Romney Takes On 47% of America Re "In Video Clip, Romney Calls 47% "Dependent" and Feeling Entitled" (front page, Sept. As a proud member of the 99 percent, I am outraged by Mitt Romney's comments. Unlike Mr. Romney, I pay my fair share of income taxes and believe that all Americans should have equal access to health care and employment opportunities and also that our country should provide a robust safety net to those who are deprived. Mr. Romney in his current configuration is better suited to serve as king of 18th-century France rather than as president of the United States. Mitt Romney's comments felt as if he were stabbing me in the heart. I stopped breathing for a few seconds with a profound feeling that I was trapped in another world where people have no clue, not one little clue of what it's like to have to struggle to get through every single day. Years ago, times were rough for my family, and we went on food stamps for a few months. We took our children to a free clinic. Yes, we took government assistance for a few months, and I'm forever grateful that it was there to help us get through some dark times. If we cannot help the poorest among us when assistance is needed, what kind of a people are we? Look in the mirror; ask yourself that question, then decide what a decent human being would do. I woke up early this morning and drove my daughter several miles on a government-built road, all the way to a government-operated school. I came back to my home - for which I receive a government-sanctioned mortgage-interest deduction - and called my parents, who both receive Social Security and Medicare from the government. Then I signed on to the Internet, which was developed by government-sponsored researchers. So Mitt Romney is right, on two counts. I am "dependent upon government." And I'm not voting for him. The writer is a professor of education and history at New York University. I continue to be astonished at how dismissive the media are of Mitt Romney the man. He is relentlessly mocked as awkward, out of touch and indifferent. The undertone of this commentary is that Mr. Romney is somehow strange. Based on watching and reading the campaign analysis, I would say journalists appear to believe that someone with Mr. Romney's unimpeachable character, remarkable record of accomplishment, and commitment to public and private service is routine among those seeking the White House rather than exceptional. Go ahead and critique his positions and policies. Marvel at his occasional gaffes. But don't pretend that a person of Mr. Romney's caliber is anything other than a rare visitor to the world of politics. Mitt Romney says there are people who believe that they are "entitled to health care, to food, to housing." What's so shocking about that? These are basic human needs. Would he rather see people on the streets of every city in the country sick, hungry and homeless? And by the way, a president of the United States is supposed to have the interest of all Americans at stake, not just a handful of the rich. Mitt Romney should be reminded that rights to food, housing and health care are recognized in international covenants that the United States has signed. The federal government is not required to "provide" these goods, but it is legally obligated "to respect, protect and fulfill" these rights. Mr. Romney's comments suggest not only contempt for working people and the poor but also for fundamental human rights. Re "Thurston Howell Romney" (column, Sept. David Brooks suggests that Mitt Romney is "a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not - some sort of cartoonish government-hater." Of course, the opposite could also be true. Given Mr. Romney's dismissive, flailing statements, could he not be a cartoonish government-hater who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not - a kind, decent man?