Sadly there wasn't much of a chance for me to watch the Democratic Presidential Debate yesterday evening. Was too busy dining with a friend over sushi and drinks to bother to tune in. Afterwards the time was filled with more important matters like breaking down the 11-player trade between the Seattle SuperSonics, Chicago Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers and debating whether or not my toenails needed clipping.
It was just as well. Since both Obama and Clinton possess the gift of oratory which taps directly to issues that matter most to Americans; there's always the threat of self-immolation if one attempts to use logic while listening to their chatter for too long.
Fortunately my good buddy and pen pal Terry McAuliffe, who chairs Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, took the time to drop me an e-mail pointing out the most important moment of debate. Thanks for giving me something to write about TM.
The Arkansan, eh, Chicagoan, er, New Yorker was asked to describe the moment in her life where she was tested most. Just prior to her response Obama gave a tepid, non-answer about being raised in a single parent household and being a community organizer. The "community organizer" answer by Obama happens to be his standard response to every question ranging from international trade to soybean subsidies.
For those of you not now dousing yourselves in fuel and looking for matches one must consider whether this was a concession speech by Clinton or some new ploy to garner sympathy votes.
Also if this was the high point of the debate what the heck were the low points? What did Democrats do, bring John Edwards back on stage to talk about poverty? Was there a cameo of Al Gore toting a hockey stick performing the Macarena? A Dennis Kucinich tossing competition?
With Russian Tupolev-95 bombers buzzing our nuclear aircraft carriers, China building up its military arsenal, Iran and Venezuela attempting to destabilize neighboring countries, a new dictator taking over the reigns of power Cuba, unrest in the Balkans and Pakistan - and one can go on - this duo is the best the Democratic Party can offer as candidates for Commander-in-Chief?
What is sad, in a really pathetically maudlin sort of way, is Hillary's biggest applause line came from throwing her husband Bill under the bus.
"I think everybody here knows I've lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life."
Wink, wink. Nod, nod.
Gee. What crisis and challenging moment was she referring to?
So we're supposed to applaud that she's still shacking up with Bubba after everything he's done to her and Chelsea instead of dumping the scoundrel to the curb?
You have to wonder if she even wants to win this race anymore.
Republicans have been unabashed about their hopes that Clinton will be the eventually Democratic nominee because the conventional wisdom is that she'll be easier to defeat in November. Could be.
That's not my reasoning however. The plain facts are that Hillary would be a better president than a two-year state legislator turned presidential candidate.
Look at the track record.
There were only two genocides under the Clintons' watch in the 1990s. The U.S. armed forces were only gutted by fifty percent or more with spending cuts. We only had one humiliating military withdrawal in the case of Somalia. Islamic terrorist camps only flourished in a handful of rogue nations. The satellite and rocket technology sold to Beijing in exchange for campaign contributions wasn't that cutting edge. Small potatoes.
So with Clinton at least you have some measuring stick of what to expect. With Obama you know you're getting someone whose foreign policy expertise will make Jimmy Carter look like George C. Marshall.
Simple political arithmetic. Now back to the original subject.
Despite everything I will concede the moment had to be the high point of the debate. Since... it...was... well... the last moment of the debate.
It's always somewhat depressing listening to the Democrats debate. They talk about "the last 8 years" as if most Americans are now living out of their cars thanks to George W. Bush. Both Hillary and Obama repeatedly talk about "meeting someone today on the campaign trail" whose life has gone to hell thanks to the Republicans. What a couple of phony liars.
The next two weeks might provide more serious drama however. If Hillary's campaign has any real damaging dirt on Obama I expect they will release it sometime before the March 4th primaries. They pretty much have to, or they are toast.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 03:45 PMNever. He gets the race card pass. Unlike "cowboy" George W. Bush.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 04:00 PMBill, do you actually think before you post?
1. Hillary not only wants to take over healthcare in the US. She is now promising to
freeze interest rates for 5 years.
2. Both Candidates voted for a fence....well Sorta Kinda, what they really mean was they voted for the idea of a fence, but Bush screwed up the implementation. But when they get into office, it will be a virtual fence with virtual boarder guards, prosecuting virtually no one. But, they will push for fast tracking legalization for the 20+ million who are here.
Posted by: Smokie on February 22, 2008 04:19 PMOh you mean this lie that turned out to be almost right. He should have known better.
reconfirming his ignorance on all things military
Hmmm, seems that the majority of W's original senior staff (including his Sec. of Defense) never served a day in their life. They were quite ignorant, yet you seem to have no qualms about that.
Reminds me of that now infamous Rumsfield quote:
"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Oh you mean this lie that turned out to be almost right. Still, the Senator should have known better.
reconfirming his ignorance on all things military
Hmmm, seems that the majority of W's original senior staff (including his Sec. of Defense) never served a day in their life. They were quite ignorant, yet you seem to have no qualms about that.
Reminds me of that now infamous Rumsfield quote:
"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Cato, there are a ton of holes in the story just like every other winter soldier story that has arisen. Wait for the facts, jacks.
Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2008 04:49 PM"Hmmm, seems that the majority of W's original senior staff (including his Sec. of Defense) never served a day in their life."
Rumsfeld was a naval aviator, regular component 1954-57, Active Reserve 1957-75, IRR 1975-89. Retired as an O-6.
If that's what you call non-service, I'd like to see your 201 file.
TB, I stand corrected.
Sadly I failed to point out the double standard effectively.
To me it seems odd to taunt Sen. Obama on his "ignorance on all things military" when the majority of people here supported Mr. Romney, mr. Giuliani, or Sen. Thompson being Commander in Chief. All of those forenamed individuals have not served in the Military. In fact Mr. Romney's sons are of serving age but none have joined at the present date.
Like swatter said, wait it out, because many MIL blogs are hitting Obama and CBS for some proof and guess what....LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 22, 2008 05:30 PMThis should be fun...
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 22, 2008 05:33 PM"Oh you mean this lie that turned out to be almost right. He should have known better."
Almost right? isn't that the equivelent of being a little bit pregnant?
Posted by: Rick D. on February 22, 2008 05:49 PMIn a combat role...to beat all. Yeah I know, back then you were just wetting your bed, but time is time.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 22, 2008 05:49 PMAnd I do think you have a bit of a point about the same (non-existent) level of military experience shared by most of the major candidates on both sides, but it's limited in scope. If Rudy or Mitt or whoever betrayed a significant level of ignorance of military basics when telling a story on the campaign trail, they too, would deserve to get politically smacked for it.
There is a bit of a difference however, in the angle of attack. Obama was making a point about poor execution of the war. Well, that's like me saying that Matt Hasselbeck is a doofus and completely botched that game -- an audacious criticism, given my own football skills. If he throws four consecutive passes to the season ticket holders, I have a solid argument; if he calls for four short passes that simply fail to produce a first down, I'm hard pressed to prove that I could have done better. Add to that a long and well-documented disdain of all things military by the political left, and it should shock no one that a never-served liberal criticizing combat logistics based on second-hand anecdotes from anonymous sources will not go over well.
The difference between those you cite (None of whom I supported, by the way) and Obama here is that they would have known that their ignorance would preclude them from commenting on what turned out to be obviously false.
You, of course, will give him a pass, because, like Clinton, if a video surfaced showing him molesting a girl scout troop, it wouldn't make any difference to you.
You are a case in point. You speak from ignorance, but cannot help yourself. Thus, your erroneous remark about Rumsfeld.
For Barry Hussein to lie so egregiously goes both to his arrogance and his ignorance... not unlike your support of the man.
Even now, has he admitted he was wrong? Even now, have YOU admitted he was wrong? Of course not, because those like you who revel in hatred for all things Republican find yourselves utterly incapable of applying the same standard to your candidates and yourselves that you do to everyone else.
Barry Hussein was flatly wrong. He said what he said without knowing the slightest thing about the true situation; without, for example, knowing that captains do not command line platoons. What he said did us injury around the world; again, because that is precisely what he meant to do. He said what he said for the exact same reason you write what you write: to attack Republicans... truth be damned and injury to the military and this country be damned with it. That's what enables the leftist scum besieging the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Station. That is what enabled leftist scum like Dick Durbin to compare us with Nazis on the floor of the Senate.
And this is your guy, cato. Your guy who lies about the military even when he doesn't have to... all in the name of scoring cheap. political points.
I'm sure that just makes you proud. Frankly, it makes me sick.
Posted by: Hinton on February 22, 2008 08:56 PMWhen I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done.
Posted by: Hinton on February 22, 2008 10:02 PMThat's pretty much it. People say "It's about hope!"
Great, can you explain that? "Uhhhh......."
Nice of you to put thoughts and words in my mouth even though I've never said such a thing.
You speak from ignorance, but cannot help yourself. Thus, your erroneous remark about Rumsfeld.
I made a mistake, I admited it. I also can point out that G.W.Bush's military experince pales in comparion to his fathers or even Rummy's (or Amry M/V for that matter). Vice President Cheney did not serve yet he palyed a key role in entering our current wars. Ashcroft, Rice have not served either, and Andrew Card spent a year in the Merchant Marines. Yet yoou can not deny that all played cruical roles in forming Bush's Iraq War policy.
For Barry Hussein to lie so egregiously goes both to his arrogance and his ignorance... not unlike your support of the man.
Sort of like the the lie Rummy told about knowing where the WMD's were? Sure looks like a double standard to me.
Even now, has he admitted he was wrong? Even now, have YOU admitted he was wrong?
I'm fine with admiting he's wrong. Maybe Obama will admit he was wrong, that will be the Senators decision and not mine. BTW, Rummy has never admited he's wrong about the WMD's. If fact there is video proof of him lying about it when he was asked about it after he stepped down from his role.
He said what he said without knowing the slightest thing about the true situation; without, for example, knowing that captains do not command line platoons.
Yeah, read the story. Sounds like the Captian in question was promoted after the fact. Sen. Obama listed the soldiers rank at the time he met him not the rank at the time the incedent happened. Maybe Sen. Obama does know this information, I don't think you can tell me what he knows and does not know. Maybe he got it wrong. Either way I would agree with TB's football analogy.
What he said did us injury around the world; again, because that is precisely what he meant to do
HAHAHA, I can see the headline now:
Presidental candidate makes mistake, world in chaos, film at eleven.
He said what he said for the exact same reason you write what you write: to attack Republicans... truth be damned and injury to the military and this country be damned with it.
Actually I write express my own opinion. Last I checked that was guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. Whether you agree or disagree with my opinion is up to you. I doubt anyone in the military was damaged by Sen. Obamas comments, it may have changed thier opinion of him, but I suspect that some of soldiers fighting in Iraq would be happy to come home given the choice.
That's what enables the leftist scum besieging the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Station.
Those darm leftist scum, when was the last time you saw anyone get recruited at a Berkley Marine Recruiting Station. Looks at the deaths in this war, lots of soldiers from small towns across middle America. Ironically not a single death from anyone from Berkley and only three from the city of San Francisco. I doubt they were stopping a vast number of Americans from joining the war.
Mr. Romney is for the war, yet neither he or any of his five recruiting age sons have joined. At least McCain is is cconsistent, his son Jimmy enrolled in the Marines on his 18th birthday.
Your guy who lies about the military even when he doesn't have to... all in the name of scoring cheap. political points.
Wow, a politican who lies for political points. I bet that's never happened before. So earlier you said he was wrong, now he's a liar? Rummy is a liar too, does that also make you sick?
Maybe you should take the blinders off and realize that Repbulicans are just as flawed as the Democrats. The Iraq war is unpopular, the original execution of it was flawed, and Obama is tapping into those feelings.
Heck, even my Republican office mate who voted for Bush twice feels that the Iraq War was a mistake. That's a pretty bold statement coming from a woman who believes America is not ready for a Woman president. I'd wadger that she won't vote Democrat come November, but so far McCain has failed to inspire her (she likes Huckabee because he's a man of God).
Oh, and a few months from now, there will probably be a whole lot more people living out of their cars than there are now. But I think Barry Hussein Obama will choose the right people to help him figure out how to fix that - as well as several other vitally important things that the Republicans managed to screw up as soon as they got control of all three branches of government (House, Senate, Presidency) for the first time in their lives.
McCain, with his fake photo ops in Baghdad, seriously underestimates the intelligence of the American people and has no clue about the economy. And talk about empty rhetoric. What on earth has this man promised to do except keep troops in Iraq forever? Yes, I do realize he doesn't mean a 100 year war, but what kind of platform is that to base a presidency on? What a one-trick pony...with a really lame trick.
Posted by: Rebecca on February 22, 2008 11:50 PMThe truth about Herbert Hoover
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/07/070916-4.htm
Hoover was instrumental in building up big government for 12 years prior to 1933. FDR simply ran with what Hoover built up. Hoover's downfall in 1932 was his pullback from the brink of all-out socialism. By that time it was too late, as most Americans wanted to take the full plunge into the New Deal.
Had Hoover fully embraced New Deal programs in 1932, he would have won re-election. It's a myth that he lost because the economy was horrible, he lost because the people wanted 90% socialism and he only could promise 70%. America was truly a scary place in 1932. Most of us complain about how socialist America is now, but 75 years ago it was an absolute nightmare landscape for conservatism.
Posted by: FreedomLover on February 23, 2008 09:16 AMUnemployment is pretty low right now. All those people who are living in their cars because they got subprime loans deserve it. Is daddy Bush supposed to protect them from all their bad choices? No wonder I hate liberals, you people truly DO NOT believe in personal responsibility. It's always someone else's fault!
Heck, even your hero Barry Hussein will not perform the socialist miracles you wish he would even if he becomes POTUS. He'll have to deal in the reality of his 51% win(at best) and govern in the center.
Posted by: FreedomLover on February 23, 2008 09:20 AMI think the banks also deserve their several billion dollar losses from being greedy and not doing their homework on the loans they were funding. Should they get a bailout? Nope. Will they get a bailout in the end, most likely.
No wonder I hate liberals, you people truly DO NOT believe in personal responsibility.
Is it not the responsibility of the banks to look at the loans they fund? Was it not the personal responsibility of the Bush Administration to thoroughly check their Iraqi intelligence sources before starting a war? Is it Congress' personal responsibility to know that reducing revenue while increasing spending does not cause an economy to grow? Is it not Bush's responsibility to veto bills with enormous amounts of pork and keep the country in a surplus instead of putting it into trillions of dollars of Debt?
Did I not see Bush and Congress overrule personal responsibility in the Terri Schiavo case? The husband was personally responsible for her, yet Bush and Congress both felt it was their responsibility to interfere with her husbands request. Is that personal responsibility or is it the Govt. sticking it's nose in ordinary American's lives for no reason?
I'm have no doubt Liberals have Personal Responsibility problems but since you can't see the hypocrisy within your own belief system I thought I would highlight them for you.
What is the issue? The fact that McCain is a carbon copy of Bush and pretty much everybody, outside of a very few hard core right wingers, hates him (Bush that is)? I say right wingers because you can no longer lump conservatives into people who support Bush or McCain.
I post this here because, well, you don't really allow comments on things you write anymore.
Also, isn't it suspect how all of the right wing talking heads (Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, etc) are just tearing Obama down? You'd almost think they were cognizant of the fact that the race for Pres. is over if it comes down to Obama and McCain. Obama will destroy him. Hillary doesn't stand a chance in the general election, but Obama will mop the floor with McCain. How many times have we seen either Hillary or Obama draw 20,000 people?
Right wingers are trying hard to shut Obama down, but the harder they try the more popular he gets. It's a funny thing that none of you seem to see. Every time I see a Coulter article where she calls him B. Husseini Obama it makes me like him all the more. And I'm an independent conservative. I freaking voted for Bush. I drank the kool aid. "Once he is in office (or re-elected) you'll see ,,, he'll be conservative. He'll do the right thing." He hasn't. Rarely maybe.
Here you all are making fun of Obama and Hillary and giving a pass to McCain when by all looks he'll be as bad or worse than Bush.
Another thing. What happens to all the rhetoric about "we need ideas"? Here you have a candidate who is all about ideals. Good ideals, some bad ideals, but is standing up with a vision and fighting for it. What about McCain? He's doing everything he can to make sure people know he'll be just like Bush. He has no ideas. Nothing original. Hillary? Same thing. So for years I hear you, Goldy, Kirby, everybody talk about "what happened to ideals" but then work to destroy the first person that really comes along and says he thinks he can make a difference.
You are all priceless. What a mess. There is a reason the Republican party is on the decline and it isn't just because of Bush.
Posted by: mr. rcguy on February 23, 2008 10:53 AMWhat is the issue? The fact that McCain is a carbon copy of Bush and pretty much everybody, outside of a very few hard core right wingers, hates him (Bush that is)? I say right wingers because you can no longer lump conservatives into people who support Bush or McCain.
I post this here because, well, you don't really allow comments on things you write anymore.
Also, isn't it suspect how all of the right wing talking heads (Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, etc) are just tearing Obama down? You'd almost think they were cognizant of the fact that the race for Pres. is over if it comes down to Obama and McCain. Obama will destroy him. Hillary doesn't stand a chance in the general election, but Obama will mop the floor with McCain. How many times have we seen either Hillary or Obama draw 20,000 people?
Right wingers are trying hard to shut Obama down, but the harder they try the more popular he gets. It's a funny thing that none of you seem to see. Every time I see a Coulter article where she calls him B. Husseini Obama it makes me like him all the more. And I'm an independent conservative. I freaking voted for Bush. I drank the kool aid. "Once he is in office (or re-elected) you'll see ,,, he'll be conservative. He'll do the right thing." He hasn't. Rarely maybe.
Here you all are making fun of Obama and Hillary and giving a pass to McCain when by all looks he'll be as bad or worse than Bush.
Another thing. What happens to all the rhetoric about "we need ideas"? Here you have a candidate who is all about ideals. Good ideals, some bad ideals, but is standing up with a vision and fighting for it. What about McCain? He's doing everything he can to make sure people know he'll be just like Bush. He has no ideas. Nothing original. Hillary? Same thing. So for years I hear you, Goldy, Kirby, everybody talk about "what happened to ideals" but then work to destroy the first person that really comes along and says he thinks he can make a difference.
You are all priceless. What a mess. There is a reason the Republican party is on the decline and it isn't just because of Bush.
Posted by: mr. rcguy on February 23, 2008 10:54 AM""when are is the left gonna flip him crap of HIS speech impediments?)"
Never. He gets the race card pass. Unlike "cowboy" George W. Bush.
I have to agree with Cato on this one, what exactly is the race card pass? Does Bush get the born with a silver spoon in his mouth pass? Both the president and senator should actually be judged on their policies and how well they performed in office. Bill C constantly calls any one who disagrees with him a liberal, communist or whatever. In the world of the closed minds of Bill C on the right and Cindy Sheehan on the left all truth resides with them.
For those who want to discuss issues:
The dem platform from 2004 can be found here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dem_Platform_2004.htm
I realize that both parties are writing their platforms for the current campaign, but the major dem candidates Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are running campaigns based on these issues. Further, the elite of the Upper West Side, Georgetown, Marin County, the Chicago Gold Coast and West Hollywood support and may even go beyond some issues. It is not a "race card" thing it is an issues thing. That is like the Pope follows Catholic theology. Really, ya think?
Here is the republican platform:
www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf
Now, I realize both parties are working on the current platform. But, "race card" how pre-Brown of you.
The Patriot Employer Act...
Let's see. Encourage employers to keep jobs in the US. Work to lessen the tax penalties for having a business here. Get rid of the Double taxation, tax exemptions for foreign companies. Holy moly, level the playing field instead of giving the other guys a 10 run head start? Amazing idea.
Wait???? Who has worked so hard to make it easy to offshore? Oh that's right. So who is really in the pocket of corporate America? Well I guess it is most politicians but right now the current dilema sits square on the Republican's shoulders.
This no comment thing rocks!!!! It's almost like listening to Hannity or Medved. At least with them you get to say a couple words before you are cut off for having a good point. Here you don't even get that option.
Posted by: mr. rcguy on February 23, 2008 11:03 AMRE 27... and the banks did it because of pressure from LIBERAL do something, do anything whaaah, boohoo, whaaah people are persecuted by lending rules CONGRESS. The banks did not and would not knowingly, purposely sabatage themselves by setting themselves up for failure. Don't be a fool... try hard.
Has anyone noticed that B Hussein and the shrew behind him are eerily similar to Bill and his shrew? BOTH power hungry couples working, planning, jockeying from day one for that power, both saying anything to appease the masses and both occasionally slipping up to say what they really think of America and the little people. No wonder WhorraBillary both hate B Hussein... thye are looking in the mirror.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 23, 2008 11:47 AMThis from someone who once said to me on a comment thread, "do you know you're talking to a woman?" And on another thread accused me of being a Ron Paul supporter.
Sigh. I have no comment. What would be the point?
I sort of understand why you are not opening comments on your threads. However, surely you realize we enthusiasts just bring our comments over to any thread remotely mentioning even one single word that might reference yours. I think that's why Jim ended up closing comments on several threads: we opinionated ones are going to say what we're going to say, whether under your topic or another.
To borrow a liberal theme, is it fair to shove your problem commentors on other authors?
Love, Ragnar
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 23, 2008 12:01 PMAs usual you play the liberal shell game of divert, confuse, change the subject. WTF does Bush have to do with this? I'm talking about personal responsibility, taking it like a man. No real man ever blames a bank or a President for his stupid fuckups.
Posted by: FreedomLover on February 23, 2008 12:09 PMMcGovern won one state.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 23, 2008 12:10 PMObama has learned from the past mistakes of McGovern, Mondale. He'll triangulate, manipulate his way to the win. He's shown himself a master of deception so far. However, his wife could undo him. She's a loose cannon. He must cringe every time she opens her mouth to say some new outrageous thing.
Posted by: FreedomLover on February 23, 2008 12:15 PMNuance and sarcasim seem to escape you. People like to mess with you just because it sends you off the deep end. I suppose I shouldn't have accused you of being a Ron Paul supporter, that is really mean. There is simply so much to address from your regular comments without resulting to calling you a Paultard.
Posted by: WVH on February 23, 2008 12:35 PMAnd you wonder why I believe you are a liberal?
I'm just teasing here WVH, but gee don't you think you ought to lighten up? It's a beautiful day out there.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 23, 2008 12:54 PMMy personal venom has closed several threads, really. On many threads I don't comment unless it specifically deals with some aspect I feel was just plain unfair such as the "race card" comment. I have been called pretty much every name in the book on this site from liar on. It is my personal venom? If you note, I usually will cite some source to back up my comments.
Now let's get to the real issue, this is a conservative site and pretty much the public square and frankly a lot of you guys never expected to be challenged on anything ever.
I believe that whoever emerges from each convention as the candidate will have to defend their platform, their positions, and their history. That is fair. What I don't consider fair is "race card" and comments like that as well as some of the comments made by a poster on another thread. My personal venom, really. What is your next comment, I am an angry __________?
Posted by: WVH on February 23, 2008 12:56 PMIf your willing to you we're make a point involving Sen. Obama, I figured I had the right to make mine using the current administration to illustrate both sides of the "personal responsibility" issue.
No real man ever blames a bank or a President for his stupid fuckups.
Haha, people here blame the Democrats all the time for "stupid fuckups". People here blame Clinton for 9/11, when it was obviously the CIA, NSA, FBI's fault. Since President Clinton was leading the country and by proxy those organizations prior to the current Administration many people here blame him for 9/11.
If McCain looses the Presidency it will somehow be the liberals fault (and not President Bush's mishandling of domestic affairs).
Actually, I'm on my way out to enjoy the day.
Posted by: WVH on February 23, 2008 12:59 PMThe democraps play the race card, thye play the victim card they play the gender card and if possible they would play the 3 eyed purple monkey from mars card. The bottom line is that whether anyone likes it, people consciously or unconsiously, fairly or unfairly, JUDGE... by gender, by success, by looks, by race, by associations. Your skirts aren't clean there either, girlfriend.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 23, 2008 01:03 PMI do not think Obama will win. The chances are high that there will be some terrorist incident in the next 8 months. If not an actual attack, a foiled plot or something else that will raise the terror alert. Then people are going to look at the non-experience of Obama and the years of experience of McCain and the hope they will have is the hope that Obama isn't anywhere near national security.
This is just a fact. I don't want McCain in there, but when you compare McCain to Obama on national security, only an insane lemming would say rational people pick Obama over McCain.
Posted by: pbj on February 23, 2008 01:04 PM:)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 23, 2008 01:06 PMIs he power hungry or just popular? Is there a difference?
In contrast let's look at the current President. He comes from a wealthy New England family, his grandfather, father, and brother are all elected politicians. Is the Bush Family power hungry? Now Sen. Obama is neither rich, nor powerful (he's a junior Senator from Ohio), nor comes a family that has any sort of name recognition.
Looks like your wrong again Raganr, how about we go back to the empty suit question you refused to answer? Maybe you will come up with a valid argument as to why a self-made man is somehow lesser than a man who had everything in his life handed to him by his Dadddy on a silver platter?
Is Obama running against Bush? SOunds like you've got a case of darcyburnericistis.
Posted by: pbj on February 23, 2008 01:30 PMMaybe we should talk about McCain's economic policy. I think he has great experience in national security but what about everything else?
He voted against the tax cuts that everyone here is so fond of. He voted for a balanced budget amendment (which would have doomed a spender President like Dubya). Earlier in his campaign he made the utterly dumb statement by saying that "economics is not my strong suit". Does McCain have the experience to reign in the economic damage that the current Administration has created?
What about abortion, Are McCains views there strong enough to keep someone like Rangar (all abortion = murder) in the fold? McCain is on record as voting for allowing partial birth abortions and saying he would NOT support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
And what can we consistently count on the Republicans to play? As a card that is? FEAR. Fear the liberal, fear the Iraqi, fear the economy, fear the Hispanic, fear, fear, fear. Elect us or the US of A will go down in terrorist and economic flames guaranteed.
It's so old, but it is currently the only thing they have going for them.
Posted by: Mr. Rcguy on February 23, 2008 01:55 PMFEAR. "Chances are there will be another attack......"
Posted by: Mr. Rcguy on February 23, 2008 01:59 PMIs that what we want in a president, the most telegenic? Screw foreign policy experience eh? We may get nuked by terrorist and our asses kicked all over the world, but hey doesn't Obama look good on TV?
Posted by: pbj on February 23, 2008 02:02 PMNot sure what happened to it. Corporate interest? Greed? Stupidity?
Posted by: Mr. Rcguy on February 23, 2008 02:05 PMNot sure what happened to it. Corporate interest? Greed? Stupidity?
Posted by: Mr. Rcguy on February 23, 2008 02:06 PMYou mean the lowest interest rates in history or the record unemployment?
"Maybe we should talk about McCain's economic policy. I think he has great experience in national security but what about everything else?"
first off, I am not advocating for McCain. I am fully onboard with your having a Democrat committing Marxist Socialism upon this nation. McCain will try to do the same. Both will destroy this nation, I am just in preference of it being a Democrat. After all if you have a Democrat (Obama) running against a wanna be Democrat (McCain), the Democrat will always win.
I am just looking at the facts as an uninterested observer. I do not advocate, but analyze who will be the captain of the US Titanic as she hits the iceberg of socialism.
No McCain doesn't have much to offer in economic policy. His gaffe statement, as you noted, will come back to haunt him.
But you did agree that he trumped Obama on national security did you not?
So McCain has national security and not economics versus Obama on not economics and not national security. At least people could look a Hillary Clinton and when asked to talk about facing a crisis, she didn't have to dodge the question.
Obama already has shown he would be a disaster in foreign policy when he said he would bomb Pakistan and sit down to tea with Iran.
I am just looking ahead to November. Ask yourself these questions:
1) Do I think George W Bush wants a Republican to win the White House in 2008 (YES/NO)
2) Do I think George W Bush manipulates the national terror alert level to suit his own political purposes?(YES/NO)
3) If given a national security crisis, does that favor Obama or McCain in the election?(Obama/McCain).
I think it's only fair to compare and contrast current and past Presidents against a possible future President. I could use McCain but then people like you would argue that he's not the President therefore my point would be invalid.
Darcy is running for Congress, Obama is running for President. Big difference.
The US doesn't need permission to defend itself. I am sorry if that makes conversations inconvenient when you are in France sipping wine with the locals.
We were attacked on 911 and there is no justification for 3,000 American being murdered that day. That we fight back whilst spineless Spanish and other Europeans capitulate to Islamofascism is an embarassment to them doesn't matter one bit to me.
The US IS the major protector of N America. When it comes to our own national security we should NEVER defer to foreigners just in order to win their favor..NEVER NEVER NEVER. When we do that, we get presidents like Jimmy Carter in which we get on our knees for every little tin pot dictator around the world. One could in fact make a good case that the birth of the terrorist movement we face today was spawned by the weakness Jimmy Carter showed to Iran. You aren't much of a super power if every tin post dictator can kick your ass from one end of the national stage to the other.
Posted by: pbj on February 23, 2008 02:27 PMYour argument is essentially that we should pay no attention to Obama's lack of experience, after all we elected Bush on (what you perceive as) lack of experience.
Of course you view the Bush presidency as a total disaster. I then ask you why you'd try the same thing over and expect a different result?
Posted by: pbj on February 23, 2008 02:33 PMNo we are not living in the 60's. We are living in an age where Islamic terrorists can obtain portable nuclear devices. The same people would laugh at the far fetched idea of terrorists hijacking planes and bringing down the World Trade Centers are the same pied pipers telling us we don't have to worry about them anymore.
How many more terrorist attacks have occurred on mainland United States of America since 911? There is a reason for that. It isn't chance.
Just as planes take off and land safely due to experienced pilots rather than chance, national security happens only with seasoned experienced leadership, not chance.
If you've been around the block long enough you know that the adoration he now enjoys is fleeting. Michael Jackson was once "the King of Pop". Now what is he?
It's a long way until November.
There are 8 + months in which to expose this snake oil salesman for the true empty suit he is. From his ties to 1970's Weatherground terrorist Bill Ayers http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
to his crooked land deals with DNC fundraiser Tony Rezko
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=767
He will be exposed, so I say to the Jr. Senator from Illinois: "Enjoy your 15 minutes, they're just about up!!"
Posted by: Rick D. on February 23, 2008 03:14 PMI'd like to see Hillary done for good, as far as presidential politics is concerned. The sooner she's just one of the senators from New York, the better off the country will be.
My perfect government would consist of:
1. A House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans - because that's where the spending and tax bills originate.
2. A Senate controlled by Democrats - to hopefully stop getting involved in stupid foreign adventures.
3. The president - what we need is a guy or gal who doesn't wanna be king or queen and has the sense to not meddle in things he or she can't change and aren't our business in the first place. Also, someone who realizes taxes are somebody else's money in the first place, not his or hers to spend as he or she chooses.
{I don't see Hillary, McCain or Obama filing into that last category.}
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on February 23, 2008 03:15 PMFirst, it is gorgeous outside. I'll be going back out to enjoy SUNSHINE.
Now, you said this:
"The bottom line is that whether anyone likes it, people consciously or unconsiously, fairly or unfairly, JUDGE... by gender, by success, by looks, by race, by associations. Your skirts aren't clean there either, girlfriend."
1. You are correct all people judge, but some are fairer than others and attempt make judgements based on issues of character.
2. Now let's deal with the issues that you feel I have unfairly judged, like calling a certain poster, a bigot, not a racist because I don't have enough info to do that. All three dem candaudates support and accept the dem platform. A candidate would not have gotten to this point if they didn't. Senator Bayh or Seantor Nunn would never be considered at the top of ticket.
So much of the argument here and with the other poster was not whether Obama was in line with mainline dem thought but was race-based. If you want to attack his policies or the dem platform, his race has nothing to do with it, that is simply where not only the dem party is at this point in time, but a lot of its wealthy supporters as well. Cindy Sheehan and John Walker Lynhn, the American Taliban, did not come from the South side of Chicago.
3. You and a few others feel that the only party to play the race card is the dem party. Both parties play the race card whenever it suits them.
All parties look for useful idiots, when it suits them. The republican Southern Strategy was playing the race card.
I suppose, if you want to just pretend that this is not a diverse state and one side can just pretend that certain attitudes should not be dealt with. Go ahead, you will continue to lose in King County and urban areas because the demographics of this state are changing. This will continue to be a one-party state and Gregoire will renew her hold on the governor's mansion. Me calling some bigot, a bigot is the least of your problems. Of course, you can console yourself by posting here.
I certainly don't have any problem saying that I am a conservative Ronald Reagan Republican.
I challenge you, WVH, to be as forthcoming about your political leanings.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 23, 2008 03:31 PMWho played the race card describing the Republican "Southern Strategy" as racist? Why, it was the Democrats!
Stop me before I fall off my chair laughing.
Face it chumps, your man Bush set the bar so freaking low that ANYONE elected this year will be better. And one other thing, if any of you voted for Bush you really need to look in the mirror before you start attacking more candidates for a while.
Posted by: shawnkempsbartender on February 23, 2008 04:11 PMWinston Churchill began drinking daily from the time he arose from his bed.
You are not Winston Churchill.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 23, 2008 04:16 PM..and I, for one, am enjoying every minute of it.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 23, 2008 04:53 PMHow I wish Rick D. that what you're saying is true.
From years of experience however I can attest that the political intelligence of the average American can be rightfully compared to a box of rocks.
Hannity has his people go out on the street and they show people pictures of the Vice President. The response? "Duh, I don't know, it's some old man". And that was one of the better answers.
Ask your friends or co-workers when World War II was, just for fun. The response will make you ill. Ask them who the President was during the Civil War. They won't know. Cripes, ask them who the first President was. If you do any better than two out of three I'd be amazed.
Do I have any real faith in the American people to pick the right candidate? Not much.
Sounds like your saying the McCain campaign is dead in the water because Americans are dumb, and no one wants to vote for some old cranky guy who wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years.
I like McCain, he's honest, he's passionate, and stands by what he believes in (except that torture bit). It's a shame his campaign was sabotaged in 2000, the lives of 3968 dead American servicemen could have been very different.
Poor guy now has to defend Dubya's failed administration while pandering to the extreme wings of the Republican party (who never liked him to begin with). It's going to be sad to watch this man's great career go down the toilet much like his good friend Bob Dole (hopefully McCain won't jump on the Viagra bandwagon).
You're not seriously arguing that Sen. Strom Thurmond (R) was not a racist? He ran on a segregation platform. Here's a speech Thurmond made advocating the continued separation of races. Maybe that will refresh your memory.
Strom ran as a Dixiecrat (and they believed in segregation) in 19 freakin' 48. Ronald Reagan ran for President in 19 freakin 80. That's when they talked about the "Southern Strategy" , 32 years later. You're brain has got it's history time-table munged together like smothered/covered cheese grits from the Waffle House.
The Southern Strategy was to get white Southerners, who, for 100 years had voted solidly democratic due to inertia and memories of long ago, when the Democrats stood for resistance against the Republican carpetbaggers who came down South after the War between the States to run things. (The "Reconstruction" is what the history books call that).
So, the Democrat party, being the party of segregation and discrimination for 100 years, lost their hold on white Southerners, who went for Reagan, as the Democrats had turned left-wing in the late 60's and throughout the 70's. Southerners at that time were very socially conservative, see. Many of the Southern states had not elected Republican governers in 100 years, or more, till the late 70's or even the 80's (some possibly due to Reagan's coat tails).
What other part of your brain do I need to straighten out, Cato? I am not charging anything for this. Pro Bono, my friend, even pro-The Edge and whoever the bass player is.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on February 23, 2008 07:02 PMWAS: "You're brain"
S/B: "Your brain"
" Before the Civil War, the Democrat Party was united in its support for slavery. After the war, Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan, established Jim Crow Laws, and repeatedly defeated anti-lynching and other federal legislation that became necessary in order to dismantle Democrat-created segregation in South. "...
" All of the slavemasters were Democrats. How many other Democratic Presidents before the Civil War opposed slavery? The answer is none. The Democrats kept in bondage those who were excluded, those who were disenfranchised and those who were poor - Black slaves. "...
" According to the PBS's American Experience website, it says of the Democratic Party platform in 1840: "They opposed the government's interference with the spread of slavery." "...
" The PBS website on "The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow" said: "The Democratic Party identified itself as the 'white man's party' and demonized the Republican Party as being 'Negro dominated,' even though whites were in control." "...
Happy Black TRUTH month.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 23, 2008 07:15 PM"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.
Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.
Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.
Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.
Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.
Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.
Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.
Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.
Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.
Happy Black TRUTH month.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 23, 2008 07:24 PMOh darn. Still though there would be no Southern Strategy without Strom Thurmond as white Southerners flocked to him in hopes of keeping blacks from integrating and taking their jobs.
What other part of your brain do I need to straighten out, Cato?
I think that depends on who you ask on here. =)
...For decades, it has been a template of the major media that Republicans are the party of racism. It repeats uncritically any charges of Republican racism, no matter how unfounded. Democrats, on the other hand, are always given a pass whenever they commit racist offenses. Even a cursory review, however, will show that the media template is totally contrary to history.
Slavery is the greatest evil ever to beset black people in this country. In the decades leading up to the Civil War, there was intense political debate on what to do about it. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 for the express purpose of ending slavery. The Democratic Party, by contrast, defended it to the bitter end.
Just to show how far Democrats would go to defend slavery, it's worth remembering what happened to Sen. Charles Sumner, Republican of Massachusetts. After giving a speech denouncing slavery in 1856, he was viciously beaten by Rep. Preston Brooks, Democrat of South Carolina, for daring to question the right to own slaves. Being a coward, Brooks waited until the elderly Sumner was seated alone at his desk in the Senate and, without warning, struck him repeatedly with a cane. It took months for Sumner to recover.
In 1858, Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, Democrat of Illinois, debated Republican Abraham Lincoln on the question of slavery. Said Douglas during one of those debates: "For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races."
So prevalent were these views in the Democratic Party that Douglas was named its presidential candidate in 1860. Amazingly, Southerners actually viewed Douglas as being too moderate on the slavery issue and instead voted for Vice President John C. Breckinridge, a slave-owner who also ran as a Democrat, thus splitting the pro-slavery vote and allowing Lincoln to win.
After the war, the Democratic Party held a lock on the South for more than 100 years. All of the "Jim Crow" laws that prevented blacks from voting and kept them down were enacted by Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. The Ku Klux Klan was virtually an auxiliary arm of the Democratic Party, and any black (or white) who threatened the party's domination was liable to be beaten or lynched. Democrats enacted the first gun-control laws in order to prevent blacks from defending themselves against Ku Klux Klan violence. Chain gangs were developed by Democrats to bring back de facto slave labor.
President Woodrow Wilson, the second Democrat to serve since the Civil War, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913. Avowed racists such as Josephus Daniels and Albert Burleson were named Cabinet secretaries. Black leaders like W.E.B. DuBois, who had strongly supported Wilson, were bitterly disappointed, but shouldn't have been surprised. As president of Princeton University, Wilson refused to admit blacks and as governor of New Jersey ignored blacks' requests for state jobs, even though their votes had provided his margin of victory.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt had his first opportunity to name a member of the Supreme Court, he appointed a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama. In 1944, FDR chose as his vice president Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922. Throughout his presidency, Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching, and he opposed integration of the armed forces.
Another Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage. He is still a member of the U.S. Senate today. As recently as the 1980s, Sen. Ernest Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, publicly referred to blacks as "darkies" and Hispanics as "wetbacks" without suffering any punishment from his party.
In short, the historical record clearly shows that Democrats, not Republicans, have been the party of racism in this country.
Happy Black TRUTH month.
Does the article explain the rise of Strom Thurmond (who switched parties) and Jesse Helms.
Now does it explain why Strom Thurmond decided to switch over to the Republican side of the aisle? Maybe it was because President Truman (a Democrat) called for a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission, anti-lynching legislation, and the abolishment of the poll tax.
Nor does it account for John F. Kennedy (Democrat) introducing the civil rights bill of 1964, which was later implemented by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat).
Again the current political parties are a far cry from what they were 50 years ago. The only real remnant of that era still in office is Sen. Robert C. Byrd (since Zell Miller stepped down, but was kind enough to give a speech at the GOP convention).
Finally, a pop quiz for you Ragnar....which party had an elected Senator (who stepped down 3 short months ago) who suggested that the world would be a better place if Strom Thurmond had become President?
1. As to my political leanings, as I have said many times, I am an indie. I vote for the candidate not the party. Just as I linked the platforms of both parties above, this election, I will read both documents, read the positions of the candidates who are ratified by each convention and make my decision. The none of the above vote is always Nader. I guess he will run again.
Moderates and pragmatists have been driven out of both parties which is why there are so many independents. When it comes to ratking and incoherrence, Bill C. no one does that better than you.
2. I believe the correct title of the month is Black History Month. The truth of the matter is that it is just American history, isn't it?
3. Neither of you can read, this is what I said:
". You and a few others feel that the only party to play the race card is the dem party. Both parties play the race card whenever it suits them.
All parties look for useful idiots, when it suits them. The republican Southern Strategy was playing the race card."
I said the republican strategy was to play the "race card" by using the Southern strategy:
RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes
By Mike Allen
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A04
It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html
See also,
USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politicsRepublican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the ... a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy ...
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm
Now, what I said is both parties have a history of using the "race card" politics and I suppose the two of you just want to kick Mehlman out of your party if you haven't already done so.
4. Now, many people, especially those who are familar with Black history know that many Black families WERE republicans until the 50s and 60s. Your current voter outreach to a very diverse King County and Seattle consist of the following three point outreach program.
THE BILL C. AND RAGNAR THREE POINT OUTREACH PROGRAM
1. Call the potential voter a liberal.
If that doesn't work, then
2. Call the potential voter a communist.
If that doesn't work, then
3. Call the potential voter a liar.
If that doesn't work, go to step one.
While you idiots have been expanding your base, NOT, We have turned into a one-party state and your election prospects are no better than they were in 2004. The only thing that is saving you is the local dem leadership seems to be as inept as you. Still, about a quarter of the state's population is in King County and when you add in other urban areas like Tacoma, Vancouver, and Spokane, means you guys are in a world of hurt with your THREE POINT OUTREACH PROGRAM. You have no strategy for the most populated areas of the state other than to rant. Kinda miss the Euroweenies, at least when they ranted they quoted Wilde and Shakespeare. Their arguments were just as lame, but they sounded better.
Posted by: WVH on February 23, 2008 08:31 PM
You're not seriously arguing that Senator Robert (KKK) Byrd is not a racist.
He was a Grand Kleagle of the KKK who once said of blacks:
"I shall never fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
That is the Democrat's "Grand Old Man" of the Senate. This man filibustered the 1960's Civil Rights Act. You racist Democrats ought not be lecturing ANYONE about a "Southern Strategy"!
Posted by: pbj on February 24, 2008 01:00 AM
"Nor does it account for John F. Kennedy (Democrat) introducing the civil rights bill of 1964, which was later implemented by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)."
First off, John F Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 so it was impossible for him to ever have introduced a Civil Rights bill in 1964.
Second of all, the Civil Rights bill was filibustered by Robert Byrd (a Democrat) and passed by a Republican majority congress. It should be noted that the 1964 Civil Rights bill wasn't the first one to ever be introduced. That would be the Civil Rights Bill of 1877, introduced by a Republican Congress. If not for the racist Democrat party lynching people, black and white alike, for daring to support it, 1964 wouldn't have been necessary. The first black elected to congress was a Republican, John Willis Menard.
Posted by: pbj on February 24, 2008 01:08 AMFor, WWV (what's that stand for, World-Wide-Victimhood, haha?), you may be right that the term "Southern Strategy was used in the Nixon '68 election. I guess you can either trust my memory or your lying, googling eyes. ;-}
Obviously, Nixon had to have won some of the Southern states to win in 68, though I believe one or a few went to George Wallace, too. You can't attribute the '72 win by Nixon to anything but the simple "Pretty-Easy-To-Beat-A-Left-Wing-Kook-Lessin-You're-John-McCain" strategery.
It worked with Nixon, who spouted conservatism back then, and it would have worked in 2008, if we had a conservative running. Me, I'm voting Libertarian or Consitution party.
Good morning. Say goodbye to the unforecasted beautiful weather. Back to your regularly scheduled Seattle climate of global drizzle, 40-50 Deg. F, 1,500 ft. broken, 2,500 ft. overcast, S. winds at 8-10 knots, chance of rain, 60%, chance of the guy at the store being both unfriendly and a left-wing nut-bag, 80 %.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on February 24, 2008 06:09 AMI'm not exactly sure what "ratking" is but it comforting to know that I do it better than anyone.
If you are an "indie" and vote for Nader...what more needs to be said?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 08:55 AMHere's hoping for a much more fun debate on Tuesday. Will the house finally fall on her?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 09:42 AMA week ago I'd have sent the guys in the white coats for you, Rick D.
I think you may be right. We could be watching the Democrats fall on their own sword.
Funny how quickly things can change in politics.
I related my own embarrasing fling with the far left back at #38. I think there are interesting parallels to be drawn between the McGovern and Obama campaigns. I can't remember...did Nader run back in '72?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 09:55 AM"For, WWV (what's that stand for, World-Wide-Victimhood, haha?), you may be right that the term "Southern Strategy was used in the Nixon '68 election. I guess you can either trust my memory or your lying, googling eyes. ;-}"
This is what Mehlman said, I suppose you all follow the BILL C AND RAGNAR THREE POINT OUTREACH PROGRAM:
I said the republican strategy was to play the "race card" by using the Southern strategy:
RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes
By Mike Allen
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A04
It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html
So, I guess you call a former chair of the republican party a liar, right? Has he been thrown out of the republican party yet for making the apology?
Bill C said the following:
"If you are an "indie" and vote for Nader...what more needs to be said?"
Goes to show that one of the characteristics of idiots is they can't read. I said this:
"1. As to my political leanings, as I have said many times, I am an indie. I vote for the candidate not the party. Just as I linked the platforms of both parties above, this election, I will read both documents, read the positions of the candidates who are ratified by each convention and make my decision. The none of the above vote is always Nader. I guess he will run again."
What it says is that if I don't like either candidate who emerges from each convention, I will vote for Nader. We don't have a none of the above line on the ballot.
Great attempt at building your party, Bill C. Your THREE POINT PROGRAM FOR PARTY OUTREACH is working just fine.
You folks just want to re-write history, I quoted a republican leader, Dave Lincoln said this:
"It worked with Nixon, who spouted conservatism back then, and it would have worked in 2008, if we had a conservative running. Me, I'm voting Libertarian or Consitution party."
Mehlman has one view of history, obviously certain posters here have another view of history. So, are you posters calling Mehlman, a liar?
Interesting that Dave Lincoln is voting libertarian. Interesting, another David, named Duke will probably be doing the same. Birds of a feather.
Now, Bill C., David Lincoln, and pbj are you calling a former leader of the republican party a liar for his statements as reported in the Washington Post and USA Today? That is the issue, not your memory or what you want history to be.
Posted by: WVH on February 24, 2008 10:20 AMAs for debate fatigue, I was disappointed on Thursday. But I wouldn't despair. I sense the best is yet to come. Tuesday's debate could be much more lively. And I'm waiting for Hillary to drop "the big one" on Obama sometime in the next week. Unless she's out of ammunition. That seems unlikely to me. I am talking about the Clintons, after all.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 10:34 AMOn virtually every thread you participate in you eventually hammer the same nail. "Republicans are racists". No amount of logic or history will ever sway you.
Please do vote for Nader.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 10:53 AM'Me, I'm voting Libertarian or Consitution party."
A bit about the Constitution Party from the Southern Poverty Law Center:
True, the Constitution Party is small, with only 340,000 registered voters nationwide, but that does make it the nation's biggest third party. Considering the dismal track record of American third parties, it's also one of the longest-lasting, having existed in one form or another since Wallace's wildly successful third-party effort in 1968 (see related interview, Crashing the Parties).
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=489
Now for some really interesting chatter regarding Paul, Duke and the Constitution party, go to this blog from Stormfront, the white Supremicist site:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/constitution-party-courts-ron-paul-459198.html
The Southern Poverty Law Center which monitors hate groups is monitoring the Constitution party:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/intrep.jsp?iid=8
Way to go Bill C, you certainly are in great company and I am sure that any republican who wants to compete in King County or an urban areas really wants to embrace you and your pals. That THREE POINT OUTREACH PROGRAM is just the ticket.
Posted by: WVH on February 24, 2008 11:03 AMWhere exactly it that "Black Union"?
Do the whites have one?
How loud will WVH squeal if the whites ask for one?
Yep, whitey's the racist.
BULLSH*T
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 24, 2008 11:12 AM
Tavis Smiley is a television host on PBS, glad to see you are aware of that. Here is the cite:
News results for Tavis Smiley State of Black Union
CNN Political Ticker Obama takes heat for skipping State of the Black Union - Feb 23, 2008
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- The annual State of the Black Union forum boasts a ... that's prompted both controversy and a backlash against Tavis Smiley, ...
Talk show host Tavis Smiley: It's a missed opportunity on Obama's part
Smiley tells Washington Post he's gotten angry e-mails, threats for criticizing Obama
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- The annual State of the Black Union forum boasted a number of famous attendees in New Orleans on Saturday, but this year's event received much more attention for who wasn't there.
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in New Orleans on February 7.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, was the only major presidential candidate to accept an invitation to attend.
Her rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, declined, as did Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/
Now you said:
Where exactly it that "Black Union"?
Do the whites have one?
How loud will WVH squeal if the whites ask for one?
Yep, whitey's the racist.
BULLSH*T
I don't know if you know it, but using the term that you used for white people is just as racist as calling me the "N" word. What makes you think I would ever use such a word?
Now, Smiley is a tv broadcaster and his show on PBS deals primarily with issues affecting those of color.
Yep, the BILL C AND RAGNAR THREE POINT PROGRAM is working.
Posted by: WVH on February 24, 2008 11:26 AMSorry dude, I don't have pent-up anger as you say. There are specialists that can help you deal with your ignorance and closed mind. Now, can you factually argue that what Mehlman said was incorrect or can you factually argue that the Constitution party isn't aligned with Duke and others like him. Just facts, not ranting?
Yep, that BILL C AND RAGNAR THREE POINT program is working just fine.
Posted by: WVH on February 24, 2008 11:31 AMWhy is it that when I read WVH's posts it's almost as if I am enduring the shrill voice of Hillary Clinton?
"AND I'LL TAKE THOSE OIL COMPANY PROFITS!"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 11:36 AMYou don't find that offensive? I do.
I find the fact that they CHOOSE to separate themselves offensive.... just as I find Black "History" month offensive. You whine about being a black victim, then purposely yourself set apart and celebrate victimhood.
You whined about my calling it Black TRUTH month and said it's "American" history... THEN START ACTING LIKE IT.
... or encourage and stand up for a 'State of the White Union', 'White History Month', 'NAAWP'...
Can you find this for WHITES?... let's substitute the words white and caucasion and see how you squeal.
Nat'l. Assn. of WHITE Journalists
American Association of WHITES in Energy
Nat'l. Assn. of WHITE Women Entrepreneurs Inc
Nat'l. Assn. of WHITE-Owned Broadcasters Inc.
Nat'l. WHITE Assn. for Speech-Lang. & Hearing
Nat'l. WHITE Flight Attendants of Amer. Inc.
Harvard WHITE Law Students Association
Nat'l. Society of WHITE Engineers
WHAT THE HELL DOES BEING BLACK, WHITE OR PURPLE HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THOSE? YOU CANNOT ANSWER BECAUSE THE ONLY SANE ANSWER IS "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING">
YOUR leaders are the racists.
1. Do you have any facts to dispute the former leader of the republican party?
2. Do you you have any facts to dispute that there isn't an alliance between the Consitution party and Duke like groups?
Now you said:
"AND I'LL TAKE THOSE OIL COMPANY PROFITS!"
Have you gotten into the cooking sherry? What the heck does that mean in light of this conversation?
That BILL C AND RAGNAR THREE POINT OUTREACH PROGRAM is working just fine.
Posted by: WVH on February 24, 2008 11:43 AMYOU look in the mirror and see a black victim.
Which of us needs outreach?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 24, 2008 11:48 AMSorry to burst your sick little delusion. I am an incredibly happy person. You are just pissed because you have no facts to support your rantings. Now you said:
"I find the fact that they CHOOSE to separate themselves offensive.... just as I find Black "History" month offensive. You whine about being a black victim, then purposely yourself set apart and celebrate victimhood"
"They" who are they?
Now as for the Tavis Smiley program, he is doing what tv personalities of all flavors do which is attempt to pump up ratings. I believe Chris Mathews has had several college programs and Bill Moyers does specials in addition to his programs.
How do you define victimhood? Is it any group that celebrates its heritage? On the EastCoast there are huge Columbus Day parades and of course, there is St Patrick's Day. Do those events celebrate victimhood. There is the Catholic League, does that celebrate victimhood?
Now please define victimhood?
You don't need outreach, there is nothing outreach can do for you. Your mind is closed and if some one does not agree with you, they have a problem, not you. I suppose when you look in the mirror, you see a happy idiot.
Now, define victimhood and "they" using just the facts.
Posted by: WVH on February 24, 2008 12:00 PMCOLUMBUS has a place in American History, misguided as we have found that to be.
The Catholic League? Is that your best shot? What is it's purpose? To support and defend the IDEOLOGY of Catholicism.
Not one of the subjects of those organizations I linked to and listed are hindered or helped by color... WHY do the folks of color separate themselves?
Tell us, what is the IDEOLOGY of BLACK State of the Union? Defense of victimhood?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 24, 2008 12:07 PMNO! I'll answer my own question. It's the perpetuation of victimhood and a how-to for guilt exploitation.
News flash: you can't guilt THIS American. Drop the phony flippin hyphen and be an AMERICAN American.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 24, 2008 12:13 PMMemo to single guys: Do not date humorless liberal women like WVH. They will make your lives a living hell. Just ask Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 12:14 PMI think you may be right. We could be watching the Democrats fall on their own sword.
Funny how quickly things can change in politics.
True, but it's a long way to Novemebr and McCain still has to appeal to people like Rangar (who apparentley has lost his mind).
Manwhile PBJ @ 91 says:
First off, John F Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 so it was impossible for him to ever have introduced a Civil Rights bill in 1964.
Funny that...
history seems to say otherwise. Keep up the good work.
Second of all, the Civil Rights bill was filibustered by Robert Byrd (a Democrat) and passed by a Republican majority congress.
Yay, you got somethign right. Good job.
Now lets move forawd 40 some years to present day, lets see which party is against Gay Marriage. Which party has members opposed to multi-liguial balloting, which party ran the Willie Horton Ad, which party is currentley playing the modern southern strategy of equating latinos with illegal immigrants, which party had a member claim that the world would be a better place had Strom Thurmond become President?
Like I said earlier the Democrat and the Repulican party are nowhere the same as they were 40 year ago, much less 140 years ago. The Republicans may be the party of Lincoln but in 2008 the Dem's seem to be electing a more diverse and inclusive party than the Republicans.
SO WHAT??
He doesn't call it The WHITES for McCain rally, now does he?
Ther's are huge difference between that an PURPOSEFUL organizations/events like BLACK State of the Union...
Nat'l. Assn. of BLACK Journalists
American Association of BLACKS in Energy
Nat'l. Assn. of BLACK Women Entrepreneurs Inc
Nat'l. Assn. of BLACK-Owned Broadcasters Inc.
Nat'l. BLACK Assn. for Speech-Lang. & Hearing
Nat'l. BLACK Flight Attendants of Amer. Inc.
Harvard BLACK Law Students Association
Nat'l. Society of BLACK Engineers
WHY do they choose to separate themselves? WHY are they too cowardly to answer that simple question? The truth that dare not raise its head.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 24, 2008 12:27 PMYeah, your happiness bursts forth from all of your comments WVH.
On his radio show Michael Medved used to cite studies showing that conservatives were generally happier than liberals. Inevitably, and to my great enjoyment liberals would call in and say something like, "what do you mean we aren't happy, and besides we have lots of *%$#! reasons to be unhappy!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 12:28 PMMulti-lingual balloting.. Be an AMERICAN-American... or go home. Part of being an AMERICAN-American is knowing the language. Do you honestly think if you go to live in Bejing, Estonia, Kosovo, Nepal or Kenya they will bow and cater to you in English?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 24, 2008 12:34 PMStill waiting for a factual defintion of victimhood and "they." You can't provide one can you?
Now for the State of the Black Union, you can e-mail Tavis at:
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/ask/
He might appreciate your comments, wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't make a whole show out of them.
Now Bill C said:
Isn't this fun, Ragnar?
Memo to single guys: Do not date humorless liberal women like WVH. They will make your lives a living hell. Just ask Bill Clinton.
What do you mean I don't have a sense of humor. I laugh at you all the time. Oh we are back to step one of:
THE BILL C. AND RAGNAR THREE POINT OUTREACH PROGRAM
1. Call the potential voter a liberal.
If that doesn't work, then
2. Call the potential voter a communist.
If that doesn't work, then
3. Call the potential voter a liar.
If that doesn't work, go to step one.
The problem is neither of you can use facts to make an argument because you have no facts. So, when either of you can provide FACTS to show:
1. Former RNC Chairman was incorrect in his apology regarding the Southern strategy or
2. The Consitution party is not aligned with Duke like groups
then your rantings might be worth listening to.
As I have said before that BILL C AND RAGNAR THREE POINT OUTREACH program is working just fine.
Oh, Bill C, this one is for you. LOL.
Posted by: WVH on February 24, 2008 12:36 PMAnd which party seized upon an innocent remark made at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday dinner with no intent of racism and turned it into a witch hunt?
You jerks. You knew it was an innocent remark and you lefties took it out of context in order to play the race card. You guys are so nasty.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2008 12:42 PMWHY do they choose to separate themselves?
Why is a BLACK engineer different from a plain old engineer?
Why is a bLACK fight attendant different from a plain old flight attendant?
Why is Harvard BLACK law tudents different form any other Harvard law student?
Where exactly that Black Union that has to discuss its "state"?
If you answer, should you have the balls to actually answer, is there is no difference, tehy you need to either decry racist organizations that separate or stand up and cheerlead for WHITE organizations... or, of course you can always continue with your simple, selfseriving racist hypocrisy.
WHY are YOU too cowardly to answer that simple question? The truth that dare not raise its head.
Ron Sims doesn't seem to mind, he took on your buddy Ken Hutchison in a debate about it. Homosexuals may not have had a long of a struggle, but they have struggled against a similar form of discrimination.
WHY do they choose to separate themselves?
Are they separating themselves, or finding strength in numbers? Personally I believe the latter.
Why are there gay bars Ragnar? Are gay people trying to separate themselves from the rest of society?
Why is there a Creationism theme park? Are they trying to separate the word of God from the scientific communiuty?
Come to think of it why don't Baptists got to Catholic Churches and vice versa?
Ragnar, even as ignorant as you seem to appear must realize how absurd your argument is.