Barack Obama is the probable Democratic nominee. Let's be clear on that point since some Obama backers seem to believe that pointing out his electoral weaknesses in the primary season amounts to saying he isn't going to win the nomination. It's possible, though the superdelegates will probably fall his way barring a major gaffe or surprise revelation.
Nonetheless, the magnitude of his problem appealing to critical components of the Democratic coalition is not going to go away. Though Obama backers claim the party will unite behind him, it shouldn't take a well-paid political strategist to figure out that urban liberals are more likely to unite behind any Democratic standard bearer than Joe and Jill Six-Pack.
While the media conversation in recent days has been heavy on Obama's defeat across large swaths of Pennsylvania, Ohio isn't the only similar such state that so profoundly demonstrates the divisions in the Democratic coalition.
Lost in the shuffle of Super Tuesday were the results of Missouri and Tennessee as well. Though Obama won the former and Clinton the latter of those February 5th states, the same pattern holds across all four of these contests: Obama wins urban areas, counties with significant African-American populations, and state capitals. Absent those havens, Clinton thrashes him in the exurbs, blue-collar towns, and rural areas.
Liberals and assorted Obama sympathizers keep claiming this is all some demographic, political-wonk speak that shouldn't or won't amount to much. Lance Dickie at the Seattle Times attributes it to the Jedi mind tricks of Karl Rove. That works if one presumes that the Architect is running the New York Times, whose splendid chart looking at Clinton and Obama's victories by county validates all of the discussion of where Obama quite clearly is and isn't succeeding in swaying primary voters.
Issues are important in Presidential elections. Yet, time and again history has shown the American people also take a broader measure of the candidates - especially in comparison to one another. On that score, Obama is failing quite spectacularly with a demographic chunk of the Democratic coalition that has been known to stray to the Republican side when left wanting by Democratic fare. His failure should be recognized as even more acute given the lack of serious policy differentiation between Clinton and Obama on the issues about which idealistic liberals seem so eager to hold dialogues in perpetuity.
Thus, it's just about time to make the believed, if not stated, view of many Republicans clear on Barack Obama: "Please nominate this man."
UPDATE: the gnashing of teeth on this issue among some Democrats spills into public view.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 24, 2008 07:19 PM | Email ThisHe also holds typical leftist views about taxes. His discussion of the capital gains tax was very revealing: instead of keeping the 15% capital gains tax rate as is, he wishes to raise it---even though that means less economic freedom for taxpayers and less money to the national treasury. He's simply interested in punishing people with higher c.g. rate. Personally, I'm for more economic freedom, which has the happy added bonus of increasing the public treasury $$ in a way that bothers no one. He's too leftist. I still can't get over the fact that he makes Hillary (of all people) look moderate! I didn't think that was possible!
Posted by: Michele on April 24, 2008 07:39 PM:)
Posted by: Lysander on April 24, 2008 07:55 PMI don't think that if Senator Clinton wins the nomination that the Obama Campaign supporters will vote for Senator McCain, but they will be absolutely devastated. The loyalty to their candidate is very much emotional attachment. I see them becoming very apathetically upset and not voting at all.
Andy Rooney once did a 60 minutes segment comparing products bought and sold by the American public that weren't quite what they seemed.
Like that airpacked bag of chips that we have all been tempted to buy that contains 3/4 air and 1/4 of actual chips........but man, for $.99 it is mighty compelling to buy them isn't it?....That bag of chips reminds me alot of Senator Obama.
Read McCains New Orleans speech today, and you will find a leader in this country.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/mccains_speech_in_new_orleans.html
I'll challenge that leadership to the empty "Change Change Change" Mantra which is all I hear from your side!
Wendy's may have been sold today, but if Dave Thomas were still alive he'd be saying to the democrapic party "Where's the F'n Beef" as they chant their nothing new but tax you to death mantra!
Perhaps this is a result?
Posted by: Independent Voter on April 24, 2008 08:28 PMYou mean an increase in revenue to the IRS? I figured a liberal like you should be tinkled pink about the government getting more money.
Posted by: Mike H on April 24, 2008 08:51 PM"... the problem is with McCain. Even running unopposed he still can't catch Obama."
Translation: Put fear into your opossition even though you aren't even sure your candidate will be the one opposing the guy you're attacking.
"My guess is that independent voters, those who will ultimately decide the race, aren't willing to play the GOP's usual 'gotcha' and 'slash and burn' political games this time 'round."
translation: I don't feel confident in my base so I'm hoping beyond hope that enough suckers are stupid enough to vote for my unproven, untested and unqualified candidate. Because of this fear, I'll be sure to villify the oppostion by saying they use the tactics I employ while looking angelic and daisy fresh.
"your candidate can't beat Obama even when Obama is in a bloody brawl with a Rove wannabe like Clinton. "
translation: I'll just villify the guy that masterminded our previous defeats and transfer that villainous attribute onto our fellow party member who i've already claimed is already defeated.
Other notable regurgitation provided include:
..."Republican 'tax cuts' for the wealthiest of the wealthy " ..."plan for remaining mired in defeat in Iraq, or bombing Iran, or invading Syria, or tax cuts for the Halliburton boys while working class folks walk to work for not being able to afford gas."
[squawk,squawk]
"arthur wants a cracker"
[squawk,squawk]
If the people elect a Democrat for President, it will be about 2 years until buyers remorse sets in. My bold prediction for the 2008 election - no matter who wins will be a ONE TERM President.
Posted by: KS on April 24, 2008 09:34 PMSo, if you pubbies know what the dems will do, you are doing better than most of them. The superdelegates will decide. You guys crack me up. Prior to the caucuses there were threads where folks were calling Senator Mc Cain, no conservative and many were praying to be saved by Governor Romney, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Dr. Paul or anybody. Seems like you all drank the koolaide and are in lock-step. Pubbies are much more predictable any day of the year.
What this thread is about is you are having wet dreams hoping and praying Seantor Obama is the nominee because you think this is McGovern redux.
There is the admonition, be careful what you wish for.
2. It is the economy, stupid:
Apr 25, 12:05 AM (ET)
By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
(AP) The finances of many states have deteriorated so badly that they appear to be in a recession, regardless of whether that's true for the nation as a whole, a survey of all 50 state fiscal directors concludes.
The situation looks even worse for the fiscal year that begins July 1 in most states.
"Whether or not the national economy is in recession - a subject of ongoing debate - is almost beside the point for some states," said the report to be released Friday by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The weakening economy is hitting tax revenue in a number of ways: People's discretionary income is being gobbled up by higher food and fuel costs, while the tanking housing market means people are spending less on furniture and appliances associated with buying a house.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080425/D908LIN80.html
Posted by: WVH on April 24, 2008 10:45 PMI like the American Thinker. Now, the question to you is given what the magazine reported, how many progressives are different than Senator and Mrs. Obama? All, you have posted is you have a clear disagreement with the progressive wing of the democratic party.
The issue is not whether you and most posters here would vote for a dem, you wouldn't. The issue is whether those with no party affliation will. More of those voters watch the Daily Show than read American Thinker. Many of those voters don't have the same policy concerns that you do. Whoever wins indies and non-aligns wins the election.
Additionally, the presumptive nominee is just that. The candidate of either party has to be ratified by the convention.
Posted by: WVH on April 24, 2008 11:10 PMThe platform plank:
Democratic Party on Abortion
Party Platform
Pursue embryonic stem cell research
Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer's to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29 Jul 10, 2004
Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay
Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004
Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right
Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year's Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman's right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing.
Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm
Again, all you are saying is you don't like the philosophy of the other party.
Posted by: WVH on April 24, 2008 11:41 PMSafe? So why have abortion clinics gotten themselves exempted from cleanliness standards expected of every other medical clinic? Why do abortion extremists in New York, including Eliot Spitzer, want abortions performed by dentists, chiropractors and other seemingly unsuitable "practioners" (anyone with a medical license of any sort no matter how unrelated to abortion)?
Rare? So why have demcrats fallen all over themselves to make as many abortions happen as possible? To the tune of over a million a year? Doesn't sound rare to anyone when a huge percentage of pregnancies end in child-killing. Democrats' words on child-killing say one thing---their actions say quite another.
Posted by: Michele on April 25, 2008 12:01 AMThe point is this. Senator Obama is a democrat. Who knew. There are differences between the two parties on the issues. Unfortunately, many here don't seem to get that fact. Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all represent the democratic party. None of them would be successful in a republican caucus or primary, they are not republicans. Similiarly, for all the chest beating here during the caucus season, Senator Mc Cain is a republican. Who knew. He would not be successful running as a democrat.
Partisans of all ilks have done nothing but increase the ranks of the indies. Partisan slugs like Karl Rove and Terry Mc Auliffe are so focused on winning the next election that the political process is all about slam your opponent.
Latest wire report is Microsoft profit is down 11% and the Safeco sale means some very good jobs will probably be lost.
I really want to hear substantive debates from both the presidential and vice presidential candidates about what they would do about the economy and other issues. Right now, partisan scrapping is getting in the way of some very needed discussion of policy differences.
Posted by: WVH on April 25, 2008 12:32 AMShe and most of her fellow DemoncRATS turn a blind eye to the genocide occuring in America in the form of partial birth abortion, not realizing you can't reconcile being a Christian and supporting genocide.
Buffet Line Catholics like Wilda try to carry both banners at once and are only fooling themselves in the process.
I will admit that at Least Hillary has cut her teeth in the Democratic party (though she was basically anointed by her predecessor). I believe the term is carpetbagger isn't it Duff? She at least has put in the time while the young upstart still in diapers politically is in his first term as a US senator and has been basically running for prez for half that time....Talk about giving the finger to your Illinois constituents eh?
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 06:21 AMPursue embryonic stem cell research (dems')
Where have you been hiding. ALL of the cures that have found so far with stem cells were 'adult' type. The dem's idea has blown up in their face.
Incase you didn't notice WVH. then dem's don't even talk about stem cells. (Bush) was right and they were wrong.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 25, 2008 06:26 AMWhere have you been. Many of us were very unhappy with some of the things Bush has done...
IE. fuel for food Not saying no to TSA union and many more
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 25, 2008 06:31 AMmoderate? YEAH RIGHT BUDDY! (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 25, 2008 07:07 AMThey won't answer you, because they don't look at them as 'babies'
Yet they will scream their heads off the save someone who has murdered someone else. (sick)
One of many reasons I could never be a Dem.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 25, 2008 07:29 AMI'm totally against it - period! ...I differ in many instances from my 'leftist' (I hate tags) brethern....:)
Posted by: Duffman on April 25, 2008 07:30 AMEnergy problems. Blame the President. No. Blame the Democratic congress.
9/11 tragedy. Blame the President? No. Blame the terrorists.
Iraq war. Blame the President. Yes. And history will show that defending America by bringing the battle to the terrorists and their supporters was a winning strategy. Would the socialist, libs please provide an alternative. Recall President Carter sat in the Rose Garden betraying a friendly Shah. His inaction caused the American Embassy to be stormed, loss of American life, and a religious coupe in Iran. We confront those religious zealots today.
Obama will expand the devastation on America that the current Democratic congress launched. He will shackle citizens with high taxes, global warming initiatives, socialize medicine and a Carterisque foreign policy.
Progress is not forged with socialists
That sentence has been analyzed to death. But a single word struck me -- who are Obama's distant they?
Are they basically decent people, without a lot of education, who turn to religious and national superstitions like guns and church, or to primordial passions like racism and xenophobia, in lieu of Obama's nostrum of "hope" and "change"? "They," then, turn out to be the nice, but deluded folk -- and yet sometimes dangerous people when riled by immigrants and other races that don't look like them?"
More here: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NWU4ZjdjMGVjNzYwMmQ0OTQ3NmI4ZmU3MzJmMmQ3NGM=
Posted by: JDH on April 25, 2008 07:33 AMAt least, that is my position. I choose my candidates by sizing them up. McGovern-Nixon, e.g.- I didn't know anything about politics but McGovern scared me with his associations with Castro and my belief he couldn't push the button (time of Cold War and time when most of us didn't think we would live to be 30 due to a nuclear war) versus the 'crook'. I voted for the crook because he would at least be able to use deterrence which he did.
Posted by: swatter on April 25, 2008 07:33 AMObama ain't it.
Posted by: Gary on April 25, 2008 07:40 AM"Can't I just eat my Waffle?"
Yup. Just the kind of foreign policy experience we need in the whitehouse senator.
On a side note, Liberals care far more for clubbed baby seals than clubbed baby humans. It's called a disconnect from reality.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 07:56 AMAs I have repeated many times here, in the primaries I wanted the end result to be McCain versus Obama. I thought they are the two best candidates for the parties, given the field that started out. I would also state that both have issues with certain parts of their party's base, which will be a challenge in the fall. McCain has issues with the Rushee's and Hannityites. Obama with the older generation and white males. I would think it is a mistake however to extrapolate primary exit poll data to totally fit the general election. For example, if you look at Virginia or South Carolina exit poll data, McCain had big trouble with the religious fundamentalist types that went with Huckabee. Now, do you think he will have the same trouble in the fall?
Another unknown in the general election will be whether there is an impact by third party candidates. Hillary would potentially have an impact from the Ralph Nader crowd, but I don't believe Obama would have as much. On the Republican side, if Bob Barr succeeds in getting the Libertarian nomination, then this may syphon off some of the Rushee's and Hannityites.
A big factor will be turnout by what groups. This is where Obama has succeeded in the Primaries. The big question will be whether his first-time voters will turn out in the same number in the fall. They won't for Hillary, which is a big problem for her. This would be where McCain needs to go after, since it can be more his natural base than the Rushee's and Hannityites.
One point on the abortion discussion above. Rick D., while it is generally an evangelical viewpoint, and Catholic viewpoint, to be pro-life, it is a mixed viewpoint through the Christian Church as a whole. Also, mainstream Judism, I believe, supports life beginning at birth (life == breath). Also, the current evangelical viewpoint is young, the traditional viewpoint until the mid-1800's was more closely aligned with Awakening (baby's first movement in womb), than with the modern day conception concept. Finally, the conception concept has a big problem from a medical and legal standpoint. One, how does one define moment of conception? Conception could be up to a 14 hour process (e.g., time from act to time of joining of sperm and egg). Second, you can't define individual personhood, and thus rights, at conception and still address the issue of identical twins, which may not become individual persons until up to 14 days after conception. Finally, most of the country desires exceptions (like for rape), but this creates a slippery slope of what is legitimate person and what isn't legitimate. The fact of the matter is, a person does not have higher order brain functioning (understanding, self-awareness) until the formation of the frontal cortex. Therefore, from a medical standpoint the current line of viability (now theoretically at about 20 weeks) is also close to the line when a baby has reasoning potential that separates humans from other animals. I personally, from a theological standpoint, tend towards about the 14 day or so mark (blood formation and attachment to the uterus and receiving life from mother's blood), but from a legal standpoint in a pluristic society, I would be hard pressed to say everyone else must abide my my theological basis. The question that needs to be addressed is not pro-life or pro-choice, but where do we as a society consider the baby a human person and thus under the rights dictated by the nation.
Posted by: tc on April 25, 2008 08:28 AMThe gorilla in the room is this issue:
"WASHINGTON -- The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has perpetuated a "genocide on the black community," says a group of African-American pastors who claimed Thursday the birth control and abortion provider has had a racist agenda since its beginnings in 1921.
Holding a brief vigil and press conference in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Washington, D.C., the group of pastors and activists said they were incensed by the results of recent "undercover" inquiries into several Planned Parenthood clinics across the country."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352537,00.html
There is no such term as Pro-choice by the way. You either are Pro-Life or pro-Abortion...putting a semantic twist to it doesn't change the reality of what it is.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 09:03 AMHuh, values and morals? Since when is a baby a punishment? This guy equates children with sexually transmitted diseases? These folks are lunatics.
I spoke with one sick liberal who complained that abortion is justified BECAUSE HIS FAVORITE CAMPING SITE IS GETTING OVERCROWDED!!! At first, I thought he was kidding, but he wasn't. He was dead serious. He went on a long tirade about how, when he first moved here, he had the spot all to himself. He then started enthusiastically blatting about euthanizing the elderly.
WHV – Why don’t you people stop using the word “choice” to refer to the killing of children? Instead of changing the subject, why don't you respond to Michelle's comments about the killing of children?
He's also admitted that the "economy is not his strong suit". Good to know that McCain has the experience and unwavering opinion with tough issues that matter most to the voters.
You know, he seems to be doing surprisingly well considering McCain was eating cake with Pres. Bush as Hurricane Katrina was destroying the city of New Orleans.
Would you prefer McCain had strapped himself to a tree in the lower 9th ward, Cato? ala Gilligan's Island...
And how was Bush eating cake with McCain when some claim he was the one personally blowing up the levies?
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 10:31 AMEvery time you lose an argument you have to use my full name. You working for Rove and the thugs trying to subvert the institutions of government by selectly prosecuting opponents? You support the techniques of the BIAW of investigating, attempting to threaten and harass opponents?
Thought so.
Now Rickie said this:
"Cafeteria catholics like Wilda aka WVH will always try to have it both ways, they'll pick and choose which doctorines of the Christian church they will follow depending on their mood.
She and most of her fellow DemoncRATS turn a blind eye to the genocide occuring in America in the form of partial birth abortion, not realizing you can't reconcile being a Christian and supporting genocide.
Buffet Line Catholics like Wilda try to carry both banners at once and are only fooling themselves in the process.
a. Rickie knows nothing about what I support or don't support. He knows only that I am Black and he hates ALL Blacks, therefore he hates me.
b. Had Rickie taken the time to read post #20:
"I suppose one could call every democrat in America who supports the platform on abortion callous, but those people aren't running for office.
This is what the democratic platform says. Personally, I do not support abortion. I know many who do and their personal characteristics are just that. Their position on abortion does not increase or decrease their tendency to be callous toward others. Even though I may disagree with others on issues, they are not callous simply because they disagree with me."
He might have noticed that I said that I personally don't support abortion. That is not in line with Rickie's hatred, so of course he ignored the comment.
c. I posted the platform, no where did I say that I agreed with it. The point is that Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all dems and there is a philosophical difference on many issues.
Swatter,
The biggest problem the republicans have in expanding their base beyond small towns and rural areas are the racist thugs in your party, like Rickie. People will vote AGAINST your candidates if thugs like him are the face of your party. I suspect that Rickie is a "republican" of the David Duke variety who needs the cover of belonging to a major party.
a. This is what is happening in this state:
Friday, April 25, 2008 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Steering growth to Seattle, urban areas
By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter
The Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2040 plan: www.psrc.org/projects/vision/
index.htm
The combined populations of Seattle and Bellevue could grow by nearly 300,000 under a plan that attempts to direct much of the region's projected growth to its largest cities.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004372689_vision25m.html
b. Here is another take on Senator Obama's loss:
Obama loss may not be about race, but gender
By JONATHAN TILOVE
Election 2008 | Presidential delegate tracker
WASHINGTON -- There has been much reporting and commentary in the aftermath of the Pennsylvania primary about Sen. Barack Obama's failure to "close the deal" with white voters.
But an analysis of Pennsylvania results indicates that Obama's trouble may not be so much with whites -- working class or otherwise -- but with white women. And their overwhelming preference for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton may have less to do with any resistance to the prospect of a first black president, and more to do with their powerful desire to see the equally history-making election of a first female president.
"If you really look at the numbers, it's clear that this is a gender impact," said David Bositis, a senior research associate at the nonpartisan Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington. Obama's perceived weakness with the white working class, Bositis said, is largely an artifact of Clinton's powerful appeal to women, who comprise the greater number of working-class voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004372459_demwomen25.html
Racist thugs like Rickie are helping to keep this state a one-party state. One party, no matter the party leads to corruption.
The biggest problem you have in expanding your party is some of your "supporters" who really belong in the KKK or White Citizens League. Many posters here have not come to terms with the bigots in your midst, like Rickie. They can only focus and point at the bigotry of Rev. Wright. Then, you wonder why you can't expand your base?
Not only look at the Rev. Wrights of this world, but the Rick D.s who claim to be part of your tent.
Rick D @46:
You state in your response that you are judging Obama's faith based on his political positions. The problem here is two fold. First off, it isn't to us to judge another's faith, lest we do God's work (Jesus himself stated that God is the only judge). Second, you are equating Christian Faith equivalent to your set of Christian principles. Let's say, for example (since I don't know), that you are of AnaBaptist tradition and believe only in Adult Baptism. Does this mean that those who interpret Acts where it states that whole families were baptized (not just adults in families) as not being Christians because they don't believe in your specific denominational/church stands. How about if your are of Pentecostal tradition that has as one of its requirements that one must speak in tongues in order to be a true christian (or at least serve in leadership of a church). How about if you are from a fundamentalist church that doesn't believe in women in leadership, ignoring the role of such women as Lydia in the Bible. As far as I can tell, Barack has professed that He believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior and he attempts to live out Christ's command to serve the poor, imprisoned and sick throughout his daily work (i.e., social gospel emphasis). His denomination is a "pro-choice" based denomination, so his stand there is consistent with his denomination. What you are stating is basically the same religious standard that is causing the strife in Iraq where Sunni Muslim's are in conflict with Shitite Muslims's. Its a battle of whose interpretation is correct. Remember, Jesus command to not judge.
You and Rickie been reading posts together? You said this:
"28. WVH
Pursue embryonic stem cell research (dems')
Where have you been hiding. ALL of the cures that have found so far with stem cells were 'adult' type. The dem's idea has blown up in their face.
Incase you didn't notice WVH. then dem's don't even talk about stem cells. (Bush) was right and they were wrong."
Let's see, I posted the democratic platform in response to another posters claim that they were shocked, I tell you shocked that Senators Obama, Clinton and Edwards had a position on abortion which disagrees with theirs.
Keep hanging around Rickie, Medic and Duke will be sending you newsletters as well. I bet you read them more carefully. No where did I say I agreed with the platform plank, I posted it.
You and Rickie, eh?
Rick D, there are conspiracy theorists for everything. Just ask the Paul purists who mingle within the "9/11 truth" crowd.
In theory Bush should have been leading (which is what a President does) and working with "Brownie" to put in place post-Katrina plans, not cheerily eating cake with his good buddy John MCain at an Air Force base in sunny Arizona.
careful WVH...they'll say your Phd is showing
Posted by: Duffman on April 25, 2008 10:44 AMWVH: How many progressives are different from Senator Obama? I don't know, exactly, but there are only two progressives in the run for the presidency - Obama and Clinton. The argument presented was that Obama is the more extreme - and that his voting record indicates he is far left of Hillary on this particular issue. Far enough left to be repugnant to a large number of Democrats, if they were aware of his record on BAIPA.
Do conservatives disagree with liberals? Sure. However, I have heard that some moderate conservatives are toying with the idea of voting for Obama. Another point put forward in this article is that many conservatives (including John McCain, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity) want to view Obama as a "nice guy" with a difference of opinion. The author of this article states that this is a dangerously shallow assessment of Obama's character, and that the truth is ugly but needs to be faced rather than swept under the carpet.
Posted by: Peggy U on April 25, 2008 10:44 AMProfession-wise, I believe in the Bible and the creeds of the Reformed theology (like Apostles Creed, and Westminster Confession).
Posted by: tc on April 25, 2008 10:46 AMDon't waste your time discussing religion with the Rickies of this world. There is a movement called the Christianity Identity movement and it is described by the ADL. You can argue with the Rickies of this world about Seantor Obama, but this is the real basis of their objection:
Identity Church Movement
Identity churches use Christianity to justify racism and anti-Semitism; they became widely-known as a violence-prone movement in the United States in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Identity followers believe that white Anglo-Saxons - not Jews - are the real Biblical "Chosen People;" that Jews are descendants of a sexual union between Eve and Satan; that the white race is superior to others, and that Blacks and other nonwhite races are "mud people" on the same level as animals, and therefore have no souls.
--The Basic Identity Belief:
The Jew as the devil who tricked Eve
in the Garden of Eden.
The Identity Church movement promotes
the view that Christianity, when properly understood, supports anti-Semitic and racist beliefs and extremist violence. In actuality, of course, the Identity version of Christianity completely distorts traditional Christian teachings. In 1987, the National Council of Churches, the leading organization representing mainline Christians, forcefully rejected all of the Identity movement's teachings.
http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/churchmovement.asp
The tactics used by this group are to attack ALL people of color and to attack others beliefs as impure. Senator Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ which is less strict than my denomination. That doesn't matter to these folks, their goal is not spiritual, but political.
Welcome to Rickie's world.
Posted by: WVH on April 25, 2008 10:51 AMA candidate coming out of the political process of either party would have to be acceptable to each party's base. For all the chest beating during the caucus season, Senator Mc Cain is accepatble to most of the republican base.
The problem republicans have in attracting a wider base of voters is the Rick Ds of this world.
There is a market for some ideas classified as conservative in urban areas and among populations of those of color. Your party will get no where in those areas by supporting the type of bigotry that people rightly condemn in Rev. Wright. Problem is, many in your party only want to condemn Rev. Wright and be allowed to give bigots in your midst a pass. It doesn't work that way.
This state will remain one-party until your party confronts the fact that demographics are moving toward more urbanization and diversity. When you get ready to win elections, you will be forced to confront the Rick Ds. in your midst.
Posted by: WVH on April 25, 2008 11:05 AMYour full name is Wilda? kind of like Madonna, Sting and Cher......Wow, I did not know.
"a. Rickie...knows only that I am Black and he hates ALL Blacks, therefore he hates me.
...and your proof of that is where? Playing the victim role which you do so well does not make it so, Wilda. I think we've all grown tired of your tune. There isn't a 'B' side to that record you play is there? if so, this would be a nice time to play it.
Cheers
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 11:13 AMI am going to give you the "A" side. Eventually the republicans will tire of losing elections. Pols, being pols will figure out that the demographics of the state are changing and racist thugs like you, no longer benefit their prospoects for electoral victory. They will eventually throw you and your ilk under the bus. Just as Senator Obama had to disavow the language of Rev. Wright and Senator Mc Cain had to disavow the language of Rev. Hagee, republicans will eventually have to throw you under the bus, Rickie. They will have to disavow your message of hate.
Pols want to win elections and your message of hate like that of Strom Thurmond's is a loser.
Cheers, dinosaur.
Posted by: WVH on April 25, 2008 11:29 AMLast I checked Cato, it was the Governor of Louisiana that needs to ask for assistance from the federal authorities before they can do as you suggest above. Unfortunately for New Orleanians, Kathleen Blanco suffered from such extreme Bush Derangement Syndrome that she did not request this assistance until it was too late to act.
Perhaps you are unaware of the levels of government between President Bush and the citizens: the buffer goes City (Nagan-D), Parrish, and then State(Blanco-D)........all 3 Democratically controlled institutions failed. Then folks like them and yourself squeal about the FEMA response when the damage is already done.
As for the cake, who cares? Did you fast that day in solidarity with the citizens of New Orleans and Mississippi? Nope, didn't think so.
Next strawman argument....
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 11:33 AMKing's Niece: "Racism and Abortion Stem from the Same Poisonous Root"
Black leaders: De-fund 'racist' Planned Parenthood
But not good ol' Bitter Barry H who doesn't want his daughters "punished with children"... I wonder ...what will they think of that in relation to THEIR parents when they are mature enough to do so.
It would be pretty damned creepy to be the child of an abortion proponent...
The Catholic Church has made itself perfectly clear: if you publicly support abortion, a la, GREGOIRE (and the toady representative of those she refused into her sorority) Murray, Cantwell, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy et al, you are then knowingly and purposefully disobeying the Church and not permitted to receive the sacraments. It's clear killing babies (and their support of) is more important than their "faith"... until such time as they need to mine their "faith" for votes.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 25, 2008 11:36 AMWell, here's a video of Dohrn calling for the overthrow of capitalism and our entire US system. Yep, that is mainstream. Nothing to worry about for Obama. And now we can get back to the issues of nationalizing healthcare and ignoring militant Islam.
It's over for Obama in the General. There's just no way to recover from Ayers and Dohrn's blatant Marxist anti-Americanism, coupled with hateful reverend Wright, an angry wife Michelle who has never been proud of her country, a view of rural Americans reduced to gun-toting religious nuts, and who knows what else is forthcoming.
This is not an American leader but someone who has saddled up his limited teleprompter charisma to Marxists who are willing to fund his campaign. If Democrats are dumb enough to give Obama the nomination, it's going to be another 1980.
As for the Dinosaur comment, I'd say you're a little long in the tooth to be using that kind of statement towards me. Then again, maybe your immaturity exhibited here has you thinking you're young again.
Cheers
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 11:46 AMApparently (I'm trying to find the link) the words of Sen McCain...now tell me how far is this sort of thinking process going to get him.
I don't know if McCain has been asked what he thinks about the trip, but if he has---5 bucks says he didn't stuff a waffle into his mouth and pretend to be too busy to answer the question.
Posted by: Michele on April 25, 2008 11:47 AMI personally believe the primary process is defective and left a significant minority, if not the majority, of Republicans feeling disenfranchised. If Hillary weren't a such a farking self-aggrandizing socialist, I might actually vote for her. I can't believe I'm saying this about Hillary Clinton, but Obama makes her look almost moral. She appears to have more balls than either of the other two. I have that much doubt about McCain. I think you're going to see a lot of people holding their noses at the voting booths.
Posted by: Peggy U on April 25, 2008 12:11 PMReporter: "Sen. Obama, what are your thoughts on former president Carter meeting with Hamas?"
Obama: "Can't I just eat my Waffle?"
Thank you Senator, for that deeply insightfull answer to a foreign policy question.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 12:14 PMI must really be getting to you, you have to keep using my name. LOL. Here is a song you can sing just before the pubbies throw you under the bus, say hi to Rev. Wright and Rev. Hagee while you are under the bus. "Na na na na / na na na na / hey hey hey / goodbye"
Hey, is there room under the bus for one of your spiritual leaders, Karl Rove?
Posted by: WVH on April 25, 2008 12:16 PMI got a bag of clothespins, being using them for years when I vote. Want one?
Posted by: WVH on April 25, 2008 12:19 PMThis is McCarthyism, plain and simple. It is an attempt to smear somebody through guilt by association. Let Ayers live by his words, let Obama live by his. Obama has publically and repeatedly denounced the Weatherman's actions. What exactly does he need to do? Does he need to take Ayers out to the public square and personally flog him for his words and actions of 30 years ago? Words and actions, may I also state, that were never brought up in charges against him (charges were dropped in late 70's). The Right brings up Ayer's 9/11 comments, except they neglect to mention one very important point. The interview with Ayers was conducted prior to 9/11 and was published on 9/11. They were in no way a response to 9/11.
Posted by: tc on April 25, 2008 12:19 PMNow, How's that search going for the proof to back up your claims? you wouldn't be a liar now would you Wilda? it's not very Christian of someone to accuse someone of racism without a scintilla of evidence. You keep digging hon, let me know when you've found some proof. Until that time, you are an official liar for all to see.
Cheers.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 12:26 PMYou are just too dang funny, you and Rick D. First, Ms. Rand, that very, very, very interesting lady is your spiritual goddess. You know the one that wrote about the pirate and gave you your moniker from one of her characters, she was pro abortion. Well, she wanted to kill all babies, not just the Black ones. Now, as for your concern about Black people, was this a recent development? Like you are so oh, so 30 seconds ago. I seem to remember that you think that Little Black Sambo is a classic and that Blacks were pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers. You also like to call people little Black victims. So, you are really making me laugh. You are such a card.
You never sent a picture of you reading Little Black Sambo to Senator Rossi, please do so. I want to have it for my doorbelling.
Posted by: WVH on April 25, 2008 12:27 PMstarts with the Wrong Reverend Wright and his own words...
" Black Liberation Theology advocating killing a God who is not for "us" [Blacks] and against white people. Then there's more about killing that God."
" If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murder, and we better kill Him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the whiter enemy. What we need is the divine love as expresses in Black Power, which is the power of blabk people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal...Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. "
Wow!
20 YEARS, Bitter Barry H.... way to raise your punishments...er, daughters.
The Depth of Obama's Problem, indeed.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 25, 2008 12:30 PMWhen I said I size up the candidates before voting, why did you go and get defensive on me? I don't think that referred to one party over another.
But, at this point in time, it seems to me the R candidates are head and shoulders above the D candidates.
Posted by: swatter on April 25, 2008 12:34 PMWhat does it look like from under the bus?
"Na na na na / na na na na / hey hey hey / goodbye"
I don't know whether it will be this election cycle or it could be four years from now, party folks will no longer want to be associated with you and your pod. I would love to say they will be shunning you out of principle, but pols, being pols, they will shun you because you, like Strom Thurmond are a liability and pols do love to win.
So, what are the next thug points from Karl Rove?
Posted by: WVH on April 25, 2008 12:34 PMI don't belong to either party. I will vote for candidates of all parties or if there is no one I want to vote for, I will write-in Micky Mouse. Partisans of both parties have created an increasing number of independents and non-aligned.
The republican party is not going to grow unless it confronts the bigots within its tent. People have no trouble in condemning Rev. Wright, what republicans can't bring themselves to condemn are those who feel Little Black Sambo is a classic work.
Republican candidates may or may not be heads above dems, but in this state they are going no where and folks won't vote for them if the PERCEPTION, maybe not the REALITY is republicans are the party of racist thugs. You are smart enough to recognize that this state is urbanizing.
There are not enough small towns and rural areas left to give republicans electoral victory.
I have lived here all my life. I do not want a one-party state of either party. We will have a one-party state until republicans confront the bigots within their midst.
Posted by: WVH on April 25, 2008 12:43 PMLast I checked 1st Amendment still applies to this kind of speech much like it covers your attempts to link people to Obama rather than discuss McCain's flip-flops.
I don't know if McCain has been asked what he thinks about the trip, but if he has---5 bucks says he didn't stuff a waffle into his mouth and pretend to be too busy to answer the question.
I got $10 saying he'd either call the reported a little s**t or he'd WAFFLE on the answer he gave to a different reporting the day before.
Cheers and Godspeed on your recovery.
Obama is a common garden variety Marxist and Hillary... I would not vote for for many of the same reasons I would not vote for McCain for.
I will not vote in the Presidential Election this cycle, I am not going to support the Washington State Republican Party by giving them money to waste, but I will likely give to select Republicans in this State.
Most of my activity will be supporting candidates in other States and State Parties that stand up for what I believe in.
Posted by: JHD on April 25, 2008 12:48 PMNo ObamaNation Part 2: Disciple of Hate
No ObamaNation Part 3: Another Marx brother
The Depth of Obama's Problem, indeed.
RE:Posted by WVH at April 25, 2008 12:27 PM - Be very careful with the connections you make, LBV. While my name is associated with a FICTIONAL character, you have prominently associated yours with a proven avowed racist, phony convenience Catholic (who supports/promotes) abortion and liar.
Do you believe this is a quality piece of legislation that the elected officials of Florida should be spending their time on? So much for small Govt.
I see so you believe Presidential Candidates should answer all questions asked of them on the campaign trail at any given time?
I disagree with McCain's answer
You disagree with his answer or that fact he WAFFLES so much when he answers? McCain's opinion on something changes weekly. He's against things and the next week he's for them. Apparently being ALL earmarks all earmarks only counts for non-favored special interests. But wait McCain is against special interests...wait no...he's for them...which is it? I don't know!
McCain's campaign is a lot like a fish out of water, plenty of flip-flopping while trying to escape from pesky reporters asking the tough questions.
Oh wait, you banned me.
Clearly you subscribe to the 'As for thee but not for me' ideology of the liberal elites. Let em eat cake, dude.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 25, 2008 01:22 PMYou mean like the President Bush was doing with his good buddy John McCain when Hurricane Katrina was flooding the city of New Orleans? Wonder if 'Brownie' was there too. =)
LOL. That's almost as silly and wasteful as our own Washington State Legislature devoting time to investigating impeachment of Bush/Cheney. Bwahahahahah!
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 25, 2008 01:33 PMOh.
Wait.
Inconvenient truths.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 25, 2008 01:38 PMDoes his church support Hammas, it occurs to me that his church published a counter editorial on the next page, a fact that quite frequently gets left out. Meanwhile the LA Times printed it in full with no counter editorial. Looks like people tried to associate
What about McCain's Pastor Hagee who claimed
"Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."
Let us not forget this:
"New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God," Hagee said, because "there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came."
How about the Rev. Fawell who claimed much the same hting as Rev. Wright just blaming it on others:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
I don't see you harping on McCain for his association with Rev. Hagee, or his prior associations with the Rev. Falwell. Could there be a double standard for GOP and DEM candidates on here? NEVER!! =P
Wilma,
Please excuse me, it's been a long week, but didn't you just contradict yourself?
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 25, 2008 01:49 PMMore like bias facts. On here? Wow.
BTW Ragnar, Are you still denying the existence of dinosaurs? How about that, Evolutionry Theory was correct!
Ragnar is the victim of willful ignorance!! =)
Perhaps if John McCain was Married by Rev.Hagee, the Obamaphiles may have a point.
Perhaps if McCains children were baptised by Rev.Hagee, The Obamaphiles may have a point.
Perhaps if McCain had sat in the pews of Rev.Hagee's church for 20 years, the Obamaphiliacs would have a point.
Perhaps if McCain had written a book with the title taken from of one of Rev. Hagee's Sermons, the Obamaphiles may have a point.
Perhaps if McCain would have referred to Rev. Hagee as his "Mentor and Spiritual advisor", the Obamaphiles would have a point.
Ergo, The comparisons are apples and oranges....but don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie.
Wow, you can almost smell the desperation in the air by the Obamaphiliacs.
Hagee is not McCain's pastor. He does not attend Hagee's church. He has also said that Hagee's comments were wrong. Falwell was not McCain's pastor.
McCain attends North Phoenix Baptist Church, and has for 17 years. His Pastor is a fellow named Dan Yeary. Now, if you want to compare Yeary and Wright, knock yourself out. Want to point out the differences in teachings of the respective churches each man has chosen to attend for going on two decades, go ahead. But comparing Obama and Wright's relationship and McCain and Hagee, or Falwell, or whomever, is apples and oranges. McCain's relationship with Hagee, or Falwell, or whomever is going to be a lot different that with Yeary, and that is the only comparable relationship to Obama and Wright.
Posted by: Mike H on April 25, 2008 02:04 PMSure there's free speech. If you or I say what Ayers and Wright say in the comments of some blog, then who cares, it's just somebody exercising the right of free speech. But when one runs for POTUS, they can expect a little more scrutiny and questions as to who they allow to be part of their inner circle or inner funding circle. The damage is done. And Obama did the damage to himself. He didn't have to take Ayers money, Rezko's money, Wright's advice and sermons, etc. But he did. He doesn't have much political savvy. He can't bring himself to truly refute those people. He said he could no more disavow Wright than his grandma.
You like to make comparisons to McCain. OK fine, McCain did disavow the ads about Obama's connection with Wright. Putting aside your feelings about whether those affiliations are material, the point is that McCain certainly has a lot more political acumen than Obama. Would it have been so hard for Obama to denounce Wright? Apparently so.
This all strikes a nerve for you guys because you know that Americans do take such lapses of character in to consideration before they elect a President. If the MSM had done its job earlier, then maybe all of you could have gotten behind Hillary before it became clear that a person like Obama with such negative anti-American people in his life, just might get the nomination.
Aaaah, PU...this is very easy to analyze. You see the terms that you refer to (above) are clear indicators that you are probably a latent homosexual. :)
Posted by: Duffman on April 25, 2008 02:24 PMSeems only fair since we are both playing games of guilt by association. Geez, Obama attended a church with a controversial pastor who's beliefs don't reflect his own. Gee, McCain is endorsed by a controversial pastor whose beliefs don't reflect his own.
Hmmm, funny how a similar set of facts gets twisted by the people here into a claim that Obama is somehow a racist Hamas supporter.
The fact that your attacking Obama and defending McCain for the same issue says a lot about the desperation of the McLame voters. =)
Too bad the party doesn't listen to it's Presidential candidate. If he can't even get NC GOP to listen to him, how can we expect Congress and America to listen to him? Looks like his leadership ability is in question, especially when those Pro-Huckabee rallies keep popping up in the southern states. They are making McLame look bad.
Putting aside your feelings about whether those affiliations are material, the point is that McCain certainly has a lot more political acumen than Obama.
He's also flip-flopped on just about every issue under the sun. Seems like every week or some changes his mind about some important issue. Last week it was earmarks, next week it could be Israel.
Would it have been so hard for Obama to denounce Wright? Apparently so.
I don't see McLame denouncing Hagee or any of the other "agents of intolerance". Looks like he denounced them in 2000 only to be best buddies with them in 2008. Most people will only see more flip-flopping.
his all strikes a nerve for you guys because you know that Americans do take such lapses of character in to consideration before they elect a President.
You mean like the GOP electing two convicted drunk drivers to the White House? Talk about lack of moral character...how about the racist crook the GOP who ran and won the White House in 1968? The only thing McLame is running on is his POW status....hopefully that will be enough because his flip-flop on the issues, his lack of religious fundamentals, and continuation of Bush's failed polices is really going to inspire America.
all of you could have gotten behind Hillary before it became clear that a person like Obama with such negative anti-American people in his life,
You know the great part of America, free speech allows you to say you hate the way America is being run without fear of prosecution. You guys only got one issue on Obama...and it's made up of half-truths and guilt by association =)
Uh huh...and what is the GOP doing for them? Do they create tax breaks for business in low income neighborhoods? Enhance after-school programs in urban neighborhoods? Create more community colleges in poor areas so the residents can gain new skills? Nope the GOP just shuts down midnight basketball and talks about imaginary Cadillac driving welfare recipients.
Meanwhile the GOP send their kids to private schools and shuttles their children back and forth to their gated suburban neighborhoods.
I have thought this for a long time and it is entirely consistent with how this whole sory episode has been handled by Democrats.
I doubt you thought much at all, you just jumped on the Freeper blogging points like everyone else here (especially Michelle). Those blogging points just reaffirmed your distorted view of reality.
Appeal to Ignorance, Straw Man, and Ad Hominem. I guess your meltdown means you are conceding.
As an example, your essentially said that since the GOP elected Bush to two terms that somehow excuses Obama's personal affiliations. Argumentation is not tit for tat game. The argument is not about McCain, this is about Obama's affilations. My point is simply that people have taken note of Obama's affiliations. And not just those particular to McCain. You want to change the subject entirely or to try and equivocate Obama's actions to McCain, but that doesn't make Obama's affiliations or actions go away.
And then you go on about the GOP shutting down midnight basketball? Huh? No wonder you are nonplussed by Wright's comments that the US government created HIV to suppress blacks. And I don't think only conservatives send their kids to private schools and live in exclusive neighborhoods.
You've lost this debate.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 25, 2008 03:48 PMRevised version:
Too bad JEREMIAH WRIGHT doesn't listen to HIS Presidential candidate. If OBAMA can't even get HIS PASTOR to listen to him, how can we expect Congress and America to listen to him? Looks like his leadership ability is in question...
I agree with Cato. How can Obama expect to lead us when he can't even influence his racist, American hating pastor after 20 years of trying (provided he did in fact try that is).
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 04:27 PMDo you know the definition of the word FACT, cIrcular obfusCATOr?
Read your Aristotle: A=A. A thing can't BE and NOT BE at the same time.
A direct question requiring a simple yes or no answer for you, cIrcular obfusCATOr...
Are you claiming that FACTS can not be trustworthy based on the ideology of the person reporting them?
Yes or no?
Haha, I'm not conceding anything. =P
As an example, your essentially said that since the GOP elected Bush to two terms that somehow excuses Obama's personal affiliations.
I'm saying the GOP has chosen worse, and McCain certainly has his own problems with the "agents of intolerance" whom he's embraced. =)
Argumentation is not tit for tat game.
Depends where you post, around here it's generally breaks down to that along with childish name calling....your postings being no exception to this rule.
You want to change the subject entirely or to try and equivocate Obama's actions to McCain, but that doesn't make Obama's affiliations or actions go away.
Haha, so McCain is now exempt from the effects of his flip-flop on embracing of the "agents of intolerance"? If McCain says the views of Rev. Hagee doesn't matter on his campaign...it would seems only fair to hold the same principle across the board. I'm not making either candidates problems going away, but to say we cannot hold the candidates associates to equal standards seems a giant fallacy on your part.
No wonder you are nonplussed by Wright's comments that the US government created HIV to suppress blacks.
I've heard worse, like the one where the CIA created the crack epidemic. Or that Israel is behind 9/11...or the Govt blew up the twin towers. It's still free speech, since they're clearly false I don't pay them any mind.
Of course there were some crazy theories that turned out to be true...like the Govt. selling arms to Iran to fund terrorist organizations in Central America.
I don't think only conservatives send their kids to private schools and live in exclusive neighborhoods.
True, but it seems that no conservatives seem to live in my ethnically diverse neighborhood...just a few Ron Paul peeps who are likely 9/11 truthers. Wonder why that is? nice dodge on the question to what the GOP has done for African Americans other than play the Willie Horton card.
No. The words surrounding the fact determine the persons intent of the fact.
For example you can claim that no terrorist attacks have happened since 9/11. Therefore we are safer under Bush's watch.
Someone else can claim the sun has risen and set everyday since 9/11. Therefore we are safer under Bush's watch.
Both are facts, the words used to reference the facts denotes the ideology bias. You Ragnar of all people should know about ideological bias.
His pastor is a private citizen, he can change his mind anytime he wants. The NC GOP is a branch of the national organization, traditionally they rally around the future CEO of the national organization and abide by his wishes. Looks like the branch office has some issues with the future CEO.
The ad would have never seen the light of day outside of North Carolina unless Democrats/Obama Supporters squealed about it........now it's a national story.
Add to this, McCain can attract Independents by denouncing the ad and look like the good guy maverick he is and bucking the NC-RP and by extension, the Republican party.
Now, McCain has a positive story about himself made possible by a very small state ad by the NC-RP.......are you kidding? you can't buy good press like that especially now that the poo slinging amongst the Democratic candidates has been on the front page for weeks now.
Think about it a little less emotionally and a little more tactically........I think you'll agree whether by design or not, the ad effectively gave McCain free, Positive, national Press.
Brilliant!!
Posted by: Rick D. on April 25, 2008 06:43 PM
How an author uses the facts to prove their point of view does not change the FACTS.
FACTS stand on their own: There have been no attacks in America since 9/11. That is a FACT.
Therefore we are safer under Bush's watch. That is an OPINION.
The sad facts about ethanol simply ARE.
Thanks obfusCATOr.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 25, 2008 07:00 PMSo what if some fringe element endorsed him? If you want to go down that path you have to admit that one is known by the company they keep. Period. Let's take a close look at all of the lunatic fringe that simply votes Democrat, but is not an integral part of campaigns on the national level. Shall we? Ya wanna place each candidate or Party at the head of a double entry ledger and then look for support from "fatally flawed" blocks that gige their votes to one side or the other. That is an important point, fatal flaws. This concept takes policy differences that are acceptable and recognized differences of opinion off the table and looks at things that are simply not acceptable if we are to maintain a representative republic. BUT, and this is a big but, there is weight that must be given to a fatally flawed group being given a "place at the table," as opposed to simply having interests that align with a certain Party more than the alternative. Even if there were no weight assigned, you just go ahead and compile your list and I will compile mine - let us see where the chips fall, shall we?
Now weighting the FACT that the Black Panther Party had a dedicated web page on the official website says something regarding the fact that this was a two way relationship between the candidate and the group in question, does it not? Yes it does. Endorsements from an outside group are a consideration everyone should consider, but not nearly to the degree to which a campaign reciprocates. No? Actually yes. A campaign transcends the candidate, it is his/her circle of potential policy makers that we are electing as well.
McCain is a disaster, as far as I am concerned, I simply cannot vote for him. His circle? Likewise. But he, most certainly, is the least likely to destroy the representative republic we live in. The Executive branch WILL harm our republic in the next four years, no doubt about that. If I had not said (for going on two decades) I would never cast a vote for McCain this would be an easy call. As it is, I could do so and nobody but me would know. I won't betray myself, period.
My participation will be limited to simply stating why McCain, Obama or Hillary are unacceptable candidates for the most powerful position in the world. BUT one must also look at things on an objective scale and rank their potential to harm the republic.
As it is I personally see Hillary as the least likely, but she will not be the Democrat candidate for the reasons I have stated earlier. Obama is nothing more than a tool of communist agitators, but Democrats cannot disown him, period. Do so ant say bye bye to the 90% black vote they take for granted. Ya' see with out a >80% black vote - it follows that the Democrat Party ceases on a national level. Simple as that. Democrats have used blacks as a base on a national level. Have taken them for granted and have actively sought to uplift other groups that were not secure. For whatever reason, blacks in this country have not called government out on the RESULTS of government policy with their votes. What I am saying is that blacks could have said "we demand results, commensurate with that part of the program you promised that was enacted, or we are going to try something different." The rub is that they have been content enough with promises that did not pan out and then were convinced that if only more had been done...
Let me clue ya, ya ain't gonna get all that was promised EVER. This election, unfortunately will not break the stranglehold the Democrats have on the black vote (Obama is the democrat candidate, period unless the Democrats wanna lose at least 20% of the black vote). Should the black vote fracture, we would have a new dynamic, and we would be free (in the next two decades) to try something different than what we have been doing since the 60's.
Obama is the candidate, Hillary is the only personality that could have ensured that he would enter the General untouched. No Hillary, we would be looking at an Obama Presidency. No Obama, and it would have been a close call. Hillary/Obama and John McCain is President, BUT he owes it to the dynamic in the Democrat primary. It's as simple as that.
Now for the simple fact that I cannot vote for McCain, due to principal, if I could cast a vote for someone with a legitimate chance - it is not an easy call. Obama is the Democrat candidate. Period. Vote McCain, but know that he is not someone you can be proud to call your President. I understand, If I hadn't said I would never vote for the back stabbing snake in the grass I would join you.
By the way, John McCain is a personification of everything I loath about the Washington Republican Party. There are individuals I like within the WSRP, the Party is not an institution I align with. It is only by their juxtaposition to the alternative that they have any allure at all.
John McCain/WSRP? So do ya think the WSRP would do what is right, like the NCRP did today and yesterday? Not a F'N chance, not a snowball's chance in hell, no way, no how. Actually, when all is said and done, they are a hindrance to wresting control of Washington State from the control of the far left. Why any business that wants to play on the world stage would locate here is mystery to me. Boeing, Microsoft - of course they are comfortable with a State government run by fascists. This State is nothing other than a fascistic paradise.
The only reason I stay is because of family.
Posted by: JDH on April 25, 2008 07:49 PMThis list is certain on a par with or even exceeds the Hillary lies.
Do we have one similar for her? Democrats endorse this fellow?
Is this who we need to be the leader of the free world???
Obama Lies - Quick Glance OBAMA LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES as of April 03, 2008
(68 lies and counting)
1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was a Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was a Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties to African Freedom - LIAR; your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been a Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and Baraka (from which Barack came) means blessed in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
9.) I Was Fluent in Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger on Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.
13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me to Run for Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist..
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook on Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist..
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In 2008 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I miss-voted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your miss-vote.
18.) I Was a Professor of Law - LIAR; you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard to Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I took On the Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America -LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been a Bold Leader in Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One Contacted Canada about NAFTA - LIAR, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.
30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.
31.) I Didn't Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.
32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn't.
33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.
34.) I Want All Votes to Count - LIAR; you said let the delegates decide.
35.) I Want Americans to Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.
38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
39.) I Don't Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.
40.) I don't have Lobbyists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
41.) My Campaign had nothing to do with the 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
42.) My Campaign Never Took over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace, issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.
43.) I Inspire People with My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people's words.
44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S.. Senate � for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities?
45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.
46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent
