Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I am sure it has something to do with the fact that Coombs knows Bennett is not a racist. nm

Posted By: sm on 2005-10-02
In Reply to: Speaking of Fox News...Coombs let him off way toooo easy...sm - Democrat




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Nope, it has more to do with the fact that Coombs is a softy...sm
He doesn't even debate well with Hannity. Hannity is usually all over him.

He had an open forum on his radio show to speak out against Bennett and when he was face to face with him he was chumped off. That's why I wish he had more gall, maybe even as outspoken as Bill Maher, yep Bill Maher.
Speaking of Fox News...Coombs let him off way toooo easy...sm

Too bad there's not a tough liberal voice on Fox.  By the end of the interview with A. Coombs you would have thought Alan Coombs was the one who made these idiotic remarks not Bennett.


Whatever, he can clean this up for all of those interested.  I'm not.


Get real. Alan Coombs has twice the intellect of Bill Maher. sm

There is no contest there.  The fact is William Bennett didn't deserve to be chastised and the fact that you still refuse to see that is glaringly apparent.  You see what he said as racist because you WANT to.  There is no other reason.  And that's too damn bad.  As I stated, I am mixed race.  I grew up with a whole lot of prejudice from BOTH sides, but I also grew up with parents who taught ME not to BE a racist.  People who look for racism in every single statement are what is dividing this country.  Any African-America who speaks up for Bennett will be labeled an Uncle Tom.  It has already happened. It makes me sick.


Im not mean..Bennett is
I think the person who is mean is Bennett.  How would you like to be a black person hearing him say that..that to abort black babies would reduce/stop crime?  For pete sake.  He is not a straight thinking person, if he was he would not have singled out a whole ethnic group of people stating we could abort them.  Also, if he was a straight thinking person, he would realize this is gonna start trouble in America, people are gonna get mad, people are gonna be asking for his head, people are going to be calling for him to lose his radio show, which they now are and also it is going to reinforce the opinion of many that republicans are a white persons political group.  You cant say these kind of things, cause it is just not right.  All people, no matter what color, creed, religion have their criminals and good.  That is why he is not a straight thinking man.  It is an inflammatory remark.  I dont know where you reside but out here we have towns called Compton and Watts, mostly black areas, and the tension there is quite palpable.  Those are the areas that erupted in riots after the Rodney King beating in the 1990's.  All people have to hear is this remark and it can incite rage, especially after New Orleans and the feeling that maybe they were not rescued because they were minorities..even if not true, these feelings are raw and ready to blow.  His remark is as stupid as the remark from Robertson about Chavez..you just dont say those kinds of things in a civilized society..Bennett can think whatever he wants but you most certainly dont say it on radio. 
WH criticizes Bennett..
Wow..even WH criticizes Bennett for his comments..guess now the neocons will stop defending Bennetts comments and stop posting their feeble defense on the liberal board..

 



White House criticizes Bennett for comments


Ex-education secretary tied crime rate to aborting black babies




 




Updated: 11:07 a.m. ET Sept. 30, 2005

WASHINGTON - The White House on Friday criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for remarks linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies.


“The president believes the comments were not appropriate,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.


Bennett, on his radio show, “Morning in America,” was answering a caller’s question when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up.




 

“But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,” said Bennett, author of “The Book of Virtues.”


He went on to call that “an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”


Democrats demand apology
On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats demanded that Bennett apologize for the remarks.


Responding later to criticism, Bennett said his comments had been mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was “morally reprehensible.”


On his show Thursday, Bennett, who opposes abortion, said he was “pointing out that abortion should not be opposed for economic reasons any more than racism ... should be supported or opposed for economic reasons. Immoral policies are wrong because they are wrong, not because of an economic calculation.”


Reid, D-Nev., said he was “appalled by Mr. Bennett’s remarks” and called on him “to issue an immediate apology not only to African Americans but to the nation.”


Rep. Raum Emanuel, D-Ill., said in a statement, “At the very time our country yearns for national unity in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, these comments reflect a spirit of hate and division.”


© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

UGLY BENNETT









Ugly Bennett

Hit on 'abort every black baby' gaffe










William Bennett
Morality maven William Bennett was in holier-than-thou hell yesterday after the White House and just about everybody else blasted him for saying the crime rate could be reduced by aborting every black baby in this country.

The best-selling author of The Book of Virtues insisted he was no racist and refused to apologize.

I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition, Bennett said on his Morning in America radio show.

But the Bush administration quickly distanced itself from the cultural conservative. The President believes the comments were not appropriate, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

While Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats demanded that Bennett apologize, NAACP chief Bruce Gordon said he was personally offended and angry that Bennett felt he could make such a public statement with impunity.

The Rev. Al Sharpton called the conservative's comments blatantly racist. He's a man who thinks black and crime are synonymous, he said.

But Bennett was defended by his brother, high-powered Washington lawyer Robert Bennett.

What I would emphasize is that he called this morally reprehensible, the lawyer told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. I think it's largely making a mountain out of a molehill.

Responding to a caller on Wednesday's radio program, Bennett said he disagreed with the hypothesis put forward in another best seller, Freakonomics, that crime goes down as abortions go up.

But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down, said Bennett.

Bennett, a Republican who opposes abortion, then added that this would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything links the drop in crime to a drop in the number of children born into poverty after Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. But authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner did not assume that those aborted fetuses would have been black.

Race is not in any way central to our arguments about abortion and crime, Levitt wrote on his blog yesterday.

The Brooklyn-reared Bennett was education secretary under President Ronald Reagan and the nation's first drug czar under the first President George Bush. A darling of the religious right, Bennett's credentials as moralizer-in-chief were tarnished two years ago when he admitted he had a gambling problem.


Dumb's the word


What William Bennett said:

But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

Originally published on September 30, 2005


The fact that an article was written does not make it fact. I hope you know that. nm
.
Because Bennett's *values* match their own.

They must be very confused by the WH's response.  Probably don't know what they're allowed to *think* about this.


My hunch, based on their own posts, is that at this moment in time, they'd all vote for Bennett because his inner prejudices and hatred match their own.


So you have nothing to offer when it comes to defending Bennett's statements...sm
as you posted earlier that they were taken out of context. When asked to enlighten us on the context, you instead want to take Zauber to task. I know why, because there is no defense for these statements and a sound minded person wouldn't even try. Even the dupes on capitol hill are criticizing the statements.
What exactly was Bennett's point in making this comment?
I guess one could say that statistically he could be somewhat right, but then you could also say that since North Dakota has the hightest alcoholism rate that perhaps we could hypothesize the elimination of all North Dakotans, or all Alaskans since it has the highest illicit drug use rate.  Yes, one could break down all the social ills of our country by region or ethnicity and make assumptions and point fingers but what is the point?  It seems to me his ethically tactless comment serves to inflame a great racial and socioeconomic divide in this country.
Freakanomics, Democrat, is NOT Bennett's book. sm

It you had read the entire article posted here and gone to Bennett's website, you would know that.  But it's easier to just run with the first bone of information and negate the facts.  If Bill Maher told Bennett to do that, he would make a fool of himself...yet again. 


If one was to say that Bill Bennett believed crime could and should be reduced by abortion, then one could also argue that liberals who support abortion believe in and advocate black genocide.

Do they really want to go there...?


You can't rightly theorize when you still don't understand what Bennett was saying. sm
And you don't, or won't. 
Parents want to abort Bennett's 3M pact
Parents want to abort Bennett's $3M pact

By MENSAH M. DEAN
deanm@phillynews.com

Philadelphia parents and education activists are
demanding that the city school district end the $3
million contract it awarded in April to K12 Inc., in
light of controversial remarks the company's board
chairman made this week about aborting black babies.

William J. Bennett, chairman of the board of the
Washington-area education company and a former U.S.
Education Secretary, set off protests with remarks he
made during his nationally syndicated radio talk show
Wednesday.

Responding to a caller, Bennett took issue with the
hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason
crime is down is that abortion is up. Bennett said:
If you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that
were your sole purpose - you could abort every black
baby in this country and your crime rate would go
down.

That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally
reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would
go down, Bennett said.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan yesterday
said The president believes the comments were not
appropriate.

Bennett later said his comments had been
mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea
of supporting abortion to reduce crime was morally
reprehensible.

Though some of the Philadelphia school district's top
science teachers raised concerns about K12's
qualifications and experience, the district awarded
the company the contract to supply kindergarten
through third-grade science curriculum materials in
April.

I find it hard to see any explanation for why they're
here in Philadelphia educating many of the black
children Mr. Bennett clearly finds it provocative to
call expendable, said Helen Gym, a mother of a
district third-grader.

I am very rarely struck speechless anymore. However,
I could not get words out of my mouth this morning
when I realized that my school district is somehow
providing support to this company, said Ellayne
Bender, mother of a district 11th-grader.

On a moral level, as a human being, Bender added, I
would like to see the contract voided.

Last fall, Bennett publicly touted district schools
CEO Paul Vallas as a good candidate to become the next
U.S. Secretary of Education. Last night, however,
Vallas stepped away from the man with whom he had been
cordial.

I read his comments, and his comments are outrageous
and offensive to all of us, Vallas said of Bennett.
We do not have a relationship with Bill Bennett. Our
contract is with K12, who are doing an excellent job
in our schools. In my opinion, any extension of the
contract could be jeopardized by his continued
presence on the board.

The length of the contract was not immediately known.

Bennett was education secretary under President Reagan
and director of drug control policy when Bush's father
was president.


Read on down. Some posters below are defending Bennett's remarks...sm
so while you may feel they are wrong, which I think the white house was right to condemn them. BENNETT having served in two high positions, Secretary of education and over drugs under Bush Sr with these views, is worrisome.

I think his true *colors* are shining through.
If anyone is dividing America it is Bennett by his remarks and Bush
No, Im not trying to defend the democratic party or help with dividing this country.  Bennetts remarks have nothing to do with political parties, they have to do with insensitive hurtful hateful remarks made by him..I divide the black white community?  I beg your pardon, I have always associated with minorities in America.  I have lived side by side with them, dated them, married one of them and I will continue to care for the minorities..the white republican capitalists do not need my support nor do they deserve my support..
Media Matters...William Bennett Audio...sm

You'd have to hear it yourself to get the correct context.  The caller was not even talking about reducing the crime rate, Bennett brought this up out of the blue, and he says I do know... before he made the comment, NOT making a reference to Freakonomics but his own opinion.


From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:



CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.


BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?


CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.


BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.


CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.


BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --


CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.


BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.


Bennett and Ralph Reed sitting in a tree.. B-E-T-T-I-N-G
Reed fought ban on betting
Anti-gambling bill was defeated


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 10/02/05

Ralph Reed, who has condemned gambling as a cancer on the American body politic, quietly worked five years ago to kill a proposed ban on Internet wagering — on behalf of a company in the online gambling industry.


Reed, now a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Georgia, helped defeat the congressional proposal despite its strong support among many Republicans and conservative religious groups. Among them: the national Christian Coalition organization, which Reed had left three years earlier to become a political and corporate consultant.


A spokesman for Reed said the political consultant fought the ban as a subcontractor to Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff's law firm. But he said Reed did not know the specific client that had hired Abramoff: eLottery Inc., a Connecticut-based company that wants to help state lotteries sell tickets online — an activity the gambling measure would have prohibited.


Reed declined to be interviewed for this article. His aides said he opposed the legislation because by exempting some types of online betting from the ban, it would have allowed online gambling to flourish. Proponents counter that even a partial ban would have been better than no restrictions at all.


Anti-gambling activists say they never knew that Reed, whom they once considered an ally, helped sink the proposal in the House of Representatives. Now some of them, who criticized other work Reed performed on behalf of Indian tribes that own casinos, say his efforts on eLottery's behalf undermine his image as a champion of public morality, which he cultivated as a leader of the religious conservative movement in the 1980s and '90s.


It flies in the face of the kinds of things the Christian Coalition supports, said the Rev. Cynthia Abrams, a United Methodist Church official in Washington who coordinates a group of gambling opponents who favored the measure. They support family values. Stopping gambling is a family concern, particularly Internet gambling.


Reed's involvement in the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000, never previously reported, comes to light as authorities in Washington scrutinize the lobbying activities of Abramoff, a longtime friend who now is the target of several federal investigations.


The eLottery episode echoes Reed's work against a lottery, video poker and casinos in Alabama, Louisiana and Texas: As a subcontractor to two law firms that employed Abramoff, Reed's anti-gambling efforts were funded by gambling interests trying to protect their business.


After his other work with Abramoff was revealed, Reed asserted that he was fighting the expansion of gambling, regardless of who was paying the bills. And he said that, at least in some cases, his fees came from the nongaming income of Abramoff's tribal clients, a point that mollified his political supporters who oppose gambling. With the eLottery work, however, Reed has not tried to draw such a distinction.


By working against the Internet measure, Reed played a part in defeating legislation that sought to control a segment of the gambling industry that went on to experience prodigious growth.


Since 2001, the year after the proposed ban failed, annual revenue for online gambling companies has increased from about $3.1 billion worldwide to an estimated $11.9 billion this year, according to Christiansen Capital Advisers, a New York firm that analyzes market data for the gambling industry.


Through a spokesman, Abramoff declined to comment last week on his work with Reed for eLottery.


Federal records show eLottery spent $1.15 million to fight the anti-gambling measure during 2000. Of that, $720,000 went to Abramoff's law firm at the time, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds of Washington. According to documents filed with the secretary of the U.S. Senate, Preston Gates represented no other client on the legislation.


Reed's job, according to his campaign manager, Jared Thomas, was to produce a small run of direct mail and other small media efforts to galvanize religious conservatives against the 2000 measure. Aides declined to provide reporters with examples of Reed's work. Nor would Thomas disclose Reed's fees.


Since his days with the Christian Coalition, Reed consistently has identified himself as a gambling opponent. Speaking at a National Press Club luncheon in Washington in 1996, for instance, Reed called gambling a cancer and a scourge that was responsible for orphaning children ... [and] turning wives into widows.


But when the online gambling legislation came before Congress in 2000, Reed took no public position on the measure, aides say.


In 2004, Reed told the National Journal, a publication that covers Washington politics, that his policy was to turn down work paid for by casinos. In that interview, he did not address working for other gambling interests.


Some anti-gambling activists reject Reed's contention that he didn't know his work against the measure benefited a company that could profit from online gambling.


It slips over being disingenuous, said the Rev. Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, who worked for the gambling ban. Jack Abramoff was known as 'Casino Jack' at the time. If Jack's doling out tickets to this feeding trough, for Ralph to say he didn't know — I don't believe that.


A well-kept secret


When U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) first introduced the Internet gambling ban, in 1997, he named among its backers the executive director of the Christian Coalition: Ralph Reed.


In remarks published in the Congressional Record, Goodlatte said, This legislation is supported ... across the spectrum, from Ralph Reed to Ralph Nader.


But Reed's role in the ban's failure three years later was a well-kept secret, even from Goodlatte. That's in part because Reed's Duluth-based Century Strategies — a public affairs firm that avoids direct contact with members of Congress — is not subject to federal lobbying laws that would otherwise require the company to disclose its activities.


We were not aware that Reed was working against our bill, Kathryn Rexrode, a spokeswoman for Goodlatte, said last week.


Several large conservative religious organizations, with which Reed often had been aligned before leaving the Christian Coalition in 1997, joined together to support the legislation. Those groups included the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council — and the Christian Coalition.


In addition, four prominent evangelical leaders signed a letter in May 2000 urging Congress to pass the legislation: James Dobson of Focus on the Family; Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition; Jerry Falwell, formerly of the Moral Majority; and Charles Donovan of the Family Research Council.


Among the other supporters: the National Association of Attorneys General, Major League Baseball and the National Association of Convenience Stores, whose members are among the largest lottery ticket sellers.


Opponents, in addition to eLottery and other gambling interests, included the Clinton administration, which argued that existing federal laws were sufficient to combat the problem. In a policy statement, the administration predicted the measure would open a floodgate for other forms of illegal gambling.


To increase the measure's chances of passage, its sponsors had added provisions that would have allowed several kinds of online gambling — including horse and dog racing and jai alai — to remain legal.


Thomas, Reed's campaign manager, said in a statement last week that those exceptions amounted to an expansion of online gambling: Under the bill, a minor with access to a computer could have bet on horses and gambled at a casino online.


Thomas' statement claimed that the Southern Baptists and the Christian Coalition opposed the legislation for the same reason as Reed.


Actually, the Southern Baptist Convention lent its name to the group of religious organizations that backed the legislation. But as the measure progressed, the convention became uncomfortable with the exceptions and quietly spread the word that it was neutral, a spokesman said last week.


As for the Christian Coalition, it argued against the exceptions before the vote. But it issued an action alert two days after the ban's defeat, urging its members to call Congress and demand the legislation be reconsidered and passed.


In fact, the letter signed by the four evangelical leaders indicated a bargain had been reached with the Christian Coalition and other religious groups. In exchange for accepting minor exemptions for pari-mutuel wagering, the evangelicals got what they wanted most — a ban on lottery ticket sales over the Internet. Other anti-gambling activists say the exceptions disappointed them But they accepted the measure as an incremental approach to reining in online gambling.


We all recognized it wasn't perfect, Abrams, the Methodist official, said last week. We decided we weren't going to let the best be the enemy of the good.


Any little thing, she said in an earlier interview, would have been a victory.


Plans to expand


Founded in 1993, eLottery has provided online services to state lotteries in Idaho, Indiana and Maryland and to the national lottery in Jamaica, according to its Web site. It had plans to expand its business by facilitating online ticket sales, effectively turning every home computer with an Internet connection into a lottery terminal.


The president of eLottery's parent company, Edwin McGuinn, did not respond to recent requests for an interview. Earlier this year, he told The Washington Post that by banning online lottery ticket sales, the 2000 legislation would have put eLottery out of business. We wouldn't have been able to operate, the Post quoted McGuinn as saying.


Even with Abramoff and other lobbyists arguing against the measure, and Reed generating grass-roots opposition to it, a solid majority of House members voted for the measure in July 2000.


But that wasn't enough. House rules required a two-thirds majority for expedited passage, so the legislation died.


In addition to hiring Abramoff's firm to lobby for the measure's defeat, eLottery paid $25,000 toward a golfing trip to Scotland that Abramoff arranged for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) — then the House majority whip, later the majority leader — several weeks before the gambling measure came up for a vote, according to the Post. Another $25,000 for the trip came from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, an Abramoff client with casino interests, the Post reported. The trip, which is under review by the House Ethics Committee, was not related to DeLay's indictment on a conspiracy charge last week.


The campaign against the Internet gambling ban was one of several successful enterprises in which Abramoff and Reed worked together.


The Choctaws paid for Reed's work in 1999 and 2000 to defeat a lottery and video poker legislation in Alabama. In 2001 and 2002, another Abramoff client that operates a casino, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, put up the money for Reed's efforts in Louisiana and Texas to eliminate competition from other tribes. Reed was paid about $4 million for that work.


Abramoff, once one of Washington's most influential lobbyists, now is under federal indictment in a Florida fraud case and is facing investigations by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the Justice Department into whether he defrauded Indian tribes he represented, including those that paid Reed's fees. Reed has not been accused of wrongdoing.


Reed and Abramoff have been friends since the early 1980s. That's when Abramoff, as chairman of the national College Republicans organization, hired Reed to be his executive director. Later, Reed introduced Abramoff to the woman he married.


In an interview last month about his consulting business, Reed declined to elaborate on his personal and professional relationships with Abramoff. At one point, Reed was asked if Abramoff had hired him to work for clients other than Indian tribes.


Reed's answer: Not that I can recall.












 
 









 
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/1005/02reed.html
 


*Compassionate Conservative* Bill Bennett: Abort every black baby, reduce crime.


William Bennett Defends Comment on Abortion and Crime


'Book of Virtues' Author Says Hypothetical Remark Was Valid


By JAKE TAPPER



- After pondering on his radio program how aborting every black infant in America would affect crime rates, best-selling author and self-styled Values Czar Bill Bennett is vehemently denying he is a racist and defending his willingness to speak publicly about race and crime.

On the Wednesday edition of his radio show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, syndicated by Salem Radio Network, a caller raised the theory that Social Security is in danger of becoming insolvent because legalized abortion has reduced the number of tax-paying citizens. Bennett said economic arguments should never be employed in discussions of moral issues.

If it were your sole purpose to reduce crime, Bennett said, You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down, he added.


Outrage From Democrats


Bennett was secretary of education for President Ronald Reagan and is considered one of the Republican Party's big brains. But this week Democrats and some Republicans seemed to also question if Bennett's mouth is of size as well.

Democrats expressed outrage, ranging from demands for an apology to requests that the Federal Communications Commission suspend Bennett's show.

Republicans, Democrats and all Americans of good will should denounce this statement, should distance themselves from Mr. Bennett, said Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill. And the private sector should not support Mr. Bennett's radio show or his comments on the air.

I'm not even going to comment on something that disgusting, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Really, I'm thinking of my black grandchild and I'm going to hold (off).


'Things That People Are Thinking'


In an interview with ABC News, Bennett said that anyone who knows him knows he isn't racist. He said he was merely extrapolating from the best-selling book Freakonomics, which posits the hypothesis that falling crimes rates are related to increased abortion rates decades ago. It would have worked for, you know, single-parent moms; it would have worked for male babies, black babies, Bennett said. So why immediately bring up race when discussing crime rates? There was a lot of discussion about race and crime in New Orleans, Bennett said. There was discussion – a lot of it wrong – but nevertheless, media jumping on stories about looting and shooting and gangs and roving gangs and so on.

There's no question this is on our minds, Bennett said. What I do on our show is talk about things that people are thinking … we don't hesitate to talk about things that are touchy.

Bennett said, I'm sorry if people are hurt, I really am. But we can't say this is an area of American life (and) public policy that we're not allowed to talk about – race and crime.

Robert George, an African-American, Republican editorial writer for the New York Post, agrees that Bennett's comments were not meant as racist. But he worries they feed into stereotypes of Republicans as insensitive. His overall point about not making broad sociological claims and so forth, that was a legitimate point, George said. But it seems to me someone with Bennett's intelligence … should know better the impact of his words and sort of thinking these things through before he speaks.

The blunt-spoken Bennett has ruffled feathers before, most recently in 2003 for revelations that despite his best-selling books about virtue and values, he is a high-rolling preferred customer at Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos.

In light of accusations that the Bush administration should have been more sensitive to black victims of Hurricane Katrina, a Republican official told ABC News that Bennett's comments were probably as poorly timed as they were politically incorrect.

ABC News' Avery Miller, Karen Travers and Toni L. Wilson contributed to this report.



Racist? You calling me racist? sm

I voted for Alan Keyes.  He be blacker than Obama any day.


I despise Obama not because he is called African American by the MSM but because he is a liar parading around in sheep's clothing.  He says one thing to one group, contradicts himself on the same subject to another, and plays idiotic Americans like a violin.


Obama's parentage does not qualify him to be called black anymore than his foreign birth qualifies him to called an American.  To say people oppose him are racist because of his skin color is preposterous when he is neither black nor African American.


 


he is a racist
This is racist and disgusting.  Sounds like Hitler's plan..get rid of the *problem people* .  Sixty years later, get rid of the black babies.  Who has spoken out about this remark..democrats..you dont hear a peep from republicans. 
he is a racist
Because one man states he isnt does not mean he isnt.  For a thought to even enter his head like that shows he is a racist.  What good straight thinking person would say or think something like that.  Rather, lets think of ways to offer opportunities to black babies and children so when they grow up they will have had a good education and be able to get into college..but to abort them, OMG.
Racist, racist, racist....

that's how liberals try to shut anyone down when they talk about any minority...say something you don't like and they're a racist or a liar.


Liberals are the ones stirring up the race pot in this country by inventing racism in every shadow.


Go sell stupid somewhere else...


He is not a racist. sm

I don't know about the liar but I do feel he can be a chauvanist.  You have your opinion and I have mine.


What a racist!
NM
He's a racist?
Does he hate half of himself then? He was raised by a white mother, so maybe it is some deep-seated hatred of his mother. That's bizarre thinking.
Racist, much?
nm
what is racist about that?
monkey???
I never said I was racist.....you did
@
you were right.....ur a racist!
why shouldnt a black man run for president?  I guess Obama should have said to himself, "Gee, I really would like to be president but I shouldn't run because I'm black and someone might not like that."  Ya right.  Why should it even be an issue?  I think that your issues with the O stem from some racism for sure otherwise you wouldnt have even made that comment.
I don't think she is a racist. s/m
I agree with her.  Use your head. 
What is racist about that?
It is equally as racist to vote FOR someone because of their color as to vote AGAINST someone for the same reason.
What is racist about it?
))
Yep I am such a racist
I grew up in Orlando where no one gave a darn about skin color. I had black, white, asian, hispanic, etc etc friends. Loved them all dearly and still do. I moved to South Georgia and it's like stepping back in time 50 years.

I don't give a hoot about skin color. What I do care about is the fact that there is NO SUCH THING AS EQUALITY.

It's time to get over the past. When you are walking around in name brand clothes and wearing gold jewelry and driving a nice car, don't tell me that I owe you because your great grandmother was a slave.

Not to mention my family never even had slaves, but I'm supposed to feel bad and feel like I should owe them.

People should be treated as people, not colors. There shouldn't be a box to mark white, black, etc. There shouldn't be extra points given just because you are "different".

When I was in the 3rd grade my best friend and I were tested for the gifted program. We scored exactly the same, one point below the accepted level. But, because she was Hispanic, she was given an additional 2 points, which put her in. Why is that fair? (I passed the next year with flying colors).

Judge away, I don't care anymore. Reverse racism is so prevalent in this country it's disgusting. We aren't improving, we are just reversing!
What is racist about it?
It seems to me they are calling him an ape which is obviously not a human, and; therefore, cannot be a member of a particular race.  What are you inferring here?  I'm very curious.   
You know, this may very well be racist
Or it may not. Of course anything that even could remotely be racist is deemed as such.

When I was a freshman in high school I got in huge trouble because in gym we were trying to play a serious game of volleyball and the other team (both black and white) kept jumping all over the net and I hollered "I wish ya'll would quit jumping all over the net like a bunch of monkeys!" Had absolutely nothing to do with race, much like my dad would say "you monkeys get off the bed" when me and my brother would jump on the bed. BUT of course, it was deemed racial, and I had to go through a whole big hoopla of going to the principals office and then my dad had to come in for a conference and I had to miss a game (not to mention the two days of school I missed dealing with all this).

What was the end result?

"Oh, I guess she didn't mean it racially."

(Is there a smiley that smacks it's forehead??)

All I'm saying is, we don't need to be so quick on jumping on everything as racial. I mean I saw a posting the other day (I'll have to see if I can find it) about monkeys doing our job. Does that mean they were saying "our job is so easy blacks could do it"? Nope.
I don't believe this is racist.
First of all, Obama didn't write this bill.  Secondly, if evolution is true, we all are descedants of monkeys.  I'm so tired of the race card being thrown out there for every little thing.  If people were smart enough to know who actually wrote this, they would know this wasn't aimed at Obama.  Yes, Obama signed the bill but he didn't write it.  So stop twisting things into racial issues so we can all say....oh...poor president obama....everybody is picking on him because he is black.....even though technically he is only half black....but whatever. 
This is racist
As a black person I take offense to what you wrote. Yes it is about race and always will be. Most voters who voted for him voted for him only because he's black. They didn't know his policies and still don't. I know most of the kook-aid drinkers don't like to admit that and want to truly believe that every single soul who voted for him was well versed on his policies. Sorry to disspoint...they voted for him because he's black.

Yes it will always be about race because that is what Obama is making it about. Speech after speech after speech he talks about his race. And those who deny that are just big fat liars.

But you've got that backwards because the Nazi's are now in power. KKK is long gone (sorry to disappoint you). White supremacists? You mean like the Black Panthers?
Yes, you are racist......
I voted for him because W had wreaked enough havoc on this country and McPalin was a freakin' joke! I don't care if he is PURPLE! So, spout your lies.
I did not say YOU were a racist
To be racist. That does not include everyone. But there are definitely a LOT of people who definitely don't like him because he is black.

Some are racist and just don't realize it because it is so deeply ingrained in their socioeconomic culture.
That is just as much a racist statement as the one above. sm
Racism goes both ways.  How about let's not labeling people at all.
Palin - racist?

Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”



September 5, 2008


sarah_palin_2.jpgby Charley James –


“So Sambo beat the btch!”


This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.


According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.


“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.


Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”


Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.


Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs” – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.


But being openly racist is only the tip of the Palin iceberg. According to Alaskans interviewed for this article, she is also vindictive and mean. We’re talking Rove mean and Nixon vindictive.


No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code. So much for McCain’s pledge of a “high road” campaign; Palin is incapable of being part of one.


Tough Getting People Who Know Her to Talk
It’s not easy getting people in the 49th state to speak critically about Palin – especially people in Wasilla, where she was mayor. For one thing, with every journalist in the world calling, phone lines into Alaska have been mostly jammed since Friday; as often as not, a recording told me that “all circuits are busy” or numbers just wouldn’t ring. I should think a state that’s been made richer than God by oil could afford telephone lines and cell towers for everyone.


On a more practical level, many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they’re afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.


“The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here,” an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. “It’s corrupt and arrogant. They’re all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to.”


“Once Palin became mayor,” he continued, “She became part of that inner circle.”


Like most other people interviewed, he didn’t want his name used out of fear of retribution. Maybe it’s the long winter nights where you don’t see the sun for months that makes people feel as if they’re under constant danger from “the authorities.” As I interviewed residents it began sounding as if living in Alaska controlled by the state Republican Party is like living in the old Soviet Union: See nothing that’s happening, say nothing offensive, and the political commissars leave you alone. But speak out and you get disappeared into a gulag north of the Arctic Circle for who-knows-how-long.


Alright, that’s an exaggeration brought on by my getting too little sleep and building too much anger as I worked this article. But there’s ample evidence of Palin’s vindictive willingness to destroy people she sees as opponents. Just ask the Wasilla town administrator she hired before firing him because he rebelled against the way Palin demanded he do his job, or the town librarian who refused to hold the book burning Walpurgisnach Mayor Palin demanded.


Ironically, Palin was pushed into hiring the administrator by the party poobahs who helped get her elected after she got herself into trouble over a number of precipitous firings which gave rise to a recall campaign.


“People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day,” states Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident and one of the few Alaskans willing to speak on-the-record, for attribution, about Palin. In fact, Kilkenny actually circulated an e-mail letter about Palin that was verified and printed by The Nation.


For good measure, Palin booted the Wasilla police chief from office because, she told a local newspaper, he “intimidated” her.


Running on Extreme Fringe Evangelical Views
Sarah Palin drew early attention from state GOP apparatchiks when, during her first mayoral campaign, she ran on an anti-abortion platform. Normally, political parties do not get involved in Alaskan municipal elections because they are nonpartisan. But once word of her extreme fringe evangelical views made its way to Juneau, the state capitol, state Republicans tossed some money behind her campaign.


Once in office, Palin set out to build a machine that chewed up anyone who got in her way. The good, Godly Christian turns out to be anything but.


“She’s doesn’t like different opinions and she refuses to compromise,” Kilkenny notes. “When she was mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t hers. Worse, ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.”


Sound familiar? Palin may well be Dik Cheney’s reincarnate.


Something else has a familiar Republican ring to it: Her tax policies, and a “refund surpluses but borrow for the future” attitude.


According to Kilkenny and others in Wasilla as well as Juneau, Palin reduced progressive property taxes for businesses while mayor and increased a regressive sales tax which even hits necessities such as food. The tax cuts she promoted in her St. Paul speech actually benefited large corporate property owners far more than they benefited residents. Indeed, Kilkenny insists that many Wasilla home owners actually saw their tax bill skyrocket to make up for the shortfall. Two other Wasillian’s with whom I spoke said property taxes on their modest, three bedroom homes rose during the Palin regime.


To an outsider, it would seem hard to do, but an oil-rich town with zero debt on the day she was inaugurated mayor was left saddled with $22 million of debt by the time she moved away to become governor – especially since nothing was spent on things such as improving the city’s infrastructure or building a much-needed sewage treatment plant. So what did Mayor Palin spend the taxpayer’s money on, if not fixing streets and scrubbing sewage?


For starters, she remodelled her office. Several times over, as a matter of fact.


Then Palin spent $1 million on an unnecessary, new park that no one other than the contractors and Palin seemed to want. Next, Sarah doled out more than $15 million of taxpayer money for a sports complex that she shoved through even though the city did not own clear title to the land; now, seven years later, the matter is still in litigation and lawyer fees are said to be close to at least half of the original estimated price of the facility.


She also worked hard to get voters approval of a $5.5 million bond proposal for roads that could have been built without borrowing. Anchorage may not be the center of the financial universe but, like good Republicans everywhere, Sarah Palin knows how to please Alaskan bankers and bond dealers.


For good measure, she turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.


Sarah Barracuda
En route to the governor’s igloo, Palin managed to land what Anne Kilkenny says is the plumb political appointment in the state: Chair of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC), a $122,400 per year patronage slot with no real authority to do anything other than hold meetings. She took the job despite having no background in energy issues and, as it turned out, not liking the work.


“She hated the job,” an OGCC staff member who is not authorized to speak with the news media told me. “She hated the hours and she hated what little work there was to do. But she couldn’t figure out a way to get out of the thing without offending Gov. Murkowski” and the state Republican Party regulars, some of whom were pssed off they didn’t get appointed.


But ever the opportunist, Palin quickly concocted a way. First, she waged a campaign with the local news media claiming that the position was overpaid and should be abolished – despite the fact that she lobbied Murkowski hard to get it. Then, mounting what she saw as a white horse, Palin raised a cloud of dust by resigning from the OGCC and riding away with an undeserved reputation as a “reformer.”


But when a local reporter dared to suggest that the reformer Empress has no clothes, Palin tried to get her fired.


“She came at me like I was trying to steal her kids,” said the targeted reporter, who now works for an oil company in Anchorage. “I heard she had a wild temper and vicious mean streak but it’s nothing like you can imagine until she turns it on you.”


Not surprising since some of her high school classmates still openly call her “Sarah Barracuda,” Kilkenny insists.


Still, as a Republican Party hack Palin managed to get herself elected running under the false flag of a “reformer.”


And what did she bring to the job? No legislative experience other than a city council of a village of 5,000 people, which is smaller than some high schools in Chicago. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; after all, she needed to hire a city administrator to run Wasilla. No executive experience, except for almost being recalled as mayor. A philosophy of setting public policy based on one word: No.


And what has she done since winning the job?


According to Kilkenny, nothing. Well, nothing other than suggesting the state’s multi-multi-million dollar, oil-generated surplus be distributed to residents and finance future state needs by borrowing money. Gee, doesn’t that sound precisely what George Bush did with the surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton in 2001 and we all know in what great shape Bush’s economic policies left the nation.


It may explain why, when asked by reporters, including me, what she thought about Palin being picked to be McCain’s running mate, her mother-in-law replied with a sardonic, “What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president?” Of course, when the woman – said by many I spoke with to be well-respected in Wasilla – was running to succeed Palin as mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her, so that may explain the family tension.


As Governor, Palin gave the legislature no direction and budget guidelines, according to the chair of a legislative committee. But then she staged a huge grandstand play of line-item vetoing countless projects, calling them pork. “They were restored because of public outcry and legislative action,” the aide said. “She vetoed them mostly because she had no idea what they were or why they were important.”


But it was enough to get the McCain, who is mostly unobservant of the world around him anyway, to think Palin has a reputation as being “anti-pork”.


In fact, Juneau observers note that Palin kept her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork ladled out by indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be politically unwise to keep supporting it, these same insiders assert. Then, Palin fell back on her old habits and publicly humiliated him for pork-barrel politics.


As for being “ready on day one” to be commander in chief, despite the repeated public claims she’s made, the Alaska National Guard commander said that, “she has made no command decisions, other than sending some troops to help fight a few brush fires and march in parades at county fairs.”


“Sambo Beat the Btch”
“Palin is a conniving, manipulative, a**hole,” someone who thinks these are positive traits in a governor told me, summing up Palin’s tenure in Alaska state and local politics.


“She’s a bigot, a racist, and a liar,” is the more blunt assessment of Arnold Gerstheimer who lived in Alaska until two years ago and is now a businessman in Idaho.


Juneau is a small town; everybody knows everyone else,” he adds. “These stories about what she calls blacks and Eskimos, well, anyone not white and good looking actually, were around long before she became a glint in John McCain’s rheumy eyes. Why do I know they’re true? Because everyone who isn’t aboriginal or Indian in Alaska talks that way.”


“Sambo beat the btch” may be everyday language up in the bush. Whether it – and the outlook, politics and worldview Palin reflects when she says such things in public – should be part of a presidential campaign is another thing altogether. The comment says as much about McCain as it does about Palin, and it says a lot of things about Americans who overlook such statements (as well as her record) and vote anyway for McCain.


by Charley James


Racist? Why...because the monkey
is brown?  That is just a coincidence.  Besides, if you believe in evolution....we were all monkeys once.  Besides, I believe the reference to a monkey was to show how dumb Obama is.  Ya know...Obama with dumb plans that won't work and a monkey who finds it entertaining to throw it's own poop.  Hmm...Just a though.
racist and making fun of

the disabled.  Little Flap Palin would be so disappointed with you.


 


Why do you say its racist propaganda
I just watched the video and there is nothing racist or of any propaganda. Whoever made the video took actual clips of Obama talking and talked about Obama's ideologies and mentors. Nothing racist involved. Is it your just upset because the truth about Obama is coming out and you dont want anyone to know what he is like?
Why won't you answer? How racist are you?
If you're going to come on here and make a racially inflammatory remark like we're going to 'shed blood' and use 'Black Power' to stir up sh1t, you'd better be prepared to back up your words.

I'm sick of people like you - typically OLD, WHITE and MIDDLE CLASS talking about what black people think and do and want.

If you can't speak AS an African American, please don't speak FOR the African Americans.
It's just another of their racist views
In fact, welfare makes up a very small portion of our national budget. It's just a convenient scapegoat for the ignorant.

I don't think this statement was racist.
I'm sure that there are some white people who are so nuts in their racism that they could potentially assassinate Obama or at least attempt to.  That doesn't insinuate all white people.  As for riots....I'm sure there are some black people who are so racist that they could potentially riot if Obama loses.  That isn't saying that all of them will.  You need to pull back the race card you just threw out there and perhaps lay off of the caffeine as well.  Making these statements doesn't make someone racist.....it just points out that there is racism out there in the world and it comes from all sides. 
I am able to see what is truly racist and what is not. I am tired of everything (sm)
being blamed on race. At the same time, if I see blatant true racism, such as the types of slurs the poster or poster(s) were using, I will speak out.
Name me one thing I said that was racist, other
:{
you forgot to add that you are a RACIST.

Yep, anyone who is NOT for Obama is a RACIST.

Oh brother.