How Would Liberals Treat a Black Conservative in the White House?

White GuiltI know it’s been several weeks since Oprah Winfrey told a BBC interviewer in London that President Obama has been a victim of racism.  And yes, I know that by now it’s old news.  So in the spirit of the holiday season I’ll not only be brief, but polite, civil and kind too.

Ms Winfrey was asked if President Obama would be treated differently if he were not African American. This is what she said: “There is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even in many cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that, and it’s the kind of thing that nobody ever says but everybody is thinking it.”

Oprah is right that some of the criticism of President Obama is coming from bigots.  In a nation of more than 300 million people, there will always some stupid people who can’t get beyond skin color.  But it’s a mistake to make generalizations based on a small number of racists.

To bolster her case, Oprah told the BBC interviewer about Joe Wilson, the South Carolina Republican, who yelled “you lie” during a speech that Mr. Obama delivered to a joint session of Congress in 2009.  That kind of disrespect, coming from a white Southerner, in the United States Congress no less, makes African Americans like Oprah Winfrey wonder why the only president in the entire history of this country ever subjected to that kind of nastiness, was a black man.  If you were black you might wonder the same thing.  But I don’t think Joe Wilson yelled “liar” because Mr. Obama is black.  I think he did it because Joe Wilson is a fool.

But let’s move on to the main point Oprah was making: that some or much of what she sees as disrespect – but aside from Wilson’s remark is probably just run-of-the mill political criticism — is the result of racism.  Is she on to something?

To find out, let’s imagine that another young, attractive African American with an Ivy League education is president of the United States.  Let’s call him President Buckley — and let’s note that he’s very conservative.  Let’s say President Buckley used his considerable charisma to rail against the prevalence of food stamps in our culture.  Let’s say he wanted lower taxes on corporations and thought the government was spending too much money on too many programs that didn’t work.  Who would be criticizing this black president?

If Oprah is right, that too many Americans (conservative Americans is what she meant) don’t like a black man in the White House, then it would be people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who would be yelling the loudest about President Buckley.  But they’d be the ones cheering the loudest.  They wouldn’t care one bit about the color of President Buckley’s skin.  They’d be thrilled that they finally had a conservative in the White House. someone who in the ways that count, resembled Ronald Reagan.

So then, who would be leading the opposition to President Buckley?   Who would be the ones who before he ever got there refused to vote for this kind of black man?  White liberals, that’s who. People like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow.  People who write editorials at the New York Times.

Are they bigots?  Do they hate black people?  No?  Then why are they heaping so much criticism on the poor guy? Could it be – duh! – that they would oppose President Buckley because of his conservative politics?

This is so simple I’m a little embarrassed devoting a column, even a short one, making these obvious points — except they’re not obvious to a lot of liberals.

Because I opened this piece saying I’d be polite, civil and kind, I won’t say that white liberals just aren’t that smart when it comes to matters involving race.  I won’t say that they’re too busy trying to show off their good racial manners, which is to say trying to convince black people that they, unlike most white people, aren’t bigots.  And I won’t say, either, that black liberals, perhaps because of slavery and segregation, have become paranoid on matters of race, seeing racism even where it doesn’t exist.

I won’t say any of that — even if it’s true.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Joe Smith

    Actually white liberals DO hate female and/or minority conservatives more than anybody! The left talks a good game about “diversity” but what they really mean is diversity only of their fellow liberals. Case in point, how many times has NOW endorsed a pro-abortion male over a pro-life woman?

  • EdWalton

    The
    only qualification Barack Obama had while campaigning for president, was his
    skin color. That fact demonstrates the country racist tendency.

  • nkqx57a

    “I won’t say any of that — even if it’s true.”

    Yes you would and you know it; because it is true.

  • D Parri

    Bernie, could it be that there would be the need for a new political phrase…should this ever happen?

    Maybe the new phrase would be similar to the term ‘RINO’, except this one would be a ‘BISO’, or, ‘Black In Skin Only’.

  • knowledgeisgood

    I enjoyed reading this, I could not have agreed more with it, but of course conservatives know eactly how all liberals, no matter the race, would act if conservatives had the White House. They would act as racist as they are now, there would be no change, of course they were not born a bigot, they were taught their bigotry by their parents, and the friends they surrounded theirself with, and not to forget, their Professors they buttered up to in order to receive their liberal diplomas. One thing I have learned from the Liberals, and that is, you can always see through their faciad, what I mean is, when a liberal run’s against a conservative, their only winning tactic is, LIE along with their liberal media friends, this is one of the only reason why we have an Obama administration, twice over, but even Obama barely won the second time around. I will say this, they will not win the next time around, at least I hope, I hope the Obama voters have learned the Truth by what they have seen coming out of that house on the Hill

  • Deborah G

    They’;d just arrange to have him/her assinated

  • buckrodgers

    Unlike white Democrats who pander to African Americans to win elections, the liberal media along with Hollywood is only interested in keeping their institutions lilly white, by playing the race card, white liberals are as racist as anybody else and just because they view themselves as the official spokesperson and defender of minorities especially African Americans, doesn’t make them better then anybody else, if conservatives are racist, then liberals are closet racist which is far worse.

  • antioli

    We know from how they went after Herman Cain how a Black man would be treated. The went after Herman Cain with a racial stereotyping campaign that they tried on Clarence Thomas. At that time some liberals jumped in to denounce the racist attack on Mr Thomas, not so for Herman.

    Herman Cains first speech lit up the sky. He was a voice of common sense in the gloom of nonsense spread by the candidates.
    Governor Walker Walker recently said something quite remarkable and un Romney like recently.

  • Royalsfan67

    While Joe Wilson may have been a out of line in yelling “you lie”, the fact is, he was right. And Obama was in the middle of lying in order to take over 1/6 of the economy. Passions were much higher over this issue than almost any other since votes to go to war. The Republicans were completely locked out of the discussion and ridiculed for every argument they made against Obamacare (oops, guess I am racist for using that term according to MSNBC). His frustration at all the lies so obvious to him and those of us on the right finally boiled over and he couldn’t take it anymore. Good form? No. Incredibly honest? Yes. We could use a little more of that in DC from both sides of the aisle.

    • texexpatriate

      Every genuine American in Congress should have joined Wilson in that shout, because Obama is an empty-suit, fraudulent liar. But wait, there are only about a dozen genuine Americans in Congress!

    • Deborah G

      Joe is the Whitleblower of Congress and he was vilkiifed for bad behavior but when A liberal attacks it is always justified

  • Lc Goodfellow

    News Flash; for you all.
    A&M Study Rates Obama 5th best president in history.
    From a total of 44 US Presidents: Obama is rated as the 5th best President ever!
    The public release said,”…after only 5 years in office, Americans have rated President Obama the 5th best President ever.”
    The details according to TEXAS A&M:
    1. Reagan & Lincoln tied for first,
    2. Twenty three presidents tied for second,
    3. Seventeen other presidents tied for third,
    4. Jimmy Carter came in fourth, and
    5. Obama came in fifth!

    • keith hart

      Figures don’t lie. But, liars sure can figure. The new math. When 5 = 44.

      Propaganda should really be of better quality, shouldn’t it? When it is not, as in this case, what does that suggest?

      The propagandists at Texas A&M are in a panic?

    • D Parri

      Lc, I saw a copy of that one from May 2013, and it went somethin’ like this:

      —————————————————————————————-
      Numbers don’t lie…

      Obama rated 5th best US President ever!

      Of the total of 44 US Presidents: Obama rated 5th best president ever. I was just reading a Democratic publicity release that said,

      “… after a little more than 5 years, Obama has been rated the 5th best president ever.”

      The details according to White House Publicists…

      * Reagan, Lincoln, and 8 others tied for first,(10)

      * 15 presidents tied for second,(15 +10 =25)

      * 17 other presidents tied for third,(17 +25 =42)

      * Jimmy Carter came in 4th, (1 +42 =43) and

      * Obama came in fifth

      • Deborah G

        hahahah now how far dwn the list does that really make him?LAST???? BS is the callingcard of the Democrats they can spin anything.

        • D Parri

          That is an angle that I would have never thought of.

          It definitely takes a creative mind to turn that kind of a calling card into a usable approach!

    • texexpatriate

      Reagan was a good president, yes, but not one thing he accomplished was lasting. Lincoln was a monster who made war on a duly-constituted and newly formed American government and destroyed it. His heirs punished southern people for more than a hundred years and created the myth of moral superiority for the aggressor Federal government. I’d say Lincoln’s “accomplishments” have been lasting.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Not one thing was lasting? While very few things are permanent in life, he gave us tax reform that led to 30 years of unprecedented economic growth. And did you forget about the Cold War?

        • Deborah G

          Reagan was by far the Best president in Modern times

      • Lc Goodfellow

        ….. anyone noticed the nonstop scandals? Any one of these scandals would force a Republican President like Richard Nixon out of office.
        ” Obama owns all of them. ”

        Benghazi-
        Fast and Furious-
        The NSA scandal-
        The AP scandal-
        The IRS scandal-
        The Census Bureau scandal-

        How could one leader be involved in this many lies, frauds, scandals, and cover-ups? There’s enough here for a century of Presidents!

    • Deborah G

      Scarey Id take my kid out of that school

    • Sdqis22cu

      News Flash:

      Even if we assume that many people think he’s the best, it only proves one thing–people can be oblivious to the obvious.

  • Lc Goodfellow

    A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they
    imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to
    themselves.
    I don’t care whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative or a liberal, be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting President.

    • keith hart

      Lc Goodfellow, your opening sentence calls to mind so many of those angry college students, one sees on the news. They seem so angry toward their own country. It’s as if they hope for their country’s chastisement or even destruction. And I wondered at the time why they would believe they would be immune or safe from such a fate?

      • Lc Goodfellow

        ( It’s never too, late )
        Down here on the ‘Border’ you would be one of the,
        “crazy as a s*** house rat ” type.

        But, I’ve told you that before.

  • keith hart

    In all the Inspector Clouseau movies, there is one scene that really stands out for me. I never tire of watching it.

    Clouseau arrives at a well-to-do estate. He is greeted at the door by the butler and asked to come in and wait in the foyer while the butler announces him. Before the butler turns to leave. Clouseau sees a small dog at his feet.

    He says to the butler, “does your dog bite?”

    The butler responds, “no.”

    Clouseau bends down to pat the dog on the head. The dog proceeds to bite his hand. Moving up his arm. Clouseau overcomes the dog on his shoulder, about to strike at his throat. Clouseau wrestles the dog to the ground. Pins him. The dog finally squirms loose, running away, loudly yelping.

    Clouseau recovers to his feet. Furious, he gets in the butler’s face. “I thought you said your dog doesn’t bite!!!’

    “That is not my dog”, the butler deadpans — not missing a beat.

    This Clouseau anecdote highlights for me the need for hard facts. And asking the right questions to get them. Make assumptions at one’s own peril.

    Another movie scene, Detective Frank Drebin waiting on the back terrace of a Beverly Hills mansion.

    He’s there to question the woman of the house.

    While waiting, he picks up a small dog wrapping itself around his ankle. The small dog appears formless — all hair. Attach a long handle to it, it could be a dustmop.

    The dog squirms as Drebin tussles. The dog clearly wants to be set down.

    The woman suddenly appears, very annoyed with Drebin.

    “there, there pookie. I’ll take him, if you don’t mind.”

    Drebin struggles to hand the dog to the woman. Not knowing what else to say, Drebin says, “ah,uh, your dog has a very beautiful face.” As he pulls back the dog’s hair.

    The woman has possession of pookie and turns him around in her arms.

    “That is not his face”, she sniffs.

    “Well, then, that explains his squirming so hard when I tried to feed him that treat.”

    I think this scene illustrates for me — how to recover with ‘left-handed’ aplomb, with as much understated hubris as possible, when one has clearly failed to get the pertinent facts.

    I think Obama and his leftie crew could learn something from these two scenes — particularly regarding Obamacare — for most of his presidency, for that matter.

    • D Parri

      Peter Sellers and Leslie Nielson were wonderful in those movies. I’ve watched them several times over the years, and I’ll probably enjoy them again someday.

      I’ll have to admit, though, it taught me something very important…don’t assume you know the whole story unless you ask the right questions. Simple, but elegant in its truth.

  • keith hart

    My allegation that lefties are Regressives: anti-growth, anti-opportunity, anti-liberty is based on these following observations.

    Anti-growth: the lefties pursue policies that want a larger slice of a shrinking pie; rather, than a smaller slice of an expanding pie. For anyone who understands ratios — you do the math.

    They oppose and block so many economic initiatives in industries America excels at. While, throwing hard earned taxpayer money at pie- in- the- sky schemes. And when they fail — it’s, oh well, never mind, it was only 960 million dollars.

    Anti opportunity : The lefties passionately stand in the way of school vouchers — claiming the end of our public school system as a result. A school system ranked 17th to 21st, among industrialized nations — depending on which research group report you read.

    I believe the direct competition from school vouchers will awaken and sharpen the motivation of those running the public school system. Monopoly rarely works, competition rarely fails.

    We are no longer a nation requiring folks to be at assembly line workstations doing repetitive, mind numbing tasks. The future is now. But, people must have the patience and fortitude to go through the learning curve.

    Current technology stands at a threshold of marvelous breakthroughs —- needing people to bring the necessary skills to the task. With the proper educational opportunities, folks can be engineers, astrophysicists, chemists, oncological research technicians — you get the picture. And getting paid damn good money for it.

    Face it, those of you languishing in daydreams in public school classrooms — it is extremely remote you will be a rock star, hip-hop star, movie star, pro athlete. But you can be the founder of a high tech startup or the valued employee of one, venture capitalists are just waiting for you to arrive — if given the opportunity, a fair shot at the starting line.

    And lefties stand in the way of that.

    Anti-liberty: There’s an old saying , ‘better to seek forgiveness than ask permission’.

    There was once a time in our country when a private citizen could be told by the lawful authorities, ‘no, you can not do that’.

    Now, private citizens are told by authorities, ‘if you want to do a thing, you have to get our permission first’.

    That’s all I have to say on this — for now. You will find I refer to lefties as Regressives. You will not find me calling them the P-word.

    • D Parri

      K, I do agree with most of what you’ve said but with a few slight differences from a personal point of view. But, for the most part…I agree.

      Bigger government means fewer freedoms, hence, anti-liberty.

      Bigger government and an artificial ‘leveling of the playing field’ is anathema to competition. Reduction of competition disincentivizes and will always lead to the slowing or rescission of economic growth.

      Bigger government is typically defined by its ‘nanny-state’ presence, and a perpetual goal is the enhancement of its presence in the lives of all citizens. Although touted as a means of providing a ‘safety net’ to help the less fortunate, the act of handing out too often becomes a way of life for those being helped and this has the effect of lowering the living standards for vast groups within the social spectrum who are no longer motivated to rise up from their current position or standing.

      As you can see, K, I do agree with the message you bring to the table. I have not focused much upon the pure progressive/regressive nature of these issues, but if choosing one or the other I guess that I would have to say that bigger government tends to be more regressive in its impact upon society. That is in clear contrast to a conservative promotion of liberty, independence, and personal responsibility.

      • keith hart

        D, I believe the promotion of liberty, independence and personal responsibility are progressive traits and have been since the rise of mercantilism against feudalism — the rise of a tradesmen and merchant class and the doing away of noble tyranny over serfs.

        Is their anyone who does not see, Soviet citizens from 1917 to 1991 had it no better than serfs.

        The regressive marxists with their passion for autocratic, authoritarian control — and the appetite for terror to enforce it.

        Our own alinsky/marxists with their government caseworkers coming into people’s homes. Looking around, filling out their clipboard forms, telling folks what they can and can do — if they are going to get that monthly check.

        Granted it is not Soviet terror. However, when it starts, who knows where it’s gonna lead. Nip all tyranny in the bud.

        I believe the ‘progressive versus regressive’ dichotomy is the crucible where we can strip the lefties of their hold on defining the premises of this political debate.

        • D Parri

          Unfortunately, not everyone spends the time to try and understand what the impact of our own action–or inaction–has on our lives.

          In choosing that ignorance over understanding it becomes more palatable to digest the words of our leaders if their message ‘sounds good’, even though their words are in stark contradiction to their actions. That is how dishonest people rise to power, i.e., through the laziness of the electorate.

          That may sound like a harsh statement, but the result of its reality is many times worse.

          • keith hart

            D, it’s 70% how you look, 20% how you say it, 10% what you say: the makings of a leader since Cicero and further back to Pericles.

            In times of the citizenry facing imminent peril — that 10% does go up.

          • D Parri

            Yeah, it’s kind of like how we regard our local governmental services and the taxes that we are willing to pay for them.

            Police and fire are essential but how often do we actively call them up and ask for their services? Streets are ok unless they become full of potholes…then it becomes an issue–but only if it is a street that we personally need to travel. Water and sewer are services that come into our homes everyday and–boy howdy–are ever glad to have good working sewer systems!

            We elect leaders to manage those very things I just mentioned and if they all work fine, then it’s just a matter of who gets our attention that gets elected.

            In good times, it appears that looks trumps message. When the sewer backs up, though, people are more concerned with the solution.

          • keith hart

            D, I was thinking more in lines of say, Churchill — not necessarily sanitation workers.

            Churchill, certainly didn’t have the looks, he did have the ‘how you say it’. But, his 10% ‘what you say’ shot through the roof as The Nazis drew near.

          • D Parri

            K, yes…Churchill had an extremely important message to bring–THE SEWER IS BACKING UP, so to speak. ;-)

            Also, I have noticed the guest votes, and they are probably someone who is not logged in at the time but liked the comment and decided to give it a positive vote. It doesn’t bother me if someone likes my comment…I would like to know when, on occasion, I get a ‘down’ vote what was the dislike. However, I usually do know why and it is not–for the most part–what I had to say.

          • keith hart

            D, yes, I get that too — about down votes. When a guest ‘up vote’ pops up, it makes me a little uneasy that they weren’t willing to log in and add something to the discussion.

            All the none votes, on almost everyone’s posts is a little disconcerting — sort of like walking through a cemetery.

            On NewsMax — it’s a helluva lot more feisty. Kinda like carrying a basket of eggs across a barroom brawl.

          • D Parri

            Oh my goodness! I’d better try and avoid that barroom, or I may find out if I wear those eggs as well as I carry them.

            I look at it as this forum has lots of visitors who read the comments posted here but do not choose to participate for whatever reason. If they like something then they might choose to mark it with a positive vote. That’s ok with me and I’d rather see where someone was in favor of what I had said, but it does not mean that we can’t share our ideas.

            Personally, I usually mark a comment with a positive vote whenever I come across something that appears thoughtful, perhaps provocative, and respectful of others. I have been attacked with petty comments and I have rendered some of the same in return. I prefer to stay away from that kind of traffic.

            However, the ‘ghosts’ don’t bother me.

    • Deborah G

      great post

  • Kiawah Island Bulldog..

    hey Bernie does Joe Wilson look like a fool now? Looks to me like he is pretty samrt and spotted this guy long before the rest of the country did!!! Who is the fool now!!!

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Again, he’s not a fool for thinking our president is a liar. He’s a fool for shouting it out in the middle of presidential address.

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        Yeah, Wilson was a bit rude, even if he was also right.

  • D Parri

    As I’ve said before, a conservative is a conservative is a Republican.

    Oh, wait! What about a “Boll Weevil”, or a “Dixiecrat”? There are exceptions, obviously, but keep in mind…THEY ARE EXCEPTIONS. Otherwise, when speaking of a conservative you will most likely–for the vast majority (hmmph!)–be speaking of a republican.

    So, a republican in the Whitehouse could expect to be treated the same by democrats regardless of color–black, white, yellow, brown, green, or chartreuse. Period.

    • keith hart

      D, were boll weevils and dixiecrats really conservatives? I know lefties — who like to control the premises of the political debate — like to hang a ‘conservative’ tag on them. However, they supported most of FDR’s New Deal and Harry’s Fair Deal. They seemed to me to be more regressive — than their other fellow lefties. Because, they adamantly opposed Liberty in the ‘Jim Crow’ states.

      I do not accept the premises lefties posit. I don’t consider or refer to them as Progressives, just because that’s what they want to be called — besides nothing they do is progressive. They are Regressives.

      First and foremost they are not the protectors of the marginalized. They are the jailers of the marginalized.

      They are regressive in their actions because they are anti-growth, anti-opportunity, anti-liberty. They have a passion for autocratic, authoritarian societal control reminiscent of feudal times. What is the difference between ruling elites and ruling nobles?

      • D Parri

        K, it appears that above anything else the Dixiecrats were a segregationist break-off from the mainline Democratic Party who wanted to protect the ‘southern way of life’. The actual name for this group was the States’ Rights Democratic Party, but Dixiecrats were the popularized name.

        Some Northern Democrats have used the term–at times–for any southern democrat, regardless of the political platform, and the name has been used simply as a tag to indicate location rather than standing on issues.

        The 1948 DNC experienced a divide in the Democratic Party between northern liberals who supported civil rights initiatives and the southern conservatives who did not, and that ultimately led to 35 southern delegates walking out and forming a new party. It only officially lasted one election, but the long-lasting tag to be hung on almost any conservative democrat since then has almost invariably been associated with the Dixiecrats of 1948.

        Likewise, the anti-civil rights reputation earned by the Dixiecrats at that time is often projected upon any conservative position or party platform standing, regardless of published, public, or campaigned platform agenda.

      • D Parri

        In addition to the comments regarding Dixiecrats, I think it is important to stress the point that Demo-heads want to cast the light that all conservatives (GOP) are non-progressive in terms of civil rights issues.

        How far from the truth could that be when you take a look at the greatest civil rights supporter that we have ever had for a president–Abraham Lincoln, a republican progressive conservative.

        • keith hart

          So, true. So, very true. That’s why I will not accept lefties defining the premises of this political debate.
          It was Senate republicans voting for the Civil Rights Bill which allowed its passage. The votes necessary to overcome the dixiecrat caucus blockage.

          LBJ acknowledged that at the bill’s signing into law. Also, many times after that in interviews. This is hard fact. Found in the congressional record, the footage of the bill signing and on microfiche of many publications.

          Yet, the lefties refuse to acknowledge it or even believe it.

          I suggest, we keep at it until the public sees republicans as progressive conservatives and democrats as regressive marxists.

  • I Hate Fascists

    Hey Fabulous Furry Fascist Bros, so now you have a Fascist Fatwa out on Phil too and you are no doubt feeling very cockstrong about yourselves. Keep it up, you will have no liberals at all posting in this intellectual cesspool, and you can wallow amongst yourselves in hatred, misery, and ignorance. Understand this. You are and always will be a fringe cult hate group. No one with any sense wants to live in your Fascist Fantasyland. AND YOU WILL NEVER TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK!!!

  • keith hart

    John, I did get to see those two vile posts from voltemort before you deleted them. I guess I’ve drawn the attention of a real pyscho.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      They don’t get much nuttier than that guy. He makes Phil look rational.

      • keith hart

        I like that you are always so there..

      • D Parri

        Thank goodness it’s only words. The compare that you made with Phil could get scary if there was anything beyond words that went with it. Thanks for the good work, John.

    • Sheila Warner

      Be proud! Only those who stand out attract trolls and whack-ohs.

      • keith hart

        It’s not you silly. It’s weacko bird.

        • Sheila Warner

          I know. I just chimed in.

          • Voltemort

            And you. This cry baby abuses you non-stop and here you are mothering him? Are you his mama? If you want to gratify his overinflated ego and encourage his diva fits and narcissistic behavior then that is on you.

        • Voltemort

          You are putting us on right? You who come out of nowhere showering everyone left and right with abuse? And now here you are going to pieces like a little girl? And your hallucinations of Gettysburg and meeting Mandela? You have never been outside your parents’ basement have you? If you are not putting us on then you are one very fkdup individual.

  • keith hart

    The ironic thing was I didn’t know I was chatting with Nelson Mandela. He was in for some do at the U.N., I was returning from a bizz trip to Geneva. I was chatting with just another guy waiting on luggage.

    • keith hart

      Upon reflection, it was twenty some odd years ago not thirty. Sometime in the mid nineties. The reason it’s clearer to me now is because in the 80′s there was no one who would have trusted to send me on a bizz trip to Geneva. I ask, you excuse a somewhat early senior citizen, his occasional muddled memory. Although, I still can remember all the names of my girlfriends.

      • D Parri

        Well, the girlfriends have a different way of making a lasting impression. ;-)

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @TED/HA. Thanks for sharing your intellect.. But unnecessary. Sometime I chose to hit “reply.” and other times I don’t. Sorry if you don’t like it. ha.

  • DanB_Tiffin

    How Would Liberals Treat…? Well, the phrase “Uncle Tom” would be worked to death.

  • keith hart

    Nelson Mandela passed today. A real loss. I met him once, thirty some odd years ago. We had a nice long chat, waiting on luggage from different flights at JFK airport.

    A real natural, unassuming guy. A natural leader. I pray folks in South Africa honor his memory and don’t descend into tribal warfare . That they think of themselves as citizens of a nation more than they think of themselves as members of a tribe.

    • Pablo Pendejo

      You are tripping bro. 30 years ago Mandela was in a South African prison. But thanks for the kind thoughts.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      A great leader. We need more like him.

    • Martin Bash Her

      Waiting on luggage? Or love GOP style in the men’s room? Whatever, it is a figment of your drug-addled mind because 30 years ago Nelson Mandela was languishing in a South African prison cell.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @TED NED. I can’t argue with your statement regarding who the real racists are. I just have to feel “sorry” for you and your lack of intellect of not being able to see that it isn’t Obama’s color that is the problems. IT IS OBAMA! How can you defend a President that has been proven/proof readily available that he has done nothing but deceive and lie since he was elected? You don’t question why he has been on national television since day one and still in campaign mode to this day. Why wasn’t/isn’t he in his office doing what he was trusted and elected to do. Keep his promises to the naïve that believe and voted for him. People who apparently still believed in Santa Claus..We know the national debt was out of whack when he took office and while campaigning in 2008, he promised to bring it down (first five years)? And he actually increased the debt by trillions..How can you ignore that he deliberately and knowingly let our people in Afghanistan (sp) die. Sit back, order a stand down and go to bed. He and his crew blaming a amateur video on the attack? Promising parents of the deceased he would find the people who murdered their children, father, son, accountable? Fast and Furious, IRS..AND NOW THE AFFORDABLE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN? How can you accept that he claims he didn’t know? He doesn’t even have the dignity to admit when he has been wrong/made a wrong decision/dropped the ball. I would think any red blooded American would want to know the answers/hold him accountable.. Maybe, had he been in his office the last five years and meeting with the other powers to be instead of flying around in Air Force 1 making campaign speeches, or apolozing to terrorist for our country? or on the golf course. or playing basketball and not to forget the many vacations! If you read the history of the one time President Jimmy Carter, you will see why Carter failed and obvious you aren’t the only one as you voted Obama in a second term. Aren’t you a little tired of hearing everything/all his mistakes, his lack of being blamed on Pres. George W. Bush? He reminds me of a little kid that when they get in troubleand always blamed a friend for what they did!

    • Tim Ned

      Let’s discuss your post to me and than intellect. First I am a conservative, own my own business, pay health care and excellent wages to my employees. My question is poised to Bernie’s article. No where did I render an opinion on the President’s policies or the issues you brought up that we hear every day from people like you. Those that post here regularly know my opinion on the policies of this president and my conservative values. Also I try to keep my posts within the scope of the article.

      So now let’s discuss intellect. Please re-read my question and put it in the context that it was written by a person that believes Ronald Reagan, in my humble opinion, was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. But perhaps I need to clarify; my point is that if criticism of this President is racists as many liberals proclaim, then what is it when liberals never criticize the President?

      Now let me give you a little piece of “non-intellectual” advice when posting here. You don’t need to use @ to reply to a post. Underneath every post is a button called “Reply”. That helps keep the threads in order.

    • plsilverman

      what about F & F? he inherited that mess from W. and had his Att. Gen. shut it down. yes, there were tragic results in implementing the original plan (yes, it was under a diff. name). what about the IRS? 1600 did not direct those actions. the ACA will be and is already, affordable. “apologies”, my foot. if they were apologies, then they mimicked Bush II’s.

      • Sheila Warner

        The program under Bush 43 was called “Operation Wide Receiver.” One major difference between the two is that the Mexican government was told about OWR by the Bush Justice Department. Not so with F&F. And, if AG Holder shut down F&F, how did he claim he only found out about it a “couple of weeks” prior to the Congressional hearings? Of course, his good friend in the WH gave him cover with the citation of Executive Privilege, which stopped the release of key documents. We’ll likely never get the truth. Interesting that the WH claimed no involvement at the same time Executive Privilege was invoked. Neat trick.

        • George Williams

          The documents that were turned over by the DoJ had so many redactions that they were useless. It’s a coverup to any but the Obamazombies.

          • Sheila Warner

            What? Didn’t I just finish going through the facts that F&F was different than OWR, and that the executive privilege stunt was a ploy. I can’t tell what you’re talking about most of the time.

      • George Williams

        1600 didn’t direct those actions, and Obama didn’t lie about Obamacare, doctors and insurance plans. You are very, very gullible, or should I say, stupid, fish.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @PSilverman/or is it Phil? I can’t believe the dialogue going on between you and Daly. Filing law suits? Let’s go head to head? I’ll meet you at Starbucks/ha.
    You asked if President Reagan should have been impeached for Iran Contra and Bush II for VP doing his job? You forgot to mention Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs.. Those were honest mistakes, not deliberate lies and deceit that we are being fed for five years…

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Please take note that the dialogue you’re describing isn’t going “back and forth.” It’s a one-sided lunacy from Phil, and me mocking that lunacy.

      • plsilverman

        and YOUR kind of looniness here can’t be a boon to your writing career.

        • George Williams

          Hi, silverfish. Got your lawyers all in line? Like Obama, you’ve got no credibility. You’re looked upon as nothing more than a boor. Obama lied and hundreds will die because they won’t have insurance next year. Still feel good about you creepy president?

          • plsilverman

            grrr! you been watching John Wayne movies?

          • George Williams

            Obama lied. Millions will be uninsured. The Obamacare web site still doesn’t work, despite Obama’s lies to the contrary, and those millions will have a period of being without insurance in 2014. And when they do get insurance, it will cost them more, and they may not keep their doctor or hospital. How do you defend your hero, now, chump?

          • plsilverman

            you have invested a lot of bodily fluid in this “chump”.

          • George Williams

            Obama lied. He knew years ago that people would lose their insurance policies and that they’d be paying higher premiums. He lied to the American people in over 30 speeches, repeating the same willful falsehood. He thinks that they will forgive him. He must be stupid or think that his followers are stupid. He might be right about the latter, as he still has people like you on his side.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          It’s going just fine, Phil. But thanks for your heartfelt concern.

          • plsilverman

            You keep doing these “double whammies” on me. an insult up front, then another insult after I say you insulted me again. It’s kind of groovy, in its’ own way. not intellectual at all…but groovy. Nothing to be learned other than you want to be the Commentator *and* arbiter of good taste here. But seriously, some of your readers are bound to see your prosaic duds here and ask, where’s his literary integrity? maybe I’ll stick to the Classics!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Oh, Phillip.

            I know this will never, ever get through to you, but I’ll say it again, just because I have a few extra minutes this morning.

            You insult the people on this website each and every day by accusing them (including all of the writers here) of racism every time they criticize President Obama or discuss the issue of race.

            Calling someone a racist (and that’s exactly what you’re doing, even if you want to try and hide behind your cowardly semantics game) is a far, far worse than telling someone they sound like an idiot or calling someone a fish.

            You portraying yourself as some kind of victim, and acting like a kindergartner by telling people that you’re going to sue them, is about the most pathetic thing I’ve ever seen.

            If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. You’re an adult. Start acting like one.

    • plsilverman

      meet at starbuch’s? new to me! Reagan and Bush II did impeachable acts, NOT doing their jobs,.I only go back to that for those who say Obama – even though previous Presidents did far worse than a recess appointment when the Congress was out part -time, not full-time. JFK, Bay of Pigs? he couldn’t get impeached over a covert action which the CIA approved. By the way, JFK did the right thing by not invading Cuba (in that fashion). > Lawyers? I’ve been here for about 1.5 years and the vile personal insults keep on coming..from about 3 people. I know that online harassment is not a joke. I’m getting good advice from colleagues right now about when it’s over the top and has potential to damage one’s professional profile. >>>>to me, JFK, nothing impeachable; Nixon, nothing impeachable, unless coaching witnesses is “illegal”, not just corrupt; RR, most definitely impeachable: Iran Contra, marginal on planning a visit to a nazi cemetery, firing 11k air traffic controllers when suspension and selective firing, etc., could have worked PLUS his assassination attempt on Gadhafi (which may have brought about the LOckerbee incident); Bush II, as I’ve said, re. the slam dunkers.>>I enjoy civilized discussion, as I have with you. I AM very sensitive: please no hollering – I could get a complex. jk. :)

      • George Williams

        Obama, lied to 300 million people, telling them that they can keep their insurance plan, period; that they can keep their doctor, period! And now that millions have had their plans cancelled, facing the prospect of a gap in coverage because of his administrations corruption and incompetence, and facing huge increases in premiums, co-pays and deductibles, along with losing access to their hospitals a doctors, Obama faces the contempt of the American people like no other president. If not an impeachable offense, it evokes the ire of millions who would like it to be so. Obama is through, and so is the progressive movement, and so is the credibility of his supporters, especially those who still do.

        • plsilverman

          nah….first of all, he mis-spoke and it was mis-leading (you would say it was intentional). HE ALSO posted the entire ACA bill.
          by the way, it was not a lie, in the first place: a true statement if one (yes, naively) expects 2nd rate providers of INDIVIDUAL plans to adhere to the new standards and NOT do what they always, do, on a whim: drop clients, or from the goodness of their hearts, limit, cap, or spike the premiums.
          invoking ire…ok. he did that to his own base, too. re. drones, extending the 10 yr. tax relief program for millionaires, extending the patriot act, Guantanamo, offering to offer an approx. FOUR TRILLION dollar deficit reduction package to the Town Cryer.
          Obama’s popularity going down? when he gets to Bush II’s 25% let me know. is it impeachable to go below 25%? ask the KOchs, ALEC, or Murdoch.
          Progressivism over? maybe. Globalism is the new deal. Bush I presented it.

          • George Williams

            Still writing incoherently, eh? Obama stated that he never met his uncle Omar in the U.S.., yet the facts show that he lived with him in Massachusetts. More lies brought to you from your hero. Obama is a compulsive liar. Anything, including his denial that he didn’t know Bill Ayers, is fair game for a compulsive liar like Barack Obama. He probably started at an early stage of his life, stealing cookies. Obama lied about writing his autobiographies by himself. Bill Ayer is getting desperate to sell his pathetic book, and guess what, he will eat his young by confessing to have written liar Obama’s books.

          • plsilverman

            what’s your sources for those “lies”. maybe he doesn’t recall meeting his ol’ Unc’? Wanna review some “lies” from the Gipper and W.? you know, just 4 perspective? like slam dunking us into a war so VP’s previous employer -where he was CEO and walked away with a 45 to 62 million dollar going away present – can get a nice partially no-bid contract. “lied” about writing books? ya mean writing the WHOLE book? writing none of it? does your presumptive hero palin and the rest claim they “wrote a book”? you have got to be kidding! Liez, liez, liez.! yay!! now go back your Patriot Movement newsletters. and please, do us all a favor, no more posts to me here and I will send no more posts to you. howz about that, little dude?

          • Jeff Webb

            Interesting: only at the very start of your comment do you defend Obama. The remaining 90% you posted is a garbled mass of irrelevance and distraction.

            Sorry to break it to ya: Presidents Bush and Reagan are not to blame for BO’s dishonesty.

          • Sheila Warner

            Where was the GOP under Bush 43 for eight years? Did you ever hear any urgency about health insurance reform then? Only when the liberals pushed through the monstrosity of Obamacare did they show any interest. It’s so silly for both sides to be pointing fingers at each other in this mess. They both were responsible for the debacle which is Obamacare. Stupid GOP. Stupid Democrats. Stupid disengaged electorate. Now the vast numbers of us who were hoping for some common sense compromises have to live with the fighting among the ideologues.

          • plsilverman

            can U explain how pre-ACA was NOT a monstrosity? seems you want to return to deny precondition coverage and having women charged twice as much as men for the same treatment and allowing insurers to spike 40% overnite, no explanations. what is so odious about covering 42 million taxpayers who will be able to cover themselves and not have YOU and ME pay an extra 1,000 dollars per yr. for them? at this point, there would be FULL USA coverage if the providers of INDIVIDUAL plans would adhere to the new ACA standarsds. but alas,…they do what they do: drop someone when an operation is needed or just limit, cap, or spike. so you are saying that because both new and old systems are flawed let’s return to the more seriously flawed. read WENDELL POTTER’S book.

          • George Williams

            Again, silverfish, you do not understand economics. Males pay more for life insurance than females, mainly because females live longer. Is that fair? Females have more health care issues, i.e. pediatric care, gynecological, etc., than males. Is that fair? No it isn’t, but that’s life and insurance companies pay out more for females than males. Idiots like you would pretend that females and males are the same.

          • plsilverman

            well, pal, you can expect a formal cease and desist, unless you finally stop the illegal online harassment. stop mocking my Father’s name.

          • Sheila Warner

            There is no Constitutional right not to be offended. There is, however, a First Amendment which allows for mocking. My maiden name was Hicks. I remember hearing “Hicks sucks dicks” as well as “your family is only a bunch of hics from the sticks.” Ignoring such insults made me stronger. Get a thicker skin.

          • plsilverman

            been going on for a year. I understand the schoolyard antics coming from several folk here…..I got a very thick skin. I worked with homeless, unemployed, under-employed, professional, managerial, technical, material handling job seekers, working with employers to develop jobs for them, or just finding unsubsidized jobs, which was the goal. helping people find housing, sometime after I had to counsel them for months. I have a good grasp of human nature and what makes people tick.?>how long have you been posting here? online harassment, whether or not I FEEL offended, or actually take it seriously, it is now illegal. yes. > 5-6 times, calling me an idiot, and “silverfish”, etc…. whatever. but 50-60 times, along with new and unusual insults all the time, is an embarrassment to the readers/posters. I guess that the spitball hurler (not the BB kind) we are referring to is maybe 22-25 years old and enjoys reporting back to his younger friends on how he can rattle cages of people who disagree with him, or make him realize that he lives in an intellectual straight-jacket. so what do you think of the Yankees?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>I got a very thick skin

            You’re threatening to sue someone for calling you a fish.

            You regularly threaten to sue me and others because we tell you your incessant race-baiting is idiotic.

            You’re a lot of things, Phil. But thick-skinned is not one of them.

          • plsilverman

            no, my Dad’s name was Silverman. Not silverfish. No big deal…just surprising for anyone over 11….and your negative looniess is extra surprising. I got thick skin, yes – walk a mile in my bare feet, son. Re. suing over online harassment….look it up and see if it’s not serious.

          • Sheila Warner

            It’s illegal to mock a name? I don’t think so. There has to be some kind of major stalking with truly egregious speech before you are anywhere in the ball park of illegal. But, hey, don’t worry about the rest of us, we’re not offended or damaged by others mocking you, so that’s one less reason to threaten suing. You admit that your tormentor is probably a young kid with nothing better to do than to brag about how he gets you to react. Do him a favor and stop reacting. Then it will all go away. By the way, how long I have been commenting on this particular forum has nothing at all to do with your thin skin (methinks you doth protest too much to the contrary with your long list of jobs); I have visited Bernie’s site for quite some time now, but I don’t always post to the forum. Eventually I end up talking in circles with ideologues, get bored with the talking points spewed at me, then go slient again for awhile. I can only stand so much boredom, and now this go around is getting boring. I’d rather talk to people with interesting and challenging points of view.

          • Sheila Warner

            So, you’re okay with females being punished because of their anatomy? Keeping women healthy is good for the economy. Do we want to pay for diseases such as breast cancer, or do we want to pay for mammograms? Do we want children who are born premature, or do we want to pay for good prenatal care? And the discrimination doesn’t stop with medicine. On average dry cleaning and tailoring cost more for females as well. They still don’t earn as much for the same work. When everyone has equal access to equal needs, society is better off.

          • George Williams

            I’m for everyone pulling their own weight. I said nothing about denying anyone health care, but why shouldn’t women pay more if they use more?

          • Sheila Warner

            If a person gets a cancer diagnosis, then let’s extract the last penny. After all, that person will use more of of the healthcare system. As to your assertion that fathers are also responsible for paying the costs of medical care for the women who bear their children, may I remind you that too often that isn’t the case. A woman is abandoned, or her husband dies. There is no assurance that women’s prenatal care or childcare thereafter will be paid by someone else. It’s why we need safety nets. I’m bored with this conversation.

          • Sheila Warner

            I have always said that pre-ACA was terrible. As a nurse since 1995, I have real issues with private insurers, believe me. I’m debating that with George Williams right now. I’m angry at the GOP for not doing any kind of health insurance reform during the eight years under Bush 43. In addition to the added expense of spiking premiums, I had to deal with referrals, capitation, precertification, and downright denial of coverage. People were not always allowed to keep their health care provider, or use the specialist they wanted, or go to the hospital that they preferred. And the game is so heavily rigged toward the insurance companies. Payment was sometimes pennies on the dollar for health care providers. Oh, yes, I’ve seen it all. The previous system was every bit as bad as what we now have in Obamacare. This is what happens when one party sits it out, and the other runs with the ball with only the narrowest view of what may come. Had both sides come together to pool ideas and really hash it out, we’d be better off. Or, just go to single payer. That’s what I really want.

          • plsilverman

            cool > thank you very much for the lengthy reply.

          • Sheila Warner

            Here’s a short one: you didn’t address anything I said.

          • George Williams

            Because he’s a hopeless Obama sycophant and has been taking lessons from Jay Carney.

          • George Williams

            Name a single payer country that gives an acceptable level of care. It always sounds good. I do not believe that government would foster competition between suppliers that would result in the best care. No, I’d wager that there’s no good single payer/socialist system that would work. I’ve heard problems with the Canadian and British systems. They do not give quality care. As a nurse you would suffer financially, because the government would dictate your wages, and they wouldn’t necessarily be acceptable.

          • Sheila Warner

            Under both the old system, and Obamacare, insurers dictate the amount paid to health care providers. As to Canada, read this:
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/permissiontolive/2012/07/how-i-lost-my-fear-of-universal-health-care.html
            It’s written by an American ex-pat. Canada has 10 provinces with 10 separate plans. Overall, a recent poll showed that over 50% of Canadians like their plan. In Great Britain, an American tourist was injured by doing a handstand in the road, then falling. He was treated for his fracture at no coast to him. It’s not all gloom and doom. We have a logistical obstacle, though, which I admit: we have over 300 million citizens. Canada and Great Britain have much smaller populations.

          • George Williams

            I do not accept the idea that government should be in charge of health care. I’ve seen too many bad outcomes from political influence. Politics always trumps rationalilyt in the federal government. We only have to look at Medicare and SS to see how government steals funds for other purposes to understand what could happen.

          • plsilverman

            what parts of ACA are better than what parts of pre-ACA? :)

          • Sheila Warner

            No lifetime caps, no pre-existing condition discrimination, and no cancellation if one gets sick. Those three. I’m not a big fan of keeping your kid on your plan until age 26. You’re an adult at 21.

          • George Williams

            Giving insurance to those with pre-existing conditions is like selling insurance to someone after he’s had an accident and then expecting the insurance company to pay out.

          • Sheila Warner

            No, it’s not. Health insurance pays for injuries after an accident, once the auto insurance pays its share, based on the contract. If a person has no auto insurance but has health insurance, the bill gets paid. Of course, in your world people without insurance should not receive medical care, right? All of those pesky people who had the audacity to contract a disease should be left without any medical help. Yea, that’s really ethical. Just who “deserves” to get medical treatment in your world? In my world every human life is valuable. No one is left to die.

          • plsilverman

            thank you. I agree profusely! I don’t know where they get “26″ but…maybe as an adjustment to the draggy economy inherited and only partially improved. / the real “alternate universe” solution is a National Health Care System where we pay (cough) tax and have all Medical professionals as Civil servants. see any Doctor you want and say: here’s my card. Doc says: let’s check if the Feds approve of ear piercing. ok…back to here and now. Health Care Reform took 65 years and the bill did incorporate Repub. ideas. Gets fully implemented by 2015. Expects to generate 4,000,000 new HC jobs.

        • Sheila Warner

          Exactly! Which is why I say a pox on both the GOP and the Democrats. Both parties have hurt Americans. The GOP had eight years under President Bush to do something about the broken health insurance situation, but did nothing. They only jumped on health insurance reform when Obama came up with his bad plan. I say it’s time to throw out all of them.

          • George Williams

            The health care system is only broken because the Democrats regulate and interfere in commerce. The Republicans a least recognize that. There is no equivalence between the two. The Democrats are so stupid as to be unable to understand capitalism and its role in health care; that regulation, if necessary should come from the states. Throwing them all out is irrational. There are some Republicans that would make good policy Throwing out all the career politicians, even the good ones is a recipe for disaster, very similar to what we find in Barack Obummer.

          • Sheila Warner

            How old are you? What do you know about the health insurance industry? I got my nursing license in 1995. I have had the (dis)pleasure of having to navigate all kinds of insurance companies, to try to get them to actually care for the client who has faithfully been paying premiums. The restrictions on obtaining needed medical care and testing is awful. Do you know what capitation is? Do you know how HMOs reimburse doctors (if at all)? Do you look at your EOBs (if you know what one is) to see how much a health care provider has to write off? Low reimbursements are not a new problem in Obamacare, believe me. Neither is not being able to keep your doctor.Neither are beaurocratic panels. So, yes, based on my own years of experience as a nurse, I’d throw out all of the health insurance companies. I’m glad they are being called on the carpet for the crap they’ve pulled.

          • George Williams

            To be frank, I’ve had FEHBPs for over 30 years and have never had a problem with my insurers. Do you believe that permitting competition across state lines will help?

          • Sheila Warner

            I haven’t seen the model for it, so I cannot say. It depends on individual state regulations. Here in NJ, we had multiple auto insurance companies quit selling policies for years, because of how NJ exercised oversight. I remember losing Travelers insurance for my car, and having to get a more expensive plan. We still have the highest premiums in the nation. And our insurers are national companies, competing across state lines. So, will competition alone drive costs down dramatically, as the GOP insists? I doubt it. But more competition certainly is advantageous to consumers, that’s for sure.

          • George Williams

            You haven’t heard of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program? More specifically, I have the Foreign Service Benefit Plan, one sponsored by the American Foreign Service Protective Association. I work in the Republic of Korea and use a Korean hospital.

          • Sheila Warner

            sigh I haven’t seen the model for across state line competition. Of course I know about the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. When my husband was in the Air National Guard full time, that was our insurance. Keep up. I’m really starting to get bored with having to bring you back to the topic which I am discussing.

          • Sheila Warner

            Oh, I didn’t comment on throwing out all of the incumbents. I noticed that you said there are some Republicans that would make good policy. Probably the tea party caucus, right? And, no good Democrats for you out there? If I am understanding you correctly, I believe that you are an ideologue, one who is far to the Right, and consider yourself a staunch conservative. It’s always hard to have a discussion with an ideologue. My only ideology comes from wanting adults to act like adults, and pool ideas to find solutions. Again, that puts me squarely in the middle, getting whiplash from watching the Right and the Left ping pong insults at each other. Hmmm. I’m right. Let’s get a new batch in Congress, a clean slate, which will listen to all Americans, and not just those in their personal choirs.

  • Tim Ned

    I wonder who the real racists are? Those that disagree with this President, or, those that never disagree with this President.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @GEORGE WILSON..Great comments! Excellent read. All of your comments are based on truths/facts! It is refreshing to read your comments with your obvious knowledge, intellect and your FACTS to back up your verbage with accusations regarding Obama’ crediability. Hopefully KH has read your many excellent comments/truths and doesn’t accuse you of having your “blaten facts” wrong or tell you that you are not “entitled.” He is a prime example of why Obama was elected for a second term? :) Actually, I think I am safe in assuming that he hasn’t read your comments becaue he know he’s no match for you. Keep up the good work, George.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    IDIOT! Not having to use the hunt and peck system to type like you, the fast typing get the fingers careless..PTIYPASI

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @KIETH HART..You are an indiot/a hole more accurate. You asked me, What gives you the right to BURDEN, ETC.? What give you the right to assume that typos or grammar BURDEN (like the caps/get the point?) others? OTHER THAN YOU? I really don’t give a RA if you don’t like me and many others who choose caps to make their point! Who is this WE who gets it (the caps)? I’m not entitled? You are indeed a piece of work or a piece of something else with your know it all, assuming, self righteous fat mouth.

    • keith hart

      Whew!

      • keith hart

        It’s not Kieth — although that would be a deep south Alabama accent. It’s Keith.

        • keith hart

          As opposed to a north Alabama accent — completely different accent.

  • keith hart

    What gives you the right to burden others with sloppy writing? Because you are feeling ‘passioned’?

    Take a moment, re-read what you have written. Yeah, correct syntax, grammar, spelling.

    Show a little respect for your readers. Before you hit the send button. You are not so entitled as to appear as an impassioned moron.

    Oh yeah, lay off the upper keys. We get it, already.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @Sheila Warner. Thanks for the message and I also enjoy reading your points of view and your, what I call “agreeing to disagree.” I adore my son in law but we are never on the same page politically and agree to disagree :) or should say, get into heated discussions/ha. I must gloat as he is finding out that my page has a lot of information he needs to know…

  • Sheila Warner

    That’s because they have nothing better to contribute. We may disagree on things, but I enjoy reading your points of view. Makes life more interesting when I’m not preaching to the choir. We all have our filters.

    • keith hart

      Your smug disdain for the members of this forum will catch up with you.

      • Sheila Warner

        Ha ha ha ha ha….Smug disdain. That’s rich coming from you, who attacked Patty over grammar and syntax. A bit of a snob, there, aren’t you? Everyone is entitled to state a point of view, even if there are some typos along the way. We can’t all be Rhodes Scholars. I like it that my so-called “smug disdain” will “catch up with me.” How, exactly? Might I at some point in the future make a (gasp!) typo, and be found out? Whoa is me, I must change my bad ways…..Thank you, thank you, thank you, o thou mighty Keith, for setting me straight. (Still laughing merrily away)

      • Sheila Warner

        Oh, by the way, my previous comment is DEFINITELY smug–and filled with disdain.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    ATTENTION ALL: Obama not only has lied over and over and if he isn’t lieing he is deceitful..

  • George Williams

    To legal eagle: “You can keep your doctor, period!; You can keep your insurance policy, period! This defines the credibility of the POTUS during his entire presidency, from the so-called “phony scandals of Fast and Furious coverup, Benghazi coverup, IRS coverup, etc. If the president lied to you about the Obamacare issues, it is likely that he and his administration lied to you about the “phony scandals”. And his competency is defined in the outcome of the Obamacare web site. How could it be otherwise, as he is managing a nation of over 300 million people, when prior to this, he’s never managed anything larger than a half dozen people in a congressional staff. We have the most incompetent and inexperienced president ever to hold office, a man who will forever be the butt of jokes and the man who killed progressivism. LOL!, Legal Eagle. Sucker!

    • keith hart

      Barack Obama is on a fast track to being the most hated person in American history. Thanks to this obamacare tyranny.

      • plsilverman

        “Obamacare tyranny”!! yay! I wonder how the 42 million newly insured will feel when he’s impeached over helping them get affordable coverage? most hated? by those in the Patriot Movement? By the Tea Party caucus? By the John Birch Society? By Foxnews? By ALEC? By the KOchs? funny, those who learned to, shall we say, DISLIKE him, include alot of his base who (get this) disliked his indulgence of the extreme rightwing, extending the 10 yr. tax relief program for millionaires and offering huge cuts to the big 3. TYRANNY!!! just 4 perspective, look up the War For Halliburton and RR’s Iran Contra. and the GOP policy of affirming p(pre-ACA) that insurers could deny coverage to precondition cases & charge women twice as much as men for the same treatment.

        • George Williams

          I wonder if the 30 million that Obamacare as identified by the OMB to leave out would agree. In fact, there are as many left out of the health care system as Obama has included. Obamacare does nothing for them.

          • plsilverman

            30 million? nope. It could be 1-2 million, not that even one is okay. 42 million covered, 80 to 95% of the remainder stay the same, and the 5% – INDIVIDUAL account holders can go to an exchange after their 3rd rate provider drops them.

          • George Williams

            All of what you’ve said is a lie. The Congressional Budge Office put out a report that even after implementation of Obamacare there would be 30 million uninsured. And after the employer mandate is implemented, it is estimated the the majority of workers under their employer health care plans would lose their original policies and no one really knows how many will be thrown into the exchanges. You are a true Obamazombie, silverfish, a no-nothing who’s drunk the Obama lemonade. I’ll bet it tastes strangely like piss.

          • Sheila Warner

            Except that the government is predicting that once the employer mandate kicks in, many more people could lose their plans. No one knows for sure where this will end. And, we are seeing more people get Medicaid than regular insurance. That means more costs to the taxpayers, and less money being paid via premiums, because Medicaid is free. Not that those poor folks will be able to find a doctor that takes Medicaid. It’s been a problem for decades. They’ll get to go to the inner city clinic, I guess.

          • George Williams

            He’ll never respond to this because your narrative doesn’t fit his preconceived notions or the Obama talking points he’s been indoctrinated with.

          • Jeff Webb

            If by “42 million” you mean the # of people who have been uninsured up until now, that’s a misleading figure.

            How many of the 42 million are illegal aliens? How many are people who could’ve afforded insurance but, for whatever personal reason, chose not to buy it? How many were new employees of businesses whose benefits just hadn’t taken effect yet? What is the projected # of people who will choose to pay the penalty/tax instead of buy insurance? How many of the people getting insurance thru Obamacare are doing so because of the loss, or rate increase, of the plans they were promised they could keep or wouldn’t go up in cost?

            Next time you plan on posting numbers that make Obamacare look like a good thing, remember there are people here who know bull when they see it.

          • plsilverman

            you tell us how many of the prev./ uninsur. are “illegal”
            aliens. if they ARE illegal, how were they identified? ACA attempts to cover 42,000,000 either never insured, or not allowed to buy a premium because they had a precondition. but don’t worry…ACA is happening every day across the USA, numbers are looking better and better. those folks kicked off their INDIVIDUAL plans for $$$$ reasons will find good coverage on the exchanges. plus ACA is the law and affirmed by the SC. you’ll have to wait about 10 years to nullify it. there will be 4,000,000 new jobs as a result of the new demand and the generalists and specialists realize that their clientele will go up significantly. :) now you can go back to Pelosi’s botox.

      • Sheila Warner

        I don’t know. Bush 43 was more reviled than President Obama. How quickly people forget. IMHO, Bush 43 was too stubborn, and I think President Obama is in over his head. Let’s bring back Bubba.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      George, you’re forgetting that “period” is Hawaiian for “with several major exceptions which won’t be mentioned at this time.” So like he said, there was no lie. ;)

  • keith hart

    To: Y’All
    From: keith hart
    Re: my gettysburg response to Bernie’s essay, ‘ Why some people respond to the word …….’ You get it, right. If not, then go there.

    My ‘Gettysburg’ gets three responses: 3 up, no down — sh3t!

    Sometimes, I think, in this forum, I’m clanging cymbals thru a morgue.

    That ‘Gettysburg’ got 358 responses on Yahoo — granted, some of them were pretty vile. Most were not.

    On NewsMax posting: 453 responses.

    It got 4,000 plus on ‘Mother Jones’ — most of them pretty cool.

    • Wacko Bird

      The soft bigotry of low expectations perhaps?

      • keith hart

        Yeah, could be — Wacko Bird. Did your parents give you that name? Or are you just being a chickenshit.

        Have you ever considered shooting a hot needle into your arm?

        Maybe, I’m looking to disengage here. And I still want to extent kudos to D. — he knows why.

        ‘Mother Jones’, although a little too leftie for me, still has some very sharp, original thinking going on. Some real next level stuff. And I want to be a part of that.

        • Wacko Bird

          A hot needle? Goodness Gracious! Are you speaking from personal experience? Looking to disengage? Rather smug disdain for the distinguished scholars on this forum.

          • keith hart

            So, did your parents name you Wacko Bird? Or are you being a chickenshit.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            It’s “I Hate Fascists” using a different name in hopes of not having his posts deleted. So you’re second guess is correct.

          • keith hart

            John, what is going on? I didn’t get that earlier about ‘I hate fascists’ guy.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Oh, it’s no big deal. There’s a guy who got banned from this website a while back who keeps trying to come back with different user names so we don’t know it’s him. He’s the person you were replying to.

          • keith hart

            OK. Thanx

        • Wacko Bird

          Flattery will get you nowhere cumstain. You want to do what? “Extent kudos”? Rather sloppy writing don’t you think? Listen up my hateful homeboy, Keith Fart, Keith Hate, whatever the hell your mama named you, you come up here out of nowhere like Black Jesus and demand everyone to drop to their knees and worship you? Go clang your nuts somewhere else you sanctimonious pile of excrement.

        • Hank Wank

          Hey Homey The Clown! How about I shoot some hot come in your mouth?

        • Sheila Warner

          Hmmm. Advocating the shooting of a hot needle into an arm. Coming close to calling someone a chickenshit. Sounds like disdain to me.

    • Sheila Warner

      Keith, of course you are banging your cymbals in a morgue. Haven’t you noticed the number of brain dead people on here? I gave your latest comment a thumbs up, so you can cheer up.

      • George Williams

        I’ve read your stupid commentary about the T-Party sabotaging the country. Somehow fiscal responsibility is now considered sabotage. The T-Party predicted the disaster that we know as Obamacare, while people like you are so stupid and infatuated with Obama that you still sing his praises. The T-Party recognizes when Brain dead? Yes, you are among the Obamazombies, the brain dead who will never cave to reason, preferring to believe in the most corrupt presidential administration in the history of the country..

        • Sheila Warner

          Sigh. George, George, George. I am an Independent who did not vote for President Obama in either election. Why do I believe the Tea Party is sabotaging the government? Because the word “compromise” is seen as some kind of surrender. Obamacare is funded differently than the rest of government. Funds were already appropriated for it long before Ted Cruz came to town. So, shutting down the government had zero chance of stopping Obamacare. Yet the Tea Party zealots I saw on the Fox forum, those I referred to as “brain dead”, didn’t even realize this. Once they found out that Obamacare was marching forward, they were quite upset. Fiscal responsibility should be a goal of every member of Congress. However, not everyone has been, including President GW Bush. We have debts that we must pay back. Shutting down the government only hurt average Americans, hurt local economies, and set back any meaningful dialogue within the GOP as Ted Cruz and the TP held guns to the so-called “RINO”s. One must have a winning strategy in order to move forward. The best thing the GOP could have done was to fund the government, then sit back and watch Obamacare go up in flames. No government shut down, just confidence that Obamacare would implode. I don’t know why I continue to waste my time trying to explain all of this to you Tea Party members all the time. You never listen.

          • George Williams

            “Because the word “compromise” is seen as some kind of surrender.” You must live in a cave if you really believe that the Republicans can “compromise” with Obama, who’s had a take no prisoners approach to politics. From day one he stated that he won and since, there’s been every indication that the Democratic Party has taken their lead from Barry O. It’s the main reason why Harry Reid refused to debate the Republican House legislation on the floor of the Senate, and why the country has been run continuing resolutions and why the National Debt limit has been raised year after year, without debate. It is the reason why Obama will not discuss any reduction in spending. Go ahead, be an Independent, but I suspect that you’re an Independent who votes Democrat more than Republican. And Cruz and the Tea Party were right about Obamacare. Keep sitting on the fence. It will never be sharp enough to move your ass.

          • Sheila Warner

            I love it when people try to peg me in some sort of fantasy world. I especially love it when people assume I voted Democrat. I did not support the President in either election. I think he is incompetent. I knew that Obamacare was a loser. I also believe that Harry Reid is mistaken in not allowing GOP bills on the floor for debate and an up or down vote. Before you get all excited, remember that Boehner has his own drum to march to. He has that pesky Hastert rule. Except he doesn’t invoke that rule when he needs help from the Democrats to pass legislation that the TP faction doesn’t like. The President and John Boehner were so close to a “grand bargain” in 2010. But two things happened. The President pushed for more revenue, which could easily have been given by the GOP, considering the waste in government. And, the TP Freshmen would have none of it. You may think that Obama won’t negotiate with the GOP, but let’s face it, the TP won’t negotiate with its own GOP leadership, for God’s sake.. There is plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle, but the TP believes its sh*t doesn’t stink. It also believes there are more of them than actually are. Being a moderate doesn’t mean sitting on a fence. It means taking both sides of a debate and hashing out what will actually solve problems. You might want to try it sometime.

          • Lc Goodfellow

            Why are so many of today’s followers’
            …. educated beyond their intelligences … ?

      • George Williams

        “As for LBJ, he did not see the long term consequences of welfare. It looked good on paper. After all, children are not responsible for their parents’ mistakes.”

        Such ignorance. LBJ was part of a political machine. He didn’t have an altruistic bone in his body. LBJ established the “Great Society” as a program to buy the black vote. That’s what Democrats do best, enlist people into dependency and then build upon that by generating new benefits. If you knew LBJ’s history then you’d know that he was a mean, cynical politician. He was a politician first and last, above all. The Democrats were the part of segregation, and like all Democrats, they eventually realized which way the political wind was blowing and decided to change course. To think that LBJ was anything more than a political opportunist is laughable. I suggest that you have a reality check and read a book that isn’t a Democrat revision of history.

        “At what point did they turn their backs on the GOP?” When the Democrats gained control of the government and decided that it was more important to get elected than be fiscally responsible. The Democrats have been buying the black vote ever since, and the country has been cycling into deficits caused by entitlements ever since.

        • Franklyn Douglas

          So your saying that Black people are the only ones to get a helping hand? Are you saying that only black people are on the government dole ? There are 46 million people on food stamps. But there are only about 36 million blacks in this country. And believe it or not. Not all blacks are taking hand outs.

          What are your views on corporate walefare ? You do know that big business, big farms, and big defense companies also have there hands out.

          • George Williams

            I never said that, but the truth is that the number of black people who receive food stamps is higher in proportion to their numbers in the population than that of whites. And just what does corporate welfare have to do with this? Answer: nothing. You are typical of the Left who point in another direction when the issue is something else. I suspect that if you looked at corporate welfare that LBJ and the Democrats are just as guilty of trading campaign funding for corporate welfare as the Republicans. Prove otherwise.

          • Sheila Warner

            Excellent points that I overlooked. The farm bill is still stalled, not because of an attempt to rein in huge subsidies to Big Agribusiness, but because the GOP wants to cut food stamps. And abortion, too. Kind of hypocritical–make sure poor women don’t have SNAP but wonder why they get abortions.

          • George Williams

            “Kind of hypocritical–make sure poor women don’t have SNAP but wonder why they get abortions.”

            Free abortions are charity, and furthermore, I resent my taxes going to pay for the indiscretions of the promiscuous, poor or not. Abortion has been sanitized by the left into being something no worse than lancing a boil, but in fact it is baby butchering. Why should I be complicit in such acts if I feel they are morally wrong. If you want to pay for such things, then send your money to Planned Parenthood, but don’t enlist me in you nasty deeds by trying to use my taxes for that purpose.

          • Sheila Warner

            How do you read something and not understand? I am pro-life. That means I want fewer abortions. Providing SNAP to poor pregnant women will help them to have the babies. Why is it that so many conservatives only care about the birth of the baby but not the life of it after birth? I never said I want abortions, I never said I want tax dollars to fund abortions, and I never said I think abortion is moral. How in the hell did you get all of that from my statement about the GOP expecting fewer abortions in spite of cutting SNAP benefits? Please pay close attention to what I actually say, and not what you think I might have said. Read my posts a few times first, okay?

        • Sheila Warner

          Such cynicism. I know all about LJB’s temperament. I lived through it. I don’t believe he was trying to “buy” votes. He didn’t run for re-election because his fellow Democrats were running away from the Vietnam war. Do you think it was the GOP who camped outside the White House chanting “Hey, hey, LBJ,how many kids did you kill today?” It’s misplaced ideology. I remember my dad telling me the reason he did not agree with socialist policies is because the government gets too much power. He voted for Goldwater. He also voted for Nixon, who was about as bad a power grabber as we’ve ever seen. Talk about intervening in the private sector! Do you remember when he froze all wage and price hikes? I do–I listened to his address on the radio while with my dad. My dad, who ironically agreed with Nixon. That was my first realization that hypocrisy lies in both parties.

      • keith hart

        So, you feign ignorance of the social welfare system in this country. So typical leftie. Dishonest thru and thru.

        Smug and arrogant will only get you so far down the road. Eventually you will have to face facts. Democrats will not be your pals.

        • Sheila Warner

          The GOP are not my pals, either, sir. They love to hand out corporate welfare–big oil, big Agribusiness, and Wall Street. Of course, the Dems are just as bad with Wall Street, what with QE driving down interest rates for savers, and keeping small businesses from getting loans. How is the rebound of the markets helping unemployment these days? Not at all. The GOP will scream at the Dems for wanting to extend unemployment benefits, while the GOP screams at the Dems for wanting to raise the capital gains tax. Both sides are hypocrites. Both sides need to be voted out of office. Left or Right, they are both wrongheaded.

          • George Williams

            “They love to hand out corporate welfare–big oil, big Agribusiness, and Wall Street.”

            How ignorant. Obama and his Democrats have been the biggest proponents of corporate welfare in the past 5 years. What do you think those grants, tax subsidies for the auto industry and government backed loans for green energy and buying electric cars are about. And Capital Gains is the worst tax strategy ever. Not only does the government get rake offs from investor earnings, but they have the nerve to tax the corporate earnings before the investor even sees them. All that rake off is money that could be re-invested and spent to create wealth, when the government would transfer this to the non-productive of society.

          • Sheila Warner

            Here we go, pointing to bad behavior to justify more bad behavior. Corporate welfare has been going on prior to President Obama. Which party screams the most in favor of cutting taxes on the rich? As for “raking off” earnings before the investor ever sees his money–it’s called income tax. You know, the same thing we all pay? Taxes are taken out of paychecks before anyone sees their earnings. Investment income is still income. And, it seems only to be re-invested in rich people’s assets, not the general economy. This notion of wealth creation adding jobs to the economy is a farce. Look at the unemployment rate.

          • George Williams

            Tell me how it’s rational that a corporation should pay income taxes and that the net earnings distributed to the investors is taxed again as ordinary income.

            “And, it seems only to be re-invested in rich people’s assets, not the general economy.”

            I am guessing that you mean that re-investing in assets (i.e. stocks that provide capital or are used in banks) is equivalent to putting it in their mattresses. No, rich people take their earnings and either spend it, and in so doing create jobs, or put it into financial instruments which corporations and other entities use to expand their business and create jobs. Rich people do not let their money stagnate, but put it to work somewhere. You obviously do not understand economics.

          • Sheila Warner

            No, you don’t understand economics. Let’s say that my father, out of the goodness of his heart, takes some of his after tax earnings and gives it to me to try and help me make ends meet. The money from him was taxed as earned income. The money I receive will be taxed as unearned income. Your investor is in the same spot. His profits are earned income, and the investors who receive dividends are then taxed on their unearned income. As to big corporations making the money work for others, you failed to answer me this: if the wealthy create jobs, and since they are now accumulating quite a bit of it, why is the unemployment rate still so high? Why is it that the average Joe, who puts his money into a savings account, getting interest at less than 1%? The banks charge much higher interest on personal loans, assuming, of course, that they lend at all. Small businesses are still having trouble getting loans; and this, in spite of a massive infusion of cash via QE. That QE has also resulted in a strong stock market. Wealth created. Still no jobs. This has been the situation for years, prior to Obamacare, so don’t try to blame unemployment on that. Trickle down economics is voodoo. Bush 41 got that one right.

          • George Williams

            ” if the wealthy create jobs, and since they are now accumulating quite a bit of it, why is the unemployment rate still so high? ”

            Partly because of Obamacare investors are holding back. Obama is raping the corporations to pay for Obamacare. Why should they hire new people in expansions if the cost of labor is so high as to make it impossible to make a profit? Obama has put more costly regulations in place, and in the middle of a stagnation, has introduced a huge new cost of doing business. He’s done everything he can to discourage growth.

          • Sheila Warner

            I specifically told you not to blame Obamacare. On the one hand you say the wealthy don’t let their money remain stagnant, and then you say they are doing just that, sitting on their money because they’re afraid of Obamacare. Which is it? Because both under Bush 43 and this President, when the wealthy were getting more wealth, there weren’t so many jobs created. In fact, quite the opposite occurred. The big investment banks took their wealth and re-invested it in–wait for it–other banks. That’s what I meant when I said the rich only invest in their own assets. Of course, the joke was on them because of the derivatives fraud They nearly killed the entire American economy with their greed. And it was Paulson, a Bush guy, who came up with TARP. Now the money is flowing again, the markets are strong, but still no jobs. Still no small business loans, which also prevents expansion and new jobs The gap between the very rich and the very poor is getting wider. And that, my friend, has nothing to do with Obamacare.

          • George Williams

            ” Now the money is flowing again, the markets are strong, but still no jobs. ”

            The markets are not strong. The stock market is up because interest rates are so low that people have to put their money in something other than bonds. When there are a lot dollars chasing a finite amount of stocks, the prices rise. It’s a matter of supply and demand. It’s a form of inflation. What is the relationship between how the wealthy are doing with respect to the very poor? Are you saying that it’s a zero sum game, because if it isn’t, then income gap is false relationship. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich. That’s a comparison that the socialists and communists like to make. Bill Gates and other computer/software geniuses are rich because they invented and sold products that are popular. The poor are poor because they lack talent or are handicapped in some way. People also like to say that CEO – average worker pay gap means something. I doesn’t. The worker wouldn’t receive a dime more if the CEO who normally earns a couple of million or so had his salary cut to a dollar a day. The savings would all go to the investors.

          • Sheila Warner

            I’m merely saying that it doesn’t always follow that the wealthy are the job creators. In the crash of 2008, it was actually the rich who destroyed jobs. It’s a crap shoot for the investors, for sure, but when they crash and burn, it’s still the little guy who suffers.

  • Chet Przygoda

    Liberals can be bigoted? Never happen only conservatives, white conservatives can be bigoted. Those others are just misinformed and in need of a good liberal education at some place like Harvard.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @PSILVERMAN. THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION and thank you for asking me to join you on Facebook. I get triple teamed, and called “nasty” names all the time.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      I hear yah. We regularly get called racists… mainly by Phil.

  • keith hart

    To: Sheila Warner
    From: Keith Hart

    I’m glad you like being in a hardball forum — because you are in one. Not like the cranky, vile leftie Huffington Post — geez, do they so hate Obama over there.. Although, I have to say ‘Mother Jones’, as leftie as it is, have pretty cool posters.

    Yeah, well, thanks for the lengthy explanation for why you were wrong. I don’t go to people’s disqus. I don’t go to my own. What I have to say, I say in the open — in a public forum.

    My take on Romney’s ’47%’ address is this:
    He was lamenting so many Americans living powerless lives. Having government case workers coming into their homes, looking around, filling out their clipboard forms, telling folks what they can and can not do — if they are going to get their monthly check.

    Its the democrats who have caused this.

    They are not protectors of the marginalized. They are the jailers of the marginalized.

    So, what is the answer to all this? It’s so simple, so easy. It’s laughable — but, like a sharp whack to the side of your kneecap.

    Get a skill — other than drug dealing — a skill people want — need — to be willing to pay good money for.

    Outside my family, I don’t need people to love me or even like me. Just pay me on time. And don’t kneejerk vote democrat.

    • Sheila Warner

      The reason Mitt Romney got into trouble with the 47% line had much to do with his painting of everyone who gets government assistance as somehow too lazy to make it on their own. He neglected to factor in how many of those 47% include those on Social Security, Medicare, and military personnel. He really came across as judgmental and condemning. I believe he is a good man, but the manner in which he spoke about the 47% made me cringe. I believe he was trying to prove to conservatives that he was one of them, when, in reality, I bet he was a moderate. It was a damn shame. All my opinion, of course. As for those on welfare, it seems that Danial Patrick Moynihan was a prophet.

      • keith hart

        Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a really good guy. Not ‘a’ but ‘e’.
        .
        Just have one of those government case workers come into your home and see what you have to say.

        I made so many points you refuse to address.

        • Sheila Warner

          A typo. I know how to spell Daniel. I ignored your rant about government case workers with clip boards because, there are no case workers coming to one’s house for Medicare or Social Security. I know, I’m on Medicare and Social Security. No one knocked on my door. I failed to see your point, actually. What other points did I ignore? Probably none that stood out to me. Some comments made on here are just so, well, kind of nutty, that I ignore those. I don’t throw gasoline on fires.

          • keith hart

            So, you feign ignorance of the social welfare system in this country. So typical leftie. Dishonest thru and thry

          • Sheila Warner

            Um, I’m a moderate. Most SNAP recipients are white, did you know that? Is there a problem within social programs? Yes. But there is also something wrong with oil subsidies, subsidies to Big Agriculture, and trying to keep capital gains taxes low. Investment income is just that–income. It ought to be taxed in the same way. While taxes were lower for big corporations, we ended up with a huge unemployment problem. Now that the Fed is using QE to prop up the big banks, who is getting richer faster? Not middle or lower class folks, that’s for sure. Small businesses still can’t get loans, interest on savings is next to nothing, and unemployment is still too high. I’m no liberal, but I can see how the average American is getting hosed by both parties in Washington. I’m no conservative, either. A pox on both their houses, Left and Right.

          • George Williams

            But there is also something wrong with oil subsidies…” Really? Have you ever looked into why they exist, rather than just assuming that they’re just kind of payoff in trade for campaign contributions? They were originally designed to encourage oil exploration in a world dominated by OPEC, And just what are “oil subsidies” anyhow? That which you call subsidies merely permit private enterprise to keep more of what they earned, after taxes. I take the perspective that the less we give to the federal government, the more private enterprise has to invest in creating wealth and invest in expansions that create jobs. Apparently you look at it as the money is the government’s first and the earner’s second. How perverse. The government habitually wastes money and creates no wealth. No, you are not a moderate, you are a Democrat.

          • Sheila Warner

            Here’s an article from Forbes defending the subsidies, which you’ll like, from this past April: http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/ We are not in the same situation we were in during the OPEC crisis in the 70s. Also, we had a glut of gasoline but prices remained high because the refiners simply sold gasoline overseas. I love the “but the farmers need a break on their fuels!” line. This conjures up an image of Roscoe the Farmer on his tractor, harvesting his family farm. But the reality is that farming is now done primarily by Big Agribusiness. If the government wants to buy oil for that strategic reserve, I have no issue. As far as providing energy assistance, that can be done via a SNAP type program. It should be administered by the states. Let the oil companies pay for their own exploration. I mean, do you know the amount of profits Big Oil rakes in each year? In 2012, it was $120 billion. And they need tax dollars? I also realize that corporations take tax breaks. That’s why we need tax reform. Funny how that goal dropped out of sight as soon as the 2012 elections were over and done with. I am a moderate who sees that we are being run by Republicrats, with no hope of change happening in our government. Both the GOP and the Democrats are responsible for this mess. Please don’t call me a Democrat. Please don’t call me a Republican, either. I hate them all. I am independent.

  • plsilverman

    nah, you’re wrong…”OUR Blacks” is racist because it implies that all Blacks are the same at that level or any other level. Coulter made a similar comment. why so defensive? :)

    • Jeff Webb

      Your explanation makes no sense, but it doesn’t matter.

      When a college student tells someone from his rival school “our cheerleaders are cuter than yours,” would you say he is disparaging cheerleaders?

      Why so offensive, Phil?

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        I’m curious if Phil believes this comment by his hero Chris Matthews is racist: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/06/chris_matthews_i_voted_for_michael_steele_because_hes_black.html

        • plsilverman

          I don’t know the context, what he said before and after that statement. Was he talking about voting for a moderate REpublican for Senate if that meant that an African American perspective could be a great boon for the Senate? ok…his statement was racially charged. It was a badly expressed statement of what I assume is what I wrote above. But Rush’s statement was insulting to the Black race as a whole. (I do not think at all that Rush was intending to come off as racist, though).Because he knows that Obama and West have zero in common, politically. A moderate Dem. and a moderate Repub. have a whole lot in common. See?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            The video isn’t out of context. He’s saying that he voted for Michael Steele (a man whose ideology and stance on this issues is the polar opposite of his) because he is black. His reasoning? He wants more black politicians.

            It’s just one of many examples of Matthews defining people by their skin color and not by what is inside them. He acts like people of color are merely collectible figurines that he wants more of for his collection, and it’s incredibly insulting.

            The fact that you are such a fan of this guy discredits your proclaimed concern over “racially charged” rhetoric because there is NO ONE (I repeat, NO ONE) in the media who spews more racially charged rhetoric than he does. He sees absolutely EVERYTHING through the prism of race.

            I’ll let you digest that for a bit, because it no doubt blew your mind.

          • plsilverman

            it did not blow my mind because I watch him about 15 minutes per week. >>>Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and O’Reilly, and yes, Bernie G. are far more “racially” oriented in their writings. do you really think that Matthews *generalizes* about Blacks the way the above-named people do? you have got to be kidding. >>>by the way, if you think I’m so wrong and such a typical Lib., why the very obvious need to keep communicating with me. if you do a current events book, at this point, I rate an acknowledgement. although I fear you would find a place for “idiot” uncomfortably nearby. always admirable to name-call with people who disagree with you. i’m sure your publishers are impressed.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and O’Reilly, and yes,
            Bernie G. are far more “racially” oriented in their writings

            Utter nonsense.

            >>do you really think that Matthews *generalizes* about Blacks the way the above-named people do?

            He generalizes about both blacks AND whites. When he sees a white person that has a problem with a black person, it doesn’t even occur to him that the dispute could have nothing to do with race.

            When it comes to these scenarios, his presumption is always racism, and that’s what makes him a pathetic, deranged little man.

            Anyone who would emulate him is just as bad.

          • plsilverman

            the confederates came out of the proverbial woodwork on 01-20-09. all over this nation.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol You’re not even trying now.

          • plsilverman

            you sure are. I told ya…I’m taken.

      • plsilverman

        what if someone said, our “Black cheerleaders are the same as your Black cheerleaders, as to IQ”?

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Is anyone else having as much trouble following this guy as I am?

        • Jeff Webb

          IF someone had said that, that’d make it more arguable for sure. Too bad for you that wasn’t Rush’s context.

          Again, please post an actual example. Make it a good one.

          • plsilverman

            the “our Black candidates” is racist; so is calling Holder “[Obama's] bitch”. “[Obama is] not really a Black guy” (That one is marginal, ok). I can come up with others re. Rev. Jesse Jackson insults from Rush. Very racist. We can move on to Coulter and Ingraham and Newt, if ya want.:)

          • Jeff Webb

            >>the “our Black candidates” is racist<<

            Again, no. I'll help you out here: libs have claimed that the % of people voting against BO because he's black is more substantial than the tiny fringe it really is. (Thing is, it was easily a higher % of people whose vote FOR him was at least partly motivated by his race.)

            People on the right really don't care what your color is, and those who call us bigots would never vote for the likes of Herman Cain and Col. West, black men far more accomplished than BO.

            Point is, we would vote for Cain if he was our candidate, yet we're accused of being racists. The accusers wouldn't, yet their motives aren't called into question.

            A person can be someone's "bitch" no matter their color, so you'll have to explain what made Rush a racist when he said it.

            BTW, until you provide specifics showing that specific statement was motivated by racism, to say Obama isn't black is absolutely correct.

            If these are what you consider good, incontrovertible examples of racism, you need to put in more effort.

      • plsilverman

        you acknowledge you ARE being overly defensive? You say I’m offensive when I point out offense against a Race?

        • Jeff Webb

          >>you acknowledge you ARE being overly defensive?<>You say I’m offensive when I point out offense against a Race?<<

          You've been told enough times what you do that's offensive.

          • plsilverman

            offensive to….? I can get sarcastic here but it’s usually in a reply to an insult. have a nice raspberry iced tea and a lemon cookie. play some Fats Domino.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @TED..I’m afraid I have to beg to differ with your assessment and assumption that I find Oprah a racist make me a racist. I don’t intend to defend mysyelf,Ted. If you are looking for a fight or argument you are barking up the wrong tree. I know when to hold em, know when to fold em and I don’t play with a deck of racist cards.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @LEGAL EAGLE..Hmmm. Well, she was an accomplished pianist? ha. Ya got me on that one. However, in spite of..The woman had class and spoke eloquently even if one didn’t agree with her. CAN’T SAY THAT ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON :)

  • John Havlicek

    We needn’t invent a scenario to test the lack of logic in Oprah’s statements. Just look at the kind of vitriol that has already been heaped on black conservatives. It also is more than a little telling that some of the worst of it comes from people of color! I think (and it seems entirely reasonable upon further examination) that people who are incapable of seeing anything outside of race, are quite possibly themselves racist. So to Ms Winfrey I would say…”physician, heal thyself”.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @PSILVERMAN..Excellent and very intelligent comment. I suggest you educate Sheila Warner :) as you sure did me.

    • plsilverman

      Thank you. I need you on my Facebook page. I’m being tripled teamed all over the place! :)

  • SkyCitizen

    How would liberals treat a black conservative in the white house? Just like they treat a Black Supreme Court nominee, with character assassination false witness and name calling driven by fear.

  • MIssy

    An excellent article. Thank you.

  • gold7406

    Easy, all the liberals would call him Tom.

  • talers

    Most racists also have in them the capacity to like or admire one or more individuals within a race of people that, in general, they don’t particularly like. It’s really not a stretch to imagine that some of the ranting by conservatives against President Obama IS at least exaggerated because of his race.

    If we had a conservative black president, Limbaugh and his ilk might well speak highly about–and even like–that president, “even though he is black”, all the while maintaining a bigoted mindset about blacks in general. See?

    Granted, it’s equally true that plenty of democrats are racists as well.

    • lemonfemale

      You are only saying that about Limbaugh et al because they are white conservatives. Otherwise, why call them “ilk”? And did they say anything about liking Herman Cain or Dr. Ben Carson “even though they are black”? They have a track record. I rest my case.

      • plsilverman

        Limbaugh is a stone racist (as a Host). Just review his many quotes.
        paraphrasing: (after Obama victory, 2012). “why couldn’t they vote for *our* Blacks, like Cain or West?”.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Good to see that you’ve completely abandoned your long-held assertion that you never call anyone a racist. lol.

          • plsilverman

            does Rush post here? wow! > y’know, I should be a betting man. I knew you’d sneak in with that! :) But it’s reassuring to know that no racism exists in the world other than what’s in my mind. and by the way, and thanks for jumping in (?)..as you are the vaunted writer, the literary expert…can the word “anyone” ever be used informally? – as in this setting where I obviously mean fellow/sister posters?
            does your publisher know you engage in harassment of people who disagree with you [or do not meet your high standards in prose].?
            is there a need, on the other hand, to reward yourself and 2-3 others with a “golden ‘gotcha’ ” and expose this “Lib” as the anti-social entity he really is.
            Is it Love? either way,. we think its’ darn cute.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            God bless you Phil. You’re learning from our president how to lie, then claim that you didn’t by insisting that we just didn’t hear you correctly the first time. lol. I love it.

            Why not just retroactively narrow your statement even further to “I’ve never called anyone a racist… on a Thursday.” You know, just for the sake of entertainment.

          • plsilverman

            I don’t like being called a liar…esp. amazed that a published novelist would call anyone a liar when they have a chance to say, “I think you are repeating lies from various sources. here’s a cite you may find interesting.” but no…you are obsessed with a guy who simply blogs his mind on a site (which he says has devolved into hate site & seems to tolerate racially driven posts) delivered by a credentialed pundit. (do you THINK I was referring to BG posters when I said “anyone”? hehehe).

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>I don’t like being called a liar.

            Then stop lying.

          • plsilverman

            that’s the best we get from a non self-published novelist?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You couldn’t handle my best, Phil. ;)

          • plsilverman

            I can handle your Jack Nicolson imitation, any day of the week.

          • keith hart

            Jeez, louise! Give 3 guys one round loaded pistol. Lay it on the floor, cocked. Y’ all have to be posting from the west coast, by your time stamp.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Nope. I live in Colorado, and let’s not be so dramatic, Keith. ;) This is merely the story of an incessant race-baiter and two guys who are fed up with incessant race-baiting.

            Although, if it were a squirt gun…

          • keith hart

            Go for it. And say something worth hearing, all 3 of you. All we need is l.e. jumping in.

        • lemonfemale

          As Jeff Webb says. Assuming your paraphrase is correct, he is dividing blacks into liberal (such as Obama) or conservative (such as Herman Cain.) He wishes the people who voted for a black candidate would have voted for a black conservative instead of a black liberal. To subdivide a race into parts is not racist. To take cognizance of “race” as a descriptor is not racist. A racist either glorifies or condemns a particular race. Limbaugh- again assuming your paraphrase is correct- prefers conservatives in that category- just as he would prefer conservatives in any other subdivision of humanity you might posit.

          • plsilverman

            wrong…because Obama and West are not of the same political persuasion.

          • lemonfemale

            Which is why I said he would have been dividing blacks into liberal and conservative.

        • Wheels55

          Playing the race card is really old and stale.
          Do I think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are racists? I kind of do. Do I think Obama is a racist? Actually, not really. I think he is a race opportunist – meaning he finds it beneficial to say he is black, even though he is just as much white, if not more so. Obama is a politician and would say he is green if that helped him.
          Calling people racist if they don’t like Obama as President or even personally is a bit like saying they don’t like you because you are Jewish.

          • George Williams

            Obama has never denounced the liars and demonizers who’ve acted in his name, the vicious Ed Schultz, Maddow, Chris Matthews, et al, who he often brings to the White House to give instructions. We can only assume that they have his tacit approval or even act as his vile surrogates. By his failure to denounce the incivility done in his name, he manages to stain himself with their corruption and dirt.

          • plsilverman

            mentioning Sharpton and Jackson gets old and stale. calling people racist if they DON’T LIKE Obama, or if they proudly display banners with images of him as a “jungle medicine man”?

          • George Williams

            The Communist Party USA supports Barack Obama. Would you like us to say that the Democratic Party and Obama are communists? Dare say, that’s closer to the truth than you pointing to a couple of banners and a few misanthropes that use insulting icons. By your definition of the opposition, and by the appearance of the communist party in the Obama election, we would have to conclude that you, silverfish, are a communist.

          • plsilverman

            tell ya what, I’ll take a Socialist over a fascist any day of the week. “silverfish”, sir?

          • plsilverman

            I don’t agree about Obama as a race opportunist. He is a very self aware man who knows that about half the Country is not comfortable with a young Black man as Leader. He said (paraphrasing) watch the confederates come out of the woodwork [starting in 2008] and I cringed. I look back..he was right and had guts to say it. Look at this site..devolved into a hate site…how many of the commentaries and posts have to do with a Black man named Barack Obama/poor young Black men who don’t act right? = 150% [there he goes, lyin' again, ok, Phil, how do you get 150%?]. :)

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>who knows that about half the Country is not comfortable with a young Black man as Leader.

            Bologna. A strong majority of the country loved the idea of having a black president. Obama entered the office with an approval rating of 82%. It took the 9/11 attacks to give George W. Bush a rating that high. Being black is a political asset for Barack Obama. It always has been. It’s not a liability.

            >> how many of the commentaries and posts have to do with a Black man named
            Barack Obama/poor young Black men who don’t act right? = 150% [there he
            goes, lyin' again, ok, Phil, how do you get 150%?]. :)

            Completely unfounded idiocy on your part, as usual. Congratulations.

          • plsilverman

            Obama approval rating? what? he does even care about that. I may be an “idiot” but you sure have a deep interest in my well being. I’m surprised a person chosen to write for Bernie calls people “idiot” here. >>>>It took the 9-11 attacks to get W. a high rating? and the two wars, one courtesy of the slam dunkers, to get him down to 25%.>>>> “Being Black” is not a negative for Obama, politically? It is a negative to half the country, no matter what he does in office.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>Obama approval rating? what? *he* does even care about that.

            I don’t care if *he” cares about it or not. My point is that 82% of the country approved of his presidency the day he took office. That completely negates your blind assertion that half of the country was uncomfortable with a young, black man in the White House.

            >>but you sure have a deep interest in that idiocy

            I couldn’t care less about it. I merely cited it to easily annihilate your false assertion.

            >>If you want to communicate “off site”, electronically,I’ll give you my e-mail

            Why would I possibly want your email address?

            >>You are embarrassing people with your bizarre behavior.

            The only person I’m embarrassing is YOU. That’s why your punch drunk right now.

            >>You tell me *I’m* confused..ha!

            Pretty sure I didn’t, but I have plenty of other adjectives for you.

            >>I’m surprised a person chosen to write for Bernie calls people “idiot” here.

            I’m surprised by the idiotic things you write. I guess that makes us even.

            >>I am tired of seeing “Disques” in my box

            There’s an easy remedy for that.

            >>why do you enjoy insulting?

            I don’t. But I have no problem insulting someone who enjoys insulting those who don’t agree with him in far worse ways.

            >>”Being Black” is not a negative for Obama, politically?

            Correct.

            >>It is a negative to half the country, no matter what he does in office.

            The man, who was already black when he came into office, started of with an 82% approval rating. So this notion that half of the country is negative for Obama, because he’s black, no matter what he does in office, is completely and utterly false. It is pure fantasy, and I completely understand why you refuse to acknowledge the fact I just gave you: Your entire sense of self-worth is reliant on your fantasy being true. If it’s NOT true (which is the case), everything you stand for and everything you believe goes up in flames.

            In a way, this makes me feel sorry for you… but not that much.

          • plsilverman

            you want to be the vaunted novelist, BG site Commentator AND psychologist for posters who do not agree with you. why would U want my e-mail? only to have a communication with me where you won’t have a chance to embarrass a big number of people, from both sides of the aisle. I think there is no way to stop you from initiating insults in my direction…so at least do it in “private”.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Lots of posters here don’t agree with me, from both the left and right. Only one or two of them make me question their mental stability.

            I don’t understand your email fetish, but as I’ve said many times in the past, I don’t want to be your pen-pal. Accept it.

            There absolutely IS a way for you to avoid criticism of your character on this website, and it’s actually quite simple. It might even help you make some friends. Are you ready for it? Here it goes: STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF RACISM.

            You see? Easy.

          • George Williams

            Give me the name of your lawyer. I want to sue you. Your accusations of racism as a motive for opposition to Obama is laughable. He was elected president, given a chance to perform and he failed miserably. Miserable Obamazombies did what we all expected them to do when many of us knew from the very beginning, that he had no qualifications for the presidency. We knew that the silverfish of the country would pull the race card when he failed. You didn’t disappoint us, you little creep. LOL!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Play your cards right and you might have enough support for a class action. ;)

        • George Williams

          If Limbaugh said anything racist he’d be unemployed. People are getting tired of your type of people, silverfish. Mad Olberman is gone, Bashir is gone, Shultz fades in and out, O’Donnell is gone. Limbaugh is still on the air. Beck is doing well, despite the efforts of you and your ilk. Hannity and O’Reilly are doing great. I suspect that Madcow will go, and Schultz will fade out for good. No one, except people like silverfish and legal eagle, wackos both give any credence to what silly progressives say. Obama’s lies are your lies.

          • plsilverman

            no way. He makes I assume 40-60 million per yr., and although he’s lost sponsors, he’s still rocking. just like Murdoch..too much power and wealth. I know that Leftist hosts are also guilty of saying stupid, bigoted things. Obama’s “lies”? ok…you seem to enjoy that RNC workshop mantra. But I do not like being called a liar..and of course I have to say, bro’, you would never say that to my face, I can absolutely guarantee that. :) [now, for the record, all U nice folks, I have no idea how to contact this fair and balanced poster and he has no idea how to contact me. so..no "implied" challenge. hehehe].

          • Jeff Webb

            Phil, I just entered your threat into my records. If you edit it out of your comment, I’ll take it out of my file and forget you did it this time. If you don’t, your entire post will be deleted and your chances of being banned in the future will go up.

            You have 4 hours.

          • plsilverman

            Expect to hear from my Lawyer on this “silverfish ” mockery of my Father’s name. > Beck did badly on Fix by the way, lost 400 sponsors. Had to be pretty bad if Ailes dropped him.

          • George Williams

            LOL! Beck is doing better than ever, Jackass, uh..silverfish. I received a postcard from your lawyer and he apologized, saying that the asylum intends to restrict your computer privileges. You’ve used that stupid threat so long that it’s as much of a joke as your precious Obamacare and Obama. Obama’s approval rate is sliding into the 30′s along with your credibility.

          • plsilverman

            “stupid threat”? why is it stupid and how is it a threat, if I am so meaningless in the blogosphere? why do you enjoy mocking my Father’s name? yes, you can expect a respectful cease and desist in that regard. okay? :) do you want my e-mail address so we can discuss this not in front of your schoolyard mates? >>Beck might be making more money but he was KICKED OFF Fox…where he was hired to be THE attack dog to bring down the Obama adm. he failed miserably…lost 400 sponsors. some Fox hosts could not contain their glee that this screwball was leaving. he and his Bishop Sheen blackboard and Elmer gantry theatrics. but at least he did apologize for calling Barack Obama “a racist”. I recall that he did apologize and his sincerity was clear. so…how about no more communications in my direction? what do ya say, little feller?

          • George Williams

            If he was hired for that purpose, he could have saved his breath, as Obama managed to do that himself. LOL! Leave this web site, or expect more of the same, whiner. Your party is through, from now until Obama is out of office and perhaps for the next decade. People have seen through you and your ilk, silverphonyfish.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            A lawsuit over being called a fish… You heard it here first, folks!

          • George Williams

            Actually, a silverfish is an insect, a common household pest that is found in dark, damp areas where one might find mildew and stink. Calling him an actual fish would be promoting him into a higher order species.

    • keith hart

      Barack Obama is the enemy — because of his actions. Not because of his skin color, not his place of origin , not his background — because of his actions. Get it?

      • legal eagle

        The POTUS is your enemy? What a moronic statement…

        • http://theromancatholicvote.com/ catholicvoter

          Are you back calling people morons again? Where have you been, anyway? I was starting to miss you.

          • legal eagle

            Thanks,,, I missed you too..

        • George Williams

          The current POTUS is the enemy of all who cherish rule of law and the COTUS. His allies are deaf, stupid and blind.

      • plsilverman

        name 2-3 which really bother you. leaving Iraq?

    • talers

      Totally missed my point, Keith and lemonfemale. Too bad people want to latch onto one or two words and ignore all else. I’m not a liberal, nor do I support President Obama. Get it? I rest my case. Geesh. I’m off to find a nicer playground. Have fun picking your one-sided fights.

      • lemonfemale

        No offense meant by this but when I tell a joke and someone doesn’t get it, I assume I told it poorly. You might want to work on your delivery, is all I’m saying. Two out of two missed your point and neither one writes like a troll.

  • Guest from Ca

    For Sheila! What I took from your comments is a mixture of truth and also the
    branding of all GOP as hapless rogues and roguettes who only care about white people. Hardly, the case. the GOP are not KKK members. Their sin is
    their belief in capitalism, not socialism, which to put in nicely, is where the Democratic Party comes from …Dems constantly pound the drums of fear.
    No food, no housing, death from weapons, the inability of any person to rise
    above their challenges, and the belief that individuals only make it when the
    Nanny State is there to help them. So, thus you have a plantation nation now
    of all colors. The GOP is not going to steal from the working to hand out free
    iPads, free housing or free food. They abide by the Constitution. Something
    Democrats are shredding to serve the plantation nation. And while they do this
    …we are already a socialist nationheaded for Marxism.
    We are blind sided with all the fingerpointing of the GOP as the devil, but the real Devil is in the White House..and his henchmen are in the Senate, making that once honorable place, a handmaiden to the wiles and ways of Obama.
    Romney was a poor choice by the GOP. Perhaps he appealed to the upper crust of society, but no, I do not think he was or is uncaring. He simply knows
    this country was not nor ever will be built on handouts. Freebies do not add
    to anyone’s self- respect. Nor are they motivators to greatness!
    It is simply drive thru, instant gratification which demands nothing of the individual.
    Romney was appealing to something bigger in all of us…but people want an easy way out! Obama offered them that…such is the nature of todays voters.

    • keith hart

      Whew! Do not put any round into any chamber. Just chill. Figure out how you can help your family and friends during this dark time. We will come thru this dark time together — stronger.l

      • Sheila Warner

        Do not put any round into any chamber…Good one! It’s always amusing to see what comes out of a diehard ideologue when a pin is put into the balloon. OMG, some conservatives are really angry! This forum is quite entertaining.

        • keith hart

          Yeah, Sheila some Americans are that angry, like guest from Ca. Maybe, they see their families up against it hard. And its due to politicians. I believe it prudent to counsel restraint. Violence will not solve it. The ballot box will. Its curious to see you find other people’s suffering amusing. .

          • Sheila Warner

            No, I find some of the vitriol amusing. One can be angry but still civil, right? Our finances aren’t all that great, living paycheck to paycheck, but I don’t go postal when I comment.

        • http://theromancatholicvote.com/ catholicvoter

          Hi Sheila, I’m from South Jersey, too. We are living in Texas now. I too am a pro-life Catholic, but really, are pro-abortionists sincerely Catholics? I had a good time reading the dialog between you and Keith.

          • Sheila Warner

            I try not to judge others. It bothers me when a Catholic refers to “reproductive rights” the way Caroline Kennedy did. “As a Roman Catholic?” The Church is clear on its teaching about issue of life. To say that at the Democratic Convention probably confused a lot of folks who don’t really understand the reasoning of the Church when it comes to abortion.

    • Sheila Warner

      A mixture of truth? Quotes, please? And if you really follow my comments, I am equally hard on the Democrats. Harry Reid believes he is a god, refusing to put GOP bills up for a vote. If the Senate is his party’s majority, what’s the harm in allowing the Senate to vote up or down on GOP proposals? And that stupid Hastert rule in the House is equally bad. Congress has turned into some kind of chess game, and not a body that works together, sorting through and compromising on different approaches, and thus solving problems. A pox on all of them. As for the man in the White House, wouldn’t it be good for him to get bills from Congress, and then see where his priorities lie by seeing if he signs or vetoes bills? Congress is stupid,

      • legal eagle

        As you know the Senate allows for filibusters, the House doesn’t…Speaker of the House has far more power than Senate majority leader…

        • Sheila Warner

          Well, some filibusters, maybe. Harry Reid got the Senate to vote yes on the so-called “nuclear option” for some appointments. It only takes 51 votes now to end debate. Let’s see how many other scenarios get rolled into the nuclear option. The Senate leader has way more power than the House, are you kidding me? Especially since the term for a Senator is 6 years, not 2. A lot of damage can be inflicted by a Senator in six years.

          • legal eagle

            The change in the filibuster rule is only for appointments not legislation….It still takes 60 votes to end debate on legislation…

          • Sheila Warner

            For now it’s only for appointments. But I believe it will progress to legislation. Power always craves more power; it’s human nature.

          • legal eagle

            The Republicans have abused the filibuster rule. They are attempting to keep Dem judges off the federal courts for obvious reasons…This is not how the judicial system is supposed to work…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Harry Reid couldn’t have said that better himself.

          • legal eagle

            Thank you John…Happy Holidays…

      • keith hart

        I do not accept democrat premises.

        They are not protectors of the marginalized, they have no interest in ‘social justice’. Their aim is amassing power and access to the public trough.

        There is no more insidious racism than liberal white racism — the hidden, soft bigotry of low expectation. Obfuscated by hollow, lefthanded praise and empty promises.

        And it does seem to work. 90% of black voters vote for politicians opposing school vouchers when 90% of black parents want school vouchers.

        They are not ‘progressives’. They are Regressives. Because they are anti-growth, anti-opportunity, anti-liberty.

        They have a passion for autocratic, authoritarian societal control reminiscent of feudal times. There is no difference between ruling elites and ruling nobles.

        Democrats do not get to define the rules of this fight. Democrats screw up everything they touch.

        • plsilverman

          I disageree. Thye are the party whuich sibnce Woosdrow Wilosn oprovided for unemployment insurance, welfaere, medicaere, mediacid,, women’s vioting rights, for the right of a woman with a mediacl need not to deliver to be able to “abiort” within a guideline. yes, we know all these things have issues. The GOP is the party which wants the middle to cover the tax relief for the rich, and to send those sorry, unwashed takers into their manufactured wars. plus, they are the party which of late have shown determination to end Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation. they seem to love shutting down a government to start a 2016 Presidential campaign for a Senator Trainee – who owes the public 24 billion dollars. The Democrats are more for the employee. The Republicans are more for the employer. DEms like Unions, Repubs want them ended, now. So..the Dems are more pro-Labor, pro Blue collar. the GOP declared war on blue collar o 01-20-09, with now about 500 filibusters, many against good infrastructure bills. The GOP loves hostile raids of still viable companies – pocket a million bucks per agent and then send the million to Switzerland and the Americans to the unemployment line.

        • Sheila Warner

          You didn’t answer my question.

    • plsilverman

      KKK are extremists at the RIGHT…yes, they are “Dixiecrats” which are DINOs. You guyz love to inject “RINOs”, no? :)

  • keith hart

    I address Sheila Warner.

    Wow. What a whirlwind. I like it. You are a very good addition to Bernie’s forum. Libertarians: I love them , you never know what they’re gonna say or do. The hallmark of an honest person — they don’t play ball, go along.

    Now, down to business, girl. OK, you’re 58 from south jersey, you’re still a girl — I hope. OK, and woman — two grown children — you deserve respect. I’ve been to south jersey. It’s just my bias; but, I think philadelphia is the soul of the world.

    Your post on supreme Roberts mouthing a silent protest, when it was Alito . It is reasonable to expect you bother to check your facts before you rush to opine. It does really go to credibility, you know.

    Roberts — flubbing Barack’s inaugural oath — is it a harbinger of him proving he is no John Marshall or Oliver Wendall Holmes?

    Your response to my response on religion — could you possibly be more humorless? By what you said it seems if you had your way, atheists would expound their narcissistic self-absorption til they bled from all their orifices. But, anyone expressing their religious views…… call out the PC police and even Fahrenheit 451.

    If you are so protective of the marginalized, why are you so exclusive of who is the marginalized?

    Oh yes, hardball is played here. Think of it as a crucible. Cicero and Pericles would feel at home on Bernie’s forum

    If you expect to stake out your claim to the center — also, expect to be come at from all sides. Because, for all the ‘reasoned logic’ that occurs here, no one changes their mind, not one wit. People talk at each other not to each other.

    Perhaps a helpful anecdotal……… I recently posted on the Huffington Post for the first and only time.

    With a concerted effort to restrain any possible inflammatory use of adjectives, I believe I made a reasoned critical analysis of obamacare. Whew! The vile immediate responses! Would have made any Minneapolis Somali cabbie blush.

    I didn’t expect such an assemblage of so many deeply angry people. But, here is the ‘sorcerer’s stone’ on this one. Most , if not all of the those angrily vile posters were more angry at Obama than me.

    I didn’t stick around to find out why.

    Barack Obama is on a fast track to being the most hated person in American history. Thanks to this obamacare tyranny.

    • Sheila Warner

      First of all, I love hard ball forums. They make me think. As to my stating that it was Roberts who mouthed “not true” during the SCOTUS, it wasn’t a lack of research on my part. I was relying on my arguably poor memory. I watched the address and saw the Justice doing that. In my mind, I remembered it as Roberts. Due to the camera angle, and this is the god’s honest truth, I couldn’t tell those two apart. I corrected my error in another comment, admitting that it was Alito and not Roberts. Go to my disqus page to read my comments. I post quite a few, and you might have missed some of mine. Could you cite where I spoke of the marginalized? I don’t remember discussing that topic in any detail. Since you asked, my definition of the marginalized is any person who is blocked from living a full and productive life in America, usually because of obstacles. My first example is the LGBTQ community. When straight couples marry, that marriage is recognized in all 50 states. When gays marry, there is no such parity for them. I hope this clarifies things a bit.

      • keith hart

        Sheila Warner fitzsimmons a day ago

        Democrats learned from history–yes, they have. They champion the cause of the marginalized.

        • Sheila Warner

          That was my point.

  • pu5erfish

    Using as your example of whether or not the opposition to this president contains racism this single incident which took place in the first year of his presidency is a little misleading. How about instead you look at the whole birther movement and what gives rise to it? Has any other president ever been questioned on his legitimacy to hold the office in this way? Has the president’s “American-ness” been questioned in this way? Of course not, because we know what those things are code for, because we’re not stupid.

    Is all of the criticism of this president racist? Of course not. Much of it is legitimate policy disagreements. (I would say that the vitriol of the disagreement is something I’ve not seen in my lifetime.) Much of it is the standard conservative vs. liberal thinking, which is in itself frustrating, but not tied to the president’s skin color. But a lot of it is, and in ways and on grounds we’ve not seen before. To not see that is a deliberate distortion of the facts to make your polemical point, and it’s disingenuous, however polite you might be while doing it.
    :

    • Wheels55

      If Obama had been born, in say, Illinois; had he ran something, even committees in the Senate; had he been in a major state or Federal office for 10 years; had he shown that he can be nice to the other party rather than call them enemy and terrorists…more people would take him seriously. The only skills he seems to have are speaking from a teleprompter and telling lies. Not good enough to run a country.

      • plsilverman

        garbage….half the country is still segregationist. no one denies his resume was a little light.

        • Jeff Webb

          “half the country is still segregationist”—>garbage.

          There–fixed it for ya.

          • plsilverman

            no fix needed….but care to elaborate? :) On 2nd thought, why not cease communication with me? You’d be more relaxed!

          • Jeff Webb

            Sucks for you, not being able to shut people up. I enjoy putting you in your place, pally.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I bet Phil’s a real kick at potluck picnics.

            “Listen lady, I’m telling you that your fried chicken stinks, and that you’re probably trying to poison people! But if you dare criticize my pasta salad, I’ll sue you for harassment!”

        • Wheels55

          You have a census or poll that supports half of the country is still segregationist?

      • plsilverman

        was taken seriously enough to win 2 elections since 2008. oh, sorry, he had low information voters – on line for 8 hours in defiance of the TP voter suppression movement.f

        • Wheels55

          Correct

    • lemonfemale

      You are talking conspiracy theory here. Are the people who believe Bush did 9/11 saying that because Bush is a white man? Obama’s one biography lists him as Kenyan born. Take that and the conspiracy theorists are off and running. Add in the fact that records of immigrants coming into Hawaii are missing for the week of his birth … And don’t get me started on the JFK conspiracies. I think a much more likely spawn of the birther movement is the fact Obama came out of nowhere AND is hard Left. There are people who are still wondering what hit them. (For the record, I am not a birther.)

      • plsilverman

        his “one biography? written by who – Jerome Corsi? it’s a fact he was born in Hawaii and I am friends with a witness to that. right here in Orange County, CA!.

        • lemonfemale

          The one written by him. The claim was in a promo booklet for what would have been “Journeys in Black and White” except he revised the idea and wrote “Dreams of My Father” instead. I see that as trying to make himself interesting to boost book sales. But there is enough for a conspiracy theorist. There are people who believe 9/11 was done by Bush with far less to go on and nobody says they believe that because they hate whites.

    • plsilverman

      not all is racist. very little is racist. much is “racially charged”. I say half the country can’t stand the idea that a young African American is in charge? what say you? 20%?

  • Florida Jim

    No one likes a LIAR eventually he will be exposed and all his lies will bring him down. Obamacare is just one of thousands he can’t say three paragraphs which are entirely truthful, I believe. -”The average savings on Obamacare will be $2500 per family”, I will get to the bottom of Benghazi/IRS/NSA/… remember? So many lies so little time. In business you fire incompetents as a President we can impeach him for incompetence, can’t we?

    • Gratefulconservative

      He’s already been exposed; time and time and time again. The UN-affordable-care act will wake people up when it hits their pocketbooks, then everyone will notice that every time bho’s lips are moving, he is lying. A total disgrace!!!!!

      • plsilverman

        exposed by Foxnews? Reagan almost tripled the debt; Bush II doubled it; Obama has driven it up 50%. job creation..better than Bush’s; ACA is the law (actually amazing); autos…back. got us out of the WAr For Halliburton; credit card & student loan reform; has done more Veterans than the last 3 Presidents, combined. all up-arrow job creation. but…alas…he was born on Zeta Reticuillae and uses Truman Capote’s social security card. R U an O’Reilly premium member?? :)

        • Jeff Webb

          Wow, pretty damning indictment of Presidents Reagan and Bush. On that subject, what are the actual numbers? Meaning, how may trillions of dollars were added by Reagan, Bush, and Obama, respectively?

          >>ACA is the law<>exposed by Foxnews?<<

          Actually, it was Fox News and (to their credit) other networks that, to put it lightly, hadn't exactly made it a habit to question or challenge Obama since 2007.

          • plsilverman

            ACA is the law…ok, you’re right. It’s a fabrication. Affirmed by the SC.
            Want numbers? Reagan left a 2.6 trillion $$$ debt, which was about 2.5 times an increase. Bush II left 11 trillion $$$ in debt which was a doubling. Obama has increased the debt HE inherited by about 50%.
            Fox news became a 24-7 agenda driven hate machine on 01-20-09. Read the 24-7 OBAMA HATE MACHINE by Bill Press, THE FOX EFFECT, and THE NEW HATE.

          • Jeff Webb

            Whats the matter, Phil? Afraid a direct response will expose your misleading numbers?

            C’mon, show all the facts. How many dollars under President Reagan? How many under President Bush? How many under Obama?

            >>ACA is the law…ok, you’re right. It’s a fabrication. Affirmed by the SC.<<

            Show me where I denied it existed or quit distracting. My point is it's nothing to brag about. It's caused more problems than it's fixed.

            As for the rest of your comments–they were boring several pastes ago. Got any new talking points?

    • plsilverman

      should we have impeached Reagan for Iran-Contra and Bush II for letting his VP play commander-in-chief?

    • plsilverman

      zero lies….you do not seem to understand formal and informal statements, which ones are made in interviews or at press conferences. He did get to the bottom of those issues: none led to 1600. “You can keep what you got”? a true statement for 80 to 95% of healthcare buyers, and 100% if the 3rd rate Individual providers would not run away from the new standards, for mercenary reasons. Those providers HAD A CHOICE. many of them KEPT their clients. Got It? I knew U would! > Ya wanna impeach a President on incompetence…or for breaking laws. That’s for a court to decide and a Senate. But there is still a thing called historical perspective: if Reagan did not get impeached for Iran-Contra & Bush II did not get impeached for letting his VP play commander in chief and create a war, then what do they have on Obama? recess appointments when the Congress was on part-time instead of full-time? How competent was the Gipper and W. – if you want to use “incompetence” as THE rule? wanna go down the laundry list on them? you go first, then I’ll put the “issue” to bed. nighty nite Florida dude! :) but have some nice tea first and a lemon cookie.

  • TheOriginalDonald

    Better yet, let’s call him President Allen West, and see how Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Karl Rove, and Bernard Goldberg treat him!

    • plsilverman

      West is not a Conservative. He’s a Tea Partier. How would McConnell, et. al., treat Colin Powell? Not much better.

      • TheOriginalDonald

        No, they’d treat Powell WAY better than Allen West.

        • plsilverman

          hard to say…if Powell pushed for ACA and the restoration of autos, eventually the racially charged stuff would come out. It’s hard to even imaguine West finding his way to 1600. He needs to get out of public service. Not saying he’s a bad guy…vene with his listr of “68 to 71 Commeez” at the Capitol tripe.
          Let me tell ya something I’ve been thinking a lot about: what a stupid mistake on Bush’s part to keep Cheney and lose Powell in 2004. Think about it.

          • TheOriginalDonald

            Considering what Powell did in 2008…..not a mistake AT ALL!

          • plsilverman

            what did he do? support Barack Obama? not what I’m talking about, is it?

          • TheOriginalDonald

            Got it in one! The fact that AFTER what happened in the first term Powell STILL supported O? West>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Colin Arnold

          • plsilverman

            nope. you don’t “got it”…by the way, ACA and restoration of autos was pretty cool…plus not extending the War for halliburton and since mid-2010 all up-arrow job creation. shux, U knew that!

          • TheOriginalDonald

            If it keeps up Obama WILL be like Reagan in ONE aspect-the national debt will have doubled under his watch. Of course ten TRILLION is a lot more than than two, but you knew that, didn’t you MENSA member!

          • plsilverman

            Reagan nearly tripled the debt; Obama has increased it 50%. > expect a contact from my Lawyer on your last statement.

          • TheOriginalDonald

            10 Trillion>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2 Trillion #BRINGIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Stimpy

        Hey, you didn’t say ‘tea bagger’. You are making progess toward civility. I wish other liberals would.

        • plsilverman

          cute! thank U! but you got the lock on clichés on this site.

  • SkyCitizen

    If not disrespect for the President certainly for the office, Wilson went off the reservation however, the President was not shy to show his coarser side with the Supreme Court in attendance. Does he disagree with a court decision favorable to conservatives or does he simply dislike white folks.

    • plsilverman

      garbage. the Citizens United decision, although ultimately friendly to both parties, was and is a disaster, ensuring that all candidates will from now on spend 97% of their time raising money. “does he simply dislike white folks” sounds very RACIALLY charged, doesn’t it? by the way, pal, did U notice that one of the JUstices was African-American? “does he dislike white folks”…y’know what? is an unintentional “racist statement”.

      • USMC69

        I guess you missed the sarcasm plsilverman. He’s pointing out (sarcastically) that it’s only racism when conservatives disagree with Obama. But ideology when Obama disagrees with conservatives. BTW, when we see racism in all things, what does that make us?

        • plsilverman

          nah…I know the mantra: never criticize a Conservative if in the past a Liberal did the same thing….and if a Lib reasonably points out racism on the other side (y’know from folk like Rush, Coulter, Ingraham, Palin, O’Reilly, Newt) then they are playing the race card.

          • Jeff Webb

            >> if a Lib reasonably points out racism on the other side (y’know from
            folk like Rush, Coulter, Ingraham, Palin, O’Reilly, Newt) then they are
            playing the race card.<<

            There lies the problem: you actually think your claims of racism are reasonable.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            People like Phil believe that it’s “reasonable” to accuse ANY conservative of being a racist.

          • plsilverman

            “People like Phil”. nice. You ARE that published novelist?

          • plsilverman

            U think they are unreasonable. :)

  • Gratefulconservative

    And oh yeah, Oprah is the biggest living hypocrite; making her billions by our capitalist system and now she wants the US to be more like socialistic Denmark. I think she needs to move there and live in that society; give up her money and live life everyone else.

    • plsilverman

      I guess because she is so successful she must forget what she witnessed in the early years.

  • Gratefulconservative

    Let’s move to the main point; like you said. Joe Wilson yelled out, ‘you lied’ because a big whopper was told and he couldn’t contain himself for which I do believe he publicly apologized. PERIOD!!!!!!

    • plsilverman

      it was an idiotic outburst. when Reagan and Bush II said nutty things, anyone yell out like that? nah. (“PERIOD!!!”) what??

      • Drew Page

        Much like your idiotic outbursts.

        • plsilverman

          can you elaborate? although, as an “idiot”, I guess I couldn’t comprehend your elaboration.

    • legal eagle

      What was the whopper?

  • fitzsimmons Photography

    Mr Goldberg,
    I agree with you completely but there is one thing in all of these racist acusations from the left that no one talks about. Why don’t people hammer home the Democrats missing history? It was the Dems who until recently, held black America hostage with the laws that they refused to pass and the racist attitude that they clung to. Jeffrey Lord puts it all clearly together in his article Democrats Missing History. I think all conservatives need to start talking about this and stick it to the liberals every chance they get. Republicans were always the party of ‘black America’ and we need to scream that history from every corner of this country!!!Who changed history and how did they do it?????

    • Sheila Warner

      The history of the abolition of slavery and establishment of civil rights has some detours. Yes, there were Democrats like George Wallace, but we also had Democrats like JFK, RFK, and LBJ. Let’s see if the Democrats learned from history–yes, they have. They champion the cause of the marginalized. Has the GOP remembered its history? It doesn’t look like it. They are still trying to practice trickle down economics, and meanwhile, the gap between the very poor and the very rich gets wider and wider. The GOP acts as if it doesn’t care about minorities. The Dems, God bless ‘em, think that liberal policies are the answer, and they pursue those programs vigorously. Remember Mitt Romney’s famous remarks to his contributors: he wrote off nearly half the country as lazy, entitled, and takers. Like it or not, the person who heads your party is the one that people associate with your party. Mitt wasn’t really all that concerned with those he wrote off. His mantra was “corporations are people, too.” Hardly learning from history.

      • plsilverman

        Thank you, thank you.

    • plsilverman

      what laws did they refuse to pass. talkin’ bout 1856? please enlighten us. (something tells me that Women’s Rights and Civil Rights and Voting Rights, Medicare, and the 1954 SC decision were pushed for , more by the DEmocrats than the Republicans. Yes, we know that one hundred years before the DEms. were the anti-AFrican American party).

    • plsilverman

      The REPUBLICAN was for “Black America” until the 1900s. look it up.

      • USMC69

        Republicans have been for “Black America” always. Pay attention to actions, not words. Although it was “Democrat Administrations” that talked “equal rights”, they were only enforced by “Republican Administrations”. Who forced a democratic governor to allow a black child to enter a school? Who passed the first gun control laws (they prohibited blacks from owning weapons)? It was Republicans that forced democratic governors to obey equal rights laws. It was the democrats that passed gun-control laws prohibiting Blacks from being able to defend themselves. It was conservative whites that helped found the NAACP (yet it’s website uses the term liberals). The NRA helped blacks get the right to bear arms and defend themselves against the KKK. But you’ll be hard pressed to find any of this in history books used in today’s classrooms.

        • plsilverman

          like h*ll they have. I know all about Eisenhower > but you guys called him a Commie. you are going to tell us that Civil and Voting Rights were not pushed 4 more by the Democrats (and I know about the DINOs – Dixiecrats). Now, today, esp. since Bush II, we know how backward the GOP has become thanx to the Koch Bros. front, the Tea Party. They absolutely want to go back to 1963. >> the NRA helped the Blacks to defend themselves? sure, because of Republican policy Blacks could not get Police protection or medical services or financial bank services or a school that had running water.

          • Sheila Warner

            Well stated. The GOP wants to go back in time.

          • plsilverman

            Thanks, Sheila. Visit my Facebook page anytime. Phil Silverman.

          • Sheila Warner

            I was worried about privacy on fb, so I have deactivated my previous personal page. I had “liked” so many pages and products, and I read an article on CNET that one’s credit score can be affected by who one’s friends are, and what one “likes”. So I made a new page, with the photo of my dog as my profile picture. That allows me to comment on the online forum of my local newspaper. It’s “Daisy Von Doodle:.

    • Ted

      This idea that Repubs can’t be racist because some of the old, southern politicians were Dems flies in the face of the polls and increase in White Supremacy hate groups since Obama’s been in office. In an AP poll 57% of the Repubs and 34% of the Dems gave racist answers. Want more proof? Look at how the political lines were drawn over the killing of Trayvon Martin? The Repubs supported Zimmerman and the Dems Martin. Also, you’re forgetting or did not know that the southern Dems were called Dixiecrats and were very conservative, political labels notwithstanding. Look up what the “Southern Strategy” was and it will rebut many of your assertions. These politicians were DINOs and after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 they changed their party affiliation and are today’s Repubs.

    • legal eagle

      50 years is not recent history in a country that’s only 236 years old….

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @Sheila Warner. I apologize profusely Sheila. I think Condi Rice was one of the best Secretary of States. I supported Bush from the get go. I was confused when you said Condoleezza (sorry for the misspelling) wasn’t her real name so got confused as I did research and it is..I think Condi was a darling nick name and have the utmost respect for this woman even though I have been ignorant and not well read about her life.

    • Sheila Warner

      No problems.

    • legal eagle

      Condi Rice was one of the best Secretaries of State? What exactly did she accomplish?

      • Sheila Warner

        What did Hillary accomplish?

        • legal eagle

          Kept us out of war….The most important thing any Secy of State can accomplish…

          • Sheila Warner

            Get real. We were involved in Libya. That happened on Hillary’s watch. If you are referring to Syria, it was Kerry’s off the cuff remark that averted military strikes on Syria. The President lacked support both in Congress and the American people. I bet President Obama got down on his knees and thanked God for the Russians.

          • Integrity

            What difference does it make!?!?!? QED

    • plsilverman

      she accomplished Z-E-R-O. the “best” thing she did was join the slam dunkers in perhaps the worst crime against humanity since The Gulf of Tonkin hoax and 58,000 American deaths and perhaps 2,000,000 Indo-chinese. She should have been locked up along with Tenet, Rove, Dick Halliburton, and W. And she apparently approved the trash that they told Colin Powell was okay to read to the world. [now I want all of you humble moderate, compassionate Conservatives to line up to inform me that the hoaxed War in Iraq was not as bad as ACA and restoring the automobile industry. who wants to go first?].

      • Sheila Warner

        Condi was like Hillary–loyal to the President, which a Secretary of State is supposed to do. I think the way both women conducted themselves as Secretaries of State was classy. No major gaffes (except maybe for the famous reset button!), no going off the reservation. They were dignified, articulate, and professional. They put a good face on America. The jury is still out when it comes to Kerry. He strikes me a bit as kind of fumbling.

  • theslowrider

    If only someone had stood up to Hitler, who knows how history might be different.

    • CentralScruntinizer

      If you can even put Obama, a tepid center-left politician who is largely owned and operated by Wall Street & corporate America and will be out of office in 37 months, and Adolf Hitler in the same sentence by way of comparison, you should finish high school and try some college before posting again. Your absence until that time will only help the internet.

      • theslowrider

        Hitler had his apologists, too! Not sure your elementary school is teaching you that, though. If you will do some reading, ON YOUR OWN, you’ll see that Hitler was much like a community organizer. To achieve his rise in power, he LIED to the German people to get his way, and the ignorant and freeloaders gladly followed him. Don’t be one of those.

        • CentralScruntinizer

          In the ’90s I produced scores of History Channel series and specials including a number of hours on Hitler. If you see any comparison between Obama and Hitler, you have been failed by the educational system as well as by the right wing media that is clearly warping whatever there was of your intellect to begin with.

          • Sheila Warner

            Conservatives use the Hitler comparison the way some liberals cry racism. I’m bored with both sides, left and right.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            I don’t blame you, but I think there is a touch of false equivalence here: Although there are MSNBC dems who claim racism when the barometer changes, you can’t throw a stick without hitting a troll or Tea Party Congressman wishing Obama would go back to Kenya. That is legitimate racism. Conversely, I think an objective observer would be at pains for find legitimate instances of Fascism in the modern democratic party. Cynicism, hypocrisy and fecklessness absolutely, but not much legitimate Fascism.

          • Sheila Warner

            OMG, you’re still up? Do you live on the West Coast? I’m in NJ, and I have a bit of mania going. ha ha

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Yup – I live in CA (can’t you tell?) but I’m from New England, hence my relative affinity for Rockefeller Republicans like Lowell Weiker, Lincoln Chaffee & co. And don’t let the mania drain you. You’ll wind up wandering the pine barrens!

          • Sheila Warner

            I went to bed shortly after that comment. I figured you were on the West Coast. And, the mania is pretty damned awful. Insomnia, you know. Actually, my dad was in congestive heart failure for months, got a new kind of pacemaker, and then had a heart attack. He’s ok as of this comment, but worry keeps me up at night. Mania tends to enlarge concerns in the wee hours of the morning.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Hang in there, best thoughts for your Dad, and try to sleep!

            And I feel your pain – My dad is in his 90s will most of the issues that come with that, and my mom is mid-80s with Alzheimers.

          • brickman

            You produced so many that Curtis Sliwa dubbed you the Hitler Channel.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            I worked for independent production companies, but we called History that before Sliwa. The fantasy was to create an all shark and nazi cable channel called the Hitler & Shark Network (H&S) “Hitler’s Secret Shark Squads” featuring a Tiger Shark with a swastika on the dorsal would have shattered 1990s cable records…

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @SHEILA WARNER. Nope..Never the least bit interested in following Condi’s career? Really could give less than a damn what her given name was..And why didn’t she use her given name when in Bush’s camp? Educate me!I can’t think of any reason why I would waste my time when there are other’s much more important that I took time to study their careers.

    • Sheila Warner

      You’re showing a strong bias. Condoleezza Rice was the first black Secretary of State, as well as the first woman to hold that position. That is an accomplishment. You might have disagreed with her conservatism, but she deserves props for being a strong woman who was also a good Secretary of State. I don’t agree with much of Hillary Clinton’s politics, but I admired the job she did as Secretary of State, and I recognize the accomplishment in achieving that post. Why didn’t she use her given name? Because she had been known as “Condi” to those who knew her. But when she was on the world stage, she was always Condoleezza Rice. And, if she was called “Condi” in private, so what? That’s the best you can come up with?

      • Joel Wischkaemper

        You’re showing a strong bias. Condoleezza Rice was the first black Secretary of State, as well as the first woman to hold that position. That is an accomplishment.
        ———————————
        Not really. African Americans represent 13.1% of the population while European Americans represent 77% of the population. Generally speaking, women are a very small presence in our political groupings.
        In addition, far to many African Americans were on the fringe of behavior with the burn baby burn attitude. It wasn’t logical to expect a woman who was African American to become the Secretary of State and my reasons for that are excellent.

        • Sheila Warner

          We’ll agree to disagree. I don’t believe that there was a lack of qualified women out there. I believe it was habit to keep putting mostly white men in positions such as Secretary of State. Condi broke the glass ceiling for Hillary. So, I believe putting a strong and capable African American woman in the job of Secretary of State was indeed logical. Now I wonder why it took so damned long.

          • Joel Wischkaemper

            We very thoroughly disagree. And it did not take so long at all if you have read a decent history of our country. When our country was far more white than it is today, it was a very logical thing to do for several reasons, but mostly because they were part and parcel of the major political organizations.

            Condi did not break a glass ceiling, but I won’t argue that with you because you won’t ever understand.. Condi was where she was because of her mind. Not her color.. not her sex: she was alumni at Stanford, and with the Stanford War and Peace Library right there in addition to the researchers doing massive work on the Russian Secret Police manuscripts that had just been released, one of the very best of those researchers became Secretary of State.

            http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=EP19190416.2.114 will give you a sample of her insight into the Soviet Leadership.

            http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt538nf189/

            Something to expand your understanding. The Hoover War and Peace Library was at Stanford of course, and had just opened up to researchers. If you could read Russian, it was much more than the Dead Sea Scrolls and she had it all.

          • Sheila Warner

            Well, I was wrong all the way around. I forgot about Madeleine Albright. Duh. I never said anything disparaging about Condi. I am well aware of her persistence, her education, and her capabilities. All I said was that there have been extremely capable women prior to Condi–apparently, Ms Albright. And, there were surely capable men as well. It is a credit to GW Bush (and he doesn’t get much of that from me) that he recognized Condi’s exceptional qualifications and chose her. Considering that in the early days of this country, Jefferson wanted only landowners to vote, women have indeed come quite a long way. I just think it could have been sooner. It’s my opinion, of course. I don’t see the logic in overlooking women.

          • Joel Wischkaemper

            You have a strong bias toward ‘convicting’ racism and sex as the reason people are not selected to an office.

            People are chosen for the offices.. including the Presidency, based on political affiliation, personal history and mind. Further, most of us know those folks have to plug the President in the processes of being in an office.
            LOTS of people don’t want those offices. Blacks ..generally.. have not associated with the Republican Party, and frankly, women have not hooked up with the Republican Party until recently.

            Women have not been overlooked: saying such is wrong unless you have looked over the selection list in the Republican Party.
            The Democratic List doesn’t include women generally, or blacks generally so that doesn’t matter as much.. and yes, those lists have been published.

          • legal eagle

            Is there some reason you won’t acknowledge that Madelyn Albright was the first woman Secretary of State?

          • Sheila Warner

            Is there some reason you don’t read all of my posts? I acknowledged my error on that one. Go to disqus and catch up.

        • plsilverman

          really? sometimes we don’t look at the general population we look at the population with a certain discipline. as far as working at 1600 or for 1600, U tell us…; “logical to expect”? Blacks have expected a lot of things since the 1600s and generally speaking, they got their constitutional rights about 175 years later than Caucasians.

          • Sheila Warner

            Maybe “logical” was the wrong word. It seems as if the comments on that word are different than I expected. That comment was obviously inadequate on my part. My bad.

          • Joel Wischkaemper

            I wasn’t discussing the Sixteen hundreds at all. And in the Sixteen Hundreds, the slaves in the New World were almost totally white. The number of African decent peoples in this country at that time probably could be counted on a single hand, and were very, very free. There is a reason for that.. I wonder if you know what that reason is, and it is my guess.. you don’t.

            My contentions are valid. And again, just a few years ago, and even today, there is a desire among African Americans to harm whites. I think it was CNN that discussed that, but in any case, the move, “The Butler” invoked an intense discussion. Because many Blacks feel as they do, many would clearly not make good secetary of States. Perhaps.. prehaps we are now looking at a case where African Americans, or non Christian’s, do not make good Presidents.

          • plsilverman

            Your post has some seriously unintentional “racist” statements. Desire to “harm whites”? “looking at a case where African Americans…do not make good Presidents”. U need to rethink AND rewrite.

          • Joel Wischkaemper

            Not a single thing in that post is racist. But like many African Americans, you are attempting .. hard.. to make the post racist.
            Again.. read the CNN review of “The Butler”.

            Goodbye Phil.

          • plsilverman

            I saw the movie and reviewed it myself on Amazon. And you need to rewrite your post, above. (Not that it makes any difference, but I am Caucasian and Jewish).

      • legal eagle

        She was not the first Secretary of State…That was Madeline Albright….Condi Rice was a Bush lapdog…read Colin Powell’s book regarding Ms. Rice…

  • http://att.net/ patty

    OPRAH WINFREY IS A BIGOT! A RACIST PERSONIFIED! Every narrative she gives, any guests of color on her show is that of a bigot, racism of whites. If one has the intellect or smart enough to “read between the lines, listen carefully. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that she is more discriminating, a bigger bigot, racist against whites than whites are of blacks!! As far as I’m concerned, she has gone over the top with her opinions. She still is nurturing the blacks to use the crutch to be non productive because their ancestors were brought over from Africa to be slaves to the whites. Just a good excuse to keep them on Welfare, food stamps and section 8 housing. SPOON FEEDING THEM THE WORLD OWES THEM A LIVING..@TED..DAH! No other President has had his citizenship questioned? Wonder why? Ya think? @kayabob..Give me a break..My last name was that of a long time, well known meat packing company and boy, I had to take a lot of bullshit, smart ass remarks growing up and still do get one occasionally. So boo hoo for Condi Rice. Face it, Condalesa is not your average name.

    • Sheila Warner

      Neither is Condoleezza, her actual name. I guess you didn’t follow her career, did you?

    • Ted

      Patty, you obviously seem to think you have the inside info on why your President has had his citizenship questioned. I’m guessing I know what it is however since you don’t actually say then please enlighten me. While you’re at it please also explain the assertion that after 20 years of attending a Christian church in Chicago how he’s really a Muslim and why 20% of your side says they believe he’s the anti-Christ? Good luck with this.

      • Sheila Warner

        Think about this: Somehow you know that your son, born in Kenya,, will be elected President one day, and you conspire with others who also share that belief, and those others are able to get birth announcements in the newspapers in case, 40 some odd years down the road, you have to be able to say your son was born in America. So stupid! I wonder how these brilliant birthers even function on a day to day basis. How do they find their way around? The stupidity and lack of logic is astounding.

        • CentralScruntinizer

          I also wonder this: If you follow the birther line of thinking a bit further – that Obama was trained to be a marxist manchurian candidate – why has he spent 5 years of his term as a tepid center-left technocrat marked by almost alarming passivity and defined largely by his servitude to Wall Street and Corporate America? Keep in mind that after watching this “sleeper commie” in action for 4 years, corporate donors ponied up about 3/4 of the 800 million raised for his re-election campaign. Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky & Franklin Davis must be VERY disappointed with their investment.

          • Ted

            Yeah, for a guy who’s anti-business you’d never know it from the Fortune 500 companies, the market, jobs and GDP and Wall St reporting record profits etc!

          • plsilverman

            Ted..wow. keep on rockin’. Chuck Berry may sense some competition very soon!

          • I Hate Fascists

            Great stuff bro! You are a breath of fresh air in this intellectual cesspool!

        • plsilverman

          birthers, was Barack Obma born in Kenya? who told them that, Donald TRump, after his “team” came back from Hawaii? guess what, birther dudes and dolls? Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. I am friends who a lady who was friends with Obama, Sr., and was there in the USA when he got the message about his son born in Hawaii. Unless one of those birtherz time-traveled back and helped fake the TWO Hawaiian newspaper announcements of his birth. Sheila…well-said.

    • Ted

      Patty, by your own and words and yardstick, doesn’t you calling Oprah a “racist” make you the real racist? Or does that only apply to Progressives?

  • kayakbob

    I suspect liberals would treat a black conservative President much the same way they treated Sec. of State Condi Rice. They made fun of her name.

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      I have never seen that, or heard of anyone making fun of her. They might have. I wasn’t aware of it.
      She came out of Stanford and a department that made her very conversant with the issues we faced as a nation. Her appointment was exciting, and while her conduct was very discreet, when we got a glimpse of what she was doing, it was pretty good stuff. There are just to many bright people in this country who saw her as I did to think of her in terms of race.

      • kayakbob

        Hi Joel. I heard it in, oh…2003 or 2004, first from that paragon of virtue: Air America. Then just a few weeks later I heard it from one of the more “liberal” (her term) people I knew at that time. Of course, as with most disparaging remarks about conservatives, her comments ended with the obligatory lament about Rice’s “lack of tolerance for other points of view”. I just shook my head, turned and walked away.

  • Ted

    Susie, yeah, someone threw a shoe at W………..when he was in the Middle East! Are you really that ill-informed you’re trying to conflate that with any other event in the U.S? Want more proof? Try and name another President who’s had his citizenship and his religion relentlessly and absurdly questioned and who just happens to our first Black President? Lastly, the idea that if someone points out racism that makes them the real racist is like saying if a W critic gets called a hater then the person who called him that is the real hater. Hopefully, the analogy isn’t lost on anyone here who’s a con?

    • Sheila Warner

      I believe that GW Bush and President Obama have both had their share of disrespect. Why do we play one upmanship when we discuss these matters? All of it pales when compared to the vitriol way back when, in the early 1800s. Those guys could really dish out the venom back then. We’re pansies compared to them.

      • Ted

        Yeah, both had their share of disrepect, the difference is degree and subject matter. When you mention oneupmanship if I were on your side of the argument I would not want that comparison made either. Here’s the difference your side would love to ignore but can’t: No other President in our country’s HISTORY has ever had his citizenship questioned or been called a Muslim or had 20% of the opposition party (according to some polls) believing he’s the anti-Christ.

        • Sheila Warner

          You are correct. But those who say those things are so clearly crazy that sane folks don’t give them any credence.. It is, as you say, a matter of degree. What upset me more than the loons who spout such crap was the booing of the President while attending a college basketball game with his wife and daughters. I was completely disgusted. It’s one thing to attack the President, but to be so boorish while his family is with him is beyond belief.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            I think there’s a difference between people at a basketball game and opposition congressmen & partisan TV personalities. Once you start getting into the actions of civilians you are pitting the Tea Party of today against the anti-War protestors of 10 years ago, and that tit-for-tat leads you so deep into the partisan swamp its hopeless. There’s a difference between some 2002 anti-war protestor with a picture of Bush as Hitler, or a Tea Partier with a picture of Obama as an African witch doctor tied to her Rascal and national politicians and pundits with huge platforms.

            In terms of Reps and Senators who walk right up to the line of calling Obama a foreign national or a communist, and occasionally crossing it (like Bachmann and a handful of the hardcore Tea Party reps) or people employed by news networks like (pre-Blaze) Beck, Hannity, Eric Bolling, Peter Johnson, Pete Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, Andrea Tantaros, Gret Gutfeld et al who encouraged the notion of Obama as anti-American and foreign born, there just is no comparison between the treatment of Bush and the treatment of Obama. Bush was rapidly disrespected by the rank+file, but, outside the occasional rant by Keith Olbermann, he was treated with respect if not admiration by elected Dems and left leaning broadcast pundits.

          • chas615

            Wow! That is some of the most effed up revisionist history I have ever heard. Did you forget the things Harry Reid and Al Gore said of W (just to name two)? You are drinkin a pretty powerful flavor of kool aid my friend.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Reid wrote in his book that Bush lied. I can’t find too many outrageous things said by Al Gore during the Bush presidency. If you want to go to the election and the fight in florida you’ll find some incidiary things said by both camps, but still nothing close to the things said by major national republicans about Obama. Can you please supply anything, including the statements of Reid or Gore, that are in the same area code as someone yelling at Obama mid-State of the Union speech or actively claiming that Bush hates America?

          • legal eagle

            Bush did lie about Iraq….

          • Sheila Warner

            I think it was a strong delusion, based on faulty intelligence. In the same way, President O probably really didn’t know that Obamacare would wreck the grandfather clause he touted. What galled me about Iraq is that the inspectors were not allowed to finish their job. We might have obtained better intelligence at the outset. I was disturbed by the ousting of the inspectors, I did not believe Iraq had WMDs, and right from the start I was dead set against the war. I knew it would go badly. Too bad I was correct; I wish I had been wrong. Everything I predicted came true.

          • Ted

            Amen. Re: Iraq, I remember thinking, “I sure as hell hope those WMD’s are there”. Now, the majority of the hard core cons desperately and wishful thinkingly say is that they, “were moved to Syria” despite there being no intelligence agency evidence of that.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            The thing that troubles me the most about the run-up to the war is that outside the beltway press, there was plenty of unvarnished reporting that said at the time that the Intel was faulty and that Iraq had been in the Bush Administrations sites well before 9/11. The neo-con wish list mandating regime change in Iraq was drawn up by Bill Kristol and Dick Cheney in 1997 and made public. Anyone not in full delusion knew that Bush administration Neo-Cons Cheney, Wolfewitz, Rumsfeld, Pearl and Feith were poised and waiting before 9/11 for any excuse to go into Iraq. The Downing Street Memo was public, where British intelligence was leaked, warning the Prime Minister that the Bush Administration was determined to go to war with Iraq regardless of anything that was found via intelligence or inspection. None of this stuff was hidden from the public. The rage and fear legitimately caused by 9/11 was cynically redirected away from the known perpetrators – Al Qaeda – and onto a dormant bad guy who had been neutered in 1991 but was sitting on an oil patch.

            In short, I think you are being generous to Bush/Cheney to give them any cover to claim that they themselves thought for one second that Iraq either was involved with 9/11 or had a legitimate WMD program post 1991.

          • Sheila Warner

            I remember when we were told by the government to make “safe rooms” with plastic and duct tape. I happened to need duct tape during this time, and I kid you not, I could not find a single roll at my local store. I had to shop around. That’s when my husband and I said that Bush was relying on fear to control Americans, and that the whole “safe room” ruse was a trial balloon to see just how much the government could get away with. I do remember, since you refreshed my memory, that GW Bush was just itching to go into Iraq. But he had to carefully control how and when he did it in order to have American support. And that awful PATRIOT Act–passed in Congress because members’ constituents were scared to death. But, of course, GW Bush couldn’t let the economy suffer; hence, the speech in which he told Americans to “go shopping.”

          • legal eagle

            You are conflating the Iraq war with the ACA? Are you serious?

          • Sheila Warner

            What? Quotes, please. I never did that.

          • Sheila Warner

            I remember Al Gore’s concession speech. It was conciliatory, gracious, and meant to unite the country together behind our new President. It was very classy. Nowadays I find him to be a windbag, but he certainly accepted defeat with dignity after W was declared the winner. I don’t know if that speech is around somewhere on the Internet, but if you didn’t listen to him deliver it, you should at least try to read it somewhere. Of course, without hearing Gore’s inflections and tone, you can’t really grasp how gracious he was.

          • Sheila Warner

            What did they say? And, did they say it in front of President Bush’s family?

          • chas615

            I remember watching obama’s inauguration and hearing Bush get loudly booed. Never have I seen that kind of incivility and hatred. Pretty sure his family was there (as if it wouldn’t matter if they weren’t?) For examples just go to you tube and search reid/bush gore/bush etc etc

          • Sheila Warner

            You don’t point to previous bad behavior to defend more bad behavior.

          • chas615

            Not defending bad behavior. Just saying don’t act so indignant when it happens to the current president because it sure as heck happened to the last one. And I ‘m darn sure sick of these whiners claiming it is because he is black (half black at that).

          • Sheila Warner

            “Encouraged the notion”? What does that mean? I never watch Hannity–he’s too arrogant. Tantaros, Carlson, Gutfeld, Bolling, Doocy–I never heard them say they believe the President was born in Kenya. When they call him unAmerican, they are referencing their own beliefs that the President is not obeying the Constitution. Oh, and BTW, I can’t abide Eric Bolling. I feel bad for Bob Beckel at times, but then I remember he is getting paid to put up with the conservatives on The Five–which I rarely watch, either. I like O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly. Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Brit Hume, Bret Baier, and Charles Krauthammer. A little bit of every philosophy between all of those. Kimberly Guilfoyle makes me cringe.

          • Ted

            Agreed, but I think the cons who spew those slurs at Obama number more than you think and when pressed uktimately even utter the n word. I belong to a private golf club in SoCal and hear it when the good old boys are being honest. Absent that abomination I’m fine with and support policy based disagreements. However, the fear and (sorry) race based vitriol is something I’ve never seen before going back to the 1964 elections. The 70 yr old “I want my country back” caucasian guys are freaked out by Hispanic immigration, the fact that there’s a Black guy in the WH and the fact that they can no longer control national elections anymore. And due to their dwindling numbers, it’s going to get worse for them as they’re decling by 2% every four years. Thx for the well reasoned replies!

          • Sheila Warner

            Anecdotals are hard to dispute. I worked as a nurse for over six years at a state prison. The white COs were racist, for sure. I live in a mostly rural county in the southern part of NJ. Racism is rampant here. But I think the crazies who grabbed air time due to The Donald’s ridiculous and constant bellowing about the President’s birth certificate finally ended their 15 minutes of fame. You don’t see that kind of stuff even on FNC so much anymore (only when Trump stirs the pot). But I wholly agree that the conservatives in this nation are terrified of the “browning” of America. But they are so stupid (channeling Bobby Jindall here) because they believe there are more of them around than actually exist. The way they were so sure that Mitt Romney would win was pitiful to watch. Even my conservative husband thought Mitt had a chance. As soon as that tape of Mitt complaining about the “takers” came to light, I knew it was all over. The TP faction of the GOP is completely out of touch with reality. I believe it was the TP’s rejection of the more conservative candidates, one by one, that allowed Mitt the Flip Flopper to win the nomination. It was like watching one of those old disaster movies in slo-mo. It was absurd that the GOP thought they could redux McCain and win the White House. Really? In the meantime, ordinary Americans who are struggling to survive look at the GOP and wonder WTF? There wasn’t a demographic out there (except for mostly white, religious, and conservatives) that the GOP didn’t insult. The election was over when Mitt was nominated, IMHO.

          • Ted

            You’re way too moderate for this site. And logical. LOL The last election was the Repubs to lose and they did indeed bend over backwards to achieve that. Being the stupid party is right. At the very least they’re incredibly slow learners as evidenced by the post election 97 page autopsy Reince Prebus got that they’re all now ignoring and denying. Mitt had to sell his soul to the devil and become a “seriously” conservative conservative in order to win the primary. And when he tried to etch a sketch and recover back to the middle during the debates it was simply too late not to mention as you so correctly point out the effect of the 47% video. Ironic how he actually got 47% of the vote. Now, the Repubs are doing seemingly everything in their power to alienate the groups they need to win national elections. The irony is that if we give the Dems enough time they’ll probably do it for the Repubs ala 2010.

          • Sheila Warner

            I’m way too moderate for my husband too. It makes for some fun discussions! He is my challenger, and I value his opinions. Oh, and my ultra conservative parents and some of my siblings think I have gone off the deep end. They relish fighting. I don’t.

          • Joel Wischkaemper

            Yes. After all, they had so many chances to express their opinion. No.. if you are a pol, you gotta expect it always.

      • plsilverman

        disrespect of the man and the office is disgusting. But let’s look at “degree”. W. was disrespected after the truth of the War For Halliburton was revealed. Obama was disrespected the day he hit the campaign trail and it got worse and worse because of certain cable station created a 24-7 Obama Hate machine. “Fair and balanced”.

  • Susie

    Oprah talks of disrespecting Pres. Obama. Wasn’t it Pres. Bush that someone threw a shoe at? You are all wrong Oprah and you are the one who is a racist, which you proved with your remark.

    • legal eagle

      An Iraqi threw a shoe at Bush for invading his country….This is your false equivalence?

  • therealguyfaux

    The main trouble is that facts tend to mug The Narrative at every turn– when you have set out to prove QED that something is true, no contrary evidence will be allowed and no dissension in the ranks will be brooked.

    I once heard a panel discussion amongst black think-tank types in which they were attempting to discuss how certain problems in the black community could be addressed, on the black person’s terms and to the black person’s benefit. The telling phrase I kept hearing from one of those wonks was “Leave the white man in the next room!”, i.e., proceed as if there were no white people to say yea or nay to any of what you propose, instead of the usual “But you know they’ll never let a brother catch a break” when you propose it. The latter may or may not be true– but it cannot be used to self-defeat, was what the wonk was saying. And this was the part that interested me most.

    It seemed to me that if you did NOT self-define in terms of “I gotta get mine, from an oppressor who owes me, by hook or by crook,” you wouldn’t give much of a rat’s tail whether white folks agreed with you or not. You’d get on with your business, and you’d take your allies where you would find them– which is to say that if, as a result of your working out of a solution to a problem, it turns out that more Repubs than Dems agreed with you, you’d work with the ones you thought would be more valuable in the fight, not those you think you SHOULD for some reason work with, those who up till now have basically used your grievances as a way to tantalize you–i.e., always keeping everything just a little out of your reach, lest you’d get what you want and you’d perhaps abandon them.

    I’ve seen other black intellectuals like this one approach the conservative position but not quite adopt it, but who will at any rate view the traditional Left view as well-too-limiting and full of unintended consequence, and will seek a new synthesis. When you become too predictable you get taken for granted– which is why the usual Narrative must be challenged if black people are to be taken seriously in this country.

  • Stimpy

    How many milliseconds before the black liberals yell “Uncle Tom”? Not many.

  • John Colburn

    I would imagine they would treat a black conservative the same as a white conservative.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      But that’s considered racist when conservatives treat black and white liberals the same. ;)

      • John Colburn

        Well, it shouldn’t be that way, but to clear this up perhaps you could name a white liberal president and and compare him how he was treated as opposed to Obama.

        • Sheila Warner

          “Hey hey LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?” LBJ was so reviled he didn’t even bother to try for re-election. And Jimmy Carter was the constant butt of jokes all over the media. As I was telling another person here, just look at the venom spewed by candidates and their supporters against each other in the early 1800s. This comparison business, especially when it comes to hypotheticals, is just plain silly. A total waste of time.

          • John Colburn

            Agreed.

          • legal eagle

            It was “how many babies did you kill today” and it was the truth not vitriol…

        • Joel Wischkaemper

          The circumstances vary to much.

      • Joel Wischkaemper

        And just think.. nobody has said a word about Governor Brown yet.

  • stmichrick

    Every time a liberal uses race as an excuse to marginalize conservative criticism of President Obama, they need to be challenged. No leader deserves that kind of immunity.
    The challenge should be, ‘Let’s stick to the issues!’ Where have we heard THIS before?

  • stmichrick

    ‘Liar’ is becoming overused. Maybe Joe Wilson should have use the term, ‘hustler.’ That’s probably a little more precise in this case. But wait; that might have had more RACIAL overtones.
    ‘Liar’ it is

  • cantonst

    Okra was just playing to her base…

  • cantonst

    Wilson was out of line but accurate as we ALL now know!

  • Ksp48

    And I think Joe Wison yelled “liar” quite spontaneously as he hear abject, bald faced lies emanating from the president’s mouth. The word just blurted out.

  • joepotato

    I’m sure the BSM would continue their policy of “crucifying” black conservatives… or as I like to them, constitutionalists. They do that wherever they find them… (color doesn’t matter) … “What if” scenarios are pretty much useless/pointless… Next topic…?

  • Shane

    Quite true, except Joe Wilson has proven to be right about Obama lying. Illegals will be able to participate in Obamacare as their are no provisions for checking for citizenship in Obamacare.

  • mark

    The problem with a black conservative president is that the left/race baiters would say that the black president is not really black, he is not authentic, because an authentic black president would never have conservative views. So Limbaugh’s et. al. cheerleading for such a black president would not be viewed as supportive of a black man, but would be viewed as support of an Uncle Tom, which, again, would be defined by the left/race baiters as inherently racist. You can’t win the race argument with these people.

    • Ksp48

      “No real Scottsman…..”

  • lark2

    First, allow me to say that Joe Wilson was NOT a fool … he was correct. The President was and is a bold-faced LIAR ! Many were not aware of it at that time but now, it is a well known FACT. Secondly, many Democrat Liberals REALLY don’t care about Black people … they do everything possible to keep them poor and simply “use” them to get elected. They hope people will forget the sordid history of RACISM by the Democrat Party. They hope that if they accuse Republicans of racism often enough, the country will forget about Bull Connor, George Wallace, the Klansman Robert Byrd, John Stennis, Clinton mentor, J.William Fulbright, Al Gore, Sr., and all the other segregationist Democrats who opposed the civil rights laws and supported segregated schools, “white water – black water”, and seats in the back of the bus for Black people and Black railroad cars. The Democrats were at the forefront of all the most foul treatment of Black Americans. Somehow, with the help of their friends in the media, most have not only forgotten these things but somehow made the Republicans the whipping boys. Democrats are so duplicitous when it comes to racial matters that BILL CLINTON AND BARACK OBAMA actually attended and eulogized Klansman Robert Byrd of West Virginia at his recent funeral … of course, the media was silent.

  • PaleAle

    They just say he’s not really black, Bernie. Then they proceed to dismember him.

  • keith hart

    White lefties did not pull any punches on Allen West when he was in the House Their attacks were personal and insulting — never on issue substance.

    The congressional black caucus does not allow membership to conservative black House members.

    Mr. Goldberg’s quote doesn’t fully cover all that is really going on: “I won’t say that they’re [white liberals] too busy trying to show off their good racial manners, which is to say trying to convince black people that they, unlike most white people, aren’t bigots. ”

    The full picture includes the following realities: there is no more insidious racism than liberal white racism — the hidden, soft bigotry of low expectation. Obfuscated by hollow, lefthanded praise and empty promises.

    And it does seem to work. 90% of black voters vote for politicians opposing school vouchers when 90% of black parents want school vouchers.

  • Trooth

    With due respect for a well written essay, the answer to your question, “How would liberals be treat a black liberal in the White House?”, requires one simple sentence.
    He would be dismissed as an “Uncle Tom”.

    • Barancy Peloma

      i agree. he would be called all the racist names by many on the left. i remember last year when some detroit sportswriter called rg3 a “cornball brotha” because he married a white woman and he also heard that rg3 might also be republican.
      there are many on the left who refuse to accept one could be black and NOT a democrat.

  • Bryan

    It would have been very helpful, Mr. Goldberg, if you had qualified your characterization of Joe Wilson as being “an idiot” with the fact that he was “correct”.

    • MarioG

      Please don’t forget that Bernie Goldberg is a recovering liberal.

      • legal eagle

        What Obama said about the Citizens United decision was absolutely true….what do you believe was untrue?

        • MarioG

          Leagal Weasel – why don’t you ask Justice Alito who knows more about the case as anyone who was the one who said “Not true!”

          What WAS true was Congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” to yet another Obama lie, though he should have waited until after the speech and held a press conference.

          • legal eagle

            4 other SCOTUS judges as well as the President disagreed with Justice Alito…Alito has been proven to be wrong…The Citizens United decision has allowed foreign money into U.S. elections as disclosure of contributors names is no longer required.
            By the way, you obviously have no clue about the subject….

          • 4Deuce

            A 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court now has little at all to do with what is “right” or what is “wrong” legal eagle. It is all about what side of the political spectrum has control of that 9-person body. And injecting your “no clue” remark, in my opinion, makes you far less than what your screen name claims you are. Maybe you might change it to “cheap-shot-artist”.

          • MarioG

            Legal Weasel – The 4 mind-numbed liberal justices and the scofflaw President we have now can be counted on these days to ignore the Constitution. No one expects anything else from them any longer. The key to upholding the Constitution are the 5 conservative justices.

            Actually, it is YOU who is clueless. The 5 SCOTUS justices, who know more about the subject than anyone else, disagree with you.

    • 4Deuce

      I have noticed that B Goldberg seems much at ease using harsher words to describe conservative Republicans than those he uses to describe liberal Democrats. I can only suppose that it is only a matter of time before those challenging Mitch McConnell and Boehner will come under Bernie’s fire and name-calling too.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        If you really believe that, you aren’t his reading his columns often enough.

        • 4Deuce

          I subscribe to Bernie’s website columns, read him via Townhall.com and have watched him since he began appearing on O’Reilly’s show – so I read him often enough. But this is whet he wrote about a few weeks back – concerning Christie versus Cruz. These are HIS words, not mine…, Note how he refers to “true believers”, fundamental Christians and Limbaugh. Show me his words that are as harsh when he writes about Dems, Libs, Proggies… “true believers sometimes don’t think rationally. I’m cautiously optimistic that Chris Christie could win in 2016 (although cautiously hopeful may come closer to my real feelings). But I’m pessimistic about his chances of winning the support of his own party. Fundamentalists – political, religious or any other kind – don’t like to bend. Sometimes I think they’d rather lose than compromise. Rush Limbaugh, after all, can barely get the word “compromise” out of his mouth without gagging. To him, compromise is caving in.”

      • Brhurdle

        I also have noticed that Mr. Goldberg seems to feel it necessary to be critical of both sides lest he be labeled as biased. I suppose the labeling of Wilson as an “idiot” established the justification for refuting Winfrey’s statement. No one can accuse him of being unfair since he maintains balance. Smooth move Mr. Goldberg.

        • Sheila Warner

          Bernie didn’t refer to Joe Wilson as an idiot. He called him a fool.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      I disagree. Any U.S. congressman who chooses to heckle a U.S. president during the middle of a presidential address is indeed an idiot… even if what he says is correct.

      • Sheila Warner

        I agree. Acting out like that really destroyed his credibility, for me, anyway.

      • Bryan

        You misunderstand me, sir. My point is that Obama did, in fact, lie. Irrespective of whether it was idiotic to point it out in that venue, during that particular event, he did lie.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Correct. Obama has lied about many things.

    • legal eagle

      What exactly was Joe Wilson correct about?

      • Bryan

        He was correct that Mr. Obama did, in fact, lie. This is pretty well as proven as the Law of Gravity at this point.

  • Tim in California

    Bernie – Perfectly stated….

  • Martin Monti

    It would be brutal for an African American President. “Liberals” only care about women and minorities who think exactly like they do. If a black man or woman strays from the liberal plantation they will set out to destroy that person

    • Stimpy

      True. That’s why they take such sport in crucifying Sarah Palin.

  • Marlane Bormel

    I have never understood how black liberals must hold onto slavery, something that ended 150 years ago, as an excuse for every ill that befalls them. Jews don’t hold onto thousands of years of genocide rained upon them as an excuse for not joining civil society in the ethic of hard work, scholarship, and success.

    • MarioG

      Marlane – it’s even worse than you say. While clinging to the slave narrative, blacks have conveniently forgotten that it was DemoRATS who fought a bloody civil war to preserve slavery, then terrorized freed blacks through the KKK, filibustered civil rights legislation, refused to desegregate southern schools and universities, attacked black protestors with water hoses and dogs, then built government plantations in every urban center to trap the poorest blacks in failing schools and prevailing and minimum wage rates and make them wards of the government. It was DemocRAT LBJ who finally found a way to destroy the black family that had survived the worst days of slavery and Jim Crow (D) by paying them to have as many kids as possible without getting married to increase their welfare checks. Yet blacks keep voting for the DemocRATS who have always screwed them in some weird version of Stockholm Syndrome.

      • Stimpy

        Yes, they can even watch the movie ‘Lincoln’ and forget it was a republican who fought for their emancipation. If a democrat had been president he would have sued for peace with the south and we’d still have slavery … or continued wars between the north and the south. Guess blacks aren’t real keen on history. They sure are easily bought nowadays.

      • CentralScruntinizer

        MarioG – Look at you at it again with your idiotic parlor games. The Southern Democrats who were in the KKK and fought reconstruction were the so-called Dixiecrats. In those days, the parties didn’t breakdown on a left-right axis the way they do today.

        Do you want to guess the defining political trait of the Dixiecrats? They were the most Conservative members of Congress of their era. And, with a few notable exceptions like Byrd and Al Gore Sr., they swapped parties en mass following the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1965. The sons of former Dixiecrats are the most conservative southern GOP voting bloc of today.

        And if you are actually an adult who gets a charge out of writing DemocRAT (or “libtard” or “Republicunt”) you don’t have much hope of being able to grasp politics at more than an ignorant and puerile level.

        • MarioG

          I don’t know whose propaganda payroll you are on but your assertions are about as lame as a box of rocks.

          The Confederates were all DemocRATS, as were the KKK. Bill Clinton’s segregationist mentor, Sen. Wm. Fulbright, was a Dem as was George Wallace and Bull Conner and Fritz Hollings who raised the rebel flag over the SC statehouse when he was Gov.

          I addition to Al Gore Sr. and Robert “Sheets” Byrd, those who filibustered civil and voting rights legislation were all DemocRATS. The civil rights and voting rights bills only passed because of Republicans. Then, DemocRAT LBJ built the government plantations to trap the poorest blacks as a chronic underclass. He was also the one who finally found a way to destroy the black family by paying the poorest blacks to have babies without getting married.

          Here are two sources that show your comments for the propaganda they are – both are thoroughly researched initiatives by black activists:

          http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

          http://www.federalobserver.com/2011/09/14/blacks-file-class-action-racial-discrimination-suit-against-obama-democrats/

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Keep rolling that boulder up the hill, Mario. You are swinging at a strawman for half your post: No one is saying that the Confederates or the KKK were not filled with Dixiecrats. And you’ve done a great job at repeating the carve outs of Dixiecrats who I mentioned stayed in the democratic party and even added Fullbright and Conner (Wallace became an independent.)

            Here, for a second time, I’ll spell out the crucial issue: The Dixiecrats were defined by their ultra-conservatism. There was nothing remotely liberal or progressive about the Dixiecrats. They opposed the end of Slavery, opposed the reconstruction, opposed black voting rights, opposed the end of segregation & opposed the Civil Rights Act.

            Good luck trying to conflate anything about the Dixiecrats – who now are the Southern core of the GOP – with anything remotely liberal or progressive.

          • MarioG

            The Dixiecrats are a short-term mirage, doofus, kept alive by liberals to try and obfuscate the fact that it is LIBERAL DemocRATS who have been oppressing blacks since the days of slavery. In case you missed it Rev. Wayne Perryman used the research of 350 scholars to draft his charges of systematic racial bias by the Democrats and their demi-God, the Almighty Obama himself, the guy who has replaced Pinocchio and has feet of clay.

            There was nothing Dixiecrat about those who opposed the end of slavery, terrorized blacks, opposed civil rights legislation, opposed voting rights, opposed the end of segregation. They were all LIBERAL DemocRATS.

            It was LIBERAL DemocRAT LBJ who needed CONSERVATIVE Republicans to pass civil rights and voting rights legislation, and then finally found a way to destroy the black family and with their subsidiary public employee and private industry labor unions have trapped the poorest blacks in failing schools and denied them decent entry level jobs through prevailing and minimum wage rates and turned them into a chronic underclass dependent on government free stuff to survive.

            It was CONSERVATIVE Republicans who have always tried to elevate minorities to be like everyone else.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Nice try, but you’re dancing as fast as you can to try to conflate the ultra-conservative Dixiecrats of the Reconstruction through 1965 with liberalism. In fact, the Civil Rights Act was passed by liberal Northern Democrats allied with Liberal Northern republicans (there used to be quite a few, whiz kid.)

            Opposing those liberals? Southern Republicans and Conservative Southern Dixiecrats.

            Here is the way the vote broke down:

            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%)

            You can make an argument that the Great Society programs have been good, bad or mixed for minorities since the early 1960s, but on the issue of who ended slavery and who ended integration, in spite of your most feverish wishes there’s zero wiggle room : It was progressives.

            You should probably stick with your sad word games and leave history to the grown-ups.

          • MarioG

            I’m not conflating anything. The Dixiecrats are a mirage that came and went in 1948. Almost all returned to the DemocRAT Party after that and continued their assault on blacks. Later a few joined the Republicans who have always been the champions of minorities without patronizing them but treating them like they treat everyone else. including each other – as equals.

            The black civil rights crowd want blacks to be treated like serfs, because if blacks became financially independent like everyone else there would be no need for a “leadership” that preys on the backs of the community and racist academics in “Keep Hate Alive” departments at major universities, a.k.a. Departments of African-American Studies.

            You can tap dance on the head of a pin all you want, but this lawsuit based on the research of 350 scholars – which does not include you – is against the DemocRAT Party and Barack Obama, not your imaginary Dixiecrats:

            http://www.federalobserver.com/2011/09/14/blacks-file-class-action-racial-discrimination-suit-against-obama-democrats/

          • CentralScruntinizer

            You’re funny. Also, from a quick look at your comments, with the exception of immigration which effects you personally (which is clearly the only thing that can get you to care about others) you are ultra-hardcore right wing.

            With your world view, had you been alive and white in the South in the reconstruction era, there is a 100% chance you would have been a Southern Conservative Democrat. However, from your posts it appears that you’re Hispanic, which would have made your life at the hands of those conservatives difficult. You can spew hatred and rightwing mythology all you want, but if this was 1890s Alabama, you would be leery and cautious – if not outright hiding – from the local conservatives. And yes, those local conservatives would have been democrats by the political alignment of the day.

            Progressives have been far from faultless over the years, but there is no debate that slavery, segregation and backlash against immigrants have all been perpetrated by Conservatives, and fought, ended and repealed by Progressives. It’s an undisputed fact, but please be my guest and continue to process your cognitive dissonance publicly.

          • MarioG

            There’s nothing funny about a lawsuit against DemocRATS and Obama for a systematic pattern of racial hostility against the African-American community.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            I accept your tacit concession, as evidenced by your clinging to a pathetic stunt lawsuit as your final stand. Shall we review the rich history of farcical lawsuits in US and world history?

            And *somehow* you just happen to have ommitted what happened to that crank lawsuit… It was dismissed with prejudice, the hallmark resolution for most ludicrous lawsuits: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2011cv01503/178530/25

            I suggest you get your head out of the right-wing blog world which is run by a combination of semi-insane hyper partisans & cynics plying on the right’s bias, fears and hatred to enrich themselves. The dreaded MSM, for all its real flaws, is run by reasonably intelligent adults usually doing their best to deliver the closet thing to the truth they can deliver. There is nothing within light-years of the truth, or even an honest attempt at the truth, to be found in the fever swamp that mis-informs you.

          • MarioG

            It was dismissed by a Democrat hack judge to protect Obama without even looking at the evidence. It’s not the lawsuit but the facts in it from the research of 350 scholars, each far smarter than a liberal hack propagandist fixated on a party that lasted about a year when almost everyone in it returned to being a DemocRAT.

            89% of the MSM in Washington, DC and New York City admitted they were DemocRATS. So much for their veracity or integrity. We saw how they covered up for the clueless Obama while savaging McCain and Palin and Romney and Ryan, to elect and re-elect a certifiable dunce who is destroying our economy and standing in the world.

            Here are some more facts about your DemocRAT Party’s oppression of blacks for your enlightenment:

            http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

          • CentralScruntinizer

            So to sum up here Mario, your argument now has wisely moved off the idea that the Southern Democrats 1865-1965 were anything other than ultra-conservative, and is now settled in on a last stand for you based on the fact that the nickname for conservative southern democrats “Dixiecrats” was not the nickname used for them for the full 100 years AND there was a stunt political lawsuit that was thrown out with prejudice by a judge. And because that judge didn’t assist with the stunt, you assume that they are A) Democratic and B) a hack.

            Got it. Good work. You’re aces at this whole political debate thing.

          • MarioG

            Way to go to ignore the facts sequentially ans systematically laid out by Black & Right :-))

            Dixiecrats was no “nickname”. A few southern DemocRATS actually formed a short-lived party in 1948 and then promptly went back to being DemocRATS.

            The proof that DemocRATS have always been the party to oppress blacks FOLLOWED the civil and voting rights legislation that Republicans were instrumental in passing, when LBJ finally figured out what the slave owners and Jim Crow (D) had been unable to – to destroy the black family pay the poorest among them to have as many babies as possible without getting married or even being in a stable relationship. Thus we now have 73% of black babies born to the so-called “Baby Mamas” each with multiple kids, each with a different last name, which is a pure guess as to who the sperm donor, a.k.a. “Baby Daddy”, may have been.

            Of course the judge was a DemocRAT hack like the 4 liberal justices on the SCOTUS who can be counted on to ignore the Constitution and vote based on ideology. Even John Roberts joined them and will go down in infamy for the massive damage he singlehandedly perpetrated on the country when he decided to play politics and abused his powers to re-configure a statute before him to see his way clear to passing the Obamacare mandate.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Mario, you’re nothing if not reliable – No objective facts, just pure rant.

            Do you or do you not want continue your ridiculous claim that Southern Democrats from 1865-1965 were extremely conservative? I doubt you want to go anywhere near that anymore so you’ll dodge or defer to a right wing website that doesn’t address the point.

            Also, for a minority immigrant yourself, you really seem to be pretty bigoted. To embellish the out of wedlock rate for african american babies as “we now have 73% of black babies born to the so-called “Baby Mamas” each with multiple kids, each with a different last name, which is a pure guess as to who the sperm donor, a.k.a. “Baby Daddy”, may have been” says a lot about you and your mindset. Have you also cross checked the out of wedlock birthrate by socio-economic level instead of by race? And how would you feel if someone made a comment like that about Latinos? For you, it seems like you love to sound like Limbaugh until it affects you – Then you suddenly sound like Sharpton.

            And finally for your rant about the judge for the ridiculous suit that got laughed out of court, can you tell me more about the judge that threw out the case? Because otherwise one might get the idea that you don’t know anything about it and are just bullsh*tting to cover for the fact that you only have far right nutter material and your great 4th grade word play to bring to the table.

          • MarioG

            Central Prevaricator – It is an objective fact that the Confederates were DemocRATS. The KKK were all DemocRATS. George Wallace was a proud DemocRAT. Fritz Hollings was and is a proud DemocRAT. Al Gore Sr. and Robert “Sheets” Byrd were lifelong DemocRATS. It was DemocRATS who filibustered civil and voting rights legislation, while these were passed only with Republican votes. It was DemocRAT LBJ who built the government plantations to turn the poorest blacks into a permanent underclass and found a way to destroy the black family that had withstood slavery and Jim Crow (D).

            Whether they were conservative or not is not the issue. The issue is that DemocRATS have oppressed blacks since the days of slavery while pretending after 1965 to be their benefactors – all for political reasons.

            Playing the race card on me is like pouring water on a duck’s back. Race to me is simply a fact of life that makes people unique and interesting.

            The births to black single women in 1965 was 24% – it is now an astounding 73%. It is 53% for Latinos and 29% for whites up from 4% in 1965. It is almost ZERO among the Asians who dominate the top 3 or 4 positions when ranked by family income – Indians, Japanese, Filipinos and Chinese Americans

            There is a direct connection between LBJ’s Great Society programs and the destruction of all families, especially the black family driven by the poorest among them – by encouraging more kids and no stable relationships to maximize welfare payments.

            Even civil rights icon Andrew Young admitted as much when he was a guest of the O’Reilly Factor recently.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcVDwfxvTcE

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Mario, again: there’s zero chance with your ultra conservative world view that you would not have been a democrat, or, I’m sorry, as you seem to get such a thrill writing “democRAT” had you been in the south 100 years ago. The southern conservative democrats closely shared your regressive views. So we’ve established that you would be what you claim to loathe. Good on you. Glad we had this chat.

          • MarioG

            If it were up to the DemocRATS blacks would still be enslaved, or hounded by their subsidiary KKK. There would be no civil rights, no voting rights, and actual plantations instead of the virtual government plantations they surreptitiously built to trap the poorest blacks as a permanent underclass.

            It is DemocRATS who deny poor blacks school vouchers, and relegate them to failing schools controlled by the DemocRAT subsidiary teachers unions, then deny them entry level jobs with union supported prevailing and minimum wage laws.

            There’s a good reason I spell it DemocRAT. I studied the platforms of both parties and discovered that the D’RATS were just like the socialists I was running away from, but less honest because they try to control the means of production with tax policy and mindless regulations because they cannot pull of confiscating them like they do in Venezuela and other socialist countries. No one who reads REAL US history would ever vote D’RAT again, especially the blacks who have suffered so much at their hands and yet keep voting for them to protect the free stuff they need to survive in some weird version of Stockholm Syndrome.

            Making someone dependent on government for their survival is the worst thing anyone can do to an American.

            Blacks who escape these government plantations actually do as well or better that everyone else. For example the poverty rate in black two-parent homes is 8% which is less than the 11% for all American two-parent families. On the other hand the poverty rate in black single parent homes – mostly stuck deep in the urban plantations – is more like 50% which is higher than the 47% rate for all single parent homes.

            Now comes Obama who is making it even worse for blacks, more so than for everyone else. Even Tavis Smiley admits that blacks will be worse off in every single economic metric by the time Obama is done with us and ends up on the thrash heap of history as a well-intentioned American experiment in presidential affirmative action that went horribly awry.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Half of your rant is against the policies of conservatives (southern Dems pre-1965) and half of your rant is against liberalism. Neither half is terribly coherent, especially when you look at tax rates for individuals currently against the rates going back 100 years. Then look at the corporate side and the collection rate on corporate taxes. You’re comparing that to state run economies? OK. Lucid as ever…

          • MarioG

            This is not about liberalism and conservatism but about Democrats and Republicans.

            Democrats pre-1965 fought a bloody civil war to preserve slavery, terrorized blacks through their subsidiary KKK, filibustered civil and voting rights legislation and then built the government plantations to trap the poorest blacks as a permanent underclass. Republicans fought to free blacks, then voted for civil and voting rights legislation and have opposed the government plantations ever since.

            Tax rates today have nothing to do with tax rates in the distant past under vastly different economic conditions. The Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43 tax rate cuts show that when the economy is slow, tax rate cuts grow the economy and increase the number of tax payers leading to an increase in tax receipts.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            “This is not about liberalism and conservatism but about Democrats and Republicans.” – Unreal.

          • MarioG

            What is unreal is your desperation in trying to put lipstick on the Democrat donkey.

            There are liberals and conservatives in both parties. It was the Democrat Party that is responsible for all the mayhem against blacks since the days of slavery.

            That is what is real.

            Here again are some facts put together by a black commentator:

            http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

            http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

          • Sheila Warner

            He an immigrant from an unnamed socialist nation. Explains quite a bit. See his comment to me.

          • Sheila Warner

            Must you continue to use the word DemocRATS? Really, it gets old. When you think up what you believe is a clever word, it’s best to use it sparingly. As for LBJ, he did not see the long term consequences of welfare. It looked good on paper. After all, children are not responsible for their parents’ mistakes. Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw what was coming down the pike. Turns out he was a prophet. But I don’t think it was the intention of the civil rights activists to oppress blacks. Don’t forget that it was Democrat Bill Clinton who pushed for welfare reform. You ought to ask yourself why it is that the vast majority of African-American voters support the Democrats. At what point did they turn their backs on the GOP? It can’t be due to having better lives, because they do not. More blacks are murdered, and by other blacks, schools are terrible in black districts, the unemployment rate is higher: so what’s the appeal with the Democrats? I remain puzzled by it.

          • MarioG

            Sheila – I have worked with the poorest blacks in an inner city hunger program for over 15 years and my only thought is that they are suffering from some sort of Stockholm Syndrome out of fear that they will be unable to survive without government handouts.

            In 2012 those voters making less than $30K a year gave the clueless Obama a 7 million vote margin to protect their free stuff and Democrat contrived fears that Romney would take these away. Voters making more than $30K gave Romney a 3 1/2 vote margin. We now have more takers than makers and we better turn that around or we are headed down a slippery slope towards Europe.

            Contrast that with those blacks who escape who do about as well as anyone else. Blacks dominate the most brutally competitive activities in America by sheer hard work and determination to succeed, sports and entertainment, where it is whites who need affirmative action that is not forthcoming.

            I apologize for bruising your tender sensibilities but I am a refugee from a former socialist country and am thoroughly disgusted that it has followed me here thanks to the Democrats (is that better?) who are destroying everything that made this country great domestically and around the world right in front of our eyes.

            Of course children are not responsible for their parent’s behavior – they are the hapless victims, and in the trap they grow up in they tend to perpetuate what they see around them – promiscuity, STDs, pregnancies, drugs, gangs and guns.

            What did LBJ think he was doing with programs that incentivized childbirth but discouraged joint families and stable marital partnerships? The rate of births to black single mothers went from 24% in 1965 to 73% today, 53% for Hispanics and 29% for whites, up from 4% in 1965. In the meantime such births are virtually unheard of in the top ranks of family income by ethnic group where the top 3 – 4 groups are all Asian.

            It is politically incorrect to even talk about these destructive birth rates – when Bill O’Reilly did a few months ago he was called a racist. When a black Don Lemon said O’Reilly had a point, he was called an Uncle Tom.

            There are too many people who benefit from keeping as many blacks in poverty and ignorance, and they’re all Democrats.

            Republicans treat everyone as badly or well as anyone else. Poor people don’t have the money to buy as much stuff as well-to-do people, so business minded Republicans have a powerful incentive to see them do well, unlike Democrats who thrive on keeping them poor and dependent on government.

            I hate to inform you that Bill Clinton fought against welfare reform tooth and nail. He had already vetoed it TWICE when Dick Morris convinced him it would help him politically and Newt Gingrich pushed him into signing it. Like everything else, the clueless and opportunistic Clinton was quick to take credit for anything that worked hoping no one would notice that he had previously opposed it. He was even pushed into his surpluses by Gingrich and the Republicans that controlled the House and Senate after 1996. Clinton’s first budget proposal in 1993 had shown $200 billion deficits throughout, showing he didn’t have a clue how to fix something he now takes credit for but had little to do with. However, he did not fight the Republicans like Obama does, because he saw the benefit to him of working with them.

          • Sheila Warner

            You’ve missed my point. I do not believe that Democrats want to keep blacks down any more than I believe that the GOP wants dirty air and water. By supplying financial aid to single women with dependent children, the idea was for all children to be cared for so that the mothers could be free to improve their own lives, and then, in the future, the children’s lives would be made better as well. Child care for education and/or work, with food stamps to keep children from hunger, were good ideas–on paper. I agree that human nature being what it is, too many took the money and did nothing more than have more children. You are attributing nefarious motives to LBJ and others, who are idealistic to the point of simplistic thinking. I disagree with your characterization of Democrats being rats. ( I am not a Democrat or a Republican). I believe your personal filter is caused by your immigrating from a socialist nation. You were not born and raised here in America? How much of American culture do you really understand? Knowing stats isn’t the same thing as being American born and bred. Yes Bill Clinton gets credit for working with the GOP, but somehow that makes him less in your eyes–he was “forced”. No, he made a pragmatic choice. My sensibilities aren’t the tender ones–yours are. Otherwise why are so so harsh in some of your rhetoric? Could it be vestiges of the old country? Finally, many people have worked with minorities for years, and have managed to do so without becoming cynical.

          • MarioG

            Sheila – You are a classic example of a caring and well-intentioned person caught in the middle of the road desperately wanting to see good in everyone. It is you who has noted that these schemes all sound good “on paper”. However, they fail in practice because they really don’t make sense.

            The main reason they fail is because the liberals think – in spite of all the evidence to the contrary – that they can know what’s good for everyone else better than they do. They’re doing it as we speak by telling us that THEY know what insurance coverages are good for us. The natural instinct of free people is to be free to make their own choices and to be financially independent.

            Black economist Walter E. Williams has used high school math to show that such socio-economic situations are so complex with hundreds of options for every issue that it is arrogant and conceited for any bureaucrat or committee to come up with any rational “plan” to fix them by telling everyone what to do. Obamacare will collapse under its own weight because of this – if the 20,000 pages of the law and regulations give you a clue as to what is to come.

            Even civil rights icon Andrew Young admitted to Bill O’Reilly that it was welfare programs that destroyed the black family because they gave single women incentives to remain single but have as many kids as possible. The birth rate to black single mothers went from 24% in 1965 to 73% now, and the black family was largely destroyed putting a tremendous burden on the kids with no way out for most of them. Why? Because simultaneously, Democrats and their labor union subsidiaries fight tooth and nail to deny poor black kids school choice, and make it difficult for businesses to hire them due to prevailing and minimum wage laws.

            The reason I assign nefarious motives to the Democrats is because a) they fought a bloody civil war to preserve slavery, b) they then terrorized freed slaves through their affiliated KKK, then c) filibustered civil and voting rights legislation, d) fought de-segregation tooth and nail, and finally e) came up with schemes that have made the poorest blacks dependent on government.

            All this mayhem while pretending they are the champions of the poor and downtrodden. Marx and Engels had the same fantasies.

            Democrats have had decades to see the wreckage and fix these problems and all that has been done is to require people on welfare to work a few hours a week. The Republicans have not taken an axe to the program and freed these poor women because of Democrat opposition and because Democrat hacks immediately start calling them racists.

            What “American culture” are you talking about? Do you have to be “American born and bred” to make excuses for the mayhem Democrat policies have caused for the poor? Walter E. Williams, Tom Sowell, Ben Carson, Herman Cain are not only American born and bred but blacks who grew up with single mothers (except Cain) in poor neighborhoods, and they agree with me, who came here more recently. They don’t make excuses like you.

            Observing what works and does not is not based on culture – it’s based on common sense and truly wanting what’s best for the most people most of the time. This is why the top 3 or 4 ethnic groups that dominate the economic rankings based on family
            income in America are all Asians with intact two-parent families and cultures that adapted to the freedom and liberty in America. They mostly take care of their parents and children better than most other ethnic groups and avoid government dependencies like the plague.

            So much for traditional “American culture”.

            Bill Clinton gets an asterisk on welfare reform for fighting against it tooth and nail and vetoing it TWICE. If he hadn’t been forced to by political expediency he would not have signed it. Leaders have to be held accountable for the damage they cause by misguided actions. Democrats still try to give Clinton a pass even though he was a serial misogynist, committed criminal sexual harassment in the workplace with a junior employee during working hours, then lied under oath and obstructed justice as the chief law enforcement officer in the land – even losing his law license.

            You are offended by my “harsh rhetoric” – which is actually telling it like it is and not as you would wish it to be. Shouldn’t you be more offended by the sorry plight of tens of thousands victims of misguided Democrat policies, and their doomed generations yet to come, because critics of their oppressors are branded by sensitive and well-intentioned but critically gullible and naive people like you as being “harsh” and “cynical”?

          • Sheila Warner

            I’m bored with the repetitive stats. I saw the interview with Andrew Young, because I am a regular “Factor” viewer. I don’t think Democrats have ulterior motives; that’s what separates you and me on the issue. Actually, I take back my “culture” comment because you are well assimilated into the conservative machine. Where your arguments fail with me, is that the GOP has been absolutely awful when it comes to fiscal policy. You didn’t address any of those points that I made. I have to assume that you are entrenched into the far Right’s point of view. Thanks for getting back to me, though.

          • MarioG

            Sheila – the difference is that I have seen the corrosive effects of statism at first hand and you have not. Of course you’re bored with stats because you are not personally affected and they cause your liberal side discomfort.

            Right here in America, in what blacks who have escaped call “government plantations”, you can see the hopelessness, the survival instincts, the loss of initiative and creativity except in how to game the system, the easy promiscuity, the STDs, wanton pregnancies, drugs, gangs and guns.

            If you watch the Factor you had to have noticed the brazen truth-twisting by Alan Colmes, Juan Williams and Leslie Marshall; we see far more honesty from the recovering agnostic who has discovered Christianity, Kirsten Powers.

            A refugee from socialism is a conservative by definition, and cannot see anything good in the modern Democrats and what they have done, what they have failed to do, and what they continue to do as we speak. However, I am not a Republican either, being more comfortable in the Tea Party movement.

            You are entitled to your opinion about the ulterior motives of the Democrats, but the facts are undeniable. No one with good motives would do so much damage to our largest minority community for over 200 years and counting. If their motives were good they would have taken corrective action by now. Instead they fight tooth and nail against any reform, and ascribe the most evil motives to anyone who tries to suggest a different path.

            Thus, according to the Democrats, the Republicans don’t just have a different philosophy, they WANT dirty air and water, and kids with autism to fend for themselves; they WANT to throw Granny off a cliff; they WANT 30 million people to not have health insurance; they WANT to suppress the vote by asking for proof of identity; they are RACIST if they criticize Obama.

            The Republicans could do a lot better, but they are like night and day. The last Republican president was handed a recession, a broken Intel. system with the CIA banned from sharing information with the FBI (how stupid is THAT?), a depleted national defense apparatus from “Cold War dividends”, and an Al Qaeda emboldened enough by Clinton’s refusal to respond to their serial attacks throughout the 90′s to call us a “weak horse” unable or unwilling to defend ourselves.

            Bush had a lot on his plate but managed to secure the mainland by taking the fight to the enemy for a change, and cut income tax rates to stabilize the economy and increase tax receipts. The federal deficits during his 8 years averaged 3.5% of GDP – over 10% under Obama – and the unemployment rate averaged 5% – almost 9% under Obama. The national debt rose $4 trillion in 8 years under Bush for which Obama called him “irresponsible and unpatriotic”.

            Then Obama increases the national debt by over $6 trillion in less than 4 years – with little or nothing to show for it – and with no end in sight. This, by his own standards, would make HIM even MORE irresponsible and unpatriotic than Bush ever was.

          • Sheila Warner

            Mario I was really gong for it until you started heaping praise on Bush 43. Now, I haven’t studied Presidential history in a very long time, but I have to admit, that right now, I see our current President’s fiscal “policies” as possibly the very most destructive to the nation up to this point. I was lamenting the constant repetition of stats, not the stats themselves. I know all about ‘em. Watch Juan, Leslie and Alan sip the cup of KoolAid on a regular basis. But I can’t be as glowing as you are about W. I just can’t. It’s one thing to shore up intel, it’s quite another to use rendition to try to get more. It’s quite another to spy on Americans by collecting metadata–after of course, fighting against using search warrants as taking too much time. The attacks on 9/11 came after less than a year into the President’s term, and yes, he took the fight to AQ. While fighting costly wars, W also cut taxes and gave us Medicare Part D. “Tis amazing that the deficits were not higher, but to suggest they still weren’t problematic just because President O went on a spending orgy? Sorry, I’m just not in agreement. Both Presidents are stubborn and spendaholics. It depends on your political stripe whether you are forgiving of one, both, or none. Finally, you are right. I cannot possibly comprehend living under socialism because I was blessed to be born and raised here. I’m glad you made it to America. Really.

          • MarioG

            Sheila – I was not “heaping” praise on W – I was just citing facts. You may not like rendition but is a normal part of gathering intel from those sworn to kill innocent, men,women and children. Waterboarding is one of the most humane forms of coerced interrogation that has saved thousands of American lives according to George Tenet, former CIA Director. It doesn’t break any bones or skin, doesn’t draw blood, doesn’t inflict any damage on joints or muscles and is over in seconds – with extraordinary results. When our guys are captured we find them in pieces obviously cut up before they died or what would be the point?

            War is not a social club run on PC principles – once the decision is made it must be ended as quickly as possible for maximum benefit to all sides and minimum loss of life. Wars are always costly but we don’t consult accountants before going to war – it is usually the only way to stop enemies from attacking us as they had done throughout the 90′s with no push-back from Clinton who was otherwise occupied.

            W did not “cut taxes” – he INCREASED tax receipts by cutting income tax rates. I would think you would like Medicare Part D. I would have advised against it.

            What did you find “problematic” about an average deficit of 3.5% of GDP when the rate under Reagan was around 5% of GDP? It means that the tax rate cuts had increased GDP. Bush had to turn a recession around, absorb the economic shock of 9/11, push an enemy back from our shores and rebuild our national defense and Intel from the “Cold War dividend” that Clinton had squeezed out to arrive at his surpluses.

            How can you even compare this with Obama who lied about shovel-ready jobs with a straight face, just as he lies about everything else, has wasted what he spent mostly on shoring up the big banks and big auto companies with big unions that support him, even as he cut back on the two wars, leaving the casualties to have died in vain, millions dispirited and out of work, doubling of food stamps and millions claiming to be disabled to either game the system or to survive..

            One of my criticisms of W is that he did not surge from day one in Iraq and finish the job in a year, wiping out all hostile opposition to do so, which we were capable of doing. President Truman shut down a brutal 4-year war with millions of casualties in 4 days with no loss of life on our side when he had the tool to do so.

            I’m glad I made it to America too, just as I’m sure you’re glad your ancestor made it to America as well. Because I’m seeing what is happening and where I know it can lead is why I must sound the alarm and warn as many people as I can, most of whom are clueless about what statism does to a country and it’s people – even as we are seeing it happen across Europe.

            That Americans could elect and re-elect a clueless dunce like Obama is a sign that we are on the slippery slope already and all it will take is another liberal Democrat like the equally clueless Hillary Clinton to finish the job.

          • Sheila Warner

            Well, I have to concede nearly all of your points! Thanks for challenging me to see a bigger picture. I know about waterboarding–our troops are trained by it, especially the Seals. My problem with rendition is that I believe more than waterboarding was done. And you are correct, intel was a big mess when GW Bush took office. 9/11 was a wake up call for us. I don’t like the PATRIOT Act. I think it goes too far. And, I was against our invasion of Iraq right from the beginning. I didn’t believe Colin Powell at all. The inspectors were withdrawn before they completed their task, and I thought we should wait on what they discovered before assuming intel obtained by possible real torture was accurate. Unfortunately, I was correct. And, since Obama dropped the ball in Iraq, now it is utter chaos. Oh, and I was in favor of Medicare D, so I suppose that makes me a hypocrite on some level. Tax revenues did go up for a portion of the Bush 43 Presidency. It’s a damn shame that the cost of two wars drained our coffers just before the great crash in 2008. Plenty of blame to go around, right?

          • MarioG

            Sheila – Since we’re on a roll here, please allow me to add some more perspective to our discussion.

            The socialist country I escaped from was at least free and democratic and no one in the government was going to shoot me in the head or rape my wife and daughters in my presence – which is what 80% of the Iraqis who were Shia or Kurds faced from the Saddam regime. If I were them before 2003 I would be praying 5 times a day for someone like George W. Bush and the Americans who have always volunteered to risk their lives on behalf of total strangers, to show up to help me.

            You have focused on what Colin Powell said that turned out to be way overblown. What you seem to have overlooked or forgotten is that the entire UN Security Council had been unanimously saying essentially the same thing for TWELVE years in writing in SEVENTEEN UNSC resolutions demanding an accounting of Iraq’s WMDs – you know, the ones he had used against Iran and his own people but apparently “did not have”, according to the critics. Every intelligence agency in the free world were saying the same thing. Two “No-fly” zones were set up by the UN to protect the Shia and Kurds from aerial attacks with the WMDs that Iraq “did not have”.

            In addition, the world had changed after 9/11 and no responsible American leader could risk the still-unaccounted for Iraqi WMDs from falling into Al Qaeda’s hands for an even more horrific attack on an American city given all the Al Qaeda cells we have and our porous southern border which the Democrats want open for their next wave of voters. One tanker truck of sarin gas can wipe out an entire city like San Diego by one truck blowing through the border crossing at Tijuana.

            EVERYONE expected more attacks after 9/11 including suicide bombers at our unprotected malls and sporting events. ALMOST EVERYONE conveniently forgets what that period was like, so successful was W and the Patriot Act in infiltrating many terrorist cells and taking them down before they could strike. My “over-civilized” American brothers and sisters have no idea what real terrorism is like so lulled are they by the relative safety we enjoy.

            The next serious terrorist attack in the US only took place after Obama was elected and immediately started weakening our defenses with words and actions.

            While the expected stockpiles were never found in Iraq traces of sarin were found as were plans to resume the WMD program – you know, the one they did not have. More recently, the Wikileaks vindicated W by showing that Saddam was, in fact, trying to buy enriched uranium, a.k.a. yellow-cake, from Niger – the stuff that Valerie Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, had lied about to Congress.

            Israeli intelligence told us that the stockpiles had been moved to Syria, but what do those evil Jews know – all they do all day long is oppress the poor Palestinians who only want to wipe them off the map!

            The most articulate explanation of why Saddam had to go was spelled out, believe it or not, in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 by the same Bill Clinton who refused to acknowledge that Al Qaeda were anything but “criminals” – Democrats are such nice people they have a tough time seeing anyone as “terrorists”. Of course, being busy sexually harassing Monica Lewinsky, he had no time to actually DO something. However, it’s worth reading:

            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=55205

            When the US coalition invaded Iraq in April 2003 the regime was toppled in weeks with little loss of life, and we helped Iraq draft and pass their first Constitution in history – this in the oldest civilization we know of – and elect a multi-party, multi-ethnic government. I’m sure you remember the purple fingers proudly being waved as average Iraqis risked their lives to go vote.

            Unfortunately, unlike the Germans, Italians and Japanese after WW-II, who all came together, re-set their philosophies, re-built with our help and returned as civilized societies and are now among our strongest allies, the sectarian Iraqi radicals started attacking each other, aided and abetted by Al Qaeda and Iran. Instead of being able to return home as we did after liberating Kuwait, we got sucked into staying to help the nascent Iraqi government survive.

            Almost all the 4,000 plus Americans who died in Iraq heroically lost their lives AFTER the new democratic Iraqi government was formed.

            What Bush did wrong, in my opinion, was shift to a PC approach after the liberation, instead of quelling the sectarian killings by surging immediately and wiping out the radicals until they stopped. He surged years later, but a lot of damage had been done in the meantime. He should also have required a percentage of Iraq’s oil revenues to pay for our liberation in my opinion.

            What W did was to give two populations that had never experienced the freedom and democracy we take for granted – just waking up to the danger of an Obama – the opportunity to experience freedom and democracy. So far it has not come to full fruition as it could have if the Iraqis and Afghans had all come together to rebuild their country with our help.

            However, as I like to remind my American brothers and sisters, who tend to have short memories, it took the US about 100 years after Independence and a bloody civil war to start settling down, and another 100 years to achieve full civil rights for all our citizens. Please keep that in mind while judging these countries and pray that they, too, will eventually settle down and experience what we have.

          • Sheila Warner

            I was on the Fox News web site when the government shut down began. The hard Right Wingers were so happy because they erroneously thought Obamacare had been stopped. It was funny and pathetic to see them change their tunes as the minutes ticked by. One RW posted “What? Obamacare is still in place? What did we shut the government down for?” For what, indeed. When you inadvertently get stuck in the fever swamp, it isn’t pretty. I had to come for air and take a shower. Talk about vicious and uninformed. All I could think about was how stupid they all were, but if I posted like that, it would have been ad hominem. I didn’t go back there.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            To me, the sad thing is that people with that intellect and stupidity exist in the base of both parties. But in the last 25 years few to none (Alan Grayson, Maxine Waters may be the exceptions) on the left have gotten anywhere near power. Conversely on the right, there are scores of nutters in the House (they met to discuss impeachment for the first time yesterday) and a handful of nutters in the senate. Leveraging that, you have a News network and the entire talk radio dial aimed at stoking their rage and misinformation. MSNBC is starting to throw some bones to the nutters on the left via Sharpton & Shultz (ODonnell joins in sometimes too) but they don’t have anything near the reach, organization or impact of the right wing messaging machine. Oy.

          • Sheila Warner

            Talk radio is dominated by right wingers, that’s for sure. And they do exist just to stoke more anger. I don’t think the President will be impeached–the country won’t stand for it. What’s a shame is that the Clinton impeachment was such a circus, and so contrived. Say “impeachment” and that’s what people envision. Not going to happen. What is up with these crazies in the GOP? Do they even realize how they constantly shoot themselves in the foot?

          • CentralScruntinizer

            I honestly think that the right wing bubble is so inoculated from reality that the Tea Party and far right think they are making progress when they are playing themselves out further on a limb. I honestly think they will make the GOP irrelevant for part of the next generation. I know this sounds like concern trolling, but even as a center-left leaning Democrat, I really think we need a sane GOP to be the fiscally responsible check. But the ‘sane GOP’ types I liked in the mix have all been excommunicated as RINOs.

          • Sheila Warner

            What’s really frightening to me is that the Tea Party types believe that they are larger in number than they really are. Therefore they keep sabotaging the government, with a real possibility that they will destroy the GOP. I agree–we need both parties. But we need the members of those parties to start acting like adults.

          • Lc Goodfellow

            Others may want to grow up someday too.

            June 5, 1956
            Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

            November 6, 1956
            African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

            September 9, 1957
            President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

            September 24, 1957
            Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

            May 6, 1960
            President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

            June 9, 1964
            Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

            June 10, 1964
            Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. If you read my post again, I clearly delineate that the Civil Rights Act battle was largely one of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans vs Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. Your cut & paste spectacular largely underscores that concept.

            Also, when cutting and pasting, you may want to update your source material. Your pasting cites him as still serving in the senate. He died in 2010.

          • Lc Goodfellow

            Down here on the ‘Border’ you would be one of the,”crazy as a s*** house rat ” type.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            I can see how there would definitely be some places in the country where the citation of verifiable facts (like the votes for the Civil Rights Act which are a historical record and match up exactly with what I wrote…) would be considered crazy. These tend to be the places with the lowest test scores, highest poverty rates and such, partially due to such regressive thinking. Probably not a proud thing to boast of your residency in such places, though.

    • legal eagle

      It’s hard to believe anyone could write something so moronic as conflating the Black experience in America with the Jewish experience…Ever hear of any Jewish slaves in the USA?

      • Marlane Bormel

        Do you have any idea about the discrimination Jews experienced in every place, including the USA, they’ve lived? Do you know that there were laws against Jews living in neighborhoods other than the slums? Do you know anything about the taunts Jews endured, and in many places still do? Do you recognize the tiny percentage of the world population of Jews, 14 million, that Jews comprise and are still the most hated group of all? Do you comprehend the thousands of years Jews have suffered from genocide and organized destruction? And yet, they prosper and flourish. Why? Brainpower.

        • legal eagle

          I am Jewish and we have faced little in the way of discrimination in the United States…..

  • Brhurdle

    Mr. Goldberg has made the same mistake that Ms Winfrey made – making conclusions based on personal bias rather the facts of the situation. There is no evidence to justify the conclusion that the opposition to President Obama is racially motivated. If your bias predisposes you to assume that any cross race conflict with a president is due to racism, then your logic will detect bigtory in all disagreements. If your bias predisposes you to to assume that ideology trumps all political analysis, then you will assume that support of values crosses all races. Mr. Goldberg had no need to invent a hypothetical situation which exhibits his biases as a defense against an unwarranted claim – it’s simple enough to say there is no evidence to support her conclusion. It should have been as straight forward as explaining how conservative values are in direct conflict to many/most of the liberal programs thereby demonstrating how the opposition is ideology based.

    • Ksp48

      I assume there are still some bigots left in the country who hate oBama because of his mixed background. Probably not as many as who voted for him precisely for the same reason, but a few. So what?

  • Drew Page

    Oprah is worth over $2 billion. She has a lot of talent as an actress and a show business personality. She owes a lot of what she has to her following of millions of middle class white women and wealthy liberals. Now that she’s on top of the world, she wants to portray herself and President Obama as “victims” of racism. Not too long ago, poor Oprah claims to have been humiliated when a white woman store clerk in a Switzerland shop refused to let her look at a very expensive handbag. Other than saying that the store in question denied such a happening, the store clerk’s account was never given any press in the media. And to back up her charges of racism leveled against the president, she leads with the Joe Wilson remark. There it is, proof positive. All those old (conservative) white people have been steeped and marinated in hate and racism and just need to die.
    Like a lot of other wealthy liberals, she doesn’t care how much Obama wants to redistribute the wealth, she would still remain super rich. Even if the government seized 90% of her assets, she would still be worth $200 million. How much would you be worth if the government seized 90% of your assets?
    If Oprah thought there was disrespect shown the office of the President (Mr. Obama) she is about to encounter a whole lot more of that as the American people find out the bill of goods they have been sold about Obama Care from the man himself. The botched rollout (after spending $630 million and three and-a-half years ) is only the tip of the iceberg. Wait until people get a load of the deductibles, coinsurance, out-of-pocket limits and the real monthly premium rates. Wait until the extended deadline for employer plans expire and 50 to 80 million people lose the health insurance they had under their employer’s plan. The tens of millions affected won’t wait for the next SOTU address to repeat Joe Wilson’s remark. Maybe then we will see who the real fool is.

    • keith hart

      Drew Page, thank you, excellent. Your assessment of the situation is the most lucid I’ve heard yet

      And — Barack Obama is on a fast track to being the most hated person in American history because of the obamacare debacle.

    • Ksp48

      I really couldn’t take the African American billionaire’s cries of racism very seriously.

    • Ksp48

      By the way, the government is not seizing/redistributing assets, its redistributing income. So if you are already rich you will stay rich. Its just that it will be much harder for anyone else to become rich.

    • Marlane Bormel

      The woman is a fraud, pushed along by news and entertainment organizations who engaged in affirmative action.

    • Lc Goodfellow

      I don’t care whether you are a Democrat, a Republican,
      a Conservative or a liberal, be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting President.

  • 1940voter

    So maybe Oprah should lose another 50 lbs then take 2 and kick. Who is she to pontificate about respect when she herself rides on the tide of consumerism and worship by idiots.whom lap at her tingles

    • legal eagle

      Thanks for the ignorant comment…..typical right wing hater…

      • Sheila Warner

        You think criticizing Oprah makes 1940Voter a right wing hater? Is Oprah a right winger? I don’t think so.

        • legal eagle

          “So maybe Oprah should lose another 50 lbs then take 2 and kick”
          Don’t think that comment is ignorant and hateful?

      • 1940voter

        She is all about her and only her.Nothing racist about that,woudn’t care if she was green. She ia lso about her opinion and hers alone so get your facts straight.

      • Ksp48

        How was that ignorant. A bit snide on the weight issue, but Oprah herself has constantly tried losing weight so its not add if she’s happy with her physical appearance.

      • Stimpy

        There you go again with the ‘hater’ label. Can’t withstand some criticism of your cohorts without name calling?

    • Sheila Warner

      Oprah is all about the consumption. That’s how she made her many millions. White women especially love her. I stopped watching her show years before she left because there was always an air of “I know best” about her. She tried to “educate” people to her point of view, and got downright rude when people disagreed with her. I think arrogant is the first adjective I would choose in describing her.

      • CentralScruntinizer

        Gotta largely agree. I thought Oprah from the start of her show through the mid-1990s was a very positive voice on the rare occasion I saw her show on the late night re-airs. I saw her speak to a graduating class in that era and was hugely impressed. Then she got very new age, particularly new age/consumer worship. When she started evangelizing about the benefits of 2000 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets and $5000 mattresses, she really was pushing it. Then when she championed “The Secret” and its vision boards filled with the BMW you so richly deserve I had to roll my eyes and tune her out. Too bad – but that level of celebrity and wealth makes it hard to stay tethered to planet earth.

      • Ksp48

        Obviously, she gets the last laugh (and a couple billion to boot), but I never ever understood the fascination with her. My wife likes her and I’ve yet to understand why.

      • legal eagle

        You seem to have a problem with women who you don’t agree with politically…..You don’t like Oprah because she’s opinionated but you like Condi Rice because she’s submissive?

  • legal eagle

    Looks like Bernie is running out of topics so playing the race card for his older audience is always a sure way to provoke controversy.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Legal, I hate to break this to you, but I’m pretty sure you’re older than most of the people who come to this website (not that there’s anything wrong with that), and YOU actually DO play the race-card on a pretty regular basis.

      Do you post stuff like this just to self-loathe, or what?

      • legal eagle

        I’m not a hater, I’m not bitter, I’m gainfully employed and my brain functions quite well , unlike some others on this site….LOL

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Again, how can you denounce people who you proclaim to be old and play the race-card when you fall within that very demographic? I just don’t get it.

          • legal eagle

            Think about it awhile…Eventually, you’ll get it…

    • Jeff Webb

      Whether or not your take on the column is an accurate assessment, coming from you it’s a compliment.
      Think about it: your entire comment repeats the same stale talking points you’ve posted countless other times, you regularly play the race card, and you do it to be provocative. You impressed me again, however, by leaving out the word “white.” Suggests you now have equal contempt for all old people, regardless of color.

      Challenging idea for ya: next time Bernie posts a column, try posting a response that doesn’t look like a lazy copy/paste.

  • Gloria

    Joe Wilson may or may not be a fool. There is little doubt, however, that President Obama lies.
    Your point regarding criticism of Obama being characterized as racist is right on, and blatantly obvious. It is as if no one is ALLOWED to critique this President’s performance or policies because of his skin color! Is this not reverse racism?

  • garbo77

    Hi everyone!
    Random House College dictionary states: A fool is a silly or stupid person; one who lacks sense. I doubt if Joe Wilson would fit this description. However, he was “disrepectful” of the “office of the president.” Of course, we could reason that Mr. Obama is disrepectful of the office too, however, that doesn’t excuse us to be that way.
    Mr. Wilson, as with many of us, was so upset by all the negatives from our President that he just “lost it.” Of course, there is the possibility that he planned to make his statement. We’ve probably all said improper things or acted improperly at times. I would hope that in the same situation I would have waited until later to make my statement about Mr. Obama.
    We should remember to keep our President, family and others in office lifted up in prayer. This is what our Bible tells us to do! Prayer is what changes things! God will change this country through leaders that will obey Him. However, we can hang up the idea that a President is going to get this country back on track; only God can do that while working through willing and obedient leaders! We must hate sin, however, love the person! If you don’t love President Obama, I strongly suggest that you “repent,” because your relationship with our Savior Jesus the Christ is not where it should be. That’s not my opinion, that’s what our Bible states. Jesus stated the first and greatest commandment is to Love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind and with all our strength. And the second greatest command is to love our neighbor as ourself. We can’t do that without our Savior Jesus! Also, Jesus tells us that God will not forgive us if we don’t forgive others! For salvation: Romans 10:9-10 and/or 1 John 1:9.
    Mr. Goldberg, I appreciate your boldness and the truth that you bring to us. Keep up the good work! You are in my prayers!
    To everyone: God’s Blessings on you and yours!
    Dr. Gary

    • Sheila Warner

      I don’t think Bernie is a Christian. I heard him say on the O’Reilly Factor that he doesn’t believe in God. Having said that, the Golden Rule is one that all people, religious or not, should strive to follow. That means that Joe Wilson would have kept his mouth shut.

      • garbo77

        Hi Shelia! When I write, I write what God gives to me just as I would in writting books. I had no idea how Mr. Goldberg believes and would have written the same if I did. Yes, I agree that Mr. Wilson spoke wrongly. Thanks for your comment!
        God Bless! Dr. Gary

      • keith hart

        For all those who say they don’t believe in God? It doesn’t matter. What’s important is: God believes in them. Or they wouldn’t be walking around above ground breathing oxygen.

        • Sheila Warner

          But don’t you understand that your statements are based on your own personal religion? You can’t use religion to try to persuade people if they have no religion, unless you can find some kind of common ground. The existence of God is rejected by atheists. And atheists strive to make the world a better place, too. They just don’t rely on God to help them. To give a mini sermon about God to an atheist is a waste of time.

      • Ksp48

        I believe he blurted it out as he simply couldn’t believe that the President was lying to them about something so easily ascertainable.

  • CentralScruntinizer

    Good work, Bernie. You compared real world events (and actually just a tiny sliver of the real world disrespect that has been showered on Obama) and created a fictitious situation that you imagined to show that the other side would totally do the same thing…in your mind. Gosh, this is a compelling argument.

    Would the left attack a right wing african-american president on his policy? Of course.

    But until you have a 6 year widespread campaign to circulate the idea that The Conservative Black President you just made-up was not born in the US; is not American; and is in fact an anti-American sleeper agent, and this idea is advanced and embraced not only by broadcast journalists but also by a significant chunk of congress, then even your make believe scenario doesn’t prove anything.

    There’s so much legitimately to go after Obama for: Coddling Wall Street; NDAA, lack of Transparency; NSA; Afghanistan policy; Drone Policy; corporate sell-out that is Obamacare. But you perpetually bypass the stuff that holds up and takes some critical thinking to try to gin up fake outrage. Could you get any lazier or mendacious?

    • rdgeorge

      The original ‘birther’ stuff, which you should know, was originated from within the Hillary Clinton campaign. Most close followers of national political activities are already aware of this.

      • CentralScruntinizer

        I’d be interested to see any legit documentation of that. Hilary went bare knuckles, but her biggest attack point was the inexperience.

        • Sheila Warner

          I watch Fox and I didn’t see any of the talking heads there promote the idea that our President is not an American. As a matter of fact, it was Bill O’Reilly who strenuously defended the President against those absurd rumors. Fox reported on what the fringe was saying when Donald Trump entered the fray. Reporting on what someone says is not the same thing as endorsing what someone says.

          • keith hart

            Excellent point, Sheila Warner. This was also my observation of Fox News. They do get a lot of false accusations tossed their way by lefties..

        • susanwho

          The only persons who will not come forward freely with the requested information are persons who have something to hide. Where’s his passport? Why is he using some else’s social security number? Why has he no draft registration card? Why are his Occidental College records sealed? From where ever the Birther’ business originated, where there is smoke, there is fire. Only disgrace I see is the person refusing to present documentation to the contrary.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            You realize that you are just wallowing in conspiracy stuff that doesn’t hold water. Keep in mind that the Birchers thought Eisenhower was a commie.

            But OK, lets say all this is true: If Obama is some foreign plant, did he spend his entire life faking documents and prepping himself for a run at the presidency so that he could be one of the most pro-Wall Street POTUSs since Hoover? (See: Refusal to investigate much less prosecute any malfeasance related to the economic crash; refusal to push for any significant re-regulation of the financial sector; hard core extension of the TARP policies via Treasury and Fed, etc..) Hardly the hallmark of a sleeper commie agent, huh?

      • Sheila Warner

        But it was the Right who picked it up and ran with it. Even Donald Trump got in the middle of it. So disgusting. Read forums and you will see there are still some loonies out there that don’t think the President is a U.S. citizen.

    • Sheila Warner

      You do realize, right, that those who don’t believe that President Obama is a U.S. citizen are a small number of folks on the Right Wing fringe? But let’s expand the list: President Obama coming out in strong support of the Mosque near Ground Zero in NYC only to back away from that statement quickly, his lack of urgency on the BP oil spill, ditto for the Benghazi debacle, ditto for Fast and Furious (in which he protected AG Holder via executive privilege), ditto for the IRS illegalities, ditto for prosecuting Wall Street thieves….well, the list is long. The only time I saw real outrage from this President is when he was defending Susan Rice. The country is going to hell in a hand basket financially, unemployment is still too high, and savers are still getting embarrassingly low interest rates. Cool Hand Luke is not what I want to see in the White House.

      • legal eagle

        What do you want to see in the White House?

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Competence.

          • keith hart

            yeah, competence…….. integrity. A guy who is embarrassed to lie. Someone who hates golf. A guy who keeps his damn foot off the Resolute Desk. The list is long and distinguished, like my ……………..

        • Patrick

          Who do we want to see there? Someone who doesn’t have ADD regarding the current wind of political change. For instance, what happened to the Syrian President crossing the line? “He did cross the line, he didn’t cross it; that wasn’t my line; depends on the definition of ‘line’.”

    • legal eagle

      It would appear you are far more comfortable complaining and whining than expressing an original thought…..

      • Barancy Peloma

        so…. just how would you receive a black conservative in the white house?
        would you complain about him/her? do you realize that if you did….. it would make you a racist by the standards many liberals use?

      • Jeff Webb

        Hmmm, characterizing well-founded criticism of BO as complaining and whining in order to dismiss it.

        Original thought indeed, Talking-point Boy.

    • Ksp48

      Actually you don’t need to set up the thought experiment(compelling as it is). The Dems subjected Bush to far greater insult and criticism than anything leveled at Obama.

      • CentralScruntinizer

        OK then – Find me the examples of sitting congressmen heckling him or claiming he is not an American. Should be easy if he was subject to worse by Dems.

      • legal eagle

        Maybe because Bush killed hundreds of thousands for no reason?

  • Jarob54

    Liberalism once ment tolerance and understanding. I can harken back to music in the sixties and seventies, and recall rock anthems that celebrated the liberal cause and the liberal mind. So what happened in the following decades. Well liberals became influenced by labour unions, political activists that had a penchant for violance, and the main stream media climbed on board and ran amuck with smear campaigns, and lose facts to take down the conservative cause. How would the liberals treat a black conservative in the White House,… say….a Herman Cain? They same way they have treated him. Pitiful!

    • CentralScruntinizer

      Liberals were much, much more influenced by Labor in the 70s and 80s. The reality is that the labor unions are at about 30% of the size they were in the 70s, and their dues and money for political activity has shrunk in kind. This is why Clinton and Rahm Emmanual in 1995 created the DLC (democratic leadership committee) to steer the Democratic Party to the right on business issues to garner the corporate money the Democratic Party needed to stay competitive. It’s also why Clinton was an eager supporter of NAFTA and the repeal of Glass Steagall. Since that time, the Democratic Party has been about 90% as sold out to corporate America as the GOP, in spite of the feverish messaging of the right.

      • Jarob54

        I can recall Cesar Chavez from the late sixties attempting to unionize the farm workers in California. The media and celeberties saddled up and rode that for all that is was worth.

        • CentralScruntinizer

          You did happen to note that my post was pretty much all about liberalism changing its tone drastically to chase corporate dollars in the mid-late 1990s? That would be more than a quarter century after Caesar Chavez.

          • Jarob54

            Your math is correct. But there was violence back in the sixties associated with liberal groups and causes and that is the point I want to make. Liberals are hypocrits, they cry a good game, and thats all.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Your logic is surpassed only by your spelling.

          • Jarob54

            Noted.

      • Sheila Warner

        You are correct. Now it’s the GOP who is bashing large corporations indirectly, while whining about the one year delay of the employer mandate. I thought those folks want businesses to be unfettered. What’s up with that? They should be happy that big business got a break.

  • pupster40

    Joe Wilson probably yelled “you lie” because he (Obama) lied. As far as any disrespect, a president who stands in front of a joint session of Congress and the Supreme Court, and, bold face, lies, deserves nothing but disrespect.
    That was only the begining of his (Obama’s) disrespect for any and all who disagree or call him out on on his methods and lying. His disrespect toward the GOP is in another realm. He and his regime think he brings respect to the office, don’t make me laugh.
    In reference to Winfrey, the only reason she endorsed him was race. This is obvious by her recent remarks.
    Obama could have been a great POTUS if he had any knowlege, experience, concern for the Constitution, and no communist leanings.

    • CentralScruntinizer

      If you look at Obama’s negotiations with the right 2009-2011, he was ridiculously appeasing and tried foolishly to be “post-Partisan.” This was evident in his negotiation on ACA, where he publicly took single payer off the table at the start, and privately (according to Obama fan Tom Daschle’s book) took Public option off the table at the start in private meetings with Healthcare and Insurance giants. He essentially promised to use the Heritage Foundation 1996 blueprint for private sector healthcare reform as a guide.

      Similarly last year when during the first fight over raising the credit ceiling (which was done for Bush 8 times without negotiation) Obama repeatedly offered to hang the Democrats out to dry via a “Grand Bargain” whereby he would promise deep cuts to SSI and Medicare in return for the credit ceiling being raised and revenue increases. He got smacked down by a Tea Party fearing Boehner and fried by his own party in that moment.

      Naive and indicative of a guy lacking executive experience? Maybe. But hardly the partisan bare knuckle fighter you are trying to sketch.

      • Sheila Warner

        Those defeats have probably been at the center of why the President has adopted a “my way or the highway” attitude of late. And, if the President really wanted to utilize the Heritage Foundation’s playbook, he would have allowed competition across state lines and tort reform. The public option was taken off the table because the American people wanted no part of it. They feared a Hillarycare type of reform, and the President knew that such an attempt would kill the bill. Let’s face it: this law is meant to achieve in piecemeal what could not be done in one fell swoop. I am referring to a single payer law. I am in favor of that, by the way. Insurance companies d*cked their clients over for years, and to have a quasi partnership with them will not be what’s best for Americans. Private/public partnerships are fraught with peril.

        • CentralScruntinizer

          I largely agree. However, I think a public option would not have killed the bill. I think single payer would have killed it no doubt, but a better negotiation would have started with than in play.

    • rdgeorge

      Joe Wilson shouldn’t have called out but Obama does have a penchant for saying enormously controversial and partisan things in inappropriate settings. I particularly remember two examples, the first of which caused me to conclude he was unfit for the role of the President. The first was when he called the Police out for ‘behaving stupidly’ in Cambridge in the breath after admitting he didn’t know the details of what happened. The second was when he offered an opinion on a Supreme Court judgement in the State of the Union address which caused (I cant remember the name – I’m sorry) one of the Judges to shake his head and mouth not true.
      In my opinion, as a non US citizen, Obama is the one who has not always shown the correct level of respect for the office he holds. Some times he does of course but there have been a few glaring examples.

      • Sheila Warner

        It was Chief Justice John Roberts who shook his head and mouthed his rebuttal during that SOTU address.

        • Jeff Webb

          Justice Alito, actually.

          • keith hart

            Yes, you’re right JW. Roberts took it like a good punching bag should.

          • Sheila Warner

            I stand corrected. I always get him and Roberts mixed up. Is this racist, or do they look a bit alike? Thanks for clearing it up.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Is this racist, or do they look a bit alike?<<

            I never thought about it either way, but it's an interesting question in any event. (Tangent alert.)
            Back when I was really into the NBA, I remarked to my best friend how the Celtics' Xavier McDaniel looked a lot like another power forward (don't recall–might've been NY Knick Anthony Mason). He definitely saw the resemblance, though we both knew our conversation could've been risky within earshot of the likes of Chris Matthews.

            Newsflash for anyone out there who thinks it's automatically racist to see a resemblance between two black individuals: if the two black people noticeably differ in height, weight, hairstyle, and/or body structure, you could be right. If not, shut up.

          • Sheila Warner

            Actually, they all kind of look alike when the camera isn’t a close-up view, and they’re all in their robes. Although, Scalia stands out when he wears that hat.

  • Charles

    Bernie, a respectable black conservative in the White House would be treated by the liberal media intelligentsia exactly the same way as respectable black conservatives have been treated in the Supreme Court (Justice Thomas), in the State Department (Secretary Rice) and in Congress (Senator Scott, Representative West); with hatred, contempt, disrespect and highly personal degradation.

    • jim forrest

      Perfect comparison, Charles.

  • JBubs

    Seven hundred and seventeen words to restate the obvious that fatuous white guilt is still in effect? Too much on your plate these days Bernie?

    • Brhurdle

      I must say that I agree with you. It’s a case of simply stating that there is no credible evidence that the opposition to President Obama is racially motivated. Mr. Goldberg was trying to prove innonence as opposed to disproving guilt.

  • EddieD_Boston

    They’d throw Oreo cookies at him. Or yell, ‘get off the porch Buckley’.

    Also, I remember the black congressional caucus razzing Bush during his SOTU speech when he mentioned the Patriot Act. Was that racist?

    • nickshaw

      I’m gonna’ go with “yes” on that one, Ed.
      Why not?
      I’m so tired of being called a racist, I think I’m allowed to hand out some of their medicine.

    • jim forrest

      is that the same black caucus that barred the membership former Rep. Gary Franks of Connecticut and J.C. Watts of Oklahoma? J.C. was even part of the Republican leadership during half his tenure, but was barred from the black caucus

  • http://solo4357.blogspot.com/ Solo4357

    How many blacks kept saying for every president until Obama that it’s the “man” or the white man running things that keeps the black man down? How is that not racism? True, a small of a group as white racists, (well, maybe) but still no one said the level of vitriol against the white presidents was because of racism, even though it happened from various minorities. Try any comedian doing political humor since 1975.

  • brickman

    This article is beyond speculation. No black conservative will be elected President in the future. When Herman Cain wasn’t doing well in the polls, little negative info came out about him. When he surged, goodbye Herman. The Dems would have loved to run against him, so I figure the bad press was the result of the GOP. They love you when you bring fringe people into the Party, but you don’t think you can take control, do you?

    • legal eagle

      No Blacks, Jews or Hispanics will be nominated unless they lose the next five presidential elections….After all, principals are principals…

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        What do you have against Blacks, Jews, and Hispanics?

        • brickman

          I know this is your website, but how is this a response to his comment to my post? It seems like a gratuitous swipe.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Nah. It wasn’t gratuitous. During that GOP primary race, every front-runner (and there were many of them) was subjected to dirt coming out about them right as they were leading in the polls (dirt that knocked them out of the top spot). The idea that Herman was targeted due to the color of his skin is the kind of baseless conclusion that liberals jump to because they love to identify people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

            Above, you wrote that the Democrats would have loved to have run against Cain. If I wanted to be like you and legal eagle, I would have suggested that you only thought that because Cain was black and more easily beatable because of that, and not because he was a poor candidate.

            Thus, I took the opportunity to mock his snide comment. Make sense now?

          • brickman

            I’ll give you that Herman Cain was an eccentric character, but not more than Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan in the past or Michele Bachmann in the 2012 race. I don’t think Cain was beatable because he was black (your projection, maybe) but because of his simplistic platform. He, however, was not defeated because of his ideas but because people suddenly ” found” wrongdoing that would play to fear of black men with white women. It was cleverly cloaked in feminist rhetoric to avoid liberals taking offense.

            I don’t know who legal eagle is and your attempt to involve me in your ongoing game of tag is something I don’t appreciate. Leave me out.

            I will note that the Republican Party has never nominated anyone for President who was Jewish, Black, Roman Catholic , female or
            Hispanic. I guess that the content of the
            character of every single member of those
            groups has been found lacking. I know you will
            point out that Democrats haven’t nominated
            someone from each group. You’d be correct.
            I’m not giving them a pass. The GOP is worse.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Black men with white women? You think THAT’s why people lost interest in Herman Cain? Well, I’d say you pretty much proved my point.

          • brickman

            I’m curious why you think Herman Cain faded. He took the lead in the polls in early October 2011. He still led as of November 2. On October 31 an article in Politico started the attack, followed by a press conference led by Gloria Allred. Four women came forward with accusations but the media constantly showed the image of Sarah Bialek the blondest of them all.

            Cain soon faded. Not because of 999. Not because of his other ideas. You can read the story at http://www.real clear politics.com/articles/2011/12/03/cain_announces_suspension_of_presidential

            You can check my disqus history. I rarely discuss race or abortion. Your site is the only place because you guys seem to bring it up a lot lately. I’ll challenge you to a bet as to who sees race more me or you by going through post histories.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            He wasn’t a well-rounded candidate. The longer the debates went on, the more it became apparent that he wasn’t well-versed in many issues beyond economics. Yes, the suggestion of an affair hurt him as well, but it had nothing to do with skin color. It had to do with the basic accusation of infidelity – an issue that hurt Newt Gingrich too. It also didn’t help Cain that he was very cryptic in his defense against the charge, parsing his words far too carefully for someone who had been faithful.

            Not until today have I even heard someone try to introduce a racial component to Cain’s alleged affairs. The fact that you put forth such a claim, merely because Bialek happens to be white and blonde, is really quite remarkable… and not in a good way.

            And your assertion that the political parties should be using some type of affirmative action process when nominating their candidates is kind of cringe-worthy as well.

            My views on race come from the Martin Luther King Jr school of thinking – the quest for a colorblind society. I don’t believe in characterizing people by their race, and I don’t believe that bean-counting the ethnic make-up of a group of people is in anyway a measure of racial equality.

          • brickman

            When I say that Cain was beatable because of his simplistic platform, I’m making a racial statement. When you say he was defeated because he couldn’t articulate anything other than economics, your doing what?

            Cain’s campaign went from frontrunner to out of the race in a month after the scandal was revealed. Gingrich’s infidelities were known for decades before the primaries and he took the lead in the race when everyone knew about them. To suggest that Gingrich was hurt by that is ludicrous.

            I am not suggesting an affirmative action type policy at all, this is a straw man argument you are making. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I believe in people being judged on their own merits. I do question people who believe that no member of a group have ever possessed the requisite qualifications. See, I can do straw man too.

            I notice you didn’t accept my challenge.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>When I say that Cain was beatable because of his simplistic platform,I’m making a racial statement.

            No. No. No. I said that if I used YOUR logic, I would have to categorize that statement as being racially-motivated.

            I don’t believe what you said in that sentence had anything to do with race. All I did was point out the absurdity of the logic you’re using when applying racial motivations to Cain’s downfall in the GOP primary.

            >>When you say he was defeated because he
            couldn’t articulate anything other than economics, your doing what?

            He COULDN’T effectively articulate anything other than economics, and I would say the same thing no matter what color he was.

            >> Cain’s campaign went from frontrunner to out of the race in a month after the scandal was revealed.

            The scandal hurt him. No doubt. But it had nothing to do with race, and it’s disturbing that your instinct is to find a racial element to it. What also hurt Cain was the way he responded to the scandal, and more importantly, his one-trick pony campaign style that wore thin – especially when the other candidates began upping their own debate performances.

            >>Gingrich’s infidelities were known for
            decades before the primaries and he took the lead in the race when everyone knew about them. To suggest that Gingrich was hurt by that is
            ludicrous.

            ABC News gave an open platform to Gingrich’s ex-wife to bash him, smack dab in the middle of the GOP primary. It brought that issue once again to the forefront of the news cycle and it DID hurt him. Gingrich was smart enough to use that negative press to bash the media in the South Carolina debate (which some think actually won him that primary), but the constant dredging up of Gingrich’s marital past did indeed hurt his candidacy as the weeks went on. It portrayed him as someone with too much baggage to win the presidency, and like Cain (and Ricky Perry before him), Gingrich lost his frontrunner status.

            >>I am not suggesting an affirmative action type policy at all

            You absolutely are. Your suggestion was that the GOP is discriminating against ethnic minorities because they haven’t nominated one as their presidential candidate.

            >>I do question people who believe

            that no member of a group have ever
            possessed the requisite qualifications.

            Who’s saying or even inferring that? There are plenty of minorities who are qualified to hold the presidency. There are also plenty of white people who are. I want the best person for the job, and I couldn’t care less about their skin color.

            >>I eagerly await your response to every post claiming that Obama got elected because he is black or that such and such is being appointed to government positions because they are black but I won’t hold my breath.

            Being black is a political asset for Obama. Claiming otherwise would be a futile attempt at trying to sound politically-correct. But he certainly wasn’t elected merely because he’s black. Obama is a brilliant orator and a brilliant politician. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t be our president right now.

            >>I notice you didn’t accept my challenge.

            What challenge?

          • brickman

            I really don’t have time for this. I know that you’re on the clock. If Bernie paid me maybe I’d continue. I’ll leave you with one point. I notice you criticize Herman Cain’s lack of effectively articulating anything other than economics. I’ll remind you of a quote from your overlord.

            Bernie Goldberg. ” I want Conservatives to call anybody who criticizes Herman Cain a racist” I’m not saying I agree, but if you follow HIS logic…

            You can find this at http://www.businessinsider.com/oreilly-bernie-goldberg-jon-stewart-herman-cain-race-video-2011

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I remember that column from the “overlord” quite well. It was a great piece, designed to point out to race-baiters how utterly ridiculous they are.

            I’m just disappointed that you didn’t realize that the tactic he recommended in that column was the very same one I used at the beginning of this discussion to get you to realize how shallow your presumption of racism was.

            Check and mate.

          • Sheila Warner

            I don’t know, John, I found it suspicious that the dirt on Herman Cain began when he was surging in the polls. Not sure it was due to the women being white, but he got really smeared, IMHO. If it was true that he was involved in sexually harrassing the women, why didn’t that come out right away? I’m naturally suspicious by nature, I suppose.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            My contention is not the timing. It obviously came out when it did because Cain had suddenly become a serious candidate to many people. What I object to is the notion that there was a racial element to it. There’s no evidence to support that, and until yesterday, I had never even heard such a claim.

          • Sheila Warner

            Thanks for clarifying. I’m with you on this much: race didn’t have anything to do with his trouble on the campaign trail. Had he not been hit with that scandal, I believe his lack of depth in all areas of government would have done him in. His 9-9-9 plan was all he had up his sleeve. His lack of knowledge pertaining to foreign policy was scary. Of course, so was Barack Obama’s. But that’s a topic for another day.

      • brickman

        I’m still waiting for them to nominate a Catholic for President.

        • Sheila Warner

          They did. JFK.

          • brickman

            I’m talking about the Republicans.

        • legal eagle

          Good point…..Probably nominate a Southern Baptist before a Catholic…

  • kelly

    If racism means you only judge someone based on the color of his skin, then yes, the President won based on the color of his skin. Oprah was correct; he was not trumpeted by the media or elected by the public because of his experience. There’s no way that happened.

    MLK asked us as Americans to do the exact opposite, but the public and the main stream media just couldn’t help itself when the time came to trust that statement.

    Although, I would not label him a VICTIM. If anything, he was the BENEFICIARY of racism.

  • watcherofolde

    Joe Wilson a fool? How about Joe Wilson spoke the absolute truth?

    • Sheila Warner

      It doesn’t matter. His shout out destroyed his reputation and credibility. He should have held a press conference afterwards, and stated his opinions then. You don’t heckle the President when he is giving the SOTU address. I don’t care who the person is, male or female, black or white or brown, Christian or atheist or some other religion. Proper decorum must be observed if you expect people to listen to your point of view.

    • brent kaufman

      Sometimes it’s foolish to speak the absolute truth. Ever been married?

      • sniper2535

        well said BK

  • JBubs

    This is what happens almost immediately when we stop holding fast the principle of inalienable individual rights, (emphasis on “individual”). Do you think that, perhaps the founders were on to something?

  • The Man from Scene 24

    I don’t hate Obama because he’s black, I hate Obama because he’s red.

  • JMax

    “A “President Buckley” would have to be a true people’s candidate.”

    That would pretty much be an oxymoron, wouldn’t it?

    • Skip in VA

      You want an oxymoron? How About “Affordable Health Care”?

      • JMax

        Covered California:

        Family of 4, head of household 39 years old, $60,000 income….

        Anthem Blue Cross Silver plan: $641 per mo premium
        Zero deductible
        Zero copay for preventative care, screening, immunization
        $45 copy for other primary care
        Zero annual cap on benefits
        Zero lifetime cap on benefits
        No cancellation for any reason
        No denial of coverage

        • Sheila Warner

          $641 per month is a lot of money for most people. In NJ, we only have plans with deductibles, co-pays, and higher premiums. Aetna dropped out of the system in NJ, so we only have two insurance companies from which to choose. The reimbursement rates are as low as 60%. Who can afford 40% of a large hospital bill?

          • JMax

            Under ACA your annual out-of-pocket maximum for a family is $12,700, so your insurance would cover 100% after $12,700 (including all copays, prescriptions, and deductibles). Your monthly subsidy would also be $415 (assuming $60,000 income) so your premiums could be in the low $400s per month.

          • Sheila Warner

            We definitely don’t have $12,700 to spend on healthcare. According to what I saw, there are no subsidies for those making over $40K. We bring in about $50K, depending on OT. I am on disability. Right now we pay about $80 per month for my husband’s insurance. I’m on Medicare as of 12/1, so we were fortunate there. My monthly premium for my Medicare Advantage is around $100 per month. The low $400s, with a $12K deductible is ridiculous. Not to mention that the bronze plans I looked at only reimbursed about 60% of costs incurred after shelling out $12K for the deductible. My husband never sees any doctor often enough that he would ever reach his deductible, so, effectively, all of our costs would be out of pocket. Hardly a good deal. We’re waiting for the other shoe to drop in 2014, when he could lose his insurance.

          • JMax

            (The $12.7k above is not a deductible. It’s the annual maximum out-of-pocket for a covered family.)

            There ARE subsidies for those making over $40k. I ran your numbers as best I can and at $50k for a family of two your subsidy would be $328 per month. Assuming you are only getting coverage for your husband (I’m guessing maybe 62 years old):

            A person age 62 in New Jersey can find a health care plan from AmeriHealth New Jersey for $301 a month after subsidy. Deductible is $2,350 but maximum out-of-pocket is $6,350.

            So yeah, if your husband rarely sees a doctor he may never spend much money other than his premiums. But tests, screenings, and vaccinations would be free. And at age 62 (or older) the odds of him having health issues costing more than his deductible are pretty high. Regardless, if he did have a serious illness or accident, out-of-pocket for everything including surgery, hospital stays, copays, prescriptions, doctors, and everything else is capped at $6,350 per year. Sure that’s not chump change, but for serious illness or accident you’d be paying way way more without that maximum limit. And over $6,350 his reimbursement is 100%.

            Your husband would never lose his insurance if he is on the individual market. With ACA he can’t be denied as long as he pays the premiums. I’m not sure why you think he would lose his insurance in 2014 unless he currently gets insurance from his employer and loses his job. If he gets group insurance now then all of the above is moot because he gets all of the ACA benefits from his employer. If he does, God forbid, lose his job, he would be able to get the plan I’ve detailed above.

          • Sheila Warner

            My husband is 54. I’m 58. I get Medicare due to a disability. Why are we concerned about him losing his insurance? Because we have watched large corporations dump employees onto the exchanges already. If his company decides fines are less expensive than providinging health insurance, he could find himself dumped onto the exchanges. Right now he pays about $80 per month in premiums, with a $1000 deductible. The plan you cited with Amerihealth is much more expensive than what he has now. And, Americhealth sucks big time. We had it when he was at another job. It was terrible. Also, my personal experience trying to get Amerihealth to approve medically necessary tests made me crazy. I hate the insurance industry already–now they will get billions of dollars directly from the government. They are guaranteed not to lose money under the ACA. Single payer is what we need.

          • JMax

            It’s always been less expensive to not provide insurance for employees, and yet employers have been offering health care insurance for decades when they had no requirement to do so. It is a way to attract qualified employees AND it is cheaper than paying the employees cash because neither the company nor the employee has to pay Social Security taxes on health care premiums paid by the company. That doesn’t change with ACA.

            Here is something interesting I found on gop.com. The subheading says, “Ahead Of The Launch Of The ObamaCare Exchanges, Health Benefits Consultants Know Of Companies That Will Stop Offering Health Insurance To Their Full-Time Employees.” But the following paragraph says, “But benefits consultants said they know of few companies now providing insurance that won’t offer it to full-time workers next year.” Seems a bit misleading.

            That same site says, “Darden Restaurants, Home Depot, And Trader Joes Previously Announced That They Would Shift Their Employees To The ObamaCare Exchanges.” Are these the companies you were referring to? CNN says that these companies believe that most of their part-time employees will get better coverage for lower cost by going to the exchanges. Home Depot and Trader Joe’s are well-known for being employee-friendly companies.

            Sources:

            http://www.gop.com/news/research/more-companies-set-to-end-their-employee-health-plans-due-to-obamacare/

            http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/10/fact-check-part-time-workers-at-home-depot-and-trader-joes-harmed-by-obamacare/

            I am totally with you on single-payer. Obama has said that was his preference. But that is simply politically un-doable at this time. Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has introduced a bill that would allow anyone age 55 and over to opt into Medicare. That’s what they should be doing. Several states are starting to go the way of single payer.

          • Sheila Warner

            It was IBM that really blew us away. I don’t have the complete list memorized, but the trend is definitely there. Businesses are about the bottom line. If offering insurance becomes more expensive, then they will cease to offer it. I’m looking down the road, not just at the immediate. Again, it’s the trend. Also, reports coming out from the CBO and others, that indicate there is a high probability that more employers will opt to drop coverage for employees. Why would we just sit and wait to see if it comes to pass? I researched NJ’s website just to see what’s out there. Again, single payer is a better way to go.

          • JMax

            IBM is ONLY moving RETIREES off the IBM health plan, not current employees. This from Fox News:

            “Instead of subsidizing retiree health premiums directly, IBM will give retirees an annual contribution via a health retirement account that they can use to buy Medicare Advantage plans and supplemental Medicare policies on the exchange, as well as pay for other medical expenses. Retirees who don’t enroll in a plan through Extend Health won’t receive the subsidy.”

            Fox also says this is a trend that started eight years ago, well before ACA became law.

            Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/07/ibm-to-move-retirees-off-health-plan/

            From what I’ve seen, companies that are opting out of providing health care are doing so primarily because their employees can get a better deal from the exchange. That’s what Trader Joe’s and Home Depot are doing for their part-time employees.

            Health care costs for corporations have increased every year for decades, so it doesn’t make sense that they would stop it simply because it’s more expensive.

            I’m a supporter of Obamacare because I think most people will benefit from it. I’d prefer single payer as you do. But even if every bad thing people say about ACA were true, it wouldn’t do anything worse than what insurance companies have been doing forever.

          • Sheila Warner

            OMG, you are SO right. Insurance companies were horrible. They needed to be reformed. I say, get rid of them altogether because you can’t trust them. We both agree: single payer!

          • JMax

            Yes indeed! Good luck to you and your husband and Merry Christmas!

          • Sheila Warner

            Thanks. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

  • msami1026

    Sry. to differ. re Joe W., He was the only 1 to call bo on it AND today it’s been proven truth! Going on, ur next points/e.g. Blk. Buckleywere

    • msami1026

      2 b cont’d. blks. are angry because 300 yrs. ago, BLACK men put them on a boat to the colonies, sold by BLK. men, so now these do nothing younger lazy types just want to take take take, not contribute. note I said ‘types; not all. But bo, his anger stems from his ‘abandoning’ daddy who had a severe case of anger vs. the colonies aka the USA. Now he’s hell bent on taking it down on it’s knees. Someone tell bo about the men/women in WWI & II, Japan, Korea. We colonists don’t get on our knees, We the People get up against our adversaries to win. We ARE going to win vs. this dangerous adm. 2014 is only around the corner. Mr. G. I lovef ur ending, spot on! Keep these gr8 columns coming.

    • msami1026

      cont’d, Buckley, were factual & true. More wht. ppl. voted 4 bo (more of them) so how can it be a generalized statement “racism” It can’t. Wouldn’t that just set ‘them’ free if we did get a good smart savvy gentle blk. man/woman for POTUS, THEY’ GAG FOR 4 YRS. WHICH WILL BE GR8!!! OH YES & W/THEIR TAILS BETW. THEIR KNEES! SIGH!

  • VermontAmerican

    You skinned a little too closely, Bernie. President Buckwheat? Really?

    • helplessinil

      Prime example of how you liberals make things racist. Where did you get “Buckwheat” out of this? Although I would have thought that funny and not racist.

      • VermontAmerican

        Yes, I was being more humorous than political. I’m conservative. Don’t let the state fool you.

      • jim forrest

        thank you Eddie Murphy

    • Trooth

      Speak of racism… why would YOU equate Buckley with Buckwheat? My immediate association was with the archetypical conservative William Buckley, but then again I’m not your typically uninformed liberal.

  • Joh

    I think we already know the answer to this question. Recall, if you will, how Colin Powell was treated when he was appointed by George Bush and before he became a “liberal” Obama supporter. When he was still in the Bush camp, the black community, most notably Harry Belafonte, labeld Powell a “house negro”. Not his exact choice of words, but you get the message. The same sort of labelling has been lumped on Condeleeza Rice. Nevermind the acheivements of both these distinguished Americans, if they do not think they way you do, let’s slander them with the worst of terms. I am ready to congratulate Obama for his elections, but that does not mean I cannot disagree with his policies and can refrain attacking his race.

  • Jenn

    Satan..ooops..I mean Obama’s colour has nothing to do with anything…its the way he is ruining the U.S. that upsets most people and rightly so….its the people who are in bed with Obama that are calling good American’s racist…

  • melanerpes

    I would have named your hypothetical president “James West”, after the old TV series.

    • watcherofolde

      Or Allen West.

      • melanerpes

        I was going for subtlety.

  • rbblum

    Although the liberal media and progressives would garner more visible division between dependent Black voters and a conservative of any stripe, there is very little difference between the blind interests of Black voters and RINOs.

    The primary question should be why oh why would any individual be beholden to any political party over the interests of the people focussed on embracing a constitutional republic?

  • Cecil

    To this day, I do not understand why his white mother, the one whom carried him in her womb, provided all his life support is totally ignored. IMHO, he is not the first African American president. I see him as the first unqualified president, no military experience, very limited national government experience and we are suffering. Hope and Change is not experience. His change was due to house and senate majority.

    I do support some of his health care ideology, pre-existing medical conditions and Medicaid Insurance for those that qualify. Period. It was his choice to lie to those that had insurance. He knew the facts. The truth would kill the bill. This is what upsets, now the majority of American voters.

    Last point. The liberals protested that voter ID was and is too hard on the minority, even when it is free. How easy is it for them to get health care? How many have computers, tablets, and knowledge? The knowledge and availability applies to all, as more whites are on Medicaid than the minority. The population base makes this true.

    • brickman

      You may have the seeds to a good idea here. Provide voter ids to everyone who signs up for health care.

  • beniyyar

    I guess I must be a racist, whenever I see a group of young Black men coming near me, I get as far away as I can from them, I don’t want them to maybe beat my brains out!

  • savage24

    I don’t think that Joe Wilson called out “LIAR” because Obama is black. he did it because it was the truth. Just because a president is giving a speech in a joint session of congress and telling one lie after another, everybody has to sit on their hands an say nothing because he is the president, and deserves respect is hog wash. Obama has a problem with the truth and it only gets worse with the media and everybody else allowing him to get away with it. As for Oprah, she is as big a racist as Obama is. Bad mouthing our country on the BBC certainly does not show all that intelligence she is credited with having.

  • theslowrider

    If I’m correctly remembering when Joe Wilson said “you lie,” it was when Obama stated that under Obamacare, illegal aliens WOULD NOT receive free healthcare. I think Joe is now proven correct. Joe was right, and Bernie, he isn’t a fool.

    • tedmargarischicago

      Totally beside the point. That wasn’t the forum to interrupt. Joe Wilson could have had plenty of opportunities after his speech to point out that this statement was a lie. He shouldn’t have interrupted the president during the SOTU, and that’s why Bernie said he was a fool.

      • theslowrider

        Bernie wrote the article and included Joe Wilson. I was just commenting on what Bernie wrote. Sorry, my bad.

  • k962

    Liberals, many are closet bigots! Harry Reid is one of them!

  • Dennis

    Would Barack Obama be treated differently if he was white? Of course. Libs would not have drooled all over him in 2008 and he would not have had a chance of winning.
    Time to be honest. Pres Obama had zero qualifications or experience for the job. Not the only reason but certainly the main reason he got elected was the number of people who wanted to help elect the first African-American president. Let me be clear before everyone starts labeling me a racist. I actually approved of this attitude. It was long overdue to elect a black pres. In fact, this was the only rational reason for voting for him. Without the fact he was a black man, he was little more than a taller, more glib Dennis Kucinich but without the resume. His supporter told us over and over that inexperience didn’t really matter and he would grow into the job. How is that working out?

    • JMax

      “Pres Obama had zero qualifications or experience for the job.”

      What exactly are the qualifications for the job that Obama didn’t have?

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    President Buckley would be called an Oreo — black on the outside, white on the inside.

  • Wheels55

    It’s easy to pick out the people who don’t have a clue or just don’t want to try to understand the situation – they are the ones who call others racist. Let’s retire the R word along with the N word.

  • Sam

    The truth is, some of these folks actually like and enjoy the idea of racism. It gives them a chance to show by contrast how noble they are. The more you can demonize your foes, the more you become the default hero.

  • D Parri

    Let me share another speculation regarding “President Buckley”.

    The left will fire up it’s assault cadre and go to work in attacking President Buckley, the first conservative black president of the U.S. Following this, there will be an increasing voice of outrage coming from the president’s conservative supporters.

    Those outraged supporters will be able to ‘recognize’ racial bias emanating from bigots within the liberal left. However, the deafening silence of the ‘Oprah Winfreys’ will go unnoticed in the media. The liberal media will have once again aspired to the pinnacle of hypocrisy–successfully.

  • John Mullins

    Bernie, I usually like what you write. But first of all, Joe Wilson yelled “You lie.”

    Second, and more important, he yelled it because Obama lied.

    None of this has ANYTHING to do with Obama’s race, and frankly, you calling Wilson a fool puts you dangerously close to Oprah.

    • D Parri

      Period!

    • Josh

      Lying, cheating, stealing, snorting coke off of Nicki Minaj’s buttcheeks — it’s the shouting down a President of the United States of America that earns the “fool”; not that it was the truth.

      One can loathe the person holding the office, but the office should be respected. One does not simply shout down a President as he’s giving a speech without facing some backlash. “Fool” is a slapboxing whiff compared to the Tyson knockout it could be.

      If that’s the type of treatment one wishes an American President to be subjected to, even one as utterly horrible as Obama, then we need to change what a President is to America.

      The head of state; the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. Personally, I couldn’t see shouting down a Captain if I were a PFC, even if he was a dillweed lying sack of shiz. I mean, one is supposed to solute the rank, not the person. Right?

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      I’m not sure you read what Bernie wrote correctly, John.

      Bernie didn’t claim that Joe Wilson yelled what he did (you’re right about the misquote) because Obama was black. He suggested just the opposite – that it had nothing to do with skin color.

      Joe Wilson isn’t a fool because he believed our president was lying. He’s a fool for screaming it out right in the middle of a presidential address, which very much disrespected the office of the presidency.

      He should have saved that thought for another time.

    • Bernie

      John

      I fixed the quote. Thanks for that. Check out John’s comment below re your misreading of my point about Joe Wilson.

      Thanks

      Bernie

    • CentralScruntinizer

      Obama, like every other president, has sadly lied. In Obama’s case the clear cut one was about being able to keep your health insurance policy, not Wilson’s point of outrage: whether the ACA covered illegal immigrants. However, the giant point here is that in spite of larger and more lethal lies from the likes of LBJ (Gulf of Tonkin,) Nixon (Watergate,) Reagan (Iran Contra,) and both GHW (no new taxes) and GW Bush (WMD,) no congressman ever even thought to yell at them publicly. It’s the disrespect for Obama that is unique. And since he is to the right of Clinton, Carter and even Nixon, it’s not his politics that has triggered the disrespect.

      • Sheila Warner

        You believe that President Obama is to the right of Clinton, Carter, and Nixon? Cite examples, please.

        • CentralScruntinizer

          Sheila, there have been a few good studies using different metrics. One that I’m trying to find was published in the Christian Science Monitor which showed on most domestic and foreign policy stances Obama was clearly to the right of: Carter, Clinton, Nixon and Eisenhower. Obama zig-zagged (was mixed evenly left and right) on positions with Reagan and Bush 41 and he was cleary to the left of Bush 43.

          In the meantime, here is the most recent study (the charts are in the second half of the article so scroll down.)

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/25/how-liberal-is-president-obama-really/

      • Jeff Webb

        GWB didn’t lie–every word of his WMD statement was 100% true. I honestly thought you were better than that.

        His father broke his #1 campaign promise, but there is nothing to suggest he already planned raising them from day one.

        At this point, Obama has proven to be a far more blatant & shameless liar than any of the others you mentioned. The lies he used to sell OC (costs go down, keep your plan, illegals won’t be covered, etc.) and his lying about Benghazi.

        BTW, Obama could very well be to the right of some people, but sure as hell not Clinton, et al. lol

        • CentralScruntinizer

          Jeff, to commit a right wing supporter to even attempt to wallpaper over the lies that were told in support of the war in Iraq is to send them on a mission impossible. Don’t even try. Too much evidence from The Downing Street Memo to Richard Clarke’s testimony and that of many retired CIA.

          I’m not going to try to claim that there wasn’t plenty of tricky and deliberate misinformation worked in the run-up to the ACA. Unfortunately the last truly honest POTUS was at least 100 years ago, probably more. Carter was the closest thing to a modern president who tried to tell the truth, and he was a woefully ineffective leader.

          You and I will never agree on the degree of malfeasance on Benghazi. I think the lie about the video was incidental and not a great misdeed. I also see a lot of CIA redaction on what was to be reported, and not redaction in a CYA fashion, redaction in a cover ongoing operations fashion. The rest of the Benghazi scandal dissolves on contact.

          As for Obama being to the right of clinton, I’ll repost what I put below: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/25/how-liberal-is-president-obama-really/

          • Sheila Warner

            The WaPo article was an opinion piece. Yes, there was data submitted, and each time there was some sort of caveat. I don’t think President Obama is to the right of Bill Clinton at all, but he surely is to the right of Jimmy Carter. LBJ is a mixed bag. He made bold changes to our nation via the Great Society and the war on poverty, but he still was a war hawk. His only ideology seemed to have been self promotion. I do admire how he pushed hard for civil rights. Overall, I found him to be somewhat of an ego maniac. Just my own opinion here, based on my memories of his time in office. Poor Jimmy Carter–some good ideas but he had no real strength or political skills. He will forever be seen as the President who couldn’t get our hostages out, in spite of his monumental efforts behind the scenes. He has been a wonderful example of humanity post-President.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            The WaPo article is opinion, but the links embedded within the article are empirical data. I agree that LBJ was a mixed bag, and Carter was a far better man than President. Ford was another one who was a better man than President. I think Reagan and Bush 43 were largely puppets, but Bush 41 was a very experienced capable guy. I worked for him in ’80 during the primaries. I only wish he’d followed his own instincts as POTUS, rather than extend the Reagan mistakes.

          • Sheila Warner

            President George HW Bush is a man of integrity. How do you think he didn’t follow his instincts? He made a necessary decision to agree with Congress for tax increases, even though he had to know he was politically doomed in doing so. My reason for supporting President Clinton in 1992 was due to the war in Iraq. I was against it from the start. Then, after it began, my brother was yanked from Germany and became one of the secret troops that went behind enemy lines. His recollections of what he went through only bolster my opinion that we should have stayed out of it. When will the Arab nations ever start taking responsibility for their own backyards? Then along comes W, and we end up with two wars at once. Just terrible.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            I have respect for Bush 41. My dad was a friendly acquaintance of his dating back to college. We even were occasional guests at their house on Walkers Point in Maine, especially when he was Ambassador to China. When he ran in 1980 our whole family mobilized to help his campaign which ultimately lost out to Reagan and. In that era Bush was adamantly against the Reagan supply-side canon, for which his campaign coined the term Voodoo Economics. Across the board Bush was the epitome of a New England Rockefeller Republican, which is a dirty word in the modern GOP. To come into line with the Reagan administration, Bush shifted a number of his personal positions to the right, on both economic and social issues. From your profile info, you won’t like this, but it was well known that the family was pro-choice (Senator Prescott Bush helped found Planned Parenthood) and there was a big debate when Bush publicly came out as Pro-Life. Doro and Barbara were said to be furious, but Marvin, Neil, Dubya and Jeb all thought it was a political must. To make this long schpeel slightly shorter, when Bush was elected in ’88, my family hoped that there would be a shift toward less harsh economic policies, less union busting, less rampant deregulation, as well as a less bellicose foreign policy stance – moves toward what was more in line with the Bush of 1980 and before. Those moves never happened. Bush was nearly as conservative as Reagan. My guess is that the organization man instincts and loyalty to the machine that got him into the Oval Office trumped his personal inclinations. I also was very discouraged by his deep involvement in the cover-up of Iran Contra.

            I met most of the kids in those days, as well as 41 and Barbara. But I never encountered Dubya in person. At that point he was the legendary black sheep ner-do-well who was usually stashed away in Texas. Jeb was the star and heir apparent. From my limited exposure, the only one of the next generation you’d want in office is Doro. I also think there are some strong stains of decency in Dubya’s daughters. Must either be from Laura or via a recessive gene.

          • Sheila Warner

            I’m not at all bothered that President Bush 41 was pro-choice. I don’t believe in litmus tests on either side of the issue. Roe v Wade is the law of the land and I respect that. I’m pro-life in the sense that I don’t like abortion. I wish the GOP would stop being so hypocritical about it. They want to overturn Roe v Wade while cutting SNAP.benefits. THAT will make abortions rarer! (sarcasm dripping here) You have to support programs for poor women if you want them to look more favorably on the idea of having another child. But the reasons for abortion are deep and complex, and I don’t judge. Squarely in the middle. I remember reading an op-ed entitled “Sleeping With the Enemy”. I can’t remember who wrote it, but the author had hoped Barbara Bush would have some sort of pro-choice influence on her husband. On a different topic, it was nice to see that Bush 41 witnessed the wedding of his gay friends. Too bad he couldn’t be as free to do what he wanted when he was in the White House. Trickle down was voodoo, but, as you say, Bush’s loyalty was to the party.

          • Jeff Webb

            The lib claim that President Bush lied was essentially based on his statement that British Intel indicated Saddam was after uranium. If you’re going to keep insisting he lied, show me an indisputable report establishing that no such British intel existed.

            On DSM & Clarke: the former failed to show any hard facts to support their OPINION that Bush was guilty of manipulation, the latter was a far less credible source than Secretary Rice, who effectively exposed his dishonesty in her response to his testimony.

            Even if your claims were on solid ground, the context and the ramifications of the lies are important. Regarding OC, the damage resulting from Obama’s repeated lies and half-truths is widespread. Businesses, the ones that don’t stop offering medical benefits that is, now have to resort to measures like cutting hours, firing employees, hiring less, increasing prices, and giving lower or less frequent raises. Less doctors will accept Medicare patients. An economy weakened by consumers’ increased premiums & added taxes, as well as more government overspending.

            Obama’s main Benghazi lie, and yes it is provably a lie, was his self-serving effort to prevent the public from seeing his incredible lack of competence. It was damage-control in his re-election efforts.

            There is a difference between telling your wife her dress doesn’t make her look fat and telling her you were bowling when you were actually cheating on her.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            If you think the lynchpin to the fact that Bush lied is the brits, you should go back and read the Downing Street memo. As for Clarke, he personally reports being ordered by Rumsfeld on 9/11 to write a memo tying up all the info on Iraq – and only Iraq – related to the 9/11 attacks. That’s not opinion, thats first hand testimony. How exactly do you discount that via Rice, who was in full CYA mode regarding 9/11.

            If you want to go further into the Bush lied us into Iraq, you can go in any number of directions, including to Colin Powell and his staff. Lt. Col Lawrence Wilkerson has been outspoken about the fury Powell showed when asked to endorse totally discredited intel during his speech to the UN. That brings us to the intel via Curveball, who had been totally discredited by the German intelligence agencies and the CIA and White House knew it, yet used him as the centerpiece of their argument for an invasion to stem the WMD threat.

            Also core to the argument was Rumsfeld’s creation of an alternate intelligence department, run out of the Pentagon by Douglas Feith, charged with re-energizing bogus intel that had been rejected as phony by the CIA and getting it back in front of the Congressional Intel committees so that they could be pushed back toward war.

            And what exactly is the lie you are claiming was told by Obama to conceal his incompetence ahead of the election? Are you still working the angle that whether it was protests or a pre-planned attack (it was the latter) is a massive issue outside the right wing base? It was a tragedy that we lost four, but you don’t have a scandal by any of the dozens of angles I’ve seen desperately floated.

    • Brhurdle

      I couldn’t agree with you more! You can certainly express the opinion that Wilson violated the unspoken rules of decorum, but to reach the conclusion that he was a “fool” exhibits the same absence of logic and bias that Winfrey used.

  • D Parri

    Bernie, I could hardly finish reading the piece before adding this comment, but where were these bigots that are treating the office of President with such a level of respect…because he’s African-American…when he was elected–twice?

    I think that she is smart enough to realize just how foolish she sounds, but it is not the truth that she is concerned with…it is the inference of racial bigotry and the potential for gaining support for Obama by creating a perceived indignation.

    Could this be a ‘manufactured crisis’ of sorts that will not be as likely to succeed as Ms. Winfrey had intended? We’ll see.

  • sjangers

    It really shouldn’t even need saying, but the left hasn’t hesitated to criticize and oppose moderate and conservative black leaders like Allen West, Herman Cain and Condoleezza Rice. Most of the time white liberals try to avoid personal attack on black conservatives, preferring to leave that kind of work to black liberals while they scrupulously avoid even the hint of racism. But there’s already a clear precedent for criticizing the political views of black leaders, and it comes from the left.

    Whether Oprah and others who are quick to accuse President Obama’s critics really can’t see the double standard invoked when any criticism of this president is labeled racism is a mystery to me. It seems so obvious to many of us. But our friends on the left often seem to have difficulty sorting out the difference between thoughts and feelings. Perhaps this is just another example.

    • D Parri

      It seems that whenever public opinion is falling and there is no solid ground to stand upon then the left will choose one of several diversionary tactics in order to distract the public eye from the administration’s ‘sore spot’. Racial bias can be a very volatile subject, but it appears that it does not carry the same impact when the public trust has been violated by those claiming a racial indignity.

  • Sheila Warner

    We don’t need suppositions. Just look at how people like Allen West and Herman Cain have been covered in the MSM. I still have suspicions at the timing of sexual harassment claims against Cain during the primary in 2012. And let’s not forget the poor ink Clarence Thomas regularly receives. However, all of these are moot points because such bias has been known about for many years now.

    • D Parri

      The biases are well known, yes, but occasionally it is necessary to point them out in order to fight the tactics employed by those who would use them to manipulate public opinion and do it in a rather dishonest fashion.

  • Martin L.

    Aren’t the real racists the ones who voted for the president not for the content of his character but for the color of his skin?

    • D Parri

      Yes. Period.

    • Toa

      Lotsa luck trying to get those racists to admit that!

  • Patrick H.

    Just like George Bush was with the terms Uncle Tom, Judas, sell out, house slave, or “house n-word” “go back to the porch”, “happy n—–” (you ask Juan Williams about that one).

  • Lelandhaus

    A conservative black president would labeled an Uncle Tom, a discredit yo MLK, and a sellout of all blacks. It’d escalate as welfare was scaled back and the waste cleaned up. They’d twist the race card so they could use it against him as well.

  • redlipstick

    good piece. hope oprah reads it.
    we wudnt wish them dead, like oprah said we have to die !