Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Sea Of Whiteness

That was the first thing I noticed about John McCain’s acceptance speech — a sea of white people. I have never seen so many white people all in one place. I live in San Diego. But that wasn’t the point of John McCain’s speech. It was this: Did I mention I was a POW?

Yep, the speech was short on vision and long on war stories. Frankly, I found Cindy McCain's story far more compelling, although there was a disconnect when she was talking about Abraham Lincoln,

And this convention celebrates a special and exceptional Republican Party. The hand we feel on our shoulder belongs to Abraham Lincoln. Our country was born... amidst the struggle for freedom, and our party arose from a great battle for human rights, dignity, and equality for all people. We give way to no one and no other party in that cause.

I found it hard to reconcile that with the sea of whiteness that she was addressing... But back to John McCain.

John McCain failed utterly to provide a vision of what America would be like under a McCain presidency. It seemed like it was all about him and his experience in Vietnam. I understand that that was a transformative moment for McCain, but it means almost nothing to me.

In fact, it seems like by losing that fight, we actually won because Vietnam is now a huge US trading partner. It makes me wonder what would happen if we "lost" Iraq, and let the Iraqi's sort out their own problems...

McCain tried to make the case that he's a maverick, but that falls flat in the face of his voting record -- having voted more than 90% of the time with President Bush. When he said,

We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption... We lost their trust when we valued our power over our principles.

All I could think of was, "And you expect us to trust you now!? What's changed? Just the fact that you're trying to get elected president?" Please... Spare me the self-flagellation. I'm not buying it.

Posted by American Pundit at September 5, 2008 12:26 AM
Comments
Comment #261629

I was about half paying attention to parts of the hoopla tonight, but when he started in about VietNam again, that was it. I am absolutely sick of hearing it, and I’d venture a guess that I’m not alone. It’s a terrible and sad story, for sure, but what is the saddest part of it all, is that he relies so heavily on that to glean attention and sympathy. It is all he can talk about with conviction and certainty.
This guy seems to have a different opinion of him, and his aspirations………

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70&eurl=http://mudflats.wordpress.com/

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 12:55 AM
Comment #261635

AP,

Yeah, I’m not sure what being shot down and lying in a sh**hole, has to do with a successful presidency, but I’m as sick of hearing this as Rudy’s 9-11 mantra. Does he think we owe him?

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 5, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #261643

Ah, yes, the old “Republicans are a bunch of mean white people” argument. Isn’t that a bit passe?

Posted by: David M.Huntwork at September 5, 2008 2:15 AM
Comment #261645

terrorism is the new red sea, and macnamara is still alive.

What you can’t see will hurt the most, says they behind the curtin in Washington Oz.C.

Posted by: dog at September 5, 2008 2:23 AM
Comment #261647

AP,
I like how creative you are in finding article subjects. Like this one, where you take a line from Jay Leno last night and attempt to turn it into a worthwhile post.

Impressive…

Your last line would be a great line for Obama…

You are the most radically liberal senator in the country, three steps to the left of a self proclaimed socialist… “And you expect us to trust you now!? What’s changed? Just the fact that you’re trying to get elected president?” Please… Spare me the self-flagellation. I’m not buying it.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at September 5, 2008 2:33 AM
Comment #261654

Did anyone else see in the middle of Lindsey Graham’s speech, twice I saw lines of tombstones on NSNBC very, very briefly when he was talking about Obama . Then I switched to C-Span, but by then his speach was over. It looked like Arlington . Subliminal messages? Shame, shame

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at September 5, 2008 7:53 AM
Comment #261667

It is amazing that the party founded by slave owners, that fought the war to preserve slavery and invented Jim Crow laws has managed to win over minorities let alone African Americans. It would be as if Jewish Americans voted for the National Socialist Party Of America in the next 50 years or so. No memory and doomed to repeat the past.
Its a great makeover but the roots run deep and dirty on the Dems.
I represent the brothers who will never forget and we will enlighten our blinded brothers.

Posted by: a brother who will never forget at September 5, 2008 8:13 AM
Comment #261668

Polling is looking pretty sour for McCain/Palin ticket. Scan the half dozen topics on the linked page. Unless the Convention gives the GOP ticket a 5 point national boost (extremely unlikely, now), Obama enters the debates with a lead in the polls and that means he doesn’t have to take any risks in the debate. McCain Palin will then have to take the risks to try to move those polls in the debates. And that is of course, risky!

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2008 8:13 AM
Comment #261675

That polling data is largely pre-convention. I have no doubt Mccain will be in the lead in the next few days. The Republicans have outmaneuvered their opponents once again. The reason is mostly they have their convention second. Huge advantage.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 5, 2008 8:38 AM
Comment #261677

brother,
you are not a brother at all are you. Your comment is a poor disguise.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 5, 2008 8:43 AM
Comment #261681

All I could think of was, “And you expect us to trust you now!? What’s changed? Just the fact that you’re trying to get elected president?

I will be honest and say I only watched bits and pieces last night. I am pretty sick of all the hypocrisy which surrounds claims of a more patriotic and value based segment of society which is the good conservative party. Tell the folks they stand for something and they will follow you anywhere, regardless of validity. What a bunch of misrepresented presumptive hogwash. I think the word “lemmings” might be appropriate as to how the GOP truly views its constituency.

In the little time I watched I picked up on a few key words that validated what I thought the speech would be. Nothing new. Those key words were POW, war, terrorism, maverick, oil, and change. Everything in this list is pretty much old news and very mush subject to valid argument one way or another. That last word, change, I find incredibly ironic and contradictory coming from a blind party supporter, who by the way is no maverick and whose VP pick spent an entire speech pretty much decrying the value of bi- partisanship

In essence the republicans spent this convention building up their worth in values and patriotism. They threw in a good deal of fear mongering. Then they tore themselves down by admitting that they have been the agents of divisiveness, corruption, partisanship, poor policy, stagnation and non compromise. They are admitting that they really screwed the pooch, to put it mildly. I guess the point being that they now realize their error and should be given one more chance to reach across the aisles in an effort to unite our legislators and the people of this country for the greater good.

My question is why is the greater good suddenly an issue with them. Could that have something to do with the convenience of an election and the very great possibility of losing the opportunity to further screw the pooch?

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 9:47 AM
Comment #261684
I find incredibly ironic and contradictory coming from a blind party supporter.

I find it ironic from either side. McCain, 90% with Republicans, Obama, 97% with Democrats.

Neither are going to distance from the base very far…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 9:55 AM
Comment #261685

schwamp

The Republicans have outmaneuvered their opponents once again. The reason is mostly they have their convention second. Huge advantage.

The only people the republicans have moved are the lemmings which follow them with blinders on. You folks go ahead and jump off that cliff with your agenda driven slogan bearers. I prefer to stay on stable ground with some vision as to where I am headed.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 9:57 AM
Comment #261688

Rhinehold

Neither are going to distance from the base very far…

I know that and would not attempt to argue it. The difference being that one side at least has a vision for taking us into the future and has been striving for bipartisanship since the advent of the campaign. The other offers absolutely no vision of a new and better future. Only an admission that they are the cause of the current situation. And a revelation that they now need to take the approach of the blue side. Their approach amounts to nothing more than manipulative mind games in an attempt to make the gullible believe they have suddenly discovered a new found genuineness. Simple and disingenuous mind games, designed not to serve those they prey on, but to further seal the deal for the ruling class that has been running this country for eight years now.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 10:12 AM
Comment #261695

RickIL,

striving for bipartisanship since the advent of the campaign.

How? Other than words, what actions has Obama made in bipartisanship? Biden?

McCain, for all of his faults, has a long history of bipartisanship. He went against his party in calling for more troops in Iraq, when the Dems were calling for them as well, and drew much ire from the right. Now he is being proven out to have been right. He has a long laundry list of bills that he has worked on with Democratic senators.

What history does Obama have of seeking out bipartisanship? His voting record sure doesn’t show it. What has he DONE towards this goal?

I was listening to an Obama campaign person this morning on our local radio and she got a call asking for her to detail Obama’s accomplishments in the Senate. She, as a good little soldier, deflected and wouldn’t directly answer the answer (I think she said something about leading the campaign). She then got call after call afterwards demanding that she name just one single piece of legislation and each time, she says “I’ve already answered the question, let’s talk about this talking point, etc…”

He is going to have to, before the election takes place if he wants to win, have his campaign do a much better job of bolstering his record to the people because there are a lot of undecideds out there now and if he doesn’t he is going to run into trouble convincing them… Just saying ‘McSame’ isn’t going to cut it, people, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, are not that stupid…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 10:54 AM
Comment #261697

I was about half paying attention to parts of the hoopla tonight, but when he started in about VietNam again, that was it. I am absolutely sick of hearing it, and I’d venture a guess that I’m not alone. It’s a terrible and sad story, for sure, but what is the saddest part of it all, is that he relies so heavily on that to glean attention and sympathy. It is all he can talk about with conviction and certainty.

I can understand that but don’t forget… The rest of us felt the same way four years ago when someone else was running on his war record.
The thing is, the Viet Nam war was such a big part of both their lives, there was no way to avoid the subject. Kerry, however, talked about it way too much during the beginning of his campaign, even challenging Bush to a debate on the subject despite being in a completely different war now. McCain may talk about Viet Nam a bit more than is necessary, but at least he hasn’t gone that far overboard with it.

Posted by: TheTraveler at September 5, 2008 11:00 AM
Comment #261698

AP,
The whiteness is so blinding it’s hard to look at. Hey, maybe that’s why the righties can’t manage to see what we see. :^)
Btw, seems like a really OLD crowd, too.

Bravo, RickIL!!!
What you said — both posts.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 5, 2008 11:02 AM
Comment #261703

Rhinehold

McCain may have worked with democratic senators but that does not make him a maverick. I am not going to look up the exact numbers. But you know as well as I or anyone that he is a republican first and foremost and his voting record very definitely establishes that. I will say that as republicans go, yes he does seem to be a bit more responsive to the other side than most. His problem is that like Bush he will be and think it is evident that he is now at the whim of the GOP. It is the big picture that truly defines that purely partisan agenda. It is that agenda that McCain will be obligated to.

As for the merits of Obama. Well to be honest most people don’t sit down and take the time to memorize accomplishments of a person. We know they are there, but without an immediate reference point we can not let them flow off our tongues. You know as well as I that they are there and available for all who wish to view them. They certainly will not fill up as much space as 26 years of service will. But what he has done in his short time is worthy of recognition. And yes there is evidence of reaching across the aisles. Obama

I can look at the big picture here from both sides and what I see is one side that has a clear sustained and recent self confessed record of non accomplishment and fueling partisan hatred. Given the magnitude of their lack of integrity I have no choice but to put no trust in their claims of a new more credible and accountable approach to governance. Fool me once, fool me twice…..

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 11:24 AM
Comment #261704

RickIL,

You’re falling into the trap of comparing the Republican party to Obama. If you want to compare the Republican party to the Democratic party and then make your decision, fine. Or if you want to compare Obama against McCain, fine. But you are comparing apples to oranges when you say you support Obama because he is bipartisan but the Republican party is not.

The reason McCain didn’t win nomination in 2000 and had a hard time ‘firing up the base’ this year is because he is seen as that bipartisan person by the people in his party. It’s not just perception but documented history.

Whether or not you want to vote for him on those issues is your decision, if you want to back the guy who is bipartisan AND a member of your party, great. But you shouldn’t have to dismiss the accomplishments of the opponent in that same area when they are right there for all to see.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment #261706

traveler

McCain may talk about Viet Nam a bit more than is necessary, but at least he hasn’t gone that far overboard with it.

A bit more than necessary? He, his pundits, his campaign staff, his fellow cronies, his constituency have layered it on us like icing on a cake since the advent of this campaign. They have used the words Vietnam and the letters POW to define this person over and over and over…. I would venture to say that there is not a person in this country who does not have an instant vision of the words “Vietnam” when they see or hear the words “John McCain”

I served in Nam as did a few others on this blog and I am not decrying his service. But using it to put him on a mantle as some sort of warrior god simply because he served and was a pow along with many others is a bit preposterous and overboard. 53,000 Americans did not come home from that affair alive. He did. What makes him anymore worthy, patriotic or hero like than those who died or simply served and still returned home. It is a perception that has ben molded, formed and reaffirmed thousands of times over for decades now. It is not a picture of the current man. I left Vietnam behind many many years ago. My life views and standards have changed countless times since. Why should I not believe his have not?

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 11:42 AM
Comment #261710

Rhinehold said “The reason McCain didn’t win nomination in 2000 and had a hard time ‘firing up the base’ this year is because he is seen as that bipartisan person by the people in his party. It’s not just perception but documented history.”

I agree Rhinehold and I think he should stay in the Senate and continue his efforts at working across the aisle for the benefit of the Country.
Had he been able to get his fellow repubs to do the same the Country would be a much better place today.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2008 11:52 AM
Comment #261711

“It makes me wonder what would happen if we “lost” Iraq, and let the Iraqi’s sort out their own problems…”

AP we won in Iraq years ago if we use the stated goals of GWB that got us into the debacle to begin with. We just dont know when to come home after winning.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 5, 2008 11:55 AM
Comment #261712

Rhinehold

I am not attempting to dismiss or diminish McCains accomplishments. I am not in agreement with all of them and I do not think he has stayed in character with all he has accomplished. I do know that he is viewed by the mainstream hardcore right wingers as someone who does not follow their values to a tee. It was noticeable in the lack of applause last night at the mention of change and describing the recent past as a failure for the GOP. I am wondering how that will play out for him. Most who buck the GOP party generally end up being black balled and rendered useless to the party. It is that general, but what I consider valid, perception of the GOP party as being obstructionist, one sided, and demanding of complete unfettered obligation to their agenda that fuels that notion of lack of vision and no true direction beyond the status quo.

My observations in these writings have led me back to my original notions many months ago that caused me to come to the revelation that staying the course would be nothing more than admitting there is no hope for a better tomorrow. I may be old and overly opinionated but I am not ready to give up hope just yet.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 11:58 AM
Comment #261713

AP Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for starting a new topic.

I also noticed all the white and old faces. Some young people but not many. I have felt for a while now that the republican party as it is is a dying breed. The influence of the religious right was a manufactured entity thrown out there by the corporate machine and touted by the corporate owned right wing media. IMO this was used to cover their tracks when they stole the elections in 2000 and 2004.

If we aren’t careful it will happen again and they will say the moral majority won it for McCain. Just like they control the polls that come out saying that Barack and McCain are close. I don’t believe it. IMO this is just so when they steal the election AGAIN it can look legit.

The fact that it was so white just shows that John McCain isn’t for everyone. How could he be while in the midst of so much whiteness.

Thank God that the democratic party learned it’s lesson and was willing to change from the segregationist, racist party it was in the past and has learned to embrace all Americans not just WASPS.

Posted by: Carolina at September 5, 2008 11:59 AM
Comment #261715

RickL,

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. I just think that McCain’s focus on Viet Nam pales in comparison to at least the first half of Kerry’s campaign.
I hope you didn’t expect not to hear about it. Both these guys saw the war as a character building experiance (which indeed it was for both of them).
Some candidates do take the other extreme, though. Bob Dole didn’t like to talk about his war experiances at all and that may have cost him a bit.

Posted by: TheTraveler at September 5, 2008 12:15 PM
Comment #261720
Just like they control the polls that come out saying that Barack and McCain are close. I don’t believe it.

? How, exactly, do they ‘control the polls’? Do you really have this belief that there is a behind the scenes power structure controlling everything and that we don’t matter?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 12:36 PM
Comment #261723

The Traveler, I will agree with you to a point regarding Kerry. But how much of his talking points became defense, after all the swiftboating started. What was he supposed to do then, but what he did….fight the vicious attacks on his record with the truth, ultimately.
McCain has very little else to talk about that can take up time to fill out a speech.
Part of another concept going around here is that McCain’s appeal is with the older group, which still has a lot of WWII veterans in it. It is only my opinion, but there are far more supporters of that war, then there are for the VietNam war. Being part or that generation and knowing that so many opposed it and avoided it if possible, or were treated despicably upon return from it, is pretty telling about our hatred for the debacle Iraq has turned into.
That is McCain’s base and he is catering to that, and them, which sweeps us all up in the monotony of his time spent there.
I am grateful to him, as I am for all the others who served and returned, and those who didn’t ! It’s just gotten to the point where his redundancies are now repulsive.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 12:58 PM
Comment #261725

I’ll take a gray, long-haired, pot smoking, Harley riding Viet Nam veteran any day! But the ones I know don’t talk much about those days, and don’t feel the need to run a sound loop to enhance their existance.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #261731

janedoe

I’ll take a gray, long-haired, pot smoking, Harley riding Viet Nam veteran any day! But the ones I know don’t talk much about those days, and don’t feel the need to run a sound loop to enhance their existance.

Never had a harley, haven’t smoked pot since I became a father and don’t have enough hair to grow it long, but I qualify magnificently in the gray department. :-)

You are correct most of us Nam vets don’t talk about it. I am not sure why that is. But I do have an opinion. I think part of it is that upon returning home we received no congratulatory or affirming positive accolades from the citizens of this country. The result is that we were somewhat conditioned to not talk about it because no on wanted wanted to discuss it at time. I think that has carried over. I have found that even talking with another Nam vet is difficult. I am not a psychologist but it just seems like none of us really want to reawaken those times because they were not comfortable times for us. I am not looking for any sympathy or apologies here. Just trying to generalize on why things are the way they are.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 1:51 PM
Comment #261738

David Remer says, “Obama enters the debates with a lead in the polls and that means he doesn’t have to take any risks in the debate.”

By “risks” are you referring to Obama not talking about his relationship with Ayers, not admitting that the surge is successful, not embracing the overwhelming voter position of drill here, drill now to provide a bridge to the future, not recognizing that voters want less government, less pork spending, and fewer government obstacles to individual freedom?

RickIL says, “Most who buck the GOP party generally end up being black balled and rendered useless to the party. It is that general, but what I consider valid, perception of the GOP party as being obstructionist, one sided, and demanding of complete unfettered obligation to their agenda that fuels that notion of lack of vision and no true direction beyond the status quo.”

Ok RickIL, I’ll put up two examples of democrats practicing what you preach…Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. Now, will you cite two examples of republicans doing what you say?

Posted by: Jim M at September 5, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #261742

I agree Rick, that there isn’t much discussion, and not being a pshychiatrist either, I have no explanation. The idea of it being a war stands alone as an explanation, but it carries horrors and atrocities all it’s own. The one thing over the years that I have heard consistantly from my friends and acquaintances, that remains the most vivid memory,……is the smell!
Check this out sometime…I feel it’s worth a look-see

http://www.silverrose.info/main%20menu%20page.html

The gray is for sure a qualifier.. ;)

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #261744

RickIL,

You are probably right about why we Nam vets don’t talk much about our war experiences, but my father was a Marine in WWII, and was in two major pacific battles, and was invited to the Missouri to witness the truce signing, and he never talked much about his experiences either. Some are talkers and are proud of the people they have killed and some are silently regretting the very same thing. I lost two Marines to sniper fire while they were trying to repair a damaged crawler tracter in the field. Why would I want to talk about that??? And, later, I became ashamed of the war I took part in, why would I want to talk about my experiences in a war I was ashamed of??? So our reception likely caused some to remain reticent, but there are miriad other reasons.

I don’t know why Kerry and McPain talk so much about their war, but it probably has something to do with how they perceive their constituencies.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #261745
not admitting that the surge is successful

He did last night, with caveats.

You are correct most of us Nam vets don’t talk about it. I am not sure why that is. But I do have an opinion.

Most of the people who don’t talk much about it are the ones who had to kill people they saw, were close to and watch their lives drain away. That is not something most people really want to talk about…

My uncle almost never ever talks about it and we respect that.

McCain has a bit of a different view than most foot soldiers, I think. Though I think the point that most make is that his actions during those 5 years kept the other POWs going (one was there this week) and showed leadership in some pretty terrible situations.

Though, I mentioned in the other thread, we’ve heard it now, not sure we need more retelling. If I was running the convention I would have made sure McCain himself never mentioned it, just everyone else. But, that’s just my opinion.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 2:29 PM
Comment #261750

>Though, I mentioned in the other thread, we’ve heard it now, not sure we need more retelling. If I was running the convention I would have made sure McCain himself never mentioned it, just everyone else. But, that’s just my opinion.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 02:29 PM

Rhinehold,

I’m not real sure why it would make a difference just WHO talked about it. Are you saying that being held prisoner of war in some way qualifies one for the US presidency??? Please explain…

Every experience we live through makes us who we are, but it doesn’t correspond with the ability to govern.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 2:36 PM
Comment #261751

dude

You are right there probably are a myriad other reasons. And you are correct in that some of us find no particular joy or value in discussing the taking of another human life. I can not say that I ever saw the value in going to Nam, before or after, I was simply to young to understand the implications and motivations. Never the less just like these young people today we did what we had to do because that is what our superiors demanded of us.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 2:44 PM
Comment #261753

I wonder when we’re going to hear the last of the so-called ‘SURGE’. It was a last ditch…hail Mary…panic driven tactic in a misbegotten war. For Christ’s sake why is it still being talked about? ‘O’ told O’Stupid that he agreed the surge worked, and O’Stupid still wanted more…more what? Capitulation, on bended knee? ‘O’ should have shrugged O’Stupid off, but I guess politicians have to go along with some foolishness in order not to turn off some voters. I’m not sure why he thinks O’Stupid watchers might vote for him, but he’s been right about things so far…maybe he has a reason.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #261754

I think being a POW for 5 years is a very important turning point for a person and needs to be included as a defining point. There are examples that during that time he shows some leadership skills in times that are much harsher than we are going to see in normal everyday life. If he can survive that time without going completely crazy, surely the rigors of being president are not going to break him.

Other than that though, it is what it is. If McCain was saying that he is qualified to be president based on being a POW for 5 years ONLY, then I would disagree with him. However, he has a long history of legislation to run on as well, examples of trying to work with members of the other party to pass important legislation, he was instrumental in pushing for the surge when others in his party excoriated him for speaking out against Bush, etc.

It’s a fallacy to suggest that he is running on being a POW only, therefore we should ignore it. It is a part of him and what has defined him.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 2:48 PM
Comment #261756

RickIL,

Damn, your spell checker must be better than mine…LOL. Unless there is a real question in my mind about a word, I generally just use me…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 2:52 PM
Comment #261758

>If he can survive that time without going completely crazy, surely the rigors of being president are not going to break him.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 02:48 PM

Rhinehold,

Yeah, I’ve been wondering about that too, what made you suspect it first?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #261759

janedoe

The one thing over the years that I have heard consistantly from my friends and acquaintances, that remains the most vivid memory,……is the smell!

Being so young and not yet seasoned as to the ways of the world I was a bit surprised one night when out of nowhere I asked a friend if he too felt a different blackness and feeling in the air than at home. We both agreed that somehow there was a different heaviness and sense of meaning in the air that we could not explain. I realizd later in life that what we were feeling was the aura of death and uncertainty that was everywhere in that country at the time. And yes the unique smell of that place is still vivid to this day.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 3:00 PM
Comment #261760

>I think being a POW for 5 years is a very important turning point for a person and needs to be included as a defining point. There are examples that during that time he shows some leadership skills in times that are much harsher than we are going to see in normal everyday life.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 02:48 PM

Rhinehold,

By that reckoning, I have been the back half of a pair raising eleven children, in the modern world. My experiences have likely been as stressful and physically demanding as McPain’s…will you vote for me if I run for president?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 3:01 PM
Comment #261761

It is not a fallacy that he is running his POW experience into the ground.
I don’t agree and laud the way he got into the position he had in the military. Having a daddy with clout gets a lot of people into better positions than those who have to earn it. For instance, our current joke in charge. However, I will give McCain credit for actually going into a combat situation, unlike our current joke in charge. And to expand on McCain actually participating, it isn’t quite as dramatic as some are trying to make it…………he was NOT a fighter pilot who would have to engage his opponent on the same playing field. He was a pilot of a bomber, which takes him a long way from that action, and significantly dehumanizes his actions. Somebody just happend to get off a lucky (for them) shot.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #261763

dude

Damn, your spell checker must be better than mine…LOL. Unless there is a real question in my mind about a word, I generally just use me…

I use the latest version of mozilla. I find it much better than IE. For my home page I use netvibes which is also very handy.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment #261764

dude

By that reckoning, I have been the back half of a pair raising eleven children, in the modern world. My experiences have likely been as stressful and physically demanding as McPain’s…will you vote for me if I run for president?

No way dude. You are way overqualified and definitely due a huge break. LOL!

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #261765

dude, good question you posed to Rhinehold !!!!
You win the zinger of the day award.. ;)
And I’d vote for you…

Rick, what you answered is what I heard almost unanimously… the smell of death…both human and vegetation following the defoliation ( of multiple colors ) dumps.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 3:11 PM
Comment #261766
By that reckoning, I have been the back half of a pair raising eleven children, in the modern world. My experiences have likely been as stressful and physically demanding as McPain’s…will you vote for me if I run for president?

1) I’m not voting for McCain, so no I am not going to vote for you

2) It is not the only thing he is running on, it is a part of the whole. Something I’ve found that the left and right are both good on ignoring in their vicious attacks.

3) Are you seriously going to tell me that raising children and being beaten nearly to death and your bones broken, badly reset (if at all) and then rebroken again over the period of five years equate to each other in physical and mental strain? That there is no reward that offsets what raising a child, a decision you freely admit you make and not have thrust upon you?

I find it amazing what contortions people are willing to make for such partisan attacks…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 5, 2008 3:12 PM
Comment #261767
It is not a fallacy that he is running his POW experience into the ground.

I never said he wasn’t. In fact, if you read what I write instead of pre-interpreting it, you would see that I agree that he is.

he was NOT a fighter pilot who would have to engage his opponent on the same playing field. He was a pilot of a bomber, which takes him a long way from that action, and significantly dehumanizes his actions.

Again, read what I wrote, and I pretty much said the same thing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #261770

and Rhinehold, I find it amazing that you find the truth a contortion, and the fact that McCain is of a different political persuasion than we are.
There have been many other political figures who rose in status within their parties, without beating to death their unfortunate experiences.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 3:19 PM
Comment #261774
I find it amazing that you find the truth a contortio

So, the truth is that being a parent is like being in a POW camp for 5 years being physically tortured and suffering physical scars of that torture 30 years later?

I’ve never heard of it put that way before…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 3:49 PM
Comment #261775

“Sea of Whiteness” is just a self-fullfilling innuendo.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 5, 2008 3:49 PM
Comment #261776

>) Are you seriously going to tell me that raising children and being beaten nearly to death and your bones broken, badly reset (if at all) and then rebroken again over the period of five years equate to each other in physical and mental strain? That there is no reward that offsets what raising a child, a decision you freely admit you make and not have thrust upon you?

I find it amazing what contortions people are willing to make for such partisan attacks…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 5, 2008 03:12 PM

Rhinehold,

Nope, I’ll not try to convince you of that. I said that mostly tongue-in-cheek, because your arguments and statements had begun to sound so…well…Rhineholdesque. McPain had a bad time…I’ve had a bad time…you’ve had a bad time…we have all had a bad time…we all don’t dwell on that bad time, nor do we use that bad time as a qualification for running for president.

McPain got out of much of the punishments you give him credit for by turning coat. He may have helped some of his fellow prisoners, but how many did he betray that we have not heard about? If he did, we’ll never hear about it now.

McPain crashed an airplane and was sent to prison…okay…now what?

McPain was in a war…okay…now what?

I guess he’ll run for president or something…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 3:49 PM
Comment #261777

And there are many who have. I am sort of lost as to what point you are making though…

I wonder if you would have said the same about JFK, they even wrote a song about his experiences, was pretty popular one I remember when I was growing up…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 3:50 PM
Comment #261778
I guess he’ll run for president or something…

What I find hilarious is that I have been agree with you and janedoe that he is overdoing it, and you still have to try to find some way to make some point that doesn’t need to be made…

Your criticism would be different (valid) if he was running ONLY on his POW experience. Since that is obviously not the case, as it is only a part of who he is and what he has become, it becomes a minor narrative. You seem to want to make it a disqualifer of some sort?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 3:55 PM
Comment #261779

>What I find hilarious is that I have been agree with you and janedoe that he is overdoing it, and you still have to try to find some way to make some point that doesn’t need to be made…

Your criticism would be different (valid) if he was running ONLY on his POW experience. Since that is obviously not the case, as it is only a part of who he is and what he has become, it becomes a minor narrative. You seem to want to make it a disqualifer of some sort?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 03:55 PM

Rhinehold,

When you said that if you’d been in charge of the RNC, you’d have have everyone BUT McPain bring up his prisonership, it made me believe you were placing that particulr thing head and shoulders above all else. If I mistake that then I’m sor…I’m sorr…no I ain’t.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 4:01 PM
Comment #261781

My point was that he comes off as a wonk by continually bring up what he has done and what made him what he is. That is the job for everyone else to do, to highlight and educate. He should have focused on what he plans to do now going forward.

And I know, you can’t accept that someone disagrees with you and therefore can’t say you’re sorry to them. I just wish people wouldn’t get so emotionally involved in discussions like this (I am guilty of it from time to time myself) that we forget that it is ok to disagree with someone as long as we don’t let it get personal.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #261783

First of all Rhinehold, you might want to consider there are other posters on here who do seem to think it is a major qualifier, and they may be the ones we’re addressing.
JFK is an excellent example of one, Dole for another, who didn’t use their injuries and negative experiences as a frikkin’ platform.
I had simply stated that I was sick of hearing his experiences AGAIN, take up a major part of his speech last night, and his failure to speak of anything of substance.
Going back to read your last rebuttal, then I will toss in a white flag and apoligize if your intent was misinterpreted.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #261784

LOL at dude…. ;)

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #261786

Criticisms of McCain’s references to his POW experience would be perfectly valid if that were the only light by which he perceived the world. It may be the brightest light in his life, but he has also expressed a number of other guiding lights, some of which I frankly disagree with.

When he says he doesn’t work for a party, though, that means something to me because the “party before country” people in the Republican Party could be the death of both. That, more than anything else, is the hope (stress on hope) I find in Sarah Palin.

Maybe the guy who has actually fought in a war and felt its consequences can see past the Rovian “Art of War” types.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 5, 2008 4:24 PM
Comment #261788

In the sea of whiteness I did notice the black face of a McCain daughter adopted as a child and rescued by Mrs. McCain.

I admit to not knowing much about Cindy McCain until her revealing speech last nite. Can we all agree that this woman is worthy of praise and admiration for what she has done for others?

As for John McCain talking about his captive experience and what is has meant to him, I was impressed not so much by his injuries, refusal of early release, etc. as I was by his humble admission of being broken…physically, mentally and spiritually.

How many of us would have the courage to publicly talk about being that broken? About being totally defeated? About loosing faith in all that we hold dear?

That my friends, is evidence of an honest and humble man. Who would not believe that John McCain is a “Profile in Courage”. It does not subtract from Mr. and Mrs. Obama to admire John and Cindy McCain.

Posted by: Jim M at September 5, 2008 4:35 PM
Comment #261790

Not just would be valid, Lee, but they are perfectly valid.
When one uses his experince as a method to gleen sympathy on a regular basis, often and repeatedly, and fails to detail any other talking points, it serves only to negate the experience.
He is also very selective about what he talks of over and over and….well…you get the point…..yet fails to tell all that he ultimately gave in and gave them what they wanted. As it has been noted on here before, that action very well could have meant death to those, that others feel he helped to save.
Again, with him showing little substance in his speeches, he is relying on this one thing above all else to solicit sympathy for support.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #261793

Jim M, I would guess there are as many who would praise her for not kicking hubby in the gonads when he called her what he did in a public forum!
Nobody is taking away from her that she did a good thing with the rescue of this child. You might want to keep in mind that there are “regular”, people who do this evey day, and they get no national reverence for it.
With her money and luck in having acquired it, paying a little back to the less fortunate is not necessarily a solicitous move.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #261794

I am pissed that there were no Iraqi’s in the stands also. What about Chinese? The sad story of a sea of whiteness is getting very old. Are we that shallow about looking for specific colors? How about obese, skinny, and mentally challenged people at the convention? Take your a** to the convention if that is the way you feel instead of whining and using the racism card.

PS> Read Brother that will never forget Comment #261667.

Posted by: airwolf at September 5, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #261795

JimM

Ok RickIL, I’ll put up two examples of democrats practicing what you preach…Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. Now, will you cite two examples of republicans doing what you say?

Joe Lieberman is no longer a democrat. A while back, I want to say sometime in 2006. I viewed a television documentary about the GOP and its lock step policies. There was one senator or congressman in particular (can’t remember the guys name) who was bucking a general direction of the GOP. Despite being advised to back off he continued in defiance of the policy they were advocating. (again I can’t remember just what) They effectively shut him out of all decision making and people who were supposedly his friends in congress suddenly were no longer willing to be seen in public or discuss matters of legislation with him. In the end rather than compromise his principles to satisfy the party of total control he resigned. All of those he was friends with when questioned about him later refused to discuss the matter. It can only be assumed that they did not wish to suffer the same consequences. Perhaps some of the more capable or informed history people on this blog will remember who this person was and maybe in more detail. It is largely a general perception percieved by those who pay attention and of course those who are affected by the policy. I am simply too lazy to dig into the specifics. Maybe Miller is the guy. But that doesn’t sound right to me.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 5:08 PM
Comment #261797
Joe Lieberman is no longer a democrat

Right, because his party threw him under the bus for not retracting his support for the Iraq war like everyone else. For that singular issue, he was stripped and discarded, only to return and force them to ‘caucus’ with him. At least until this week, we learn now that he will most likely be losing all of his chairmanships.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment #261801

“With her money and luck in having acquired it, paying a little back to the less fortunate is not necessarily a solicitous move.”
Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 05:03 PM

janedoe, the luck you speak of was inheritance. The fortune she received required someone’s death. And, the fortune was not lucky, but the results of her parents very hard work.

Does giving recognition to Cindy McCain for her unselfish acts of humanity detract or subtract from Mrs. Obama? Must politics demean every act of kindness by a political opponent. Is your attitude one espoused by your party leaders? I think not. Look to Obama as an example of one who is not afraid of recognizing good works, of a job well done…my knowledge of Mr. Obama tells me that he would salute her for her efforts to help others. Am I wrong?

Posted by: Jim M at September 5, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #261806

Rhinehold

Right, because his party threw him under the bus for not retracting his support for the Iraq war like everyone else.

I believe it was his constituents that threw him under the bus not his party. The reply to Jim was in association to the GOP party in particular not its voting constituency. And I give them credit for dismissing an elected official that was not representing the views of the majority. I am assuming they originally elected him to represent them, because they felt he was the person that best met their ideologies. Once he failed to that there was no other choice but out the door.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #261807

JimM, it was by the luck of birth, and yes, most inheritences are effected due to death…
Her parents most likely worked hard for the initial part of the wealth….she on the other hand didn’t have to do anything that broke a sweat to inherit it. And I’m responding to the question you posed asking if she should not be admired and recognized for doing something good. I don’t, however, feel she deserves being canonized for it.

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #261818

RickIL, you have certainly strayed from your position I quote from above, “Most who buck the GOP party generally end up being black balled and rendered useless to the party. It is that general, but what I consider valid, perception of the GOP party as being obstructionist, one sided, and demanding of complete unfettered obligation to their agenda that fuels that notion of lack of vision and no true direction beyond the status quo.”

So far, you have not come up with even one, much less two examples of Republican’s who were treated this way by the party. In your post #261795 you attempt to verify your accusation but plead memory loss in naming names.

Is Zell Miller, who claims to be a conservative democrat, still considered to be in good standing with the party?

Posted by: Jim M at September 5, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #261820

“Sea of Whiteness…” Indeed.
The stock photos during the “Introducing John McCain” convention video have pictures of a happy black couple on bikes, and a happy black mother and daughter. Only thing is, they are stock pictures from photobucket. Can’t wait to hear what the couple and the mother and daughter really think of having their pictures associated with McCain.

My son, who couldn’t care less about politics, passed the tv while I was watching the convention.
“What is that?” he asked.
“The convention.”
“There sure are a lot of white people.”

It’s hard to miss. The fact is, that was a ‘Sea of Whiteness.’ It reflects a party which lacks diversity. It does not reflect the American people as a whole. As for the reasons why it lacks diversity…

Oh! One other precious moment. At one point, McCain was standing in front of a large white building. It was supposed to be Walter Reed Hospital. Except that it was Walter Reed Middle School!

Posted by: phx8 at September 5, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #261829

and your point is phx8 ???? For cripe’s sake, they got the right guy. ;)

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment #261834

Jim M

I have not swayed from my stance. I have just spent about 15 minutes trying to find the source of the documentary I watched. The problem is I can not remember which program or the name of the person. I will look no longer and say that no I can not give you specific verifiable evidence with respect to the particular person in question. I did however absolutely without a doubt view the very well detailed program. Since I can not provide proof I will concede evidential proof and state as I said before “this is a general and what I consider valid perception of the situation.”

Zell Miller has not been in office since 2004. A quick search says that he now serves on the board of the NRA and has distanced himself from the democratic party. I seriously doubt he even considers himself a conservative democrat any longer let alone in good standing with the party. I fail to see any real relevance here.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 9:07 PM
Comment #261839

Diversity comes in two types. Insignificant and significant. Color is insignificant but easily identifiable. Therefore it is easy to build prejudices around. (It is also easy to spot from a distance and avoid if you’re directing a television presentation.) Having been to some Texas state Republican conventions I can tell you there are people of color there even though not as many as conservatives would like.

Philosophy, though, really is significant. Show me your pro-life Democrat banners. Show me your small-government Democrats. Show me the Democrats publicly angry with the party over corruption and ready to jettison William Jefferson.

Sarah Palin is wildly popular with Republicans because she kicked Republicans in the teeth. Show me the Democrats with that kind of guts. Its certainly not among people who don’t think Michael Williams is black enough because he is a conservative.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 5, 2008 9:43 PM
Comment #261841

Jim M, try Abramoff, The Hammer, and Ashcroft on for size. Gonzalez, Harriet Miers, Newt Gingrich as backups.

Buried in obscurity for their getting caught at what was perfectly acceptable prior to being caught. Abramoff, The Hammer, and Gonzalez for violating our laws. Gonzalez for violating treaties and the Constitution in his advice to Bush, Newt Gingrich for his affair(s), and Harriet Miers for general incompetence before the public. The list is vastly longer, but, I know you won’t even bother seeking inconvenient truth with those provided, so the list need not be longer to make the point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2008 9:49 PM
Comment #261845

David

Jim M, try Abramoff, The Hammer, and Ashcroft on for size. Gonzalez, Harriet Miers, Newt Gingrich as backups.

I considered presenting this line of evidence but was intent on finding the specific legislator in question. As I have stated before I am far from a history buff. Specifics do not always cling to me. My mind sometimes seems too busy to allow the details time to become embellished. I do rely on you pros for a lot of information. And for that I thank you and the other living history books who frequent this site.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 10:22 PM
Comment #261849

Well I hate to interrupt all this frivolity with something as serious as this, but I just can’t help it….I have no control……..

EXTRA just reported that Cindy McCains outfit last night totaled ….are you ready??…..


$313,000 !! Designer from head to foot, with 3 carat diamonds in each ear that cost more than all the vehicles in my life put together have.

Okay, I need to go find a mouse, or the litter box or something….. MEOWWWW>>>>>>

Posted by: janedoe at September 5, 2008 10:44 PM
Comment #261850

It’s very interesting to wonder why more minorities are not visible at the Republican conventions, considering that the GOP still gets (while not a majority) a not insignificant percentage of minority votes.

In 04 against Kerry, Bush received:

44% of the Latino vote
44% of the Asian vote
11% of the African American vote
40% of other non-white voters (source CNN)

These haven’t gotten to even 50%, but without these totals, Bush wouldn’t have won the election.

Now, I’m sure that the Republicans would like to have more non-white faces at their conventions, for PR if no other reason, so why aren’t the delegates present and represented in anything close to the actual percentages of how the various ethnic groups actually vote? It definitely is interesting.

I have two theories. The first I’m pretty sure is correct, and the second is more conjecture.

1). The nature of those who serve as convention delegates (in both parties) is that they tend to be “activist” types (including public officeholders—high and low). Members of various ethnic communities who hold conservative political views, I strongly suspect, are less likely to be personally involved in local and regional politics and belong to race-based political organizations from which the Democrats can easily draw delegates. In fact, my guess is that a lot of them are small business owners and professionals—fitting the profile of the many Republicans whose voting concerns have to do with economic issues like lower taxes. Also, I think it would be fair to assume that many are “law and order” types, considering how much that concerns those who live in urban ares especially (as minorities do at a higher rate than whites). Among the very Catholic Latino population especially, there is also a strong religious identification with Republican social views. What this goes to say is that they hold ideals associated with the Republican party but they’re not “organized” to the same degree as their liberal counterparts and are less available for or interested in playing the “activist” role which being a convention delegate requires. They’re more the “quite” type.

2) The second factor, more conjectural but I still believe to be the case to some large degree, is that there is quite a lot of social pressure in these communities which dissuades conservative/Republican members of minority groups from publicly expressing their views.

Considering the extent to which the most vocal members of the leadership of these ethnic communities are staunchly Democratic, it can’t be easy to to buck the tide and go public with your conservative opinions. I’m sure that the treatment of those like Michael Steele, Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas at the hands of their critics has not been lost on those watching. And that many who don’t publicly espouse their conservatism are only willing to do so in the privacy—and indeed safety—of the voting booth.

In sum, the question of diversity here cuts both ways.

It’s a shame that the delegates on the floor of Republican conventions are not more representative of America. That they are not, in fact, even representative of the percentages in which ethnic minority groups actually vote. This is a mark against the Republicans.

On the other hand, it’s a shame that true “diversity,” which Democrats claim to want, is not tolerated amidst so many of these groups when it comes to a diversity of political opinion.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 5, 2008 11:13 PM
Comment #261851

LO,
The Democrats do not tolerate diversity of public opinions? Come on. The Democrats are notorious for their inability to agree. To paraphrase Will Rogers, “I do not belong to any organized politicl party. I am a Democrat.” Most of the party is pro-choice, but Harry Reid is not. The conservative Blue Dogs often cross the aisle. The results can be agonizing. Only about half of the party can be counted upon to consistently vote with what I would consider to be a liberal bias.

I really have to disagree with the idea that a diversity of political opinions is not tolerated by Democrats/Liberals. I would say just the opposite is true, and that excessive tolerance and lack of organizational discipline has consistently left the party and as well as the liberal philosophy fractured and unable to implement its programs.

Posted by: phx8 at September 5, 2008 11:38 PM
Comment #261853

Phx8, I wasn’t clear enough and worded the last part of my post badly.

The diversity of opinion that’s tolerated WITHIN the Democratic party and among those who identify themselves as Democrats is a different subject.

I’m talking about the level of political diversity that’s tolerated among minority ethnic groups whose prominent leaders (and whose majorities within those minorities) are affliated with liberal politics and the Democratic party.
How those are treated who do not consider themselves to be Democrats at all.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 5, 2008 11:57 PM
Comment #261858

In my opinion he did the right thing.

………………

Blazeinfotech

Posted by: jassika at September 6, 2008 12:21 AM
Comment #261861

Diversity of political opinion is one thing, I may want legislature stating that you can’t have flip-flops inside a mall, while you may. Or pro-life/choice issue. But when you have to go to a rally for McCain, in Virginia or Texas, and hear incessant talking about infanticide when you REALLY want to hear how the economy in that area is, if people have jobs, how the roads are, if the water’s clean to drink, etc. and don’t, it becomes less of a political diversity issue and more whoever yells the loudest.

I’ve noticed that especially religious Repulicans tend to be very zealous in their approach, even though they’re nice, normal people outside of politics, when they hear “liberal, abortion, Muslim, war, oil”, something just goes off and it’s either defensive or on the attack.

Same with Democrats, the really anti-war crowd, when it comes to privatization, healthcare, gun control.

I think that especially these groups of people, who sway the other groups of people, the somewhat normal voters, who sway the normal voters, forgot what America is, not the SWAT team of the world, not the banker of the world, or the preacher. The USA is just that, it’s us, the collection of states that never get along with each other and can live with that, where we don’t (or at least we say we don’t and try not to) shoot or kill each other over the many differences we have.

Here’s what I’d like to see at a Democratic convention, people who do the church evangelical thing but realize that God’s one thing and the communication between one nation to another, or fair business pratices, preventing outsourcing of jobs, is another, and know how to keep those two apart.

And at the Republican convention, a Missouri delegation of primarily black folks, and next to them pro-choice gay Republicans, and next to them some 20-somethings with neon blue hair and sleeve tattoos with signs saying “Fiscal responsibilty for the future”.

That’s all.


Posted by: Jon at September 6, 2008 12:35 AM
Comment #261869

What channel were you watching? I was watching CNN and was pleasantly surprised how many black people were in the audience, especially considering Obama is in the running.

Posted by: andy at September 6, 2008 1:48 AM
Comment #261870

C-SPAN. Occasionally the camera would do a close-up of an individual black person in the audience, but when the camera backed away to take in the crowd, the impression of whiteness was overwhelming. It was noticeable to a relatively non-political person like my son, who sees crowds at sports events. The general mix of a typical American crowd did not resemble the GOP convention one.

Posted by: phx8 at September 6, 2008 1:59 AM
Comment #261876

Fox put a shot on that included three non-whites…they were there, I’m sure to see where the ‘public finance’ funds were going. They are tax-payers too, no matter what the Republicans think…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2008 6:16 AM
Comment #261878

While I don’t think the Republican Party is in itself racist, it clearly caters to a racist faction within the party. The Georgia cracker wing speaks.

More seriously, for the Republicans, as the inquiries into Palin’s copgate ethics issue unfolds, the question looming large is do we need another ethically challenged administration? Do we need a participant in the bank failure’s of the eighties to oversee the recovery from Bush’s real estate bust?

Does anyone know what Neal Bush is up to these days? Is Keating out of jail yet? Who is he supporting?

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 6, 2008 8:29 AM
Comment #261880

To all the GOP supporters who “wish” there were more faces of color in the crowd at the convention in Minnesota - maybe if your party had not been on the wrong side of race relations since Lincoln’s assassination there might be more minority support at your convention. Let’s see - fighting desegregation, fighting voting rights, fighting the MLK holiday, and starting stupid wars for the poor to fight. The Democratic party cut the Dixiecrats loose over the race issue and they happily joined the ranks of the GOP where they have become the GOP’s path to the presidency and if McCain wins this time it will be because of the southern white vote once again.

The GOP pundits talk about not seeing race and that they are for the best man getting the job no matter what color they are. But this is just code for “status quo” keep it the same, keep the already rich and powerful as rich and powerful if not more, and keep the poor and disadvantaged in their place. What’s ironic is that their policies hurt poor white people especially in southern rural areas like where I live keeping them in their condition and convince them to vote Republican over one of the most ludicrous policies of injustice out there - gay marriage. They talk as if gay marriage will become mandatory for everyone and if they don’t vote Republican they will wake up in the morning not to their wife but their state mandated husband. So, why doesn’t the GOP find something to stand on that doesn’t appeal to the most divisive of ideas? Maybe then you will see diversity in the old white guys party.

Posted by: tcsned at September 6, 2008 9:15 AM
Comment #261882

phx8,

The use of Will Roger’s- “I do not belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” -is an interesting ploy. In truth the Democratic Party of Roger’s day was better, and more insidiously, organized than you might understand.


My “yellow dog Democrat” late neighbor was peacock proud that he had never sat to eat at the same table as a black man- and never would. When, in 1953, my mother protested for equal access for blacks to Rayville, La.’s public swimming pool it was a group of Democrats who gathered at my grandfather’s church office to try to intimidate him into making her stop, and then hastened the Methodist Church’s moving him to a more “liberal” congregation in a university community on the other end of the state.

Since the days of Andrew Jackson Democrat politics has always been “identity” politics, a politics focused largely on a people who imagine their troubles are imposed on them by powerful outside forces. For more than a century those efforts could focus on keeping blacks from voting and poor whites resentful at the destructive “impositions” of the North on their “natural” social structure. When it became obvious they could no longer maintain this strategy Democrat identity politcs shifted, seizing control of the civil rights movement from black leadership with promises of social welfare programs and an insidious recasting of the politics of oppression they had used for generations to control poor whites. It’s easier to see how this works when we see it out of the American context, as with Palestinian leaders like the late Yasser Arafat. Can you guess why Democrats would be so much more sympathetic to Palestinian causes? Easy. They don’t want the strategies they use to control their own constituencies to be spotlighted in dealing with other victim-exploitation schemes.

That is what it is, you see. The Democratic Party in the United States is a brilliant victim-exploitation scheme. Keep people poor and uncomfortable. Make them resentful of those who are successful- even those in their own communities. Keep them convinced their pain is imposed on them from those successful people. Give them inadequate scraps to make them think you care. Find ways to import impoverished and ignorant new populations faster than your electoral slaveholdings can be eroded by success.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 9:31 AM
Comment #261886

tscned,
Oh, gee, lets go through this one point at a time-

“Let’s see - fighting desegregation,” Utter nonsense. Not only was fighting desegregation exclusively a Democrat policy in the South, the places in the North where they used to brag in my youth that segregation was “de facto” as opposed to “de jure” were largely in Democratic strongholds like Boston and Detroit. Look where the race riots were in the ’60s. Democrat strongholds. “…fighting voting rights,…” Outright lie. Condoleeza Rice likes to point out that she is a Republican because that is the party that would let her father register to vote. It was like that all over the Old South where blacks remained loyal to the Republican Party well into the 50s. It was only after Truman integrated the military and it became obvious that the Republican Party, impotent in the South, couldn’t win substantive victories for them that blacks began joining the Democratic Party in substantial numbers. That prompted the shift in strategy I described above. ..”fighting the MLK holiday”, … there is some validity here, but Republicans have been strongly averse to adding ANY new holidays, often pointing out the damage done to the economy of Rome by the burden of half a year’s worth of holidays. “…and starting stupid wars for the poor to fight.” Disinformation, pure false statement. The people currently fighting and dying in foreign wars are more likely to be middle-class and white than the general population. They are also far more likely to be from the South, especially from Texas. There are slightly more poor and minorities in the military as a whole than in the general population, but the roles for which they volunteer are more heavily weighted to logistical roles s their exposure to combat is reduced.

“The Democratic party cut the Dixiecrats loose over the race issue and they happily joined the ranks of the GOP where they have become the GOP’s path to the presidency and if McCain wins this time it will be because of the southern white vote once again.” False. The Dixiecrats walked out of the Democratic national convention in Philadelphia in 1948, with many otherwise forward thinking Democrats joining in over the issue of States Rights. My own great uncle, Oliver Emmerich, was the Secretary of the Missippi delegation. He later described the events of 1948 as the “…single worst mistake I ever made in my life.” A long time campaigner for desegregation himself, he remained a life-long Democrat because he felt that in a one-party system one had to reform the system from within. The Old South remained steadfastly one-party in terms of internal politics until the late ’80s and provided the margin of victory for Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter, while Southern defections from Bush I ensured the election of Bill Clinton.

Every one of your statements in the posting above speaks either to incredible ignorance or incredible carelessness.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 10:11 AM
Comment #261888

That lame “sates rights” issue is so bogus it hardly bears mentioning - just like those who claim the Civil War was about states rights. As my Civil War professor, James “Bud” Robertson used to say - when this argument gets trotted out you see who the people are who got F’s in history (and Dr. Bud can hardly be considered a liberal). Have you heard Strom Thurmond’s speech at the ‘48 convention? There was only really one states right that they were fighting for - to keep blacks out of power.

What GOP leaders have stood up for any minority right? Nixon? Reagan? Goldwater and Ike were the closest thing you guys had.

Johnson cut loose the southern white democrats who opposed desegregation in 1964. In part, this move was political. But it was a turning point in race relations in this country. I did use the term Dixiecrat incorrectly as they were the Strom Thurmond’s supporters in ‘48. I concede that point to you.

Race in this country is one of those issues that we have never really come to grips with. It is uncomfortable to talk about because our history is too full of hate, violence, and oppression. It has been the most troubling contradiction in a country that is supposed to be about freedom, democracy, and individual liberty. It has been a hot potato handed from one generation to the next without confronting head on. So go ahead and ignore it for another generation and our kids will be the one’s who have to deal with it or pass it on to their kids.

Posted by: tcsned at September 6, 2008 10:33 AM
Comment #261891

tcsned,

First, states rights are the principal foundation of Amendments X and XII, as well as the makeup of the House of Representatives and, especially, the Senate. They were the initial reason for the use of the Electoral College, and the fact that that instituion has survived to modern times, as well. The most recent example of people’s understanding of the necessity of States Rights is the recognition by the Democratic Party of the importance of preserving the positions of both Iowa and New Hampshire in the primary process.

That people could be seduced by the States Rights arguments of hardened bigots is merely an indication of how serious people can be about this legitmate concern of the Founders.

Though my college American History grades were reduced by struggles with a neurological dysgraphia I did manage to get B’s in American History by having the highest grades on comprehensive finals by a minimum of 27 points. With a different testing regime at the same school I was one of only two people in consecutive years to make a course grade of A in Art History. I married the other one.

My eldest son is a History major currently working toward graduate work in the field.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #261897

Lee

That is what it is, you see. The Democratic Party in the United States is a brilliant victim-exploitation scheme. Keep people poor and uncomfortable. Make them resentful of those who are successful- even those in their own communities. Keep them convinced their pain is imposed on them from those successful people. Give them inadequate scraps to make them think you care. Find ways to import impoverished and ignorant new populations faster than your electoral slaveholdings can be eroded by success.

Reading this from a liberal viewpoint, if I put stock in your rather biased analogy I would think it fair to say that, the wealthy grow the symptoms and the dems exploit them. Sounds like a win win for the political parasites and a no win for the host organisms. Thanks for that affirming picture of what life will continue to be under the party of the ruling class.

Posted by: RickIL at September 6, 2008 12:16 PM
Comment #261899
What GOP leaders have stood up for any minority right?

The GOP stands up for INDIVIDUAL rights. Not rights for groups. When you give special rights to groups, you trample on the rights of others.

The Democratic party has been highly effective at promising special treatment for minorities as groups instead of individuals and holding them as captive voting blocs for generation after generation while nothing improves.

Until the leadership of these ethnic minority groups get off the Democratic Party’s plantation, nothing is going to get better for their members. Success begins with individuals, and preserving and fighting for the rights of individuals is the only way forward.

The entire Democratic strategy is to keep the members of ethnic minority groups poor, uneducated, and dependent on government for everything—which translates into votes for Democrats. It’s cynical, racist, and completely uneffective. And it’s a shame that so many members of minority groups have developed a kind of Stockholm Syndrome during their captivity by the Democratic party.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 6, 2008 12:34 PM
Comment #261903

Loyal Opposition, you are absolutely correct in your statement, “The GOP stands up for INDIVIDUAL rights. Not rights for groups. When you give special rights to groups, you trample on the rights of others.”

The Conservative philosophy of governing is consistent with our founding documents. The Liberal philosophy of group rights has its origins from somewhere else.

Posted by: Jim M at September 6, 2008 1:28 PM
Comment #261906

>The Conservative philosophy of governing is consistent with our founding documents. The Liberal philosophy of group rights has its origins from somewhere else.

Posted by: Jim M at September 6, 2008 01:28 PM

Jim M,

One of those documents you refer to reads, in part…”We, the people (not individuals…people) of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…promote the general (not individual, but general) welfare…ordain and establish…

The individual part came not with the Constitution, but the Amendments to the constitution provide individual rights.

Amendments are just that…they become a part of the whole. The whole is interested in providing for ‘general’ welfare and in the ‘people’.

I understand ya’ll will never stop whining, but this country was designed to protect all AND each of us, not just each of us…please read our Constitution with a broader perspective. Until you do that you will never understand what the founders were really interested in establishing.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2008 1:48 PM
Comment #261908

Lee - first, I am thrilled that your son is pursuing his undergraduate studies in history and intends on going on to graduate school. I got my BA and first MA in history and, while I have pursued other academic studies and a career in a different field it has served me well. In addition, if you son shares your conservative values he will hopefully be a good addition to a field that tends to be dominated by liberals. Two of my best friends in grad school were our “token” conservatives - I think I learned more from my discussions with them as any of my colleagues.

You are also right about the states rights provisions of the constitution. All rights not specified are reserved for the states. But, those, since the age of Jefferson who have made states rights arguments have done so for a very specific reason - to keep our black citizens in a position without power or voice. Strom Thurmond’s arguments in ‘48 were all about race as were those of the Democratic Party in the 1860s. Not that slavery was the only issue in the Civil War but without it there would have been no war. Just as the Dixiecrats had other arguments for states rights, their overriding concern was race. That is why I said “states rights” is usually just a code word for anti-black.

Posted by: tcsned at September 6, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #261921

tcsned,

My point was and usually is that arguments against states rights now are much more often about a kind of centralization that is antithetical to essential foundations of our liberty. The institution of the states, while it can be used for bad purposes, as can any tool, also provides a stumbling block for those who would seize control of the whole government to institute tyrrany. Note how well the North prevented the domination of the much more unified front of the Southern aristocracy even in the face of the Northern banks’ dependence on the capitalization inherent in Southern slaves and European favoritism for the South.

The problem I saw in your answer was that it seemed to have made a rule of thumb into a fact. Believe me, in my family we grew up on these arguments. State’s Rights, in their abused form, had embarrassed the hell out of us. Those who for political convenience have chosen to use this embarrassment of many to soil the whole concept of State’s Rights, however, play mischief with the Constitution itself.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 3:16 PM
Comment #261939

Lee J, “the southern aristocracy”, it disgusts me to say, although it is historically accurate, were bankers of souls. The median number of slaves per slave owner was a very low number, some say as low as 1 (one). Those who owned large numbers were a very small portion of the population.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 6, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment #261945

ohrealy,

It behooves us to explain the difference between average (number of slaves divided by number of owners) and median (that number both below which and above which half reside). While what you say is accurate the total number of slaves in the Old South was close to the total number of whites, meaning the large slaveholders had an enormous amount of capital (at about $500, or more than the median family income, per average slave) against which they borrowed to finance their plantations and enormous politcal power.

These gentry were by any measure the center of Southern aspirations and group consciousness.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 5:38 PM
Comment #261946

Lee J, I believes that slaves were a majority of the population in SC and MS, and possibly the states in between. Towards the end, the “aristocracy” was hoping to make them into migrant workers, which made the fugitive laws so important to them.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 6, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #261965

Marysdude
Comment 261906 You state that the constitution gives individuals rights. You are correct but does the constitution give that individual the right to trample on the rights of WE THE PEOPLE, which many of the liberals are doing.

Posted by: KAP at September 6, 2008 7:36 PM
Comment #261969

Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”

This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.

“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.

Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”

Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.

Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs” – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 6, 2008 8:02 PM
Comment #261970

Veritas,

Thats a really impartial looking source…

Bet they check and double-source every word.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 8:11 PM
Comment #261971

See, fellas, here is the reason it is so important to make sure the facts can be checked out on inflammatory reports.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 8:16 PM
Comment #261985

KAP,

Please reread comment 261906, what do you think I said? I was responding to comment 261903 and those above it…If I did not make myself clear on this issue, please let me know and I’ll try to correct the problem.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2008 11:05 PM
Comment #262023

“I understand ya’ll will never stop whining, but this country was designed to protect all AND each of us, not just each of us…please read our Constitution with a broader perspective. Until you do that you will never understand what the founders were really interested in establishing.”
Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2008 01:48 PM

Marysdude, I quite understand the liberal interpretation of our founding documents. What exactly is the difference between “protecting all” versus “each” of us? Only with twisted logic and subversive interpretation can one find “group” rights. Is it just possible that “WE, the people” meant “We, the individuals comprising the people”.

Only by conveying group rights can liberals justify the “new rights” they espouse. And only with new rights can liberals persuade the individuals within select groups to vote for their policies.

Posted by: Jim M at September 7, 2008 2:29 PM
Comment #262024

Veritas, I have a friend whose wife heard in a beauty salon that….(fill in the blank). Your sharing of this hearsay certainly added to my factual knowledge.

Posted by: Jim M at September 7, 2008 2:39 PM
Comment #262041

Lee, I’m glad you could reassure us that Fox is absolutely above the belt in their journalism.

Here, is more from the reporter that VV posted from:

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/06/sarah-palin-and-me/

Posted by: janedoe at September 7, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #262045

Ah, the Constitution. Wasn’t that the document that gave blacks 3/5 of a vote, and women and Native Americans no vote whatsoever? Guess they were just the wrong kind of individuals.

What happened is that rights for one group of “all”, namely white male Americans, was eventually extended to blacks (after a civil war), Native Americans (the few who survived) and women, as long as the rights of white male Americans was never seriously impinged. Just to keep the playing field slanted, the extension of rights even included corporations. We can see the shadow of this situation cast long across the nation’s history, casting darkness even today, in the form of the vast inequalty of wealth distribution.

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2008 6:50 PM
Comment #262062

>Ah, the Constitution. Wasn’t that the document that gave blacks 3/5 of a vote, and women and Native Americans no vote whatsoever? Guess they were just the wrong kind of individuals.

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2008 06:50 PM>Ah, the Constitution. Wasn’t that the document that gave blacks 3/5 of a vote, and women and Native Americans no vote whatsoever? Guess they were just the wrong kind of individuals.

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2008 06:50 PM>Ah, the Constitution. Wasn’t that the document that gave blacks 3/5 of a vote, and women and Native Americans no vote whatsoever? Guess they were just the wrong kind of individuals.

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2008 06:50 PM>Ah, the Constitution. Wasn’t that the document that gave blacks 3/5 of a vote, and women and Native Americans no vote whatsoever? Guess they were just the wrong kind of individuals.

Posted by: phx8 at September 7, 2008 06:50 PM

phx8,

The Constitution had many flaws, it is true. Those who were responsible for getting it written and ratified were forced to compromise…compromise, until recent times that word was the best description of politics.

Flaws are and have been corrected by amendment, also a matter of compromise. When in the future additional flaws are found they too will be adjusted by compromise. Because of this it will never be a perfect instrument of law…but, without it think of how and why this nation could/would have progressed.

It is NOT, as Cheney/Bush so unartfully put it, “Just a God Damned peice of paper”. It is, along with the Magna Carta, a far greater ducument than even the bible for bringing humankind together for the greater good. And, even if the United States were to disolve today, because of poor management and, our not adhering to it, it will live on in other nations, even those yet unfounded. Without such a fluid document of law, mankind will never acheive freedom.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 7, 2008 10:04 PM
Comment #262217

The greatest mistake in the constitution was the role of the presidency. They had GW in front of them, and didn’t realize how many of his successors would be so worthless.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 8, 2008 7:02 PM
Comment #262270

I don’t know if they have been posted in this thread yet. I am too lazy to read through them all. But here are the numbers of blacks at the RNC. 36

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 8:30 AM
Comment #262296

RickIL,

Do you have the total attendance figures? 36 is more than I actually thought. The cameras kept panning to African American faces, but it seemed to me they were the same ones over and over. I’d kinda like to know the percentages, etc.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 9, 2008 11:55 AM
Comment #262344

dude

Black delegates

Blacks made up 1.5% of the republican delegation.

Blacks made up 24% of the dem delegation.

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 4:36 PM
Comment #262486

RickIL,

If you miss my thnaks on the other site…thanks again…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 10, 2008 12:13 PM
Post a comment