Mitt Romney is the worst national politician I’ve ever seen (M. Cohen)

joseph brand

Mitt Romney's epic incompetence.

I’ve been following politics for many years; I’ve written a book on presidential campaigns and I’ve delved quite a bit into the minutiae of the 2012 campaign. And I’m increasingly convinced that Mitt Romney is the worst national politician I’ve ever seen.

There are so many proof points to back up this supposition that I could go on for a while, but I’ll just stick to Romney’s train wreck of an interview on "Meet The Press" on Sunday.

Still, none of this stopped Romney from stepping on landmine after landmine. He was unable to offer a single tax loophole that he wanted to close. even though closing these loopholes and deductions is foundational to his argument that massive tax cuts for the rich won't actually lessen their tax burden.

On health care, Romney said that he wouldn’t get rid of all of Obamacare, even though he’s been saying for months that repealing the law will the first thing he’ll do upon taking office. Embarrassingly, only hours after making this statement he reversed it . . . twice. As Steve Benen noted, “over the course of one day, Romney went from supporting full repeal [of Obamacare] to partial repeal, while taking four different positions on protections with those with pre-existing conditions."

When asked by Gregory about the budget sequestration agreement, mandatory spending cuts, including to the Defense Department budget, that are part of the debt limit deal signed by President Obama and passed by Republican House last summer, Romney said this: "That was a big mistake. I thought it was a mistake on the – on the part of the White House to propose it. I think it was a mistake for Republicans to go along with it."

This is a fascinating statement, not only because Romney attacks the White House (this is basically pro forma) but he is also attacking the 201 members of his own party in the House of Representatives who voted for the sequestration bill, including his own running mate.

What does he actually stand for? From the start I believed that this super rich individual was probably looking out for 'numero uno' and some other 'friends' in the wealthy circles he moves in. In all the news articles and videos I've seen, there has been nothing to the contrary. Romney is very stubborn in avoiding providing his tax returns and not explaining what these supposed loopholes are. Voters would like to know these things, but are instead treated like mushrooms. This lack of respect towards voters while campaigning for their votes in confusing. Although, in fairness, he is a confused man (see mormonism).

My only gripe with the article is the fact that the other Rep candidates were dire. I won't bother getting into how ignorant, bigoted and demented Santorum, Bachmann and Gingrich were. All that I will say is, their proselytizing moved them close to the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Not exactly good company.

Amerika

I’m curious, is this the author of the piece in the NY Daily News the same Michael Cohen who was a Democratic member of the New York State Assembly and former New York City Union Transit worker, who was also elected to the local community board, and whom was implicated when then New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo bought charges against New York Liberal Party leader Raymond Harding who was accused of helping arrange a $150,000-a-year position for Michael Cohen with the Health Insurance Plan of New York, in order to clear the Assembly seat for a run by another politician’s son. Or is it another Michael Cohen? Just asking.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Amerika wrote: »

I’m curious, is this the author of the piece in the NY Daily News the same Michael Cohen who was a Democratic member of the New York State Assembly and former New York City Union Transit worker, who was also elected to the local community board, and whom was implicated when then New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo bought charges against New York Liberal Party leader Raymond Harding who was accused of helping arrange a $150,000-a-year position for Michael Cohen with the Health Insurance Plan of New York, in order to clear the Assembly seat for a run by another politician’s son. Or is it another Michael Cohen? Just asking.

Which has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. I'm curious, have you ever heard of argumentum ad hominem?

Amerika

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. I'm curious, have you ever heard of argumentum ad hominem?

I just find it interesting that someone might find importance in a bad and disgraced politician who has the gall to call someone like Romney the "worst."

swimming in a sea

joseph brand wrote: »

My only gripe with the article is the fact that the other Rep candidates were dire. I won't bother getting into how ignorant, bigoted and demented Santorum, Bachmann and Gingrich were. All that I will say is, their proselytizing moved them close to the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Not exactly good company.

If they were any real republicans in america they would have voted for Ron Paul, but they're are none.

So either way they will have an incompetent multi millionaire (some say billionaire) or they can keep Obama probably the worst president since Richard Nixon.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Amerika wrote: »

I just find it interesting that someone might find importance in a bad and disgraced politician who has the gall to call someone like Romney the "worst."

So nothing he pointed out was valid, because he has a shady history?

If Stalin said that 2+2=4, would that be incorrect because he was a bad guy? EDIT: Or better, if he called Mao a dictator?

Duck Soup

No, the Michael Cohen who wrote the linked article is not Michael L. Cohen, the ex-politician.

He's Michael A. Cohen, writer and author of 'Live from the Campaign Trail: The Greatest Presidential Campaign Speeches of the Twentieth Century and How They Shaped Modern America', Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation and contributor to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Politico, Forbes, The Guardian, ABC News, BBC TV and radio and Fox News.

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

No, the Michael Cohen who wrote the linked article is not Michael L. Cohen, the ex-politician.

He's Michael A. Cohen, writer and author of 'Live from the Campaign Trail: The Greatest Presidential Campaign Speeches of the Twentieth Century and How They Shaped Modern America', Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation and contributor to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Politico, Forbes, The Guardian, ABC News, BBC TV and radio and Fox News.

Thank you.

Einhard

Amerika wrote: »

I’m curious, is this the author of the piece in the NY Daily News the same Michael Cohen who was a Democratic member of the New York State Assembly and former New York City Union Transit worker, who was also elected to the local community board, and whom was implicated when then New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo bought charges against New York Liberal Party leader Raymond Harding who was accused of helping arrange a $150,000-a-year position for Michael Cohen with the Health Insurance Plan of New York, in order to clear the Assembly seat for a run by another politician’s son. Or is it another Michael Cohen? Just asking.

In fairness, many Republican commentators have already expressed their amazement at Romney's poor performance as a candidate.

Amerika

Einhard wrote: »

In fairness, many Republican commentators have already expressed their amazement at Romney's poor performance as a candidate.

Agreed, and it would be a shame of Romney (failure at the art of political campaigning) lost to Obama (failure as a president) simply because of his, or his campaign staffs, campaigning skills. I guess it would be better for Romney to just give speeches from a teleprompter and refuse to take questions from reporters.

matthew8

..........which is how he's so close to the White House. Mitt Romney is the best in America at fundraising right now, which is perhaps the most crucial thing in a national campaign.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Amerika wrote: »

Agreed, and it would be a shame of Romney (failure at the art of political campaigning) lost to Obama (failure as a president) simply because of his, or his campaign staffs, campaigning skills. I guess it would be better for Romney to just give speeches from a teleprompter and refuse to take questions from reporters.

Like Bush.

poeticseraphim

Amerika wrote: »

I’m curious, is this the author of the piece in the NY Daily News the same Michael Cohen who was a Democratic member of the New York State Assembly and former New York City Union Transit worker, who was also elected to the local community board, and whom was implicated when then New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo bought charges against New York Liberal Party leader Raymond Harding who was accused of helping arrange a $150,000-a-year position for Michael Cohen with the Health Insurance Plan of New York, in order to clear the Assembly seat for a run by another politician’s son. Or is it another Michael Cohen? Just asking.

Ad Hominem argument Amerika, answer the points raised.

Amerika

It’s beginning to feel like 1979. Only this time with Libya as Iran, Obama as Carter and Romney as Reagan. And that’s not even mentioning the dismal economy and oil hitting record high prices. As MLB great Yogi Berra once famously said "It's déjà vu all over again."

20Cent

Ronmeys trip to London should have set off alarm bells regarding his foreign policy, he managed to p off Americas closest allies at a freaking celebration.

Now his latest gaff is with foreign policy, four Americans killed in an attack in Libya and he uses it as an opportunity to attack Obama for sympathising with the attackers. A total lie by the way which he did not retract when given an opportunity. The, "he's a Muslim dog whistle". God help us if he ever gets elected there will be war.

Amerika

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Ad Hominem argument Amerika, answer the points raised.

M. Cohen is entitled to his opinions. Perhaps Romney should take a cue from Obama and simply refuse to talk to reporters. Then at least he won’t occasionally "step in it."

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

It’s beginning to feel like 1979. Only this time with Libya as Iran, Obama as Carter and Romney as Reagan. And that’s not even mentioning the dismal economy and oil hitting record high prices. As MLB great Yogi Berra once famously said "It's déjà vu all over again."

Really? Trust the ideological conservative movement to score cheap political points in the face of a tragedy.

golden lane

what people would pick the best politician.........

nobody has the brains to do that........look around....

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

Really? Trust the ideological conservative movement to score cheap political points in the face of a tragedy.

I look at it as a sad reality of events.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Einhard wrote: »

In fairness, many Republican commentators have already expressed their amazement at Romney's poor performance as a candidate.

Agreed, and it would be a shame of Romney (failure at the art of political campaigning) lost to Obama (failure as a president) simply because of his, or his campaign staffs, campaigning skills. I guess it would be better for Romney to just give speeches from a teleprompter and refuse to take questions from reporters.

His performance as a candidate is not down to his "campaigning skills". It's down to his complete lack of conviction or certainty on any single issue.

He flip flops so often it's impossible to run a cohesive campaign. How can he stay on message when he hasn't decided what the message is.

Mjollnir

Here's a telling little tidbit.

Denerick

The more I think about it, the more disgusted I am by Romney's shameless point scoring after this debacle. I hope it costs him big.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

Agreed, and it would be a shame of Romney (failure at the art of political campaigning) lost to Obama (failure as a president) simply because of his, or his campaign staffs, campaigning skills. I guess it would be better for Romney to just give speeches from a teleprompter and refuse to take questions from reporters.

Even better he should just say nothing, because he appears to say nothing of any merit.

joseph brand

Why I left the GOP.
I grew up in a rich, Republican household, but after Katrina and Iraq, I realized my priorities were out of order
BY JEREMIAH GOULKA, TOMDISPATCH.COM

My old Republican worldview was flawed because it was based upon a small and particularly rosy sliver of reality. To preserve that worldview, I had to believe that people had morally earned their “just” desserts, and I had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to point out that the world didn’t actually work that way. I think this shows why Republicans put so much effort into “creat[ing] our own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts, scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it). It explains why study after study shows — examples here, here, and here – that avid consumers of Republican-oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.

Each time I pull another layer of wool off my eyes and feel another surge of anger, she [his wife] gives me a predictable series of looks. The first one more or less says, “Duh, obviously.” The second is sympathetic, a recognition of the pain that comes with dismantling my flawed worldview. The third is concerned: “Do people actually think that?”

Yes, they do.

Honest, interesting and enjoyable article. One man's eyes opened to reality and truth. Free!

conrow

Just read over the transcript of Romney's interview that was aired on yesterday's Good Morning America.

Interesting to see him answer some difficult questions but I'm not sure he did too well with some of them. I think he was quite hypocritical in his defence of his statement following the tragedy in Libya. He still criticises the embassy's statement as inappropriate even though he goes on to express similar condemnation of the film that sparked the outrage.

MITT ROMNEY: I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment– the good judgment– not to be– not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing.

What's more, a flaw in his economic policy was highlighted. Romney argues that his plan to reduce the deficit will not lead to an increase in tax for the middle class by repeatedly citing a study by Martin Feldstein. However, Feldstein's study argues that Romney's plan will reduce the deficit IF local tax reductions for those earning $100,000 dollars is eliminated from the plan. Romney then admits that he never actually read the study even though he seems willing to defend his economic policy with it.

I think his belief that he won't have to raise taxes for the middle class might have something to do with who he considers to be in the middle class bracket.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That’s principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

Out of touch much?

Oregano_State

Amerika wrote: »

Agreed, and it would be a shame of Romney (failure at the art of political campaigning) lost to Obama (failure as a president) simply because of his, or his campaign staffs, campaigning skills. I guess it would be better for Romney to just give speeches from a teleprompter and refuse to take questions from reporters.

In short, how exactly has he failed?

In general he's tried to deliver on his promises, and while the economy still isn't where it should be, it's not in the clusterf*ck it was when he came into office.

Am I wrong?

Lantus

Romney really highlights the huge flaws in US politics. For a country that extolls democracy its essentially a 2 party state with both parties run like massive corporations offerring to make the public 'rich' if they vote for them.

Presidents are part salesman and part showman in entertaining us but lack any sort of technical knowledge or ability to solve problems. They are essentially stupid and corrupt. In that respect Romney fits the bill perfectly.

The USA has such a poor system of democracy its borderline a single party state in all but name. Parties pick politicians, groom and condition them long before the public get any opportunity to select one. The choices are so bad because the parties primary objective is to be re-elected, not to solve problems or make society any better. They are financially driven like any business and business prioritises money over people and environment every day of the week.

Oregano_State

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romney-secret-video-government-dependent


This is absolutely ridiculous. If he manages to overcome this it will be a miracle.

This just confirms my (any many others to be fair) opinion of him as an elitist, who's main aims are to cut taxes for his mega-rich friends and business associates, and wage anothe rwar in the middle east to appease the arms manufacturers who fund him.

How can so many Americans not see him for who he truly is?

nagilum2

Oregano_State wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romney-secret-video-government-dependent


This is absolutely ridiculous. If he manages to overcome this it will be a miracle.

This just confirms my (any many others to be fair) opinion of him as an elitist, who's main aims are to cut taxes for his mega-rich friends and business associates, and wage anothe rwar in the middle east to appease the arms manufacturers who fund him.

How can so many Americans not see him for who he truly is?

You do realize that your last statement could be said nearly word for word about Obama (or pretty much any govt republican or democrat not named Paul or Kucinich), barring the arms manufacturers bit (replace with other corporate cronies)?

Oregano_State

nagilum2 wrote: »

You do realize that your last statement could be said nearly word for word about Obama (or pretty much any govt republican or democrat not named Paul or Kucinich), barring the arms manufacturers bit (replace with other corporate cronies)?

If that's what you want to believe Obama, or any other politician is, that's up to you. I woudn't see myself as and Obama supporter or a democrat per se, I'm just expressing my opinon about Romney, which I'm entitled to do I think.

If you want to interpret the world through "it's all a big conspiracy" lenses, then that's your choice.

Leave me out of it though.

nagilum2

Oregano_State wrote: »

nagilum2 wrote: »

You do realize that your last statement could be said nearly word for word about Obama (or pretty much any govt republican or democrat not named Paul or Kucinich), barring the arms manufacturers bit (replace with other corporate cronies)?

If that's what you want to believe Obama, or any other politician is, that's up to you. I woudn't see myself as and Obama supporter or a democrat per se, I'm just expressing my opinon about Romney, which I'm entitled to do I think.

If you want to interpret the world through "it's all a big conspiracy" lenses, then that's your choice.

Leave me out of it though.

I'll be happy to leave you out of "it", because I never was trying to convince you of "it", because "it" is not my position.

What I essentially said was, Obama is every bit the corrupt politician Romney is, as are most other Republicans and Democrats. Welcome to US politics, where the special interests and donors drive the positions of the candidates. This is far from unique to Romney. Indeed Obama is one of the worst offenders.

I postulate that many of the people who end up voting for Romney will do so because he has yet to demonstrate his corruption at the white house level.

Not that I have any doubt he will, if elected.

Oregano_State

nagilum2 wrote: »

Welcome to US politics, where the special interests and donors drive the positions of the candidates. This is far from unique to Romney. Indeed Obama is one of the worst offenders.

I'm aware of what your point was. And there's no need to welcome me to US politics, just because I'm new to posting here doesn't mean I'm ignorant.

And I know that in the US the official party line in both the dems and republicans is partially driven by the interests of the corporations who fund their campaigns, through Super PACs etc.

It's a by-product of their system that companies who pour huge amounts of money into political campaigns expect a return on their 'investment' in the form of policy and even wars.

I don't agree with it, it's just the way it is.

As far as I know though, Obama has only recently started using a super PAC, and relied mainly on private donations for his 2008 campaign (not 100% sure on that part).

That's not to say he's not succeptible to influence form corporations, I'm just wondering where you're getting your information saying he's "one of the worst offenders".

Denerick

Oregano_State wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romney-secret-video-government-dependent


This is absolutely ridiculous. If he manages to overcome this it will be a miracle.

This just confirms my (any many others to be fair) opinion of him as an elitist, who's main aims are to cut taxes for his mega-rich friends and business associates, and wage anothe rwar in the middle east to appease the arms manufacturers who fund him.

How can so many Americans not see him for who he truly is?

Watch the great American spin machine go into overdrive over the next couple of days. A huge chunk of the country simply believe their own facts, irrespective of what the reality actually is, so as ever this will only really impact the 6 or 7% or so undecided voters.

Brian?

An interesting read. IMO the Romeny campaign is bizarre to say the least. It seems even people in his own camp agree.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81280.html?hp=t1&wpisrc=nl_wonk

Politico leans left, I know. It's not relevant.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

An interesting read. IMO the Romeny campaign is bizarre to say the least. It seems even people in his own camp agree.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81280.html?hp=t1&wpisrc=nl_wonk

Politico leans left, I know. It's not relevant.

Not that it’s not relevant, it’s just the tempest in a teapot du jour.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Not that it’s not relevant, it’s just the tempest in a teapot du jour.

You're going to have to explain that witty quip to me.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

You're going to have to explain that witty quip to me.

Tempest in a Teapot (a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion) Du Jour (made for a particular day).

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Tempest in a Teapot (a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion) Du Jour (made for a particular day).

Wonderful, I'm illuminated.

Which small event has been exaggerated? I posted a critique of Romneys entire campaign. In historical terms Romenys campaign may well prove to be a "storm in a teacup", but right now it's kind of a big deal.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Tempest in a Teapot (a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion) Du Jour (made for a particular day).

Great example of the spin operation at work. 'The liberal media up to their old tricks again, accurately quoting somebody verbatim as they diss 47% of the electorate'. What Romney was really saying was that each and every American is precious, and that the evil government panders to a certain segment of the population. He 'obviously' didn't actually say that 47% of the population were basically slaves and will vote democrat no matter what.

It takes a special kind of kool aid to ignore the huge damage Romney has done to his campaign with this. If this doesn't turn off the independents I'll have completely lost any faith I might still have in the ability of the American Republic to deal with its inherent contradictions in any meaningful way.

joseph brand

Gaffe-prone Mitt Romney asks: why don't airplane windows open?

Maybe his next Lear Jet will have a soft-top. He's an ideas man. Self-made too.

"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no – and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem.

Magic underpants and electric windows on airplanes? Romney 2012.

joseph brand

This Romney clip is straight out of The Office (embarrassing). Joe Scarborough (Republican) does a double face palm and says "sweet jesus!" Cringefest!

"Roll it there Roisin."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SclDiN-lcYE

Amerika

This just in:

2Q Gross Domestic Product is revised down to 1.25% from 1.7%.
http://www.businessinsider.com/final-q3-gdp-2012-9

And Durable orders drop 13.2%.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/us-usa-economy-durables-idUSBRE88Q0S720120927

Yet Obama remains ahead in the polls while Romney continues to be raked over the coals by the majority of the media. I've got to ask... What has the government and media been putting in our water?

Perhaps Mitt Romney is the worst national "politician" we’ve ever seen, but it’s becoming apparent Barack Obama is the worst president we’ve ever seen. I guess it’s lucky for him his excellent "polliticking" compensates for his horrible leadership.

Oregano_State

Amerika wrote: »

This just in:

2Q Gross Domestic Product is revised down to 1.25% from 1.7%.
http://www.businessinsider.com/final-q3-gdp-2012-9

And Durable orders drop 13.2%.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/us-usa-economy-durables-idUSBRE88Q0S720120927

Yet Obama remains ahead in the polls while Romney continues to be raked over the coals by the majority of the media. I've got to ask... What has the government and media been putting in our water?

Perhaps Mitt Romney is the worst national "politician" we’ve ever seen, but it’s becoming apparent Barack Obama is the worst president we’ve ever seen. I guess it’s lucky for him his excellent "polliticking" compensates for his horrible leadership.

Amerika

Not even close! And once again... Bush isn't running, although the Obama supporters somehow thinks he is.

Carcharodon

Not sure where to post this thought, dont want to start another thread.

Romney has been doing a lot of campaigning stating that he is going to be tougher on China, calling on unfair trade practices while Obama has called him out on this, calling on Romneys investments in China.

Obama this week has blocked a proposed ownership of a wind farm in Oregon by a Chinese company due to national security risks as it is next to a naval base.

My question to the right is, since they are against everything Obama does, are they for or against this, very curious as to their reaction.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Not even close!

Started 2 foreign wars, turned a surplus into a deficit, while slashing taxes for the wealthy, ruining our image abroad, reading books upside down, putting food on people's families, etc.

I mean, has Obama had a shoe thrown at him yet?

InTheTrees

Dont get me wrong I'm no fan of the drunken moron bush, but at least he was a politician so he had some slight ability to appeal to people.

Romney on the other hand is just completely out of touch. He's a financier. And he talks with a manner that appears that he considers his listeners to be way beneath him, almost like talking to children. Its like he's talking to the servants.

Which is also why the 47% tape was so revealing because he was speaking quite fluently and clearly to those people.

joseph brand

InTheTrees wrote: »

Dont get me wrong I'm no fan of the drunken moron bush, but at least he was a politician so he had some slight ability to appeal to people.

Romney on the other hand is just completely out of touch. He's a financier. And he talks with a manner that appears that he considers his listeners to be way beneath him, almost like talking to children. Its like he's talking to the servants.

Which is also why the 47% tape was so revealing because he was speaking quite fluently and clearly to those people.

In all seriousness, I would expect no better from a mormon. America having a president who is in a cult? They have plenty of room for improvement.

Romney's religion and wealth have left him lacking basic social skills, integrity and character. AFAIK, there's only a very small minority in the US who could actually relate to him on any level.

Brian?

nagilum2 wrote: »

Nice attempt at a diversion from joseph brand's racist statement but in fairness, if someone on these boards had said either of the following, charges of racism from all sides would follow and the person might even get a ban:




The double standard is amazing.

Nit picking I know, but Mormonism, Judaism and Islam are Religions not races. It's sectarianism and not racism to judge someone based on their religion.

nagilum2

briankeating wrote: »

Nit picking I know, but Mormonism, Judaism and Islam are Religions not races. It's sectarianism and not racism to judge someone based on their religion.

Yes, and actually I agree completely with you. I don't think it should really be called "racism".

However in the past when I've brought up this very point on these boards, I've been directed to the official UN human rights position which subsumes racism, sectarianism, and xenophobia under the same convention on on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, adopted in 1966.

Brian?

nagilum2 wrote: »

Yes, and actually I agree completely with you. I don't think it should really be called "racism".

However in the past when I've brought up this very point on these boards, I've been directed to the official UN human rights position which subsumes racism, sectarianism, and xenophobia under the same convention on on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, adopted in 1966.

I never knew that, thanks.

I would also add that having a pop at Romney for being a Mormon is a cheap shot IMO, there is plenty about the man to dislike without going there.