politicalpartypoop.com

Posted By: CyberBob

A Jacksonville man says he was duped and robbed by two girls after attempting to meet with a woman he met on the internet.
The victim says he chatted online with a woman, known on her MySpace.com profile as “Natalia”, for two weeks before deciding to meet with her. He says her profile showed sexy photos, and a blurb which said “just lookin’ for something fun”. That brief, friendly description was all he knew about her before they planned to meet.
“She sent me a message saying she thought she met me somewhere,” says the victim.
They decided to meet at what she called her home at the Bentley Green Apartments.
“I went to [the apartment] and knocked on the door, and there was no answer. So I called her and said, ‘I’m here’ and there was no answer.”
That is when two girls who were 14 and 15-years-old, approached him saying they knew Natalia, the girl he thought he’d be meeting. They also said they knew where he worked at what car he drove.
“This was not the girl that the picture was of on MySpace,” the victim said.
Now sensing something was wrong, he was ready to take off, but was stopped by a shocking discovery.
“[One of the girls] took [a] gun out and put it to my head and told me to empty my pockets.”
The girls didn’t get much because the victim had forgotten his wallet. They let him go, unharmed, and he called police.
Police did a search of the area and found the two teens with another male suspect. They searched a purse and found two loaded handguns.
Myspace.com may have been developed for friends and music, but this victim had to find out the hard way that not everyone is logging on for the right reasons.
The so-called Natalia did tell the victim that she was 18, so he was shocked to learn he was actually talking to a 14-year-old. He says he has since removed personal information from his MySpace profile, like his salary and the kind of car that he drives.
Those teenagers are now charged with armed robbery and carrying a concealed firearm.

 REMEMBER MY FAVORITE LIBERAL ROB SAYS THAT I MAKE UP CRAP ABOUT LIBERAL AND THAT THESE “FICTITIOUS” LIBERALS I RANT ABOUT ARE ALL IN MY HEAD AND THAT THEY DON’T REALLY EXIST.  

By Tom Barrett
Conservative Truth.org

ANOTHER ARTICLE - HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA
Does ‘PG’ rating mean ‘pro-God’?
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has gone too far – way too far! Their rating system is supposed to help parents protect their children from nudity, foul language and violence – not from Christianity. Yet, in violation of their own published guidelines, the Association has put a “warning label” on a film that contains NO nudity, NO filthy language, and NO violence. The movie’s “objectionable content” is its Christian message. In effect, the MPAA has made a decision to censor religion by its action.

The hypocrisy is that the MPAA had given “G” ratings in the past to many movies that actually contain objectionable content. They explain this away by claiming that the objectionable material was only seen on screen “fleetingly,” or was very “mild.” The more serious hypocrisy is that they liberally pass out “G” ratings to movies that contain strong religious content of other religions, including Islam, Secular Humanism and Wicca (witchcraft).

The movie in question, which received a “PG” rating, is the soon-to-be-released sports film “Facing the Giants” (see LINK to the movie’s website below). The scene which apparently caused the MPAA to fear that “some viewers might be offended” included a discussion between a football coach and a wealthy spoiled brat.

When the coach advised the kid to stop bad-mouthing his father and get right with God, the boy said, “You really believe in all that honoring God and following Jesus stuff?… Well, I ain’t trying to be disrespectful, but not everybody believes in that.”

To which the coach replied: “Matt, nobody’s forcing anything on you. Following Jesus Christ is the decision that you’re going to have to make for yourself. You may not want to accept it, because it’ll change your life. You’ll never be the same.”

Alex Kendrick, who plays the coach in the film, said, “Look, I have those kinds of conversations about faith all the time and I’ve seen young people make decisions that change their lives. The reason we’re making movies in the first place is that we hope they inspire people to think twice about their relationships with God.”

Anyone who sees this film will agree that it should be rated “G”. This is a direct quote from the MPAA’s own website (see LINK below), which describes which films should be rated “G” (for General audiences):

“This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. that would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a certificate of approval nor does it signify a children’s film.

”Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present, nor is there any drug use content.”

So the MPAA’s own guidlelines allow SOME bad language, and SOME violence. But, as I mentioned above, “Facing the Giants” contains NO nudity, NO bad language, and NO violence. It should definitely be rated “G.” The only reason it has not is that the MPAA has set itself up as some kind of censor of religion. The Association has stated that, “The religious content could be ‘disturbing’ to some viewers.” So only religious expressions of which they approve will be allowed in “G” rated movies.

“It is kind of interesting that faith has joined that list of deadly sins that the MPAA board wants to warn parents to worry about,” film spokesman Kris Fuhr told the Scripps Howard News Service.

I don’t know about you, but I’d sure rather have my daughter see a coach counseling a kid to do right, than to have her hear “snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation,” or have her see “…violence” which “…is at a minimum.” I think “G” rated movies should not include ANY violence or bad language. The content of “Facing the Giants” is actually the ideal of a “G” rated movie.

Now let’s look at how the MPAA decides which movies deserve to be rated “PG (Parental Guidance suggested):

“This is a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies. The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. However, these elements are not considered so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. As long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.”

Fascinating! The MPAA believes that the portrayal of drug use is so bad that it is can never be allowed in “PG” movies, where “Parental Guidance” is suggested. But parents need to be “warned” about movies that have religious themes. Using that logic, a coach talking to a child about getting his life straightened out is more damaging to kids than allowing them to see drug use portrayed in a positive manner. What planet do these people come from?

On web blogs where discussion of the movie appeared, I came across several interesting comments. One said, “Does anybody appreciate the history of our country? We cry out loud that we are Americans…but what do we have to be proud of if we have to ‘warn’ people about the values upon which our country was founded? I respect other religions, but we, the People, come from Christian backgrounds. Our forefathers are turning in their graves!…I think that the rating should be changed to a “G.” We have religious freedom here, besides a strong Christian background as a nation.”

Another commented, “What this film is going for is authenticity. It wants to show what really goes on in the hearts, minds, and lives of people who make following Christ a way of life. There are such people in (nearly) every type of occupation across the globe. When looked at that way, is this film any different than a film that goes inside a mafia ring and presents a realistic (yet fictional) picture of what happens there? It will offend some people, but savvy movie-goers have done their research and know what they are getting themselves into…If this film is too religious for you, then your problem is with the people that follow this way of life, not the film itself. Can you really blame the film for striving for authenticity?”

I think that says it all.

INTERNET RESOURCES:

“Facing the Giants” official website
Does ‘PG’ rating mean ‘pro-God’?
Narrow focus draws ‘PG’ rating for Baptist-backed film
Motion Picture Association of America

by Allahpundit - Via Hot Air

DIRECT LINK TO POST HERE
I like that he frames it in the context of apologizing to them.

Seriously, though, he’s out of bounds. If the nutroots packed up and left for Iraq, who’d be left to plot the astral conjunction between Kos’s “plutonic gonads” and Mark Warner’s Uranus?

2) What happened to the human shields? I didn’t think it was wise or principled of certain activists to go to Baghdad in 2003 and swear to put themselves between Iraqi civilians and undue harm. (To most Iraqis and Kurds, they looked like sheepish guards who were standing between Saddam Hussein and what was rightly coming to him, and there were protests at their presence. And they did seem to leave when things became nasty.) But the idea of witnessing for peace in this manner has its attractions. That new hero, Rep. John Murtha, repeated a familiar slur the other day, attacking Karl Rove for supporting the war from an air-conditioned office—as if a person with a White House job has no right to an opinion on the war. But would not now be the ideal time for those who hate war to go to Iraq and stand outside the mosques, hospitals, schools, and women’s centers that are daily subjected to murderous assaults? This would write an imperishable page in the history of American dissent.

They are human shields, though. Every new criticism of Kos draws the half-wit, bad-faith rejoinder that it’s not him his critics object to, it’s “people-powered politics.” He’s gone so far as to deploy it in defense of the “screw them” comment, which you can see for yourself towards the end of his interview with Kurtz on CNN a few weeks ago. Remember that the next time you hear him insist his movement’s leaderless while in the same breath presuming to excommunicate someone from the left for knocking him.

As for Hitchens, isn’t he the anti-Sullivan? Not in the sense that his writing gives the impression of having been composed between sobs, but in the sense that each follows Orwell by criticizing his own side’s willingness to apologize for totalitarianism. To Orwell that meant Stalin, to Hitchens it means Zarqawi, and to Sullivan it means … James Dobson, mostly. All Orwell disciples are equal, perhaps — but some are more equal than others.

NewsMax.com Wires
WASHINGTON — A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.
The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

President Bush, who supports the amendment, called the failed vote unfortunate and commended Republicans and Democrats who voted to move the ratification process forward. In a statement, Bush said he continued to believe that “the American people deserve the opportunity to express their views on this important issue.”
The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, read: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”
It represented Congress’ response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.
“Countless men and women have died defending that flag,” said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. “It is but a small humble act for us to defend it.”
Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people’s patriotism for political advantage in the midterm elections.
“Our country’s unique because our dissidents have a voice,” said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.
“While I take offense at disrespect to the flag,” he said, “I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech.”

Among possible presidential contenders in 2008, six voted yes: Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republicans George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Frist, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and John McCain of Arizona. Five, all Democrats, voted no: Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Senate also rejected an alternative put forward by assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois. It would have made it against the law to damage the flag on federal land or with the intent of breaching the peace or intimidation. It also would have prohibited unapproved demonstrations at military funerals.
The last time the Senate considered the amendment, in 2000, it fell four votes short of what was needed. Both sides predicted rightly before Tuesday’s vote that it would get more support.
The last proposed constitutional amendment that Congress sent to the states for ratification was the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. The normal seven-year deadline for state ratification was extended to 1982, but the ERA couldn’t muster the approval of more than 35 state legislatures, three short of the three-fourths of states required under the Constitution.
The 26th Amendment, guaranteeing 18-year-olds the right to vote, was approved by Congress in March 1971 and was ratified by the states less than four months later.
The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, was first proposed in 1789. It says pay raises that Congress votes for itself can’t take effect until after the next election for members of the House.
The House also got into the July Fourth spirit Tuesday by passing on a voice vote a measure that would bar condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the flag can be displayed.
Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., the resolution would prohibit those groups from preventing residents from displaying an American flag on their own property. The Senate is considering whether to bring up the measure this year.

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 28, 2006

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE(CNSNews.com) - America is about to revisit one of the most turbulent decades in its history, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told a religious conference in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. “We’re about to enter the ’60s again,” Dean said, but he was not referring to the Vietnam War or racial tensions.Dean said he is looking for “the age of enlightenment led by religious figures who want to greet Americans with a moral, uplifting vision.”“The problem is when we hit that ’60s spot again, which I am optimistic we’re about to hit, we have to make sure that we don’t make the same mistakes,” Dean added. See Video

“I came in the wrong door when I first got here,” Dean said. “I came in the back, and everybody was talking about praising the Lord, and I thought, ‘I am home. Finally, a group of people who want to praise the Lord and help their fellow man just like Jesus did and just like Jesus taught.’ Thank you so much for doing that for me.”

“I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama [bin Laden], who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.”

“We’ve gotten rid of [Saddam Hussein], and I suppose that’s a good thing.”

“I don’t know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can’t—think it can’t be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission.” — Howard Dean describing a theory held by some that President George W. Bush knew about the 9-11 attack coming to America. [20]

“We don’t know that yet. We don’t know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance.” — Howard Dean’s reply to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, when asked if Iraq was better off without Saddam Hussein, April 23, 2003.

“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.”  Dean later said the statement referred only to Republican leaders, not Republican voters. OH REALLY!

“You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.” 

Dean charged that some in the Republican Party did not understand the lives of hard-working Americans because they “never made an honest living in their lives.”

In a San Francisco speech, the chairman characterized Republicans as “a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It’s pretty much a white Christian party.”

Referring to differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, he said, “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.”

He called for House majority leader Tom DeLay to serve a “jail sentence” for corruption, when DeLay had not been convicted of any crimes (though DeLay was indeed subsequently indicted and arrested on charges of criminal conspiracy and money laundering.)
He referred to Republican leaders as “the Ayatollahs of the right wing.”

On an appearance on Meet the Press, Dean refused to respond to an accusation that racist attacks were made by a third party, Thomas V. Miller Jr. against Maryland Lt. Gov Michael Steele, and accused John M. Kane, the chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, of calling Dean an anti-Semite (Kane has denied the charge).

In a radio interview with San Antonio station WOAI on December 5, 2005, Dean said, “The idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea that, unfortunately, is just plain wrong.”

In a speech given to the American Jewish Commitee, Dean said “I was recently asked about the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties,” When it comes right down to it, the essential difference is that the Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews.”

JUST BROWSING LIBERAL BLOGLAND AND FOUND A NICE SAMPLING OF DRUG SNORTING LIBERALS RANTING.

REMEMBER ROB THINKS I MAKE THIS SHIT UP, THESE CRAZY BASTARDS ARE FIGMENTS OF MY IMAGINATION. ROB WOULD INSIST THAT LIBERALS ARE NOT THE KOOL AID DRINKING MORONIC FREAKS THAT I PORTRAY THEM TO BE.   SILLY ME….

  This post is dead-on correct, although I don’t believe for a minute that Bush is completely “dry”. His psychological characteristics coincide exactly with those of an alcoholic. An addictive personality like Bush’s requires all sorts of people to surround and protect him… to enable him. It’s a sad and twisted situation that the country has to endure this sick man’s deficiencies.
Northwest Patriot | 

—————————-

 I think this post gives chimpy too much credit. His presidency is a synthisis of he and Cheney. In the highest circles of Washington, Cheney is known as Edgar, as in Edgar Bergen (the ventriloquist) to Bush’s, Charly McCarthy.

It’s these two flavors - mixed together, with various parts of Rummy and the neocons, that we see manifesting here before our eyes.This is… and continues to be - a recipe for disaster.
Skippy the Cow 

—————————–
Bush is the ultimate tool - the idiot, alcoholic/cocaine son of wealthy, elite family. Our real problem isn’t the chimperor.

This notion that we are somehow powerless over the “great decider” in a democracy and that America cannot have fair, free, open, and verifiable elections is not a helpful dialog.
Anonymous 

—————————-

 I don’t doubt for one second that Bush is a dry drunk. I think that’s why the country feels so completely screwed up. We’re like one great big dysfunctional family. Unfortunately, the ones in power are also the enablers and denial is a huge part of the disease, which is why Bush still has so many supporters who just can’t face the fact that he has no business being the president. I don’t know what Cheney’s history is, but I think there’s something terribly wrong with him as well. He has some pretty serious medical problems. Vascular disease can also affect the blood supply to the brain causing dementia, personality changes, etc.
Spicegal 

——————————

 It’s amazing how few people get it. Whether or not Bush is a “dry” or even “wet” drunk, the one thing he is for sure is a vicious, wildly repressed homosexual. Who appoints very young men with no experience or qualifications whatsoever to high positions in government (his aide, the NASA guy)? Who winks at making a male prostitute with no credentials a member of the White House press corps? Who surrounds himself with obvious queens such as Rove and McClellan? Bush is one sick puppy but his Lady MacBethian mother has more to do with it than alcohol.
purvis ames

———————————
Of course he is an alcholic and has not taken a proper course to curb his destructive behavior. As all good alcholoics, he has surrounded himself with enablers (Republicans), entertains visions of grandeur (Iraq will become a democracy) and is unable to admit error (news conference and Iraq). Unfortunately, he hasn’t hit his bottom yet. The problem is that he will soon and he is bringing us all along with him.
William jensen 

By Jim Kouri

(AXcess News) New York - While most civil-rights leaders, including Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, support illegal aliens and amnesty, many African-Americans believe they do so as partisan Democrats and not in the best interests of blacks in America.

A national coalition of American blacks who support enforcement of US immigration laws, commended the decision by the leadership of the House of Representatives to hold field hearings later this summer.

While the White House and the Senate are backing legislation that would grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal aliens and flood America’s labor market with millions more new foreign workers, opposition to the plan from all sectors of the US population has been growing, according to Black leaders of the coalition.

“It is a refreshing change to business-as-usual in Washington that the House of Representatives is prepared to go around the country and listen to the voices of the American people,” said Frank Morris, chairman of Choose Black America.

“They’ve heard from the high priced lobbyist for cheap labor interests and from millions of illegal aliens who marched in the streets to demand that they be rewarded for having broken the law. Now members of Congress and the media will have a chance to hear directly from the American people about how mass illegal immigration is affecting their lives and what they want done.”

Choose Black America was formed because black citizens of America have been disproportionately harmed by mass illegal immigration and fear seeing their interests further decimated by the amnesty legislation that was approved by the Senate, according to organization officials.

“We look forward to the field hearings that the House is planning to hold and we hope that they will come to black communities around the country so that they can hear the voices of black citizens,” said Morris.

“As members of Congress come to the cities and even the small towns of America, it will be an opportunity for them to see how the failure of our government to enforce immigration laws is affecting people’s jobs, their children’s education and their ability to access health care and other essential services. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the people who are harmed the most are America’s black citizens.”

The group supports the House’s emphasis on enforcing US immigration laws, and opposes efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and create new guest worker programs.

“Mass illegal immigration is not a victimless crime,” Morris observed. “There are real people who lose their jobs or the chance to earn a better living. There are real children who are stuck in schools that cannot educate because they are overwhelmed by the children of illegal aliens. All too often, those victims are black.”

“We hope and expect that when members of the House get out around the country they actually listen to what the American people have to say. The American people need to carefully consider the Senate amnesty provisions that would grant benefits to people who have broken multiple laws that are not afforded to law abiding citizens,” concluded Morris.

I found these in the comments section on Crooks and Liars. I just found them amusing. I love the way you liberals think, you folks are so smart and intelligent and insightful.
I want to thank you for sharing you knowledge to the less fortunate. 

 I DID NOT MAKE THIS UP, I SWEAR!!  NOTE TO LIBERALS, SHARE YOUR DRUGS PLEASE!

You replublican think that you can say anything, but dont like to backed into a corner. This was a simple question even I CAN answer or a kindergarden and I dont have one (BA Degree). This was asked to an asshole Bachelor Degree person who works in radio, how embarrassing is that for college, I guess that degree DIDNT do him any good. Let tell you replublicans your a stupid as “blonde” you dont know reality if it hit you straight in the face, you need to back up your shit or put up or shut up, cause it makes you look like a fool. Now, if you ask a question to Bernie, which i been hearing his for 10 years, he will answer any question that a caller will ask him, but when he ask a question to the caller, they CAN NOT answer them. This goes to show that callers or Replublicans has NO creditability at all and this is the kind of people we are working under or dealing with in the White House, Companies, as a United State citizen and employee. This will haunt Chris Baker and the replublicans for a long time between now and the election cause the Replublican hides behind their lies. What pisses me of is when the Republicans smile and has the “smerk” on their face, like they dont give a shit nobody, but themselves. That is sad. Republicans is the United States a “bad” name and we should be ashamed, we cant take care of our own people’s welfare, for example: homeless, 40 million with healthcare, wage cuts that are not making enough, sending our jobs in another country where people are being laid-off in here, senior who suffer for their medication, gas prices, etc, etc, what else is out there. Shit Canada, can take care of their people (and dont say to go Canada, when i traveled there all time, by the way, NOT one person homeless, cause they too get their medical bills paid.) Why cant we do that for people who has AIDS, diabetics, and for people who dont have we should be ashamed of ourselves. Bernie, is fighting for people and only for the people, Republicans are fighting for themselve and give a crap for the less fortunate. The only saying goes, if you dont have a million dollars what the HELL you supporting the Replublican STUPID. The democrats are trying to get your medical bills paid, you dont know then talk to the people in Canada I did. My friends in Canada tell me they are disgusted the way your country is runned. Bernie, keep your voice strong and if you people call his show you better back it up on paper, otherwise, get a big boulder and throw it up in the air and look up and let it drop on your head.

 Genius Bush Invents Bushopoly

And we all thought Georgie-boy was a dimwit. Turns out we were all wrong. Well, not all of us, there were plenty in the business of Weapons Manufacturing, the Oil & Gas industry, and a hefty slice of Wall Street players who spotted his gleaming intellect years ago. But even they could not have foreseen such limitless potential from the boy-king’s genius idea of re-inventing a monopoly. The little king has managed to turn an archaic monopoly into something more than a monopoly, in fact, something new and way more than a monopoly. For him and his business affiliates, he has used the War on Terror to gain unaccountable access to the phone conversations and, now, banking records of anyone he so desires, which likely includes any and all competitors. Imagine what you could do with this type of access to financial information and competitors’ business strategies, and without having to worry about making a legal account of it. Imagine knowing ahead of time where people will be moving their money, or what a particular business group is planning to do over the next quarter, next year, or next decade. It’s truly a new take on the old monopoly. And for pulling this scam off, I believe the new styled monopoly should be named: Bushopoly.

African-American voters in Ohio, Pa. and Md. being asked to rethink Democratic allegiances
By Jill Lawrence
USA TODAY

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — Two years after the 2004 presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell still faces accusations that he made it hard for Democrats to vote. Here at a public housing community center, however, black ministers — many of them Democrats — are showering him with applause, laughter and amens.
The Republican candidate for governor, an imposing 6-foot-4 in this small, packed room, is sharing his experiences as a black person in America. His father was a meatpacker, he says. He grew up in public housing, selling peanuts and helping at a funeral home. He worked in the civil rights movement, and he challenged the lending practices of white bankers in Cincinnati.
He did not, he says, try to suppress minority turnout in 2004. (“Do you think Mrs. Blackwell raised a dumb child? Why would I suppress the black vote when I understood how well I do in the African-American community?”) In fact, he says, a record number of blacks voted in Ohio in 2004.
When he’s done, several Democratic pastors say they might vote for Blackwell for governor this fall over Democratic U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland. Henry McNeil, pastor of Alpha & Omega First Baptist Church, says Blackwell closed the sale. “I didn’t come with a made-up mind. It was made while he spoke,” says McNeil, who backed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004.
Voters like these are making Democrats edgy this year. In Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, some African-Americans are rethinking their party loyalties in light of black Republicans running for high office.

Black support for Republicans is normally so low that the GOP declared victory when President Bush won 16% of the black vote in Ohio in 2004 (5 percentage points above his national share). Now, three black Republican contenders could scramble the usual patterns:

•Michael Steele, 47, Maryland’s lieutenant governor and a former international investment lawyer, is running for an open U.S. Senate seat in a heavily Democratic state.

•Lynn Swann, 52, a broadcaster and member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, is trying to oust Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell.

•Blackwell, 58, a former Cincinnati mayor, diplomat, Cabinet undersecretary, state treasurer and two-time Ohio secretary of State, is up against Strickland.

Blackwell points out that of the three, only he has repeatedly won statewide office on his own. He does acknowledge a certain kinship, though: “We’re all in this historical moment, in a position to have breakthrough candidacies.”
That’s not to say they are shoo-ins. Swann in particular has a tough climb; recent polls show him 10 to 20 points behind Rendell. Even so, “I don’t want people thinking I’m only doing this to make the Republican Party look like it’s diverse,” he says. “My intent is to win.”
Blackwell is contending with a difficult climate for Republicans in Ohio, where GOP Gov. Bob Taft was convicted of four violations of state ethics laws, and the biggest public corruption probe in state history has ensnared other prominent GOP figures.
Though their candidates are leading in all three states, Democrats are stepping up outreach efforts and showcasing black ca