I watched and listened to Romney give a very good speech to the 100% black audience at the NAACP Convention founded by whites and blacks ironically) in Houston yesterday. It was a speech of hope and it was not well received by the black audience. Why would that be? With 14-15% adult unemployment and 50% for black youth, I would expect some agreement by the NAACP in Romney's words. But not to be.
It appears to me the black Americans are voting for Obama because he is their color and they are not going to take a look at anyone else ( O'Reilly proved that last night with Marc Lamont Hill). Why else would they follow him over the cliff at the rate of 92% in the latest poll? With only two percent supporting Romney, it has to be racial on the part of the blacks. That is too bad. All my life I have watched the destruction of the black family and the demise of hope for many of them in America. When the "Great Society" was put in place by the Johnson Administration and the democrats, the erosion of the black family began. The government was pushed into the place of the father for one thing and that one thing took the nuclear black family apart.
Romney had no chance to change any minds at the NAACP Convention because that organization is not open to change. It members and policies are formed and sustained in anger against the "white" part of America and that is just too bad. Even though they have a President they consider "black", they cannot accept any peace with the "white" Americans.
Romney was telling them they are Americans and if he was elected President he would represent all people no matter what "color" or ethnic background. They would have none of it. I cringed a couple of times during the speech because I knew the attendees were just waiting for Romney to make a statement they could contrive as racist. Well, HERE we have it. They seem to be so sensitive to their racist leanings they can find it in just about anything. The speech was imply one of hope and change but since it was from a "white" conservative politician, it was unacceptable. The road to a successful life is so alien to these folks they dismissed all of the points Romney made. His points are "color-blind" and can be utilized by anyone who wishes to succeed. But it appears the NAACP is content with the failures of the Obama Administration and wants more of the same.
Ever since I have paid attention to the "welfare state" foisted on America by the democrats in the 60's, the promises of those democrat politicians have never been met. The black American is not better off for all the money spent on programs (whites too). Sure there are blacks that have succeeded in gaining the American dream but those folks are derided and called "Uncle Toms" and worse names by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton etals. I call those people a success. We see some of those successful black Americans on FOX mostly. People like Allen West and JC Watts broke out of the mold and became great spokesmen for the American story. Here in California we have Ward Connerly, one of the most heroic Americans I have known in my life. He is against the status quo of "victim-hood" the NAACP represents. He is a personal success and he doesn't whine and complain as victims tend to do (of any "color"). But Romney could not convince the NAACP members of their ability to break free from the shackles of government as the answer to everything.
Romney's message was one he has taken all across the country and to every group who would listen. Their is nothing racial in it at all. A message of hope and the path to success is missing in the NAACP. I am sad that we are still being "hustled" by race baiters in America. We need to stop listening to them and reject their ideology. America accepts all people as evidence by the latest swearing in of new Americans. In one, there were people from 18 nations giving the oath last week. They must know something the NAACP doesn't?
Racial peace is out there if on only the folks of the NAACP would take off their blinders and accept the "?hope and change" of American exceptional-ism and personal freedom to succeed.
Todd J. Juvinall
I Miss my Husband very much! Todd was simply all about loving God, County, Family and People. My love , My husband is with Jesus in Heaven. He enjoyed communicating with each of you on Sierra Dragon's Breath. Todd was a Great, Loving, Kind man and will be Missed. Love you honey! Till wee meet again. 
Perhaps blacks aren't particularly interested in what a privileged, WASP, patrician, multi-millionaire is feeding them. Romney hasn't a CLUE about being poor or black. None.
ReplyDeleteJeff, stop the girly name and use your own.
DeleteObummer didn't even have the guts to show up. As Usual success is demonized by a Progressive. They elected a fool that has never made an honest dollar in his life.
ReplyDeleteProgressives would rather have a guy that doesn't even know the meaning of the word "success"( in a business sense) in the White House.
BTW just what is YOUR experience and knowledge of being "poor and black"?
If your poor, it's your own damned fault. Not mine, or someone who has more money than you. Want to be rich? Go work for it like the rest of us. Before you point more fingers at Mitt, He gave away his inheritance.( millions) and built what he had from the ground up.
We all have an equal chance to succeed in life. Sorry... There is no guarantee for equal outcome. Welcome to real world life.
Todd wrote: "When the 'Great Society' was put in place by the Johnson Administration and the democrats, the erosion of the black family began."
ReplyDeleteAnd all this time I thought the erosion of the black family in America began a couple of hundred years ago when they were broken up and sold separately to different plantations. I stand corrected.
MA, Then I guess you don't know much do you? After WW2 and the integration of military then into the 50's and early 60's there was not that much difference in the family life and married life of all races. Then along came welfare and all the alphabet programs and viola! Since I knew many black people in the early 70's, I have some first hand information. You might want to review your comment. BTW, have you ever owned a fellow human being? I haven't and yet liberals try to wring our necks with that 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Delete"After WW2 and the integration of military then into the 50's and early 60's there was not that much difference in the family life and married life of all races".
DeleteOh yeah Todd, but then there was that little issue of massive economic and societal disparities, not to mention full-on institutional racism. But in Todd's world they were happily married with happy families-happiness reigned! Happy to be subservient to their white superiors. Remember those hilarious minstrel shows? Life was just peachy for a black person in pre 1950s!
You missed the point of my response to the allegation of slavery. The point is not about slavery or discrimination which I abhor but of the family unit. Using your logic the black family was seen as a threat by democrats in the south and were abused until they were fractured and replaced with government programs. Perhaps you need to review the comments twice to better understand the debate here.
DeleteMissed nothing, and your analogy is off base. Besides, there is no debate on your blog. But the bottom line is that Mitt Romney has no answer to the problems of black America. Would love to know how Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's austerity program will bring back the black American family unit.
DeleteMitt Romney's plan is for all Americans and can work for all Americans. You want him to pander his message to the group he is in front of so I would guess you are a "enabler" to failure. The stats show the failure of Obama and the historic policies of the democrat party and you liberals are responsible. Romney is color-blind and you just are unable to accept that fact.
DeleteWhy don't you tell us what you believe will get the unemployment rate down to the national average for blacks? My guess is you have no clue.
Would be nice to try an actual PLAN such as the Presidents JOBS bill, that the do-nothing ideologues/Tea Partiers are sitting on. There IS no plan from Romney except the same tired old Trickle Down garbage which has never worked. Romney has zero plan to re-ignite manufacturing- in fact, he's a proven outsourcer- that much we do know. But right now, the Mittster is in quite the pickle this morning trying to explain his 199-2002 time period... No one, no one knows how will explain away this massive discrepancy. In the words of Mittster, its simply wonderful, marvelous to see! :) Such the patrician.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRobert, you crack me up. Everything you have said in the above post has been proven a lie. But like a good liberal, you repeat it as if it isn't. What a hoot!
DeletePlease list the items in my statement that you assert have been proven a lie. Its so simple to make such a pompous claim, but its intellectually weak Todd. Lets get away from simplistic statements and get down to what you are talking about specifically.
DeleteWhen a liberal lies and gets caught they react as you have done. Read the article on the black family I have posted and get back to me. You are simply making things up.
DeleteNice robotic non-response Todd. Ready again? I will try to type slow-
DeleteWhat lies are contained in my statement about the JOBS bill, lack of House action, Trickle Down economics or the 1999-2002 discrepancy?
All of it. Try again. I'll write this slowly for you, use real facts and not hyperbole. There, got it?
DeleteFACTS:
Delete1. Has President Obama presented a JOBS plan? YES. TRUE
2. The House refusing to act on the JOBS plan? YES. TRUE
3. Trickle Down Economics- Is it a credible theory in the world of Economics. NO. TRUE.
4. Is there a major discrepancy between what Pres. Candidate Romney is saying about his time at Bain, and what the Bain documents and the MA election documents show from that time? YES. TRUE.
Todd, you got caught making a wild assertion about my comments. Time to fess up and be honest. Same as Romney with his Bain history.
Jobs Bill? You call another stimulus a jobs bill? OK, I get it.
Delete28 jobs bills from the House thrown in the trash bin in the Senate by Harry Reid. Wow.
Trickle down led to the greatest economic growth experienced in American history. It came to fruition during the Clinton Administration and ended in 2007-08. It worked. Explain that one. Reagan had some 900,000 job creation months.
Romney was doing the Olympics and left Bain management in Feb 1999. Even the democrats running Bain now confirm that. You are fibbing. It does require a coproate executive a while to sign off on federal SEC forms. It doesn't mean he is there.
You just need to stop making this stuff up and parroting the lamestream media. You are too easy.
Yup, a robust JOBS bill through government spending on critical infrastructure. Yes. Good idea. Short term stimulus- long term results. Our nation is crumbling and I do not see Adam Smith's hand or Eric Cantor's No-No-No smirk making much a difference. Tax breaks for multi millionaires and destructive austerity programs aren't going to get bridges, roads and rails fixed.
DeleteOh and Todd, you seem to know more about Romney's contradictory statements and filings about his time at Bain than even the Mittster himself! The Boston Globe and Huffington are all over it. He is going on TV tonight to attempt to explain away this huge problem. Going to be fun to watch!
DeleteYou need to read your favorites, the New York Times and Washington Post to get the correct info. They are dishing out the Obama Pinocchios.
DeleteStimulus again eh? So you consider that a jobs bill. Usually when the first one doesn't work (900 billin, shovel redy, what a hoot)a rational person would think twice about the second one. Seems the only beneficiaries of the first one was the unions and their pensions. Wow, I amm simply amazed at the lack of good information you use.
No response from you on the 28 jobs bills Harry Reid has trashed. How come?
This point by Todd is nonsense. The "white" American family has been just as disrupted as the "black" American family since the 1950's. It had little to do with the rise of the Great Society; it had to do with changes in values, cultural norms and the influence of technological, economic and global trends. It had to do with the bubble of the Baby Boom generation and the general trend toward liberalization in American society. Trying to say the Great Society was responsible for the change in our culture is like trying to say the grain of sand is responsible for the beach. Here is a statistic for you: before the Great Society more than 30% of America's elderly population lived in poverty, after the Great Society and Medicare only 9% live in poverty. Is the great society responsible for that? Before the Great Society 70% of American blacks lived at the poverty level, after the Great Society only 30% do (and I'll be the first to admit that is still too many). Is the Great Society responsible for that? If so, your entire point, that the Great Society destroyed the 'black' family, is moot.
ReplyDeleteFrisch
The poverty level as a percentage is unchanged since the Great Society began so you are simply incorrect. The policies liberals have foisted on America have wrecked the family and the culture and liberals just can't accept their responsibility for that. 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock and 1/2 that for whites. Why? Because liberal policies have placed government into the mix and liberal values have permeated the black society. Liberals must be real proud. Also, liberals believe abortion on demand into the birth canal have murdered millions of black babies. What a culture of death and destruction foisted on our country.
DeleteCite your sources BIG BOY........you pontificating while you wash the sheet is not enough sourcing for me. Show me the causal link between the Great Society and black illegitimate births.....
DeleteJust because Samuel Clemens was born and died when Halley's Comet came does not mean Samuel Clemens caused Halley's Comet!
Frisch
I saw your picture and for you to call me big boy is like a elephant calling a mouse that name. What a hoot.
DeleteYou are simply wrong and are scrambling after i wiped the floor with your comments. Do your own hoemework. Golly, I thought you were the expert copy/paste fellow.
I was referring to your inflated ego.
DeleteYou are simple an idiot my friend....a pure idiot. Saying you wiped the floor with someone does not make it so. The only piece of evidence you produced proved MY point....which is why I think you either did not read it or were too dim to understand it.
But that all right....I'm bored with you now.
Frisch
Finally, thanks, I was wondering when you would give up after being whipped so much. Adios.
DeleteSF wrote: "If so, your entire point, that the Great Society destroyed the 'black' family, is moot."
ReplyDeleteGood comment, Steve. I'd go further and say that Todd's comment is not only moot, it has been destroyed. Just like his imaginary black families that were doing just fine in Leave-It-To-Beaver Land, until that big-eared boy from Austin turned on his fellow Democratic Party racists and..ummm.., OK, I think Todd was mixing metaphors here. Does not compute.
I do agree with Todd that many southern Democrats were racists before the Great Society legislation. But when they started to join the right side of history--and the Goldwater campaign successfully flipped S. Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana to the Republican side--we find the roots of today's electoral politics.
As Forest Gump always said, "racism is as racism does."
My points are not moot but you two liberals points are. You cannot rewrite history to fit your bias. The statistics are on my side. The point is a family unit not racism. The black family was as cohesive as others even though your democrat friends were killing them and siccing dogs on them. You should be ashamed.
DeleteRegarding the switch to majority Republican power in the South. Since we took over the politics of those states there has been no lynchings, no riots and the democrat KKK has been diminished to almost zero. I would say the country and the south are much better off removing your democrat friends from the power structure.
So, perhaps the textbooks you liberals read need some updating.
Let the record show that it is absolutely untrue about the black family as cohesive as others- pre-1960s. ZERO truth to that. When you take the extensive history courses I have, get back to us. But lets stop the nonsense. OK, you're for Romney and you think Trickle Down now will solve many of the African American problems in 2012. We got ya.
DeleteAbsolutely correct Robert, the "cohesive" black family is a myth. For that matter the "cohesive" family is a myth in most of American history. We had divorce, bigamy, incest, abandonment, and unmarried cohabitation in large numbers all along. We just sugar coated it.
DeleteFrisch
Wow, you two are certainly reading the wrong history books. What you are saying is truly racist crap. I am ashamed of Robert and re-ashamed of Frisch.
DeleteI know Michael, I was listening to Russ yesterday on my way down to Nevada City and he was continuing the ridiculous "Democrats were the racists" nonsense. YES, it is true, southern democrats were racists. Anyone who reads civil war history and understands the history of reconstruction would understand that historical dynamic. And northern liberal democrats ran them out of their party starting in the 1950's because they could not stand the immoral position of segregation. Consequently the people who voted for those southern Democratic racists became Republicans, because they felt the national Democratic party abandoned them. In short, when the national Democratic party became moral, the southern (and suburban) racists left the Democratic party and migrated to Republican party who adopted the only slightly less immoral position. But then again, the Todd's of the world live to re-write history, like some commissar editing a textbook.
ReplyDeleteFrisch
Those northern democrats were and are racists as well. Boston was a hotbed of racial strife with your blue collar democrats beating the crap out of blacks. Hell, who was in charge of California during the Watts riots? Was it a democrat?
DeleteNo, the history of the democrat party is one of racism and lynchings of Jews and blacks. Republicans are the one's who risked their lives and fortunes to set America on the course of realizing equal opportunity for all. Liberals and democrats hijacked that and changed it to equal results, a socialist tenet.
You need to reread history from an unbiased textbook.
Is that what the scholarly Bill O'Reilly's new history of America is teaching. Holy cow..loony tunes.
DeleteGolly, you must not be an American then if you don't recall the truth I have written. Do you remember the busing mandate from the SCOTUS at all? Wow, the American education system is truly broken and you reflect its failure to teach basic history, even recent history. Amazing
DeleteWhat do the de-segregation and busing rulings have to do with the racial politics of the two major parties that you were just talking about? Steve F. is absolutely correct about the history of Democrats and Republicans. It is eminently clear looking at the red electoral states that the proven racist old-line Southern Strategy/Southern Republicans now have taken over the heart of the party and have now morphed into a full blown melting pot with the far right evangelicals and rural tea baggers.
DeleteWrong again but have fun talking to yourself. You are simply unable to use the noggin in a critical way. But liberals do that a lot.
DeleteTeabaggers? What is that? Is that what you and your significant other do? If you use it again I will remove you. Have more respect for your momma.
So the evolution and core of the modern Republican Party has little to do with the Southern Strategy- most aggressively influenced by Lee Atwater, and re-inforced by Karl Rove? Good god man, even Rebublican operatives admit this!
DeleteKen Mehlman, GW Bush Campaign Manager acknowledged and apologized for the Southern Strategy, as it evolved into today's Republican party. Even GW Bush in the runup to 2000 tried to bury its remnants with his Compassionate Conservatism. Its BACK in 2012 with the addition of PAC and billionaire money, tea people and bible thumpers.
DeleteSo, you say the "Southern Strategy" was apologized for, and by one fellow! Yep, that is a trend.
DeleteWhen will you and your ilk apologize for the destruction of the black family. Your policies have decimated them.
My God Todd, I am stunned at your lack of knowledge of American history. The rise of liberal democrats in the Democratic party, starting with Herbert Lehman in New York, followed by Paul Douglas of Illinois and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, along with the adoption of the civil rights plank at the 1948 Democratic convention, is what caused the beginning of the split in the Democratic party, exemplified by the defection of Strom Thurmond to run as a "Dixiecrat" after the plank was adopted.
ReplyDeleteTo their credit many Republicans joined with the liberal Democrats to support Civil Rights, including the first successful civil rights bill in more than 100 years passed in 1957 under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson.
Sadly, exactly the type of Republicans who once existed who did support civil rights and extensions of voting rights have been driven out of your Republican party over the last 30 years by the hotheaded, dog whistle racist, xenophobic Republican leadership that is now transcendent. The party of Lincoln has become the party of denying people voting rights, disenfranchising the poor the elderly and urban residents who do not possess driving licenses, and cravenly seeking advantage at the expense of constitutional protections that people fought and died for for more than 200 years.
It is really this simple, Democrats abandoned racism as a philosophy, and Republicans adopted fear as a philosophy, to flip the South. Them is the facts baby, it was the Southern Strategy; it was conscious, intentional, racist, and effective.
And I noticed that you did not address the core issue I brought up, which was that the decline of the "white" American family coincided with the decline of the "black" American family, as you stated it, and was the result of a myriad of causes, as most things in history are, rather than ONE cause. I find it to be standard practice that the more ignorant one is, the more likely one is to seek a single cause for a complex issue.
But then Michael was correct to point out, "Stupid is as stupid does." I would start calling you Forrest, but them Mr. Gump was actually a quite sympathetic character; you are mere pathetic.
Frisch
Correction, that should read "the first successful civil rights bill since reconstruction passed in 1957".
DeleteFrisch
Your cut and paste Frisch exposes you to the vacuous historian you claim to be. My God man, you lived through some of this history yet have no clue. How could that be?
DeleteOh and you two liberals still don't understand the issue here. It has nothing to do with any civil rights act but of the family unit. Density is in vogue on the left?
DeleteTodd, please cite what portion of what I said above was "cut and paste"? That was entirely a product of my mind, influenced by having just re-read Master of the Senate by Robert Caro, but not a word "cut and paste".
DeleteTalk about a vacuous point....a childish claim that I cut and paste. Let me tell you the difference between you and me, when I cite a source they will likely be a historian or a true scholarly study....when you cite a source it will be likely a Fox News faux journalist, a Koch Brothers funded think tank, or a local, pajama clad, know-it all, pseudo intellectual blogger.
Frisch
The difference between us is the issue of common sense. My God man, grow up.
DeleteWho's dense Todd? If you go back and read, we just both pointed out, multiple time, that we reject your assertion of strong family units in black America prior to the 1960s. You're going to have to cite some scholarly basis for your assertion. And we don't want to see passages from a fraudulent historian like Bill O'Reilly.
ReplyDeleteHere is something to chew on Robert. Sorry to break this to you.
Delete"To restate the main points of this article: Significant familyformation
problems among the black population are of
recent origin, for there is no evidence suggesting that
family-formation patterns of blacks have historically been
fundamentally different from those of whites. If anything,
the evidence shows that blacks married at higher rates during
most of the period studied."
That is from a study of the black family from 1890 to 1980.
Here is the study.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irp.wisc.edu%2Fpublications%2Ffocus%2Fpdfs%2Ffoc121e.pdf&ei=S3MAUO-6O8iirAGz1uDQBw&usg=AFQjCNHrqoSBSrCz7rXv6Hi2c23dMz-zbQ
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Did you actually read the full paper Todd?
DeleteIt clearly does not support your contention that there was a link between the Great Society and the decline of the black family. It never mentions the rise of the social welfare state as a factor. It points to several causes of the increasing incidence of female back head of household including earlier mortality for black men, greater economic dislocation for black men, a higher incidence of incarceration for black men, high rates of black urbanization, and the economic uncertainty for those blacks that were upwardly mobile during the test period.
It actually supports my point that there were a broader set of cultural and economic trends driving the decline of the family.
In short, if you read the study, you clearly did not understand it. Not to mention the point that you had a mere 21 minutes after Robert's post according to the time stamps to find this study, establish the bona fides of the author, read it, and think about what it actually means.
Frisch
It is one of many reports. The reason I used that one was to prove the black family was no different in its veracity as the white family. I trashes your point and now you are scrambling. I just wiped the table with you and Robert and now you are whining. My God, debate as an adult, please!
DeleteHow many of your few followers actually believe that you read that paper Todd? You clearly didn't because it proves my point. You skimmed it to find what you wanted without reading it. The mark of an inferior mind buddy.
DeleteFrisch
Sorry you can't compete with my superior intellect Frisch. Try again when you study up. I simply am bored with your ignorance.
DeleteHey Todd, here's some reading for you- notice that the years cited in this US DOL study on the breakdown of black families are clearly before 1964. Oops, there goes Todd's thesis!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/moynchapter2.htm
ou read mine first from above. Then get back to me with your analysis.
DeleteThats an unfortunate response when you get nailed on an argument. That DOL study on the breakdown of black families in America was written prior to 1964! Hey, is your response kida-what Mitt's going to say when he has to explain the 1999-2002 Bain discrepancy?-and he has yet to do so. Just ignore the presented facts and make some irrelevant comment? Too good.
DeleteObviously you did not read the article. Your ignorance is confirmed.
DeleteI'll stick with the DOL analysis of the historical plight of black America post-slavery. You keep listening to Uncle Tom Sowell and his minions.
DeleteOne of President Johnson's aides, Joseph A. Califano, Jr.:
ReplyDelete"from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century."[24] The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968."
After the Great Society programs were cut, abandoned or watered down under Nixon, Carter and- massively under Reagan- these positive trends in the black community largely reversed themselves.
All true.
Same poverty rate today as then. You are getting bad info.
Delete