Skip to comments.Wolf Blitzer Blasts President Obama for Being NAACP ‘No-Show’: ‘Romney Did the Right Thing. . . .'
Posted on 07/12/2012 5:39:32 AM PDT by lbryce
Full Title:Wolf Blitzer Blasts President Obama for Being NAACP No-Show: Romney Did the Right Thing. . . . The President Did Not.
Earlier today on The Situation Room on CNN, Wolf Blitzer told viewers:
Here is something Id like to say to President Obama: You should have attended the NAACP convention in Houston today. Mitt Romney did. It was the right thing to do. The Republican knows the nations oldest civil-rights group isnt exactly friendly turf but went anyway. On the whole, got a polite reception, but was booed when he said this: [from videotape] Im going to eliminate every nonessential expensive program I can find, that includes Obamacare.
Despite the boos, it was a smart political move for Mitt Romney to address the NAACP. He knows he is not going to win over a lot of black voters, but attending these kinds of events is important in reassuring a lot of the suburban white voters that he is a moderate, decent politician, someone that wants to work with all Americans. Im surprised the president was a no-show. He is sending Vice President Joe Biden, will send a video.
I checked the presidents schedule for today. He is here in Washington, D.C., over at the White House. Hes got meetings. I assume those meetings are very important. but he could have found time to pay his respects to the NAACP. The president should not take the African-American vote for granted.
Lets not be under any illusions. He received 95% of the black vote four years ago. Hell do almost as well this time around for sure. But his problem is voter turnout. The president needs excitement, he needs enthusiasm in the African-American community, especially in the battleground states he carried in 2008. Fewer African-Americans may go to the polls this time. They might not vote for Romney, but might not show up, especially now that black unemployment has risen to 14.4%. Its a lot higher than the 8.2% for all Americans. So in my opinion, the president missed an opportunity today. My bottom line is this: Romney did the right thing on this day, the president did not. Now some folks will disagree with me, Kate. Thats just me offering my sense of whats going on.
Obama, I believe, doesn't feel politically comfortable with the NAACP rank and file. He is an outsider. He's a black man that didn't politically matriculate like those within the NAACP, didn't go through the struggle of the 60's. As far as the civil rights movement is concerned he wasn't involved, acts like, is, an elitist from both his and the NAACP's perspective. Maybe he just feels uncomfortable with those whose mindset is still mired in the past.
Maybe he's frightened that he's going to meet up with Jesse Jackson who while doing an interview with Fox news was overheard on a open microphone during a break "that he'd like to cut Obama's nuts off". But then again, he doesn't have to worry about anyone cutting his nuts off, anyway.
Walter Cronkite spoke against the Vietnam War, prompting LBJ to say, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the country."
Wolf Blitzer is no Walter Cronkite, but if Obama has lost Wolf ...
Is he NAACP a racist organization? I mean aren’t they about JUST helping black people? Isn’t this racist? What would they say about a National Association to help White People? HYPOCRITES.
Blitzer is the exception. CBS news last night slammed Romney’s appearance at the NAACP.
NAACP doesn’t care King Barack ignored them.
Deep down, Obama is a coward.
He, the White Guys token Black, cannot bear the thought that The NAACP MIGHT boo him.
I know, I know, received 96 % of the Black vote in 2008 and all that, but I am talking about just one Black standing up and shouting out a question on gays and then booing Obama.
Ruthless, Marxist Dictator Obama would be reduced to tears.
The conflict was in Obama’s cowardly fears.
The only way this makes sense is that Obama doesn’t want to be seen pandering to blacks. Not sure why, but I can think of two possible reasons-there may be others.
1. His economic policies have negatively affected blacks much more than whites. He would rather have his non-appearance be the focus of discussion rather than critique of his policies and their impact on the black community.
2. He doesn’t want to be seen pandering to black people because he thinks that turns off white independent voters.
Oh, Wolf, you are SO brave...
So NAA-L-CP, how do you like your half-rican now?
Morgan Freeman was right!
It’s deliberate - Obama has shown a pattern of not wanting to be associated to closely with “typical black people” and “black organizations” in the public consciousness. He still wants to pretend he’s a president for all Americans, like the last election.
Call out the liberal posse! Wolf Blitzer is off the reservation!
“Obama doesnt want to be seen pandering to blacks”
Obama has never felt black. First of all, he is beyond black or white. He has never been for the struggle, and I believe he does not feel comfortable around black folks. Besides what’s he going to tell them? 14.4% unemployment! My bad!
Besides, Morgan Freeman says Barrack ain’t black.
...”He’s a black man that didn’t politically matriculate like those within the NAACP”....
Perhaps you could re-think that statement - he is a half-white man, just as white as he is black. Please, stop with the “first black President” stuff here. Barack Obama IS NOT black!
I would be shocked if Wolfie ever voted for a Republican. He’s still on the rat plantation along with all of his media buds.
NAAMN (National Association for the Advancement of Magic Negroes)
Obama will never lose Wolf.
Obama is embedded in Wolf's colonic region and will remain there through the election after which all Democrats and marxists in government and in the media will throw each other under the hearses as if they never existed in the public domain.
When Wolf or any other mediawhore criticizes the Usurper, it's always more in sorrow than in anger.....you can bet the farm on it.
Don’t most African Americans have some white ancestry? I don’t know how attenuated the white part has to be before you are black “enough”.
Obama isn’t black, not because he is half white, but because his black father wasn’t an American descended from slaves. There is no shared heritage/culture between Obama and real black Americans. Obama married Michelle to get more into black culture.
The reason why the Democrat media wants the Republican candidate to attend the NAACP convention is so they can get footage of the negative response to him.
Blitzer is the exception. CBS news last night slammed Romneys appearance at the NAACP.
Blitzer will be put in his correct place. Wait and see. As for Romney, lefties are claiming his merely appearing at the NAACP proves he’s a racist.
I don’t know whether “most” African Americans have some white ancestry. I agree with your point on Obama’s father and the lack of a shared heritage and culture between Obama and slave descendants. His marriage to Michelle clearly intially increased his exposure to black culture. But, it now appears as if they have become elitists.
Obama doesn’t like black people. He hates his dark side.
Wolf Blitzer needs to understand Obama’s more comfortable with white people. Check out his volunteers and staff. Bush had more blacks working for him... (well, maybe not on the last one...)
In a pedantic sense, all people are “colored” due to having some level of skin pigmentation; nobody’s skin exhibits a non-colored “shade” only. So the NAACP should be for whites and blacks alike, as well as all of humanity. But the truth is, the NAACP is yet another socialist front organization, founded by socialists (white socialists, ironically), and continuing to push a hard-left socialist agenda.
. . . more than his “typical white” grandmother?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.