Obama's Going to Lose...but Not Because He's Black

American Thinker ^ | October 29, 2012 | The Drive-By Pundit

[2ndDivisionVet]

The left is already beginning to point fingers at those they believe are responsible for what is shaping up to be a decisive rout in the making for President Obama and the Democrats on Election Day.

The New York Times is among the first out of the blame gate, with an article by Matt Bai taking Bill Clinton to task. Clinton, according to Bai, has foolishly steered the Obama campaign to switch its more promising strategy of attacking Mitt Romney as a serial flip-flopper (in the vein of John Kerry) to one striving to paint him as a mean, evil conservative, à la Ebenezer Scrooge.

That strategy went kaput once Romney proved himself to be a decent, likeable guy in the first debate. C'est la vie.

Beating the Times to the punch, though, have been blacks who for years have insisted that any and all criticisms of Obama are based solely on nothing but the color of his skin -- the culmination of which occurred in the aftermath of his sorry-@$$ performance in the first debate against Romney, when the president's electoral fortune began its steady, inexorable decline.

To blacks, it had nothing to do with Obama's serial "ahs" and "ums" and dull, slow-witted responses to Romney. No, it was because the president had to play it safe for fear that if he didn't, he would be considered an "angry black man" to white, racist-inclined voters. This from Georgetown University Professor Michael Eric Dyson and most other blacks.

I'm declaring myself an "angry black man," but I'm not afraid to let everyone know why. I'm angry that four years after America elected its first "black" president, the unemployment rate remains the highest in the black community at 14.1 percent...

[Palio di Siena]

He is going to lose because he is a lazy, lying, pice of shit.

[JohnD9207]

That’s why the day after the election Rand Paul should announce that he is running for President in 2016. Hold his feet to the fire.

[Kickass Conservative]

“We” supported our chosen Candidates during the Primaries.

The Voters, let's call them “they”, chose the winning Republican Candidate to oppose Obama. “My” choice, Newt Gingrich, didn't make the cut, so I am now supporting the chosen Candidate of the Republican Party just as he is.

I cannot recall another Candidate, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, that a died in the wool Conservative could get behind without compromising. Even Reagan had his failings, but the Conservative movement supported him 100%.

Whatever your point was or is makes no difference in the scheme of things. There are those here who think as you do and there are those here who understand the Reality of Two Candidates, One Winner. Your position only supports the Democrat in this contest, and that choice is unacceptable when that Candidate is Obama Ben Ghazi.

[When do we get liberated?]

Romney wasnt my first pick (Newt) but really out of the whole crowd he is the most likely to unseat the big 0. He appeals to moderates and mushy middles. Newt was a brilliant conservative but lets face it, if Romney is in a toss up, Newt would get crushed in a general election. Not the way I want it, but 40 odd percent of this country leans socialist and they push the rest well.
The other reason is he is clean. The way the liberal MSM is, if there was a 19 yr old intern in a closet somewhere, a dalliance from 20 years ago etc... Mitt is so straight Ward Cleaver thinks he is dull.Its sad that the country is so far gone that we have to think that way. But running a hard core conservative gets us 4 more years of 0.
There actually alot of thing I like about Romney, but its late and I am sick of typing. Sad reality is he is the only one in the primaries that could unseat 0.