Romney’s “Obama Isn’t Working” Is Raaaaacism

What else could it be? Excitable Tommy Christopher

Mitt Romney’s ‘Obama Isn’t Working’ Banner Evokes Racial Stereotypes

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney rolled out a new accessory at a speech in Ohio today, delivering his remarks in front of a black banner that said “Obama Isn’t Working,” which is also the name of a website his campaign set up several months ago (in case you didn’t get the message from the banner, it was also on the front of Romney’s podium).

The slogan is a multiple entendre, but one of those entendres, intentionally or not, is evocative of a nasty racial stereotype about black men.

Or, it could mean simply that Obama is destroying this country. Patterico has a nice graphic that shows how hard Obama works.

PJ Tattler

The “Obama Isn’t Working” slogan is very effective messaging. That’s why Christoper and his liberal friends are out to destroy it. “Obama Isn’t Working” hits the major notes that Christopher mentions above — Obama’s policies aren’t working, his presidency isn’t working, and yes, the president himself isn’t working. In case Tommy missed it, this president has already held more campaign events this year than any previous incumbent president ever has, by far. This president has become known for golfing during the work day, and his family has become known for their 17 lavish vacations at a time when most Americans are on shaky economic ground thanks in part to Obama’s failed and misguided policies. None of this has anything to do with race, but the fact that Christopher sees race in it says more about him than anything or anyone else. He’s a typical liberal, and will use race as a weapon when it suits him. We’re supposed to be past all this.

Stimulus. “Green” energy. Economic policies. Foreign policies. For the most part, none are working. But, pointing that out is certainly raaaaacist.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Romney’s “Obama Isn’t Working” Is Raaaaacism”

  1. W. C. Taqiyya says:

    Hearing in the news that Mitt Romney named a flamer to be his spokes-gay. This does not bode well for Mitt’s election chances since it will alienate me, most conservatives and anybody who really believes in the bible. Does Mitt imagine that he will attract any LGBT votes? Or is he just shit stupid? I guess that is the same question posed twice. ANSWER: He is a dumb f*ck, liberal, big government, piece of PC shit.

  2. […] The Pirates Cove: Romney’s “Obama Isn’t Working” is Raaaaacism […]

  3. gitarcarver says:

    W. C. Taqiyya,

    Rea you kidding me? Do you really think that a person should be disqualified for a position simply because they are gay?

    (And in case you missed it, Richard Grenell was also a Bush appointee.)

    You can be against the sin of homosexuality without being a bigot against the person.

  4. Gumball_Brains says:

    Teach. You are racist. You said, “O*ama”.

  5. W. C. Taqiyya says:

    Not principally about qualifications of queers, it’s about Romney’s political pandering. I’m sure perverts of all kinds hold down very challenging jobs and that Jeff guy on TV is great at decorating homes. My main point is that Romney is marking the wrong trees in his bid for POTUS and/or revealing his true colors. I can’t ignore the fact that Mormonism espouses some version of the perfectibility of man. You know, just like the libtard commies do. They just need the right people in charge or better regulations or more government policies… Obama and Romney, what’s the difference? I don’t subscribe to the myth that republicans have shifted to the right. From my perch, it’s clearly the other way around. McCain, Dole, Bush, etc. all bleeding heart big government liberal policy wankers. And It’s not bigotry to call a spade a spade. Choosing to be a pervert is not praiseworthy behavior. Yes, it is a choice. Like being a liar, thief, chef, football player, etc.

  6. Gumball_Brains says:

    If someone can’t see the difference between “big government spender” and “commie”, then someone needs to stay out of politics and go live on an island.

  7. W. C. Taqiyya says:

    OK, I will give you a helpful hint. Communism is when the government controls everything. That is what Obama wants. That is why he is increasing the government spending. When you increase government spending you naturally increase the size and scope of the government. When the government sucks up most of the available capital (money) the government is doing almost everything and controlling almost everything. That is not a good thing. That is where we are in America right now and republicans helped to get us here before Obama came along. That is why big government spending fracking republicans suck and are in fact the functional equivalent of commies. First lesson is free.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Not principally about qualifications of queers, it’s about Romney’s political pandering.

    Then there was no need for you to mention his sexual orientation if this was about his qualifications, was there?

    And It’s not bigotry to call a spade a spade.

    When you start to call a person a “flamer,” and “spokes-gay” it becomes about bigotry as you are condemning the guy for something that has nothing to do with the ability to do the job for which he was appointed.

    The bigotry is in what you look for and see first.

  9. W. C. Taqiyya says:

    gitarcarver, are you stupid or just being funny? I said my question was about the apparent pandering by Romney to the LGBT community. Is Romney an idiot to expect any so-called ‘gay’ votes? Or, is Romney coming out of the closet soon or is he just out of touch? Good questions, since there is no way he will get many LGBT votes. Bigotry, for your information, is about negatively pre-judging a person or group. I didn’t pre-judge anything since the article stated the fellow was ‘gay’. And, as I stated already, calling a queer a queer is just a statement of fact. Maybe we should call them pretty ponies or Ken dolls, would that make you happy? OK, the Ken dolls can certainly perform many jobs very well, but job performance does nothing to dispel the reality of their destructive, perverse lifestyles. Since I don’t support perversion, you may take offense. On the other hand, since you embrace and protect a destructive lifestyle, maybe you should also tolerate my constructive questions?

  10. gitarcarver says:

    If there is anything funny, it is you trying to justify the unjustifiable.

    Your first point that the article mentions the spokesperson is gay doesn’t appear to be true. In the original and the four linked articles, there is no mention that I can find of Romney appointing a news spokesperson.

    Secondly, as I pointed out, the person Romney appointed was the same person the Bush administration appointed to another position. Is it your contention that the Bush administration was “pandering” as well? Or is it more likely that the person is good at what they do?

    Thirdly, if you had simply called the person “queer,” or “gay,” that would have been one thing. Instead, you choose other invectives and terms.

    Lastly, whether you or I accept “perversion” is not the issue. That is simply as distraction on your part to take away from the message that you are bigoted.

    Have a nice day.

    • W. C. Taqiyya says:

      Well, if all I did was upset your flaming sensibilities, I didn’t entirely waste my time. Cheers.

  11. […] entendres, intentionally or not, that is evocative of a nasty racial stereotype about white men*: […]

  12. […] entendres, intentionally or not, that is evocative of a nasty racial stereotype about white men*: […]

Pirate's Cove