Category Archives: Elections

UPDATED: Romney Went Wooing And Got Booed

Democrats, Elections, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Racism, Reason, Republicans, War, Welfare

Mitt Romney, rather bravely, went to court the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, at the NAACP’s annual convention. He got booed.

Thank CNN for its reliable, comprehensive transcripts. Here are those Romney remarks that angered the crowd at the NAACP Convention:

I’m going to reduce government spending. I hope everyone understands that high levels of debt slow down the rate of growth of the GDP, of the economy. And that means fewer jobs are created. If our goal is jobs, we have to stop spending over a trillion dollars than we take in every year. And so to do that I’m going to eliminate every nonessential expensive program that I can find. That includes Obama care and I’m going to work to reform and save –
(BOOING)

In reply to the frosty reception, Romney told Neil Cavuto of Fox News:

“I am going to give the same message to the NAACP that I give across the country which is that ObamaCare is killing jobs, and if jobs is the priority, then we’re going to have to replace ObamaCare with something that actually holds down health care costs,” he said.
He addressed the fact that in 2008, President Obama got 96 percent of the African-American vote, and said that he believes he’ll take some of that vote away because African Americans are disappointed with the president’s policies.
He added, “By the way, at the end of my speech, having a standing ovation was generous and hospitable on the part of the audience. And I believe that while we disagree on some issues like ObamaCare, on a lot of issues people see eye-to-eye. They want to get the economy going again.”

Every broadcaster knows, but will not say, why blacks vote Democratic almost exclusively: welfare. Free stuff.

Every broadcaster knows, but will not say, why blacks voted en masse for Obama: racial solidarity.

Romney’s changes to the welfariat will probably be minor—and any cuts in welfare will be used to justify waging wars.

Still, the mere hint that, under the too-white to like Romney, state-mediated distribution of the wealth of others would slow provokes black ire.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal editorializes that with his NAACP visit, Romeny was appealing to the wrong constituency: the black liberal establishment.

Well, if Romeny’s “mistake [was] thinking that the NAACP represents average black voters,” it’s an error one can understand. Voting records that lack nuance attest to it. Blacks, moreover, have never risen against their shakedown elites, because, as the community perceives them, race racketeers like “Reverend” Al Sharpton are doing the Lord’s work.

Establishment Enraged At Its Candidate, Romney

Conservatism, Economy, Elections, Media, Republicans, Taxation

“…for the sake of not abandoning his faulty health-care legacy in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is jeopardizing his chance at becoming President,” the WSJ editorializes.

The editors have objected to Mitt Romney’s lack of objection to Obama and the gang’s framing of The un-Afforable Care Act as a tax. Capiche?

Romney is not remotely as coherent as the WSJ thinks he is in his most confused moments.

Mr. Romney should use the Supreme Court opinion as an opening to say that now that the mandate is defined as a tax for the purposes of the law, he will work to repeal it. This would let Mr. Romney show voters that Mr. Obama’s spending ambitions are so vast that they can’t be financed solely by the wealthy but will inevitably hit the middle class.

On the other hand, it is just possible that the WSJ is upset with the Romeny campaign for failing to hire as campaign adviser the ubiquitous Stephen Moore, popular commentator on Fox New and beyond, and author of “Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer.”

“We’re on its email list,” they whine, “and the main daily message from the campaign …[simply won’t cut it].”

Hint, hint.

Mesmerizing The Musri (Egyptian) Mamba

Democracy, Elections, Islam, Israel, Middle East

Take your cues from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He approached the new, democratically elected Egyptian Prime Minister, Mohammed Musri, as a snake charmer would: with caution and sweet-sounding words.

Reacting to the announcement that the Muslim Brotherhood candidate won, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hoped the treaty would stand.
“Israel expects to continue cooperation with the Egyptian government on the basis of the peace agreement between the two countries, which is of interest to the two peoples and contributes to regional stability,” Netanyahu said in a statement Sunday.

In reply, Musri dispensed with the formality of Taqiyya (obfuscating facts for the faith), and got down to business. Basically, Musri’s message for Israel is, We’re coming for “al-Quds,” Jerusalem in Arabic.

Disclose.tv – “Egypt: Our Capital Shall Be Jerusalem, Allah Willing”

Yes, particularly pertinent is the Muslims’ fabrication about their attachment to Jerusalem.

“Yerushalaim” is the Hebrew biblical name for the city that was sacred to Jews for nearly two thousand years before Muhammad. Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran. Muhammad was said to have departed to the heavens from the Al Aksa Mosque, but there was no mosque in Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa Mosque were built on the Jewish Temple Mount. This usurpation was subsequently justified by Muslim theologians by superimposing their relatively recent fondness for Jerusalem upon the existing, ancient sanctity of the place to Jews.
Samuel Katz, in Battleground: Fact & Fantasy In Palestine, poses this question: What would the Christian reaction be if the same Muslim theologians had chosen to appropriate the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, re-name it, declare it Muslim property (which means killing for it), and demand Arafat be buried in it?
Israel’s justice minister Yosef Lapid provided a wonderfully apposite response: “Jerusalem is the city where Jewish kings are buried and not Arab terrorists.”

Amen.

UPDATE II: Tug Of War In Wisconsin Over (Rust-Belt Revolt?)

Elections, IlanaMercer.com, Labor, The State, Welfare

Citing a January poll, George Will observed that policy differences, not criminal behavior, drove the recall campaign against Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

“In the tug of war witnessed in Wisconsin, I wrote in February, of 2011, “the ‘Takers’ (tax consumers), organized by the likes of the AFL-CIO, Andy Stern’s Service Employees International Union, and the national and local teachers unions, want the ‘Makers’ (the so-called rich who fund their existence) to support overgenerous pay and pensions in perpetuity. To grant them their wish, these organized interests are accustomed to turning to the Über-parasites: politicians. This time, a politician in the person of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has refused to facilitate the smooth transfer of wealth from those who create it to those who consume it with no thought for the morrow. (“Public Enemy No. 1: Government Unions”)

Rejoices Guy Benson of TownHall.com: “For the second time in two years, the people of Wisconsin have elected Scott Walker. He is, and will remain, the state’s governor. This outcome is a triumph for Badger State conservatives, the Tea Party movement, and fiscal sanity generally. Though the Left will spin this defeat furiously, make no mistake: They are crestfallen tonight. Their bete noir has prevailed.”

“NBC, CNN, and Fox News have all called this race,” he confirms.

In “The Whine From Wisconsin,” George Will provides the backdrop to what has become a “socialist sandbox of childish pleasure”:

This state, the first to let government employees unionize, was an incubator of progressivism and gave birth (in 1932 in Madison, the precursor of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) to its emblematic institution, the government employees union — government organized as a special interest to lobby itself to expand itself. But Wisconsin progressivism is in a dark Peter Pan phase; it is childish without being winsome.

UPDATE (June 6): RUST-BELT REVOLT? National Journal pinpoints the Walker victory as “a sign of the cultural divide between national Democrats and blue-collar whites.” Especially telling is the fact that the governor “carried 38 percent of union households.” From “Red Flags All Over for Obama in Wisconsin”:

President Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Wisconsin, but Gov. Scott Walker’s decisive victory in last night’s gubernatorial recall is a stinging blow to his prospects for a second term. The re-election was a telltale sign that the conservative base is as energized as ever, that the Democratic GOTV efforts may not be as stellar as advertised, and that the Democratic-leaning “blue wall” Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will be very much in play this November.
Walker won by a bigger margin than he did in 2010, and with more overall votes. He carried 38 percent of union households – a slight improvement from his 2010 midterm tally — a strikingly strong number given how he’s been cast as the villain of labor. It’s a sign of the cultural divide between national Democrats and blue-collar whites, one that is particularly acute for the president.
Obama’s team is taking consolation in the fact that exit polling showed him leading Mitt Romney, 51 to 44 percent. But that’s hardly good news: with near-presidential level turnout (and notably higher level of union turnout), Obama is running five points behind his 2008 performance. Replicate that dropoff across the board, and all the key swing states flip to Mitt Romney.

MORE.

Personal Notice: The Mercer Articles Archive is out of whack, missing enormous sections, as a result, probably, of a server data-base error. A ticket has been submitted. I hope to have the problem resolved as soon as possible. If you want to read the latest Mercer Articles, or search the articles database, go to the Return to Reason archives on WND.

RESOLVED.

UPDATE II: I don’t know whether, as Ann Coulter puts it, “Walker’s victory Tuesday night was an amazing, miraculous, transformative event in the history of the nation.” But she makes a point previously made in this space too, (minus the respectful references to FDR):

“There’s a reason both FDR and labor leader George Meany said it would be insane to ever allow government employees to unionize. People who work for the government don’t have a hard-driving capitalist boss on the other side of the bargaining table demanding more work for less pay.
No one is worried about the profit margin because there is no profit – it’s government! Rather, the only people on the other side of the table are the unions’ co-conspirators: Democratic politicians willing to spend the public treasury on union members, who will repay the politicians by mobilizing voters.”