Our race-politics-obsessed president
President Obama sees everything through the prism of race combined with whatever political advantage he can obtain from the use of race in his rhetoric.
Thus, an early political utterance (June, 2008) emphasized his race and insinuated that his opponents were obsessed with it and would make use of it to harm him, when they hadn’t done anything of the sort. He stirs up race consciousness while pretending to deflect and reject it, and manufactures it if it hasn’t occurred:
Barack Obama, the candidate who wants to end divisiveness, and who wants to run a clean and honorable campaign without negativity, said the following in a recent campaign speech at a Florida fund-raising reception:
“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
We have here a truly masterful attempt to flames of paranoia on the part of his followers and adopt the mantle of victimization for himself, thus raising rather than lowering the amount of divisiveness and vitriol in the campaign. Pretty good for just a couple of sentences…
In the final sentence of the paragraph he slyly encourages a phenomenon I’ve noticed happening more and more: the charge that any criticism of Obama emanates from racism. If the racism isn’t overt and clear, as in the emails, then it’s covert; “inexperience” (a valid concern based on the objective facts of his history) becomes a code word (wink wink) for hidden racism and fearmongering.
This is dangerous demagoguery…
No, it turns out that most of them haven’t mentioned he’s black, except in approving terms. But they don’t have to nowadays to be racists; Obama has taken care of that.
I wrote that in June of 2008, and I see no reason to change a word of it. That’s the Obama we’ve all come to know. That’s the m.o. that has held him in good stead for a long, long time.
Which brings us to the latest manifestation of the genre. This one was reported by David Axelrod in his new memoir, but he’s not only quoting Obama, it is also highly likely the release of this information was approved by Obama. After all, never miss an opportunity to paint a Republican as racist, even if that Republican has already pulled out of the 2016 race (which Romney hadn’t yet done when the book was written).
Here it is:
President Obama was shocked and irritated by Mitt Romney’s concession call in the 2012 presidential election””and claimed Romney insinuated that Obama won only by getting out the black vote, according to a new book by presidential campaign strategist David Axelrod.
Obama was “unsmiling during the call, and slightly irritated when it was over,” Axelrod writes.
The president hung up and said Romney admitted he was surprised at his own loss, Axelrod wrote.
“‘You really did a great job of getting the vote out in places like Cleveland and Milwaukee,’ in other words, black people,'” Obama said, paraphrasing Romney. “That’s what he thinks this was all about.”
Even in the flush of victory Obama is petulant, spiteful, race-obsessed, blaming.
But beyond that, there are other interesting aspects to this story. Does Obama not admit that part of his victory was his success in getting out the black vote? I thought that was understood, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with it. When a candidate has over 90% support from a demographic group, it behooves that candidate to do his/her best to get those people to the polls. None of this is any kind of secret to anyone who knows the first thing about politics in the US and the 2012 election in particular.
But are “Cleveland” and “Milwaukee” code words for “black”? Not in my book; perhaps in Obama’s, but then in Obama’s everything that could be said about Obama is a code word for “black.”
But since my knowledge of the demography of those two cities is not exactly cutting edge I decided to look it up. Cleveland’s population breakdown is 53.3% black, high but nothing like some others. In fact, if you look at this chart, Cleveland is surpassed by many many other US cities in its black population (its rank is #17), and its percentage of blacks in the metropolitan area (as opposed to city proper) is only 20%. If you wanted to talk about getting out the black vote, there are many many other cities from which to choose (Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, for starters).
As for Milwaukee, it’s almost laughable as an example of a code word for “black.” It’s not on any of the lists of cities with a high percentage of black people or with a high number of black people. It’s 40% black within the city limits (27% for Milwaukee County).
If a person wanted to use code for “black cities,” he/she would do well to mention one of these 25 instead.
But of course that’s not what Romney was doing. Does Obama know that? Is he really that racially paranoid? Or was he just using it for political advantage? My guess is that yes, he really is that racially paranoid, and he likes to use it for political advantage.
Just the idea that you’d make snide racist comments during a concession call is nuts.
I can see some people using snide remarks along those lines. In fact, I could see Obama, who’s shown himself to be quite petulant, insinuating to his opponent that the reason Obama lost was because of the white vote.
Romney has never seemed to show that sort of immaturity, however.
Nick:
Not nuts. After all, it’s the way Obama would operate if he had to make a concession call.
Sad to say, though, Obama may not be that unusual among black Americans in seeing just about everything through a racial prism. A recent poll showing that 70% of blacks believe the police do not treat them equally must be at least somewhat of an indication of this.
In 2012, Obama’s entire margin of victory in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Colorado was achieved in one county where he got over 70% of the vote, in Florida and Ohio in one county where he got over 60% of the vote, and in Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia and Minnesota in two counties where he got over 60% of the vote. We should say he only won because of the black vote. We should also say that his method of getting the black vote is to keep black people separate, scared, poor and dependent.
Ann:
Perhaps, but Obama sold himself to the American public as someone who did NOT see things that way.
They never should have bought it, because even in 2008 he demonstrated otherwise. But that was the way he tried to present himself.
Neo, I’m not a grammar nazi, but in the 3rd paragraph from the end, you refer to “Minneapolis” when I believe you meant Milwaukee.
Except that they weren’t talking about black majority cities in general. Romney meant black cities in the states he needed (Ohio) or would like to have won (Wisconsin).
And yes, President Fruit Loops is a vile piece of work.
JimBobElrod:
Well, that’s not just a grammar error, that’s a bona fide error.
All northern cities in the midwest starting with “M” look alike to me 🙂 .
I’ll fix it. Thanks.
I take that back. Work and Obama shouldn’t be used in the same sentence. The only thing resembling work the dude has ever done was coming up with enough “stuff” to put in a turkey baster so Michelle could impregnate herself.
I’m from Cleveland, born and raised.
Does this mean that I can check the “Black” box on future applications?
“My guess is that yes, he really is that racially paranoid, and he likes to use it for political advantage.”
Again, he’s a virulent racist and a committed Marxist.
Official 2012 results; Romney won 59% of the white vote. Obama won 39% of the white vote. Obama won 93% of the black votes, 71% of the Hispanic, 73% of the Asian and 58% of the ‘other’. Obama’s dominating percentage of the minority vote is what secured Obama’s victory.
Romney’s sin was telling the truth and hearing the truth is what led to Obama’s pique.
The leftist meme that America’s whites are inherently (and irredeemably) racist is the lie embraced that allows the rationalization of victimized and justifies demanding entitlements, which is an excellent method for tilting the playing field in their favor.
Obama’s support among the majority of non-whites is tribal. They want Obama and the dems to ‘bring home the bacon’ by delivering the ‘pork’ of entitlements.
I mentioned a story on another forum that pretty much sums of the insurmountable and extreme nature of self-perceived racism. At a business trip, mainly attended by 40- and 50-something men, there was a pretty 20-something girl who got attention everywhere she went. After a couple of days, she was heard to complain petulantly: “I hate how everyone keeps looking at me because I’m black.”
As long as that mindset exists, there is literally nothing that the rest of us can do, since the problem exists entirely in the mind of someone who is determined to turn any possible interaction with someone of a different skin color into something racist.
Wow! I got back from lunch at a neighborhood cafe (3 blocks from my home) to read this post. At lunch, an occasional visitor to the cafe was sitting at the same table as me, and venting on-and-on about how conservatives were for generations holding back governmental aid for the poor, and then stated that those now opposing our current president’s proposals were doing so because the president is black. I had not expressed any disagreement until then. I halted his screed with, “Sir, that statement is a vicious lie, as evidenced by your own rant against conservatives actions over the last 35 years.” Once in a while, logic does work.
A commenter at Ace of Spades earlier today wondered whether Romney’s statement might have been a sarcastic dig at Democrat vote fraud in the cities.
That Obama thinks someone else would make snide, racist comments does not surprise me.
After all, he makes them all the time, why wouldn’t he think others are doing the same?
How do we know that’s not what Romney was doing? That he could’ve picked better example cities re getting out the black vote?
Maybe he meant it, sincerely: Congrats on getting out the black vote, Baraq.
The Dems, damn their eyes, do mobilize well.
In Oct. 2012 I stopped at a cheap Midwest motel while my hunting buddy checked out the rooms. I stayed in the truck with the precious dogs and guns. Ten obese mid-aged black people emerged from a van wearing Obama jackets, entered the motel; they were there from Chicago to mobilize the local blacks. They got out the vote, Dude! But us being good non-Democrats, they’d sullied the motel so we stayed at a Holiday Inn.
We don’t know what the elites say to one another, but I can sure imagine a loser congratulating a BHO-type winner on getting out the blacks and the stupids. Good job! Remember, BHO lorded his win over McCain in public.
Don Carlos:
That was my point when I wrote:
There’s nothing wrong with saying, “You did a great job of getting out the Democratic vote, including the black vote.” Romney could just have said that if he meant to say it; nothing wrong with saying it. Why speak in code? And why would “Milwaukee,” not all that black a city, be one-half of that code?
Sure, it’s possible that’s what Romney meant. If so, it’s a very odd way to say it; that’s my point. But if he had said it, there’s no reason Obama should have been peeved. Is there now something wrong about an effort about which Democrats have never been shy (and which Obama was dedicated to even before he went into politics, as director of Project Vote in Chicago in 1992, one of his first efforts in public life)? I should think he’d be proud of motivating so many black people to vote.
This passage really captures Obama’s persona nicely: a narcissist who largely believes his own BS. As I’ve expressed before, I disagree with the opinions of many conservatives (indeed, many who post here) in that I don’t think Obama is a hardcore leftist or Alinskyite, per se. This gives him too much credit. I don’t think he is much of an intellectual; he is smart, in a scrappy, clever way a con-man is smart. He is able to mouth lofty platitudes to wow the hoi polloi and adept and sprinkling enough leftist cliches among his base to offer the veneer of a deep thinker. But it is mostly showmanship; carefully crafted to ensure applause, accolades and advancement. His ego would accept nothing else.
But at some point, an oratorical and intellectual con-man is prone to believe his own BS, which is what this passage indicates. It is a critical race theorist’s deconstruction of an innocuous conversation. For racial undertones to be deciphered from such an exchange, one has to start from the following premises:
Any and all Republicans are inherently racist (at least on a subconscious level); therefore, a Republican leader (i.e. Presidential nominee) at a minimum tacitly espouses racism.
From such a perspective, it is not absurd to interpret Romney’s comment as racist.
Romney referenced two cities with large African American populations. Yes, there are many major cities with higher percentage of black citizens, but they are mostly in states that are deep blue (Baltimore, MD), lean blue (Detroit, MI; Philadelphia, PA); lead red (Atlanta, GA) or are deep red (Memphis, TN; New Orleans, LA). St. Louis is on a par with Cleveland, and in a swing state, but Missouri went for Romney. Thus, not worth mentioning. Cleveland is in the ultimate swing state, which was crucial in delivering a second term for Obama.
Milwaukee’s African American population is significantly lower than all the above referenced cities, but it is highly segregated with a bitter racial history which still carries over to this day. And so, Romney mentioning Milwaukee was a deliberate trigger, a tacit reference to race. The implication: “Yeah, you got your base out effectively, and swung these states for you, but you and I both know why.” It is not hard to envision the pejorative “boy!” after such a sentence.
Or maybe Romeny was simply referencing two crucial states in which he was competing hard to get to 270. Ohio is always the pinnacle swing state. Wisconsin isn’t always, but Romney was attempting to capitalize on Scott Walker’s recall victory and his choice of Paul Ryan. It failed, but it was a central component of his strategy. It makes perfect sense for him to reference these two states. And it is entirely logical for him to reference Obama’s impressive GOTV effort in the Democratic strongholds of those two states. Strongholds partly because of blacks, but also due to the strong union presence in both cities, and the significant population of young hipster types. As well as many other factors.
The second premise, I think, best conforms to Ockham’s razor. But not if one accepts the above premise about Republicans and racism, which is accepted as a “first principle” by virtually all leftists, a significant portion of Democrats in general and, of course, Obama himself.
We’re under two years to go, my friends. Stay strong.
UPDATE from Politico: “Mitt handler: David Axelrod is lying”
“Romney’s former personal aide hotly disputes account of 2012 concession call in Obama adviser’s memoir.”
The Politico article implies that either Jackson or Axelrod is lying but there’s a third possibility; both are telling the truth and that Obama lied to Axelrod and the others in the room.
Congenital liars don’t just lie to and about those opposed to them, they lie whenever they think it will benefit them and they lie to maintain loyalty.
Geoffrey Britain:
I’ll go with “Obama lied.”
neo,
That’s what I think too. Keeping the troops ‘properly motivated’ by demonizing the opposition at every opportunity is exactly Obama’s m.o. and Jackson’s recall of Romney’s specific words fits to a ‘T’ how I would expect Romney to handle the call.
Class versus trash in a nutshell.
This, which was also said by Romney’s aide, also struck me as ringing true:
“I was with the [Romney] family all night. We were looking at state results. We never got down to the nitty-gritty of cities, so for Mitt to bring that up when talking to the president is absurd and not who he is.”
It really doesn’t sound like who Mitt is.
It hadn’t occurred to me until some of you pointed it out that it could have been Obama who was making up the comment. Now it seems quite likely, actually.
I think that Obama actually truly hates Romney, a lot. A deep level of hatred like that seeps into everything having to do with its object.
I’d say what clinched it was the drubbing he took from Romney in the first Presidential debate in 2012. Remember how disdainful of Romney he was in the second Candy-warped debate, with hatred simmering just below the surface?
Ann,
I think you’re right. Romney is Obama’s quintessential “white privileged” male and in Obama’s mind, fighting for everything that Obama opposes.
I think the most likely explanation is that Obama invented the comment for the practical reasons cited by GB and the personal reason cited by Ann. A noble lie furthering the narrative and a petulant, petty swipe at an opponent he thoroughly loathes.