January 04, 2006

Hello, Swanny

This could get very interesting:

Former Steelers star Lynn Swann declared his candidacy for Pennsylvania governor Wednesday in the city where he made his name in professional football.

He told The Associated Press in an interview Wednesday afternoon that he made up his mind to run in the fall, after spending months weighing support at events around the state.

Swann, a Hall of Fame receiver and longtime TV football commentator, faces three other candidates in seeking the Republican nomination for governor — his first run for political office. The winner of the May 16 primary would likely face Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, who is expected to seek a second four-year term.

If successful in his first bid for political office, Swann would become Pennsylvania's first black governor.

According to the article, Swann is polling ahead of the other two Republican candidates, and tracks behind only current Democratic Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell.

Swann has released very little about his proposed platform at this date and I'll withhold judgment until I see something, but one has to think that Swann's current charisma and past athletic triumphs as a Steeler are both strong assets, as well as his potential ability to cut into an black* vote that typically goes unchallenged for any Democratic candidate, regardless of actual worth.

Swann himself thinks that Democrats have "taken the African American vote for granted," and he is indeed right, just as Republicans have taken for granted that black will not vote for a white conservative. But what about a black conservative candidate?

If Swann can garner a significant portion of the black vote, it would make the demographic something it has not been in a long time: politically relevant.

Why would I say such a thing? Am I saying black voters aren't relevant or that they've been wasting their votes? Not at all.

Let me borrow from a comment I made on a another post here last month.

The huge supermajority of blacks—over 80% in many areas—seem committed to voting for any Democratic Party candidate no matter who. There is no reason for either party to waste finite resources in trying to court a demographic whose vote is seemingly set in stone.

The big, nasty secret here is that any group 80%-90% in lock-step with one party is politically irrelevant to both parties.

By being so deeply in the pockets of Democrats, Black leaders have rendered their demographic irrelevant politically. Ever wonder why nobody talks about black voters in elections except in passing, while the parties are concerned with currying favor with much, much smaller Cuban, Arab, Hispanic, or Asian minorities? Now you know. Black voters have made themselves irrelevant by giving away all of their political capital to one party. "Why buy the cow" indeed.

Simply ask yourself:

Why should Democrats waste time and political capital to appease a group that will still vote for them no matter what they fail to do in office? Why should Republicans commit resources to those who will reject them, no matter how hard they try? This has been the “common wisdom.”

If Swann can make a strong showning among black voters in Pennsylvania and Michael Steele can make a strong showing in the same demographic in Maryland's racially-charged Senate race, then black Americans will no longer be able to be ignored by Democrats, and Republicans will feel that efforts to reach out to black communities are worthwhile.

Regardless of which party retains the most influence, a less-lopsided demographic tilt that puts black back in play as a valued voting block is good for black communities not only in Pennsylvania and Maryland, but elsewhere in America.

* I say “black” in this post because of a article I read recently somewhere online talking about the huge cultural difference between African Americans and Americanized Africans, noting that these are two very different demographics. As the issue at hand seems to cut across both groups, I think I'll stick with “black” as a general description. I'll try to link in the article later once I find it again.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 4, 2006 07:37 PM | TrackBack

Do you really believe that black people will vote for Lynn Swann or for Michael Steele simply because they are black?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 11:13 AM
Do you really believe that black people will vote for Lynn Swann or for Michael Steele simply because they are black?

I have a better question for you: why should blacks vote for Democrats simply because they are black? That is the real issue, in a nutshell. Blacks are no more homogenous than any other ethnic group, and yet for decades they have been expected to vote Democrat simply because of their race, an expectation put on no other ethnic group in America.

Like whites, Asians, and Hispanics, blacks live in every part of the country, rural and urban, across all economic layers, with differing wants, needs, and expectations, just like everyone else. They therefore need something other than the “one size fits all” approach the Democratic party and black community leaders have been pushing for the past 40 years. They are individuals, and deserve to be treated to those needs, not relegated to the political status of a “sure thing,” which robs their community of the political capital needed to force change.

I don’t expect blacks to vote for Lynn Swann or Michael Steele because of their race. I do expect them to listen to them with fresh ears and look upon their message with fresh eyes, however.

That must scare you to death.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 5, 2006 11:57 AM

I think the point is that black people will vote for Swann or Steele (or Rice!) because
1) they realize that in the 21st century, they no longer have to be shackled to the Democrats tossing out welfare scraps, and
2) people very frequently vote identity politics. Think of any group you are a part of (lumberjacks, Baptists, Seahawks fans, etc), and how you would perceive someone else from that group who chose to run for office.

Posted by: Citizen Grim at January 5, 2006 12:15 PM

I for one cannot wait for the liberals to start smearing Swan, a Hall of Fame beloved Steeler. It's too bad most of the black community will turn away from what he has to say simply because the black leadership will most certainly see him as another Uncle Tom. But we can always hope that as you have pointed out, people can think for themselves as individuals and not a voting block.

Posted by: Brian's Sock Puppet at January 5, 2006 12:33 PM


Fair enough. The simple answer is that "they shouldn't." And they don't. It would probably surprise you to know that, prior to the Civil Rights era, most blacks would support Republicans (after all, the rabidly segregationist Dixiecrats were all Democrats, weren't they?)

That changed forever when Lyndon Johnson kicked through the Voting Rights Act of '64.

You see, black people by and large don't vote for Democrats as much as they vote against Republicans. And they vote against Republicans because they perceive that Republican policies are directly contrary to their interests.

Now there are those who would say that their interests lie in collecting money from the pockets of the hardworking (i.e. white) taxpayer; but there are bigots everywhere, aren't there?

Nonetheless it's quite easy for black people to believe that Republican philosophy and policies are intentionally harmful to black people.

It was not lost on most black Americans, for instance, that Ronald Reagan launched his bid for the White House in Philadelphia, Mississippi, espousing support for "state's rights." Nor is it that Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond both left the Democratic Party for the Republicans after 1968. And it's not lost on black Americans that David Duke is... a Republican. (Here, let me save you some typing time: ROBERT BYRD ROBERT BYRD ROBERT BYRD.)

I mentioned in another thread the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is the direct decendant of the White Citizens' Councils that fought the Civil Rights movement. They are strong supporters of the Republican Party, and Party luminaries have spoken before them.

Even the Chairman of the Party, Ken Mehlman, has been moved to offer an apology for the racial politics played by the GOP.

Now, you may argue that this perception is mistaken; but I think that requires a belief that black people are not capable of reading the news, evaluating policies and actions, and making rational decisions based on that evaluation.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 01:01 PM

African Americans vote democrat because they have been mislead by their own leadership. They have been poisoned by years of lies by the democratic party. Just like Dems tell older Americans that republicans want to take away their social security. So, if a strong Educated successful conservative black leader voices his views he is attacked by the Democratic Black caucas left and then allowed to be accused of being an Uncle Tom. Lynn Swann, has been and will always be a fine role model for all youths not just blacks.

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 5, 2006 03:56 PM


You assume black people are too stupid to read, to evaluate, and to make decisions for themselves as individuals. You seem to believe that black people blindly obey their "leaders" who are all Democrats and are getting their pockets lined thereby.

Patriot, you are wrong on this. Further, you make yourself sound even more like a racist bigot.

Sure Lynn Swann is a great guy, and he was absolutely a helluva ballplayer. I got nothing against Lynn Swann. BUT, I would have some hard questions for him, if he's going to be running as a Republican.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 04:31 PM

Fat Bastard,

If you think any serious person will give credence to Steve Gilliard's asinine, shrill "Uncle Tom" questions ("does he [Swann] believe that slavery was good for black people"), or that moderates won't be turned off by such statements, then you might be in for a rude awakening.

You keep chiding others for their racism, and cite among the loudest of the race-baiting bloggers.

Racism, Fat Bastard?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

As I said earlier, blacks live in every part of the country, rural and urban, across all economic layers, with differing wants, needs, and expectations, just like everyone else. Gilliard is a prime example of those that wants to force a "one size fits all" position on black voters, and that, Fat Bastard, is racist.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 6, 2006 01:09 AM

Ahem, CY:

Yes, I quote Gilliard's questions because they mirror my own. Once again, you sidestep the issue of whether so-called "black republicans" represent the concerns or desires of the vast majority of black people, and why the vast majority of black people hold men like Michael Steele in contempt.

You seem to believe that black people are incapable of understanding where their own interests lie; and that if they would just open themselves up to the Party of Duke they would be better off. And the its their own "leaders" who keep them on the "plantation."

It's a sad fact that "conservatives" like yourself continually reiterate your beliefs that the vast majority of black people are too stupid to read, evaluate and understand.

Would Mr. Swann consider it acceptable to attend a fundraising event at an all-white club?

Does Mr. Swann agree with Mychal Massie that slavery was good for black people (as he asserted on Janet Parsall's radio show?

I'm sorry you choose to dismiss them as unnecessary; but to most black Americans these are serious considerations.

Your dismissal of the genuine concerns of the majority (and I mean the VAST majority) of black Americans is one more example of why black people vote AGAINST 'conservative' Republicans.

But then, you're proud to continue the legacy of the Confederate States of America, a nation created for the express purpose of maintaining black people in a condition of slavery, so... I suppose I can't possibly expect any different.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 6, 2006 08:14 AM

It is truly fascinating to watch how your mind works, FB.

It is quite irrelevant if black Republicans represent the vast majority of black voters, what is relevant is that they likely represent more of the black community than some voters may realize.

You are indeed correct, in your earlier comments, about the perceptions that many black voters have about Republicans. Fair or not, currently applicable or not, Democrats such as yourself constantly reinforce the idea that Democrats pushed through Civil Rights legislation … even though that is not the whole truth, is it?

The votes tell the story, Fat Bastard.

The Congressional Record proves that only 153 of 249 Democratic members of the House voted for the House Bill, and that only 47 of 68 Senate Democrats, voted for the Senate Bill, and that only 153 of 249 Democrats again voted for the Senate version of the bill voted on in the House. Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights act of 1964 by bare supermajorities. By way of comparison, 81% (27 of 33) of Republicans Senators voted for the legislation, as did 79% (136 of 171) of those in the House vote on the Senate Bill. Republicans, in their numbers, were far more supportive of Civil Rights legislation than Democrats, but enjoy your version of history if you must.

You are right: blacks vote against Republicans because they perceive that Republican policies are directly contrary to their interests. But as I’ve pointed out, that perception has hurt the black community. It has robbed it of political capital by having it march lockstep against it’s own best diversified interests, which are not served by being chained to one political party.

If black leaders were truly sincere about elevating and improving their communities, they would recognize that fact and encourage voters to vote what is best for them as individuals. But they do not do that, do they? They do not want black voters to look at their own individual goals, interests, and aspirations and which party would best serve those needs. Instead, they encourage, cajole, bully, and ostracize those that would break ranks and think of their own individual needs. They call them Uncle Toms, Aunt Jemima, and accuse them of betraying their race, as if race can really be tied to a ballot.

You state:

Now, you may argue that this perception is mistaken; but I think that requires a belief that black people are not capable of reading the news, evaluating policies and actions, and making rational decisions based on that evaluation.

Look at the reaction of black Democrats in Maryland to Michael Steele, and the comments they have made. Look at the way he has been treated by your dear friend Gilliard. Tell me sincerely that calling Steele a race traitor and Uncle Tom instead of debating policy differences they have with him is a rational act of adults, much less Democratic leaders. Tell me the last time was that Democrats have challenged a black conservative based on substantive policy instead of ethnicity.

Please, tell me why this race-baiting goes virtually unchallenged by the media, and in some cases, is even fueled by them.

When the Democratic Party and black leaders refuse to engage in policy debates, and insist upon playing the race card with each and every black conservative candidate, and even the news media plays up ethnicity over substance, can you please explain how any black voter is supposed to get an objective look, to make rational decisions based upon objective evaluations?

The fact is, Fat Bastard, that it is not in the best interests of the Democratic Party to have an objective discussion of policy that will likely lose them their near stranglehold on black voters. But the glass chains of self-imposed bigotry are brittle, and as more black conservatives run for political office across the country, race-baiting, always a very effective tool in the DNC no matter who was behind it, will become a much less effective tactic.

Once that happens, the black voter will be able to cut through the chatter and the smoke and mirrors of the Julian Bonds and the Steve Gilliards of the world, to vote based upon substance instead of skin color, making rational decisions.

Once that happens, black voters will begin diversifying there votes based upon their individual circumstances, and that must scare the hell out of a Democratic Party already hemorrhaging voters.

As for the CSA crack… well, let’s just say it is about what I would expect from someone like you.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 6, 2006 10:07 AM

Look, I've read the Articles of Secession for Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina. You cannot escape the historical fact that they seceeded to maintain slavery, however hard you may wriggle.

You're absolutely correct about the vote taken on the Civil Rights Act of '64, but lets look a little further forward in time, shall we?

In '68 George Wallace took a number of southern states by running on the American Independent Party ticket; and although Richard Nixon won the election, Wallace's showing was not lost on the Republican Party.

Thus was born the "Southern Strategy."

Again I point out to you that men like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, die-hard segregationists (and let's just call a spade a spade here, white supremacists) left the Democrats to join the Republican Party.

Let me say that again.

They left the Democrats to join the Republican Party.

The fact is, CY, that there is a substantial discussion among black people regarding their interests, and their reasoned conclusion is that the party of Thurmond, Helms and Duke cannot possibly act in their best interests.

You can rail at Steve Gilliard's "in-your-face" approach, but the fact is that he has a lot more credibility among rank-and-file black people than any modern Republican.

Also, by the way, I notice that you're quick to attack me and Mr. Gilliard for having these views, but you're extremely slow to actually address the views themselves.

You refer to it as "race-baiting," (which once again expresses your contempt for what black people feel and believe) but I assure you that most black Americans consider these legitimate, important questions.

I don't think you fully understand black Americans' "cultural memory." The American South was, for black people, a police state right up through the 1970's. Black people had no rights save those that the local white power structure would allow them. Black people were routinely harassed by local authorities; jailed and even killed for specious reasons.

You won't like hearing this, but that's just the way it was.

And it was men like Thurmond, Wallace and Helms that maintained-- insisted on keeping the reins of power in the hands of whites only.

Those men left the Democratic party to join the Republicans, CY. This is historical fact, undeniable even for you.

Quite frankly, as long as people such as yourself dismiss their legitimate concerns as "race-baiting," black people will never trust white conservatives.

And until the day comes when men like David Duke are turned out of your Party, Republicans will NEVER have significant black support.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 6, 2006 11:44 AM

Am I wriggling? Hardly. Do you want to talk about slavery? Do you really want to get into the full history of the Democratic Party as it relates to race? We certainly can, if you would like, though quite frankly, I don’t think you’ll like the taste of it.

Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms—two Dixiecrats—left the Democrats after the Dixiecrats folded and became Republicans. On that you are absolutely 100% accurate, without question. But what pray tell, to all of the other “white supremacists” (your phrasing, I’ll note) who did not become Republicans?

There were hundreds of Dixiecrats, on the local, state, and national levels. Where did they go? I know the answer, and I suppose everyone else does as well: they rejoined the Democratic Party. The most notable thing about Helms and Thurmond is that they were the only two of your “white supremacists” that did not rejoin the Democratic party. Of 21 Dixiecrat Senators, 19 returned to the Democratic Party, as did all five Dixiecrat state governors. These same born again Democrats were the ones who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

How well do you think those facts will fly among black voters?

Strom Thurmond is dead. Helms has shuffled of into retirement with Bono (which he met working on AIDS issues for Black Africans, I might add), and it was as a Democrat that David Duke ran for the Louisiana State Senate, and it was as a Democrat that he ran as a candidate of the President of the United States in 1988. Duke was never accepted by Republicans, and was delivered an official reproval saying exactly that. He was never welcomed by the Republican party, so he could not be turned out. Duke can call himself whatever he wants, but he was NEVER accepted by the RNC. Of course, you do remember the last time Duke was heard from on a national stage, don’t you?

He was endorsing the radical left’s beloved Mother Sheehan.

As for black cultural memory, it might behoove blacks to remember that it was Democrats, not Republicans, that conducted lynchings. It was Democrats, not Republicans, that passed Jim Crow Laws. It was Democrats, not Republicans, that created the Ku Klux Klan to destroy the black vote after the civil war. While Republicans are not spotless by any means, the racial history of the Democratic Party is reprehensible, including the fact it led the only successful overthrow of a duly elected government in American history, when the Democratic Party murdered 100 blacks and overthrew the elected (and mostly black) Republican government of Wilmington, NC in 1898.

Again I say: blacks are not well served by wasting their political capital, nor are they well served by a Democratic Party that refuses to address black conservatives bases on their ideas instead of a tired “race traitor” meme that no other race or ethnic group in America is trapped by. No other group has given so much support to one party, and received so little in return. When black democrats call black conservatives race traitors and Uncle Toms, and it goes virtually unchallenged by the DNC, I think it is quite apparent to most non-radicalized Americans where racism in American politics still lies.

The Democratic Party, FB… same as it ever was.

So continue to call Republicans racists in the face of history, and continue trotting out your Uncle Tom fear-mongering for as long as you are able. It will not work for ever, and I think sooner or later, black voters will realize just how poorly they’ve faired put all their eggs in such a rotten basket.

Hold on to the past. It's all you've got.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 6, 2006 01:16 PM

My dear boy, I'm not interested in discussing slavery and the Democratic party. We can talk about slavery and your beloved Confederacy (and I note that you don't address the fact that the Confederate States seceeded in order to protect the institution of slavery), but you probably wouldn't like it.

You never addressed Ken Mehlman's "apology" for the GOP's race-baiting tactics. Why on earth would he be moved to offer this apology if it had not been the policy of the Republican Party to utilize these tactics?

You never addressed the GOP's support of the Councils of Conservative Citizens; direct descendants of the White Citizens Councils in the past, racists today.

You mention the number of former Dixiecrats that returned to the Democratic Party. Fair enough; but you manage to not notice something: The Republican Party has become THE pre-eminent political organization of the Old South.

Now, you may argue that the Old South has changed over the last... oh, lets say forty years. That would be quite amazing considering we're talking about a region that was born with white supremacy and black slavery as its prime definitor; that went to war to defend its right to keep those slaves; and after having lost that war spent most of the next century utilizing police-state tactics to opress the descendants of those slaves.

It strains credulity to believe that the region has changed so drastically over the last forty years.

You also ignore changes elsewhere in the Republic. Republicans were the more powerful party in what are now considered "blue" states.

Are we to believe that regional ideas have changed so drastically?

Occam's Razor points back to the Southern Strategy.

Finally, there's simple observation. I took the time in 2004 to watch significant portions of both the Republican and Democratic national conventions.

Nevermind who was on the stage, for the purposes of this discussion the fact that there were black speakers at the Republican convention is immaterial.

What was interesting was the various crowd shots.

I was certainly not the only person to notice that there was as tremendous amount of diversity among the delegates to the Democratic convention. The Republican convention? Not so much. In fact, hardly at all.

Perhaps you're right, the past is all we have to hold on to. But we also know that the past is a good indicator of the future.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 6, 2006 02:22 PM

OH, and by the way--

do you really, truly believe black people are so AMAZINGLY STUPID that they join and support a party that they know likes to lynch them?

Have you such contempt for their intellectual capacity?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 6, 2006 02:23 PM

This FB character listens to Randi Rhodes. He spouts practically verbatim her rants on this race issue. It only takes a few paragraphs (or in her instance, a few minutes of radio time) and you can trip up the "argument" or lack thereof. Besides, I thought argument required facts.

Posted by: Brian's Sock Puppet at January 6, 2006 04:38 PM

Sock Puppet:

I personally don't like Randi Rhoades. Her voice grates.

What I post here is what I believe.

Or do you also believe black people are too goddamn stupid to have their own legitimate opinions about race?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 6, 2006 05:03 PM

PS, Sock Puppet (what an interesting name for a debater)-- why don't you, rather than launching yet another mindless ad-hominem attack, address the issues raised?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 6, 2006 05:05 PM

That is a very interesting observation, BSP. I was thinking the exact same thing. It appears as though Fat Bastard has taken it upon himself to serve as a puppet and empty mouthpiece for the extreme radical Left. It is as though he copied down long lists of talking points to regurgitate and claim to be original thought.

Then, when challenged on substance and facts, he dodges the issue and goes on to something else - not before, of course, calling everyone else racists and falling back on that old meme that all blacks are stupid, can' read, etc.

You're not fooling anyone, FB. Then again, maybe you are fooling someone - your own totally unoriginal self.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 6, 2006 06:14 PM

Fat Bastard:

"...why don't you, rather than launching yet another mindless ad-hominem attack, address the issues raised?"

You did it again. Sock Puppet did not launch any such ad hominem attack on you. See? Paranoia rules in your world, doesn't it?

You did something else again, didn't you?

"Or do you also believe black people are too goddamn stupid to have their own legitimate opinions about race?"

Duh? Are the rest of all dumb rubes from the Right just imagining your preoccupations?

Think not ....

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 6, 2006 06:22 PM

Oh, you're right, Spy! Your rhetorical kung-fu is so much stronger than mine!

DO carry on, won't you?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 8, 2006 11:35 AM

Oh, and by the way, O Great and Powerful Spy-- I congratulate you for your unabashed support and acceptance of the Councils of Conservative Citizens; your unwillingness to sign up for Ken Mehlman's apologia, and your continuing and unabashed love for the Confederate States of America.

Three Cheers for the Master Race!

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 8, 2006 11:42 AM
Oh, you're right, Spy! Your rhetorical kung-fu is so much stronger than mine!

DO carry on, won't you?

Oh, and by the way, O Great and Powerful Spy-- I congratulate you for your unabashed support and acceptance of the Councils of Conservative Citizens; your unwillingness to sign up for Ken Mehlman's apologia, and your continuing and unabashed love for the Confederate States of America.
Three Cheers for the Master Race!

You must be drinking some of the same juice as Ted Kennedy when he referred recently to the "Goldwater presidency" in 1964 and its obvious influence on Samuel Alito! Duh! There was no Goldwater presidency and Alito was 14 years of age at the time.

No less idiotic nonsense there than what you just cited. I never mentioned any of those things you cite, and my love for the Confederacy would be a bit strange for someone born and raised in Minnesota - where I am now residing again. Master Race? Now you want to call everyone Nazis too?

You may wish to sober up a bit before trying to debate with the grownups.


Posted by: Retired Spy at January 8, 2006 03:09 PM

So, you repudiate the CCC and their racist agenda?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 9, 2006 10:56 AM


The CCC is so small (they claim circulation of just 20,000) that most of us had never even heard of it until you dredged them up. It's kind of hard to repudiate something you've never heard of before, but if they're racists, I'm against them.

In that same spirit of denouncing racists, will you repudiate all ties with the specific racists in the Maryland Democratic Party that pronounced Michael Steel a race traitor for being black and conservative?

Will you repudiate your friend Steve Gilliard for his infamous "Simple Sambo" denegration of Steele?

Will you repudiate racist liberal cartoonist Ted Rall who called Condoleeza Rice a "house nigga"?

Will you repudiate Jesse Jackson for calling New York "Hymietown," or Al Sharpton for his part in instigating the Crown heights race riots that left people dead?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 9, 2006 11:38 AM

Whoa, CY ...

Don't confuse FB and his followers and lieutenants with facts. They can't handle facts, and they will just dodge and weave and bring in statements and accusations and implications totally unrelated to what you and I and others have really written.

I'm not familiar with the Councils of Conservative Citizens, either, FB. Enlighten us all on their racial agenda.

Couldn't back up your other accusations and implications, either, could you, FB?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 9, 2006 12:00 PM

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 9, 2006 05:56 PM

FB, you just accidentally refused to refute Democratic racists... right?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 9, 2006 06:20 PM

Hey... is this thing on?

It appears that while Fat Bastard is willing to easily label any and all Republicans as racists, he'll run like a scalded dog rather than condemn any of the obvious racists I cited for him in the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 03:34 PM