Mitt Romney Addresses NAACP; Booed And Given Standing Ovation

Well that’s kind of a schizophrenic headline, but how you perceive Mitt Romney’s address to the NAACP will probably be shaped by what you read about it.

Newsbusters notes that there were a smattering of boos in two particular spots, and points to a live blog from The Guardian that sums up the speech like this:

11.05am: Other than those two episodes, Mitt Romney has been received politely by the NAACP audience, with plenty of applause at the appropriate places.

There was even a standing ovation as he finished. No one thinks that Romney is going to make serious inroads in the black vote, he’s just out showing that he’s a real candidate not afraid to take the battle to the President in areas or with groups that don’t support him.

The Campaign Spot has the full text of the speech, minus the booing…

Update: You can watch the whole speech below and form your own opinion.

Dept. of Homeland Sec. Again Calls Patriotic Americans 'Potential Terrorists'
The Stuff We Missed - Hotness Edition
  • jim_m

    Since the racist left is saying that he’s too white for any black people to vote for him , it is surprising that they even allowed him to speak. http://washingtonexaminer.com/liberal-group-calls-romney-too-white-for-blacks-to-like/article/2501754

    Wait… did I say, “racist left”? My apologies for the needlessly repetitious phrase.

    • Hugh_G

      Just so I’m clear on this, you’re claiming the NAACP is racist?

      • jim_m

        I expected an ignorant reply but you really outdid yourself.

        If you click on the link (you do know how to click with a mouse ?) you will find an article about a video produced by two leftist goons from Media Matters and the NYT. THEY are the ones claiming that Romney is too white and they make a number of offensive racial remarks.

        You should watch it. I am sure that you will find it not only funny but accurate to your twisted and racist world view.

        • Hugh_G

          I just asked a question. It was you who wrote:”….it is surprising they even allowed him to speak.” They, meaning the NAACP.
          A reasonable question.

          • jim_m

            Sarcasm. The racists of the video presume to speak for everyone.

          • Hugh_G

            Even the NAACP?

          • jim_m

            The timing of the video would seem that they presume to speak for the NAACP too.

          • Hugh_G

            Do you really believe that? Do you have anything whatsoever outside your biased, prejudiced, twisted mind to support that?

          • jim_m

            I said that they presume to speak for the NAACP not that they did speak for the NAACP. Do you have some serious reading comprehension problem?

          • Hugh_G

            It’s becoming fun watching you try to wriggle out of your typically ignorant comment.

            So now they “presume to speak for the NAACP.” And how is that? And what does “presume to speak” mean to you?

          • jim_m

            I’m not trying to wriggle out of anything dumbass. I said what I meant and I explained it. You are too dimwitted to read and understand it. I am not going to waste my time on an idiot who cannot even understand simple English.

          • Hugh_G

            Now you have a temper tantrum and quit. LOL

          • jim_m

            Nope. I’m just not going to waste my time on a loser who can’t read.

          • Hugh_G

            Oh believe me I can read. And I can comprehend your ignorant comments and your attempts to disguise your contemptible views on race and blacks in particular.

          • jim_m

            whatever. At least I don’t promote the party that enslaved them. I side with the party that set them free.

            At least I don’t side with the party that fought against civil rights, I side with the party that fought for them.

            At least I don’t side with the party that promotes social welfare programs that trap minorities in poverty for generations, I side with the party that works to end the modern form of slavery.

            If I am racist for that what does it make you?

          • Your assurance runs counter to your observed comments.

          • GarandFan

            Hey Hugh! WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?

            Yeah, label me IGNORANT as well if you like. Just ANSWER THE QUESTION.

          • Jeff Carlson

            as opposed to your contemptable views on whites ?

          • Progressive filters tend to act in that fashion…

      • Would an organization named “The National Association for the Advancement of White Persons” be accused of being racist just on the basis of its name?

        • Hugh_G

          Wow are you an ignorant bastard. But I suppose were the whites in America subjected to slavery, lynching (in the 20th century), burning alive, deprived of the right to vote etc etc etc, no I don’t think it would be accused of racism because of its name.

          Jackass – ignorant in toto.

          • PBunyan

            Oh, I get it. You leftists know that they’re racists, but think it’s o.k. that they’re racists. They have an excuse.

          • Hugh_G

            So, you too believe that the NAACP is a racist organization?

            And no, I don’t think the NAACP is racist.

          • Answer the question asked of you, sheet boy.

          • Hugh_G

            Yes, black people, white people, red people, brown people, Asians, Hispanics, Anglo-Americans, you great Aunt Nellie and anyone else can be racist. Of course, there was no point whatsoever to the stupid question.

          • Still not the question asked of you, sheet boy.

            The question was: Would an organization named “The National Association for the Advancement of White Persons” be accused of being racist just on the basis of its name?

            Answer the question.

          • PBunyan

            …your great Aunt Nellie, Obama’s grandmother, and anyone else…

          • PBunyan

            It not a matter of belief, it a plan and simple fact. I suppose you thing La Raza is non racist,too, because most all leftist seem to believe that only whites can be racists.

          • jim_m

            I am sure that Hugh is one of those idiots who believes that black people can never be racist.

          • jim_m

            Why not answer the question? You are aware that whites make up a far greater fraction of the poor than blacks do. What would be wrong about an organization to advance them? Would it be patently racist to create such an organization? If so why?

            The presumption is that leftist jackholes like you would call it racist even though there would be a legitimate, nonracist purpose for such an organization.

          • Hugh_G

            What are you blathering on about now? I answered the question about the fictional NAWP. Had whites the history of blacks, NO I would not think the organization racist.

            Do you know anything at all about the history of blacks in America? Anything other than your tripe about “plantation” mentality, and your freaking nonsense about democrats enslaving them and republicans freeing them.

          • Racism is the act of ascribing behavior based on “race.” Giving out blanket excuses is merely a less overt form, sheet boy,

          • Hugh_G

            No, racism at its core is the belief that one’s own race is superior.

          • jim_m

            The two definitions are not mutually exclusive. You are making a distinction without a difference. Who’s trying to wriggle out of their statements now?

          • Your proffered definition cannot obtain unless my definition is fulfilled first, sheet boy.

          • PBunyan

            More Prog Logic: Racism at its core is the belief that one’s own race is superior, however we liberals, who merely think other races are inferior and thus in need of special help like the NAACP, affirmative action, the Great Society, etc., are not racist at all. It’s because of history you see…

          • jim_m

            You know that black poverty rates were in steep decline right up until the Great Society and then they basically froze. It’s almost like the left wanted to stop the decline. http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/Figure1.png

            If you can’t keep them poor then there won’t be anyone to help.

          • jim_m

            That is not what was asked. Whites are the vast majority of the poor. Would it be racist to create an organization specifically, to lift white people out of poverty?

            Yes or no? What does the history of anyone have to do with whether or not a specific action is racist?

            Why is it racist to do something to aid the majority of poor based on race and not racist to form an organization to only help poor people of racial minority status? (in this case I am not referring to the NAACP since it does more than just help the poor)

            The point (since you are too stupid to grasp it) is that in every case where you would accept an organization to promote the welfare of blacks or any other minority, you would call the equivalent organization to help white people racist. According to you it is never racist to help racial minorities and only racial minorities but always racist to help whites (even when they are the majority of the people affected by something)

          • Hugh_G

            1.The number of whites far exceed the number of blacks. Christ any first year student of statistics knows you have to look at the percentages.

            2. No.

            3. That’s too dumb and incomprehensible to be worthy of response.

            4. That’s false on its face. Again, it’s % of population, not numbers.

          • jim_m

            Why does one have to look at percentages? Look at my comment showing that there are 3x as many poor white people as there are poor blacks.

            Yes there are a higher percentage of Blacks who are poor than whites. I am sure that if the white population were double and the number of poor doubled so there were 6x as many poor whites as blacks you would still say that the percentage is what matters.

            That is an ignorant and frankly, offensive way of twisting the statistics so you can discriminate by race. Frankly I consider it to be a racist dismissal of the suffering of approximately 19 million people.

          • jim_m

            OK racist, try this:

            The asian poverty rate and the white poverty rate are within 1% of each other. Would it be racist to create an organization to lift the asian poor out of poverty? I doubt that you would say yes even though there are only 1.8 million poor asians and over 29 million poor whites.

            You focus on percentages because in the one instance it makes your argument look a little better, but universal application of that analysis shows that you are only trying to justify your racism.

            Any first year stats student could tell you that there is no correct way of analyzing the data. Only ways of presenting the data that support your point and ways of presenting the data that do not support your point. The issue is whether you can justify your presentation of the data as being the correct way to view it.

            Simply claiming that percentages are the best way doesn’t make it so. In fact looking at percentages is weak since it denies the reality of the numbers of people that you are talking about.

          • jim_m

            Let’s be more explicit:

            There is a race where 29.06 million people live in poverty. There is another race where only 10.67 million live in poverty. Is it racist to create an organization to focus on lifting those 29.06 million people out of poverty based on their race? Would it be racist to create an organization to lift those 10.67 million people out of poverty based on their race?

            The obvious point is that there are 29.06 million white people in poverty in the US. There are 10.67 million black people in poverty in the US. Few would consider it racist to form an organization to lift poor blacks out of poverty, but many would consider it racist to lift poor whites out of poverty.

          • Hugh_G

            You keep dodging the origin of the NAACP and the history of violent racism, well into the 20th Century. T

          • jim_m

            No. I simply think that it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not an organization designed to help disadvantaged white people would be racist.

          • PBunyan

            Hugh: “Had whites the history of blacks, NO I would not think the organization racist.”
            A.k.a. the soft bigotry of low expectations. Prog Logic: It would be downright racist to create and oganization whose focus was the advancement of poor white people, but because of their history blacks cannot advance without special help.
            The largest and most successful plantation in hte history of the human race, truely evil in insidiousness, is the “Great Society”, and your pal Barry is calling his people home in droves.

          • Hugh_G

            Your ignorance is mind boggling. You do know about the Census Reports right? You know that the % of black poverty is far greater than the % of white poverty? You know that, right?

          • jim_m

            You know that empirically, there are nearly 3x as many poor white people don’t you? Yet you claim that the number of poor white people is irrelevant. You know that your position is racist, right?

          • Ah yes, Slavery (practiced and defended by Democrats of the era) and Lynching (practiced by Democrats of that era). Project you much?

            ATQ.

          • Guest

            word.

          • DERP! Confirmed racist supports sheet boy! DERP! Must be a big sheet. DERP!

        • SCSIwuzzy

          Keeping in mind the NAACP was founded by white people. Rich white people.

  • So since people at the NAACP obviously approved of Romney’s pro-traditional family statements, can we expect the gay mafia to come after them now?

  • GarandFan

    So how come THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT is sending a WHITE guy to speak to the NAACP?

    Guess he doesn’t want anyone bringing up that Black 14.6% UNEMPLOYMENT rate.

    • Guest

      Yeah, he can get away with that because we all know African-Americans are stupid and don’t know what the unemployment situation is these days.

      Nicely played, racist.

      • GarandFan

        CONGRATULATIONS! RACE CARD!

      • DERP DERP DERP DERP RACIST DERP!!!

  • Guest

    Here’s the video of his comment re: ObamaCare and the boos that followed. It’s far more than a “smattering of boos” – it was enough to stop down his speech.

    I’ll post links to other video clips as I find them.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/video/u-s-house-again-votes-to-repeal-health-care-Vz98uxFiQOqS0Qk8Ydp2mw.html

    • DERP!

    • DERP DERP DERP!!!!

    • Obviously, the NAACP is racist against white people. Because both you and I know that’s like what you’d say if Obama got booed by, well, anyone.

    • Jwb10001

      So what, would you expect them to applaud a postion they disagree with? Would Obama dare step into that sort of lion’s den and stand up for his controversal positions? The answer so far appears to be no.

  • herddog505

    Can you imagine if Barry showed up at a Tea Party (never happen: he hasn’t got the stones) and he got booed? The Mars Rover would pick up the screams of “RAAAACISM!”

    • jim_m

      Mars Rover?!!? Heck Voyager I would pick it up and it isn’t even in the solar system anymore. http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/

    • Rance Frayger

      If Obama showed up at a Tea Party convention, stood before them and told them “The first thing I’m going to do when I’m re-elected is raised taxes”, he would be booed off the stage.

      • herddog505

        Judging by what I’ve read about the Congressional democrats’ lack of zeal in taking up his tax proposal, I think it reasonable to say that THEY’D boo him off the stage.

        Really, other than hard-core lefties, who WOULDN’T boo him off the stage for proposing tax increases, especially in this economy?