It seems like every day, Rushpubliscums get just a little closer to openly voicing their only campaign plank-namely, that one should vote against the President because of his ethnicity. It’s been the fuel of their ideology since 2008, and is the de facto cause of the rise of the Klanbaggers.

A little closer every day. Like, REALLY close, as you can see.


The full, profoundly articulate quote from the unnamed Romney adviser, who also saidthat Romney “would abandon Obama’s “Left-wing” coolness toward London: “We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.”

It’s special! Don’t you get it, people!? Noting that some might construe the comment as racially insensitive, the Telegraph also writes that one Romney adviser said that the former Massachusetts Governor is “better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Obama.”

Perhaps the adviser went on to discuss Romney’s lineage, which traces to England, Scotland, and Germany. Maybe the adviser said that Romney’s family frequently dines at Medieval Times (of course they don’t). Absent greater context, the adviser seems to suggest by “better placed” that Obama, a black guy with a Kenyan father, is incapable of a Romney-level understanding of the U.S.-Britain Anglo-Saxon heritage.

To boot, the pair of advisers were unable to provide the Telegraph with “detailed examples of how policy towards Britain would differ under Romney.” Nevertheless, Romney would understand the heck out of shared problems and other Anglo-Saxon things.


Granted, this interview was in a London paper, but that was also deliberate. Willard wanted to get a statement like this out, for Klanbagger consumption, but he didn’t want the American media to run with it-which they won’t. It falls right in line with his “free stuff” remark a couple of weeks ago, and this time, he gave himself a little plausible deniability by letting “unnamed sources” in his campaign make the remark, in the unlikely event that he ever had to explain it.

But he doesn’t have to explain it at all, does he? We get it. Right?


Tweet this via