-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Clark Stooksbury says Robert Stacy McCain and I are being naive for praising Mitt Romney’s performance at the NAACP confab. Stooksbury argues that Romney’s intended audience was the Republican base, to whom he did pander, rather than the predominantly liberal black audience he was addressing.
Two points. First, I don’t think I’m setting the bar particularly high here. I’m just asking Romney not to alter the policy specifics of his basic stump speech to ingratiate himself to a particular crowd. As a Massachusetts native who has watched Romney evolve from “progressive” to “severely conservative” right before my very eyes over the past decade, that’s not something to be taken for granted. He stood his ground yesterday for whatever reason and should receive positive reinforcement for doing so.
Second, in the television/Internet era all public speeches by candidates have the base as part of the target audience. The speech in its entirety wasn’t really some reverse Sister Souljah moment. It was partially an attempt to establish common ground with the NAACP and partly a restatement of the same basic pitch he would make to any other group of voters. Maybe his line about the Chamber of Commerce Obamacare survey was canned, maybe it wasn’t. But the content and structure of the speech — including the fact he was clearly ready to say something else immediately after the Obamacare reference — was aimed at getting polite but unenthusiastic golf claps rather than provoking boos.
On another NAACP-related note, the Daily Caller reported yesterday that the group’s leadership (which backed gay marriage after President Obama did) rebuked Romney’s stand on traditional marriage while the crowd seemed to like it. One thing to watch is how much of the increase in black support for gay marriage since Obama’s position changed is actually reflected in the way blacks vote on marriage-related ballot initiatives.
The limited exit poll data we have suggests that blacks were already voting against same-sex marriage by larger margins than national polls on the subject predicted. How much of the increase in black support for gay marriage in national polls reflects support for the president rather than an actual change in position? Maryland and other states might give us a chance to find out in November.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/07/12/naivete-and-the-naacp
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Oldefarte| 7.12.12 @ 1:58PM
IMHO Romney whould not have wasted his time speaking to this group, since historically the population they represent has demonstrated their willing to accept the governmental slaveryisk policies of the Democratic Party as sufficient for their political support. Neither Romney nor JC is going to ever convince them of the necessity of economic improvement for their betterment. They have been brainwashed for decades by Democrats, and nothing nor no one will be able to change their minds!!!!!!!!
Bob S| 7.12.12 @ 2:22PM
Well, reportedly the new leader of the New Black Panther Party recently had a moment of lucidity and blasted the Democrats for using the black community (he described it using colorful language), so there may be hope for them yet.
Bob S| 7.12.12 @ 2:21PM
Caught a bit of O'Reilly last night, and Mark Lamont Hill was blasting Romney for being "bitterly partisan". I guess it's easy for liberals to dismiss conservatives challenging liberals and their view points as "bitterly partisan", even while they double-down on exposed lies in their campaign ads. I wonder what Mark Lamont Hill has to say about Joe Biden attacking Romney. Or is it only "bitterly partisan" when a conservative attacks a liberal? More importantly, I wonder what Mark Lamont Hill has to say about Obama sending his lackey to the NAACP conference instead of showing up himself.
It's too bad for Romney that his audience was already brainwashed to dismiss him as a racist who doesn't have their best interests in mind. The brainwashing is so absolute they can only resort to their basic instincts and boo at Romney when key points are made, such as repealing the job killer that is Obamacare. Even while the black community is suffering through higher unemployment numbers, especially among black youth, they will boo if you attack the job killer their anointed one forced on us.
CJW| 7.12.12 @ 7:15PM
Hill is an idiot. He cannot put together a coherent sentence.
RJ| 7.12.12 @ 7:44PM
Don't worry James. Most of us no longer pay any attention to the liberal spinmeisters. They lost their credibility a long time ago.
Occam's Tool| 7.12.12 @ 7:46PM
I dunno, but you would think Jews would be voting for a FRIEND of Bibi's rather than a friend of Wright/Khalidi/Ayers, etc.
You'd think Blacks would be voting for the guy who wants intact Black families and is opposed to Black fetuses being killed by white MDs while Black Men are thrown into jail and Black women have to raise their children in poverty stricken, circumstances alone, rather than the opposite.
But then again, you would think Steve Bartman would have had the sense NOT to interfere with the Cub's outfielder on an out that could have sent the Cubs into the World Series for the first time in over 60 years (Bartman was, I believe, a Democrat.).
But you would be wrong.
Occam's Tool| 7.12.12 @ 7:47PM
"poverty stricken circumstances alone,"---correction.