Mitt Romney's speech at the NAACP
 

... was actually pretty damn good. Watching reports of it today I got the impression that it was a disaster, and that he got booed mercilessly. Big surprise from the media. After actually watching the whole speech, he sounded pretty good, hit on some good key concepts, and was received warmly on a lot of his points. He damn near sounded... presidential.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAhJh0ADd9k

What's up with the organ?

I agree...good speech.

My impression is that he did not waver from his convictions and dared
to defend them even when they were clearly against the preference of the
audience. Furthermore, he did NOT adopt the persona of someone he is not.

Worst in my memory was Al Gore who adopted the stereotype of the
"southern black preacher" in his tone and mannerisms. Kodos to Romney
for not stopping to pandering.

That said, I'm still waiting for some specifics from this guy. I disagree with
his "rope-a-dope" strategy of saying nothing so as to get no criticism.
Courage is saying more. I hope he grows into his courage as the campaign
continues, otherwise we have the choice between a blank slate (Romney)
and a blank slate turned hard-leftist trying to return to the blank
slate (Obama). <sigh...>

If Romney was like that every time he spoke from here on out, he will win.

Good speech.

Only criticism I have is his lack of any specificity on what he'd do to reform healthcare. But I understand the politics of that decision, and it is good politics.

I really liked the line "If you want a president who will make things better in the African-American community, you are looking at him." Took balls to say that to that crowd.

I wonder why he was not specific?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78420.html

I find the whole situation incredably dissapointing and cynical.

Romney, much as I dislike him, goes into a clearly hostile room full of clearly biased and hostile people. Something most Politicians don't do. I cannot recall, for example, Obama ever speaking in front of such a dedicatedly race-specific, hostile, audience. If he did, it didn't get covered much.

Romney gives the same (almost to the letter) exact speech with the same policy positions he gives to everyone. He didn't tailor it to suit just blacks as some politicians do rather often.

He is boo'ed a few times. The mainstream media, generaly, only shows the moments of boo'ing when they cover this event, painting the entire event as negative only.

The after-action Poli-Sci Media commentary declares that Romney ONLY went there SO he could get boo'ed, so he could sell himself to the "racist core of the Republican Party in other areas of the country".

If anything can create a total cynicism in the way our two sides act towards each other, it's this.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He goes to speak, it's only because he's a racist who wants to get boo'ed to get other racists votes. He skips out (as Obama would if a white NAAWP wasn't the liberal equivalent of Nazi'ism and hence culturally banned), and he's a racist for not trying to reach out to African Americans.

Is this really what our system has become? I have to ask, other than simply changing to be a Democrat Socialist, is there ANYTHING Romney could have done that would not be portrayed by a large swatch of our collective media as racist in motivation?

The speech almost doesn't matter. The after-action coverage is so universally negative for Romney, regardless of what he said or didn't say, showed up or didn't show up, it's a loser for him politically.

What a farce.

You mean...like a pandering lib?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egJ8NtvVFs8&t=12s


Heard alot of criticism from the lib media about how he didnt "change it up" for this particular audience, which I found highly ironic and typical.

He spoke to them...as equals, not some sub-human special-cases that needed tailored dialect and content to hold their attention.

Once again, hand wringing libs showing their own latent racist bias.

Hysterical!:yes:

-

In fairness this bill was voted before anyone read it. So why can't we get rid of it without a replacement?

Sometimes nothing is a better option than a bad thing.

Besides a real answer to the healthcare problems can not be achieved in a matter of months. There needs to be extensive research and consultations with healthcare providers as well as doctors and nurses and other medical professionals and patients. And most of all TORT REFORM.

I don't see how making a broken system available to more people will help the system or those people. It is not like these people without insurance cannot get medical care. Nobody is turned away at an emergency room.

IMO the only thing good about this bill is the pre-existing condition fix and allowing children to stay on their parent's plan till they are 26. And both of those can be made law or practice without the rest of the bill.

+1. He is all-in.

Republicans have already said that they don't support the idea of a large scale comprehensive overhaul. They support a series of bills including Tort Reform, Insurance Portability, and allowing small business to bundle together for cheaper rates, undoing the ban on insurance company competition across state lines etc.

Although I am not a fan, hats off to Karl Rove and the rest of Romney's handlers. They got wind that Obama was not attending the conference and saw an opportunity to draw a distinction and create a narrative that would draw media coverage so they instructed the candidate to appear at the convention. Smart move by them and laziness on the part of the Obama team.

And the idea that Romney did not get positive main stream media coverage from this move is simply inaccurate. The Murdoch Empire (fox local stations, fox news, fox business) got their talking points either late last night or very early this morning and have been in lock step with the message. I have a feeling the right-wing radio outlets will follow along today. And Wolf Blitzer from CNN led his prime time show ripping Obama last night. Joe Scarbourough was generally favorable to Romney as well. So he did get positive reviews from a good percentage of what constitutes our "news" media.

:deal:

Sounds very common-sense/reasonable.

Also, is Obama addressing the NAACP this year? My understanding is that Obama is sending Biden to do it.

:jets17

Good points.

I have maintained that Obama, at the least, tried to make an unseemly situation better. And I fully believe that nothing would have been done had someone else been in office. Also, if repealed, nothing substantive would be done in its place.

As for the actual law, I do not pretend to have read the bill.

Well, you presume something HAD to BE done.

Between Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip and other State and Federal Health Programs, aprox. (as reported on the radio) 90-100+ million Americans are currently getting covered by the Government at little or no cost.

Or from 1/4->1/3 of all of us. Before the A.C.A. was passed.

The question then is this. Was a massive reorganization like the A.C.A. needed, to ensure that the 80,000,001st American was covered?

I think assuming that this was an epidemic that could not be solved by other means is a false assumption, made via a false argument that millions of Americans were somehow being denied because they were poor, disabled or otherwise infirm.

We're not talking about starting a brand new program for the poor. We're talking about why or why not someone who is say, the 100,000,001st Amercian needs the A.C.A. to get coverage, and if we (as a group) really needed to give that person coverage at such a cost.

I heard a very enlightening call on the radio (lefty) this morning, someone calling in to complain how they could not afford a medical devise, because they had a mortgage, car payment and a host of other payments he had to make first. For me, this is proof of argument. That far too many americans put a bigger house, better car, cable TV, cellphone plan, gym membership and many other things as MORE IMPORTANT fiscal priorities over buying their own health insurance.

The problem is one of priority IMO. Health Insurance should be priority #3, right behind food and clothing/shelter. But far too many, and most of those (IMO) that demand free stuff, treat it as something they are owed by teh rest of us, or that is not a fiscal priority of their own.

This is classic "good intentions" versus "good results" question. Most everyone can agree that Obamacare is bad policy. Higher premiums, new taxes, new deficits at a time when we are drowning in debt and reduced quality of care. Your contention is that you give Obama credit for trying. For this reason you are willing to live with a horrible healthcare system?

There were good intentions behind Clinton's strengthening of the community reinvestment act as well. In the end it lead to the housing collapse. The destruction of our economy has been paved with good intentions. I think its time we start looking at results.

Lol, you invoke "Karl Rove" whenever you can to try to conjure up images of dark, smoke filled rooms filled with sinister racists who will stop at nothing to destroy Obama. Is he even working for Romney? I thought he had been criticizing him.

And yes, the media did report unfavorably on this appearance. I'm not talking about CNN and Fox, because I don't waste my time like you do. I'm talking about every major political blog and news site, and the major networks evening coverage of it last night. But believe whatever narrative you want, it just makes you look more and more naive and paranoid.

...meh! :sleepin:

How did Obama's NAACP speech go? Obviously he was there, right? :dunno:

:jets17

I'd pay for Obama to be at a Tea Party rally, but it would NEVER happen.

Well, thats about as close, realisticly, as we could get.

And we all know Mr. Obama would never, ever, in a trillion years, go speak at a Tea Party Equivalent Group (if one existed) the size and scope of the NAACP.

And if he did and got booed? NYTimes headline: White Racists Boo President; Plot Lynching!