"I say, excuse me old chaps, but you might want to know, the black fellow isn't really American." Romney Adviser Says Obama Doesn’t ‘Fully Appreciate’ Our ‘Anglo-Saxon Heritage’ In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa. “We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.” Have a good time Willard!
I haven't completely tuned in yet, but seems like I read veteran GOP operatives are very dissatisfied Romney's team and want them replaced with steadier hands. Maybe this will be the last straw.
The President of the United States is not American and not Anglo-Saxxon enough? Good thing it's Ramadan or Obama would blow a gasket!
It's hard to believe with the changing demographics and election of a black president that any one would pull the "well what about the white-man/establishment" card.
I usually find the gotcha politics (I can't believe I am quoting Sarah Palin) to be annoying on both sides. But this is just so strange. I can't fathom why Romney would even think to attack Obama here. The Romney campaign is making a massive strategic mistake. By attacking Obama on so many fronts....economy, health care, foreign policy, culture, leaks, character, and so on.....it first of all helps Obama by taking the focus off the economy, and secondly makes it look like the GOP just wants to tear him down and isn't interested in an honest debate. Obama pounds Romney on the economy and his ability to be a steward of it. It's so much more focused. Romney is getting schooled here and the GOP knows it.
The Bain stuff is definitely text-book Swiftboat. Moreso that government officials would accuse a political rival of a felony without bringing forth proof. Romney might've reflexively weaseled his way around it by attacking Obama on other indefensible fronts, but he should've doubled down on the economy bit. "I'm a businessman with multinational interests, so of course, I offshored before.... But I also know how to bring them back." "Yes, I have dodged taxes, but if you dig deeper, as Mass. governor wink wink, I've closed loopholes before." (Please don't kill me, Grover Norquist!)
If this guy's rise to the Final 2 is not proof enough that change is necessary, then I don't know what is.
It's still early and Romney's campaign will eventually work the bugs out and stop sheer stupidity like this. If not, it really bodes poorly for his ability to build a capable administration as president. Mathloom, what "change" are you talking about? How should the nomination process be altered (in your opinion)?
I'm still extremely shaky on the nomination process, but generally I think the process is way too complicated. It's not appropriate if you expect the entire country to vote (hence the low voter turnout). It needs to be simplified and made direct. I wonder how this is taught at American schools? My immediate thought is that most young Americans I've met, I would be shocked if they knew exactly how this worked: http://www.thisnation.com/question/021.html In addition, all capaign contributions should go into one pot, split equally. These decisions affect everyone's life, so since there is such a thing as inheritance/lottery/luck, it does not make sense for people with more money to have more influence. It would be nice to link influence to education, but that's problematic since the richest will always go to the "better" schools. If it is a choice between: (a) being born into poor conditions limits your ability to have influence on politics despite willingness to do so; or (b) you are stripped of the freedom to donate inherited wealth to a candidate of your choice, then I think it makes more sense to go with (b), if for no other reason than the fact that there are 100x more people in situation A than in situation B. No more pacs or corporate contributions. Though this is not part of the nomination process, I think it's very critical that the agenda for discussion pre-approved by people. Who gives a damn what Obama or Romney's teams think is important to discuss? YOU should determine the list of issues on which you may want to hear their views, and you should determine their agenda after they get elected. Don't forget, these are Servants, not CEO's. From reading about the nomination process I noticed there is a particular focus on ensuring that parties remain unified, but there is never any focus on ensuring that the country remains unified - this is strange, and seems to be a legacy of waring parties of the past. In reality, I think a more radical overhaul is necessary, one where Americans nominate/elect single-issue parties and a President to manage a coalition of those parties. In this way, individual success is dependent on the ability to unify parties, rather than the current system where radicalization and polarization seems to breed success for individuals. The issues are more important than the people, and the people are there to do what they're told, right?
... ... ... What. Well, I can't really be surprised. Mathloon's pretty much demonstrated consistently that he has no idea what free speech is, and would happily demolish it in the name of equality. But let me ask you something, Mathloon. Are you so naive that you honestly think that if the rich were to be cut off of campaign contributions, that that would honestly limit their voice? You may complain that the ratio of rich influence to poor influence is something like a 200 to 1. But even if you assume that's true? 200 to 1 is a much better ratio than 2 to 0. Furthermore, you may talk about how complicated the nomination process is, but since when have you ever participated in that process? It's really not all that difficult.
I'm most offended by anyone speaking in public on a major stage saying "the special relationship is special." No kidding, how old is this adviser? Six? SMDH.
You say it's too complicated but then your solution compounds that very "problem". No thanks, I prefer democracy. Plus, I guess you haven't payed much attention to the fractured history of parliamentary governments around the globe. Single-issue zealots are a tumor on representative government (for the most part). More of them would increase "radicalization and polarization", not the other way. Your solution is better.
