In Netflix documentary "Mitt," Romney essentially admits that he too is a "taker."

This all comes from the Washington Examiner article concerning the new documentary.

Get a load of this exchange: 

As he spoke, Romney held the notes he had made during the debate (candidates are not allowed to bring any notes with them to the stage, but are allowed to make them during the debate). Romney pointed out that in every debate he began by writing "Dad" at the top of the paper. 

"That's what I start with: 'Dad,'" Romney explained. "I always think about Dad and about I am standing on his shoulders. I would not be there, there's no way I would be able to be running for president, if Dad hadn't done what Dad did. He's the real deal …" 

"You're the real deal," said one of Romney's sons. 

Romney didn't pause. "The guy was born in Mexico. He didn't have a college degree. He became head of a car company and became a governor. It would have never entered my mind to be in politics, how can you go from his beginning to think, I can be head of a car company, I can run for governor, I can run for president?" 

Romney wasn't finished. "The gap — for me, I started where he ended up. I started off with money and education, Harvard Business School, Harvard Law School. For me it's moving that far" — Romney held two fingers close together — "for him, it's like that," Romney said, holding his arms wide apart.

I found that to be a VERY telling exchange, and one that came right after the first Presidential debate that many believed that Romney had won decisively.

Not only was Romney admitting that without the leg up provided by his wealthy father he would not be running, he was also admitting that he did not think he could beat the President in a second debate: 


"Sitting presidents have a very hard time in these debates," Romney told the family. "They feel like, who is this whippersnapper coming up here who knows nothing? And so they don't prepare, and they just think they can waltz through it. Then they get crushed in the first debate, and then they come back."

Of course Romney proved that he was correct in that assumption, and President Obama crushed him in the second debate and essentially sealed the deal as to who would win the election. 

However going back to the remarks at the beginning of this post, it seems to indicate that Romney understood that much of his success, if not all of it, was due to the accomplishments of his father.

This of course helps to explain gaffes like suggesting that 47% of Americans are takers and would never vote for a Republican, and that all young people have to do is ask their parents for tuition in order to attend college.

It also illustrates that Romney himself should be identified as a "taker," as he was somebody who not only allowed his father to pay for his education, and get him his first jobs, but also used his name in order to open doors and find donors when he decided to run for office.

What Romney, and many others who come from wealthy families, fail to understand is that THEY are the most egregious "takers" of all.

Without the benefits of a wealthy father, the best education that money can buy, and the influence of his father, Mitt Romney might well have ended up as the manager of a local Office Max instead of the most recently defeated Republican candidate for president.

Yet he, and others in the GOP, become indignant at the idea that those who come from more modest means might need a government that gives them a hand with their education, or helps pay the bills when they are unemployed, or subsidizes child care so that they can work.

It is this lack of compassion that turns many of us off when it comes to Republican politics, and it had much to do with why we are not today hearing what a President Romney has to say on this MLK holiday.