It’d be too right to get Mitt Romney to admit he ran a bad campaign, which led to his opponent handedly beating him in this year’s presidential election. Instead, Romney reiterated sentiments echoed in his “47 percent commentary” this week in a conference call with campaign donors. The Los Angeles Times reports that Romney attributed President Barack Obama’s re-election to “the gifts” the Administration had given to Blacks, Hispanics, and young voters during Obama’s first term. Romney claimed that Obama had been “very generous” to those groups, which supposedly got us all riled up at the polls.
I asked Obama via Twitter where my gift was. I’ll let y’all know what he says when he gets back to me.
Not to be outdone, Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan also engaged in an exercise in both hubris and haughty by whining about the role the “urban vote” played in their loss.
In his first post-election sit-down interview with CBS affiliate WISC-TV in Wisconsin, Ryan claimed, ”I think the surprise was some of the turnout, especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race.” As for whether or not silly things like the issues might have factored in too, a dismissive Ryan noted, ”I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn’t lose it on those issues.”
Actually, they lost on both the rural, largely White states too.
Isn’t it mystifying how moronic Republicans have been with their “shock” of “urban voters” turning out in droves? And why? Most of us with melanin who regularly speak with each other already knew that these various Voter ID laws intent on suppressing our vote would encourage us to storm the polls. Same for Romney’s “government leeching Blacks” talking point. Now it’s been confirmed.
That leads us to the question: What exactly will the GOP do about it now?
As 2016 presidential prospects hop and skip away from Romney’s latest dabble in damning commentary, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida has reportedly requested a review of his state’s voting processes, particularly with an emphasis on areas where voters waited four hours or longer to cast their ballots.
In a statement, Scott said:
We are glad that so many voters made their voices heard in this election, but as we go forward we must see improvements in our election process. I have asked Secretary of State Ken Detzner to review this general election and report on ways we can improve the process after all the races are certified.
Scott went on to add:
We need to make improvements for Florida voters and it is important to look at processes on the state and the county level. We will carefully review suggestions for bettering the voting process in our state.
Yeah, about that.
There’s a reason why Florida consistently has voter drama every presidential election cycle, and the reason is because of their unreliable baby daddy: GOP leadership. It’s not a coincidence that Florida limited their two weeks of early voting to eight days. Now that it’s backfired, suddenly Scott has had a change of heart. That’s nice in theory, but the person he’s put in charge of investigating Florida’s electoral problems has already made comments that suggests he doesn’t really think there’s reason for one:
In an interview with CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield, Detzner expressed no regrets of limiting early voting and voting hours, which caused Florida voters to be disenfranchised.
Well, let me point out that, while the days were cut, the number of hours were not. We still maintained 96 hours of voting, and it created greater flexibility for the supervisors. Uh, for the first time ever voters could vote during the day for 12 hours during the day, and I can tell you I heard feedback from voters going into election day that they liked the opportunity to vote either in the morning before work or after work. And frankly, I think the turnout is a good representation of the fact that people liked the voting hours and the flexibility that the supervisors had.
That’s a false equivalency and a sign that many have reason to worry about future elections.
Meanwhile, Romney campaign Wisconsin co-chair, Sen. Alberta Darling (R), told Milwaukee’s ABC affiliate that Mitt would have “absolutely” won the election if the state’s voter ID law hadn’t been blocked. How, “I would’ve gotten away with it if it weren’t for your meddling kids of her to say.”
In other words, while Scott may be paying lip service to the consequences of voter suppression efforts, thus far, most of his GOP brethren seem more interested in tending to their hurt feelings. And what do hurt people do? Apparently, they continue to alienate the future voting blocs that will play even bigger roles in deciding presidential elections sooner rather than later. As frustrating as that is, at least we know how the story tends to end.
Do Some Republicans Have Second Thoughts On Voter Suppression? was originally published on newsone.com