At risk of sounding incendiary I proceed with writing this diary. I admit this title may incite as much (or more) as it will provide insight. However that may be, this diary resulted from contemplating the convergence of several different news stories on the topic, containing some fascinatingly revealing quotes as well as several polls and opinion pieces. The synchronicity implored me on.
To be clear, I am not just making a claim. I am weaving together disparately placed threads of other voices that all seem to be saying exactly what this diary is titled without saying it. In other words, the news stories, quotes and opinions are connoting and not denoting. Hence the necessity of this diary, to simply state that Republicans are self-admitted racists. Perhaps it will offer some other ascertainments as well.
It all started with not one but two stories about race on the front page of CNN this evening in addition to something called a Racial voting bloc calculator. The first story that caught my eye, by LZ Granderson starts out swinging with a quote from wailin' Palin,
I would call Sarah Palin's use of "shuck and jive" in a Facebook post criticizing President Barack Obama another one of those dog whistle messages to racists, but it's far too obvious to be covert. -LZ GrandersonOh yes, she knows exactly what she's doing. Firing up the base. Which leads to the next article under a link called Obama's problem with white voters. Well now isn't that something. Obama has a problem with white voters. Ahem, perhaps CNN, you have it backwards. Or at least it is not the whole story.
While the president cruised into office with the support of 43% of the white vote in 2008 (the same percentage that Bill Clinton netted in 1996 as the article notes) currently Mr. Obama is hovering somewhere just shy of 40%. First of all 40% of the white vote is not IMHO indicative of a systemic problem especially when his previous 43% matched the high water mark of any Democrat in the last two decades. Compare this to Romney and his propensity for turning off at least 80% of non-white voters. Now that is what I would consider a serious problem.
Ostensibly you are not going to win the Latino vote when the candidate and his surrogates in congress completely ignores or positions themselves on the wrong side of every single issue of significance. From The New Republic,
If Romney makes a comeback in Ohio and Obama regenerates Latino turnout and wins Latino voters by as much or more than he did in '08 in states like Colorado, Nevada, or Florida, there's a chance we look back on the Republican decision to oppose comprehensive immigration reform (not to mention the DREAM Act) as the moment that ultimately cost them the 2012 election. -Nate Cohn | The New RepublicWhile this scenario is unlikely to happen based on current numbers it clearly outlines that Republican's policy positions are blatantly xenophobic. Additionally stating that you really wish you were a Mexican for the sake of political gain is not simply offensive, it is Mr. Romney in fact racist.
Another article that caught my attention was the lead story on HuffPo this evening. Wherein a top Romney surrogate John Sununu "suggests" that Colin Powell's Obama endorsement was motivated by race. From the Piers Morgan interview,
Sununu: Well, I'm not sure how important that is. I do like the fact that Colin Powell's boss, George Herbert Walker Bush, has endorsed Mitt Romney all along. And frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama.Now if I dissect this argument for a minute there are more then a few things that I find quite offensive here. First of all by saying that "when you have someone of your own race that you're proud of . . . I applaud Colin for standing with him" you are fully condoning voting based on racial ideology. Whether or not that was Mr. Powell's rationale, and I find that highly suspect, it clearly reveals your rationale for supporting your chosen candidate. Furthermore you are signaling that this method of selection is laudatory and admissible for other people to use. And who is he signaling to? In particular the voters Romney is pandering to, namely white Republicans to whom this would be an important issue to consider in making their choice.
Morgan: What reason would that be?
Sununu: Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you're proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him.
As I thought about it more, his first statement calling attention to GHW Bush endorsing Romney as Mr. Powell's "boss" caught me off guard as well. So let me ask you Mr. Sununu, Bush and Romney both also happen to be white, does this fact bear any resemblance to your main argument? No, well we all miss interesting coincidences from time to time. But what really kept getting to me was Sununu's pointing out that the "boss" is voting for his guy which is the right choice. However the boss' employee, who happens to be black, is voting for the other black guy which is the wrong choice! This sets up a troubling hierarchy that sounds to me to be frankly, racist bullshit.
This guy really has a way with words. Other choice phrases are, "when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder." WTF?! You mean when you look at the color of his skin? Finally the way he says he "applauds Colin for standing with him" (because he's black mind you) smacks of smugness and seems just plain smarmy and a condescending choice of phrasing. Or to say it more succinctly, is racist.
Am I reading into all this a little too metaphorically? Digging in a little too deep? It's true, I might just be languishing in feeling entitled and believing I'm a victim like the rest of the 47% of folks that just don't understand this Mitt character. Or perhaps this diary's title is saying what everyone else is saying, just not in so many words.