Politics & Society

Romney Steps Aside

Lee, here...

As you might know by now, there are new developments in the race for '08. Mitt Romney has announced that he is bowing out, or "suspending" his GOP presidential campaign. In pretty strong words (and maybe the most energetic that we've heard from him, until now), says that remaining in the race would hinder the Republican party's bid for the White House and, in turn, increase the chances of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama winning the presidency ... which would translate into "aiding a surrender to terror."

Talk about famous last words.

And, check in with us as we wrap up the week in our Political Chat, we'll talk about the Latino vote. According to CNN exit polls on Super Tuesday, Clinton overwhelmingly won the Hispanic vote in California (69 percent, compared to Obama's 29 percent) and New York (73 percent, compared to Obama's 26 percent). But some dispute any assumptions that Latinos feel closer to Clinton as a candidate. We plan to bring you two Latino voices who'll offer a unique perspective on this...

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Romney gone - thank goodness! Here's the deal about Mitt Romney: I never got who he was exactly. He was pro-choice, then he's pro-life. He's all about the economy a couple of weeks ago to try and get the Florida vote with ads showing his business acumen. Then he leaves or "suspends" his presidential campaign on his support for the war on terror but he never served in the military.

And don't get me started on the theatrics he did in Florida to try to fit in with the diverse demographics. One especially at a Martin Luther King Parade left me covering my face from the TV; Stephen Colbert said it best: "Is Romney retarded."

American politics aside, I listened to your program yesterday about the Kenya conflict and the misuse of words such as tribal, ethnic, etc. I agree with one of your panelists that those words relating to any conflict in Africa really makes me want to take the media to task for a very lazy approach to the news.

Tribes are not just based on language. It reminded me of what a new person coming into my family by marriage asked me last December. When she was told my distinctive features were based on my parents coming from different tribes, she asked me what language was spoken in my house growing up. "English" I replied with a twinkle in my eye (I guess she didn't know I was born in the States but it wouldn't have mattered if I wasn't, that would still be the language). "Oh." She answered.

Just like we have "race" in the United States, there are tribes in the African continent. The differences in tribes could be separated by religion, cultures, government and yes, sometimes language and/or dialect. For example, the northern tribes of my parents country are for the most part, muslims. The east are christians and there's a mixture of both religions in the south and west. Of course, when you go to the northern part, you find some regions headed by Emirs and the west by Kings.

The Kenya crisis started by a hotly contested and as some folks felt, a rigged election. It might have excalated due to a perceived ethnic or class friction with the cronies of the politicians in the election. But the U.S quickly calling it an Ethnic cleansing is ridiculous. Hel-lo Kenya, before this crisis was known as one of the most peaceful and highly civilized countries in Africa. How in the world did it turn to a place like Sudan all of a sudden?

Sent by Moji | 11:43 AM | 2-8-2008

About