FAIL: Atlantic, NYT go full scale stupid in accusing Romney of welfare racism

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Romney’s playing the raaaaaaaaaaaaace card!!!!” is the theme of the day as MSDNC dunce Chris Matthews and other pro-Obama “journalists” have latched on to what they see as the Romney campaign’s attempt at trying to win more white voters by making cracks about Obama’s birth certificate and “lying” about Obama’s recent move on welfare-to-work requirements.  In the above link, Matthews does what he does best by yelling and spitting about the Michigan birth certificate joke that Mitt Romney made this past weekend, insinuating that underneath Romney’s innocent enough joke about the birth certificate issue – an issue the Obama campaign itself has used to its advantage in the form of mugs and yoga pants merchandise on its website – Romney’s trying to remind voters of Obama’s Kenyan roots. This in spite of the fact that Romney repeatedly pushed back against the so-called “birther” movement long ago, and in spite of the fact that Chris Matthews himself has pushed the Obama-Kenya angle on his own program, and his was actually directed to and about Obama, unlike Mitt Romney’s joke.

While Matthews went ape-sh*t over the birth certificate comments, the core of the “racism” argument against Romney by certain “journalists” seems to be his attacks on Obama and welfare reform.  The New York Times link I posted above is silly enough, but the Atlantic Wire takes the cake:

Mitt Romney says that Obama allowed a waiver for the work requirement for welfare — if states have a better way of getting recipients into jobs — so that the President could “shore up his base.” Romney probably didn’t mean the Republican governors who asked for the waivers but, fitting with his campaign’s recent message, poor black people who take white people’s money.

[…]

Romney’s advisers believe Romney “needs a more combative footing against President Obama in order to appeal to white, working-class voters and to persuade them that he is the best answer to their economic frustrations,” The New York Times‘ Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg reported. And as we pointed out on Friday, if Romney gets 61 percent of the white vote, he wins. If you have any doubt that Romney is playing the race card, check out his YouTube page. There are five ads falsely accusing Obama of gutting welfare reform. The Republican National Committee has put out its own welfare ad. And another three Romney ads say Obama is raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare. The latter ads show white faces and say “you paid in” but now health care is going to somebody else.

Let’s look at some of the visuals in these ads. I’ve turned them into GIF form to show the most race-y parts so you don’t have to sit through a whole video. This is from the RNC’s ad “Never Happened“:

Please, please please – when you get a moment, go to the Atlantic Wire link and look at the alleged “visual evidence” that Romney and the RNC’s ads are blatant attempts at discounting black voters.  The crux of the argument seems to be that the ads are using white actors as the ones being “screwed” because of welfare to work waivers and because of that – and the accusation that Obama is trying to appeal to his “base” – Romney is playing to race.  Oh, and one ad apparently showed a “darker” version of Obama than the original video clip used in the segment. Apparently only darker images of public figures can be used if they are of white conservatives. *insert eyeroll here*

AllahPundit quips:

Thomas Edsall unfurled his piece bright and early this morning — coinciding with day one of the GOP convention, conveniently enough — and then the Atlantic followed suit later, replete with a photographic analysis accusing the RNC’s ad team of darkening Obama’s skin. (Obama supporters leveled that charge at Hillary’s ad team during the 2008 primaries too, back when she was a horrible racist and not a wonderful post-partisan feminist icon and diplomat.) My hunch is that there’s only one man in America who could get away with criticizing liberal welfare policies from the center-right without drawing a racism charge, but when I stop to think about that, I remember that that guy was also accused of racism repeatedly for opposing Obama in 2007 and early 2008. So, my hunch is wrong. This argument simply can’t be made. Oh well.

Yes, we are back to this bullsh*t accusation again.  What the writers (Reeve at the Atlantic and Edsall at the NYT) fail to acknowledge  in their “reporting” is that Obama’s “base voters” (mentioned in Reeve’s piece above) are bleeding heart liberals of all shapes, sizes, colors, etc who support limitless government “help” for whoever needs it for however long they “need” it, regardless of whether or not they actually need it.  So, yes, Obama changing welfare to work requirements would appeal to exactly that “base of supporters.”  The Republican base believes that there should be a limit on how much and how long the government funds the poor, while the Democrat base believes there shouldn’t be.

HOW POSITIVELY SINISTER to have that difference in opinion.

But seriously, is any of this really that hard to figure out?

Furthermore, Edsall and Reeve simply assume Romney is trying to appeal to whites over black people by very mention of the word “welfare”, as well as the use of an elderly white actor.  What does it say about Edsall and Reeve that the people they think of first when they hear the word “welfare” are black people, and that the first thing they think of when they see a white actor in an ad about welfare reform is “no black people used … raaacism!!”? Also, what does it say about the both of them that they zero in on “black people” being the “base” of Obama’s support when even journalists who are wet behind the ears understand Obama’s base of support consists of a lot more types of people than just black people?

Exactly.

The bottom line is that liberals are obsessed with race, especially in the Obama era where any legitimate criticisms of The One are automatically and reflexively met with cries of “raaacism! He’s motivated by nothing more than raacism!”  There can’t be any valid points of contention. It all goes back to racism.  And trust me when I say if any GOP or Romney welfare ad had used an elderly black male actor as the one who was getting “screwed by the government” on welfare issues, Reeve and Edsall would have been the first ones jumping on the “token black man” bandwagon.  You can’t win with race-obsessed leftists. They see racism around every corner, even when most of the time it’s not there.  A white Republican and a black Democrats cannot possibly disagree without racism being the underlying reason for the white Republican. Race-absorbed lefts can’t possibly fathom that a majority of Americans just might disagree with this President based on the policies he has pursued, not the color of his skin.

This is especially true in an election year where their messiah-like figure is on the ropes in a desperate bid to hold on to the White House.   Supporters of such candidates have and will pull out all the stops, and I do mean ALL, to keep their guy in office.

And just to show you how bad Reeve has it when it comes to race, Duane Lester at All American Blogger caught her in an outright lie  over comments House Speaker John Boehner made about voters and the upcoming election. She wrote a post titled “Boehner Says Out Loud He Hopes Blacks and Latinos ‘Won’t Show Up’ This Election” – provocative, no?  Well all Lester had to do was click on the link she referenced to find out her headline was a sensationalistic fabrication:

So I clicked the link and this post opened. It’s an article written by Elspeth Reeve. You can find it here also.

It reads:

House Speaker John Boehner is the most prominent Republican to admit, out loud, that his party’s strategy for winning in November doesn’t suppose that the GOP can win over some black and Latino voters, but hoping they won’t vote at all.

Yikes. Ok, she’s paraphrasing here. What exactly did Boehner say?

This:

“This election is about economics… These groups have been hit the hardest. They may not show up and vote for our candidate but I’d suggest to you they won’t show up and vote for the president either.”

Whoa. That’s outrageo…wait, what?

That’s it?

Check the source. She was referencing the left wing Talking Points Memo. Maybe they have where Boehner says he hopes blacks and latinos stay home:

What about those Latino and African American voters that polls show voting against the GOP by record margins? Republican have found a great way to “recruit” more of them than usual — or at least keep them away from the polls. It’s called the economy.

“This election is about economics,” Boehner said. “These groups have been hit the hardest. They may not show up and vote for our candidate but I’d suggest to you they won’t show up and vote for the president either.”

So, he didn’t say anything about hoping minorities stay home. He just said he expected they would.

Meaning, the headline and the first line are complete fabrications.

Really.  If the racism “epidemic” in the GOP was as bad as the left loves to claim it is, they wouldn’t have to make stuff like this up.  In Reeve’s case, I think she should quickly and quietly retire her overused “Spot the Racism” detector.  The only person it has embarrassed so far is not any one of her select GOP targets, but instead … herself.

So much for “post-racial”, hmm?

Related: Via BuzzFeed –  Newt Gingrich Asks Chris Matthews If He Is A Racist

Oregon in play? Really??

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Normally I’d call whoever said that crazy, but it is Karl Rove, after all:

A lot of the political analysis you hear from partisans is predictable. But sometimes they surprise.

That was the case when Karl Rove spoke at a Politico breakfast event in Tampa this morning. Two examples:

(1) When asked what state, now that Wisconsin and Michigan seem to be in play, would emerge next on the target list, he cited Oregon. He noted correctly that the state House is ied 30-30, Republicans almost captured the governorship in 2010 and tha[t] there’s a left wing constituency disappointed in Obama. He surely remembers that in 2000 Ralph Nader won 5.04% in Oregon and tha[t] Al Gore carried it by only 46.92% to 46.52%.

To be honest, I’d expect Oregon to flip about the same time as California, which would also be when the sun goes out. But, much as I thought of the possibility of Obama losing Illinois, the fact that these questions are being raised at all indicates the depth of the problem Obama faces in his reelection race: he may have to spend a lot of money defending what should be his core states, rather than in the battlefield states where Romney is genuinely competitive. Given that Obama is already having trouble raising enough money to keep up with Romney, spreading what cash he has more thinly could cause a real problem come election day. While I’d love to see a “Red” breakout on the West Coast, I’ll settle for making Team Obama scramble to patch a leaky dam.

Read the rest; there are some interesting observations about the Hispanic vote, too.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Taliban behead 17 for the heinous crime of dancing

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Taliban execution woman

“Life and Liberty under the Taliban”

And here I thought the judges on “Dancing with the Stars” were harsh:

Insurgents beheaded 17 civilians in a Taliban-controlled area of southern Afghanistan, apparently because they attended a dance party that flouted the extreme brand of Islam embraced by the militants, officials said Monday.

The killings, in a district where U.S. Marines have battled the Taliban for years, were a reminder of how much power the insurgent group still wields in the south — particularly as international forces draw down and hand areas over to Afghan forces.

The victims were part of a large group that had gathered late Sunday in Helmand province’s Musa Qala district for a celebration involving music and dancing, said district government chief Neyamatullah Khan. He said the Taliban slaughtered them to show their disapproval of the event.

All of the bodies were decapitated but it was not clear if they had been shot first, said provincial government spokesman Daoud Ahmadi.

Information was only trickling out slowly because the area where the killings occurred is largely Taliban controlled, Khan said. The Taliban spokesman for southern Afghanistan could not be reached for comment.

Many Afghans and international observers have expressed worries that the Taliban’s brutal interpretation of Islamic justice will return as international forces withdraw. Under the Taliban, who ruled the country from 1996 to 2001, all music and film was banned as un-Islamic, and women were barred from leaving their homes without a male family member as an escort.

Gee, people are concerned about the Taliban returning to power (as they almost certainly will), just because they decapitate people for dancing? Shoot women for going out of the home unescorted? Throw acid in school girls’ faces for daring to learn to read? Whatever for?

Thanks to President Obama’s waffling and halfhearted commitment to Afghanistan (remember when it was his “right war?“), this is what the Afghan people have to look forward to. Obama’s already announced our withdrawal date. The Taliban just have to wait.

And then the party will really get started.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)