Skip to main content

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 Granderson
Oh 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 Republic
While 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.

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.

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.  

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.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    A solar spill is just called a nice day

    by furpletron on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:42:37 AM PDT

  •  'Will White Men Sink Obama?' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    furpletron, Front Toward Enemy

    asks the CBS headline.

    Probably not, concludes the accompanying article.

    All the talk about women might make it easy to forget that men are a significant chunk of the electorate as well. While women outvoted men by about 10 million votes in the 2008 presidential election, men still made up 48 percent of the electorate. And white men alone made up more than one third of the electorate - 36 percent - according to national exit polls.  

    It's true that whites are slowly shrinking as a portion of the electorate as blacks, Hispanics and Asians grow in influence, which is why you don't see many news stories about them as a voting bloc. But they still pack a powerful electoral punch. White men, in fact, are providing the biggest drag on the president of any voting bloc as he tries to win another four years in the Oval Office. Even if the president gets his expected 80 percent support from minority voters, he is unlikely to win the election if he can't win more than one in three white men. And he might not.[...]

    The good news - or the less bad news - for Mr. Obama is that the problem is far worse in the South than it is in the Midwestern swing states. Look specifically at the white working class, who were somewhat supportive of Bill Clinton in 1996 but have consistently broken against Democrats since that election. A survey released last month by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that Romney led 48 to 35 percent among whites lacking four-year college degrees who are paid by the hour or the job. Yet while Romney led by 40 points among southern working-class whites, the president actually led by eight points among Midwestern working-class whites. The president's relative strength among whites in the Midwest is the reason a state like Pennsylvania appears likely to remain blue despite a relatively large white population.

    "The sense that he's doing better with white voters in the Midwest is the firewall for Barack Obama," Marshall said. "It's what's giving him hope that he can win in the Electoral College even if he potentially loses the popular vote."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/...

    Romney is doing better in the south than John McCain did but worse in states like Ohio, which he needs to win.

    This is probably the last presidential election where the GOP can rely heavily on white male voters to carry them through to victory, so that's why we're seeing these final, desperate explicit race-baiting appeals whether it's Newt Gingrich calling the President a food stamp President or John Sununu suggesting that Colin Powell only endorsed the President because he's black or Mitt Romney saying they never asked me for my birth certificate and insisting that the President removed the work requirement to receive welfare.

    For these and many other reasons, November 6, the day that will allow Mitt Romney to spend more time with his family and his money, cannot get her soon enough.

    The choice of our lifetime: Mitt Romney, It Takes A Pillage or President Barack Obama, Forward Together.

    by FiredUpInCA on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:08:52 AM PDT

    •  I (4+ / 0-)

      can't wait for election night.  The Teabaggers are going to go batshit crazy.  In their little bubble they don't know what the real polls and markets look like.  Even if they did they wouldn't believe them.

      The would have no clue what Nate Silver does.

      Maybe they could get a decent clip of Chuck Todd pulling some Electoral College out of his ass and will play it on Fox News.

      Normally someone will post a YouTube of the technical diffculties right after Fox News calls it

      "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

      by Lava20 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:31:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The problem with this election is (0+ / 0-)

    that with are so many idiot surrogates for Mittens, it's hard to choose the worst of the bunch.

    Sununu has got to be in the running for the most obvious racist in the pack. So much hate ... so little time.

    It takes time to practice generosity, but being generous is the best use of our time. - Thich Nhat Hanh.

    by Frank In WA on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:10:25 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site