Andrew Sullivan: Racist Romney Voters Like ‘The Old Confederacy’

On the Sunday, October 28 edition of ABC’s This Week, Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Beast claimed that Obama might lose this election because the whole south is filled with racists that are somehow just like the Old Confederacy. As George Will noted, according to Sullivan all the whites that were not racist in 2008 suddenly are racist in 2012.

In a discussion of the “racial gap” in this year’s election, Sullivan declared all southerners to be racists and are sliding back into the civil war. “If Virginia and Florida go back to the Republicans, it’s the Confederacy, entirely. You put the map of the civil war over this electoral map you got the civil war,” he said.

George Will correctly dismissed Sullivan’s ranting as poppycock. Will noted that Democrats have been steadily losing the white vote since 1964 and that it has nothing to do with Barack Obama being black.

Will didn’t mention it, but one of the interesting tidbits of information from the 2008 election is that Obama won the largest share of any Democrat running for president since 1976 — not just any black Democrat, but any Democrat. If the country was so racist, how did that happen? He won 43 percent of the white vote in 2008.

But Sullivan persisted in his claim of racism repeatedly calling the southern states “the Confederates” and claiming that every southern state but Florida and Virginia voted as a block against Obama in 2008.

Of course, “the Confederacy” died 150 years ago. There are no “Confederate states” in 2012. But, secondly, the 2008 electoral map isn’t as cut-and-dried as Sullivan makes it seem.

It is true that in Louisiana Obama did very poorly in 2008 garnering only 14% of the white vote. He didn’t beat 20% in Mississippi or Alabama, either. But in all the rest of the south he got 20% or more of the white vote and in Florida and the upper south he got over 30% with Florida reaching 42%, and Tennessee (34%), Arkansas (30%), North Carolina (35%), and Virginia (39%) all getting over 30%. Also, Kentucky, while not a part of the Confederacy gave Obama 36% of its white vote. These numbers compare favorably to the overall white vote of 43% showing that these “Confederate” states were not that far out of line with the rest of the country.

Further, as Pew noted in its post election wrap up, race played very little part in the white vote in 2008.

While Obama’s supporters expressed concern about the impact of his race on the election, the exit poll suggests that, if anything, the race factor favored Obama. Only a small share of white voters (7%) said that race was important to their vote, and they voted overwhelmingly for McCain (66% to 33%). But their impact was overshadowed by the much larger proportion of whites who said race was not important (92%).

Ah, but let’s not let facts get in the way of Andrew Sullivan’s hatemongering. We can see what the left’s meme will be if Obama happens to lose his bid for re-election. After praising the country as post racial in 2008, those same leftists will be claiming the country is somehow just like the old Confederacy in 2012.

On a side note, it was also outrageous for Gwen Ifill to cite that flawed AP poll supposedly proving that most whites are racists in their hearts.


George Stephanopoulos: [There is] a huge racial gap, 6 out of 10 voters according to the latest, white voters voting for Governor Romney. About 8 out of 10 minorities voting for president Obama.

Gwen Ifill: And not only that but there is an Associated Press poll that came out this weekend that showed that actually the majority of Americans still admit — now this is a computer online poll so people, I guess, are more honest than they are in the telephone poll — still admit racial basis. Now, we elected a black president so we didn’t expect it all to go away. But theoretically in a very tight race, if that affects 5% of the vote, which is what the assumption is, that could affect the outcome as well — just pure animus. I don’t think most people like to think that way, like to think that’s where America is. But I don’t think that you can ignore it. It would be naive to ignore that as a factor.

Andrew Sullivan: If Virginia and Florida go back to the Republicans, it’s the Confederacy, entirely. You put the map of the civil war over this electoral map you got the civil war.

Stephanopoulos: You’re rolling your eyes, George. [He says to George Will]

Sullivan: Right? Am I wrong?

George Will: You are and I’ll show why. Democrats have been losing the white vote constantly since 1964. So, that’s not new.

Nicolle Wallace: John Kerry lost the white vote.

Will: That’s right. Here’s what we’re trying to talk about. 2008, from Obama, gets that many white votes. This time, the polls indicating they get this many, we’re trying to explain this difference. Now, there are two possible explanations. A lot of white people who voted for Obama in 2008 watched him govern for four years and said, “not so good, let’s try someone else.” The alternative, the Confederacy hypothesis, is those people somehow for some reason in the last four years became racist.

Sullivan: No, that’s not my argument at all, George.

Will: It sounds like it.

Sullivan: No. I’m just pointing out the fact that the white people who’ve changed their minds happen to be in Virginia and Florida. And if you actually look at the map — they were the only two states in the Confed…– let me just point out — it’s the southernization of the Republican party. They were the only two states in 2008 that violated the Confederacy rule.

Will: Andrew made an empirical statement that’s checkable and false. Which is that people the white people moving away are in those two states.

Wallace: And a lot of them were Republicans.

Sullivan: Which Confederate State is for Obama right now?

Stephanopoulos: Look, one more time, this could be Ohio, because that’s where president Obama is focusing on now. The white male vote in Ohio, we’ll see if that holds up.

Hurricane Sandy Live Feed And Open Thread
Shirtless Jogging Horse-Head Man Isn't Afraid Of Hurricane Sandy
  • GarandFan

    Someone should tell Trig Sullivan that ‘the race card’ has expired.

    And just out of curiosity, when Whites don’t vote for Obama, it’s RACISM! Yet when a majority of Blacks vote for Obama…….that’s Democracy?

  • fustian24

    I like the comment I saw on Instapundit in which it was suggested that Andrew should go back to what he does best: forensic gynecology.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Let’s see, which party supported slavery about the time of the civil war? Which party had more of it’s congress critters vote against the civil rights act of 1964? To ascribe Obama’s lower support to racism is to live in denial. The left was given control of the house, senate and presidency and then governed so poorly that even Massachusetts voted for a republican to stop them.

    • ackwired

      You are referring to what they used to call the “solid south” because they always voted Democratic as a block. They went Democratic after the Republicans went in after the Civil War and organized the former slaves to elect some blacks to office. They stayed “solid” until the Democrats betrayed them and passed the civil rights legislation. Lyndon Johnson’s famous quote at the time was something on the order that the Democrats had lost the south for a couple of generations.

      • jim_m

        The dems didn’t lose the south until over a decade later when they betrayed the more socialy conservative wing of their party. Look it up.

      • jim_m

        You do realize that you are an ass for suggesting that the racists in the south left the dems to join the party that was even more pro civil rights than the dems ever were.

        • ackwired

          Of course this is not true. Please see the votes for the civil rights act above. They shake out much more by region than by party. But exclusive of the south, the Democrats were slightly more supportive than the Republicans.

          • jim_m

            You really are a dumbass. Of course they shake out by region dipshit. The dems owned the segregated south. Jeez you’re dumb. The point was that the GOP was for over a century in favor of civil rights and only over the objections of the dems (who filibustered the act you dolt!) was it ever passed. To suggest that the racists left the democratic party to join those who emancipated the slaves and started the whole problem in the first place is ridiculous.

            The truth is that the racists are all still in the dem party. They are the ones saying that we need to set lower expectations for blacks so they can graduate from school because blacks are too stupid to expect them to achieve the same standard of everyone else.. They are the ones who say that when you want to reform welfare you are a racist because in their racist mindset ALL blacks are poor and incapable of taking care of themselves.

            The left is full of racism but they have learn to couch their racist beliefs in words of sympathy for how ineducable and incapable blacks are. The very last thing the left wants to do is to judge a person by their character and ability. What the left stands for is judging people by the color of their skin. That’s what racism is. That is what MLK Jr called racism. That is what the left stands for.

          • ackwired

            I’ll ignore the childish insults.
            The voting numbers clearly show that the opposition to civil rights came from the south. Not because they were Democrats, but because they were southerners. The numbers show that this is true for both the Republican and Democratic party. To suggest that the southerners opposed civil rights because they were Democrats can not be supported by any facts available. Indeed, the non-south Democrats voted for the act overwhelmingly. You can get emotional and scream all you want. But you don’t scare anybody. It is general knowledge that the South was slave country, KKK country, prisoner labor country, poll tax country, etc., all while they were solidly Democratic (except for slavery). Of course they started voting against Democrats after the civil rights bill. Now please don’t run out that strawman about how many politicians switched to the Republican party. We all know what’s going on here.

          • jim_m

            That’s right because very few politicians switched parties. And what is going on here is just leftist bullshit trying to say that the GOP deliberately appeals to racism to win votes.

            I challenge you to defend the same bullshit that I have challenged Bruce to. Show me where the GOP had a “Southern Strategy” in 1972 when they won 49 states, in 1980 when they won 44 states and in 1984 when they won 49 states.

            The idea of any strategy to deliberately appeal to racism is pure bullshit and only believed by ignorant rubes who never bother to look beyond the talking points delivered to them by their left wing masters.

          • ackwired

            “And what is
            going on here is just leftist bullshit trying to say that the GOP
            deliberately appeals to racism to win votes.”

            There you go again! I don’t think that is what is being said at all. What I hear being said is that the solid south is solid once again. Racism hid behind states rights prior to the civil rights act, and federal activism guaranteed civil rights. I think that what you are hearing is simply that racists are still more comfortable in conservative environments that oppose federal activism than they are in liberal environments that sponsor federal activism and brought about civil rights legislation.

          • retired.military


            Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)

            Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)

            Are you seriously saying that you are going to compare 1 out 1 being against it vs 20 out of 21 being against it is a valid comparision. Come on guy.

            or that

            Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)

            Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

            0 out of 10 is a valid comparision vs 7 out of 84. Come on guy

            I give you more credit than that. If the numbers were a bit more even than I would grant you your point but they arent even close.

            Look at the Senate. if that one republican had voted for givng them 100% and the 20 dems had voted for giving them 95% would you try to say that the 100% is a valid comparision to the 95%? I give you more credit than that guy.

          • ackwired

            I think what the numbers show is that the south voted overwhelmingly against civil rights, regardless of party. The charge was made that Democrats opposed civil rights. Since the south was the home of slavery, the KKK, poll taxes, prison labor, etc., it makes sense to see how they voted on this issue. When you factor out the southern states, you see that the non-south Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of civil rights. This would indicate that the party was not the deciding factor. The south voted against civil rights, regardless of party, and the rest of the country voted for civil rights, regardless of country. Because the south was overwhelmingly Democratic at the time, the vast majority of their votes show up in the Democratic column.

          • retired.military

            “But exclusive of the south, the Democrats were slightly more supportive than the Republicans.”

            You cant just cut out 1/4 of the country from your computations.

      • They stayed “solid” until the Democrats betrayed them and passed the civil rights legislation.

        …and joined the Republican Party, without whose votes those civil rights bills never would have passed — because there weren’t enough Democrats voting for them?

        You might want to look up “betrayal” again. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

        • ackwired

          There were not enough Republican votes to pass it either. More non-south Democrats voted for the act than non-south Republicans. Here’s the actual numbers:

          The Original House Version:

          Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)

          Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

          Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)

          Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

          The Senate version:

          Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)

          Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)

          Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)

          Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

          Spin it any way that you think you can get away with.

          • retired.military


            Your %s are misleading since you split it up.

            Looking at the total numbers. republicans voted for it in a greater % than dems


            Dem total – 152 for 96 against.= 61% voted for

            Republicans 138 for 34 against = 80% voted for


            Dems 46 for 21 against = 68% voting for

            Republicans 27 for 6 against = 81% for.

            If i wanted to break things up into little pieces I could spin things any way to get better numbers (just as you did).


            Oh the northern east coast states vs the northern west coast states.

            THe rust belt vs the bible belt.
            ETc etc.

            The bottom line is that as a % more republicans voted for the Civil rights act than the dems. That is the only way you can do it since the totals in the House and Senate were not even.

          • ackwired

            You are correct that more R’s voted for civil rights than D’s. However, I think is is revealing, and not misleading to also consider the regional vote. The south voted overwhelmingly against civil rights, regardless of party, and the non-south voted overwhelmingly for civil rights, and the correlation is far stronger by region than it is by party.

      • warnertoddhuston

        It’s a total canard that left-wingers have been passing around for years that all southern “racists” just quit the Democrap party and joined the Republicans after the civil rights bill passed. First of all, only ONE prominent Dixiecrat left the Dems. (That was Strom Thurmond). Few Dixiecrats left the Dems and most stayed Dem. for the rest of their miserable lives. Secondly, the GOP didn’t start finally winning in the south until 25 or 30 years AFTER the civil rights legislation! To say that all Dems just switched to GOP in the south is a brainless, uneducated claim. After all, what… did they just not vote for 30 years? Only a moron would think so.

        • Brucehenry

          The point of Atwater’s and Nixon’s Southern Strategy was never to get PROMINENT Democrats to switch parties. It was to win rank and file votes in presidential elections for Republicans. And the first fruits were realized in 1968, which was NOT “25 or 30 years” later. Those Southern states that weren’t carried by Wallace were carried by Nixon. In other words, denied to the Democratic nominee by racists. Except, believe it or not, Texas!

          Within a few more years, Republicans were winning “first Republican since Reconstruction!” elections all over the South, including James Holshouser (Governor) and Jesse Helms (Senator) in NC in 1972. John Tower in Texas also comes to mind, and there were many others.

          I don’t know where you get this “25 or 30 years” non-factoid, Warner, but you should know it’s not correct. Talk about brainless and uneducated.

          Nixon SWEPT the South in 1972. Carter carried it in ’76, but he was FROM GEORGIA and also claimed “born-again” status. Reagan won it in ’80 and ’84. Which of those elections came “25 or 30 years” after the CRA and the Voting Rights Act, Warner?

          • warnertoddhuston

            I said the GOP (as a party) wasn’t winning in the south. I didn’t say some Republicans never won. It has only been recently that the GOP has taken over southern states in a solid block of control. Until recently Dems were still more often in control of statehouses and legislatures in the south. Further, the south still voted for some Dem. presidents. Carter won (as you noted) but in both Clinton elections the south split, some for Clinton some for the GOP candidate. And you diminish the states Wallace won in 68. Half the south went for Wallace and Wallace ran his campaign as a traditional Democrat, not as a pseudo Republican. (And EVERYONE was smart enough not to vote for that idiot McGovern, so that election doesn’t count for trending)

          • Brucehenry

            You said “start finally winning.”And you said “25 or 30 years.”

            A Republican was elected to the Senate from FL in 1968. Another in 1981. Helms and Holshouser in NC in 1972. Another Republican governor was elected in 1984 from NC, and another US Senator in 1978. Trent Lott, aide to a conservative Democratic Congressman, was elected to Congress from MS as a Republican in 1972. Kooky Thad Cochran elected the same year. They were the 2nd and 3rd Republicans elected to Congress from MS since Reconstruction. Jeremiah Denton elected to the US Senate from AL in 1980 (first since Reconstruction). Richard Shelby, prominent Democrat, switched parties and became a Republican in the 1970s, also in AL. The GOP has held the Louisiana governorship most of the time since 1979. Need me to keep going? I can do this all night.

            The Southern Strategy, still in effect, worked for Republicans, by and large, from the get-go. They started winning races right away at presidential, congressional, senatorial, and gubernatorial levels. So they both “started finally winning” and they did so much sooner than within “25 or 30 years.”

            So the next time you call one of your strawmen brainless and uneducated, try not to come off as even MORE brainless and uneducated.

            I remind you, “What….. did they just not vote for 30 years?” What a maroon.

          • jim_m

            I would refrain from calling Warren brainless when you are attributing Nixon’s win in the South to racism. What do you attribute Nixon’s win in Minnesota to? Please Identify which of the 49 states that Nixon won are due to racism and which are due to the pathetic and epically awful candidate the dems ran.

            And when you are done with that please explain which of the 44 states Reagan won in 1980 were due to a “Southern Strategy”. I’m guessing you will have to wedge Michigan and Wisconsin into that explanation you dishonest jerk. Then you can explain why Minnesota was the only state to vote dem in 1984 because it is the only state apparently NOT in the south.

            Whenever the left loses they scream “RACISM!!!!” It’s just bullshit cover for the fact that their candidates suck.

            The fact is that when the GOP wins it is not because they ran a racist campaign or appealed to racism it is because they fielded a better candidate.

          • jim_m

            Come on Bruce. I can’t wait to hear your defense of your “Southern Strategy” bullshit. I can’t wait to hear how 49 state voted for a GOP President but the southern states only voted for the GOP candidate because they are racist.

            In 1984 Reagan got a higher percentage of the vote in Maine than he did in Mississippi. I suppose that is because he appealed to all the racists in Maine.

            You are so full of BS. You don’t even bother to think about your bs you just repeat your racist talking points from the dem party without ever thinking.

          • Brucehenry

            Kevin Phillips, Nixon’s political strategist and widely considered, along with Lee Atwater, the author of the Southern Strategy, put it thusly:

            “From now on, the Republican Party is never going to get more than 10-20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

            What do you think the strategist who invented the strategy meant by “Negrophobe whites,” Jim?

            Yes, Nixon won throughout the country, and so did Reagan, and for a variety of reasons. I’m not claiming, despite your patented Jim M argumentation technique, that Nixon’s or Reagan’s wins were solely due to white racism.

            But when Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy, he had no way of knowing the Democrats would nominate McGovern 4 years later or that Reagan would come along 12 years later with a bucketload of charisma and a hapless opponent named Jimmy Carter, then get lucky with Walter “I’ll Raise Your Taxes” Mondale. The Southern Strategy was a help to Republicans in the South, and it didn’t hurt them in places like Oklahoma and Indiana, either.

            It has the benefit of being deniable. “What, me racist??!! I’m just talkin’ ’bout law ‘n’ order, forced bussin’, school choice, states’ rights!”

          • jim_m

            I’m telling you that it has never been an appeal to racism despite your bogus claims. Please explain why Al Gore could not even carry his home state of Tennessee in 2000. DOn’t come telling me it was some racist appeal by the GOP when Gore had won it with Clinton and as a Senator.

            THe dems lose the South because they run crappy candidates. GOP candidates get higher vote percentages in some northern states than they do in the south.

            You want to paint the whole of the GOP as racist because of the comments of one man in the early 70’s and yet you want to dismiss centuries of racism from the democratic party. You’re a dishonest ass.

          • Brucehenry

            The Southern Strategy is not a magic spell, Jim, and I don’t claim it’s the only factor when Republicans win. But it exists, or did, anyway.

            Also, BTW, just because it’s called the Southern Strategy doesn’t mean it only works on Southerners, or that it works on all white Southerners. I was able to resist it, myself.;)

          • jim_m

            Yes you know that the leftist has lost the argument when he starts claiming that any desire to curtail federal overreach is due to racism.

          • Brucehenry

            Basically, Jim, I just entered this argument to say that the Southern Strategy was a real thing and that Warner was wrong on the “25 or 30 years” thingie. And to point out that its intent was NOT to induce prominent Democratic politicians to switch parties but to help make racist white voters comfortable voting Republican.

          • jim_m

            One can appeal to those voters without appealing to racism.

            I would say that the left’s bitter clinging to abortion, its antipathy toward religion (except radical islam), its hatred of capitalism, its sneering at the idea of American exceptionalism, its refusal to fly the flag, say the pledge and its general degradation of the military have all played a far more significant part in turning off Southern voters than anything else.

            Too bad the only lens you can look at the world with is one of race.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, I can see what you’re saying, despite the overblown terms you always use. Yes, many Southern whites were ALSO turned off by the counterculture of the 1960s and 70s.

            In other words, they hated dirty fucking hippies almost as bad as they hated black people. (My turn to go over-the-top!)

          • jim_m

            I’d say they hated the hippies far more and with justification. Of course those dirty hippies are now the center of the democratic party.

            I suppose it is a lot more palatable for the left to blame everything on racism than to admit that their politics is abhorrent to a large swath of the nation.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, you’re the expert on hating people, Jim, and the justification thereof, so knock yourself out. I’m going to bed.

          • jim_m

            “Nixon swept the south”

            That’s right, but then again he won every state except Massachusetts in 1972 or did that escape your notice? Are you really that dim? Are you so stupid that you think that Massachusetts was the only union state in the civil war? WTF Bruce? Are you so dishonest that you think that the election results of 1972 are due solely to racism? Screw you!!!

            Nixon won the South because the dems were pathetic! Grow up and get a clue. Jeez, even Carl can do better than you are.

            BTW, as Warner points out, when Wallace ran specifically on a platform of racism and segregation he won 4 southern states quite handily. Wallace was a dem. The dems stood for racism and still do today.

            By the time Reagan come along the GOP won the South not on race issues but on religious issues. The Dems had abandoned the Christian vote by declaring abortion to be their primary issue and the litmus test for all dems. That killed the dems in the South irrevocably.

          • Brucehenry

            Goldberg must have written a new article.

          • jim_m

            Answer the questions coward.

            You carry on about this “Southern Strategy” but it is awfully hard to prove one when the GOP is winning 49 states.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t answer questions like “Are you really that dim?” Act like a grownup and I’ll talk to you rationally. Keep your screw-yous and you-dolts to yourself or keep quiet.

          • jim_m

            You gave a weasel answer about Reagan winning 49 states and refused to explain how Nixon won 49 apart from racism. You also refuse to answer why the dems won every election in the South since 1880 to 1972. Obviously that could never have been due to racism. I assume your answer to that will be something along the lines of “Because, shut up”.

          • Brucehenry

            You’re the one who said they were better candidates than their opponents were. I agree, in a horse-race sense. McGovern, Carter, and Mondale together couldn’t muster up a fiftieth of the charisma Reagan had in his pinkie, and Nixon’s and Reagan’s campaigns were better-run, too.

            That doesn’t mean there was no such thing as a Southern Strategy. Is that what you’re claiming?

          • jim_m

            I’m claiming that if it existed it did so in one campaign, had minimal impact and was subsequently vastly overshadowed by the significant cultural shift that I have detailed elsewhere. The only people that cite it today are doing so in order to keep claiming racism and they are pathetic leftists who make the claim to excuse their worthless candidates who fail to win even their home states.

            Present company included.

          • Brucehenry

            Or alternatively one could say that the only people who DENY it today are doing so in order to keep denying racism still exists and they are pathetic wingnuts who make the claim to excuse their clueless candidates who will not win even the state they were governor of.

          • jim_m

            Racism does exist. Mostly in people who see it everywhere.

            I find that most people treat others as individuals and not as members of a group. I find that those who pigeon hole people as members of groups and refuse to acknowledge that individuals do not adhere to stereotypes, those people tend to be leftists who then heap insult and abuse (often racist and sexist) upon those who violate their stereotypes.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, I know, He Who Smelt It Dealt It, Jim. Yawn.

          • Jwb10001

            Pathic candidates that can’t win the state they represented in the Senate? Or those pathic candidates that won only the state they came from?

          • Brucehenry

            “Pathic” indeed.

          • jim_m

            Come on Bruce, I can’t wait to hear how a GOP candidate winning 49 states is because he had a racist “Southern Strategy” and yet when the dems won every southern state from 1880 to 1972 that had nothing to do with the racist dems who ran the Confederacy.

          • ackwired

            Er…what was that Mississippi town that Reagan chose to launch his campaign?

          • retired.military


            I remember Wallace. He has a racist streak 2 miles wide.

        • ackwired

          Fine. I didn’t say any of that.

  • herddog505

    Oh, gosh: the dems are yapping about RAAAAACISM and the Confederacy??? Color me shocked.

    Jebus, talk about a broken record…

  • The racism of yesteryear has come full circle in our county. The entire world embraced our choice of a black President four years ago and most nations still support him. The fringe elements of bigotry have crept through into the mainstream once again with conservative mouthpieces planting the seeds of hate. The only doubt lies here at home rooting from bigotry. Watch the white hands paint Obama in Blackface at

    • Don’t get out of your echo chamber much, do you?

    • Jwb10001

      The race card isn’t accepted here, sorry.

  • jim_m

    I had no idea that Indiana was part of the confederacy. It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

    • They think they’re smarter than everyone else.

      They also think Joe Biden is great thinker.

      • Perhaps… in comparison to themselves.

  • Vagabond661

    Florida is really South New York so therefore not a Southern state anymore.

  • fustian24

    Those people aren’t racist.

    Homophobic maybe. (grin)

  • Oysteria

    Let’s see. Why are whites not voting for Obama in as high numbers as in ’08? Wait! Wait! I know! They’re racists! It couldn’t possibly be that he’s been a total disappointment in any number of ways; economic, domestic & foreign, constant divisive rhetoric, blatant cronyism, etc. It HAS to be race. It just HAS to!

    Sully is way too late for the race party. Everyone’s already gone home. Yawn.

    On a side note, I see we still have our sockpuppets.

    • jim_m

      As George Will said: Either all those whites who voted for obama are now voting against him because the last four years have sucked or we should believe the dems that all those white voters suddenly discovered that he is black.

      If you hear the dog whistle it’s for you. Those who see racism are those who see the world through the lens of racism to begin with.

      • I still say the reason Robert Byrd had to have medical treatment last Inauguration Day was, somebody broke it to him the new president didn’t just have a really deep tan.

  • Andrew Sullivan is living proof that being gay is no guarantee that you won’t also be stupid.

  • Give us a BREAK, the blacks sold their own children into slavery, that was their choice, now wasn’t it! We are sick of the blame game, it’s over busters. Obama is the biggest Racist around, along with spendaholic Moochelle. Let’s call a spade a spade., for a change. Obama you are ALL on your own this time, you failed and everyone knows it, which must be killing you, huh!

  • ra1024

    Are black voters voting for Obama racists?

  • ra1024

    Are black voters voting for Obama racists?