With friends like The Donald, Romney doesn't need enemies.

Wolf Blitzer is wrong to say "You're beginning to sound a little ridiculous," at least if graded on "beginning" and "a little."

Comments

[polifrog]

Yeah, that's a hell of a typo. Of all the letters and all their combinations and all the nations of the world they just happened to typo a "K", an "e", a "n" a "y" and an "a" two decades before such a typo would become a source of instant fear based ridicule worthy of guilt by association.

Of course, with himself on tap Obama doesn't need to rely on guilt by association via Biden

[justcorbly]

Romney has the same basic problem McCain had in 2008. He can't get elected if he turns off the tin foilers in the tea party. But, the more he tries to appeal to them -- by mouthing their platitudes and snuggling up to sleazeballs hardly anyone likes -- Trump -- the more he turns off everyone else. But, if he tries to appear rational and moderate -- his Mass. governor persona -- he will find that's a very poor fit with the party that nominated him. Neither attribute is welcome there.

[sittinginthemiddle]

You would think this election would be an easy victory for Obama and the Obamaroids. He is flush with cash, he is a sitting president, he gives a great speech and the majority of the lower classes want more handouts. The only real problem is he spent four years showing the american public they should not have taken an affirmative action lifer from chicago and put him in the white house, they will not make that mistake again.

[Ged]

Are you a Birther, Frog?

[justcorbly]

>>"...the majority of the lower classes want more handouts."

Do they, now? Well, if the "lower classes" represent enough voters to decide an election, then those stories about the middle class shrinking thanks to right-wing economics must be true.

And thanks for reminding us that the spark for a lot of right-wing anger about Obama is that he doesn't, ummm, have the same skin tones as a Reagan relative.

[polifrog]

justcorbly:

Are you a Birther, Frog?

I believe that the "typo" explanation is farfetched.

Really, what is the likelihood that they typoed the exact nation that 20 years later would become, for many, the suspected nation of Obama's birth? Why did the typo not read any other nation or "Huwaii"?

I believe it far more likely that at one point in Obama's life, considering his associates and interests at the time, it was to Obama's advantage to claim a Kenyan past whether true or not, while later in his life such claims became less advantageous.

At any rate, asking an individual to prove their qualifications, qualifications that are explicitly required by the highest law in the land should not result in scorn.

[bubba]

"At any rate, asking an individual to prove their qualifications, qualifications that are explicitly required by the highest law in the land should not result in scorn."

I'd like to find out which nation's passport he used for his world tour in the early eighties.

[Ed Cone]

I don't think anyone objects to vetting candidates.

It's the part where the allegations continue even after thorough vetting and proof of eligibility that gets old.

If it was just Donald Trump being Donald Trump, well, that's how he does.

But when Romney cozies up to Trump and allows him, in full birther cry, to host a big fundraiser -- it says something bad about one of the presidential candidates, and it's not Obama.

[polifrog]

Obama was not properly vetted, Ed. And the press lost face over that thrill up the leg fact.

Furthermore, it was that lack of vetting that created the birth certificate issue, not some form of otherism. Had the press done its job...

As previously indicated, I believe Obama may be guilty of pulling something akin to Elizabeth Warren's "Elizahontus" ploy for personal gain.

If so, it should be explored and not recast as an old issue supposedly deserving scorn.

[Spag]

"But when Romney cozies up to Trump and allows him, in full birther cry, to host a big fundraiser -- it says something bad about one of the presidential candidates, and it's not Obama."

Y'all remember that standard.

[prell]

poli, I hope sobriety is treating you well. Glad you made it out in one piece.

[polifrog]

Heh, that's pretty good, prell, but actually my only vice has been none.

[bubba]

"I believe Obama may be guilty of pulling something akin to Elizabeth Warren's 'Elizahontu'" ploy for personal gain."

There's a movement afoot to name her "Fauxcahontus", which better describes the absurdity of her claim.

[polifrog]

Thanks, Bubba.

I saw that ... somewhere... but couldn't remember it. Saw another like it, Lieawatha, but couldn't remember it either while writing the comment.

[Roch]

"If so, it should be explored and not recast as an old issue supposedly deserving scorn." - kkkfrog

But if you weren't clamoring to see born-out-of-the-country John McCain's birth certificate too, then yeah, you deserve scorn. And mockery.

[polifrog]

I see you managed to overcome your pouting and return to Cone's as a blue-birther, Roch.

[Elliot]

I thought the whole natural born citizen thing was moot, so long as a person is born to at least one American citizen, irrespective of the birthplace. I believe that was Congress' finding in investigating the eligibility of one George Romney in 1968. I've never seen any evidence that Ann Dunham renounced her citizenship in the first place, so I don't understand why this ever became an issue. Go ahead Birthers, what am I missing?

[Roch]

Go ahead Birthers, what am I missing?

Skin color.

[Spag]

Oh here we go with the racism theme....

[polifrog]

Roch:

Go ahead Birthers, what am I missing?

Skin color.

It is sad how it all comes back to race when one is a racist.

[bubba]

"I've never seen any evidence that Ann Dunham renounced her citizenship in the first place, so I don't understand why this ever became an issue."

Which nation was the issuing authority for young Barry Sotero's passport during his world tour in the early 80s?

[Account Deleted]

Does anyone really believe the Secret Service or the CIA or the FBI would let a man file and run for president if he was not entitled to?

Such nonsense. Like the woman I saw on Fox News while flipping channels waiting for Hatfields and McCoys the other night. She was complaining about why the "media" had not reported on what a socialist radical Obama was and how on earth the majority of people did not know a commie usurper had elevated to become the leader of the free world!

I mean come on isn't that just about the only thing Fox News has talked about since late 2008?

[Roch]

Oh here we go with the racism theme.... -- Sam

Sam, you are the master observer of inconsistencies. Provide a plausible explanation for us for the inconsistency between the incredulity by exclusively white people of the president's nationality and their completely different standards (i.e. utter lack of curiosity) for white candidates. What animates that difference, in your opinion?

[Andrew Brod]

For what it's worth, I don't think it's racism. I think it's partisanship. What's relevant is Obama's party, not his race.

As far as I can tell, Republicans view the White House as their property. When a Democrat wins a presidential election, Republicans lose it. How dare a Democrat sully that hallowed residence? So when Clinton won, there ensued a bizarre Republican-led campaign about murders, random land deals, and, ultimately, blow jobs. When Obama won, indignant Republicans went after whatever they could, and this time it was about nationality. If Obama was a white guy with a father from Norway, the effort would have been no less energetic or weird.

I don't think those Republicans who pursue their baser birther instincts are racists. I think they're unhinged.

[Spag]

Roch, were the editors of the book that identified him as "born in Kenya" racist?

[Roch]

How about it, Sam? Are you going to answer my question?

[polifrog]

Roch:

Provide a plausible explanation for us for the inconsistency between the incredulity by exclusively white people of the president's nationality and their completely different standards (i.e. utter lack of curiosity) for white candidates. What animates that difference, in your opinion?

I would say the left's willingness to mine the benefits of a system of racial preference while the right steers clear of all that is racist.

[bubba]

"I would say the left's willingness to mine the benefits of a system of racial preference while the right steers clear of all that is racist."

That's in addition to the absurd "progressive" hysteria that posits that opposition to Obama's failed administration and its policies can only be explained by "intolerable racism".

[bubba]

"Does anyone really believe the Secret Service or the CIA or the FBI would let a man file and run for president if he was not entitled to?

Such nonsense."

Who has the responsibility to vette presidential candidates' eligibility to take the office?

[cheripickr]

"For what it's worth, I don't think it's racism. I think it's partisanship. What's relevant is Obama's party, not his race."
Bingo! Andrew, glad we can agree on one. Same thing with sexism. I learned that a long time ago. On the big stage, it's never racial or gender alliances that hold, but political. It can be demonstrated time and time again. Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill, Bill Clinton /Paula Jones. Loyalties cross all lines of race and gender but politically you can draw a straight line right down the middle when determining who sides with whom. I don't think either liberals or conservatives are more racist as a group than the other. And most liberals, deep down know it. The use of race and gender to divide people and create victim groups which they can exploit politically is simply an undeniable time-honored tactic of the political left, plain and simple, just as laying claim to "family values" is to the right. It's just business. And for some people, like Roch, it just makes them feel better about themselves, and from the feedback he gets in these discussions, that should makes perfect sense when you think about it. You can learn a lot by simple observation.

[Ed Cone]

Anyone who can remember the Clinton era knows that outlandish conspiracy theories didn't start with Obama, or for that matter end with Bush blowing up the World Trade Centers.

But obviously there's an undertone of race to the story of Obama as "other."

CP is right that no group has a monopoly on any of this stuff, but there's a current example (Romney embracing Trump) that is worthy of some interest, which of course is why people are so eager to talk about almost anything else.

[polifrog]

Cherri:

On the big stage, it's never racial or gender alliances that hold, but political.

Well, given the choice I'd choose trading on family values over enumerating the races and granting favors based on the result.

[Spag]

Roch, I would say that the inconsistencies in stories regarding Obama's birthplace including from the editors who said he was from Kenya have given some of his political allies an issue to use against him. Obviously the birthers weren't the first to claim Obama wasn't born in America. McCain was born into a miltary family who frequently have children overseas and because that doesn't make them non-citizens explains why that wasn't an issue. Not race, just circumstances.

[Spag]

I meant political enemies.

[cheripickr]

Poli:

Me too.

[polifrog]

Bubba:

That's in addition to the absurd "progressive" hysteria that posits that opposition to Obama's failed administration and its policies can only be explained by "intolerable racism".

One would think a party so wedded to their own sense of transcending race would have a problem with aborting children based on race.

Apparently not today.

[Account Deleted]

So the security apparatus in this country is so inept that they let a foreign born commie usurper from Africa of all places ascend to the Oval Office! God help us.

[Ged]

Sorry gang, but I've never met, heard of or read about a liberal or progressive KKK clansmen. if there are any they are rarer than blue moons. Racism is indeed weighted towards conservatism in my opinion. Not saying liberal racists don't exist, they do of course, they usually just don't go around hanging people in trees, unlike some others.

[Andrew Brod]

You're missing the point, Ged. To the upside-downers, liberalism is racist per se.

[polifrog]

Racism is the Democrat Party's perennial black eye.

It was the Democrat Party that dominated the South after the Civil War, it was the Democrat Party that created the Clan and it was the Democrat Party that resisted the Civil Rights movement across the South or, until that faction of the Democrat Party which resisted the Civil Rights Movement was jettisoned by the Democrat Party.

To now claim that all that racist history is the provence of conservative or Republican values is, as Andrew would say, upside-down.

But to further claim that racism is weighted toward conservatism when,

==it was the Republican Party which yesterday attempted to protect, not just women from sex based abortions,

==but protect minorities from race based abortions as well,

==while the Democrat Party ran interference for those who wish to abort based on the race of their child

==is a step beyond upside-down, through inside-out and into the waiting arms of obliviousness.

For those not in the know, yesterday's anti sex-selection bill was also an anti race-selection bill.

The Democrat Party's history of racism simply drags on and on and on.

[Ged]

Frog, as soon as you use the slur/epithet "Democrat Party" I stop hearing you. Be respectful, refer to it by its proper name and then we'll talk. Until then STFU quite frankly.

[Roch]

Polifrog, someone told me recently that you are in the KKK. I'm not making that up and it came from someone I consider well informed. Is that true?

[Andrew Brod]

Obviously, my "upside-downer" remark was directed at people like Frog. Using my phrase to support his own point is, well, upside-down.

Equating the Democratic Party of today with the Reconstruction-era Democratic Party is stupid. I believe Frog's made that equation before.

[Ed Cone]

The Democrats were indeed the party of Jim Crow, but that began to change under FDR, and Truman's integration of the armed forces effectively overturned that historical identity.

To say "that faction of the Democrat Party which resisted the Civil Rights Movement was jettisoned by the Democrat Party," underscores the idea that the modern party is not the party of Douglas and Wilson.

And it's important to remember where that faction went when the Democrats quit being racist enough for them -- they (Thurmond, Helms, et al) became Republicans.

It's true also that there was strong GOP support for the landmark Civil Rights legislation of the '60s, but it was spearheaded by Democrats, and that wing of the GOP has largely gone extinct. That was a transitional moment for both parties.

Back to birtherism -- the race angle is the flavor of the month in terms of wild conspiracy theories. Not all birthers need be racist, but the undertone of Otherness is there. I'd like to see Romney separate himself from this foolishness, which he could do by just ignoring it. Instead, he's cozying up to Trump, which is never a good idea in the first place.

[Spag]

The "undertone" is a creation of liberals engaging in propaganda. It is merely an opinion or narrative that is offered for political purposes. It's an undertone because I said so isn't a valid argument. It is a convenient crutch that is available only because Obama is black. The actual questions involved have nothing to do with race. Any candidate with the history of this issue would be subjected to the same treatment along partisan lines, not racial ones. Making it racial is well, making it racial.
We have learned that the Left can make any opposition to Obama a racial issue because his race gives them that opportunity. That is the exploitation and racial overtones a
nd undertone that is really going on. That is no different than saying he only got into Harvard because he's black. It avoids a discussion on the merits or the merits.

[cheripickr]

undertone = seems