Nitwit Mitt Romney Booed at NAACP Convention

There are plenty of issues in which the NAACP would agree with is a problem, but that doesn't mean that they would agree with the solutions Romney would consider. For instance, education reform is more than just creating voucher systems or slashing funding for education. Rather, there would have to be a systematic outreach to allow children to get some footing in the door before entering the first phase of primary education.

As for the high unemployment numbers? Of course it's a problem, but let's remind ourselves that between 2009-2011, there were more public sector jobs being slashed than private sector and unfortunately, the majority of people who work in public sector are African-Americans. That created a problem there. So of course Romney didn't run on specifics on that note.

As for wedge issues like "traditional marriage", it's heavily pointless since the NAACP recognize that gay marriage is just as traditional and as much of a civil right as the marriages that were deemed "wrong" decades ago. Rather insignificant stance and a poor one he shouldn't have flip-flopped at all.

And lastly, President Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, while Romney actually has the time to travel everywhere and anywhere. That's what the VP is for. What the president can't do at the moment, the VP can cover him. And quite frankly, having Biden at the convention was the best decision and a smart one at that. After all, we, the general population know a little bit more about Biden now since his speech. Can't say the same about Romney. At least Romney's dad actually was in charge of the Connecticut NAACP and was involved in such matters like civil rights. I wonder why his son couldn't follow suit. Makes you wonder....

 

You know if Obama spoke at a NAACP all his haters would go on about how he's only pro-black.

Don't think he did it because he doesn't support African Americans. He didn't do it most likely because of all the flack the right would kick up.

 

I would incline to agree. Romney, on the other hand, he most likely would think...."What would my dad do?"

 

He didn't go because he knew they would grill him about what he's been doing for the last 4 years, so he sent VP Biden. He's not fooling anyone!

 

You are damned if you do.......... and You are damned if you don't....If the man had opted not to go to speak before the association, he would have been maligned for a whole host if different reasons.......
But we black-folk are so steeped in our bias, that we can't even credit the man for the courageous appearance to honestly reiterate his positions ......

 

His dad, George Romney, was aggressive on civil rights during the 1960's. He was unpopular in his party because he was so passionate about it. George Romney began pushing reforms to end discrimination toward minorities in housing soon after taking office in 1963 — work that would lead to his controversial effort to integrate the nation's white suburbs as President Nixon's secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He launched his 1968 presidential run after a 19-day tour of ghettos in 17 cities, turning a spotlight on the decay and overcrowding that had contributed to riots in Detroit and elsewhere.

 

Thank you!! I'm not saying people should go vote for Romney. But understand that it takes a lot to stand in front of a crowd that is vastly against you and deliver a speech. Romney had absolutely nothing to gain from this speech other than to show that this is an issue he is very serious about, whether black people support him or not.

 

I'm full aware of George Romney's history. There's no need to share that bit of information with me since I've practically have shown great admiration for George Romney to go against the party and take the moderate grounds. He's truly a marvel at his time and sadly people like him are rare appearances.

In other words, it was a rhetorical question.

 

I can concur with that point you bring up Arch.

Politics in America today is so wingnut based that its all grown folks screaming like juveniles to see who can be the loudest moron.

Which is why I'm pretty apathetic about politics. Seems like all decorum and respect has been lost at every social level.

Look at our Congress for starters. When was the last time these guys actually worked together on something, anything.

 

My bad, didn't know it was rhetorical. While I think Mitt took a step in the right direction, it is a far cry from what his dad did in the past. But I think he has framed the right problem facing today's African Americans- education. Many studies have shown that an advanced education leads to better jobs, increased number of marriages, and lower levels of poverty.

 

When people speak on rhetoric like that, it's a bit of a misleading statement. In theory, higher education leads to better job opportunities and healthier living and a decrease in poverty. But that prove to be not quite as true, especially in a system where it demands people of lesser incomes to continue to work for bigger entities to maximize profit.

It takes more than just education to get away from poverty. There are other layers which needs to be factored, notably, the institution and role of religion in their lives. That part has to be put to the side and focus more on the primary needs of education. Secondly, it's also parenting. There are layers upon layers of problems in that area too.

So again while in theory, the idea that education can deliver prosperous outcomes is good, it's still marred by a lot of probable factors and uncertainties.

 

With economics you have to make some assumptions. I think that in a normal functioning economy, those with higher education tend to get higher paying jobs. Of course, you have situations like our present economy where people with Master's degrees are forced to take lower paying jobs just to get by.

But in general, our goal should be to have educated, married families. Only 2% of those that fall in that category are in poverty.

 

Why would Obama EVEN care?
Give his HATERS fodder?

So you're excusing that Obama, at the very real risk of alienating the NAACP and its voter base, bailed on appearing so as not to upset the RIGHT?...who wouldn't vote for him to begin with?

 

you are my new favorite. I could not have said it as well and most likely would have offended someone.

 

Marriage is optional. Not a necessity to continue a foundation of success, especially with the dynamics of relationships being ever expanded.

And while you have your economics thinking cap on, it's only a projected expectation that doesn't quite factor the accumulated complications going on in our political atmosphere. Plus, as a economic idea where it requires a pyramid-like image, so there's a need for workers to make a certain amount that's not quite comfortable, and yet enough to keep being broke.

 

Alienating the NAACP. And? even if he does, it's not like all those votes are automatically going to the other party.

I think most americans are stick to the back teeth with politics as it is now and they have every right to be. it's fucking disgraceful. Just look at the clusterfuck in congress.
Yeah the right wouldn't have voted for him to begin with, but if someone is undecided and the right did attack him (and they will. whether he does or doesn't) then the only thing the right cares about is that he lost that vote. Not that they have any concern about to fix the system.

 

George Romney has more morals and integrity than Mittens ever had. He got heat from his own religion on Civil Rights,marched with local civil rights leaders,gave 12 years of his tax returns,etc. A real Rockefeller Republican. If he was alive today he would brought the house down at the NAACP convention. Such a Republican does not exist in the party today and he saw it took root when Goldwater ran for President. The GOP is now the party of David Duke and Jesse Helms with the South filled with George Wallace Republicans.

 

My sentiments exactly.

I personally look at politicians the same way I do with all these mega-church preachers. They both try to sell you a dream in exchange for all your hard-earned money while they're laughing all the way to the bank.

I also see the same similarities with both politics and professional wrestling as they both have scripted and staged theatrics to keep their "fans" riled up and emotional. It’s all entertainment and nothing more.

 

LOL, why thank you Alinoa.

Bingo, you said it bro. Excellent example drawing parrallels with the mega church preachers aka hustlers.

You can't even take these folks in politics seriously.

You seen one politician you have seen them all, especially in this day and age.

That is why the moment someone starts to utter politics to me in the real world, I say "not interested."

When I see grown men who are elected representatives and are supposed to be educated reduced to name calling as a means of communication, that says it all.

They might be better off throwing shoes and fist fighting like some other parts of the world.

 

Of course marriage is optional and not a prerequisite to be successful. But it doesn't change the fact when we have single parent households it makes it more difficult to get by financially. Right now 72% of African American children are born to unwed mothers-

http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/11/08/72-percent-of-african-american-children-born-to-unwed-mothers/

I agree that minimum wage is not a livable wage. But the facts still show that the predominate number of minimum wage earners are those without a higher education. In my cases, just graduating high school is a big challenge for African American youth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/high-school-dropout-rates_n_1022221.html