I really disagree. He has been very sensitive in word and deed to any attempt to portray him as a Southerner. All that "racist white guy" stuff really bothers him, and he goes out of his way to deny that any of it applies to him -- when it falls to the attacker in the first place to prove that it does. I don't for a second think that he is a white-suit, string-tie racist pol, another "Pitchfork" Tillman or Theo Bilbo. The local NAACP trolls were trying to portray him as one, to "identify" (i.e., bracket, in propagandaspeak) him with them. All he had to do was to stand up to them. He didn't. He ran.
I find it extremely offensive that his statement would be twisted for political gain.
"Political gain"? The only people who tried for "political gain" are the President's adversaries and the President himself. If you are referring to my argument, that he has been less than loyal to "them what brung him" by running away from identification with them, then resent away, because he did it and I called him on it.
It doesn't matter if he was taking Karl Rove's advice or not. He was elected by Texas voters twice before he went into the White House (with their help, again). He owes us more than dissocation from us by creating artificial distinctions between "southwestern" and "southern" Texans.
“All he had to do was to stand up to them. He didn’t. He ran.”
Sometimes it is better to stay silent than dignify the argument with a response. I’m approaching that point with this entire thing, since I keep repeating myself, and people seem like they aren’t getting my meaning.
“He owes us more than dissocation from us by creating artificial distinctions between “southwestern” and “southern” Texans.”
If it is artificial then why all the fuss?