Home / General / “This race isn’t about race. Wait, did I say ‘race’? I meant ‘election.’ This race will not be about election.”

“This race isn’t about race. Wait, did I say ‘race’? I meant ‘election.’ This race will not be about election.”

Comments
/
/
/
36 Views

Not that conservatives are trying to make it an issue—being that theirs is the party whose anti-anti-racism robustly defies the law that governs all other double negatives—but via Jamelle, I see that Romney claims:

There’s no question in mind that the president’s action in this regard was calculated to build support for him among people he wants to have excited about his reelection, just as so many of the things he’s done were designed to try to shore up his base. And weakening the work requirement in welfare is an enormous mistake.

Now, Jamelle thinks it requires “gymnastics” of some sort to relate this statement to race, but given that the only “gymnastics” I can perform are “standing up” and “walking short distances, slowly,” I beg to differ. All you need is direct quotations and honest bracketing:

“[W]eakening the work requirement in welfare” equals “try[ing] to shore up [Obama’s] base.”

So “[Obama’s] base” prefers a “weaken[ed] work requirement.”

Ergo, black folk are lazy.

No gymnastics required.

NOTE: Since it isn’t entirely clear, I’m mocking my own athleticism here, not Jamelle’s point, which I’m merely doubling down on.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Of course, blacks are lazy. This goes without dogwhistling…but ALL liberals are lazy and like to punish success and such as…

    • Spuddie

      but ALL liberals are lazy and like to punish success and such as…

      The hard work and successful efforts of being born into a wealthy family.

      • Malaclypse

        That happened because Mittens was Valiant In The Preexistence. If blah people had been as Valiant, then they too would be White and Delightsome.

        • Spuddie

          +1

          I guess you been reading Anthea Butler’s posting on ReligionDispatches too.

          • Malaclypse

            No. I was raised in a family with a Fundie Baptist mother and a Mormon father. My upbringing was, as they say, complicated.

            • Spuddie

              Its worth a read anyway. The link is perfectly SFW

              • Malaclypse

                Oh, I did read it once you linked, and yes, it is worth a read. But I know about White and Delightsome because I read the pre-1981 BoM back when I was 8.

      • Keaaukane

        This comment is untrue and unfair. The Repugs also honor the hard work and successful efforts of marrying into a wealthy family.

        Unless you’re John Kerry, of course.

        • Warren Terra

          Indeed, this trumps Traditional Family Values; see McCain, John.

          • Manju

            This is ridiculous. We Repugs cut McCain some slack because he was a war hero. In contrast, John Kerry was…er…never mind.

            • +1

            • timb

              Anybody else remember Manju claiming he voted Democrat? Now, it’s “we”?

              • Holden Pattern

                This is one of the good Manju satirical comments, which by definition doesn’t involve either Robert Byrd or DW-NOMINATE.

              • Warren Terra

                I’m not evengoing to touch the question of Manju’s credibility, but – in the interests of fairness – in the comment that I recall, he claimed to be a Republican who voted Democratic, whatever that means, not to be a Democrat.

  • Incontinentia Buttocks

    Well the Heritage Foundation assures us that the politics of welfare reform have nothing whatsoever to do with race. That isn’t good enough for you?

    • Alex
    • gmack

      Indeed, I was informed over and over again that Clinton’s support of the PRWORA was a great thing because it would remove welfare as a wedge issue for ever. So clearly, Romney’s statements can’t have anything at all to do with race, welfare, racialed welfare, welfare racialism, electionism, or any of the other stuff SEK is implying here.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks

        Just like nominating a decorated Vietnam veteran in 2004 removed questions about the Democrats’ patriotism.

        • Malaclypse

          And the Greenspan Commission meant that we never heard lies about imminent Social Security bankruptcy after 1986. I know you youngins might not believe this, but once upon a time, the Republicans told lies to the American public to try and convince them that Democratic social policies didn’t work.

    • Cody

      This article is depressing. “We don’t know if we should believe these fact checkers, they’re so often Partisan.” She has a point, they do generally lean to the Right. So when they’re calling the claim that your candidate is making “pants on fire”, you know it’s REALLY bad.

      Also, the comment section is funny. Some guy from Texas (surprise) yelling about how he’s so dropping the work requirement and people saying otherwise are just using fancy elite semantics.

      • Ignorant Texan

        Hey, now! We’re not all cousin-fucking, knuckle-walking atavists here. Just the vast majority.

  • Alex

    Doesn’t Jamelle says the opposite?

    “You can parse that in a way that doesn’t involve race, but honestly, it would involve some gymnastics.”

    https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/240139487945031680

    • SEK

      He does, I’m just doubling down on his point. I thought the self-deprecation and the stilted “I beg to differ” would’ve made that clear, but I guess I’m getting cryptic in my (relatively) old age.

      • Warren Terra

        Yeah, I didn’t get that you were sarcastically echoing and reinforcing Jamelle; I honestly thought you were criticizing him for being too kind to Willard. I may be bad at detecting sarcasm, though.

      • Hogan

        Don’t talk to me about old age. For one thing I’ve forgotten more than you’ll ever forget, and for another thing, I can’t hear you; you’ll have to speak up.

  • Dirk Gently

    The “doth protest too much” crowd are quick to point out that Obama’s “base” includes the poor, and that can be people of any race–indeed, there are far more whites on welfare than there are black people.

    BUT

    They fail to conduct their own thought experiment. When most white people hear “welfare,” especially when it’s linked to work requirements, they don’t AUTOMATICALLY think of all the poor white folks on it–they have to be REMINDED that all these white people are on welfare. And since when are poor white folks (most of them rural, it’s worth pointing out) are Obama’s “base”?

    So even if we’re being generous in assuming that Romney doesn’t necessarily assume the “base” he’s talking about are lazy black people, we can assume that a large percentage of people will make that assumption. Indeed, we may as well include “welfare recipient” among terms such as “urban” that mean what we think they mean, even if that meaning is never spelled out. When you hear “urban”, I’m sure the first image that comes to mind is a bunch of lily-white hipsters hanging out in gentrified sections of America’s metro cores, amirite?

    Of course, in today’s media environment, it’s “partisan” and “race baiting” to underscore that a reasonable person could interpret that statement a particular way, not even going so far as to suggest that this it the intended meaning all along.

    • Cody

      This is obviously how he can promise to get rid of welfare, and poor white people keep voting for him.

      Obviously, they know they aren’t the “Welfare Recipients” he’s talking about.

      • mark f

        The HBO documentary Hot Coffee, about various tort reform battles, features one guy who supported Nebraska’s caps on damages, only to surprised that they applied to his own lawsuit when some horrific medical malpractice affected his own family. See, he thought the caps only applied to frivolous lawsuits, not to people with legitimate grievances.

        Similarly, poor people who vote Republican think that welfare reform only applies to lazy leeches, not to the unlucky people who genuinely need a little help.

        Atrios pointed out one way the psychology of this works: the notion that we have an incredibly generous saftey net (“Work harder – Millions on welfare are depending on you!”) gets ingrained, and then when you need it and discover it really ain’t shit, well, you tell yourself it’s because other people (who’re probably black or illegal immigrants) are sucking up all the money.

        • mark f

          And of course there’s the Scott Brown/Craig T. Nelson version: “When I was on welfare, anyone bail me out? No.”

        • gmack

          I’m reminded of a joke I recall Hannah Arendt telling in Eichmann in Jerusalem, in which Germans who were (rightly) afraid of the Russian advance would commit suicide, bitterly complaining about how the Jews used up all of good gas the Germans needed to kill themselves painlessly.

          Anyway, the dynamic is pretty well ingrained throughout our culture, though I’m not sure I buy Atrios’ explanation of it. Having read the literature and talked to lots of folks, there are large numbers of folks who receive TANF or food stamps who tell the same narrative: they are good hard working folks down on their luck, unlike those lazy bastards in the next building who are just leeches. If I can be put things crudely, pace Atrios’ explanation, I’m inclined to say that this dynamic emerges out of U.S. racial politics, where everyone wants to set someone else up as the n***** (which reminds me of another joke, namely, that the first English word that European immigrants learned on reaching the new world was the n-word).

      • Dirk Gently

        Well put. And so blindingly obvious.

      • Hogan

        You needed that welfare check. But they had to give it to a minority.

      • Younge

        Generally, the % of the white vote Democrats capture increases as you move down the income scale. It is whites without college degrees that vote overwhelmingly for Republicans.

  • Warren Terra

    To be slightly generous to the Republicans, it’s not only about Race. One of the wonders of the Prosperity Gospel that infests the Republican base, and of counterfactual religious ideas on the subject in general, is that it means everyone who is rich deserves not only respect but admiration and deference, and those needing assistance are morally inferior wastrels. Sure, it’s an attack on the Otherness of disadvantaged minorities; but it’s also a reinforcement of their twisted theology that says we should chastise the poor into finding True Salvation.

    • OK, now I want to cross out my comment and redirect everyone to this one.

  • Rearden Steel

    Take your race-baiting and shove it. This election is about the makers vs. the takers, the 51% of us who pay taxes and the 49% who get government bennies, and want more more more.

    Who gives a flying fuck what color they are? The Makers must be victorious over the Takers or our country is finished.

    • Malaclypse

      Oh good, Jennie has a new nym.

    • SEK

      I love how pointing out that other people are race-baiting is the new race-baiting. How convenient for the race-baiters!

      • SEK

        (I’m guessing someone didn’t understand what “anti-anti-racism” signifies. Why am I not surprised?)

        • Rearden Steel

          You’re using race to divide and conquer and create strife. Typical Marxist SOP.

          • Malaclypse

            Yes, because if Marxists are known for anything, it is the doctrine of divide and conquer. As always, your discernment remains matched only by your erudite exposition, Jennie.

            • Rearden Steel

              Shouldn’t you be apologizing and examining your privilege while deconstructing Eurocentric narratives or whatever the fuck it is you Marxist “intellectuals” do?

              Fucking garbage doctrine, I can’t wait until we take every Marxist fuck, every four-eyed Marxist professor and shove ’em up against the motherfucking wall, and have all their works wiped the fuck off the face of the Earth.

              • SEK

                Fucking garbage doctrine, I can’t wait until we take every Marxist fuck, every four-eyed Marxist professor and shove ‘em up against the motherfucking wall, and have all their works wiped the fuck off the face of the Earth.

                This is performance art? Right? Right? No one can be this oblivious.

                • timb

                  He can, as he follows the conservative intellectual who is Jeff Godlestein

                • firefall

                  Only if you realise that Willard Romney is running a supreme act of performance art, as well

              • Holden Pattern

                Day 2 of JenBob’s Southern-Comfort-and-Coke bender.

                • witless chum

                  For a second, I wondered which kind of coke…

                • DrDick

                  Day 2 of JenBob’s Southern-Comfort-and-Coke & meth bender

                  FTFY

              • mark f

                I can’t wait until we take every Marxist fuck, every four-eyed Marxist professor and shove ‘em up against the motherfucking wall

                I suppose that would literally separate us from the Marxists, anyway.

                So, uh, Poe?

              • Dirk Gently

                Can’t tell if trolling or needing to reach for heart medicine…

              • Malaclypse

                Internet tough guy is tough on the internet. Truly, I quake in fear, Jennie.

                • DrDick

                  Personally, I am quaking from laughing so hard at this wanker.

              • MAJeff

                That is one pissed-off cracker.

              • Linnaeus

                Careful, now, you don’t want to get slobber on your nice brown shirt.

                • firefall

                  win

          • Hogan

            He’s right, you know. Remember how the Bolsheviks suppressed the Whites?

            • Dirk Gently

              Ba-dump tssssss!

            • timb

              +1

          • SEK

            You’re using race to divide and conquer and create strife.

            I’m not the one whose candidate’s running commercials about welfare abuse. You may want to take a nice, long look in the mirror there.

            Typical Marxist SOP.

            Being redundant doesn’t make you correct, nor does saying the same thing twice.

            • Rearden Steel

              Only a Marxist “intellectual” little shit like you would try to twist an ad about welfare into being racist because you can’t discuss real policy differences. You can’t win an honest debate, so you shout RAAAAAAAAAACIIIISM!!! to try to shut up your opponents.

              • And it works! Nary a peep out of you!

              • Dirk Gently

                Or, and this is just a pure hypothetical, one of the candidates is having to drum up support using race-baiting because an honest discussion of his policies is both radical and extremely unpopular in the polls, to the tune of at least 60% opposed, and much more, depending on the policy and how the question is asked.

                [In all sincerity, this drives me crazy about conservatives–such believers in their “truth” that they conflate rightness with popularity. At least I KNOW how unpopular my radical atheist syndicalism is.]

                • timb

                  It comes from listening to that fat-ass Limbaugh all day long and hearing other crackers agree with him. They just assume all white people are as dumb and uneducated as they are

              • SEK

                Or there’s a long history of conservatives attacking racialized myths like “welfare queens,” and given their current demographics, they know that criticizing welfare will appeal to the aging bigot community. I love how you think that the whole “RAAAACISM!!!” thing is an actual tactic. It’s so quaint, and all-encompassing, it allows you dismiss anything a liberal says as an appeal to racism, even when a liberal’s critiquing a tactic that’s been historically tied to racist appeals.

                Sigh. You’re worse than hopeless, you’re a terrible American. You’re a fucker of the worst sort, because you believe your small-minded conception of patriotism — which was forged by a group of intellectuals in the Upper East Side in the 1960s — is more authentic because it’s yours, and you’re a real American who believes what a bunch of elitist intellectuals wanted him to back in the ’60s. That’s Real America! There’s no contradiction to your conception of patriotism! You’re wonderful! You’re not a fucker! Your significant other of the opposite sex has always been faithful to you! Your children and coworkers really do love you! You’re an American! Go you!

                Jesus, even trying to inhabit your mind long enough to mock it makes me need a shower, you sick fuck.

                • Rearden Steel

                  How the fuck are welfare cheats “racialized”? Most people on welfare are whites, dumbass.

                  You just want to babble on about “privilege” and “racializing” and whatever other Marxist academic buzzword you can make up so instead of talking about welfare work requirements, we end up with nothing but shouts of RAAAAAAAAAAAACIIISM!

                • Dirk Gently

                  My god, I feel like a prophet. Thank you, Rearden.

                • Rearden Steel

                  Here’s the thing I DON’T CARE WHAT COLOR a welfare cheat is. It pisses me off whether it’s Latifah from Detroit or Megan McCracker from Mingo County West Vigrinia. I despise them both because they’re CHEATS who steal my tax money instaed of working for a living.

                • SEK

                  You are one ignorant fucker:

                  During his 1976 presidential campaign, Reagan would tell the story of a woman from Chicago’s South Side who was arrested for welfare fraud: “She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”

                  The “South Side” Reagan referred to? It’s 93 percent African-American. So you see, you stupid fuck, when you refer to the “South Side of Chicago” as the home of welfare cheats, you’re talking about black people. Explicitly. Or at least you’re 93-percent-talking about black people, which is still pretty damn racialized, what with it being near 100 percent and all.

                  So please, fuck off with the racist apologias, as everyone here already knows better. Go play at Stormfront, or better yet in the street.

                • Rearden Steel

                  Did Romney’s ad say anything about the Southside of Chicago? Was there even any HINT of it even being directed at *urban* welfare cheats? Uh, no! So try again, dumbshit. I’ll say it again: most welfare cheats are whites, this is a statistical fact.

                • Malaclypse

                  So please, fuck off with the racist apologias, as everyone here already knows better.

                  Only until Manju shows up.

                • SEK

                  Did Romney’s ad say anything about the Southside of Chicago? Was there even any HINT of it even being directed at *urban* welfare cheats? Uh, no! So try again, dumbshit. I’ll say it again: most welfare cheats are whites, this is a statistical fact.

                  Yes, because Romney and the Republicans don’t worship the Great God Reagan, and wouldn’t ever invoke one of his most famous tropes in an effort to remind voters that Romney belongs to the same party. You act, like most ignorant little shits, as if statements are made in a historical vacuum, as if there’s no larger context into which rhetorical appeals like this are launched. And that’s not because you’re stupid, though you are, but because you’re aggressively stupid, and cultivate your ignorance of history in a pathetic attempt to convince the merely uninformed that you have a firm grasp of politics. You don’t. You know little, and what little you know is almost entirely mistaken. As a teacher, I feel sorry for you. I’ve taught many a conservative how to understand a historical context and produce a more rhetorically effective conservative argument, but you’re beyond hope. You’re so committed to your small-mindedness that you’d take any attempt to teach you anything as an excuse to whip out your dick and declare yourself the bigger man.

                  And, no matter happened, you’d stuff that little prick back in your pants and declare yourself a winner. Congratulations! You’ve won The You Think You Have The Biggest Dick Contest! None of us are laughing at you, we promise! Now, go be a good little winner and fuck off, already.

                • timb

                  There is something broken on the bot today. It keeps repeating the word “Marxist,” out of context with any words around and spelling racist like douchebags do.

                  Is the programming broken?

                • Did Romney’s ad say anything about the Southside of Chicago?

                  Ahem:

                  There’s no question in mind that the president’s action in this regard was calculated to build support for him among people he wants to have excited about his reelection, just as so many of the things he’s done were designed to try to shore up his base. And weakening the work requirement in welfare is an enormous mistake.

                  To be fair, Romney didn’t say that in the ad.

                • Pseudonym

                  Ahem: “Take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago.”

              • Cheap Wino

                Just a hint: If the ad were actually about welfare it would probably not be wholly fabricated. But really it’s not about welfare at all so it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not.

                • Dirk Gently

                  My god, I feel like a prophet. Thank you, Rearden.

              • Notice Reardon’s welfare queens are both women. Because only women receive welfare, doncha know?

                • Pseudonym

                  Oh come on now, how can you forget about that strapping young buck using food stamps to buy a T-bone steak?

    • Spuddie

      Don’t you realize, AtlasHugged here is quoting Marx. Workers are the means of production, and must have political power. Power to those who make the things that keep the world going.

      The takers being the ultra wealthy who squeeze every dime out of the working and middle class to enrich themselves. Those parasitic people who put their money in tax shelters, live off of capital gains and send jobs overseas.

      Those who work for a living must take down the oligarchic bloodsuckers.

      • The thing that annoys me most about Reardon is I’d bet folding money he knows 2 things about Marxism: jack and shit.

        Granted, I never graduated college. So I know about as much about it as he does…but I don’t go around talking out my ass about it.

        Reminds me of that wild-eyed Gen X woman who would wave the Constitution around saying Obama wasn’t adhering to it. I’ll be FUCKED if that dumb piece of shit had any idea what’s in the CONSTITOOSHUN.

        • Malaclypse

          Reminds me of this, actually.

        • Spuddie

          I would not take that bet. It is funny how the little Randroid screed can easily be taken to mean Marxist screed. Rand after all was just a Bizzaro-world communist.

          The only good things about Rand are the references by Rush and that Helen Mirren played her in the made for cable movie. Helen Mirren is several types of awesome.

    • wengler

      I know makers rhymes with takers, but moochers and leeches are more acceptable terms.

      • Pseudonym

        I believe the correct terminology is mooters and loochers.

    • DrDick

      Cracker, please just shove that stupidity straight up your ass. Every Republican presidential campaign since Nixon has relied on race baiting. Ever hear of something called “the Southern Strategy?” Don’t even try bringing that bullshit around here.

    • Pseudonym

      You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 2012, you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like food stamps, welfare cheats, Marxism and all that stuff.

  • Rearden Steel

    BTW Romney has surged ahead in the latest Washington Post poll.

    This election will look like 1980–tight as a tick until the last week, then BAM the Republican surges into a landslide lead.

    • Dirk Gently

      Can’t say you’re wrong–but in fact such an outcome would be even more dramatic, because as it stands, Romney would have to run the table on ALL the battleground states. Obama can lose all but one and still win.

    • Hogan

      Tight as a what now?

      • Malaclypse

        Interestingly, “tight as a tick” is one more thing Jennie doesn’t actually understand.

    • “Bookmark it libs! You’ll wonder how I was able to call it.”

      • Mrs Tilton

        Ooh, comments-box cross-pollination! In that case: I would like to get together with this comment to make a crowd-sourced video for Cindy Gallop.

  • I look forward to the athletic competition at LGM Days which I think we should hold at the Andrew Johnson National Historic Site in Greenville, Tennessee.

    The footrace is going to be spectacular.

    • SEK

      I don’t know. Who gets to be represented by whom? Because Rob has battleships, Lemieux has Supreme Court justices, Noon has Palin, you have Wobblies, but Dave’s got Scottish footballers and I have Batman. I think it’s a two-team race here, honestly.

      • Malaclypse

        The Wobblies would totally kick Batman’s ass. Then write a song about it.

        • SEK

          Or vice versa, then write a song about it. The only thing we can be certain about is the song.

      • Jameson Quinn

        Batman beats up wobblies, footballers win. Palin, in distant second place, acts as insurance against battleship shelling footballers.

        • Malaclypse

          The only way that happens is if the Supreme Court rigs the contest in Batman’s favor.

          Oh, wait.

        • Dirk Gently

          This whole sub-sub thread is so inside baseball that I’m even having a hard time following. And you didn’t even include all the interminable baseball posts here on LGM.

          • SEK

            It’s just what we write about the most. That’s not that inside baseball, I don’t think.

            • Who is this “Noon” person?

              • SEK

                He’s just this guy I see on Facebook all the time. I thought everyone knew him.

          • timb

            There is no such such thing as an interminable post about baseball

  • Rearden Steel

    40% of whites voted for Obama. Meanwhile, less than 5% of blacks voted for McCain. Now, who has the racial problem again?

    • Malaclypse

      Truly, the white man can’t catch a motherfucking break.

      • Rearden Steel

        What would you say if 95% of whites voted for the white candidate? What would you call that hmmm?

        • Malaclypse

          What would you say if 95% of whites voted for the white candidate?

          A Republican primary.

          I like you best when you pretend to be a Black man, Jennie.

        • Ruviana

          Rearden so makes me long for the halcyon days of George Tierney of Greenville South Carolina. Or even MURKIN PATRIOT. It doesn’t even seem quite real.

          • Holden Pattern

            I feel a little bad for JenBob — like we should take up a collection for him to buy a little windshield wiper for his monitor. It’s got to be hard for him to read or write on his computer with all the frothy spittle buildup.

        • Sly

          Every U.S. election until 2008.

    • 40% of whites voted for Obama. Meanwhile, less than 5% of blacks voted for McCain. Now, who has the racial problem again?

      McCain.

      • timb

        to be fair, racist McCain supporters like the kind who troll her and love Protein Wisdom

      • 60% of white people.

    • Hogan

      The 88% of blacks who voted for Kerry certainly don’t.

    • Dirk Gently

      If only 5% of blacks only voted for Kerry, or Gore, or Clinton, etc., THEN you might have a point.

      Ask yourself why 95% of black people vote for DEMOCRATS.

    • wengler

      The Republican Party obviously. Plenty of white Democrats also get 90%+ of the black vote.

    • Accusing blacks of being racist for voting against McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan is like accusing the Jews of Nazi Germany of being responsible for Kristalnacht because they were unfair to Hitler’s policy proposals.

      Yeah, I held off the Nazi party analogies almost until September. But the party platform and subtext stuff is just too thick not to at this point.

    • Pseudonym

      I’m going to go with “Rearden Steel” here.

  • Rearden Steel

    How about this, if Romney ran an anti-welfare cheat ad featuring a toothless meth-addled Kentucky hillbilly playing “dueling banjos” while swilling moonshine would you finally shut the fuck and say that it’s not about race? Would you?

    • Hogan

      Well, I would, but that’s because I’d be stunned into speechlessness.

      • mark f

        I wonder why he doesn’t run that ad?

        • timb

          Because he wants to make white people mad at black people?

          The randian superperson can be rest assured that Romney sees ALL of us, black and white, as toothless meth-addled Kentucky hillbillies fit mainly to work on his staff

    • Holden Pattern

      Dude, why are you engaging in such hateful stereotypes of Southern Whites?

      • Altoid

        Dude, why are you engaging in such hateful stereotypes of Southern Whites?

        Mmmmm…..because everybody else who posts here does it?

        • Holden Pattern

          When the cluetrain blows by you, do you hear the locomotive and feel the wind?

    • Malaclypse

      I wonder why we all know he won’t make that ad?

      • mark f

        FMLAW, you got it in a minute earlier.

      • Rearden Steel

        It’s not like he runs ads showing Latifah from inner city Detroit drinking Kool-Aid and chomping on fried chicken while talking about her “chillins” either but you’d never know it from the shouts of RAAAACISM from the likes of SEK. Given his level of vitriol you would think that’s exactly how the Romney ad was donel.

        • mark f

          You forgot the menthols and the R&B ringtones.

        • SEK

          If a conservative filmed your ad, I’d concede that the appeal to welfare cheats wasn’t racialized anymore. I’d concede that Romney wasn’t appealing to the same demographic Reagan was, and for the same reason. But until I do, I’m going to insist on the importance of history, the continued existence of those Reagan voters, and the prolonged effectiveness of that appeal.

          But until a conservative runs that ad, you need to shut the fuck up, because you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

        • Sly

          You know… you’re absolutely right; Colin Powell is very well-spoken.

        • Pseudonym

          You got your stereotype wrong: it’s purple drank. You’re the one drinking the Kool Aid.

    • SEK

      Notice how everyone else here already knew the answer to your blistering hypothetical? I wonder why that is.

    • Spuddie

      When I see it, we will find out.

      But how are you going to get close to the Romney people to let them put you in one of their ads?

    • Ignorant Texan

      Ah, yes, David Duke’s argument when he was he was de-sheeting himself with the National Association For The Advancement Of White People ruse. Except, of course, his point was the vast majority of people on public assistance were/are white folk. So, you’re now arguing that Mitt Romney hates underclass white people?

    • Wheezy

      You forgot the sister-fucking part.

    • wengler

      If Obama ran that ad would you finally see by the stunned reaction that Democrats aren’t nearly as hateful as Republicans?

    • DrDick

      I would laugh my ass off, since that is the Republican base he just attacked.

    • How about this, if Romney ran an anti-welfare cheat ad featuring a toothless meth-addled Kentucky hillbilly playing “dueling banjos” while swilling moonshine would you finally shut the fuck and say that it’s not about race?

      I promise you, I would absolutely be the first one to call out Mitt Romney for engaging in class warfare.

  • Holden Pattern

    I feel like we all need a palate-cleanser (except JenBob, who won’t understand):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8yEqco39T8

  • timb

    I’m enjoying the fake argument that Obama is trying to appeal to “the poor,” as a base. I work with poor people everyday and if there’s one thing I know from trying to get them to vote, it’s that poor people don’t vote.

    The system is too complicated for them, they are too short-sighted, and like anyone turning in to an a mid-stream argument, the argument annoys them.

    Add the fact that Republicans are trying to keep them from voting and, if you tried to base a campaign on the votes of the poor, you’d find yourself writing your memoirs (again) and updating your resume.

    • DocAmazing

      Having done a li’l voter outreach to the poor, it’s important to be consistent and to try to make voting as easy as possible–absentee ballots are a nice thing for folks who have transit problems or who have to work weird hours, or who have problems following through.

      It can be done, and it does pay off.

      • timb

        Doc, I’m not making a voter outreach argument; I am calling bullshit on the argument that Obama would pander to poor people. No one in America bases their campaign on the poor, because unlike the rich and the old, the poor don’t vote.

        Thus, claiming is basing his “waiver policy” because he is pandering to the poor is hysterical. Romney is claiming his base is the African-American community and trying to scare whites

    • herr doktor bimler

      poor people don’t vote

      SO the answer to ensure a permanent Republican majority is to ensure that most of the population are poor?
      Hmm, explains a lot.

      • timb

        excellent point

  • Matt

    I find it fascinating how all the Romney apologists on this one have suddenly developed amnesia regarding literally everything anybody in the GOP has said about welfare for the last thirty years. Sure, there’s no specific *mention* of race in this particular statement, but that’s like claiming you can’t figure out who an al Qaeda spox means when he says “the infidels”.

  • FlipYrWhig

    Everyone realizes, yes, that the state that received the infamous waiver that shows how Obama only wants to do favors for his base is Utah, right?

    • Cody

      Sure, just like everyone realized that Romney and like 9 other Republican Governors signed a petition to ask for these State waivers.

  • herr doktor bimler

    Every time I am told that Romney is not racist, I am reminded that he spent the Vietnam War preaching to the French about the inferiority of people with dark skin.

  • Jason

    I know that this tends to be a bit of an echo chamber (one that I enjoy), but can we call this article what it is? A really sorry attempt at painting republican agenda as racist. What’s even more embarrassing about this article is that it is supremely easy to paint republican agenda as racist, because it is often implicitly, if not explicitly so. I mean, are you kidding me? This sentence is in a piece of journalism on a purportedly serious journalistic website:

    “But given what we know about the imagery of welfare—and it’s association with African Americans—I think that’s the connection Romney was trying to make.”

    Come on, we can do a lot better than that.

    • Malaclypse

      Let me guess – you also find it an inexplicable coincidence that Reagan announced his candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi?

      • Jason

        I was not criticizing the point of the article. Even if Romney wasn’t himself picturing black people when he made the comment, he was very clearly making the statement to rile up a bunch of people who do think of all welfare recipients as degenerate black people (thereby shoring up his own base). However, that doesn’t change the fact that the arguments leading up to that conclusion are sub par. Jamelle’s argument is essentially: He made a negative (and ultimately false) comment about welfare recipients, and since we can assume (for reasons completely unmentioned or supported in this article) that all rich white people have a preconceived notion of those recipients as lazy, drug-addicted black people, Romney’s comment is racist. Is it completely ridiculous to make those assumptions? Absolutely not. But, you would hope that in a serious piece of journalism we could get at least one other Romney quote that tied the two concepts together. Its not rocket science.

        • DrDick

          Have you been sleeping for the last forty years or maybe you just fell off the turnip truck? The tropes deployed by the Romney campaign have a long history in Republican racial rhetoric and are easily recognized for what they are by anyone who has paid attention since Nixon initiated the Southern Strategy.

          • Jason

            First of all, I haven’t been alive for the last 40 years, so I guess the answer to your question is yes? Second of all, your poorly veiled attempts to call me ignorant don’t really address my comments. The problem with this article is that there is no coherent argument. I hate to break it to you, but it isn’t accepted fact by the rest of the American electorate that Republicans and their “tropes” are racist dating back to Nixon, whether those on the far left believe it or not. If this article appeared in the DNC program, I could overlook the extremely poor journalism, but it doesn’t, so pardon me if I prefer that my claims about racism not come unsubstantiated. The article is lazy.

  • RedSquareBear

    Where are the cowardly GOP governors that asked and got their exemptions?

    Oh right, they’re in Tampa…

It is main inner container footer text