Right, and who was it in the Senate that was a staunch KKK member?...
The dems have done a great job of roping in the black vote by making many of them dependent on the government. It is amazing how folks will vote for their cash cow. The Federal Government is the ultimate lobbyist, paying billions in hand-outs to ensure that folks will still vote for them (the ones that keep ensuring that money goes out). So please - lets make sure we put the shoe where it fits on that issue.
You know what I think is truly sad about this election - all the democrats out there pushing this "love the black man" routine, and when they get in the voting booth, how many of them are going to push the other button. That is the sad part.
I would gladly have voted for Colin Powell or Condi Rice for President. But they choose not to run because they didn't want (themselves and their families) to get turned into punching bags by the press. I can totally understand their reasons. But I still wish they would have run.
Again - I am not straying from the topic - You stated that Palin quoted Bircher
See:
Quote
Palin Quotes Racist John Bircher in her Acceptance Speech
Here's an interesting note on Pegler:
http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/92.2/witwer.html
Quote
In late December 1941, the editors of Time announced, "Reader nominations for Time's Man of the Year are now closed. Latest tabulations showed President Roosevelt in front, Comrade Stalin second and Columnist Westbrook Pegler third." For those who still remember him, such an indication of Pegler's prominence might seem surprising. A self-described "professional dissenter," he built a journalistic career that stretched from the 1920s to the early 1960s by taking iconoclastic stands. In the 1950s and 1960s, as his conservative views became more extreme and his writing increasingly shrill, he earned the tag of "the stuck whistle of journalism." He denounced the civil rights movement, embraced anti-Semitism, and in the early 1960s wrote for the John Birch Society—until he proved too cantankerous for even its members. Those later years make it easy to fall into the mistake of dismissing him, but in 1941, as Time magazine's readers made clear, Pegler's long slide into decline remained in the future.
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Pegler commanded respect and wielded great influence, a fact acknowledged by his friends and enemies alike. In an age when Americans were devoted readers, newspaper columnists exercised the kind of influence later reserved for radio shock jocks and television news shows. In a field of influential columnists in the 1930s and 1940s, Pegler stood out. In 1941 he became the first columnist ever to win a Pulitzer Prize for reporting. A year earlier the Saturday Evening Post described him as "undoubtedly one of the leading individual editorial forces in the country." A survey of five hundred editors of daily newspapers, conducted by the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism in 1942, ranked him the nation's "best adult columnist." In the early 1940s his columns went out six days a week to 174 newspapers that reached an estimated 10 million subscribers.
A 1942 article by George P. West in the liberal journal the New Republic referred to Pegler's widespread influence by asserting sadly, "What we are up against is the Westbrook Pegler mind." West blamed Pegler for "giving greater aid and comfort to our domestic fascists than any other one man in the United States." But in the same article, West wrote that "in spite of the exasperation and disgust that his column often inspires when he either shows a perverse failure to see straight or hits below the belt in true guttersnipe fashion," he still considered Pegler "my favorite reactionary." He meant that as more than faint praise. "Pegler is an artist, a man of great courage, a hater of tyranny," West explained, "and he calls the shots as he sees them."
...
Hmm. Like I said, Wikipedia is considered highly suspect...
It seems in his early years, much of his writing was considered very good. In his later years he seems to have been taking a much harsher tone. Be interesting to see when the quote that was attributed to him was written.