This is Deneen Borelli. She works for the National Center for Public Policy.
National Center for Public Policy is funded by entities like ExxonMobil to attack global warming research. They were also one of the top defenders of corrupt former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, going so far as to launder money for him. One of their projects is a blackwashing entity called Project 21. Project 21 exists to employ black people who have no qualms about attacking the civil rights movement while being paid by wealthy right-wingers (click here for some of the really dumb stuff Mychal Massie of Project 21 regularly vomits on America).
That’s where Deneen Borelli comes in. She’s the subject of a press release this group put out, with the laughable headline “Black Activist Slams “Stimulus” Spending Making Billions Available to ACORN”. Of course, that headline makes it look like a real civil rights activist is coming out against ACORN (the newest right wing boogeyman since the election). In fact it seems ACORN isn’t even eligible for these funds the right is hyperventilating over.
Deneen Borelli, this “black activist” has argued that blacks shouldn’t support Obama’s agenda, said that somehow Rev. Wright’s comments pointed to a secret belief among black churches, and – apparently with a straight face – claimed that anti-global warming policies hurt black business.
In other words, Deneen Borelli works the corner of political commentary, putting a black face on the same old warmed over conservative nonsense that helped knock America off track. She should be ashamed of what she does, but I guess the dollar bills sop up her tears.
OK, now which wingnut troll will accuse Oliver of being unfair, un-mutual, hateful, etc? Jay Tea? Farris? Amused Observer?
Cons love playing on astroturf
House Negress. Tough shit for anybody who don’t like that assessment.
Oh, me first Rheinhard, me first!
Let’s see if I have this clear – if you’re black and you work for a partisan rightie outfit, you are a sellout, a “House Negress”, (heh nice one Randy, you rock!) and an all around bad person.
If, however, you are black and work for a partisan lefty outfit, like, say.. Oliver does, you are normal, mainstream, and an all around great guy.
Whatever kiddies. Keep the racism going, and don’t let anything puncture that bubble of unreality.
Here’s the diff: I don’t make salary by selling out black people while using my own race to do so. The right should try it some time.
Okay. Where’s the independent black right wing movement leader who has real solutions for African-Americans. And who doesn’t focus on silly social conservative stuff, and diss poor black people for needing help? Oh btw, how does anti-global warming hurt African-Americans? Guess who lives where and in what areas that are going to be affected by more killer tornadoes and hurricanes-coastal areas like say, New Orleans. I could also mention that the “Green” economy, like all emerging economies have lower barriers to entry than long-established industries and therefore will hire more minority people and in more senior positions.
Of course, it is rude to suggest that none of these people have even a tiny independent following. It is even ruder to suggest that unlike the former civil rights leaders they cannot even get elected to the city water board, raise their own money. In short, they are house flunkeys that are disposable on a whim solely there to reassure middle class Republican moderates that the party really isn’t all that racist.
Here’s the diff: I don’t make salary by selling out black people while using my own race to do so. The right should try it some time.– OW
Just curious, Oliver, are there any black people who aren’t Democrats that you wouldn’t consider to be sell-outs?
“Just curious, Oliver, are there any black people who aren’t Democrats that you wouldn’t consider to be sell-outs?”
I have to say, that is an intellectually lazy question, Dennis. I understand you were going for the standard sarcasm but, I have to ask you, do you not find it offensive that a party that never pushes for anything positive for our community uses these People, sell-outs, house negroes or whatever you want to call them as a pawn in their game?
To my brothers defense. I can answer that stupid question with a yes, hell yes and what a stupid remark.
We need to stop being so devisive in the face of blatant attempts at using our own to push an agenda that doesn’t help us.
There are hippocrites all around. No one person on earth ever has been free from being a hippocrite yet, some of us are more guilty of this than others.
Take that!
Well it’s hard to sift through but maybe TD Jakes. Sadly the vast majority of black con punditry is a modern minstrel show.
>Here’s the diff: I don’t make salary by selling out black people while using my own race to do so. The right should try it some time.
Here’s the key part – for someone who is black, you equate being on the right with selling out black people, by definition. This is just more of your “my side is virtuous, the other side is base and depraved” bs. Apparently it just bothers you a lot more when the person is black.
And I always thought that it was just certain religious people that were painfully unaware of their self-righteousness..
See? Cons do care about (some) black people!
Randy and OW, black conservatives do seem to just piss you guys off, seemingly by virtue of their existence. Or maybe it’s just that the ones you write about are total putzen – never heard of this TD Jakes fellow…
After seeing the virulent racism from the “G.reat O.bstructionist P.arty during this last election cycle, any Black person that STILL toee that party’s line, especially against Obama, is a self loathing and self serving “tom”, plain and simple.
If, after all the lynchings of men, women AND children , the deprevations of rights, the humiliation heaps upon your people throughout the history of this country, you chose to be a lap dog to those that still consider you inferior (the GOP, Right Wing whatever)what the hell else can we call you?
And being a “tom” means that you’re oblivious to the fact that once your skin color no longer serves their purpose, you’re gone.
“toes”..’cuse my spellin’.
“toes”..’cuse my spellin’., Zardozinhell
Spelling is easily excused. Your stream of consciousness idiocy is too. Thank God or whoever it was that invented the scroll button.
Virulent racism. Good grief.
Aw, Dennis, you sound bitter. I guess you were called on your defective economic blogging and it left you a bit irritated.
I understand that what I said is beyond your understanding but you’re excused for that because you are what you are and I doubt that even you know what that is.
But I’ll hazard a guess; a butt-plug with legs.
Haplo9: Here’s the key part – for someone who is black, you equate being on the right with selling out black people, by definition. This is just more of your “my side is virtuous, the other side is base and depraved” bs. Apparently it just bothers you a lot more when the person is black.
Well, yes. Everyone believes their side is correct and the other side is wrong. That’s why they’re on a particular side. Nobody I’m aware of ever said “I’m on this side because I think it’s wrong.” And if you feel strongly that a particular side follows policies that oppress your group then, yes, you would view members of your group who support that other side as selling out.
I imagine Jews, by and large, would be particularly bothered by a Jewish person denying the Holocaust. That Islamics (that the right word?) would be particularly bothered by a fellow Islamic supporting the idea of a museum exhibit of works depicting the prophet. That homosexuals would be particularly bothered by a gay man working to oppose gay marriage. That blacks would be particularly bothered by a black person advocating the policies and attitudes that are widely viewed as detrimental to black people.
I guess you were called on your defective economic blogging and it left you a bit irritated.–Zardozinhell
No, sorry, not irritated at all. You only said it was defective without offering up a reason. I asked you a couple times to explain yourself and you wouldn’t/couldn’t. Go back to that thread now if you want to and explain what you thought my error was in stating Obama’s and Geithner’s speech had an adverse effect on the markets yesterday. Don’t puss out again.
And if you feel strongly that a particular side follows policies that oppress your group then, yes, you would view members of your group who support that other side as selling out. Sean D. Martin
Sean D.- I doubt you’ll find the same percentages of conservative/Republican Roman Catholics who consider Democratic Catholic politicians who are pro-choice as sellouts to be anywhere close in comparison to the percentage of blacks who consider black Republicans as sell-outs.
I might have a few choice descriptives for Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden’s abortion views that I use on liberal blogs and among polite company, but ’sell-outs’ isn’t one of them.
Dennis: Go back to that thread now if you want to and explain what you thought my error was in stating Obama’s and Geithner’s speech had an adverse effect on the markets yesterday.
Obama announces Geithner for Treasury Secretary, Dow rises over 400 points. Geithner gives speech, Dow drops 381 points. Not counting all the fluctuations in the intervening 10 weeks, still up a couple dozen points.
So just what was your point?
I doubt you’ll find the same percentages of conservative/Republican Roman Catholics who consider Democratic Catholic politicians who are pro-choice as sellouts …
Because “murderers” and “baby killers” is so much more polite.
Dennis: I might have a few choice descriptives for Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden’s abortion views that I use on liberal blogs and among polite company, but ’sell-outs’ isn’t one of them.
Ah, so we’re not debating the opinion being expressed, but a particular choice of words. Those goalposts can be pesky when they move like that.
So just what was your point? Sean D. Martin
C’mon, Sean, I made my point about 5 times yesterday on that thread. That yesterday’s precipitous drop was not just another Random Walk Down Wall Street. I cited several links to financial pages that the stimulus speech Obama gave the night before and Geithner’s speech the next day was not being well-received by the Street, and that the substance of Obama’s speech was far more important than the style was when the rubber meets the road. I felt bad about raining on another Obama love-fest thread, but it was just not one of his better speeches.
I left a last post there if you want to post any links that blame yesterday’s stock debacle on anything other than that.
So far, no takers. Not even Zardozinhell, who was certain he could prove me wrong.
Ah, so we’re not debating the opinion being expressed, but a particular choice of words. Those goalposts can be pesky when they move like that. Sean D. Martin
WTF are you talking about. Are you seriously trying to be obtuse?
Yes, the particular choice of words was ’sell-outs’. Oliver used it, I asked him what blacks on the conservative side would he consider not to be that word. You used that word. I explained the folly of your argument in using that word too broadly, and without just consideration. That was exactly the opinion being expressed.
I think I came here with way too high expectations, Sean.
Haplo: “Let’s see if I have this clear – if you’re black and you work for a partisan rightie outfit, you are a sellout, a “House Negress”, (heh nice one Randy, you rock!) and an all around bad person.
If, however, you are black and work for a partisan lefty outfit, like, say.. Oliver does, you are normal, mainstream, and an all around great guy.”
Southern. Strategy.
Here, I’ll put it in bold for you…
Southern. Fucking. Strategy.
The Republican party is the party of racism. They’ve used it as a campaign tool for more than 40 years now.
That blacks would be particularly bothered by a black person advocating the policies and attitudes that are widely viewed as detrimental to black people.
there’s that key phrase “widely viewed”. Not conclusivly proven: just suggested by a casual survey of hand-selected self-appointed “leaders” who oppose said policies simply for being conservative irrespective of it’s effect on the black population is as a whole.
Dennis: “I doubt you’ll find the same percentages of conservative/Republican Roman Catholics who consider Democratic Catholic politicians who are pro-choice as sellouts”
Cause the Bible isn’t Pro-Life.
“to be anywhere close in comparison to the percentage of blacks who consider black Republicans as sell-outs.”
But the Republican party is racist. Southern Strategy. Trent Lott even apologized for using it, and was then forced to apologize for apologizing.
for someone who is black, you equate being on the right with selling out black people, by definition.
Well, since the 1960s and the rise of the Bircher/Goldwater right this has been the case in the Republican party. I’m serious. The party that was of Lincoln and abolition embraced racism and demonization of blacks to bring on the southern vote. I think a black person that would be a part of that is as bad as a Jewish person just getting along with the SS.
SDM: That blacks would be particularly bothered by a black person advocating the policies and attitudes that are widely viewed as detrimental to black people.
SaveFarris: there’s that key phrase “widely viewed”. Not conclusively proven: just suggested by a casual survey of hand-selected self-appointed “leaders” who oppose said policies simply for being conservative irrespective of it’s effect on the black population is as a whole.
Well, duh. I used the term “widely viewed” deliberately, specifically because you will always find a variety of opinions and be able to point to someone in a group who doesn’t hold whatever view you’re ascribing to that group.
But, a reasonably impartial person who steps back and looks at the policies and practices of the Republican party and the conservative right, if honest, would have to concede that they are not a group that is interested in helping blacks and actually quite the contrary in many respects.
And in this specific case, a reasonable person would look at the comments and positions of Deneen Borelli and say she’s not talking sense. That she’s flat out, demonstrably wrong (ACORN), misinformed (Wright) and/or pushing an agenda (S. 2191).
This is America. We try to be tolerant, we try to be understanding, we try to forgive, and we try not to indict innocents for the sins of others.
And we even try our best to get liberals to think that way too.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.”
Even someone who would say something like that can be forgiven.
“Tom”, “Sellout”, whatever you want to call them, they all share the same obvious character flaws regardless of what traditionally victimized group they come from. A few of those flaws are:
1. Making excuses for why they vilify (or exploit) their own.
2. They regurgitate the talking points of the group that has historically victimized their group.
3. They hate their heritage and their skin but deny that they in spite of their actions to the contrary.
I’m sure many of you here can name more.
Ms. Borelli, to her shame, has all of these flaws.
And to those here that have such “high expectations” when blogging here, check yourself, your “intellect” is not nearly as formitable as you imagine it is.
This is a great sight.
Thanks Oliver.
That homosexuals would be particularly bothered by a gay man working to oppose gay marriage.
Unless you’re a Log Cabin Republican. Then it’s FABulous.
I doubt you’ll find the same percentages of conservative/Republican Roman Catholics who consider Democratic Catholic politicians who are pro-choice as sellouts to be anywhere close in comparison to the percentage of blacks who consider black Republicans as sell-outs.
Apple? Meet Orange.
And we even try our best to get liberals to think that way too.
Is that one of your jokes, Dennis? ‘Cuz if you’re serious, it don’t seem very tolerant.
Dennis: This is America. We try to be tolerant, we try to be understanding, we try to forgive, and we try not to indict innocents for the sins of others.
And we even try our best to get liberals to think that way too.
Do you really want to suggest that in general conservatives have been more tolerant, unwilling to indict innocents and etc than liberals? Really?
With the Southern Strategy, opposition to things like the Innocence Project and characters like Rush Limbaugh as their standard carrier, you really want to try to make that argument?
And to those here that have such “high expectations” when blogging here, check yourself, your “intellect” is not nearly as formitable as you imagine it is.
This is a great sight.– Zardozinhell
Zardoz- You only respond to people here you disagree with, and usually you tell them to go away. Did you ever consider that it’s possible one reason why you think this is a great site is that opposing viewpoints aren’t quickly banished to the liberal blog Recycle Bin, like a lot of others? So that guys like you have a place to go to to tell guys like me to go F themselves.
You don’t have to possess a formitable “intellect” to get that, ya know.
Do you really want to suggest that in general conservatives have been more tolerant, unwilling to indict innocents and etc than liberals? Really? Sean D. Martin
Conservatives where I work, golf and say hello to out walking my dogs in my gated community, yes. The libbies in my suburb are not nice people. But don’t get me started.
Did you ever consider that it’s possible one reason why you think this is a great site is that opposing viewpoints aren’t quickly banished to the liberal blog Recycle Bin, like a lot of others?
In all seriousness, have you ever tried to post an opposing viewpoint on a Con site like LGF or Confederate Yankkkee, Hot Air or Ace O’ Spades?
Opposing views have a very short life span.
It is more interesting here because Oliver doesn’t do that, i.e. moderate with an iron fist.
But I do use a velvet glove.
But I do use a velvet glove.
So I guess that explains the flattering picture of Deneen Borelli that if you didn’t know better you’d think she was Miss America or something, and then ripping her to shreds in the commentary.
Black Backing of Barack Should Not Be Unconditional
–by Deneen Borelli
…Although it’s amazing that a black was elected President, it’s ironic that Obama’s leftist policies are likely to hurt the very people he claims to want to help.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – “unalienable rights” cited by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence – can only be achieved through personal responsibility and self-reliance.
Unfortunately, the “We” in Obama’s “Yes We Can!” literally means collectivism and a statist government that stifles our liberties.
I’d rather endorse a “Yes I Can!” philosophy. I think those who came before me would agree.
What’s not to like about that?
I think I’m in love.
OW, if she googles herself tonight and happens to stumble upon this, you have my permission to release my email address to her.
Dennis: Conservatives where I work, golf and say hello to out walking my dogs in my gated community, yes. The libbies in my suburb are not nice people.
Fair enough. I wouldn’t dream of commenting on the views you find within your confined community. (Other than to wonder how much tolerance they can really show, behind those gates and all.)
But in the wider world, I’m quite certain that (while there certainly are individual exceptions) far more examples could be shown of those on the left demonstrating more tolerance, understanding and a willingness to stand up for the innocent than of those on the right.
far more examples could be shown of those on the left demonstrating more tolerance, understanding and a willingness to stand up for the innocent than of those on the right.–SDM
Maybe, I’ll concede that. Conservatives do things like that a lot more subtly and are much less vocal, granted. I know you’ll disagree, but that tolerance and willingness to stand up for the innocent that you attribute more to liberals should also apply to those who think different politically than they do, especially those that are innocent of all the horrid things commenters here attribute to the party and by conjecture anyone who has ever voted Republican or even believes in conservatism.
I would venture to guess many here were disgusted by the Republican inferences of guilt by association with all the shady characters Barack Obama had dealings with in his past. Defended it to the core of your being. Yet you (many here, not you, per se) practice guilt by association every single day here. And if you’re black and have exercised your right to choose a political philosophy or political candidate not of the same party as yours, well then you guys call that person a sell-out.
East is east and west is west, I know, but I’ll never understand that line of reasoning. Or how you can call yourselves tolerant.
“Maybe, I’ll concede that. Conservatives do things like that a lot more subtly and are much less vocal, granted. I know you’ll disagree, but that tolerance and willingness to stand up for the innocent that you attribute more to liberals should also apply to those who think different politically than they do, especially those that are innocent of all the horrid things commenters here attribute to the party and by conjecture anyone who has ever voted Republican or even believes in conservatism.”
There’s a difference between thinking differently, and being wrong.
It is not intolerant to say, “Creationism and Intelligent design is bullshit and has no place in science class.”
It is also not intolerant to say, “The Southern Strategy is racist and has no place in politics.”
You see, we are not attacking the GOP because they are different, we are attacking them on the substance of those differences.
I know it’s hard to understand, especially for someone who thinks 3 is most of 9, but try.
I know it’s hard to understand, especially for someone who thinks 3 is most of 9… –C.S.Sturbridge
When I teased you about your comic book fetish, I really had no idea it might raise your estrogen levels to the danger zone. If it’s causing a slight mustache or hair on your nipples, then I am very sorry, I didn’t mean to cause such distress.
—-
There’s a difference between thinking differently, and being wrong. — C.S.Sturbridge
Actually, not according to you. To you, from the way you post here, those two things are one and the same. Because not one person who posts here to my knowledge comes on advocating creationism or intelligent design, or the Southern Strategy. Yet you lump everyone in to that category as you squawk unintelligibly with every post. You are guilty of the same stereotyping you think is germane to only one political party. It’s not that you can’t differentiate between people who are conservative and don’t believe in those things, it’s just that you refuse to.
You really aren’t in much of a position of righteousness when you give people the high hat here. But for some mysterious reason, a few people give you hero status here.
Dennis: I know you’ll disagree, but that tolerance and willingness to stand up for the innocent that you attribute more to liberals should also apply to those who think different politically than they do, especially those that are innocent of all the horrid things commenters here attribute to the party and by conjecture anyone who has ever voted Republican or even believes in conservatism.
Dennis, you’re wrong about what you claim to know. I wouldn’t disagree that people should be judged based on the opinions they hold and not those attributed to some larger group they may belong to. (That’s how I’m reading your comment. I don’t think it’s an inaccurate re-phrasing.) That said, you’re the one who started with “we” are more tolerant, etc and “liberals” as a group think differently, that all the “libbies” in your neighborhood are not nice people.
Is the broad brush okay only when you use it?
There are, of course, exceptions that can be found to any generalization. There are liberals who are self-righteous, utterly convinced of the moral superiority of their cause and quite willing to shout down other opinions while claiming they fervently believe in freedom of speech. There are conservatives who are tolerant and charitable and who donate to the Innocence Project and ACLU.
But on the whole (yes, making a general statement) it’s the right that has been more opposed to gay rights, has called dissent unpatriotic, has been more willing to pass harsh laws, to prohibit the reexamination of exculpatory evidence and to execute those with low IQs and has chosen to live in gated communities like yours. It’s an opinion we differ on, perhaps, and, as is always the case with opinions, neither side can be conclusively shown to be correct. But I’ll wager any examples you could provide of conservatives being tolerant, understanding, forgiving and not indicting innocents for the opinions of others could be far outnumbered by examples of them doing just the opposite.
Sean D. Martin-
I’m going to say I agree with most of what you’ve said, or that I don’t disagree too much. Just wanted to say that I was being a little on the glib side when I made the comment about conservatives being more tolerant- only purpose was to get a rise out of the more fire-breathing posters here among us, mainly because of their intolerance. The gated-community thing was a bit glib too, and I wish I hadn’t said it. Biggest mistake of my life moving in to one 5 years ago; realized that about 3 months in to it too. Just no bid for the house right now, and if there was a decent one, I’d move in to the city among the unwashed (kidding) with no front yard to take care of so people who think they are upper crust have a place to let their dogs crap without thinking they’re supposed to clean up after them. Those are the libbies I was talking about.
“When I teased you about your comic book fetish, I really had no idea it might raise your estrogen levels to the danger zone.”
It’s funny how you being completely fucking wrong is supposed to raise my estrogen level.
By the way, nice bit of sexism there.
“Actually, not according to you. To you, from the way you post here, those two things are one and the same. Because not one person who posts here to my knowledge comes on advocating creationism or intelligent design, or the Southern Strategy.”
Two point…
1.) I was bringing up creationism, intelligent design and, the Southern Strategy an examples. I was not accusing anyone here of supporting them.
2.) I can’t believe I have to explain #1 to you. It’s like your can read just as well as you can count.
By the way, the GOP leadership using the Southern Strategy to win elections. If you support the GOP, you support the Southern Strategy.
Dennis: “only purpose was to get a rise out of the more fire-breathing posters here among us,”
Congratulations, you just admitted to being a troll.
Now fuck off, you asshole.