It really is about race.

[autigeremt 6,719]

Texas.....if it were to hit you in the face, you would swear it was nothing.

This thread is dead.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Go back to school and take a logic course-- you may have to start with the remedial one.

You present nothing that supports your conclusion.

So instead of engaging in a grown up discussion, you just go back to your old ways of talking down to people and suggesting that they are idiots.

Nice.

I think support for my original assertion is pretty clear.

I said that it IS about race.

Then I provide an article with this quote:

"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it," Williams said. "I can honestly say I have no idea who I'm going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that's incredible."

How is that not support for my claim? Pretty slam dunk if you ask me.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

So instead of engaging in a grown up discussion, you just go back to your old ways of talking down to people and suggesting that they are idiots.

And he had me believing I was the only "idiot".

[TexasTiger 13,053]

So instead of engaging in a grown up discussion, you just go back to your old ways of talking down to people and suggesting that they are idiots.

And he had me believing I was the only "idiot".

Nah, you're just first chair.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Go back to school and take a logic course-- you may have to start with the remedial one.

You present nothing that supports your conclusion.

So instead of engaging in a grown up discussion, you just go back to your old ways of talking down to people and suggesting that they are idiots.

Nice.

I think support for my original assertion is pretty clear.

I said that it IS about race.

Then I provide an article with this quote:

"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it," Williams said. "I can honestly say I have no idea who I'm going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that's incredible."

How is that not support for my claim? Pretty slam dunk if you ask me.

Take the remedial course, and hire a tutor.

Here's your "claim":

Yet when WHITE don't vote for the guy it's because WHITES are racists...not blacks.

You aren't allowed to have a moral compass or be convicted on issues...when you're voting against a black guy...you're a racist.

Where's your support for that?

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

So instead of engaging in a grown up discussion, you just go back to your old ways of talking down to people and suggesting that they are idiots.

And he had me believing I was the only "idiot".

Nah, you're just first chair.

Well, you are just a few years away from calling me Dr. Idiot then. I will care as much then as I do now.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Where's your support for that?

It's ONE of my claims. Why do you keep dodging the other one? You know the one you kept berating me about for the rest of the thread? The whole "where's the names" act you kept pulling?

I get you names, I get you quotes...and you move on to questioning my ability to comprehend.

My other claim is a pretty well founded one. It's been a topic discussed on pretty much every major news channel, newspaper etc.

If you listen to ANY talk radio it's there. I hear callers call in EVERY DAY suggesting that white people who don't vote for Obama are doing so because they are racist...and many of them can't articulate Obama's policies or what he stands for...yet they assume you should give up your own convictions and run out and vote for him...

Lest you be labled a racist.

Don't act like this is news.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Where's your support for that?

It's ONE of my claims.

It's how you chose to wrap up your own post. It was your conclusion. And it was your only claim on the post that I replied to about you needing remedial logic.

Why do you keep dodging the other one? You know the one you kept berating me about for the rest of the thread? The whole "where's the names" act you kept pulling?

You cite a third-rate "journalist" who is uncertain who he will vote for and you claim that's a slam dunk that a LOT of black Republican "leaders" are supporting Obama?

"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it," Williams said. "I can honestly say I have no idea who I'm going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that's incredible."

My other claim is a pretty well founded one. It's been a topic discussed on pretty much every major news channel, newspaper etc.

If you listen to ANY talk radio it's there. I hear callers call in EVERY DAY suggesting that white people who don't vote for Obama are doing so because they are racist..

The only folks more clueless than those who call in to talk radio to spout jibberish are those who listen to the jibberish and find it meaningful. Don't whine and play the victim merely because you don't choose to spend your time more fruitfully.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

So instead of engaging in a grown up discussion, you just go back to your old ways of talking down to people and suggesting that they are idiots.

And he had me believing I was the only "idiot".

Nah, you're just first chair.

Well, you are just a few years away from calling me Dr. Idiot then. I will care as much then as I do now.

Did I call you and idiot, or did I merely lead you to the logical conclusion that you were an idiot?

And he had me believing I was the only "idiot".

[AUTiger1 0]

Once again,

JC Watts

Armstrong Williams

Colin Powell

(All three have said they are seriously considering casting a vote for Obama.)

Joseph C Philips -Actor and Writer labels him self an "Obamacan".

John McWhorter-said he was for him.

I also believe that Edward Brooke said that we was considering giving his vote to Obama.

Just to name a few. Williams even said this:

"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it," Williams said. "I can honestly say I have no idea who I'm going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that's incredible."

What history is he talking about? Couldn't be the history that a black man is running for President as the Democratic nominee for the first time could it?

Now tell me how it's not about race? Please explain that one to me? If the history of having the first black man as the Democratic nominee is making him considering casting his vote for Obama pretty much says it all. If not then he would have had something to say about his policies is what is making him want to vote for him, not the history of it.

BG: I hear it on talk radio everyday as well. Spot on. Now if we could only work on your choice of teams

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Once again,

JC Watts

Armstrong Williams

Colin Powell

(All three have said they are seriously considering casting a vote for Obama.)

Joseph C Philips -Actor and Writer labels him self an "Obamacan".

John McWhorter-said he was for him.

I also believe that Edward Brooke said that we was considering giving his vote to Obama.

"Considering"...Heaven forbid that they "consider" whom to cast their vote for. Not "leaning"-- "considering."

What did Watt's say?

"I wouldn't just vote for a Republican candidate just because they are Republican, no more than I would vote for a black candidate just because they're black." For Watts it's not the historical nature of the race that leaves him undecided, it's frustration toward his own party. ]"African-American Republicans in the faith community are the most forgotten demographic in the Republican Party," Watts says. And he hopes the GOP will allot more resources toward attracting black voters.

Colin Powell is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action and disagrees with McCain on the war-- sounds to me like if votes for Obama, he'll be voting his convictions.

Edward Brooke served as a Republican back when I tended to prefer Republicans. He's more liberal than a lot of Democrats:

He was a member of the liberal wing of the Republican Party and organized the Senate's "Wednesday Club" of progressive Republicans who met for Wednesday lunches and strategy discussions. Brooke, who had supported New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller's bid for the 1968 G.O.P. Presidential nomination against Nixon's, often differed with President Richard Nixon on matters of social policy and civil rights.

By his second year in the Senate, Brooke had taken his place as a leading advocate against discrimination in housing and on behalf of affordable housing. With fellow Senate Banking Committee Member, Walter Mondale (D-MN), he co-authored the 1968 Fair Housing Act which President Johnson signed into law a week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 11, 1968. Dissatisfied with the weakened enforcement provisions that emerged from the legislative process, Brooke repeatedly proposed stronger provisions during his Senate career. In 1969, Congress enacted the "Brooke Amendment" to the federal publicly-assisted housing program which limited the tenants' out-of-pocket rent expenditure to 25% of his or her income. By the 1990s, the percentage had gradually increased, but the principle of limiting the housing 'burden' of very-low income renters survives in statute, as of 2008.

During the Nixon years, Brooke opposed repeated Administration attempts to close down the Legal Services Corporation, the Job Corps, the Office of Economic Opportunity and to weaken the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - all foundational elements of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

In 1969, Brooke was a leader of the bi-partisan coalition that defeated the Senate confirmation of the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, Clement F. Haynesworth, Jr. A few months later, he again organized sufficient Republican support to defeat Nixon's second Supreme Court nominee Harrold Carswell.

In 1970, the Senate adopted his resolution prohibiting tests of MIRV missiles.

Brooke was re-elected in 1972, defeating Democrat John J. Droney 62%-34%.

Before the first year of his second term ended, Brooke became the first Republican to call on President Nixon to resign, on November 4, 1973 shortly after the Watergate-related "Saturday night massacre". He had risen to become the Ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee and on two powerful Appropriations Committees, Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS) and Foreign Operations. From these positions, Brooke defended and strengthened the programs he identified with; for example, he was a leader in enactment of the Equal Credit Act which ensured married women a right to credit of their own.

In 1974, together with Indiana Senator Birch Bayh, he led the fight to retain Title IX of the 1972 Education Act which guarantees equal educational opportunity to girls and women.

In 1975, with the extension and expansion of the Voting Rights Act at stake, Brooke faced Senator John Stennis (D-MS) in "extended debate" and won the Senate's support for the extension.

In 1976, he also took on the role of champion for a woman's right to an abortion. The Appropriations bill for HHS became the battleground over this issue because it funds Medicaid. The foes of abortion rights fought, eventually successfully, to prohibit funding for abortions of low-income women insured by Medicaid. Brooke led the fight against restrictions in the Senate Appropriations Committee and in the House-Senate Conference until his defeat.

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

Williams is not a "leader", he's a hack.

McWhorter and Phillips? Who the hell are they?

Now tell me how it's not about race? Please explain that one to me?

For you guys, it's apparently all about race. You see some Black folks who have had Rs by their names at various points, and look no deeper than their skin color. You don't consider their positions on issues or their own frustrations with the Republican party that has nothing to do with Obama.

[BamaGrad03 0]

You don't consider their positions on issues

Uh, when a guy says "I don't agree with any of his policies...."

or their own frustrations with the Republican party that has nothing to do with Obama

Uh, the Republican party has had the same policies for a looooong time. Why were they defending said policies with great passion up until a few weeks ago when Obama won the primary?

[TexasTiger 13,053]

You don't consider their positions on issues

Uh, when a guy says "I don't agree with any of his policies...."

Who said that?

or their own frustrations with the Republican party that has nothing to do with Obama

Uh, the Republican party has had the same policies for a looooong time. Why were they defending said policies with great passion up until a few weeks ago when Obama won the primary?

J.C. Watts has been saying the same things for years. Colin Powell has had the same views on social issues for years. His view of the war began shifting long before Obama.

Did you even read about Brooke's history and views?

BG, I can give you facts, I can't make you absorb them.

You've grossly overstated again. The facts in the article you posted support my position more than yours. I know you're too hard-headed to see that simple truth.

[AUTiger1 0]

Whatever Tex, you just keep on believing that blacks out there aren't voting for Obama b/c of the color of his skin. Even those with an R beside their name. They are simply voting for the Obamessiah for his stance on the issues. Just keep on believing that race isn't a factor at all. To bad I am just a racist for even thinking that race has something to do with it, right?

If you truly don't believe that blacks aren't voting for Obama simply b/c he is black, and some feel like they have to vote for him b/c of that reason or be shunned by their own people if they don't....then you are the most naive person on this board.

Who said that?

Williams said that. Oh, yeah you think he is a hack. But you knew who said that, didn't you? How many columns do you write and how many radio shows do you host? How many book have you written? How many places are you syndicated and how many production companies do you own? Just b/c you don't agree with someone's politics or you don't like them doesn't mean that person doesn't have a following and influence.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Tex can instantly disqualify someone if they don't write for the Huffington post.

[CCTAU 3,351]

The original article pointed out the obvious to anyone who is even remotely intelligent. The guys in the article didn't have a problem voting republican the last few elections. Now that here is a viable half-black guy in the ticket, it becomes a more difficult choice? And some of you can't see that as a racist stance? It is what it is. Anyone who tries to justify it looks all the more blinded.

[autigeremt 6,719]

Pretty darn obvious to me.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Whatever Tex, you just keep on believing that blacks out there aren't voting for Obama b/c of the color of his skin. Even those with an R beside their name. They are simply voting for the Obamessiah for his stance on the issues. Just keep on believing that race isn't a factor at all. To bad I am just a racist for even thinking that race has something to do with it, right?

If you truly don't believe that blacks aren't voting for Obama simply b/c he is black, and some feel like they have to vote for him b/c of that reason or be shunned by their own people if they don't....then you are the most naive person on this board.

Who said that?

Williams said that. Oh, yeah you think he is a hack. But you knew who said that, didn't you? How many columns do you write and how many radio shows do you host? How many book have you written? How many places are you syndicated and how many production companies do you own? Just b/c you don't agree with someone's politics or you don't like them doesn't mean that person doesn't have a following and influence.

You, BG and CCTAU have a predetermined mindset and you try to make the facts fit into it, regardless of whether it is a natural fit or not. BG whines if you don't engage him seriously, and then he ignores thoughtful replies.

Armstrong Williams didn't say this:

"I don't agree with any of his policies...."

He said less definitively:

"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates

He further refutes what you say about him, i.e. he disagrees with you:

Many people watching and listening to my national TV and radio appearances this past week seem to have gotten the impression that any support for Obama from me — or any other black conservative, for that matter — is due solely to race. Unfortunately, they have misinterpreted my opinions if they somehow think there is a concrete Obama vote coming from me or that I believe the black community should all rally behind and vote for Obama because he is black.

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/06/20/allow-me-to-elaborate/

I said Williams was a hack, which AUT and BG take issue with.

In journalism, the term is used to describe a writer who is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles.

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

In January 2005, USA Today reported that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Williams had been paid $240,000 to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. Williams was hired "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same". [2]

As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004".[3] The contract with Williams was part of a $1 million contract between the U.S. Department of Education and the public relations company, Ketchum Inc.

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

He's a hack by definition and personal choice. It has nothing to do with my opinion of his writing or influence.

But let's look at his influence-- he's been a Republican commentator all his life. How many blacks vote Republican? The number is miniscule, regardless of who runs. Armstrong ain't impacting too many black folks.

Al Gore got 90% of the black vote. Now, the assumption is that Obama will get a greater percentage. That seems likely to me. People often vote for whom they like the most, regardless of their policy positions. That's why many Dems voted for Reagan and a significant number voted for Bush over Gore. Obama, so far, comes off as more likeable than McCain to most people. More people say in polls that he shares their values, and many more say that he "cares about people like me." That goes a long way to determining how people vote-- for many people more than policy positions.

So let's say Obama gets 95% of the black vote, compared to Gore's 90%-- how many of those additional 5% are hard-core, conservative Republicans? I doubt very many. The hard-core conservative blacks cited in the article say they aren't voting for him. More than likely, those folks will be non-affiliated, independent or moderate to liberal Republican voters who prefer Obama to McCain. Frankly, alot of white folks in those categories prefer Obama to McCain.

But you want to point to someone who has voted for white candidates all of his or her life and call them racists, because this time around they prefer the black candidate?

Okay, let's assume that a handful, and it can't possibly be more than a handful, because the numbers simply aren't that big, of conservative blacks who agree with McCain (although most hard-core conservatives say they don't really like McCain) vote for Obama because of race. This possibility outrages you.

And yet you are silent regarding the far greater number of whites who won't even consider voting for a black man. We know most blacks will vote for whites, because they do so year-in and-year-out. But polls show almost a quarter of whites ADMIT that they won't vote or probably won't vote for a black man.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...sure_of_friends

You rant and rave over this presumed racial influence over a handful of possible conservative blacks who routinely vote for white candidates as if that is the true racial problem in America. Please get a clue. Take a deep breath before reflexively responding (not you CCTAU, I know you can't help it) and digest these facts for a few minutes.

Racism is far more of a hurdle for Obama than it is a blessing. The challenge of overcoming racist white voters is far greater that whatever assistance he might get from a handful of Republican blacks who vote for him solely because of his race.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

Whatever Tex, you just keep on believing that blacks out there aren't voting for Obama b/c of the color of his skin. Even those with an R beside their name. They are simply voting for the Obamessiah for his stance on the issues. Just keep on believing that race isn't a factor at all. To bad I am just a racist for even thinking that race has something to do with it, right?

If you truly don't believe that blacks aren't voting for Obama simply b/c he is black, and some feel like they have to vote for him b/c of that reason or be shunned by their own people if they don't....then you are the most naive person on this board.

Who said that?

Williams said that. Oh, yeah you think he is a hack. But you knew who said that, didn't you? How many columns do you write and how many radio shows do you host? How many book have you written? How many places are you syndicated and how many production companies do you own? Just b/c you don't agree with someone's politics or you don't like them doesn't mean that person doesn't have a following and influence.

You, BG and CCTAU have a predetermined mindset and you try to make the facts fit into it, regardless of whether it is a natural fit or not. BG whines if you don't engage him seriously, and then he ignores thoughtful replies.

Armstrong Williams didn't say this:

"I don't agree with any of his policies...."

He said less definitively:

"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates

He further refutes what you say about him, i.e. he disagrees with you:

Many people watching and listening to my national TV and radio appearances this past week seem to have gotten the impression that any support for Obama from me — or any other black conservative, for that matter — is due solely to race. Unfortunately, they have misinterpreted my opinions if they somehow think there is a concrete Obama vote coming from me or that I believe the black community should all rally behind and vote for Obama because he is black.

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/06/20/allow-me-to-elaborate/

I said Williams was hack, which AUT and BG take issue with.

In journalism, the term is used to describe a writer who is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles.

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

In January 2005, USA Today reported that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Williams had been paid $240,000 to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. Williams was hired "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same". [2]

As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004".[3] The contract with Williams was part of a $1 million contract between the U.S. Department of Education and the public relations company, Ketchum Inc.

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

He's a hack by definition and personal choice. It has nothing to do with my opinion of his writing or influence.

But let's look at his influence-- he's been a Republican commentator all his life. How many blacks vote Republican? The number is miniscule, regardless of who runs. Armstrong ain't impacting too many black folks.

Al Gore got 90% of the black vote. Now, the assumption is that Obama will get a greater percentage. That seems likely to me. People often vote for whom they like the most, regardless of their policy positions. That's why many Dems voted for Reagan and a significant number voted for Bush over Gore. Obama, so far, comes of as more likeable than McCain to most people. More people say in polls that he shares their values, and many more say that he "cares about people like me." That goes a long way to determining how people vote-- for many people more than policy positions.

So let's say Obama gets 95% of the black vote, compared to Gore's 90%-- how many of those additional 5% are hard-core, conservative Republicans? I doubt very many. The hard-core conservative blacks cited in the article say they aren't voting for him. More than likely, those folks will be non-affiliated, independent or moderate to liberal Republican voters who prefer Obama to McCain. Frankly, alot of white folks in those categories prefer Obama to McCain.

But you want to point to someone who has voted for white candidates all of his or her life and call them racists, because this time around they prefer the black candidate?

Okay, let's assume that a handful, and it can't possibly be more than a handful, because the numbers simply aren't that big, of conservative blacks who agree with McCain (although most hard-core conservatives say they don't really like McCain) vote for Obama because of race. This possibility outrages you.

And yet you are silent regarding the far greater number of whites who won't even consider voting for a black man. We know most blacks will vote for whites, because they do so year in and year out. But polls show almost a quarter of whites ADMIT that they won't vote or probably won't vote for a black man.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...sure_of_friends

You rant and rave over this presumed racial influence over a handful of possible conservative blacks who routinely vote for white candidates as if that is the true racial problem in America. Please get a clue. Take a deep breath before reflexively responding (not you CCTAU, I know you can't help it) and digest these facts for a few minutes.

Racism is far more of a hurdle for Obama than it is a blessing. The challenge of overcoming racist white voters is far greater that whatever assistance he might get from a handful of Republican blacks who vote for him solely because of his race.

Nice to see you dropped the whole AA thing. It proves people can grow and learn.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

It proves people can grow and learn.

Some can.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

It proves people can grow and learn.

Some can.

I just said that. Are you taking steps backwards again??

[TexasTiger 13,053]

It proves people can grow and learn.

Some can.

I just said that. Are you taking steps backwards again??

Clarifying.

[Tigermike 3,063]

It proves people can grow and learn.

Some can.

I just said that. Are you taking steps backwards again??

Clarifying.

OK, here link

[AUTiger1 0]

You, BG and CCTAU have a predetermined mindset and you try to make the facts fit into it, regardless of whether it is a natural fit or not. BG whines if you don't engage him seriously, and then he ignores thoughtful replies.

Armstrong Williams didn't say this:

"I don't agree with any of his policies...."

He said less definitively:

"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates

He further refutes what you say about him, i.e. he disagrees with you:

Many people watching and listening to my national TV and radio appearances this past week seem to have gotten the impression that any support for Obama from me — or any other black conservative, for that matter — is due solely to race. Unfortunately, they have misinterpreted my opinions if they somehow think there is a concrete Obama vote coming from me or that I believe the black community should all rally behind and vote for Obama because he is black.

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/06/20/allow-me-to-elaborate/

Williams should have chose his words more carefully then b/c this:

but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it," Williams said. "I can honestly say I have no idea who I'm going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that's incredible."

says to me that b/c of the history that a black man is the Democratic Party's nominee then I am thinking about voting for him just b/c of the historic nature of the event.

I said Williams was a hack, which AUT and BG take issue with.

In journalism, the term is used to describe a writer who is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles.

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

In January 2005, USA Today reported that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Williams had been paid $240,000 to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. Williams was hired "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same". [2]

As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004".[3] The contract with Williams was part of a $1 million contract between the U.S. Department of Education and the public relations company, Ketchum Inc.

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

He's a hack by definition and personal choice. It has nothing to do with my opinion of his writing or influence.

I also know in journalism that hack also means: a mediocre or disdained writer. I don't think Williams to be unworthy, undeserving or looked at with scorn. You said that you meant hack as in "a horse for hire". Then we were crossed on what you meant.

But let's look at his influence-- he's been a Republican commentator all his life. How many blacks vote Republican? The number is miniscule, regardless of who runs. Armstrong ain't impacting too many black folks.

Al Gore got 90% of the black vote. Now, the assumption is that Obama will get a greater percentage. That seems likely to me. People often vote for whom they like the most, regardless of their policy positions. That's why many Dems voted for Reagan and a significant number voted for Bush over Gore. Obama, so far, comes off as more likeable than McCain to most people. More people say in polls that he shares their values, and many more say that he "cares about people like me." That goes a long way to determining how people vote-- for many people more than policy positions.

So let's say Obama gets 95% of the black vote, compared to Gore's 90%-- how many of those additional 5% are hard-core, conservative Republicans? I doubt very many. The hard-core conservative blacks cited in the article say they aren't voting for him. More than likely, those folks will be non-affiliated, independent or moderate to liberal Republican voters who prefer Obama to McCain. Frankly, alot of white folks in those categories prefer Obama to McCain.

But you want to point to someone who has voted for white candidates all of his or her life and call them racists, because this time around they prefer the black candidate?

Okay, let's assume that a handful, and it can't possibly be more than a handful, because the numbers simply aren't that big, of conservative blacks who agree with McCain (although most hard-core conservatives say they don't really like McCain) vote for Obama because of race. This possibility outrages you.

And yet you are silent regarding the far greater number of whites who won't even consider voting for a black man. We know most blacks will vote for whites, because they do so year-in and-year-out. But polls show almost a quarter of whites ADMIT that they won't vote or probably won't vote for a black man.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...sure_of_friends

You rant and rave over this presumed racial influence over a handful of possible conservative blacks who routinely vote for white candidates as if that is the true racial problem in America. Please get a clue. Take a deep breath before reflexively responding (not you CCTAU, I know you can't help it) and digest these facts for a few minutes.

Racism is far more of a hurdle for Obama than it is a blessing. The challenge of overcoming racist white voters is far greater that whatever assistance he might get from a handful of Republican blacks who vote for him solely because of his race.

You are correct, the Democrats do get 90% of the black vote. That is the party they align with. They even went as far as to say that Slick Willie was the "First Black President".

But what is Hillary? She is a white female. What party does she belong to? Democratic Party. Why was it then in the primaries that Obama was carrying 90% of the black vote in the primaries if it was not his race? I have a hard time believing that him carrying that much of the black vote in the primaries had nothing to do with the color of his skin.

When I walked in the Senior Center (where I vote in my area of town) and I hear this "It's about time we got a brother who can win to run for President" and then his friend chimes in with "word bro" I have a hard time believing that they voted for Obama simply b/c of his stances. That is what I have witnessed and I noticed that several black people had the Obama stickers on their cars before the primaries were close to being over. That is why I say that blacks are voting for him based on the color of his skin. Not that they wouldn't in the general election. I don't expect the Republican party to carry the black vote in the general election. But in ending (we will just have to agree to disagree about this point, if you are willing) to vote for someone soley based on the color of their skin is wrong and to me is a little racist. Even the white people that will vote for McCain just b/c he is white and yes I know a few who will. I have told them that they are wrong on this. You vote for someone based on their character and policies. You and me just happen to disagree on policies.

Have a wonderful 4th btw!

[autigeremt 6,719]

WE are all Americans. ONly those who were born in Africa, Iraq, China, etc. should be considered of that nationality. The rest of us are Americans ONLY! The sooner the people of this nation discover that, the better off we will be.