I brought this up elsewhere this morning. I am glad you came out and said something, because I had the same reaction.

Also, I have been getting hammered lately for merely commenting in certain places.

Want to hear another one? This is not about Verga, but one of the teabagger writers has claimed Tom is a ‘Manchurian candidate’ and that Charles Taylor was just a Christian that was fighting Muslims. I got the feeling that meant that the genocide and killing of millions of people under Taylor was okay because he is a Christian.

Wow, seriously, these people are dumber than rocks, or would claim anything that fits their narrative.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 28 February 02010 @ 1pm

I was suprised that you didn’t throw in from the same article “, McKelvey got a round of cheers by saying, “The present administration is the biggest threat.”

Isn’t it almost as bad as Verga and just as much bullshit?

Posted by perlogik on 28 February 02010 @ 3pm

On its own, totally. But next to Verga’s racism, McKelvey ranked a distant second. But, hey, McKelvey will get ‘em next time. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 28 February 02010 @ 3pm

How can you make such light of a no votin’ carpetbagging west coast trust finder who came here to school us all on what being a tea party member really means. He just hired Bill Hay to be his manager- if can’t earn their support why not buy it!

Posted by Not verga on 28 February 02010 @ 4pm

Please… Dems are always looking for some way to put somebody in a box. My problem with Verga’s answer was not the “political correctness gone awry” part, but the part right before when he said that the biggest threat were the people who voted for Obama. I think that is by far more wide sweeping, and really shows his disdain at the democratic process by which we elect our president, or rather, elected THIS president.

On the other hand, Verga is exactly right in what he said regarding political correctness, and anybody that argues otherwise is a dimwit. Sure, there were a lot of Democrats that voted based on party line, and a lot of idiots who vote for Obama b/c they believed the load of crap he spouted, but there were a SLEW of people of all skin colors who came out to vote based solely on the premise of “making history” and voting for a black guy (a vote based solely on race). So, it’s racist to put a proper label on what the election truly was, but not as equally racist to vote for a guy based solely on race/skin color? Democrats are full of contradictions and this is just yet another example.

Posted by Red Herring on 28 February 02010 @ 5pm

Red, I voted for Obama because Bush II was clearly incompetent and had no business near an American foreign policy, which he defined as an unsupportable imperialism. I mean, I’m sure that the United Kingdom would have loved to have kept India and Egypt and France would have loved to keep Indochina and Syria and tried, really, really hard to hang on to Algeria. Each power came round to the fact that it just wasn’t possible. But, under the influence of Cheney, we plowed ahead. McCain showed no grasp of post-WWII history. The only thing about Barack’s history that was comforting is that he didn’t pretend to be Alexander the Great.

Posted by Brian. C.B. on 28 February 02010 @ 6pm

And for that reason Brian, you are a greater threat to national security than Al-Qaeda, Kim Jong-Il and the Ayatollah combined /snark

Posted by John on 28 February 02010 @ 6pm

I call bullshit, Red Herring. Show me one piece of data that supports your thesis that Obama’s margin of victory resulted from Republicans voting for Obama purely because he’s black. With the hundreds of surveys that were taken, that should be a snap.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 28 February 02010 @ 6pm

Move over Osama bin Ladin…Dolores is in the house! I voted for President Obama and I am so excited by the anticipation of being able to vote for him again in 2012 that in order to contain myself I am going to vote to reelect Congressman Perriello!

Posted by Dolores on 28 February 02010 @ 7pm

Actually I thought it was all the mixed-race Republicans and Indie’s that voted for Obama because he was mixed race.

Posted by robert legge on 28 February 02010 @ 8pm

“When people talk about teabaggers being racist, this is exactly the sort of shameful horseshit that they’re talking about. Fuck this guy.”

Waldo, why don’t you open up and express how you really feel? ;) I love it, your own spin turning “political correctness” on its head, intentionally or not.

I seriously admire the appropriate use of profanity to express your deep distaste for the cloaked (pun intended) motivation of a large part of the teabagger movement. I second your fuck and call that shit to the floor for debate.

Posted by Chris Gorski on 28 February 02010 @ 8pm

Let me repeat myself…

“Sure, there were a lot of Democrats that voted based on party line, and a lot of idiots who vote for Obama b/c they believed the load of crap he spouted, but there were a SLEW of people of all skin colors who came out to vote based solely on the premise of “making history” and voting for a black guy (a vote based solely on race).”

This isn’t a “thesis that Obama’s margin of victory resulted from Republicans voting for Obama purely because he’s black.” I’m merely suggesting the OBVIOUS that many, many people voted him solely on the basis of making history and voting for a black man. Just curious, but did you talk to anyone during/after the election, or watch one bit of news, read a magazine, browse the internet? I’m assuming you probably did, but I’m also assuming that because of your bias to the Democrat party that you overlooked those comments, statements and other innuendos that would have suggested this be the truth. A simple google search results in 1000′s of news articles addressing the vote and race. Do you really need me to post those results. Just google “Obama” “race” “voters” and do it yourself. I can do the same thing for the argument that it had nothing to do with race…it goes both ways, Mr. Jaquith.

And on another note, unlike the previous poster, I find your use of vulgarity to be obscene and show your lack of class by your choice of language. But then again, I’ve not found anything on your site to suggest that you strive for class anyway.

Posted by Red Herring on 28 February 02010 @ 10pm

Who is this ‘democrat party’ of which you speak? I am not familiar with them.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 28 February 02010 @ 10pm

Two images have kept coming back to me in the last 9 years.

The first is a memory from walking around Westminster Abbey in London in 1979. There are many side chapels and halls and cloisters and plaques on the walls as memorials to Lieutenant So-And-So or Colonel Whatsis who died in the service of Her or His Majesty in Khartoum, or Calcutta, or on the plains of Afghanistan, all for the greater glory of the Empire. And I thought, “What a waste!”

The second image is of the football stadium at the Naval Academy. On the front of the upper deck are inscribed the names of battles in which the Navy and Marine Corps have fought — Guadalcanal, New Georgia, Rabaul, etc. When I was there in about 1966 (they may have added more now), the battles were ones that we fought not for Empire but out of some more pressing necessity. The memorial stirred in me a sense of pride.

Now, when I hear of some memorial to one of the soldiers or sailors who has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan as a result of the lies and deceptions and imperialistic arrogance of Bush, Cheney, et al., I must say that I feel more the sorrow that I felt at Westminster Abbey than the pride that I felt at the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium.

Posted by cvllelaw on 28 February 02010 @ 10pm

Red said “I’m merely suggesting the OBVIOUS that many, many people voted him solely on the basis of making history and voting for a black man.”

Red- It is quite Obvious to me that virtually no one voted for Obama solely because he was black. How many people voted for Alan Keyes solely because he was black?

Yes, I’ll bet that his skin color was a part of why some people voted or didn’t vote for him. Same as some people voted for Kennedy in part because he was better looking and less hairy and sweated less than Nixon. But it is simply one part of the package.

Posted by robert legge on 28 February 02010 @ 10pm

cvllelaw while I won’t argue about Iraq, I will about the need for the war in Afghanistan. They gave safe habor to Bin Laden; who killed thousands and declared war on this country. There was no way that could stand.

We could spend hours pointing out that it was our own money that Bin Laden used against us and how Iraq was an unjust war but not Afghanistan. Even if Kerry had been President we would have gone to war for Afghanistan.

Posted by perlogik on 28 February 02010 @ 10pm

Perl- First of all dont’ you mean Gore instead of Kerry who would have been President when we invaded Afghanistan?

There is a good consensus that we had to overthrown the regime that gave safe haven to OBL. But I doubt many people who supported that invasion and overthrown would have thought it was a great idea to stay the next 7 years with no end in sight?

Even if the Taliban gained control (which I don’t think it likely), it is hard to imagine that they would invite Al Qaeda back in knowing full well it would mean another US invasion or regular bombing.

Posted by robert legge on 28 February 02010 @ 10pm

This isn’t a “thesis that Obama’s margin of victory resulted from Republicans voting for Obama purely because he’s black.” I’m merely suggesting the OBVIOUS that many, many people voted him solely on the basis of making history and voting for a black man.

Bullshit. The best that could be demonstrated is that a far greater percentage of African American voters turned out than otherwise would. But they’re not voting for Obama to be “politically correct,” they’re voting for him because he’s a Democrats who represents their values and is of their community. That’s got absolutely nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with supporting a candidate with whom they agree.

Again, unless you can demonstrate that people who would otherwise have supported McCain instead voted for President Obama because they felt that it was “politically correct” to support a black man and in spite of disagreeing with his positions on the major issues, then I call bullshit. And, of course, you can’t prove that, because it’s not true. So: bullshit.

That’s right, it’s been called.

And on another note, unlike the previous poster, I find your use of vulgarity to be obscene and show your lack of class by your choice of language.

Sometimes a guy is such an asshole that you’ve just to say “fuck him.” Laurence Verga is that guy. So, yeah, fuck him. Because, hey, you know what’s really offensive? The shit Verga says about our president. I spent eight long years being really, really respectful to President Bush, and I expect the same from Republicans about President Obama. If the word “fuck” offends you more than that, then you’ve got a priority problem. If you don’t like it, go away. It’s a free market.

But then again, I’ve not found anything on your site to suggest that you strive for class anyway.

Wow, you’re really a dick, aren’t you?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 28 February 02010 @ 10pm

Robert you are of course right about Gore,- We can discuss the length of time there and if we had not been in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan may have been much shorter. We would have had many more troops from the get go and it would have cost 100 of billions less. Destroying the Tailban would have been demanded, whoever would have been in control.

Of course without the Iraq war I truly doubt that President Obama would have ever been. His anti-war stance at the begining of the cycle set him apart and gave Clinton fits. I’m not saying it’s a fair trade but for some, a silver lining after a horrible storm

Posted by perlogik on 28 February 02010 @ 11pm

I firmly believe that if we had stuck to our business in Afghanistan, and not gotten diverted to Iraq, we would have been home from there long ago. That is not to say that Afghanistan would be a model for the 21st Century — only we’d be home and not counting body bags.

Posted by cvllelaw on 1 March 02010 @ 1am

Honestly, I *never* visit your blog even though I’ve found it before. There is no content here that I find pertinent to the progression of my daily existence. I thought this was an interesting entry, and I decided to comment. It’s quite clear you don’t handle opposition well, so I’ll stop the comments and leave you to your delusional little online blog world. This is not really a market, more like a poor (free) service you are providing to the blogosphere. And me a dick? Hello pot, I’m kettle.

And P.S. I’m not a Verga supporter, or Republican anyway. So you can take that off your list of reasons to loathe my commentary.

Posted by Red Herring on 1 March 02010 @ 8am

Red Herring – noun, idiomatic: an argument or other rhetorical device intended to divert an audience from the truth or an item of significance.

Never endeavor in earnest to talk reason to one.

Posted by Sam on 1 March 02010 @ 9am

The exchange with Red Herring is fascinating. Pointing out the objective fact that Verga is a racist fuck gets him all riled up, but the racism itself does nothing. The inclination is to find some evidence that other people are racist too. I disagree with him on what is racist (considering the historical and cultural implications of electing a man of mixed race in a culture still reeling from Jim Crow laws is not racist IMHO). But more importantly, why even try to make the case? Verga is a racist, which is why he thinks over half of the population is a threat to national security. End of story.

Posted by Internally Valid on 1 March 02010 @ 10am

Those moments when the politically correct choice was evident:
1.When Hillary insisted that we had to stay in Iraq.
2.When McCain showed terrible judgment and picked Palin as his #2.
3.Obama’s Philadelphia speech on Race in America – he gets it.
4. When McCain suspended his campaign to go to Washington and demonstrate befuddlement on the economic crisis.
5. The network Palin interviews.

My checkbook confirms the dates of those politically correct judgments. 2008 was an easy vote decision.

Posted by Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh on 1 March 02010 @ 11am

I’ll preface to say I have no affiliation with ANY teabagger.

Waldo- your comments imply that people paint teabaggers with the same wide brush that Verga paints Obama supporters. F… verga? Where is the moderation that you used to display? I would have thought that politics being what they are today, you would be be content, but it seems to me that you have a deeper dislike for those whose opinions differ from yours than ever before.

Anyway… it is a shame that racism still plays a part in our politics, and I have no doubt that it does.

Posted by tomr on 1 March 02010 @ 11am

“cvllelaw while I won’t argue about Iraq, I will about the need for the war in Afghanistan. They gave safe habor to Bin Laden; who killed thousands and declared war on this country. There was no way that could stand.

We could spend hours pointing out that it was our own money that Bin Laden used against us and how Iraq was an unjust war but not Afghanistan. Even if Kerry had been President we would have gone to war for Afghanistan.”

should we have bombed oklahoma for giving safe harbor to timothy mcveigh while he plotted and executed a bombing that killed hundreds of americans?

how about montana for giving safe harbor to the uni-bomber while he sent bomb after bomb to universities and hospitals?

osama bin laden is a terrorist and a criminal, he should be held responsible for his actions.

bombing the hell out of one of the poorest nations on the planet and killing for more innocent people in afghanistan than osama bin laden could have ever dreamed of is not a rational response to a terrorist threat.

declaring war on a nation for the act of a handful of individuals is the same as bombing oklahoma or montana just because a terrorist happened to come from there.

but i suppose people who follow your logic just don’t see the problem with the murder of people who aren’t americans.

Posted by J-bone on 1 March 02010 @ 12pm

J-bone:
Let me be the first to second your call for the boming of Oklahoma. Can’t happen soon enough. I think there’s hope for Montana though, maybe we could negotiate with them?

Posted by Steve Vaughan on 1 March 02010 @ 12pm

j-bone, I do not want to kill innocents unlike Bin Laden but I must point out that the McVeigh was rightly put to death. Oklahoma never gave safe harbor to McVeigh and you know that. My logic doesn’t support your claims

If Afghanistan after 9-11 had said “we are appalled at this crime and we will arrest and turn over Bin Laden to the US. Further we will turn over all others involved and close down their training camps” they woud have been applauded and untouched. There was no government in the world that didn’t know that the US could not let afghanistan be a training ground for terriorsit after 9-11.

Posted by perlogik on 1 March 02010 @ 12pm

I generally agree with Perl on this one. The one thing I have doubts about are these “training camps”. What exactly does OBL need training camps for? To have guys run over walls and climb rope ladders? To plan another 9-11, etc. they don’t need any of those traditional terrorist training centers. They just need a few apartments and boring-looking buildings.

Posted by robert legge on 1 March 02010 @ 1pm

There’s been a broadening of the sort of tactics and activities that we widely label “terrorism” since 2001 that shouldn’t be ignored, robert legge. While IEDs, EFPs and other bombing-type activities remain the order of the day, AQ and the Taliban haven’t shied away from using small arms, small unit tactics where they perceived vulnerabilities. The assault on Camp Keating in 2009 is a good example. Perhaps a better example would be the 2008 attack on Mumbai, which demonstrated that it is possible for an organization to export these tactics across national borders.

Posted by Sam on 1 March 02010 @ 2pm

OK. I can accept that some of their activities can benefit from a training facility or camp. But it doesn’t seem like they need a whole country to do that. Seems quite possible that they have such camps in our ally Pakistan.

Posted by robert legge on 1 March 02010 @ 4pm

Waldo- your comments imply that people paint teabaggers with the same wide brush that Verga paints Obama supporters.

That’s exactly what they imply, yes. This small group of angry radicals has to be awfully careful about their image, and yet they seem to celebrate racists in their midst. At this critical juncture in their existence, they are broadly seen as a group tethered to racism, and this is a perfectly example of why.

F… verga? Where is the moderation that you used to display? I would have thought that politics being what they are today, you would be be content, but it seems to me that you have a deeper dislike for those whose opinions differ from yours than ever before.

There is no moderation in dealing with racists. If Verga hates blacks, and I think they’re no better or worse than any other race, what’s the moderation to be shown? To say “well, yeah, blacks do kind of suck”? What’s the middle ground for which I should strive?

Political moderation is a good and necessary thing when attempting to bridge two common viewpoints that must somehow be made compatible. But moderation is an evil, accomodationist path when it allows good people to tolerate horseshit like this from Verga.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 1 March 02010 @ 4pm

I would also ask, what’s the appropriate level of moderation in response to the statement that “the biggest threat [to U.S. national security] is the Americans who voted the Obama administration into office.” He’s talking about me: I voted for Obama. I am the biggest threat to our national security. So why is “fuck you, Laurence” somehow immoderate?

Posted by Cecil on 1 March 02010 @ 4pm

Hear me now, believe me later. The teaparty movement if it ever had any legitimacy, has been overtaken by a mixed bag of ignoramuses and transparently racist nuts. Exactly like the 60′s anti-war movement was overtaken by people who thought themselves justified in burning and blowing up things, or sitting on a AA gun in Hanoi. The teabaggers are the dirty yippies of the modern era. And the Republican party is probably just stupid enough to think affiliation with them would be a good idea.

Posted by Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh on 1 March 02010 @ 4pm

Since I don’t follow the movement, I’ll not argue the point. More bothersome to me is that I see the same attitude directed towards Republicans… or anyone who disagrees with the Democratic view on how our government should operate. As much as Verga is vilified here, it seems to be the trend for people of other political persuasions, as well. Does it really matter if he’s racist? If I vote Republican and I don’t like Obama’s policies, wouldn’t many people here say I’m just as evil?

Posted by tomr on 1 March 02010 @ 4pm

Tom; For decades I have endured accusations of “being soft on Defense” from Republicans because I was a Democrat or as RNC Chair Eddie Gillespie used to say; a “Jane Fonda Democrat”.

Jane and I agreed that the Vietnam War was a travesty. A principled opinion. I would not have visited Hanoi to make that point. You can expect to be judged by the company you keep. In your case, this Verga dude.

Posted by Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh on 1 March 02010 @ 5pm

More bothersome to me is that I see the same attitude directed towards Republicans… or anyone who disagrees with the Democratic view on how our government should operate. As much as Verga is vilified here, it seems to be the trend for people of other political persuasions, as well. Does it really matter if he’s racist? If I vote Republican and I don’t like Obama’s policies, wouldn’t many people here say I’m just as evil?

Verga is being vilified here for racism and an apparently intent hatred for Americans. (Two traits that are literally common to villains in the movies and, now that I think about it, in real life, too.) But his racism really has nothing to do with his political affiliation as a Republican (you’ll note that I only mention that he’s a Republican for the purpose of introducing him in the first sentence) and everything to do with being a racist jackass.

Verga, like many of his fellow candidates seeking the Republican nomination, believes a lot of things with which I disagree strongly. But I’ve not written anything about those, because many of them are matters on which intelligent minds may disagree, within the bounds of normal political discourse.

So while you may see this attitude directed towards “Republicans… or anyone who disagrees with the Democratic view on how our government should operate,” you’re not seeing that attitude from me, and from very few people participating in this particular blog. I’d hope that, as long as you’ve been following my blog, you know that I’m pretty welcoming to folks who disagree with me. I find a bracing discussion about politics considerably more enjoyable than a lot of head-nodding.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 1 March 02010 @ 5pm

I’m sorry that the Hillbilly still smarts from opinions interjected 40 years ago and uses this as an excuse to accusations in the same manner.

Waldo- thanks for clarifying.

Posted by tomr on 1 March 02010 @ 10pm

As a Republican/Conservative who defends Obama on occasion and has been attracted to him (more so in the past than the present) I can testify that his attempts at bipartisanship and his skin color are the two biggest draws. The first gem you mention is indeed a load of “homily misht” (calf poop, in my native Amish-Mennonite Pennsylvania German/Dutch), but the second one has its points, in my experience. Especially since my experience is that of a conservative that was attracted to Obama.

When liberals constantly accuse us conservatives of racism, we get an inferiority complex, whether it’s true or not. And so we react. By supporting minorities, whether they deserve it or not.

Now I’ve heard a lot of racist misht toward Obama in conservative circles and I’ve been outspoken against it, but the idea the political correctness–subconscious affirmative action–helped Obama get elected is not racist or untrue.

Posted by Hans Mast on 2 March 02010 @ 12am

Hans; The only thing that Republicans did to help get Obama elected was to nominate John McCain, and turn him loose to pick Sarah P on a whim. Bam, DOA.

But thank you for your honesty, reactively selecting a candidate based on race is both racism, and stupid. Witness Michael Steele. I’ll spare you the cheap shot out of respect for your candor.

Posted by Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh on 2 March 02010 @ 10am

Perish the thought. Michael Steele’s race had nothing to do with his selection as RNC chair. He was simply the most qualified person for the job. Hey did you see the Republican Convention in MN and the one in Richmond. A casual observer would have to conclude that it was the National White People’s Party. The least they could do is bring in some tanning beds for some of the attendees.

Posted by robert legge on 2 March 02010 @ 10am

Hans wrote, “the idea the political correctness -– subconscious affirmative action — helped Obama get elected is not racist or untrue.”

I think no one here is saying that Obama’s race helped in some sense with some voters (though we all know that his race hurt him, massively, with other voters — West Virginia, anyone?). But Verga’s comment suggests that “political correctness” (whatever that means anymore) was the prime driver: that he only got elected because he’s black. Not because McCain was scarily uneven and unappealing. Not because Palin was a horrifying prospect. Not because Obama came across as measured, statesmanlike, and highly intelligent in all the debates. Not because his ideas about foreign policy resonated with millions of Americans. No, because he is black. Verga’s claim implies that if Obama weren’t black, none of the people who were excited about him would have been excited about him.

And you, Hans, you say you voted for him partly because he’s black: are you saying that his race was the ONLY reason you voted for him? or that his race was an added bonus (hey, I like this guy, and I hate McCain/Palin, and it’s extra sweet that this guy is black because now I feel less anxiety about my racial politics!). If he were white, would you have gone with McCain/Palin? If not, then it wasn’t political correctness that drove you to vote for him.

I don’t know if Verga’s racist, but he sure is careless and ignorant.

Posted by Cecil on 2 March 02010 @ 10am

Verga (kinda sorta) apologizes:

“I apologize to those who were offended by the statement that was inaccurately reported. Still, I should have been more eloquent with my remarks. However, if you read the whole transcript it is clear I was describing our political correctness in the global war against jihad. I would never disparage the great citizens of this country.”

Posted by Lowell Feld on 2 March 02010 @ 2pm

Political moderation is a good and necessary thing when attempting to bridge two common viewpoints that must somehow be made compatible. But moderation is an evil, accomodationist path when it allows good people to tolerate horseshit like this from Verga.

Would that more Virginia Democrats took that to heart.

Posted by MB on 2 March 02010 @ 3pm

Lowell, do you have a link for that? Thanks for posting it!

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 2 March 02010 @ 5pm

“I apologize to those who were offended by the statement that was inaccurately reported.”

Where in the world have I heard this statement within the last week or two when they say something idiotic? These guys says ridiculous statements and then chalk it up to “the other guy got it wrong”. Screw that. If you’re going to go to race, then go full tilt. I would for once want a politician to come out and say something stupid and either own up to it or say “Yeah, I said it…what the hell are you going to do about it?” Even though I wouldn’t agree, I would respect them a hell of a lot more.

Posted by Kevin on 2 March 02010 @ 6pm

Welcome to Virginia Kevin. When a man says “what the hell are you going to do about it?”…he is likely to find out. This ain’t Massachusetts. I’m guessing that Verga brought his “life coach” with him.

Posted by Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh on 2 March 02010 @ 8pm

For the record, I still have no verification of an apology from Verga. There’s no reference to it in any news reports, on his website, on any blogs, etc.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 3 March 02010 @ 11am

Thanks Waldo, for calling Verga out on this in very strong terms.

I hear a variety of people in my daily walk through life offer a similar perspective on Obama’s ethnicity helping him beat McCain/Palin in the presidential election. It infuriates me to no end. I actually admired McCain on a more personal level (can’t help being a Navy brat) and could have at least CONSIDERED voting for him, but Sarah Palin was a deal breaker for me.

To then hear that I only voted for Obama because of his race only adds insult to injury.

It is as if Verga’s party refuses to take responsibily for its own poor decisions on selecting a candidate and then blame me when it doesn’t work out because I am somehow too stupid to see past Obama’s race.

That’s enough to make me want to cuss Verga too.

Posted by humanistic on 3 March 02010 @ 1pm

Didn’t see this thread before I watched the video on the later post. Anyway…

Anybody who doesn’t realize that many, many, MANY people voted for Obama solely because he is the first black president… well, they’re delusional fools.

Posted by I.Publius on 3 March 02010 @ 10pm

Once again, Publius, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Unfortunately for you, just because you think so, or because you said it, doesn’t mean that it is true. I would also appreciate not being called names because you think differently.

See you next time, unless you have that proof in the form of a link or such.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 3 March 02010 @ 11pm

Bradley “former Congressional candidate” Rees vomits in his hand and calls it writing.

http://sonofliberty2k10.wordpress.com/national/wheres-waldo/

Posted by Mark Brooks on 4 March 02010 @ 4pm

Jesus God, that’s just word soup. I have no idea of what he’s talking about. It’s about as coherent as his message during his hour-long campaign for congress. I love that this guy describes himself as a former congressional candidate. If nobody ever had so much as a chance to cast a vote for you, you’re just some dude who once thought “You know what the world needs? Me!” Just remind me not to make any sudden movements near this guy’s car.

Reading Verga’s defense in the Progress today, I think it’s plausible that he’s merely the world’s worst public speaker. I think that’s unlikely, but it could be true. (That might be Rees’ point, but if it is, it’s lost in his 1,900 words—seriously, nineteen hundred goddamned words—at least half of which, to give him the benefit of the doubt, may have resulted from his cat walking on his keyboard.) Anyhow, I’ll write about that aspect of this later—this ten minute break from work isn’t really sufficient. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 4 March 02010 @ 4pm

I think I.Publius doesn’t understand what the word “solely” means. “Solely” means only. For someone to have voted for Obama solely because of his race, there can’t have been ANY other reasons why they liked him.

All the people who voted for Obama because they thought he was calm and statesmanlike in his debates against McCain AND because of his race? They’re not in the “solely” category, because they had two reasons.

All the people who voted for Obama because they were horrified and appalled by the idea of a Palin VP AND because of his race? Also not in the “solely” category.

All the people who voted for Obama because he said he’d end the war AND because of his race? Also not in the “solely” category.

All the people who just trust Democratic candidates more than Republicans AND because of Obama’s race? Also not in the “solely” category.

All the people who voted for Obama because he just seemed intelligent and thoughtful AND because of his race? Also not in the “solely” category.

All the people who felt like McCain was an erratic old fool who squandered all of his “principled maverick” credits AND because of Obama’s race? Also not in the “solely” category.

I could go on. The “solely” category has to be comprised of people who didn’t like ANYTHING about Obama at all aside from his race. In fact, for his race to be the sole reason, they’d have to DISLIKE everything about Obama aside from his race, because if there was ANYTHING they like about him aside from his race, then they would not be voting for him “solely” on his race.

Because that’s what “solely” means.

Posted by Cecil on 5 March 02010 @ 7am