Bling Bling? Bling Bling???!!!

by hilzoy

Via Andrew Sullivan, Mitt Romney makes a play for the African-American vote:

"Governor Romney paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr. when speaking to a group of employees at Gate Petroleum today and then shook hands and posed for photos with African-American families at a parade.

The presidential hopeful met a friendly crowd at the Martin Luther King, Jr. parade here. The former Massachusetts governor often runs back and forth across streets during parades to greet people and today was no exception. He shook hands with ROTC members, tiny beauty queens, police officers and many parade-goers, including children screaming his name. He jumped off the Mitt Mobile to greet a waiting crowd, took a picture with some kids and young adults and awkwardly quipped, ”Who let the dogs out? Who who.”

He took pictures with many in the crowd and greeted one baby wearing a necklace saying, “Hey buddy! How’s it going? What’s happening? You got some bling bling here!”"

Mitt Romney: just when I think I've taken his measure, he surprises me all over again.

[UPDATE: Via Digby: video!]

Comments

[yave begnet]

Dear god, the man is an embarrassment to white Mormons everywhere (or should be).

[liberal japonicus]

He's probably saying 'Wassup' when he is shaking hands.

[Liz]

Someone in the crowd: "That's Michael."
Romney: "yeah, Michael Jordan!"

Perhaps Romney spent a little too much time studying this site before hitting the campaign trail?

[cleek]

chu mofo, butter lay me to the bone, jackin me up.

[russell]

Yeah, we cold lampin' wit Willard.

[Hob]

Not to mention that "Who let the dogs out?" is a little too reminiscent of certain incidents Mitt would probably rather not remind us of...

[Gary Farber]

The positive view is that it's certainly a good thing for Mitt Romney to ask for the support of African-Americans.

However, a somewhat less chipper outlook might take into account not just the minor fact that this is a fellow who managed to conjure up an imaginary "seeing" of his father marching with Martin Luther King, but the major fact that this is a man running on his claims to "leadership," of whom there is no record whatever of his speaking up in any way, shape, means, or form, about, let alone against, his church's prohibition on people of African descent being members, because of their being of "the seed of Cain," while it was in effect prior to 1978 (when Mitt Romney turned 31 years old).

To be sure, if I missed a report of Romney speaking up prior to 1978, someone will let me know.

(Yes, I know what he's said in recent years about what he allegedly felt back then, but that's not what I'm noting: leadership is what you do and say in public, not what you think in private and don't speak up about.)

[Xeynon]

Gary, I think you're being a bit hard on him. He wasn't a public figure before 1978, so it's hardly surprising that there is no public record of his standing on the Mormon church's policies re: African-Americans at the time. His father, who was a public figure, might not have actually marched with MLK, but he unquestionably supported the Civil Rights movement, so for Romney to be proud of his family's stance on racial issues seems perfectly justified to me.

Romney is the quintessential awkward white dude and I think this kind of hilariously incongruous moment is inevitable for someone of that ilk trying to connect with black culture - but at least he recognizes that the black vote is important and is willing to campaign for it.

[Turbulence]

Romney is the quintessential awkward white dude and I think this kind of hilariously incongruous moment is inevitable for someone of that ilk trying to connect with black culture - but at least he recognizes that the black vote is important and is willing to campaign for it.

Romney is supposed to be the smart technocrat. If, with all his technocratic competence and all his money and his vast campaign organization, he never bothered to think "um, i'm not too comfortable talking with the dark skinned folk, but i need to do it, maybe i should plan in advance for how to do it without humiliating myself...", then he's not very fit to be president, now is he?

Presidents have to talk to people that are unlike them all the time; some of those people even have dark skin. If you react to such social situations by saying the first random thing that pops into your head, then you're unlikely to make a good president. This is the sort of problem that competent campaigners recognize and plan for in advance; alternatively, one could just consistently speak in a respectful manner to everyone they meet.

[gwangung]

Romney is the quintessential awkward white dude and I think this kind of hilariously incongruous moment is inevitable for someone of that ilk trying to connect with black culture - but at least he recognizes that the black vote is important and is willing to campaign for it.

True, true.

I think we all forget that we all have to have those embarassing moments and be willing to suffer those necessary foot in mouth disease moments before we move forward.

Though generally, some folks get the clue that they have to do this earlier than 10 months before the election...

[Ara]

OT: What a sickening Dem debate that just was. I'm close to giving up realistic hope.

At least McCain is the most stomach-able among the Republicans.

[dkilmer]

"I think this kind of hilariously incongruous moment is inevitable for someone of that ilk trying to connect with black culture"

I've got an over-developed sense of humor, but the yuks just aren't coming on this one. The symbolism is too much like real life.

[russell]

OK, here's my question. It's actually something I think about quite a lot.

Why are white men so damned uncomfortable in their own bodies?

I mean, check it out. Romney is walking around here like there is a pole that runs from his butt straight up through the top of his skull.

I don't mean to pick on Mitt, it's just this weird thing that I see all the time. It goes along with the thing where you bite your lower lip, squint, and play air guitar when you dance.

There is some kind of profound discomfort with their own bodies that infects WASPy men like the plague. What the hell is that about?

Thanks -

[Gary Farber]

"so it's hardly surprising that there is no public record of his standing on the Mormon church's policies re: African-Americans at the time."

Nope, doesn't fly, and here's why: Mitt Romney wrote tons of letters home when he was a missionary in France for thirty months, age 19-21. There's no mention by anyone of his ever saying a negative word about the racist ban of the church. I rather think that if one existed, he'd have produced it.

Young Mitt had plenty on his mind, and there's a record of what was, but concern over African-Americans?: no record.

And he doesn't contest that he did nothing:

[...] His missionary efforts were interrupted when France erupted into chaos in May 1968, fueled in part by anger over the Vietnam War. He recoiled from the student unrest, and friends say it reinforced his respect for authority.

Many church leaders considered the war a godly cause, and Romney said at the time he thought it was essential to holding back communism. So it surprised him to hear that his father, George Romney, had turned against the war while campaigning for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

"I was surprised when I heard my father, then running for president, say that we were wrong, that we had been told lies by our military, that the course of the war was not going as well as we thought it was and that we had been mistaken when we had entered into the war," Romney said. "It obviously caused me to reconsider what I had previously thought," he said, adding, "Ultimately, I came to believe that he was right."

Back in the U.S. at Brigham Young, when boycotts and violent protests over the university's virtually all-white sports teams broke out at away games, he stayed on the sidelines.

At the time, the Mormon Church excluded blacks from full membership, considering them spiritually unfit as the result of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah's son Ham.

A handful of students and prominent Mormons called for an end to the doctrine, but Romney wasn't one of them. When he heard over a car radio in 1978 that the church would offer blacks full membership, he said, he pulled over and cried.

But until then, he deferred to church leaders, he said. "The way things are achieved in my church, as I believe in other great faiths, is through inspiration from God and not through protests and letters to the editor."

There's leadership. If you're running for a religious post, and not a political one.

And, of course, his platform for religious leadership is: trust authority.

[Gary Farber]

"His father, who was a public figure, might not have actually marched with MLK, but he unquestionably supported the Civil Rights movement, so for Romney to be proud of his family's stance on racial issues seems perfectly justified to me."

Sure. But back on point, going around for decades lying about your father so as to gain political points you aren't entitled to, and then, when caught, defending the lie by explaining that "I saw" means "I fantasized": not so much something to be proud of.

I want to say that for many years I saw you agreeing with me on this point, and I've always been proud of you for that.

[Gary Farber]

"Presidents have to talk to people that are unlike them all the time; some of those people even have dark skin."

Romney was governor of Massachusetts for four years; MA does not lack for dark-skinned people.

[someotherdude]

Bill Clinton seems to always be in "coool" mode.

I think the awkwardness is not as rampant as some think. But there is always an awkwardness for men when they are put in situations were personal power is percieved as fragile, if not wholly absent.

Men in uniforms (especially cop uniforms) make me feel "awkward" in my own skin.

[Katrina]

Give Romney a break. He's a good hearted guy, he was having a good time. The people he met were enjoying themselves as well. Romney has a lot to offer and with his capabilities can succeed in areas that probably everyone here making their judgmental comments would flounder.

[someotherdude]

He's handsome and makes lots's of money, so I guess he's not always awkward.

[Xeynon]

Presidents have to talk to people that are unlike them all the time; some of those people even have dark skin. If you react to such social situations by saying the first random thing that pops into your head, then you're unlikely to make a good president.

Yeah, and the fact that a middle-aged Mormon guy isn't up on the latest slang of black youth culture and made an awkward effort at being "cool" is evidence that he will "say the first thing that pops into his head" when confronted with, say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? You're stretching. Big time, as Dick Cheney would say.

Young Mitt had plenty on his mind, and there's a record of what was, but concern over African-Americans?: no record.

Yeah. Young Hillary must have also had plenty on her mind, what with being a Goldwater girl and all. Young Barack too - what was the price of cocaine back then? How about young Edwards thinking about whether he was going to be able to move up the depth chart on the football team at Clemson? Look, nobody's a mature adult at 20, and no 60 year old candidate should be judged on what they did at 20. To expect Romney to have been leading the charge on minority issues at that age, against the authority of the religion in which he'd been raised, is unreasonable. It would have been an extraordinary act of moral courage and to his immense credit if he had, but I don't think it's fair to slam him for not having done it, especially given that as an adult he has repeatedly stated his views on race, and his record gives no evidence to contradict them.

Sure. But back on point, going around for decades lying about your father so as to gain political points you aren't entitled to, and then, when caught, defending the lie by explaining that "I saw" means "I fantasized": not so much something to be proud of.

You're blowing this out of proportion IMO. It's exactly the same as Gore's claim about the internet - everyone knows that he wasn't actually claiming he invented it, just utilizing a clumsy rhetorical device which exaggerated his role to score political points. I thought it was absurd to skewer Gore for it, and the same is true for Romney.

[Gary Farber]

"Look, nobody's a mature adult at 20, and no 60 year old candidate should be judged on what they did at 20."

Apparently some part of this was unclear: "of whom there is no record whatever of his speaking up in any way, shape, means, or form, about, let alone against, his church's prohibition on people of African descent being members, because of their being of 'the seed of Cain,' while it was in effect prior to 1978 (when Mitt Romney turned 31 years old)."

So what you're saying is that Romney should be faulted for 11 years of silence as an adult, through the late Seventies, about how skin color changes according to sin and virtue, etc.

"I thought it was absurd to skewer Gore for it, and the same is true for Romney."

Strangely, making a parallel between Gore making a perfectly true statement ("I took the initiative in the Senate in [writing bills] to create the internet"), and Romney making a completely false lie ("I saw my father march with Martin Luther King"), doesn't compare terribly similar circumstances.

I mean, they're exactly the same, true, except for the whole being complete opposites part.

Similarly, we shouldn't condemn people for their opinions at 20 (which I don't agree with, but never mind), which isn't terribly relevant when discussing a 31-year-old.

But we always hear about the forgiveable youthful sins of people at age 40 and 50 and 60, when they're politicians.

[Xeynon]

Apparently some part of this was unclear:

And apparently some part of what I said about how the lack of documentation might be because Mitt Romney was not a public figure at this time was not understood. Perhaps he did oppose the Mormon church's racist doctrines. Perhaps he sat around telling his friends about how abhorrent he found them. We wouldn't know, because as an obscure figure, his thoughts on the subject weren't sought out or recorded for posterity. The only evidence you have for the idea that he didn't care is some self-interested personal letters he wrote when he was 20. That doesn't prove your case - as I pointed out, neither Hillary, nor Obama, nor Edwards, had done anything at that age to indicate that they cared about civil rights either.

doesn't compare terribly similar circumstances.

They're not terribly similar - they're almost exactly the same. Both were self-aggrandizing exaggerations, though not outright lies. If Al Gore had wanted to tell the unvarnished truth, he would have said "I helped write a bill which created a program that led indirectly to the development of the internet". The development of the internet as we know it was an accidental outgrowth of a program designed to create a faster form of communication between government organs. There is no evidence that when the program was created the people who started it had any idea it would grow into anything like the World Wide Web, and certainly the people in the Senate who wrote the bill responsible didn't have any such notion. But telling the unvarnished truth wouldn't have been nearly as impressive, so Gore didn't. Similarly with Romney - George Romney did march with MLK, in the sense that he marched in support of the Civil Rights movement and hence marched in solidarity with King's goals. And Mitt Romney saw this in the sense that he was aware of it, and probably saw television coverage of it. The statement "I saw my father march with MLK" isn't literally true, but figuratively, it's just as true as Gore's "In the senate I took the initiative to create the Internet." Both statements stretch figurative language about as far as it will go to make them reflect better on the speakers. Both Gore and Romney were criticized for exaggeration and misleading wording - rightly so. I would suggest that the difference is that since you, like Gore, are a Democrat, you're inclined to interpret his words as charitably as possible, whilst being as nitpicky as possible with Romney's.

Similarly, we shouldn't condemn people for their opinions at 20 (which I don't agree with, but never mind)

I should have been a bit clearer. Obviously, someone who was an organizer for the Hitler youth or somesuch at this age should be condemned for it. But a somewhat self-centered but seemingly basically decent kid homesick in France who failed to condemn the religion he'd grown up with? Nah.

[Jackmormon]

Gary, just to clarify a small point within your bigger point, with which I totally agree.

It wasn't that black people weren't allowed to be members; black men weren't allowed to hold any of the priesthood powers that pretty much all white men get. (Women don't get any priesthood powers; men who have seriously pissed off the leadership can be stripped of their priesthood--as one uncle of mine was.)

So, yes, in a real sense, that's an exlusion from full membership, but one that feels a bit more familiar to a raised-in-the-church member. It's not like the men who don't hold the priesthood sit on a different side of the room during service. And, of course, it's not like the church was managing to convert many black people, not with that kind of discrimination.

[bc]

All I can say is "whatever." And this is news? It's funny (I assume that was Hilzoy's point) just as it would be funny if millions of other white Americans tried to say anything vaguely hip-hoppish (BTW, my girls love "Who Let the Dogs Out; I'm feeling a little insecure right now). Anyone reading anything more to this is myopic. It was certainly no worse than Hillary's feigned accent when speaking to African-American churches!

[bc]

All I can say is "whatever." And this is news? It's funny (I assume that was Hilzoy's point) just as it would be funny if millions of other white Americans tried to say anything vaguely hip-hoppish (BTW, my girls love "Who Let the Dogs Out; I'm feeling a little insecure right now). Anyone reading anything more to this is myopic. It was certainly no worse than Hillary's feigned accent when speaking to African-American churches!

[KCinDC]

I think it's misleading for that video to cut off Hillary's introduction of the quote. It makes it seem that those are her words, and that she spoke that way during her speech. I'm no Hillary fan, but I'd say that incident, in context, is noticeably less weird than Romney's "bling-bling", which is itself meaningless.

[bc]

I'm no Hillary fan, but I'd say that incident, in context, is noticeably less weird than Romney's "bling-bling",. . .

I really can't believe we're actually debating which one is "weirder." African Americans everywhere are laughing at us (and should be). Signing off . . . (unless you're African American, in which case I completely defer to your opinion).