Calvin Goode: Former councilman proposes racial gerrymandering

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  — Martin Luther King, “I Have a Dream” speech: August 28, 1963

In the most overt example of the racially bigoted thinking we had all hoped represented a bygone era, Calvin Goode, 86, shames himself and embarrasses the rest of us with his blatant racism. Imagine the outcry from minority communities if this letter to the editor had been written by someone who was not black:

Goode’s “Support Council Diversity” has been copied here, since the daily newspaper is now using a pay wall.

I have lived in Phoenix since 1944 and served on the Phoenix City Council from 1972 to 1994. Cody Williams and Michael Johnson both have commendably served since my retirement.

At the time the district system was instituted, led by former Mayor Terry Goddard and me, it was determined that District 7 would be for Latinos and District 8 would be for African-Americans. Currently on the City Council there are two Latinos (Districts 5 and 7) one African-American (District 8) and six Whites.

Recently, Kate Gallego announced her intention to be a candidate for District 8. She is White. She states she will represent all District 8 citizens, including African-Americans. I find it strange that I have not seen her at any African-American affairs or events. I am unaware of a single action that she has demonstrated to support African-Americans.

Our government is based on the premise “of the people, by the people and for the people,” which includes African-Americans as equal participants in the decision-making process. We urge all voters who believe in diverse democratic government and the inclusion of all ethnic groups in government to vote to maintain African-American leadership and preserve diversity on the Phoenix City Council as we attempt to be a government for all people, including African-Americans.

— Calvin C. Goode, Phoenix

The disturbing concept of contrived raced-based districts, conceived, Goode says, in a scheme cooked up by him and former Mayor Terry Goddard, both Democrats, is mind boggling. In this letter, he expounds on the impropriety of a “white woman” running in a council district that he says is uniquely black. Kate Gallego, also a Democrat and married to state Rep. Ruben Gallego, a Hispanic Dem, has been endorsed by Councilman Michael Nowakowski, another Democrat Hispanic, who bears a Polish surname.  A scorecard is needed to follow this twisted meandering.  For clarity, just remember this: Race trumps political affiliations, and some districts are owned by certain ethnicities.

The “white” interloper, Kate Gallego, with credentials galore, has been quoted as saying, “I don’t think there’s an African-American or Latino way to fill a pothole.” Makes sense to us.

Meanwhile, to ward off Gallego’s racial intrusion, Pastor Warren Stewart of the First Institutional Baptist Church has been recruited to enter the race — as in campaign, not skin pigment. He is expected to announce this coming week.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  Somewhere along the way, it appears Phoenix’ black community forgot that.

39 Responses to Calvin Goode: Former councilman proposes racial gerrymandering

  1. westnash says:

    Where are the Republicans?

    • Ajo Joe says:

      Republicans can’t get elected in minority districts…which is the main reason why the Chicago style districts were pushed by liberals such as Terry Goddard and Calvin Goode. Years back we had an at-large system that worked very well, since each of the council members represented the city of Phoenix, instead of a segment based on ethnicity. THIS is what that race-based system has transmogrified into. Read Calvin Goode’s letter above and see how shamelessly he asserts racial politics.

      • Westnash says:

        I agree but the Republican’s need to remind him that Lincoln was a Republican and the worst racists were democrats.

        Why did the black Republican that ran against Sinema get beat?

      • eubykdisop says:

        Westnash wrote: “Why did the black Republican that ran against Sinema get beat?” We are having and already have had this discussion in the thread of the article posted just before this one, Westnash. Why are you seeking to belabor the point? Is it because you want to point out a Republican loss? Is it because you seek to convince us that Republicans need to move more to the left, along with Sinema, to win?

        To refresh your apparently short memory, here is what I posted in the thread of the previous article, to which you have already responded:

        “Westnash asked: “The amazing thing is how did Sinema get elected?” Good question, Westnash!

        1 – Redistricting

        “Similarly, many of Pastor’s former precincts in Phoenix that voted heavily Democratic were drawn into the Valley’s newly added District 9, where Sinema won.”

        “Many believe the district leans Democrat.”

        2 – Libertarians

        Kyrsten Sinema

        Vernon B. Parker

        Powell Gammill

        The difference between Parker and Sinema was 4.1%. The Libertarian vote was 6.6%.

        Libertarian candidates are designed to be Conservative spoilers, to split the vote so that Democrats can win.

        Splitting the vote is an age old tactic. In the race for Mayor of Phoenix, the first ballot had one Democrat and five Republicans. That was calculated to create a runoff election with Gullett as the ultimate Republican candidate against Stanton. In that case, it was the McCain forces at work.”

        “Eat Mor Chikin!”, Westnash!

  2. Maggie says:

    The Arizona Republic wouldn’t even print such a letter based on its bigotry. Yet they print this trash talk. The hypocrisy is glaring.

  3. eubykdisop says:

    Westnash wrote: “Where are the Republicans?”

    Which Republicans, Westnash? The “far right” Republicans or the “center right” Republicans, as you have defined the split you seek to create.

  4. Kent says:

    Can you imagine the firestorm that would erupt if a “white” person said such outrageous things about any minority? All hell would break loose. Why does Calvin Goode get a pass?

    • eubykdisop says:

      You are seeing Liberalism at work, Kent. Liberals are liars and deceivers. Like Communinsts, they pitch idealistic scenarios to get support but what they actually implement is far from ideal!

      Always remember two things about Liberals, Kent:

      1 – With Liberals, everyone is equal. It’s just that some people are more equal than others.

      2 – Their motto is “by any means necessary”. This is a reflection of the Communist principle that “the end justifies the means”.

      Truth, honesty and morality have no place in Liberal calculations.

      Saul Alinsky, the infamous leftist, had this to say:

      “The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.” – Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”, p. 24.

      As you can see, there is no consideration of “right” or “wrong”, “moral” or “immoral”, “honest” or “dishonest”. It can be difficult to fully grasp such a completely amoral paradigm! It can befuddle the mind unless you are aware of the actual nature of the beast!

      • Kent says:

        Thanks, euby. Very good observations.

      • eubykdisop says:

        You’re most welcome, Kent, and thank you!

        “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” – J. Edgar Hoover

    • Observer says:

      Calvin Goode is an irrelevant old fool who played racial politics back when he initially said he was retiring from the Phoenix City Council nearly 40 years ago. He gave his word to an outstanding black candidate that he wouldn’t run. But when he found out that the black candidate was a REPUBLICAN, Goode reneged on his pledge and undercut the much smarter and far more ethical man, knowing that the likelihood of two blacks winning election would be lessened. The not-very-good Goode had greater name ID and raced headlong into another campaign. That was in 1975. He has never been more than a pompous poser, and some of us still remember this deception. Don’t be fooled by his “story.” It omits a ton of baggage.

  5. eubykdisop says:


    Every comment you make in this blog has but one purpose; to tear down, belittle and demean Conservatives while promoting the agenda of the Liberal left.

    Let’s look at the two “innocent” questions which you have posed thus far in this thread.

    “Where are the Republicans?” Without having done any investigations about the actions or plans of Republicans, you seek to give the impression that Republicans are asleep at the wheel, that they are letting down Republican voters.

    “Why did the black Republican that ran against Sinema get beat?” You asked that question previously as, “The amazing thing is how did Sinema get elected?”

    You repeatedly manage to point out a Republican defeat and a victory by a Liberal leftist. When the impact of redistricting on CD 9 was pointed out to you, you wrote: “The simple answer is to have a Republican candidate in that district that can address fiscal issues and not alienate Libetarian leaning voters.”

    First, you ignore the fact that Vernon Parker, as Mayor of Paradise Valley, cut spending by 30% and that he committed in writing to make the federal government live within it’s means.

    Secondly, you portray Vernon Parker as having alienated “Libertarian leaning” voters. You offer us, however, not a single shred of evidence that Vernon Parker “alienated” anyone.

    Finally, you choose to completely ignore this fact about the impact of redistricting, which was hijacked by the Liberal left:

    “Similarly, many of Pastor’s former precincts in Phoenix that voted heavily Democratic were drawn into the Valley’s newly added District 9, where Sinema won.”

    You’re not fooling anyone, Westnash. One of the primary themes across your posts is that of seeking to create a split between what you call the “far right” and the “center right”. This is a strategy of “divide and conquer”, plain and simple.

    It isn’t the “far right” we need to be concerned about, Westnash. It’s Liberals like you, feigning to be Conservative while attempting to sow seeds of dissension within Conservative ranks at blogs like SRAZ.

    • Arizona Conservative Guy says:

      Bravo! Well stated! Great outing of Westnash, euby! I’ve read enough of his comments to have the identical opinion you hold.

      Westnash offers no evidence of active involvement in the state or county Republican Party, but he sure does grouse and harass conservatives.

      Westnash: Just curious. Are you a Precinct Committeeman? A state delegate? Whose campaigns have you worked on and/or donated to? Have you volunteered to get out the vote preceding election day? Hammered signs or manned phone banks? You’re angry. Well, so am I! I worked for Wil Cardon. Illegal alien amnesty-fan Jeff Flake, condoning deceptive advertising paid for by Club for Growth, won. I worked on Mitt Romney’s campaign and the Marxist won reelection by expanding benefits and passing amnesty by executive order as he increases taxes in contradiction of the pre-election promises he made. Now he intends to disarm us. If you’ve done nothing, you’ve done plenty. You’ve assisted putting these phonies in back in office.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Thank you, Arizona Conservative Guy! I’m glad that you reached the same conclusion independently as a result of reading Westnash’s posts. It’s fine to have discussions about differing opinions on issues but it’s another thing entirely to act as a “troll” whose sole purpose it is to disrupt.

  6. Army Of One says:

    How distasteful! I’m both shocked and saddened to read this letter from Calvin Goode. I’d like to lay this off to his advanced years, but I suspect he would have thought it was OK to say decades ago. For the newspaper to print such garbage is reprehensible. Would they run this if it were written by a White guy? I’ll bet not. Since when are city council seats owned by certain minorities? What happens if you don’t happen to be the same race as your council representative? Are you less represented or is that only of the council member is Caucasian? This sounds like KKK David Duke in reverse. Racism is racism, regardless of where it originates.

  7. LouiseAnn says:

    Is it possible that certain individuals believe that the current president (with his suspicious background) provides more license for them to state these racist views? Also, I would contend that MLK’s message was that a person is determined by his “goodness” and that is too high a standard for certain people. The easy road for these people is to claim “racism”.

  8. Night Owl says:

    So glad to see the quote from Martin Luther King at the start of this post. It very neatly puts everything into perspective. Minority status doesn’t take racism and bigotry from the core of a person who hates. Calvin Goode is such a person.

    In describing Kate Gallego, he states with no attempt to conceal his venom; “She is White.” Then he asks how she can represent “all District 8 citizens, including African-Americans.” He then goes on to accuse, “I find it strange that I have not seen her at any African-American affairs or events. I am unaware of a single action that she has demonstrated to support African-Americans.”

    My question for Calvin Goode is, did you represent the whites in your district when you were a councilman? How did you do that if you divide everything along racial lines? Did you attend strictly white affairs or events or demonstrate your support of whites? Sorry. Big mistake here. There are no strictly white affairs or events or whose would be termed racially insensitive and prejudiced. But blacks can have such events? Where’s the equity, Mr. Goode?

  9. Westnash says:

    Why would the Republicans not find a qualified black candidate to support in this run?

    • Maggie says:

      How about simply a QUALIFIED candidate, black, white or polka dot? You’re doing a fine job of playing into the disgusting racial politics, Westnash.

      • Westnash says:

        Not really……a qualified candidate who can WIN is what counts. If the Republicans could pick up 25% – 30% of the black vote it would help them be relevant again. Lincoln freed the slaves and for most of the history after that Blacks voted Republican until FDR.

      • eubykdisop says:

        As always, you are flat wrong again, Westnash.

        First, you implied that Vernon Parker was not qualified but you offered not a single shred of evidence to support that. This is your habitual modus operandi. You attack Republicans and Conservatives wihout any basis in fact whatsoever.

        Now you are telling us that what is important is a qualified candidate who can win. In other words, you moved the goal post.

        You offer no evidence at all that any other candidate could have done better than Vernon Parker did. Do you have a crystal ball, Westnash, which tells you before an election which candidates can win?

        Westnash wrote: “If the Republicans could pick up 25% – 30% of the black vote it would help them be relevant again.”

        This is a very old Liberal tactic. It involves assuming a premise which is false. The assumed false premise here is that Republicans are not now relevant. That is straightforward Liberal propaganda. Republicans are relevant, especially Conservative Republicans.

        Westnash seeks to promote the idea that Republicans need to pick up votes from a particular ethnic group. That is false. Republicans need to stand for Conservative principles, stick to them and explain to voters why Conservative principles are best. The idea of seeking to cater to a particular ethnic group has been propagated by the Liberal left in an effort to send Republicans on a wild goose chase. It’s unchanging principles which are important and of substance, not demographics.

        Westnash still ignores this fact:

        “Similarly, many of Pastor’s former precincts in Phoenix that voted heavily Democratic were drawn into the Valley’s newly added District 9, where Sinema won.”

        Liberal leftists hijacked redistricting and structured CD 9 for a Democrat advantage. But Westnash never speaks about the transgressions of the Liberal left. It is always Republicans and Conservatives who are wrong and lacking.

    • LD 7 PC says:

      I’m with Maggie on this one. When we begin supporting candidates based on the amount of pigment in their skin, we have hit a new low.

      Also, you might have noticed by the races with an overabundance of candidates (7 and even 9, in some cases), that no one tells people who are inclined to run that they can’t or conversely, those who are disinclined to run that they must. Last I checked, westnash, we still lived in a free country.

      Someone asked you earlier if you had any involvement in party politics, such as being a precinct committeeman or officer. You never answered. Your question answers the query quite well. If you had any actual knowledge of how things function, you would know that the party does not select candidates.

      • westnash says:

        Same is true of Hispanic candidates in certain districts.

      • eubykdisop says:

        No, Westnash, race has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Want proof? Obama was elected and re-elected with a majority caucasian electorate. How does that fit with your racial paradigm?

  10. eubykdisop says:

    Westnash wrote: “Why would the Republicans not find a qualified black candidate to support in this run?”

    You’ll notice that Westnash continues to point to the race won by the extreme left wing Liberal, Sinema. He implies that Republicans somehow failed and that Vernon Parker was not qualified.

    This is simply a Liberal leftist at work.

    SRAZ, it’s fine to have debate and discussion but Westnash has repeatedly shown that he is acting as a “troll”. That is, his purpose here is to disrupt. Why do you continue to tolerate this behavior? That is a distortion of the First Amendment which does not legally apply to a privately owned blog.

    • westnash says:

      Another question might be why you would allow Euby to be hall monitor and chief spokesman for S R A?

      • eubykdisop says:

        Another question would be why SRAZ sees fit to allow a Liberal troll to continually disrupt this blog.

  11. Westnash says:

    Amazing, both the censorship and the name calling!

    • eubykdisop says:

      If you don’t like the “censorship”, then go to Daily Kos.

      Name calling, LOL? Let’s see, most recently your referred to me as “Barney Fife”. But you go by the Liberal double standard where that doesn’t count, of course.

      Now, let’s stick to the issue. You attack, belittle and demean anything which is in the slighest way Conservative. You attempt to split Conservatives into “far right” and “center right”. You continually question and attack Conservative Republicans while giving Liberals a free ride.

      You support a ban on large capacity weapons magazines, just as the Liberals do.

      You want to cut military spending “across the board” in line with the emasculation of our military by Obama Liberals.

      You want to close more military bases.

      You want to cut military pay.

      You support Obama’s choice for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel.

      You chastise Republicans for not “compromising” on the fiscal cliff.

      You chastise Republicans for not “compromising” on gun laws.

      You consistently attack and demean decorated combat veteran and staunch anti-communist, the late Senator Joseph McCarthy.

      You imply that Vernon Parker was not a “qualified” candidate.

      In short, every position you hold and every statement you make is right in line with the radical Liberal left.

      The only thing which amazes me is that SRAZ continues to tolerate your presence here under some misguided conception of the First Amendment.

      When political parties have their conventions, they don’t tolerate heckling and disruptions by their opponents. When there were disruptions at the state senate building, Russell Pearce saw to it that those disruptions were halted and the court upheld his actions. SRAZ, however, seems to believe that Conservatives have to tolerate, on an ongoing basis, your Liberal heckling and disruptions or that somehow they are being un-American.

      Maybe I should just let you have this blog all to yourself. What do you think, SRAZ? Should I go so that Westnash can do his thing without impediment? We wouldn’t want to stifle a Liberal at SRAZ, now would we?

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      The incessant name calling is becoming more than just a distraction. Most of us were taught that you can disagree and engage in meaningful dialogue without the referring to others as “little” or talking about their bullets that sheriff Andy will take away. We learned that insulting others is outside the bounds of reasonableness. For you to accuse Seeing Red AZ of censorship is unwarranted. We devoted an entire post to the fact that, if we chose, we would remove offensive references, or simply not allow such comments to appear.
      We have, on occasion, followed through with this practice.

      No one gets preferential treatment on this blog. We welcome all who have something to contribute. No one is the “hall monitor” or “chief spokesman” for this site. People are free to comment, or not, on a post, as they see fit. An exchange of ideas broadens our vantage points.

      • westnash says:

        The post right above SRA says a lot about the problem. Rambling diatribe, attempting to hog all conversation, attempting to denigrate my right of a contrary opinion.

      • eubykdisop says:

        I don’t think that Liberal propaganda “broadens our vantage points”, SRAZ. It’s simply a body of lies.

        Liberals have the bully pulpit of the presidency.

        Liberals control the messaging coming out of the entire executive branch of the federal government.

        Liberals control the mainstream media, including most news venues, and the messaging in TV shows and movies.

        Liberals do not need to also be permitted to use allegedly Conservative Republican blogs to disseminate their faslehoods and launch unending attacks on Conservatives and Conservative principles. If permitting this is supposedly based upon the First Amendment, then the First Amendment is being misunderstood and misinterpreted to the benefit of the Liberal left.

        The First Amendment does not permit an individual to shout “Fire!” in an occupied movie theater when there is no fire. That is in recognition of the fact that such an action presents a clear and present danger to the occupants of the theater. Liberal propaganda is false and presents a clear and present danger to the continued existence of The United States of America as we have known it. Therefore, it too should be banned where legally permissible.

        Under the law, First Amendment rights do not apply to a privately owned blog. SRAZ recognizes this fact when it chooses to delete posts which it considers to be inappropriate in some way. Does it really make sense to you, SRAZ, to delete comments for something like “name-calling” while, at the same time, permitting the ongoing propagation of Liberal lies, unfounded and unsubstantiated attacks, gross Liberal distortions and misrepresentations? You would fault Westnash for “name-calling” but permit him to use SRAZ as an ongoing platform to spew Liberal propaganda? Clearly, that is a gross distortion of both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.

        ““The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” – Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”, Rule #4

        Alinsky is wrong. We can live up to our own book of rules but we have to be clear about what the rules are. It is not one of our rules that, under the First Amendment, we MUST permit Liberals to use privately owned Conservative Republican blogs as a propaganda vehicle. So, then, why should we do so when it is NOT a violation of our own book of rules?

        We can fight fairly but we don’t have to give Liberals an advantage which they don’t have coming to them.

      • Westnash says:

        SRA, it is always ok w/ me for you to put Euby’s posts above mine as he seems to go into a frenzy otherwise and his own posts are illustrative of why Obama was reelected and why Arizona will become Democrat. He needs a half-page to expound on each issue. A couple of sentences does it for most. You see below nearly a half page of spout to two sentences of comment.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Your comments are irrelevant, Westnash, and a red herring whose purpose is to distract from the issue.

        Westnash wrote: “…his own posts are illustrative of why Obama was reelected and why Arizona will become Democrat.”

        Westnash is consistent in claiming that Conservative principles and Conservative points of view are responsible for Democrat wins and that the answer is to move to the left, abdandoning those principles and views.

        As regards the length of my posts, who made you the “Post Length Police” for SRAZ? The simple fact of the matter is that if SRAZ refused to permit leftist Liberals like you to use this blog as a vehicle to spread Liberal propaganda, I wouldn’t have to be responding to your posts!

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      You write, “it is always ok w/ me for you to put Euby’s posts above mine…”
      Let us clarify, once again, that comments go up in the order they are received. You might notice they are time stamped. We do not move comments around to give prominence to some and not to others. The only time comments appear to be out of order is when one commenter responds to another. Please stop looking for conspiracies where none exist.
      End of subject.

  12. eubykdisop says:

    Westnash wrote: “The post right above SRA says a lot about the problem. Rambling diatribe, attempting to hog all conversation, attempting to denigrate my right of a contrary opinion.”

    Let’s analyze this comment.

    First, Westnash seeks to define me as the problem. Liberals always seek to define Conservatives as “the problem”. This is nothing more than misdirection, a classic Liberal tactic.

    Next, Westnash claims that his “right of a contrary opinion” is being violated. No such right exists any more than the “right” to homosexual “marriage” which Liberals claim. One of the hallmarks of Liberals is their claim to “rights” which do not exist. Westnash, of course, is no exception.

    Westnash doesn’t offer a “contrary opinion” he offers Liberal propaganda. His stock in trade is unfounded accusations, smear tactics, innuendo, lies, distortions and misrepresentations all designed specifically to promote the Liberal leftist agenda.

    The only rights you have to express yourself in this blog, Westnash, are those which SRAZ chooses to give you. Under the law, there are no First Amendment rights in a privately owned blog.

    • Westnash says:

      Euby, if my opinion is so Liberal….it should stand for itself and receive arguments. It is not liberal at all and it is not for you to censor. Make your own comments and maybe not hog the entire blog with your shop worn ideas, few of which would get a majority of the vote.

      • eubykdisop says:

        No, Westnash, if your opinion is Liberal it should not appear in a blog which is allegedly Republican and Conservative. You have Daily Kos as a forum in which to express Liberal viewpoints.

        Furthermore, you don’t merely express Liberal points of view. You engage in disingenuous Liberal tactics such as innuendo, misdirection, slurs, unfounded attacks, distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies. This constitutes Liberal propaganda, calculated to move readers to the left “by any means necessary”.

        No, Westnash, it is not for me to censor. It is for SRAZ to censor as it is their blog. The question is why your Liberal propaganda is not being censored here!

        Westnash wrote: “Make your own comments and maybe not hog the entire blog with your shop worn ideas, few of which would get a majority of the vote.”

        We are not in danger of running out of cyberspace, Westnash, and I will take whatever time and space is required to soundly refute your Liberal propaganda.

        I find it laughable that you use the term “shop worn” after that term was just used to describe your incessant attacks on U. S. Senator Josesph McCarthy, LOL!

        Tell us about your crystal ball, Westnash, which tells you what would get votes and what would not. I’m sure that all political parties would like to avail themselves of that magic, LOL!

  13. […] we pointed out recently, when she was being hammered for her ethnicity and skin color by former city councilman Calvin Goode, Kate Gallego is married to state Representative Ruben […]