Considering that he'll probably only get about 4% of the black vote no matter what he does, it really wouldn't be time or money well spent trying to reach out to black voters.

I just can't fathom not making the effort as an operating principle of Romney's or a conscious omission. The presence and support of black Americans should be more than just a political hook for these folks who intend to lead the nation.

And, I am a bit surprised that he'd be so ignorant. If I was a voter considering his candidacy and the state of his appeal to African-Americans, I'd ignore him right off the bat -- he's, in effect, ignoring me.

to their message. Sure it may not be right, but do you think it would be wise for Pres. Obama to spend millions advertising in Utah? I'm sure if either Romney or Obama thought they had a chance with those constituencies they would reach out to them, but they don't so you gotta play the game as it is.

It's about principle. How does he purport to represent America if he starts his presidential bid so indifferent or outright ignorant of the 12.6% who are black that he can't be bothered to recruit any representatives in his campaign?

The 'game' he's playing is exclusion.

you, and pretty much everyone else, would probably think he's just pandering and doesn't care about black people anyway. Its really a no-win situation. The argument could be made both ways. There's a reason Pres. Obama doesn't campaign in deep-red states like Louisiana and Idaho, and one could say he's ignoring that part of the country as well. I personally would like to see politicians campaigning everywhere trying to reach out to every group in the country, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Anyhow Romney's message doesn't appeal to most blacks anyway and voting patterns prove it. Those blacks who like his message will vote for him whether or not he reaches out to the black community as a whole any way.

wrong is wrong.

Romney's wrong for ignoring black Americans; he's wrong for not having an agenda that blacks could find room to support; he wrong for not even making an effort to recruit blacks to his campaign. That's just on the face of his presidential bid.

To compare that stark and blatant omission of Romney's to President's Obama's campaign and the money they won't put in states in which they have little chance electorally is just completely unrelated. It's also a bit false. I've seen the President campaign in 'red' states. I haven't seen Romney reach out to African-Americans.

Romney's message doesn't appeal to African-Americans. That's exactly the point. I do think that any outreach at this point would be pandering. I do think that he should be called out on this at every opportunity.

I really don't know what your point is in being so blithe and dismissive about it.

Uhm, yeah that's my point as well. His policies don't appeal to black voters. He doesn't have to change his policies just because of that. Its an election, candidates need votes, why would you expect someone to reach out to voters who would never vote for them anyway? Common sense, my friend. Pres. Obama has visited red states, but its to meet with his supporters. I don't think you'll be seeing him campaigning in Cajun Country anytime soon. Its the exact same thing as what Romney is doing. Simple politics.

. . . like we're some political analysts or something, and let this man off of the hook. he should be reminded of his obligation to ALL Americans at every opportunity.

Maybe you're accustomed to brushing off the fact that politicians don't see the need to make appeals to your interests and content with letting them be comfortable in that. I'm outraged.

And you keep misrepresenting the President's efforts. he's campaigned in red states and he will do so again, so it's nonsense to try and equate that with Romney's (deliberate) ignorance.

Say, how about another try at downplaying this? or maybe you've made your point?

They didn't even allow blacks into the priesthood until what was it? 1973 or something?

They pretend to not be now that prejudice is not acceptable, but they are still very stuck on the idea that black people are slaves.

I hate to put it like that, but that is the way I've seen Mormons act. Look at Glen Beck.

As someone who is mixed-race and was raised a Mormon, i can tell you most Mormons i know, almost all white, never showed me or my family any form of prejudice. What's ultimately in their hearts and minds, no one can say, but at least on the outside almost all Mormons i know are pretty tolerant of blacks and hispanics.

I'm glad you are defending your faith, but I stand by my assertion. You know it, and I know it.

I know what i've gone through in life, my membership in an online forum doesn't change that.

Okay. Doesn't change my opinion one whit.

what I related:

BETWEEN 1966 and 1968, Romney was a missionary in France. Blacks weren't allowed to be considered for priesthood in the church until 1978. Just what was Romney teaching those kids about his religion's bizarrely exclusionary, if not racist, doctrine regarding blacks?

In an extremely loose explanation, the Mormon church's leader, Brigham Young, took to heart an interpretation of the bible which said God had put a negative 'mark' on some which he believed applied to the dark color of skin. His doctrine extended to any amount of blood in an individual which came from Africans.

from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

An early statement by Young about a priesthood ban in the LDS Church was made on February 13, 1849. The statement — which refers to the Curse of Cain as the reason for the policy — was given in response to the question, "What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro?" Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."

In 1852, while addressing the Utah Territorial Legislature, Young stated, "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain ... in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."

On June 9, 1978, then-church president Spencer Kimball announced the he'd had a revelation that the church's policy toward blacks should be changed.

Current church president Gordon Hinckley, who as a high church official in 1978 was present during the priesthood revelation, described the event in a 1988 magazine article: "No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls. & All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens."

Earth's? Or the planet Mitt gets when he croaks?