entire night of their convention around this out of context quote. You don’t need the entire speech Obama gave to see the misrepresentation, just a few sentences on either side make is abundantly clear what he was referring to. Mitt spoke for a very long time on the subject, his intent was clear. Not to mention the many other problematic issues on the tape like the Palestinian issue. The context is fairly clear, but I know you guys love a good conspiracy so have at it. The damage is done.
Obama’s remark was aired live and in full. We all saw the entire speech. My take from it was that Obama really does not think anyone is successful without governmental assistance.
On the other hand, Romney’s remarks are not in full as an unkown amount of time is edited out. I don’t have a problem with what he said, but I would like to hear the whole speech just like I heard all of Obama’s speech.
“You didn’t build that” = “I believe in redistribution.” Don’t be such a dumbarse, Alf!
The biggest problem with Obama’s “You didn’t build that!” was that once you watched it in context you realized that the context was worse than the quote. If the context made it sound better it would not have stuck. But it didn’t, it made it sound worse and GAVE the quote its nasty context.
Don’t ever say, “It’s out of context” when the context it worse than the quote.
By “completely out of context”, you must mean the context Democrats made up out of thin cloth after the gaffe? Because we all saw the whole real context, plus we have the context of Obama’s entire life and political career, plus the context of all those on the modern Left who share his views.
The whole tape of Obama showing his true colors was available from day one (and it’s even worse in context), but not with this corrupt, edited BS.
The “context” of the “You Didn’t Build That” gaffe makes it even WORSE for Obama.
Can someone explain to me (without calling me an idiot please) how the context made it worse? Without context sounds pretty bad for sure, but Obama was talking about infrastructure. He says it literally in the sentences preceding it. You’re allowed to not trust what he says, but you can’t dispute what he actually said and pretend it was something else. Same with the 1998 clip. Obama IS a fan of redistribution. He campaigns on it. It’s not some big secret. You’re missing the whole point of Romney’s 47% comments where Republicans need to appeal to moderates and independents if you want to win. And do you want to win or be right?
People who do not build businesses also use every bit of infrastructure that business owners use. Also, business owners often use substantial resources to supply services that are portrayed as services that only support business, such as their own security and fire protection. In some cases, those services are provided to the local community as needed. For example, a nuclear power plant had an armored car for plant security. During a local hostage situation, the local sheriff borrowed the armored car to end the standoff. In addition, businesses are often required to provide infrastructure assets in order to get permission to build their business. On top of that government continually imposes costly regulations on businesses.
Mother Jones is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Nonprofits cannot engag in politics. MJ skirts this law by just reporting (one side of) the news. If Corn and/or MJ is actively shaping the news by selective editing, then they lose their nonprofit status. Mother Jones would then become part of the 53%.
You must be joking. Media Matters exists for the express purpose of bringing down Fox and working for the administration in every other opportunity and they never get so much as a wrist slap. Holder went campaigning through the Black Church circuit and no one said a word. On the other hand Tea Party orgs can’t get past the documentation that the administration demands for them alone.
Gee, a liberal is caught lying. What else is new. David Corn of Mother Jones stated the full video had been released, when in fact Legal Insurrection’s William Jacobson emailed David Corn telling him there was in fact a missing section to the video. Only then did David Corn finally fess up and admit there was indeed a gap (a section missing) from the video. If is very apparent that David Corn is “hiding” something, because an honest person would have acknowledged the “gap” up front. Yet David Corn only did so when he was caught “red handed” lying about the content of the video.
David Corn is probably also lying about the missing section of video. Corn said there was a technical glitch and the video camera turned itself off and was then turned back on when the mistake was noticed. How convenient right? David Corn is likely making that all up in an attempt to protect his own hide. How does a video camera suddenly turn “itself” off? It doesn’t unless the “user” turns it off. As Kevin pointed out, if the camera inadvertently turned itself off (yeah right) the person would have picked up the camera to see what was going on and then placed the camera back down after correcting the glitch. It is also highly improbable for the camera to be placed in the ‘exact’ same position as it was before the purported glitch occurred. Therefore, in all likelihood, there was intentional “editing” of the video because the missing section of video most likely contains “damning” evidence against David Corn’s sordid attempt to try and destroy Mitt Romney. The missing section of video no doubt puts in context what Mitt Romney was speaking about and since the missing section of video would bring to “light” what David Corn is trying to keep “secret”, it blatantly demonstrates the “darkness” of David Corn’s heart as well as the deceptive nature he used in trying to cover up the facts about the content of the video. Which he is deliberately “hiding” from the public and the press in his continuing attempt to suppress the truth.
Truth sets you free. On the other hand, lying and distorting the facts and trying to cover your tracks is both dishonest and it will keep David Corn a shady character with absolutely ‘zero’ credibility in the eyes of the American people. Maybe he relishes in that persona, who knows. And it will also further bolster the public perception of Mother Jones as a liberal “hack” job website in the tank for Obama. In the toilet is more like it.
The camera has moved slightly. I created a gif to show it.
http://i.imgur.com/aJQHJ.gif
I pulled the videos from Youtube and opened them in VLC to take the screenshots.
See my update which predates your comment.
Looks like we were working on the same thing at the same time.
There are all kinds of reasons why the camera may not have moved much when correcting a failure. I have a video camera that doesn’t automaticlly start recording on the 2nd card when it fills up the first. I just need to hit the record button again to start on the next one. Other cameras can have the battery swapped out the back without moving it. Either way, this doesn’t look like postproduction trickery. Still, he may have turned it off and back on. However, if he wanted to cut the video in such a way to make Romney look bad, he would have had to know what was going to be said during the cut before hand. The only way we’ll know for sure is if the person who recorded it tells us himself, and then it’s up to us whether we accept what he says or not.
Editing can’t be done later? How is that again?
Your gif shows the lighting changed. That is all.
Check the first 20 seconds of the video. The photog starts the camera, while pointed at the vase. Various plastic sounds consistent with pressing camera buttons. Camera is turned to the right. Reflection of camera in righthand silver piece. Shape of camera somewhat visible. Photog puts white napkin over camera to hide. Napkin causes camera to shake slightly.
In part 2 the photog manages to remove the napkin, power up the camera, start recording with no button sounds (as in part 1), and do so with precision alignment in part 1.
Not likely. Corn may believe the story from his source but the source has edited the video.
Yeah, what you said.
Posted the same thing later than you.
The stuff in the extreme foreground (e.g. the out-of-focus pitcher on the far left) would be the most sensitive to changes in the camera’s position. It doesn’t move at all. Watch the vertical blur (the handle, or whatever) on that pitcher. No motion. Similarly for the glass on the far right.
You can’t pick up a device, fiddle with it, and put it back down that accurately. It would have to be glued to the table.
I did screen captures of the before and after sections and overlayed them in Photoshop. They are almost per-pixel matches. They’re off by just a couple pixels. It is impossible to turn a camera back on or fiddle with its controls and only move the frame a couple pixels. See how much the picture changes when the camera operator moves the camera in the Part 1 video (36:39) at 3:30, 3:38, 8:07, 8:11, 8:46, 10:21, 12:34, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge03Sys8SdA
On a different note, if anyone wondered about Romney’s conservative bona fides before this video, their concern should be greatly assuaged. Romney is the real deal. It’s refreshing to hear him talk so openly and with remarkable perspicacity on a range of subjects. And he’s funny, likable, and engaging, contrary to the media (and pajamas media) narrative.
The first video provides some additional incriminating clues.
The recording device records its own image via reflection from a serving pitcher to the right when it is first moved into place. You can see the light on the camera indicating that it is functioning. The cameraperson places a napkin over the device to hide the light.
The camera moves when it is covered.
It’s not hard to explain why, if the camera stopped on its own, the camera doesn’t move when the napkin comes away. The tough thing to explain is why the camera doesn’t move either when it is turned on or covered again with something that hides the indicator light.
We can also wonder how the owner of the camera discovered it wasn’t working.
Something else nobody has mentioned. If this joker was “secretly” recording this Romney event…we’re supposed to believe he’s sitting right there with the camera, notices that it has malfuctioned in some way, picks it up and fiddles with it, then places it back down? And all in super-secret-ninja style where NOBODY notices what he’s doing? And the most “damaging” portion of Romney’s speech JUST happens to be the EXACT part of the tape that malfuctions? Come on…really? Really?
Clearly he was part of the catering staff, and many of the staff had to know about it.
Pingback: Anonymous
Your .gif is great for showing the reflection of the camera still covered by the napkin hiding the indicator light in what appears to be exactly the same position.
Looks all the more like the video was edited.
Scratch that; it seems more likely the reflection of the napkin on the table to the left foreground.
So the next questions are: Where is the rest of the tape Mother Jones? Why did you lie?
But regardless of this, what Romney said was correct.
Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Romney Tape Gap NOT Recording Error
Pingback: David Corn’s story continues to unravel… | RedGalBlueState
I’m not clever enough to know for certain if the camera moved or not, or whether the source edited the video. But as Lauren above points out, the video we do see shows Mittens as a true conservative, as an excellent dinner speaker, and as someone who is engaging, comfortable and clear-thinking.
We may never know what is in the missing video. But I’m comfortably certain that the missing video doesn’t hurt Mitt in any way. More important, the video we DO see doesn’t hurt Mitt in any way.
If the Romney campaign has any sense they’ll make TV and radio ads from these video clips.
Mr. Corn and MJ: thanks for bringing the video to the public’s attention. Well-played, gentlemen, well-played.
Pingback: Media Disorientation is Complete
Remember that the table can move when it is bumped or wiped.
So, if the tabletop things don’t move, and the distant walls shift slightly, that says the camera didn’t move on the table, and wasn’t touched.
It is hard enough to get the subject in the frame during sneaky recordings, let alone touch the camera to push buttons without moving it.
Usually some kind of shim is needed to hold the camera at the perfect angle, (similar to shimming a wobbly table with sugar bags.).
All very fussy and easily disturbed.
I agree, the gap came by editing.
RR
I’m a video producer by trade. The slight differences you see in the two images appear to be from differing focal lengths. The autofocus camera has shifted its focal plain closer when the waiter enters the frame. Center of frame objects will appear aligned, but outer frame objects will be slightly misaligned because of their soft focus.
This makes sense as it does appear to be a slight distortion rather than movement.
now, now, after all this sherlock-holming, can we not getalong now? just a media sideshow to kinda focus away from all the changes obama promised and all failed to” complete”
One simple question before I address the many amateurish attempts at uncovering some kind of deceptively edited “mysterious” gap on this video.
Let’s imagine it WAS edited and something was taken out.
What exactly could possibly be on that tape that would move Mother Jones to just…delete it? What could Romney have said? Can anyone take a wild stab at recreating it? It’s going to have to be something monumental, or else you’re going to look very silly. What did he say?
If he said something that indicated he really was concerned about the poor, and perhaps teared up, the audience would have yawned and probably thrown those expensive chairs at him. But this would have been the exact reason MJ would have removed it, because it would make him look **good** in liberals eyes. But it would put a lie to all those on this blog who say that he is a “core” a true conservative….hmmhhhhh.
I’m stumped…just why would MJ ever remove something? Someone, please HELP ME OUT HERE!!!
I know that by asking this question, I’m entirely removing the supports that hold up this transparent attempt at redirecting everyone’s attention from Romney’s despicable comments.
And BTW, no wonder there are so many imaginative ideas on how this video was possibly toyed with. Right wingers seem to be very skilled at selectively editing audio (Nixon), and video (O’Keefe) or just outright deleting videos (Bush, and torture videos) .
So, we prove that your lefty-progressive buddies are lying. And they lied to produce a product with a potential for negative impact on the Romney campaign.
But now, you dismiss what was obviously removed to fabricate a false narrative and claim that whatever might have been removed couldn’t possibly change anything.
This is what passes for logic and reason among lefty-progressives.
No wonder things are as screwed up as they are.
Oh..I see…it’s been proven has it? Where is the proof?
You call these bush league attempts at video analysis PROOF?
But getting back to my question, please post what you think is SO injurious, so damning, that Corn would have edited it out.
I can see that, not counting your childish reply, no one else is man enough to answer my question. Why? Because it has no answer. It doesn’t make an ounce of logical sense.
And clearly, you haven’t understood what I said. Why don’t you try to read it again.
I didn’t “claim that whatever might have been removed couldn’t possibly change anything.”
I asked anyone…ANYONE…to try to fill in that supposed missing segment. What could Romney have possibly said that would have so scared, or upset, or prompted Corn to edit it out? Take a wild stab. Think of any and everything. What could he have said that was so “toxic” to liberals?
Come on tough guy…take a shot at it. Put that logic and reason you so obviously are brimming with to good use.
But as we both say somewhere in this thread, this whole exercise is nonsensical given that Romney has stated he stands behind the comments, if not their artistry.
And then I have to wonder, isn’t this Randian maker/taker worldview supposed to be what these people believe? And, if so, why aren’t they standing up for it, rather than trying to hide it?
I took the two frames and digitally took the difference between them. Things that are identical in the two frames become black. It’s quite obvious that the camera was not moved, as everything that is in both frames blacks out. I can email you the difference photo. I have posted it at
OK, it would let me post the picture. So you can find it here
Nice. Very similar to posting two wire frame images of the animated gif I suggested before seeing your efforts. Clearly the position of the camera did not change AT ALL…
There might be another way to tell if this was edited, if you can find somebody with some decent MPEG analysis software.
When video is recorded, the camera only compresses a complete frame, called an I-Frame, once every half second or so. The subsequent frames, called P-Frames, are just a set of scene changes from the I-frame, which makes them much smaller than the I-frame. As a result, the video will contain something like the following: set of frames:
IPPPPPPPPPPPPPPIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPIPPP…
Each I-frame and the P-frames following it are called “group of pictures”, with the charming acronym GOP. (I guess that acronym could turn out to be ironic in this case…) This is a standard technique for reducing the size and bit rate of video. (I’m simplifying this somewhat; there are also B-frames interspersed with the P-frames, but for purposes of my argument a B-frame will have similar artifacts to a P-frame.)
Now, when you edit something, each frame is separately decompressed and displayed in the editing software. This way, you can make edits between any two frames you want. However, after editing is complete, unless the edit took place exactly between the last P-frame in one GOP and the next I-frame in the next GOP, the software will wind up creating a new I-frame out of the P-frame that was at the edit point.
Here’s the thing, though: P-frames usually have distinctive artifacts in them, and a P-frame in the original that’s been recompressed as an I-frame will show distinctive artifacts. Unless you have a very savvy editor, I’d say that there’s about a 14 in 15 chance that the edit point will indeed between two P-frames, and the edited video should show an I-frame that’s funny at the edit point.
On the other hand, the camera will always start recording–or re-recording–with a genuine I-Frame, which shouldn’t contain any P-frame artifacts.
I’m not good enough with MPEG to do this, but I’ll bet that some hard-core video folks could do the analysis. A negative result can’t conclusively disprove that the video was edited (because the editor might have edited on an I-frame boundary), but a positive result can conclusively prove that it was edited.
Well, that’s very true, however my video editor will shutter to the nearest I-Frame for editing an MPEG file, so it’s quite possible the edit was actually made at the P-frame prior (Avidemux does this). However, after the edit was done, the whole video may have been decompressed-recompressed again, which would eliminate this evidence. That’s what I would do, but I’m a pretty savvy editor.
I don’t think most editors decompress/recompress, because it degrades the overall video quality, not just the quality for a couple of frames around the edit. IIRC they just recompress to the next GOP boundary. To do a full recompress, you’d have to play the video out and frame-grab it, which would be odd. Also, the recompression is detectable, because you’re compressing artifacts that got rendered on the first pass. You’ll wind up with a much higher entropy recording that way.
There is virtually no change in fixed elements on the right side of the video frame. You can tell by placing your mouse pointer on a fixed point in the animated gif and watching the frames as they cycle.
It is theoretically possible the camera was picked up and “fixed” but it seems more likely that the video was edited.
Even touching an on/off switch on a camera sitting on a table would cause it to slide or turn slightly which would cause a change in position on fixed elements in the room. There is no such change.
Try reducing the still frames to wire frames with different colors and overlaying the two images. That should be telling.
Absolute and utter nonsense. Just bald-faced, talking out your ass nonsense.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and jump to wild speculation that then becomes “proof”. It’s remarkable.
Who said the camera was “broken”? The commenters on this thread. Who said it was impossible to lightly push a button on a point and shoot and not move it? You did. No evidence, no tests, nothing.
We’re at the discretion of your gut, and your evidence-less opinion. Unless you can prove something with real tests and real documented evidence, don’t you think it would be prudent for you to….say nothing?
Okay, why don’t all people on this thread do this one simple test. Take out all your point and shoots, all your iphones (with a touch sensitive, move free touch screen play button), and run some tests. Try filming something, try stopping the video, then try restarting it. See if anything shifts. I want to see real tests here if this preposterous theory is going to be taken seriously. And if you’re really serious, set this all up in a lab environment.
I’m guessing this will NEVER happen. It’s more fun to just speculate and try to make yourself look like a genius.
I said the camera clearly wasn’t moved. And that is clear.
Now you do this 100 times with different cameras and see if you can reproduce the results.
I say you can’t.
Get back to me with your results and after you have stopped beating your wife…
Putz.
It is extremely *easy* to replicate the lack of movement. If the video was taken with a cell phone all you need to do is to *wedge* the phone between two objects, neither of which need show up against the camera. I just did it with an iPhone, and while I don’t know how to make an animated GIF, I don’t see the kind of movement that people here are saying should happen. Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge might try.
Do we know what kind of equipment the video was recorded with? I could see how some modern camcorders would be difficult to do this with, because the screens aren’t responsive enough.
Am I the only one thinking of Dan Rather right now?
Nope. Glad someone did this research, too.
Am I missing something? Didn’t Romney already come out and say that what he said reflects what he believes, but that perhaps he just said it inarticulately? Who exactly is suggesting, anywhere, that the tape is a misrepresentation of his beliefs? Nobody is. I have absolutely no idea if there is some conspiracy to remove two minutes of footage from the video, but if there is, to what end? Romney has never suggested there’s any missing context that would alter what he said, because, again, he’s already stood by his words.
This whole thing is a farce, really, just so that people can write headlines that read “The Romney Tape has Been Doctored!”
That won’t stop these ditto headed, self-declared genius sleuths from carrying on about “missing parts” to the video. It’s a giant distraction to the real issue as to the distasteful image Mitt has about a large part of this country.
I’m still waiting for someone to post something cogent and convincing regarding what could possibly be in those supposed “missing” parts that would scare Corn enough to yank them out. See my lonely post above (except for the juvenile response by WarEagle82 – keyboard commando).
What is was is what it was. Someone wanted it out. And it is out. That it was removed indicates they had to take it out to fabricate their falsehood. Clearly, you are too much of a moron to see that.
Additionally, the room appears plenty full of people, so I’d expect someone to come forward saying that the video didn’t match their recollection, were the video to not reflect Romney’s statements.
But I’m not sure that really matters since Romney, himself, has confirmed that he stands behind the statements.
Just like PowerLine nailed Dan Rather back in ’04, you’ve nailed Corn/Carter on this one. Good going!
Two questions for Kevin and his friends.
1) If Mitt said something important that isn’t on the tape, that’s a problem with a simple solution: he can tell us what he said. So why hasn’t he done that?
2) Lots of cameras and camcorders can be operated via a remote control. One of the reasons for this feature is specifically so you can control the camera without moving it. How do you know a remote control was not used?
1. This tape was made months ago, and Mitt’s done hundreds of talks since – how can you expect to remember exactly what he said in this one?
2. How does the maker of the film know to turn the camera back on? And isn’t it interesting that the “error” happens just at the point the liberals have identified as their critical message?
I very much hope Mitt has a separate recording of this somewhere in the campaign archives he can release to the public so this can be cleared up. I am just dying to find out what else was said.
No one is expecting him to remember “exactly” what he said. But if what he said in the missing portion is important, and sheds light on what was said previously, then he should certainly be able to tell us generally what he said. Especially since the room was full of his staff and friends, so he can consult them and they can help him remember. And they would remember, if what he said was important.
Also, this was probably not the only time this question ever come up, and not the only time he gave this answer. This is another reason to expect that he should be able to generally remember what he said.
There are all sorts of plausible scenarios. Here’s one: he accidentally turned off the camera with a remote control. Then a minute or two later he noticed the problem and turned it back on, also using the remote control.
No, because there are many other places in the videos where Mitt says things that are problematic. Also, the taper was probably distracted, thinking about not getting caught, and probably not able to pay very close attention to exactly what Mitt was saying. They were probably a waiter and working while they were taping.
Also, you are essentially claiming that the taper was clairvoyant. If Mitt had just said something interesting and important, the last thing the taper would do is turn the tape off at that moment. On the contrary. They would only turn the tape off if they somehow knew that Mitt was about to say something exculpatory. But there’s only one way they could know that: clairvoyance.
Mitt and his staff and a bunch of supporters were there, and it was only four months ago, and I’m sure they know, at least generally, what he said. (This is true even if no one on his staff recorded the event, and I think it’s likely that someone on his staff does indeed record such events.) But they’re saying nothing, which indicates that what we’re missing is not important.
And if you’re imagining that he said something important, then tell us what you’re imagining. The fundamental problem is that there is no possible statement he could have made that would negate the statements we actually heard. Unless he said ‘everything I said in the last 30 minutes is a joke you should completely ignore.’
But keep hope alive.
That is because nobody can negate reality.
Pingback: One-Sided Media Strikes Again: Romney Tape Deceptively Edited | iBC_FN | iBankCoin Financial News
I’ve used smartphones to take video, as well as good ol’ video cameras, and they can easily be turned on and off without being jostled — especially if they’re resting on or within some other object to hold them steady (or hidden), which I expect was the case here.
That aside, exactly what is the premise of the “mystery minutes” theory? That the whole tape is fraudulent and the audio has been dubbed, or that the missing bit of audio would somehow mitigate:
- Romney’s venomous disdain for 47% of Americans who didn’t pay Federal income taxes — a somewhat ironic perspective given his adroitness as minimizing his own tax payments;
- Romney’s derision for all voters supportive of his opponent as dependent on government;
- Romney being either being ignorant of the difference between the 47% tax statistic and the support % for Obama, or intentionally conflating the two to mislead his audience;
- Romney’s seeming glee at seeing young Chinese women living in prison-like conditions to produce small appliances for very little pay;
- Romney’s duplicity at believing that the barbed-wire fence was to keep desperate Chinese citizens *out* of the labor camp;
- Romney’s admission that he would do nothing to move the peace process forward between Israel and Palestinians, going so far as to again characterize the Palestinians as being incapable of peace;
- Romney’s commitment, should circumstances arise, to take political advantage from any foreign policy crisis that might occur during the campaign, akin to the Iran hostage rescue failure — made all the more egregious by his having followed through on this promise, so cravenly, before the smoke had dissipated in Benghazi;
It would have to be a truly magical ordering of words coming out of Romney’s mouth to somehow explain away what we hear him saying in the video — saying, mind you, with considerably more passion and clarity than we generally ever hear him speak in public. As someone else has said, unless the unrecorded segment would have captured one of the waiters revealing himself to be Ashton Kutcher, and high-fiving Mitt for their co-punking of the donors, the tape pretty much speaks for itself.
Besides, Romney has said it’s all pretty much what he believes — just “inarticulately” phrased.
My recommendation would be to get on board with Mitt and start loudly championing these positions, since they’re what Mitt says he believes. Let’s have that open debate over ideologies that Mitt says he wants to have.
“venomous disdain” is your characterization of what he said.
As far as I can see, he was stating the facts and that there wasn’t much he could do about changing a lot of those peoples minds.
This isn’t going to hurt him as much as the progressives think. Because the majority of Republicans (contrary to the cries of racism) are voting against Mr. Obama because of this situation as Romney described.
It’s pathetic that so many have to be tied to a government handout. That the economy has been so mishandled and that the Democrats have bulled ahead and passed antibusiness legislation despite the economic costs of doing so now. As a result the recovery is weak and any more shocks will plunge us into a situation even the obama slobbering media can’t ignore anymore.
Yeah let’s have that debate about which is better financial ruin, fiscal irresponsibility, anti business anti people legislation leading to more taxes on fewer workers or throwing off these self created shackles keeping businesses from hiring and stop pumping up the money supply to hide the situation while handing out billions to the very people whose greed put us in this situation.
And don’t cry Bush caused it because so what? Maybe he did but Obama and the Democrats don’t seem to be able to stop the slide the he supposedly started so who cares if he caused it; the democrats are ill equipped to stop it because they don’t understand how a free market economy works because they don’t believe in them as they don’t have the control they think they should have. Well for the last 4 years they’ve had control and they’ve managed to make things worse.
Yeah let’s have that debate.
You really believe that the economy has not rebounded more fully because of REGULATION? Please, direct me to the regulations that have hamstrung our economy. I’m in business, so I’d really like to understand what regulations are causing all of this stagnation in wages and so on, and you seem to have the answers — enlighten us, please.
By the way, having control of one of the three branches of government is not the same as having control. You might want to read about the three branches of government, since you don’t seem to understand that.
There was no venom. A mind has to be quite twisted to see any venom in what what was said or how it was said.
“…who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them…. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
You wouldn’t be insulted if somebody said that about you? My narrow white ass you wouldn’t. I pay a higher percentage of tax than Romney does and I’ve never gotten a Bain bailout, so fuck him and fuck you.
Such a short rant, but where to start?
1. I see some venom, just not in Romney’s speech.
2. There was no “Bain bailout.”
3. Romney pays millions in taxes, and probably a higher TOTAL percentage than you. Don’t confuse your top bracket with overall tax rate. You can be in a 28% bracket and still pay less than 10% of your gross income in taxes. Turns out that Buffet’s secretary pays less in total percentage than Buffet does, just for this reason.
4. I’d only be insulted if it was true that I was a freeloader expecting the world to take care of me. But the insult would be that it was true, not that it was said.
Southside Red,
Thank you for noting that people can be offended when people tell them about reality. No venom is needed to explain reality and none was used by Romney. But it is interesting to watch your twisted mind at work. By the way, when somebody is critical of my performance, I have learned to evaluate the criticism to see if it offers insight into improvements that I can make. That is much more beneficial to all than attacking the critic.
Too many comments to check if someone has already said this, but I used the horizontal bars on the chair of the gentleman seated in the middle. You can see them clearly in the first toggle and then between the waiter’s arm and the pitcher in the second toggle. The lower bar is in EXACTLY the same position relative to the table top. Also, the vertical wall beam behind Romney is in exactly the same position, from where it’s first visible, all the way up to the ceiling. The camera never moved.
Looking at the waiter’s hands, notice the nails. I think the hand and the nails are distinctive enough to eliminate some of the wait staff. (it was a male) They can then be questioned as to who occupied that table. Of course that’s if the waiter in the picture isn’t the one who did the recording but who had to make it look like he was working (and possibly hide the camera from view/discovery. which may be why it was shut off for a moment or two.)
We don’t really know how long the gap is do we?
If O’Keefe had done this they’d be squealing like stuck pigs over the gap and the “illegal taping” and crying for some democrat DA to investigate and bring charges of illegal wire tapping.
You KNOW they would.
I wonder if this was done for hire, which would be even more of an issue.
Leftards get to manufacture reality and we have to accept it.
They live in a life free of the constraints imposed on we poor conservative troglodytes.
How wonderful it must be to sprinkle oneself with pixie dust and flit about the universe ignoring physical laws…
My cam has a remote. I’m just sayin’…
Can someone please explain to me what you possibly believe was said in the missing 1-2 minutes that would have mattered ? I’m not hearing anything from the Romney camp about the context being wrong and the statements that are causing the most controversy (rightfully so I feel) don’t seem very amendable given thier length and specificity.
It’s a trap. If Romney says something that looks like it’s gaining attention that differs significantly from what he said then, the fault in the recording will be discovered to be “repairable”, allowing Mother Jones to call Romney a liar.
The last and first frames (around the gap) might have “end of recording” and “beginning of recording” marks, too.
A couple of observations:
(1) If Mother Jones were honest, the “full” tape should have paused and a card (black background, white lettering) should have said, “At this point the video recorder stopped working and was turned on a few minutes later.” That’s the ethical way to do it.
(2) A poster at Ace of Spades observed that, unless this is some sort of ancient pre-digital device, if it had to be restarted, there would have been two video files that would have had to have been edited anyway.
Occam dictates that somebody — the videographer or MJ — edited the info. And it probably isn’t too exculpatory either. More like his usual boilerplate on safety nets. But you don’t make a guy a villain by showing him taking out the trash and helping the neighborhood kids shovel their driveway. They have to lie, even when they don’t have to.
I think we’ll find out the story on this. The caterer has to be really nervous, who’s going to hire him now?
The difference in the lighting from one frame to the next is the camera’s self-adjusting aperture picking up the white shirt and thus letting in less light to adjust for the suddenly ‘bright’ subject. It screws me up often in sports photography. (Didn’t read all the posts, so forgive me if this has been mentioned before)
Slight logical problem; Mitt Romney — along with a whole bunch of other conservatives — is defending the remarks. If they were taken out of context, Mitt wouldn’t agree with them, because it wouldn’t be what he actually said. But as it is, he’s saying he put things “inelegantly” — but they’re otherwise accurate.
If you didn’t edit the video to omit context and seemingly change the meaning, why would you? And even if you did (to protect the source, perhaps) how would it matter?
Here is my alternative thesis.
The cameraman didn’t have any mechanical difficulties, but rather he had technical difficulties with a waiter, switched the camera off until he was done, then switched the camera back on. Content might have been lost, but it was not malicious.
Just food for thought.
Reality does not need to be defended.
This meme has been repeatedly refuted and not just here. The short version: Months ago, who can remember exactly what was said? Romney says he agrees with the gist, but not the actual presentation. Perhaps the presentation was better, but got snipped?
Maybe someone can answer this question: is it not customary that videos are not allowed at this type of fundraiser? If this was the case at this fundraiser, would not the person filming have done so in a surreptitious manner? To record surreptitiously, would not the camera have been covered, say with a napkin or in a purse? If this could be shown somehow, then how would the person know the camera turned off? On most small video cameras, you have to look at the screen to determine if it is on or not. That would mean, for the person to notice it turned off by itself, the entire camera needed to be in full view. Would the event organizers not have noticed this?
Seems clear from the videos that the video camera (or simple camera, or cell phone, with a video feature) is NOT screwed onto a tripod, and that has been placed on a very shinny and therefore slippery, varnished, fine table. It also seems clear no props were utilized to keep the camera stable. Therefore, any handling of the camera/cell phone, or any handling of any buttons on the camera would have slid the camera over the slippery surface of the table to a different angle. It has been already seen that both automatic focus and automatic aperture corrections can cause pixel-size differences in the two video sections.
A new angle (no pun intended!) in the story is it is illegal to publish a video from someone’s private property in Florida, where this fund raiser was hosted.
From just the two pictures on this post, the waitress’ hand in full view (fingernails look like a woman’s) is the right arm behind her back, and the other hand is partially in view (recognized by the same color tone). The waitress is not cleaning this table. She is placing the wine flask on it temporarily, and watching Romney’s speech. Therefore she knows what the entire speech said, and saw the video being taken. There has never been any mention of remote control of the camera.
There seems to be a curtain of sorts on the left side of the video, which is strange. I will watch the entire video, next; but these observations can be made with just this comparison of the split in the video. That the “full” video was presented is clearly incorrect, whether a lie or misrepresentation by the source of the video. Either way, the Mother Jone’s post is a fraud, and could be illegal in the State of Florida.
Thanks
Actually, what i thought was a curtain shown on the left of the video is part of a flower vase, as seen in the beginning of the video. But the camera is being placed, well hidden from view by the guests and perhaps also the waitress. Seems like it is being shot without permission, from behind flower vases on a shinny table.
The second section of the video on Mother Jone’s post is also at a noticeably higher volume. The post continues to call it the “full video” in spite of admitting, now, that a section of the video is missing – supposedly “a couple of minutes”. Look in dictionary.com and you find out a “couple” of minutes need not mean two minutes.
The heck with all this back and forth and esoterica about whether or not the camera moved.
Somebody has a covert camera on the table to record this speech. Its hidden or at least covered up. How can you even know that it has stopped working? you are not going to fiddle with it to restart it if you don’t know its not working.
And where is the rest of the speech, not just the bit between the published clips. You went to all this trouble to film this speech covertly and these two clips were all you got? Baloney.
Publish the whole thing you context abusing bastards.
As I explained above, there are all sorts of plausible scenarios. Here’s one: he accidentally turned off the camera with a remote control. Then a minute or two later he noticed the problem and turned it back on, also using the remote control.
“Clips” is word normally used to describe a short segment. These videos are not short. They are not fairly described as “clips.” The total duration is almost 68 minutes. The transcript is almost 9000 words. This is a large amount of material.
With the exception of one short and immaterial gap, we seem to have his entire speech, unedited.
Mitt started his campaign with a pants-on-fire “context abusing” ad, so the irony is rich.
Thanks for answering the question I did not ask. You had previously mentioned the possibility of a remote control turning the camera off then back on. That’s not the question. I asked how anyone would know it was off in the first place? Figure its covered up to keep it secret. The operator can’t be seen looking at the display screen to check its status. He certainly set it up without reference to its display screen as its a best guess aim.
Without seeing what the missing material is how can anyone call it immaterial?
I didn’t check the lengths before, but yeah those two pieces would seem to comprise the whole speech. But that only emphasizes the missing bit. You got all that but muffed this bit here huh?
I’m sufficiently partisan that I don’t care about my side’s context abuse all that much, but suffice it to say its less stupid than yours. Pbfffftt!
Today September 20, 2012 , Missing and so called lost minutes is found and viewed on Fox News. It changes the entire context when viewed in total . The Mother Jones, on purpose, edited the tapes to deceive and misrepresent what Romney stated. This was his statement on Palestine and Israel peace. CBS, NBC, ABC and progressive media could then run with ” Romney does not want peace” headlines. A LIE!
Therefor, I suspect the “47%” missing minutes is a lie also. Mother Jones should be ashamed.
Its very clear with close examination that the camera was moved look at the right end of the support column and specifically where the the white of the cieling from the other room narrows down directly under the column. if you place your mouse or a narrow pointer at the that point you will see that the recorder was definitely moved as this point shifts quite noticeably. There goes the conspiracy theory.
This has been discussed. Please try to keep up.
kyle:
Thanks for repeating a question I already answered.
I”ll quote myself: “he accidentally turned off the camera with a remote control. Then a minute or two later he noticed the problem and turned it back on, also using the remote control.”
It can’t be completely covered up. If it was completely covered up the camera would not be able to see Mitt. I think you are also assuming the taper could not see the back of the camera. This is not a good assumption. You don’t know what is behind the furniture that is supporting the camera. It’s possible that behind this furniture is a storage or service area where the taper would normally be (at least sometimes) as part of his job.
You should also realize that there might be some kind of shiny surface or mirror behind the camera. Therefore it could be possible for the taper to see the back of the camera while standing in front of the camera.
It’s really easy to make lots of unwarranted assumptions without even being aware that you are making them.
If he is working in the area behind the furniture supporting the camera, then there is no problem with him glancing at the display screen, especially if he is the only person working in that area. He could also see the display screen in a reflection from a shiny object on or near the table, and this reflection could be visible from any position near the the table: front, rear, or side.
He could also position the display screen to face in any direction: front, rear, side, up or down. It could be that the display screen is facing down, and visible to the taper because this furniture has a shiny surface, and the taper can see a reflection of the screen when he stands in a certain position.
Another bad assumption. What you think is “certainly” true is not certain at all. He is probably a member of catering staff. Therefore he is probably setting up the room long before any guests arrive. He might be the first person in the room, and be alone for quite some time. He might be the manager of catering staff. He might have one or more accomplices on catering staff. He might have worked this room many times before. He might even have done covert taping in this room many times before (after all, Leder is known for having exotic parties and VIP guests).
It’s possible he has marks on the furniture surface to help him position the camera accurately. With some preparation, it’s even possible that he has created small indentations in the furniture surface that mate with small protuberances that he has attached to the bottom of the camera. If these indentations are under a potted plant (or other decorative object) that always sits on this furniture, then they could be there for a long time without being noticed by anyone.
With these indentations, it’s not even necessary to assume the existence of a remote control. It would be possible to lift the camera and put it back in the proper position with great accuracy. Kevin’s analysis overlooks two important things: it’s possible to use a remote control, and it’s possible to ‘mount’ the camera in the manner I just described.
Without seeing what the missing material is how can anyone call it material? If it was material, Mitt would tell us what’s missing. After all, he was there, and he has every reason to do so.
The taper delivered 37 minutes without interruption, and then he delivered another 31 minutes without interruption. That’s a lot of unedited material. And your complaint is hysterically ironic, since it’s a routine practice for Mitt take Obama out of context in a grossly dishonest way, using tiny snippets that are misleading.
Thanks for admitting that you have no credibility.
You haven’t demonstrated any “context abuse,” and you certainly haven’t demonstrated any that’s “stupid.”
Then why didn’t David Corn say that. If what you said had happened, it would have simpler for Corn to say that, rather than what he actually said.
Because he didn’t need to. Why? Because everything I said is pretty obvious to people are not dolts.
Also, I’m speculating about various details that could potentially compromise the anonymity of the taper, if Corn were to state those details as facts.
There’s no “rather,” because there’s no contradiction between what he said and what I said.
And speaking of “why didn’t David Corn say that,” you should answer the corresponding question: why isn’t Mitt presenting the defense that you folks are presenting on his behalf? Why isn’t he telling us that he said something critical that has not been released?
Sane people know why he’s not saying that. It’s because there is no possible statement he could have made that would negate the statements we actually heard. Unless what he said while the camera was off was this: ‘everything I said in the last 30 minutes is a joke you should completely ignore.’
Jukeboxgrad says,
“Why isn’t he telling us that he said something critical that has not been released?”
Why would he say that when he said he doesn’t remember the presentation? Do you know how many appearances and talks these guys give in the political season? Obama can’t even remember a few words without having a teleprompter. That’s precisely why Romney publicly asked for the rest of the tape to be released. Asking for more information to be released is not typical for a guy who knows he’s been caught red-handed (witness the Obama DOJ on Fast and Furious).
You’ve spent a great deal of time imagining excuses for how it really was just a complete accident that the taping cut off right at a critical juncture. But you can’t imagine the possibility that they edited the taping right here precisely because Romney said something mitigating, something that softened his uncharitable comments?
That’s a rather selective imagination you have there.
Kevin, is your update a retraction of the original statement?
No, it is an addition of content (namely the animated GIF). Like it says at the UPDATE.
It is noted that there is a slight change in the image which several video professionals have told me is due to auto-focus or auto-sensitivity adjust due to the bright white sleeve in the foreground in the second still.
Thank you, Kevin. A showed this post to someone and not only did he say it was a retraction, but he said that you had deceptively edited the original article. I told him he was wrong, and was just looking for clarification from you. Keep up the good work!
Let me say up front that I believe it most likely that this video was intentionally edited. I also believe that there’s only one good and likely reason *why* it was edited: there was mitigating material in the deleted section that softened Romney’s point.
But I saw someone say the following:
“Technology today is such that the camera could have been in an ink pen sitting on the table feeding wirelessly to a devicw using an Android OS. The device could very well stop on its own, and be restarted without disturbing the camera.”
How would you respond to that?
That would assume a very professional secret taping with a lot of planning. Which is not what is indicated by anyone (of course they could all be lying). In any event, the magic moment for stopping the recording (when Romney has a chance to clarify or refine his answer/put it in context) is the suspicious “coincidence” that got me thinking about the camera position, and makes the just-happened theory harder to accept.
Thanks. Fair enough. But I suppose the response would be that anyone can buy one of those pen-cameras on the Internet. Does it really require a high level of professionalism?
I don’t know, honestly. I’ve never bought something like that.
Moot point – Sue proved that it was a camera, below. You can see a reflection of it in the vase. LOL
wesley:
This is what I “can’t imagine:” that any such statement was possible. If you can imagine such a statement (“something mitigating, something that softened his uncharitable comments”), then you should tell us what it is. This is the only statement I can imagine: ‘everything I said in the last 30 minutes is a joke you should completely ignore.’
Since you think he said “something mitigating, something that softened his uncharitable comments,” then why don’t you go ahead and tell us what you think he said. It’s important to notice that no one has attempted to do such a thing. That’s because it’s not possible.
Your imagination is superior to mine, so go ahead and tell us what you’re imagining.
Sure, let me try to help your selectively-stifled imagination then.
In the section they cut out, maybe he said something like, “Listen, obviously I would love to have anyone’s vote and I don’t mean to be unfair, but the fact is that I’ve only got so much time and money. I’m just trying to say that I’m not likely to get their votes and so I have to focus on those people who will be easier to persuade.”
Wouldn’t make it beautiful, but maybe less hurtful.
I think it reasonable and likely that there was some kind of mitigating material in that segment, and that’s the most obvious reason why they would have edited it. I’m not buying that the tape was cut right at such a crucial juncture. These people (or at least the person who taped it) have already shown that they’re willing to behave illegally. They only admitted that a section was cut out after they were *forced to* and even then they hid it and a person has to piece together the import of their admission. So, yeah, I think there’s strong evidence that the tape was edited and that something of import was cut out. I’m not going give much credence to an illegal, edited tape that would be thrown out of a court of law.
But you are. You’re an Obama guy. Okay. We get it.
[And FYI - I'm not a Romney guy. Right now my leaning is 3rd party.]
You’re also forgetting that Romney was speaking off the cuff, without a teleprompter. People can and do say things that are unfair or uncharitable and later catch themselves. Happens all the time. I’ve done it. I’m sure you have, too. Sometimes we catch it sooner, sometimes after reflection. Doesn’t make it right. But we’re all human.
Obama hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory when he hasn’t had a teleprompter in front of him.
Remember the whole thing about people who “cling to their guns and religion”?
Personally, I wasn’t wild about that statement (Romney’s either), but I thought everyone made too much of it. Just like I thought they made too much of the “you didn’t build that.” There was something to look at in his statement and criticize, but I thought some were really over-simplifying the import of what he said.
In the first twenty seconds of the first video, the person responsible sets up the camera behind the glass vase full of flowers, and if you watch the reflection in the silver vase (wine holder, perhaps?) on the right, you can see a reflection of the camera. It is clearly a camera, not a pen and not a phone, but a camera. There is no indication of any special hole in the table or anything like that to prevent movement or preserve placement. The reflection also shows the person putting a napkin or small towel over the camera, then within the first minute and a half, the person moves the silver vases to the right to open up the field of view of the camera. As the silver vases are moved during the video, it is sometimes possible to see the reflection of the camera, and other times, the vases are too far to the right to see the reflection. The person is likely to be part of the wait staff, and the table appears to be part of the staging for the wines and other serving functions.
Given that the person sets up the camera while it is already running at the start, the suggestion of remote operation seems unlikely. Given that the camera was covered up at the start, the suggestion that the person noticed it had shut down unexpectedly also seems unlikely. And, as our host noted, if somehow it shut down unexpectedly and the person had to restart operation (apparently manually), how did they accomplish that without moving the camera and essentially getting it running and then setting it up and covering it again like they did at the beginning?
As far as the question of how long the break actually was, I don’t see anything to point to that proves it was only a minute or two, as alleged, or perhaps ten minutes or more. Actually, a comparison of the serving functions apparent at the end of the first video with those at the beginning of the second video suggests more than just a couple of minutes may have passed. That is one of the problems, in my opinion, with the break. It could have cut out considerable clarification of Romney’s remarks, or it could have cut out something very innocuous. But since it is not in these videos, there is no evidence that he didn’t explain what he meant, and there is no evidence otherwise. But why have a cut if there wasn’t anything there that was positive for Romney? Unless there was some unique set of highly unlikely possibilities that suggest the person should buy a lottery ticket next time such a thing happens?
Wow. Great observations.
Thanks, Wesley.
I agree with you that Romney was speaking off the cuff and he has said he was “inelegant”. Since there isn’t any proof at present, I have hesitated to suggest what he might have said. I hope the missing video will be resurrected somehow. But in the meantime, may I offer pure speculation?
First, remember this event apparently happened in May and he wasn’t as careful about saying things in small bits, easy to understand and convey.
1) Look at the question he was asked. “For the last three years, all everybody’s been told is, “Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you.” How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you’ve got to take care of yourself?” Romney responded, “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.” That is where he began, and I don’t think it is particularly controversial.
2) He talks about the “47%” that don’t pay income tax and says “our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” He’s right about that, too. Someone who doesn’t pay taxes isn’t likely to be as responsive to a message about lowering taxes.
3) He talks about the “the 5 to 10 percent in the center” as the people he needs to convince. And he goes back to the polling information when the video cuts out. By the time the second video picks up, he’s talking about China and military spending.
What is listed above are essentially the running thoughts of someone putting out different items of information that are related, but not immediately creating the necessary narrative for their relationships to be clearly understood. It’s an ideal situation for someone else to misrepresent.
I don’t think he meant to conflate the 47% who will vote for the President no matter what, with the 47% who don’t pay taxes, and I speculate that he may have sorted out the details in the missing video. If that is what happened, then releasing the “full context” (as in the missing video), would probably have mitigated the reaction that was created by releasing limited clips, along with biased commentary “describing” the clips. Some of the news stories about the clips have been remarkably inaccurate, at best.
It is also possible that he proceeded to talk about what he wanted to do to help the unemployed, needy, disabled, and elderly. In other public speeches, he sometimes offers ideas about how he plans to enable and encourage those who are in greatest need in our country. Such discussion would certainly help mitigate and/or possibly even debunk the “he’s written off half the country” accusations that I have seen in response to these video clips. But, as I’ve said, that is pure speculation.
(I used the Mother Jones transcript for the source in evaluating/representing Romney’s remarks. I haven’t tried to verify their transcript, so please accept my apologies if there is some error as a result.)
Apologies to our host for the long comments.
I think that’s a reasonable and thoughtful evaluation, Sue. Thank you for taking the time to present it.
I object to blatant double standards. These same people who are using this video would no doubt be screaming if the same was done to Obama – and they would be right.
Pingback: Mother Jones standards « Internet Scofflaw
I’ll take a stab at explaining what Romney might have said in these missing minutes of the 47 percent tape.
My best guess – based on what Romney said in the first debate – is that he said something along the lines of:
“Let me go back to those 47 percent. Now, maybe they’re not paying taxes now. But they should be. And the only way to get them paying taxes is for them to have jobs – and good jobs that pay well. And that will be a top priority for me. You see, I said ‘they think of themselves as victims’ but the truth is that’s only because that’s what the Democrats have been telling them for a few decades now. They’re not victims. I’ll bet plenty of the people in this room came from nothing and got pretty darn successful. And I’m sure some of you even doubted yourself in the process. You see, the great thing about America is that nobody is truly a victim. They only think they are – temporarily. Then, they dust themselves off, plan their work and work their plan and strive to succeed. I want each and every one of these 47 percent to lose this notion the left has put in their heats that that they’re victims – once and for all. And I’ll do everything in my power as President to provide economic stability under their feet, as well as yours, so that everybody has the opportunity to pursue their dreams.