On 7/10/2011 12:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's a pretty paranoid response to what he actually said, Goat.

The fact is that polls have shown consistently, from late 2008 on, that
negative attitudes toward blacks amounted to somewhere between 4% to 20% of
the anti-Obama vote. That's more than a reasonable margin for winning or
losing an election. The fact that they lost tends to obscure the fact, but
Iggy is quite right -- the Republicans now require negative racial attitudes
on the part of some Republican voters in order to win an election. To put it
another way, they now depend on the racists for political power.

Of course, you'll deny this, but that's only because you won't let yourself
believe the facts. And you'll assume that Iggy is painting the entire
Republican party with the same brush, because you're well-trained in being a
victim.

But the facts are on his side, for the basic point that he's making: Without
racists in their midst, Republicans can't win an election now. That doesn't
mean that all Republicans are racists. On the whole, and according to polls,
they appear to have about the same overall racial attitudes as the
population at large. But the racist contingent is largely voting on their
side. I'm sure that the distinction isn't too hard for you, but accepting
the fact of it probably is.

Is it racist to vote against Obama because he's not the same race you
are? Is it racist to vote for Obama because he's the same race you are?
Do you think many black voters, many of whom had never voted before,
carefully examined his record before voting for him? Do you think a
white candidate with similar background and personality as Obama's would
have been elected or even nominated?

I was very disappointed to see that the first major party black
candidate was not only just another empty suit, but worse yet, from
Chicago, where corrupt politician is redundant.

OTOH, Soupy Sales could have beaten McCain. And Soupy's dead...

David