Rep. Moran (D-VA): GOP won in 2010 because 'a lot of people' don't want black president

[pampango]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2011/01/moran_2010_gop_victories_happe.html

Moran said that Democratic losses in the 2010 elections ...

... happened because of the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. The Civil War happened because the Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn't want to see a president who was opposed to slavery. In this case a lot of people in this country, I believe, don't want to be governed by an African American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. That's a basic philosophical clash.

The full interview with Alhurra, which appeared to take place after Tuesday night's State of the Union address, can be viewed here, with the passage in question coming after the 3-minute mark. As Rubin points out in her post, the "slaveholding states" Moran references include his home state of Virginia.

"With nearly 1,000 identified hate groups in the U.S. and recent studies showing a majority of Americans believe racism is still widespread against African Americans, it is no secret that our country has and continues to struggle with racial equality," said Moran spokeswoman Anne Hughes in a statement. "The Congressman was expressing his frustration with this problem and the role it played in the last election."

"Rather than ignore this issue or pretend it isn't there, the Congressman believes we are better off discussing it in order to overcome it," Hughes said. "Rep. Moran believes that despite these pervasive problems, President Obama has the ability to make this a more unified, diverse, and stronger country."

[justiceischeap]

1. While there is a lot of truth in that statement, that isn't the reason for the losses

low-voter turnout was the reason. Period. If the younger bunch that were so successful in getting Obama elected in the first place had turned out, this discussion would be moot, though still true.

[Gaedel]

3. So much easier to explain losses

If you can blame it on some external factor.

You avoid doing uncomfortable things like examining what could WE have done, had not done, or have done differently to change the outcome.

President Obama didn't change from 2008 to 2010, so just maybe it was something to do with the party.

[struggle4progress]

4. +

[FBaggins]

2. Riiight...

They just didn't know that he was black when they voted for him two years earlier.

[naaman fletcher]

5. This makes no sense.

If the majority didn't want a black president, the majority would not have elected a black president.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. They must think that Obama is

blacker than he appeared to be in 2008.

[Statistical]

8. +1. Made me chuckle. It is hard to provide an explanation for stupid. n/t

[AmericanMan1958]

7. Another Dino,,,,,

Could it be that this Dino said what he said to give the right-winger a great talking point?
This is the second time in the last few day I have seen this tactic played...
The 1st was a tea party leader call out a Dem on Chris Matthew show
Saying no call him out when he mas a stupid statement about Guam's military base.
Just so happens this democratic Representative was from GA.
We all know, no real progressive Democratic Candidate would ever be elected in GA.
Just a thought.....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Relatively few people who wouldn't vote for a black man would vote for a Democrat.

So while Obama's race may have been a contributory factor, I think it's unlikely to have been a major one.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Get a brain!