Bigotry 2010 style: white women need not apply for 4th CD debate

Later tonight at 6 p.m., The Newsmakers Journal will be hosting a debate of candidates running for the 4th Congressional District. Among those participating will be Democrats Hank “Guam” Johnson, Connie Stokes, Vernon “Snuggles” Jones and Republican Cory Ruth.

One candidate for the 4th CD, it should be noted, was also invited to join the debate but, curiously, was later uninvited. That candidate: Liz Carter.

The reason for her being barred from participating? Liz Carter, you see, is white. And that fact isn’t acceptable, it would seem, to the hosts of the debate and the event moderator, Maynard Eaton (Facebook | LinkedIn).

I’m told that Maynard Eaton allegedly at first invited Carter to tonight’s debate and discussion but later rescinded the offer based solely, not on the content of her character, but the color of her skin. This debate, evidently, is for black candidates only.

Now, three Democrats and one Republican will tonight debate the pressing issues facing the 4th Congressional District. Only one problem: it would seem that whites need not apply for the job in the eyes of Maynard Eaton and James H. Welcome, publisher of The Newsmakers Journal. They’d rather embrace bigotry and dislike for those that don’t look like them.

And what would these “journalists” say if the roles were reversed? If, say, four white candidates were going to a debate and uninvited a black candidate? Why, they would scream to the rooftops about the unfairness and the bigotry! When they practice what they profess to hate…well, never mind.

Simply shameful. Those candidates who are scheduled to participate tonight should not agree to attend until all of the candidates are allowed to join in the event…even the white ones.

[UPDATE] Liz Carter is confirming, via Twitter this afternoon, she was denied attendance at tonight’s event because of the color of her skin. Earlier in the week on Facebook, she noted that she had been planning to attend.


  1. ZazaPachulia says:

    Ok, so the verification we have for this story is Pete Randall saying “I’m told that allegedly…”

    Not the soundest of sources. I don’t believe it. Looks like another classic case of white manufactured outrage.

  2. ByteMe says:

    According to whom? No source, no sale. Just as bad as Erick’s little titillation stories that have no sources, except of course, it features Pete’s bugaboo of race instead of Erick’s bugaboo of sex.

  3. polisavvy says:

    There should be no “race bating” by either party. This is a particularly disturbing story considering the fact that Liz received the endorsement by The Morehouse College Republicans. Knowing the demographics of this district, it is obvious that they are trying to push Liz out of the way.

  4. griftdrift says:

    “Journalists” actually work on things like sources and context.

    SuperHero Front Page Peach Pundit Posters use their superpowers to see how fast they can throw crap against the monkey cage walls.

    But we’re all just blogging anyway, so how gives a damn.

  5. ZazaPachulia says:

    right on griftdrift. Between this post and the “10 hottest” thread, I think the PP brass were obviously a little concerned about the perceived ‘credibility’ thrown their way lately.

  6. B Balz says:

    I wonder if Mr. ‘CEO’ Vernon “Adjudicated Racist” Jones will do that thing with his shirtsleeves? He gets a’talkin’ and starts to roll them up. Very effective imagery of ‘rolling up one’s shirtsleeves and getting to work.’ Don’t fall for it!

    According to Ms. Carter, her message is being heard by the fairly conservative African American voters coming out to her rallies. I wonder if any of them will be asking where she is or why she isn’t at the debate and discussion tonight?

    • polisavvy says:

      Be careful what you say, B Balz. Some may accuse you of “manufacturing” a message. It is true that she has received support from many blacks in the 4th. I guess some people have form harsh opinions of her that they fail to see that right is right and wrong is wrong. To not include her is simply wrong. There is no excuse for this happening PERIOD to her or anyone else (regardless of the color of their skin) PERIOD.

      • benevolus says:

        Perhaps you don’y understand the idea of “racial minority”.
        Let me put it in corporate terms for you:

        Apple is currently under investigation because it allegedly threatened to not promote Amazon’s “Daily Deal” music offer. For any other company that would be no problem, but because Apple dominates the music download business, they have to be extra careful about how they “play with others”. In other words, they have to allow others a chance to compete.

        The rules aren’t SUPPOSED to be the same as long as there is a dominant party to the relationship.

        • polisavvy says:

          benevolous, you know that sometimes I don’t click on all cylinders. Today must be one of those day. So all I can say is “huh?” The corporate analogy I get. What I don’t get is how that all ties into this particular situation where you just pick and chose who you will and will not invite to an event where the “invitees” happen to be candidates. Does that mean that whoever wins this election only has to represent the people who voted and supported them and not the rest of their constituents? I’m not trying to be dumb, honestly, I just don’t get how this type of behavior is fair regardless of who does it and what the color of their skin happens to be.

          • benevolus says:

            If Black people want to meet with Black candidates, then so what? If Native Americans wanted to talk with Native American candidates, then fine, go for it. It should not bother us White people. There is no equivalency (yet).
            Whoever is organizing this event isn’t responsible for making sure that every candidate gets equal access to the people.

  7. GabrielSterling says:

    This would make sense if it was just Dem candidates as they happen to be all African-American. The addition of Cory Ruth, the sole African-American Republican running makes the situation different.

    There are two other GOP candidates besides Carter. One white and one Hispanic, I believe. None of them were invited. You can read the poster and see this group only wanted to give the African-Americans the opportunity to talk to the voters.

    Liz is the likely nominee for the GOP. If the roles were reversed there would be a ton of protest over a “whites only” debate.

    I would hope we’d have passed this kind of thing, especially in “the city too busy to hate”, but I guess not.
    (Full disclosure, I’m helping Liz, but that doesn’t change how I’d view this regardless.)

    • ByteMe says:

      There are two other GOP candidates besides Carter. One white and one Hispanic, I believe. None of them were invited.

      And you know that the two non-AA candidates were not invited… how?

  8. GabrielSterling says:

    Well, let’s start with the poster…”Invited Guests”.

    Byte Me, face it. These guys want a “Blacks Only” event and they’re going to get it. But they deserve all the criticism they get for excluding other voices simply based on race.

    Again, I only have 2nd hand info on this, but Maynard said he would acknowledge other candidates if they were in attendance, but they would not be allowed to participate in the discussion, only the black candidates would.

    The Carter campaign has been in discussions with the organizers about participating for over a week and got a call this morning saying they would not be allowed to.

  9. bluedogdem says:

    It’s not that funny when it happens to one of PP’s candidates. Where was the uproar about Chapman being UNINVITED!!!

    • polisavvy says:

      I have always been in an “uproar” about any of the candidates not being invited to events. (When the Beacon was going to have the debate, Austin Scott was not initially invited. Some of his supporters complained to the Beacon and he was invited). I even defended McBeary not being invited to the debate at the Beacon. If you are going to have a debate/forum, then have a debate/forum by inviting ALL the candidates; otherwise, there is a sense of loss of credibility to the whole event, in my opinion. I am not in the 4th and therefore don’t have a “dog in the fight.” But, I do feel that everyone should play fair or go home.

  10. benevolus says:

    “And what would these “journalists” say if the roles were reversed?”

    Well, if White people were the minority and were having a White people only debate, Black people would probably give them some crap about it.

    • polisavvy says:

      You think?!!? Oh my Lord, it would be treated as though the world was coming to an end. I guess there is a double standard.

      • benevolus says:

        I don’t know about that. Yeah sure, a LOT of minority Black people would get upset if the majorityWhite people had a White people only event, but it’s hard to say how Black people would react to that meeting if they were the majority. I suspect they would act a lot like we White people do; a few cranky people would use it an an excuse to get upset, but no one else would really care.

    • polisavvy says:

      The best thing I could find to answer your question is there is a website called “The Newsmakers Journal” which is referenced as providing a global urbane perspective. It involves “infotainment” whatever the heck that is.

      • drjay says:

        yeah i saw that, and it made me curious what exactly a “global urbane perspective” is or, more likely, what they think it to be…

    • HowardRoark says:

      They’re trying to talk in code words, but since everyone knows the code they had to change it. In the process, they came up with something completely different. Unless they mean they want to tap into the world view of people around the world who walk around in tops and tails, wearing monacles, and drinking vintage port wine.

  11. slyram says:

    Wow….on the bright side (if there is a bright side) her campaign just got pushed on to the national stage. She couldn’t buy the free media but this is not cool.

    • kyleinatl says:

      Exactly, if these folks on here think this wasn’t a calculated move by a candidate that couldn’t earn votes on her own merits…I’ve got a bridge to nowhere I can sell you.

  12. Grave Diggers Rule says:

    Gabe if Liz had been endorsed by the “Atlanta TEA Party” or by the queen Debbie herself then they would have invited her even though she was white.

  13. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Who cares? It’s mainly DeKalb County. It’s barely one step ahead of Clayton county for Georgia’s most dysfunctional county. Why would Liz Carter want to be a part of that sh*thole ?

  14. Sandy Brothers says:

    Why would anyone be surprised by this? Welcome to Obama world and get use to it. Whites, particularly of European descent are persona non grata. The future is black power and white money–taken or stolen from achievers of course!

  15. lizcarter says:

    I want to thank Vernon Jones and Connie Stokes for calling and expressing their dismay about the forum tonight. I appreciate it. I also understand that Congressman Johnson has canceled.

  16. Hochimama says:

    This gives everyone in the 4th Congressional District a great reason to go vote and vote for Liz Carter. Finally an opportunity to show the Democrats that they can no longer take Africa-American voters for granted. Funny how the other candidates said nothing until the “fit hit the shan”. Shame on the event hosts and Maynard Eaton. You should be sent to your room with no supper, and publicly apologize in the morning, and then get the hell out of the way.

    • amor patriae says:

      “This forum was conceived and set in motion back in April based on Congressman Johnson’s schedule and the candidates we were then aware of in the race. The candidate in question was not on our radar screen at the time….”

      Shall we now get real? Liz was an active candidate in FEBRUARY. I guess the “Newsmakers” political radar is focused on Guam, in case it tips over.

  17. ByteMe says:

    [UPDATE] Liz Carter is confirming, via Twitter this afternoon, she was denied attendance at tonight’s event because of the color of her skin. Earlier in the week on Facebook, she noted that she had been planning to attend.

    And then compare it to what Jim Welcome of Newsmakers says in a press release about this:

    It has come to our attention that a disgruntled, long-shot Republican candidate for the 4th District Congressional seat is unfairly disparaging tonight’s NEWSMAKERS Live political forum and the credibility of its ownership team by falsely reporting and blogging that she has been excluded from the event because of her race!

    Nothing could be further from the truth. There was never any effort to make this a “black only” affair, as has been alleged by the candidate and her supporters. This forum was conceived and set in motion back in April based on Congressman Johnson’s schedule and the candidates we were then aware of in the race. The candidate in question was not on our radar screen at the time, and has been alarmingly indignant and combative when we explained that the lineup was set for tonight, but that another Republicans-only forum is planned for the very near future.

    In other words, if no one knows who you are, you can’t expect to get past security at the door on your looks. So you manufacture a controversy so that you can raise money nationally from like-minded conservative dupes who love a good indignation.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      I have some open questions for NEWSMAKERS. How did they become of other candidates in this race? Did they look at the GOP party website to see how was running? (I’m Sure liz was there back in April.) Did they go to the FEC website to see who had filed to run for congress? Did they read the AJC in January when Liz announced? Maybe they missed this video:

      I think they were more concerned with her pigmentation than her policies.

      • unalienable says:

        I’m sure they didn’t do any of that research. They most likely put Mr. Ruth on the panel because they had a prior relationship with him. The moderator did mention that he had seem him at previous events. If Ms. Carter had attended their functions prior that event, it’s quite possible she would’ve been invited as well.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          If that’s true, then they aren’t very good journalists are they? Why would they be bothered with things like RESEARCH? No one does that any more. The next thing you know, there will be FACTS. Those might be followed by presenting unbiased NEWS.

          As it is, you are saying a group of people called NEWSMAKERS should change their name to FRIENDPROMOTERS.

          • unalienable says:

            I don’t see them as journalists.

            Seriously, do you really think a major part of politics isn’t “who you know?”

            • Doug Grammer says:

              Well the word NEWS is in their name. There is a NEWSMAKERS journal, so someone should be presenting a record.

              The NEWSMAKERS website says: “”NEWSMAKERS”, “NEWSMAKERS Live!” & The “NEWSMAKERS Journal” embodies a unique “infotainment” concept that specializes in intense interviewing of prominent personalities and political figures. The concept is steeped in the urban aura of our time. It is for YOU, the people’s people.

              Sell advertising? check
              Blog? check
              headlines cover:
              Entertainment? check
              Finance? check
              Publishers corner? check
              Politics? check (as long as you have participated in previous events with them…ahem.)

              Does it look like a duck, talk like a duck, and walk like a duck? I think they think they are journalists.

              • unalienable says:

                Journalism: writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.

                Doesn’t look like a duck at all to me. Looks like “infotainment” (honestly, I have no idea what that is) to me.

                If Newsmakers is what passes for journalism these days, we are in a sad, sad, state.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  I agree with your definition of journalism and state that NEWSMAKERS falls short of it.

                  Infotainment: See: Sunday morning talking head shows (meet the press, and so on) the Today Show with Matt Lauer. Also known as what is trying to be passed as journalism in 2010.

          • benevolus says:

            OK, so we’re all agreed now that they aren’t journalists, they are an entertainment company catering to a particular audience, and that therefore they can invite anyone they want and it’s all OK, right?

            Pete was looking for bigotry, but all he really found was a marketing niche. Ironic that the discussion centers around “journalism”. Pete seems to have a higher standard for Black fake journalists than he does for himself.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              I agree that they aren’t good journalists. I’d like to hear NEWSMAKERS concede the point. Will they admit they are fake journalists? I doubt it. It would hurt their marker share.

              An entertainment company catering to a particular audience could be Fox News or CNN.

              • ByteMe says:

                Do they actually claim to be “journalists”? On their web site, they call themselves “infotainment”, so not sure where you got the idea they were “journalists”.

  18. Romegaguy says:

    Are we really supposed to take Peter’s claims of reverse discrimination seriously?

  19. B Balz says:

    I saw both episodes and think that Ms. Liz Carter is both poised and fearless. I met her awhile back, and hit her with a few hardball questions regarding healthcare. She didn’t back down then either.

    Regardless of what happens in the 4th, the GOP is truly blessed to have this woman onboard.

    Best luck, Liz!

  20. rugby says:

    I think people are completely overreacting to this. It is an unknown “news”y outlet that has no impact on anything, and a third-rate candidate who won’t make an impact against the incumbent didn’t get invited.

    Really worth all this isn’t it.

    • B Balz says:

      If you ignore a wrong, however seemingly insignificant or slight, you condone it. This was a very big deal because the political machine that is behind it, serves itself and no one else.

      • benevolus says:

        How is a “political machine that serves itself” a “wrong” for you? Are you a member?
        Besides, it’s not a “political machine”. It’s a for-profit corporation.

        • B Balz says:

          Y’all are new to DeKalb politics, clearly. This was a Vernon Jones hook-up, and the machine is the one that knows it can can the most ‘cut’ from Vernon.

          Go to Mr. Stan Watson’s Wesley Chapel morning meetings a few times and then get back to me on what you see and learn. Ask Ms. Pam Stephenson how she invested her salary from Grady, then wander over Mr. Walls office to see what’s shakin’. Don’t forget to say ‘hey’ to Mr. Chesnut to make your visit complete.

          @una I am ignoring your question as it is absurd.
          @bene Get up off the chair and get out, see some things, then come back and write.

          • unalienable says:

            Interesting take on the Vernon Jones connection and the Dekalb County machine. I agree.

            I was just asking for specifics with my questions. I wasn’t sure where you were coming from in your response to Rugby. Now I understand and agree. I’ve lived in Dekalb County for 35 years and know exactly what you mean.

            Ease up, man — I was just trying to get some clarity rather that commenting on what I assumed you meant.

Comments are closed.