politicalpartypoop.com

NOTE: This is an old post from 2006. But since we just had a primary in “racist” Pennsylvania yesterday and North Carolina is coming up, and since the Obamatopia is fading since we have discovered so much about his past, just keep this post in mind in the next few weeks.
##############
I have been hearing a lot about the ramifications of the political ads targeted at Harold Ford in Tennessee.
People on the left claim the ads were “racist” but I disagree with the racist slam, but I do agree there was some race baiting in the ads and this is something that all black political candidates, especially men, have to deal with.
White folks don’t have to view political ads to be reminded of their biases.
Chris Wallace of Fox talked in an interview about the 15% lie.
Basically black candidates will poll 15 points better in public opinion polls than they do in the voting booth. Makes sense to me.

The article below talked about 30 percent of folks in NC said they would not vote for a black candidate under any circumstances, I believe this is true throughout the country.

This is not rocket science. 45 or 50 years ago there were millions of white folks taking their kids out of schools, keeping black kids from attending schools, refusing to serve black folks in restaurants and other crazy shit.
These people are now in their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. These people vote.

You think a generation of crazy ass white people yelling obscenities at little kids entering a school has changes their stripes enough to actually vote for a nigga running for public office?
C’mon people tis not that hard to process

Don’t get mad at ole Snoop for pointing out the obvious.
I’m shocked I don’t see a political commercial that would contain the following:

“This is James Doe (black guy) a candidate for the United States Senate.”

(his photo stays on the screen for 20 seconds or more, NOTHING is said) 

“you have been warned, vote Tim Doe in November”  .

#########

Ah crap Snoop needs something to bitch about. Yes people I’m checking out some news stories and blog posts on some political endorsements and I’m becoming a little cranky because I’m just incredulous that candidates are falling all over themselves, (like Hillary beaming because of the Des Moines Register’s endorsement of her campaign) over these celebrity and editorial board ego strokes.

I realize y’all that I may be a little slow not fully comprehending the magnitude that a celebrity blessing can provide. Yes, this may stroke the ego of some candidates but can an individual voter be influenced because of a particular endorsement by a “noteworthy” person of interest?
Who Cares that Barbra Streisand endorsed Hillary, or that Oprah Winfrey endorsed Obama, or the Boston Globe editorial board loves Obama, or the New York Times loves Hillary.
Ah but the big celebrity endorsements have not begun to roll in just yet. I fucken can’t wait to hear who super skanks like Lindsay Lohan, Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton will back for president.

I may be wrong, but I doubt it, but the only people I can think of who would give a shit about these political pat on the backs are primarily political junkies, habitual newspaper readers and the candidates themselves.

I find it a wee bit odd that while newspapers continue the tradition of endorsing one political candidate or another, you don’t see other media stepping out to voice an opinion.
It would be somewhat interesting what candidate would be chosen by most of the major news outlets. Who do you think FOX News would endorse for President? What about Brian Williams or Keith Olberman? Yes the obvious pimping of some retard liberal would result but how many dead presidents would it take to nail down a NBC Nightly News presidential blessing.

Now I understand that celebrities, like the rest of us, have the right to their opinion, and can state who they wish to vote for, and so forth, but once they take that extra step and begin joining someone in a campaign, then they are just using their name and star power to try and get votes, and by definition, meaning not focusing on the issues at hand.

Oprah said as she announced her backing of Obama “I’m sick of politics as usual,” Winfrey also said. “We NEED Barack Obama.”
Ok, that’s nice. But frankly I don’t give a fuck what Oprah Winfrey says I NEED. Besides how does she fucken know “what I need?” Can you begin to process the utter arrogance of Ms. Winfrey?

Hey Oprah, peep this; what I give a fuck about is what Barack Obama has to say, and what his positions are on various issues. What would he do about illegal immigration? What about his comments saying he would attack targets in Pakistan without consent? What about the hundreds of other things that take importance over what Oprah Winfrey says?

I just find annoying as hell that these bullshit endorsements are the biggest talk around during such an important campaign. Cheap gimmicks (floating cross, hint hint) and big name endorsements, hey Oprah, get a fucken clue, THAT would be politics as usual.

Besides most of these big name celebrities tend to lean toward Democrats, but wait, ole Chucky Norris, both a Christian and Conservative by the way, came out in one of his commentaries supporting former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Since that time, Huckabee has squeezed it for all its worth, with Norris appearing in ads for Huckabee, and is now traveling with him. He even went to the CNN You Tube debate and got quite a lot of attention.

But again why? And who cares?

This is what makes Americans even more disconnected with the political process than to support celebrities standing up and saying “vote for him because we need him,” rather than looking into things themselves, which is a rarity among the majority of the population unfortunately.

It seems as though this woefully lazy and ignorant voting public consumed by the more pressing aspects of life figure hey, I’m too busy to give a shit where the candidates stand on issues. If someone like Oprah likes Obama he must be a good dude.
But someone like Chucky Norris, seriously people, do we really need a mediocre actor and lame internet sensation pushing for a political candidate? What makes them more qualified about politics than other people?
Again the same can be said of newspaper editorial boards, hack political pundits or former failed politicians.

Oh wait let’s not forget our man Ron Paul’s endorsement….from a pimp. Nevada brothel owner Dennis Hof was so impressed with Ron Paul he even decided to raise money for him.
In a glaring example of political endorsements that can screw you, having fucktards like 9/11 “truthers” and former KKK member and rabid antisemite David Duke pimping for you can certainly have some impact I would guess.

Maybe it’s just me ranting, but question for y’all. Would you have Oprah choose your husband or wife, or Chuck Norris deciding what home you should buy, or the editorial board of a newspaper deciding on your financial investment portfolio, of course not.
But Snoop that’s just silly, these are important personal matters.
 Hmmm, then electing an individual to lead this nation is not important? Silly me, all of this campaigning crap, hundreds of millions of dollars raised, countless hours volunteering for, endless coverage on TV, millions of articles written about something as unimportant as a presidential campaign. My bad, I thought you folks gave a damm, silly Snoop. LOL!

.

By Sid Salter
ssalter@clarionledger.com

When Mississippi Republican Party chairman Jim Herring made some pointed political comments at a McComb GOP gathering recently, I heard from several members of the Legislative Black Caucus who couldn’t wait to brand him a “racist.”

The offending comments? Here’s what Herring said: “They (Democrats) will say they’re like you. They’ll say ‘I go to church with you,’ ‘My kids go to school with yours.’ But when they go to the Legislature, they’ll vote with the Black Caucus and support Hillary Clinton.”

Clearly, Herring was guilty of engaging in some extremely partisan rhetoric and, to no small degree, some hyperbole.

But racist? Since when is it racist to suggest that Democrats would stick with Democrats?

Isn’t that what that great Democrat Ike Brown has been preaching - at least when he wasn’t busy trying to keep white people from voting or getting elected in Noxubee County? Doesn’t Ike advocate Democrats sticking with Democrats, voting with Democrats and avoiding political contact with any of those nasty Republicans?

RIGHT OR WRONG?

When Brown and Ellis Turnage went to court seeking to close Mississippi’s open primary system, they did so on the basis that they didn’t want Republicans (which in recent state history have been mostly white voters) having any influence over the outcome of Democratic primaries and the choices made by Democratic voters in those primaries.

Brown said that in a letter to this newspaper in June and in another letter to the Macon newspaper in 2003.

Right or wrong, it’s disengenuous for Democrats who have sat back and let Brown and others engage in open discussions of purges of the Democratic Party and file lawsuits to force a more partisan electoral process in the state to then cry “racism” when a white Republican dares to discuss some of the same issues in an open forum.

One thing’s certain - Herring and the Republican Party he heads hasn’t been found guilty of discriminating against black voters in Noxubee County or any other county in Mississippi.

THE ‘IKE’ STANDARD

So it begs the question, when is it acceptable to discuss race and partisan loyalties in a public forum in Mississippi without drawing the accusation of racism, as did Herring?

State Democrats and Black Caucus members need to determine if the “Ike” standard is being applied fairly. For if Brown can declare open season on “Blue Dog” Democrats like Hinds County Sheriff Malcolm McMillin and other white Democrats who refused to kowtow to Ike and whatever wing of the state’s Democrats he presumes to represent, then why can’t Herring apply those same partisan discussions to a discussion of the fortunes of Republicans?

There’s a better question. If District 84 Republican legislative candidate C.D. Smith is elected in November, will there be a place for him in the Legislative Black Caucus? Or will the leadership of the Black Caucus politely suggest that Smith caucus with the rest of the Republicans, who just happen to be white?

As the two-party system matures in Mississippi, partisanship will supercede race as the lowest common denominator in state politics. It’s already begun.

Related: Mississippi election row sees race roles reversed   

Sphere: Related Content

This is from Red State, VERY interesting stuff from Cali

Anybody who follows politics is familiar with at least two characteristics of California politics:1) The state which gave us Ronald Reagan has been trending steadily leftward for quite some time, to the point where it is no longer competitive in presidential elections.

2) It has a (sometimes amusingly) hyperactive ballot-initiative process

Those two forces may be about to collide in such a way that could prove disastrous for Democratic hopes in capturing the White House in 2008 — particularly in an environment where the Red/Blue map nationally is so closely divided.

The last two elections were close enough, in the electoral college, to come down to just a small handful of states. A lot is made about Florida in 2000 because of the closeness of their particular election. But, actually, any number of states flipping to the other column could’ve changed the ultimate outcome of the race.

For these two cycles, the Democrats have been able to count on a huge, out-of-the-gate advantage in electoral votes because of New York and California. Those two states alone gave Al Gore — who won them both by large margins — 87 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win (down to 86 in 2004).

When you add increasingly blue Illinois to this, it takes the Democrats’ safe electoral votes from just three states in 2008 to a whopping 107.

A proposed ballot initiative — which could show up on California’s primary ballot next year — aims to dole out California’s electoral votes on a district by district basis, in favor of the current winner-takes-all scenario. (map)

Not surprisingly, the initiative is backed by Republican interests and bitterly opposed by Democrats (who suddenly like the electoral college when it favors them). However, a recent Field Poll finds that a pretty solid plurality of California voters supports the initiative.

Read the full entry and comments here

Politics - Electoral vote switch backed - sacbee.com

Republican Move to Change California’s Electoral College Votes

FindLaw’s Writ - Amar: The So-Called Presidential Election Reform

ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN J. BENOIT - California State Assembly Republican

Found on Wizbang - Article link

JACKSON, Miss. – A federal judge has ruled that a majority black county in eastern Mississippi violated whites’ voting rights in what prosecutors said was the first lawsuit to use the Voting Rights Act on behalf of whites.

U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee ruled late Friday that Noxubee County Democratic Party leader Ike Brown and the county Democratic Executive Committee “manipulated the political process in ways intended and designed to impair and impede participation of white voters and to dilute their votes.”

The Justice Department accused Brown of trying to limit whites’ participation in local elections in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, written to protect racial minorities when Southern states strictly enforced segregation.
“Every American has the right to vote free from racial discrimination,” said Wan J. Kim, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.

Noxubee County is a rural area along the Alabama line with a population of about 12,500, 70 percent of whom are black.

Brown didn’t return calls yesterday seeking comment.

The Justice Department alleged in the 2006 lawsuit that Noxubee County blacks tried to shut whites out of the voting process.

Brown had claimed the Justice Department was misconstruing as racial intimidation his attempts to keep Republicans from voting in Democratic primaries.

Lee, who presided over the case without a jury, gave attorneys on both sides until July 29 to file briefs suggesting how to end the discrimination.

The case was a civil matter carrying no criminal penalties, but defendants who violate Lee’s final order could face contempt charges and fines, prosecutors said.

Ricky Walker, who is white and the county’s prosecuting attorney, believes Brown recruited an opponent to run against Walker in 2003 because of Walker’s race.

“We’re glad to be getting it over with so we move on and get to the point where maybe we can just have fair, honest, impartial elections here . . . and not have to go through all this circus to get an election done,” said Walker, who was a Justice Department witness during the trial in January.

Walker, who is running unopposed this year, said the lawsuit created some unrest in the county “that we were getting past . . . blacks and whites starting to support people on their ability to fulfill the job rather than just strictly a political or racial basis.”

HEY THERE IS MORE

More from the Clarion Ledger:

Lee also found:

• The defendants acted with a racially discriminatory intent.
• The defendants engineered “a concerted effort to illegally ‘assist’ black voters.”
• The defendants recruited ineligible black candidates to run against white candidates.

Lee said the court is hesitant to find that Brown or any member of the Democratic Executive Committee has a specific racial animus against white people.

“Brown, in fact, claims a number of whites as friends,” Lee wrote. “However, there is no doubt from the evidence presented at trial that Brown, in particular, is firmly of the view that blacks, being the majority race in Noxubee County, should hold all elected offices, to the exclusion of whites; and this view is apparently shared by his allies and associates on the NDEC, who, along with Brown, effectively control the election process in Noxubee County.”

We should be allowed to rule Mississippi with an iron BLACK fist, for the betterment of Negros everywhere!! LOL!

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
(CNSNews.com) - Even a liberal group is calling it “sad” that voters in Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District have re-elected Rep. William Jefferson to a ninth term.

The Democrat — who’s being investigated for bribery — defeated Democratic State Rep. Karen Carter, 57-43 percent, in Saturday’s runoff election.

Carter was quoted as saying that she guesses the people of Louisiana “are happy with the status quo.”

The FBI reportedly found $90,000 in marked bills in Jefferson’s freezer during a raid on his home. Although the congressman has not yet been charged, two of his associates have entered guilty pleas.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said she believes it is only a matter of months before Jefferson himself is indicted for bribery.

“Rep. Jefferson is likely to spend much more of the coming term worrying about his own legal problems rather than the serious issues facing the people of Louisiana,” Sloan said in a news release on Sunday.

“So far, the House ethics committee has failed to take any action against Rep. Jefferson despite the fact that he has been caught on videotape soliciting a bribe and was found with $90,000 in his home freezer.”

Sloan called it “further proof” that the new Congress needs to concentrate on ethics reform, including the creation of an independent Office of Public Integrity.

Earlier this year, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders removed Jefferson from the House Ways and Means Committee pending completion of the federal bribery investigation. Pelosi had no comment on Jefferson’s re-election, which is sure to be an irritant for the woman who has railed for years against “Republican corruption.”

Last year, CREW - a liberal-leaning government watchdog group — named Jefferson as one of the 13 most corrupt Members of Congress. (Eleven were Republicans; the two Democrats singled out by CREW included Jefferson and Rep. Maxine Waters of California.)

 …as a result of as many as 15,000 questionable voter registrations

The Kansas City Star reports:

A federal grand jury handed up indictments Wednesday against four people for allegedly submitting false voter registrations to the Kansas City election board.

The indictments — against Kwaim A. Stenson; Dale D. Franklin; Stephanie L. Davis, also known as Latisha Reed; and Brian Gardner — include two felony counts against each, the U.S. attorney’s office said.

“I think that our system is working because we caught these people,” Andrew Ginsberg, head organizer for Kansas City ACORN, said in an interview. “Sometimes people cheat, whether they make eight dollars an hour or eight million an hour.”

This is, by the way, part of a national investigation into the liberal ACORN’s fraudulent voter registration activities, which have been well documented.

READ THE REST AT SISTER TOLDJAH

  
 
Voters in states across the nation on November 7 will be asked to vote on ballot initiatives that will decide fundamental issues of law. These initiatives, which could drive voter turnout, include whether abortion should be banned, marriage protected, race and gender discrimination outlawed, private property seized for the benefit of another private owner, and whether there ought to be constitutional limits on how much a state legislature can increase state taxes and spending. READ MORE AT HUMAN EVENTS

Let Snoop be real clear here. This is not about woo hoo, Black Democrats are supporting a Republican. This is about black folks waking up and leveraging their vote.
Democrats have been screwing over black folks for years. The tide seems to be turning blacks are not buying into the Democrat bullshit and are finally taking action.
Democrats, liberals, the liberal media and liberal bloggers can continue to ignore the significance of the black vote if they want.
If this trend continues the Democratic Party is toast.

By S.A. Miller and Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 

Former Prince George’s County Executive Wayne K. Curry and five fellow black Democrats on the county council excoriated their party yesterday and endorsed Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, a Republican, for U.S. Senate.

“The [Democratic] Party acts as though when they want our opinion, they’ll give it to us. It’s not going to be like that anymore,” said Mr. Curry, who in 1994 became the county’s first black executive and remains influential in the mostly black and heavily Democratic county.

Mr. Curry and the lawmakers said Democratic leaders repeatedly have snubbed the black community and their county, noting the lack of party support for the Senate campaign of former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People chief Kweisi Mfume, who lost the Democratic primary to Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin.

The Democratic ticket lacks black candidates, they said, and candidates from Prince George’s County, which is home to more than 320,000 registered Democrats – the most of any jurisdiction in Maryland.
“We’re not puppets. We’re not gullible,” Mr. Curry said during a press conference at the Infusion Tea Cafe in Largo. “This ain’t the first time we’ve charged up a hill.”
He was joined by fellow black Democrats David Harrington of Bladensburg, Samuel H. Dean of Bowie, Camille A. Exum of Capitol Heights, Tony Knotts of Temple Hills and Marilyn Bland of Clinton — all officials on the nine-member county council.

Other black Democratic leaders endorsing Mr. Steele yesterday included Major Riddick, former chief of staff for former Gov. Parris N. Glendening; Ron Lipscomb, a major fundraiser and trustee of the state party; and businessmen Clayton Duhaney and M.A. “Mike” Little.
“There’s a revolution going on here,” said Jerry McLaurin, a county developer and Steele supporter who attended the announcement. “This is going to radiate throughout the county like an explosion.”
Mr. Steele, who lives in the county and is the first black to be elected to statewide office in Maryland, said he was “humbled.”

“As I started this campaign, I said to myself I didn’t want this to be so much about party as about people, and these individuals seem to understand and appreciate that as well,” he said.
The endorsements were issued as Democratic officials are scrambling to secure their most loyal bloc — black voters.

Mr. Curry said the Steele endorsements are “the continuation of a long civil rights struggle.”
Mr. Dean, a former council chairman who was elected in 2002 with 93 percent of the vote, said blacks have had a one-sided relationship with the Democratic Party since they shifted allegiance from the Republican Party in 1932.
“We were in the Democratic Party while they were lynching black folks. We were in the Democratic Party while they were segregating folks,” Mr. Dean said. “We have been loyal Democrats, [but] when the party has an opportunity to do something to show that their base is recognized, appreciated and acknowledged, they don’t.”

“The issue is what we want not only from the state party but from the national party,” he said. “Give us respect. We cannot continue to be in the room but not allowed to come to the table. What we are doing now is saying, ‘Forget it. We are not going to wait for you to bring us to the table. We are going to not only get to the table, we are going to take it.’ “

Other Maryland Democratic leaders — such as U.S. House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Prince George’s County Executive Jack B. Johnson and Delegate Anthony G. Brown of Prince George’s County, who is running for lieutenant governor — declined to comment.

A Cardin campaign spokesman did not return calls.
Mr. Cardin, a white 10-term congressman from Baltimore, said this weekend that his “message to the African-American community and to all communities is that we’ve got to change the priorities in Washington.”
“You’re twice as likely to be without health insurance if you’re African-American. So, yes, [black voters are] concerned about a senator who’s going to stand up for universal health coverage. I will. Michael Steele won’t. He supports George Bush’s policies,” Mr. Cardin said.

Mr. Curry said that Mr. Steele is a “good man with a good plan,” and although he differs with some of Mr. Steele’s views, he also differs with some of the Democratic Party’s platform.
He said the lieutenant governor is “most responsive to the things that will make our futures brighter.”

Strange day in the news.
I’m reading my usual blogs and news sites and nothing grabs me.
The liberal blogs are posting the same old shit, more discussion on Michael J. Fox and his exaggeration ads, Pelosi, did Billiary have a facelift, Bush is evil yada, yada, yada.
Nothing really grabbed my attention so far.
So I decided to look for some posts to recycle and I found one of the funniest examples of Democrat lunacy, my 200,000,000 post at Rep. Major Owens in New York. I added some stuff too.
As the Democrats get excited at the possibility of taking over things in Washington this is a good reminder of just how dangerous the lunatics on the Democratic side can be.
If people like Major Owens is who you want leading the country, feel free to vote DEMOCRAT in November.
——————
While driving home the other afternoon, I laughed so hard I almost got into a wreck. I literally had to pull my car over.
Rush repeated (my first time hearing) a clip from Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) that he first aired in 1996. He currently has an article on his website (for subscribers) but hell Snoop has the gist.
Anybody who is a long time listener to the Rush Limbaugh show or listened to the show back in the Clinton era may remember this information about Rep. Owens.
Rush highlighted in his show an ABC World News Tonight report in June of 1996, by Carole “Jennings” Simpson reported that 100 million slaves were thrown overboard during the slave trade.
This is what Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) claimed in a speech a year earlier on the house floor, in an except he said

200 million slaves were thrown overboard and that this genocide changed the ecology of the ocean so much that the sharks still swim the slave routes!

I thought OH MY GOD! You know I hear and read a whole lot of stupid shit but to hear it come out of an elected officials mouth and the dumbass said it on the house floor was nothing less than stunning.

This idea was first expressed by Owens during Special Orders a year earlier 1995.
So dude had been processing this info for quite some time.
Owens insisted that 200 million slaves on their way to America had been thrown overboard during the slave trade and that this had changed the ecology of the ocean to the point that sharks still swam the old trade routes in the hope of finding more bodies to feed upon.

You do the math, if the slave trade ran from 1550 to 1850. That’s 300 years. Multiplying 300 x 365 gives us 109,500. Dividing that into 200,000,000 gives us 1826.484. That means that over 1800 dead blacks would be thrown overboard every day! 

Rush’s staff ran the numbers and found that to be have 100 million drowned slaves, the slave traders would have had to put out nine ships a day with 152 slaves in each ship. This would have had to continue every day for 200 years, which works out to 1,370 slaves a day and 499,977 slaves per year thrown overboard, not counting leap years.
No matter how the numbers are worked, this figure of 100 million drowned slaves would still be impossible, especially since some of these slaves had to reach the New World alive. And Owens originally claimed that the number of drowned slaves was 200 million, which means all of these numbers would have had to have been doubled.

Evidently someone told Congressman Owens that his numbers were a little high so he went to the House floor the next day and changed the number to 20,000,000. That’s a little better because then it’s only 182 blacks thrown overboard every day for 300 years. 
Rush of course found this claim of 200 million a bit absurd. The population of North America at the time was far less than 100 million, and it is hard to imagine that 200 million slaves could have been transported across the Atlantic over 200 years.
Owens reworked the figures down to 100 million, claiming he had gotten some “bad data.” (no he pulled it out of his ass) However, even 100 million drowned slaves is hard to imagine, but ABC reported this as fact.
Yes ABC was as stupid as Owens was. Where the hell was Peter Jennings then!?
The population of the world at this time, though, was only 400 million, which means that the slave trade would have killed nearly a quarter of the world’s population over these 200 years.
This simply is not possible, so Rush has to wonder if he could check these numbers so easily, why couldn’t ABC?

My point to all of this is people process information all the time and come up with all kinds of bullshit to make their position more sound. Few of us actually process and challenge what we read and what we hear.
This is why we are a country of tired bullshit cliches. Major Owens trying to prove a point to forward his agenda on the supposed behalf of his constituents ended up tarnishing his reputation and permanently making him into a laughing stock.
But what is worse is that this crazy bastard is still in office!

I looked long and hard for credible information on just how many slaves were lost. After exhaustive Google University Research I determined that……..we have no fucken idea. And what the hell difference does it make today.
Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, whatever information you process be sure to study BOTH sides of an argument.
I state over and over that the reason why I STUDY liberals, not only what they say but how they say it is what consistently drives me to the conclusion that liberalism is not only wacked but sociologically corrosive. To make their points liberals will do what Major Owens did and do it with a straight face hoping nobody is paying attention.
Can you begin to comprehend how either out of touch or flat ignorant the constituents in the 11th congressional district of New York must be to have kept this idiot in office for so many years?

Here is another example of liberal excess:
Jesse Jackson had been running his mouth about how 1,000,000 blacks were kept from voting in the 2000 election. Needless to say, the media, who many people swear are not biased, did not check this number. Where did it come from?  He probably got this number from the same place that Major Owens got his 200,000,000. He made it up because it sounded good. But go over to the Census Bureau and run some numbers.

In the year 2000 there were about 35.7 million blacks. The overall population breaks out like this: Age 18-24 39.9%. Age 45-64 22%. Age 65 and over 12%. So if we use these numbers the overall voting age population is 73.9%. 73.9% of 35.7 million comes out to 26.3 million. When you consider that half the population doesn’t even bother to vote in the first place and I’m sure that apathy exists among blacks, but let’s just say the apathy only affects 25%, that gives us 19.7 million blacks who want to vote. Jesse is stating that 1 out of every 20 black people in this country were DENIED the right to vote.

We are about to go into another election where I continue to read about Democrats claiming that blacks are being DENIED the right to vote when the bullshit from 2000 was never proven.

I bet you did not know that the Civil Rights Commission that was set up in Florida specifically to find examples of blacks being prevented from voting could not find one case where this actually happened? But the truth doesn’t matter to liberals. Angering the base by making things up and Jesse is good at making things up.
You don’t think that’s going to happen come next election.
If the Democrats don’t at least take the house, there will be lawsuits galore.
The Democrats will not accept defeat, Jessie will add that blacks folks were thrown into the Atlantic by Republicans to help Owens make the old case for 200,000,000. 

The potential to be enslaved and to make our tentative way to freedom is perennially within us. It’s not simply that each generation is commanded to feel as if it was personally brought forth from Egypt, but that at every moment we are presented with the opportunity to liberate ourselves

Roberta Israeloff

 I thought I could not think less of liberal Democrats until I saw this…  From Drudge:

Michael J. Fox 00:37

I’m not going to add any other commentary. If you watched this video and did not think something was a little odd then… ah hell screw it. I don’t know whether or not to laugh or be outraged. 

I’M BACK ON THIS….

When I first saw this video my deep skepticism of Democrats came straight to the forefront and I saw immediate red flags with this ad.
I then asked a few people to watch this and I was surprised that they did not pick up on my issue with the ad.
Now keep in mind all of these people were very familiar with Fox.
I will freely admit none of the individuals who watched the video said anything and did not see what my problem was.
But after I told them of my beef, they all said, yeah, that did seem funny.
I read several blogs bitching and moaning about what several pundits on the right including Rush said about the ad. BUT RUSH WAS RIGHT.
This ad was complete and total bullshit, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either naïve, a dolt or just totally stupid.
I have no issue with Fox promoting his cause and I even don’t have an issue with a political candidate using another individual to promote a political agenda to fight something that is personal to them whether it’s breast cancer awareness, heart disease, whatever.
What Fox did was GROSSLY misleading and you liberals know it.
Reading these silly ass liberal bloggers and Media Matters bitch about what Limbaugh said is stupid.

I’ll say it because I don’t give a fuck what you idiot liberals think, it was a fucken act. (GOD I LOVE BLOGGING)
I’m so sick of you idiot liberal Democrats I can’t see straight.
Jesus H. Christ can’t you Democrats do any fucken thing without total and blatant deception?

I was with you Fox and supported you.
Now I have to separate my anger of this from this bullshit campaign ad from the needs of the people suffering from Parkinsons.
Thanks Fox for injection partisan politics into a legitimate issue and setting the cause back a few steps.
I’m certain I’m not the only angry one out there.                                                                                                            But you sure as hell are not going to guilt me or bully me into supporting your cause. 

On That Michael J. Fox Ad

Posted by Dean Barnett 

There’s a new Michael J. Fox ad on stem cell research that supports Claire McCaskill’s campaign. Click over and watch it. It will take you only 30 seconds, and I promise I’ll still be here when you get back.  

By way of response, let me first say that I think almost any kind of ad in support of a political campaign is fair game. If a candidate goes too far, the public will punish him or her. So while I find the Michael J. Fox ad crass, tasteless, exploitative and absurd, I fully support Claire McCaskill’s right to shoot herself in the foot.

The most distasteful aspect of the ad is the way it exploits Michael J. Fox’s physical difficulties. Fox is an actor, and clearly knew what he was doing when he signed up for the spot - no victim points for him for having been manipulated by the McCaskill campaign. The ad’s aim is to make us feel so bad about Fox’s condition that logical debate is therefore precluded. You either agree with Fox, or you sadistically endorse his further suffering as Fox accuses Jim Talent of doing.

This is demagoguery analogous to the pernicious and pathetic chickenhawk argument. The whole “chickenhawk” logic is that only people who have served in the military are entitled to have an opinion on military matters. Thus, the ideas of non-veterans don’t warrant a hearing and thus don’t need rebutting.

While Michael J. Fox (like me) has some skin in the stem cell game that most people don’t, that doesn’t give him any special appreciation of the moral issues involved with embryonic stem cell research. Sick people may want cures and treatments more than the healthy population, but that doesn’t make them/us experts on morality.

The ad’s disingenuousness also merits consideration. While Fox mentions “stem cell research,” the word “embryonic” is strangely lacking. Given that the entire debate centers on the ethics and morality of embryonic stem cell research, this omission is noteworthy.

AS FAR AS FOX IS CONCERNED, I feel bad for him. The ad is shot to carefully record the sounds of the spasticity brought on by his condition. It’s gut-wrenching to see the star in such a condition.

But it’s strange that Fox has so eagerly bought the promises of the stem cell research community. If Fox thinks that stem cell research offers him (or me) hope, he’s mistaken. Stem cell research, both embryonic and otherwise, right now represents nothing more than a promising theory. If it bears fruit, and that’s a huge “if”, it will likely do so too late to benefit Fox, me, and our contemporaries. In spite of the silky rhetoric of John Edwards-type politicians, dramatic medical innovations come slowly and take decades to pan out, not months.

Nonetheless, there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of Fox’s position. He truly does seem to have convinced himself that embryonic stem-cell treatments hold an imminent medical cure for him. Unfortunately, medical science doesn’t work that way. Believe me.

One last note on Michael J. Fox. Unlike Fox, I’ve been a sick person all my life. Like most sick people who try to define their lives by something other than their illness, I’ve always recoiled at pity and even sympathy.

Personally, I find there to be something extremely disquieting about the way Fox has chosen to use his condition to bully voters into feeling bad for him and thus support his political positions. People know when they’re being manipulated. This ad with its heavy-handed emphasis on Fox’s suffering will succeed in making Fox an object of sympathy and pity, but because of its naked crassness, it will not be a political success.

As for Claire McCaskill, who has chosen to conclude her campaign in this manner, she will get no sympathy or pity from these quarters. Only contempt.

 Don’t mind me today I’m a little irritable and looking at some of these political campaign commercials over the weekend is really pissing me off.
Typically I would not be posting a story about a Missouri race but in light of the Michael J. Fox commercial that McCaskill is responsible for, and I have herd about her clear deception on gun issues.
My basic point of contention with most Democrats is they MUST deceive in order to win elections.
Whether it’s John Kerry or this moronic bitch McCaskill I almost find it impossible to support most Democrats because they are incapable of telling their voters about their true intentions once in office.
If you are anti gun, no problem, just say so.
If you are for taxpayer funding of stem cell research just say so.
If you think we need to get out of Iraq immediately just say so.
If you think Bush should be impeached just say so.
If you believe in universal health care then say so.
If you are anti death penalty, believe in abortion on demand AND that taxpayers should fund it, increased government funding of public broadcasting and the arts then dammit just say so.
But don’t give me this bullshit that is currently on the DNC website:

Honest Leadership & Open Government
Energy Independence
Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence
A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone
Retirement Security    

What the fuck is that, this crap is not a platform; I don’t see any ideas here.
No wonder deception is such a necessary party of Democrat politics.

Think I’m full of it,  read the post I have below Round-Up: Democrat-Sponsored Bills Tell a Liberal Story .

Some please explain to me what the hell does…
Tupac Shakur Records Release Act of 2006 (McKinney, D-GA)-H.R. 4968. Enshrines copies of government records concerning rapper Tupac Shakur in a specially created collection at the National Archives.

Have to do with any of the points listed on the DNC website?

AND

Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act (Kucinich, D-OH)-H.R. 3760. Establishes a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence, as well as a Peace Day.

Shit I don’t know, I’m already broke as hell but no problem just take more goddam money out of my fucken pocket to fund another bullshit department where they would pay some old white liberal jackass $150,000 a year to host wine and cheese parties for the likes of Cindy Sheehan.
And you freaken liberal Democrats out there want me to take you seriously?!  DAMM!  

————–FINALLY, THE ARTICLE —————

As America gears up for the November midterm elections, 90 million American gun owners who value our nation’s firearms freedoms and the 40 million of us who cherish our nation’s hunting and shooting heritage will need to be on the lookout for “camouflage candidates.”

Sportsmen and gun owners form one of the most influential voting blocs in American politics today. They have the clout to propel into office candidates whose positions align with theirs and send packing those candidates who oppose their firearms rights.

Given what’s at stake it’s not surprising that anti-gun and anti-hunting politicians will try to camouflage their real views on hunting and firearms issues. That’s why the National Shooting Sports Foundation has launched a campaign and website called Vote Your Sport that works to educate sportsmen about candidates and mobilizes them to support those who share their values, no matter their party affiliation.

Former President Clinton, in his memoirs, acknowledged that in 2000 Al Gore did not conceal his anti-gun bias well enough, costing him his home state of Tennessee and the “pro-gun” battleground states of Arkansas and West Virginia, and with them the White House. After that, the message became clear to politicians with anti-gun and anti-hunting voting histories—they had better camouflage their record. Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart, in an article titled “Taking Back the Second Amendment,” argued his party would “have a hard time recapturing the presidency … if it treats gun-owning Americans like sociopaths.”

The textbook example of the “camouflage candidate” is Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.). During his 2004 presidential run, he claimed to be a “lifelong hunter” and his campaign set up a “Sportsmen for Kerry” website claiming the senator “supports the Second Amendment and will defend hunting rights.” Yet Kerry had a 100% voting record with anti-hunting organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals which praised him for his “consistently excellent voting record on animal issues” and for having “emerged as [an] animal protection leader … [who] has cosponsored almost every piece of animal protection legislation … introduced on behalf of animals.” He had a 100% rating with Handgun Control Inc. (which itself camouflaged its name as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) and a capital “F” from the NRA. In the days before the election, Kerry literally donned (brand new, ill-fitting) camouflage and went on a pathetically staged goose hunt that offended Ohio sportsmen. Kerry lost Ohio and the White House.

Turning to the current midterm elections, Claire McCaskill, the U.S. Senate candidate from Missouri, is this season’s camouflage candidate stalking hunters’ and gun owners’ votes. McCaskill, who does not believe law-abiding citizens have a right to carry a firearm, is actually on the record as saying, “ It’s startling to realize this concept (right-to-carry) came within three votes of passing in the Missouri Senate. Imagine the carnage that could have been wrought by would-be Dirty Harrys…” This is not surprising coming from a candidate who believes “voters understand guns are not the answer for safety.” It’s also not surprising that according to the Center for Responsive Politics the bulk of McCaskill’s campaign contributions have come from anti-gun havens Washington, D.C. ($3 million) and New York City ($250,000), not her home state of Missouri.

Here’s the rub: McCaskill is now camouflaging her position on firearms in these weeks leading up to the election. No more is she attacking sportsmen and firearms enthusiasts. She’s running radio spots claiming that by following her dad through the woods as he hunted she learned to value and protect the 2nd Amendment. Yet she has accepted campaign contributions from anti-gun organizations and earned an “F” rating from the NRA. She’s a hunter who is “not interested in taking away anyone’s guns,” despite the fact that she supported the ineffectual Clinton gun ban of 1994, legislation that outlawed firearms based on their appearance. And as for the concealed carry rights of law-abiding Missourians, legislation that eventually passed despite her vehement opposition, McCaskill now tells the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she is pleasantly surprised by the effects.

Individuals such as Claire McCaskill are not the only folks trying to camouflage themselves as friends of hunters and sportsmen. Today gun-control forces are trying to undermine the importance of the sportsmen and gun owners’ vote by attempting to divide and conquer. An example of such a group is the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA).

AHSA purports to be a pro-hunting, pro-conservation and pro-gun organization, but its leadership and board would qualify as a blue-ribbon committee of activists opposed and actively working against our nation’s rich heritage of firearms freedoms. The AHSA leadership includes a president who funds the Brady Campaign; an executive director who is a paid witness against the firearms industry and consultant to several national and state self-professed gun-control groups; and another officer who, in addition to moonlighting as the head of a Massachusetts-based gun-ban group, is also a former member of the Brady Campaign’s board of directors. All the camouflage in the world can’t hide their real anti-gun agenda.

It can sometimes be difficult to spot a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but if America’s sportsmen and hunters listen carefully to a candidate’s rhetoric, research their voting record and look to trusted organizations like the National Shooting Sports Foundation for help, it’s easy to see through the camouflage.

Thanks El Borak 

WASHINGTON (CNN - Link) — A ranking Democrat in the House of Representative is apologizing for saying an African-American Senate candidate “slavishly” supported the Republican Party.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said he meant no offense when he made the remark about Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the GOP nominee for the seat being vacated by longtime Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes.

In a statement issued Tuesday, Hoyer said, “I should not have used those words.”

Hoyer was speaking to a largely black audience at a campaign event for Steele’s Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Ben Cardin, when he made the comment.

Steele’s spokesman, Doug Heye, called Hoyer’s comments “insensitive and pretty stupid.”

While Hoyer apologized for the comments, he continued to criticize Steele’s support of the GOP.

“If Mr. Steele did in fact take offense, let me assure him that none was intended,” Hoyer said. “But Mr. Steele continuously tries to divert attention from the fact that he is an unwavering supporter of the Republican agenda and of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.”

Hoyer’s office also released a statement from Melvin Forbes, a black businessman who sponsored the campaign event, who said “there was absolutely no offense taken or noticed.”

Heye disagreed, saying there are “a great deal of people upset about it.”

Steele’s campaign released statements from leaders of the National Black Church Initiative that condemned Hoyer’s comments.

“This is nothing new for Steny Hoyer,” said Heye.

He said that in 2002, Hoyer was quoted referring to Steele as a “token” candidate — although Hoyer said at the time that he was quoted out of context.

By David Limbaugh - Link  

I don’t care how many times I hear it, I refuse to believe that significant numbers of conservatives will stay home in November and thereby assist the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress.

Democrats and the Old Media have been working hard to create this perception for several months, citing poll after poll to support their claims. It reminds me of the exit poll manipulation orchestrated by the Old Media and Democrat operatives in 2004 to create the GOP-deflating perception that John Kerry was winning big.

But with the unveiling of the Foley scandal, there is an even bigger spring to their step – kind of like their perverse, gleeful reaction to problems with the delayed federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Before Foley I gave conservatives more credit than to believe they would sit this election out over their disillusionment with Republicans concerning immigration and domestic spending. My confidence remains after Foley as well, despite push polling and other techniques designed to discourage conservative turnout.

Conservatives are generally rational creatures and sophisticated enough to understand that the national interest will not be served by turning national security over to a party wholly incapable of safeguarding it for the sake of punishing Republicans.

To the argument of some conservatives that losing the election will result in the nation eventually returning to its conservative roots, I say “nonsense.” We can’t afford the luxury – during time of war and incalculable threats to our national security, our culture, our freedom and our sovereignty – of taking our ball and going home for a few critical years.

I do not believe conservatives will deliver control to the party of tax and spend because Republicans haven’t done enough to curb domestic spending. My assessment is reinforced by news that the Bush tax cuts have unleashed a robust economy and explosive federal revenues that have reduced the deficit to 2 percent of GDP, lower than the 2.7 percent average of the last 40 years.

I don’t believe conservatives will conspire to assign control over immigration to the wide-open border Democrats, notwithstanding the Republicans’ tardy and so-far inadequate response to the immigration problem. My assessment is reinforced by news that Congress passed a measure to erect a 700-mile border fence. Conservative angst forced recalcitrant politicians to act. This is how you get results – not by replacing a highly imperfect party with an incomparably egregious one.

And I especially don’t believe social conservatives, because of their disappointment with Republicans over Foley, will turn to a militantly secular Democratic leadership to protect Washington pages from sexual predators. My assessment is reinforced by the immediate resignation of Foley and the Republican leadership’s initiation of comprehensive investigations into the matter, promising full accountability for culpable Republicans.

My optimism that conservatives will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and stay home in November is further enhanced by Democrats recently overplaying their hand on the Foley scandal.

Though they boasted for the longest time that they could trounce Republicans in November by a substantive debate on the issues, they’ve been studiously avoiding such a debate and resorting only to attacking Bush and scandal mongering. But now that they think the Foley affair is tainting the entire Republican Party, Nancy Pelosi has gotten cocky enough to unveil her agenda for the first 100 hours of her speakership.

She better hope that she hasn’t triggered a true national debate on the issues and unwittingly nationalized the congressional elections, something the Republicans hadn’t managed to pull off.

Can you imagine the Democrats winning a debate over national security when they’ve vigorously opposed almost every tool President Bush has tried to use to prosecute the war on terror? How would they gain from a true debate over Iraq, when Democrats still don’t have a plan and can’t even decide whether they favor withdrawal, “timetables” or “benchmarks”?

Can you imagine Democrats prevailing on a values debate where it would be emphasized that they actively promote the radical homosexual agenda and castigate one of the finest institutional exemplars of traditional values in our nation’s history – the Boy Scouts – for their moral refusal to permit homosexuals to be scoutmasters? Does Nancy Pelosi truly support the National American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) or just proudly march in parades with them and receive 90 percent approval from their ACLU enablers? Inquiring minds surely want to know.

It is time for conservatives to ignore the Democrat and Old Media propaganda and vote in even greater numbers in November. If Democrats and the Old Media keep reporting that conservatives are going to stay home, they might be in store for the upset of their lives on Election Day – just maybe.

 I never agree with this dude on anything. But there is always a first time. I’ve been saying this for years. Bout time someone finally editorialized it.

By George E. Curry, NNPA Columnist - Link
 
After Benjamin L. Cardin, a White Congressman, defeated Kweisi Mfume, the former president of the NAACP and ex-chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, African-American politicians in Maryland almost stumbled over one another in a mad rush to endorse Cardin. Sen. Barack Obama, everyone’s flavor of the month, even parachuted in to endorse Cardin. He appeared on the scene so quickly that it was more like they loaded him in a cannon and aimed him toward the Baltimore Harbor.

The sight of grinning Black elected officials rushing to endorse a White Democrat is a familiar scene. What made this bum-rush so noteworthy was that after Mfume filed to fill an open Senate seat, the party went out and recruited Cardin to run against him. With limited resources and lacking the support of party bosses, Mfume still came within 9 percentage points of defeating Cardin. If he had won, Maryland’s Senate race would have featured two African-Americans, guaranteeing that one would be elected to office.

I know for a fact that at one point during the primary, Mfume was so disappointed with the professional Democrats that he contemplated endorsing Steele in the event he lost the primary. When he was chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, he demonstrated that kind of courage and boldness. I suspect that because Cardin is a friend and former colleague, Mfume decided not to bolt his Party this time.

Still, it’s the same old sorry story: Blacks get mistreated and after complaining about being taken for granted, they dutifully line up to pick cotton. Or, in this case, Black votes. I don’t know what gets into Black leaders between the time they complain and the time the party selects its White nominee. As someone said about one prominent Black leader, “He’s like a terrorist - all he wants is money and a plane.”

It’s time for a change and clearly that change is not going to come from Black elected officials who are forever wedded to their Democratic overseers. The change, if it’s to occur, must come from those not seeking the favor of either party.

If we are truly tired of being taken for granted by one major party and just plain taken by the other, then it’s time to take a stand. Here’s my modest proposal for my fellow Black Marylanders - teach both parties a lesson by voting for the Black Republican, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. On the issue of affirmative action, Michael Steele is no Clarence Thomas. I disagree with Steele on most public policy issues. He is a Republican in every sense of the word.

But like the voting in New Orleans, this is not about one person. It’s larger than that. This is about demanding respect. And I can think of no better way to get the attention of both parties than, in this one instance, voting Republican to make a point. Some party leaders may not be able to read and write but they can count. If we do this, everyone will have to do some different kind of figuring. Republicans will have an incentive to court the Black votes and Democrats will have to work in earnest to earn the respect of African-Americans.

Blacks make up 29 percent of Maryland’s population. That’s the fifth-highest percentage in the country. Among registered voters, about one in five Maryland voters is an African-American. That, combined with an expected lower turnout in this non-presidential election, means that African-Americans can determine who wins or loses. That’s why we can’t waste this golden opportunity.

It’s hammer time. It’s time to lower the boom on White and Black Democrats who think that it’s okay to disrespect Black voters and then expect them to go to the polls in significant numbers on Election Day simply to support the Democratic slate.

Let’s be clear. I am not advocating supporting all Black Republicans running this year - some of them are far worse than the White Democratic alternative. The GOP, in general, has to provide more than compassionate rhetoric; Republicans need to compile a compassionate record on social issues. And they are a long way from that.

The most recent NAACP Civil Rights Report Card, issued in February for the 108th Congress, showed that 98 percent of all Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate earned an F. By contrast, only 2 percent of Democrats failed to support civil rights issues.

Voting for Michael Steele would send shock waves through both major parties.

And that’s exactly what we need. Otherwise, two years from now, we’ll still be complaining about Democrats taking us for granted and Republicans just taking us.

This is a silly argument. Without having to go to a lot of details, the bottom line is most black people have more conservative leanings than the label of “Democrat” claimed by most of them.
MLK would have presented himself with the preferred label of Black America, Democrat because to be relevant in political circles the correct label is necessary.
Claiming republican MLK would have been ignored and scorned by the liberal media as black conservatives are today.
Democrat playas and pimps have successfully blended the “black America/Democrat” position for a generation. MLK by himself would not have changed that.
Trying to assess how MLK would have labeled himself is futile.
Trying to sort out the political leanings of a civil rights icon is not the issue, it is black people recognizing that liberal Democrat politics are a cancer on the black community and of course this country.
MLK message was loud and clear. He did not “sound” like a liberal or conservative, he sounded like an individual who was grounded in reality and common sense when it came to explaining the path to success and societal tolerance.
If a label must to be put on his message, for individuals to properly identify then people are either incapable or unwilling acknowledge the simple wisdom behind them.
I don’t want to have to bamboozle people into taking “my” side.
Political campaign having to revert to long dead icons to “sell” a particular political point of view smells of desperation and manipulation.
Making a political commercial using this tactic proves how stupid some political strategists are.
True conservatives recognize that social and economic prosperity is the key to American prosperity. Views that promote prejudice, racist, economic and social repression (traits of liberal Democrats) should be obvious to you no matter what individuals are voicing them.  

By: Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Special to BlackAmericaWeb.com

Civil rights leaders, black Democrats and Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele went ballistic when the they heard a woman in a 60-second radio ad say, “Dr. King was a Republican.” The ad, bankrolled by the National Black Republican Association, purportedly is running on several Baltimore radio stations. At first glance, the ad is a cheap political shot that stretches political lunacy far past the outer limit. But is it? The ad is not the first time that Republicans, and more specifically Republican conservatives, have claimed Martin Luther King, Jr. as one of their own.

The debate over whether King has anything in common with the GOP has raged since the 1980s. Republicans grabbed at King’s famed line in his “I Have A Dream” speech at the March on Washington in August 1963 — in which he called on Americans to judge individuals by the content of their character and not the color of their skin — to prove that he’d be on their side against affirmative action. Supporters of affirmative action loudly protest that this deliberately distorted the spirit and intent of King’s words. They are both right.

During the fierce wars over affirmative action in the 1990s, King’s words were shamelessly used to justify opposition to affirmative action. Yet, there is enough paradox and ambivalence in the few stray remarks that King uttered on the issue to give ideological ammunition to both liberals and conservatives. In several speeches and articles in the 1960s, King did not demand that the government and corporations create special programs or incentives exclusively for blacks, but to the disadvantaged of all races. He vaguely called for the government and corporations to increase spending for jobs, skills training, education and public works.

With the passage of the civil rights bill in 1964, King realized that ending legal segregation wasn’t enough. Integrating a motel or lunch counter did not provide jobs, improved housing and better schools for the black poor. These were stubborn and intractable problems that required massive spending on new social programs by government and business.

King felt that the bigger problem for blacks and whites was the disappearance of thousands of industry jobs to automation. He sensed that jobs were a volatile issue that could inflame blacks and whites. He claimed that black and white workers suffered equally when jobs were lost and tactfully called on labor to fight for jobs for all. But in those days, affirmative action was seen as a tool to prod employers not simply to hire and promote the disadvantaged of all races, as King insisted, but blacks. If that happened, King almost certainly knew that this would leave many whites out in the economic cold.

King’s debatable ambiguity on affirmative action was only one issue that Republicans manufacture common cause with him on. Starting with Reagan, Republican presidents slowly and grudgingly have realized that they can wring maximum political mileage out of King’s legacy. They have recast him in their image on civil rights, and bent and twisted his oft-times public religious puritanism on morals issues to justify GOP positions in the values wars that they wage with blacks, Democrats and liberals. But that wouldn’t be possible if some of King’s pronouncements did not parallel the GOP’s positions on crime, marriage, the family and personal responsibility.

Republicans have carefully cobbled bits and pieces from King’s speeches and writings during the 1950s and early 1960s together on values issues to paint a King that is anti-big government, welfare, black crime, and an advocate of thrift, hard work and temperance. This is not a completely politically skewered picture of King. In those speeches and writings, he took the moral high ground and lectured blacks on the value of hard work, the importance of setting personal goals and striving to develop good character.
 
In countless speeches in the 1950s, he mingled the demand for civil rights, voting rights and the government clampdown on racial violence with a forceful call for blacks to practice thrift and self-help. King realized that government programs meant little if fathers weren’t in the home, and he railed against the peril of family breakdown. This was a major social problem that civil rights leaders either ignored or downplayed. King strongly emphasized values training, discipline, hard work and the reduction of family violence as the key to resolve the family crisis. That crisis increasingly caught the policy attention of liberal and conservative academics and government officials. In numerous speeches, even into the early 1960s, King continued to stress personal responsibility, economic self-help, strong families and religious values as goals that blacks should strive to attain.

While King can never be considered a political conservative, the snippets of conservative thinking in his musings on the black family, economic uplift and religious values blend easily with the social conservatism of many blacks. In the decades after his murder, it has blended just as easily into the GOP’s prescription for black ills. And that evidently is more than enough for black Republicans to say that today he’d be a big player on the GOP team.

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor - Article Link
(CNSNews.com) - The way Democrats and some judges see it, requiring a photo ID at the polls infringes the rights of America’s voters.
The Democratic National Committee is applauding a Georgia judge, who has permanently blocked a state voter ID law from taking effect.
In the ruling issued Tuesday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford Jr. said Georgia’s new photo ID law violated the state constitution by placing an extra burden on qualified voters.
“Any attempt by the Legislature to require more than what is required by the express language of our Constitution cannot withstand judicial scrutiny,” Bedford wrote.
Press reports said the issue may reach the George Supreme Court before the general election on Nov. 7.

‘Harmful law’

The Democratic National Committee says voter ID laws are nothing more than “Republican attempts to restrict voting rights.”
The DNC noted that just last week, a circuit court overturned Missouri’s “harmful voter ID” law.
“This is the second blow in less than a week to the Republican strategy to narrow and limit the rights of America’s voters,” said Donna Brazile, who chairs the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute.
“This latest decision in favor of voting rights and against Georgia’s voter ID sends a message to Republicans across the country, that their partisan schemes to undermine the right to vote will not go unchallenged.”
The House of Representatives on Wednesday is expected to vote on H.R. 4844, “The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,” which would require voters to show government-issued photo IDs, such as a driver’s license, when voting in federal elections. The bill also would require people to prove their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
Supporters say the bill will reduce fraud at the polls — and prevent illegal aliens from casting ballots.
But the DNC said Republicans should “think twice” before enacting a federal voter ID law. “This Republican legislation would become the equivalent of a national poll tax,” the DNC said.
“As Democrats, we believe that no American should have to pay in order to vote, and we will continue to fight for meaningful election reform that ensures every citizen has access to the ballot and that those votes are accurately counted.”
The National League of Women Voters also is urging Congress to reject the Federal Election Integrity Act, which it describes as a “manipulation” of the voting process.
“This is an attempt to politicize the voting process by erecting barriers to keep many eligible, legal voters from participating,” National League President Mary G. Wilson said.
Wilson questions arguments that the bill will reduce voter identity fraud. She pointed to a “lack of evidence of instances in which voters misrepresent their identity at the polls.”
The National League says voter ID laws will disproportionately impact people who are least likely to have a current photo ID — such as the poor, the infirm, the elderly, rural voters and minorities.
“In modern society it is easy to assume that everyone has appropriate ID or can prove their citizenship. But it is more difficult than one might think,” Wilson said. “The costs in time and money of obtaining proof of citizenship and photo ID would clearly discourage voter participation.”

Hardship?

But Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who sponsored the Federal Election Integrity Act, says requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls “presents no greater hardship than people face performing everyday activities.”
For example, Hyde noted that government-issued photo IDs are required for driving vehicles, applying for Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, food stamps, boarding airplanes, entering government buildings, registering at school, getting student loans, renting movies, and cashing checks.
Given all the cases in which U.S. citizens are asked to produce photo IDs, it should not be difficult to produce IDs to guard against fraud in the electoral system, Hyde said.

I don’t get this. If some motherfucker called my house… (I never answer the phone anyway, but hear me out) and asked if I would vote for them, I would say hell no you idiot bastard.
Someone has to explain this to me, just who do these calls work on? What sad sack is sitting by the phone, thinking hmmm I wish that John Doe campaign would call and remind me to vote? What loser needs to be called and reminded to vote, in particular for a specific individual?
We go through all the bullshit to get on “Do Not Call” lists and these idiot political strategists thinks that making thousands of phone calls to people is the right thing to do?
No wonder so many of these politicians are so out of touch and downright idiots, because they have idiots working for them. 

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor - Article Link

(CNSNews.com) - A liberal advocacy group, quoting the New York Times and the Washington Post, says Democrats have the winning edge as the campaign season enters its final stretch. But while victory is now possible for Democrats, “it’s far from guaranteed,” MoveOn.org’s political action committee said.
MoveOn.org’s PAC is now launching its “secret weapon” — which it describes as a “highly ambitious plan to make 5,000,000 phone calls to the most critical voters in the most competitive races and get our supporters to the polls.”
The Call for Change program depends on 50,000 people pledging an hour or more before the election, MoveOn PAC said in a message to supporters on Tuesday.
Democrats need to win 15 or more Republican seats to regain control of the House. According to MoveOn.org, “experts agree that nearly 40 seats could switch from red to blue come November” — but only if angry Democrats actually vote.
The liberal advocacy group warns that Republican “operatives” are about to go negative in their political ads. (”If you liked the “Swift Boat” ads of 2004, you’ll love what’s coming this fall,” MoveOn.org PAC said.)
MoveOn.org also said Republicans will rely on “corporate money” to fund their attack ads.
But, the group said it is relying “on the energy and commitment of thousands of MoveOn members who are ready for change. It’s people powered politics, and if folks like you are ready to step to the plate, it’s how we’re going to win.”
In a related development, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi — who will be speaker of the House if Democrats regain control of that chamber in November — is inviting supporters to a special reception for “our most impressive Democratic candidates.”
Pelosi said that on Sept. 13, 34 “Red to Blue” candidates will come together for a “March to the Majority” reception in Washington, D.C.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has identified 34 Democratic candidates whom it views as possible winners. “These candidates will lead the charge to win in November and take America in a new direction — a direction that will stand in stark contrast to the failed “stay the course” strategy of the Republican leadership.’” Pelosi said.
For its part, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has compiled a list of “B-List” Democrats who are running for Congress.
“Political observers can always spot a B-List congressional candidate: They run sloppy campaigns, take out-of-the-mainstream positions, and tend to say some bizarre things,” the NRCC says on its website.
The list catalogues some of the inaccuracies and “blunders” of Democrats who are running for House seats.
The underlying premise of the Republican Party is stated on the Republican National Committee website, which notes that “all politics is local.”
While Democrats stoke anger about the war in Iraq and continue to blast President Bush both personally and politically, Republicans apparently are counting on voters to reject the “Defeatocrats” - especially those funded by MoveOn.org, which the RNC describes as a “far-left radical Democratic group.”
The RNC has accused MoveOn.org of spreading misinformation, running misleading campaign ads, and advocating a “disastrous agenda” for America.