White Ethnic Catholic Males


In my February 14, 2008 column I wrote as follows:

The 2008 primary campaign season may be best noted for exposing the hypocrisy of Democrats and race. Ever since the days of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale we have had to listen to the noblesse oblige attitudes of Democrat leaders as they sniff with disdain and lecture us about race and bigotry. They engaged in revisionist history when it comes to addressing the checkered past of our nation’s treatment of blacks. . .

“Like most of the liberal elite, the Democrat leadership likes to preach more than to practice racial tolerance.”

That assessment has proven to be ever more true as the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton turns ever more bitter. But the most interesting aspect is not that the latent racism in the Democrat party has raised its ugly head. Rather it is that the Democrat elites have found yet another way to deflect the charges of racism in their “oh so perfect party.” They’ve found another group to blame. And, as usual, it is a group that apparently is fair game to stereotype, criticize and castigate.

It is White Ethnic Male Catholics.

Given that “white males” are the only group that everyone is free to disparage without fear of being labeled racists, or sexists, or ageists, or homophobic, you just knew that the group to take the fall for the Democrats would have to be some subset of white males. And given that the liberal elites in the mainstream media and academia routinely dump on Christianity in general and Catholics in particular, it is not surprising that the subset is limited to Catholics.

I first heard the term White Ethnic Male Catholics used during a discussion amongst the “talking heads” the day before the Pennsylvania primary. They were chagrined to learn that there was a gap of ten percent of Democrat voters who remained uncommitted the weekend before the election and they needed an explanation.

Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group, ever a barometer of the Democrats far left thinking, synthesized the explanation in a recent column:

“In the days leading up to Pennsylvania’s primary, White males — those knuckle dragging, chaw chompin’, beer swillin’ bitter troglodytes — were suddenly the debutante’s delight. . .
“. . . Would White males go for the woman or the Black? Or as Nora Ephron more pointedly posed the question: Whom to White males hate more — women or blacks.

There it is folks, according to the liberal elites, the only reason that a White male would vote for Clinton or Obama is because they are either a racist or a misogynist. Now the fact that Blacks vote in overwhelming numbers for Obama does not make them racists. And the fact that Clinton has substantial support amongst women does not make them man haters. No apparently the only people capable of prejudice choices are White males and even worse, when they make choices it is only in furtherance of their prejudices.

But the real kicker here is that these elites felt constrained to limit this conduct to “ethnic Catholics.” Quite frankly, I’m not sure whom this includes. Is it the Irish who endured their own period of prejudice with signs that said “No Irish Need Apply” or listened to the slur of “Mick” and “Papist” for years? Or is it the Italians who were branded as “Wops” and thought all to be a part of the Mafia? Or maybe the Poles who were maligned as ignorant and incapable of more than menial work. All of these ethnic groups have large Catholic populations. Does this sobriquet include the Kennedys, the Cuomos, and the Kulongoskis.

Well, I am a White Ethnic Male Catholic and I take offense. First I take offense that, as a Catholic, I would even be considered a Democrat voter since the litmus test of Democrats is that one support abortion on demand, up to and including partial birth abortion — all of which practicing Catholics consider murder. To suggest that there is some moral middle ground that would allow a Catholic to reconcile this abomination with support of either Obama or Clinton is particularly offensive.

Second, like most Americans I am of mixed heritage. I am Scot-Irish-German and while I am proud of my entire heritage, I am not defined by any of it. The whole problem with stereotyping is that it is seldom accurate and never more so than when it comes to politics or morality.

And finally, I’m tired of the Democrats in general and their far left wing in particular, trying to deflect attention from a serious problem that is and has been theirs for years — racism — active, ugly, persistent and pernicious racism. It is not their problem alone for there are racist elements in the Republican Party as well as the minor parties.

But the Democrats, as much as they would like us to believe otherwise, are not immune from it either. And it isn’t confined to White male Democrats. There are White female Democrats who are racists and simply use the support of another female (Clinton) as cover for their disdain for people of color. There are Black Democrats who engage in the most malicious speech about Whites, Jews and Asians (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, etc.) but who are never held to account. And there are wealthy Democrats who malign the poor while giving lip service to their plight.

But, as I noted before, “Like most of the liberal elite, the Democrat leadership likes to preach more than to practice racial tolerance.” As for me, I would rather debate an acknowledged racist than a hypocritical Democrat.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 20 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • pk2

    Race and gender. They have befuddled the race, but it has not come from the candidates. Obama and Clinton have not used the race card or gender card as a weapon or attack. It is others. A lot of the hype comes from other people injecting their own statements.

    Catholics and Democrats. They are a large and important base. Many Catholics feel that Obama and Clinton share their concern for the poor and their support for bring a conclusion to the war. These are popular Catholic beliefs. Very popular.

  • John Fairplay

    But Democrats don’t care anything about the poor or bringing an end to the Iraq War except as that helps them gain political power. Lyndon Johnson launched a “War on Poverty” that has spent trillions without reducing poverty one bit. A poor person who escapes poverty is not likely to need the government anymore, and that is anathema to the Democrats. A poor person who escapes poverty on his or her own steam is likely to be a Republican and believe that others can do it too.

    • dean

      The war on poverty, a collection of federal programs including Head start and the Job corps, helped reduce child poverty rates from 23% in 1963 (the year before it was initiated) to 14%in 1969. By this measure it was hardly a failure.

      Since the Reagan years and the rollback of most of the Johnson programs, child poverty rates are back up to 17.4%. The United States, with the weakest social safety net in the developed world, has among the highest rates of poverty.

      Democrats have advocated for government anti-poverty programs since the 1930s, while Republicans have by and large advocated free markets as the better solution. Both are needed. Its not either or. Race is often used by politicians to divide and distract, as Larry Huss appears to be doing in his post.

      And Larry’s characterization of Democrats as “elitist” flies in the face of easily available data that shows that lower income voters are much more likely to vote Democratic than are high income voters. less

      • Steve Plunk

        Dean, if you are going to use poverty statistics it is important not to skip over the 12 years between Johnson and Reagan. How poverty is measured would also be very important.

        Generally I’ve found any mention of Democratic elitism to refer to its leadership. The leaders of the Democratic party are clearly elitists in their views and lifestyles.

        • dean

          Steve…good point on the statistics. It appears (from US Census) that the poverty rate stayed low throughout the 70s, climbed steeply in the first part of the Reagan presidency, went down by its end, climbed back up steeply under Bush 1, went down all through the Clinton years, and has gone steadily up since Bush 2. The rate generally correlates well with economic growth, but the anomolly is the Bush 2 years, which have had steady economic growth AND a steady increase in poverty.

          The Orshansky Thresholds have been the basis for measuring poverty in the U.S since 1965. A dollar amount is set based on household size, below which families or individuals lack the money to pay for basic needs for healthy living; i.e. food, shelter and clothing. European nations use a different method, the number of people living below 50 or 60% of the mean income. When that method is applied to the US our poverty rate is much higher, and is higher in comparison with other nations.

          Let’s use this definition of “elite:”
          A small group of people that posses disproportionally large amounts of scarce sources of influence over political decision-making: money, social prestige, political power, etc

          Okay…so how are leading Democrats more “elite” than leading Republicans? The whole “liberal elite” charge is bogus, and is a deliberate and long lasting attempt by Republicans, intitiated by Nixon, to wedge blue collar Democrats away from the more educated, articulate, but not necessarily more wealthy wing of the party that includes college professors, teachers, and so forth. Its phony baloney and serves to obfuscate what each party stands for. How was John Kerry any more “elite” than George Bush? Both wealthy white guys who went to Yale. Both influential politicians. Because one speaks English (and French) well, skis and windsurfs while the other has a phony Texas accent (speaks Spanish,) and rides a mountain bike around his “ranch” that has no cattle wile his wife plants wildflowers? Please. How gullible are we?

          Portraying Senator Obama, a dark-skinned man raised by a single mom as “elite” is the latest in this game, particularly against McCain, who is married to a multi-millionairess ala Teresa Heines Kerry. I wonder if people are going to fall for this load of BS yet again.

          • cc

            “The war on poverty, a collection of federal programs including Head start and the Job corps, helped reduce child poverty rates from 23% in 1963 (the year before it was initiated) to 14%in 1969.”

            That’s if you consider correlation equal to causation.

            Which you do when expedient.

            “Democrats have advocated for government anti-poverty programs since the 1930s, while Republicans have by and large advocated free markets as the better solution.”

            One of the few statements you’ve ever made that rings true. In the absence of ANY proof that D programs have actually accomplished their intended goals, you interpose your convenient assumption that they do. Not too scientific – but SOP for the way you regularly substitute your beliefs for facts.

            The same way you misquote, mischaracterize and misconstrue when you’re in full flow.

            Larry DIDN’T say that Democrat VOTERS are members of the elite, he specifically referred to the elites within the Democrat party – you know, the “leaders”. It’s in the nature of elitists to manipulate the “lower income voters” – without them there’s no one to USE.

            “Race is often used by politicians to divide and distract, as Larry Huss appears to be doing in his post.”

            It may “appear” that way to you if you’re so blinkered that you can only look to the left. I suggest that you learn to recognize irony when it hits you in the face like this article does. We’ll work on subtle irony when you’ve mastered the easy stuff. On the other hand, I suspect you just couldn’t resist the urge to do a little race-baiting. As for the (as usual) obtuse and simplistic notion that Obama *couldn’t possibly* be a member of the “elite” class because of his parentage, THAT implication is racist to the core. With that comment, you validate Larry’s point. That and your “point” that Bush doesn’t have any cattle on his ranch betray your bitter, partisan core. If you can’t see the exploitation of any exploitable group, that is the D elites’ stock-in-trade, for what it is, then you have my sympathy. more

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Considering that Socialism requires emphasis on class struggle in order to become popular the use of race baiting is hardly out of character. Lets face it, at the end of the day, Democrats will use race baiting or will racialize a situation at any opportunity.

            That’s pretty much what we have going on with Obama right now. He sat in a church, listening to a minister who racialized virtually everything and thought nothing of it. Why? Because it wasn’t particularly odd to him, he had become inured to it.

            This is why most Democrats are absolutely astounded when you point out to them the litany of outright racist actions by members of their ranks. Sharptons race riots in New York and now Reverend Wright. They simply think that as Democrats they are immune from the charge. They are also so used to talking about and thinking in racial terms that they are essentially blind to racism within their membership even when it is of the most hateful virulent kind such as with Sharpton and Wright.

            In addition to this idea that it is impossible for them to be racist, they also think its impossible for others to have good intentions. Lets just cut to the chase, we all know at the end of the day Dean will tie this all in with Iraq somehow. Somehow it impossible for the left to conceive that Bush, along with every other person and nation on the planet thought Saddam had WMD’s. No, Bush tricked us, Bush lied, blood for oil, yadda yadda. None of this malfeasance, of course, was ever ascribed to Clinton, who bombed Saddam to deflect from bad testimony, using up half our cruise missile inventory in the process.

            The War on Poverty has been one of the most colossal failures both in terms of monetary and human cost, yet of course since the Democrats all had such good intentions, not only must such failure never be acknowledged, more money must be thrown down the rat hole. Iraq on the other hand, must be dunned at every opportunity, the slightest suggestion that maybe Bush had good intentions going in is to be laughed at. Should the oh so vaunted good intention crowd get the withdrawal they so actively seek, they will immediately run from any responsibility for the ensuing chaos, just as they did in Cambodia. The killing fields will start, by virtually everyone’s estimation, and no fault will ever be accepted by the left.

            The suggestion that since the left ridiculed Bush for not having a correct strategy in Iraq then perhaps they too should be ridiculed for forcing a withdrawal without a strategy to prevent the ensuing chaos will be met with nothing but smirks. The crowd that was so concerned with deaths in Iraq when it was politically expedient will be quite cavalier at the current pile of bodies.

            It seems generally acknowledged that there was something to learn about going to war and waging one, from the Vietnam experience. If that is true, then certainly that experience, along with the one in Cambodia, taught us something about withdrawing from war. How much we have learned is to be debated, but in the case of the second lesson, it would appear the withdraw from Iraq crowd has learned little.

          • dean

            Correlation is not causation. True. But there is enough evidence from around the world, not just the US, that government anti-poverty programs do actually result in less poverty.

            Take Sweden (ya ya ya), that pentultimate bastion of socialism. On a per capita income basis the Swedes are as rich as Mississippians. So class-based socialism must equal poverty and stagnation right? Wrong. The AVERAGE Swede lives 3 years longer than the AVERAGE American, infant mortaility is 1/2 that of the US, functional litteracy is higher, Swedes get longer vacations than Americans, work fewer hours, and so forth. A Swede in their poorest 10th percentile has a real income 60% higher than an American in our poorest 10th percentile. The Swedish poverty rate is less than 1/2 of ours.

            The Swedish work force is 80% unionized, yet they have a strong export based market economy (50% from advanced engineering,) and rank as the most creative place (innovation, talent, and technology) in the world). They aslo rank very high in taxation and income redistribution, and very low in crime and imprisonment. Idiot socialists….they just don’t get it that socialism DOES NOT WORK!

            Okay…I’ll agree there are “elites” in the Democratic party, as there are “elites” in the Republican party. When it comes to voting however, the economic elites of America vote Republican, while the lower rungs vote Democratic.

            Senator Obama, against long odds (dark skin, single mom, strange name,) has worked his way up into the “elite.” He took advantage of the opportunities that came along and made something of himself. He paid off his college loans a few years ago, and now has some money in the bank from the books he has written. Mazeltov to him.

            Presedent Bush by contrast was born into the elite (Grandfather Bush was a Senator, dad a President and wealthy oil man among other things) yet created a political persona of a fake “man of the people.” The education he got (Andover, Yale, Harvard) and the money he earned was all through family connections, as was his political rise. A true man of the people.

            So lets play pin the tail on the real elitist.

            On race….yes there are racists in both parties. But African Americans vote Democratic by about 90 to 10%. Are they all fools? Tricked by the evil elitist Democratic leaders? Are they held down by Democrats so they will stay poor and beholden? it takes a suspension of reality to believe this, but hey…nothing new here.

            Republicans have used racial politics since Nixon to divide working class whites from blacks. Unfortunately this tactic has worked, but I’m hoping this is the year that deep well of resentment finally runs dry. But I am sure everything posible will be done to make Senator Obama into a scary black guy. It has already started with the TV ads in North Carolina.

            Rupert…you dragged Iraq into this. Not me. I have no idea what it has to do with the subject at hand.

            But back to the original post…white ethnic catholic males. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Richard Daily….just to name a few.

  • Chris McMullen

    Funny how Obama has purported to transcend race, but he attended a racist church for 20 years. Stranger yet, he calls himself black, when he’s clearly mulatto. His black father abandoned him at two and his white mother and family raised him. Why then would he donate tens of thousand of dollars to a bigoted church and pastor(who BTW, just got a $10 million house in a predominantly white neighborhood).

    Obama is nothing more than your typical elitist politician. He calls himself black when it’s advantageous to him. He then claims race isn’t an issue when he needs the vote from whites. Anyone who thing Barry is some sort of common man is a moron — similar to those who thought the same as Silky Pony (John Edwards).

    BTW, our resident Marxist forgets that before LBJ’s great society, crime was going down. Poverty rates (especially among blacks) were halved. VD and teen pregnancy rates were rapidly declining. Thanks to LBJ, there were more riots in one term of his than two terms of Reagan’s. More congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights and Voting Acts than congressional Dems. The murder rate in 1960 was half of what it was in 1934.

    Yeah, those liberal socialist policies have really helped the poor. And jerks like Jeremiah Wright just exacerbate the problem.

    • pk2

      Obama. I think Obama has been very reserved at using race. Church. His church may be many things, but I do not think it is racist.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Oh my God – Dean – You have got to, and I mean got to, take a logic class.

    >Take Sweden (ya ya ya), that pentultimate bastion of socialism.

    >On a per capita income basis the Swedes are as rich as Mississippians.

    >The Swedish poverty rate is less than 1/2 of ours.

    Congratulations, you have just defeated your entire Swedish thing there.

    a) Mississippi is the poorest state in the country.

    b) Swedes make as much as they do in Mississippi.

    Therefore your statement that they have half the poverty rate indicates a whole crock of BS playing with statistics.

    Here’s a clue – Someone is probably counting the Swedes benefits as part of their total income, yet not counting it here, thus resulting in higher poverty here. At some point you have to wise up Dean. I mean this one was really a little foolish.

    >Idiot socialists….they just don’t get it that socialism DOES NOT WORK!

    Its not that Socialism does not work, its just that the perils of it not working are quite grave. Kind of like Fascism, I mean it works real well sometimes (Italy) but the mass murder risk associated with Socialism ( Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ) just aint worth it.

    Lets also face the fact that Sweden, along with the rest of Europe, cleverly foisted their national defense upon us after world war two. The United States doesn’t exactly have that luxury.

    >Republicans have used racial politics since Nixon to divide working class whites from blacks.

    Um, no, sorry, you have a major logic error here again. This is a little ridiculous Dean, I’m surprised even you missed it

    In a preceding paragraph you claimed generally lower classes economically voted for Democrats. We all know Democrats get 95% of the black vote. So if working class whites are divided from blacks, then Republicans would be getting all that working class white vote, which would be the majority of the working class vote in general.

    You cant have it both ways, working class voting for Democrats in one paragraph, and then divided in the next.

    This claim is just your attempt to racialize the situation.

    >Unfortunately this tactic has worked, but I’m hoping this is the year that deep well of resentment finally runs dry.

    What deep well of resentment? Who the hell are you talking about? You guys resentment over Nixon? Jerry Wrights resentment over whites? What?

    >But I am sure everything possible will be done to make Senator Obama into a scary black guy. It has already started with the TV ads in North Carolina.

    Wow! Hey, Great Racializing Dean! Al Sharpton couldnt have done it better with a megaphone and Lewis Frarakhans New Unabriged Dictionary of Anti Semitism.

    You are absolutely amazing. You cant see your racism at all.

    Look. Obama is the one who hung out with an absolutely racist, by anyones measure, minister for 20 years and somehow missed it.

    Obama is the one who when he gave a speech about it a few weeks back, still somehow missed Wright’s words.

    In the intervening weeks, Wright has said nothing really new, just the same hateful racist BS.

    Oh, but wait, now Obama finally got it, Wright is a racist.

    That’s scary.

    I mean that’s like really scary.

    Obama, a guy who almost had the Democratic nomination was the last person on the planet to figure out his minister is a total racist.

    AND HE SAT IN THE GUYS CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS!

    That is scary. And who made him scary?

    Rev. Wright – A Black Guy

    And who does Dean blame? Evil Republicans.

    Dean, you have got to work out this issue you have with racism, its really kind of appalling.

    • dean

      Its late…so I’ll only deal with the Sweden issue. I hate to say you missed my point….but apparently you did. If you take the AVERAGE income in Mississippi (one of our poorest states) and the AVERAGE income in Sweden, the number is about the same. But because the Swedes have much greater income equality, the AVERAGE Swede is much better off materially than the AVERAGE Mississippian, and probably better off materially than the AVERAGE American for that matter. And to boot, there are far fewer poor people in Sweden, they work fewer hours, and aside from no sense of humor and long winters they have one helluva liveable place.

      Its like if Bill Gates walks into the bar we could say the AVERAGE income of all the people in the bar suddenly jumps up to a billion dollars, but that means squat to everyone there unless he buys the next round.

      Speaking of Swedes…Oly and Sven go on a fishing vacation. They rent a cabin, a boat, and fishing gear. After 4 hours on the lake they catch a nice big trout. Oly says “Sven…I bin tinkin. When ya add up alla da stuff we’re payin fer dat der fish cost us $150.” Sven tinks a minute, starts up the engine and heads back to the dock. Oly says “What’s the deal here? We got lots a daylight yet.” Sven says “At $150 a fish we can’t afford ta catch anudder one.”

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >Its late…so I’ll only deal with the Sweden issue.

    Yeah, I kinda thought you wouldn’t want to deal with it. Weak arguments beget weak excuses in defeat.

    Suggestion – Trying to racialize every situation in which it is possible as you, and most on the left will tend to do, is a particularly ugly tactic. Racism and racialization, has always been a huge problem within the Democratic party. The fact that it is on absolutely unparalleled display both in the Wright issue, and your own attempts to foist blame for it onto the Republicans testifies to that. Its a tactic that try as you guys might, wont work. Great, you racialize every situation to the point of idiocy, so, you get 95% of the black vote. In the process you wind up offending a large portion of America, as BO did with his lack of ability to see Wright for who he was, an ugly racial huckster using racial hatred for his own enrichment. Good luck with that strategy.

    But who cares about that. On to Sweden!

    Suggestion – Your essential point about Swedes being much better off than Americans by virtue of their turning over all their money to the government is incredibly difficult to make at the outset. Due to this initial hurdle, I would avoid weakening an already difficult stance with any obvious statistical gamesmanship with comparisons to Mississippi income levels. I mean its basically silly, and it doesn’t take a lot of mental lifting to see that if someone tells you a populace with the average income level of our poorest state is doing better than the US as a whole, they are pretty silly as well.

    • dean

      Rupert…say you have 10 people in room A and they have a million bucks, and you have 10 people in room B and they have 2 million. Room A divides the money equally, so everyone has $100K. Room B gives $1.5 to one guy, $400K to a second guy, and divides the remaining $100K amongst the other 8. Which room has more poverty? Which has more wealth?

      Answer…room B has both more poverty and more wealth. That is America. Room A has both less total wealth and less poverty. That is Sweden. You like room B….and I like room A.

      Okay…economies are dynamic, not static, so new wealth needs to continue to be created. The Soviet experiment demonstrated that complete equalization is an economic dead end. But Sweden does not have complete equalization. They still have rich people, and they still have a dynamic, growing, private sector economy. They also have very low poverty and fminimal social problems. More total wealth does not mean a nation’s people are better off unless there is some reasonable sharing of that wealth.

      Maybe room B will have a “faster growing economy” by concentrating its wealth in its upper 20%. But if that faster growing economy only results in more wealth at the top, it still isn’t doing much for the other 80%. Room A, with slower growth and better distribution, still ends up getting further and further ahead socially.

      So no…it is not “silly stuff.” It goes straight to the heart of public economic and social policy, and highlights the core differences between Western Europe and the United States.

      On race….this seems much more your hangup than mine. Yes, blue collar whites who have lost economic ground for 3 decades resent efforts by the Democratic Party to boost the prospects for African Americans, from school busing to integrating ethnic neighborhoods to affirmative action. I grew up in such a family and have very direct experience with this. And yes, these “Reagan Democrats” have been ripe for the pickings by Republicans who don’t give a fig about these people’s economic prospects and never will. (Hillary is presently exploiting these same resentments by the way, but at least she does give a fig).

      So there is no “Reverend Wright issue.” There is a “Reverend Wright distraction.” We are not voting for Reverend Wright or his social and political agenda, whatever that may be. We may get a chance to vote for Senator Obama and his agenda. I remain hopeful about that.

      Your side will use the “Wright distraction” to avoid having an election about the failed policies of the past 8 years. Maybe that will work once again. But time is running out, and the newest generation of voters, which is strongly Democratic, strongly pro Senator Obama, and very non-racial in their outlook, is going to have the final word sooner or later. I’m glad I am with them rather than against them.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >So no…it is not “silly stuff.” It goes straight to the heart of public economic and social policy, and highlights the core differences between Western Europe and the United States.

    Of course it’s silly. Room A, room B, averages, whatever. The answer is you envy a country where the populace has an average income equal to Mississippi’s, most of the rest of us do not. That is intrinsically silly. Tell you what, try selling it, grab someone on the street:

    “Psst hey buddy, what would you do if I said I could make ya well off, I’m talking about really raising your standard of living, raising it to hmmmm….lets see….. how does raising your standard of living to that equal to the average in Mississippi sound to ya….real Donald Trump stuff huh? huh? whaddaya say bud?”

    How about this, run a candidate “I promise to raise everyone’s standard of living to the average of Mississippi”, our poorest state”

    You will be laughed at right in your face. Therefore….Silly.

    >On race….this seems much more your hangup than mine.

    Not really, You are the one who tends to racialize every situation. Just as you did with this one. You claimed Republicans were trying to make BO look like a scary black guy. I just call you on it because I have a low tolerance for racial hucksters, whether of the professional variety, Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, or the amateur variety, you. Your next point would be what?

    >So there is no “Reverend Wright issue.” There is a “Reverend Wright distraction.”

    No its not, the question is, should a man who hangs out with another man, who is a complete racist and doesn’t figure it out until 20 years later, when most of America can figure it out pretty quickly, have the judgment it takes to be president. You know it and I know it. You wont face it so you racialize.

    >But time is running out, and the newest generation of voters, which is strongly Democratic, strongly pro Senator Obama, and very non-racial in their outlook, is going to have the final word sooner or later.

    Dude, get the logic book, please, I mean if you find one you like Ill go halvsies on it with you ok? My gift to you.

    Look, you cant have a candidate that represents this new generation going to a church headed by a total racist and then go on to say they are non racist in their outlook. I guess they are non racist because the purported big candidate of this group apparently doesn’t recognize racism until everyone in America figures it out for him.

    • dean

      Okay Rupert…I give. Sweden is an impoverished, backward hell hole that ranks with Mississipi. I and the entire Democratic party are all secretly racists and to top it off I am illogical. Oh…and these darn kids today. What a bunch of idiots. They can’t even find the right candidate.

      Thanks for helping to clear things up. Later dude.

  • Pingback: click here for info()

  • Pingback: 1000 Instagram Followers for $2()

  • Pingback: 3000 Twitter Followers()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)