This piece is fairly long so am not posting the whole thing but it does do a lot in explaining the Romney campaign, where the Republican party now is in general and much of the rhetoric we read on Clutchfans. Why Do White People Think Mitt Romney Should Be President? Parsing the narrow, tribal appeal of the Republican nominee. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...the_republican.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_2 I found this part particularly compelling. [rquoter]The passion comes from what Romney is running against. For more than four years, without pause, Republicans have been campaigning and propagandizing against an imaginary Obama. At the most grotesque end of the fantasies, he is a foreign-born, anti-colonialist Muslim. In more reputable precincts, he is a power-mad socialist and a dumb affirmative-action baby, promoted all the way to the presidency by a race-crazed, condescending liberal elite. (As if the presidency of the Harvard Law Review were awarded to anyone but the hungriest shark in the shark tank.) This is the position of the party's mandarins and reputable spinners—that Obama was foisted off on regular Americans against their will, despite all those votes last time around.[/rquoter] We've seen almost verbatim these attacks leveled repeatedly against Obama here on Clutchfans and what I have found disturbing is that there so much substantive to criticize him on yet these are the attacks that seem to always get recycled.
The lock-step of the conservative battle-cries has been a substantial problem for healthy criticism of Obama. Really, only one came up even in the debates (his failure to attempt the promised immigration reform.) And that pales in comparison to his lack of transparency and the expansion of governmental powers, a la surveillance or even kill lists. We really need substantive conversations about these issues, but there's just a steady repeat of the 2008 stuff or bogus amplification of items like the embassy attack, or even the price of gasoline (in the debates!)
The problem is those are issues that the Republican party, as a whole, could give a **** about. They don't want a substantive debate, they just want power on their terms.
It is bad, but it's not really that different. There is plenty of racism against Romney for being white, just not as much. Obama, like Romney, revels in the joy of faux-positive publicity and retreats to "I don't play politics with serious issues" when something makes him look bad. Obama, like Romney, uses out of context numbers when it suits him and in-context numbers when it suits him, regardless of appropriateness. Obama, unlike Romney, beat out Coors, Apple and Nike for Ad Age's Marketer of the year with his 2008 campaign. That alone should be cause for concern, but often ignored. The problem lies in the whole theatrical extravaganza of Presidential elections which GENERALLY takes discussion away from real issues and focuses it on vague and irrelevant things like personality, character and "values". As if it's the world's biggest version of MTV Jersey Shore or something. For the most blatant example, look no further than being presented with two options: freezing (Obama) or increasing (Romney) military spending, while polls to date (for all types of voters) have consistently shown that 75% or more of Americans want military spending CUTS. It's not about what you want, it's about perception - somehow Obama is the dove for not wanting to build a few more submarines. The game belongs to the Republican and Democrat parties - they both love it, they both want it. Republican party and voters are "better" at playing dirty. Democrat party and voters are "better" at marketing. This thread is an example too - why are you wasting your time discussing whether Republican voters are racist or not? Why not focus on debating the real issues? They have no substance you say? Well, it's probably best not to bring that up after all that "hope changey" stuff we heard for 4 years, before he retreated back to "better than THAT guy." I'd rather Obama wins obviously, but it's really tiresome how the right is being blamed for their tactics. This is the game, this falls within the rules. No one, not Romney, not Obama - no one who has a chance of winning is being really genuine here. They are just trying to win. Yes it sucks, Republicans attack Obama more for who he is and moreso than their counterparts on non-PC grounds, but as the saying goes, "don't hate the player..."
'rayciss" a not even disguised example of racism by a right winger who apparently thinks African Americans can't spell or talk properly. The boy might live in NYC but you can't take the Confederacy out of him.
Agreed. They worry about health-care death panels when Obama has an actual never-ending death panel. It helps him with his secret kill list that he uses on US citizens.
Black liberal here, but Romney was the best of a bad bunch and we've got record unemployment and debt/deficit. That's enough for any person of any race to consider voting against the incumbent.
They won't be black or poor either, so they might hate taxes, unions or affirmative action as much as white Republicans do now.
So give power back to the people who caused the problems in the first place? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>I want more take home pay, more jobs, and the government out of my business. I didn't know those were white people issues. <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Blacks4Romney">#Blacks4Romney</a></p>— Savannah (@thesavvy) <a href="https://twitter.com/thesavvy/status/265538886413987840" data-datetime="2012-11-05T19:39:38+00:00">November 5, 2012</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
What is your point pouhe? You even said you were willing to vote for someone who was the best of a bad bunch. Explain to me how electing someone who you even admit is not a good choice will be better than the person who has steered the country through the worst economic meltdown in generations, who guided us to consistent job growth, the housing market and economy stabilizing, the stock market soaring? Here's a hint. No matter who gets elected the country is going grow 10, 12 million jobs in the next four years because of the policies Obama has put in place. No thanks, we can't go back. We have to go forward.
Actually I don't vote, but if I did it wouldn't necessarily be for him. The thread title and the article insinuated that nearly 100 million voters were supporting a particular candidate because of race. I presented two major problems this country was facing that had nothing to do with race, and asserted that those were sufficient reasons people could reasonably decide to unseat the incumbent.
