Towel-Heads & Rednecks

In Maryland & Virginia senate races we hear talk of racial insensitivity. The media went crazy when George Allen seemed to have created a new insensitive word, but when his Dem opponent talked about towel-heads and rednecks, few noticed. In Maryland, a leading Democrat embarassed himself by saying Michael Steele slavishly followed the Republican Party. Nobody cared much a while back when they called Steele a token or an Oreo.

Liberal activists even tossed a couple of the creamy cookies at him during a speech. Liberals - they missed the target.

The media sure treats the parties differently. Webb explained that he was talking about himself when he made the redneck remark. That is a plausible explanation, although I am not sure a Republican would get a similar pass. I don't know how he explains away the towel-head thing. The media is not pursuing it in any case.

Hoyer's remark about slavishness is probably innocent enough, but much of the treatment Steele gets is less benign. There seems to be real doubt among liberals about whether an intelligent black person can be a Republican. Some are sincerely perplexed and angry that someone as attractive and obviously intelligent as Steele would play for the other side. They should probably get used to it.

The races are nasty and they are close, which means they will be nastier. The latest poll in Maryland shows an even race. Allen remains ahead in Virginia, but not by much.

Maryland & Virginia are next door geographically, but far away politically. In a generic race, nobody would anticipate that a Republican would win in Maryland or that a Democrat would win in Virginia. Both are now possible, but our side will take both.

Posted by Jack at October 19, 2006 10:55 PM
Comments
Comment #189134

Jack, thanks for pointing out that according to the left only conservatives can be racist. Do you notice when blatantslurs like the “slave” and “oreo” or Hillary’s “plantation” comments are made, the media conveniently allows it to fall into the middle page of the newspaper for one day and then you hear no more about it? Let Allen say “macaca”, however, and the media digs deep and researches until it finds some way to link the unusual word to racism, and proceeds to drag your Senator through the mud for it. But, then again, it’s only a racist slur if it comes from the mouth of a Republican. If it’s a Dem, it’s just good clean fun.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 19, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #189145

My Name Is Roger


All Muslims are terrorist

All Whites are rednecks

All Blacks are criminals

All Hispnaics are lazy

All Jews are dishonest

All Rupublicans are _ _ _ _ _ _ _

All Democrats are _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I have heard all this [ AND MORE ] before.

Will it never stop?

Is there no shame?


Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican


Posted by: ROGER at October 20, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #189147

Jack, funny how Americans hold those in positions of power and privilege to a higher standard than everyone else, isn’t it? Republican politicians figured they could get away with whatever else others do, even after taking control of the country. I hear it all the time: “Clinton did it”, “the British do it”, “the Democrats are just as bad”. But, leadership eventually has to answer to a higher standard. And the Republican Party will answer to that higher standard in 18 days.

It was foolish too of many Republican politicians to think they didn’t have to take the high ground of leadership and role models as long as they could scare everyone into voting for them and keep the focus off themselves and on the boogeymen terrorists.

You know, it’s a funny thing about fear too, it wears off after awhile. Regular good folks just refuse to be afraid after awhile. They learn pretty soon how unhealthy prolonged fear can be, and one day they decide to defy it, challenge it, overrule it, defeat it. Just another reason the Republicans Party is going down on Nov. 7. Americans are tired of being afraid, and Republicans still keep trying to take the easy route by stoking their fears, instead of doing the heavy lifting and making them safe by protecting our borders and ports of entry.

The Republican Party doesn’t get it. But, the people finally do. The majority of them won’t be fooled by the GOP again.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #189151

David

The Reps can’t even get close to the dems in fear department.

Let’s see, Global warming, peanut buttter in schools, can’t play tag at schools, The housing bubble, the economy, heterosexual aids, starving children, starving seniors, starving minorities, glass ceiling. We have kids that are too scared to ride their bikes without helmets on their lawns. The list is almost endless.

Posted by: Keith at October 20, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #189155

David,

I think you’re a bit off on your analysis of fear. In America, I think we have so many distractions that we forget about it. We haven’t had a terrorist attack in the States in about 5 years, and people think that they’re safe. The fact that the Mark Foley case is still considered newsworthy weeks before an election tends to bear that out, I think. The American people will continue to believe they’re safe until the Democrats get in power, screw things up, and another 9/11 happens.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 20, 2006 1:27 AM
Comment #189158

Keith, that’s not what the polls are saying. It’s also not what the elections will say on Nov. 7. The fearmongers are those who utter the word terrorists and terror in every public utterance, and they are Republicans seeking reelection for themselves or their party.

I don’t disagree with your comments, only with your failure to accurately assess how the public is taking it all in, very one-sidedly, and perhaps, for good reason. A party which touts terrorists while keeping our borders wide open to them for 5 years after 9/11, seem to have a political agenda far more important than the security of Americans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #189159

1LT B, but, we can rely on this Republican government to trot out the terrorist scare just prior to every election, like this last week’s incident with the FBI alerting all stadiums to an unsubstantiated terrorist threat aimed at them.

It’s quite a pickle this Republican government has itself in. It won’t reveal real information about the threat claiming it would reveal classified information. Leaving unsubstantiated terrorist threats to fill the gap at election time which appears as fearmongering to the media and public. Kind of a damned if you do, and damned if you do, scenario. Regardless, as long as our borders remain open to Hezbollah entering through our southern border at will, it is pretty tough for Republicans to make their claim for being the party best able to protect us.

Anyone with an 8th grade education could reason that if the terrorist threat is real, and it is, the first step is to close and bolt the front and back doors, till you know who is knocking. A little item that somehow slipped the GOP’s mind after 9/11. Reelect them for reminding us how safe they are keeping us? You have got to be kidding! Even the slower Americans are waking up to that nonsense, according to the polls!

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #189160

How is this for fear-mongering.
Vote Democrat and they will pull our troops out early. The terrorists will be undettered in their mission and they will attack us again.
Vote Democrat and they will appoint more activist judges that use their own personal feelings and foreign laws instead of the constitution.
Vote Democrat and watch your taxes skyrocket. New taxes and letting the current tax cut expire.
Fear is a warning of impending doom and helps us spring into action.

Posted by: JoeRWC at October 20, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #189161

David,

And I suppose you think the Democrats will secure our borders better? Why are they always fighting tough border security and calling people who agree with your position bigots, racists, xenophobes, etc.? Surely they’ll protect our borders, right? Are you on this planet? No actually, do you live in the Milky Way Galaxy?

Posted by: Duane-o at October 20, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #189171

My Name Is Roger:

I thought mwe were talking about the Insensitive remarks made about each other.

We need to hold thoses in positions of power to the higest stands, including makeing stupid insensitive remarks about the person or persons in the other party [ Rupublican or Democrat]

How did it come [DOWN] to this?

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 20, 2006 6:29 AM
Comment #189172

My Name Is Roger:

I thought we were talking about the Insensitive remarks made about each other.

We need to hold thoses in positions of power to the higest standarts, including makeing stupid insensitive remarks about the person or persons in the other party both [ Rupublicans or Democrats]

How did it come [DOWN] to this?

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 20, 2006 6:32 AM
Comment #189177

Duane-o,

Why is it offensive to compare the House of Representatives to a plantation? Considering that the House is overwhelmingly white, it’s hard to take that as a racial slur. By the way, Newt Gingrich said the same thing.

Jack,

If Michael Steele really wanted to show the courage of his conservative convictions, he should have acknowledged that “slavishly” is an ordinary English word that is used without racial overtones. By playing the victim, he is muddling his own message.

I wouldn’t bet any money on Steele winning. All the other polls favor Cardin. Allen probably still has the edge in VA.

The Oreo-throwing was extremely offensive, but I think it is dangerous to make too much of actions by anonymous yahoos. Also keep in mind it was four years ago, so it is not really “news” (although it is often mentioned in stories about the Steele campaign).

Webb should not have used the word “towel-head”, but in context he was talking about Hollywood stereotypes. At any rate, I read about it in the Washington Post, so the liberal media cabal is doing a lousy job of covering it up. Ditto with “redneck”, which is hardly a racial slur these days. It’s kind of gone the way of the word “queer”.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 20, 2006 6:58 AM
Comment #189180

Woody, yes. I heard about the “plantation” flap from a source often labeled “liberal.” I’ve almost come to the conclusion that when people call a mainstream source “liberal,” what they really mean is “informative.” I’ve come across nothing on the radio as straightforwardly informative as NPR.

I really have little sympathy for these kind of arguments. Language is a funny thing. Why can Dave Chapell get away with using the “N” word constantly but white guys can’t? Figure that out, and much of the so-called double standard disappears.

Posted by: Trent at October 20, 2006 7:39 AM
Comment #189182

Everyone’s playing all of the usual liberal vs. conservative scenarios, and MISSING some very large economic happenings that hit people in the job market/pocketbook.

1) Gasoline prices - everything’s looking good for what the current administration has done!

2) Job outsourcing - I don’t know whether most political people are aware of it or not, but the new high-bandwidth Internet is starting to make some huge economic/political splashing noises.

For example, what do you think the political ramifications are for new technology that could put TV out of business (or at least scare them half to death). Say “I want to win this election really badly” 100 times and think about how this might influence the election one way or another.

Hollywood and the computer industry do NOT like outsourcing of jobs to India. If you think there was a giant sucking noise when NAFTA was signed, just think how MANY MANY MANY jobs could be lost to low-low-low cost english-speaking INDIANS. Gov. Arnold in California understands the economics of Hollywood - and knows how to translate it both into political support and votes. He’s doing well in a state the Republicans have all but given up for lost the past few elections.

The Internet might translate into a 12,000 DOW, but as far as I know Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have, between them, only 2 votes. People in a number of different industries are TERRIFIED at the possibility that their jobs will become mobile enough so that they can ALL be outsourced to India or any other cheesy third-world enclave.

You can call this labor issues or family issues or whatever you want to call it, but people are really frightened and if the Republican party is deft enough to understand and address these popular concerns, things might look brighter in a few weeks.

Posted by: David #2 at October 20, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #189188

You, I forgot, Steve Forbes and Eric Schmidt from Google each have another vote.

So that makes (4) votes in favor of billionaire-friendly policies!

Posted by: David #2 at October 20, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #189191

David #2, I just saw a poll released yesterday about the Dow Jones Industrial Average hitting new highs. Folks were asked their income level and whether the Dow’s record high was improving their financial position. The overwhelming response from those making $50,000 a year or less was NO! The majority making over $50,000 a year said yes.

This is the divide that is costing the GOP votes on Nov 7. despite all their rosy economic snapshot talking points. But, you won’t hear the GOP telling the public that in 2001 our government’s total debt present and future was 20 trillion, and today it is 43 Trillion dollars. (Future debt includes unfunded entitlement obligations to the public who were guaranteed a benefit by their government in return for a lifetime of earning’s contributions (sacrifices) into Soc. Sec. and Medicare/Medicaid).

Your points are well made.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #189195

Well, Jack, I have to say your post pissed me off.

Allen was so off-base on his “macaca” remark. First, he claimed he made up the word. That proved to be a lie (or an unbelievable coincidence) when we learned that the insult is common in North Africa — where his grandparents came from and the culture his mother grew up in. He obviously got the word from his mother. Then he goes out on a limb to deny any Jewish heritage before finally accepting or admitting the truth. Welcome to the tribe, George! It’s a bigger tent than the Republican Party!

I won’t defend Webb. I’m just glad I don’t live in Virginia and have him as my other choice.

The full quote on the Hoyer statement is (as reported by the Washington Post) “Hoyer, who characterized Steele this week as having had ‘a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party’ ” fits the definition of “slavish” just fine as having nothing to do with race. The dictionary definition is “copying obsequiously or without originality.” It’s a perfect description of any Republican right-winger out of step with his state. But the fact is that race is still an issue in many voters minds. I decided to vote for Cardin over Mfume in the Maryland primary, not because I thought he’s make a better senator (IMHO they both would be good), but because I knew that if Mfume was the nominee, some Republicans would swiftboat him about his civil rights era arrests. Cardin was safe from those sorts of baseless — but effective — attacks, and hence, the candidate more likely to win. When I feel confident that the Republicans will no longer bring up race as an issue, then I will not have to worry about that.

Your assertion that “There seems to be real doubt among liberals about whether an intelligent black person can be a Republican” is an assertion without merit. And it’s a perfect example of one of the reasons why I voted for Cardin over Mfume. If you, a thinking conservative, are going to make an off-base comment like that, then what sort of attitude should I expect from non-thinkers, left and right?

I’ll take it a step further: There seems to be real doubt among liberals about whether an intelligent person of any color an be a Republican. Obviously, I know there are plenty of intelligent Republicans and I am just being sarcastic. But don’t you think a comment like yours is just more fuel for the fire?

Posted by: Steve K at October 20, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #189199

First, I think there’s a difference between being politically incorrect on accident or on purpose, and being racist on purpose. When Allen made his infamous remark, he was clearly directing his remark at a person and his “welcome to America” remark clearly indicates that he assumed the target was not “one of us”.

Context plays an important role. A black person calling somebody an oreo might do so because they believe they are foresaking their heritage, abandoning their people.

Which brings me to my next point: double standards can be real, but they can also be the product of an overheated imagination, an arrogant sense of entitlement, or merely just a rhetorical tu quoque-style diversion.

Regardless, two wrongs do not make a right. We ourselves should hold ourselves to a high standard, and not simply try to deflect attention from our flaws.

Steny Hoyer could have complained about a double standard relating to politically incorrect slips of the tongue, but instead he apologized for the remark. George Allen, to date, has not apologized, but rather engaged in a concerted effort to hide the elephant behind the curtain. That is a double standard: to equate the two. Doubtlessly, there are people in both parties who fall short of the ideals. Question is, what are those ideals, for the most part. It all comes down to what you defend, and what you don’t. So long as Republicans run in circles defending racism, religious bigotry and other things, they will be judged the lesser party on that issue.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #189202

Stephen

“Context plays an important role. A black person calling somebody an oreo might do so because they believe they are foresaking their heritage, abandoning their people.’

This is a horrible context. Nobody has the right to decide for others what their heritage means and what does it mean ambandoning their people?

You have actually made a point. Dems have real trouble believing that blacks can be Republicans and many Dems feel they do not have that right to chose.

I grew up in relatively poor surroundings where few (actually no) adults had college educations and most didn’t finish HS. Some people in my generation got educations, better jobs etc. Did we forget our heritage by not following in our fathers’ footsteps? Our fathers (the good ones) did not want that for us.

Heritage is something you build on, not something to tie you down.

Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2006 9:41 AM
Comment #189203
So long as Republicans run in circles defending racism, religious bigotry and other things, they will be judged the lesser party on that issue.

Watching PBS’s Eyes On The Prize these past few weeks brings out a lot of what is relevent to race today. When I see 40+ year old film of white racists making unmistakable racist comments I instantly ask myself: Where are these people now? Do they still believe that? How were their children raised? Who do they vote for?

I find it hard to believe that racism died so easily in the South. If it had, then I do not believe that so many Southern voters would have suddenly switched political parties. Southerners voted overwhelmingly Republican at the same time the Democrats became identified as the party of civil rights. You cannot convince me that that was because of issues like abortion, school prayer or other so-called “values” issues because those were not hot topics until later. The more I probe the opinions of Southern conservatives, the more resistance I get from them to expose their gut feelings. I cannot dismiss that, for some of these people, race is the reason.

Posted by: Steve K at October 20, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #189204

Dems have real trouble believing that blacks can be Republicans and many Dems feel they do not have that right to chose.

Again Jack, you make an assertion without merit. Provide proof or stop.

Posted by: Steve K at October 20, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #189209
The American people will continue to believe they’re safe until the Democrats get in power, screw things up, and another 9/11 happens.Posted by: 1LT B at October 20, 2006 01:27 AM
Given the trackrecord of this administration do you really feel we are safer today than we were on 9/10/01? Do you really believe the GOP specter of “fear them” because “them Dems” want to coddle the terrorist? Do you really, really believe that the “dems” held on to the sexually inappropriate activities of Foley just to wait until the election? Information held on to for years after hastert et. al. found out? Do you think that means the Dems are responsible for Foleys behavior?

C’mon brother, don’t drink the kool-aid. You’re an officer, you’re supposed to be the guy who thinks first :-)

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 20, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #189211

Steve K

They didn’t suddenly switch parties. It took a generation. Most of those guys you saw in that movie stayed Dems and southern states continued to send Democrats to Congress.

Re blacks and Republicans, it is my perception based on how some Dems talk about people like Steele, Rice or Powell. I was actually responding directly to something Stephen said. Why does Steele (or Rice et al) have to put up with insinuations that they are somehow wrong.

You know that Bush has appointed more African Americans to important cabinet postions than anyone else. Both of his Secretaries of State were black (the first and the second in American history), for example. What do you think of that? Does that make Bush the champion of diversity at the highest levels?

Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #189213

Dave 1

The track record of this adminstration is zero attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. I don’t know if Dems can do as well or not, but there is no reason to criticize the administration on the score.

Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #189214

They didn’t suddenly switch parties. It took a generation. Most of those guys you saw in that movie stayed Dems and southern states continued to send Democrats to Congress.

Most southern states abandoned the Democratic party for President in 1968, then went completely Republican in every election except 76, 92 and 96 (when there was a southerner at the top of the ticket). On the presidential level, that’s a lot less than a generation. And how do you know those guys “stayed Dems?” How do you know ther don’t vote for people like Trent Lott?

Re blacks and Republicans, it is my perception based on how some Dems talk about people like Steele, Rice or Powell.

Who? Any public figures? Again, I object to the characterization of of “Some Dems” without names. If they are just private individuals you are referring to (like the “southerners” I know), then fine, say so. If you are referring to public figures, particularly elected ones, name names!

You know that Bush has appointed more African Americans to important cabinet postions than anyone else. … Does that make Bush the champion of diversity at the highest levels?

That is good and I applaud him for that. Too bad he refuses to enforce the voting rights acts in places like Georgia with its new racially-motivated voting requirements.

Posted by: Steve K at October 20, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #189216

The track record includes secret torture, renditions to countries to torture for us, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the violation of the Constitution — We are our own worst enemies. Did the 9/11 terrorists in their wildest dreams think they could affect American society and government so profoundly?

Jack, you like to talk about goals rather than process. The end result for all of us is death; how we live, the journey itself, is the point. When we say the “ends justify the means” to excuse atrocity we say something about how important our much-touted American values really are to us. I do find it interesting that, in other contexts dealing with social justice, you use the “fairness of opportunity” argument to counter the “fair outcome” line.

Posted by: Trent at October 20, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #189219

Steve, can you please explain the racilly motivated voting laws in Georgia? Is is wrong to ask for Americans to have an identification card that prevents voter fraud? All of the pundits that state it is such a hardship to obtain an ID Card, are the same indiviuals that are the first to cry Voter Fraud! In a nation where we know that approximatly 12 million illegals are in our country, should we not want to insure that the person casting a vote is truly a person authorized to vote by our Constitution. What would the impact be if those 12 million illegals voted for a candidate that was not for strong border control and he won! If an idivual can get to the polls to vote, one can easily assum one could get to an agency for an ID Card. An ID Card would cut down on the potential voter fraud and insure only those registered and verified are qualified to cast a vote.

Posted by: Lacy at October 20, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #189222

jack,

Their record also includes 500,000 additional deaths of Iraqi’s and 20,000(+?) wounded American service men and women, and close to 3000 of our brithers, sisters, mothers, and fathers killed (as many as on 9/11).

It’s more like “The operation was success but the patient died”
Translation: The GOP kept their power, the future of America is in Jeopardy.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 20, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #189223

Trent:

I’ve not seen Jack use the “ends justify the means” argument. You are insinuating that he does use it. While I disagree that the end result for all of us is death (we’ll leave the religious reasons for this alone for now), I do agree that the journey is very important.

When we talk about torture, we need to first be very specific about what torture is. The term has been bandied about for the past couple of years to the point that much treatment that ISN’T torture is now considered torture.

Secondly, we must recognize when torture is acceptable to be used. While many would say torture is never acceptable, notable people such as Alan Dershowitz, John McCain and Bill Clinton have suggested that torture IS acceptable under extremely specific circumstances (notably the ticking bomb scenario). You can read about Clinton and Dershowitz’s thoughts at http://www.nysun.com/article/41792

In regard to fairness, its important to understand that the concept of fairness is not the same as the concept of equality. If I choose to sacrifice to go to college, and you choose not to sacrifice to go to college, then we’ve both made choices….and there will be resultant consequences to those choices. It would not be “fair” to expect equality of income later in life—it might happen, but its not a necessary factor for fairness.

If we give people the opportunity to achieve things, that’s the most we can expect. It is then incumbent on the individual to perform. Some have more talent, some have more drive, some have more ability, and some have more opportunity. By focusing on evening out the opportunity, it allows the individual the choice of what is important.

Example: I had children young and am close to being an empty nester. My brother had children later and now has grade schoolers. Back when he was childless and fancyfree with money to burn, I envied his choice. Now that I am close to those same freedoms, he envies mine. Both of us are happy with our choices and accept that it was fair, but it certainly has never been equal.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 20, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #189224

Steve

You are actually providing an example. You imply that people vote Republican for racist reasons. If you are right, you would logically question why blacks would be Republicans.

You are also mistaken in your interpretation.

Presidential elections by state are not much of an indicator, but since you chose them …

Republicans have been winning MOST states since 1964. The south has been voting much the same as the mountain and plain states and usually with most of the states of the union except the NE. The states that consistently vote Dem are actually the exceptions.

Take a look.

1968 - South went for former Dem George Wallace
1972 - Almost the whole U.S. went for Nixon. South no different.
1976 - South went Dem
1980 - Reagan won almost all the states. One of the few exceptions was Georgia
1984 - Reagan won all the states except Minnesota. South no different
1988 - Republican win again. South voted the same as California or Montana
1992 - South mixed.
1996 - Also mixed but leaning more Republican than other states
2000 - Most states went for Bush. South not particularly different.
2004 - as above

Republicans win most of the counties of the U.S. They win in the rural areas. The Dems win the NE and the inner cities. There are fewer big cities in the south. In this respect, it is like the mountain west. The question you might need to ask is why South Dakota votes so much like Alabama and the answer probably would not be civil rights.

Naturally, since Republicans win more states in general, they will also probably win more southern states.


Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #189229

I think this is a bunch of Maccacca.

Media focuses on astonishing idiocy, especially when it occurs on video. Remember Howard Dean?

Republicans aren’t in trouble because of racial slurs. They are in trouble because of ignoring corruption, political expediency which seems to justify any means, and flat out lying. Even Americans aren’t THAT stupid.

Posted by: gergle at October 20, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #189231

Jack-
First, your party often does decide what is heritage, and what is the abandonment of our people. Your party is not shy about accusing us of doing both. Everybody has a right to decide and express these things under the first amendment. They also have a right to express their disapproval of how such labels are applied.

I would hope people would resort to reasonable discussion before they start name-calling, but I would also recognize that it is their choice to breach good manners in this way, and American being a free country, their right.

My standard, not always reliably observed, is that the name you’re calling somebody typically has more meaning to you, and typically antagonizes the folks you’re trying to persuade. The better approach is to argue things such that a person’s gut feeling tells them they’re wrong.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #189233

gergle,

Isn’t that Maccacca Caacaa?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 20, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #189236

Jack,

You really distort the 2000 and 2004 elections. If you presented the results accurately, they would have completely undermined your point.

In 2000, Bush won 271 electoral college votes. (We could argue about whether he really “won” Florida, but that’s besides the point.) He needed 269 to win. It could scarcely have been any closer. The South gave Bush all of its electoral college votes.

So to summarize: The 2000 election was extremely close. The South went 100% for Bush in the electoral college. You could not find stronger evidence (even in principle) of a president who depended more on the South to get elected.

2004 was almost as extreme. Bush won 286 electoral college votes, only 17 more than he needed to win. Again, he won every Southern state.

It is true that Bush chose a diverse cabinet, but that says nothing about the GOP rank and file. There are now ZERO Black Republicans in Congress. Maybe instead of asking why Democrats criticize Black Republicans (who they actually have ideological differences with), you should ask why Republicans don’t elect Black politicians. After all, the only difference is the color of their skin, right?

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 20, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #189276

Steve, can you please explain the racilly motivated voting laws in Georgia? Is is wrong to ask for Americans to have an identification card that prevents voter fraud?

When you make it harder to get the card than to register to vote, that is a burden. When Georgia first enacted this law, they did not make photo ID cards easy to get — the 21st century equivilent of preventing the blacks from entering the courthouse to register.

Replace all voter registration cards with Voter IDENTIFICATION cards and I will agree it is not racially motivated. That is easy to do but they haven’t done it.

Posted by: Steve K at October 20, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #189278

Joebagofdonoughts,

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

I think definitions of torture would be useful here. Right now, under the new law, torture is defined by Bush, and he is not being specific.

Since you ask me, though, I will say that I consider water boarding (simulated drowning), confinement in a coffin-sized space, extreme sleep deprivation, etc., as forms of torture. Look up what happens to suspects that we send to Syria — those descriptions are of torture.

Much of the rationale for the Iraq War was based on faulty information gained through torture. This is a matter of public record. At any rate, moral considerations aside, the effectiveness of torture, to my understanding, has not been well established. People tend to say anything under torture, true or not. A week or so ago I heard a story on the radio about a woman called the most effective interrogator at Gitmo — she treats prisoners with respect, gains their trust, and gathers good information.

What happens in the secret CIA prisons? Do you trust our leaders to act in ways affirming our core values? I don’t.

It’s a matter of perspective. The terrorist threat has been built up so much that the public, for the most part, goes along with any abuse as long as it doesn’t appear to affect them. However, since 9/11, nearly a quarter million people have died on U.S. highways.


—-

The ends justify the means thing… you’re right, Jack doesn’t do that in this article. I think I conflated something else he wrote recently with this present article.

Posted by: Trent at October 20, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #189279
Steve, can you please explain the racilly motivated voting laws in Georgia? Is is wrong to ask for Americans to have an identification card that prevents voter fraud?

It costs money to get the card. It’s not a racial thing, except that some races are disproportionately poor.

Posted by: Max at October 20, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #189280

Naturally, since Republicans win more states in general, they will also probably win more southern states.

Jack,

You’re missing the point. I am talking about why some whites in the South vote Republican when previously they voted Democrat. I am arguing that some of these people are racists, and the Republican candidates pander to them through various means. (And I believe there are still Democratic candidates who behave that way, but nowhere near as many.)

If “Naturally … Republicans … will also probably win more southern states,” they how do you explain they can’t win the Northeast or the Pacific Coast? It all has to do with what motivates the locals to vote they way they do.

Posted by: Steve K at October 20, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #189282

Jack,

Let’s look at the real facts in light of your spin attempt of reality.

First, it was Allen that used the term “macaca” (not a staffer, supporter or memebr of the party that you use for comparison purposes). And despite your desire to make the whole video taped (so much for you “seemed” usage) racist slam into “much ado about nothing,” it wasn’t a made up word. I guess unless you give creedence to some wild theory that he “made up a word out of nowhere” that just happened to be a known racial slur to the person who he was negatively talking about. Nice try, but really, what are the odds?! Of all the possible permutations of letters, he randomly came up with a racial slur a minority he was addressing.

When we better understand Allen, we know he hung a Confederate Flag in his living room, wore Confederate pins in High school, was alleged by four college teammates to have used racist language, allegedly put a deer’s head in some black people’s mail box, and in a proclamation he sponsored, he praised the Confederacy for their brave service in support of their country, not once mentioning slavery - it’s pretty tough to easily dismiss his “macaca” slur as you choose to do.

On to the “oreo tossing legend.” This allegedly was September 2002 in a Gubernatorial debate. The one source of the story, a Republican spokesperson. At the time, there is absolutely no mention in any newspapers of Steele having cookies thrown at him. Steele himself didn’t say that “cookies were thrown at him.” Wouldn’t you think, if in a Gubernatorial debate a candidate had anything thrown at him it would deserve mention in the news? Nah, damn liberal press huh?

Even if true, a dubious claim at best, it was a group of debate watchers, not the candidate himself committing the racist act. If a KKK member votes for a GOP candidate, is that candidate responsible for that person’s actions?

On to the “rednecks and towel-head” comment, perhaps a review of Webb’s actual quote might help:

“Every movie needs a villain. Towel-heads and rednecks — of which I am one. If you write that word, please say that. I mean, I don’t use that pejoratively, I use it defensively. Towel-heads and rednecks became the easy villains in so many movies out there.” He went on to say, “I used the words that are used to stereotype them.”

You can pick the soundbite out of the quote for your own comparison, but in context, in an intellectually honest review of what he said, it all looks so different now doesn’t it? So much for the racist rant you seem to imply huh?

And finally, your quote of “There seems to be real doubt among liberals about whether an intelligent black person can be a Republican…get used to it.” The GOP has had exactly one black elected to the House and one black Senator since 1935. There are of course no black Senators nor Congressmen today. I think we should be challenged to get used to it when that pattern changes.

Posted by: Boomer at October 20, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #189284

More facts to review:

Jack writes: “You know that Bush has appointed more African Americans to important cabinet postions than anyone else”

FACT: Clinton appointed seven blacks, GW Bush, four.

(I’ll assume the weasel words here are “important” cabinet positions. Which ones aren’t important Jack? Man, Rove better watch his back with your spin ability.)

Posted by: Boomer at October 20, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #189286

Max,
You are wrong. The ID cards can be obtained for free.

Woody,
The whole Florida 2000 argument is tired. It was 6 years ago - get over it. Besided, Gore would not have needed Florida’s electoral votes if he would’ve carried his HOME STATE of Tennessee. If Tennessee did not vote for Gore, I think that says alot about him…

Dave,
Iraqi deaths exceeding 500,000? Please. If that were anywhere close to being true, the Dems and the media would be falling all over themselves with glee. Nobody but ultra-left extremists place the Iraqi deaths over about 25,000. Does that make me feel better? No. I think it is tragic that so many people have been killed or injured. My only consolation is that 95% of those poor souls were killed by terrorists (or, if you prefer, “insurgents”). Even the ghoulish “iraqbodycount” website inadvertantly bears this out. Hopefully the Iraqi forces are becoming more and more capable of securing themselves. That will be the key to victory…enabling the Iraqis to defend themselves.

Posted by: Rich at October 20, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #189289
deaths exceeding 500,000?…Dems and the media would be falling all over themselves with glee…Posted by: Rich at October 20, 2006 02:01 PM
Only a deeply sick m’er f’er would be “gleeful” over a half a million deaths. Get over that koolaid poisoned self righteousness and accept your shared guilt in this grotesquely murderous fiasco. Trying to feel better because it was “terrorists” who did it? Ha, all Americans need to come to terms with this FUBAR. The number may be statistically calculated but they were gathered by methods validated by other pollsters. I fervently hope they are wrong, but I doubt they are off by much.

P.S. Wasn’t Deliverence set in Tennessee?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 20, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #189295
There seems to be real doubt among liberals about whether an intelligent black person can be a Republican.

When Republicans have ads like these who can blame them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2LQyhTpviQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2LQyhTpviQ

Anyway, there’s no equivalency. The best you can come up with is some activists throwing cookies. George and Karl Rove distributed fliers suggesting one of their opponents was a pedophile (he worked for children’s organizations). They smeared McCain for having a black baby out of wedlock (he adopted a black child). Post something the Democrats have done equivalent to that.

And you have some nerve. Republicans have been given a free pass by the media to do whatever the hell they wanted these last six years. How dare you unequal treatment. Your party lied, cheated, finagled, spent, and did whatever the hell they wanted. You have no one but yourself to blame. Stop whining - it’s beyond ridiculous. Stand up and take responsibility for your failures to this country.

Posted by: Max at October 20, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #189298
Max, You are wrong. The ID cards can be obtained for free.

From here:
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/09/20/georgia-institutes-new-poll-tax/

Georgia is still charging people to vote, this time with a new voter ID law that requires many people without driver’s licenses - a group that is disproportionately poor, black and elderly - to pay $20 or more for a state ID card. Georgia went ahead with this even though there is not a single place in the entire city of Atlanta where the cards are sold. The law is a national disgrace.
Posted by: Max at October 20, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #189301
In Maryland, a leading Democrat embarassed himself by saying Michael Steele slavishly followed the Republican Party.

What’s wrong with that? How far do you need to reach to find an example of a Democrat making a gaffe? That’s not a slur. That’s a word being used correctly! Calling that a slur is the kind of PC-ism you are always claiming Democrats do.

Posted by: Max at October 20, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #189321

It is only when a moral compass is off course that anyone can notice or even care.

Repbublicans are the party of values and when one goes astray and sins they are held up for closer scrutiny. Like when a minister is caught with the Deacons wife that it is big news and against all that is taught as moral living.

This is because a moral compass has gone astray, out of alignment ect.

When a Democrat sins, goes astray, they are not even noticed as it is like a cockroach being found in the cornmeal, that is what is expected. only when something that is not supose to happen and does is it a big deal. Like if nancy pelosi became a caring loving person who believed in the sanctity of life and went against murdering babies in the womb. now that would be the non expected and worthy of news coverage or if Bill Clinton was caught with monica in the oval office and was found to be teaching her dictation so she could get a better job someday. now that would be news worthy.

don’t get so excited when Dims do immoral and evil things as they are doing what is expected of them. they know not what they do, only what is their nature to do. the expected is never noticed and the unexpected causes a stir.

They are like the story of the turtle and the scorpion. they are what they are and can’t help it.

Posted by: lm at October 20, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #189325

Repbublicans are the party of values and when one goes astray and sins they are held up for closer scrutiny…When a Democrat sins, goes astray, they are not even noticed…

Wow! I hope the contortions required to come up with that one didn’t hurt too badly.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 20, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #189333

Rich,

Look at what I write again. You are the one trying to revisit an old argument. My point is that Bush depended heavily on southern support to win.

But since you mention it, Bush managed to lose his home state twice and still get elected. He was born and raised in Connecticut.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 20, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #189334

Has anyone seen the ticking time bomb commercial yet? When asked, party officials responsible for its release said they did not feel it was “fearmongering”.

I saw it today on the news. It is pictures of Bin Laden with different quotes of him talking about killing Americans. The whole time all you hear is ominous ticking. That’s it. That’s the whole commercial except for a “paid for by the RNC” at the end.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 20, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #189340

The ID cards can be obtained for free.

And it didn’t cost Blacks to vote in the South before the voting rights act either. (Except for those places that used a Poll Tax.) The difference was that the racist White establishment made it difficult to register through keeping the voter registration office closed and other tactics. This is the same tactic in the Georgia law. It’s only fair and non-discriminatory if it is equally easy for everyone to register and vote. The Georgia law doesn’t pass that test.

Posted by: Steve K at October 20, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #189342

hurt about as bad as when Ted Kennedy dropped his drink on his date. No that was when he dropped his date in the drink.

Or as much as when Hillary puts that cross on each day.

Or when she finally admited she lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Now that must have left a mark.

Or when……… well you get the picture.

Posted by: lm at October 20, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #189346

Max -
“Republicans have been given a free pass by the media to do whatever the hell they wanted these last six years.”

Boy, I’d like a nickel for each time that has been true! I could have 15 cents in my pocket by now. Where’s your evidence?

“You have no one but yourself to blame. Stop whining - it’s beyond ridiculous. Stand up and take responsibility for your failures to this country.”

Not exactly true. Obviously, more people voted for Bush & co. than voted for the challenger. That is true. But that those people have only themselves to blame is far from the truth. (I won’t go into the long list…) Just one… If the Dems had not been such Bush-haters they would have been able to come together to put forward a candidate WORTHY of being President in the last election. You are guilty by the fact that you selected someone so extremely left wing that a significant number of Dems are actually glad he didn’t win the election. Had you chosen someone more moderate you WOULD HAVE won the election. That makes you (and the Dems) equally guilty for the last two years. (There’s a similar argument that could be made for the 2000 race, but I will spare you.) You can’t blame your opponents for winning if the opponents put up a better candidate.

There’s PLENTY of guilt and blame to pass around. Stand up and take responsibility for your failures to this country.

Posted by: Don at October 20, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #189348

Woody

Maybe we can elect Michael Steele to the Senate. That would be good, right? It does not seem Democrats are going to vote for him in great numbers. Is it the color of his skin?

The rank and file argument cuts both ways. Maybe Dems do not appeal enough to non-black voters.

All the south went for Bush - twice. The entire mountain west went for Bush too. So did the Great Plains. If ANY of these regions had gone to Gore or Kerry, Bush would have lost.

Besides, there is nothing to it. New York and New England tend toward Dems.

Steve K

The reddest places are in the mountain west (Utah is most Republican) and it places like Kansas and Nebraska. See map. Kerry didn’t carry ANY counties in Utah or Nebraska and he only got a little of Wyoming where the rich celebrities have hobby ranches.

I do not doubt that some people still vote based on race. I am sure that cuts both ways too. Dems pander by pretending Sharpton and Jackson are statesmen. Republicans speak at Bob Jones. But race alone is no longer a determining issue.

Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #189356
“Republicans have been given a free pass by the media to do whatever the hell they wanted these last six years.” Boy, I’d like a nickel for each time that has been true! I could have 15 cents in my pocket by now. Where’s your evidence?

We went to war based on little to no evidence of WMDs.

Posted by: Max at October 20, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #189359

doing the heavy lifting and making them safe by protecting our borders and ports of entry.

The Republican Party doesn’t get it. But, the people finally do. The majority of them won’t be fooled by the GOP again.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 12:12 AM

David, I know that security is important, but how is it possible to secure ports from the importation of nbc weapons or even less dangerous materials without massive disruption to international trade at untold cost? The numbers of personnel and the time required has to be staggering along with the direct cost of these resources, not to mention the cost of delay in logistics and scm. I have no idea how these things could be done without massive economic damage. Tell me I’m wrong!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 20, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #189366

When you speak in public as many times as politicans do I’m sure it can be rather challenging to never say something that is either taken out of context or have your intent twisted or maybe you just slipped up and said something a bit insensative. Regardless of party it happens and it doesn’t make the person evil. The issue is that when the words come from a Republican the press immediatly calls him a racist who should step down but when its a democrat the press tends to be far more understanding.

Posted by: Carnak at October 20, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #189370

carnak,

Are you saying that Allens Maccacca caacaa was “taken out of context”?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 20, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #189389

Jack,

There is a simple, obvious explanation for why Democrats aren’t going to vote for Steele in great numbers: he’s a Republican. You could claim that this is an indication of racism, but you would be introducing an extra hypothesis to explain something that doesn’t need an explanation. Occam’s razor.

Basically, there is no way to blame the Democrats for the Republicans’ inability to elect Black candidates.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 20, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #189390

I really think that we have to get these conservatives out of office before we lose all of our constitutional rights. We are losing the things that make America great. I think this election people will voice loudly to the left.

Posted by: Politics at October 20, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #189391
The rank and file argument cuts both ways. Maybe Dems do not appeal enough to non-black voters.

It doesn’t cut both ways. The Democratic representation in Congress is simply more diverse. The Democrats don’t have any problem electing white candidates.

I certainly don’t deny that the GOP is stronger among white voters (like myself). “Non-black” doesn’t quite hit the mark because the Democrats are stronger in the Latino and Asian population.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 20, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #189392

Keith said,

The Reps can’t even get close to the dems in fear department.

Let’s see, Global warming, peanut buttter in schools, can’t play tag at schools, The housing bubble, the economy, heterosexual aids, starving children, starving seniors, starving minorities, glass ceiling. We have kids that are too scared to ride their bikes without helmets on their lawns. The list is almost endless.

Are you kidding? Just make up stuff to make points if you don’t have anything to say. Heterosexual aids? What’s that? Is it different than AIDS? Liberals are demogoguing tag at schools and housing bubbles? Get serious.

Posted by: chris2x at October 20, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #189394

chris2x

No, what that means is that for years the left has been telling people that people engaging heterosexual sex hav the same chance of getting aids as homosexuals and iv drug users. They have done this in order to get there agenda in the schools and get funding from teh government.


All of those other things on the list are things that either the dems have accused the reps of doing or thing they have stopped other people for fear of getting hurt or sick.

Posted by: Keith at October 20, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #189399

Woody

I do not think that Dems in Maryland are not voting for Steele because he is black. I only bring it up to show that Republicans may be acting from similar motives. I have no trouble conceiving of myself voting for Powell, Rice or Steele (depending on the issues), but I certainly would not vote for Jackson, Sharpton, or Conyers.

Black candidates tend to be more liberal. That is the reason I do not vote for them. It is the same reason Dems do not vote for Steele, I assume.

The reason I use the word non-black instead of white is that not all minorities fall on the same place ideologically. The black vote is 90% Dem. Other groups are more closely matched politically. How they vote depends on the candidate and the election and the trends are unclear. I found some studies that show Asians, for example, are more rarely registered for either party, but registered Republicans outnumber Dems. In the elections in the 1990s, a plurality of Asians voted Republican.

In the last election, Bush got (according to CNN) 58% of the white vote and 44% of the Asian and Hispanic vote. These are big (14%) differences, that is true. But the bigger difference is that he got only 11% of the black vote. This is a 33% difference.

If you did it visually, it would be like this:

black
……….11%……………………………44%…………..58%……………………………………

How would you group them? The new groups do not fit into either of the old categories. Beyond that, many are new immigrants and the longer they are in the U.S., the more immigrants behave like the majority population.

Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #189400

Rich-
It’s like that the violent deaths in Baghdad are going to exceed that figured this year alone. There’s no consolation in their deaths, no joy- these deaths were unnecessary. You think we’re gleeful about it because you only think we’re making something of this for political reasons.

Actually, it’s very sad, because we failed. We failed to stop all this. All we can do is put an end to this farce at this point. Our choices? Bad and worse. How did things get this far out of whack? And how do folks like you not even realize how bad this has gotten?

lm-
False Idols: A party. A Set of politics. The politicians. God deserves our faith. But the Republicans? Bush? Any politician, no matter how virtuous they seem? We should be skeptical. We should be careful. Anybody who thinks we should elevate one party above the other as especially moral should take a second to consider two things: One, both parties seem to have done their share of evil.

Two, both parties are composed of people just like us. Now what does that tell you?
Matthew 7: 1-6.

p.s. Holding grudges against people for their errors does not exactly give people an accurate picture of the gospel.

Don-
We did our best. Tried our hardest. Why should we be blamed for the choices of those people unwise enough to vote for Bush after all the screwups took place?

Jack-
Tell me: how much of that map is going to be left after Bush has had his time in office?

Carnak-
Bull. He essentially called an Indian American man a monkey in front of an audience of mostly whites, singling him out as an immigrant (despite the fact that he’s American born) He knew a camera was on him, even acknowledge it with what he said. Were he a more cautious man, he might have seen fit to keep his big mouth shut, but apparently he lacked the good sense to do that, and he’s got no one else to blame than himself.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #189402

Stephen

In 2008 it will be a new race. If Hilary runs, I expect the map to look very similar. If Kerry runs again, you will be seeing even more red.

Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #189449

Jack-
Kerry managed to get half this country when Bush was at least moderately popular. He would have to show that he’s learned from his mistakes, but he could still run.

Still, I would like to see who else emerges from the primary, other than just Kerry and Clinton.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #189473

Stephen

Nobody likes a loser. I doubt the Dems will take him back. He was not a very good candidate. I think an attractive Dem could have won in 2004.

Posted by: Jack at October 21, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #189507

Again, let me remind you, Jack: he won almost half the votes, and more people voted for him than for any other presidential candidate in history, save Bush. If Bush’s 100,000 votes had been elsewhere than Ohio, he would have lost.

A little perspective here: Bush won the popular vote, but only by two million. He once again won the president with the country neatly divided. If the election were held today, Bush would have lost. Bush was not a very good candidate, but the Republicans pushed him with all their hearts, their minds and their souls because the alternative was admitting the unthinkable: that everything you folks had said that a Republican would do better than a Democrat, he was failing at.

Unwilling to admit his weakness then, your party suffers for his weakness now. It’d be funny if it weren’t for the fact that things have gotten worse, just like we’d feared, and in some ways we didn’t even expect. If you had told me that the man who skillfully ascended to the heights of public opinion on 9/11 would have been such a wallflower on this epochal disaster, I never would have thought it would have happened.

Living through that, my thoughts were “Good God, he can’t screw up this too, can he?”

This is the thing: Nobody expected the Iraq War, right or not, to become such a debacle based on our past experience. I mean, it was “Can a president with the best army on the planet actually screw up a war like this?”

The Diplomacy? The Diplomacy had us going “Did a President or somebody speaking for him actually just stick their foot in their mouth like that?”

The thing you miss about what’s gotten people on my side so opposed to Bush is that bush has made it so that a person like me can hardly put anything past him anymore. He’s done dozens of things that no President I’ve ever seen in office has been so foolish to do.

Hell, that’s why we’re committed. We think the guy’s dangerous to the country, and so are all the officials and congressional leaders that enabled this tragedy for America.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #189508

Jack:
On the subject of losers:
Reagan lost in 1976.
Nixon in 1960.
And Bush lost his first election, a congressional race. His brother Jeb lost his first race for Florida Governor.

Nobody likes Losers? Nobody wins without losing sometimes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #189533

Stephen

Not to nitpick but Bush won the popular by over 3 million votes. 62,040,610 to 59,028,111

Posted by: Keith at October 21, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #189553

What’s new about liberal hypocrisy?
What’s good for the pack mule
is NOT good for the pachyderm.

Elephants have long memories.
Jackasses are just slow and stubborn.
Seems about right.

As I’ve stated before, but was apparently
censored by the WatchBlog Editor.
Liberals don’t really see themselves as
being capable of hypocrisy. I can only
assume, it’s because they don’t live by a moral
compass ( or at least THE moral compass ).
They are guided or mis-guided by situational
“ethics”. As we all know by that great mind
A.K.A. Bubba from Arkansas. A bj isn’t really
sex, but an inappropriate e-mail to a minor page
apparently is.

Here’s a thought. BOTH were bad AND a breach of trust of ones spouse AND the people who voted
both pervs into office. The difference is, that
one of them stepped down almost immediately,
while the other tried to keep lying about it.

Cindy Sheehan can call Bush Hitler and the
liberal press eats it up. But if I suggest
that liberals would forgive Bill Clinton
( and try to understand him instead ) if he had
HYPOTHETICALLY molested his own daughter. I
get censored by WatchBlog. I guess fictionalizing
incest/pedophillia about a Dem. President is
worse than comparing a sitting Repub. President
to a real genocidal, anti-Semitical mass murderer.

Go figure!

Posted by: Dale G. at October 22, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #189561
I get censored by WatchBlog.
Color me unsurprised. Sorry, I just can’t find anything else in your post that’s worth wasting a keystroke on.
Posted by: Introspective at October 22, 2006 4:27 AM
Comment #189567

Dale,

Don’t worry it’s not just you. Many of us are for banning ALL idiots that contribute nothing to the dialogue around here.

Posted by: Max at October 22, 2006 7:25 AM
Comment #189588

Maybe we should go back to the good old days when politicians settled their differences in deadly duels, or with fisticuffs on the floor of the house and in the well of the senate.

Maybe we should go back to the good old days when corrupt politicians had their feet held to the fire, literally, by their constituents, or tarred and feathered and ran out of town on a rail.

Maybe we should go back to the good old days when the Klu Klux Klan rallied by the tens of thousands and paraded down the streets of Washington, D.C.

Maybe we should go back to the good old days when we treated the family pet better than America’s black citizens.

Or maybe we could grow up and become a nation of honest, hard-working people who valued and respected the rights and contributions of all our citizens.

Maybe we could grow up and become a nation where our leaders put the interest, safety and welfare of the people ahead of personal gain.

Or maybe we have become a nation of selfish, greedy, envious, ego-centric morons who are no longer capable of becoming better than we are.

Perhaps we have forgotten that a nation is no more stronger, no more moral, no more compassionate, no more courageous, no more honorable, than its people.

If that is the case, perhaps the “Great Experiment” has failed after all.

Posted by: ulysses at October 22, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #189608

how quickly the country splinters, and how interesting the splinters, when faced with more than one demand upon it’s attention.

we had a chance to move forward, but you people wanted the “moral-up-manship” and a chance to taste the power. you have had both.

we in the hinterlands work toward a new future.

like rome, once one, once.

Posted by: Joe at October 22, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #189681

David Remer,


You wrote:

The Republican Party doesn’t get it. But, the people finally do. The majority of them won’t be fooled by the GOP again.

God I hope that you are correct, but after the last 2 elections, and the Repubs still have more money from their corporate masters, and they still have the ability to trump up terrorist threats, and there is actually 37% of the American people that are idiotic enough to still support Bush, and they shepherd their sheep to the polls, I am not going to bet the farm on it.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 23, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #189761

CNN, America’s Aljazeer. Treasonous institution finally shows it’s colors. What a joke of a station.

Anderson Cooper should be tried for treason now that it is so painless and just what he ordered.

Posted by: lm at October 23, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #189782
Treasonous institution finally shows it’s colors.
You’re talking about their decision to air Glenn Beck, right? Damn right-wing media!
Posted by: Introspective at October 23, 2006 8:06 PM
Post a comment