5) There are a lot of Americans who have guns, believe in God, and believe that the American borders ought to be secured, but who do not hold those beliefs because they are apathetic, trigger happy, Jesus-freaks, or racist.
4) He’s black. Not all Republicans are anti-African-American racists, but most anti-African-American-racists are Republicans, and since he can’t even carry the white votes in the Democratic Party it’s just not likely that he can in a general election. Even if one disagrees with the idea that the Republican party has as many or more racists than the Democratic Party, the fact is…there’s still a majority of whites in America, and if white Democrats aren’t voting for Barack, then why would white Republicans?
3) Reverand Wright. Yes, it’s true Sen Obama says he doesn’t share the “God DAMNED America!” views etc., but Wright’s really inflammatory remarks aren’t something you disagree with like you would the time/place of next Sunday’s after church social. These are strongly anti-American, very racist positions, and a black man running for President of those United States ought to have been able to convince his pastor and friend that the views were wrong, ignorant, and congruent to the enemy’s view at a time of war. If ya can’t convince your pastor/friend…how’s he gonna convince Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Assad, or Kim Il Jong, or Chavez?
2) The sizzle of “change” comes without steak. Senator Obama has promised to “change” the way things work in Washington to a more bi-partisan atmosphere, but he’s been in Washington. He’s a senator in the party that controls the entire Congress, and his record doesn’t bear up to the rhetoric. There are no examples of Sen Obama actually working in a bi-partisan manner, and instead-contrary to the campaign promises of “change”-he’s got an unusually partisan, one-sided, Democrat-only record. Why should people believe he’s going to “change” things in Washington when he hasn’t yet, and his campaign platforms are highly partisan in position rather than bi-partisan, compromised, moderate, etc.?
…and the #1 reason that Barack Obama Won’t Be President:
1) Despite the promise of bringing about national unity and international respect for the United States…the guy can’t even unite his own party.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
Why won’t you just let them man finish his waffle.
His WAFFLE!
Leave!!
Barry!!!
ALONE!!!!
I’m hip to everything except #4. I don’t know your socio-economic background, but a bit about mine….
I was raised by Democratic unionists. Have you met many unionists? The leadership is all down with equal rights and all, but it took a long time for unions to treat blacks as equal partners. I think a strong case could be made that Selma, AL, was integrated a long time before unions were. Not sure they are actually integrated now. My experience with union members indicates that a lot of them are not as open to a black president as you might think.
Sure, you can get the Democrats to “say” the right things about race, but so will everyone, except maybe Jeremiah Wright. Even Republicans “say” the right things. But that doesn’t mean the Democrats do not suffer from rather advanced racism. And if you really want to see racism amongst Democrats, look no further than black America. If only half of the comments being made in these churches made the evening news, there would be no Obama candidacy.
It’s an economic phenomenon. The further down the economic scale one travels, the more xenophobic the species becomes. The desire to protect self, family, and clan become stronger. Poor(er) whites feel the same as poor(er) blacks, or anyone else. If your party caters to these folks, that’s the response you get.
But no one is really going to say that. But you might reconsider #4. The party that welcomed blacks as Secretary of State (twice) is much more likely to accept a black candidate that the party that them go no higher than Sec of Ag, or Surgeon General. We are just not so likely to vote for a candidate that does not value America, be they white or black.
I thought #4 would be a controversial one, and I agree with what the other Scott’s saying, but it remains that ultimately, if Barack can’t win white Democrats…he’s not going to win imo.
Yeah… #4 has me wondering. What are you basing “most anti-African-American-racists are Republicans,” on? Are there polls that suggest that?
And if you look at that map of the PA Dem primary results you’ll see that most of PA Dems didn’t vote for Obama. I wonder what percent of those rural Dem voters did so on the basis of race?
And speaking of Obama’s record, he’s the most liberal of ALL those in the U.S. Senate:
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
That’s going to be a big factor as people start to look beyond the empty “change” and “hope” rhetoric.
Mike,
“Even if one disagrees with the idea that the Republican party has as many or more racists than the Democratic Party, the fact is…there’s still a majority of whites in America, and if white Democrats aren’t voting for Barack, then why would white Republicans?”
re the ‘what am I basing it on’…I’m basically referring to the white supremacist voters, KKK, NAZI, etc. Given the choice, I don’t believe those people vote D over R. I baselessly claim they go R. Even if I’m wrong, the caveat remains:
“…there’s still a majority of whites in America, and if white Democrats aren’t voting for Barack, then why would white Republicans?”
The other Scott makes a good point that today’s Republican Party does have many-possibly even more-claims to supporting civil rights and African Americans than does today’s Democratic Party. That discussion would decide whether or not Republican whites would be more likely to vote for an African American Democrat than Democratic Party whites.
To be clear, his race is not an issue for me personally. I voted for him her in Ohio’s primary, but I’m afraid that I was wrong, and that America is not ready to vote for an African American who sits idly by and listens to a racist African American preacher/friend. Too many people see Rev Wright, hear his rantings, and envision a contemplative Barack Obama sitting in the front row…idly letting his nation be divided rather than talking to the preaching fanatic and convincing him to stop feeding stereotypes of whites and of African Americans.
Scott: I’ve campaigned for candidates and causes in nearly half of Ohio’s counties in years past and I don’t recall meeting any “white supremacist voters, KKK, NAZI” types.
You might find some of those types in West Virginia. But they are Democrats. The most famous being Senator Byrd, Exalted Cyclops of the KKK:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801105.html
I don’t believe Republicans are anti-black. Colin Powell and Condi Rice just had to announce their candidacy for president and they would have been elected president. Blacks that vote Democrat tend to be left to far left. The percentage of blacks voting Democrat to those voting Republican is changing in favor of the Republicans. That may lead to more blacks filtering through the Republican political system and we then may see more black Republicans in office.
Mike, you are SO right. I stand corrected-totally forgot about Byrd! OMG! Great points abound about Republicans being more open to an African American candidate than Democrats.
How about the crux of #4 though: that if he can’t win white Democrats…he can’t win whites in a general election?
The Democrats are the party of slavery, anti-civil rights, jim crow, etc. Abe Lincoln was a Republican. How can it possibly be claimed the Republican party harbors racists? There’s ample evidence of racism in Democratic circles, and not just by white people.
The country is more than ready to have a black president. However that person must also be a qualified candidate.
I understand where you are trying to go with #4, but, I do not think there are any more racists on the right then on the left. There are always going to be jerks of every political persuasion. Republicans are more likely to not vote for Obama not because he is Black, but because he is a far, far, far left liberal who stands for absolutely nothing they stand for.
Hell, even with Kerry, I could find some thinks I liked, such as his environmental platform. And that he was a hockey fan. And he provided good comic relief, you know like with the bunny suit.
But Obama? Cannot find a damned thing I like about him. I’ve read his policy stances, and even his environmental stuff is garbage.
I don’t agree with#4 at all. While there may be some people who hold racist views, probably most are Democrats.
During the internet polls of potential candidates run at various sites before the campaign began, when Condi Rice was included, she always won by a big margin.
And if Michael Steele ever decides to run, nobody would care about his race at all.
You’re points about racism are right on foobar, but he’s still not winning among whites in the DNC. So how can this Democrat win over white Republicans if he can’t even win over white Democrats?
Scott: Well I guess I am not the only one to make that point. I do however understand your larger point and that is that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT the transcendent figure he tried to claim he was (with plenty of media help) in the early campaign.
Race is a factor, but perhaps not the dominant factor. Look at the maps that Sean Oxendine has put together (the ones toward the bottom showing Hillary and Obama counties in several states):
http://race42008.com/2008/04/22/res-ipsa-loquitor/
The blue are counties that Hillary won, the green are those won by Obama. The black outline is the Appalachia region.
Obama can’t win whites outside of the bastions of liberal and academic elites. Appalachian and rural voters do not identify with his elitist, hardcore liberal message.
This doesn’t mean they are all racists and you did not imply that they are.
Oxendine also has some interesting analysis on how this dynamic is going to effect upcoming races in nearby West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana and North Carolina:
http://race42008.com/2008/04/01/no-really-hillary-has-a-decent-shot/
The bottom line is that Hillary is fast catching up in the popular vote, but probably won’t overcome Obama’s thin lead in pledged delegates. Will the Superdelegates be brave enough to hand the nomination to Hillary?
EXACTLY MIKE! That’s why I put it down as #4. If anything, it shoulda been #5, but there were other reasons it wasn’t. You NAILED my point:
“Obama can’t win whites outside of the liberal acadmic elites. “
FIVE REASONS OBAMA MIGHT BE PRESIDENT
5. McCain’s age. Recent polling show that among race, sex and age a greater percentage chose age as the biggest factor for not voting for someone as POTUS. The kicker here is that the demographic most likely to feel this way… old people.
McCain has pushed back the release of his medical records for months now. They were supposed to be released April 15th, but that’s been pushed back to May. It’s not likely they’re doing this because of all the good news there.
4. McCain’s VP deliema. Because of questions of age and health McCain’s VP will be subject to greater scrutiny than any previous VP candidate. Whoever he picks will truly have to measure up as a stand alone candidate. He’s being pressured to pick a more conservative candidate. If he choses poorly he could end up alienating the Independents he needs to secure a nomination.
3. Teflon Obama. The Rev. Wright scandal was the worst political nightmare any candidate has ever endured in American history. 72+ straight hours of “God Damn America” rants. It definately hurt Obama’s favorablity ratings and that damage will be lasting. But he’s still statistically tied with McCain in national polls. The only people bothered by the bitter remarks had probably made up their minds from the Wright incident. All the other issues will be rehashed ad nauseum, but everyone already knows them.
2. He’s black. Actually bi-racial would be most apt but if that’s how he choses to identfy himself …
Democratic Presidential candidates can usually rely on getting 90% of the African American vote as it is anyway. What could be the deference this year is turnout. Targeted voter registration drives are already starting throughout the south. Virginia and North Carolina will be in play. South Carolina and Georgia may not be in play but with 30% African American pop. voting nearly 100% in record numbers, the GOP will at least have to expend resources it normally wouldn’t.
Currently he’s losing the white vote primarly because of white women. He will do much better in a GE with this demographic than McCain.
1. Economy/Iraq. Two caveats here: It is my belief that the American President has little influence on the economy and that a hasty withdrawal from Iraq could be disasterous in ways we have yet to imagine…
BUT, regardless if we are in a recession right now, most people think that we are. Perception is reality. There aren’t many signs that there will be enough improvement by November to change people attitudes. I’m sure readers here would think letting a Dem be in charge during a financial crisis is the last thing you should do. But that’s not necessarily how the rest of the country thinks…
Despite the success of the surge in bringing stability to parts of Iraq, apparently there is still a majority of Americans that want to begin returning our troops.
There’s a long campaign season still left for us to endure. My best guess for the outcome is close to what the bookies are saying, 50-50 either way.
This douchebag certainly doesn’t help the argument about racists in the Republican Party.
link
Good post Fit fit. A few thoughts though…
…the WWE recently offered Sen Clinton and Obama mat time to settle the race. Both declined. My thought is that Sen McCain would kick Sen Obama’s ass in wrestling match. McCain’s old as dirt, and I like Sen Obama’s youth a great deal (one of the reasons I voted for him here in Ohio), but Sen McCain is in better shape at 70 than myself and most of my friends in our late 30s. Guess his time in Hanoi made him appreciate his body more than we do ours.
jumping to your #1 idea…yeah, the economy’s gonna be a real issue (particularly in the swing states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania), but Iraq? Nah, watch for that to be eclipsed by Syria and North Korea starting this afternoon at 4:30, and by Iran throughout the summer. Iraq’s off the table as an election issue since Obama’s not gonna be able to do anything different let alone better that Sen McCain. My gawd, I bet Obama doesn’t even know how to flick off the safety on an M4 let alone order men and women to go into battle, use them, and die.
Scott,
Thanks, I liked your original post, even though I disagree on some points, it was honest and fair. My choice for Obama’s VP would be Bloomberg, probably the biggest asset available if it all comes down to economy.
It’s going to be a interesting election no matter what the outcome. Except for his (constantly shifting) abortion stance, I really have little issue with McCain as President. Hell, I have more reason to like him than you probably do…
Hell, we’re still waiting for John Kerry to release his medical records and form 180’s in full.
It seems that those on the left want to play the ageism game. Seems rather non-PC, eh?
here is just a sampling of reasons why John McCain will NOT be our next president!!
Main reason… he says he supports the troops… but he doesn’t vote that way!!
4/7/2008 ) The McCain Record on Veterans
McCain Refuses to Support Sen. Jim Webb’s and Chuck Hagel’s new GI Bill.
The bill, officially called the “Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007”, would establish a program of educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces who serve in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001.
Sen. Jim Webb has called on McCain to sign on as a co-sponsor to his GI bill
The bill has 51 co-sponsors – including 9 Republicans – but needs 60 co-sponsors to make it filibuster proof.
McCain Voted Against $19 Billion for Military Hospitals, Choosing Tax Cuts for Wealthiest Earners over Veterans.
In February 2006, McCain voted against an amendment that would have provided for at least $19 billion for military health facilities, paid for by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthiest earners.
*Senate Amendment 2735, Amendment failed.
McCain Voted Against Legislation to Provide $2.8 Billion For Medical Care for Veterans.
McCain voted against a 2006 Democratic amendment that would have provided $2.8 billion to increase veterans’ medical care.
*Senate Amendment 149, Amendment failed.
McCain Voted Against Establishing $1 Billion Trust Fund to Provide Improvements to Military and Veterans’ Health Facilities
McCain voted against an Amendment to establish a $1 billion trust fund to provide improvements to health facilities that treat veterans and military personnel paid for by allowing dividends and capital gains tax breaks, for those with incomes greater than $1 million to lapse on December 31, 2006.
*Senate Amendment 2735
McCain Chooses Corporations Over Veterans, Voting Against Adding $1.5 billion to Veterans’ Medical Services in 2007 Budget by Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes.
McCain voted against an Amendment offered by Democrats to increase medical services funding to veterans by $1.5 billion in 2007, to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
*Senate Amendment 3007
McCain Voted Against Mandatory Funding of $6.9 Billion in 2007 Budget and $104 Billion Over Five Years for Veterans’ Health Care.
McCain voted against a Democratic amendment to provide a mandatory stream of funding of $6.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2007 and $104 billion over five years for veterans’ health care; paid for by restoring the pre-2001 top tax rate for incomes over $1 million and closing various corporate tax loopholes.
Senate Amendment 3141
September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.
The legislation would have provided minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
*Senate Amendment 2909
April 2006: McCain one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430 million for Medical Services for the Department of Veteran Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
Despite his vote against, it passed overwhelmingly, 84-13 (3 not voting). All 13 voting against were Republicans.
*Senate Amendment 3642
October 2003: McCain voted against an amendment offered by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322 million for safety equipment for troops in Iraq.
*Senate Amendment 1817
April 2003: McCain voted against an amendment that would have provided more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.
*Senate Amendment 452
August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650 million.
*Senate Amendment 1218
sky55110…
You may be absolutely right about all the reasons you mention. So what options do you offer? Do you prefer Obama or Hillary? If not, what then? Do you think H or O will support the troops any better than McCain appears to?
I knew this thread would bring out the BHO true believers out there!
Fit fit – Nice alter list, well thought out; your #3 point is particularly valid I think.
In the spirit of alternate lists, I put forth the following list for everybody’s reading edification: When Obama loses; Top 5 reasons that will be cited by his supporters!
5) The wily machinations of establishment Democrats and the Clintons in particular – Hillary not bowing out when Dean and other radicals called for it has creating continuing friction inside the party and called BHO’s electability into serious question.
4) Americans are warmongers – If Americans refuse to back BHO’s plan to turn-tail and run out of Iraq, then clearly we’re blinded by patriotic fervor (as opposed to understanding that leaving the job unfinished would be infinitely worse than staying the course)
3) Middle America is too busy being “bitter” and “clinging to guns and religion” to have seen BHO’s elitist wisdom – Yes, it really is too bad that Americans haven’t realized that “religion is the opiate of the masses,” and that firearms ownership is passé in DNC circles.
2) Americans at large don’t realize that the Democratic Party as personified by BHO has their best interests at heart – Think “What’s Wrong with Kansas?” on a large scale. Americans’ obsession with “distractions” like character and judgment will have guided them away from the Marxist / Leninist paradise that BHO promises us.
1) Americans are racists – Yes, of course this had to be number one; because you know the “race card” will be trotted out in the event that BHO goes down either at the DNC convention, or on Election Day. Michelle Obama will come on TV and explain how she is again disappointed in America, and that as a black man BHO just couldn’t get elected.
Overall, I agree with your points but it’s hard for me to see why, if 80% of black folks are voting for Obama presumably because he’s black, why it would be wrong for white folks to vote overwhelmingly for Hillary because she is white? Let’s face it, all voters should make their determination about the best candidate based on the candidate’s experience, positions on issues, and personal appeal. It is difficult to argue that the percentages of blacks voting for Obama are not based on race. Neither he nor Hillary would be the nominees of their party but for identity politics. That’s fine, if that is what the democrats want, but it should not be used to bludgeon poor white guys for not drinking the Cool Aid Obama is selling, and then alleging the reason is some inherent racism. In this case, where is the racism, really?
Well, we know skye55110 didn’t get her talking points from Randi Rhodes, wonder where that Koolaid came from.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Skye55110, there are many reasons bills are sponsored, voted for and against in Congress, especially in the run up to a presidential race. Could you provide the backround data for your cut and paste? Are the services duplicated? Did the troop rest bill hamper the ability to deploy troops? Were the elimination of tax credits a threat to the economy? What was the backround debate for these bills?
Knowing that each and every one of these bills went through a debate period before the vote, there has to be hours of information on record, certainly much more than the one or two sentences that you provide for each bill. Are you not curious about that?
This may take a while, be sure to check back often 😉 Sky55110, I’m going to go over those bills McCain voted against that you claim show he doesn’t support the troops. Have you looked at any of the Bills/amendments? I doubt it. Let us take a look at a few.
In regards to S.AMDT.452, here’s his words on the issue:
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I get into the amendment, we have made a preliminary examination of the–this is the reason I said to the Senator from Mississippi we may need a few more minutes–we have made a preliminary examination of the bill, and the first time through it, tragically–I say tragically because the title of this bill is “making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.”
The first thing we find is $98 million under the Agriculture Research Service, buildings and facilities, to complete a research center in Ames, IA.
What is that all about? How in the world do you call $98 million for an agricultural research service center in Ames, IA–remember, it is designated for Ames, IA, not Des Moines, IA; Ames, IA,–that fits into a bill that is called “making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.” Disgraceful.
We have $1 million for the Jobs for America’s Graduates school-to-work program for at-risk young people. I am sure that is an important program. Someone will have to tell me how that is related to the title of this legislation.
There is $6.8 million from O&M Air Force to build and install fiberoptic and power improvements and upgrades at the 11th Air Force Range in Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska.
There is $3 million from O&M Army to build a rifle range for the South Carolina National Guard.
There is $12 million for research, development, test, and evaluation Defense-wide for airfield improvements in Alaska that may be associated–may I emphasize: may be associated–with the ground-based midcourse missile defense program.
There is requiring a study regarding delivery of pediatric health care in northeastern Oklahoma.
There is $225,000 for the Mental Health Association of Tarrant County, TX.
There is $200,000 for the AIDS Research Institute at the
University of California, San Francisco, for developing a county medical program to facilitate clinician exchange between the United States and developing countries.
There is $1 million for the Geisinger Health System, Harrisburg, PA, to establish centers of excellence for the treatment of autism.
Why can’t we, for once–for once–bring forward a bill–especially when we are at war, especially when we have young men and women fighting and dying–that is free of these outrageous kinds of spending? Can’t we do that just once?
Well, now let’s get to the $50 million for the title XI Maritime Loan Program, which is the subject of the amendment.
**************************
Just a little bit of pork thrown in there….
Senate Amendment 1817
As part of this amendment we can see the little pigs were trying to bring home the bacon:
SA 1802. Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. CORZINE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BYRD, Mr. PRYOR, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. NELSON of Florida) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1689, making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; as follows:
On page 54, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new section:
SEC. 215. Of the amount provided for the National Marine Fisheries Service in this title under the subheading “OPERATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES” under the heading “NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION”, $20,556,000 shall be available for Columbia River hatchery operations for Pacific Salmon as follows:
(1) $13,587,000 for hatcheries and facilities;
(2) $2,052,000 for monitoring, evaluation, and reform; and
(3) $4,917,000 for other facilities.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r108:FLD001:S12392
Sky55110: Nice little cut and paste job you dropped above from Left wing loser Ed Shultz:
http://www.wegoted.com/News/more.asp?ID=4398
So much for original thinking. Not that I am surprised. Like I suggested earlier, you make quite a good parrot.
But don’t drink that Kool Aid too close to bedtime. You’ll be up all night!
Great work Uddercha0s!!
Always more to the story.
all this republican/democrat crap is such nonsense
there is racism in every group, just depends on the individual person
martin luther king, jr was a republican
adolf hitler was probably a democrat
who knows, who cares
nowadays this political party crap is used to distract you from the real shit, and make you choose people for candidacy who dont need to be there
Bush obviously doesnt care about a ‘republic’ he lets his go in the dumps…hint hint,.war…recession
and his view on democracy………..oh boy the list will not fit………..lets just say he doesnt care about your vote because he said ‘oh…..im not gone lose’……..we dont vote directly for the president anyway………the primary is probably more important that the national election, the popular vote doesnt choose the president elect and if it did al gore or john kerry would be president right know and they probably would have done the same terrible things that bush has done and doing as we speak
the bottom line is: to post something like “5 reasons why obama wont be president”
means that you might have a small penis or a whack vagina and have way to much time on your hands
by the way ……… i am african-unamerican and i dont care who wins the election because whats gonna happen is gonna happen and one earth dwelling human with a title cant stop it
First the “all this republican/democrat crap is such nonsense” followed by typical leftist talking points… This translates to me as “you conservatives (different from Republicans it seems) need to stop pushing your issues, be good lemmings like us leftists, and vote for “progressives” who will lead us all over the cliff.”
Followed by personal insults to boot! Some “Master” Teacher….
BTW, Kerry lost the popular vote too. Some would say Gore did also, but the military was disenfranchised in 2000 (and some like me in 2004) and we primarily vote republican. Oh, and no republic/democracy has ever survived disenfranchising its military vote.. let alone twice…. EXCEPT the United States. Says something about us. Something our anti-American foes abroad and domestically probably will not understand or if they do, will infuriate them as it shows their “small penis” mentality.
Obama risks alienating newfound GOP fans
By Robert Novak, might be off topic, but for deeper reasons I feel it needs to be looked at. Please I know my comment is long but Kovaks article needed to included.
I consider myself a real Conservative that believes in a Republic. Not a neo-con.
At first, my alienation of Robert Novak in the outing of Valerie Plame was at minimum to be censured as a Journalist, or face felony charges. Because he is guilty of deliberate violations of some basic national security secret laws. However, in time and absolute disregard for law the Neo-Con greed have again opened the door, by Novak and released a very direct action. Here, actually Novak shows and validates the GOP complicity happening in America’s primary election with direct manipulation of the Caucus States especially those that will never vote Democratic. At least Americans know five red states Obama won in the primary have never voted Democratic in over forty years. And for those who think Obama will win in those states are likely filled with the Audacity of Hope. Many know and so does Hillary that those numbers are a direct adjustment by Republican cross overs.
Guy’s like Chris Mathews like to call this atrocity, Republican mischief? Absolutely discussing when one finds out a whole political arena as Neo-Con’s can “At Will” send legions of loyalist to rallies and add numbers to the basic vote by just raising a hand and declaring to be independent after voting once as a Republican. Let alone funnel money to an electorate of the opposite party to stir the out come and produce poles that are a fraud.
From my studies there is a whole legion of Republicans via non-profit Institutions Think Tanks, and Special Interest Groups, and Political Blogs across America built over time in gerrymandered into voting schemes that are and have been part of making adjustments to American politics for decades. Republicans’ have been spiking the Democratic nominee game for years. Choking the vote, let alone choking the economy. Please don’t just call me stupid, no, not informed by Mainstream Media for not understanding this over the years. It’s the Internet and those scattered stories that many say are not true but in fact are the worst kind of reality that makes any American furious. The Zeitgeist in corruption beyond belief. Major media is part and core of the confusion in American elitism in politics.
Anyway, I present Novak’s article in full and agree that the GOP is alienated, but not because of Obama’s misstep, but because of a planed political strategy brilliantly unfolding to be as corrupt and fraudulent in the primary analysis of this voting process is a fraud the American Mainstream Media are delivering via first line Journalist here, with deliberate distortions confuse the analysis just as they did to the run up to the war in Iraq. Obama is a straw man. And for the Republican’s that always has been known. Also, when challenged how easy it is for Obama to loose focus and drive off the road. Even the Kennedy’s are so desperate to play the game they say Obama is like JFK. Totally bullroar.
But what jumps out at me in this article is when Novak deliberately uses the word “apostate”. Yikes. Here, in wide open national news rage Novak links even those Republican loyalist in a religious context as nonbelievers along with Obama believers. A word as apostates clearly is woven in religious intellectual debate used in Sunday school every week and relations to Islamic radicals. A huge notion with deliberate ties to being bitter and not even inserting thoughts about the Reverend Wright is all very telling where Obama could possibly be so left of center he would compromise or even be complicit with Iran, Iraq, or Islam. Which is clearly stated in his book “Audacity of Hope” defines Islamic theology as internationally traditional. Did you get that “traditional” Well America what happened to that Christian anchored believe? McCain and the media see a sweet victory over Obama.
The Chicago Sun-Times Commentary page 25 Monday April 21, 2008
Obama risks alienating newfound GOP fans
By Robert Novak
novakevans@aol.com
Washington – Traveling the country the last few months, I have encountered habitual Republican voters so entranced by Barack Obama’s potential to lead the nation that they plan to vote for him in November. Once Hillary Clinton’s defected supporters return to loyalty, Obama Republicans could produce a Democratic presidential land slide. But Obama’s missteps jeopardize their support and imperial his election.
These apostate Republicans have leaned toward him as an exceptional candidate in the mold of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, a post-partisan leader and a welcome contrast to George W. Bush’s failed presidency. That impression threatened by Obama’s performance the last ten days, climaxed by Wednesday night’s debate with Hillary Clinton.
Obama’s new resemblance is less to Kennedy or Reagan than to leftist author Thomas frank, whose 2004 book “Whats the Matter With Kansas?’ answer the liberal conundrum: Why do ordinary Americans vote against their own economic interests to support Republicans? Frank explained that”deranged” and “Lunatic” Kansans were led away by Republicans from material concerns to social issues. Obama similarly described small-town Americas turning to guns and the Bible in frustration over government’s failure to take care them- a more genteel version of Frank.
That raises the question “Whats the matter with Obama?”
Almost everybody I encounter in politics is familiar with Frank’s best-seller. Democrats are united in embracing his theory but are divided about its rhetoric. While sophisticated Democratic politicians regard the book as condescending to lower-income Americans, grass-roots activists in the party consider it gospel. They tell me Obama should not back away from what got him in trouble: his declaration in San Francisco that “bitter” small-towns in Pennsylvania and elsewhere “cling to guns or religion.”
Obama and his advisors know better. Though he revealed political inexperience by thinking what he said in San Francisco would stay in San Francisco, he is savvy enough to apologize profusely for “gaffes” and “errors.” But he considers his blunder one of style, not of substance.
The Trick is for Obama to distance himself from the rhetoric while holding to the theory, as restructured in last week’s debate: “Yes [the American people] are in part frustrated and angry” by “manufactured” issues. Indeed, he said beating” to death” this issue is “not helping that person…trying to figure out how to pay the bills at the end of the month.”
Clinton’s effort to brand Obama as elitist has failed to move the poles. Nevertheless, Democratic pros feel that the San Francisco incident halted an Obama surge in Pennsylvania that might have won him the state and ended Clinton’s campaign Tuesday. What really worries them, however, is the impact on Independents and Republicans who had been entranced by the young man from Chicago.
Now they wonder whether the appealing unifier is really a divider.
Obama is trying to change the subject, but he lost his cool demeanor when ABC news questioners Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos returned to his San Francisco statement in Wednesday’s debate, I never before had seen a candidate criticize the moderator or challenge his premises so often(on at least eight occasions).”Look, let me finish my point here, Charlie,” said Obama, after Gibson had interrupted him after a 126-word answer.
The other unprecedented element was the deluge of abuse heaped on the two ABC moderators by television critics and political writers. They object to prolonging what amounts to a debate on “Whats wrong with Obama?” Exploring whether Barack Obama is a modified Thomas Frank does not depend on television talking heads or Hillary Clinton. Supporters of John McCain, seeking to reel back the Obama Republicans, will press the issue from now to November.
Comment at suntimes.com
One of our biggest problems in discussing race is that it is not a black and white issue, and I’m not talking about skin color. Some seem to think people are either “not racist” or a “klansman/black panther”. For others, the term “racist” means many different things.
Personally, I believe everyone harbors some degree of racial prejudices. Those prejudices often exist with no overt hate whatsoever. In my life I’ve encountered people with a wide range of beliefs. I’ve never meet a Klansman, but I went to school with people whose dads were. There are people who don’t consider themselves racist because “they don’t hate black people just niggers” (I think Chris Rock said this too). I’ve knew a guy who grew up spewing all kinds of racist things. He joined the Navy and came back saying he’d met black people he trusted now more than his own brother.
Some people fixate on race more than others. Many black people I’ve met fixate on race more than the “racist” white people I’ve known. Then there are the people who in turn fixate on this “reverse racism”.
Most people fall into what Obama clumsily termed a “typical white person” – someone who is likely to feel intimidated by race in a certain situtations. In this sense a “typical black person” might feel intimidated being pulled over by a white cop in rural Alabama. This is not racial hatred, but a lingering mistrust.
Politically, Liberals tend to overemphasize race and racial identity. Conservatives come across as pretending there is no real problem to address (Colbert spoofs this by claiming he cannot even “see” race). The answer, as always, probably lies somewhere in between.
Today’s Senate amendment, S.AMDT.2735. It seems this was so important that it was included in the above list twice. What the list fails to mention is that S.AMDT.2732, “To support the health needs of our veterans and military personnel.” was submitted by Sen. Grassley and approved before the Dodd amendment. Dodd, aong with the usual band of merry pranksters wanted to shelve that amendment and have his entered.
“The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment numbered 2735. ”
This gave him the oppourtunity to do a little grandstanding and read a letter from the American Legion.
We can see that the whole thing was really just pointless posturing, my amendment is better than yours…
“Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, since we adopted the previous amendment, we obviously don’t need this amendment. But even if we consider this amendment, I raise a budget point of order on the amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to waive all provisions of the Budget Act and budget resolutions necessary for consideration of the pending amendment to this bill, and for inclusion of the language of the pending amendment in the consideration of an amendment between the Houses. ”
The Dodd amendment was rejected 44 – 53 and ruled out of order. This continued for several more amendments.
“The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Just not to confuse anybody, we are kind of going through the same thing we did on the previous two amendments, so be alerted. “
I just discovered Flopping Aces. One of the best sites I’ve found.
Intelligent, well written–and you guys can spell very well
I like that. I shall return.
barack will die