Friday, September 12, 2008

You Want Real Change, America? Choose the Black Democrat, Not the Old White Republican and his Lying Huckabee-in-Drag!

Here we are less than two months away from the presidential election and, as expected, the campaign trail has become a Republican freak-show. The once-maverick Sen. John McCain, who promised to run a clean, honorable campaign, has descended so low into the bowels of dirty politics it's downright despicable, while his grossly inexperienced vice-presidential running-mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, desperately tries to lie herself into the Executive Mansion. With the GOP's Darth Vader, Karl Rove, as their Shaman and strategic guru, McPalin is trying to convince voters that it is they, not the Democrats, who are the real agents of change. This claim would be comical if it wasn't so absurd and infuriating. Yes! Fed up with the last eight years of ruinous Republican rule? Why not vote for change and give Republicans four more years!? But America does have a real choice this year. A real opportunity to bring about real change. And his name is Barack Obama. But a strange phenomenon's occurring: incredibly, McPalin's co-opted Obama's central campaign message.

Tell me something please: How does a party with a rich old white nominee appear to have successfully claimed the mantle of change over the party whose ticket is topped by a black man? This one's even more mystifying than the two draft-dodgers, George Bush and Dick Cheney, successfully convincing voters in 2004 that they were the tough guys who could protect America while the decorated war hero John Kerry could not. Ya gotta give these guys credit. They've mastered the art of propaganda. If you say it, and say it often enough, it must be true.

There's more. How does the party that's controlled Washington for virtually all of the last fourteen years have the audacity to run on change? How does a party that's been rocked by scandal and corruption boast that they're headed to Washington "to clean up that swamp." And while we're at it, how does the party that holds as its #1 priority prohibiting women from making choices about their own bodies get away with attacking Democrats as being sexist while presenting themselves as pro-women? How does the party of rich white people label Obama an elitist? How does the party that gives big tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations paint themselves as champions of the little guy? How does a candidate like Palin, who's cut Special Olympics funding by 50% get to "promise" voters that a McPalin administration would be a "friend and advocate" of special needs children? How does a party which has allowed corporate America to pollute our air and water get to run as environmentalists? How is this all happening? Where is the public outrage? Where is the media scrutiny?

And the campaign continues to get dirtier each day. Earlier this week the McNasty ticket accused Obama of making a derogatory remark about Palin when he said his now infamous line "You can put lipstick on a pig and guess what, it's still a pig" in mocking McCain and Palin's change theme. Perhaps the sanctimonious McCain has forgotten, but he used the same phrase last year to describe Hillary Clinton's health care plan. I guess it wasn't sexist then. Or maybe it's just more of the same old Republican "Do as I say, not as I do" philosophy in action. Lie #1

Then later in the week came McNasty's disgusting, shameful attack ad accusing Obama of authoring a bill while in the Illinois State Senate that would require kindergarten children to be taught comprehensive sex education. The ad was immediately denounced as patently false and intentionally deceptive not only by the Obama camp, but by almost every major mainstream media journalist. The truth is, the measure advocated teaching children how to defend themselves against sexual predators. More complicated subject matter such as homosexuality, intercourse and contraception was not a part of the curriculum. And, the bill received support from a broad coalition of public health and education organizations including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association. Lie #2.

There was also Palin's revising history on her "Bridge to Nowhere" support, essentially saying I was for it before I was against it. Not only was she for it, she hired a lobbying firm to snag the $200-million earmark. When the bridge deal lost support, she ended up with the dough anyway. Lie #3.

And then came the moment we've all been waiting for, when the anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-stem-cell research, gun-toting, carcass-skinning, book-banning, evangelical creationist Palin faced ABC's Charles Gibson in her maiden interview. Her performance was an embarrassing display of ignorance on the major domestic and global issues of the day, clearly demonstrating to any sane, rational person that the plucky little hockey mom is woefully unprepared to serve this nation as vice president, let alone be ready to step in as president in the event of a crisis.

When Gibson asked if she had met any foreign heads of state, Palin winced and said no, then claimed that if the question was put to most other modern vice presidential candidates the answer would be the same as well. Well, not quite Sarah. You'd be the first veep in 32 years not to have met any foreign heads of state. Lie #4.

Gibson then moved on to global warming, reminding Palin of her position that it's not caused by human activity. In a flip-flop, she stated that some of it is indeed man-made, yet denied her previous position: "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that." Well, in an interview last year with a Fairbanks newspaper she said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." Lie #5.

And when Gibson asked her whether she agrees with "The Bush Doctrine" she was utterly clueless, and it was painfully obvious. Rather than take the honest path and say she wasn't all that familiar with its tenets, she opted instead to take the high school bluff route, answering the question with a question ("In what respect, Charlie?"). Jeff Spicoli would've been proud.

Throughout the interview I felt embarrassed for the little arctic spitfire. With every question, she appeared either like a frightened deer in the headlights, or, as the teacher's pet looking for praise when providing what she thinks is the correct answer. Worse, some of her answers pertaining to foreign affairs were so vague and stilted that they sounded like the kind of "bring peace on earth" vacuous gems offered up by a beauty queen (not a stretch for the former Miss Wasilla and Miss Alaska runner-up).

Though I never though it possible, Palin makes 1988's GOP vice presidential embarrassment, Dan Quayle, finally appear highly credentialed and experienced by comparison when you consider his two terms each in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Perspective is a beautiful thing.

Of course, the McPalin campaign once again shed its crocodile tears, accusing ABC and Gibson of being too harsh on their wondrous gal. Of being too professorial, too condescending. That he was out to get her.

So was Gibson guilty of journalistic high-sticking? Give us a break. What was he supposed to do, toss her softballs? Let's get something straight: McCain appoints a total political neophyte to be vice-president and a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, vehemently insists she's qualified, sequesters her from the press for two weeks, and then when he finally wheels her out of the GOP safehouse he whines that Gibson asked the tough and completely fair and reasonable questions?

Hey Sarah, there's no free pass here just because you're cute and perky. If that's all we wanted we'd elect Katie Couric. If you want to shed the snow shoes and play in the big leagues you're gonna have to pass the smell test with the American voter. You're gonna have to face the media many times between now and November, and you better know what the hell you're talking about. You're asking us all to take you seriously as a potential president, commander in chief of the greatest military, and leader of the free world. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Oh, I'm sorry, was that sexist?


Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin's ignorance about the specifics of "the Bush Doctrine" in her first big network interview does not worry me. What's worrisome is her familiarity—and comfort—with Bush's general worldview.

In the pop-quiz question about the Bush Doctrine even Charlie Gibson—who knew, presumably, what was coming—didn't define it correctly. The Bush Doctrine is about preventative military action (Gibson mistakenly used the word pre-emptive), but in its first iteration, it defined those who harbor terrorists as no different from the terrorists themselves. Later, it came to include the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Given the president's selective application of his doctrine and its subsequent revisions, it's quite possible that not even Bush knows what the Bush Doctrine is.

So it's a little murky. But while Palin may not know what the Bush Doctrine is, she seemed, in her answers, to have adopted his approach to world affairs.

As Bush did, Palin comes to national office with little knowledge about foreign affairs. She hasn't traveled much, and the claims the campaign have made for her foreign-policy experience are evaporating. For example, aides have asserted that because Alaska neighbors Russia, Palin understands Russia. Yet the campaign has never been able to back up this assertion. When Palin was asked about Russia, her strongest response seemed to be that she can see Russia. "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska," she told Gibson.

This is a travel tip, not an argument for foreign-policy expertise. Because a person can see the moon does not make them qualified to be an astronaut.

Palin also seems to share Bush's lack of curiosity. Much of the interview felt like the forceful recitation of talking points she'd only just learned. There was very little evidence of original thought. (Obama has the opposite problem: He has thoughts, but is too calculating to share them.) Some Republicans have compared Palin's directness to Reagan, but that analogy doesn't hold—he'd been working over his ideas for decades before he was on the national ticket.

Finally, like Bush, Palin does not appear to let her unfamiliarity with the material hold her back. She was at pains throughout the interview to demonstrate her decisiveness. This makes political sense: What better way to reassure people about her ability as a leader than to look decisive?

But by repeatedly asserting that she will "not blink," Palin was eerily Bush-like. She offered a black-and-white worldview of bold decisions made quickly and changed reluctantly for fear of showing weakness. Sound familiar?

As a political matter, Republicans will think the Bush Doctrine question was unfair. Since doctrine is like the word paradigm—not often used in daily life—those who make issue of this will be mocked as pasty elites. Democrats, meanwhile, will see Palin's fumble of the question as the perfect encapsulation of their every worry about her.

I'm not sure much changed politically after the first round of the three-part interview. But if the new message of the McCain campaign is that his ticket is a change from George W. Bush, Palin didn't make the case.

--john dickerson, slate

Anonymous said...

mcsame is now taking credit for an ethics and reform bill that obama coauthored....that takes some fucking balls

it is time for the dems to unleash the hounds and show how mccain became a born again semi reformer as a result of the keating five affair...thats when he found god...cuz he skated, even though he shoulda gone to frackin prison

yet, he still hangs out with lobbyists galore

oldest con artist in the world

he even conned me back in 2000...never again john

Anonymous said...

would like to add one thing

i have no problem with the vp candidate adopting the positions of the pres candidate...that is normal

i do have a prob with any vp candidate lying about what his/her positions were prior to accepting the nom

especially when these lies are so easily discovered

these people really do believe that the american public is stupid

Anonymous said...

I'm voting for McCain & Palin for four simple reasons:

1) He was a POW
2) She's pretty hot and was a small-town mayor (aka real values)
3) Obama is black and once knew some Muslims and was kind of/sort of friends/colleagues with a guy who was a domestic radical forty years ago...
4)Nearly every advertisement that McCain has put out recently contains numerous flat-out lies. We need a President who has no problem lying to the American people.

This is not an election about issues people. It's really black and white.

Anonymous said...

If being knowledgeable was a requirement for victory, Bush would not have been elected.

Unfortunately, the people who eventually sway the elections are the most ignorant. Let's see which candidate will appeal to them the most.

Anonymous said...


The truth is quite simple: Obama is black, liberal, intelligent and articulate...

Four things that strike fear in the hearts of people in the fly over states...

Anonymous said...

Why vote Republican after all the damage they've done? Because Obama switched/flip-flopped/changed platform positions, LIED to me and other in the primaries. He then boted with Bush on spying on us, on keeping church and state separated, on drilling and now claims his health care plan covers everybody.

He will be the President of change but none of us can trust what changes he will make. He lies; he does not keep his word. I voted for him in the primaries and I am now horrified that I didn't vote for Hillary. I prefer the "devil I know" to one who will lead the country God knows where. Remember Bush was a "compassionate conservative" and some of you fell for that.

Anonymous said...

I heard part of the content of the sex educaiton bill Obama approved of. It was defended inthat the bill doesn't teach actual sex, just that "we all have parts of our bodies that feel good when touched" and then on to teach kindergarden kids not to let anyone touch them in the "feel good places." What I have to say is the schools should teach reading, science, math and academic subjects - areas where we are behind in the rest of the world. I will handle talking about "feel good places" with my children, myself; How dare the schools start teaching children what heretofore belonged in the province of the family.

If there are "special" children who need that kind of tutoring, then have "special programs" before or after school for those children with no reliable parentss. I'm a Democrat but "mommying" by the government has its limits. Next they'll be teaching about how good drugs make you feel so don't do it.

Obama was wrong. I bet they don't teach sex in his girls' private school.

Anonymous said...

Oh, how quickly these republican bastards always forget:

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

Yet they constantly evoke God, Christ and scripture...

Anonymous said...

I was a Republican, but I believe, after reading his multi-posts, that Sidney is the quintessential Democrat and what's not like about him. So, I'm going to vote for Sidney's man. Sidney is such a level-headed, clear thinker and he is an authority on everything in this world and universe. But, what I really like about him is the cool way he responds to people who disagree with him. That's exactly can the kind of person we need to rule the country. I don't see too many of those qualities in Obama, but I'll have to take second best. I mean who can top" "fucking idiot republican trolls " That's just the kind of "fight" we need at the top. Sidney has won me over to Obama.

Anonymous said...

Do not take it for granted that Palin was a good move.
I have been a Republican all my life although in the last election I stayed home. I could not vote for Kerry, sorry.
Now I was thrilled with McCain because he was a moderate.
After his pick, I became concerned with the "what if he dies?" question. Not another ignorant in the White House. This country can not go through that again.
So, I have switched. Without enthusiasm, but I have switched. I believe other moderates will too.

Anonymous said...


Your meltdown is hilarious to observe. Keep it up. There are meds that can help, you know.

Anonymous said...

Consider that should Palin have to take over it wouldn't be for a full term and she could be voted out after the four years expire. However, Obama, who remains a mystery as to exactly what we can expect from him will be in for sure for four full years. I take comfort that McCain's mother is a vigorous women in her late 90s. Good genes there. Eventhough John has suffered damage from over-exposure to the sun -- it is not a genetic problem.

Anonymous said...

McCain believes himself to be the quintessential "maverick" for his positions about earmarks and his not toeing the ideological party line 100% in lockstep with Bush/Cheney. This perception might have been true back, say, in 2000, before he started pandering to the religious right and to anyone else who would pay attention to him to secure the Rwpublican presidential nomination in 2008. Now, he simply shows his desperation in claiming to be an agent of change while promoting the same old political smears and lies against his opponent, with no new ideas or calls to change at all! His choice of running mate shows his extreme desperation, especially given her stunning lack of experience and her desire to demonstrate her toughness at any cost. Earlier this week, the McCain operatives tried to smear Obama by claiming that his use of the expression "lipstick on a pig" insulted Palin. It didn't insult Palin as much as the pig!

Anonymous said...

anon 6:39 PM

if you choose not to know anything about obama and his postions...then it is you who chooses to remain ignorant

for he has been running for almost 2 years, and has his positions on everything posted on his website and elsewhere.

why dont you say what you really feel...that you cant trust an angry black man...for you are the worst of the wont own up to your own hatred

well stand tall...burn that cross brightly...wear that hood with pride

Anonymous said...

Obama has absolutely NO TRACK RECORD backing up ANY of his rhetoric and promises.

McCain and Palin have even gone against their own party for the good of the country.

Only the ignorant would think that their party is ALWAYS correct. Obama and Biden are 2 of the 3 most liberal members of the Senate and neither of them ever goes against their party for the good of the country.

Obama and Biden are both liars and slimy politicians.

Anonymous said...

12:09 AM

dang...that kool aide must be delicious

mccain earned the nom by basically turning his back on his "maverick" image

a person who calls him/herself a maverick aint one...especially when he says that he would now vote against his own immigration bill, will keep tax cuts he thought were bad for the economy, permanent, broke his own campaign finance rules, flipped on roe v wade, and embraced the leaders of the evangelicals, who pillaried him for years...

as for palin...please explain to me how one can embrace the old boy network while climbing up the ladder of alaskan politics, yet fight it at the same time....not possible...

and i suggest you saunder over to every exageration/lie made by the obama/biden campaign...there are 10 for the mccain/palin doesnt seem that palin or mccain can open their mouths without lying about something...oh, mccain was a pow, and palin is the mother of 4 children (im still not sure about trig)

care to debate? cuz you are gonna lose

just like i bitch slapped michael medved...who ran over to factcheck just to prove me wrong....when he read the entries...his head almost exploded

Anonymous said...

Anyone can search for "bacci40" on google and see what kind of person he is.

Bacci40 is a know-nothing comic book junky. He is an angry person who lives in the world of comics.

Bacci40 believes Palin is an anti-semite even though she had an Israeli flag on the wall of one of her previous offices.

Bacci40 believes that trig might not be one of Palin's children because a left-wing hate site made the claim without any facts to back it up.

Look at the claims Bacci40 makes on various blogs if you want to get a sense of the type of person he is.

Go back to the land of Flash Gordon where you are in your element.

Anonymous said...

McCain/Palin: Change that Bush/Cheney would be Proud of...

Anonymous said...

Obama/Biden: Change that Carter/Mondale would be proud of ...

Anonymous said...

Republicans have proven themselves incompetent and jingoist and unable to govern....

Bringing up a President from roughly thirty years ago is not nearly as relevant as discussing the current government...But thanks for the bumpersticker, 10:11am...

Republicans need to be out of power for a few years in order to get their shit together...They have lost the trust of the American people, the fleeting polls of the last week or two aside...Republicans know only of failure...

Anonymous said...

Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin yesterday about reports that she sought to ban books from the Wasilla public library. Palin rejected this out of hand: "Never banned a book, never desired to ban a book.... It's an old wives' tale."

There's ample reason to believe this isn't true at all. Indeed, while Palin was denying any interest in banning library books, her campaign aides conceded to the Associated Press that Palin approached Wasilla's head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, "on three occasions," about how one might go about banning library books.

The recent defense has been that the question was "rhetorical." The mayor asked a "rhetorical" question about book banning three times? Please.

The AP added some additional context to the story:

According to the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman newspaper, Emmons did not mince words when Palin asked her "how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library" on Oct. 28, 1996, in a week when the mayor had asked department heads for letters of resignation.

"She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied 'Yup'," Emmons told a reporter. "And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too."

The Rev. Howard Bess, a liberal Christian preacher in the nearby town of Palmer, said the church Palin and her family attended until 2002, the Wasilla Assembly of God, was pushing to remove his book from local bookstores.

Emmons told him that year that several copies of "Pastor I Am Gay" had disappeared from the library shelves, Bess said. "Sarah brought pressure on the library about things she didn't like," Bess said. "To believe that my book was not targeted in this is a joke."

So, what do we know at this point? Time reported last week that Palin asked Emmons about the process for banning library books. Emmons was reportedly "aghast" at the question. Soon after, Palin fired Emmons, and news reports from the time indicate that Palin thought Emmons hadn't done enough to give her "full support" to the mayor. (Palin reversed course on Emmons's dismissal after a local outcry.)

ABC News added a report this week, explaining that Palin took office thanks in large part to the strong backing of her church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, which, right around the time Palin took office, "began to focus on certain books" the church wanted to see removed from shelves.

And now we know Palin repeatedly broached the subject of banning books, and locals acknowledge that Palin, as mayor, "brought pressure on the library."

The line from the McCain campaign has been that Palin never had any interest whatsoever in banning library books. Palin herself has described this as "an old wives' tale." That seems increasingly difficult to believe.

Anonymous said...


12:09 said "Obama has absolutely NO TRACK RECORD backing up ANY of his rhetoric and promises."

You blew past that statement to the old kool-aid line. Jumped to McCain and Palin, still sticking to the Trig gutter line.

Then you talk about winning debates. You didn't even debate. You threw dirt in his face and ran away.

The next step in the proposed debate is for you to respond to 12:09 with facts about how Obama's track record does back up his rhetoric and promises.

Good luck. You are going to need it.

Anonymous said...

If McCain is not ahead by five points this week in ntional polls, he WILL NOT win the election.
IKE will take the attention away from Sarah the bubble allowing time to deflate and even burst.Let's see what kind of federal and state preparedeness is shown in Texas, a deeply pro McCaine state. I pray to God that they pass this test with flying colors.
Sarah has shown to be sly, not intelligent. For only a sly person would say that Obama probably regretted not choosing Hillary. Is she seriousy thinking she is attracting feminists? Or she read some place that in the year 2008, in the era of speedy communications, Utube and internet, you can conquer by dividing?
Poor Sarah.... ever so ignorant..
In the end you will hurt the former POW so deeply.... for slowly the media are getting their act together.
Please guys, give this doll time to deflate. Stop talking about her. She is not worth it.
Concentrate on McCain. He and his senile judgement are on top of the GOP ticket.

Sidney Condorcet said...

"Even if all the crap you guys are spewing about Palin were true, which they aren't"

Look, I'm an Obama supporter, but I"m also not a fucking moron. I know that he has an association with Bill Ayers, one time radical domestic terrorist member of the Weather Underground. We all know about this. It's the truth. The debate revolves around whether they were ever close enough for it to make any difference and whether Bill Ayers, who has long since reformed himself, and become a vital member of Chicago's reform movement, is relevant at all. I don't wish to stifle debate on that. Go right ahead and argue that this guy is tantamount to Osama Bin Laden and Obama and he are somehow close friends and Obama should not be elected because of it. Though I'd disagree, it's certainly your right to make that argument. But it all proceeds from the TRUTH that Obama knows the guy and has met him a least a few times.

Now, you don't have the same respect for basic truths when it comes to Sarah Palin. You immediately say that everything negative being said about Palin on this blog is NOT TRUE. Are you blind or duplicitous? Many of these points, from her censorship attempts to lack of experience to very right-wing views on abortion, global warming, etc., to her lack of basic familiarity with at least some aspect of the Bush Doctrine, to her involvement in theTroopergate scandal, many of these points have been demonstrated to be the TRUTH. Now, you can argue whether or not these are relevant to deciding upon whether she should be VP and whether they are being overblown or whatever.

But you refuse to even admit some of the basic truths. That's the problem in this country with both the LEFT and the Right. An inability to grasp basic truths and admit when your opponent might at least have a point. It's like when Democrats dragged their feet on admitting that the surge had positive benefits. Don't get me wrong, I'm still voting for Obama, but he should have seen the light on the surge long ago. But people in the right-wing do this time and time again as well. I know Palin has brought McCain back to life, and that's reason to rally around her and get excited. But seriously quit the mental contortions when you disregard many of the actual truths about her that demonstrate that there were plenty of Republicans more prepared to be VP or assume the duties of President should a crisis arise. Fine, obama worries you more. That's your opinion. But somewhere in the deep recesses of your mind, if you are truly honest with yourself, you'll see that Palin should scare the shit out of you.

Anonymous said...

Todd Palin has been subpoenaed by state lawmakers in the abuse of power investigation against Governor Sarah Palin...

Imagine for one second if it was Michelle Obama getting subpoenaed in a similar situation or Joe Biden...Imagine what Republicans would be saying...

Anonymous said...

Anonymouis 2:33

They would be saying "Look at those people's rates of criminal behavior..."
They would not be saying it on TV of course, but on the streets, the blogs... that would be the message.
Can't trust the black man.

Imagine if it were Michelle's daughter being pregnant. "These girls... can't keep their legs closed..."

Imagine if it were her son that had been a vandal and a coke sniffer...
Oh well... you get the picture.

This is what it's all about.How come a black man grew to be so articulate, so intellectual and so competent?
How come we, the white guys and gals ended up in lower middle classes and married losers?

Sure we want minorities to progress.
But never get ahead of us.
God forbid no!
So now we found Sarah to help us cover up our racism and our own sense of inferiority.

For she is so much like the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

I would claim that if we knew 100% of EVERYTHING there is to know about BOTH Obama and Sarah Palin, the sh*t on Obama would outweigh anything we would find about Palin. However, the media does nothing to even scratch the surface of Obama's past. They don't dare even peek under the covers.

The media has spent 100 times more effort in 3 weeks looking into dirt on Palin than they have looking into Obama in the last 2 years.

Sidney Condorcet said...

404pm clearly missed the few weeks of Rev. Wright coverage, the days of Ayers coverage (including a debate question), the many days of Rezko & real estate coverage...
Oh, and how many times have we heard the "muslim" story line, even if it's nearly always debunked...

" would claim that if we knew 100% of EVERYTHING there is to know about BOTH Obama and Sarah Palin, the sh*t on Obama would outweigh anything we would find about Palin."

This is a complete guess on your part. You have no clue in fact. And you don't care to know anything at all about Palin that doesn't conform with your positive view of her. YOu just close your eyes and plug up your ears.

We've heard plenty of rumor, innuendo and incontrovertible fact about Obama. Obama has been under the spotlight for nearly two years on the campaign trial. Palin's been under scrutiny for what, two weeks? She had ZERO name recognition outside of Alaska before she was picked. We have a right to get to know her, both the positive and the negative. Just because you are a Republican and want McCain to win shouldn't mean that you also want to be clueless about what Palin has done in her life.

America has already heard about Wright, Ayers, Rezko...But they are only now beginning to hear about Palin and censorship, Troopergate, anti-abortion in cases of rape and incest, creationist, may not believe in global warming, doesn't know much about foreign policy, is actually pro-earmark, hired a lobbyist as mayor of Wasilla, etc...

America's been getting to know Obama for two years, we've had two weeks with Palin. If McCain wanted to pick a VP who wouldnt have garnered such scrutiny then he should have chosen a nationally-known figure. That's not the fault of the press or public.

We have a right to know all about who may be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Anonymous said...

3:25 You sound exactly like someone who might have attended the Rev. Wright's church for twenty or even less years. Your kind of garbage talk against whites is just what is frightening so many white people. Nobody trusts others who hate them. If Obama should become President will white people have to fear black hatred as evidenced by the Trinity Church or as evidenced by your post? Obama was supposed to bring us all together. What happened to you?

Anonymous said...

4:43 Right on. We do know enough about OBama, despite the press meager coverage, and what we've seen is enough to vote for McCain for President. The Dems say that the "stuff" about Obama is "old news" and not important, but have a different standard for the "discoveries" about Palin. She's not like me -- I'm a liberal male Democrzt and I don't like what I've learned about Obama. Palin at least doesn't hate me, as exemplifed by the post of 3:25.

Anonymous said...

3:25 I don't care what color you may be. If I knew who you are I'd cross the street if I saw you approaching me. Hate is hate no matter the color of the skin. Hate hurts.

Anonymous said...

I never attended any church but I have studied Liberation Theology. If you listened to that man's sermon, he said the following: "God damn America".... "if she continues to inflict injustice on her children." It is on U-tube. There was a pause between the phrases and the media concentrated on the first part.
Liberation theology as President Carter explained it used the preaching of Christ to bring social justice.
It was the whites who enslaved the blacks in the US. That led to significant chain events.
I do not condone such phrases but I do understand liberation theology and I do acknowledge its contribution to many revolutionary movements in Latin America against the brutal dictatorships of the 60s and 70s which the US government so wholeheartedly supported.

Judge liberation theology within its historical setting. Not as an isolated event.

Anonymous said...

You are right 12:57

But I was not making a racist observation. It was a historical one. Once again, I was trying to explain the rise of liberation theology and the historical events that fuelled this movement.
We should all try to understand where the other guy is coming from. Only then, we can proceed with change.
For if there is anger, then we had better deal with it in an educated way instead of dismissing it as "unfair" or as a "cop out" ((both of which could be accurate assessments).

If your kid for example went through a "fit" would you yell back because you found the "rage" unjustified? I bet not. For if you did, then the kid would have a justified basis for going into another fit the following day. And so on and so on.

Zero racism on my part. Zero religiosity. Just observations.

Anonymous said...

8"51 What "injustices" are you talking about that would support the prayer "God Damn America". What "social justice" is now required for America to do in order to stop black people from hating whites znd the country and asking God to damn it and them?

As far as "historial setting" is concerned, Wright has preached the same message up until his recent retirement. It's not "history", it's now and it's affecting this election.

Anonymous said...

Social justice is a concept that does not exist.
I did not speak of social justice. I spoke of understanding, in a clinical sense, not an emotional one. The way a doctor understrands a disease and then proceeds to cure it.

So the rage is understandable in the older black generation. They were "pushed" into poverty mainly because they were not given any loans to buy homes when these loans were generously given to whites after WW2. That set into motion a chain reaction of social ills.

Rage in the new generation, among the young blacks, is not justified on that basis. Today's society is different. But It should be understood.
Think of the average young boy. He is most likely born to a single mom, hardly ever sees his dad. Chances are he'll grow to be poor because of lack of supervision. I undesrtand it, I do not use this understanding to justify him for falling behind. For there are many little boys on this planet in the same circumstances, who applied themselves and escaped poverty.

So how will this "undesrtanding" help me? I see that the force behind the youth's rage is "single parenthood" and "absence of father."
Social institutions should start working on these fronts.
Find ways to cut down on those unprecedented teen pregnancy rates for starters.
And then offer strengthened day-care services to make up for the lack of supervision.

While at the same time stregthen th inner city school. You don't have to spend a dime. This is where Obama's plan is brilliant. Offer $4000 to each student in exchange for community service. I can see a miracle being pulled off if these college kids sat in classrooms offering extra tutoring and assisting with discipline. Let alone what kind of role models they would be.

For starters.

Anonymous said...

9:25 I presume you are not 3:25 who ranted about white racism and the justification for the blacks' hatred.

As for your comments: how can the government force men to take responsibility for their children and their families? What legislation would accomplish that. Dead-beat dads get away with not paying all the time. Should they be arrested?

Your "pushed into poverty" because they couldn't buy homes is puzzling. My white family couldn't buy a home after World War II so they rented until their retirement when they could move to a cheap-real estate market area. Their first home came in retirement. They were not poor however, and their children always had what they needed. Home ownership was not an entitlement or a requriement.What's your Point?

Women, as in the old days, should not get pregnant without a means of supporting a child. Simple as that. Teenagers should not be having sex unless they know how to prevent pregnancy. Who can better warn them than their single mothers?

Yes, there should be day-care for all children whose mother works. That has happened in most other civilized countries. Michelle and mothers with huge salaries can afford day-care. Others cannot.

Students should not be paid for doing" good works" or for earning good grades. We're materialistic and greedy enough as it is. Values trump money. They should be taught compassion, not greed; and, they should be encouraged in the innate joy children have in discovering the world and learning. Somehow the schools have killed that joy and it should be revived. Paying them to learn will only create the demand for and appreciation of money for every endeavor for the rest of their lives.

Society if a collection of people. It is not an abstract entitiy. Why have the families stopped teaching sex, discipline, danger of drug uese, etc. If they did their job there would be no need for "remedial" anything in our government or soceity. What has gone wrong? Where are the role models?>

It seems all social systems have failed: the family, the church, the community.

As for Obama, he brags about his "good works" in the community for little money. That's one of his "claims" for fitness for the Presidency. Should the joy of helping others be confined only to the very rich? Why does he now think service should be like a job for children?

Let them get jobs at the local grocery store, or whatever, as children have always done in this country.

Anonymous said...