I long for the day when conservatives/republicans will discontinue the rhetorical soft bigotry of low expectations where the voting allegiance of the black electorate is concerned. I got into a running debate on Facebook with other conservatives about how best to argue the conservative case to all sectors of the black electorate. While I blew my portion of the argument as to their characterization of the black electorate, I had a real point to make where the language they use is concerned. Way too many conservatives use rhetoric of this sort:
The enslavement of the African people of this nation by the Dumbacrat party has been weighting heavily on my heart for a few months now
There are those who do not have a reasoned basis for their behavior. They believe what they are told by other Democrats, whether it's true or false. In effect they are enslaved by misinformation.
I see now the some disenfranchisement of the African American Democrat voters as the party starts to chase the ever growing Hispanic vote. As I keep looking at this situation in our society I keep seeing very similar tactics being used now as was done to the slaves in the south. The brutality is not there but, the strategy is similar. For instance the education of inner city kids is horrible. The slaves were not allowed to read. Not the same, but similar having much of the same result.
This is not the rhetoric you use to win the black electorate. Attempting to reach blacks, poor or otherwise, with an argument that says "hey, you are being fooled, bamboozled and enslaved by a conspiracy of liberal democrats" is a LOSER approach. Why? Because you're telling them they are VICTIMS again! Its condescending and disempowering and the exact opposite of what conservatives have often complained was a culture of victimhood within the black community as it relates to racism. This is the argument we should use to persuade blacks to the conservative banner? That they should trade one ideology of victimization for another? America is a country that believes in the individual, in personal merit and being responsible for one's own self and one's own choices, but with this liberal democrat conspiracy argument, you take away all the responsibility and power of choice and place it in the hands of some vast left wing conspiracy.
I believe the black electorate to be completely and totally capable of CHOOSING more conservative policy prescriptions which are thoughtfully brought forward to our community and I submit that as conservatives/GOP, we do not attempt this in any serious way. It is not a serious approach to the deep and troubling issues in the black community to tell them the answer is to throw off the yoke of the vast left wing conspiracy. The answer is to bring forward policy prescriptions that address the issues and put them into action.
The church provides a good analogy for what conservatives ought to be doing. In the church, there are missions, where people go out to the lost and live among them, addressing the very real issues they deal with and by making a difference in their lives, their communities, create a heart receptive to the Word and thereby an opportunity to win the lost. In that same fashion, conservatives must go into the black community as political and policy missionaries, making a difference and thereby creating the opportunity to win this portion of the electorate. Trying to convince them they are merely victims of a liberal conspiracy is not a winning argument; showing them a better policy approach that solves the political and policy challenges in their lives t is.
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
December 6, 2010
January 22, 2010
The First Amendment is for People
The Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission got it wrong. Quite seriously wrong. I have a law degree, but my objection to this ruling isn't based on some tremendous erudition as it relates to constitutional law. No, my objections are more basic and common sense.
The Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission enhances the concept of the corporation as a "person" with First Amendment rights which must be respected, meaning that corporate entities may not have limitations placed on their political "speech". Corporations are free to spend any amount of money to advance their interests via political speech in elections and within our political discourse in general. This is an expansion of the "personhood" of corporations.
This is a terrible decision and clearly puts the lie to the oft touted conservative approach to the law this group of conservative justices is supposed to have. This is an activist decision.. A corporation is a person entitled to unfettered political speech to support or defeat candidates in elections in the furtherance of their corporate interests? There is a disconnect here. These corporate "persons' can't actually vote in an election. They can't be sent to fight and die to defend these expanded "personhood" rights the Court has now conferred on them. Only flesh and blood persons can do those things. That seems to me a more than adequate rationale to justify restricting the First Amendment rights of corporations, to support censoring them in any fashion which society deems appropriate.
I am a human being, endowed by my Creator with certain inalienable rights. Human beings create corporations. They are a product of us, subservient to us, as we are subservient to our Creator. But the Supreme Court has now elevated the political speech of these artificial entities and declared that speech to have value and merit equal to that of flesh and blood human beings. It"s ridiculous. Why stop there I wonder? Why not simply grant corporations the franchise? Is not the vote speech? The Court has taken the concept of the "personhood" of corporations and expanded it in an absurd manner.
Were I to remake the world to my liking, only flesh and blood, living human beings would be permitted to donate money to a campaign. If you can't vote in an election, or can't fight and die for your country, because you're not human, then I don't think you have any business contributing to candidates or backing issues in elections.
The Supreme Court missed in a very fundamental way a basic truth about our nation's founding. The First Amendment, indeed the entire Constitution, is a document written for human beings, not our artificial constructs. The First Amendment is for people.
The Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission enhances the concept of the corporation as a "person" with First Amendment rights which must be respected, meaning that corporate entities may not have limitations placed on their political "speech". Corporations are free to spend any amount of money to advance their interests via political speech in elections and within our political discourse in general. This is an expansion of the "personhood" of corporations.
This is a terrible decision and clearly puts the lie to the oft touted conservative approach to the law this group of conservative justices is supposed to have. This is an activist decision.. A corporation is a person entitled to unfettered political speech to support or defeat candidates in elections in the furtherance of their corporate interests? There is a disconnect here. These corporate "persons' can't actually vote in an election. They can't be sent to fight and die to defend these expanded "personhood" rights the Court has now conferred on them. Only flesh and blood persons can do those things. That seems to me a more than adequate rationale to justify restricting the First Amendment rights of corporations, to support censoring them in any fashion which society deems appropriate.
I am a human being, endowed by my Creator with certain inalienable rights. Human beings create corporations. They are a product of us, subservient to us, as we are subservient to our Creator. But the Supreme Court has now elevated the political speech of these artificial entities and declared that speech to have value and merit equal to that of flesh and blood human beings. It"s ridiculous. Why stop there I wonder? Why not simply grant corporations the franchise? Is not the vote speech? The Court has taken the concept of the "personhood" of corporations and expanded it in an absurd manner.
Were I to remake the world to my liking, only flesh and blood, living human beings would be permitted to donate money to a campaign. If you can't vote in an election, or can't fight and die for your country, because you're not human, then I don't think you have any business contributing to candidates or backing issues in elections.
The Supreme Court missed in a very fundamental way a basic truth about our nation's founding. The First Amendment, indeed the entire Constitution, is a document written for human beings, not our artificial constructs. The First Amendment is for people.
March 18, 2009
Trading in the Currency of Black Irrationality
I consider myself a man of conservative views and a reluctant republican. I believe conservative ideology and principles to be superior to those which underpin the Democratic party. That's why I became a republican. I believe GOP implementation of those conservative ideals and principles is sorely lacking. That's what makes me reluctant.
I disagree quite strongly with black conservatives who give credence to the idea that black voter loyalty to the democrats is essentially a product of mass delusion and brain washing by the democratic party. In this meme, the democratic party is like a cult and blacks are weak minded children mesmerized by a pied piper.
LaShawn Barber kicks it this way:
Democrats consistently get 90 percent of the black vote. Why? Years of damage caused by liberal ideology and misinformation pumped into the black community for the past 25 years.
This train of thought posits a black community essentially too stupid and deluded by others to evaluate the parties on what they deliver and how they deliver it. She asks the following question:
So why did large numbers of blacks switch from voting for Republicans to voting for Democrats?
And gives this non answer to it:
Some say it was President John F. Kennedy’s perceived sensitivity to the oppression of minorities that endeared him and his party to black Americans.
I think this non answer is disingenuous, and the entire argument a species of falsehood. Its perpetuating a myth of black idiocy and irrationality while avoiding talking about GOP messaging and tactics. The GOP, on issues like law and order and affirmative action, has engaged in messaging tactics intended to pit its base against blacks. It has intentionally used wedge messaging, at times with racial undertones, to gain political advantage. Blacks have reacted accordingly by shifting their support to democrats. While it is true that democratic policies have not yielded their promised benefits, it is decidedly incorrect to characterize black engagement with democrats as proof positive that we are not rational political actors. This argument is almost religiously advanced by the right to justify non engagement with blacks, and deflects discussion away from the fact that the GOP has decided that blacks are not a political constituency essential to its aspirations for governance, and acts accordingly.
LaShawn, as conservatives to the right are wont to do, reminds her readers about blacks historical engagement with the GOP at a time when democrats were the party of Jim Crow. This is usually cited as support for the argument that blacks should return to the party of Lincoln (who would have left blacks in chains if it had served his purposes in saving the union), which always prompts me to retort "that was then, this is now". She goes beyond the myth of black political irrationality to cite lingering black memories of government's positive role in Reconstruction, desegregation and the New Deal as a more fundamental reason for black disaffection with the GOP. She posits that it is those memories that make us resistant to the GOP's message of distrust for government. The argument is a bit squishy and psycho babbilish in a way, but its a reasonable opinion. I find fault with LaShawn's view however, because it does not call to account the GOP's political practice at all. This discussion in her view seems to only revolve around black political irrationality (a position I reject) with no analysis or discussion of GOP behavior. In other words, Barber excoriates us for our behavior, and gives the GOP a pass for theirs. Behavior predicated on a calculus she readily admits:
....Republicans can win elections without the black vote; Democrats can’t.
A calculus by the way that demographic change in the United States will render obsolete between now and 2040.
I disagree quite strongly with black conservatives who give credence to the idea that black voter loyalty to the democrats is essentially a product of mass delusion and brain washing by the democratic party. In this meme, the democratic party is like a cult and blacks are weak minded children mesmerized by a pied piper.
LaShawn Barber kicks it this way:
Democrats consistently get 90 percent of the black vote. Why? Years of damage caused by liberal ideology and misinformation pumped into the black community for the past 25 years.
This train of thought posits a black community essentially too stupid and deluded by others to evaluate the parties on what they deliver and how they deliver it. She asks the following question:
So why did large numbers of blacks switch from voting for Republicans to voting for Democrats?
And gives this non answer to it:
Some say it was President John F. Kennedy’s perceived sensitivity to the oppression of minorities that endeared him and his party to black Americans.
I think this non answer is disingenuous, and the entire argument a species of falsehood. Its perpetuating a myth of black idiocy and irrationality while avoiding talking about GOP messaging and tactics. The GOP, on issues like law and order and affirmative action, has engaged in messaging tactics intended to pit its base against blacks. It has intentionally used wedge messaging, at times with racial undertones, to gain political advantage. Blacks have reacted accordingly by shifting their support to democrats. While it is true that democratic policies have not yielded their promised benefits, it is decidedly incorrect to characterize black engagement with democrats as proof positive that we are not rational political actors. This argument is almost religiously advanced by the right to justify non engagement with blacks, and deflects discussion away from the fact that the GOP has decided that blacks are not a political constituency essential to its aspirations for governance, and acts accordingly.
LaShawn, as conservatives to the right are wont to do, reminds her readers about blacks historical engagement with the GOP at a time when democrats were the party of Jim Crow. This is usually cited as support for the argument that blacks should return to the party of Lincoln (who would have left blacks in chains if it had served his purposes in saving the union), which always prompts me to retort "that was then, this is now". She goes beyond the myth of black political irrationality to cite lingering black memories of government's positive role in Reconstruction, desegregation and the New Deal as a more fundamental reason for black disaffection with the GOP. She posits that it is those memories that make us resistant to the GOP's message of distrust for government. The argument is a bit squishy and psycho babbilish in a way, but its a reasonable opinion. I find fault with LaShawn's view however, because it does not call to account the GOP's political practice at all. This discussion in her view seems to only revolve around black political irrationality (a position I reject) with no analysis or discussion of GOP behavior. In other words, Barber excoriates us for our behavior, and gives the GOP a pass for theirs. Behavior predicated on a calculus she readily admits:
....Republicans can win elections without the black vote; Democrats can’t.
A calculus by the way that demographic change in the United States will render obsolete between now and 2040.
December 4, 2008
Prepare Yourself for Political Apocalypse: Obama is Ineligible to be President
It is quite possible that the United States of America is about to outdo itself in the realm of explosive politics and racial issues. The gentleman pictured at left, Leo Donofrio, a former attorney turned poker player, has become the catalyst for what could be a full blown constitutional crisis that will divide this country for decades to come. The Supreme Court has taken up for consideration in conference Donofrio v. Wells, a suit brought in state court against the Secretary of the State of New Jersey, challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States on the basis that he is not a "natural born" citizen of the United States. It is worth noting that the same lawsuit also alleges that McCain is not a "natural born" citizen, for a somewhat different reason, and therefore also ineligible to stand for election to the Presidency.For the sake of clarity:
- The lawsuit does NOT allege that Obama is not a United States Citizen.
- The lawsuit does NOT allege that Obama was not born in the U.S. in Hawaii in 1961.
"No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
As far as the issues surrounding Obama’s birth certificate are concerned, Denofrio states Obama has not been presented with a legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore has no legal responsibility to produce one.
However, Denofrio says he believes if “Obama is presented with a legal request from a government authority sanctioned to make such request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put the issue behind him forever.
“That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of president since he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the Constitution.”
Broken down to plain everyday language, the lawsuit argues that the term "natural born" citizen essentially means not merely someone who is a citizen, or even someone who was born in the United States, but a citizen born to two citizen parents in the United States.
If SCOTUS concludes that the above is the operative definition, then Obama is not eligible to be President because he was born of parents who were not both citizens of the United States. According to Factcheck. Org:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
The Donofrio lawsuit alleges therefore that Obama's dual citizenship status at birth means he does not fit the meaning of the term "natural born" citizen and is therefore disqualified from eligibility for election to the office of the President.
Positively diabolical isn't it? Under this interpretation, Obama could have been born on the mall in Washington D.C. in front of Jesus and ten million witnesses and he would not be eligible to be President, by virtue of his dual citizenship at birth. The typical everyman/everywoman on the street has always figured that if you are born on US soil, you are a natural born citizen and can be President. Turns out, not so much. The average person on the street that voted for Obama, and I'll bet some that didn't are gonna say, thats a technicality. You're going to blow up the entire election on a technicality.
As if that was not explosive enough, Clarence Thomas may very well have played what will become an absolutely infamous role in this drama. Cobb, given that the issue at stake is the presidency itself, actually manages to understate this today:
What has he done? Donofrio’s first application was denied by Justice David Souter on Nov. 6. The rules of the court, however, allow for a renewed submission to a justice of the petitioner’s choice. Who answered the call? Justice Thomas referred the case to the full Court on November 19, and then the full Court distributed it for conference tomorrow, December 5, 2008, after an initial consideration on the Thomas referral. The full Supreme Court will meet in conference on the suit to determine whether or not they will take up the case or decline to hear it.
Our prediction: if SCOTUS decides to take up this case, they will ultimately agree with the plaintiff's interpretation and construe the Constitution to state that Obama is not a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, rendering him ineligible for election to the office of the President. At that point, several species of Hell are going to break loose.
I am almost incapable of imagining the scope of the civil and political fallout from such an action by SCOTUS to render null and void the will of 52 million voters who cast their vote for Barack Obama. This case is nuclear and has just gone to DEFCON 2.
What happens if SCOTUS decides against Obama, as best I can tell at the moment, will be determined in part by the timing of any such decision. Bear in mind that despite the manner in which Obama is addressed, technically he is NOT YET the President Elect. He does not officially become the President Elect until December 15th, when the Electoral College meets to certify the electors of each state.
There are two potential scenarios to consider:
- Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President before the Electoral College votes on December 15
- Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President after December 15 but before the inauguration
Candidates for POTUS are chosen by the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, which are private organizations.
The Right Side of Life saved me some research:
Democrat
Per the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention (As Adopted by the Democratic National Committe, February 2, 2007), VIII. PROCEDURAL RULES OF THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, Paragraph G:
Filling a Vacancy on the National Ticket: In the event of death, resignation or disability of a nominee of the Party for President or Vice President after the adjournment of the National Convention, the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee shall confer with the Democratic leadership of the United States Congress and the Democratic Governors Association and shall report to the Democratic National Committee, which is authorized to fill the vacancy or vacancies.
Republican
Per The National Republican Committee Rules, RULE NO. 9, Filling Vacancies in Nominations:
(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.
(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.
(c) In the event that the members of the Republican National Committee from any state shall not be in agreement in the casting of votes hereunder, the votes of such state shall be divided equally, including fractional votes, among the members of the Republican National Committee present or voting by proxy.
(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.
If Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President before the Electoral College votes on December 15?
The above party rules would apply and the Electoral College would vote based on what their respective party decides as well as the Electoral College Process. Essentially the party would decide who the candidate would be. Presumably, they would elevate Joe Biden and he would select a running mate, though it would be such an unprecedented moment in history that anything might happen.
If Barack Obama is ruled to be ineligible for President after December 15 but before the inauguration?
It seems to me that the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution would then control the situation. The Twentieth Amendment provides,
“if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or in the manner in which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
In this scenario, Joe Biden becomes the President, as he is not handicapped by this issue of his status as a "natural born" citizen at birth.Circling back to the several species of Hell that will ensue, it would not be out of the question that there might be civil unrest. Clarence Thomas will become the most reviled black man alive. People will spit on his likeness. If they were going to take Obama down, we'll say, Thomas didn't have to be the one to hand overThe One. He will be the 2nd coming of Judas, the successor to Brutus for the rest of his life. Leo Donifrio will find himself branded among the most hateful of men, for all that he sounds like a reasonable enough guy. I imagine that there will be a massive collective gasp of horror and shock planetwide when this historical electoral result is rendered meaningless. The planet is going to recoil from America if SCOTUS renders Obama ineligible. Financial markets around the world will plummet as the US plunges into unprecedented political turmoil and uncertainty. Black Americans will fall into a pit of unrelenting and bitter despair, with our niggling suspicion confirmed that America would find some way to prevent a black man from ascending to the Presidency. We'll also believe that despite the fact the Donifrio's suit seeks to invalidate McCain as well, if McCain had won the election, this suit would not even have been given consideration. The Court's standing and legitimacy will be severely diminished in the eyes of a vast amount of the electorate. Millions of youth and latinos and people everywhere who got involved for the first time, inspired by a campaign for the first time, will become cynical and distrustful and will check out of the political process in disgust.
Prepare yourself for political Apocalypse. Today we are at DEFCON 2. If and when SCOTUS should decide to take up this case, we will go to DEFCON 1. Should SCOTUS conclude that Obama is rendered ineligible as a candidate to stand for election to the Presidency, this country will rip itself apart.
Update: I spoke this morning with Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent for Legal Times, a legal news website that covers SCOTUS. Tony very graciously gave me a few minutes of his time and indicated that he was aware of the Donofrio v. Wells case being scheduled for conference and told me a bit about the procedure. Generally, the conference is held in the morning and if the court decides to take up a case, they will announce that in the afternoon. If they decline to hear a case, the announcement of that is typically not made until the following Monday. Assuming this custom holds, if there is no announcement that the case is being taken up this afternoon, it is therefore likely that the Court decided to decline the case and that decision will be made public on Monday.
September 3, 2008
Palin is the Republican Obama
Palin should have been the republican nominee. Not John McCain. She represents the future of the republican party a lot better than John McCain does. Had she, like Obama, been running for the past two years, and assuming that she is every bit as skilled in running a national campaign has Obama has proven himself to be, the country would likley have become comfortable with her experience and her positions. Based on what I've seen so far, I would vote for Palin for president.Palin may still not be enough to sell the electorate on McCain, though I believe she will definitely help him nail down people who were unenthusiastic and might have just stayed home. The fact will remain that McCain is the top of the ticket and he is the one calling the shots. Not Palin. So at the end of the day its still a decision on McCain and on his promise that he is a different, better republican.
July 1, 2008
Windfall Profits Tax is A Stupid Democratic Party Idea
The question to ask relative to the graphic on the left is; so what? A windfall profits tax is a tax on profits that ensue from a sudden windfall gain to a particular company or industry. Imposition of such a tax is a linchpin of Obama's energy policy. Its also a stupid idea which is every bit as pandering to the electorate as McCain's almost equally stupid summer gas tax holiday.
Lets use an analogy that's easy to assimilate: Before the housing bubble burst, housing prices were on the rise at a rapid clip. Many homeowners who sold at the height of the bubble made sizable gains on the sale of their home basically because they sold at the right time in the market. Maybe you were one of them. Now what would you say if Obama was proposing to levy a special extra tax on those gains you realized? Hell No! In fact, you won't find anybody proposing to tax those gains. My point exactly. What Obama is proposing to do to the oil companies is no different. It's hard to see why oil companies shouldn't make a lot of money when their product is suddenly in short supply. They are vulnerable to weak profits and losses during times of glut. Back when gasoline was cheap, nobody was shedding tears because oil companies were making small or no profits.
Face it folks, its a pander. Moreover, it frankly doesn't have as much going for it as McCain's gas tax holiday. At least with the gas tax holiday, in theory, we save a few pennies at the pump. Obama's plan simply taxes the oil companies more heavily so the government can spend the money on alternative energy research that even assuming the government did that correctly, won't pay off for years. So as a practical matter, it means squat at the pump where you and I are getting mauled on a daily basis.
I'm all for energy policy change, but if we are going to do it, then lets do it right and dispense with the half measures. We need to end US dependence on oil which is an economic drain, a national security weakness and keeps our country locked into a fossil fuels based economy that is bottling up innovative technologies that could change everything. On the one hand, high prices are doing us a lot of damage. On the other, the pain is spurring new approaches, and thats not all bad. As the Motley Fool points out:
"..... back in the 1970s, Brazil relied on the rest of the world for 85% of its oil. The result? Debt ballooned, and rampant inflation became the norm for decades. But those high prices pushed the need for change, and change is exactly what Brazil got. Innovation and commitment to overcoming the oil burden pushed Brazil to energy independence today by way of sugar cane-based ethanol (which is, importantly, far different from the corn-based ethanol made in America.) The oil embargo of the 1970s also pushed Denmark, which was 99% dependent on imported oil, to become one of the world's leaders in alternative energy, such as windmill technology. The important thing to realize is that it's highly doubtful that any of this would have happened if higher prices hadn't spurred people to action."
If we want to fix the problem, we have to go long. Hydrogen and electric car technology is within reach. The US and Canada sit on top of the largest shale oil deposits in the world, larger than Iraq's biggest fields, we just have to figure out how to get it out. McCain makes the point that the Europeans are using nuclear technology and have been doing so for years, so whats our problem? And you know, call me a hippie if you want, but somebody explain to me why we have after several million years on the planet, not figured out how to milk the solar systems largest, most reliable and don't that beat all, FREE energy source, the sun.
I don't know, but seems to me we got an embarrasment of energy alternatives, but we are too damn lazy and short term in our thinking to make it happen. Meanwhile, we ship hundreds of billions of dollars daily to regimes that don't like us much for last century's energy source, the oil crack our country has to have. Obama's my boy, but this aspect of his energy policy is simply stupid.
May 2, 2008
Rush Limbaugh on the SuperDelegates Dillemma
| Rush articulates a position on the black response to a stolen nomination that black America dares not permit the Democratic party to fool itself about. May 1, 2008 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT |
 |
| RUSH: Now, for those of you who are Democrat superdelegates; may I have your attention, please? As you know, I addressed your fear yesterday, and I know how you people are thinking. You're in the depths of fear over what to do now, because it's clear that you, the superdelegates, are going to decide who is your party's nominee; and in the process, you are going to be committing political murder against one of these candidates. You alone are going to decide, and it used to be six months ago you were proud to be able to do this because you were operating from the context of confidence and inevitability. It was like a slam dunk. Now you're operating from fear, and incorrect decisions are made during times of crisis and fear. And the greatest fear that you superdelegates have... I mean, you can see the trend lines here. You know what's happening. The bloom is off the rose. The messiah, it has turned out, cannot walk on water. Mrs. Clinton's been hanging in there. She has got the testicle lockbox, and it's opening and shutting on schedule. You can see the trend lines, but you're scared to death to take this away from Obama because he leads in delegates; and you're really frightened that you are going to lose the black vote, perhaps permanently, if you take away the nomination. It must be apparent to you that Senator Obama will not lead you to victory. You have to know this. But you fear that denying him support will create a permanent fissure between black voters and Democrats. No Democrat has the courage to examine this flawed premise. It is up to me to advise and address you superdelegates to consider some facts. President John Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy wiretapped Dr. King. Black voters stayed with Democrats. Democrats stood in the schoolhouse doors vowing, "Segregation forever!" Democrats voted against landmark civil rights legislation; Republicans passed it. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Bull Connor was a Democrat. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democrats created the welfare state, destroying millions of black families. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democrats bent over forward for the teachers unions, ruining public education for generations of black kids; leaving them unequipped to participate as equals in American society. Yet! Black voters stayed with Democrats. Democrats urged the early release of criminals to further prey on law-abiding black citizens. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democrats threw blacks under the bus during the immigration debate. After Rosa Parks finally moved to the front of the bus, Democrats threw blacks under it during the immigration debate because Hispanics are now the largest minority voting bloc. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democrats have not supported blacks achieving power. Carl McCall was running for governor of New York, and was denied funds from Terry McAuliffe at the Democrat National Committee. This audience contributed to McCall's campaign. Civil rights icon Maynard Jackson wanted to be head honcho of the Democrat National Convention. He was denied. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Earlier this year in Selma, Alabama, Mrs. Clinton shows up; mocks the way black people speak. Her husband, Bill Clinton, the reputed "first black president," shows up in South Carolina and plays not the race card, but a whole deck of race cards! (doing Clinton impression) "Obama? Ha! Of course he gonna win. I mean, it's like Jesse Jackson. I mean, he's the black guy." Blacks stayed with Democrats. You superdelegates in the Democrat Party, you're worried about denying Obama the nomination because you fear that your black voters will abandon you permanently? Come, come! Review your history with me once again. You Democrats have already done far worse to black voters than yanking the nomination away from Barack Obama. Have no fear, superdelegates. Be confident. Blacks will stay with you. So will Jesse Jackson, so will Al Sharpton, and you can have them. |
|
| BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: We'll start in Canoga Park, California. Hi Fred. It's great to have you with us, sir. CALLER: Hi, Rush. I think you're a racist. RUSH: Well, that's refreshing. Why, Fred? CALLER: Well, I -- I think you're insinuating that blacks are too stupid to have a learning curve. RUSH: No, I think you're inferring that. CALLER: No, I think you're saying it. RUSH: I'm not. You're inferring it. I'm not implying anything. I stated facts. CALLER: You're saying that -- RUSH: All these things happened, and Democrats continued to get the votes of the majority of black voters. It's just their political allegiance. It's not a comment on race or intelligence. CALLER: Well, you're saying there's nothing the Democrats can do that -- that'll stop the -- the blacks from voting for them, that the blacks are too stupid to even vote in their own best interests. RUSH: No, no, no, no. I didn't say that! You're putting words in my mouth. CALLER: Oh, you didn't say that? You didn't say that blacks keep voting for stuff that's not in their own best interests and that they can't learn? RUSH: I didn't say that. I did not say that. This is a classic illustration. You heard what you wanted to hear based on your own biases and prejudices. I simply recited some facts for you. These are not arguable. These things I said are not arguable. Now, you want to talk about why blacks continue to vote for Democrats despite this? I'll be glad to tell you about that. CALLER: Yes, let's -- let's hear the Rush psychology. RUSH: For 50 years, black people in this country have been told by elected Democrats that Republicans and conservatives are racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes; that they have no desire for them to become equal or progress economically -- and then you couple that with ministers like Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright reinforcing what other black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do, and it all becomes very simple. They have been scared to death. Black voters have been told for 50 years that their lives will be ruined if they vote for Republicans, because Republicans don't care about them. When you vote out of fear, it's the same thing the Democrats have done with elderly people, our seasoned citizens and Social Security. It's almost predictable that every election cycle, the Democrats, somebody, will predict or tell old people -- with phone calls, robophone calls, push polling or even blatantly out in the open -- senior citizens that Republicans want to take back their Social Security. I remember in 1988. I was in Sacramento, California, and Alan Cranston (the Senator from California then) was telling people on television out there, Republicans wanted to kick senior citizens out of their homes if Reagan was reelected. Now, if you're a senior citizen and you don't pay a whole lot of attention and you hear that and you're a Democrat and you have party loyalty going into this and you hear Cranston say that, and all you have is your Social Security; you're not going to take the chance that Cranston's wrong, because if he's telling you, "He's in the Senate. Why, he's a powerful man. He's a United States senator!" If he's telling you that Republicans will kick you out of your house or take your Social Security away, you're not going to take the chance that he's wrong. It's the same thing with the black population here. For 50 years they have been lied to. They have been made to live in fear of Republicans. It's gotten to the point here, Fred -- this is undeniable. Black people in this country who have achieved great things without going through the Democrat Party civil rights prescriptions to do so -- and I can give you a host of names if you want -- are routinely savaged and destroyed or at least attempts are made to destroy them, as Uncle Toms. For example, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele. There are a number of highly accomplished black people who have become Republicans, and they are held out as traitors. How can you explain it otherwise when young black kids are told in school if they learn to do well on tests, they're being "too white"? Who's telling them this? It isn't us. It's the Democrat Party and its agents. All I'm trying to do is make it easy for the superdelegates, here. They know they got a problem. The problem is that Obama cannot win. But they are afraid to pull the nomination from him because he's getting 80% of the black vote; and they think the black vote will not show up in November and vote Democrat, and I'm simply trying to tell them that there's a 50-year history of showing that they have done far worse. I mean, what worse can you do than destroy the black family with welfare, that didn't work, and took the place of the father and the husband? What more can you do to black people than destroy their family? And Democrats still vote for them. I have said on this program for countless years, countless times: If it were me, and I've been holding out hope and listening to the promises of a political party for 50 years -- and after all those 50 years I'm still complaining and whining about same circumstances I was in 50 years ago -- I'd begin to question my vote. "Wait a minute. You know, you guys keep promising these things, and nothing ever happens. You keep blaming the Republicans for my problems. You promise you're going to fix 'em, and then you forget us after the election. I think you're taking us for granted." I would start to question it. But that hasn't happened. It has not happened. The Democrat Party is perceived in the minds of 80 to 90% of the black population, as its only hope. This is the result of fear that's been instilled. So, this little litany of things I said to try to assure the superdelegates that they could do what they want without any fear whatsoever, blacks will leave them; is unarguable. It's pure, 100% fact. |
January 17, 2008
The Experience Gap: How Will it Play?
David Broder writes in the Washington Post:
“It was fascinating to watch the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination discuss their concept of the presidency during Tuesday night’s MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. But it was also stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — have not a day of chief executive experience among them.”
Its instructive that while Rudy garners national favorable ratings as a great executive, many a New Yorker thinks his New York experience disqualifies him to be President and they would not vote for him. Experience is important, but judgment even more so and just like change, the question on that issue is not just experience, but the kind and quality of experience, not only for the candidate, but also for the people affected by the experience that candidate claims qualifies them for the office.
“It was fascinating to watch the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination discuss their concept of the presidency during Tuesday night’s MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. But it was also stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — have not a day of chief executive experience among them.”
“By contrast, the Republican field is loaded with people who are accustomed to being in charge of large organizations. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were governors of their states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing.”
The issue of experience is relevant and certainly will play a role, but experience is not going to be the deciding factor for many voters. Furthermore, experience is not always all its cracked up to be. I can recall George Will describing the incoming Bush administration as government by grownups, because of the great experience and expertise of Bush and Cheney, as well as some of their appointees. Nevertheless, this administration has made many a misstep. While experience is an important and valuable quality, more salient to me is the issue of judgment in the next president. Experience in the chief executive is of little value if the judgments they make are poor. Furthermore, when the candidates raise the issue of experience, what will also spring to mind for voters is their assessment of that experience and how it shaped the candidate, and how it may have affected the voter or people like them.Its instructive that while Rudy garners national favorable ratings as a great executive, many a New Yorker thinks his New York experience disqualifies him to be President and they would not vote for him. Experience is important, but judgment even more so and just like change, the question on that issue is not just experience, but the kind and quality of experience, not only for the candidate, but also for the people affected by the experience that candidate claims qualifies them for the office.
January 6, 2008
Political Season's New Hampshire Primary Prediction
All right. After some deliberation and thought, here are Political Seasons' prediction for the New Hampshire primary.
Democrats:
Political Season has decided to drink the Obama kool-aid for the NH primary. Based on the poll data at Realclearpolitics.org, and Obama's gaffe free debate performance last night, we predict he will win the NH primary and that he will do so running away. Political Season projects Obama to be the winner with a margin of victory as big or bigger than Iowa. We predict Hillary will take second place and Edwards will come in third with a vote performance weaker than in Iowa.
Republicans:
Political Season is predicting that John McCain will be the winner of the New Hampshire primary and may win it walking away in terms of the margin of victory. Romney appears to be fading and trending downwards in the polls. Although post debate focus groups in New Hampshire seemed to respond well to his performance, we do not think it will be enough to turn the tide for him in the time remaining against McCain. Huckabee will make a third place showing. While he appears to be achieving some upward movement, we believe his identification as an evangelical in the minds of NH voters will cap the extent of upward movement and that he will not benefit from an Iowa bump anywhere near what his democratic counterpart, Obama, has experienced from his Iowa win.
Democrats:
Political Season has decided to drink the Obama kool-aid for the NH primary. Based on the poll data at Realclearpolitics.org, and Obama's gaffe free debate performance last night, we predict he will win the NH primary and that he will do so running away. Political Season projects Obama to be the winner with a margin of victory as big or bigger than Iowa. We predict Hillary will take second place and Edwards will come in third with a vote performance weaker than in Iowa.
Republicans:
Political Season is predicting that John McCain will be the winner of the New Hampshire primary and may win it walking away in terms of the margin of victory. Romney appears to be fading and trending downwards in the polls. Although post debate focus groups in New Hampshire seemed to respond well to his performance, we do not think it will be enough to turn the tide for him in the time remaining against McCain. Huckabee will make a third place showing. While he appears to be achieving some upward movement, we believe his identification as an evangelical in the minds of NH voters will cap the extent of upward movement and that he will not benefit from an Iowa bump anywhere near what his democratic counterpart, Obama, has experienced from his Iowa win.
October 18, 2007
Black Women First in Line to Sell Out Obama?
Poll: Black support helps Clinton extend lead - CNN.com CNN put out poll results today which indicate that more blacks are supporting Clinton than Obama, with black women seemingly leading the charge. According to the poll;
Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama. That's up from 53 percent for Clinton and 36 percent for Obama in a poll carried out in April. The 26-point difference between black women and men underscores the fact that the nation's vote is divided not only by race, but also by gender, said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider. "Black women don't just vote their black identity," he said. "They also vote their identity as women." The former first lady's strongest support among blacks came from black women, 68 percent of whom identified her as their likely choice, versus 25 percent who cited Obama.
I've done my own informal polling of sisters and much to my dismay, I find many of them wanting to go with Hillary. They are voting their gender and I guess they are going to rejoice when and if Hillary wins the nomination and/or the presidency. They express lack luster interest in Obama. They seem to think that Hillary is going to have their back. I find it very hard to understand. Somehow, 68% of black women figure that Hillary (who's top advisor will be Bill) is going to have their back more than Obama (MARRIED to an educated, accomplished, sho nuff sister that epitomizes the kind of baller many sisters aspire to be) who will have a black woman advising him every day about policy issues.
We supported the cracked out DC mayor, we cheered when OJ won, we lift up the race hustler, media hog preachers Jesse & Sharpton on the regular, but Obama cannot get any love from the sisters of America? This brother is a fine example of everything brothers in America should be doing. Michelle Obama as the First Lady will be a beautiful light for all the little black girls of America and a First Lady's power is very real. This accomplished brother who is DEMONSTRATING his respect for black women by being married, monogamous, raising the children and taking care of the family he created together with a black woman is being rejected by 68% of them. Obama is doing the right thing by a black woman RIGHT NOW, which I think makes a good case that he will do the right thing by black women as President. But 68% of the sisters can't give him no love? Cause they think he won't have their back, but Hillary will?
What is wrong with this picture?
Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama. That's up from 53 percent for Clinton and 36 percent for Obama in a poll carried out in April. The 26-point difference between black women and men underscores the fact that the nation's vote is divided not only by race, but also by gender, said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider. "Black women don't just vote their black identity," he said. "They also vote their identity as women." The former first lady's strongest support among blacks came from black women, 68 percent of whom identified her as their likely choice, versus 25 percent who cited Obama.
I've done my own informal polling of sisters and much to my dismay, I find many of them wanting to go with Hillary. They are voting their gender and I guess they are going to rejoice when and if Hillary wins the nomination and/or the presidency. They express lack luster interest in Obama. They seem to think that Hillary is going to have their back. I find it very hard to understand. Somehow, 68% of black women figure that Hillary (who's top advisor will be Bill) is going to have their back more than Obama (MARRIED to an educated, accomplished, sho nuff sister that epitomizes the kind of baller many sisters aspire to be) who will have a black woman advising him every day about policy issues.
We supported the cracked out DC mayor, we cheered when OJ won, we lift up the race hustler, media hog preachers Jesse & Sharpton on the regular, but Obama cannot get any love from the sisters of America? This brother is a fine example of everything brothers in America should be doing. Michelle Obama as the First Lady will be a beautiful light for all the little black girls of America and a First Lady's power is very real. This accomplished brother who is DEMONSTRATING his respect for black women by being married, monogamous, raising the children and taking care of the family he created together with a black woman is being rejected by 68% of them. Obama is doing the right thing by a black woman RIGHT NOW, which I think makes a good case that he will do the right thing by black women as President. But 68% of the sisters can't give him no love? Cause they think he won't have their back, but Hillary will?
What is wrong with this picture?
May 11, 2007
Obama fumbles....again
FOXNews.com - Obama: '10,000 People Died' in Kansas Tornado - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
Obama is making a few stumbles out there on the campaign trail. His initial flubbing of the "what would you do in the event of a terrorist attack" question at the debate, and his overstatement of the death toll in the Kansas tornado. The gaffes by themselves are not fatal. In fact, given that the electorate is largely unlikely to focus on the campaign until after Memorial Day, one can make the argument that if there is a time to make such "non-lethal" mistakes, this is it. None the less, if his campaign becomes a string of such gaffes, they could become fatal errors.
Obama is making a few stumbles out there on the campaign trail. His initial flubbing of the "what would you do in the event of a terrorist attack" question at the debate, and his overstatement of the death toll in the Kansas tornado. The gaffes by themselves are not fatal. In fact, given that the electorate is largely unlikely to focus on the campaign until after Memorial Day, one can make the argument that if there is a time to make such "non-lethal" mistakes, this is it. None the less, if his campaign becomes a string of such gaffes, they could become fatal errors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)