Why African-Americans Don’t Vote Republican

Ever wonder why African-Americans mostly vote for Democrats?

How about Newt Gingrich calling the first African-American president “the best food stamp president in American history“?

Or how about this from Gingrich:

I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.

Never mind that six in ten households on food stamps are Newt-white.

CBS News reported:

Oscar Eason, President of NAACP State Conference of Alaska, Oregon and Washington State, told CBS News Gingrich’s comment “goes right to the heart of real racism – that African Americans are lazy and don’t want to work and depend entirely on handouts.”

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum, Gingrich’s new “junior partner,”said in response to a question about “foreign influence in this country“:

They’re just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That’s the bottom line. I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.

To which Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP, responded:

Santorum’s targeting of African-Americans is inaccurate and outrageous, and lifts up old race-based stereotypes about public assistance. He conflates welfare recipients with African-Americans, though federal benefits are in fact determined by income level.

Later, Santorum told, or tried to tell, CNN—which wasn’t buying it—this:

“I’m pretty confident that I didn’t say ‘black.’” The GOP contender said he “was starting to say one word, and I sort of came up with another word and moved on and it sounded like black.”

No wonder the guy has a Google problem. He is full of something.

In any case, the GOP has a problem with African-Americans partly because of dumb stuff like the above freely flowing from the mouths of its prominent candidates, and partly because GOP economic policies are largely responsible for so many blacks—and whites—needing food stamps and public assisantance in the first place.

About these ads
Leave a comment

54 Comments

  1. RDG,

    Looking at the video replay I’m not sure O’Reilly was buying the “blah people” clarification.

    Like

    Reply
  2. King Beauregard

     /  January 6, 2012

    To be as fair as I can to Santorum, I heard that as “bli” and not “black”. To be as fair as I can to everyone else, it’s awfully coincidental that he started to say the word that was most likely to make him sound racist, or at least cynically leveraging racism.

    As far as Newt goes, why haven’t any of his opponents condemned what he said? Seems like it would be an easy takedown of Newt … unless, of course, they think it might hurt them to stand up against open racism.

    Like

    Reply
  3. KB,

    I agree with your take on Gingrich. He’s always been a walking dog whistle masquerading as some kind of intellectual. His theme song could be any number from “The Music Man”.

    Like

    Reply
  4. ansonburlingame

     /  January 6, 2012

    Duane,

    Well here we go again, race baiting. Just look at the title of your blog, a racial invitation to dispute. So dispute I will and actually already have done so.

    Go read my blog DID YOU KNOW.

    I provided my sources for the numbers provided and of course the first shot at the blog was to shoot the messenger carrying the numbers. Baloney. Refute the numbers themselves, not the messenger providing the numbers.

    There is a really simple and self evident issue here Duane and others. Federal government money breds dependancy on MORE federal money. Give me a home to live, Mr. Government, then some food stamps so I can eat, then some “jobs” at which I can “work” to buy drugs all at federal expense. And when inflation goes up, give me more money so I can “keep up”.

    Well when are such folks going to “get ahead” and no longer need GOVERNMENT money. Ask Detroit, Philly, Houston, New Orleans, and the list keeps growing. Hopefully the list will NEVER include Joplin, MO. Nope not with OUR spirit of helping others through volunteers, charity, you name it. Sure a quick infusion of government money is needed after a disaster. But not for the long term, I hope, right here in River City. I really think we are better than that.

    All fine and well as long as the federal money does not run out.

    Read it again. Federal money breeds dependancy, not individual incentive to improve conditions in life and the record over 50 years is becoming very clear. It is not just blacks. It is anyone that become dependent on GOVERNMENT money for long periods of time.

    And you and Obama just want to keep shoveling the money in when the evidence is (see my blog) all you get out is crime, poverty and terrible education, no matter how much money you shovel in.

    There is election 2012, starring you right in the face, in my view and I know where I stand. I also know you will just keep trying to vote for people with big shovels.

    Keep it up and the entire U.S. may well look like Detroit in a few years.

    anson

    Like

    Reply
    • King Beauregard

       /  January 6, 2012

      So Duane is the race-baiter for recognizing the overt race-baiting by the finest specimens of the Republican Party. The fact that Newt is unquestionably tying race to handouts, and Santorum is nearly unquestionably doing the same, doesn’t even register with you. I’m glad you tossed out a diplomatic “it is not just blacks” near the end of your post, but the reality is that Newt and very probably Santorum feel that it IS primarily blacks. And you’re running interference for them. And DUANE is the person who should be ashamed of his behavior.

      Like

      Reply
  5. ansonburlingame

     /  January 6, 2012

    Did I say Duane should be ashamed of anything. Nope. He promotes what he promotes.

    It is the consequences of his promotion that concern me, not his promotion.

    And I promote what I believe is the right thing to do. So stick it, King!

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
    • Funny isn’t it how the left always knows what’s in the mind of someone else but doesn’t have a clue about the lunacy living in their own heads.
      Democrats have been playing the race card against Republicans since the 60′s. They have to. They certainly can’t repeat the fact that it was Republicans who were FOR civil rights legislation while so many Democrats were against it. They certainly can’t repeat the fact that even though trillions of dollars has been sent down the hole of entitlement all we have to show for those dollars is more poverty, more food stamps and more dependency. They certainly can’t repeat the dismal statistics showing nothing but a race to the bottom for far, far too many African Americans today. Almost 70 percent of black children born out of wedlock, unemployment over twice that of other segments of society, crime and incarceration ripping communities apart.
      Detroit is but just one example of the failed experiment that was the “war on poverty”. Of course to the left the reason it “failed” was because we just didn’t throw ENOUGH money at the problem. That only if we’d have thrown a few trillion more at the problem all would be OK.
      But common sense dictates you cannot tell people for decades that they are “victims” and “entitled” to “demand” from others and then be in shock, shock I say that they devolve one generation after another into but a “you owe me”, “give me what’s mine” mentality.
      But the EC’s post on this subject was at least good for one thing. It’s the topic of today’s Corner Column.

      Like

      Reply
      • Geoff,

        A quick reminder that the segregated, Jim Crow Democratic Party of the old South collapsed after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A region that was once a Democratic Party stronghold is now dominated by the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential run in Philadelphia, Mississippi. I would continue to offer you a history lesson not finger painted over by El Rushbo’s imaginary Institute for Conservative Studies but incidental contact with your hyper-linked name resulted in viewing this: “Exposure extraordinaire of Joplin, Missouri’s local village idiot: Duane Graham, publisher of the largest collection of hypocrisy, hate, and ignorance of facts in the 4 states area”.

        Because your photo is basically a head shot, it’s impossible to tell whether or not you’re wearing a straight jacket.

        Like

        Reply
        • Typical lib there McKnight. Ignore the facts change the subject. It was Democrats who were blocking the civil rights act. Has nothing to do with what happened 15, 20, 40 years later.
          The left can’t stand on it’s ideas so it twist, blames and obfuscates.
          I assure you no straightjacket, the reference to Joplin’s own local village idiot is quite accurate. You and Jane Reaction and a few others may find his hypocrisy and hate mongering (he still won’t acknowledge the irresponsibility of his Romney/KKK post even though MSNBC, the Washington Post and the Globe did.) amusing and “intellectual” but considering the intellectual strength of the left wing argument today and it’s permanent 20 percent minority status it’s not surprising.

          Like

          Reply
          • King Beauregard

             /  January 7, 2012

            Just a reminder for any newcomers here, Duane said from the very beginning that there was no connection between the KKK and Romney. Geoff desperately wishes it were otherwise, but failing that, he’ll simply lie about Duane because that’s just the way he rolls.

            Like

            Reply
            • And then let’s clarify some more, while that is true he then went on and said Romney was disgusting for using it and painted all Republicans in that light. Same thing just different tac but as usual, it’s from Duane, and it supports the left wing narrative so all is fine and no apologies for irresponsible posting needed.
              Duane wants so desperately to be treated as a “journalist” when he’s trying to question Billy Long and other politicians and yet he won’t even admit he’s wrong when he’s caught red handed.

              Like

              Reply
          • Geoff,

            I’m going to warn your sorry behind one more time. If you can’t engage in this forum without resorting to sophomoric name-calling like “local village idiot,” then I will ban you again. You got it? I don’t engage with you on any subject because it is not worth my precious time, which just pisses you off, I know. If others want to engage you, that’s their business. They will learn in time. But I’ll be damned if I allow you to stink up the place with your incredibly puerile funk. You’ve got your own bleeping blog, which generates no interest, and the only reason you post on here is to get attention. I can assure you I will put a stop to it if you can’t at least rise above the level of a playground debater. And you can run to Carol Stark and whine all you want, which you have done before, but I’m not going to put up with it. You are supposed to be a professional writer, for God’s sake, although it is beyond me why anyone would pay you to do what you do.

            Again, consider this fair warning. You can post here all the conservative rebuttal you want (I simply ignore most of it), but you will not continue to question the intelligence of me, or, especially, my readers. You can do that to your heart’s content on your own blog and the six people who read it can have a merry old time. But you are, like me, an associate of the Joplin Globe and because you are I hold you to higher standards than ordinary commenters, in terms of insulting my intellect. You have childishly attacked me, Jim Wheeler (another associate of the Globe), as well as people who read this blog. It’s going to stop, Geoff, or you will have to go back into the darkness and inactivity of your own blog.

            Duane

            Like

            Reply
  6. Angelfire

     /  January 7, 2012

    Now be fair. Do the percentages. What percentage of the white population is using food stamps? What percentage of the black population is using food stamps?

    Likewise with the prison population. What percentage of white population is in prison? What percentage of the black population is in prison?

    Now a true candidate for president would ask why this is so and promise to change conditions that make these percentages as they are.

    It is not enough to buy into old stereotypes and feed or fuel racist feelings in the population in general to get elected.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Having spent 20 years in Michigan I always find it amusing the number of experts on the city of Detroit. Have either Anson or Geoff spent any time in this area? I am just curious. Michigan, and in particular Detroit, are very segregated. I was raised with the belief that only African Americans were on welfare. It was always said that “they live in a dump but can afford a Cadillac” However, since I have moved to Joplin, my opinions and outlook have changed. Take a good look around Joplin. I have literally seen every address in this community,and like all cities, towns, or villages it has its blemishes. The Cadillac has been replaced by the Bass Boat. I do not know the percent of people on assistance in Joplin but I am sure it is quite high and I am sure that it is mostly Caucasians that are receiving it. It is not only Joplin, I see it everywhere I go. We are simply becoming a two tier economic system in my opinion.

    As far as Detroit, Flint, or my hometown of Saginaw, their problems did not result from the fact that African Americans moved there. These cities thrived during the 40s thru the 60s. The problems started because they decided to live and die with an economy that had one component- the auto industry. When it went to hell, so did the entire economy and they will be paying for this for a long time. Many people were raised there with the idea that they would have a job forever, regardless of education. That attitude will definitely change now.

    KABE

    Like

    Reply
    • So now you have to live somewhere to know that the policies have failed? No one ever said the problems were with African Americans moving there. The problem is that wherever the liberal policies and the masters have been able to thrive unchecked they have wreaked havoc. It would be fine if they just used their own money, but no, they wasted trillions of dollars of ALL our money.
      The problem also is not with the auto “industry” per say. Get out of the control of the UAW fanatics and it is doing quite fine. Just ask Toyota, Nissan, BMW and Mercedez and the thousands of workers in those “right to work” common sense states.
      Wichita has been suffering the same job drain due to radical union leadership in the IAM chapter there. It started a few years back but luckily Spirit was able to pick up some of the slack, it finished last week when Boeing decided to finally pull out completely because it just wasn’t worth the effort anymore. Why stay where you’re not wanted?

      Like

      Reply
      • Because of the loss of good paying union jobs in Michigan, it is now a state that takes more from DC than it gives. It was never that way before, Mi. always had been a state that gave to DC. Make of that what you will.

        Kabe

        Like

        Reply
        • I make of that what I learned from what the IAM did to Wichita. “Good paying” jobs does not necessarily translate into win/win sustainable jobs.
          The unions enjoyed an historic boom into the 70′s because we were the only country left standing after WWII with any manufacturing capacity left.
          But as the saying goes, power corrupts and all power corrupts absolutely.
          Unions from Detroit, to Wichita, to Seattle all just kept demanding more and more and more without any regard to the economic realities and the fact that those gold wages and platinum benefits that they had so successfully extracted from “evil management” came at a very, very high cost. A cost that just could not be sustained when the world shrank and America once again had to actually compete in manufacturing.
          I was not and never will be a supporter of the “service economy” b.s. economic theory that somehow we as a nation can remain strong and viable on such.
          We need a strong manufacturing base and we need a strong middle class.
          Ironically it is the Democrat party that with it’s own left wing agenda and its blind support to power crazed union bosses that has done more to eviscerate the manufacturing base in this country than any “evil” corporation. Corporations just follow the money, it is the federal government and its own policies that has made it possible for in too many instances more money to be made overseas than right here at home.
          Yet there is still hope. Look at the auto “industry”. Detroit and area that is still strangled by the unions and liberal ideology is on it’s last legs, yet that same “industry” is GROWING in the southern right to work states. Foreign companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to open manufacturing plants right here in the good ol USofA and paying “good” (no not disproportionate “entitled” wages) wages to thousands of newly created middle class factory workers in the southern states. There are plenty more of those jobs to be made but when a company has to fight its own government (Boeing vs the NLRB just the latest) to create jobs for its own citizens, the keys have truly been turned over to the inmates.

          Like

          Reply
  8. Dear Duane:
    I can’t use the “respond” to your little diatribe because you can’t seem to figure out how to use wordpress and any more than a couple “replyies” turn into inch wide sticks.

    I see the skin got pricked again and you’re having a hard time taking public criticism. And there I was, actually starting to think you were finally getting over your “I can say anything I want, call people anything I want, but if someone, anyone does that to poor, poor pitiful me I’m going to jump up and down, and stomp and romp, and huff and puff and yell at the top of my lungs: STOP it you big bad meanie!”

    If you would have actually read the entire thread you would have realized I did not just arbitrarily call you out as the local village idiot but was responding to what was already brought up
    by John McKnight in his questioning whether I was wearing a straigthjacket in my post photo. (Hmmmmmmm would that be a “personal” attack that I too should get all huffy and puffy over and demand a “warning” from you?)

    Why you and Wheeler can’t get it through your thick skulls that these blogs are not some high intellectual debate society but merely public forums promoted by the Globe to highlight the political debate in this area is beyond me, but then again I’m not the village.. oops sorry, my bad.

    I don’t “run” to anyone. I merely point out the hypocrisy of someone sitting on, promoted by and paid by a public page continually attempting to engage in censoring political free speech because he doesn’t “like” what’s said about him, regardless of whether that speech violates any actual standards other than the imaginary personal ones of the blogger. As you have been told many, may times, if you want to have complete and total censorship control over your blog you are always most welcome to take it private and not enjoy the benefits of public sponsorship. But in typical left wing fashion, we all know you won’t. You want the bennies without any of those public free speech issues that goes along with it. You want to be free to say and print whatever you wish, regardless of the irresponsibility of it but then run back to the safety of your pitty potty if you’re feelings get hurt. (And you REALLY think that “heightens” your image to the public?)

    Was it not you, yourself who wrote on your own blog:
    “I want to make one thing clear: My mission is to make my tiny part of the world intellectually unsafe for fundamentalist faith, mostly through ridicule and sarcasm,……..”

    Nothing I have ever written or said about you either here, in the Corner, or elsewhere is anything stronger than “ridicule and sarcasm”. It is not my fault you or Wheeler cannot handle the heat of a public forum.

    But I do thank you for making my point for me in your own actions and words with your “warning” and “lecture”.

    Public or private, your choice sir.

    Like

    Reply
  9. King Beauregard

     /  January 8, 2012

    Duane, if you need to explain to a higher-up why you’ve banned Geoff (if it comes to that), here’s this reader’s opinion. I have no problem with dissenting opinions being posted here, such as Anson’s. What I do have a problem with is how Geoff lies and keeps returning to his lies as long as he thinks they might win the day. As long as those are the rules he’s playing by, he can make no positive contribution to the discussion here; I can see past the name-calling, but not past the lying.

    Like

    Reply
    • King,
      Just because you or anyone else on the left says something is a lie doesn’t make it so. Point out the “lie” and then the real debate can begin.
      Duane’s think skin is his own private issue that he continues to try to make a public issue.

      Like

      Reply
  10. ansonburlingame

     /  January 8, 2012

    To all,

    A couple of points. First my only time in Detroit was in the airport, connecting to flights on several occassions. New Orleans is different in that I have spent a few weeks, particularly after Katrina, in that city. And, no, I have not yet spent any time of substance in real inner city ghettos but have driven through a few over the years.

    Now I will admit that if I was an inner city counselor providing service to the ghetto of Detroit I MIGHT have a different perspective, but I doubt it. You see I provide a lot of counseling, unprofessional for sure, but still comon sense advice and counsel to many that are really “down” in Joplin, all races and genders that are in such conditions. My asssertation is that what I see and hear amongst the downrodden in Joplin is not much different what I would see elsewhere. Thus I believe I have a basis for my political views related to how to help the downtrodden, here or elsewhere in the U.S. I invite any that take exception to that experience to take a “walk with me” sometime.

    Now, and unfortunately once again, back to “bans”, censorship, whatever one calls it. We went through this about a month ago, primarily privately between local bloggers and the Globe.

    The final outcome as I read all the back and forth, private back and forth primarily, was that NOTHING can be posted in blogs or comments thereto that is VULGAR, PROFANE, RACIST OR LIBELOUS. Other than that general description of unpostable or censorable exchanges, all else was open for a public forum and debate.

    You may have noticed that I no longer “cuss” in my written comments or blogs. Darn, heck, etc. have become my lexicon now instead of the former terms. At least I am trying hard to do so just to meet the “letter of the laws” handed down in our recent private dustup.

    Now we seem to be debating whether the term “local village idiot” is publishable. Hmm, go back to the above bold terms that are NOT publishable and you decide what meets normal community or newspaper standards of strong expression.

    As for “lies” “I’m Not Sure, Are You?”. Opinions are not lies as far as I can see. And I read a lot of supposed “facts” (from both sides) that would be very hard to prove, one way or the other.

    Calling someone a racist or a liar is far different from someone BEING a racist or a liar. Ask the guy from South Carolina calling the President a “liar”. I still don’t think we know whether that was true or not. Wrong to do so during such an event, yes, but based on FACTS, I don’t think any of us still know how much ACA will either cost or save, just as an example.

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
  11. For what it is worth, from my view Mr. Caldwell’s obsession with Duane needs to be addressed by the Globe. Of course you can have differing opinions, but Mr. Caldwell has taken this to an entirely different level. It is hard to believe that he is paid by the Globe with his unprofessional behavior. This would not be tolerated at any work place, as it borders on harassment and has a stalking.

    Like

    Reply
    • Not stalking or harassment just asking that the standards be applied equally to all, which Duane chose not to do with me many, many months ago and the history is well documented as to when, how and how actually started the banning, censoring and yes, actually CHANGING and EDITING comments AFTER they were posted to what Duane wanted the comment to say.
      If there is to be “professionalism” it has to start here and I choose to hold him accountable when he doesn’t and point out the hypocrisy at every step of the way.
      If Duane doesn’t like it he is always free to take his blog “private” but as the point has been made several times, he won’t because he wants the good without having to deal with any of the commenting issues that come with a public space.
      If I’m obsessed with anything it is when those on the left in their own words state that their own mission is to use “ridicule and sarcasm” and then can’t even stand the slightest bit of it when directed back.
      I have been and always will continue to be “obsessed” with the concept of free and open public political debate whether it is put forth by those who choose to hide behind anonymous monikers or those who stand by their words in public.
      Duane just happens to be the example. He chooses to keep it going by insisting private censorship in a public space is acceptable. I and many others don’t. Welcome to America.

      Like

      Reply
  12. Opining about other correspondents’ personalities and shortcomings is different from doing the same about politicians and other public leaders. Personal attacks on other correspondents’ personalities are distracting from any useful purpose. They are a disservice, in my opinion, to our Joplin Globe sponsor. Anson gets it, but Geoff doesn’t. He is clearly capable of clear writing but is unwilling to make the distinction and so because of him, and solely because of him, this otherwise pertinent post has devolved into personal gibes and taunts. “Sophomoric” is an appropriate adjective and I support Duane’s re-stated strong position on the matter. When his name-calling begins, I page-down, and I urge others to do the same.

    The original post here was about politicians, and I submit that is germane to this year’s election contests. As a people I think we tend to place too much faith in the wisdom and talents of our political leaders because they are just as prone to error and bias as the rest of us. The founders knew that very well and that of course is why we have three co-equal branches of government and a political structure intended for open debate and compromise.

    The debates among the GOP candidates demonstrate individual shortcomings and biases very well, and knowing some of these guys might very well become President is scary. To demonstrate just how human and variable they are, please check out this ABC News “fact-checking” article.

    Like

    Reply
  13. ansonburlingame

     /  January 8, 2012

    Jim,

    In terms of candidates being “scary” I would suggest “fairness” in such considerations. MANY people think Obama is “scary” for the reasons stated ad naseum over the last three years. But such “scary” concerns are certainly publishable as long as the “big four” above are respected.

    I believe YOU have the correct solution and said it above. Just “scroll down” if you see something you don’t like. I do that all the time with Jane’s Reaction and now am starting to do with “King”.

    “Scroll down, folks” and “calm down as well” if I may be so bold to suggest such on a political blog. Ignore all you like as well. Only pick the writers you “like” to comment upon. That is all fine with me.

    But CENSORSHIP, a really “bad” word to me, particularly by the writer himself, when he does not “like” things written by others, NO WAY if I get to have a “vote in the matter”, which I don’t. No vote at least, but I can still WRITE my views on such all I like as long as the “big four” are adhered to.

    Now try this accusation on for size. Suppose a writer of a blog CHANGES a comment made by a dissenter. Actually changes the words written in dissent. No that is not censorship, and frankly I don’t know for sure the real facts of the matter. But the allegation is now right here in our faces. What do you call such actions by a writer IF it in fact was done?

    Again for all, just in case you need a reminder. I do not always agree with Geoff’s views nor in the way he sometimes states them. But so what. IF I choose to read them, that is my perogative as well as rebutting or agreeing as the case may be.

    This whole issue is NOT about defending Geoff or his views. I only write to defend is RIGHT to state his views as he sees fit, anywhere in the public domain, subject only to the “big four” above, again.

    If Duane “bans” Geoff, I will then ask him why he does not “ban” Jane’s Reaction. She has been more careful of late, but you should see some of the past comments from her directed MY way, right here in this blog and my own a while ago, until I simply put her on my IGNORE (not “ban”) list. People like that write to “get attention” not engage in legitimate debate. Best solution in my view is remove the attention and ignore them, whichever side you so choose to ignore, but not ban.

    I also encourage all of you thinking Duane has the “right to ban” Geoff in this blog for behavioral reasons. Go back “up” and check a quote made from a earlier statement made by Duane as the “reason for his blog”. Yes, it is an earlier in time explanation but still published and I still see the same approach from time to time used by Duane as he “repents” against all things evangelical and GOP.

    JIm says it is OK to use “ridicule and disdain” or whatever the words used in the quote from an “earlier Duane” as long as only used against politicians themselves but not us “local folks”. Jim as seems to be his nature, a “good” nature, wants us “local folks” to be more “civil”. Well Duane is a “local folk” and he is polemical by his own admission and NOT JUST against major politicians on the national stage. Look how he frequently writes about local voters as well and the ridicule and disdain used against a big majority of local voters.

    Let me close with one final observation. I do not believe Duane is the “local village idiot”. Instead I think he is the “local village liberal”. I would also suggest that the two are synonymous but that is for you to decide for sure.

    Now is that publishable? It is only an opinion after all and thus for sure not a “lie”.

    Anson.

    Like

    Reply
    • “I believe YOU have the correct solution and said it above. Just “scroll down” if you see something you don’t like.”

      With the same reasoning, if you feel abused somewhere, quit going there.

      Like

      Reply
    • Anson,

      First of all, I don’t intend on spending much time on this issue. It has already wasted enough. And while I don’t expect other readers to know or even care about the history of Geoff Caldwell’s abhorrent behavior toward me and Jim Wheeler, I will address what you wrote and then I will likely be done with it.

      You and I will never agree on how we undertake the job of managing our blogs. On your own blog, you can allow a fellow-blogger, paid by a reputable newspaper, to sophomorically trash other bloggers paid by the same newspaper, but I will not. Geoff, as I have stated, is allowed to object to and rebut anything he wants on this blog, but he is not allowed to insult the intelligence of anyone here. Those standards are different for him (and you, by the way) because he is a paid “professional” writer associated with the Joplin Globe and not just a member of the general public.

      And by the way, he has his own blog to trash me in any way he wants, so this is not a censorship issue. And you saying so time and time again won’t make it one. It’s just an issue of taking out the trash in my house. And I get to decide how clean my place is, not you, or certainly not the guy trashing up the place. Neither you nor he has the “right,” or “RIGHT” as you put it, to say anything you want. Period. I am responsible to the paper for policing my site, and one associate of the paper trashing another associate of the paper in a reprehensible way (calling me or Jim Wheeler some form of a Nazi or “village idiot,” for instance) is part of my enforcement responsibilities, as I see them. As professional writers paid by the Globe, we should have a higher standard of behavior than the general public in this regard.

      As for your suggestion that I may have changed “the words written in dissent” on this blog, that is based on an utter lie, Anson. A lie, I presume, told by Geoff Caldwell, who has led you into enough embarrassment over the past three years that I would think you would learn. But you are hopelessly ready to believe anything that he says, so I have little hope that you will believe what I say here. But for the record, I did not change a single word of anything he wrote. I changed a link, and made the change known to all who read it. He had accused me, falsely, of not publishing something he wrote (it was so long and full of links that the WordPress filter put it in a queue that I don’t often check, especially since I was in Arizona without access to my normal home computer), so I was not going to allow him to continue his lie. As I said, I did not change what he wrote, only the link (as a joke, I linked to the Obama campaign), which was clear to anyone who happened to read his comment.

      Next, I want to address the quote of mine he has used, which he uncleverly thinks is a “gotcha” quote and which I will reproduce:

      I want to make one thing clear: My mission is to make my tiny part of the world intellectually unsafe for fundamentalist faith, mostly through ridicule and sarcasm…

      Even someone so enamored with Geoff Caldwell’s thinking like you should readily be able to see that I am not suggesting ridiculing people who hold fundamentalist faith (although I reserve the right to do that in certain cases, for sure), but the faith itself. I have expressly stated that when I write about fundamentalism, I intend on writing about it in such a way that people should not feel intellectually comfortable holding it as a viable belief system. It is the fundamentalist belief system itself that I have and intend to keep on ridiculing. Got it? Can you understand that distinction, Anson? Outside of national figures, I mostly ridicule ideas and beliefs that I find reprehensible or untenable. For the most part, the people who hold them have my sympathy because they are, in a way, victims themselves (as I was in so many ways as a kid raised as an evangelical/fundamentalist).

      Finally, the bully-wannabe Geoff Caldwell has two goals: to get attention for himself (as you suggested by writing: “People like that write to ‘get attention’ not engage in legitimate debate.“) and to get me—the only liberal blogger—removed from the Globe. Someday he may succeed in the latter, I don’t know. I have no control over that. But as for the former, he will not get his much-needed attention on this blog by attacking the intelligence of Jim Wheeler, me, or my readers.

      I do not intend on writing about this further.

      Duane

      Like

      Reply
      • Duane,
        This and only this relating to your little diatribe:
        I have not ever, do not ever and will not ever try to get you removed from the Globe.
        My ONLY issue has been with the private censorship on a public page, editing of links and some irresponsible posts on your part without publishing correction and clarification.
        If this were your own private blog that you and only you distribute then all three of the above is fine with me under the freedom to publish doctrine.
        BUT, by being on the Globe blog page this blog is part of the larger, public forum and as you have been told by others than me more than once that raises ALL of us to the bar of “public figures” and hence the responsibility to allow “public discourse” to fly back and forth at will complete disregard to our own personal feelings of what is written.
        I realize in your own mind you somehow seem to need to justify my criticism of you as my need for attention and I get that. I’ve been doing this far, far longer than you and dealt with your kind over the years. I assure you, I have all the attention I “need” or desire.
        This has never been about “me”, this has ALWAYS been about the hypocrisy of the left (you as one) wanting the freedom to do and say whatever it wants about whoever it wants, but never willing to take the harsh criticism when it comes back.
        And for the record, I do believe it was you sir who photo shopped my head upon a stick horse? Something fully within your rights that I fully support. But then when I came back full bore and with my “hands filled” as Anson references from time to time you went all “how dare you attack me” and banned me for months.
        Some might call that hypocrisy worthy of publicity and scorn.
        AND I had no intention of any of this starting up again. I comment all the time on nationwide sites and networks and have never, ever run across anyone as thin skinned as you. I am constantly called names, referred to as God knows what. It goes with the territory, all I’ve never understood is if you want to be in it, then deal with it, accept it as it is required if going to be in the public eye, and get over it. I merely responded to McKnight’s reply to me. Pointed yes, but absolutely within his rights and mine to counter.
        I never dreamed it would trigger your hurt little feelings again and all this crap starting over.

        Like

        Reply
  14. GOP members use racist analogies all the time, and can’t even accept that it’s racist. They act abused when someone calls them on it. Poor mistreated truth-sayers according their own views.

    Hint: when everyone but you says it’s racist, it’s racist.
    Having an inflated ego and claiming the truth as yours alone doesn’t make it so. Things like racism truly are defined by the majority opinion.

    Like

    Reply
  15. ansonburlingame

     /  January 8, 2012

    First of all Sekan, previously you considered my comments so inane that you said you would no longer read them. I suggest you stick to your words previously stated unless you really want to get me going again. Not a threat for sure, just a promise. Respond to me and you get things right back in politics and war, one and the same to a degree.

    NOW, what is “racist”. For darn sure it should not be “majority opinion”. Outright racism is against the law in many cases. So go there for any definitions you care to bandy around is my first thought.

    If I don’t “like blacks” that is an opinion. IF I act in such dislike to do “racist” things, that is against the law. If I write that I do not “like blacks or others, because…..” is that racist? I don’t like “crooks” and a whole lot of crooks are black. Is that racist?

    For darn sure a whole lot of blacks in America today have a whole lot of big problems like poor educational opportunities, homes, jobs, rates of incarcerration and a host of other problems. We generally engage in how to solve those problems, for blacks and others as well.

    But when a conservative offers views of how to solve the problems or tries to discuss the causes of the problems, inevitably liberals sling the “racist” arrows at him or her.

    Of course that then comes back to a judgement of being “racist” by the ones slinging or dodging the arrows. Majority opinion my hind foot. Make up your own mind and I will do the same for myself.

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
    • Hey fella, that comment wasn’t directed at you, or anyone specific.
      You respond like it was.

      I read the last paragraph of one of your recent comments and mentioned that. It was even something I agreed with, but now you get in a tizzy because I read one of your comments?
      Geez, chill out. You take everything personal, but it’s not all about you.
      I still scroll over your stuff regularly. You can ‘get going’ if you want to. I’m not important enough to be the trigger of that behavior.

      Like

      Reply
  16. ““Funny isn’t it how the left always knows what’s in the mind of someone else but doesn’t have a clue about the lunacy living in their own heads.”

    I can’t say whether or not Democrats know what’s in the minds of others; however I do suspect that you’re intimately familiar with “lunacy in the head lifestyle.”

    Geoff
    You can’t win a debate by out insulting your opponents anymore than you can cash a check on an empty account.
    “Democrats have been playing the race card against Republicans since the 60′s”
    So what you’re implying is that white Democrats have been using black folks by “playing their race card” because blacks are incapable of playing it themselves? Nah, there are more poor whites on welfare and collecting food stamps than are blacks.
    “Typical lib there McKnight. Ignore the facts change the subject. It was Democrats who were blocking the civil rights act. Has nothing to do with what happened 15, 20, 40 years later.”
    It was also the Democrats who made the civil rights act possible, because you see, 15/20/40” years ago we began culling our herd with unfortunate result that they became you.

    “The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963, in which he asked for legislation “giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments,” as well as “greater protection for the right to vote.””

    “Vote totals
    Totals are in “Yea-Nay” format:
    • The original House version: 290-130 (69%–31%).
    • Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%–29%).
    • The Senate version: 73-27 (73%–27%).
    • The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%–30%).

    By party

    The original House version
    • Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
    • Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
    Cloture in the Senate:

    • Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
    • Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
    The Senate version:

    • Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
    • Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)\
    The Senate version, voted on by the House:

    • Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
    • Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
    By party and region

    Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

    The original House version:

    • Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
    • Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
    • Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
    • Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

    The Senate version:

    • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
    • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
    • Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
    • Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

    There are many Republicans that I used to refer to as “Wallace-Bird” democrats, but in the end both Wallace and Bird repented rather than jump party’s.

    What the Republicans got was Strom Thurmond and according to Trent Lott, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

    The real difference between how Democrats and Republicans use the “race card” is that Democrats use it to include African Americans, while republicans use it to polarize whites exclude them.

    Modern Democrats are an inclusive party.

    Like

    Reply
  17. ansonburlingame

     /  January 9, 2012

    Guess what HLG,

    I just “scrolled”.

    A

    Like

    Reply
  18. Anson

    Although most of the votes in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were made by Democrats the act could by definition be called bipartisan

    Here is a basic breakdown of votes by party. As you can see the house had 152 Democrats and 138 Republicans. The Senate however was strongly weighted in favor of Democrats 46 to 27, but then Democrats had a huge majority in the senate and house and should’ve been able to have passed the act without Republican support.

    The vast majority of the Democrats who voted against the act were from southern states with a history of slavery. The outcome of the act resulted in a major realignment of both parties. I’m not only thankful for the passage of the act but also for the cleansing of the Democratic party that followed.

    House of Representatives:
    Democrats for: 152
    Democrats against: 96
    Republicans for: 138
    Republicans against: 34

    Senate:
    Democrats for: 46
    Democrats against: 21
    Republicans for: 27
    Republicans against: 6

    Like

    Reply
  19. ansonburlingame

     /  January 9, 2012

    Now HLG I actually read and respond to what you just wrote.

    You said (about the passage of the Civil Rights legislation in 1965), “I’m not only thankful for the passage of the act but also for the cleansing of the Democratic party that followed.”

    “Cleanse” the Dem Party it did indeed and now look what the results have been for the country. Go read my blog “Did you know” and see such results with dominant Dem “leadership” in our inner cities for now 40 plus years. Look just at Detroit, under the “leadership” of John Conyers since……?

    We have “shoveled” money into those inner city ghettos for 40 years and look what we have in return. First and foremost is of course a call for MORE money. Democrats have always had the biggest shovels for the “poor” and what do we have today. MORE poor than ever before it seems to me.

    Check out the graphs suggested that show the more money put into inner city ghettos creates MORE poverty bad education, crime, etc in such ghettos over the years. More government money creates more of that we are all trying to reduce. Detroit, Philly, Houston, you name it. The facts are right before you if you choose to look.

    So you bet, Civil Rights legislation did a lot of Dem party housecleaning. And look what we have nation wide as a result. I give you and yours all the credit in the world for good intentions however. But the results are simply terrible, in my view.

    There again is you basic election debate for 2012 as well.

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
  20. Anson

    Historically the U.S economy has always fared better under Democratic administrations, but don’t take my word for it, prove me wrong.

    “Cleanse” the Dem Party it did indeed and now look what the results have been for the country.”

    I have to agree, since then the Republicans have been bent on destroying the U.S economy. Things really began “going south” when Reagan was elected and began his “starve the beast” policies.

    “”How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy.” Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse.”

    Do a little reading and than gaze into a mirror and ask yourself this question “have I, Anson been wrong all this time.”

    You see David Stockman isn’t telling us that we’re in an economic slump, he telling us that we’re in an economic “Apocalypse” created by the right.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=all

    Like

    Reply
  21. ansonburlingame

     /  January 9, 2012

    Pardon me for scolling again, specifically not reading Stockman’s rant against the GOP.

    I guess no one agrees with me that BOTH parties have put us where we are today and BOTH parties have built up our debt to the point where it is going to overwhelm us, just like Europe.

    Na, you say. Only the GOP has done so, right? No, I say. We the people in our incessant demand for more when there is now not much left, anywhere, is the cause of our decline. And it all began in 1965 when we “cleaned up” the Dem Party and the GOP decided not to commit political suicide to thwart them.

    Welcome now to the Tea Party, hell bent for leather to clean it up again, of die trying, metaphorically speaking.

    But you did promote a whole blog from me on this point. Thanks for the input.

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
  22. “I guess no one agrees with me that BOTH parties have put us where we are today and BOTH parties have built up our debt to the point where it is going to overwhelm us, just like Europe.

    I agree that “both parties have us where we are today,” but the guilt on Democrats is for failing to stop Reagan’s political aggressions and destructive “borrow and spend” economic policies. Since I was there and so were you that makes us both guilty. Where we differ is that I rejected Reaganomics and voted in favor of the many while you continued to support the wealthy few. None of my choices were perfect, but they were in time proven to be more tenable choices.

    Let me put it this way. If the working class and wealthy have no common ground for economic symbiosis’, then the working class goes hungry, becomes tired and angry, while grudgingly fed handouts from emerging wealthy fascists without markets. The wealthy 1% can only survive with the recognition and acceptance of its wealth by the 99%. When nature gave birth to man it excluded deeds to tracts of the earth, because there were no owners and no laws to certify them.

    Like

    Reply
  23. ansonburlingame

     /  January 10, 2012

    OH, so now it is Reagan’s fault. I thought the talking points for the DNC were to blame it all on Bush II

    Reagan had to tax and spend to continue to support Dem programs and win the Cold War. Warfare – welfare state like I have been taliking about for a period of time now, thanks to Stockman’s input some 4 or 5 years ago. He got that one correct, in my view.

    Bush II, post 9/11 got caught up in the same dilemma and continued the warfare – welfare spending. Obama campaigned to STOP the warfare but did not do so. So Obama has continued to support the warfare – welfare State but has ALSO piled on about $5 Trillion for welfare only in more debt over three + years. And he wants MORE money, borrowed money to keep on doing so, until……???

    Well HLG, here we are today with enough debt to choke a horse, like Europe, and no real ability/money NOW for EITHER warfare or welfare as we the people demand it. Hmmm, a gordian knot, perhaps.

    Only as an aside, as I understand why you don’t read my blogs, I did publish one recently about how to align our national objectives with need cuts in defense. Bottom line is I proposed bringing DOD down the about $400 Billion (from the current $800 Billion).

    I sent the blog link to my USNA class web site, a bunch of now old and retired “warriors”. Holy cow. You should hear the remarks I have received!!! Every neo-con argument possible has been thrown (politely) back at me. Unfortunately all the comments are by email so you cannot read what I have received when I suggested a really radical realignment of our real national objectives for defense in the coming decades.

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
  24. “OH, so now it is Reagan’s fault. I thought the talking points for the DNC were to blame it all on Bush II”

    It began with Reagan and fell under Bush II.

    “Reagan had to tax and spend to continue to support Dem programs and win the Cold War.”

    Interesting but completely untrue. We would’ve won the Cold War without increased militarism. Before Reagan was elected all of our bills were being paid for. Reagan used a ruse to increase SS payroll taxes to compensate for the increased demand that would be brought on by retiring “Baby-Boomers.” Reagan’s increased taxes resulted in a $2.6 trillion surplus, and then he proceeded to spend the nation into the ground.

    In fact Reagan had this incredible notion that if he continued to push the U.S government into debt, it would eventually force the U.S to dissolve entitlements to cover the losses. The problem was that he was wrong and no such dissolution of entitlements occurred and will never occur. Hence his “starve the beast” policies. Another batty Reagan idea was “Trickle down Economics” which even Bush I labeled “voodoo economics.”

    “Well HLG, here we are today with enough debt to choke a horse, like Europe, and no real ability/money NOW for EITHER warfare or welfare as we the people demand it. Hmmm, a gordian knot, perhaps.”

    Who told you that the European economic crisis was caused by entitlement programs?

    “The European sovereign debt crisis has been created by a combination of complex factors such as: the globalization of finance; easy credit conditions during the 2002-2008 period that encouraged high-risk lending and borrowing practices; international trade imbalances; real-estate bubbles that have since burst; slow growth economic conditions 2008 and after; fiscal policy choices related to government revenues and expenses; and approaches used by nations to bailout troubled banking industries and private bondholders, assuming private debt burdens or socializing losses.”

    Do you see the words welfare or health care anywhere in the above quote?

    Here read it for yourself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_sovereign_debt_crisis

    In fact the top 10 most stable economies includes Germany, Sweden (socialists), Finland, Denmark, and Holland which are all in Europe. Then there’s Canada which shares a historical legacy with the U.S taking 7th place on that list. Now here’s the “kicker,” all 10 of these countries have single payer health plans and a much larger social net than the U.S.

    Like

    Reply
  25. ansonburlingame

     /  January 10, 2012

    Scrolling again from here, but I did note the following, “Before Reagan was elected all of our bills were being paid for.”

    Except for four years under Clinton we have NEVER “paid all of our federal bills” each year. We have borrowed money, deficit spending, each and every year since the New Deal. Go check the government web sited for historical debt and deficits.

    And you think Reagan was bad. Are you kidding me. Look at our last three years. OH, I know, Reagan, Bush, God or someone did it but not President Obama, right, just for the last three years.

    Yuk.

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
    • Anson,

      Since your pet issue is the debt, and since you have accused Obama of running up huge deficits, I suppose you can easily answer the following question with an educated guess:

      How much more money has Obama spent than would have been spent by John McCain?

      I’ll be waiting with great anticipation for your learned answer. (You can even get some help from your Berlin-bound friend, if you need to.)

      Duane

      Like

      Reply
      • Straw argument from a mind of straw. No way to know what McCain “would have done”. What IS done is there for all of America to see. They give him and his party as “shellacking” in 2010 and 2012 is at last just around the corner. I have two grand daughters and three nephews who simply cannot afford another four years of Obama and his “transformational change”.

        Like

        Reply
  26. “Scrolling again from here, but I did note the following, “Before Reagan was elected all of our bills were being paid for.””

    True!

    “Except for four years under Clinton we have NEVER “paid all of our federal bills” each year.”

    Also true!

    “Go check the government web sited for historical debt and deficits.”

    Why don’t you just provide the link and I’ll read not scroll it.

    “And you think Reagan was bad. Are you kidding me. Look at our last three years.”

    Unless you don’t understand what you’ve just read then yes Reagan was bad. What you’re missing is that Obama inherited a 30 year old growing deficit intentionally caused by republicans to kill entitlements.

    Like

    Reply
  27. ansonburlingame

     /  January 10, 2012

    Duane,

    Obviously you ask a question impossible to answer. Who knows now what John McCain would actually have done had he been elected. I assume you also mean that the House and Senate would still have Dem majorities of significant size post the 2008 election.

    Now MAYBE, just maybe, McCain would have submitted a budget for 2010 that reset spending planned back to say 2007 or maybe 2008. I seriously doubt he would have submitted the one Obama gave us. And for 2011 I am sure whatever McCain submitted as a budget would have been voted upon by Congress, not just rejected out of hand by the Senate and nothing else done with it.

    But who knows now.

    Actually who knows now what the budget submitted for 2013 WILL be no matter who is elected President. I know what I would LIKE for it to be, but I’m not running for sure.

    Heck, if OBL (Long) became the President I have no idea what HIS budget would look like.

    But of course as well it is NOT the budget submitted by a President that really counts. It is the budget AUTHORIZED by Congress that puts us deeper and deeper into debt and deficit, low growth, high unemployment and all the other things we currently confront.

    Now when was the last time Congress actually authorized a real budget? Hmmm?

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
    • Well that “evil” Republican House has passed one but the Democrat Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over TWO years. Oh those darn, little facts, how so they get in the way of the agenda.

      Like

      Reply
  28. ansonburlingame

     /  January 10, 2012

    One other thought about “if John McCain had…..?”

    The first year of the Obama Presidency our big fight politically was NOT over the economy. Dems simply rammed through the stimulus. No the big political fight was over ACA while the economy was tumbling down, down, down.

    I can assure you that had McCain been President NO ONE would have been arguing over HC reform in 2009. The debate that would have consumed the country would be over the “econcomy, s….”

    Equally for sure, we would not have argued and still be arguing over extending the Bush tax cuts. McCain would have seen that the extra $70 Billion a year taken from the “rich” would have meant little or nothing in trying to deal with a deficit of HUGE proportions.

    This whole tax the rich thing is peanuts compared to our REAL problem which is we spend too much money. I think McCain would have recognized that and TRIED to do something about it as well.

    But NO , not your guy. We wasted a political year on HC reform, raised the deficit sky high, etc. etc. It would have been a whole different debate right now had McCain been elected. We would be arguing over the CUTS proposed, NOT the tax increases and spending increases being proposed or rammed through with NO bipartisan support.

    Now get out YOUR crystal ball and tell me how the country would have been even worse than it is today, had McCain been elected. Watch out, I might “scroll” as I have heard your views many times before on such matters.

    Anson

    Like

    Reply
    • They HAD to spend that time on the so called healthcare “reform”. The ACA is the mother lode of government control over your life and ergo the long term economy as well.
      The decision was made from the beginning, “to hell with the current mess, throw it a bone and shove healthcare through at all costs”.

      Unfortunately we now see the true “cost” of that ideology.

      A fifty percent increase of the national debt to where it now is greater than our entire GDP, an over 18 percent growth in the federal government that will just keep growing year, after agonizing year, and an already admitted strategy to re-election of dividing the nation even further than where we are now.

      Like

      Reply
  29. ansonburlingame

     /  January 10, 2012

    Now laughing with one more thought. “If McCain had…..” we would have been hearing all the speeches from Vice President Palin.

    Now that would lighten the mood of the country, would it not???

    Anson, again

    Like

    Reply
  30. “Six in ten households are white” is a lie. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2010Characteristics.pdf

    As of 2010, no more than 45% of SNAP-receiving heads-of-household are white. (pg 73)

    Assuming that the non-reported races are roughly proportional to the reported ones, more than 1 out of every 4 African-Americans are on SNAP. Fewer than 1 in 12 non-Hispanic white Americans receive SNAP.

    Like

    Reply
  1. Catholic Leaders Call On Gingrich And Santorum To ‘Stop Perpetuating Ugly Racial Stereotypes’ About Poverty « The Fifth Column

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 620 other followers

%d bloggers like this: