Hayley Peterson, Daily Mail (London), November 15, 2012
Republican Mitt Romney attributes his election loss to President Obama’s ‘gifts’ that he bestowed on minorities and young people during his first term.
In a conference call with his national finance committee on Wednesday, Romney said Obama’s win was buoyed in large part by loyal Democratic constituencies including the poor that he had promised ‘free health care,’ the immigrants that he had protected from deportation and the college-aged women that he had offered free contraceptives.
‘You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity? I mean, this is huge.’
‘Likewise, with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus,’ he added. ‘But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called DREAM Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.’
Obama announced in June that he would grant temporary amnesty to some children of undocumented immigrants who met certain requirements and had clean criminal records. The program resembled the DREAM Act, which had long been stalled in Congress.
Romney chided Obama over the summer for waiting so long to address immigration reform, charging that his amnesty program was politically motivated.
‘He saves these sort of things until four-and-a-half months before the general election,’ Romney said in June on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation.’ ‘I think the timing is pretty clear. If he really wanted a solution that dealt with these kids or illegal immigration in America, then this is something he would have taken up in his first three-and-a-half years, not in his last few months.’
Now Romney is saying that the program is what persuaded Hispanics to support Obama.
Romney won 59 percent of the white vote, while Obama was backed by 93 percent of black voters, 71 percent of Latinos and 60 percent of voters younger than 30, according to exit polls.
Romney said that Obama directed his campaign according to the ‘old playbook’ of targeting specific groups with promises of legislation that would persuade them to vote a certain way.
‘In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,’ Romney said.
‘With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,’ Romney said. ‘Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people.
‘They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008,’ he said.
Similarly, Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, blamed the Republican ticket’s loss on high turnout among ‘urban’ voters.
‘I think the surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,’ Ryan told a television station in Wisconsin. ‘When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that’s when it became clear we weren’t going to win.’
Romney told his finance team that the sting of his loss was still too strong to begin mapping out his plans going forward for himself and for the Republican party.
‘I am very sorry that we didn’t win,’ he said. ‘I know that you expected to win. We expected to win… It was very close, but close doesn’t count in this business.’
He added: ‘And so now we’re looking and saying, “O.K., what can we do going forward?” But frankly we’re still so troubled by the past, it’s hard to put together our plans from the future.’
The Daily Mail calls Romney’s articulation of these statements “Explosive”, but others might say, “Mitt Romney has said way too little, way too late.”
The Socio-Democratic left (Obama’s Communist Internationale….in effect) can’t stand hearing conservatives say that racial divisions underlie all major “interest group articulation” in America, and indeed, most of the world today, but it’s not because they can’t accept this fact as true: starting in 1945 and onwards, the left has been pushing racial agendas MUCH more than the right. This is as true today in Obama’s America, maybe even truer, than it was in Harry Truman’s first term.
Even my old hero, the late Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, charged in his 1948 Dixiecrat Platform that it was the leftist, pro-integration, Democrats who were pushing racial conflict as a means to impose socialism. Civil Rights in the USA, like the “Civil War” which preceded it, was a plan to tear society apart by setting one ethnic group against another, one class against another, one “mode of production” and way of life against another. Despite all the “kumbaya” rhetoric of the 1960s, these reforms were not to designed to institute a brand new world of peace and brotherhood, but tout le contraire, the left’s purpose was and remains to provoke Marxist change through Marxist class conflict.
Hubert Horatio Humphrey led the way in every “Civil Rights Act” between 1948 and 1972, and never once did he propose a genuine program of “equal rights” for whites and the “non-white” minorities. The whole purpose of the Civil Rights movement was to maintain the classifications of the Jim Crow era but turn the hierarchy upside down because the “have-nots” would support socialism—and hence the birth of a new socialist intelligentsia and elite—which the already enfranchised white majority could not tolerate.
So the “truth” may be racist, but liberals use race cynically and consciously antithetically to inform the “Hegelian dialectic” that abolishes OUR world as merely the “Archaic Thesis”.
The new “Synthesis” is this interracially synthetic, hamburger-helper, “shake-and-bake” world order and morality….
Quite simply, we were divided and conquered by integration, when the “bad old” segregationist order provided a platform on which to build a united and cooperative society in which “moral boundaries” mattered enough to be respected and maintained.
In our brave new world, post 1984, government and the corporate-financial infrastructure know neither law nor boundaries of any kind. And yes, I think there is a strong correlation between the breakdown of racial boundaries, the most fundamental, instinctual taboos, and all other moral failures, including the complete “integration” of the Banking Establishment, which no longer respects simple boundaries such as the common law doctrines of “privity of contract” and “holder in due course”.
Everyone can and does now have the right, maybe even the social duty, to mate with everyone else (so as not to be discriminatory or “exclusive” in any way), so the family is dead, most communities have evaporated, and everyone can and does now have the right to cross-contractual lines and boundaries of ownership, including the banks, who trade homogenized and securitized mortgages in “pools” where the individual home or family has lost all unique contractual place or ability to negotiate or preserve itself.
Does anyone else see this as the new universal norm? A world of no boundaries or laws except power?
Once there are no “mores” or “norms” concerning patterns of interracial sex and marriage, formerly the most prominent of all taboos, how can it otherwise be denied that “Anything Goes?”