Sigh.

The majority of black voters in McKinney's district appear once again prepared to allow race to trump anything else she does. They have, it seems, willingly drank the kool-aid she prepared. It isn't her they're overly fond of, remember that she lost a race that contained parts of the same district, falling to at least relatively more sane black female candidate by 16 percentage points. Denise Majette then abandoned the seat to take an ill-advised run at the Senate, which saw her lose by the same 58-42 margin. That opened the door for McKinney's return, elected by many of the same voters who had previously rejected her. She's electable because she's an angry black female, which is what an adequate number of voters in her district identify with, an identification which trumps her being an utter & complete idiot. "She may be an idiot, but she's our idiot" sums it up pretty well IMO.

There have almost certainly been white politicians in other areas elected on the same basis, but that doesn't change the fact that McKinney's electability is also enhanced by her race.

To be fair to black voters, their leadership tends to make their lives very uncomfortable when they don't vote the "properly". They are called sell-outs and Uncle Tom's. It's the most effective form of intimidation I've seen in the US, and the 85%+ turnouts by blacks to vote Democrat really haven't been rivaled by any other party this side of the Ba'ath Party.

So don't blame the average black voter, blame their leadership.

i think congress would be more amusing if we had more angry black females

Funny you should mention that, since McKinney's camp is notorious for it, not only toward black voters but toward anyone they perceive that "should be" for them but aren't.

Examples from the campaign against Majette included "On the night before the primary election, McKinney's father stated on Atlanta television that "Jews have bought everyone" in the election. She also reportedly called Majette a "Tomette" (a female version of an Uncle Tom)." And more recently they feuded publically with several gay rights groups in Atlanta, threatening to withdraw support from any measures concerning them in retaliation for their support for Majette.

No, your first quote was:


Nice try, and an obvious example of what I described your favorite tactic as being: twisting words around to make them say something else.

I don't know - good ol' boys like you are pretty solid in their voting patterns as well. Heck, 50 years ago, you'd have been a perfect dixiecrat.

That doesn't logically follow.

I really don't know enough about her to make any kind of judgement on her.

Reading up a bit on McKinney back when this story first broke, I can't say that I'm surprised.

That was my impression - especially the "She may be an idiot, but she's our idiot" line. Now, I don't know enough about the specifics of Georgia politics, but is this a case where due to redistricting that McKinney is the only option for black voters ? Just scanning wikipedia, she seems to be the sole black delegate from Georgia (scanned Majette's record btw - looks a little more impressive that McKinney's :D ) - so at some level, ( given Georgia is what, 30% African American population) is this a case of we only have "one" black hope, and its better McKinney than no racial representation in the Congress whatsoever ?

Except I'm in the military, dumbass, not actually from the place you make your geopolitical stereotype. ;)

Woops - just saw Sanford Bishop. My question still stands fwiw.

Shit, so you're immune from being a homophobic jackass ? Not quite.

I hate to break it to you, but what I said is exactly what JiMG meant to say. He says that black people will vote for offensive idiots because they are black and taht race trumps everything. So...I was right. Now I'm the bad guy?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is a racist comment. Every group, all else being equal, votes for a member of its own. That's just common sense. More blacks vote democratic because they share the same issues. And every group pressures its members into voting with the interests of the group: Union, Wall Street, whatever. Look at Dutch even, he compares black people to the Baath party.

haha, you lose again. :)

Now Dutch is a class A dumbass, but he didn't compare black people to the Baath - he suggested that the black leadership was akin to the Baath - a cute trick, but that is what he said.

I'm going to have to disagree. He said:
Clearly he is blaming the whole thing on the 'leadership', but he is definitely here comparing the black demographic to the Baath party.

So, JiMGA is still a racist, even though you admit that what he said is generally true, even 'common sense'.

Wow, now Crapshoot and Mr Bigglesworth can't figure out how extreme they should be. Maybe ya'll should take this to PM and then get back to me. :)

No what Mr Bigglesworth said was that Mr Bigglesworth isn't racist, so long as all blacks vote for his folks.

Hey - defending your brand of stupidity isn't an easy task for anyone. ;)

No, maybe I wasn't being clear. All else being equal, someone is more likely to vote for someone they perceive as part of their group, but to see that and claim that 'race trumps everything for the blacks' is racism, because that it just not true. Black people will vote for black people, the same that JiMG and I will vote for white people, all else being equal.

It's tough work, no doubt. Take a break and have a mineral water. :)

Umm, not sure what you were looking at but ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Bishop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_(politician)
http://davidscott.house.gov/
(edit to add - the wiki entry for David Scott is pretty sparse & the primary search on his name brings up some astronaut)

And that doesn't mention Jim Marshall, a white (D) who represents the area around Macon which has one of the highest concentrations of black voters outside of metro Atlanta and has defended against several black challengers through the years, the counterpart of how Sanford Bishop won in a majority white district by defeating a black (R) candidate.

sorry - fixed that in my post right after that - didn't see those names initially. :D

Still wrong. He said the black people in this particular district did that. Not all black people everywhere as you are trying to claim. The direct quote:


You keep leaving out the parts where he specifically calls out this particular group / region. It happens elsewhere as well (Marion Barry, or the political power wielded by Farrakhan), also happens in the white community (David Duke), but in no case has anyone but you tried to paint a broad brush over race in general.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. If the south still wants to secede, please let them.

All else is never equal. Not in politics, not in job searches, not in love and not in war.

I simply refuse to accept racism as anything more than ugly behavior, and it should not be rewarded. The concept that you should only vote your skin color is straight out of the KKK handbook.

McKinney disgusts me. And if the people of Georgia can't see past the color of her skin and keep re-electing her, it's just one wasted seat in Congress.

I am so tired of people who spend all their time trying to divide us. Ever hear the phrase, "divide and conquer?" Well, this is how you conquer a stupid population. Get them thinking about trivial differences and fighting each other.

One of the fonder memories I have of voting (not that I have all that many) is voting for Majette over McKinney in the primaries, and being lumped into the group of Republicans who "crossed over" to vote her out.

I am reminded of your "rural vs. urban" diatribes of a few weeks ago....

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Someone asked who would vote for someone crazy or something (I forget the actual wording), JiMG, in so many words, said: "black people". I'm not the one that generalized that, if he had wanted to be specific there he would have said, "the people of her district", but he said, "check the demographics". That's a clear cut racist statement. Let's just admit that and move on, it's not the dumbest thing he has ever said. No need to try and defend it because you like him or hate me.

I think you are fighting a war on straw. It's not that people ONLY vote their skin color, that's obviously false. It's that people are more likely to vote for someone of their skin color. And that isn't necessarily racism, it's just that people vote for people they identify with and it's just a fact of human psychology that people idenify with people that are like them, whether it is race, religion, hair color, whatever.

Umm ... Biggly ... that's what I said, which seemed to be what upset you in the first place.

Unless they are white people. Then it's racist.

Somehow Johnny Boy I doubt that if someone asked how a corrupt Delay kept getting re-elected, that you would point out the fact that it was because of all the white people in Sugarland. So is McKinney the only black person in the county willing to run for office? No. Actually, her opponent in the last election was Catherine Davis who also is a black woman.

Mr. B, just curious, but I'm wondering why you waited nearly 2 weeks to decide to come trolling about this? It's almost like you were bored, so you decided to try to get Jon worked up over a conversation that ended 12 days ago. You should think about getting a hobby.

His fresh batch of mail-order crazy pills arrived just this morning. Coincidence? I think not.

Uh duckman, it's you here that is fitting the definition of a troll. My posts are all talking about McKinney and devoid of personal attacks, while yours here is completely off topic and full of personal attacks.

As to your question, check my post history for a clue. You'll find that my last 5 (six now!) are all in this thread, separated by 12 days, with posts almost every other day before that. Hmmmm....what could possibly be the explanation?!

I liked you better when you actually tried to have a conversation. For the past couple of months you've just been trying to be funny...and it doesn't work.

This coming from you, jackass ?

somebody please move this thread to sportsdigs.com

Calling you out about starting shit from out of the blue and I'm a troll? That's some funny shit there, homecheese. And devoid of personal attack?


What was that again? :rolleyes:

On the subject of your post history, I don't personally give a shit that you were gone for 12 days. It must have a miserable experience for you to do whatever you were doing for that time and couldn't get that final word in. Again, you really think about taking up some kind of hobby.

And you keep trying to be an assclown, heh, at least you're having better luck.

My response was directed towards Mr Bigglesworth's favorite line.

Lighten up, Francis. ;)

:)

duckman, I think you need to look up in the dictionary what a personal attack is, because I don't think you know what one is. Secondly, I think you need to look up the phrase, 'out of the blue', because it also does not mean what you think it means (since you seem to think that I came 'out of the blue' for responding to someone's post directed at me, while you did not for jumping into a thread you were not involved in just to personally attack someone). Thirdly, you are the one that brought up my posting habits by asking me why I posted 12 days later, so when I respond to your question it's bad form to say you don't 'give a shit' about it. If you didn't 'give a shit', you shouldn't have asked about it.

Duckman, I'm sorry if I kicked your dog or slept with your wife or did whatever to get you pissed at me. I apologize. You can stop with the repeated trolling out of the blue.

And I think that....if Jesse Ewiak were here today....he would advise...that you don't mention that all your posts have been in a political thread.

And I think that....if Franklinnoble were here today....he would mention....that this thread was on sportsdigs two weeks ago.

I was going to mention this, but I was afraid biggles would call me a troll. He likes calling people "troll", I've noticed.

Well played, sir. ;)

I was away for a number of days, logged back on, clicked my User CP, responded to comments that were MADE TO ME, and called a troll for it by someone with no other purpose in the thread than to come in and inflame things and make personal attacks. Tell me st.cronin, who is the troll here?

Hold up! So no one is allowed to call you out on anything? IMO, you were being a troll for 1) bringing up a long dead conversation and 2) calling someone a racist in the same post. Now, you are going to use the "I was saying his comments were racist, not him," but that doesn't fly with me. You are what you do. If you think he made a racist comment then you think he is a racist. Personally, whether Jon is a racist or not is purely unimportant. What is important is that you made a personal attack against him.

duckman, you are too funny. Look at the amazing Kreskin, who knows my argument before I make it! How does he know? From the PM exchange we already had on this topic that I initiated so this stupid debate wouldn't be in public:
There were several personal attacks in this thread, I think the worst I said was that Dutch isn't funny. As for me saying JiMG's statement was racist, when you call the tune...

So anyways.....

A new InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll for the Democratic primary runoff in Georgia’s 4th Congressional district shows challenger Hank Johnson maintaining his lead over incumbent U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney by a full 15 percentage points as the runoff election looms closer.

McKinney’s totals moved up from the last poll late last week, but she still sat well behind former DeKalb County Commissioner Johnson.

Hank Johnson – 49 percent
Cynthia McKinney – 34 percent
Undecided – 17 percent.

The tracking survey of 300 likely voters was conducted the evening of July 31, and has a margin of error of plus or minus six percent.

“There has been some shift in African American voters in McKinney’s direction,” said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery. “However, the black vote remains split with local black leaders endorsing Johnson, who is trouncing McKinney among eligible white voters.”

The winner of the August 8 runoff election will go on to face Republican challenger Catherine Davis in the November general election.

Now that this idiot no longer represents me, I find this to be decidely bad news. :(

I'm heading up a project at work on an oral history of my association and our local industry, and one of the people we just interviewed was a guy who served in Congress for 18 years. We asked him what he thought about the current political climate and he said it just made him sick -- he said back in the day the Republicans and Democrats (he's a Republican) would argue during the course of their job, but at the end of the day almost everybody were friends regardless of politics. He said that's no longer the case, with everyone so focused on winning at all costs and being completely unable to recognize that someone in the other party might have good idea.

This was a true sentiment up here when Kwame Kilpatrick looked all but dead against Freeman Hendrix in his attempt to get re-elected mayor of Detroit. In the end, Kilpatrick still won. I would not be terribly surprised if a similar shift occurs to McKinney. Never underestimate how significant race will factor in, especially if it looks like whites have endorsed a candidate. Up here, obviously in the mayor's race, whites could not really make much of a difference considering the city is overwhelmingly black, but the perception that Hendrix was being favored by suburban whites seemed at least to allow a large chunk of Detroit voters to forgive Kilpatrick for all the shenanigans that went on during his first term and re-elect him.

Why ? Or am I missing the sarcasm ? Isn't getting her out of office a good thing for all parties concerned ?

The difference is that McKinney's district doesn't have a heavy majority either way.

Not neccesarily. In Congress, she provides entertainment. I'd rather have her there than in the private sector.

Actually, no. It is better if we have an ineffective sideshow to be the "face" of the left, rather than having a potentially-effective liberal in office. We KNOW that Cynthia will be ineffective, and an embarrassment to the left. That would be far better for the country.

Haha, the "face" of the left. Hilarious.

Because the right has done such a good job, of course.

That's true, but it could explain why McKinney's getting a late shift in her favor.

I always thought it was a face only a mother could love.

Na na, na na na na, Hey Hey Hey ...

with 98% of precincts reporting
Johnson 41,178 58.8%
McKinney 28,832 41.2%

Bye bye.

Did Leiberman get hosed too?

Good, old fashioned butt kicking. Love it.

Lieberman also lost, though it was close. He's now going to run as an independent, though several prominent democrats (starting with the other CT Senator - Christopher Dodd) are trying to talk him out of it.

If he doesn't run as an independent, I've got $20 that says Bush finds a place for him for the final 2 years of his administration.

Speaking of this stuff,
Dutch's hero (Mr Tom Delay) announced that despite a judicial ruling saying that he cannot be replaced on the ballot, he is not going to run - the GOP is likely to support a write-in candidate to oppose the Democrat. Just off the top of my head - that is likely to serve as a huge disadvantage, IMO.

Lieberman is proof that if you stand up for what you believe is best and dont flip flop with the poles you will get voted out. and we wonder why all politicians are pole driven hypocrites, we wont vote for them if thier not.

No, Lieberman tried to play that game as well, and lost:

Joe Lieberman 8/6/2006:

What I will say is this: I not only respect your right to disagree or question the President, I value it. I was part of the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, so I don't need to be lectured by Ned Lamont about the place of dissent in our democracy.

Joe Lieberman 12/2005:

It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.



Joe Lieberman 8/6/2006:

The fact is, I have openly and clearly disagreed with and criticized the President* for, among other things . . . not having a plan to win the peace

Joe Lieberman 12/2005:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes, we do. And it's important to make clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still, but has changed over the years.



Joe Lieberman 8/6/2006:

I said that if I were President, I would ask Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. I first said that in October 2003.*

Joe Lieberman 5/2004:

[i]t is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. . . . Secretary Rumsfeld's removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq.



*Both said once, and said while running to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee.


Don't kid yourself, Lieberman's just as much a flip-flopper as anyone else out there.

So has she asked for a recount yet? Or was she too busy punching poll workers?

voting irregularities. sigh.

Actually, she (so far) has stopped short of demanding a recount but was crying about mysterious "irregularities" as early as 2pm Tuesday.

However, one of her bodyguards is being investigated for possible assault of a local TV cameraman. This same bodyguard (who one article cites as being 67 years old) was involved in a similar incident with a different station's reporter who attempted to question McKinney in DC following the police officer slapping.
Perhaps not so coincidentally, McKinney took great pains last night to blame the media for her loss.

All politics aside, if I'm 67 years old and capable of being a bodyguard - well, things are going well. :D

I kinda had the same thought. I first heard the story on radio this afternoon & it didn't mention his age, but a short blurb on ajc.com mentioned it so I'm not sure whether it's accurate or a typo or what.

You're so full of shit, crapshoot. I challenge you to find one time where I have ever mentioned Mr Tom Delay in glowing fashion, much less....ever.

Apparently, her camp was too busy blaming Jews and shouting anti-Semitic comments. That is interesting, to say the least. Oh, they also threw in the obligatory, "now you got your Uncle Tom" comment.

That's ok for them to do that then?

You have to ask?

Either that, or proof that you shouldn't call your constituents terrorist sympathizers if they don't vote for you. One of those.

If you change your position based on shifting public sentiment, that is flip flopping on the poles. If you refuse to change course and fail to face the reality that your policy is failing despire the obvious facts on the ground, and call anyone who critizes your failed policy as helping out the terrorists, that's not standing up for what you believe, that is cowardice and arrogance.

Lieberman's loss and national Democratic frustration was not just because of his stance on the war. There are a number of Democratic hawks, including presidential candidates Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, that are not being 'purged'.

Vote 182: S 2766: This amendment called on the president to withdraw troops from Iraq, but set no firm deadline.

The following Dems voted No on this one:

Mark Dayton, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson and Mark Pryor

Of those, Mark Dayton, Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Bill Nelson have terms that end in 2007, leaving them vulnerable to immediate backlash.

Your “hawkish” call on Clinton and Biden is not supported by their vote on this bill as they voted with their party, Yes for the pull out. That vote separates them from Lieberman and the others that voted No for the pull out. The Republican party supported a No vote and the Democratic party supported a Yes vote.

Clinton’s term is up in 2007 and Biden’s is up in 2009. The only current session votes where Clinton did not stand in line lock step with her party is regarding the Gulf of Mexico energy security act. A bill to enhance the energy independence and security of the United States by providing for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources in the Gulf of Mexico Their were actually 18 democrats that voted with the Republicans on that bill. Lieberman did not vote.

Biden deviated from his party on two major issues. One Offered tax breaks and incentives in what supporters said was an effort to spur oil and gas companies to provide innovative ways to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution. And the other Made it harder for people to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy.

Lieberman deviated from his party on the following The amendment which called on the president to withdraw troops from Iraq, but set no firm deadline. And a bill which Sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts.

Of the others who deviated on the Iraq pull out vote:

Mark Dayton is not returning and Democrat Amy Klobuchar is running as the Dems choice against Republican Mark Kennedy.

Ben Nelson is running for re-election in Nebraska a state that Bush carried with 66%. Nelson runs as centrist and claims to be an independent minded guy. Also, Dems probably know they need a centrist to win in Nebraska, so they are leaving Ben alone for now.

Bill Nelson is running in Florida and is trending to win over Republican Katherine Harris. The Dems won’t oust Nelson because Florida is not a sure thing and changing horses could just as likely lose a seat.

Lieberman was targeted because the Dems know a radical liberal can easily take Connecticut. Basically a Republican is not taking Connecticut. If the Dems thought the people in Nebraska and Florida were upset in the form of voting backlash, they would go after Ben Nelson and Bill Nelson too.

If you think that the war issue is as simple as a vote on whether or not to eventually withdraw troops, you are very mistaken. I doubt that more than a quarter of the voters in CT even know what Lieberman voted for on that issue.

If you think either Nelson would be fought against in a primary the same way as Lieberman, you are wrong. The issues with Lieberman are much more than just a Nay vote on whether to pull the troops out. And besides, primary challenges inolving incumbent moderates aren't that big of a deal. Specter barely won his primary here in PA two years ago against the highly conservative Toomey, now the head of the Club for Growth, and moderate R Lincoln Chafee is neck and neck with the conservative Laffey in the RI primary that is in September.

Is Mel Gibson her campaign manager? Didn't know that there was a large enough Jewish population in that district to swing the vote over to good 'ol Uncle Tom. ;)

I love how politicians will blame everyone and everything else for losing, but, will never blame themselves.

This chick needs an MRI of her brain, something tells me there will be more blue and green areas than red and yellow.

No Mel was pretty busy profusely opoligizing and trying to look as pathetic as possible.

But it is amazing that a congressperson's troupe was shouting comments that were worse than Gibson's and it got almost no press. The video footage I saw was pretty much two different guys making the statements but McKinney was right next to them and did not show any reaction or attempt to distance herself from the comments.

On behalf of my friends in Poland, I resent this.

Maybe because that's pretty much the monologue that her dad has been screaming about consistently since she lost the first time around.

Well, that and his whole bit about how "it's was also the gays fault because they abandoned us, so we're going to abandon them this time now that we're back in control"

Oopsie. Guess that payback kinda got short-circuited at the polls.

It's silly to pretend there's not a double standard in this country. Minorities are allowed to be racist, white people aren't.

Ah, so true, Mel and his spin doctors trying to heal the wounds.....

McKinney is a wack job no doubt and in my opinion by not distancing herself from those comments, she is just as guilty as if she had said them herself. But, then again, I guess you don't have to worry about making comments like that if the people you are talking about are not your constituents.

That one didn't get a lot of play in the national media (surprise). For those of y'all that don't know it, this particular lunatic came by it naturally. We alluded to it earlier, but perhaps I should clarify what Jon and I are talking about here. Her deranged daddy attributed her loss in '92 to the fact that "Jews have bought everybody. Jews." Then, presumably just in case the reporter didn't understand who he was talking about, ol' Billy added, "J-E-W-S."

Although if you picture him wearing a cheerleading costume while saying it, the whole thing becomes rather funny. Disturbing ... but funny. ;)

1992? I thought it was 2002....

Wow, spelling it out like Toni Basil even. And Georgia isn't even a particularly Jewish state, having approximately half as many Jews as the national average.

My bad. I must have been thinking about "The Chronic." 2002.

Stevew: I'd hazard a guess that, between Dunwoody and the Decatur/Emory/Lavista corridor, Cynthia's former District (not the whole state) has more Jews than the national average.

LOL



Don't let the door hit you, where the good lord split you.

Bigglesworth, is this you?

http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_ci...rval1107p5.asp

And here...

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionst...rvalreg5p5.asp

Looks like she is going to run for president under the Green Party banner...

hxxp://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=879CD9B5-8FF1-4AAC-B2CC-C73A044FEBFE

...this is the funniest news ever.