Hence the beauty of a long, drawn-out primary tussle.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 11, 2008 08:00 PM | Email This
This man is not fit to govern ALL the people. He clearly is a bigot who should be nowhere near the White House.
If his career in politics doesn't work out, he could make some serious bucks on the stand-up circuit with his side-splitting imitation of a clueless elitist politician. Probably land a couple of HBO specials, maybe even an ongoing gig in Vegas...
And what could he possibly have against people "clinging" to their religion?? That's probably one of the worst things he said in all of that "I'm-gonna-lose-Pennsylvania" blather. He just lost the "religion" vote, I guess.
When I've met people who live in deep rural areas, they've been happy and exceedingly welcoming people who showed kindness to those of us who were passing through. I came away with awesome impressions of those who had hosted me,and I felt admiration for their rural lifestyles. Quite frankly, they were some of the most serene, pleasant people I've met!
Posted by: Michele on April 11, 2008 08:48 PMGlad you got the lingo down. Does this mean you are voting for Governor Gregoire?
I know many here are having wet dreams over Senator Obama eventually becoming the dem presidential nominee. Two words, super delegates.
There is a lot of time between now and August and there are presumptive nominees and there are actual candidates who emerge from conventions. Who either party will nominate, we'll find out. The dem super delegates will have a say. Senator Mc Cain's mom is 96 and looks like she could kick some serious butt. I wish Senator Mc Cain well, but he is 71. All people can really say is the conventions will produce candidates.
Still, I am glad that folks are getting the concept that candidates need to govern for ALL the people. Is that two votes for Governor Gregoire?
Posted by: WVH on April 11, 2008 08:59 PMPeople, does this SOUND like someone who belongs anywhere NEAR the Oval Office? I'm sorry, but the more I learn about this guy the more disturbing his candidacy is to me.
Posted by: Michele on April 11, 2008 09:03 PMSadly, with King County Elections---YES, and then some. More votes than voters, etc.
Posted by: Michele on April 11, 2008 09:06 PMI sincerely hope that ALL elections departments have their acts together for the next election. I am a Gregoire supporter, but I want whoever wins to have won a fair contest. The next governor deserves the right to govern.
The two votes I was specifically referring to belong to Smitty and for ALL the people.
You can be disturbed by any candidate all you want but until someone comes out of each convention, all they are is presumptive. Besides, you are never going to vote for the dem or Nader. I think Bob Barr is running as a libertarian. So, your choices are either Senator Mc Cain, Rep. Barr or write-in Dr. Paul or some other person.
The only issue is not whether conservative posters will ever vote for the dem nominee, but whether moderates and independents will.
Posted by: WVH on April 11, 2008 09:37 PMI expect she will release her medical records about the time Senator Mc Cain does. You can't be serious about the age issue, Senator Mc Cain is 71.
Posted by: WVH on April 11, 2008 10:14 PMAnd then of course there is Democrat Cindi Laws,who blamed the Jews for the failure of the monorail.
These aren't long from ago history, these are recent history. I don't think any party which attracts such hateful people as these can make any sort of claim of being inclusive for ALL the people.
Posted by: ForALLThePeople on April 11, 2008 10:28 PMDefinitely not ready for prime time.
Posted by: deadwood on April 11, 2008 10:28 PMMcCain should really be addressing the economy in more detail, the economic dangers of universal health care and the unintended consequences of sudden withdraw from Iraq and contrast him with the more youthful Obama. He should also consider using the line "I am not going to exploit the youth and inexperience of my opponent" that Reagan used when running against Mondale.
Posted by: KS on April 11, 2008 10:30 PMWayne Perryman, an inner city minister in Seattle and the author of Unfounded Loyalty, in an editorial circulating on the Internet (Feb. 2004):
Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.
History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.
History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party.
Some called it the Civil War, others called it the War Between the States, but to the African Americans at that time, it was the War Between the Democrats and the Republicans over slavery. The Democrats gave their lives to expand it, Republican gave their lives to ban it.
During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities. Senate debates revealed that the Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.
History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.
After the Civil War, Democrats murdered several hundred black elected officials (in the South) to regain control of the southern government. All of the elected officials up to 1935 were Republicans. As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.
History reveals that it was Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill. Today many white Democrats are opposed to paying African Americans trillions of dollars in Reparation Pay, money that should be paid by the Democratic Party.
History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.
Congressional records show it was Democrats that strongly opposed the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. These three Amendments were introduced by Republicans to abolish slavery, give citizenship to all African Americans born in the United States and, give Blacks the right to vote.
Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:
Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960
And during the 60's many Democrats fought hard to defeat the
1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Voting Rights Acts
1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Court records shows that it was the Democrats that supported the Dred Scott Decision. The decision classified Blacks and property rather than people. It was also the racist Jim Crow practices initiated by Democrats that brought about the two landmark cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education.
At the turn of the century (1900), Southern Democrats continued to oppress African Americans by placing thousands in hard-core prison labor camps. According to most historians, the prison camps were far worst than slavery. The prisoners were required to work from 10-14 hours a day, six to seven days a week in temperatures that exceeded 100 degrees and in temperatures that fell well below zero. The camps provided free labor for building railroads, mining coal-mines and for draining snake and alligator invested swamps and rivers. Blacks were transported from one project to another in rolling cages similar to the ones used to transfer circus animals. One fourth of the prison populations were children ages 6 to 18. Young Cy Williams age 12, was sentenced to 20 years for stealing a horse that he was too small to ride. Eight-year old Will Evans was sentenced to 2 years of hard labor for taking some change from a store counter and six-year old Mary Gay was sentenced to 30 days for taking a hat. While authorities sent whites to jail for the same offenses, they sent blacks to the prison camps with much longer sentences. Thousands died from malaria, frost bites, heat strokes, shackle poisoning, others were buried alive in collapsing mines, or blown to pieces in tunnel explosions, and still others drowned in swamps or were beaten and shot to death. Every southern black citizen was a potential prisoner for any alleged small offense, including violating evening curfews. Through the prison camp system, southern owners of railroads, mines and farms had an unlimited source of free labor. The black prisoners played a major role the South's economic development. Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative, said, in his opinion, "the prison camps were a new form of slavery, but far more inhumane."
History reveals that it was three white persons that opposed the Democrat's racist practices who started the NAACP.
Dr. Martin Luther King, several Civil Rights leaders and many historians reported that during the first two years of his administration, President John F. Kennedy ignored Dr. King's request for Civil Rights. The chronicles of history reveal that it was only after television coverage of riots and several demonstrations did President Kennedy feel a need to introduce the 1963 Civil Rights Act. At that time, experts believe the nation was headed toward a major race war.
History reveals that it was Democratic Attorney General, Robert Kennedy that approved the secret wire taps on Dr, Martin Luther King Jr., and it was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson that referred to Dr. King as " that nigger preacher." Senator Byrd referred to Dr. King as a "trouble maker" who causes trouble and then runs like a "coward," when trouble breaks out.
Over the strong objections of racist Republican Senator Jessie Helms, Republican President Ronald Reagan, signed into law, a bill to make Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday. Several Republican Senators convinced President Reagan this was the right thing to do.
Congressional records show after signing the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act and issuing Executive Order 11478, Richard Nixon, a Republican, that started what we know as Affirmative Action.
On December 15, 1994, federal Judge David V. Kenyon issued a court order to the Clinton Administration in the Case of Fairchild v Robert Reich Secretary of Labor (#CV92-5765 Kn). The order demanded that Secretary Reich and the Clinton Administration force 100 west coast shipping to develop an Affirmative Action plan to stop discrimination against, African Americans, Hispanics, Female and Disabled Workers. Female employees were being sexually harrassed, Hispanic were being denied promotions and training, Disable Workers were being laid off, and African Americans were being force to work in an environment where they had job classification called " Nigger Jobs." Clinton left office six years later and never complied with the court order. The companies still do not have an Affirmative Action Plan.
President Clinton sent 20, 000 troops to protect the white citizens of Europe's Bosnia, but sent no troops to Africa's Rwanda to protect the black citizens there. Consequently over 800,000 Africans were massacre
During the 2003 Democratic Primary debates, the Rev. Al Sharpton, said the Democrat take the black vote for granted and treat African American like a mistress. They [Democrats} will take us to the dance, but they don't want to take us home to meet mama."
On December 3, 2002, President Clinton spoke to Democratic Leadership Council in New York regarding the future of the Democratic Party and how they could retake the White House. At no time did he address Civil Rights issues for blacks or doing things to improve the conditions of African Americans. His only reference to Civil Rights was Civil Rights for Gays. His only reference to improving communities was his recommendation to revisit the Marshall Plan to re-build communities in other countries. His entire speech was aired on C-Span.
After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today. Congressional records show that all previous legislation (since 1964) had strong bi-partisan support, even though some Democrats debated and voted against these laws.
After reviewing all of the evidence, many believe America would have never experienced racism to the degree that it has, had not the Democrats promoted it through:
Racist Legislation
Terrorist Organizations
Negative Media Communications
Bias Education
Relentless Intimidation
And Flawed Adjudication.
The racism established and promoted by members of the Democratic Party affected and infected the entire nation from 1856 with the Dred Scott decision, to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case. But they never offered or issued an apology.
Today both parties must remember their past. The Democrats must remember the terrible things they did to Blacks and apologize and the Republicans must remember the terrific things they did for Blacks and re-commit to complete the work that their predecessors started and died for.
Posted by: ForALLThePeople on April 11, 2008 10:36 PMYou said this:
"These aren't long from ago history, these are recent history. I don't think any party which attracts such hateful people as these can make any sort of claim of being inclusive for ALL the people.
Posted by ForALLThePeople at April 11, 2008 10:28 PM
A couple of questions to you:
1. Do you know ANY race, religion, political party or organization that is absolutely totally free of bigotry. Is there any group that you can name that has never had at least one of its members that could not reasonably be accused of bigotry?
2. Do you ever read BIAW newsletters?
3. Are you a moral relativist? If one individual or group is a bigot, does that let bigots that you favor off the hook?
Now, if your next question is have I condemned the remarks of Rev. Wright and Farrakan, I have. So, do you condemn conservatives and republicans who make similiar remarks or is it only dems you go after.
Again, for the record, the list you posted, ALL should be condemned.
Posted by: WVH on April 11, 2008 10:38 PMA former newspaper publisher and radio talk show host and in his current profession as a fact-finding investigator in discrimination cases for the plaintiff, Rev. Perryman devotes much of his time serving his church and the inner-city
community
As a community activist, Rev. Perryman has received commendations from members of the United States Congress, former Washington State governor, Booth Gardner, and former Seattle mayor Charles Royer. In addition to this recognition, Perryman's work with children, professional athletes, gang members, and major corporations has resulted in local, national and international media coverage, including Sports Illustrated, Parade Magazine, Sports Illustrated For Kids, Seattle Times, Seattle P.I, Ebony Magazine, Upscale Magazine, EM Magazine, Christianity Today, The Personnel Administrator, ABC Home Show, TBN, The 700 Club, and Italy's Speak Up Magazine. Rev. Perryman is a former recording artist, a former radio talk show host, the author of several books and publications, the father of four, Associate Minister of Mt. Calvary Christian Center Church of God in Christ, and the owner of Consultants Confidential.
He has written a very interesting book:
Here is a review:
In his review of this book R. Lau attempts to "prove" that all Republicans are racists by misquoting Barry Goldwater's famous acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican Convention. Lau "quotes" Goldwater as saying that "Extremism in defense of SEGREGATION is no vice." Every sentient American knows tat what Goldwater actually said was this: "Extremism in defense of LIBERTY is no vice." Barry Goldwater was no racist. And neither is the Republican Party
This dishonest attempt to portray Republicans as racists has been perpetrated by the Democratic Party for the past thirty years. Anyone who watched the performance of Democratic Senators like Teddy Kennedy in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Judge Sam Alito appointment to the Supreme Court this week has witnessed the absurd and dishonest lengths to which they are willing to go to perpetuate that myth.
What the Rev. Perryman points out in this book is that for over a hundred years from 1854 to 1964 the Republican Party was the sole champion of emancipation, of equal rights for blacks, of putting an end to racial segregation, and of anti lynching laws; while the Democrats precipitated and fought a civil war to preserve slavery, enacted and enforced the Jim Crow laws that created the segregated South, and invented and repeatedly used the Senate filibuster to block the enactment of anti lynching bills introduced by Republicans.
It is true that by the 1960s the effort to end segregation and discrimination had become a bi-partisan effort. Democratic President Harry Truman took a courageous stand against segregation in 1948, splitting his party; and Lyndon Johnson introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But neither of these laws could have been enacted without Republican support. Republican Senators and Congressmen overwhelmingly voted in favor of these bills, while one third of the Democrats in both houses of Congress voted against them, and mounted a filibuster in the Senate to prevent their enactment -- a filibuster that was broken only with Republican votes.
It is also a fact that the first crack in the wall of legal segregation came in 1954 with the Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education outlawing segregation in the public schools. It was a unanimous decision supported by both the Republican and Democratic Justices; and the opinion of the Court was written by Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren.
It is also a fact that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was the first President since Republican President U.S. Grant to send federal troops to the South to enforce the rights of African Americans, by upholding court ordered desegregation of the Little Rock public schools.
It was also a Republican, Richard Nixon, who established affirmative action as federal policy by issuing an Executive Order requiring that federal construction jobs be given to minority firms.
And finally, Republican President George W. Bush has appointed more minorities to high ranking administrative and judicial positions than any other President before him, including eight out of fifteen Cabinet posts (three Blacks, two Hispanics, two Asians and one Arab American) -- more than all of his Democratic predecessors combined.
The claim that the Democratic Party has been the only advocate of civil rights for blacks and other minorities is a myth invented and perpetuated by partisan Democrats. It is this myth that the Rev. Perryman seeks to dispel with his book UNFOUNDED LOYALTY.
Posted by: ForALLThePeople on April 11, 2008 10:48 PMWow... I pray this is on video somewhere, and if he gets the nomination, the McCain camp starts running this nonstop (along with all the incredibly condescending things his wife has said about America). This could be priceless.
Posted by: Mike H on April 11, 2008 11:01 PM1. I do not think ALL conservatives are racist
2. I do not think ALL republicans are racist.
3. I do not think All people of ________race, religion, or creed are racist and I do not advocate killing any one because of their race, creed or religion.
ALL flavors have engaged in racism, bigotry, or even genocide at different times in history.
Now, to balanced, here is an article on the "Southern Strategy."
Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism
Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002 By JACK WHITE Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades
Article ToolsPrintEmailReprintsSphereAddThisRSSYahoo!
Buzz Here's some advice for Republicans eager to attract more African-American supporters: don't stop with Trent Lott. Blacks won't take their commitment to expanding the party seriously until they admit that the GOP's wrongheadedness about race goes way beyond Lott and infects their entire party. The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies.
The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out...."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html?cnn=yes
The opinion piece was written in 2002 and appeared in Time.
Again, for those selective readers, bigotry comes in all flavors.
You said this:
A couple of questions to you:
1. Do you know ANY race, religion, political party or organization that is absolutely totally free of bigotry. Is there any group that you can name that has never had at least one of its members that could not reasonably be accused of bigotry?
2. Do you ever read BIAW newsletters?
3. Are you a moral relativist? If one individual or group is a bigot, does that let bigots that you favor off the hook?
Now, if your next question is have I condemned the remarks of Rev. Wright and Farrakan, I have. So, do you condemn conservatives and republicans who make similiar remarks or is it only dems you go after.
Again, for the record, the list you posted, ALL should be condemned.
Posted by WVH at April 11, 2008 10:38 PM
Here are the answers to your questions in the order asked:
1) I am not the one who has chosen guilt by association as my means of selecting my gubernatorial candidate. Or should I say "selective" guilt buy association.
2) No I do not read them. Do you read Rev Farrakahn's newsletters?
3) No I am not. Wrong is wrong. Why do you make such a presumption? In fact moral relativist might best describe yourself who has admitted to knowledge of the racist treatment given prominent African Americans such as Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele and Condi Rice yet you press on with that Democrat Party, going so far as to state that Gregoire will be for ALL the people.
Well that is actually quite ironic because, Mrs Gregoire has history of NOT being for ALL the people.
In 1966, she joined the racist Southern Based Kappa Delta sorority at the UW. When she learned that it only allowed White Christian women, she stayed.
King County Councilman Larry Gossett, who was president of UW's Black Student Union at the same time Gregoire was president of Kappa Delta, says Gregoire's brand of activism was a toothless response to racism.
"If we had listened to the kind of logic that Christine Gregoire was putting forth, it would've been another 20 years before we saw any significant gains," said Gossett.
Gossett said Gregoire would have had more impact if she had shunned Kappa Delta and publicly exposed the sorority's discriminatory policy. He acknowledges it would have been hard for Gregoire to take such a stand, especially on an overwhelmingly white campus.
"But that would have been something she could really be talking about now in her campaign for governor," said Gossett
For the record, I could give a flip about Rossi, so let's get that one out of the way alright?
Your integrity would be intact had you said you refuse to vote for either. Yes, one of them will be governor, but you would have a clear conscious and intact principles. Instead, you went for the feel good choice that requires you to trash the very principles you say you support.
Now,I want to ask you a question:
1) Germans in WWII looked the other way as the Jews were hauled away. Whites looked the other way when African Americans were sold as slaves, were lynched and were not allowed EQUAL access through institutionalized racism.
Which was worse?
Posted by: ForALLThePeople on April 11, 2008 11:11 PMI have a lot of respect for Rev. Perryman. He echos many of the same thoughts of Bill Cosby.
Just curious, many conservatives in a argument will drag out the one person of color who argees with them on the particular point they are attempting to make because it then allows them to call anyone who doesn't agree with them liberal, socialist or victim. There are a range of opinions in any community, but there seems to be a uniformity in conservative circles of attempting to argue the only racists in US history were those bigoted dems. Truth be told, I owe the fact that I am not a slave to the Christians and other people of faith who were civil rights advocates. These people of faith were from all political persuasions. The three civil rights workers whose story was told in Mississippi burning were two Jews and a Christian. It was people of faith, I give credit to. Parties do what parties always do, they do what is politically expedient.
Posted by: WVH on April 11, 2008 11:12 PM"So, do you condemn conservatives and republicans who make similiar remarks or is it only dems you go after."
If there is a dearth of attention payed to such remarks by any party, I will focus on those.
Do you feel there has been a dearth of coverage on racist remarks made by Republicans or conservatives in comparison to coverage given to those kinds of remarks by Progressive/Liberals Democrats?
1. You didn't answer the question posed. The answer is that all groups have members that are bigoted. Bigots come in all flavors. You are correct, I am chosing my candidate for governor on the basis of the type of MAJOR support that Senator Rossi is getting from certain groups and individuals. The Nazi envios article was a major factor.
2. No, I don't read Farrakan's articles, I have read about him in other publications. One article on Nazis was posted here. Did you read that?
3. Governor Gregoire was wrong in the way that she handled the Kappa Delta incident. Now, here is what I have said, she is the best candidate to govern ALL the people. We have two viable choices and in my opinion, she is the better choice.
4. To the question you asked:
"Now,I want to ask you a question:
1) Germans in WWII looked the other way as the Jews were hauled away. Whites looked the other way when African Americans were sold as slaves, were lynched and were not allowed EQUAL access through institutionalized racism.
Which was worse?"
There is no moral equivalance. They were both wrong, neither was worse. When one is confronted by evil, one has to act.
There were German patriots:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a patriotic German and theologian, opposed Nazism and even participated in a plot to kill Hitler.
The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Home Page offers a biography, bibliography, and links to on-line resources
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/PEOPLE/resister.htm
The abolitionists were people of faith.
Because a lot of the resistence in Germany and slavery came from people of faith, they acted out of a universal ethical judgement, not moral relativism.
Have you read his resume? He appears to be a genuinely concerned person try to make a difference. He is by no means a Republican stooge.
Did you know Bill Cosby is Dr. Cosby?
Just curious, many conservatives in a argument will drag out the one person of color who argees with them on the particular point they are attempting to make because it then allows them to call anyone who doesn't agree with them liberal, socialist or victim.
First off, I don't consider this an argument, do you? I thought it was a discussion?
Have I called you any of those things? Do we have to hate each other if we disagree?
There are a range of opinions in any community, but there seems to be a uniformity in conservative circles of attempting to argue the only racists in US history were those bigoted dems.
You may be too narrow in the conservative circles you interact with. Is SP the only avenue you use to get your world view of conservatives?
Because in my opinion, no one should get their opinion of any group off the internet. I have found that on the internet you get the extremes of all sides. Do you think if one limited their interaction with liberals to HorsesAss.org that they would have an accurate opinion of liberals?
Truth be told, I owe the fact that I am not a slave to the Christians and other people of faith who were civil rights advocates. These people of faith were from all political persuasions. The three civil rights workers whose story was told in Mississippi burning were two Jews and a Christian. It was people of faith, I give credit to. Parties do what parties always do, they do what is politically expedient.
Yes they do. That is why I cannot lock step with any party.
Posted by: ForALLThePeople on April 11, 2008 11:33 PMI condemn the dem bigots as well. But, in terms of the media attention, probably many dems get a pass. The reason is moral relativism. Most journalists are probably dem or leaning dem and they write their votes. It is more difficult to keep things quiet because of the net.
Posted by: WVH on April 11, 2008 11:36 PM
You wrote:
"1. You didn't answer the question posed. The answer is that all groups have members that are bigoted. Bigots come in all flavors. You are correct, I am chosing my candidate for governor on the basis of the type of MAJOR support that Senator Rossi is getting from certain groups and individuals. The Nazi envios article was a major factor."
I reject the notion that one must choose between the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil. There is no favorite bigot in my world. If there in yours? None is a valid choice when faced with two evils.
"Now, here is what I have said, she is the best candidate to govern ALL the people. We have two viable choices and in my opinion, she is the better choice."
I disagree. I think what you mean to say is that she is the less evil choice in your eyes. Judging by her cowardice to stand up for ALL the people, I disagree that she is the best choice to govern ALL the people. Don't presume to think I am arguing Rossi is either.
None. I will not sanction any bigot or their parties in order to gain something for myself as a lesser of two evils choices. For when I accept that flawed reasoning, I become no better than the power seeking bigots I claim to reject. The enablers of bigots are just as guilty.
You wrote:
"When one is confronted by evil, one has to act."
Did Christine Gregoire act in 1966? Why is that all of a sudden excusable?
1. Yes, Dr. Bill got his Ed.D, from UMass, I believe.
2. I never considered Rev. Perryman a republican stooge. My observation is that many conservatives look for a person of color or quote that will back up their ideology.
3. I live in Seattle and I am trying to broaden my education. One only has so much time. There are a couple of what I consider principled conservatives who post here. This site is good because it is good training for dealing with wackos. There seems to be a range of types of conservatives.
4. I am an independent. The problem with this state is that it is pretty much one-party. For city races, there really isn't any opposition party. Reading this site has answered my question as to why this is a one-party state. If this is the majority conservative thought, you say that it isn't, the republican party will be holding their meetings in a large bathroom. There is no way some candidate espousing these ideas will get elected in an urban area.
Posted by: WVH on April 11, 2008 11:46 PMInteresting discussion. In the real world we have two choices. Governor Gregoire is the better choice. What she did 20-30 years ago was wrong. She is still the better choice. I suppose you don't have any act of moral cowardice in your background which is why you feel you can judge her. That is your choice. At this point in time, she is the better choice. If you don't agree, don't vote for her. She doesn't have to threaten, intimidate, investigate, or force anyone to vote for her. Vote your conscience.
I not only plan to vote for her, but to urge others to do the same. Interesting discussion, but we part company on the governor's race.
Posted by: WVH on April 11, 2008 11:53 PM1. Yes, Dr. Bill got his Ed.D, from UMass, I believe.
Even though he is *AHEM* get up in age, he is wise beyond his years.
My observation is that many conservatives look for a person of color or quote that will back up their ideology.
Don't people in general look for quotes to back up their points? Why is is it more sinister if a conservative does it than if a liberals or other person does it? Does it make the quote any less true or false?
I live in Seattle and I am trying to broaden my education. One only has so much time. There are a couple of what I consider principled conservatives who post here. This site is good because it is good training for dealing with wackos. There seems to be a range of types of conservatives.
You don't find any variation anywhere else in the political spectrum? There are conservative whackos and no liberal or other types of whackos?
I am an independent. The problem with this state is that it is pretty much one-party. For city races, there really isn't any opposition party. Reading this site has answered my question as to why this is a one-party state. If this is the majority conservative thought, you say that it isn't, the republican party will be holding their meetings in a large bathroom. There is no way some candidate espousing these ideas will get elected in an urban area.
Of those people who live in your neighborhood, have you ever met a single conservative person who considered themselves closer to Republicans than Democrats?
Did it ever occur to you perhaps that they vote for one party might be due to a "universal ethical judgement" as you mentioned in a previous post?
Posted by: ForALLThePeople on April 12, 2008 12:03 AMI actually haven't polled all conservatives or all liberals. I have lived too long to make the presumption that any web site or indivdual or even small groups represents all thought of any particular group.
It will always be the cranks that get the most attention anywhere. It is the train wreck effect I guess. In our media society, the calm voices of reason are boring to media types.
You seem to have hit upon the problem which is labels. I believe in Seattle, there are many fiscally conservative types who want accountability in government and really want the trains to run on time as they say. They vote for dems because while they may not personally want an abortion, they want it available. Further, they are probably more accepting of gay issues. So, while they might vote republican on fiscal issues, they will never vote republican on social issues.
There are wackos of every persuasion too.
I don't think that universal ethical judgments have anything to do with urban voters. Don't know what kind of community you live in, but urban voters all over the country tend to be more moderate on social issues. I think because cities have all types of people living in a densely populated space. It seems that most conservatives are so focused on social issues that it would be hard to translate that into an electoral victory in urban areas.
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 12:13 AMOn that note, I'm consistently amazed at how the Democrats can fumble like this and snatch defeat from victory. Whether it's HIllary lying about dying pregnant women or her Rambo fantasies on the one hand, or Obama sidling up to a racist pastor and effectively calling Pennsylvanians gun-toting religious wingnuts, Democrats love to shoot themselves in the foot.
Is there no sanity filter in these campaigns. I imagine there are a few Dem campaign managers that have turned to heavy drinking to help them cope with such candidate behavior.
And I'm not saying that John McCain has not committed his own someone lesser gaffes. But it is truly remarkable that the so called amazing orator would let such a whopper out.
At this point, Obama's presidential hopes should be fading fast.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 12, 2008 12:18 AMYou said:
"34. Too bad this thread has already descended into another WVH topic tangent thread. Soon it's probably going to be time to start policing the threads like Jim Miller does, so that they remain on topic."
So, I guess that is one vote to have me banned, correct?
You said:
"At this point, Obama's presidential hopes should be fading fast."
I honestly don't know what will happen. It is in the hands of the superdelegates. Same comment that I made to Michele. You were never going to vote for a dem or Nader. Your choices are Senator Mc Cain, Rep. Barr, Dr, Paul or someone you write in. The issue is whether the super delegates think Senator Obama, Senator Clinton or another candidate can appeal to independents and moderates not you.
Now, when you say policing the threads, you really mean certain posters should be banned, don't you? How libertarian and freedom loving of you. Are those the kind of thoughts they have in Atlas Shrugged?
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 12:32 AMIn truth, it really ought to be called the "Goobernatorial" race. Goober being a reference to the mechanic from Andy Griffith played by Jim Nabors.
Posted by: ForALLThePeople on April 12, 2008 12:38 AMSpeaking of fading fast.... *Yawn*
Good night all.
Posted by: ForALLThePeople on April 12, 2008 12:41 AMBack on topic, I must say that I doubt this will make much of a difference. After the primary is over the press will do their typical love affair with the D candidate and it will take something truly damning to get them to jump overboard.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 12, 2008 12:48 AMFirst, hope you are well. You are wrong, there is a desire to ban thought.
9. Gregoire has had cancer and is over 60 years old. Her health is a crapshoot. Has she released her health records? There is plenty of time for her to answer these important questions. When will she?
Posted by Smitty at April 11, 2008 09:39 PM
That was the first mention of what some posters, I would suppose to be off topic. An offhand remark about two votes was answered and yes, people do want to ban thought. It is interesting, I don't post on every thread, but every thread that I post on draws a remark that is either an outright request for banning of discussion or a more subtle, stay on topic, but if you were banned, boy would I be one happy camper.
Many of the adherents of this site are followers of Ayn Rand, it is good to learn about that thought process. It seems that that philsophy leads one to be really intolerant of any other thought, is is that the objectivism thing?
From what I have observed many libertarians have become very similiar to what they hate most, those they consider intolerant relflexive progressives. I suppose life goes full circle. Like For All, time to say goodnight.
Anyhow, take care of yourself until you have a safe journey home.
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 01:10 AMplease....you guys sund desperate for turmoil.
if you want a big political story, why not focus on the fact that the president all but admitted that he authorized war crimes and that we have an administration of people who authorized torture.
re the "bitter" comments, here's obama's response in his own words....
"Here's what's rich," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton says, 'Well I don't think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. I think Barack's being condescending.' John McCain says, 'Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? He's obviously out of touch with people. '"
"Out of touch?" Obama said. "I mean, John McCain, it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he's saying I'm out of touch?"
Posted by: dinesh on April 12, 2008 07:37 AMThis is the show that just keeps on giving :-)
Posted by: Andy on April 12, 2008 07:51 AMObama's Pennsylvania gaffe reveals him for the snotty, big city elitist liberal that we knew he was. Big city libs will always vote for the Dems. As for the rest of the country? You might ask George McGovern about how flyover country feels about far left candidates.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 08:10 AMYour Obama-colored glasses have you missing the rather important point of what he implied in his statement. You try and pass it off that Obama simply stated that some people were bitter. If only that were what he said. If that was all he wanted to say, why not simply say something like:
There are plenty of people in these towns who have lost their jobs yadda, yadda. They have heard promises from the government yadda, yadda. It is understandable they might be bitter.
But that is not what came out of his mouth. What he implied was that bitterness is the cause of their fascination with guns and religion, and why they are racist and protectionist in their attitudes.
What Obama did was to paint with a broad brush and to malign a certain demographic.
I am guessing that the reason you do not see anything wrong with what he said is that you probably believe the truth in his judgment. You probably believe that all small town people are small minded, gun loving, racist, protectionists that cling to an antiquated and disproven religiosity.
In addition, you assume that since you and those who believe like you feel that government is the cause and the redemption of all your ills that people in small-town America must also believe that.
And herein lies the key points to Obama's "fumble". He has proven that he does not know these people. Obama had immersed himself into the Chicago inner-city culture. A culture, if we are to understand anything from Jeremiah Wright's preaching, that sees people as victims of the powerful who must look to others for their redemption.
Obama's mistake was not so much that he maligned a group of people, it is more that he has proven that he is a bigot. He has prejudged a segment of our population out of ignorance. This same mistake, made by a white person talking about blacks, or a man talking about women, or a Christian talking about Muslims would result in severe criticism by you and other apologists for Obama.
What Obama's statement proves is his rank parochialism and his unpreparedness to be a leader for this country.
Posted by: Eyago on April 12, 2008 08:34 AMOnly an idiot would be able to take what he said and be able to twist it into a slight on a certain demographic. It's pathetic, and shows a certain fascination with unsubstantiated character assassination.
And if you think that McCain isn't elitist, I think that you probably haven't read his biography. He's not exactly salt of the earth, and it makes me laugh uncontrollably to think that dimwitted Republicans can think that this is not just rank hypocrisy.
Posted by: ancc on April 12, 2008 09:08 AMAs for WVH, no banning, just deleting off topic comments. Have some respect for the discussion at hand. And when you continually take the bait of other commenters leading you down a tangent, you are at least half responsible.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 12, 2008 09:38 AMYour rhetorical skills need some fine tuning. You start off with a little ad hominem, followed up by a failure to justify your point, and finish up with a little ignoratio elenchi.
If you are going to justify Obama's statement as not being woefully ignorant and bigoted, you will have to provide some sort of explanation and context for the rather highly connotative terms he used to describe those to whom he was referring.
Posted by: Eyago on April 12, 2008 09:50 AMHe's an excellent role model here. He clings to his congregation of the G_d-Damned Americans no matter how many years the sorehead anti-American, down-with-middle-classness preaching continues to spew. He's the very picture of complicit loyalty.
Only, you know, just between us chosen few, them guys who cling to guns and pro-American Christianity are just loyal to the wrong things. When he 'brings the country together', it'll be in HIS church, not the Pennsylvanians.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 12, 2008 10:01 AMWhat did Obama say? PA has been languishing through multiple administrations and their promisses to lift PA out of its fiscal and employment funk. That they are leary of any politician cause they haven't seen any action from anybody once they are in office. That people tend to focus on something, anything, religion, 2nd amendment, whatever, to make them feel better and have a focal point.
Yup, pretty threatening. I can't believe it.
I don't even know who I'm voting for yet. But McCain has pretty much promissed more of the same in regard to what Bush has done. Ummm. Yeah that's not working out so well right now. And hasn't been for a few years.
Posted by: Mr. RCguy on April 12, 2008 10:03 AMKeep whistling past the graveyard...
Posted by: Rick D. on April 12, 2008 10:13 AMAs has been only marginally mentioned in the MSM, both in the IL State Leg and the US Senate, Obama's voting record is one of if not THE most liberal of all members; by some accounting even more liberal than TED KENNEDY (reflect on THAT for a bit, and be afraid: Be VERY afraid).
Trying to be at least marginally objective here, I will grant that Obama's past voting record does not necessarily guarantee that all his actions if elected President would be hard over the radical left-wing edge. But from the ''look at what he's done and not just what he says'' perspective, I can't see how anyone could try and maintain that Obama has for his entire public political life been anything other than a hard-core liberal across the board.
The big problem is that hoi polloi do not get the ''hard-core liberal'' picture from their 30-second sound-bite world-view; or even if they attend Obama's rallies and take the time to listen to some of his longer speeches.
And don't underestimate this guy: Obama is very smart, he usually gives a great speech that makes him come across as not-too-far left of center mainstream (D), and has generated huge support from segments of the population that have largely been unenthusiastic about national politics; especially among recently minted voters.
OTOH, Eric's thread starter heading was a perfect summary comment; i.e.:
Major F-U-M-B-L-E-!
And not only is Obama's condescending statement about small town America going to be hard to smooth over, I sense that is it one of those revealing moments that might (maybe) get the MSM rolling on a more intensive and detailed public review of Obama's record. And if they don't; well...: That's what a national campaign if for, if (as it still almost surely will be) it ends up being McCain versus Obama in the fall. Stay tuned.
ummm yeah, if you switched out the word gun with the word fried chicken and the word religion with watermelon and if it was McCain speaking about people in Detroit...........Then you'd say it was a bigoted remark right?
I love how people try to justify bigoted remarks like what Obama said. At this point, working in the Obama campaign is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.......she's going down folks.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 12, 2008 10:28 AMLiberals make condescending comments like this about rural Americans all the time among themselves. Anyone who attends any sort of function in Seattle has experienced this behavior. Liberals tend to assume everyone else is one of them. I'm reminded of the woman who was astounded when Nixon was elected President. No one she knew had voted for him.
The irony here is almost beyond measure. It's so refreshing to see a liberal caught up in what I would describe as a case of reverse political correctness. How sweet it is!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 10:29 AMYou are failing to understand the distinction between what you want Mr. Obama's point to be and what he actually said.
It is simply not sufficient to argue that "what he meant was blah, blah blah...." You cannot simply wipe away the pointed and bigoted caricature he painted of the people of Pennsylvania. You cannot simply ignore the context and the audience to whom he was speaking.
In a patronizing tone: "Well, you know those confused and misguided people in the small towns. They have been through some tough times and all. But we have to understand that they are simply a product of their environment. Their love of guns and religion and their hatred of foreigners...well, that's just because they are bitter because the government hasn't come and rescued them. They're just ignorant." (Nodding heads from the SF billionaire set.)
The point here is that Obama was talking to people who are not from that environment and have little to no commonality with them philosophically, so when Obama uses specific and connotative terms to describe them to people who have very specific biases against those who are pro-gun and pro-"religion", he was either specifically playing into their prejudices, or he was letting his own biases come through in a crowd where he felt safe enough to do so.
Either way, he framed the issue very differently than you and other apologists have when he made his statement, and that particular framing of the issue is far more significant than the issue that he was simply pointing out the plight of the people in that state. As I posted previously, he could have achieved what you claim he intended WITHOUT the connotative references. In other words, it is how he said it that matters, and no argument about what he was "trying to say" matters in comparison.
Posted by: Eyago on April 12, 2008 11:07 AMyou're dead on right about this Bill. I think we've all had encounters with workmates, associates, etc. that just assume because you live and work in Seattle that you're a far left loon with a "free Tibet" bumpersticker on your subaru.
The fun part is watching them squirm when I tune into 570KVI or 770KTTH and you can practically see the steam coming out of their ears. You know they're dying to say something because you've turned their little imaginary world upside down, but instead..only silence.
I chuckle everytime.
I like to call Seattle the "echo chamber of ignorance".......a fitting term don'tcha think?
Posted by: Rick D. on April 12, 2008 11:30 AMOne thing that keeps getting lost in the various recitations by the leftist apologists is the fact that the problem isn't "how he said it," it's the fact that he/they "think it" even if they don't say it. The fact that they can't effectively mount a defense for the continual series of gaffes only confirms that they don't see anything wrong with the general leftist mindset, but that it's politically expedient to hide their true orientation. It's like when one of BC's advisors admitted after an election that they had "lied" about how far to the left Clinton really was in order to get elected.
And it's sad/funny that in a discussion about BO, they keep bringing up McCain as if claiming him to be imperfect somehow lessens the habitual inappropriateness and lack of qualifications of BO. Or HRC.
In some ways, this election is starting to have a similar appearance to the Kennedy/Johnson vs. Nixon contest of my youth. It's just sort of the mirror image, with BO the flip side of Johnson and HRC enjoying the same blind loyalty and sense of entitled elitism Kennedy did. McCain really isn't much like Nixon, though, other than not really having appeal to the more conservative portion of the party. Besides, McCain doesn't enjoy Nixon's association with DDE as Bush 2 doesn't have the same emotional appeal, nor is he burdened by the House Committee etc. Nixon certainly wasn't the war hero.
Where is Michelle Obama? Doesn't she care to defend her husband? Why the silence Michelle?
I would hope my spouse would have a little more respect for me in troubled times, but I guess Barack isn't that fortunate.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 12, 2008 11:48 AMDefinitely not "Chink", only Democrats in Washington State call Asians 'Chinks'.
Posted by: Smitty on April 12, 2008 12:07 PMAlan Colmes is a master at this, constantly interrupting conservative guests with this sort of litany when anyone speaks ill of Hillary or Obama.
Liberals are so much like little kids when they don't get their way.
Once people realize that liberalism doesn't have a single success story they can point to Democrats in their present form likely will never win another election.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 12:43 PMIt's instructive to see how Democrats / Progressives are forced to apply their relativistic / fixed pie world view in their analysis, because this is all that their closed ideology will allow them to do. In other words, in their limited thinking, rural Pennsylvanians must be gun -toting religious wingnuts. Makes perfect sense to them. And all blacks are by definition victims. Etc.
And the fixed-pie relativist thinking comes in their obvious attempts to equivocate everything. As Michelle Obama puts it, they are willing to take one group's pie and give it to another group. THUS: if for example it came out that Obama once shot a man, then the left would reciprocate with, well yeah, McCain once shot a squirrel. At all costs they are unwilling and unable to acknowledge absolute differences and absolute right and wrong. This is the core of Progressive philosophy. Know thy enemy.
The point is not to try and explain away Obama's gaffes, but to understand what they mean in total context. And this is the objective and meritorious ideology of the right, and in large degree independents and Americans in general.
American are great scorekeepers. And candidates get elected after Americans do a mental tallly of the score formed over the course of the election cycle. The mental tally for Obama is nearing a devastating loss, if it is not there already.
If the Dem powers that be were smart, at this point, they would start to gravitate towards Hillary Clinton, but there is the usual component of Kennedy-esque messianic adoration for Obama. This will blind them until it is far too late.
Progressive ideology is fundamentally based on flawed concepts, that don't work, don't adhere to human metaphysics, human psychology, etc. It's no wonder they almost always implode. There is nothing there of substance to begin with.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 12, 2008 01:04 PMOnce people realize that liberalism doesn't have a single success story they can point to Democrats in their present form likely will never win another election.
Liberalism doesn't have a single success story? So conservatives are really racking up the successes, eh?
Posted by: ancc on April 12, 2008 01:08 PMAll the more fun to read when one has just mentioned it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 01:13 PMThe difference, of course, is that the policies of Republicans seem especially designed to sell out these people, at the expense of seeming as if they're identifying them on some of the more superficial things. I don't give a crap if the president likes opera, bowling, basketball or NASCAR... just as long as they're presenting policies that aren't essentially going to eviscerate already declining communities.
Posted by: ancc on April 12, 2008 01:18 PMThe fallback position for the libs when challenged is always, "well, Republicans suck". Such meaningful dialogue.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 01:20 PMThe difference, of course, is that the policies of Republicans seem especially designed to sell out these people,...
Specifics would really make your postings more useful. Your postings amount to little more than Democrats rule, Republicans drool. So, could you state the specific policies that you allude to and how they specifically sell out "these people"?
Posted by: Eyago on April 12, 2008 01:36 PMMcCain is clearly the only viable candidate at this juncture and while not my first choice, I'll gladly vote for him in November given the limited field of choices.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 12, 2008 01:39 PMTAX CUTS "FOR THE RICH!!!!"
(ignoring the fact that taxes were cut for all, and that it is "the rich" who provide those crazy "job" things for people - thus interfering with the duty of the Nanny State)
Unfortunately, that is simply not true. Because you want to think rationally, you wish to assume rational and/or honest behavior from leftist scribes. Don't fall into that trap. Al Gore repeatedly steps in it and always has...and always gets a free pass, perhaps even an undeserved award or two. He wrote a book that Dr. Ray skewered point by point, and it's Ray that the press went after. And how many free passes has Jimmy Carter received?
There's simply no end to the "Get out of jail free" cards available to those who champion the lunacy of the radical left.
They may appear to strive for the guise of legitimacy, but that is really not the source of their compelling drive--it's to further the agenda, no matter what the cost. The mantle of objectivity and legitimacy is really the proverbial sheep's clothing.
Where Wright's comments and Obama's remarks will end up damaging him is among undecided voters and so-called moderate Democrats in the general election. He may already be unelectable.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 02:34 PMSure, the great unwashed in Penn will react appropriately, but you won't observe the msm leading the charge against him. Or them.
The treatment BC received while misbehaving in office should serve as an object lesson that no sin is too great to ignore when carrying the mantle of leftist leadership.
If/when BO falls by the wayside, however, all bets are off. The left eats it's dead.
As a quasi- member of the great unwashed, I can't help but ponder if the antics of the left in BO and HRC is more like stock eliminators or figure 8 racing. Or perhaps it's more like the Viking concept of Valhalla, where they arise each morning from the debris of the previous days misadventures and attempt to figure out how then can fool 'em again today.
Posted by: scott158 on April 12, 2008 03:10 PMMASSIVE TAXATION, MASSIVE SOCIAL PROGRAM SPENDING,
Posted by: GS on April 12, 2008 03:11 PMAll candidates make stupid remarks and remarks which show they don't know what they are talking about. I believe Senator Mc Cain has had some "issues" regarding foreign policy topics. Most posters here aren't going to vote for any dem no matter what they say. Similarly there are some in the dem base that aren't going to vote for a pubbie, no matter what they say. The battle is for the indies and moderates.
If the dem contest actually goes to the convention, it might be Gore/Obama, sorry Duffman and Stefan can go into Global warming 2 million.
What Senator Obama said probably convinced people that were already convinced they would never vote for him, their choice was right. How moderates and indies feel several months from now, is anyone's guess. You can't always assume that people vote for a candidate, many vote AGAINST. Right now, you are assuming all the AGAINSTs are against the dem candidate. This may or may not be true in November.
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 04:27 PMPlease, spare us.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 04:41 PMThis pithy enough for you, Gore/Obama 08. You and your pals may have wasted good ink before you knew the candidate of the dems. Many people will be wearing their parkas to vote for that ticket.
How did I do?
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 04:48 PMGore/Obama 08? Could a conservative possibly hope for a better ticket?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 04:58 PMI say bring it!!
Posted by: Rick D. on April 12, 2008 05:09 PMAnd while you're pondering that, Duffman, you might want to come up with a list of Democratic policy success stories.
As a starting point, I'd suggest LBJ's "war on poverty".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 12, 2008 05:32 PMOK now, hold onto your hats - I considered Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan, Although on the left of me as one of the truly intellectual giants in Washington. I used to, when I had one of the damn things, watch him on the Sunday tv shows and always had an appreciation for his point of view.
Where am I going with this?
Should John McCain indeed select Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate, I would be impressed.
It isn't so much traditional Democrats I have serious problems with, so much as it is the loony leftists that have taken that party over, lock, stock and barrel.
McCain/Lieberman and it's all over, it will be a rout of Biblical proportions, it will be all over but the crying. Who will be left out by this? The screwball left hate Lieberman with a passion because he won't cow-tow to their agenda.
Lieberman is definitely a social leftist, but he is a reasoned, and reasonable, man. He is also a man of his convictions though, and there will be policy positions he takes that I will disagree with, but I will still respect his integrity.
Posted by: JDH on April 12, 2008 07:29 PMI'm with you on Gregoire, but it will be Gore/Obama because there are just too many global warming groupies. I don't know if global warming is real, but tons of folks think so. The republicans tipped their hand early on this one by running Rev. Wright 24/7. If this goes to the convention, it will be Gore/Obama and I know this will make Bill C and Rick D work extra hard or pee in their pants, Hillary for the Supremes as part of the deal that is cut so everyone is all family again.
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 07:32 PMI agree with you on the quality of Senator Lieberman. I doubt that it will happen because too many of the libertarian types are also anti-Israel. I believe those in your party call those who support Israel, neo-cons or something like that.
But, Senator Liberman is certainly a quality candidate.
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 07:42 PMEven if you look at the time folks are posting, there is an invention called laptop or notebook computer and other gizmos with Wi-fi. People can be any where in the world and posting. So, don't be so quick to label as people could be on a terrace, patio, or even at the beach. Instead of reading a novel, they might be here.
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 08:11 PMThe McCain camp has no reason to engage either Democrat individually, it would have been much better as an "October surprise" for the Republican. Hillary, by way of ABC, using it now thoroughly PO'd a lot of Republicans. The Obama team was naive if they thought they could "cow" McCain if he was behind in October and had this in reserve. IMHO they were giddy with their success today and were feverishly trying to figure a strategy to deal with the Wright video eight months from now. they have been sh*tting their pants over this for a year now. BUT, they were successful beyond their wildest dreams, (Obama's run this cycle was a "test run" that took off. This left Obama with no four to eight years to "see the light" and put the Wright stuff in his rear view mirror. Obama's wife is a vicious hate monger, Obama - I'm not so sure of, but he is an opportunist who clung to Wright for political expediency. He knew that Wright would have to go before any serious national campaign. I believe that he and Wright have been discussing this for years. Michele Obama is a vicious hate mongering ideologue, on whom all of this was lost, she still doesn't "get it." She thought Barak was "down with" the Wright message. She's a political idiot and neophyte. She is an idiot, she's a buffoon, she has single handedly taken the "we were not aware" defense off the table.
Obama is a great politician, if you recognize pandering as an asset. His wife, is a political MORON. With a wife with some political smarts, Obama could have gotten out of Chicago and gone national. With her - he's sunk. She simply did not understand that Wright's "church" was to be used as a stepping stone.
Posted by: JDH on April 12, 2008 08:18 PMJust say what you really feel.
1. If this goes to the convention, Senator Obama might not be at the top of the ticket.
2. Now, regarding Mrs. Obama, I seem to remember when Clinton was running the first time and similiar allegations were made against mrs. Clinton as a negative draw. There seems to be one safe model for presidential spouse and that seems to be the Lady Bird Johnson or Laura Bush model. I am not disparaging either First Lady. Spouses who don't fit this model probably should have prepared remarks always and read from a teleprompter.
I have to agree with you, if you have got negative info about a candidate, don't you spring it just before an election? I don't know if the dem grandees will be able to put someone at the top of the ticket at this point, but many of them are sure thinking about it.
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 08:40 PMSo now the JDH is sitting here, drinking beer (normally reserved for Fridays, but because there was volunteer work to do) listening to Blind Boy Fuller and just thinking out loud (typing).
Posted by: JDH on April 12, 2008 08:41 PMYou got a liberal wife. Duffman has a conservative wife. Just goes to show the women of the world are into charity cases. :-)
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 08:45 PMDude, I may take you up on that. I'm sure that Mrs. JDH must be quite a lady and something of a lion tamer to keep you in check. Anyhow, I have some respect for both you and Duffman for marrying some brainy women. Much Joy and Happiness to both families.
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 09:28 PMNow when Bill was asked about the Obama small town gaffe, he replied "I agree with whatever Hillary said."
Posted by: pbj on April 12, 2008 10:24 PMReading a novel might be more educational and better for the soul. Sometimes the bitter arguments of the internet just get too drawn out and bizzare. And does anyone really feel they are solving any of the world's problems throwing invectives back and forth in cyberspace? Really, does anyone?
On our death beads are we going to pump our fist in the air and say "yes!I showed that so and so!"
Besides, the cat prefers a nice sunny spot in in the corner to the internet. Sometimes I gotta go with the cat and her simple pleasures.
Posted by: pbj on April 12, 2008 10:32 PMThe Progressives don't want her - they want Obama. The Progressives are neo-Marxists in alot of ways. However, this is perceived as named calling - so they can referred to as the far left - who George Soros is pouring millions into the General election campaign and David Brock (one-time Republican turned left-wing wack job) is trying to focus on demonizing John McCain. Obama's economic plan is really an Obama-nation, where corporate taxes are raised to levels never attained before along with taxes of the wealthy to pay for socialized medicene (ie Universal Health Care) - Hillary's plan is similar, which makes the Democrat candidates downright scary !!
All three candidates including McCain do not have an effective solution for illegal immigration. Republicans want them for cheap labor for corporations and Democrats want them for illegal votes that they hope slip through and are somehow counted - this sounds like a blatant generation, but noone has been able to prove that this is not the case. Oh yeah - what about anyone's plan for Social Security reform ?
Posted by: KS on April 12, 2008 10:46 PMAnyone who wants to eventually advocate for an unpopular position will find this the best training possible. Politics is very nasty and if one doesn't have thick skin, one won't last. I eventually want to work for charters. This crowd is a bunch of pikers compared to the ed establishment.
Posted by: WVH on April 12, 2008 11:07 PMShe only represents herself and how many millions she can for her retirement planning.
She doesn't have a chance in hell at that office, and they know it.
Posted by: GS on April 12, 2008 11:31 PMI think in terms of the liberal base it's entirely meaningless and as I've mentioned I don't believe Hillary will get a bounce by exploiting it.
My take is that Obama has foolishly revealed to the country what condescending elitists liberals are. Oops!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 13, 2008 07:18 AMThis points out where the dems are so out of touch with American values. They are the ones who "cling" to outmoded ideas - those refuted ideals of Marx and Stalin and other dead socialists. Those ideals that forced half of humanity to endure a half century or more of slavery and poverty.
Posted by: deadwood on April 13, 2008 09:31 AMAmericans can only take so much pessimism, which is what liberals and their media toadies peddle every single day when their party is not in power.
Listen to Obama, and Hillary. They don't make a single speech without referring to people who are "only a paycheck away from the street", or who died,(a recently exposed Hillary fabrication), because they were refused medical care.
How well does that sort of negativity sell in a country so prosperous that high school kids drive nice cars to school and have $400.00 a month cell phones glued to their ears all day long?
Liberals can only win if they create a perception of misery and doom. "Global Warming" anyone?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 13, 2008 10:41 AMThat is why you get books like "What's the matter with Kansas" in which liberals put for the notion that there must somehow be something wrong with such people who wouldn't trade their principles in for a few dollars when the liberals come to town with a checkbook funded from confiscated funds.
In other words, they refuse to ally with Ceasar by accepting his ill gotten bribe money. Liberal sold out long long ago and have bought off constituencies along the way. These are people that won't give in and it just pisses liberals off.
Posted by: WhatTheMatterWithLiberals? on April 13, 2008 12:18 PMYou haven't convinced anyone of anything here. So you intend to go to the education establishment and call everyone a racist then?
Posted by: JuJu on April 13, 2008 12:22 PMHs anyone on this thread called EVERYONE of one group ALL of anything? Really, you simply can't read or either want to engage in selective reading. If you review this thread you will note that most of these posters are quite angry with Senator Obama for saying MANY people are bitter. Quite often libertarians in their arguments will use terms like ALL and use that to refer to a group of anything they hate or don't want to have power or be allowed to speak. NOTE that I said QUITE OFTEN and did not refer to ALL of anything.
So, point out where I used the term ALL to refer to anything.
One question for you, what does collectivism mean to you?
Posted by: WVH on April 13, 2008 12:37 PMWhat a crock! You state :
"Hs anyone on this thread called EVERYONE of one group ALL of anything? "
And then proceed to do exactly that to libertarians, whom you despise as a group.
Now you thought you were quite clever by prefacing with 'quite often', however what you are saying is "quite often ALL libertarians..."
You should have said "Some libertarians quite often..." but that is not what you meant was it?
You despise libertarians as a group and use the implied all to do just exactly what you accuse them "to refer to a group of anything they hate or don't want to have power or be allowed to speak".
You do not want them to have any power, therefore you espouse voting Gregoire as you postulate that will keep them from power.
Posted by: JuJu on April 13, 2008 02:28 PMActually, I don't despite or hate any race, color, or creed. As for the libertarians and Ayn Rand crowd, I am trying to understand them. Maybe you can help my study. I did not use the term ALL.
This is what the Ayn Rand Institute said about abortion rights and I know many people are upset with Senator Obama, dems, and RINOS. Please help me undertand this:
Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life
Monday, April 19, 1999
By: Leonard Peikoff
A woman has the right to control her own body.
This week hundreds of anti-abortionists will demonstrate outside Buffalo's abortion clinics, bookstores and high schools. Where is their moral opposition? Today, no one is defending the right to abortion in fundamental terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.
Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms "pro-life" and "right to life" to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.
Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase "a woman's right to choose." Does she have the right to choose murder? That's what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.
The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.
If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students....
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1087&page=NewsArticle&id=5351
Now, JuJu, I have to apologize for using Cliff's Notes, but there is a lot to wade through discovering Ms. Rand as you have. I know people here are PO'd about Senator Obama's comments regarding the Common Man. So, could you help me understand Ms. Rand's views:
Critical Essays
The Role of the Common Man in Atlas Shrugged: The Eddie Willers Story
The heroes of Atlas Shrugged are men and women of great intellect. Dagny, Rearden, Francisco, Ellis Wyatt, and, above all, Galt are superb thinkers--even geniuses. The story makes clear the multitude of ways in which the great minds are mankind's benefactors. But an honest reader may ask: What about the common man? Do heroism and moral stature require extraordinary intellectual ability, or can individuals of more modest intelligence aspire to these lofty goals? What is the relationship between a man's intelligence and his moral character? In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand gives her answer to these questions through the character of Eddie Willers.
Eddie lacks the genius possessed by his boss, Dagny Taggart. He is her diligent, able assistant, but he's not capable of building the John Galt Line, judging the merit of Rearden Metal, identifying the nature of the abandoned motor, finding a scientist capable of reconstructing the motor, or resolving the chaos that the Taggart Tunnel explosion causes. Likewise, he doesn't possess the ability to run Taggart Transcontinental
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Atlas-Shrugged-Critical-Essays-The-Role-of-the-Common-Man-in-Atlas-Shrugged-The-Eddie-Willers-Story.id-7,pageNum-94.html
It seems that for those republicans who might have difficulty with those who want current abortion law to stay as it is could have problems with the followers of Ms. Rand. Am I correct?
"Actually, I don't despite or hate any race, color, or creed. As for the libertarians and Ayn Rand crowd, I am trying to understand them. Maybe you can help my study. I did not use the term ALL."
You used the implied all. If one says Black People quite often ... or White People quite often ... , one is referring to ALL members of that group. Trying to deny that only digs you deeper.
As for Ayn Rand, never heard of her. So your presumption that I am "one of those types" is false. In fact you know nothing about me other than your preconceived prejudices about those that don't agree with everything you say.
And one needn't be a libertarian to be point out flaws in your arguments. Offering up a straw man like Ayn Rand (straw woman?) points to a fundamental weakness in your ability to address issues head on. Those education folks will eat you up like last weeks lunch special.
You might want to start with a review of logic. And come back when you have some evidence to support your assertions.
It takes a bigot to know a bigot I guess.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 13, 2008 04:59 PM1. You must be one of the few people who posts here who hasn't heard of Ayn Rand.
a. Now, what do you think of her position on abortion as re-stated by the Ayn Rand insitute?
b. What do you think of her assessment of the common man?
2. Rick D. said this:
126. "...I know people here are PO'd about Senator Obama's comments regarding the Common Man."
Posted by WVH at April 13, 2008 03:49 PM
It takes a bigot to know a