Conservative blogger Tom Roeser strikes with specious reasoning as he looks about for any excuse to link African-Americans, laziness and big government. Read HERE
In his analysis of the single guilty conviction from a 24-count indictment in the corruption trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, the blogger is aghast at the failure of the jury to convict, despite the endless stream of pundits across the country, who have, since the indictment and arrest, questioned U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald's hurried approach to announcing his case rather than taking the time to properly prepare and present it in a manner most likely to result in a conviction. For those who are unaware, former Governor Blagojevich was convicted on only one count, that of lying to federal investigators during questioning. Roeser attributes his blog post to the thinking of an unnamed black 'colleague', who suspected that the single juror who was a holdout on a guilty verdict was an African-American solely based on the fact that she would not vote to convict. The author says his black 'colleague' was certain of this, because Blagojevich, in a craven political move, showered minorities with government largesse to assure their political loyalty. Tthus, their argument goes, because minorities are addicted to benefits for which they did not work, they would vote to acquit him, or otherwise hang up the jury and prevent a conviction as some sort of misplaced show of gratitude.
When I read this, I just had to post a comment (3rd comment in response to this thread). In my response I noted that the link between being a client/beneficiary of government largesse and support for any politician nominally liberal and supportive of entitlements is specious, at best. Being a recipient of entitlement spending in no way ensures some sort of outcome such as that claimed by the author, namely that if you're poor you will support corrupt politicians as the only ones willing to extend entitlements in your direction. If that were the case, surely the majority of poor and working-class whites - who are themselves the largest recipients of any entitlement spending in the U.S., simply by virtue of their much larger populations - would not be joining anti-government groups across the nation, with the Tea Party being only the most notable example. Or perhaps, what the author really thinks and wishes to say is that only blacks vote for the corrupt? Perhaps the author believes that support for corruption travels in the DNA?