Lose-Lose-Win at the NAACP

So, let me get this straight. If Mitt Romney refused to address the NAACP, it would be because he is a racist who doesn’t care about black people. And, apparently, if he does address the NAACP, he’s still a racist who doesn’t care about black people.

Look, I thought Mitt’s speech was a bit clumsy and not well-tailored to his audience (although his reception was a lot more cordial than the video clips let on). But I have been saying for years that the GOP should be making more of an effort effort to get black votes. It will not pay off now; it may not pay off for a couple of decades. But you have to try. And you don’t try by changing your message and pandering. You try by explaining to black people why a conservative agenda is in their interests. There’s no law of nature that say that black people have to vote Democrat.

So good on Mitt for going. I don’t think, contra everyone in the punditsphere, that he went there to get booed so he could rally the racist troops. As I have said about seven million times, this is going to come down to the economy. No one is going to vote for or against Mitt Romney because he was booed by the NAACP. I think his was an honest attempt to break some ice.

Comments are closed.

  1. hist_ed

    You forgot #3: If he went and only said things the audience agreed with, he would be pandering.

    Interesting that the media has totally ignored the applause that Romney got when he talked about defending traditional marriage.

    It will not pay off now; it may not pay off for a couple of decades

    Obama got 95% of the black vote in 2008. Polls now show him between 5 and 10% less this year. There have been murmerings about him disrepecting the NAACP for not going as well as for him taking the Black vote for granted (same sex marriage and the Black unemployment rate come to mind). If Obama gets 85% of a smaller black vote this year, then it will have paid off this year.

    Thumb up 3

  2. Seattle Outcast

    The only problem I have is that the NAACP is little more than a black version of the Klan. When people start trying to “get the black vote”, there needs to be more to it than going to speak in front of a blatantly racist organization.

    Thumb up 8

  3. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 4

  4. Seattle Outcast

    The NAACP is as racist an organization as there is, minus the overt violence. Plenty of talk about “revolution” and “killing whitey”, but little actual action.

    You ever actually listen to their press releases? I have, they tend to make Je$$e Jack$on sound reasonable in comparison. So, what is the point of pandering to a pack of Marxist race-baiters, cause I don’t see it.

    Instead of showing up to give that pack of assholes an opportunity to be offended, they should be ignored as the unimportant pieces of shit they are and efforts made to appeal to middle class blacks that have managed to see beyond the petty BS of always blaming white people for everything and looking for things to take offense at.

    Thumb up 8

  5. hist_ed

    One of the problems I have with many liberal groups and people is the tendency to hyperbolize politics. Bush (or Reagan, Bush the elder, Goldwater etc. etc.) was not a Nazi or a fascist. His administration was nothing like those of HItler or Mussolini (the continued existance of Michael Moore is proof enough of that).

    So SO, I have to say I agree with Salinger. Having done quite a bit of graduate research on the Klan, the NAACP is nothing like it. Saying the NAACP is like the Klan “minus the overt violence” is like saying Bush was like Hitler without the totalitarianism. Given that political violence was the reason for the Klan’s creation this makes your comparison a tad bit weak. (And when was the era of the good Klan? I am assuming that you really don’t have a problem with the NAACP of the 1950s).

    Thumb up 3