In a different world I would like to see Reid quit. However, in the world we live in this would be disastrous. Another dem, untainted by Washington but of the same mindset, would run for his seat and maybe win. Who can tell about the electorate? Sometimes I think we are our own worse enemy.

Harry Reid, Obama: ‘Light-Skinned’ with ‘No Negro Dialect’ Comment (Video)…

There is another scandal involving the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He referred to Barack Obama as ‘light-skinned’ with ‘no Negro dialect’. The comment was made in connection with Reid being excited at the prospect of the …

This is just another double standard that the democrats pose. I have seen Republicans do it also. However, they is a recent article that does explain this. It is about people having to much power it is at: http://bit.ly/5nNCCB. So not surprising that this is happening. This is why we need a change in government. A demand for a new direction toward protectionism. I talk about it in my blog chrisfromneenah.blogspot.com. Both Democrats and Republicans and all other Americans can agree. NO MORE FREE TRADE. Bring back the jobs to America.

Yeah, perfect said dear, we are our own enemy!!!! If we can control our mind and words we can have a better life.

Does this mean that Reid is a knuckle draggin’ redneck ignorant conservative tea bagging “racist” too? Heck if we can be called all these names for being conservative, what do you call the Senate majority leader who is racist?

I am a foreigner with a rather poor English, so I don’t have a real sense of how hard hitting those words can be for the average american citizen.
But what was exactly the offense? Mr. Reid said “light-skinned” with no “negro” dialect.
Mr. Obama is indeed a light skinned black (or half black) person and he speaks very elocuently, so Reid simply said what is obvious.

It is a fact that unfortunately, african americans tend to be in the lower classes, and it’s no wonder they have a poorer education. This is due to historical and social reasons that I’m not going to discuss here.

Should society simply pretend that this is not true?
Is that what it means being politically correct? Ignoring reality and using euphemisms?
Should we say “african american” instead of simply black? What’s wrong with accepting that indeed, african americans are black??
I imagine that perhaps “negro” has a negative connotation in English. In Spanish it simply means “black”. Black is a color, there is nothing to be ashamed about.

If I were an coloured man, a succesful coloured man with a brilliant personality, and someone called me negro I would just say “yes, so?”.

I mean, aren’t you all drawning in a glass of water?

VERY GOOD ARTICLE WELL WRITTEN AN PUT TOGETHER FOR
MORE LIKE THIS http://bloggnet.co.cc/

If conservatives do not understand the difference between Reid (an early Obama supporter) touting him as a good presidential candidate and VIABLE because of how he looks and how he speaks (at a time when may Dem voters, Black and Clintonian alike, did NOT think him viable), versus Trent Lott looking back wistfully and wishing that child rapist/segregationist Strom Thurmond had won the 1948 election and, conceivably, set back desegregation efforts another decade or so . . . .

People, let’s get real! Trent Lott was an unreconstructed backer of the Southern Partisan crowd and the proudly racist White Citizens Council . . . Oh, sorry . . . I forgot they renamed themselves the CONSERVATIVE Citizens Council. My bad.

Honestly, cons, the GOP has about as many minority backers as would attend your average Klan meeting. The Dems, in contrast, nominated and then ELECTED the first minority president, with about 95% backing of Blacks and Hispanic and Asian support in the high 70s. Obama nominated a hyperqualified, experienced, Ivy League credentialed Hispanic to the Supreme Court, and what was the GOP response? To call her “unqualified” and question whether she knew English! What the fcuk is wrong with you people?

Cons, this is NOT a fight you want to have, comparing the sentiment toward minorities in the two parties when you had a flat out racist Tom Tancredo running for your nomination, GOP congressment referring to Obama as “uppity”, overtly racist signs at McCain/Palin rallies and tea bagger rallies alike, and Stormfront.org backing your candidate! Just let this one go . . . because it will only make you look even worse!

@Luis González:
I totally agree Luis. I would like to have you come to our social network at http://www.heywhateversocial.info. You have the perfect thought process for our positive attitude social network. Too many times people make a big deal out of words rather than looking at the true heart of the matter. What really is going on here is that Reid is bringing out a specific truth that is to the Democratics advantage. However, what you may not know behind the lines is, if he did say what he said, it is probably because he care more about how Obama looked to others rather than solely on his ideas and character. These days in America, sad to say, it is as important how you look as much as what you believe in or your true convictions. Again, both parties do this way too much.

chrisfromneenah —

You wrote —

“These days in America, sad to say, it is as important how you look as much as what you believe in or your true convictions.”

The idea that you write that, given the history of Jim Crow and segregation and discrimination and slavery and antimiscegination laws in this country, all of which had as a FIRST PRINCIPAL that “how you look” is determinative of your life chances and the choices you could make about your own future, shows that you are either being increadibly obtuse for partisan purposes, or you are stunningly ignorant. Which is it?

I do believe that looks play a role. That is why I am sad. It shouldn’t be that way. Also, I believe that people can rise above how they look. Yes, everyone doesn’t have the same chance at first but I know that I don’t look like Mr. Universe but I feel confident in myself and in my own talents that I will excel. I am going to encourage everyone I can talk to to do the same. If you don’t think this is possible, then go ahead stay negative. See how far you get and who surrounds you in the end.

Brainless rob, every time you post you hurt your cause and your side of the aisle.
You are ignorant in the extreme and serve up endless meatball pitches that Mata or the other posters hit into orbit with monotonous regularity.

I’m surprised some other moonbat hasn’t come here to declare you a Rovian plant whose sole purpose is to make the left look bad. You are to logic what Ted Kennedy was to being a lifeguard.

As was stated above, the DEMS were the ones to create all kinds of segregationist laws. It was the DEMS who trailed significantly to the Reps in their support of the Civil Rights Act.

To Luis Gonzalez:

Yes, Negro is used frequently in Spanish and it has a better connotation than in English in the United States. Yet it is offensive. I could not call Che Negro to Chavez. Many educated Hispanics who have studied American history and understand the meaning of this word would rather use the word ‘moreno’ and not “negro”.

Words have meanings and what the Progressive liberals are trying to establish is that there is a double standard as to what a conservative white can say and as to what a “liberal’ white can say. The Liberals are trying to hijack and to corner the words racists as mean to describe white conservatives only. So, if white conservatives oppose the President: You are racist!….if the media portraits the President in a negative way: you are racist. If you protest to defend the constitution of the country you so love: you are racist! but never when liberals do it.

Patvann —

The only thing sillier than your posts is . . . well, there may not be anything more silly than that.

Where to start. The Jim Crow laws. One thing you obviously know nothing about is the breadth of the state sponsored segregation. You had Jim Crow laws throughout the South, and the same kinds of laws in the North. But one thing is obviously so: you had Jim Crow in ANY STATE that was controlled by conservatives. For example, Ohio was not a Dem state, yet you had extensive segregation in housing. Indiana, which had no Dems in the 20s, was the headquarters of the Klan. The South and Southwest? Fugidaboutit!

So fast forward to the 1960s. You have the March on Washington. Truman desegregated the military, Eisenhower and Kennedy did their part, now there is a press for more extensive civil rights laws. After Kennedy died, the Dem President Johnson twisted arms aplenty to pass the civil rights laws.

There were some arms he did not have to twist, of course. Northern GOPers, moderate GOPers (y’all call them “RINOS” now) and liberal and moderate Dems — they all backed the new laws.

But you want to guess who opposed all the Civil Rights Acts? The conservatives. Bill Buckley wrote articles praising the quasi-enslavement of Blacks by their “betters”, the chaw-chewing rednecks of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, etc. Robert Bork wrote articles about how it was an afront to “freedom” to force states to treat Black people equally to whites. And the GOP platform in 1964, and its standard bearer, Barry Goldwater, opposed ending those last elements of slavery. But it was conservatives of the Democratic stripe who REALLY fought against the anti-segregation efforts. And the New York City salon conservatives? They clinked their martini glasses together and gave a rousing cheer for the continued second class citizenship of the Africans in their midst.

So there it is, Patvann — no matter how you try to spin it, it wasn’t “Democrats” who opposed the end of Jim Crow, or Republicans: it was “conservatives”. A Dem president signed the statutes, for God’s sake, and tons of Dems voted for it. Lots of Rockefeller Republicans and Yankees, too. No, son, it was CONSERVATIVES who opposed the end of quasi-slavery, most because they were flat out racist, some in the name of “freedom” — freedom for White folks, that is. Liberals and moderates of both parties, thank God, drowned out their ignorant cries. But it is the conservative party, the GOP, that still has not lived down being on the wrong side of justice. And with the “enlightened” leadership the party has now, it most likely never will come to terms with being flat out wrong.

Chihuahua, Patvann and Hard Right —

Larry Elder is a friend of a friend. That said, he is being intentionally obtuse. And you all know it, too.

It was CONSERVATIVES who opposed the Civil Rights Acts . . . you know . . . YOU GUYS! Some of the opponants were Dems and some were GOPers. But they were all CONSERVATIVES!

Indeed, all of those conservative Dems, the ones who opposed the Civil Rights Act, they all moved to the GOP. Which is why there are very few White Dems in the South anymore. Conversely, the Yankee Republicans are all Dems now . . . which is why there are practically no GOPers from Maine all the way down to Jersey.

And I noticed one thing — y’all didn’t even bother to address what I wrote, which is why the Harry Reid comment was NOT the same as Trent Lott cheering on the forces of segregation. But then again, he was one of the good ole boys who rioted at the University of Mississippi when the feds tried to enroll James Meredith. Trent Lott threw his lot in with the White/Conservative Citizens Council and Southern Partisans. A leopard does not change its spots.

Mata —

Please identify what I said that was “racist”. Is it “racist” to note that Trent Lott was pro-segregation? Or that Strom Thurmond was a child rapist and a segregationist? And that is who Trent Lott was praising?

And the rest of you — I still don’t see anyone explaining to me why it was OK for Trent Lott to wish the segregationist had won over the pro-integration Truman. But spew away with more revisionist history, folks! Spew away!

@ Mata —

If I had actually said anything remotely close to being “racist” you could quote it verbatim. But, no, you did not because you cannot.

I like your self-reverential dissertation about how open minded you are and how “all” your Black friends” didn’t like desegregation when they were teenagers — as if the feelings of a bunch of 16 year olds is a sensible way for the United States to set public policy.

You skip trip trop all over the place, think you are insulting me, but avoid the central point of my post. In case you didn’t “get” it, here it is:

The GOP should tend to its own sordid racial history (foisted on the party of Lincoln by its conservatives) before trying to make hay out of an INTERESTING comment made by a SUPPORTER of the country’s first Black president.

You cons LOVE to post about how the Dems are the racist party. Your hero Glen Beck called our president a racist on Fox News, then when challenged to explain what the fcuk he meant by the phrase “White culture” (a phrase right out of Stormfront.org — sorry about the .com link). A number of your leaders called an Ivy League educated federal judge with close to 20 years experience on the bench a “racist” based on her calling herself a “wise Latina” — but the charge against her was led by Jeff Sessions, a guy disqualified from the federal bench because he referred to Black men as “boy” and chastised a Black lawyer for the way he talked to “White folks”. A GOP congressman called the President “uppity” during the campaign — a word that many Black writers noted is usually followed by the “n word.” Tom Tancredo. Pat Buchanan . . . need I even say more?

There is a reason that minorities of all backgrounds — South Asian, Korean, Chinese, Mexican, Honduran, Jamaican, Black . . . you name it — avoid the GOP like the plague. It is because of the racist and racially insensitive history of the modern GOP and its leadership. If you guys tossed the racists out of your party with half the gusto that you toss moderates overboard, you could remake yourself into something that the SOCIALLY CONSERVATiVE pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-welfare middle and upper class minorities might want to associate with. Instead, you look at the McCain/Palin rallies (check YouTube’s link of the rally in Strongsville, Ohio, my old hometown) and the tea bagger rallies. The racists signs get applauded, not shunned. THAT is why the GOP gets very few Hispanics and Asians, even though the rhetoric is anti-Black — because if you are so racist against Blacks in public, what would those Asians and Hispanics think you say about them when they are not around? That is why no Black people run as Republicans ANYWHERE, especially the South — because the GOP has become the last haven for the White racist. And everyone knows it. It is time for the GOP to tend to its own garden and stop worrying about the supposed weeds in the Dems camp.

— Chihuahua

As I always tell my lady friend, “I am right about 85% of the time.” You are right about the 1964 GOP platform. It DID state some support for the civil rights acts. mea culpe

But Barry Goldwater, the lead candidate, opposed it. And so did the National Review. The Klan and the White Citizens Council (later called the Conservative Citizens Council) agreed with them. And Trent Lott was a riot leader at Oxford. And Strom Thurmond, the man Lott lionized, was pro-segregation and against any mixing of the racists . . . unless it involved a 15 year old virgin who worked in his house, that is. Then he was all about the mixing.
http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/themes/FA-aspire/images/send.gif
But my bigger point, of course, cannot be disputed — it was conservatives who threw their lot in with the pro-segregation side. The GOP, for its own reasons, to this day refuses to cut the cords with the unreconstructed elements of the party. And that is why, to a large extent, the word “conservative” is equated with “white” in this country — just like the White Citizens Council implied when it changed its name. It is why you champion the flag of racists traitors, the stars and bars. It is why GOP Congressmen tacitly support the whole birther nonsense. You guys just can’t seem to “quit” those dad gum White racist elements. And your minority voting percentage quickly slides toward 25%, and the percentage of young Whites voting R. is starting to cluster around the same dismal number, too.

But you guys simply don’t want to deal with that, do you? It explains the weak attempt to make hay with the Reid remark. But why you wanted to remind us of Trent Lott . . . that escapes me.

Missy —

Those terrorist acts were perpetrated by conservatives, Dems and GOPers alike. Liberal and moderate Dems and GOers were the ones doing the sit ins, risking and losing their lives ti FINALLY free the slaves. Conservatives, alas, sided with the Klan. That is the history that you cannot obfuscate by calling them “Dems” — as if those were NY Dems and Cali. Dems perpetrating the Klan murders and bombings in the name of “states rights.”

And nothing says “racially insensitive” better than Ronald Reagan praising states rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi, practically on top of the burial site of Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner. Reagan . . . the man you cons lionize as “what a president should be.” Wonder how many generations of Black voters the GOP lost with the symbolism of that speech . . . but I digress.

Aye Chihuahua you are one of the few that make sense here. All this talk about DEMS being conservative and all conservatives are racist is ridiculous. I am very conservative but I don’t believe in all of what the Republicans are doing and what they did back in the 60s or before. I know a lot of my friends who are conservative think the same way. The south is where you had more of the slavery because that was their upbringing and they got sucked into the lies. Now Democrats are sucked into the lie that they are pro-minority. That is so hogwash. If you talk to any self made minority and I mean someone who was on their own and made it mostly because of their hard work, they will tell you that Democrats only coddle to the minorities by promising them all these handouts and advantages over others. So really who is the racist here. I believe we need to stop looking at color across the board no white, no african american, no hispanic, no native american. It is those that point out those differences that are racist. Now if the differences are pointed out before hand by someones comments or rude actions yes I agree then to speak out against racism. However, to insight racism just because one is a minority and there is disagreement is ridiculous. I am glad that we haven’t gotten to that YET with Obama. There is a lot I disagree with for what he is doing but if anyone calls me a racist for doing it then they are the biggest racist yet and is the reason why racism is so strong. That is causing more desegregation these days than anything. And to the person who said that African Americans don’t run for the Republican Party, I just googled it and took one of the first links and found over a hundred Republican African Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_Republicans . Oh it is easy to type out supposed facts, it is another to bring them out accurately

B-Rob

How about the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 and 1854? Democrats supported and passed them into law!

The Missouri Compromise was another Democrat beauty as well as The Kansas Nebraska Act; the Dred Scott and the Jim Crow Laws. The amendments to end slavery, make black slaves citizens and to give blacks the right to vote were opposed by Democrats. Democrats also rejected the Civil Rights Act of 1866/ 1875 and 1964!

I call that a pattern and and is sad to see that the Blacks in America have not been able to free themselves from crap who call themselves Democrats or Commies these days.

The Commie intellects of the USSR wanted to dominate the masses and I am telling you, I am not going to let a commie drive the United States to the ground like you are trying to do.
You are such a looser, you talk like one and act like too!
Go to Cuba or Venezuela! I hear that Commies there love looser like yourself. Sorry you cannot make it to China, they are too smart for your pissed brain.

MataHarley, my soon to be ex-wife’s physician is a Black woman. Drives a Saab, son in private school, lives in a $400,000 brick house, attends church regularly and sings in the choir. She should be a GOPer by any measure. Want to know why she isn’t? Here is what you wrote:

“They [Black voters] just look at your party, which promises them gas in their car, heating oil, affirmative action reverse discrimination, and all their needs that will be provided by the neighboring rich guy who has more than they do. Social justice, you promise. You cater to a freeloader mentality, and promise they have no need for responsibility of self because government will be there in event they trip. Sounds like sheer nirvana to most.”

You took in idiotic video of like five poor Black people and you just judged the voting habits of 35 million Black people — lawyers, doctors, and accountants alike — by what you saw on that video.

That is what YOU THINK is the reason middle class and upper class Black people don’t vote GOP? You think it is because they have “a freeloader mentality” and enjoy having “no need for responsibility of self because government will be there in event they trip”? You think that is what Black people call “nirvana”? Please explain yourself. Who planted this “theory” in your brain? And have you ever actually TALKED TO any upper middle class Black people and asked them why they would rather be boiled in olive oil than give money to a GOP candidate?

Mata, it is because of people like you that Black people, Hispanics and Asians stay away from the GOP — in droves. You think any Hispanic people reading your remarks would not wonder what you think about THEM? You pejoratively judged people who worked their a$$es off to get through college and grad school — you judged them by a video of a few losers in one city? This is no different than the screeds we heard from the likes of Rush Limbaugh (college drop out), Glen Beck (no college), Karl Rove (college drop out) and Pat Buchanan (mediocre student) about Phi Beta Kappa Princeton grad, Yale Law Review editor and federal appellate court judge Sonia Sotomayor being “a racists” and not being “smart enough” in their judgment, to sit of the court next to White males who had half her credentials when they were elevated to the court. What do you think Black professionals thought when they heard that nonsense? Indeed, what do you think college educated White voters thought?

I was at a Thanksgiving dinner in 2002, chatting with a Black professional. I explained to him that, socioeconomically speaking, all Black professionals should be GOPers. But as I said at the time, the reason they aren’t is “Trent Lott and the unreconstructed racists in the party.” Then less that two weeks later, Trent made his statement praising the child rapist/segregationist Strom Thurmond. And my point was proved again. Alas, you just proved my point, too. Until the GOP rids itself of people like Trent Lott and, apparently, you, it wil continue to look like a meeting of a Alabama klavern instead of a viable political party.

Aye Chihuahua —

You say it is an “insult” to America to claim that Obama would not have been elected if he was darker and spoke differently. I have a suggestion for you:

call up some Black professionals you might know — friends, relatives, acquantances, vendors, whatever — and ask them what they think about Reid’s comments. My guess: 95% of them will agree with what Reid said. If you don’t think that Obama’s speaking abilities DIDN’T make him electable, I think you are naive.

I leave you with this from Ramesh Ponnuru:

“Lott’s comment implied that the country would have been better off keeping segregation and enforced white supremacy. What Reid said isn’t within a lightyear of that.”

@Donald Bly: One way BLOB keeps us from being more effective in reaching the Indepedents and other less well informed potential voters is by wasting our time in response to his moonbattery.

While I commend my fellow F.A. commenters and contributors for their efforts to respond to this Soros puppet, I really do feel our time would be better spent posting new information that would reach thousands and not waste our time responding to one lone loon.

Having said that, I’ll take just a few seconds to dredge up once again the real face of the Democrat Party: Robert Byrd, elected Exalted Cyclops of the KKK (an arm of the Democrat Party):

A Senator’s Shame
Byrd, in His New Book, Again Confronts Early Ties to KKK

West Virginia Democrat Robert C. Byrd, in his Senate office last week, has written a new book about his half-century in elective office. A fiddler and a student of history, Byrd has served twice as Senate majority leader. (By Melina Mara — The Washington Post)

By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 19, 2005

In the early 1940s, a politically ambitious butcher from West Virginia named Bob Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. After Byrd had collected the $10 joining fee and $3 charge for a robe and hood from every applicant, the “Grand Dragon” for the mid-Atlantic states came down to tiny Crab Orchard, W.Va., to officially organize the chapter.

As Byrd recalls now, the Klan official, Joel L. Baskin of Arlington, Va., was so impressed with the young Byrd’s organizational skills that he urged him to go into politics. “The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation,” Baskin said.

The young Klan leader went on to become one of the most powerful and enduring figures in modern Senate history. Throughout a half-century on Capitol Hill, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) has twice held the premier leadership post in the Senate, helped win ratification of the Panama Canal treaty, squeezed billions from federal coffers to aid his home state, and won praise from liberals for his opposition to the war in Iraq and his defense of minority party rights in the Senate.

Despite his many achievements, however, the venerated Byrd has never been able to fully erase the stain of his association with one of the most reviled hate groups in the nation’s history.
…
Byrd’s indelible links to the Klan — the “albatross around my neck,” as he once described it — shows the remarkable staying power of racial issues more than 40 years after the height of the civil rights movement. Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) learned that lesson the hard way at a birthday party in December 2002, when his nostalgic words about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), who ran for president as a segregationist in 1948, caused a public uproar and cost Lott the majority leader’s post.
…
Byrd’s book offers a truncated description of his days with the Klan that does not completely square with contemporaneous newspaper accounts and letters that show he was involved with the Klan throughout much of the 1940s, and not merely for two or three years.

According to his book, Byrd wrote to Samuel Green, an Atlanta doctor and “Imperial Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, in late 1941 or early 1942, expressing interest in joining. Some time later, he received the letter from Baskin, the “Grand Dragon” of mid-Atlantic states, saying he would come to Byrd’s home in Crab Orchard whenever Byrd had rounded up 150 recruits for the Klan.

When Baskin finally arrived, the group gathered at the home of C.M. “Clyde” Goodwin, a former local law enforcement official. When it came time to choose the “Exalted Cyclops,” the top officer in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.
…

Byrd wrote that he continued as a “Kleagle” recruiting for the Klan until early 1943, when he and his family left Crab Orchard for a welding job in a Baltimore shipyard. Returning to West Virginia after World War II ended in 1945, he launched his political career, but not before writing another letter, to one of the Senate’s most notorious segregationists, Theodore Bilbo (D-Miss.), complaining about the Truman administration’s efforts to integrate the military.

Byrd said in the Dec. 11, 1945, letter — which would not become public for 42 more years with the publication of a book on blacks in the military during World War II by author Graham Smith — that he would never fight in the armed forces “with a Negro by my side.” Byrd added that, “Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels.“

No doubt BLOB forgives Robert Byrd for wanting to treat BLOB’s relatives like slaves, but If find it hard to do so.

Chihuahua —

You said the following:

“By raising the issue of Obama’s skin tone and the lack of a ‘negro dialect’ as positives for his electability Reid is aiming is gnarled, bony finger at We the People of America and saying, without saying it out loud, that we’re racist. He’s saying that if Obama had dark skin and spoke differently then he would be unelectable….

“That’s absolutely outrageous and insulting.”

THAT is what you find outrageous and insulting? Er, yeah. Do me a favor: ask a bunch of Black professionals you might know — friends, collegues, relatives, whatever — whether they were “insulted” by Reid noting the OBVIOUS — that Obama’s looks and his manner of speech DID make him more electable. I think your “insult” from Reid recognizing that RACE MATTERS is quite misplaced.

Were you as “outraged” and “insulted” by this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTps4Iau1E

Or how about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKUovpF9LWU&feature=related

Nah . . . there’s no racism in America . . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKUovpF9LWU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI&feature=related

Mata, this is what YOU WROTE:

“They [Black voters] just look at your party, which promises them gas in their car, heating oil, affirmative action reverse discrimination, and all their needs that will be provided by the neighboring rich guy who has more than they do. Social justice, you promise. You cater to a because government will be there in event they trip. Sounds like sheer nirvana to most.”

* * * * *
Why not just admit your post was insulting and move on?

See, I did not write that. No one put words in your mouth. You basically said that the reason my wife’s doctor, and Black people like her, and Black people in general, vote Dem is because of . . . welfare? How does that make any sense to you?

W.t.f. is wrong with you people?

And don’t try to twist it, either. I was talking about Black people in general and you went all “welfare queen” on me.

Nope, the reason she votes Dem, Mata, is because of people like you. Both the past forty years history of the party and the current make up makes her not welcome. Just look at your phrasing when you are explaining why Black people vote Dem — you mentioned “freeloader mentality” and “no need for responsibility of self.” You think that applies to the Black middle class and professional class as well as the riff raff! Welfare!

That, Mata, is why Glen Beck’s ability to round up 15 Black conservatives are, shall we say, not impressive. See if you can get them elected to any position of authority in a GOP town and then I will be impressed by the magnanimous attitudes of conservative Whites. Until then, count me in the “underwhelmed” catagory.

Another thing — why did YOU start referring to Black conservatives as “Uncle Tom”? I certainly didn’t. I fact, I was talking about why there are so few Blacks willing to align themselves with the GOP. I said NOTHING AT ALL about Black conservatives, or Black GOPers in general. So to the extent you mention Uncle Toms and Black GOPers in a sentence together, that is you projecting your own “issues” with those Black folk; it has nothing to do with moi.

Lastly, Mata, I never said I was Black. What made you think I was?

Mike’s America —

Nice try at changing the subject to Bob Byrd, former Klansman and Obama mentor. Kind of an interesting side point about his sordid but redeemed past.

But back to the subject: we know why Mata thinks Black people don’t vote GOPer, even when they are in the professional and upper middle classes. So what is your theory?

Mata — here is a hint: before you go developing any more theories about why minorities vote the way they do, why don’t you try to . . . oh, I don’t know . . . ASK SOME?! Try it . . . you might learn something. Because you will never understand minority voters sitting with an all white grouping of conservatives. All you will learn there is what you white cons THINK is the reason.

@B-Rob: Nice to know you have a soft spot for former Klansmen. It’s just Republicans that you damn to hell for all eternity.

What an ASS!

B-Rob has tipped his hand. He is a Saudi funded sock puppet or lackey. Al Jazeera is his credible source on Sarah Palin’s core principals. Ha!

Black Professionals who openly supported John McCain:

Larry Elder
Thomas Sowell
Alan Keyes
Walter Williams
Roy Innes
J.C. Watts
Steven F. Smith
Charles Evers
Edward W. Brooke III.
Lynn Swan
Kevin Fobbs
Deroy Murdock
Shannon Reeves
Sherman Parker
Ken Blackwell
Keith Butler
Wayne Perryman
Otto Banks
Michael Steele
Alan West
Vern Williams
Maurice Washington
Zachary Ward
Claude Allen
Renee Amoore
Lynette Boggs
Jeanette Bradley
Janice Rogers Brown

So here is the thought construct here:

Conservatives say they are not racists, but liberals are. (See, for example, Rush Limbaugh re Sonia Sotomayor and Glen Beck re Obama).

Posters here say the Dems are the racist party.

So how do they explain why 70% of the minority voters, regardless of geography or educational background, cast their lot with the “racist” liberals and the “racist” Dem Party?

Why, those minorities are all concerned about welfare and afraid of being called an Uncle Tom, that’s why!

Cons, unless you figure out that some BIG part of your argument is based on a falacy, you are condemned to be a regional, aging lily white party in a time when the country is getting more diverse. Think about it . . . .

Mata —

I was wrong . . . again. I stand corrected. You did NOT say that Blacks voted Dem because of welfare. You actually said:

“But I don’t wonder why minorities ‘avoid’ the GOP like ‘the plague’… which they don’t, save in your mind. They just look at your party, which promises them gas in their car, heating oil, affirmative action reverse discrimination, and all their needs that will be provided by the neighboring rich guy who has more than they do. Social justice, you promise. You cater to a freeloader mentality, and promise they have no need for responsibility of self because government will be there in event they trip. Sounds like sheer nirvana to most.”

I stand corrected — it not just Blacks who you believe have the “freeloader mentality” and are looking for government cheese. No, you think it is all the minorities that are so motivated. And that is why you think they vote Dem.

Glad we got that cleared up.