Is this a serious theory?

Mr. Deez

Mr. Deez

Beer Prophet
This might be the most asinine political commentary I've seen or read from an allegedly serious political commentator in my entire life. The Onion wouldn't put out crap like this.

I'm not an idiot. I know Romney didn't speak to the NAACP because he thought he'd attract black votes. Republicans know better. However, to suggest that he did it to impress racist white voters is goofy to the point of lunacy. In fact, the opposite is true. They speak to groups like the NAACP to impress politically correct white voters.

Furthermore, this is a "can't win" situation for Romney. If he hadn't spoken to the NAACP, partisan a$$holes like O'Donnell would say he doesn't care about black voters. If he had spoken to them and used friendly rhetoric about the Obama agenda and record, they would have said he was pandering to them. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
 
Romney did fine. He emphasized that he wants to be the President for all the people. Refreshing concept considering that the current President has referred to me as "Our Enemy".
 
Absolutely ridiculous. I thought Romney made a strong move sticking to his identical speech points regardless of audience. Adapting your message based on audience is a common criticism of Obama, like his ridiculous cousin Pookie speech.

No one of sound mind would think Romney spoke to the NAACP, upon their request, intentionally to be booed and gain more white racist votes. That is so absurd, I am embarrassed for O'Donnell.

At a minimum you have to respect the man for following through. He knew it was a no win situation and handled it appropriately.
 
I am not a huge Romney fan, but this actually raised my estimation of him. If he misses the NAACP convention he will get blasted, but he shows up and gives his speech and he gets blasted. How could he have "won" with the NAACP?
 
The way the question is framed in the op (either by the op or merely recounted by the op) is self-serving in that it leads to framer's desired conclusion. As such, I find the phrasing of the issue/question to be a crafty/devious/deliberate method which is intended to lead the reader to the framer's conclusion.

Since "obviously" Romney is not pandering to outright racist voters then that branch of inquiry must therefore be excused from consideration. The problem is, most people will then stop analyzing the issue from that perspective at all and won't look at the "degree" of racism which permeates everyone, either consciously or unconsciously.

It is very reasonable to conclude that Romney spoke out at the NAACP in the way he did to garner white conservative vote; in a calculatingly semi-belligerant way using the term Obamacare when he knew, or should have known, that the intended audience would take issue with the term.

This allows Romney to say that he stood up to this group. There doesn't have to anything racist about it all. Romney did it to attract white conservative voters. There is no need to bring racism into it.
 
Really? Many are saying that Romney "stood up" to the NAACP. That Romney himself did not use those exact words means little.

Romney clearly viewed his journey into the heart of darkness as merit badge for his white consitituency. And as far as the poster who said pandering wasn't involved, please. All politicians pander. It's what they do.

What do you think MItt's views regarding blacks was back in the day? You know, when Mormons treated them as second-class people?
 
Based upon the interviews and coverage I have seen on local Houston media outlets, my view that the NAACP is one of the most racist organizations in the US is even stronger.

The insinuation made by O'Donnell is just plain stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top