Mitt Romney spoke at the NAACP convention today and he took the same message to the crowd that he has been saying on the stump. He has promised to repeal Obamacare. For stating his truth he was rewarded with boos. I admire the fact that he came to the convention, and I also admire the fact that he did not pander to the crowd. He said what he has been saying and knew the likely outcome of his remarks, but he came anyway. If he had skipped the convention he would have been accused of snubbing them. He stood by his talking points in spite of the boos but he came and that counts for something.
-
Live Feed
Comments
I expected nothing less–from either side. One 55 year-old man interviewed on NPR said he was “offended” that Romney used the term “Obamacare”. The president himself has embraced that term with pride, why is this an issue? Reactions like these are why I will ALWAYS refer to this group as the NAA(L)CP. The Republicans can do NO right, and the Democrats can do NO wrong. They invited this man hoping that (a) he would decline, and therefore ‘offend’ the group; or that (b) he would attend and make a speech that they could take umbrage with, and therefore ‘offend’ them. This is classless and beneath contempt for a fellow American. (before anyone tries to rebut with a reminder of Joe Wilson’s outburst, keep in mind that Wilson apologized immediately that night, he called the White House and apologized to the president directly the next day, and made a public reiteration the next for the media. I expect no such grace from those who performed at the NAA(L)CP’s meeting.)
I find it quite interesting as well as disappointing that the main stream media has gone viral with the one instance of “boos” but failed to show all of the applause that was given throughout the presentation. However, this represents nothing unusual for the mainstream media. And in my own personal opinion and as a black person who grew up in pre-Civil Rights America –when the NAACP meant something, stood for something, and truly represented Black merica–I am happy to say that I feel vindicated by my faillure to belong to an organization that purports to represent the Advancement of Colored People but which in reality represents a dream gone bad by the influence of money, self edification, and the faux belief in the proposition that all African Americans are solidly behind whatever the NAACP says. Shame on President Obama for his failure–once again–to be seen in the company of a lot of black people, or should I say Colored People?
Thnak you for your comment . Actually , white is also a “color”.
Gains by the NAACP benefited people of color ▬ ALL colors.
I (a “white”) belonged to the NAACP decades ago and worked with and for a “black” lawyer (he was born in the U.S. and not in any nation of Africa.
Interestingly , older black persons usually are proud of being black (as they should be) and need not be addressed as African-Americans (unless they were born in Africa).
As many well know , Charlize Theron is an African-American since her naturalization; as is one of our church’s pastors from Nigeria.
Folks who are Black , White and colors in between ought to be regarded for who they are and what they do or refuse to do , rather than because of the pigment of their skin.
In the 1960s, I asked my wife (also white) with whom she would rather be stranded on a desert island: Percy Kilbride ( 16 July 1888 → 11December 1964) or Sir Sidney Poitier (20 February 1927 – ) .
☺ Guess who was chosen ☺
He went there to appear tough and appeal to the irrational racist Republican base. His speech was not geared towards his audience and as a Harvard educated lawyer, I think it was orchestrated. It was a political move by a political hag.
Since he is not exactly fighting for the Black judging from the face of the new Republican party, he did not have to go to the NAACP, and should have declined the appearance. He went there to show his lunatic KKK base he could make incensing drivel filled comments before Black folks.
The later statement, following his appearance, that he made regarding free stuff desired by the Blacks and how they should vote for Obama if they wanted free stuff was plain racist and playing to the galley.
Romney is a disgrace to our party. Minorities in the Republican party should not be voting for Romney. His vociferous remarks could fire up the Klan members who have taken over the base of the party! It was irresponsible. He is exacerbating an already volatile and divided America. If things get more polarized, I doubt that Blacks and Hispanics will continue to bear these marginalizations and assaults.
Good points and your response demonstrates that it is not necessary to boo a speaker.
Silence AT the convention with well formed opinions AFTER the convention document that Amendment I is alive and well .
First of all, I humbly bow before you fully realizing that I am unworthy of disagreeing with a Harvard educated lawyer. So I won’t. But I cannot resist tellinng you that in the approximately two years that I have followed this blog, your comment is the most pompous, arrogant, bombastic, vain, and supercilious that I have ever read here.
Please keep in mind that I am describing your comment, not you. Personal name calling is not permitted here.
I took the Harvard label as a emphasis point that its author was not totally in the dark on Harvard educations .
Obama earned his JD and Romney earned his combined JD/MBA at Harvard.
Oh, where oh where do I begin with THIS one….
“He went there to appear tough and appeal to the irrational racist Republican base…”
Please define “irrational racist Republican base”. Name names. Support your contentions with facts. Shouldn’t be to hard for an allegedly Harvard-trained lawyer
“His speech was not geared towards his audience”
If by that you mean he didn’t pander, you are correct. He didn’t develop a southern twang, stating he didn’t feel “no way’s tired” like Hiliary Clinton. He didnt start dropping the ‘g’ from words like Obama did when he deigned to visit with the CBC. No, Romney went there and played Romney. Most people give him credit for accepting the invitation of a group that doesn’t like him politically (and probably personally) and that he will NOT carry in November. Let’s see Obama address such a group.
“He went there to show his lunatic KKK base he could make incensing drivel filled comments before Black folks.”
Uh, did you READ his comments? Did you even hear the speech? It’s like you’re doing a book report without having even read the book. All sources said Romney gave his usual stump speech, thus explaining why he said “Obamacare” instead of “Affordable Healthcare Act” as they would have preferred. Now if you contend his stump speech is “incensing drivel-filled comments” than that’s your opinion. But this is the big leagues, you cannot advance an agenda with “incensing drivel”.
“Since he is not exactly fighting for the Black judging from the face of the new Republican party”
Judging from the “face of the Republican Party”? Seriously? Again, you offer no substance to your claim. If you got away with submitting specious and unsubstantiated arguments like this at an Ivy League school, then I’m quite happy I went to Arizona and got a quality education. If I tried what you’re doing, my Poli Sci professors would have returned my papers covered in red ink saying “where’s your evidence? where’s your support for this contention? Where did you get that info? Don’t submit papers with argument you apparently pulled out of your (ear)”
Bill, I am amazed that you spew a ton of vitriolic on my comments and repeatedly ask for substantiation without providing the specifics you desire. As for the long line of arcerbic verbiage used to describe my post… a big LOL to you. I do not make it a habit of responding to emotive outbursts especially as my informed position remains unchanged.
—–
Elogam, we have had this discussion elsewhere as you know and I objected to your White power and Klan like positions. However, I will make an effort to explain some issues you have raised.
First, Romney does, and continues to tailor his remarks to fit his audience.That is not a criticism but a fact. That he decided not to be mindful of the people he was addressing in this instance, is an index of his lack of regard for those folks. Even though he will not be getting their vote, if he is elected president, he will still be president of all Americans. Consequently, the least he could have done was to be respectful of the audience.
Just a quick reminder, Romney was almost a raving liberal in his stint as governor of Massachusetts, and drew the ire of those of us who expected a more conservative republican at the helm of affairs. Now, because of the usurping of the Republican party by the extremely irrational new right wing of the party, he now describes himself as “severely conservative”.
Using the term “pandering” as some sort of pejorative term in this political environment especially with regard to Mitt Romney, the master panderer and vacillator, is either an index of your lack of information about the political process or an effort to appear deliberately misinformed. Romney PANDERS to his audience. It is therefore apparent that in this instance, the candidate elected to disregard the people to whom he spoke. His subsequent remarks about the community expecting “free things” etc. is the current talking point of many in the Republican base and further revealed his true intent. It is important for people to remember that even though percentage wise, there are poorer African Americans on social welfare programs, in sheer numbers, there are very many more Caucasians on welfare in this country-millions more.
PS: It is also quite silly of you to think that I would make a summation of the series of events without having heard the speech in its entirety. Bush and other Presidents have addressed the same crowd with no problem. Also Obama went to FOX aka the Republican TV Station. I hope Romney will do the same to MSNBC. I would like to see him on Chris Mathews show or interview with the Reverend Al. Ha!
The Republican party is strictly stratified with very little room for moderates like me so I now vote as an Independent leaning Conservative. In the Republican party, we have the top brass who call the shots and feed the base red meat. And of course, there is the base of the party that has become radicalized over the past couple of years. The anti-Obama hate filled rhetoric is thinly veiled by the continuing insinuations and statements to imply that the President is somehow UN-American and not one of us. The Republican base i.e. the blue collar Republicans are rabidly anti-Obama, and the rhetoric continues to be more and more racist and rabid. I hope you read newspapers, otherwise you can find more information on this subject in published books by respected conservatives and liberals. My conclusions stem from my rich knowledge of the political system as it stands to date. You can do some research and provide counter arguments to debunk my positions. I see none here but just conjecture and your usual feigned surprise about issues that are fairly evident in the current politically polarized arena.
Also, in reference to your remarks about papers, your political science degree etc. this is not a lecture, and I am a lawyer not a political scientist. Logic and reason are expected of top law school performers. And just so you know, if this was a class in law school, you can be sure that I would score you an ‘F’ for the asinine questions you have asked here about fairly obvious issues. I do not know what they teach/taught you in your school in esteemed state of AZ
However, my opinions are based on the facts, as I see them, based on my reasoned analysis of events. I think it is fair to say that you disagree with my opinions but my opinions are still valid and have not changed.
By jove, this is a long reply. However, it was absurd for Romney not to address the issues that plague that community in a speech to them. He should have addressed matters particularly of interest to the community. Simply showing up is grossly insufficient. May people show up at the GYM for years and remain unhealthy and overweight. The issue is not showing up. The issue is to do the work. It is the same with Romney. Just showing up was grossly insufficient. And as I indicated in my initial comment, Romney’s subsequent remarks about “Free Stuff and them voting for the other guy” brought his true intent about that appearance, to the fore. Those remarks were incensing to his audience, and reveal the people he sought to impress with that speech. He was playing to the galley of his base, period. George W. addressed the same crowd and spoke of meaningful issues. Little surprise he got 11% of the– vote–quite good for a Republican in that community.
George W’s His speech was well couched and directed to the folks in the NAACP. Romney is the master position changer, so it should not have been difficult to do the same. His speech was unusal, and his subsequent remarks exposed his intent.
Elogam, you and I have had discussions and disagreements in the past and I have always stated that your views almost sound Klan like. You are fanatical about White power and I enjoin you to rethink your positions and see America from the perspective of the breadth of peoples who call this great country home.
If this is going to be one of your White power rants then this exchange will be over very quickly. I abjure the vociferous nature of your attacks on Black America, and have felt sickened by your past White power postings.
http://blackrepublicanandmyworldview.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/the-republican-party-is-becoming-the-face-of-the-klu-klux-klan/
Finally, Let me give you an example of a “supported argument”. You said Romney was not “fighting for the Black” . I disagree. I say he’s fighting for blacks, whites, Hispanics, everyone. Romney himself stated that he believes the free enterprise system “can bring change where so many well-meaning government programs have failed.” He further said “Free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class”. He believes the best way to help people–ALL people– is through a robust free enterprise system.
It doesn’t matter where you get educated, unless you are willing to doff plantation mentality and realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, you play to the plans of those who take you for granted and don’t really care about you, so long as you support them at the ballot box.
As I stated in my earlier remark, you Elogam and I have had this discourse before and you sought to refute my positions by alluding to the White race and stuck to Klan like positions in your total derision of the Black community. Just as a reminder, you stated that Black volks are criminals and criminally minded and there was no reason cor the higher rate of incaceration except that they were poor and born criminals, remember?
People do disagree with my positions and very few of them made racist remarks. On another blog on which we disagreed in certain issues, you became extremely vociferous in your racially loaded remarks. During the discussion on another blog on the text of the last discussion we had, when it was evident that you were losing the argument, you resorted to divisive accusations against Black Africans.
When challenged on your Klu Klux Klan like anti-Black vitriol, you suddenly said you were Black, although I guess it was for that day alone, I imagine. My guess is that you probably make that claim to being a person of color when you recognize that yiu have crossed the line in your explosive anti Black rhetoric.
Please do not irritate me by further regurgitating free enterprise positions articulated by Romney. It is trite and most people know his the Bush position and his own are identical on this issue. Your brief lecture simply retstated a positiom that was poorly managed and implemented in the financial sector that it led to a near break down of our country, and plunged us into the worst recession in 70 years.
Look here buddy, there must be some regulation and a return to a conservative debt control mechanism governance. Congress dropped the ball on that on that one.
Again, let me reiterate, Romney is a master panderer and known in all circles as a master at playing to his galley of the red meat rabidly anti Obama base. He was speaking to an audience , a predominantely African American one, and DID not address any issues PARTICULARLY relevant to him andderided the so called ‘Obamacare’ which is a near replica of the law he created in MA.
Why did Romney subsequently make explosive remarks about free stuff and the other remarks he did which further derided that community.
I hit the post button in error for my last post, on this mobile device, before it was completed or spell checked. However, I think I made my point and positions clear. I will be back later for a more roboust discourse.
I am sitting here, chortling, reading over something akin to “War and Peace” in it’s length, but not in it’s substance.
Mumlawyerletter2the max, we have never crossed words. Ever. I would recognize a name like yours, and would relish an opportunity to debate you on your views. You say I am “Klan-like” in my beliefs and spout “White power” positions. Nope! that was someone else. I, like Bill, am a black conservative man who calls ‘em like he sees ‘em. Ask anyone who reads this blog and you will find you have mischaracterized me badly. Name calling and race generalizations are for mediocre and unimaginative posters, of which I am not. If you’ve had these battles with someone named Elogam on your blog, which you have posted, I’ll visit and see if I can locate this discourse. I am not as active on this forum as I once was, but from time to time I will try to get back and post. If you truly are a moderate Republican we may agree from time to time, but I cannot agree with your position that the party is pretty much fueled by a hatred of Obama–which you strongly imply is personal and because of his race. While I don’t deny there are some who hate him because of who he is (The Elvis Factor-consult Larry Elder for explanation of that if you need to) I say the VAST MAJORITY of people dissatisfied with Obama are unhappy mainly because of the direction he and the Democrats have taken this nation. Although Romney is not MY favorite, he’s all we got and it’s important to stop Obama from further taking this nation down the road to being Western Europe.
Logic and reason are expected of all lawyers, not just top law school performers, especially since many “top law school performers” continuously fail state bar examinations. In addition, there are those of us who didn’t finish Harvard but who did in fact pass their bar examinations the first time where certain “Harvard trained” lawyers did not. With this said, reasonable and prudent minded Americans who do not possess law degrees have developed the common sense to know frauds and fakes, and this is why you have presented a dissertation trying to convince whomever that President Obama has not been a failure. More particularly and as a Black person who possesses the same degrees that you have and probably more, and also a Black person who lived through segregation, intergration, and now a country that spiraling in the wrong direction because of teleprompted speeches, I would like to say (1) that Mitt Romney at least had the professionalism to show up at the NAACP Convention, whereas, on the other hand, President Obama apparently didn’t want to be seen with a large group of black people; (2) I applaude Mitt Romney for speaking to and about the concerns “ALL” Americans, especially because I don’t get a special price at the gas pump because I am black, I don’t get lower utility bills just because I am black, my food costs the same as others at the grocery store, and therefore the issues that concern me are the same issues that concern all Americans; (3) the American People have finally taken the blinders off and are indicating that the “CHANGE” is now becoming “CHANGED OUR MINDS”. In particular, many black people are now “questioning” President Obama’s slight on the issues concerning this demographic, and with cause. And, with the truth being an absolute defense to a lie, President Obama has stooped to an all time low with his negative campaigning. For example, he is now zooming in on Mitt Romney’s business experiences, particularly with Baine, when in fact, President Obama had and still fails to have any business experience. So sir, or madam, your Harvard Law Degree is worthless here, and your arguments are not convincing nor truthful. More specifically, you represent the desperate mindset that has emerged within the Obama Re-election campaign, and, the continuos strategy of smear isn’t going to work. President Obama must be an excellent musician because he is now jumping on “every” bandwagon for a potential vote, and sadly, he doesn’t realize that even the most prudent of Americans who do not possess Harvard Degrees do possess certain analytical senses of whcih they have come to.
EB, Thanks for your response.
Not all lawyers are the same and many do not possess the core skills I mentioned earlier, even after they graduate. Consequently, though it is expected, it is not always acquired or honed. As for all your other remarks about Bar examinations and failures, it seemed quite convoluted and unrelated. What bearing does it have on the issue we are discussing here??? Well, all I can tell you is that I passed ALL my Bar exams at first sitting and I am quite content with the amount of legal learning I possess. Contrary to your averments about your degrees etc, this is not a competition to determine who has more law degrees. But you went ahead to suggest that you probably had more than I did. I do not see how this related to the issue but I assure you that the possibility that you have more advanced Law and/or other degrees than I have, is highly improbable. However, my education does not define me. My faith defines me.
Regarding your piece, it makes very little sense to say that politicians should or do give the same stomp speech regardless of their audience. When addressing freshmen in schools, one would expect politicians to focus on student loans, the job market and other issues that would be of greater importance to that group. He cannot go there and simply use the same talking points he used in a retirement home. Those in the home would probably want to hear about healthcare, Social Security benefits etc.
The fact of tailoring the speech and to know your audience is key. However, that not withstanding, Romney TAILORS his speeches depending on the audience. When he addresses Hispanics, in addition to addressing the pertinent issues of the day, he also addresses issues of particular interest to that community.
During his speech to the NAACP, he used the same speech he would have used for his base. Why? My deduction from that performance was that he was playing to the galley of his base. The remark he made subsequently, further confirmed his true intent. The constant reference to free stuff by some errant Conservatives is quite idiotic. Romney in using that line of free stuff and encouraging those who want free stuff to go to the other guy was unwarranted and vile.
I am a Conservative but will not be voting for Romney for a variety of reasons. He constantly changes positions, and during the course of the Republican primaries took certain extreme positions that made it evident that he was incapable of being the President of ALL Americans. His remarks about self deportation were laughable. He pandered to the extreme Right and took extreme positions. In the past, he was a moderate and I thought he was a tad too liberal. Now based on the political winds, he has swung to the furthest Right wing on his positions. He does not have the mettle to stand his ground and will be a pawn in the hands of the billionaire cabal feverishly working to get him into office.
Contrary to your claims that my support of the President reveals some sort of blind decision. I think that you are the one that is quite emotionally charged and very misguided in this respect. Romney is a successful business man who has made money for his investors, however, this does not automatically translate to some magical ability about saving the US economy. Sarah Palin, whom I admire, saw Russia from her window and was shocked that it did not give her foreign policy credentials. We were fed the WMD in Iraq nonsense and went into a senseless war. Once again, we are being fed this line that might look logical on its face but had no real bearing on the issue.
Romney was a man who made money for his investors however, despite the connections made between this and his ability to get the country moving faster in this recovery, there is no real nexus between the two, on deeper review. If there is a connection, he has to explain the translation of those skills to the public. Iraq did not have WMD but this was used as a pretext to thrust us into war. We were fooled into 2 wars by similar connected fabrications in the Bush era. We cannot elect a someone into the highest political office in the land based on credentials he has not shown translate into the KSA’s needed for the highest political office in the world.
And on Obama– President Obama came into office when we were losing about 750,000 jobs a month. He has not only stopped the bleeding but has put us on a path to recovery.
This is a fact. The recovery is slow but the crash did not happen over night either. He deserves a second time to complete his work. Three years is hardly enough for policies to take root. One of the reasons Clinton was so successful is that he got a second term and could do more things without the worry of a pending election.
Unlike you and others of your ilk, I would never vote for a candidate just because he is not the other guy. Romney’s business acumen does not magically translate into the ability to improve our economy. If his work in Massachusetts is anything to go by, then his business background really did not do very much for that state.
Although, I do applaud his version of the Affordable Care Act, his signature achievement. This signature achievement he now decries and has come up with the inexplicable defense the Healthcare law as it stands is best for a state.
Meanwhile on previous interviews on the issue, he had recommended that Healthcare system for national use. This is pandering to his base, It is a deft political move and Romney is good at it.
It is rather early to determine the outcome of this election. However, no matter it turns out. Romney has to explain to us how his business experience in making money for his investors translates into creating jobs for us. Bill Clinton was no business man and yet during his tenure America flourished. Romney has surrounded himself with the same people from the G.W.Bush administration to advice him on issues. One can only conclude that he is planning a return to the economic and foreign policies of the George W.’s presidency.
Lastly, on your issue about Bain. Everything about it MUST be examined and verified in detail. This is the only basis Romney has provided for being qualified to become President. No matter how you feel about our current President, surely it would be idiotic to elect someone into office before their credentials are checked and confirmed.
The hawkish war mongers of the Bush era are very responsible in part, for the current state of our colossal debt. Fighting two simultaneous wars emptied America’s coffers.Further, the total number of jobs created under George W. was abysmal, and lack of regulation caused the financial sector to become the wild wild west and now this is the result.
Obama has not been perfect but many Republicans, Independents and Conservatives that I know, who are voting for Romney, are simply voting against Obama. Many say that they know he will be a bad President but they want Obama out. This is a silly position. This election should be comparison of folks and not an all out war against the President by a faceless man who has failed to articulate in detail his plans for the country.
It bears repeating that the last most successful President, at least economy wise was Bill Clinton. He was no business man but was able to improve America and create a strong middle class. Romney is very far removed from the plight of the regular Joes.
By the way, Romney’s so called courage in going to the NAACP convention is an overrated pile of bunk, and was an orchestrated political move that smacked of racism and confirmed in his later statement. It is not enough just to show up. Show up and KNOW your audience. Black folk are not a bunch of folks who long for a welfare state. I know that percentage wise there are more Blacks on social welfare programs, but in sheer numbers there are millions more White Americans that benefit from those programs as well. To make this handout issue a talking point is red meat for the base and was crass and most unnecessary. America is polarized enough
Mitt Romney thinks he deserves to be President, and has touted his business experience as rationale for deserving this office. Now he has to show us what he plans to do and how that experience in venture capitalism will translate to good governance and economic wealth/jobs for all.
http://blackrepublicanandmyworldview.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/the-republican-party-is-becoming-the-face-of-the-klu-klux-klan/
To Mumlawyeredlettertothemax: A tailored speech to a group of people who support your opposition is better than “silence” from a “No Show” such as President Obama who appears to believe that the Black vote is so totally in the bag that he can ignore black supporters–except when he wants black supporters to go along with his Race Card that is used quite frequently in black media outlets. In addition, I mentioned the legal credentials to let you know that the only difference between lawyers and everyday day working people are the few extra years of education, which you should discontinue flaunting because with all of your learned knowledge you do not know that which you speak. More specifically, you can only speak for yourself and it is quite elementary for you to keep pushing “talking points” to those who know the real truth. In fact, my black ancestors lived on plantations and I am not going to support any Presidential Candidate of any color whose directed goal appears to be the placement of ALL Americans on an Economic Plantation, such as President Obama’s ;policies seem to suggest. So thank you Mitt Romney for your professionalism and goal to address all Americans which you will be duty bound to do if elected.
Those who disagree make a stronger point with total silence .
No applause – no shouting …
¦∙< ( ERRATA Ack Pffttt ‼
… AN emphasis point …
mumlettered2themax as a moniker certainly did fool me into thinking that you define yourself by your education. Or maybe it was your introducing yourself as a Harvard educated lawyer. Whatever. Now that we know how you define yourself, consider something like this one “Defined by my faith”. Simple, catchy and easy to remember.
Bill, you said I was a Harvard educated lawyer. I did not. I read all my comments and none contain that description. I like my moniker but above all else, my faith is the essence of who I am.
“His speech was not geared towards his audience and as a Harvard educated lawyer, I think it was orchestrated.”
These are your words. My public education leaves me believing that your are sharing your beliefs as a Harvard educated lawyer. Oh well, I you get what you pay for.
Bill, yes twas an odd construction in that sentence. The Harvard education in that statement referred to Mitt Romney’s.