Alright, well I saw that said and it didn't get delivered in carefully rehearsed zinger style to me. I know what you're talking about, and it truly didn't have that 'feel' to me.

And again, the incentive to take a dig like that would have to be incredibly low, so low that there's way more compelling disincentive.

I guess the retort to that is that there's so many racists in America that I underestimate how Romney would find it advantageous to play to them.

Which basically ends the argument...because there's damning absolutes being accepted without question.

"My boys" aside, I thought the point he was making was more mean than called for. You can dig at someone's credibility in less blanketed ways....ways that don't make it sound like you believe this is your opponents character all around. ...They're just a liar. In British politics that would fit in fine, but Americans are usually more civil.
Originally Posted by sew and sew

Of course there is incentive for Romney to use this type of coded racial language.

1. It's red meat for his base.
2. It serves to degrade Obama.
3. It helps keep white voters who might be considering voting for Obama in line by reminding them, subtly, that Obama is "other".
4. Regular white folks aren't likely to notice this type of racial insult, so there is little chance of being called out on it.
5. Minority folks who do notice, aren't likely to be paid attention to if they complain about the racial insult, because Romney has plausible deniability.

That's why it's important for regular white folks who do notice to say something and not just dismiss it as a ridiculous claim.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
Wow, seriously?

There is just NO way he didn't have racist intentions in making that point and mentioning "my boys" in the process?

Most people didn't take it how you did because they're not sensitive enough to see it. It can't be that most people didn't notice it that way because it very likely was not at all intended that way?

It's an insidious charge to lay up against someone so boldly yet close-mindedly.

Is out of the realm of possibility he meant it how it phased you? Nope.

And that's the rational way to look at it. Not....that's how he meant with 100% certainty, thus he's unquestionably guilty of being a grade A racist ass**** on account of that remark.

If you notice, in your list of incentive for him to mean it that way, you have it hemmed up erring on the extreme opposite side of the 'benefit of the doubt.'

You recognize that he has "plausible deniability" but only in a nefarious sense. You know this, I take it, because you're inside his head. You're making the suspect fit the "crime."
Originally Posted by sew and sew


Of course I can't prove he meant his comment in a racist way. That's how plausible deniability works. This is not a court, and you are not the jury, judging whether my testimony is true or false. I'm merely giving my opinion...which is what these message boards are for.

I'll give some more opinions...

Do I think Romney is a racist? No.

Do I think he's been playing race-politics? Oh yes.