Jesse Helms was a segregationist, and a nasty one at that.

Long after his contemporaries abandoned old "Jim Crow," Helms kept playing the race card when it served him politically. And when he was not picking on African-Americans, he picked on ethnic minorities, immigrants, trade unionists and gays and lesbians.

While Helms served thirty years in the Senate, his tenure on Capitol Hill was never so historically significant as his crude pursuit of power and the unsettling lengths to which he went to retain it. "He'll be remembered, in part, for the strong racist streak that articulated his politics and almost all of his political campaigns - "they were racialized in the most negative ways," recalled Kerry Haynie, a political science professor at Duke University.

Helms' death Friday, at age 86, brings America a small step closer to the end of the post-antebellum era in our politics that saw the men who had battled to deny the franchise to millions of Americans because of the color of their skin -- and who fought even more aggressively to deny adequate education, nutrition and health care to African-American children -- make the easy transition to leadership positions in the "modern" Republican Party.

Helms was not always a Republican. As a young man of the Old South, he had no interest in joining an organization that, well into the 20th century, proudly referred to itself as "the party of Lincoln."

Only when the Grand Old Party adopted a southern accent and replaced references to the Great Emancipator with grumping about "racial quotas" did Helms make the switch to the party of Ronald Reagan, George Bush and John McCain. He brought along the symbols and sounds of the "Jim Crow" Democrats, insisting that Republican events celebrate the memory of Robert E. Lee and encouraging the singing of "Dixie" at party rallies.

Helms was not just any Republican, however. He was an essential player in the remaking of the party. With his National Congressional Club, a money-raising machine that helped forge what came to be called "the New Right" within the GOP, Helms aide Carter Wrenn says the senator forced "the realignment of the Republican party."

"You can't really separate the growth of the Republican party from Jesse's career," explained Wrenn.

The wily Richard Nixon was one of the first Republicans to recognize Helms' utility.

The North Carolinian was welcomed into the GOP by then President Nixon and his southern strategists of the late 1960s and early 1970s because they understood that Helms was skilled at working the fault lines that could turn white fears into Republican votes.

The Republicans are still working those fault-lines. Indeed, some of the people who worked most closely with Helms as he transformed what began as an anti-slavery party into a comfortable retreat for white-backlash voters are now key players in the campaign of John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

"Let us remember a life dedicated to serving this nation," McCain declared in a statement on the death of Helms, to whom he was compared favorably by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole earlier this year. (Actually, Dole suggested that McCain was somewhat more conservative than Helms.)

Those who battled hardest against Helms and his racial politics are quite certain that the 2008 campaign of Republican McCain against Democrat Barack Obama, who in August will become the first African-American nominee of a major party for president, will take a Helmsian turn.

"There's no question appeals will be made by McCain's campaign on racial lines," says North Carolina Congressman Mel Watt, who felt the full brunt of that racial politics when he managed the campaign of Harvey Gantt, an African-American Democrat who challenged Helms in 1990 and 1996.

Jesse Alexander Helms Jr. got his start in national politics as a campaign strategist for Willis Smith, who mounted a race-baiting challenge to U.S. Senator Frank Porter Graham in the 1950 North Carolina Democratic primary.

Graham, a former president of the University of North Carolina, served in the Senate as a national Democrat, who supported President Harry Truman and accepted the party's emerging commitment to civil rights.

Smith, who was backed by the segregationist dead-enders that had supported the 1948 States' Rights Party ("Dixiecrat") campaign of segregationist Strom Thurmond, hired Helms to help him win by exploiting racist sentiment in the state.

One advertisement that Helms and his team created screamed: "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races."

Another advertisement allegedly worked up by Helms highlighted a doctored photograph that purported to illustrate the penchant of Graham's wife for dancing with African-American men.

The Smith campaign was called "the most overtly racist campaign since the turn of the century," according to the Raleigh News & Observer, a publication for which Helms once worked.

Unfortunately, it was also successful -- a lesson that was not lost on the 29-year-old Helms.

Smith beat Graham, won the general election, went to Washington and brought the campaign along as his administrative assistant.

But Helms was soon back in North Carolina, encouraging massive resistance to integration, as a Raleigh city councilman and a television commentator who referred to the University of North Carolina as the "University of Negroes and Communists" and suggested that walls be erected around the UNC campus to prevent enlightened thinking from "infecting" the rest of North Carolina.

Though he was genteel in person -- so much so that this reporter would sometimes describe him favorably when compared to less gracious members of the Senate -- Helms went wide-eyed and brutal when the cameras went on.

Helms warned that, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced."

He suggested that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist dupe and refused, even decades after King's death, to honor the Nobel Peace Prize winner.

He dismissed the civil rights movement as a cabal of communists and "moral degenerates."

As the movement gathered strength -- and as murderous violence against activists in particular and African-Americans in general increased -- Helms menacingly suggested to non-violent civil rights activists that, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."

When his fellow Democrats began to reject his brand of race-baiting politics in a series of primaries that saw moderates such as former North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford beat segregationists, Helms followed Thurmond into the Republican Party.

In 1972, he determined to follow Thurmond into the Senate.

Helms got a couple of lucky political breaks. First, President Nixon was running his "southern strategy" reelection campaign to attract segregationist Democrats to the GOP. Second, the Democratic nominee for the Senate that year was North Carolina Congressman Nick Galifianakis.

Galifianakis was a Greek-American, which to Helms and his supporters meant the congressman was a bit too "ethnic" to represent North Carolina. The newly-minted Republican, who could always be counted on to exploit any difference that might benefit his candidacy, campaigned on the slogan: "Vote for Helms --- He's One of Us!"

That was mild compared with the 1990 and 1996 campaigns Helms ran against Gantt, the former Charlotte mayor who was the first African-American to compete seriously for a southern Senate seat in the modern era.

In 1990, after Helms fell behind in the race, his campaign began running television advertisements that showed a white man's hands crumpling up a rejection notice from a corporation that had refused to hire him because affirmative action policies had supposedly required that the job go to a "less qualified minority." After those words were uttered, an image of Gantt flashed on the screen.

Helms won a narrow victory that year, as he did in 1996.

Helms did not leave his sentiments on the campaign trail.

Unlike George Wallace and a number of other southern pols, who made racist noises at election time but then quietly funded roads, schools and other projects in African-American communities, the former North Carolina senator's hometown newspaper noted delicately in an obituary that, "Although Helms denied he was a racist, his work in the Senate seemed at odds with the interests of blacks."

In addition to waging a filibuster in an attempt to block the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday, Helms opposed extension of the Voting Rights Act and championed the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Even as he rose in stature in the Senate, where he eventually served as chair of the powerful Foreign Relations Committee, Helms remained the son of the south that he had always been.

When Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois became the first African-American woman to sit in the Senate, Helms followed Moseley-Braun into an elevator, announcing to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch: "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries."

Then, emphasizing the lines about how "good" things were before the Civil War ended slavery, Helms sang "Dixie."

In one way or another, that's all he ever did. As the Rev. Jesse Jackson recalled, "At the height of his power, he fought for the values of the old confederacy. He resisted the new South. He resisted the opportunity to fight for a more perfect union."

Despite the best efforts of the senator and his spin doctors to rehabilitate the old man by hiring a few conservative staffers who happened to be people of color or by posing him for pictures with U2's Bono, Helms finished his career without the apologies that came from George Wallace, Orval Faubus and his fellow segregationists.

Even Strom Thurmond admitted his defenses of segregation were wrong, but not Helms. Nor did the North Carolinian ever make serious efforts to appeal to African-American voters -- as Wallace, Thurmond and "Jim Crow" politicians began to do late in their careers.

"He was sort of unrepentant until the end," said Duke's Kerry Haynie.

A biographer of Helms, Ernest Furgurson, put it more bluntly when he wrote: "All his public life, (Helms) has done and said things offensive to blacks, and to anyone sensitive to racial nuance."

Jesse Helms may have started as a Democrat and finished as a Republican. But he always sang "Dixie."

And those who sang it with him are now working for John McCain. Alex Castellanos, the veteran Republican media consultant who produced the so-called "White Hands" commercial that Helms used against Gantt, has according to the Washington Post been advising McCain's campaign on media strategy.

Castellanos bluntly refers to his work with Helms as "The Cause." And That cause has attracted other key players from the late senator's campaigns.

Republican strategist Charlie Black, perhaps the most prominent member of McCain's political inner circle (especially since he suggested that a terrorist attack on the U.S. would benefit the Republican's prospects this fall), advised Helms throughout much of the senator's career and played a particularly central role in the 1990 campaign, according to contemporary media accounts.

When the "White Hands" ad stirred a national controversy, Black appeared on the PBS's Newshour to defend it. Democratic National Committee chairman Ron Brown, who was also on the show, said to Black: "You are a principal adviser of Jesse Helms. Would you advise him to run that kind of ad, Charlie? Do you approve of that ad, Charlie?"

Black replied, "I advised Jesse Helms to do what he's always done."

The question now is whether Black will advise McCain, another Republican who is trailing an attractive African-American Democrat, to do what Helms always did?

The answer is: Not exactly.

McCain's presidential campaign will not be a precise homage to Helms.

Black and his fellow strategists will undoubtedly be a bit subtler.

But Mel Watt suggested in a recent interview that we might still hear the faint strains of "Dixie."

"Clearly, times have changed, and people aren't going to be able to get away with those kind of direct racial appeals," said Watt recalling the 1990 anti-Gantt campaigning by Helms and his associates. "But they will make them more subtle, and call them something else. They'll call them economic appeals, like they did with the 'White Hands' ad."

Comments (138)

1. Uh, it's Mel Watt.

   Posted by woodyee at 07/04/2008 @ 11:41pm

2. I'm amazed Charlie Black still has a job with Grandpa. One would think that albatross would be well crushed under the wheels of the Straight Talk Express (that name gets more and more ironic). But I guess he's running out of hiring options now huh?

   Posted by yutsano at 07/05/2008 @ 12:42am

3. Well, I mean, we all know that whoever doesn't vote for Obama is racist. That's very clear.

   Posted by hepstein at 07/05/2008 @ 02:07am

4. Reagan, Bush and McCain in the same mold? Since when?

   Thats like saying JFK, Carter and Clinton are in the same mold...hilarious.

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/05/2008 @ 02:52am

5. Wow,37 years in office and the guy achieved nothing in the minds of guys like JOHN NICHOLS except a reputation for predjudice.

   Sounds like JOHN has a few predjudices to work out himself.

   Posted by william.harry13 at 07/05/2008 @ 07:51am

6. Didn't Saruman use the sign of the White Hand in Lord of the Rings?

   I think that the Uruk Hai had it painted on their foreheads.

   Posted by skeletonman at 07/05/2008 @ 08:57am

7. [" And when he was not picking on African-Americans, he picked on ethnic minorities, immigrants, trade unionists and gays and lesbians."]

   this description sounds a lot like some around here, and an awful lot like communism as it was practiced in the Soviet, Nazi Germany and China, and what is practiced by the so-called Islamo-fascists today.

   Isn't the irony of this just too rich for words?

   --Posted by william.harry13 at 07/05/2008 @ 07:51am

   Could you list some of his accomplishments that would overshadow his stance on segregation, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, support of dictators like Pinochet and his record of violating election laws?

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/05/2008 @ 09:06am

8. Well, I mean, we all know that whoever doesn't vote for Obama is racist. That's very clear.

   Posted by hepstein at 07/05/2008 @ 02:07am

   Of course not, and this was never said here.

   Are you, however, willing to say that portions of the republican machine will not use Obamas skin color against him in campaign ads, 527 ads, mailers and those ever so popular anonymous pieces of literature and email that are already floating around?

   Ask LIBSUX, it will tell you in no uncertain terms that Obama is a Muslim and he will turn 1600 Pennsylvania Ave into the Black/White house!

   And lookie what that nice man David Duke has to say about an Obama Black/White house:

   ""Obama will be a signal, a clear signal for millions of our people, Obama is like that new big dark spot on your arm that finally sends you to the doctor for some real medicine. Obama is the pain that let's [sic] your body know that something is dreadfully wrong. Obama will let the American people know that there is a real cancer eating away at the heart of our country and Republican aspirin will not only not cure it, but only masks the pain and makes you think you don't need radical surgery. … My bet is that whether Obama wins or loses in November, millions of European Americans will inevitably react with new awareness of their heritage and the need for them to defend and advance it."-"A Black Flag for White America" by David Duke, former republican candidate for congress and Helms fan.

   This is not just a southern disease, here in my home state of MI we have a fine collection of KKK and white supremacist groups peddling their fear in public.

   I just can't wait for their Clayton Bigsby to be unmasked.

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/05/2008 @ 09:55am

9. In an era where a great number of young men collectively, openly and very clearly-- acknowledge that "we've been caught with our pants down", will the Eddie Haskell party still pull the hsuB wool over on the Cleavers' eyes?

   Stay tuned.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 09:55am

10. While you are at it, Mr. Nichols, throw in the Anti Muslim stand of J. McCain....

    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other_views/story/592146.html

    Reject endorsement of intolerant clergy Posted on Thu, Jul. 03, 2008 reprint print email Facebook Digg del.icio.us AIM By RICHARD COHEN cohenr@washpost.com

    Intro The pilgrim is making little progress. In a futile effort to convince faith-voters that he is one of them, John McCain paid a visit to the Grahams of North Carolina -- father Billy and son Franklin. After the meeting, not a word was said about the Grahams' past indiscretions concerning Muslims or Jews and neither, for that matter, was an endorsement proffered. The next guest was country singer Ricky Skaggs. He did better. He got lunch."

    Excerpts

    "What could a Muslim say about the massacres of the Crusades? What could anyone say about the wars between Catholics and Protestants, culminating in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572 when possibly 100,000 French Huguenots were slaughtered? France is Catholic today partly because of the sword."

    "The liberal clergy in this country is a faded force. Gone are the days when ministers led the civil rights movement and marched to end the Vietnam War. Now the ones with political clout are too often small-minded men who swaddle their bigotry and ignorance in the soothing word ''faith.'' And John McCain, like a spiritual beggar, goes from one right-wing minister to another, ignoring their previous statements of intolerance and hoping for an endorsement. The other day, he didn't even get lunch. He deserved humble pie."

    http://www.breitbart.tv/html/124803.html " We believe in free speach"

    unless you are a protester

    Posted by Rese at 07/05/2008 @ 10:10am

11. ... would be well crushed under the wheels of the Straight Talk Express ...

    Posted by yutsano at 07/05/2008 @ 12:42am

    Have you seen the wheels on that thing lately? They have like one hell of a wide stance and the wheels are all pointing in different directions! Some are even in reverse while others are trying to move forward simultaneously.

    Get crushed? Why one would have to make one great effort to get to that point where the Straight Talk Express is just there just 'spinning' around; it's really not going anywhere. Well, maybe down.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 10:13am

12. Indeed, the mainstream media rarely put Helms's career in context the way they did, for example, with Sam Ervin, a Democrat who served with Helms in the Senate from North Carolina before retiring in 1975. Ervin was the leading legal strategist against Civil Rights legislation, and he largely crafted the Southern Manifesto against Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ruled school segregation unconstitutional. But Ervin was the man who chaired the Watergate hearings that helped bring down Richard Nixon, and his views on civil rights were almost never mentioned. Both Helms and Ervin were courtly, principled conservatives. Only one became a cartoon media villain.

    Some of us think the libs are racist. I see it everywhere. Your hero slick willie- yuck - plays the racist card hard. didn't work for for them this time. The white hands ad was copied from a democrat I believe. something ti be verified but it would make sense- democrats are racists! right?

    Posted by rjpayne at 07/05/2008 @ 11:18am

13. libzr-liberals have no history of being racist nor were you able to show that such a history exists.You,simply,showed your ignorance by trying to claim that those southern democrats were liberals.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2008 @ 12:00pm

14. libzr-Don't forget that those racist southern democrats that you referred to are now republicans.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2008 @ 12:03pm

15. Civilized society ends when the reptiles skin all the mink.

    But then again, everyone, even the most dense, must recognize that there is after all-- global warming...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 12:19pm

16. The "White Hands" ad was one of the best campaign ads ever written. It was not a racist ad, it was an issues ad. That is, after all, exactly what does happen when quotas of any kind are put in place: a potentially more qualified candidate is turned away so that a quota can be filled. It is wrong, Wrong, WRONG! How any person who professes to have any sense of fairness can support such policies is beyond me.

    The ad could have been(and versions of it were)used against any candidate, black or white, supporting racial quotas.

    It was only considered racist because white (accused racist) Republican Jesse Helms ran it against black Democrat Harvey Gantt in southern state North Carolina.

    If Mitt Romney had run the same ad against Ted Kennedy in a Massachusetts senate race no one would have considered Romney a racist.

    Posted by joeydavis at 07/05/2008 @ 12:35pm

17. Posted by libzRfreaks at 07/05/2008 @ 11:38am

    this is how people like Helms, Olllie North, G. gordon Liddy and Scooter become heroes, and how a man like George W. Bush can be elected twice as president.

    Pure unabashed ignorance.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/05/2008 @ 12:43pm

18. How sad---to turn the death of a distinguished Senator into an opportunity to slander a candidate for president that you oppose. Jesse Helms always stood on principal during his career as a US Senator---and never more boldly than when he cast the only vote against confirming Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State. Kissinger's willingness to sacrifice US interests at almost every diplomatic turn proved Helms instincts to be dead on! Liberals like Mr. Nichols are of course to be congratulated on their compassion in wishing to take money and jobs from those who have earned them and transfer them to those who have not earned them. The white hands commercial was divisive only in the sense that it's difficult to expect those who would be given a good paying job through an affirmative program the assigns a racial preference to stand up and oppose such a preference on principal. If you liberals want to make a difference in equality and the differential crime rate in the black community, then you need to abandon your union allies in the NEA and support the funding of vouchers for disadvantaged kids rather than increasing the appropriations to the overpaid administrators who run the public school system for their own benefit.

    Posted by oolagah_otto at 07/05/2008 @ 12:52pm

19. Jesse Helms: could riddance to an unrepentant creep. Let's hope his type will permanently go out of fashion someday.

    Posted by Zero at 07/05/2008 @ 1:01pm

20. Er, pay the poor to take the children to underpaid teachers-- now that makes a lot of sense... to the rich.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 1:04pm

21. (And I only wish the enemies of affirmative action programs, who claim that these programs harm white workers, would understand that the real economic issue is the truly grotesque level of wealth inequality that exists in the US, not programs that still exist in some places intended to give a leg up to people who are predominantly the poorest in the country. If workers in general had more economic security, in a country that treats workers as cheaply disposable labor robots, then we would all be less susceptible to ads like "White Hands". And that's what "White Hands" was about, and why the ad was so objectionable - it exploited racial tensions to create fear and alienation between people who actually have a lot in common in terms of an adversarial relationship with the richest segments of the American population.)

    Posted by Zero at 07/05/2008 @ 1:07pm

22. One must never forget-- when raising very young children, please do not emphasize what is it that you 'do not' want them to do, but rather-- 'do' tell them what it is you would prefer that they do. Very young children tend to fixate on the concept of action and 'not' on the concept of choice.

    Benjamin Franklin 1706-90. 'Tax is a subscription to a civilised society.'

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 1:11pm

23. This article hits the nail on the head regarding Helms' legacy. A myriad of his own quotations show what a racist he was. Unlike other politicians who were racist in the 50s and 60s and later apologized, he never renounced his racist opinions. Media (including many in the so-called liberal media) and conservative bloggers) who want to memorialize and lionize Helms as if someone like Bob Dole had died are being too kind. It is fine to oppose abortion and support tax cuts or the war in Iraq. However, when unabashed racism is added to that record, a politician should lose his or her right to cannonization. The conservative straw person that Obama supporters call every critic of Obama a racist should also be called out and denounced. Most progressives would agree that there are conservatives who oppose Obama for the same reasons they would have opposed Clinton or Edwards or Biden. However, when conservatives go beyond a principled critique of Obama's position on Iran or abstinence-based sex education and use racist language like "Obama boy" then it is fair to wonder how they can see out of their white sheet in order to write their invectives. The conservative movement is home to people who think like George Will and those who think like George Wallace (circa 1959).

    Posted by Kodi at 07/05/2008 @ 1:16pm

24. If you are for equality it matters little if you are black or white-- to a racist.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 1:38pm

25. This column warns that "the 2008 campaign of Republican McCain...will take a Helmsian turn."

    There's no sign of this. Conversely, McCain has acted quickly to step on Bob Cunningham and the Tennessee GOP this season, in a clear attempt to keep the dialogue elevated (as promised).

    Unfortunately, Obama himself opened the door to racially divisive punditry in this campaign with his, "Did I mention he's black?" gag. This remark raised the false spectre of a racist John McCain. It created tacit permission for polemicists like Nichols to use the occaision of Helms' passing to fluff up the strawman, decorating with some choice name drops (Thurmond, Wallace, Duke) for added scare effect.

    This is quite a shame, and the "we're slinging, so McCain surely will" argument is not going to fly. Image untarnished, he'll stay on the high road.

    I long for the issues-based campaign to begin, with both candidates standing to tell us what they'll do for us and how.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/05/2008 @ 1:56pm

26. Posted by man00ver at 07/05/2008 @ 1:56pm

    You have such a PRE-9/11-type attitude.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 2:17pm

27. Faux Woos doesn't:

    http://tinyurl.com/54wjfn

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 3:19pm

28. hsuBfools - I find your responses a little cryptic.

    Are you saying it's OK to imply McCain is a racist because of 9/11?

    And what's with the link to the coverage of Obama's clandestine filming session? The relevance escapes me, please help.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/05/2008 @ 3:36pm

29. manoover - McCain may keep himself pure, but if he wants to keep his whole campaign pure as well, why does he gather these guys around him who are known for playing dirty?

    Posted by ramara at 07/05/2008 @ 3:43pm

30. <i>Posted by Kodi at 07/05/2008 @ 1:16pm </i>

    I think you have a valid point here, but at the same time I think there is an implicit danger. I completely agree with you that there are a number of issues about which people can have principled disagreements with one another, and racism isn't one of them.

    I'm not sure, though, if we want to carry it as far as some other posters are suggesting. While I think it is absolutely valid and indeed necessary to critique the racism of an individual, it's also important to remember that that racism is not ALL that composes an individual. The man has just died, and when remembering him I think it's worthwhile to remember the WHOLE person, not simply the aspect of him that was racist. Remember that he also had a family, people who cared about him, saw a loving side of him and no doubt mourn him. Remember that he was a human being.

    I can predict pretty easily what the response to this will be. Someone will say "really, should we then 'pay respects', as it where to Hitler? Or Stalin? Or perhaps Che? Saddam?" Casting aside momentarily the multiple faults in that analogy, and realizing how difficult what I'm defending actually is, I'd have to say...yes. No matter how much someone has done, no matter how far they have fallen, they still deserve to be remembered as human beings, who despite whatever they've done to degrade the dignity of others, still possess a kind of "divine spark." There was, in them, some good even if it lay concealed beneath the many hateful things perpetrated by even these the world's worst dictators. This isn't easy to do, I'm sure; I still have a great deal of trouble with it. But, at the end of the day, how else is "love your enemies" to be understood?

    Posted by Thrawn at 07/05/2008 @ 4:02pm

31. What's the difference between Jesse Helms playing the race card and Barack Obama playing the race card. They're both politicians.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:02pm

32. What's the difference between a black man feeling 'bad' that there are racists in the world and a racist that feels good that there are other racists around same as him?

    Wow now that is really a hard one...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 4:10pm

33. I can remember about twenty five years ago in the community I lived in, the word among blacks, which was fostered in the black churches was that the only way to beat whitey is to out populate him and have as many babies as possible that would turn into votes eighteen years later, toward that end. Welfare provided that for every baby a single mother had, she would get more money and food stamps every month. Black men had a fine time running around impregnating every young black woman they could find and then walked away. I can remember them bragging about it. The black community played the system against the hand that was feeding them. Before anyone starts crying racist, let me say that their were of course some exceptions. But by and large, single mothers had five and six and more babies, most of which would never know their fathers.

    I can remember standing in the checkout counter at the grocery store with my meager groceries that I could afford on my salary and waiting behind a black woman with several kids in tow, loading steaks and chicken and veggies and everything else on the counter and then paying for it all with food stamps. Yes, that left a really bad taste in my mouth and I was and still am a democrat.

    Jessee Helms of course was a dyed in the wool racist just like Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott. But I can remember southern politicians speaking against welfare for that very reason.

    Well, along comes Barack Obama and guess what. The black community had the numbers to put him over the top in some very close contests. The strategy from twenty years before worked. Black people who didn't know anything about him except that he was black and could speak like a whity, voted for him in droves.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:17pm

34. Posted by Maskbeta at 07/05/2008 @ 4:10pm

    Hillary explained that to my satisfaction. She wrote about the entire episode in her book and the facts were verified. She emblissed on the campaign trail in snippets and under extreme fatigue. I cut her slack. As for Obama and Iraq, what are you going to say when he comes home from Iraq and talks about the progress he saw?

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:19pm

35. We musn't forget either that people like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd grew up in a time when men in white hoods, (Byrd was one of them), hung black men for looking at a white girl. Hopefully that ugliness has passed but I'm not so sure.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:22pm

36. Posted by Maskbeta at 07/05/2008 @ 4:21pm

    Read her book. You'll cut her slack too. Stop listening to what everyone else tells you and learn to read.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:23pm

37. hsuBfools - I find your responses a little cryptic.

    Are you saying it's OK to imply McCain is a racist because of 9/11?

    And what's with the link to the coverage of Obama's clandestine filming session? The relevance escapes me, please help.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/05/2008 @ 3:36pm

    I was being ironic, i.e. you stating there's no evidence proving McCave will use the nuclear political weaponry that he is clearly purchasing... Wasn't that the very reasoning that the petty hsuB/cHeney dic'tator admin used to lie us into Iraq? Only difference is there's no lie about McCave's purchases.

    And as far as Faux Woos reporting-- it is their overt implication that something nefarious is happening as the one filming is associated with Al Gore; clearly an automatic hot button missile launch for those on the new con supporting dic'tatorship philosophy side.

    Sorry if you do not see the obvious metaphors. I'm just bad that way.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 4:26pm

38. It's ironic but this thread is about Jesse Helms and racism and you're critisizing Hillary who along with her husband did so much for blacks only to be betrayed by those same people when the shit hit the fan.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:26pm

39. Posted by Maskbeta at 07/05/2008 @ 4:20pm

    Now why did I know that you'd be the first to shout racism? It was between either you, Zero or Mett.

    Can't not talk about the facts. Alot of people in my community were upset about that situation in those days and my community was heavily democratic.

    So take your headout of the sand, your nose out of Obama's ass and get yourself educated.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:30pm

40. BTW, anyone who is capable of having an intelligent discussion on this issue will get a response from me to further the discussion. But if you're going to take the road that Dillweed and others do here, don't bother. You won't get a reply.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:31pm

41. FrGr,

    Why were you blaming a few poor black women for your state of affairs and not the many many more rich white folk that just happen to be born wealthy per black people being used as their fathers and grandfathers free utility?

    I know I know, it's much easier to attack the weakened than it is to see the truth.

    Been there, done that.

    No more.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 4:39pm

42. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 4:39pm

    Ok, thats a decent argument so I'll reply. I've always advocated for the poor but I truly detested those who cheated the system. Welfare was supposed to be a helping hand for poor people of all colors. What I'm speaking out on was the concerted effort by the black community to bilk the system and swell their population in the process. There have been reems of material written on this argument over the years. Bill Clinton answered by reforming welfare and making it harder for people to steal from the system. And that's exactly what it was, stealing.

    So don't go getting all pious on me. Keep it real.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:44pm

43. BTW, there's nothing wrong with my state of affairs. I've done quite well for myself. I live an honest, healthy and clean life and I don't cheat my government.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:46pm

44. If anyone else wants to speak with honesty on this subject, I'll be here for about another hour and then gone for the night.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:47pm

45. FrGr,

    But why can't you put blame where it honestly is-- it was the much larger populated rich whites that took advantage of black slaves and then racist attitudes that drove wages down which then created, by necessity-- the welfare state? Or are you saying that blacks created their own slavery and welfare state? Or are you simply blaming Obama for a few blacks that took advantage of a horrible situation?

    Uhmmm, destroying a whole crop per a few apples surviving in the box they were stolen in... And it must of cost the system a few million dollars over a few decades...

    Wish you were as adamant about your petty dic'tator extra-rendition/pilfering no bid billions and disappearing them from our coffers for MIC GOP BBB (big business buds). But no that's business; ok for big corporations to steal, or...

    ..is it because you'd like to believe that they're white, maybe?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 5:13pm

46. Anyone else want to buy Frank a white sheet? Why don't you bother to figure out why the mothers have no choice but to be on welfare and then produce a lot of children just to somehow make a decent life? It is honestly despicable that you think someone chooses to stay on welfare out of the blanket tar of laziness. Getting out of the system is much much much harder. If you don't think it is, you try it. And equating that to skin color is blatant racism period. Your true colors have finally shown.

    Posted by yutsano at 07/05/2008 @ 5:45pm

47. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 5:13pm

    I agree with most of your post except your insinuations. I offered a topic for discussion that most people shy away from. I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that blacks were more than victimized in this country and to a certain extent still are. However, having said that, I still feel victimized by a black community who used my tax dollars and those of all Americans who worked for a living, even as we agreed with their plight and actually stole. I know that during the last decade because of clinton's overhaul of welfare that these abuses were lesseened but not eliminated.

    There was also an attitude in those post riot days that if you don't give it to us, we'll take it from you. As if we were personally responsible for slavery. In my neighborhood, blacks and whits and other ethnic groups co-existed. As I've said before, some of my best friends were black. They weren't shy about bragging about how they scammed the system and got all the free sex they wanted while whitey paid for it. They said these things in an animated joking way but we knew they were serious. The facts bear that truth out.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 5:58pm

48. Posted by yutsano at 07/05/2008 @ 5:45pm

    I'll respond to you because you admitted exactly what I was saying 'mothers have no choice but to be on welfare and then produce a lot of children just to somehow make a decent life'.

    I was poor when I was a boy but I got a paper route when I was thirteen, a job as a dishwasher when I was fifteen, (still had the paper route), and as a short order cook at sixteen. I helped put food on my familys table because I wasn't afraid to work. I didn't steal from the government.

    So knock off the bullshit about the white sheets. That shit doesn't cut it with me. The first thing blacks always say when you nail them for their ways is to accuse the messenger of being a racist. Well you know what, I consider Barack Obama a racist because he used the race card against Bill Clinton. He was pretty obvious about it.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 6:05pm

49. ah liberal racism is alive and well on the Nation website. The worst part is that they always deny it while proudly proclaiming the success of their racist programs (ie welfare state), all intended to keep African Americans in poverty and beholden to their liberal slave masters who hold the purse strings in exchange for their vote.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/05/2008 @ 6:07pm

50. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/05/2008 @ 6:07pm

    I don't think affirmative action was meant to keep Afro-Americans in poverty.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 6:19pm

51. Gotta go. I'll check back late tonight.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 6:20pm

52. frankie, as i pointed out even before your more overtly racist tirades, you are a racist swine, and i will rejoice when the last of your kind departs the corporeal realm. Your disgusting, noxious denigration of african americans has absolutely no place in a civilized, modern world. You are a despicable person. I can only hope that your "son" has different values than you- if not, he is probably a despicable war criminal who expressed his racism by murdering and raping iraqis. Choke on your own bile and croak you pile.

    Posted by entropy at 07/05/2008 @ 6:32pm

53. I apologize to all except frank for the coarseness of my response, but I figured perhaps this was the only way to trigger some semblance of cognition in a man who routinely refers to his interlocutors as "motherfuckers" and just as routinely ignores all rational discourse which invalidates his facile "points." Anyone who talks about a race of people in the way he just did is beyond pathetic, and should receive no quater from the most brutal verbal barrages we can muster. so this ones for you frankie- Choke on a pretzel you hillbilly fuck.

    Posted by entropy at 07/05/2008 @ 6:39pm

54. btw, good riddance to helms- everyone should take a little time off work, travel to his resting place, and piss on his grave.

    Posted by entropy at 07/05/2008 @ 6:40pm

55. lvliberty-If you do some fact gathering you'll discover that most people who are on welfare are white and affirmative action is not just for blacks.I know that these facts will mean nothing to you and that you will just repeat your nonsense,but I thought I would mention them,anyway.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2008 @ 6:42pm

56. The facts bear that truth out.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 5:58pm

    What facts? That one or two of your black 'buds' got a gullible sourpuss to believe their uncollaborated stories? Do you also believe that the earth is 5K years old because some anti-science idiot new con puts a horse saddle on dinosaur bones?

    Don't you see that you're basing it all on the color of their skin and not on any facts: you've pre-judged a whole race based on a couple of black guys that were attracted to you-- I can kinda see why they told you those stories... It's actually pretty funny that you fell for it.

    But lets for a second follow your faulty logic to see if it indeed isn't racist. With that logic why then don't you also feel victimized by the paraplegic stuck on a wheel chair for using the ramps 'we all' had to paid for? Better yet-- do you feel even more victimized if the paraplegic is black or hispanic?

    Sorry FrGr your whole argument teeters on the premise that it's 'the' blacks that manipulate the system therefore it's not as bad that the hsuB petty dic'tatorship let 'them' waste away in New Orleans. Just like you blame blacks for Obama beating Billary like the old rug full of swept under dirt.

    No FrGr, it's not 'those' ungrateful blacks' fault that Obama is winning-- it's all those ungrateful multitudes that want a drastic change from our current disastrous petty dictatorship and 'we the people' saw that change more in Obama than in Billary. It's really that simple.

    You need to take off your green tinted glasses. (lime green being the opposite of the color rose and also symbolically represents envy)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 6:43pm

57. lvliberty-Many of those whites on welfare are in red states and vote GOP.Guess liberals aren't holding any purse strings in exchange for votes,.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2008 @ 6:44pm

58. frankgrits-reading someones self promoting book would teach us nothing about the person.never read any of their books and don't need to.those are for the gullible.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2008 @ 6:46pm

59. Frankgrits used to say that some of us on here were secret republican operatives,except for Mask who was a secret Nation employee,but none of our views have changed to GOP views.Only FrankGrits,now,spews non stop GOP talking points. Only FrankGrits views have changed.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2008 @ 6:52pm

60. FrGr reminds me of the movie- Invasion of the Body Snatchers... for some strange reason.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 6:57pm

61. *The first thing blacks always say when you nail them for their ways is to accuse the messenger of being a racist.*

    The fact that you can't see that calling all African-Americans "lazy" is stereotyping of the worst order just shows that you are seeing the issue as an us vs them. You are taking on the worst arguments that white racists have used since the end of slavery that make equality for all American citizens that much more of a struggle. You know what? Vote for Grandpa, I think he really is closer to your true personal philosophy. It also explains your romance with the old Goldwater Girl.

    Posted by yutsano at 07/05/2008 @ 7:01pm

62. With a little luck, Helms is in HELL with Strom...

    Rot in Hell Uncle Jesse !!!

    And i believe some kind of tour stop at Jesse's grave for urination might be a real money maker..??

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/05/2008 @ 9:02pm

63. Posted by entropy at 07/05/2008 @ 6:39pm

    Listen up shit for brains. If you can point to one thing I said that wasn't true do so. If not, eat shit and die.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 10:28pm

64. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 6:43pm

    Do your homework. Find out the percentage of single black women had three kids or more with different partners just to fleece the system. Why you'd want to defend these people is beyond. I don't see anywhere where I said the entire black race was doing this. But it was done on a broad scale all across America and mainly in the cities where it was easy to work the welfare system. You can all get up on your high horses and protest that you're holier than thou but there is a big difference in taking people's hard earned mony and helping the poor and allowing the degenerates to work the system the way they did.

    Call me anything you like but do your homework first.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 10:33pm

65. Posted by yutsano at 07/05/2008 @ 7:01pm

    If you can show me anywhere where I said that all Afro-Americans are lazy, I might agree with you. You're a little too sensitive. I wonder why.

    I simply pointed out a flaw in the system that was, for the most part corrected in the Clinton administration with welfare reform. Welfar was meant to help the disadvantaged while they try to pull themselves up. It wasn't meant to support baby factories, black or white.

    There is a serious lack of intellectual honesty on this board. Who would defend someone who fleeces the government. They in effect are stealing from you. It doesn't matter what color they are.

    I merely made mention of the fact that is well known in the black community that the idea was to populate as fast as possible to get the vote. It worked.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 10:39pm

66. There are some really childish people who post on these threads. I have no interest in wasting my time trying to have an intelligent conversation with brainwashed or otherwise intellectually challanged individuals. I said I would discuss this topic anytime anyplace with people who aren't so thin-skinned. If you are black and you take offense, you should be chastising the people in your own communities who committed these crimes against society. It was. afterall, out and out theft.

    On the otherhand if you are on the up and up and your mother didn't partake in this charade and you actually know who your father is, then you should be grateful that your family wasn't a part of it, BLACK OR WHITE.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 10:45pm

67. I knew I would ruffle some feathers when I broached this subject. That's why nobody likes to talk about it. But that doesn't make it any less true. People become hysterical when a white man accuses a black person of welfare fraud.

    The problem is that now we have a half black man running for President and the subject of racial differences will be discussed. Making like it doesn't exist solves nothing.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 10:55pm

68. Sorry if you do not see the obvious metaphors. I'm just bad that way.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 4:26pm

    Thanks for explaining. I think I get you now. You think it's OK to splash a little racism on McCain because Fox News splashed a little Global Warming on Obama.

    I'm not persuaded of the proportionality of this, however. Voters will hardly be scandalized by Obama's association with Gore or their mutual supportiveness. And, unless I'm mistaken, global warming activism is a liberal plank Obama publically embraces (so far). No real shock value there. My guess about the hush-hush: Obama's Convention Documentary will be submitted for an Oscar.

    If you agree McCain can be expected to run a racist campaign because Black and Castellanos once worked for Helms, as Nichols clearly implies, I think you're both being a little free-wheeling with a more serious implication. McCain's now in charge of the party and its message (strangely enough), and you should allow that means for some changes. I'll join you in holding him responsible for the message, throughout the campaign (and possibly beyond), but I predict that he'll continue to clobber anyone that even glances at the low road.

    I wonder if Obama will respond to voices like Nichols? Will he proclaim this line of attack "inartful?" Fierce indeed.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/05/2008 @ 10:56pm

69. From: Welfare Reform: An Historical Overview by Richard K. Caputo, PhD

    {1}This essay provides an historical overview of welfare reform efforts prior to enactment of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton on 22 August. [1] Although the end of the entitlement nature of welfare was largely unforeseen, the emphasis in the Act on self-sufficiency and work for able-bodied parents, particularly for mothers with young children, had controversial roots since the 1960s. This essay explores those roots chronologically, highlighting the major provisions of earlier welfare reform efforts through the 103rd Congress. It documents a shift in the philosophy from income maintenance to self-support. This essay suggests that passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 signified the formal end of income maintenance for able-bodied parents and released the federal government from responsibility for reducing poverty per se by reaffirming the labor market as the major arbiter of economic well-being for American citizens.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:05pm

70. More from Dr. Caputo

    State and Congressional Reform Initiatives During the First Two Years of the Clinton Administration

    {16}During his presidential campaign, Bill Clinton promised to end welfare as we know it. President Clinton unveiled his Administration's proposal for reform on 14 June 1994. [52] He did so in light of requests by over two dozen states for waivers allowing them to make major changes in their welfare programs. [53] These initiatives, like the Administration's plan itself, encompassed three main issues: having babies while on welfare, mandatory employment, and deadlines. In regard to single parents and their babies, New Jersey, for example, provided free health insurance, food stamps, and $64 a month for each child to mothers on welfare, but the state's "child exclusion" provision drew the line at children born to mothers already on welfare. [54] Having additional children no longer increased the monthly check. In August and September 1993, welfare mothers who had conceived after the program took effect had 1,678 babies, 336 fewer than for the same two months in 1992. [55] Georgia required unmarried women under the age of eighteen who were pregnant or already mothers to live with a parent or guardian to be eligible for welfare. [56] Georgia also froze the welfare benefits of mothers on welfare for two years if they had another child. [57] And Minnesota automatically withheld child and spousal support from paychecks of "deadbeat" parents.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:08pm

71. I posted the above in an effort to prove to anyone who wants the truth to be able to read where this problem was a national epidemic. I didn't imagine anything and I wasn't swayed by a couple of blacks as one innane poster stated.

    This information is out there for anyone who cares to research it. There's much more.

    By and large, these welfare cheats got away with their misdeeds but their children did grow up and now they can blindly vote for a man just because he's black. To the tune of 98%. We have a problem that the 'change' candidate is not going to address.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:12pm

72. An anti-welfare rhetoric pervaded the 1994 midterm elections. [75] A consensus emerged to the effect that 1) the welfare system promoted dependence on government, discouraged recipients from working, penalized them for being married and provided bonuses for having additional children, 2) welfare changed from being a temporary safety net to a way of life with increasing numbers of long-term users, and 3) welfare should involve the recipient's part responsibility beyond child care per se and toward self-support, entailing work requirements for mothers and a crackdown on child support payments for fathers. [76] Several legislative proposals introduced into Congress prior to the Clinton Administration plan reflected this consensus and drew from many state initiatives. HR 3500, sponsored by Minority Leader Robert Michel (R-IL), for example, would have imposed a two-year time limit on welfare benefits, capped federal funding on several anti-poverty programs, and ended welfare for most non-citizens. [77] S 16, sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), authorized additional funding for the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program, created in 1988, which provided AFDC recipients with work, remedial education, and training. [78] HR 4051, sponsored by Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) created a child-support assurance program, guaranteeing that the federal government would provide child support if the non-custodial parent did not. [79] S 1795, sponsored by Senator Hank Brown (R-CO), established time limits on welfare, restricted benefits to legal aliens and required states to set up job programs using vouchers. [80] And S 1891, sponsored by Senator Nancy Kassenboum (R-KS) provided for enhanced federal funding of Medicaid in exchange for state takeover of AFDC, food stamps and WIC, the special supplemental food program for Women, Infants and Children. [81] The Clinton Administration's plan essentially embraced the consensus and reflected state efforts.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:14pm

73. Pore Jesse's daid, Pore old Jesse Helms is daid, All gather 'round his coffin now and cry And cry!

    He had a heart of brass And a G-O-P pol's ass And that's why such a feller had to die.

    Pore Jesse's daid Pore old Jesse Helms is daid, He's lookin' oh so peaceful and serene And serene!

    He's all laid out to rest With his hands acrost his chest His fingernails have never been so clean!

    Pore Jesse's daid Pore old Jesse Helms is daid His racist friends'll weep for miles around Miles around!

    The daisies in the dell Will give out a different smell Cause Jesse Helms is underneath the ground.

    Pore Jesse's daid A candle lights his haid He's layin' in a coffin made of wood Made of wood!

    And some folks are feelin' glad Cause he used to treat 'em bad But now they know old Jesse's gone for good For good!

    Pore Jesse's daid A candle lights his haid! He's lookin' oh so purty and so nice

    He looks like he's asleep, And we're glad that he won't keep Cause it's summer and we're running out of ice.

    With apologies to Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein

    Posted by jwburgess6440 at 07/05/2008 @ 11:16pm

74. Teen Pregnancy, Child Support, and Other Provisions

    {26}The Clinton Administration plan also envisioned a national information clearing house and grants to local programs to combat teen pregnancy, with a five-year cost of $300 million. [88] Every school-age parent or pregnant teenager who received or applied for welfare would have been required to finish school or enroll in a JOBS program. Parents who were minors would have been required to live with a responsible adult, preferably a parent, and states would have had the option to limit benefit increases when all welfare recipients, including those born after 1972, had more children, as New Jersey, Georgia, and Arkansas had done. [89] The plan also suggested that more efforts would have been made to establish paternity at birth, and it proposed to spend $600 million over five years to improve enforcement of court orders for child support and related services. [90] The plan would have also permitted states to make it easier for two-parent families to be eligible for AFDC payments. (At the time, AFDC eligibility for two-parent families was limited to those in which the principal wage earner was unemployed but had worked in six of the last thirteen calendar quarters. [91] Loosening the laws however, might have encouraged married couples to apply for welfare and thereby expand the rolls significantly). Finally, the plan rejected the lead of House Republicans and some moderate Democrats to cut off most welfare benefits to immigrants, although some restrictions on aid to immigrants and small cuts in benefits to alcoholics and addicts under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program and in emergency assistance, among other provisions, would have helped finance the changes. [92]

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:16pm

75. Republicans had drafted their own version of welfare reform in an effort to ride a wave of public opinion that seemed to favor transforming welfare from an entitlement to a benefit that must be earned through work. House Republicans introduced welfare reform legislation to Congress both in 1993 and 1994. [108] In the first session of the 104th Congress, Republicans introduced HR 4. The Republican plan cut benefits to welfare mothers who continued having children out of wedlock; forced teen mothers on welfare to live at their parents' homes; required mothers who apply for welfare to identify the child's father in order to receive maximum benefits; cut welfare and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to immigrants; and ended SSI benefits for those whose disabilities were related to alcoholism or drug addiction. [109] Their 1995 plan also required that AFDC parents begin working within two years of receiving aid and federal funds for cash welfare generally could not be provided to any adult for more than five years. [110] After three years of participation in the Work Program (and a total of five years on AFDC), states had the option of dropping recipients from the AFDC rolls, although recipients would continue to be eligible for Medicaid, Food Stamps, and other benefits to which they were entitled. HR 4 was estimated to save about $62.1 billion over five years and $102 billion over seven years. [111] Savings were to derived from AFDC, food stamps, and SSI.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:19pm

76. people, you have to read. You have to get yourselves educated. You just can't come here and blast away at the messenger.

    This is a subject that black people would rather not talk about and that white people can't face because of guilt over the centuries of keeping blacks down. That's why blacks vote for Obama. Not because he's presidential material but because he offers hope. It's the first time they've had a chance to vote for anyone credible who wasn't white. What a mess.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:22pm

77. Blaming a whole race for the faults of some seems like stereotyping (at best) or racism to me. I would love to have an intelligent discussion, especially without the flinging of insults.

    You can quote all the literature, but in the end, you sound like an angry person with an agenda.

    By the way, thanks for posting Dr Caputo's paper. It is an interesting read. I do feel sad that one can use Dr Caputo's work to put blame on one race. I'm sorry, but you can blame all the individuals who perpetrated the "fraud", but you just can't keep going on and on about "blacks" as a whole. Until you can make the distinction between the perpetrators and the faultless, I'm sure many here won't want to bother discussing this issue.

    Posted by fufuplatter at 07/05/2008 @ 11:25pm

78. Posted by fufuplatter at 07/05/2008 @ 11:25pm

    Thanks for a reasoned response. You are a breath of fresh air. Dealing with some of the people on this site does make me angry at times. If you've followed things here for long enough, you know who I mean. These are the same people who loved me when I was bashing Bush.

    As for the topic at hand, I posted Dr. Caputo's work to provide an impartial reading of the facts of welfare reform.

    If you've noticed in some of my previous posts, I referred to welfare cheats both black and white. The sad fact is that the vast majority were black however. They had a sense of entitlement.

    The part about populating the black race in this country in order to get political leverage is a no-brainer. The black communities by and large turned the other way while this was happening and was being preached in the pulpit. The recent rantings of Rev. Wright and others was not uncommon.

    I didn't want to paint the black community with such a broad brushstroke but I can't change the facts or the statistics.

    I can, however understand how extreme liberals and the black community in general whould not want to talk about this subject in the 'urgency' of this moment.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:34pm

79. As for those of you who want to continue to insult the messenger. Fire away. I will give it back to you with both barrels and proof.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:37pm

80. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 6:43pm

    Do your homework. Find out the percentage of single black women had three kids or more with different partners just to fleece the system.

    Call me anything you like but do your homework first.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 10:33pm

    Er, no, FrGr-- Where's your homework? Show me specifically where you sited above where it states in a scientific research study what racist BS you've been spewing here.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 11:45pm

81. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 11:45pm

    You're lazy. I see you didn't bother to read what I posted. please don't respond again unless you are willing to have an intelligent discussion.

    You're the one who's arguing with me. Post something that contradicts what I did and we'll go from there. If not then just go away.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:49pm

82. Did I miss something Frank..?? I didnt See any references to Skin color in that report.. Just welfare stats...

    Question... U.S. Population ?? Afro-American percentage..?? Number of black people on welfare...?? number of whites on welfare..?? Vast Majority.??? no.

    And please stop beating the Rev. Wright bs... You and I both know its a political smokescreen... (abortion/gay rights ya know, the 'real issues')

    I dont think you are a racist,and I agree, race talk always gets people fired up... HOWEVER, do you believe 4 more years of failed policies will help..??

    I'm just tired of the talking heads and bullshit spinsters driving the general discussion... enough of the smokescreens ... I dont need (and in my humble opinion) America dosent need the usual sleight o' hand this election cycle.... gays/abortion/and yes SCARE TACTICS...

    so when everyone here starts hearing the national security drum beating and the 'terrorists/nine-eleven' trupet blaring on fox and the terror alert color codes goin up, think...

    p.s. Helms, ROT IN HELL

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/05/2008 @ 11:55pm

83. I can see that in the year of the first black Presidential candidate, nobody wants to touch the issue of welfare fraud with a ten foot pole. Not on this site anyway.

    Time for bed.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:56pm

84. Thanks for explaining. I think I get you now. You think it's OK to splash a little racism on McCain because Fox News splashed a little Global Warming on Obama.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/05/2008 @ 10:56pm

    Er, Do you add up a saddle on dinosaur bones to equal humanity is only 5K years old too?

    I swear having a conversation with repub new con dic'tator philosophy supporters reminds me of my work in a state mental hospital. One just never can tell what world the patients were living in from one moment to the next, but it surely wasn't this one.

    What I said was:

    "I was being ironic, i.e. you stating there's no evidence proving McCave will use the nuclear political weaponry that he is clearly purchasing... Wasn't that the very reasoning that the petty hsuB/cHeney dic'tator admin used to lie us into Iraq? Only difference is there's no lie about McCave's purchases."

    And manoverboard got:

    "Thanks for explaining. I think I get you now. You think it's OK to splash a little racism on McCain because Fox News splashed a little Global Warming on Obama."

    But then again is 'overboard' as delusional as FrGr, uhmmm? Your guess.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 12:02am

85. You're lazy. I see you didn't bother to read ...

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:49pm

    No FrGr, I read it all. You are officially a big bag of racist lying scum.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 12:06am

86. Even Obama knows it:

    Call to responsibility for black fathers

    The Virginian-Pilot © June 20, 2008 Few people have the national platform - or the credibility - to lecture black men about parental neglect than Barack Obama. His address this week was a much needed tongue-lashing. It might also spark some change in the lives of millions of African-American children.

    Obama, the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee, chose an apt time - Father's Day - to criticize African-American fathers for turning their backs on their own children. On the national level, too little dialogue has been given to this shameful circumstance. Generations of children, especially black boys, have been left without the requisite love, guidance, discipline and financial support that could ease their way to becoming responsible adults.

    "Too many fathers are MIA, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes," Obama said to packed pews at a black Chicago mega-church. "They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it."

    He noted that "more than half of all black children live in single-parent households."

    In too many black families, mothers have been left to shoulder the burden of child-rearing alone. While many do a heroic job, the task would be made easier with a father's help.

    According to federal statistics, nearly 70 percent of black births in 2005 were children born out of wedlock, compared to 25.3 percent for white births. Census data from 2006 reveal that nearly 5 million black children ages 18 and under were living with their mothers, but not their dads.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/06/2008 @ 12:12am

87. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 12:06am

    Where's your counter. Lazy fuck. Trust me, Al Gore isn't running for President.

    How old are you anyway?

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/06/2008 @ 12:13am

88. I get such a kick out of people who simply won't accept fact. It's no secret that black communities were the main culprits of welfraud for decades. It's all documented. Case after case after case. Yeah, there were a few wite cases sprinkled in but not enough to skew the stats.

    But realyy all you Obamabots. I don't blame you for not wanting to fan the flames during this particular election year. You're all intellectually bankrupt.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/06/2008 @ 12:17am

89. Posted by frankgrits at 07/06/2008 @ 12:13am

    You just fucked yourself FrGr-- you racist prick.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 12:20am

90. Too many typos. Really time for bed now. Later.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/06/2008 @ 12:21am

91. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 12:20am

    Oooooh. You nasty little man. What are you so angry about. You should take some anger control courses and then when you do, come back and post something that disprooves what I've posted.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/06/2008 @ 12:23am

92. Good night.

    Posted by frankgrits at 07/06/2008 @ 12:24am

93. few white cases sprinkled in..?? come on franco....

    No secret..?? lol... Again frank.. Open up another window and please get us a black/white/green ratio and real numbers on the welfare system....

    I have this friend we'll call 'Keith'(pronounced 'KEET' if you grew up in Mass) ... Grew up on Cape cod with him... His mom had 9 kids with 5 different fathers... White trash welfare... Tons more like his family sucking off the Govt. Teets.... Come on Frank... You race baitin' us..?? lol..

    Sprinkled in.... U sure your not a writer for Faux News..?? Stats man, Stats...

    So you bring up an Obama speech that you like.... hmm... Just askin, do you think Mccain is the man....?? I dont know your posit on that..?? Just want to know if I'm dealing with a sane person..??

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/06/2008 @ 12:30am

94. Despite prevailing stereotype, Whites, not Blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars

    SAY the word "welfare" and immediately the image of the lazy Black wellare queen who breeds for profit surfaces in the minds of those who have come to believe the hideous stereotype. It is a myth that persists despite government figures and authoritative studies showing that Whites overwhelmingly reap the lion's share of the dole.

    The image of the Black "welfare cheat," public aid advocates say, is based on misconceptions about poor minorities. The notion, they say, comes from society's resentment of seemingly ablebodied people getting paid for doing nothing.

    "For some people, there is a need to believe that there are professional welfare recipients who are deliberately trying to get not only what they need to survive, but more," says Anne D. Hill, director of programs for the National Urban League. "People say to themselves: 'I work. How come this person who appears to be healthy isn't working?' We tend to equate our condition with others without fully knowing their circumstances."

    Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.

    The federal government defines welfare as all entitlement programs funded through taxes. These programs, listed as "direct benefit payments for individuals" by the Office of Management and Budget, make up $730 billion or 43 percent of the $1.47 trillion the government will spend this fiscal year.

    Social Security is the nation's largest welfare program, although many Whites prefer to call it a retirement plan. The government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black. The reason behind this shocking disparity is perhaps the most lamentable of all: The life expectancy rate for Blacks is six years shorter than that of Whites, meaning Black workers spend years paying into a retirement system only to have White retirees reap the benefits for a longer time.

    Welfare critics rarely search the Social Security rolls for "welfare cheats," but train their sights on people getting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and food stamps, the relief programs with the most Black clients. Yet government figures show that Whites not Blacks make up the bulk of clients on these public aid programs; a fact that dispels the notion that Blacks are scheming for a free lunch courtesy of the American taxpayer.

    Among the poorest of the poor--single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children. Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients.

    Although the numbers show that Whites get the biggest chunk of public aid dollars, welfare critics still charge that Blacks shouldn't collect 33 percent of welfare benefits when they only make up 12 percent of the general population. They say the imbalance proves their case that Blacks are too busy complaining and blaming racism for their plight to look for a job.

    But racism is at the heart of the standard-of-living gap between Blacks and Whites, welfare advocates argue. Unlawful race-based hiring practices, they contend, keep Blacks from getting jobs that pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Until more blue-collar jobs open up to Black workers, Blacks will continue to battle poverty and the freeloader misconception.

    "Public and congressional deliberations over... welfare reform in the last few years have been fueled by distortions and outright falsehoods about poverty," the National Urban League asserted in its 1988 report, Black Americans and Public Policy. "Welfare reform is not solely a Black issue, but one in need of immediate attention."

    Turning welfare reform into a "Black issue" makes racial scapegoating easy and allows stereotypes, like the Reaganera "welfare queen," to go unchallenged, public aid supporters say. Rightwing reformers cast Whites as "deserving" clients who are legitimately unable to pay their own way through no fault of their own. Blacks are labeled "undeserving" recipients who are looking for the feds to subsidize their slothfulness.

    just a lil sumtin sumtin...

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/06/2008 @ 12:59am

95. While I cannot whip out welfare stats on command, I am pretty sure frankgrits is reasonably close with his numbers.

    frank, while I applaud your efforts to back your arguments up with facts, your continuous indictment of the "black community" as a whole is rather sad. I am simply pointing out something that I have read over and over again in this thread.

    The discussion of blacks and welfare should probably warrant a whole new thread, so I'll leave it at that. There are way too many variables to just condemn the black community because of some numbers. Obama did the right thing, which is to call out the black fathers to task. That is being constructive.

    Posted by fufuplatter at 07/06/2008 @ 01:07am

96. hsuBfools - I'll try again to tease out your point, then.

    By "nuclear political weaponry," you mean "racially divisive messages," right? Aren't you contending, with Nichols, that McCain's staffing of Black and consulting with Castellanos amounts to "purchase" of the "weaponry?"

    Aren't you further saying that I have "such a PRE-911-type attitude," because, in a world where Bush is president and we're at war because (you say) Bush lied about Saddam's purchase of WMD, I shouldn't dispute that McCain will employ the "nuclear" racial tactics of Jesse Helms?

    I'm still finding my way on your Fox News reference, I guess. I was sure you were complaining about their associating of Obama with Gore, Inc. Wasn't that some kind of apologia for Nichols' insinuations? Or, maybe it's an off-topic comment that Fox News lies us into war with Obama, demonstrating their "POST-911-type" attitude. Pardon my obtuseness if I'm still reading this wrong.

    Anyway, I still have to challenge the aspersions cast in this article. Nichols' title, "Jesse Helms, John McCain and the Mark of the White Hands," is a plain smear (hell, he might as well be throwing a pointy sheet over McCain's head), and I don't see how it can be justified.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/06/2008 @ 01:12am

97. Posted by frankgrits at 07/06/2008 @ 12:23am

    Not really angry FrGr, just stating a fact.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 03:18am

98. hsuBfools - I'll try again to tease...

    Posted by man00ver at 07/06/2008 @ 01:12am

    That's about the only honest point to your posts.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 03:23am

99. With people like Frankie around, who needs Jesse?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/06/2008 @ 08:58am

100. spread the fear!

     Posted by abell12ct at 07/06/2008 @ 09:30am

101. Little Johnny Another article that is a complete waste of cyber space. Trying to link John McCain to the racism of Jesse Helms should be a stretch for even Little Johnny ---but I should have known---nothing is beneath Little Johnny if it concerns his particular political agenda----his agenda always comes first---even at the expense of truth or the nations security.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/06/2008 @ 09:33am

102. Good grief, what's wrong with singing Dixie? This guy's really hung up on the song. I love the song, just like the Duke boys did. (Bo and Luke for you Northerners).

     I live in Raleigh, NC, and Jesse was my senator for a pretty long time. He really beat the hell out of Edwards. Having him as senator was an embarrassing period for NC. Compared to Jesse, Edwards was/is an empty suit with pretty hair. Jesse was rock-ribbed and solid, and you'd have to agree whether you liked him or not. The son of a bitch wouldn't budge an inch. He was tenacious and relentless in his pursuits. These days it's damn near impossible to find a politician like Jesse, who actually did what he said and said what he meant. He stared liberalism in the eye and laughed out loud. That's a quality that I sorely miss in today's crop of neutered conservatives.

     "O, I wish I was in the land of cotton Old times there are not forgotten Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

     In Dixie Land where I was born in Early on one frosty mornin' Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

     Chorus: O, I wish I was in Dixie! Hooray! Hooray! In Dixie Land I'll take my stand To live and die in Dixie Away, away, Away down south in Dixie!

     Old Missus marry Will, the weaver, William was a gay deceiver Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

     But when he put his arm around her He smiled as fierce as a forty pounder Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

     Chorus: O, I wish I was in Dixie! Hooray! Hooray! In Dixie Land I'll take my stand To live and die in Dixie Away, away, Away down south in Dixie!

     His face was sharp as a butcher's cleaver But that did not seem to grieve her Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land. Old Missus acted the foolish part And died for a man that broke her heart Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

     Chorus: O, I wish I was in Dixie! Hooray! Hooray! In Dixie Land I'll take my stand To live and die in Dixie Away, away, Away down south in Dixie!"

     Posted by Person at 07/06/2008 @ 11:00am

103. shuBfools - You're avoiding my "honest point." You don't seem to want to pass judgment on whether it's right to spread unsubstantiated rumors about John McCain, as Nichols has done. Where a principled debater would address this point directly (as I'm sure you'd gladly do if the shoe were on the other foot), you've simply attempted to distract from it, first with your not-so-obvious metaphors of questionable relevance, later stooping to name-calling and quote-clipping as a smoke screen for your retreat.

     I'll let you get back to your beside-the-point cage match with frankgrits.

     To everyone else: I predict Obama will also ignore this shameless and unsupportable line of attack on McCain, thus demonstrating he's not really into running a clean campaign. This shouldn't be a surprise, since he's shown no fortitude on his past "liberal ideals" regarding the death penalty, gun control, the privacy of foreign communications, campaign finance reform, and rapid withrawal from Iraq.

     I just can't wait for the debates.

     Posted by man00ver at 07/06/2008 @ 12:07pm

104. person=singing the losers song is right up there with flying the losers flag.Just cut to the chase and sing-I'm a loser.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 12:14pm

105. Not a bad idea. I think I'll do just that:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZJZkJi1g8

     Posted by Person at 07/06/2008 @ 1:51pm

106. Not to defend Jesse Helms, but it is interesting that Helms' critic Kerry Haynie, a Duke University political science professor, quoted in the third paragraph of John Nichols' post, was a member of the Duke faculty's infamous Group of 88 that without any evidence whatsoever, pronounced three members of the university's lacrosse team guilty of raping a woman hired to dance at one of the team parties.

     Posted by quartzkid at 07/06/2008 @ 5:35pm

107. she was dancing ..??

     lol...

     Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/06/2008 @ 6:09pm

108. "JoeyDavis" wrote:

     'The "White Hands" ad was one of the best campaign ads ever written. It was not a racist ad, it was an issues ad. That is, after all, exactly what does happen when quotas of any kind are put in place: a potentially more qualified candidate is turned away so that a quota can be filled. It is wrong, Wrong, WRONG! How any person who professes to have any sense of fairness can support such policies is beyond me.'

     There is clearly much that is beyond "JoeyDavis." For starters, there's the plain fact that whenever ANYBODY is hired to ANY position for ANY reason, it is ALWAYS possible that "a potentially more qualified candidate is turned away." This undoubtedly does happen occasionally - but not because of Affirmative Action.

     Here's how Affirmative Action works. If a candidate from a generally underrepresented group - one that demonstrably suffers diminished chances because of prejudice against it - is considered by an organization in which this group continues to be underrepresented, then this person's race or sex may be counted as a point in his or her favor, so that he or she may be chosen over an EQUALLY well qualified competitor. When the organization includes a number of members from this underrepresented group that is proportional to this group's number in the general population - this is what the "quota" means - then a new candidate's sex or race (whichever it may be) CEASES to be counted as a point in his or her favor or disfavor; instead, color-blindness and sex-blindness becomes the rule.

     Affirmative Action does not in any case favor less qualified candidates over better qualified ones. To suggest that it does is simply a lie.

     The "white hands" commercial is even worse than mendacious, because it insinuates that a white candidate who loses his job to a black candidate simply must have lost to a less qualified competitor - a racist insinuation indeed.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 07/06/2008 @ 7:33pm

109. You don't seem to want to pass judgment on whether it's right to spread unsubstantiated rumors about John McCain, as Nichols has done.

     Posted by man00ver at 07/06/2008 @ 12:07pm

     1st of all you're asking a question utilizing a false statement. Thus your question is in itself disingenuous. Much like the rest of your posts.

     All John does is ask a question:

     "The question now is whether Black will advise McCain, another Republican who is trailing an attractive African-American Democrat, to do what Helms always did?"

     2nd, my explanation was clear enough for everyone else. That 'you' are unable to reason out metaphors isn't a fault of mine and unfortunately you can't post a legit letter from an authorized entity to request an accommodation for your mental disability.

     So here we are...

     But I can state clearly for even you, and as even the perhaps new and improved 'maskbeta' states above, repubs are being rather hypocritical with their wide stance on guilt by association. And that the hsuB dic'tatorship used that same reasoning to lie us into war w/Iraq is way too easy a metaphor. But then to deny that McCave's associations are actually proven, cannot be disputed, thus only a PRE-9/11 attitude would not hold McCave suspect and accountable for his political arsenal.

     So here we are again...

     I cannot tell if 'manoverboard' really needs a disability accommodation and thus some patience - or - he's just here jerking off for fun-- anybody have insight to this one?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 7:41pm

110. Posted by quartzkid at 07/06/2008 @ 5:35pm

     Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/06/2008 @ 6:09p

     Lap dancing/stripping... It is my understanding that she may have gotten groped and called racial epithets-- thus her retaliatory lie.

     I do still prefer that the police continue to take rape charges seriously and thoroughly investigate in an unbiased way rather than not.

     However, university deans/presidents/faculty are notorious for taking the most politically expedient stand for highly controversial public situations as their charge in those situations is educational equilibrium and not necessarily judicial equity. Majorly big dif between a court of law and a school.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 7:46pm

111. Friend:

     Don't trouble yourself with these particulars. The liberals in this group neither care nor have the capacity to understand the nature of the conflict.

     Posted by Person at 07/06/2008 @ 7:51pm

112. hsuBfools - I'm happy that Maskbeta made a reasonable argument, and I'm glad to respond to your embrace of it.

     *BTW, interesting that those who want "guilt by association" with Obama and Bill Ayers...

     claim it's unfair to use the same standard with Helms, McCain, and the aides and consultants both share.

     Posted by Maskbeta at 07/06/2008 @ 4:49pm *

     Wasn't it the Clinton campaign that jumped all over this Ayers thing? I don't think McCain's camp has said a word about Ayers since he sounded a little surprised after Hillary's debate performance.

     I'm not one who thinks Obama is hurt by the Ayers question, which he has already answered to my utter satisfaction. Ayers himself has come a long way from his bad old days.

     I may, however, now be seeing what you and Nichols are really worried about, and you can tell me if I've finally got a clue. Is it the Rev. Wright "nuke" we're really talking about here?

     Well, rest assured, McCain has already defused that one, telling Sean Hannity (no less) in March, "...I do know Sen. Obama. He does not share those views." In April, he strongly condemned a local campaign ad by the NC GOP containing an inflammatory clip of Wright, and fought to prevent it from airing. Said he, "There's no place for that kind of campaigning, the American people don't want it, period," and, "I understand that it moves numbers, negative ads do all that, but that doesn't mean it's right."

     Still think Nichols is being fair to McCain?

     hsuBfools, I think your article citation is, itself, off the mark. The question is not what Black will advise McCain to do. The legitimate question is what will McCain do? I think he's already answered that, and I'll even go out on a limb and predict he'll publicly shut down any further attempt to smear Obama by association with anyone or anything other than his own policies. He doesn't need to cheat in the contest of character.

     On the other hand, the citation *I* originally clipped from Nichols' article actually goes beyond "the question" and offers a pretty rude version of "the answer" about McCain (here offered in fuller context):

     *Those who battled hardest against Helms and his racial politics are quite certain that the 2008 campaign of Republican McCain against Democrat Barack Obama, who in August will become the first African-American nominee of a major party for president, will take a Helmsian turn.

     "There's no question appeals will be made by McCain's campaign on racial lines," says North Carolina Congressman Mel Watt....*

     This is pretty harsh, no? Dirty, I'd say. What say you all?

     Posted by man00ver at 07/06/2008 @ 10:11pm

113. ......plenty of surrogates (like Hannity, Fox News, etc.) to do his dirty work for him.

     Posted by Maskbeta at 07/06/2008 @ 10:59pm

     A couple of those "surrogates" , black 20-somethings, were interviewed by Hannity on Friday. Both admitted flat out (what we just know) they were voting for Obama BECAUSE HE'S BLACK! Why? "For solidarity"!

     So, looks to me, blacks themselves, near unanimously for Obama have squarely legitimized "for solidarity" vote along racial lines.

     Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/07/2008 @ 12:23am

114. I'm sure there are many whites out there who will vote for McCain because he is white... so it's nothing new that blacks out there would want to vote for Obama because he is, well, partly black.

     Just because Hannity (of a