Monday, July 30, 2012

MITT TO PALESTINIANS: THEY CAN'T LIVE LIKE THAT. THAT'S WRONG. JUST LOOK AT THEM!

Mitt Romney, identifying and targeting a victim no one in his prep school would defend, 1960s:
Mitt Romney ... spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

"He can't look like that. That's wrong. Just look at him!" an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend....

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school's collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber's hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors....
Mitt Romney, identifying and targeting a victim hardly anyone in America will defend, last night:
In a salute to Israel's economic growth, Romney compared the GDP of his hosts to that of the Palestinian territories as though they were just any old neighboring countries. "As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality," he said.

Romney (who actually grossly overestimated Palestinian GDP) made no mention of the Israeli occupation, and its restrictions over Palestinian life as being perhaps somewhat determinative in the economic disparity he lauded as a sign of Israel's success.
Romney went on to say:
... if you can learn anything from the economic history of the world, it's this: culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference. And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.
Romney, of course, really, really wants the few people who'll stick up for the Palestinians -- fellow Muslims and us pointy-headed liberal elitists -- to call him racist. On Twitter, The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin squeals with delight, and sums up the Romney strategy succinctly:



Romney knows that, in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, Americans' sympathies are overwhelmingly with Israel. This is a freebie. You want to talk about the last acceptable prejudice? This is a serious contender.

His policies notwithstanding, George W. Bush personally shied away from overt racism toward blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims. Romney, by contrast, will eagerly exploit bigotry when he thinks he can get away with it. In this case, he knows he can not only get away with it but benefit from it, because so many Americans will cheer the dog whistle and so few will be outraged. He showed in prep school that he won't refrain from hate if hatred has no negative consequences.

7 comments:

Victor said...

Oh, and in mentioning inferior "cultures," Mitt also insulted Mexico and Ecuador.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/romney-comments-on-palestinians-draw-criticism/?smid=tw-thecaucus&seid=auto

"For instance, the campaign said, after mentioning the per capita G.D.P. of Israel and Palestine, Mr. Romney also said: “And that is also between other countries that are near or next to each other. Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States.”

Mitt's starting to make W look like a diplomatic genius!

merlallen said...

Our superior culture in WA is why we're a richer state than any state in the confederate states, that makes sense

merlallen said...

How does he explain that Canada is richer than us?

wefightback said...

I think that Romney subscribes to the philosophy that you can tell who G-d likes best by looking at their bank accounts. That's what I think he was pointing out in his GDP comments.


I don't think Romney is anti-Palestinian because he's pro-Israel -- I think he just thinks there's something *wrong* with poor people. It's actually pretty logical from his perspective -- he didn't have to work hard to get rich, therefore getting rich isn't hard work, therefore anyone competent should be rich. People who aren't rich are clearly incompetent in some way.

ploeg said...

How does he explain that Canada is richer than us?

That is left as an exercise for the reader. (As in, why do you think that Canada is richer than us? Wink, wink. Can't say that I disagree with that.)

Ten Bears said...

Setting aside my personal opinion of Israel and the bias it may carry: overwhelmingly sympathetic? Maybe in the media, and the churches (though there was a time...), but I don't know about"overwhelmingly sympathetic". Perhaps, like much else of the right, an extremely vocal minority sympathizes... ?

Holy Hyrax said...

>Romney, by contrast, will eagerly exploit bigotry when he thinks he can get away with it.

Why bigotry? Either what he said is true, or it's not. Calling it bigotry doesn't deal with the issue. I totally agree with him. There is something wrong, in general with the culture (along with its values) that is causes more harm than any IDF soldier in their midst. Unlike race, for example, culture is a choice. You can either have a culture that is open and tolerant and wanting peace, or you don't. Whatever values are in play within that culture will point to the direction of that people


>I think he just thinks there's something *wrong* with poor people.

Am I the only Conservative here? :-) Anyways, this is simply a lie. Where do you make this stuff up? Is it just to feed into your already existing biases? If you have a people that are living in poverty, and unable to move up, one thing to do is look at the cultural values that exists. I mean, when Liberals attack abstinence only education, do they not often bring up the fact that areas like that have usually higher levels of teen pregnancy? Are they not really criticizing the foundational culture of those areas that allow for such ignorance in sexual education to become rampant?