Just How Racist is Pat Buchanan?

I was mortified when I read this:

—–

March 21, 2008

A Brief For Whitey

By Patrick Buchanan

How would he pull it off? I wondered.

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about “the U.S. of K.K.K. America,” and howled, “God damn America!”

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s statements were “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,” reflecting a “distorted view of America.”

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The “white community,” said Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”

Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.  

MD-01: Poll Shows Race Is Close

This is hot off the presses. A new poll of the MD-01 race shows Democrat Frank Kratovil is withing strking distance of his Republican opponent, Andy Harris, who beat Wayne Gilcrest in a primary back in February.

As Democrats reassess their chances in once-safe Republican districts after their successes in a series of special elections this spring, one place they may take a closer look at is Maryland’s Eastern Shore-based 1st district.

In that race, Queen Anne’s County State’s Attorney Frank Kratovil (D) has pulled within single digits of state Sen. Andy Harris (R), according to a month-old Democratic poll obtained by Roll Call today.

The Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group poll of 400 likely voters gave Harris 43 percent of the vote and Kratovil 34 percent, with 23 percent undecided. The poll was conducted April 23-24 and had a 5-point margin of error.

The numbers got even tighter among voters who were familiar with the backgrounds of both candidates.

I’m still digesting this, so I will have more to say on the thread later.

NY-13: Savino “Won’t Likely” Run

Things are moving VERY rapidly in the NY-13 since Fossella’s annoucement that he is not running for re-election. It was reported earlier than Mike Cusick and Mike McMahon are looking at the race and today also comes word that Diane Savino will not likely get in.

Van Hollen and his lieutenant at the DCCC, Rep. Steve Israel (D-L.I.) spoke with four Democrats either already running or considering jumping into the race, including Staten Island Assemblyman Mike Cusick, Staten Island Councilman Mike McMahon, Brooklyn Councilman Domenic Recchia and 2006 candidate Steve Harrison. Another Democrat whose name had been mentioned, State Sen. Diane Savino, has indicated to party officials she likely won’t jump into the crowded field.

Cusick, McMahon and Recchia are also holding private talks among themselves. “The discussions are about what will take to win and who would be the best candidate who can win in November,” a well-placed source tells The Mouth.

I am happy to see that there is so is so much coordination on our side so as to avoid a costly primary. Hopefully we’ll have our guy soon.

MS-01: Which Is It?

Stuart Rothenberg, May 19, 2008:

According to a post-primary survey by Anzalone-Liszt Research, which polled for Childers (and Democrat Don Cazayoux, who won the special election recently in Louisiana’s 6th district), Davis came out of the GOP primary runoff with a 65 percent favorable and 10 percent unfavorable rating among self-identified Republicans, and leading Childers 73 percent to 13 percent among Republicans.

In the last Democratic survey before Tuesday’s special election, Davis had a 71 percent favorable and 13 percent unfavorable rating among Republicans and held a 71 percent to 17 percent lead among GOP voters.

Stuart Rothenberg, May 21, 2008:

And in Mississippi, Republican Greg Davis’ high personal negatives, combined with Childers’ ideology and personal appeal made the Democrat a safe choice for swing voters.

I suppose we could engage in some hair-splitting and say that Rothenberg was only talking about Republicans in that first excerpt. But really, in that piece, Rothenberg went out of his way to say that the GOP lost because “Republicans nominated a candidate from the wrong part of the district.” He also argued that “[p]olling in the district showed Bush’s ‘favorables’ well above 50 percent….”

If, three days ago, Davis had high favorables with Republicans, if Bush had high overall favorables in the district, and if Davis lost because he was from South Memphis rather than the “right” part of the district, how are we to believe that now, Davis lost because of his “high personal negatives”?

The contradictions don’t end there, though. From the first piece:

Democratic pollster Anzalone minced no words when he told me, Louisiana’s 6th and Mississippi’s 1st “are not referenda on Bush and Republicans in Congress.”

From the second piece:

Special elections often produce odd results when an unpopular president sits in the White House. They offer voters an opportunity to send a message. And swing voters and conservative Democrats surely did.

It’s like Rothenberg is trying to simultaneously argue and debunk every claim made about this election all at once. This bit, though, made me laugh:

Nor does the Mississippi 1st district result mean that “there is no district that is safe for Republican candidates,” as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen said recently. That’s just silly hyperbole and something the Maryland Democrat undoubtedly will be embarrassed to have said.

Stuart Rothenberg seems to be forgetting that campaign committee chairs engage in a little thing called “pr” every day of the week that ends in “y.” I predict Van Hollen will be no more embarrassed about those remarks than Rothenberg will ever be about writing these two highly contradictory columns.

San Diego mayor: Francis stalls

There’s a interesting mayor’s race going on in San Diego.  Jerry Sanders is the incumbent with some ethical issues.  Steve Francis is running as the outsider using only his own money.  Both are Republicans.

Francis had been gaining ground until the latest SUSA poll: (5/1 in parentheses)

Sanders  42% (40)

Francis  35% (36)

There are a few minor candidates on the ballot.

This looks it’s going to a runoff.  Now San Diego hasn’t had a Democratic mayor since ___.

And both candidates are getting really nasty with attack ads.

Despite a nearly even split in partisan registratinon in the city, the GOP has dominated local politics.  It’s a shame a Democrat can’t step up to the plate.  Then there could be some real change.

I think the problem is because of the libertarian

bent of the area, and among large cities in America, immigration is a hot button here.

Any thoughts?

VA-11: Internal Byrne Poll Shows a Tight Race

Pollster Unknown for Leslie Byrne:

Gerry Connolly (D): 37

Leslie Byrne (D): 34

(MoE: ±4.9%)

The last two internal polls released from Connolly’s camp in January and March showed him leading Byrne by 20 points.

The only other poll released by the Byrne campaign, also from January, had Byrne up by ten.  So it’s sort of curious that Byrne’s campaign is claiming to have the momentum:

“With 20 days to go it’s an absolute dead heat,” said Byrne campaign manager Joe Fox. “Leslie Byrne has momentum and is in position to win this primary.”

When asked about the fact that Byrne’s apparent lead has actually shrunk since the campaign’s last poll in January, Fox said: “Voters pay attention at different times. These numbers are fluid from one month to the next. But the bottom line is there are less than three weeks left and it’s a dead heat.”

It’s hard to say who really has the upper hand here, if anyone.  However, it’s worth noting that Connolly picked up the endorsement of Gov. Tim Kaine yesterday.

Primary: June 10th

OR-Sen: Senate Guru’s Twenty Twenties for Jeff Merkley

{Originally posted at Senate Guru.}

As I noted in my wrap-up of the OR-Sen Democratic primary, Speaker Jeff Merkley and the Democrats have the grassroots, the issues, and the momentum.  All Republican Gordon Smith has going for him is a campaign bankroll just shy of $5 million.

Smith is unquestionably vulnerable.  With enough resources, Merkley will be able to cut through Smith’s spin and deliver the facts of Smith’s record to the voters of Oregon.  But, of course, he’ll need the support of people throughout the grassroots and the netroots.

To that end, I have added Merkley to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and am announcing the “Twenty Twenties for Jeff Merkley” effort.  Basically, I’m pleading with twenty of you to contribute at least twenty dollars via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page toward helping Jeff Merkley oust Gordon Smith.  Can twenty of you spare twenty bucks to bounce a bum like Republican Gordon Smith from the hallowed halls of the U.S. Senate?

I think we can get twenty twenties in by the end of Memorial Day weekend.  Please contribute if you can.  Thanks yet again!

OR-05: SSP Changes Rating to “Leans Democratic”

With the field set for the open seat battle in Oregon’s 5th Congressional District, the Swing State Project is updating its rating of this race from Tossup to Leans Democratic.

A D+0.5 district that Bush won narrowly in 2004, Republicans considered this race a rare pickup opportunity in a bad cycle.  But a number of events give the Democratic nominee, state Sen. Kurt Schrader, the early edge:

1) The GOP primary was especially brutal, with frequent candidate Kevin Mannix releasing allegations that businessman Mike Erickson had a hard-partying (not-so-distant) past that included recreational cocaine use and impregnating his girlfriend and paying for her abortion.  Erickson survived the primary, but in part due to Oregon’s mail-in ballot system.  Late deciding voters favored Mannix by 14 points in SurveyUSA’s final poll of the race, but by that point, too many voters had already cast their lot with Erickson before the allegations had their full effect.

2) Erickson is entering the general election campaign badly wounded in the press and among the GOP faithful.  Mannix issued this scathing non-endorsement today:

“I will not support him because he’s a dishonest person and that’s my bottom line,” Mannix told the Politico. “I cannot support a dishonest campaign. I need to stick to my principles here, and he’ll have to deal with it. That doesn’t mean I’m endorsing or supporting the Democrat, but I’m not doing anything for him.”

On top of that, Oregon Right to Life had asked Erickson to drop out of the race, and they’re refusing to support him in his general election bid.  Ouch.

3) Just as compelling is the rapid Democratic trend in the district’s voter registration tallies.  As recently as January, Republicans had a voter registration edge of 146,394 to 142,557 for the Democrats.  The April numbers show a dramatic turnaround: Democrats now have a voter registration advantage of 161,384 to the GOP’s 143,365.  So while Democrats have increased in number in this district, Republican registration has actually seen a slight decline.

While this race could still be competitive, the burden is now on Erickson to prove that it is.

Our full list of race ratings is available here.

NY-13: Cusick, McMahon Interested in Running

With Vito Fossella out of the race, the NY-13 district is becoming more and more attractive to some of the stronger potential Democratic candidates. According to the New York Times Assemblyman Mike Cusick and City Councilman Michael McMahon are expressing their clear interest in running.

Shortly after Mr. Fossella announced his decision Tuesday, two Democrats from Staten Island said they were interested in the seat: Councilman Michael E. McMahon, who has represented northern Staten Island since 2002, and Michael Cusick, a state assemblyman who represents an area in the center of the island.

“I am having earnest discussions with the other folks who are interested and the county leaders in Staten Island and Brooklyn,” Mr. McMahon said Tuesday. “I’m hopeful that we can come to a decision very quickly. Because of the short time frame, it’s important that we unite around a candidate rather than having a primary fight.”

Similarly, Mr. Cusick said that “ultimately, the goal is to win in November” and that “it would be preferable not to have a primary and for the Democrats to work things out.”

THe article says nothing about Dianne Savino entering the race. It looks like a good situation for the DCCC. Their top two recruits clearly want to avoid a tough primary and are willing to sit and work things out, although I don’t know if Harrison shares that sentiment. Of the two, I think Cusick may be the stronger. He is an honorary member of the Fraternal Order of Police, represents part of Staten Island and his ties to Charlie Schumer will make it easy to raise a lot of money in a short time. Savino may be stronger on paper but her running would put her state senate seat at risk when we are trying to flip the chamber. Hopefully, everything will work itself out soon.