As Hoosierman noted, Nancy Pelosi is one of the Dems to discount Romney's appearance by claiming it was a "calculated move" on his part to get booed. Really. Wow. This means no one who opposes "Black thinking," which must be monolithic according to Pelosi, should ever even speak to them. (And this isn't insulting?)
Other liberals/Dem operatives have discounted Romney's reception, but the amount of media intervention to support Democrat talking points is remarkable.
Are they running scared?
- CNN calls the
standing ovationbooing a "very negative reception"
- The Congressional Black Carcass claims Romney didn't learn his "father's civil rights lesson." This apparently has something to do with Romney's support of the Voter ID law, which the Carcass claims discriminates against people too stupid, lazy or unmotivated to go get a free government issued ID; incidentally TWO forms of identification were required to get in to listen to Eric Holder speak the other day to the NAACP.
- Julian Bond (former NAACP director) said Romney wanted to be able to say he "stood up to the Negroes." It is a mystery why he didn't simply say "stood up to the N-word-s" or "the former slaves" or something a wee bit more inflammatory.
- Lawrence O'Donnell claims that it was racist on the part of Romney because Romney was trying to "appeal to racist and racial voting." Howso, you may wonder? Well, by recording Blacks booing Romney and showing the video, this will encourage "Southern" racists to vote for Romney because Blacks booed him; thus Blacks' dislike of Romney will motivate southern white racists. Nothing was mentioned about the standing O.
- By referring to repealing "Obamacare" Romney was being "demeaning", "insulting" and, um racist. This, even though Obama refers to it as "Obamacare" on the government website and sells Obamacare buttons on his campaign website.
- By referring to "free stuff" from the government (even though there are numerous scams around the country offering Obama free stuff in exchange for your SS and bank account numbers) and saying "I'm not your man" to give you free stuff, Romney was being racist by implying all Blacks are "welfare queens." Apparently, according to liberals, no whites receive "free stuff." Only Blacks. Thus the insult.
- In fact, the traditional news media has inundated the public with news of the booing and its terrible portent.
Truly the arguments these people are presenting are far more insulting to both the liberal and Black communities than anything Romney psychically transmitted through his word choice.
Why do liberals assume that Black people are stupid?
As we have seen, Democrats are appealing to the bottom feeders in an apparent effort to gain new voters interested in bottom feeding. Recently we heard that Dems accidentally released 35 of their 75 opposition research notebooks, revealing the nasty talking points they are intending to use on various Republicans.
Like the now defunct and undoubtedly reincarnated Journolist in which media personnel schemed with the Dems to influence the direction of the public narrative, the press continues to collude with the Democrats on specific talking points to sway public opinion, if not for liberal views, at least against Republican and/or conservative ones.
But rather than actually discuss opposing viewpoints or intelligently consider more than one side of an argument, liberals simply repeat and repeat and repeat their talking points, ignoring any other view than theirs.
In "The politics of cognitive dissonance," James Taranto addresses this approach to politics and so-called thinking in Wednesday's BOTW. It's built on the following basic principle.
"Don't repeat conservative language or ideas, even when arguing against them."
That bit of advice, No. 1 on a list titled "The 10 Most Important Things Democrats Should Know," comes from the promotional material for "The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic" by George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling.Taranto quotes from Zombie's column in explaining why conservative arguments are rarely addressed or even mentioned and what effect this has in trying to discuss anything with a liberal. (Zombie blogs anonymously from the San Francisco area. If you see some of the images from his/her blog, you'll understand why the anonymity.)
Many politicians, pundits and talking heads have taken Lakoff's recommendation to heart. This is why conservatives and liberals can't seem to have the simplest conversation: liberals intentionally refuse to address or even acknowledge what conservatives say. Since (as Lakoff notes) conservatives invariably frame their own statements within their own conservative "moral frames," every time a conservative speaks, his liberal opponent will seemingly ignore what was said and instead come back with a reply literally [sic] out of left field.
Thus, he is the progenitor of and primary advocate for the main reason why liberalism fails to win the public debate: Because it never directly confronts, disproves or negates conservative notions--it simply ignores them. ...Thus we see the same tactics used over and over.
- Do not address the opposition.
- Do not acknowledge legitimate disagreement.
- Appeal to the lowest forms of argument (i.e., racism, name-calling, class warfare, insults).
- Demonize the opposition whenever possible.
- Claim injury.
- Declare that if even one individual is harmed, then blah blah blah must happen.
- Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
- Spread the meme, utilizing the MSM, blogs and Soros funded websites.
Thus it becomes clear the game that is being played, by both the media and liberals.
But I repeat myself.